Had a game yesterday against a Black Templar Army.
The paintjob was beautiful, Lots of conversions, like every Templar had chainmail on the Arms a Chacon tabbard, a sword on the back etc.
What was alittle disturbing was his Champion of the emperor, very Great conversion showing a marine executing a tallarn warrior with a standard in the back with the letters on it
" i See your yihad and rise you a crusade". His Friends was playing a dkok Army That had the colours and insignias of an ss squadron and skulls painted on their greatcoate revers.
How do you feel about such Models and would You Play against them?
I'm not a big fan of political correctness at all.
That said, I would never have that conversion and would probably feel uncomfortable playing against it. But I have no inalienable right to go through life never being offended.
winterwind85 wrote: showing a marine executing a tallarn warrior with a standard in the back with the letters on it
" i See your yihad and rise you a crusade". His Friends was playing a dkok Army That had the colours and insignias of an ss squadron and skulls painted on their greatcoate revers.
How do you feel about such Models and would You Play against them?
In general, political correctness annoys me also, but these kind of donkey-caves show why we need it at least some of the time.
For SS, anything outside of historical wargaming of actual SS units, I find it a offensive to use nazi iconography. A model of a historical unit is an acknowledgment of military history. Putting the iconography on anything else is a tacit endorsement of that ideology. Would Nazi iconography be appropriate on Space Marines? No, then it's not appropriate for ww1 space germans either.
For the Crusader, this seems like someone who is being intentionally offensive. Considering how the Crusades functioned, it's the same as saying, "the answer to Jihadists is to kill as many muslims as possible". That's the kind of thing that Neo-Nazis and KKK members endorse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lockark wrote:Maby yhe best way to put it is that well he had the right to do this, it doesn't mean it ethical.
Definitely agree. You can't ban this kind of thing, but you have every right to refuse to game with them, and the wider gaming community has every right -and possibly the responsibility- to disavow this kind of behavior and ostracize those that continue to practice it.
Eh, I don't feel like either of the guys who made those armies were intentionally trying to be offensive. I feel like the Templar one was probably just a joke, nothing to be looked into in too much seriousness. The ss one is worse, but unless the guy goes around screaming nazi opinions, he probably just chose that paint scheme because krieg are based off the Germans, and the ss skull is super cool looking, too bad the nazis ruined it.
winterwind85 wrote: His Friends was playing a dkok Army That had the colours and insignias of an ss squadron and skulls painted on their greatcoate revers.
You're German, isn't that kind of thing illegal over there?
I was under the impression that any depiction of Nazi iconography was outlawed in Germany...
Are you sure that those were supposed to represent an SS squadron and not WWI Stoßtruppen that also used the 'Death Head' insignia (the skulls that you mentioned)?
I may play, but I would seriously consider the motivations of the player as suspect.
I imagine, to the misguided and hypersensitive, any WWII era German modeled units are an affront. It's this type of overreaction that's easy to dismiss, particularly for a historical. However, for the game in question, SS insignia is really stretching it.
Acknowledging history and venerating it are two different things. I'd be curious as to the modeler's intentions here.
Im Not German i created this Account while i was in Germany and therefore used the flag also for Finding players,
Now im back in france, as Seen in my Profile:-).
Im Sure it was the ss
Clockwork Iron wrote: Eh, I don't feel like either of the guys who made those armies were intentionally trying to be offensive. I feel like the Templar one was probably just a joke, nothing to be looked into in too much seriousness. The ss one is worse, but unless the guy goes around screaming nazi opinions, he probably just chose that paint scheme because krieg are based off the Germans, and the ss skull is super cool looking, too bad the nazis ruined it.
The Templar one is a bad attempt at a joke... it isn't clever or funny and is in poor taste. I am going to assume if the person is young he is naive and if he is 'older' he is an donkey-cave or a bigot. Both would make me not want to socially interact with such a person further regardless if it is true. Sorry, Snap judgement are a thing and we do them every day.
I also agree with Eilif, Use of the Iconography anywhere outside of historical reference is endorsement of that ideology. Mordheim has hooded cultists, if I paint them white and put KKK iconography I can't simply say 'I am playing a bad guy! wooo! funny!'.
While people don't have the right to not 'be offended', most of us with basic social skills can judge what is in poor taste and would have general consensus that something isn't cool with it from an impartial view. Both of those would probably be seen as being in poor tastes and I personally wouldn't want to play with them or socialize with them because they reflect poorly on me via association. I might even consider taking an auto-loss in a tourney game to not have to deal with such an army or person... it would be an option should it become an issue or if the army was really bad.
Virtually all of the German Iconography was stolen from historical reference and use. The "SS" was a dual Sig rune of Armanen origin. The "deathshead" is a widely recognized representation of Baal and appears on a large portion of Catholic relics and religious devices.
The fact that you automatically associate it with the German war machine is a form of confirmation bias. So who is really not PC in this situation? How about you paint your little plastic men the way you want and he paints his the way he wants. Yes the Germans were guilty of some of the worst war crimes in history but from a tactical aspect there was a lot to learn from the Germans.....we Americans also wiped two entire cities in Japan basically off the map, but I bet if you saw an Ork bommer with Fat man and Little Boy painted on the two of the bombs you would not even associate it or find it offensive.
I would like to see the model in question. If it's a fantastically painted/converted mini, I'd probably overlook the PC issue. If it looks like crap, and wasn't done with utmost care, I'd be more offended. All subjective, I guess. The SS design wouldn't even bother me, but I'm not the affected audience.
I don't think I would have outright dismissed playing against either of these guys. As I said before the Templar one is just a dumb joke, so the guy probably didn't have malicious intent. If playing against the ss army, I probably would have asked the guy why he chose that scheme, perhaps he had some sort of reason, or perhaps he was being a bigoted gakker.
I think the issue with the OP is that it breaks the immersion for me, by putting real world / current event issues into miniatures that are supposed to be in an alternate universe.
While the execution one is a bit out there, it was probably a joke. And the Nazi one is probably because look at the Dkok, and tell me you don't see why he would paint them like that. this world is to easily offended now-a-days. yeah the nazis are bad, but it's better to make a farce about it and raise awareness in the process, than it is to pretend it never existed outside of museums and classrooms. To the tallarn one, it's just a "funny" conversion. I mean, after all, who has executed more? jihadists, or people who model plastic figures.
It's like the SJW has rubbed off onto everyone, we live in an era of free speech, yet people throw a fit when someone does something that offends them. like people think that the world owes them a trigger warning whenever something is done.
Gonna echo the general sentiment that while it is unreasonable to outright ban the activity, everything should be done to discourage it.
Maybe I have worked with dumb teenagers who thought they were clever for too long, but any time I see something like this, I never see "oh I appreciate the history aspect of it". Puh-leeze. It's always "nur hur Nazis look how edgy I am." And screw that noise.
quickfuze wrote: Virtually all of the German Iconography was stolen from historical reference and use. The "SS" was a dual Sig rune of Armanen origin. The "deathshead" is a widely recognized representation of Baal and appears on a large portion of Catholic relics and religious devices.
The fact that you automatically associate it with the German war machine is a form of confirmation bias. So who is really not PC in this situation? How about you paint your little plastic men the way you want and he paints his the way he wants. Yes the Germans were guilty of some of the worst war crimes in history but from a tactical aspect there was a lot to learn from the Germans.....we Americans also wiped two entire cities in Japan basically off the map, but I bet if you saw an Ork bommer with Fat man and Little Boy painted on the two of the bombs you would not even associate it or find it offensive.
You're wrong. It's not "Confirmation Bias", and in this case the interpretation of the symbols is not the fault of the viewer.
The OP has clearly stated that the miniatures were painted to resemble SS uniforms with SS colors, insignia and iconography. Clearly the interpretation is not based on viewer bias but rather the painters deliberat choices. This is not an issue of some widely used historical symbols being mis-interpreted by the viewer, it's a matter of a specific historical use being inappropriately referenced by the artist.
German Tactics and other US atomic use are not the issue here, and -while important subjects in their own right- neither is a justification for the behavior above.
quickfuze wrote: Virtually all of the German Iconography was stolen from historical reference and use. The "SS" was a dual Sig rune of Armanen origin. The "deathshead" is a widely recognized representation of Baal and appears on a large portion of Catholic relics and religious devices.
The fact that you automatically associate it with the German war machine is a form of confirmation bias. So who is really not PC in this situation?
I see that kind of counter-argument come up a lot in situations like this...
...the answer is the guy with Nazi symbols painted on his toys. Because regardless of what they originally stood for, these days they're kind of associated with, er, well, Nazis. It's not exactly unreasonable to take that into account. And yes, you'd get the same reaction out of me with the Ork bombs. There's funny, there's trying to be funny, and then there's 'Hah! Lots of people died horribly, I'm gonna make a joke about it with my plastic space soldiers".
As other people seem to think, I'd guess the first was a poor attempt at humor, and the second is just...out of place. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable having what boils down to a light-hearted game of toy soldiers with either one.
That said, I would never have that conversion and would probably feel uncomfortable playing against it. But I have no inalienable right to go through life never being offended.
Yup. I have to agree with this sentiment in its entirety.
I think it behooves a free society to remain both conscious of the possibility for free speech to become a danger to the lives and property of others and deliberate in the prevention of it. However, potentially culturally insensitive table top gaming miniatures is far below the bar. If the guy sitting next to me on the buss can say that our president is a foreign-born 'n word', it aint for me to say how someone can paint their miniatures.
Now, the OP was, I think, inquiring primarily about the point at which one feels responsible for engaging in discourse, rather than asking about an objective standard of behavior. In the same way that I am not going to engage with that guy on the bus about his political views, I am not going to engage with my opponent in a table top game about his.
I do find it interesting that many folks are less offended by the summary execution model than the SS models.
Surely with the recent publicized executions by Jihadists, a model that implies that the best solution is the same behavior would be at least -if not more- inflammatory than the SS references.
RiTides wrote: I think the issue with the OP is that it breaks the immersion for me, by putting real world / current event issues into miniatures that are supposed to be in an alternate universe.
But is there not a place for that alternate universe to serve as a commentary on and criticism of reality?
I'm not suggesting that you should be thinking such thoughts when you are trying to have a fun time on Saturday night, and I get your point. But I did want to make an oblique point about the social commentary inherent in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe universe, and make a gentle reminder that fiction is influenced by and relates to reality.
I think it behooves a free society to remain both conscious of the possibility for free speech to become a danger to the lives and property of others and deliberate in the prevention of it. However, potentially culturally insensitive table top gaming miniatures is far below the bar. If the guy sitting next to me on the buss can say that our president is a foreign-born 'n word', it aint for me to say how someone can paint their miniatures.
Now, the OP was, I think, inquiring primarily about the point at which one feels responsible for engaging in discourse, rather than asking about an objective standard of behavior. In the same way that I am not going to engage with that guy on the bus about his political views, I am not going to engage with my opponent in a table top game about his.
I don't think that any one is arguing that we should limit free speech. I also think that you're partly on the right track about "not engaging" but I'd take a different tack. Though we don't restrict speech unless absolutely necessary, society has a responsibility to express disproval of inappropriate behavior and to apply social consequences to those who continue to offend. Clearly the bus is probably not the place to engage a racist, but in the wider picture, it's not enough just to ignore. Part of what a society does do is to engage the person in debate and attempt to educate. If that is not successful, then we ostracize.
The flip side of "not having the right to not be offended" is removing the double-negative and seeing that we "have the right to be offended and the right to say so".
Eilif wrote: I do find it interesting that many folks are less offended by the summary execution model than the SS models.
Surely with the recent publicized executions by Jihadists, a model that implies that the best solution is the same behavior would be at least -if not more- inflammatory than the SS references.
Not that I like either one, just an observation.
The irony is that such depictions are exactly what fundamentalism thrives on, in whatever particular form it takes of course, from Sri Lankan Buddhists to Jerry Falwell.
I think it behooves a free society to remain both conscious of the possibility for free speech to become a danger to the lives and property of others and deliberate in the prevention of it. However, potentially culturally insensitive table top gaming miniatures is far below the bar. If the guy sitting next to me on the buss can say that our president is a foreign-born 'n word', it aint for me to say how someone can paint their miniatures.
Now, the OP was, I think, inquiring primarily about the point at which one feels responsible for engaging in discourse, rather than asking about an objective standard of behavior. In the same way that I am not going to engage with that guy on the bus about his political views, I am not going to engage with my opponent in a table top game about his.
I don't think that any one is arguing that we should limit free speech. I also think that you're partly on the right track about "not engaging" but I'd take a different tack. Though we don't restrict speech unless absolutely necessary, society has a responsibility to express disproval of inappropriate behavior and to apply social consequences to those who continue to offend. Clearly the bus is probably not the place to engage a racist, but in the wider picture, it's not enough just to ignore. Part of what a society does do is to engage the person in debate and attempt to educate. If that is not successful, then we ostracize.
The flip side of "not having the right to not be offended" is removing the double-negative and seeing that we "have the right to be offended and the right to say so".
I agree with you Elif. I actually deleted a little section of my post talking about that, and regretting that I am too self-interested to take on such burdens in day-to-day life. At the end of the day, I'm not going to talk to that guy on the bus because of A) the semi-nihilistic view that such discourse would be pointless and B) the personal cost.
Eilif wrote: I do find it interesting that many folks are less offended by the summary execution model than the SS models.
Surely with the recent publicized executions by Jihadists, a model that implies that the best solution is the same behavior would be at least -if not more- inflammatory than the SS references.
Not that I like either one, just an observation.
Oh, I'm not less offended, it's just that I can see how someone with the poor taste to model something like that could think of it as a joke.
I'd like to stress that I try and make jokes about almost everything, and I'm seriously not amused.
The right to free speech ensures that the government can not stop you from, or punish you for expressing your opinion.
Free speech does not, however, mean that you can express whatever you want and everyone else should just shut the hell up about it. Your actions, including expressions, have consequences.
Furthermore, free speech some times clashes with other rights. For instance, you can wear a swastika t-shirt, or play with your nazi Space Marines, but not in my house. Or store, if I had a store. Why? Because it's my house. Go away.
For the topic at hand, would you have no problem with playing against a guy with a nazi/racist t-shirt? Why are miniatures (not including historicals) any different?
The right to free speech ensures that the government can not stop you from, or punish you for expressing your opinion.
Free speech does not, however, mean that you can express whatever you want and everyone else should just shut the hell up about it. Your actions, including expressions, have consequences.
Furthermore, free speech some times clashes with other rights. For instance, you can wear a swastika t-shirt, or play with your nazi Space Marines, but not in my house. Or store, if I had a store. Why? Because it's my house. Go away.
For the topic at hand, would you have no problem with playing against a guy with a nazi/racist t-shirt? Why are miniatures (not including historicals) any different?
Of course you have the right to tell the guy that what he's doing is wrong.
I think I would have refused to play against these guys and I would have said so. They'd probably get angry and that's their right and their problem.
timetowaste85 wrote: Seriously, am I the only one who wants to see the execution model?
I'd like to see all of them.
If only to see how someone could be so artistically talented to make those conversions look good like the OP said and at the same time be so clueless about what they actually represent (or a genuine racist).
Frankly, I find the Jihadist thing more distasteful. It's something I would imagine coming from the deep south here in the US. It smacks a bit of prejudice overtones. I can't help but find myself a bit nonplussed by the Nazi models. In this day and age I can't help but run into them in any sort of media.I can watch historical videos of Nazis. I can see Nazi zombies on netflix. I can kill nazis on my video games. I can watch Indiana whip a nazi's head off with a whip crack. Nazi iconography is stolen all over the place to make villians in any number of stories. I can play historical or Weird War and play with Nazis. I don't see why other wargames are somehow protected from this. 40k itself in fiction portrays the Imperium as Nazi-esc and the aquilla is very similar to Nazi iconography already. Painting your minis in a certain way doesn't make you enorse Nazis or everyone who played Nazis, sculpted Nazis, acted in a movie about Nazis, programmed Nazis for video games would have to answer the same scrutiny. Painting them is just another fiction. None of the others cause a strong moral outcry from us nerds as we stab nazis in their brautwurst or watch them get killed by the bushel on screen, there's little reason we can't enjoy putting pie plates of Fritz's head. The barrier is largely a construct to protect against nothing. The models aren't going to invade Poland while you sleep. Painting them isn't going to make people think, "Hey, that Hitler guy must have been right." I would be far more worried if the person was sporting nazi tattoos or shouting about the Jews, but most skinheads don't have the mental capacity to engage in a hobby, especially one as cerebral as wargaming. I can understand that people may be uncomfortable around it, but I really just don't see it as any different than any other way we treat Nazis in this day and age.
Surtur wrote: Frankly, I find the Jihadist thing more distasteful.
Just to defend the deep south a bit, and believe me I understand the nature of where I live, I did here a Boston man interviewed in an NPR piece a little while ago say that 'the terrorists were trying to kill all of us, and we have to kill them all first'. America has a national subculture of ignorant, xenophobic, protectionist racism; it isn't just in the deep south.
Oh, and the Barack Obama as foreign-born 'N-word' comment I referenced earlier was overheard in good ol' Muncie Indiana, home of the Middletown studies. Perhaps in a fit of mid-western liberalism, the man did say that he'd rather vote for a woman.
Surtur wrote: Frankly, I find the Jihadist thing more distasteful.
Just to defend the deep south a bit, and believe me I understand the nature of where I live, I did here a Boston man interviewed in an NPR piece a little while ago say that 'the terrorists were trying to kill all of us, and we have to kill them all first'. America has a national subculture of ignorant, xenophobic, protectionist racism; it isn't just in the deep south.
Oh, and the Barack Obama as foreign-born 'N-word' comment I referenced earlier was overheard in good ol' Muncie Indiana, home of the Middletown studies. Perhaps in a fit of mid-western liberalism, the man did say that he'd rather vote for a woman.
Agreed. In fact, my experience is that the Northeast harbors more overt prejudices than the South. I've split time between both locations, both cities and rural areas. It may be just a jaded lens, but I don't think so. I have theories as to why, but I suppose that is another topic to be had.
I'm personally against political correctness, but I also think there's a level where it's okay. Painting your IG in WW2 german colors and having a red flag with a white circle and black Aquila on it is probably fine (and probably fluffy) barring certain circumstances (e..g I wouldn't recommend bringing that army to a game in Germany), having swastikas everywhere or having "Sieg Heil" on the tanks is crossing the line.
Same with let's say Dark Eldar. Having them all painted white (i.e. KKK) with black slaves all over the place is going to be offensive, but there are ways to do it without being blatantly offensive.
I think looking at this in terms of being politically incorrect is a way of phrasing the question poorly. I mean, who isn't a littled tired of "political correctedness?" even if the term doesn't really apply to potentially offensive miniatures.
The way I would phrase the question would be: "How do people feel about models that are likely to offend people?"
I guy in my local area is of middle eastern descent. I can't imagine he'd be thrilled to see an Emperor's Champion killing a "jihadist."
So, my answer to this is the same it always is when this broad type of question filters out: With so much real world history, alternative history, official canon, fan made background, and sheer room to explore ideas, why would you pick something that is going to offend and upset people?
(as an aside, I feel differently about art/media in general, and that includes display pieces. An army is meant to be used, with somebody. Your opponent is not always there by choice, for example tournament pairings and the like. The classic argument for offensive expression is that you can look away, and that's harder with an army.)
I remember when Forge World wasn't around as long that they did their Tallarn Vanquisher with an Imperial version of the Afrika Korps logo, only replacing the swastika with the Aquila, that felt a little too close for comfort somehow. I think FW felt the same way about it, as it hasn't been seen since.
BrookM wrote: I remember when Forge World wasn't around as long that they did their Tallarn Vanquisher with an Imperial version of the Afrika Korps logo, only replacing the swastika with the Aquila, that felt a little too close for comfort somehow. I think FW felt the same way about it, as it hasn't been seen since.
The Arika Korps, in the US at least, is a bit romanticized as being the "good germans." Maybe its due to being under Rommel, or because with no real civilian populaiton there could be no reprisals or war crimes, but the DAK is a really popular force.
As cool as it is, I agree that a direct callback to the Nazis is a bit jarring, although its interesting that GW sees the Tallarn as being closer the Germans than to Arab forces.
BrookM wrote: I remember when Forge World wasn't around as long that they did their Tallarn Vanquisher with an Imperial version of the Afrika Korps logo, only replacing the swastika with the Aquila, that felt a little too close for comfort somehow. I think FW felt the same way about it, as it hasn't been seen since.
The Arika Korps, in the US at least, is a bit romanticized as being the "good germans." Maybe its due to being under Rommel, or because with no real civilian populaiton there could be no reprisals or war crimes, but the DAK is a really popular force.
As cool as it is, I agree that a direct callback to the Nazis is a bit jarring, although its interesting that GW sees the Tallarn as being closer the Germans than to Arab forces.
I once felt the same way about it being a gentleman's war that was being fought in Africa, but I blame Discovery Channel for that.
You can still see a picture of the tank in question in the third edition Guard codex, on the inside of the front cover.
Then again, that codex did give real world examples of camo as great sources of inspiration, including snippets of Warwick's Tsagarad (sp?) army that was more or less based on WWII Germans, even including a squad of storm troopers with peadot camo to make them stand out.
Way back in 2nd edition days, there was a guy with an IG army with a penal legion platoon. All of the guardsmen were white, but he chose to paint the penal legion troopers as Africans. He put more work into the penal legion troopers, adding various bits and conversions that were there to make sick jokes.
Everyone who saw the army thought it was funny, not because of the models but because someone chose to do that. The conversation during his games would revolve around his choices for how to model his troops, and would inevitably degenerate into discussions about crime, race and poverty in the real world. His opinions were not politically correct or very intelligent.
Without passing any kind of judgement here, I did not see how this made the game more enjoyable. it was some kind of a political statement many people found shocking, and it brought out the worst in some other players. I don't think there's a place for this in games, but that's only my opinion. People are free to do what they want with their minis.
Good points and in normal life I try to be VERY politically correct.
We play war games.
You know, simulating all the various traditional and non-traditional means of killing another.
I think these "joke" models are like anything: it seems fun at first until you run into someone who has a first-hand perspective.
I had a classmate that did everything "by the numbers" bordering on OCD, I called him in jest the "Numbers Nazi".
He proceeded to shout at me that a large portion of his family tree was wiped out by those #@$%*!!!!!!
I proceeded to apologize and said that I did not have any experience with them at all and had no idea he had.
We got along fine after, he did feel obliged to describe some of things that happened in his family past and I am more understanding because of it.
About the only "politically correct" means of fielding a risqué army is one from your own "stereotype" or your historical "enemy".
I must admit, I have been sorely tempted to replace "satchel charges" with an explosive vest since the range might as well involve self-detonation.
I think the only real worry is keeping the models rated "PG" since you never know what child will wander through during your game.
I couldn't care less. Actually, if anything I'm the other way, I'm glad people make politically incorrect things so easily offended people can get their knickers all up in a twist about it, I find it amusing
There are people who might legitimately have been affected by the scenarios depicted and I that sucks, but I don't think people should have to worry about that when making the offending articles (unless they are purposely doing it to hurt those people in which case it's just a dick thing to do).
But most of the time it's just people getting their knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect them and/or they are trying to contrive a scenario about how it affects them.
RiTides wrote: I think the issue with the OP is that it breaks the immersion for me, by putting real world / current event issues into miniatures that are supposed to be in an alternate universe.
But is there not a place for that alternate universe to serve as a commentary on and criticism of reality?
I'm not suggesting that you should be thinking such thoughts when you are trying to have a fun time on Saturday night, and I get your point. But I did want to make an oblique point about the social commentary inherent in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe universe, and make a gentle reminder that fiction is influenced by and relates to reality.
I also find the overt representation of real-world issues in a fantasy setting to be immersion-breaking, and I don't think that a wargaming army is necessarily the best platform for social commentary. That said I'm not absolutely against it, but if some-one creates such an army for use 'in public', they need to be aware that people will hold opinions on the commentary being converyed (or which is perceived to be being conveyed).
Oh, could some-one please tell me what an "SJW" is? I keep seeing the term used when things like feminism and political correctness are being discussed, but only when Americans are involved.
I'd say both of those things are in extremely poor taste at best and I would avoid playing with those guys whenever possible. If they were regulars at my FLGS, I'd still play there, but I wouldn't play with those players. I'll echo the sentiment that they have a right to make that kind of stuff, but they also have to accept that they're going to have to face the consequences, including but not limited to being extremely unpopular individuals and possible bans from venues. I know if I ran an FLGS I would not allow them to bring those armies into the store.
EDIT: If it was a tournament or something like that where I HAD to play against them, I'd just do my best to get the game over with as quickly as possible and avoid them during downtime.
Oh, could some-one please tell me what an "SJW" is? I keep seeing the term used when things like feminism and political correctness are being discussed, but only when Americans are involved.
Social Justice Warrior: It depends who is using the term, but usually it's used as a way to insult someone who is espousing progressive views in the context of an argument.
The term is almost always usually sarcastically, suggesting that the person is not an actual "warrior for social justice", but is only espousing these views in order to gain a moral "high-ground" and the esteem of their peers.
After having read the "sexy land raider" thread, I'm not sure i believe the OP's post. It seems almost ...like the OP is designed to elicit a similar response.
I also find the overt representation of real-world issues in a fantasy setting to be immersion-breaking, and I don't think that a wargaming army is necessarily the best platform for social commentary. That said I'm not absolutely against it, but if some-one creates such an army for use 'in public', they need to be aware that people will hold opinions on the commentary being converyed (or which is perceived to be being conveyed).
What I am saying is that it is there whether you want it to be or not. Somebody other than you created the Warhammer 40,000 universe. You can address it or ignore it, but it is there regardless of your personal relationship to it.
I think context is an important factor that many people forget. In what context is Nazi iconography on a Guard army appropriate? I'd say no context, because the context of Nazi iconography is WWII, and 40K =/= WWII. Same would apply to jihadists (or even anti-jihadists).
I can come up with some arguably good reason for someone to paint 40K troopers exactly like widely vilified, historical soldiers, but it's really strained.
Maybe if someone always wanted to paint and play historical miniatures, but no one in his area did so, so he gave up and used the real world paint scheme he wanted to paint on his troopers.
However, in general, it just seems creepy. There seem to be so many more creepy reasons for doing it (likes Nazis, big fan of Hitler, deliberately provocative, neo-Nazi, etc), that the very specific situation (I wanted to paint historical minis but for some reason can't do that) seems unlikely.
The other situation is, honestly, even worse for me, because at least in the SS instance, you can at least appreciate the effort made to get uniforms and unit markings correct as a disciplined painter. A Black Templar with a back banner saying 'I'll see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade" just bothers me on so many levels.
I don't see Space Marines carrying back banners with insults to their opponents. It's like the Crimson Fists carrying signs that say "Orks are stupid!"
I don't see how both the creator of the piece and the Marine supposedly carrying the banner both would not see the hypocrisy of criticizing a religiously motivated war by threatening a religiously motivated war.
I mean, the very same model with a Banner reading "Death to Heretics" or "So Perish All Apostates" would be totally in character for 40K.
Plus, while you have every right to express yourself and your political convictions, other people can find them tiresome. Just like I don't want to get in a theological argument when I'm having a break at work, I don't want to endure political rants during a game.
I don't think that means that I dislike it because it isn't 'politically correct'. I mean, I would also roll my eyes at an Eldar Exodite army depicted slaughtering oil drillers and rescuing oil-soaked otters. I'd roll my eyes at a Sisters of Battle army with banners condemning violence against women. I'd not care to play against an army of pink orks to raise awareness of breast cancer research. It's not offensive; it's just tiresome.
Azazelx wrote: After having read the "sexy land raider" thread, I'm not sure i believe the OP's post. It seems almost ...like the OP is designed to elicit a similar response.
What has a sexy raider in Common with nazi guard? Those People Play very regularily at the Place im now playing and i was looking for oppinions and maybe arguments against this stuff.
Thank you for your constructive participation
I know that sounds utterly facile, but I find too many people react to this sort of thing because they're a) under the impression they should be offended, so decide to act offended or b) fear that other people may be offended so decide to be offended on their behalf, often without checking with who they perceive as the wronged party and how they actually feel.
This definitely overlaps with the whole SJW concept, but offence is really a personal, gut reaction, and one shouldn't feel guilty about not being offended by something just because it could be perceived as offensive.
Given the spelling errors in the logo, and the fact that I can't tell whether those errors are the fault of original poster or actually present on the model in question, it appears equally plausible that the original poster is wrong about the intent and presentation of the model.
Asking for hypothetical offense to incomplete details may as well be trolling.
I also find the overt representation of real-world issues in a fantasy setting to be immersion-breaking, and I don't think that a wargaming army is necessarily the best platform for social commentary. That said I'm not absolutely against it, but if some-one creates such an army for use 'in public', they need to be aware that people will hold opinions on the commentary being converyed (or which is perceived to be being conveyed).
What I am saying is that it is there whether you want it to be or not. Somebody other than you created the Warhammer 40,000 universe. You can address it or ignore it, but it is there regardless of your personal relationship to it.
I'd agree that 40K was written with an element of social commentary, in as much as many of the factions, particularly the Imperium, are a grim parody of humanity's worst historical excesses. What I sometimes find jarring is when some-one other than the creators brings their own social commentary to the mix by dressing their army in the clothes of current events, and the resulting visual theme is a poor fit for the setting or unsubtly references a contentious topic. Yes, I and everyone else just has to deal with it, but I don't think what is essentially a social activity is the best place to be making what is essentially a political statement unless some-one knows they will be in likeminded company or is looking to elicit a reaction.
It's like the SJW has rubbed off onto everyone, we live in an era of free speech, yet people throw a fit when someone does something that offends them. like people think that the world owes them a trigger warning whenever something is done.
Wwhat is often overlooked is the fact that the right to free speech is not the same as the right to consequence free speech. The words and attitudes you express are fair game for others to judge you by. I think in the age of social media, there's this attitude that whatever stupid idea that drops out of your mouth or flows from your keyboard is somehow immune to critique. Yes, you can paint whatever you want. I can still think its crass, juvenile, bigoted, or, who knows, if you pull it off, totally amazing or hilarious. There's a huge difference between something that is a step away from Ass: The Movie as portrayed by Idiocracy and an utterly filthy but clever and hilarious stand up routine.
The problem isn't the conversions, or the models, but the words.
You can do whatever you want model-wise, but the moment you try to put words to it, in such a hateful manner, it's disallowed. Completely. I'd even go so far as to break said banner off to prove a point.
You models are not a platform for you to project your views, regardless of how correct or incorrect they are.
I don't find the banner that offensive, from what is described. Space Nazis, while crass, are an unfortunate staple of the hobby. The DKoK Forgeworld line wouldn't exist otherwise.
Neither strike me as offensive, both strike me as tasteless.
The problem isn't the conversions, or the models, but the words.
You can do whatever you want model-wise, but the moment you try to put words to it, in such a hateful manner, it's disallowed. Completely. I'd even go so far as to break said banner off to prove a point.
You models are not a platform for you to project your views, regardless of how correct or incorrect they are.
So, just to be clear, in order to show your high moral standing, you would... destroy someone else's property? Very broad-minded of you.
After all, why let a little thing like the law or basic morality get in the way of moral preening? In all due clarity, I would normally preface a legal point with 'I am a lawyer but not your lawyer', but this is one of those bedrock points of basic law everyone is responsible for knowing: just because you are angry doesn't mean you can take and break other people's stuff. Even college professors occasionally need reminding of this.
In any case, the real problem with this discussion is... well, the same problem as the last such discussion: it's not about the models, it's about the players. Or, to agree with earlier posters, it's about context: terrible racial slurs may be ghstly signs of intolerance... or hysterically funny.*
Playing with an SS division may be a sign of a terrbily problematic worldview... or a like of the color scheme and cohesive aesthetic (if you know what I mean). In other words, getting stuck on what is said, rather then why it is said, leaves everyone the poorer for lack of understanding and communication. This is one of the reasons SJW types have aquired their (IMO well deserved) reputation for being censuring scolds: because they can't tell the difference between someone joking with a ding-dong, and spitting venom with an Oreo.
*For the poor folk that don't recognize that clip: read and then visit Netflix.
Did they look like this or the black leather variant?
Spoiler:
I have no problem with it but i would understand if those who lost family in the war would object to this.
As the 40K universe empire is run like the 40000th reich a themed army like that wouldn't be so far of,
no one bats an eye if someone makes a Russian themed 40k army and Stalin killed a few more than Hitler
and the Russian army really had political officers like Commisars.
I would object if he had penal legion dressed like Jewish concentration camp prisoners.
And off course if the player himself had the white power ideology then i would not play him.
It all depends on the idea behind the army and the ideology of the player's army.
I don't see a problem with the Nazi army. The 40K universe is already replete with Nazi-esque visuals, especially the older artwork. It's part of the background. You also have to keep in mind that there are no good guys in 40K. That Blue Smurf marine army you just put on the board? The characters you are evoking are--in context of the game--willing to massacre every man woman and child on a planet that they just defended, because the survivors *might* have heard from someone else that the Imperium *might* have just fought a force worshipping the wrong gods, even though those innocent women and children have absolutely no desire to turn to this other god. Then they'll wipe their own minds, so that they can continue to thoughtlessly serve a tyrant who eats a thousand human psykers every day just to put off death a little longer.
But that's fiction! The Nazis were real and really did horrible things. They are a widely vilified, historical army Yes indeed. So did the Soviets. And the Aztecs. And the Romans. But all of these armies get elements of their iconography appropriated in 40K or WHFB armies too, and no one bugs the players who choose to do that. It's just that the Nazis are our current bugbear.
Unless the gamer in question also has swastikas tatooed on his body and spouts off like Goebbles, then he's probably just after the stunning visual impact the Nazis appropriated for themselves. German armies in both WW1 and WW2 have a stunning visual impact, in my opinion, not matched by any other "modern army". I can see someone wanting to paint that.
I'd personally probably go with Iron Cross if I were to really "go German" with a DKOK army, both because I like that symbol a bit more than the swastika (no, I am not immune to the "yuk" factor of the swasticka) and because I think giving a nod to WWI rather than WWII (with the bar cross) would better capture the archaic aesthetic of 40K, But I wouldn't give this guy any real grief for what he's done unless he really was a skinhead.
Either way, even with chapter-approved paint jobs, anytime I put an Imperial army on the board I know I'm playing the armed might from an empire of some really sick bastards. I don't think I'm "tacitly approving" psychotic behaviour whether that army of psychotic bastards uses real or fictional icons.
I guess I am somewhat surprised that people are so easily offended by miniatures.
Firstly, because we are so often hinting at themes like nazism and references to real racial/religious wars... it doesn't suddenly cross a line with me when those things are directly mentioned. It just seems slightly hypocritical to me to say it's bad to directly refer to something but it's ok to strongly hint at it and/or use it for inspiration for symbols/themes.
Secondly, because a lot of bad crap happens in this world that it amazes me people can get so worked up about miniatures. We are making a game out of war... meanwhile actual wars are going on where people are being killed and tortured. If you were so concerned about all the bad crap in the world and felt that miniatures could in any way shape or form make it worse, why on earth are you playing a WARgame.
To those who say this marine is responding to a relgious war by threatening another religious war, that is in fact what the 40K imperium does. If you worship the wrong god, they kill you. Then they possibly burn your entire planet.
But that's not the same, you say. The Chaos gods would destroy the universe.
Well, of course it's not the same. This is a game so things embrace hyperbole. But the message is the same. If you don't show enough devotiion to the god we like, or if you look just a bit too not-like-us, we'll kill you. And the Imperium will execute the doubter just as quickly as the chaos cultist.
Plus, these are Black Templars. They wear the symbol of the Teutonic Knights. Their defining characteristic is that they are stuck on a permanent crusade. They conquered Jerusalem^H^H^H^H..... I mean they onquered Jerulas while on crusade, and they did it by building a tank called the Crusador. And they showed no mercy after their victory.
Looking at the the background of this chapter, and In the modern age, with our media saturated by Jihadist beheading innocent people live on camera, I think imagery like this is inevitable. And I don't have a problem with a wargame miniature showing a soldier killing a jihadist on a battlefield. (Unless he's a bound prisoner? That would press my "yuk" buttons.).
I guy in my local area is of middle eastern descent. I can't imagine he'd be thrilled to see an Emperor's Champion killing a "jihadist."
Are you sure he'd mind? Maybe he would, but maybe he hates Jihadists too. A lot of people of all sorts of different middle eastern descents (and habitation) are currenly involved in a life or death struggle with Jihadists. A lot of people seem to be assigning an implied racist element in the death of a Jihadist miniature. Without knowing the artist who made the model, racism is not a thing I'm willing to assume,
I don't see Space Marines carrying back banners with insults to their opponents. It's like the Crimson Fists carrying signs that say "Orks are stupid!"
I don't see how both the creator of the piece and the Marine supposedly carrying the banner both would not see the hypocrisy of criticizing a religiously motivated war by threatening a religiously motivated war.
I mean, the very same model with a Banner reading "Death to Heretics" or "So Perish All Apostates" would be totally in character for 40K.
Wouldn't the latter be insults as well? What's the difference between "Death to Heretics" and "Death to Jihadists"? (Or "Death to Infidels"?) The banner seems the same sort of black humor attributed to soldiers fighting for their lives on the battlefield as "Born to Kill" on Private Joker's helmet in Full Metal Jacket, or the "Peacemaker" I've seen painted on real tank turrets. I think this is perfectly in character.
And again, relgiously motivated war is just what the Imperium does. It's in their genes (seeds).
In historical gaming, obviously there are always going to be people taking SS units and the like.
They had "cool" uniforms and there is a mistique around them, with all the runes etc, even if they weren't always (or even usually) the best combatants.
Its something that WW2 gamers just accept.
Except when you run across idiots that run armies based on the Dirlewanger Brigade, who even the SS thought were criminal scum.
The bloke I met who ran them had some pretty abhorrent views as well.
TL;DR: Theres always one. If it makes you uncomfortable, just politley state your views, don't play them and move on.
When it come to "political correctness" one should also keep in mind that the correctness of a given subject might very well be a national/regional thing.
The view on some subjects are shared far and wide, but others might not be.
For example, my view and statements on religion might be considered politically incorrect (or worse) in some parts of the world, while they are perfectly reasonable in others.
Eilif wrote: [Would Nazi iconography be appropriate on Space Marines? No, then it's not appropriate for ww1 space germans either.
FYI Nazi's weren't WW1
What if they were WWII space Germans though?
I don't find it out of place on period set games historical or pulp, like if you were trying to make a Indianna Jones game, Rocketeer or Wolfenstein as they are the appropriate bad guys, or if you were trying to use SS bolts to represent Neo-Nazi's in a modern biker gang. (the Helghast in Killzone have a modified SS bolts on their collars) I think it largely comes down to intent of why it's being used. If somebody were slapping Swastikas down simply to get a reaction or offend their opponent I'd consider that pretty uncool. The SS bolts I think might be a bit more subjective they are sometimes used in other situations and have alternate meanings, but again it comes down to the context of how they are being used and what the owner is trying to convey.
Nazi symbols pop up in non-period sources like Captain America, Hellboy, or have modified versions for Red Skull, Hydra, the Hammer in Danger Girl. But that's cultural shift from how things were for several decades. There was a distinct period after the war where displaying those icons in the US was completely shunned and avoided (even if it were for historical purposes) but I think people have matured and realize that by not talking about what evils those symbols represent it ultimately does more harm. In order not to let history repeat itself we need to know about the horrible things that those were associated with so we can never forget why they were so bad.
Meh. Models with nazi symbols, references to real-life terrorism, piles of dead members of the Swedish "Green Party", neither would bother me personally (the latter actually sounds pretty tempting ). But I also understand that there are those who are bothered by it, so I think you should show some basic social sophistication, just as in any other situation in day-to-day life.
That's not to say anyone can come up to you and veto away your models. It's entirely up to you how you choose to present yourself. If you're content making other people uncomfortable, then more power to you. If you're not, then you might want to consider these things one more time.
Pete Melvin wrote: In historical gaming, obviously there are always going to be people taking SS units and the like. They had "cool" uniforms and there is a mistique around them, with all the runes etc, even if they weren't always (or even usually) the best combatants. Its something that WW2 gamers just accept. Except when you run across idiots that run armies based on the Dirlewanger Brigade, who even the SS thought were criminal scum. The bloke I met who ran them had some pretty abhorrent views as well. TL;DR: Theres always one. If it makes you uncomfortable, just politley state your views, don't play them and move on.
Actually... when it comes to historicals it makes even less sense why people would get offended by things. As long as the force was a historically accurate force. The whole war was filled with atrocities on all sides. Rapes, murder, torture, concentration camps not to mention the often horrific conditions within battles themselves. It's hard to see any side as some sort of angelic warriors. It seems odd to me that someone would be like "well, that's all ok, we can trivialise all those horrors that actually occurred in to a wargame, OH, but don't touch these other ones, that's just going too far.... hang on.... let me move my squad of troops so they can shoot at the enemy to inflict horrible painful death and suffering upon them".
Now if someone is actually championing the horrific ideas of genocide, torture, rape, etc etc, that's another matter. That goes beyond the little toy soldiers we are playing with and is actually the person themselves being abhorrent.
But I prefer not to get the two mixed up. Just because I play a wargame does not mean I support war and just because someone has little toy soldiers from a nazi regime doesn't mean I think they support nazism.
For the Crusader, this seems like someone who is being intentionally offensive. Considering how the Crusades functioned, it's the same as saying, "the answer to Jihadists is to kill as many muslims as possible". That's the kind of thing that Neo-Nazis and KKK members endorse.
The KKK had close ties to Malcolm X's islamic movement. They both wanted the Jews out of America.
techsoldaten wrote:
Here's a perspective on it.
Way back in 2nd edition days, there was a guy with an IG army with a penal legion platoon. All of the guardsmen were white, but he chose to paint the penal legion troopers as Africans. He put more work into the penal legion troopers, adding various bits and conversions that were there to make sick jokes.
*snipped*
The term 'Africans' could be seen as equally offensive.
Back OT - I wouldn't hesitate to play either army mentioned by the OP. If these folks started a conversation about religion, politics or their narrow world view then I'd ask them to change the subject.
Annnnd, ironically, I just very nearly posted my views on jihadists
The crusader is just plain wrong, however, depending of the circumstances, the Germany thing might be tolerable. If the player genuinely has just painted them to admire the German war machine's efficiency, that is better than them being a Neo-Nazi expressing them self on the tabletop. The guy who runs my local games workshop said to me that if you think of the IG as WW2 Germans tactically, you cant go wrong, and I have to agree with him, however, if there are modeled Nazi salutes ect then he should be banned from wherever you are playing. BTW, I'm a Jew if that helps lend perspective.
timetowaste85 wrote: If it's a fantastically painted/converted mini, I'd probably overlook the PC issue. If it looks like crap, and wasn't done with utmost care, I'd be more offended. All subjective, I guess. The SS design wouldn't even bother me, but I'm not the affected audience.
I've got to say, this is the part of this thread that I find weird. I'm the first to admit that I'm not a great painter. I love converting and I love playing, so to me painting is just the dull bit in between that lets me get from one stage to the other, so even when I am concentrating I can spend ages on a model and it'll still be about table top quality. I don't see how that in any way affects my ability to be racist, though, and I'd like to think that someone's skill or otherwise at painting doesn't affect the intent behind the work.
timetowaste85 wrote: If it's a fantastically painted/converted mini, I'd probably overlook the PC issue. If it looks like crap, and wasn't done with utmost care, I'd be more offended. All subjective, I guess. The SS design wouldn't even bother me, but I'm not the affected audience.
I've got to say, this is the part of this thread that I find weird. I'm the first to admit that I'm not a great painter. I love converting and I love playing, so to me painting is just the dull bit in between that lets me get from one stage to the other, so even when I am concentrating I can spend ages on a model and it'll still be about table top quality. I don't see how that in any way affects my ability to be racist, though, and I'd like to think that someone's skill or otherwise at painting doesn't affect the intent behind the work.
This is something that confused me with the other "sexually explicit models" thread. Since when does how well you paint affect whether something is offensive or not?
But either way... I'm not actually sure what people find overly offensive about the jihad one... are we worried about offending those participating in a holy war? If that's the case then I really don't care about offending them Are we worried about offending those affected by the crusades? If that's the case we kind of missed the boat by about 700 years. If we're worried about offending Muslims in general... I don't see the big deal unless it said "die muslim die" or something that is offensive generally to muslims and not just those participating in a holy war. Are we worried about offending middle eastern people? If that's the case then I feel it's just fishing for something to be offended about
I mean, I can see that it's a joke that makes light of religious war... but wargaming makes light of war so I don't see why that would be a problem for your average wargamer.
I was watching Saving Private Ryan the other day, and it made me think about Wargaming a little (I had a mini moral crisis). Is all Wargaming in some way offensive? Just watching the Normandy beach scene, or people's reactions to their friends dying, I couldn't imagine how awful it must have been, but I'm over here playing a game where I basically reenact that kind kf thing? I mean it's in a fantasy setting, but what about historical wargames, could they not be seen as offensive, or inconsiderate?
But then I guess you could say the same about war films, or CoD, or any number of things designed to entertain people that are based on war. I'm not saying that it is offensive, but it made me think (for the first time in like 8 years I've been into wargaming) that it might be offensive to some people.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I guess I am somewhat surprised that people are so easily offended by miniatures.
Firstly, because we are so often hinting at themes like nazism and references to real racial/religious wars... it doesn't suddenly cross a line with me when those things are directly mentioned. It just seems slightly hypocritical to me to say it's bad to directly refer to something but it's ok to strongly hint at it and/or use it for inspiration for symbols/themes.
Secondly, because a lot of bad crap happens in this world that it amazes me people can get so worked up about miniatures. We are making a game out of war... meanwhile actual wars are going on where people are being killed and tortured. If you were so concerned about all the bad crap in the world and felt that miniatures could in any way shape or form make it worse, why on earth are you playing a WARgame.
What's surprising is your total inability to notice people repeatedly stating variations on the theme "I'm not particularly offended, but I find it tasteless/immersion breaking". It's almost as if you want people to act all offended so you can demonstrate your obvious edginess by repeatedly saying how it doesn't bother you and anyone it does bother is just "getting their panties in a bunch" Further, you do grasp that it's possible to recognise that something is offensive without actually being offended in the visceral, emotional sense yourself, aye?
And whether you recognise it or not, there is an accepted and longstanding difference between addressing a controversial subject through allegory and metaphor, and just outright addressing a controversial subject. The former grants the author/artist/filmmaker leeway because it reduces the chances you'll cause offence/distress to anyone who was directly invested in those events, and conversely people will expect that if you're going to just reference the topic directly you will do so with some basic level of tact, subtlety, and respect for other people.
The Imperium is a pretty nasty society, it draws from all kinds of real sources and ideologies, but it does not embody any particular one of those sources - there are strands of various types of Authoritarianism both secular and religious, elements of racial and national purity-based ideology, aspects of Imperialism and Colonialism, but you cannot simply label the Imperium as Space Nazis or Space Communists, any more than you can just label the Ecclesiarchy as Space Catholics despite the numerous parallels, because that's reductive and simplistic, requiring you to ignore all the parts of the fictions which aren't consistent. You can take individual elements as commentaries on specific issues(hell read the "...of Mars" series, McNeill uses Servitors to make a point about workers' rights and the power of collective bargaining), or you can take the Imperium as a whole as a commentary on the idea that humans will, in extremis, turn into properly nasty buggers, but in few cases where the parallel is pretty obvious and on the nose it's usually a humorous point being made not a political one(the Administratum - hurr hurr, isn't British bureaucracy inefficient and annoying? Lol DWP etc), and the cases where it's as obvious as "my army are literally Nazis" or "hah hah killing Muslims is funny" are virtually nonexistent and usually hangovers from when 40K first arose, a time perhaps not that distant but one in which bigotry of all stripes was a lot more tolerated than it is today(or should be).
I would be totally within my "rights" to paint up a Tallarn army as Jihadists with Al-Qaeda iconography, carrying an army standard depicting the Twin Towers aflame with the phrase "3000 down, 300 million to go" on it, but the idea I should be able to do so without comment/censure, or that anyone who called me out for my crass insensitivity was just some hypersensitive "SJW", is just ridiculous.
It's the immersion thing that gets me. I don't dislike the idea of a Nazi Guard army because "OMG NAZIS!!!". I'd dislike a Nazi Guard army for the same reason as I'd dislike a Simpson's themed Marine army, or a My Little Pony Chaos army. They break immersion and make no sense in context with 40K.
There are odd exceptions - that guy who makes the pink Necrons, or the red pipe-cleaner/googly eyes Khorne army - because those are excellent concepts well made, or just hilariously funny, but the rest, nah, Nazi's don't belong in 40K because they occupy a small part of 20th century history, not the 41st millennium. That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
To be fair Dust is set as an alternate WWII, so they literally are Soviets in Dust (I think...) Can't argue on the Warmachine front, but Khador are one of the factions I'm going with haha.
Avatar 720 wrote: I personally couldn't give a toss unless the players themselves are spouting racist and similar remarks.
This pretty much sums it up. Take this for what is worth, but I would prefer a polite racist who plays the game well over an obnoxious, loud mouth who is extremely annoying.
The more I think on it, I can't recall political or racial commentary ever coming up during a game. It is mainly talk of 40K, GW in general, or the game at hand.
With respect to the nazi iconography, I am mixed on this one. The Nazis were, by far, the best dressed army of WWII, if not the 20th century. There are countless models with the German style helmet, some were even posted in this thread. I have seen orks with "nazi" helmets and never seen any reaction like this. If you read the 40K books, the anti-xenos mentality of the inquisition and space marines borders on nazi-esque fervor. I am not saying anything is right or wrong, just take it for what it is worth.
So, if someone wanted to use the color schemes of the SS and Nazis, I could not blame them. They looked good. If they started painting red squares with white circles ans swastikas on it.... whatever. I think the most you would get out of me is "wow, swastikas....aren't you edgy?"
Think what you want, but keep it to yourself when gaming with strangers.
There was a lot of inter table 'banter' at my FLGS a while back, that was basically three or four lads hurling ugly homophobic insults at each other.
I chalked it up to poor social skills development so prevalent in the community and hoped to never play any of them face to face. For their safety, yeah, so I don't roundhouse kick them in the throat and choke hold them til the Police turn up.
Yodhrin wrote: What's surprising is your total inability to notice people repeatedly stating variations on the theme "I'm not particularly offended, but I find it tasteless/immersion breaking".
The people who find such themes mildly misplaced weren't really the people to which I was referring, but none the less I'm glad my post could be a stepping stone for your rant
And whether you recognise it or not, there is an accepted and longstanding difference between addressing a controversial subject through allegory and metaphor, and just outright addressing a controversial subject.
Yes, so you are drawing a line... I guess I see the line as somewhat arbitrary.
"hah hah killing Muslims is funny"
The OP said the flag said "I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade". That doesn't scream "hah hah killing Muslims is funny", that's YOU projecting on to it. That's why people like me see it as if you are going out of your way to be offended (or distasteful or whatever ). Now if it genuinely did say "hah hah killing Muslims is funny" then I'd say the person who wrote it is being a hateful dick... it has nothing to do with the army, it has to do with being a racist dick. But that's why I do try and separate the toy soldiers from the actual person unless it's blatantly obvious the person is hateful, racist, sexist, whatever.
When it comes to the toy soldiers, we are making a game of war here, don't you find that just MILDLY distasteful or offensive given that there are actually wars going on, ya know, like right now? Many of us are playing historical games of real wars that have occurred recently. Isn't that a bit distasteful?
Sorry if most of what I see is arbitrary line drawing and going out of your way to be offended
Now, the fluff issue being immersion breaking... I can appreciate that to an extent. I guess why that has never bothered me is because I don't consider GW fluff to be any where near gospel. Ever since I started WHFB and 40k it's always been the Universe that I myself have wanted it to be, I've only ever seen GW's fluff as guidelines anyway.
Nazis in 40k and references to a real life holy war from an army that are space crusaders hardly seems out of character for 40k... but if you feel it is I won't bother arguing that point because it's entirely 100% subjective, there's really no objective points to be made.
I would be totally within my "rights"... but the idea I should be able to do so without comment/censure, or that anyone who called me out for my crass insensitivity was just some hypersensitive "SJW", is just ridiculous.
I didn't bring up the point of "rights" (at least I didn't think I did), mainly because I think "rights" in our western societies is mostly a given, especially in regards to speech and art.
You have the right to create an army that someone might be offended by...
People then have the right to complain about an army that they might be offended by...
People (like me) then have the right to point and laugh.... I mean question the validity of your outspoken feelings of being offended or distastfulized.
The whole "rights" thing is just a circular argument, we all have the right to do whatever the feth we want as long as it's not infringing on other peoples' rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's the immersion thing that gets me. I don't dislike the idea of a Nazi Guard army because "OMG NAZIS!!!". I'd dislike a Nazi Guard army for the same reason as I'd dislike a Simpson's themed Marine army, or a My Little Pony Chaos army. They break immersion and make no sense in context with 40K.
There are odd exceptions - that guy who makes the pink Necrons, or the red pipe-cleaner/googly eyes Khorne army - because those are excellent concepts well made, or just hilariously funny, but the rest, nah, Nazi's don't belong in 40K because they occupy a small part of 20th century history, not the 41st millennium. That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
This is a mostly subjective point and I can appreciate the "immersion breaking" point, to an extent.
Personally, as I said above, I've always been very flexible with 40k fluff. I hardly think GW make awesomely solid factions anyway and I've always seen the universe as being the basis for building what YOU want to do.
Now Simpsons or My Little Pony armies, to me, are just completely ill suited to 40k. They don't fit the grimdark theme in the slightest.
But I'm totally fine with it when people want to see 40k as a stepping stone to create their own fluff like "what if Nazis won and now we're in the 41st millennium" or holy wars in general. To me, they DO fit in to the universe thematically and aesthetically like Simpsons and My Little Pony don't.
But if you don't agree and feel it breaks immersion, I can appreciate that more than the "that's distasteful and offensive... now let me pull out my model which has gruesomely murdered models adorning the base".
I don't really care about them me and I don't find them distasteful either, just rubbish for the most part, unless someone is getting bent out of shape over them, then it can be quite funny !
Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.
And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.
Fezman wrote: Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.
See... I find comments like this more offensive and puerile than the actual models in question (given that we have no context for the models beyond the few short sentences we were given). But then that's just me, I find it offensive when people want to pigeon hole others off limited information.
And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.
The free speech argument is entirely circular.
In my ideal world people would show up with such an army wouldn't create a stir beyond peaceful conversation because we're all mature enough to know we're playing pewpewpew with little man dollies that aren't actually representative of what we ourselves support or condone.
When someone actually comes along and their miniatures have messages of hatred, racism, etc against their fellow humans and/or they themselves are acting with hatred, racism, etc THAT'S when I want to see a stir created.
Eilif wrote: [Would Nazi iconography be appropriate on Space Marines? No, then it's not appropriate for ww1 space germans either.
FYI Nazi's weren't WW1
What if they were WWII space Germans though?
I'm aware of the nazis being a later development. I specified WW1 because the the DKoK are WW1 (not nazi) styled, so it showed that the artist was clearly bent on putting nazi icongraphy on his mins since he really didn't have a historical leg to stand on.
That said, I wouldn't be thrilled to play against someone who took his WW2 Space germans (Steel Legion are pretty close to German ww2 paratroops) and painted them up as SS either. Anyone dragging nazi iconography into fantasy or sci-fi gaming is going start with at least some incredulity and skepticism from me.
monders wrote:
Eilif wrote:
*snipped*
For the Crusader, this seems like someone who is being intentionally offensive. Considering how the Crusades functioned, it's the same as saying, "the answer to Jihadists is to kill as many muslims as possible". That's the kind of thing that Neo-Nazis and KKK members endorse.
The KKK had close ties to Malcolm X's islamic movement. They both wanted the Jews out of America.
I'm not sure where to start. Let me help you sort this out.
Malcom X was indeed part of the "Nation of Islam" (NOI), but he left and was actually moving away from much of the "hate" ideology as he formed his own group, before being murdered by members of the NOI.
To this day, the NOI has many anti-semetic views expressed by it's leaders and is currently led by Louis Farakkhan who has continued the trend.
As to a KKK connection, Malcom was clearly misguided about his view of Jews, and the NOI is a racist institution, but there's no evidence that suggests that himself or the Nation of Islam were tied to the KKK, whom they frequently spoke against. The NOI does not directly preach the removal of Jews from America, but it does blame them for much and there have been quotes that Farkkhan as suggested that muslims will destroy america, presumably including all white and jewish people as well.
The main teaching of NOI related to this is the "Black Sepratism that " preaches separation of Black people from Whites, Jews and other groups, in the form of a desire to state or separate area within America that will be populated and governed by only by Black people. The NOI's most controversial connections were to Omar Kadafi in Libya.
Note that I am not defending the NOI, or even Malcom I just wanted to help you get your facts strait.
Not sure what your point is though, since I haven't seen anyone do up an army dressed like the "Fruit of Islam".
Avatar 720 wrote: I personally couldn't give a toss unless the players themselves are spouting racist and similar remarks.
Im gonna ditto this.
Agreed. Nothing described in the OP would be the least bit bothersome to me. As long as the the other player has a decent attitude and temperment I'm not going to have a problem playing a game with him/her regardless of the models involved. Toys don't even register on my outrage meter.
Wait, so you are playing a game, set in a fantastic, futuristic setting where humanity is ruled by a corrupt, authoritarian regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred. Then you get offended because a player models their army, of the faction known and based on hubris, authoritarism, racism, prejudice and eternal hatred, by making references to the perfect historical example of a corrupt, authoritarian,regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred? You somehow love the fantasy version of it but hate the REAL world version of it? Is this the game where you can play a faction that is entirely fueled by the pain and suffering of others, (Dark Eldar, for example, which is an army of the most wicked and fragged up people imaginable), but are extremely offended by a guy that somehow relates that universe to the closest real world analogues?
I had a friend who had a Nazi themed IG army. People usually asked him about them, and to check his views on nazism, (it was funny because he is black). He always said the same thing. "Wait, the Imperium is a regime that oppress its citizens in a horrible manner, and kills anything that doesn't belong to their race, without mercy or exception. They are stinking, horrible nazis, and I paint them that way so you can really see what they truly are by referencing them to something you might understand in your historical background". The point is, the Imperial Army ARE Nazis, they are indoctrinated, prejudiced, genocidal bigots. It's funny how people get offended by the iconography, but not by the ideals the faction represents. My friend used to say that if someone should get offended by his Imperial Guard army's iconography, they should be offended by anyone rooting and cheering this faction at all.
I don't get offended by someone's army or miniatures. Honestly, I completely see the relation between fictional space nazis and real life nazis. If the player isn't a nazi, but paints his miniatures nazi, it's ok by me. I would get offended by a bigot, nazi player, but not because he paints something in some way, but because he's a bigot nazi bag of manure.
Regarding the Templar, the same rule apply. Are you really offended because someone painted a bigot, race supremacist crusader in space as a bigot race supremacist crusader in real life? It's not like he disguised his Tau as crusaders. Black Templars ARE crusaders, and they kill anything on their path with a genocidal zeal. I'd buy that model and play with it. If someone asks me about it, I'd say that the figure is killing a jihadist. If said someone would ask "Are you OK with the murder of muslims?", I'd say instantly that no, heck, I am not, that stating that would turn me into a monster. If that someone asks me if I approve the use of military force to eliminate jihadists with extreme prejudice, I'd say hell yes, because I am, and most if not all the nation leaders of the Western civilization agree with me (and that's why they are bombing ISIS positions). And I'd add that the banner states exactly that. Now, I'm not a genocidal bigot, and if the player playing that miniature was, I'd hate him for being a bigot, but the miniature per se is not such an issue.
Kithail wrote: Wait, so you are playing a game, set in a fantastic, futuristic setting where humanity is ruled by a corrupt, authoritarian regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred. Then you get offended because a player models their army, of the faction known and based on hubris, authoritarism, racism, prejudice and eternal hatred, by making references to the perfect historical example of a corrupt, authoritarian,regime based on racism, prejudice and eternal hatred? You somehow love the fantasy version of it but hate the REAL world version of it? Is this the game where you can play a faction that is entirely fueled by the pain and suffering of others, (Dark Eldar, for example, which is an army of the most wicked and fragged up people imaginable), but are extremely offended by a guy that somehow relates that universe to the closest real world analogues?
I had a friend who had a Nazi themed IG army. People usually asked him about them, and to check his views on nazism, (it was funny because he is black). He always said the same thing. "Wait, the Imperium is a regime that oppress its citizens in a horrible manner, and kills anything that doesn't belong to their race, without mercy or exception. They are stinking, horrible nazis, and I paint them that way so you can really see what they truly are by referencing them to something you might understand in your historical background". The point is, the Imperial Army ARE Nazis, they are indoctrinated, prejudiced, genocidal bigots. It's funny how people get offended by the iconography, but not by the ideals the faction represents. My friend used to say that if someone should get offended by his Imperial Guard army's iconography, they should be offended by anyone rooting and cheering this faction at all.
I don't get offended by someone's army or miniatures. Honestly, I completely see the relation between fictional space nazis and real life nazis. If the player isn't a nazi, but paints his miniatures nazi, it's ok by me. I would get offended by a bigot, nazi player, but not because he paints something in some way, but because he's a bigot nazi bag of manure.
Regarding the Templar, the same rule apply. Are you really offended because someone painted a bigot, race supremacist crusader in space as a bigot race supremacist crusader in real life? It's not like he disguised his Tau as crusaders. Black Templars ARE crusaders, and they kill anything on their path with a genocidal zeal. I'd buy that model and play with it. If someone asks me about it, I'd say that the figure is killing a jihadist. If said someone would ask "Are you OK with the murder of muslims?", I'd say instantly that no, heck, I am not, that stating that would turn me into a monster. If that someone asks me if I approve the use of military force to eliminate jihadists with extreme prejudice, I'd say hell yes, because I am, and most if not all the nation leaders of the Western civilization agree with me (and that's why they are bombing ISIS positions). And I'd add that the banner states exactly that. Now, I'm not a genocidal bigot, and if the player playing that miniature was, I'd hate him for being a bigot, but the miniature per se is not such an issue.
I agree entirely.
I'm still not sure why we need to be offended by the "I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade" banner anyway. The only way I can see it as offensive is if you are a supporter of religious war, in which case feth you I don't care if you're offended... OR if we are equating "jihadist" with "muslim" in which case that's a very ignorant view to take
I'm still not sure why we need to be offended by the "I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade" banner anyway. The only way I can see it as offensive is if you are a supporter of religious war, in which case feth you I don't care if you're offended... OR if we are equating "jihadist" with "muslim" in which case that's a very ignorant view to take
Yeah, if someone tells me they are offended because they identify themselves with jihadists, maybe I shouldn't play with that someone to begin with.
In the second case, it's obvious. If the player with the templar starts spewing garbage about "towelheads" and how we should get rid of all "muslim filth" then I'd call him out based on his words. Making a violent joke inside a violent game against violent, nasty people in the real world that deserve military-based reprimand isn't too far. Funnily enough, if you get offended by the depiction of an execution of a jihadist, you should be offended by any miniature that depicts an execution, because executions are horrible, of any kind of human being. (Of course, executions of tyranid filth is sanctioned by me).
Geez this is a game where the objective is to kill the other guy. It is set in a world where genocide is not only practiced, it is the accepted way of dealing with planets that will not submit. Not to mention the so called "good guys" won't think twice about turning a brain to mush and hacking off limbs to replace them with weapons/tools/ect to make obedient slaves.
I'd think a paint job would be the last thing I find offensive here.
Honestly though if the guy paints and models things in such a way to mimic or even out right copy IRL things of such nature it brings into question what kinda person he is.
It was ether done that way to be inflammatory or they actually support the message that they are projecting onto there models.
Sure there is a lot of the same things in game lore. so why not leave it at that instead of trying to get a rise out of people.
But still i wouldnt care about how they do what until they start practicing what they paint.
Fezman wrote: Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.
See... I find comments like this more offensive and puerile than the actual models in question (given that we have no context for the models beyond the few short sentences we were given). But then that's just me, I find it offensive when people want to pigeon hole others off limited information.
And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.
The free speech argument is entirely circular.
In my ideal world people would show up with such an army wouldn't create a stir beyond peaceful conversation because we're all mature enough to know we're playing pewpewpew with little man dollies that aren't actually representative of what we ourselves support or condone.
When someone actually comes along and their miniatures have messages of hatred, racism, etc against their fellow humans and/or they themselves are acting with hatred, racism, etc THAT'S when I want to see a stir created.
Agreed that it's a circular argument.
But I nothing I wrote was "puerile" (don't worry, I'm not going to do that annoying thing where someone copies and pastes the dictionary definition). And I doubt you're really offended by what I wrote - I'm sure you can overlook some opinionated words on a forum.
It's just that the reason I don't want to see things like Nazi imagery shoehorned into a context where I don't think it belongs is because I assume one of three things: either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake, they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it, or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views. The first two I merely find tiresome; the last I want no part of. In all three cases I won't feel like finding out either way, I'll just find someone else to play.
i had the possibility to talk to the guy with the dkok army today.
he told me that his army was inspired by the movie iron sky where the nazis fled to the moon when loosing war and praising charly chaplin as the great dictator. he found it kind of .. humouros i think is the right word in english?
he also showed me what was the.. motiv? for his painting scheme. and his company commander is the dkok officer with the charly chaplin head from another miniature, very funny, didnt see that in the first moment.
i post the pic, if its not ok in any way maybe a mod can delete it, dont know if the symbols are forbidden in uk or us.
I'm never offended by models themselves. I wish I was just so I could know what you guys are talking about. I could, however, be offended by the person who uses the models. Lots of weirdos out there.
Fezman wrote: Both armies sound like either a puerile attempt to shock, or the tip of an iceberg of even uglier and more unhealthy opinions I wouldn't want to associate with them long enough to find out.
See... I find comments like this more offensive and puerile than the actual models in question (given that we have no context for the models beyond the few short sentences we were given). But then that's just me, I find it offensive when people want to pigeon hole others off limited information.
And anyone who thinks they can, for instance, take out their SS-themed army, or whatever, in a gaming shop on the assumption that they won't be challenged at least some of the time probably has some pretty undeveloped social skills, or an inflated sense of entitlement. I often find that in cases where someone has deliberately said or done something so crass they're quick to start shouting about free speech, but it seldom extends to acknowledging that this applies just as much to the people who disagree with them. You may paint your models in the privacy of your own home however you like, but when you take them out in a public space, other people have the right to express any criticism of them they wish.
The free speech argument is entirely circular.
In my ideal world people would show up with such an army wouldn't create a stir beyond peaceful conversation because we're all mature enough to know we're playing pewpewpew with little man dollies that aren't actually representative of what we ourselves support or condone.
When someone actually comes along and their miniatures have messages of hatred, racism, etc against their fellow humans and/or they themselves are acting with hatred, racism, etc THAT'S when I want to see a stir created.
Agreed that it's a circular argument.
But I nothing I wrote was "puerile" (don't worry, I'm not going to do that annoying thing where someone copies and pastes the dictionary definition). And I doubt you're really offended by what I wrote - I'm sure you can overlook some opinionated words on a forum.
It's just that the reason I don't want to see things like Nazi imagery shoehorned into a context where I don't think it belongs is because I assume one of three things: either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake, they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it, or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views. The first two I merely find tiresome; the last I want no part of. In all three cases I won't feel like finding out either way, I'll just find someone else to play.
I think shoehorning people in to "well, it's one of two things" based on nothing more than a sentence describing a model is a puerile thing to do (we don't even have pictures, the person isn't even here to explain themselves, we have no idea of the context, we have no idea of the intent).
either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake
...assuming intent based off limited information and without giving the person a chance to respond.
they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it
Again... we are playing a wargame... a game of war. If you have a problem with atrocities and trivialising of atrocities you're playing the wrong area.
Now granted there will be people who have been personally affected by those things and I feel very sorry for them, but we can't sanitise everything so no one personally affected is spared. I have Soviet WW2 models I'm painting up at the moment... my mate's Dad can tell you lots of wonderful stories of Soviet atrocities in Poland.
or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views
Or, ya know, it might not.
But you're right, I'm not really offended, I more swing between "amused" and "dismayed".
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think shoehorning people in to "well, it's one of two things" based on nothing more than a sentence describing a model is a puerile thing to do (we don't even have pictures, the person isn't even here to explain themselves, we have no idea of the context, we have no idea of the intent).
Hm, well it seems we disagree on the use of "puerile," but let's not waste time on that or we'll be here forever with neither giving ground. In this context I certainly am relying on limited information, I've just got to go with what the OP gave me and as I already explained I don't approve of putting SS symbols in a fictional setting or making a "Tallarn=headdress guys=jihad" joke. People can do these things but I don't have to approve, and of course I can criticise if I wish to.
Maybe you're more tolerant than me, I've definitely become more stubborn recently.
either that it is being done because the person responsible wants to get a reaction and has no aim beyond shock value for its own sake ...assuming intent based off limited information and without giving the person a chance to respond.
they are so lacking any sense of history they really don't know why some people might not like it[ Again... we are playing a wargame... a game of war. If you have a problem with atrocities and trivialising of atrocities you're playing the wrong area.
Now granted there will be people who have been personally affected by those things and I feel very sorry for them, but we can't sanitise everything so no one personally affected is spared. I have Soviet WW2 models I'm painting up at the moment... my mate's Dad can tell you lots of wonderful stories of Soviet atrocities in Poland. or because it might be a reflection of the person's political views Or, ya know, it might not.
Quite. In fact I can see why people might find the lore of 40K itself problematic what with its massacres, rampant bigotry, totalitarian murderers portrayed as if they're the "good guys" of the setting etc. But it does feel tongue in cheek - every faction is so awful and full of hate for the others that it just becomes absurd. I think putting the imagery of a group that was responsible for real atrocities probably pulls me up sharp and just leaves me with a sour taste.
A double standard, perhaps, as many of the Imperium's atrocities are so clearly inspired by real-life horrors...?
And it's also interesting you mention historical games. Believe it or not, I don't think people who play the Axis in WW2 games are fascists or racists (well, I'm sure some are, but I'm also sure they're a minority). I'd certainly be stuck if I did, because I wouldn't want to associate with such people but I play Bolt Action, so I'd be giving every Axis player a wide berth!
I play the US Army as I'm interested in its history as an organisation and how it developed during WW2, but I'm sure someone could take offence to that: either the idea of recreating battles of WW2, or even playing as Americans - as we know there were crimes committed by every side. What if I paint up my models as a division who were found to have had members who committed some of them? It's a potential minefield indeed, and as you say, if you worry about offending someone with everything you do, you'd quit the hobby. But I don't worry about it, perhaps because when I play Bolt Action I'm invested in a game with an historical inspiration, whereas with 40K I'm invested in an OTT fantasy world.
Interesting swapping views with you, and I respect your opinions of course. Thanks for the discussion.
So seriously, what is your actual point, here? If you don't object to the initial material, you don't object to people reacting to the material, and your only contribution to the thread outside those two things is to smugly declare how silly everyone else is for even discussing it in the first place, could you not just do that once and then go away, instead of popping in periodically to remind us how awesome you are because you don't care either way? I'd consider it a personal favour if you would. Go away, that is.
Its in pretty bad taste, but I would happily play against it, if only because I despise anything and everything to do with political correctness, even those two fething words annoy me.
Nazi symbols pop up in non-period sources like Captain America, Hellboy, or have modified versions for Red Skull, Hydra, the Hammer in Danger Girl. But that's cultural shift from how things were for several decades. There was a distinct period after the war where displaying those icons in the US was completely shunned and avoided (even if it were for historical purposes) but I think people have matured and realize that by not talking about what evils those symbols represent it ultimately does more harm. In order not to let history repeat itself we need to know about the horrible things that those were associated with so we can never forget why they were so bad.
It actually seems like those symbols were much more widely able to be used in the past (for villains or ridicule) than today. Star Trek, Monty Python, Hogan's Heroes, 'Allo 'Allo. the "Von Erichs" et al. These days, games and characters like Axis and Allies, Sniper Elite, Wolfenstein and even the Red Skull shy away from using/have been purged of the Swastika
Had a game yesterday against a Black Templar Army.
The paintjob was beautiful, Lots of conversions, like every Templar had chainmail on the Arms a Chacon tabbard, a sword on the back etc.
What was alittle disturbing was his Champion of the emperor, very Great conversion showing a marine executing a tallarn warrior with a standard in the back with the letters on it
" i See your yihad and rise you a crusade". His Friends was playing a dkok Army That had the colours and insignias of an ss squadron and skulls painted on their greatcoate revers.
How do you feel about such Models and would You Play against them?
That'd be awesome, I'd get to kill some nazi's! What's not to love?
quickfuze wrote: Virtually all of the German Iconography was stolen from historical reference and use. The "SS" was a dual Sig rune of Armanen origin. The "deathshead" is a widely recognized representation of Baal and appears on a large portion of Catholic relics and religious devices.
The fact that you automatically associate it with the German war machine is a form of confirmation bias. So who is really not PC in this situation? How about you paint your little plastic men the way you want and he paints his the way he wants. Yes the Germans were guilty of some of the worst war crimes in history but from a tactical aspect there was a lot to learn from the Germans.....we Americans also wiped two entire cities in Japan basically off the map, but I bet if you saw an Ork bommer with Fat man and Little Boy painted on the two of the bombs you would not even associate it or find it offensive.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: The crusader is just plain wrong, however, depending of the circumstances, the Germany thing might be tolerable. If the player genuinely has just painted them to admire the German war machine's efficiency, that is better than them being a Neo-Nazi expressing them self on the tabletop. The guy who runs my local games workshop said to me that if you think of the IG as WW2 Germans tactically, you cant go wrong, and I have to agree with him, however, if there are modeled Nazi salutes ect then he should be banned from wherever you are playing. BTW, I'm a Jew if that helps lend perspective.
I'm in a similar boat. It really depends on the player and how he or she presents the army. For example, I think most space nazis are hilarious (looking at you, Dreamforge), but they might not be so funny when played by a serious skinhead. On the other hand, I was tempted to buy an old-style chaos dwarf army to play as the Eternal Jews, from the movie poster which apparently inspired the Chaos Dwarf line. Some Jews love telling Holocaust jokes; some find those jokes horribly offensive. Intention is the determining factor for me, but obviously not for everyone..
censorship, bringing unwarranted uncomfortableness and trouble since 2006
FFS, it's a pictoral reference to nazi's and such like, are you now telling me you cannot look at nazi art? if so i pity the world and expect the 23nd nazis soon.
I don't see how using color schemes or camo patterns can be offensive. Nor really certain aesthetics, as I have a fairly large Blood Axe ork army which uses a lot of WW2 German uniform and look.
The actual symbols though, are a different matter, they both break the immersion of the game and project a statement. I'd find an imperial guard army painted in Wehrmacht or even SS colors fine, I'd be fairly off-put by an army using the swastika. I'd find an army painted in an arabic style fine, I'd find the flags of ISIL and modeled child beheadings in very poor taste.
I'd certainly play against someone with a color scheme using German WW2 or any other timeline inspired source and appreciate someone researching it, but there's a world of difference between German army inspired and Nazi inspired. I'm not sure I'd want to spend several hours of my free time playing against someone who was making a pro-Nazi statement with their toy soldiers though, unless it was to beat their army into the ground and then separate myself from having to talk to them afterwards, as I've better things to do then hang with a gakker with a nazi fixation.
TL;DR A game is just a game. I'm more concerned about a person's actual political and/or religious beliefs than their aesthetic taste in Wargaming miniatures. You like to paint your mini's as Nazi's? No Problem. You self identify as a Neo Nazi? GTFO.
The Catachan's are inspired by Vietnam War American soldiers. If Vietnamese people take offence, does that mean Catachan armies *"have no place in this hobby"? *
(*see the OP in the Chaos Land Raider with stripper girl sponsons thread).
If a player wants to model his fictional army of Warhammer 40,000 desert insurgents on the Taliban and other real world insurgents and somebody takes offence, does that mean his army "has no place in this hobby"?
If a person likes an army of demonic monsters (Chaos) that glorifies violence (Khorne) or sexual hedonism (Slaanesh), and puritanical Christians take offence, does that mean Chaos Daemon armies "have no place in this hobby"?
Being offended by something is a choice YOU make. Deciding whether or not "I" (i.e. the creator) care that you're offended is a choice "I" make.
You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to have your opinion and sense of morality respected, shared and obeyed by others.
are you enforcing your wicked social warrior morals on soviet russia and not allowing anything that represents the killing of the kulaks? Also are you outlawing anything that refers to the slavery of africans in america because you dont like to hear it. this gak happened. people didn't paint it coz of how you think. you don't know.
maybe letting people know that blacks were slaves in america till very late is valid. my point you don't know the inferecnce, there is a lot worse gak out there...godwins is only so scary.....there is more scary
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
I always had Khador down as steampunk Imperial Russia, rather than steampunk Soviets, myself.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's probably why I've never liked the "Soviets by another name" armies that a lot of games have (AT-43 had one, Dust has one, Warmachine has one). It's lazy, IMO. The Guard has Valhallans, but they're not just "Space Soviets".
I always had Khador down as steampunk Imperial Russia, rather than steampunk Soviets, myself.
They're modeled after Imperial Russia. Their impress is like Catherine the Great. They're not Soviets. (Think Crimean War or WWI-pre revolution)
winterwind85 wrote: i had the possibility to talk to the guy with the dkok army today.
he told me that his army was inspired by the movie iron sky where the nazis fled to the moon when loosing war and praising charly chaplin as the great dictator. he found it kind of .. humouros i think is the right word in english?
he also showed me what was the.. motiv? for his painting scheme. and his company commander is the dkok officer with the charly chaplin head from another miniature, very funny, didnt see that in the first moment.
i post the pic, if its not ok in any way maybe a mod can delete it, dont know if the symbols are forbidden in uk or us.
Oh, yeah, I've heard of this movie.
So now I'm curious. Now that you know the army was inspired by a B-grade satire film, with joke elements like Chaplin included, does that change your view of the army? Does this make the army better or worse in your eyes?
I don't get how people are so much more offended by the SSDKoK than the crusader executing the jihadist. That seems worse to me, maybe it's just because related things have been in the news lately.
the Templars thing is stupid, but the nazi stuff is just bizarre. Like, why convert 40k units into nazis exactly? If you're doing flames of war that's fine, but the whole nazi fetish in 40k is disturbing.
Especially since Dkok are analogous to WW1 Germans. Your friend glorifying the SS in a fictional sci-fi setting has problems
And time to debunk some claims in this thread
1.) "Its freedom of speech". Nobody is claiming you can't do it, just that it's stupid
2.) "its a grim setting and the imperium is brutal like nazis". 40k is over-the-top science fantasy with lots of ridiculous stuff like chainswords and pros. Bringing teal tragedies like the SS into it is stupid and needless
3.) "the crusade stuff with Templars is just as offensive" no, it isn't. The crusades were a thousand years ago. Time does matter, and there are still survivors of SS atrocities around today.
Harriticus wrote: the Templars thing is stupid, but the nazi stuff is just bizarre. Like, why convert 40k units into nazis exactly? If you're doing flames of war that's fine, but the whole nazi fetish in 40k is disturbing.
Especially since Dkok are analogous to WW1 Germans. Your friend glorifying the SS in a fictional sci-fi setting has problems
And time to debunk some claims in this thread
1.) "Its freedom of speech". Nobody is claiming you can't do it, just that it's stupid
2.) "its a grim setting and the imperium is brutal like nazis". 40k is over-the-top science fantasy with lots of ridiculous stuff like chainswords and pros. Bringing teal tragedies like the SS into it is stupid and needless
3.) "the crusade stuff with Templars is just as offensive" no, it isn't. The crusades were a thousand years ago. Time does matter, and there are still survivors of SS atrocities around today.
This is pretty much how I feel. I'd say the jihad stuff is unnecessary as well on account of the fact that jihadists have been in the news in the last few years and so the model sounds to me like someone forcing a political comment into the game. Play the game and you can always talk about these things after. I'd feel the same whether someone's models were making a point I agree with or not.
Nobody should go thinking I'm against freedom of speech. But that also means you're not entitled to a guarantee that everyone will agree with you. If you want to make a controversial statement, you also need to accept that you may get into arguments. If the owner of the SS army was doing it because he likes Iron Sky, he needs to acknowledge that not everyone will see it that way.
Depends on the unit I suppose. I did see a discussion at a Warlord group on Facebook where a guy wanted to do something "different" and was looking into fielding a Dirlewanger Brigade based around the destruction of Warsaw. Everybody was telling him to just not do it.
Has anyone seen anyone get offended/angry/annoyed at Axis armies in historical games?
Not Axis, but I read a thread (I think on Warseer) where the thread starter was wondering why anyone would field Confederate armies in ACW, and his attitude made it very clear that there could be no possible justification to do so. I remember cringing at the word "justify". He was from the UK, as well.
As atrocious as racism and slavery is, some people should just get over themselves.
Has anyone seen anyone get offended/angry/annoyed at Axis armies in historical games?
Well a lot of closet Nazi fetishists play those games, but it's stupid to make a big fuss about it because it's history. Bringing it into 40k is another matter entirely.
You mean he thought the American Civil War was actually about slavery?
Never understood the attitude that playing an army in a historical game means sympathising with the politics of that nation. It's strange how many people seem to take playing Germans in FOW or Bolt Action as some sort of endorsement of national socialism.
Mind you I've come across people who get offended at the entire concept of wargaming regardless of the armies involved.
I dont have a problem with the Jihad/Crusade thing. Especially when you consider that they are both really the same thing; an excuse used by religious extremists to wage war. Not a single person has had a problem with BT crusading around the galaxy for thousands of years, why should we now be upset when we compare those Crusades to a Jihad?
The Nazi thing is a bit more touchy but I still think I would be okay with it; just as long as the person fielding the army was not openly endorsing white supremecy or anti-semitism. I understand how people might be offended by the symbolism, but if you look at the 40k fluff, religious and racial persecution is already rampant. I would argue that someone who is offended by just the symbolism alone, is probably playing the wrong game.
winterwind85 wrote: i had the possibility to talk to the guy with the dkok army today.
he told me that his army was inspired by the movie iron sky where the nazis fled to the moon when loosing war and praising charly chaplin as the great dictator. he found it kind of .. humouros i think is the right word in english?
he also showed me what was the.. motiv? for his painting scheme. and his company commander is the dkok officer with the charly chaplin head from another miniature, very funny, didnt see that in the first moment.
i post the pic, if its not ok in any way maybe a mod can delete it, dont know if the symbols are forbidden in uk or us.
Spoiler:
Everyone is ignoring the OP's update they were based on a WW2 parody which look very like Killzone space nazi's or the recent Wulfenstein game.
I used to play a friend who has something with the WW2 German army, he is a big fan of the German technology in WW2 for a short time the German army was superior to anything else out there, sometimes with technology, other times through tactics and adaptability. I always played the Russians (Because i don't like tommy cooker . So his army was always period correct, so yes he had ss tank squads because they were the elite with all the latest stuff.
So i never had a problem, playing against him. But i know him he is a military nut , there are people think that if you play a certain army that you share their ideology.
I think anyone who would waste even a second of their life worrying about this has more problems than I. Its a model. It may not be in great taste but people worry too much about every little political correctness. I have better things to worry about. I don't personally feel offended by it so I say go for it.
I've been beaten enough for being trans to know that when people who commit microaggressions are unchallenged, people who feel like committing hate crimes feel more confident about committing them. If someone in a games club I'm part of skilfully converted an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor executing an ambiguously-gendered Slaaneshi warrior with an accompanying slogan that is extremely closely associated with violently transphobic street movements, I'd hit the drokking roof.
Similarly with armies that uncritically imitate real-life hate movements. There's a world of difference between an historic Axis army, a Blood Axe army that satirises and ridicules fascism, and apparent attempts to mimic the appearance of murdering white supremacists.
Free speech means the state not gagging you. It does not mean private gaming clubs, shop and tournaments permitting players to use their tables as temporary display boards for far-right propaganda, no matter how finely crafted.
.... the model sounds to me like someone forcing a political comment into the game. Play the game and you can always talk about these things after. I'd feel the same whether someone's models were making a point I agree with or not.
Agreed. Game-playing and the enjoyment of fiction are both forms of escapism. Introducing references to current affairs shatters that escapism. I'd rather keep my engagement with current affairs separate from my gaming.
The Jhidhadist thing actually seems kind of funny to me, idk why, but it elicited a chuckle from me. As for the Nazi thing, I don't think that the guy was trying to make a statement, trying to express his political opinions, or even trying to be funny. If you look at Nazi Germany and then look at the Imperium of Man, there are many parallels.
1.) brutal and oppressive regim
2.) utter racism and belief in racial superiority (IoM believes whole of humanity is greater, but they have to deal with aliens, so obviously they have to broaden the view a little bit)
3.) dissenters must die
4.) Imperialist beliefs - expansion at any cost
5.) lower races must be exterminated
6.) a semi-fascist government (Hitler - the Emperor)
7.) Dogmatic beliefs
8.) Military-oriented society
9.) Incredibly powerful military
10.) Political corruption
11.) the list goes on
The parallels between Nazi Germany and the IoM are innumerable, so I guess that I can kind of get why the guy put the SS symbols on his DKOK. They may have been offensive, but he may have just been expressing his hate for the IoM, or expressing the parallel he noticed between the two regimes.
Well, I guess the guy isn't a Nazi, just he may like the overall Wehrmacht theme as an army, not as political or social phenomenon.
Look, I have an example. A friend of mine is keen on collecting German WW2 panzers (you know, models like Revell, Tamiya etc.). I can say he doesn't support Nazis at all, just he like the military image of the army. So there is nothing bad about your opponent unless he really behaves in an inappropriate way.
what is this from?
I have no problem with ss/jihad miniatures as long as its a joke.At my local club everyone calls lotr haradrim the taliban/isis and the captain is called osama bin laden.And NOBODY CARES.the SS thing?admit it:nazis look cool.Im sorry but its the truth.Evil?Very.Cool looking?very.If hes a neo-nazi then get offended.if not then ignore it.
I don't claim to have the right answer to this question, and I don't think anyone ever will because "offensive" and "politically correct" are quite subjective and open to personal opinion.
Let me start with the Jihad referencing model. I personally do not find this offensive. I may be mistaken on this but Jihad has two (and probably more) meanings. One is a, if I'm not mistaken, inner spiritual struggle against sin. The other, and more prevalent and widely known definition is the "holy war against non-believers". this latter definition of course being synonymous with the act of suicide bombings and reckless attacks against ones enemies without thought for survival. I can understand the joke the Templars player was making, and I find it somewhat amusing, after all the Black Templars were themed quite unapologetically after the knights Hospitallers that would accompany many crusades. The themes of the crusade is very prevalent in WH40k and they were "crusades in the name of holy Terra", so in short, a religious crusade in nature aswell. I would say loosely the theme of the joke isn't that far removed from the WH40k universe at all, with exception to the jihad reference that is, using the tallarn model makes sense as well since it does already somewhat resemble the "jihadist" the modeller would be attempting to portray.
At the end of the day the main reason I don't find this offensive is that the joke makes light of two themes that I have little respect for myself. Assuming the modeller was making a joke of the second definition of Jihad (which I can fairly safely assume he was) which is violent and hateful in it's nature against non-believers of the muslim way. And he is also making light of the crusades which, let's be honest, were in of themselves a war against non believers (not to mention later crusades were made more for personal, political and economic reasons as opposed to religious beliefs). Given this joke is about two themes that I believe, based on their radical, hateful and violent nature, are not worth my respect I don't think this crosses into being a politically incorrect model that people should be up in arms about. I am not many people however and I'm sure this would be seen as offensive still to some and I can respect their decision to be offended by it even if I am not, that is their choice, not mine.
Having said all this while I don't find the model offensive I feel it should be more a showpiece than a playing piece as the blatant reference to Jihad, a word that does not appear in 40k lore to my knowledge unlike the word crusade, so it does break my immersion of the 40k universe to play against this model. A minor gripe on my part I assure you and I would still play against this model as it still does not detract from my fun of the game.
As for the second army, the DKoK force, I feel I would need to see the models in question. If they are simply painted in the black and red colour scheme akin to the Nazi forces I don't think it'd be too bad. After all there are many armies in 40k that are already black and red and if we start comparing colour choices to real world things too many armies would be associated with sports teams or something similar. Black and red, in my opinion look good together, I feel they compliment each other, that is my opinion to be sure but I feel I should be able to paint a black and red army without being labeled a Nazi sympathizer (within reason of course, if I paint them all black with a red armband that will be crossing a line from colour choice to deliberate referencing. As for the skull, I'd also like to see that, 40k has skulls EVERYWHERE so one more skull representation doesn't break it for me. Now if he does indeed have the SS logo on the models that, in my opinion, crosses the line from theme or loose reference which 40k is full of, after all DKoK are a reference to another ere's soldiers in and of themselves, and goes into flat out representation. At this point he is making us assume the Nazi regime survived WW2 or made a resurgence in the 41st millennium, a crossover that I personally don't find necessary for the game.
To answer the OP's question, yes I would still play against these people, no I would do not find either of their armies offensive. I feel I would probably explain my opinion of what they chose to represent in their armies, calmly and with reasoning, but I would also remind them that it is their army and that I can not change how they paint or play it no more than they may change how I paint or play mine. it is my opinion that I give freely without judgement or expectations, just on the off chance they see value in it and decide to make changes so that others may not take offence to what they have chosen to represent in their army. I do feel many people in this world are far too easily offended by, well, really anything and it seems many people actively look for something even mildly politically incorrect so they can throw themselves into a hysterical rage against it. Considering that however if that is the way those people want to live I will defend their right to have that attitude or opinion on these subjects, whether I think it is justified or not.
To add my own situation of a model I felt was inappropriate I came across a daemons army. It was a soul grinder model with the top half replaced by a reclining pregnant woman's torso and her legs posed to be the front "claws" of the soul grinder chassis. She was posed in the "birthing" position and in the groin region she was giving birth to a battle cannon (so in hindsight was it perhaps a defiler then?). Now personally I think child birth is scary, disgusting and never something I want to see in real life, none the less represented on my tabletop. Please keep in mind that my above statement is merely my opinion, I in no way wish to propagate my thoughts on this subject to people, I merely explain it as it is relevant to the point I wish to make here. Normally I would not let people know my opinion on child birth. I know however to many people child birth is the most beautiful and miraculous thing in the world, I respect their opinion of it even If I do not mirror their opinion. I would still play against this person, enjoy the game and be friendly, as at the end of the day the model is not hurting me (just my plastic dudesmen), emotionally scarring me or causing me undue stress. In fact I must also give compliments to this person who modelled the soul grinder/defiler because it was expertly crafted and well put together, I would still rate it high in paint-job and craftsmanship even if it disturbs me to look at it.
I apologize for the super long post but I feel this is a subject that I must spend my time to explain clearly lest there be confusion, misunderstanding or rage as a result of it. Please remember this is all my opinion and in no way hard fact. Thank you for reading.
quickfuze wrote: we Americans also wiped two entire cities in Japan basically off the map, but I bet if you saw an Ork bommer with Fat man and Little Boy painted on the two of the bombs you would not even associate it or find it offensive.
Fair point, and something so many people condemning terrorism overlook -the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably the most destructive deliberate targeting of a civilian centre in recent history, yet it got brushed under the carpet...
Automatically Appended Next Post: If it was done for humour's sake, I'd shake my head at such bad taste, but might even laugh. The SS uniform was pretty cool, so if someone has the ball to model an army based around it, fine, if that's all there is to it. I'd only take offense if the player was actually bigoted or intended it seriously.
quickfuze wrote: we Americans also wiped two entire cities in Japan basically off the map, but I bet if you saw an Ork bommer with Fat man and Little Boy painted on the two of the bombs you would not even associate it or find it offensive.
Fair point, and something so many people condemning terrorism overlook -the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably the most destructive deliberate targeting of a civilian centre in recent history, yet it got brushed under the carpet...
It may have been horrific, but it was the right choice for the time. The Japanese high command was willing to sacrifice every Japanese citizen in a futile and bloody defense. Had we needed to invade Japan with conventional forces, the casualties (both US and Japanese, and both military and civilian) would have been at least a couple orders of magnitude greater. Look at the invasion of Okinawa; that will give a glimpse of would have been. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Emperor Hirohito, at least, to surrender and spare his people.
It may have been horrific, but it was the right choice for the time. The Japanese high command was willing to sacrifice every Japanese citizen in a futile and bloody defense. Had we needed to invade Japan with conventional forces, the casualties (both US and Japanese, and both military and civilian) would have been at least a couple orders of magnitude greater. Look at the invasion of Okinawa; that will give a glimpse of would have been. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Emperor Hirohito, at least, to surrender and spare his people.
From a strategic point of view it was the best choice. From a humanitarian point of view it was a horrendously evil act and nothing short of mass murder. As horrified as I was by terrorist attacks this century, the horror I feel about this is greater, because the death toll was much greater. A lot of people write off the dropping of those bombs becasue it happened during war, but mass murder of civilians is mass murder, regardless of whether the weapon is a hijacked plane or a very destructive bomb. imho.
On a sidenote, I always wondered why they didn't drop a nuke outside of a city, as a warning shot, where the effect would have been visible but no civilian casualties, it still would have scared the Japanese into surrender, knowing that the US could drop it on their cities at any time. I thought long and hard about that, and the truth is (probably) that the military command and perhaps even some of the scientists who'd worked on the bomb wanted to see its effect on a city.
There may have been some curiosity, but I think it was mostly what would make a good demonstration. Both areas were valid military targets since they were shipping centers; I doubt that the Japanese had a large enough military presence at any one place to make a good target that would not have targeted civilians anyways. Bombing civilian areas was nothing new by that point; the only reason anyone remembers those two in particular is the weapon used. One should also remember that accuracy back then meant hitting the right city block and was very difficult. Carpet bombing started as a method to ensure the target was hit, but it also caused a lot of collateral damage that, short of not bombing, was unavoidable at the time. The end effect was not much different than the fireboming which had been done with incendiaries in Tokyo, Dresden, and other cities. I think an argument could be made that bombing with incendiaries was more horrific since that occurred over an entire night, while the atomic blasts were mostly over in an instant. The suffering following each, of course, lasted much longer.
As has been said by wise men, war is Hell, and it is good that it is so terrible lest we become too fond of it. Unfortunately, it is also sometimes necessary.
I did want to make my Chaos Space Marine Zombie army into Nazi Zombies but ended up running out of guard so had to use other models of other armies so it didn't work out. I ended up painting over the swastikas with the pepsi symbol.
So they are now perfectly fine, unless you like coca cola...
quickfuze wrote: we Americans also wiped two entire cities in Japan basically off the map, but I bet if you saw an Ork bommer with Fat man and Little Boy painted on the two of the bombs you would not even associate it or find it offensive.
Fair point, and something so many people condemning terrorism overlook -the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably the most destructive deliberate targeting of a civilian centre in recent history, yet it got brushed under the carpet...
It may have been horrific, but it was the right choice for the time. The Japanese high command was willing to sacrifice every Japanese citizen in a futile and bloody defense. Had we needed to invade Japan with conventional forces, the casualties (both US and Japanese, and both military and civilian) would have been at least a couple orders of magnitude greater. Look at the invasion of Okinawa; that will give a glimpse of would have been. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Emperor Hirohito, at least, to surrender and spare his people.
It's so ironic that pearl harbor, an arguably more viable target, that was hit in a less overkill blanket manner is still regarded as brutal, underhanded and cowardly yet people like you can still justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sometimes it's bigger to just admit your wrong and learn from it. (by you I mean society, not you BairdEC, I know you had nothing to do with those bombings.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also to make another point relevant to the thread. How many people do you think would be offended if I Painted an IG regiment in blue and gold and called them the 15th cavalry?
Or what if I played an all Black regiment who wore green and red like the RPA?
We play a war game..... WAR game.... I still don't see how people can act offended by model representations when the entire hobby represents the worst aspect of humanity.
I'm largely in agreement with you. I was going to mention Dresden, it was probably just as bad, but as you said, over an extended period of time. Though I think we have to be clear as to what can be classed as "collateral damage." Bombing a factory, knowing there's a likelihood of hitting surrounding houses, as coldly calculating and callous as that is, would be classed as collateral damage. But I don't believe fire-bombing a city or hitting it with a nuke is, becasue it is deliberately targeting said civilians. Which is why I don't differentiate between the WW2 bombings we're discussing and terrorism.
"Yeah man, it's just a joke that I don't even care about. Just a meaningless joke that I spent hundreds of dollars on building and countless hours painting minuscule S's and totenkampfs on. It definitely doesn't say anything about the way I prioritize my time." Regardless of their claimed intent, the amount of time and effort put into it weirds me out man.
This really has nothing to do with being "politically correct" and a lot to do with not going out of your way to offend people. It's not like racism or anti-semitism are obscure triggers.
On the note of the "sexy" land raider (sexy in quotes because it looks more like sex trafficking if you've actually seen the model), that was in incredibly poor taste.
Yes 40k is a grim dark setting of violence and war but it's also fantasy. No one in real life has had a loved one killed by psychic plague demons from another dimension. Odds are someone at your hobby shop has experienced enough racial hatred or sexual abuse (or knows someone who has) that it doesn't need to be present in their escapist scifi toys. Joke or not.
bubz wrote: Yes 40k is a grim dark setting of violence and war but it's also fantasy. No one in real life has had a loved one killed by psychic plague demons from another dimension.
Hey man, check your privilege! That's how my uncle died! (At least that's what my Aunt claimed at the trial.)
bubz wrote: Yes 40k is a grim dark setting of violence and war but it's also fantasy. No one in real life has had a loved one killed by psychic plague demons from another dimension.
Hey man, check your privilege! That's how my uncle died! (At least that's what my Aunt claimed at the trial.)
hahaha redacted!
But seriously "just don't be offended" is about the most privileged thing you could say regarding Nazi and sex slave conversions.
I don't think it's that hard to just not spend hours making something that will 100% offend people (for good reason). But whatever, it can't realistically be banned so I'd just choose not to play them.
bubz wrote: Yes 40k is a grim dark setting of violence and war but it's also fantasy. No one in real life has had a loved one killed by psychic plague demons from another dimension.
Hey man, check your privilege! That's how my uncle died! (At least that's what my Aunt claimed at the trial.)
hahaha redacted!
But seriously "just don't be offended" is about the most privileged thing you could say regarding Nazi and sex slave conversions.
I don't think it's that hard to just not spend hours making something that will 100% offend people (for good reason). But whatever, it can't realistically be banned so I'd just choose not to play them.
But lik has been said, what about people who do historic Wargaming? Because they pick the Nazis, and spend the same amount of time modelling and painting their army does that still weird you out? I'm not having a go or anything I'm just curious where the line is between being interested with the history of war and being a closet nazi is
We play a war game..... WAR game.... I still don't see how people can act offended by model representations when the entire hobby represents the worst aspect of humanity.
How many people in your family were killed by the SS. Because in my it was.
From my fathers side:
His grand father paternal side and his father in camps , two of his uncles and their wifes and their children all under the age of 16 years old in campes too.
From his maternal side.
His grandfather his grand mother ,his mother , three uncles out of which two had wifes and children all in camps. One aunt survived, but not from the lack of trying from the SS. she was raped and shot through the neck, but the bullet somehow avoided anything important and after a few hours she manged to dig herself out of a pile of few thousand shot people.
From my mothers side.
Her grand father paternal side died in 1939, although not by the SS, by normal wehrmacht . Her grand mother died durning the bombing of Warsaw in 1939 , so technicly not the SS. Her father was shot for smuggling food, Both her uncles died durning the uprising, one had a normal combat death, the other was burned alived in a hospital. Her sister and mother ended in a work camp in germany. Her sister was raped, but not by the germans, on their way back.
Her maternal grandfather died in 1941 shot for owning a radio,
And that is just the closest family. You should also add to it burned houses, lost shops, super hard life without most of your family to support you under the communist rule thanks to germany starting a war. The idea that anything linked to nazi germany or SS deeply offending. As most normal people would.
The idea that anything linked to nazi germany or SS deeply offending. As most normal people would.
What, ANYTHING?
So when a movie features the SS and their actions, you find that offensive?
When a historical reenactor dresses up as an SS soldier, you find that offensive?
When a historical wargamer plays a Waffen SS force, you find that offensive?
The SS, as brutal and evil as they were, are a part of history, and as such they should not be off limits for representation in miniature wargames and fiction. Such portrayals can and do serve as an educational experience, to highlight real world history.
Whats important is that the SS are portrayed truthfully and accurately, and if they are, then I don't see how the representation itself should be offensive. What would be offensive is attempt at glorification or white washing of the SS, or distortion of the truth.
Please don't regard this as an attack on you, I just don't get why you would be offended by the representation itself (miniature, film, book etc) as long as it historically accurate. The SS and Nazi's themselves are offensive of course, but they are a part of history and its important that this period of history is remembered. Films and books and historical war games are a part of that.
When I watch a film about the Nazi's, I'm offended by the events and actions depicted, not the film itself provided it is historically accurate.
Honestly I'd play with either person and if the models were painted well and the army looked good I'd complement them on the models. In this day and age and from what I've seen so far in this thread confirms my views that people are too soft and offended by everything. Suck it up, stop being butt hurt crybabies and play 40k. As for the historic significance of this, if Nazi Germany would have won WWII and America was disgraced after dropping the bombs on Japan, things would be completely backwards ... why? because the victors right the history books and push public opinion in their favor. The stars and bars would be looked at as the same as the swastika flag and we (as Americans) would be viewed as mass murders etc. So lets all get over it, live our lives, and not worry about something so trivial as this.
liquidjoshi wrote: I'd be fine with it. I have more important things to do than hate on someone's man dollies.
If he's actually a Nazi and is spouting propaganda, then we have an issue.
Coincidentally, What if I played an army modelled after WW2 US troops in Japan? Or Russian troops?
Obviously as a Tau player, I am a Totalitarian. As an IG player I'm a Fascist. As a CSM player... you get the point.
As a Raven Guard player, I must be Emo.
I shudder to imagine what Nurgle players must be like...
Hey, I play Night Lords. Clearly I must stab everyone. Right...?
And all Khorne players are locked up in mental asylums.
Slaanesh players are all on the sex offenders register.
Politicians play Tzeentch.
Only Scandinavians play Space Wolves.
MitchellTyner wrote: Honestly I'd play with either person and if the models were painted well and the army looked good I'd complement them on the models. In this day and age and from what I've seen so far in this thread confirms my views that people are too soft and offended by everything. Suck it up, stop being butt hurt crybabies and play 40k. As for the historic significance of this, if Nazi Germany would have won WWII and America was disgraced after dropping the bombs on Japan, things would be completely backwards ... why? because the victors right the history books and push public opinion in their favor. The stars and bars would be looked at as the same as the swastika flag and we (as Americans) would be viewed as mass murders etc. So lets all get over it, live our lives, and not worry about something so trivial as this.
Agreed, though covering up the Holocaust would have been a pretty remarkable feat.
bubz wrote: Yes 40k is a grim dark setting of violence and war but it's also fantasy. No one in real life has had a loved one killed by psychic plague demons from another dimension.
Hey man, check your privilege! That's how my uncle died! (At least that's what my Aunt claimed at the trial.)
hahaha redacted!
But seriously "just don't be offended" is about the most privileged thing you could say regarding Nazi and sex slave conversions.
I don't think it's that hard to just not spend hours making something that will 100% offend people (for good reason). But whatever, it can't realistically be banned so I'd just choose not to play them.
But lik has been said, what about people who do historic Wargaming? Because they pick the Nazis, and spend the same amount of time modelling and painting their army does that still weird you out? I'm not having a go or anything I'm just curious where the line is between being interested with the history of war and being a closet nazi is
Given the context, I have no issue with people who participate in historic wargaming choosing to model Nazi armies. They had a great aesthetic and tactics.
I personally feel that the effort one puts into converting and painting and forcing Nazism (or its imagery) into 40k more than it already is unsettling. It's unnecessary and inappropriate in the same way that converting your space marines into My Little Ponies is. I'd probably be just as creeped out if someone did that tbh.
Not to mention the "Guard are already Nazis in space" or "I appreciate it from a historical standpoint" is balogne because Guard draw from WWi. Bad history = poor excuses to put your weird Nazi conversions into a game they have no place in.
I love just how.many crusaders in this thread have clearly not read the follow-up post by the OP regarding the SS force turningout to be based on a film that in fact satirises the Nazis.
I saw that list, and have some neat idea's, one was like a Bandit army from Fist of the North Star (the second one, the Shura's had more... I guess backstory then "random bandits Kenshiro needs to brutally murder")
Azazelx wrote: I love just how.many crusaders in this thread have clearly not read the follow-up post by the OP regarding the SS force turningout to be based on a film that in fact satirises the Nazis.
I knew a guy that had converted a set of Redemptionists, it was all really well done, and well painted appropriately for what they were supposed to be.
They were KKK.
Now the UK has had very little of these people here in fact when they tried to " recruit " people a certain biker gang decided to show them the error of their ways.
I'm not saying racism doesn't exist in England it does I have seen it and experienced it first hand but I have only met 1 person who was white a racist though and it wasn't this person with the figures.
Were they in poor taste sure, But the Managers reaction to them was him banning them and the guy for some time. Now they were only painted white, there was no obvious things that would make you think of such anti people of colour conetations, no symbology and no lettering, It could be said they were using the Inquisition uniforms as the KKK adopted those. And the only reason that anybody found out is that he told them what they were supposed to be.
Personally I think if your a racist your a moron. However its paint on a model, should we ban Nemesis the Warlock next?
I've seen Nazi Orks get less flakk than that guy did
Getting the chance to sit across the table and have my armies battle villains such as Nazis, KKK, Taliban would actually be fun for me.
In a game where Mordian Iron Guard look like Nazis, Redemptionists look like KKK, and Talarn Desert Raider can pass for your least favorite middle Eastern terrorist groups I think people make too much out of it when it happens.
As I said earlier I'd draw the line at blatant symbolism, and anything else would be a "Tough, deal with it" approach. Guard in field gray uniforms are one thing, having swastikas everywhere is a little too much and is going to probably offend someone. The Redemptionists in white robes I would say big deal, as long as you don't have like a diorama with them beating a dark-skinned model or have "White Power" all over the place.
I will echo an earlier post I read. Of course you have the right to free speech and that is fine, but just remember while you are speaking, the people listening also have the same right and you may end up "feeling" the consequence of your speech. The consequence may come in the form of people not wanting to socialize with you or it may come in a physical form or even in a legal/written form against you, but just remember when the consequence arises that you brought it upon yourself. I believe quite a few people say or do things without thinking about the outcome because we have the mindset that we are "untouchable" until we are "touched". Additionally, I personally think the armies in question are tasteless more than offensive and I would let the modelers know that prior to playing a game with them and ask if they would use a different set if possible and if they said no then I would just wait until another war gamer came in that had more appropriate models. Eventually the two guys would get tired of playing against each other and would probably bring different models to the FLGS, right?
If nazi guard makes him a nazi them I Am a giant mushroom that builds working guns out of scrap. Question:does the dnob(death nazies of blitzkrieg) have swatstikas on his models?if he does....thats kinda weird....
In Ireland,thousands have died because of the "great" British empire in the last few centuries.A town near me was burned to the ground by Oliver Cromwell. He became one of "The ten greatest British people ever".
In Italy prisoners of the US were shot with a thompson submachine gun because "they were only italians". The shooter wasnt even discharged from the American armed forces. The Emperor of Japan wanted peace but his generals and navy had to agree and they didnt. At most one atomic bomb was needed. And yet GW produced a model based off the british, nobody would bat an eye if I painted my models as british and GI guard would be completely normal.
Da krimson barun wrote: In Ireland,thousands have died because of the "great" British empire in the last few centuries.A town near me was burned to the ground by Oliver Cromwell. He became one of "The ten greatest British people ever".
Are "Greatest Britons" and evil mass murderers mutually exclusive?
I don't see why someone modelling SS minis is seen as offensive when someone modelling a US or British Airforce army would not be considered offensive. USAF killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2, and the British and US were involved in the bombing of Dresden which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. Just because we won the war doesn't make us any better morally. We just out-killed the Germans.
Also, before US members get on their soap box, check out your attitude towards Jewish asylum seekers during WW2.
Exactly. Just saying it should be considered just as offensive to have WW2 US or British armed forces markings as it is to have SS markings. Either they're all okay or none are okay.
Da krimson barun wrote: If nazi guard makes him a nazi them I Am a giant mushroom that builds working guns out of scrap. Question:does the dnob(death nazies of blitzkrieg) have swatstikas on his models?if he does....thats kinda weird.... In Ireland,thousands have died because of the "great" British empire in the last few centuries.A town near me was burned to the ground by Oliver Cromwell. He became one of "The ten greatest British people ever".
It is okay. In Russia we had Stalin as one of the greatest Russians. It seems people rather like evil mass murderers.
Exactly. Just saying it should be considered just as offensive to have WW2 US or British armed forces markings as it is to have SS markings. Either they're all okay or none are okay.
This is not just a matter of history being written by the victors. The Allies in WW2 commited their fair share of horrible war crimes and were never persecuted for it. The Nazis however, were on a completely different level of 'evil'. They in fact made commiting war crimes into their official policy and actively pursued the almost total extermination of Europe's non-Germanic population. The Allies never even came close to the kind of thing the Nazis have done. The Nazis commited so many more heinous acts than the Allies, comparing both is unjustified and is insulting towards the victims of Nazism and to the millions of heroes that gave their lives to purge the world from this evil.
Nazi symbols should only be used where historically accurate. I have nothing against things having a 'nazi' look, but actual Nazi symbols are a big no-no.
Everything is offensive when you look deep enough.
Nazis did gross things, Americans did and do gross things, Australians, Indians, Samoans, Icelandic peoples you name it. Your ancestors have probably done things that will make you sick, your pets great great pet dad may have helped kill an endangered specie, you probably own clothes made from slaves and the list goes on forever.
So if your general has a cat, you better be offended because those cats are ruining precious bird life in my country.
If your army is based off anything human then you better be offended that your army is based of deep dark horrid events.
If your general wears boots that resemble Nike (or insert major shoe brand here) ones, then you should feel ashamed that you support child labour.
The list goes on.
So if your line is shorter than someone else, I wouldnt be too upset.
Just let it go. While I personally wouldnt care, im also not dumb enough to do something like it. Because there are people out there that do care.
So in my opinion if you make models simply to be offensive then whatever, I probably wont enjoy their company.
If you get offended easily then in my opinion you need to take a long look at what "bad" things are acceptable to you and which ones are not. Then you need to realize not everyone has the same idea and move on.
Nothing is not bad in some way or another, if you look deep enough.
Iron_Captain wrote: This is not just a matter of history being written by the victors. The Allies in WW2 commited their fair share of horrible war crimes and were never persecuted for it. The Nazis however, were on a completely different level of 'evil'. They in fact made commiting war crimes into their official policy and actively pursued the almost total extermination of Europe's non-Germanic population. The Allies never even came close to the kind of thing the Nazis have done. The Nazis commited so many more heinous acts than the Allies, comparing both is unjustified and is insulting towards the victims of Nazism and to the millions of heroes that gave their lives to purge the world from this evil.
Nazi symbols should only be used where historically accurate. I have nothing against things having a 'nazi' look, but actual Nazi symbols are a big no-no.
United States Army committed the largest genocide ever in history - against the Native Americans. Nazis more evil than other governments throughout history? Highly debatable.
Also, what makes ordinary Germans/Italian/Japanese 'evil' for for fighting in war and ordinary Allies 'good'? I'm sure there was lots of bravery, cowardice and atrocity on both sides.
If someone brought a model depicting a Jew being gassed by an SS guard I would of course find that offensive [in the same way that I would find a US Cavalry officer stabbing a Native American offensive]. A generic SS soldier, not at all.
Iron_Captain wrote: This is not just a matter of history being written by the victors. The Allies in WW2 commited their fair share of horrible war crimes and were never persecuted for it. The Nazis however, were on a completely different level of 'evil'. They in fact made commiting war crimes into their official policy and actively pursued the almost total extermination of Europe's non-Germanic population. The Allies never even came close to the kind of thing the Nazis have done. The Nazis commited so many more heinous acts than the Allies, comparing both is unjustified and is insulting towards the victims of Nazism and to the millions of heroes that gave their lives to purge the world from this evil.
Nazi symbols should only be used where historically accurate. I have nothing against things having a 'nazi' look, but actual Nazi symbols are a big no-no.
United States Army committed the largest genocide ever in history - against the Native Americans. Nazis more evil than other governments throughout history? Highly debatable.
Also, what makes ordinary Germans/Italian/Japanese 'evil' for for fighting in war and ordinary Allies 'good'? I'm sure there was lots of bravery, cowardice and atrocity on both sides.
If someone brought a model depicting a Jew being gassed by an SS guard I would of course find that offensive [in the same way that I would find a US Cavalry officer stabbing a Native American offensive]. A generic SS soldier, not at all.
Ehhhhhh... there is a lot of historically wrong things going on here, not least of which is this notion of "well, everyone sucks". The notion that the largest genocide in history was against the native Americans is just silly. While there is plenty of debate over the scale of the terrible misfortunes and crimes against the Native Americans, even the highest death tolls in that "genocide" are dwarfed by the minimum estimates of the death toll from Communist China's worst campaigns of extermination.
All of which is to say that this is a very loose use of the word genocide, one that clouds more then it clears.
It's also important to point out that this is a very different notion then what others have been pointing out: it is not tolerance to say that Nazis were no worse and the Allies no better, it's moral blindness and nihilism. In complete honesty, to say that the United States and Nazi Germany occupy similar moral plains is to either reveal an irremediably miseducation, or an abhorrent moral outlook.
In complete honesty, to say that the United States and Nazi Germany occupy anything other than similar moral plains is to either reveal an irremediably miseducation, or an abhorrent moral outlook.
In complete honesty, to say that the United States and Nazi Germany occupy anything other than similar moral plains is to either reveal an irremediably miseducation, or an abhorrent moral outlook.
Fixed it for you.
Your wit is equal to your historical understanding and moral character.
In complete honesty, to say that the United States and Nazi Germany occupy anything other than similar moral plains is to either reveal an irremediably miseducation, or an abhorrent moral outlook.
Fixed it for you.
I'm sorry, when did the United States commit mass genocide based on religous and or sexual preferences ?
Azreal13 wrote: You mean those US cavalry officers who routinely castrated the Native American warriors and used the scrotum as a tobacco pouch?
Actually, I'm not even sure if that's historically factual, but the fact it's even plausible demonstrates my point.
Phrase it how you like, one man's meat is another's poison or one man's Rebel is the other's freedom fighter, history is all a matter of perspective.
I don't mean this to be cruel, but this is argument from prejudice. What I mean by that is you are, essentially, arguing that if a group is sufficiently disliked, then they must have done something to earn that dislike.
No, I'm arguing that if a group has done something dislikable, then they're probably going to be disliked.
You appear to be trying to argue degrees of moral justification for various heinous acts, all of which should be equally contemptible, but somehow millions of people view one event as "better" than another because the goodies won.
Well how do you even measuere how heinous a regime is? If its in magnitude of death and suffering, Stalin was worse than Hitler and Colonial-era Americans combined. If its in the cruelty or depravity of incidences, how do you even measure that? I don't think anyone here is trying to advocate that Nazism wasn't evil, so much as to point out that yes, all nations have commited attrocities in their past or recent history that were as bad or almost as bad as what happened under the Nazis. I think this is pointless to discuss, becasue you can't quantify evil, or wrong.
Also another valid point someone mentioned -important to differentiate between "German soldier" and "Nazi" or "SS trooper" in WW2. It's not as though the majority of German trooops believed rigorously in Nazi doctrine, or even personally hated Jews. That doesn't vindicate soldiers who shot Jews under order to do so, but bear in mind that to defy an order like that under that regime, would probably result in a soldier's execution at the hands of his superiors. I will iterate again -not defending their actions-just pointing out the realities of what was a very dark time.
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm arguing that if a group has done something dislikable, then they're probably going to be disliked.
You appear to be trying to argue degrees of moral justification for various heinous acts, all of which should be equally contemptible, but somehow millions of people view one event as "better" than another because the goodies won.
Y'know, I don't really support the idea that "We're not evil because the other guys are more evil" either.
In complete honesty, to say that the United States and Nazi Germany occupy anything other than similar moral plains is to either reveal an irremediably miseducation, or an abhorrent moral outlook.
Fixed it for you.
I'm sorry, when did the United States commit mass genocide based on religous and or sexual preferences ?
The Holocaust wasn't based upon religion, but on race. The Nuremberg Laws judged whether someone was a Jew or not based upon the number of Jewish grandparents, not if the person was a practising Jew [many German Jews were either not practising or religion was not a huge factor in their lives but were still persecuted]. Is your argument that it is okay to commit genocide based upon race but not upon religion? I'll run with that ... Much of the justification of the persecution of the Native Americans was based upon the notion that they were 'savages' as they were not Christian, and therefore did not deserve the land that they dwelt on, so yes, persecution of the Native Americans was based upon both race and religion.
Interesting that, with a few notable exceptions, the Christian Church either supported the Nazi regime or tried to ignore it, very similar to the approach taken by the Christian Church in North America during the persecution of the Native Americans. Anyway, one man's Holocaust is another man's Manifest Destiny, and 100 million Native Americans killed is a lot greater than 6 million Jews [although both were obviously beyond reprehensible]; if you can't be objective, nothing I will say will convince you
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm arguing that if a group has done something dislikable, then they're probably going to be disliked.
You appear to be trying to argue degrees of moral justification for various heinous acts, all of which should be equally contemptible, but somehow millions of people view one event as "better" than another because the goodies won.
Y'know, I don't really support the idea that "We're not evil because the other guys are more evil" either.
Y'know, I don't really support the idea that "Everybody that conducted military actions and wars throughout human history in ways that were wholly acceptable at the time but don't align with the current moral standards of western civilization in 2014 are best described as "evil" either."
The guy I was responding to was saying more or less exactly that!
There's a reason why ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law, murder has been against the law for as long as any sort of legal system has been in existence, and there has been some sort of framework for declaring war for almost as long (albeit not always followed.)
To argue that it somehow mitigates what has happened in history from a moral standpoint because the people committing the acts 'didn't know better' is shaky at best, downright fallacious at worst.
One could perhaps argue that a soldier killing a native of a country his nation is colonising is just a question of him following his job, but when that act becomes associated with brutality, mutilation and other acts which are unnecessary to achieve this, then things start to get a little dodgy.
Also another valid point someone mentioned -important to differentiate between "German soldier" and "Nazi" or "SS trooper" in WW2. It's not as though the majority of German trooops believed rigorously in Nazi doctrine, or even personally hated Jews. That doesn't vindicate soldiers who shot Jews under order to do so, but bear in mind that to defy an order like that under that regime, would probably result in a soldier's execution at the hands of his superiors. I will iterate again -not defending their actions-just pointing out the realities of what was a very dark time.
Their 'not-believing in Nazi doctrine' still did not stop them from commiting atrocities. The Germans destroyed 1700 cities and towns and almost 70.000 villages in the Soviet Union. Half of all households in European Russia was destroyed, and in Belarus, a third of the total population was massacred in Germany's ethnic cleansing. One in three of all Belarusians died. Most atrocities were commited by 'ordinary' Wehrmacht soldiers. The myth of the 'innocent German soldier' that just did his duty was, like most other myths about the Wehrmacht invented after the War in West Germany by former nazis trying to clear themselves from blame, and widely accepted for their Cold War propaganda value.
German atrocities are in no way a justification for the horrible atrocities committed by the Allies, which are often swept under the carpet, but in both judging by both effect and intention, the Allied warcrimes never even came close to the massive scale on which the Germans committed atrocities. The huge scale and especially the extremely evil intent of German warcrimes is unprecedented in World History. We should never be forgiving towards Nazism. Nazist sympathies should be fought at every step, so that it may never get the chance to rear its ugly head again. If you ever encounter a person, wargamer or otherwise of whom you suspect to have Nazi sympathies, confront him with it. Never just look away. There is no possible moral justification for Nazi symbols outside of historical accuracy.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Much of the justification of the persecution of the Native Americans was based upon the notion that they were 'savages' as they were not Christian, and therefore did not deserve the land that they dwelt on, so yes, persecution of the Native Americans was based upon both race and religion.
Which was a bs justification. They had land, and not the people or technology enough to defend it from invaders. Early Amercian's didn't wage a genocidal war against Native American's, into neighboring countries, beacuse of thier race or religion, they wanted their land.
Also, you're going back very far into early American history for that example. Settlers at that point included large portions of immigrants. It was no where close to a unified country or modern culture at that point. Africans were used as slaves, Chinese laborers treated as second class citizens, Irish immigrants still descriminated against, women didn't have equal rights yet, etc..
Also another valid point someone mentioned -important to differentiate between "German soldier" and "Nazi" or "SS trooper" in WW2. It's not as though the majority of German trooops believed rigorously in Nazi doctrine, or even personally hated Jews. That doesn't vindicate soldiers who shot Jews under order to do so, but bear in mind that to defy an order like that under that regime, would probably result in a soldier's execution at the hands of his superiors. I will iterate again -not defending their actions-just pointing out the realities of what was a very dark time.
Their 'not-believing in Nazi doctrine' still did not stop them from commiting atrocities. The Germans destroyed 1700 cities and towns and almost 70.000 villages in the Soviet Union. Half of all households in European Russia was destroyed, and in Belarus, a third of the total population was massacred in Germany's ethnic cleansing. One in three of all Belarusians died. Most atrocities were commited by 'ordinary' Wehrmacht soldiers. The myth of the 'innocent German soldier' that just did his duty was, like most other myths about the Wehrmacht invented after the War in West Germany by former nazis trying to clear themselves from blame, and widely accepted for their Cold War propaganda value.
German atrocities are in no way a justification for the horrible atrocities committed by the Allies, which are often swept under the carpet, but in both judging by both effect and intention, the Allied warcrimes never even came close to the massive scale on which the Germans committed atrocities. The huge scale and especially the extremely evil intent of German warcrimes is unprecedented in World History. We should never be forgiving towards Nazism. Nazist sympathies should be fought at every step, so that it may never get the chance to rear its ugly head again. If you ever encounter a person, wargamer or otherwise of whom you suspect to have Nazi sympathies, confront him with it. Never just look away.
There is no possible moral justification for Nazi symbols outside of historical accuracy.
Exalted. Though I would include Communism too.
There were things done by the Allies that should have been resulted in War Crime investigations but didn't. History is written by the Victor and all that. The Nazi's WERE bad, and so were the Communists. But we were the designated "Good Guys" and the crimes were committed were glossed over.
Hell, I think Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair is a war criminal.
Further, you do grasp that it's possible to recognise that something is offensive without actually being offended in the visceral, emotional sense yourself, aye?
