Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grignard wrote:Of course. They'll take your *life*. All the so called neo-nazis ( and those you *choose* to define that way) are out to get you personally. I can't believe everyone is this upset about this.

If the Nazis had succeeded, I would never have been born, because my grandfather and his entire race would have been exterminated. Is that personal enough for you?

I'm not upset about this. I don't recall anyone in the thread saying they were upset. I just hate Nazis, that's all, and I think this guy's a Nazi. Do you have a problem with that?

Geddonight wrote:4a) It's okay to voice your opinions about not liking the schema presented. It's okay not to play said people. However, lobbying the manager of your FLGS to kick said people out is NOT okay. The manager should make that choice on his/her own.

They would be. I would just enlighten them in terms of funds I provide them, that would be walking out the door, and that I would use my own glorious right of free speech to broadcast widely why I left.

Guys and gals, our universe is FAR worse than anything the combined forces of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau Tse Tung, etc. could come up with. The things the primarchs did on their crusades would make each of these despots sit up and take notes. We're dealing with horrible concepts here (I mean, I play Slaaneshi-worshiping marines who take pleasure in arguably the most heinous of acts--rape). The fact that some people artistically bring to light these despicable aspects of our "fluff" through nazi/neo-nazi/socialist/Imperial Japan/etc. imagery isn't wrong at all.

We're not playing My Little Pony Collectible Miniatures Game... We're playing in a game where the "good guys" are just as bad as the "bad guys."

And its all fantasy. None of it was real. The Nazis/Imperial Japan/Communists were/are very real. Thats the difference.

Polonius wrote:Sorry for skipping many of the posts, but I want to address one common question: what is it about Nazi Germany (as opposed to non-nazi germans, even in WW2; or similarly horrific regimes like Mongols, Imperial Japan, Stalinist USSR or the Khmer Rouge) that so offends and bothers people?

I have, IMHO, a theory as to why Nazis, more then any other iconography, are forbidden. Other villians in world history are "others," either culturally, racially, theologically, etc. While the Japanese committed war crimes, their culture was so alien to ours that it didn't shock us as badly. Even the USSR was utterly different from Western Europe in many ways, and there was a strong ability of the West to say "we're nothing like that, they are clearly wrong."

The horror to many people of Nazism is that Germany was not mysterious and strange. It was a modern, industrial, sort of democratic christian nation. They had rule of law, elections, a free press. The people of the majority didn't suffer under their rule, in fact standard of living rose every year in germany until halfway through the war. What's terrifying about them is how easily the same could happen to the UK, to the US, to the EU. Look around: it's not hard to find governments speaking of fear, commentators casting blame at minorities or otherwise suspect classes.

If I built a White scars army, nobody for a second would assume I want to gather my ponies and my wives and pillage central asia. Nobody thinks valhallan players want to create a tyrrany of the people. However, the beliefs of National Socialism: fervent nationalism, fear of the outsider, industrial strenth, purity of thought: these are strands of behaviour that we see, and fear, and are constantly, as a culture, warring against.

I apologize if this comes off as presumptious or arrogant, but i think that many of the people that are offended by Nazi symbolism in 40k are afraid of that: the legitimate reality of ideals returning. For those who don't see why anybody would be offended, I hope this illustrates a little why it's such a strong taboo in our culture.

That was a VERY well written post. Kudos to you for that.
I also happen to agree with everything in it.

What I don't see, however, is how that fear or taboo should keep him from using certain symbols.

@Stelek... I can't see the first 2 of your images. I'll have to check 'em out at home tonight or this weekend. <book marked>
I knew the image on that tank (I can see that pic) looked familiar... I still don't have a problem, though, with him recreating an image from the poster, so long as he doesn't specifically or obviously make Nazi claims for his army (IMO, it's not specific or obvious).
Even then, I don't see that it's a HUGE deal... I mean, they exist to get shot and blown up. Who among us thinks it's a BAD thing to shoot and blow up Nazis? ( )


Eric

Let me say a few more things. I'm going to try my best not to rehash things I said in my first post on this thread.


While I think it is usually distasteful at best for people to directly transplant historical regimes into a sci-fi game (i.e. Nazi Imperial Guard or Space Marines), and I think people shouldn't do it, I absolutely believe that someone should be allowed to do it if they want to. You can paint as many swastikas as you like on you marines if you want to. I just think it's a pretty wack thing to do (to put it in the most civil terms I can), and you shouldn't be surprised if someone is offended or refuses to play you.

That said, I also don't think painting a 40k army with some of this iconography instantly marks someone as a racist or a Nazi. It probably makes them a bit of a buffoon, but there's a big difference between someone who doesn't have any tact and someone who is a Neo-Nazi

On that note, I'm willing to give GMMStudios the benefit of the doubt. I think he's probably a nice guy who is a great painter, but happened to paint an army that could easily offend a lot of people.

Also - something very important to note that I just discovered. The poster GMMStudio in this thread is NOT the same as the poster GMMStudios (notice the "s") who painted the awesome but controversial German-themed armored company. GMMStudio seems to be posing as GMMStudios, claiming he painted the armored company and spouting things about the "Fatherland" no doubt to rile people up.

I understand why some people are offended by that army (and as I said it bothers me a bit myself) but what GMMStudio (the poser) is doing is not cool.

And Stelek, just so you know Battlefront does paint swastikas on vehicles and planes in instances where it would be used historically, they do not replace them with the iron cross. It's just that the iron cross was much more common on vehicles. You usually only see the swastika (at least big enough to see at 15mm) on airplanes, air recognition flags, and the Afrika Korps insignia. I just wanted to clear that up.

The arguement of "Nazis is evils cuz they did it to others and Stalinz is okays cuz he didz it to his ownz" is the most pathetic attempt ever. Austrian Jews are more important than Ukrainians? Please.

I think you missed my point, though admittedly I may not have been particularly clear. I was only saying that in one case, the army was directly involved externally from the country, while in the other it was internal (though it still involved the army). The reason this matters is because one is an event that threatened everyone actively (as opposed to passively/cold war). Because of this, it's a bit more of a bogeyman - one was out to get everyone, one was just ruining their own house.

This is not to comment on which is worse - there's no way to compare them, they're both as bad as it gets. I only meant to explain why the military imagery of nazi germany is more of a sore point for people than that of Stalinist Russia, in general. This isn't always the case, there are definitely people in America and europe wouldn't be happy at all with say, hammer and sickle imagery. But one was actively trying to conquer everyone, and the other was not. There is a distinction there, because while Stalin himself and his regime are associated with atrocity, the specific imagery of the soviet war machine may not be. For the Nazis, everything was appropriated.

Heck, maybe I'm completely wrong even about that, who knows. But thanks for throwing the z's in there and calling the argument you barely understood pathetic, gave me a good laugh. I love the internet.

Stormtrooper X wrote:Stelek, this is the post that I was disaproving of. It's a bogus claim that because of the different people massacered it's not the same "scope".

It has nothing to do with the number dead.

It has nothing to do with the nationality dead.

It has everything to do with the machinery setup to kill.

That's what makes the scope entirely different.

Either you grasp what I'm saying or you don't. Death by plan is worse than death by random act.

======================================

Stalin killed his millions slowly, over decades. Pol Pot committed a genocide but in comparison to Stalin? They aren't the same. Stalin killed tens of millions, pol pot didn't.

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree on some of this. The OPs question, if I can even remember it at this point without scrolling back, is neo Nazi or not, which I presume refered to the artist. I don't know if he's a neo nazi, just someone with strong nationalist sensibilities, or just wanted a powerful image to make people take notice ( he succeeded at that). I frankly don't care if he's a neo nazi, he's a damn good artist.

I would say he's a good artist even if I *knew* he was a neo Nazi. Sorry, his purported political views don't change my feelings on his art.

Stelek wrote:

Stormtrooper X wrote:Stelek, this is the post that I was disaproving of. It's a bogus claim that because of the different people massacered it's not the same "scope".

It has nothing to do with the number dead.

It has nothing to do with the nationality dead.

It has everything to do with the machinery setup to kill.

That's what makes the scope entirely different.

Either you grasp what I'm saying or you don't. Death by plan is worse than death by random act.

======================================

Stalin killed his millions slowly, over decades. Pol Pot committed a genocide but in comparison to Stalin? They aren't the same. Stalin killed tens of millions, pol pot didn't.

If I were the one being killed, I definitely appreciate your realization of the *very important difference* between being killed slowly by privation and being killed instantly by a bullet through the head or gas. When contemplating being murdered that is something that I really concentrate on, because apparently it makes all the difference.

Yes, the poster who dropped the s is a false flag. I have a sneaking suspicion that said false flag is a poster on this board and I can conjecture guesses on who, though I wont. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You certainly aren't helping your argument.

As for the posters that Stelek posted and how close they are to those on the tanks - I'm not surprised really, the guy said in his original picture post how much he loved old propaganda posters and wanted to put that imagery in his army.

lambadomy wrote:As for the posters that Stelek posted and how close they are to those on the tanks - I'm not surprised really, the guy said in his original picture post how much he loved old propaganda posters and wanted to put that imagery in his army.

I think German, Soviet, and American ( all the combatants) propaganda posters are interesting, both artistically and historically. I think someone doing a modern interpretation of them is doing something that is artistically valid and interesting. Does that make me a nazi?

Hordini wrote:On that note, I'm willing to give GMMStudios the benefit of the doubt. I think he's probably a nice guy who is a great painter, but happened to paint an army that could easily offend a lot of people.

Also - something very important to note that I just discovered. The poster GMMStudio in this thread is NOT the same as the poster GMMStudios

@Hordini
This is my perception on the matter and I'm pleased that someone else is able to recognize that there is another person on the other side of the monitor.
I also think you pointing out that he did not post the "nazi/fatherland" comments above is also in lieu with what strengthened these misconceptions and hopefully people will recognize this.




It's interesting but some people will see the top one as art and appreciate the medium used to communicate the artists message
while others will see it as offensive and worth banning

Pariah Press wrote:

I'm not upset about this. I don't recall anyone in the thread saying they were upset. I just hate Nazis, that's all, and I think this guy's a Nazi. Do you have a problem with that?

No offense meant, but I sort of do. I understand your antipathy toward Nazis. That does not imply the artist is a Nazi, that is non sequitur

MagickalMemories wrote:

That was a VERY well written post. Kudos to you for that.
I also happen to agree with everything in it.

What I don't see, however, is how that fear or taboo should keep him from using certain symbols.

Eric

I'm a big fan of free speech and free expression, with the ACLU card to prove it. I wouldn't advocate trying to ban or limit expression in the public fora, simply because history has shown that in the marketplace of ideas, bad ideas inevitably are discarded. My post was an attempt, feeble as it may be, to simply show why people are offended. I am of the opinion that very, very few people that create 40k armies with Nazi motifs are nazis, neo nazis, or even right wing nationalists. It's very likely, however, that they mostly associate with people who know they're not Nazis, and so the creation of such an army would never be that unusual. If a good friend, that you'd known for life, had a copy of Mein Kampf, you'd proably assume it was out of morbid curiosity, not out of complicity. When such an army, however, leaves the private sphere and enters the personal sphere, it's no longer "Jim's army that has a Nazi Motif." It's a Nazi army, and without a strong notice otherwise, some people are going to assume that the army is advocating the ideals it represents.

You can see this in the comments. Many people had a visceral, emphatic reaction. "I'd never play against it. I'd ban it from the store." None of what I've described is wrong, but there is an almost immediate reaction to the offense: "it's history, you shouldn't be offended, etc." My post was an attempt to explain, if crudely, why there is offense.

I think one aspect of "nazi" armies that get's glossed over is not their historical veracity, but the almost complete disregard for history they exhibit. Virtually no German Army units fought under Swastikas, IIRC only the SS wore a swastika armband, and by far the main look of german soldiers in the field was of German field grey, not Black/Red/White. The 40k armies don't look like armies, they look like Nazi Parades, which were political, not military, events. Since the army represents a political statement, the army, perhaps against the will of the creator, is making a political statement.

This thread is being re-opened and frankly after reading the whole thing I'm not exactly sure why anyone even posted a user alert about it in the first place. All of the discussion in this thread has been fairly polite and well thought out and the topic of historical iconography in miniature gaming is most certainly a valid discussion to have if it can be done calmly.

It is important for everyone to note that previously in another thread a user intentionally created a profile for the specific intent of confusing others and inciting hostility. All of that user's posts have been deleted, that account and IP have been banned from this site. Please do not confuse the trolling from this dummy account with the original user, GMMStudios.


Anytime you find a someone's army in poor taste in your opinion it behooves you to let them know exactly why as they will obviously encounter exactly the same reactions in the real-world when they use their army.

But as with everything we try to promote in this forum, make your objections known with politeness and civility.


I may join in this conversation later with my own personal opinion on the topic (and JFrazell, I'll let you know right up front I have a Vahallan army with some commie symbols in it), but for now. . .discuss away!

The use of totalitarian iconography in Science Fiction war-games, in particular Nazi German imagery (or iconography purposefully similar) is troubling to me. Here's why:

Preliminaries:
1. I am only discussing the use of Nazi iconography in games where the Nazis are not an in-game faction (as in Warhammer 40,000). The use of Nazi iconography on Nazi forces in historical (or alternative-historical) games is not particularly objectionable as long as the goal of the use of such iconography is historical (or alternative-historical) accuracy. It is, for example, an act of historical inaccuracy to do as Hearts of Iron does and use World War I Imperial German imagery to represent World War II Nazi Germany (although Paradox Games operate within European legal systems where such displays are often illegal, a troubling situation in itself).
2. I am not interested in hair splitting who was or was not a Nazi in the Wehrmacht or in any other organ of the German State between 1933 and 1945. One of the principle features of totalitarianisms (and in particular Nazism) is the conflation of the totalitarian party and the state itself. To have fought for the German state in World War II was to have fought for the Nazi party and thus for the spread (or defense) of that Party's ideology. This is not a blanket indictment of officers and men who did not commit war crimes or crimes against humanity: to follow (non-criminal) orders is after all a soldier's duty.

Semiotics:
When someone uses an image as an icon or symbol he is making a statement about the object that bears that icon and the symbolic similarity of that object to the generally accepted meaning of the symbol (in the case of historical symbols, other bearers of that symbol). This is, after all, why we use symbols: to allow us to convey meaning to others in images so we need not use words. When someone uses an Iron Cross on a tank they are making a semiotic association between that tank and all previous uses and users of the Iron Cross. It is true that the German military before and since the Nazis used and still use the Iron Cross. It is equally true that the Nazi military remains by far the most famous and notorious users of that icon. Barring an explicit statement to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the user of an Iron Cross symbol intends to evoke the meanings of the best known user of that symbol.

Artistic Freedom and Personal Responsibility:
There is no doubt that the use of whatever symbols one desires falls well within ones rights as an artist and as a person. Likewise it is within the rights of the individual gamer to refuse to play or associate with other players who choose to use those symbols. I have made such a decision and I urge my fellow gamers to do likewise.

Practical Considerations:
The use of Nazi or Nazi-reminiscent symbols serve to alienate our hobby from the general public and may (much like a Genestealer Cult serves as a beacon to the Hive Fleet) attract those whose support we should neither seek nor accept.

The Nazi State and the Imperium of Man:
Off the exact topic, some say that the Imperium is a state that through word and deed resembles the Nazi state. This is, I believe, a mistake. Structurally, as others have noted, the Imperium is most closely modeled after the Roman Empire (which was also aped by both Hitler and Mussolini). More metaphysically, the Warhammer 40,000 universe is very different from our own, a universe where psychic abilities and daemons are both very real and the practice of one often leads to the next. In such a world where thinking the wrong thoughts or being of the wrong faith invites the destruction of countless billions and trillions, the acts of genocide and xenocide perpetrated by the Imperium are at worst unpleasant necessities. In the real world "evil" is the name we give to the machinations of the wicked and powerful; such a conception of evil bears no resemblance to the evils that are very real in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.

i'm surprised that there has been so much negative reaction to this guard army...it's a game, and these are toys...doesn't seem like he should be treated as if this is some kind of racist hate crime...

i'm also suprised that the artist chose to put so much effort into something that looks totally out of place in 40k...a well painted army that evokes the fluff has much more impact as a work of art to me...these tanks are nicely painted, but real world propoganda posters and flags just take ya out of the fun of the 40k universe...

i don't find the communist russian slant in the red stars of at-43, or the same idea behind khador in warmachine, to be offensive...that is the imagery that the designers intended in the fluff for the universes, and it fits...
i don't find the minis painted by players of the germans in f.o.w. to be offensive...
hell, i don't even find this guard army offensive...i think the painter could have spent his hard work in tryin' to bring a piece of the 40k universe to life, and really made something cool...as it is, the end result just falls flat for me...i would have felt the same way if he had used american flags and propoganda too, and hopefully he would have been givin' the same treatment for that as he has recieved for his nazi imagery...

this is where i get a little political...i love the idea of america(a country where a man can make anything of himself with hard work, and be free to live with his beliefs in peace), but i don't think that any american can really be proud of our history inside our own borders...i know that a lot of people will slag me off for this comment, but it's how i feel...we as a people are guilty of plenty of wicked deeds...the treatment of natives, slaves, mexicans, japanese, and now muslims(in that order) is something that we choose not to talk about much when we are slaggin' off the wickedness of other countries...we are no less guilty than any of the others that we hate...people who live in glass houses, and all that...

i've lived all over the world, and i find the same wickedness, and small-mindedness, everywhere i go...in the history of all the cultures that i have studied and encountered, there are the same skeletons in the closet, just on various scales...one tribe hates the next tribe, one country hates the next country, one empire hates the rival empire...same gak, different place...

i've met a lot of people who survived the holocaust when i lived in miami and europe, i've met people who fought in the resistance in europe, and people who fought in the war on both sides...after so many years, they all seem to have the same live and let live attitude...they're all just glad to still be alive...we should live in love, instead of hate...that's the only way to break the cycle...too bad it doesn't seem possible...oppression is a constant all over the world, even here...and sometimes a peaceful man has to stand up and fight against it, but a german flag on a tank shouldn't stop us from havin' fun with our toys...

cheers
jah

While there can certainly be a valid discussion about when a line a is crossed between historical representation (fine in my book) and offensive iconography (not ok in my book), the complete denial that the latter is possible is nonsense.
My next IG army will be painted like soldiers from the confederate south (historical). My conscripts will be klansmen, my vehicles will have nooses hanging from them, and I'll add details reminiscent of current white power movements. If anyone says anything, I'll just label them as a PC spanker.
I'm not equating GMM's army with the one above , although I agree it's questionable. I'm merely pointing out that some iconography, even on toy models, is and should be universally reviled.

jfrazell wrote:The moment you pull out a mini with a Swastika or Red Star is the moment I go have a nice discussion with the store manager to help insure you'll never play in that store again.

Frankly the Kreig cross he has painted all over everything reminds me of some Klan badges I've seen. I am not impressed.

As an artist i think they are well done. Would i do something like this......probably not.

As to the quote above i am amazed at your self appointed arogance and over developed sense of self worth. If that army offends you then that is your right, but who do you think you are that you can go to the shop owner and demand he not be allowed to play in that store again? what gives you that right ?

i read your response to someone asking the same question i did. and your answer of you do it my way or i take my money and go home. Bye.. dont let the door hit you on the way out i say.

My god your absolute arrogance offends me, that you think you have the right because you spend your money to tell anyone who to let in their store. You want that right then get off your high horse and spend your time and your own money and open a store for yourself

It will probably be very cold in hades before that happens i think

HF wrote:I blame games for the whole modern idealisation of nazi culture among todays youth. The problem is most of us don't have any interaction with people effected by them so they start to become the "cool elite trained underdogs" rather than what they really are, monstrous.

Not to mention, Nazi armys are cliched as hell. For all these people that claim "its just historic" you sure don't see alot of soviet or american ww2 themed armies in 40k

This is a quote from way back in the thread, but I think it is important, because while not presented this way, it essentially becomes a question asking why certain iconography is more compelling than other iconography.

First off I don't necessarily agree. GW has produced IG and other units that borrow iconography and appearance from several armed forces. I see miniatures that have imagery from modern US armed forces ( cadians ), British empire ( praetorians), Greco-Roman type soldiers ( lots of the space marine stuff, particularly some of the older models). GW's look is also inspired by fictional sources such as the Rambo movies ( catachans), The Dirty Dozen ( Last chancers), and Aliens ( I'll give you three guesses here). Other wargames do the same thing. GW fantasy uses Holy Roman Empire and English Civil War imagery for empire and Mesoamerican imagery for Lizardmen. The game Warzone used various imagery including WWI Americans and WWII British RAF stuff.

One reason that I personally wouldnt look for American WWII uniforms and imagery for use in a fantasy wargame is that, frankly, I dont find it that visually compelling. On the other hand, the iconography of the totalitarian states is intentionally designed to be visually compelling. Lets face it, the iron cross is cool. GW has no problem using double headed eagles ( Both the Romans and Germans used it). Come on, go ahead and admit it, the swastika absolutely will grab your attention and provoke a response, this thread is proof of it. Sure, some of the response is a result of post WWII attitudes, but even before that it was a powerful symbol. The Russians of course, had their giant paitnings of their leaders.

Somewhat incidentally, but where I know several people where I live who have an almost obsessive interest in wolves. This is something the Nazis used, for what it is worth.

It always has interested me how, as a society ( at least in the US), we have made a seemingly subconscious choice as to what totalitarian imagery is ok, which is grey area, and which is verboten. The iron cross doesn't seem to really bother people. You still see fasces is on many US government seals and buildings. A swastika, on the other hand, will generally draw all sorts of attention to the one who displays it. The swastika has even, unfortunately I believe, become something that Americans have generalized to always mean "Nazi" when it most certainly doesn't. It honestly is a symbol that was apparently used by pre-christian Germans. It is used today by Indians. Prior to WWII, it showed up on good luck charms, just like horseshoes. There was apparently a swastika in the nosecone of the Spirit of St. Louis, according to Wikipedia. In fact, the swastika is one of the most commonly used symbols in the world. It is really unfair that we associate it with Nazism.

More specific for me, it isn't the iconography that I find repulsive... it's that people are judging this person, labeling and then libeling based soley upon a few pictures of questionable veracity on the subject of promoting the nazi ideal.

Do any of you know the person in real life? If so, then they are the ONLY people truly qualified to make a judgement upon then. Everyone else is making judgements from a position of ignorance about the person.

Just exactly who is the person practicing bigotry at that point?

Warpaint Studio wrote:
As an artist i think they are well done. Would i do something like this......probably not.

As to the quote above i am amazed at your self appointed arogance and over developed sense of self worth. If that army offends you then that is your right, but who do you think you are that you can go to the shop owner and demand he not be allowed to play in that store again? what gives you that right ?

i read your response to someone asking the same question i did. and your answer of you do it my way or i take my money and go home. Bye.. dont let the door hit you on the way out i say.

My god your absolute arrogance offends me, that you think you have the right because you spend your money to tell anyone who to let in their store. You want that right then get off your high horse and spend your time and your own money and open a store for yourself

It will probably be very cold in hades before that happens i think

That is unfair to say. While the artist has every right to show his work, Jfrazell does have a right to vote at the store with his wallet. I wouldn't do that myself, and I think it is unfair, but ultimately he can do that, and I don't think that makes him a bad person, per se.

grotblaster wrote:While there can certainly be a valid discussion about when a line a is crossed between historical representation (fine in my book) and offensive iconography (not ok in my book), the complete denial that the latter is possible is nonsense.
My next IG army will be painted like soldiers from the confederate south (historical). My conscripts will be klansmen, my vehicles will have nooses hanging from them, and I'll add details reminiscent of current white power movements. If anyone says anything, I'll just label them as a PC spanker.
I'm not equating GMM's army with the one above , although I agree it's questionable. I'm merely pointing out that some iconography, even on toy models, is and should be universally reviled.

See, and I could take offense to that. As a Southron, I find your association between white supremacy and the Confederate States of America blatantly unfair and irrelevant. That is the problem with all these value judgements. Contrary to how comfortable it makes you feel, these feelings are not universal, and the people who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid, misguided, or racist.

jah-joshua wrote:i'm surprised that there has been so much negative reaction to this guard army...it's a game, and these are toys...

Maybe but it is our game and our toys. It's not even the toys or game, it is the symbolism and iconography. If you do not think symbols or icons can be meaningful then I'm going to guess you aren't nearly as worldly or mature as you try to state you are.

jah-joshua wrote:we as a species are guilty of plenty of wicked deeds...

Fixed that for you. Your search for some sort of moral equivalence is weakened by, well trying to make it, but by first lashing out against a specific target for your frustrations (the USA) then turning around and saying it is done everywhere by everyone with a sort of hum-drum acceptance that it is the way it is. When I read your post I couldn't help but think that it was a mish-mash of bumper sticker slogans and left wing propaganda. While there is some nice sentiment there, it comes off as a college freshman that has taken an introductory Eastern Philosophy class and now thinks they understand the world.

jah-joshua wrote:
i've lived all over the world

And yet you've still never met Mr. Shift Key? To get in the requisite amount of ellipses I guess I should put it here...

Grignard wrote:See, and I could take offense to that. As a Southron, I find your association between white supremacy and the Confederate States of America blatantly unfair and irrelevant. That is the problem with all these value judgements. Contrary to how comfortable it makes you feel, these feelings are not universal, and the people who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid, misguided, or racist.

It should only be implied, never directly pointed out.

It hurts Southron's feelings. I mean, Southerners never had any problems with other races at all, as long as they were in there shacks and didn't try to, you know, learn to read. They certainly never formed any vigilante groups that targeted non-whites.

Ahtman wrote:

Grignard wrote:See, and I could take offense to that. As a Southron, I find your association between white supremacy and the Confederate States of America blatantly unfair and irrelevant. That is the problem with all these value judgements. Contrary to how comfortable it makes you feel, these feelings are not universal, and the people who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid, misguided, or racist.

It should only be implied, never directly pointed out.

It hurts Southron's feelings. I mean, Southerners never had any problems with other races at all, as long as they were in there shacks and didn't try to, you know, learn to read. They certainly never formed any vigilante groups that targeted non-whites.

Of course, I should be ashamed of myself for not just accepting the fact that we're all dumb redneck racists.

Lay off this one

The Nazis are clearly a horrendous and morally disgusting party and place in history.

But if i were to make a modern U.S. army themed force would that offend someone. Because after all they are involved in a illegal war that has destroyed a functioning economic state and directly or indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Also crops of heroin in the Afghanistan are at record highs not to metion how the islamic extremists in somilia were intialy funded by the US when they had to kick out the "reds."

The british empire redcoat themed army didn't get much heat either or was the Empire Ok?

Careful there glowgos, if this thread has proven anything it's that history doesn't matter. Apparently mass graves created by poisoning water supplies, testing chemical weapons, or just plain running everyone down in the streets and shooting them is COMPLETELY different than sticking someone in an oven. The Nazis were the worst thing ever and anyone who paints an army in their scheme (other than a historical army because that's somehow ok) is just uneducated, racist trash. I'm glad everything has been explained to me. You should be too.

Going by Bush and war approval ratings, I'm thinking a good half the U.S. population would probably see no problem with having an evil-themed modern U.S. army. I know I wouldn't.

STX - Go ahead and make your Stalin red army and I'll be sure to post on that thread too. Be sure to make lots of freehand propaganda and other things with a well-done paintjob because otherwise I'll probably just feel pity like I do with the other dude who can barely apply a coat of paint without streaking.

IMO that first army was pushing it a bit with the logo. I might have said somthing had I seen it when it first came out. However the other one was little overboard. The seem to have modified the swastika just so they could defend themselves in case this comes up. If they played that list in Germany they would risk being arrested as its illegal to display that garbage in public anywhere in Germany. I don't know what the fascination is with some people and nazi armies. Will there ever be an American WW2 themed army? I know cadian Kinda look like it but not completely. I just do not like the theme of the other army. ALthough the paintjob is awesome.

Grignard wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Grignard wrote:See, and I could take offense to that. As a Southron, I find your association between white supremacy and the Confederate States of America blatantly unfair and irrelevant. That is the problem with all these value judgements. Contrary to how comfortable it makes you feel, these feelings are not universal, and the people who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid, misguided, or racist.

It should only be implied, never directly pointed out.

It hurts Southron's feelings. I mean, Southerners never had any problems with other races at all, as long as they were in there shacks and didn't try to, you know, learn to read. They certainly never formed any vigilante groups that targeted non-whites.

Of course, I should be ashamed of myself for not just accepting the fact that we're all dumb redneck racists.

Lay off this one

I don't think it was ever said that all Southerners are rednecks racists. That would be about as stupid as trying to act like there is no connection between an ideology of white supremacy and the Confederate States.