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.

I like the look of this product, I can understand patches etc.



However this patch.....



To Most people the Iron Cross is a symbol of evil, now to us who know better it's significance goes back to before the third Reich to the Imperial era. Furthermore the modern BUNDESWEHR uses a variant of this Cross. I definitely wouldn't want to walk around with a bag with this on, especially on Buses or Trains etc.

However these patches are extremely distasteful in my humble opinion....


DAS REICH (the French Town they murdered)


TOTENKOPF (Concentration Camps)

Historically accurate Miniatures is one thing, unintented displaying of an overt alliegance to something considered evil and offensive is quite another.

I am well versed in military History and am quite immune to the emotive symbols on display. The Public however is not, the Deaths Head Symbol in particular is not something you should display anywhere on public transport lest you be branded a Nazi, Anti-semetic, right-winger or Neo-Nazi. I would not advise nor encourage someone to have these patches for their own safety and the inevitable comments and judgements you would receive if you carried this in Public. This is more a safety issue than a Moral crusade, although walking around with the DEATH'S HEAD symbol is not good for your standing within society.

I don't want an edited History of WWII or to write the truth out because it raises difficult or emotive subject matter, but we need a moral compass and remember what the Brutality of SS and in particular the Death Camps and the various targetted groups that the NAZI's murdered. (Equally the Soviet Union and its Gulags yet the Hammer and Sickle seems acceptable and is used on lots of T-shirts? Not sure why it is more acceptable). I really like FoW and it's honest, truthful, objective portrayal of WWII.

Is this product just a little beyond the acceptable? Your thoughts?

it depends how well-versed people who see it are in the history. i do not recognise the second symbols and the first i don't think is that bad.

the best thing to do would be to write an extremely civil and polite letter to FoW and advise them of your concerns and that you do not want people who are ignorant of the real meanings of such symbols to be misunderstood by the general public.

I think the same thing when I see people wearing 1st SS LAH T-shirts...

Cant help but think its a little odd... I love WW2 but not sure what wearing a Waffen-SS t-shirt is meant to say. The only impression I imagine it would give to Joe Public is 'Im a Nazi - and Proud'.

But each to their own... Such displays aint really for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside, though a related one, I once saw a white guy get a severe warning from a group of coloured gentlemen over his wearing of a Confederate flag as a bandana.

To him its connotations were inoccuous, to this group they saw it as overtly racist.

I would agree that the Confederate Flag is extremely disrespectful, it's not the Official Flag of the United States and ceased to be relevant the moment the Union Army defeated the confederate army.

The emancipation proclaimation and the Civil War itself began the long road to American Racial integration. Although I would suggest they are not fully there yet, they are definitely making progress. The election of an African American President has shown that they are moving forward.

I think the symbols are best avoided.

The potential positive (if any) is outweighed by the negative.

Being Southern and proud we could get in arguments over the meanings (true, false, and hyped) on what the Confederate Flag means or does not mean

You would at first have to be well versed I think, in WWII history and iconography to understand what the Death's Head symbol actually was and represented. Given the current day death metal bands and other more gothic & death oriented imagery, the average public would probably see it and dismiss it just as casually as they would if they saw a Green Devil riding a red trident.

I do agree that wearing a shirt with SS patches on it, or proudly displaying the SS Symbol is a little distateful. They are certainly symbols that represent hate. (again, perhaps falsely labeled like the Confederate Flag) Unfortunately Groups in America and across the world have turned it into such.

I think they could have picked better insignia's and perhaps even stayed away from the whole SS iconography but, I doubt average joe is going to think they are looking at a Hot Topic Patch and not the Death's Head.


*Not that Im saying that some SS units had some deplorable history. However some did not and served their nation with dedication and distinction.

This country celebrates the Buffalo Soldier who, effectively helped exterminate/round-up/oppress and entire race of people.

But, then why isn't this offensive or this . I mean I know people who have lost their whole families in the Soviet death camps, and in the Vietnamese reprisals. My point is that no matter what patch they release, someone is going to take offense to it, no matter what it is, and lets not forget the that people do have a right to wear those symbols if they so desire. These patch are just pictures we give power to. i.e. show a swastika to a person who never heard of the nazis they won't understand what it means. At what point can someone be offensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mwnciboo wrote:I would agree that the Confederate Flag is extremely disrespectful, it's not the Official Flag of the United States and ceased to be relevant the moment the Union Army defeated the confederate army.

The emancipation proclaimation and the Civil War itself began the long road to American Racial integration. Although I would suggest they are not fully there yet, they are definitely making progress. The election of an African American President has shown that they are moving forward.

I would have to disagree. By saying it is a "step in the right direction" is acknowledging that there is a difference in the first place. Does it really matter his race? The fact that it's a "good thing" that we elected an"African american" shows how that makes no sense. I mean it shouldn't matter that we elected a "African-American", man as much as man. I mean does that make all those who oppose him instantly racist, even men like Herman Cain?

Seems to me that a lot of people would hardly recognise a Das Reich Wolfsangel unless they happen to be particularly versed in history, or live in Idaho. Totenkopf has been (and is still) used in a vastly wider area than just "Death Camp Guards.", including contemporary military units ..and pirates. Motorhead fans springs to mind.

One does not have to be carrying actual "fascist" insignia to catch grief. I once got accused of being a Nazi for using a GW carry-case with their two-headed eagle logo on it (as a baby-changing bag, ironically.) Some people are just stupid.

Try walking down the street with a bag with that on it in Germany and see how quickly you get arrested.

I do not see the need to display to the world "look everyone, Ive got a Das Reich army!"

Not only is it distasteful, its really very, very sad........

Given that its illegal, I find that utterly unsurprising. But that is in Germany, and a lot of wargamers...aren't.

I think you'll find its illegal in most of Europe, which should be a bit of a clue to Battlefront.

mwnciboo wrote:I would agree that the Confederate Flag is extremely disrespectful, it's not the Official Flag of the United States and ceased to be relevant the moment the Union Army defeated the confederate army.

As an American who both lives in Pennsylvania and has an interest in the American Civil War, I don't see the Confederate Flag as disrespectful, as long as it's being worn for the right reasons.

There's a stereotype when people think of the American Civil War - that it was fought to end slavery. This is, in fact, wrong. Slavery may have been a factor in the War, but it certainly wasn't a deciding factor when some states seceded and formed the Confederacy. The Confederate flag stands for States Rights over Federal Power - a conflict that was still ongoing just before the ACW, and which the ACW ended.

So, wearing the Confederate flag isn't disrespectful - unless you're some hillbilly redneck who's wearing one in order to show those 'other races' whose boss. Then you're in the wrong.

Aldramelech wrote:I think you'll find its illegal in most of Europe, which should be a bit of a clue to Battlefront.

Which one? There are at least three symbols under discussion here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

infinite_array wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:I would agree that the Confederate Flag is extremely disrespectful, it's not the Official Flag of the United States and ceased to be relevant the moment the Union Army defeated the confederate army.

As an American who both lives in Pennsylvania and has an interest in the American Civil War, I don't see the Confederate Flag as disrespectful, as long as it's being worn for the right reasons.

There's a stereotype when people think of the American Civil War - that it was fought to end slavery. This is, in fact, wrong. Slavery may have been a factor in the War, but it certainly wasn't a deciding factor when some states seceded and formed the Confederacy. The Confederate flag stands for States Rights over Federal Power - a conflict that was still ongoing just before the ACW, and which the ACW ended.

So, wearing the Confederate flag isn't disrespectful - unless you're some hillbilly redneck who's wearing one in order to show those 'other races' whose boss. Then you're in the wrong.

I have one on my bedroom wall acting as a tapestry, wholly and entirely because it is an aesthetically pleasing design. A symbol is what you make it.

I'm irish. This is the butchers apron to me it is a symbol of opresson:



So for *safety* we should get rid of all union jacks lest other irishmen be offended?

Phototoxin wrote:I'm irish. This is the butchers apron to me it is a symbol of opresson:



So for *safety* we should get rid of all union jacks lest other irishmen be offended?

Share and share alike, its a symbol of oppression to a substantial number of nations. But its a symbol of different things to other nations.

Thinking on it, we should wack an embargo on the Stars and Stripes whilst we are at it, because that flag is a swift route to a lynching in a lot of places.

Well it's true enough that Britain has put down up risings and enforced its own view of law and order but compare it to the Gulags or Holocaust shows a lack of perspective. I don't remember the UK murdering 6 million plus Irish men in Gas Chambers? But britain it has never been a wholesale industrial scale murdering of ethnic groups, unlike Nazi Concentration Camps or Gulags. I do freely admit that Concentration Camps come from Baden Powell in South Africa. Plus Britain did make a fortune off the slave trade. However we move on, learn from our mistakes. There is no way you can argue the Union Flag is the same as the swastika or the Deaths Head. These are War crimes, (Don't cite Bloody sunday or other events in Ireland because they don't even compare with the holocaust). Hundreds of Thousands of Commonwealth, American and Soviets Died (28 Million Russians at last count, although they did kill alot more post war in the Gulags than the Nazi's ever did) fighting what was clearly an immoral and quite frankly evil regime.

You cannot as a Rational Human being, argue that the SS is just a symbol. I have been to Belsen, it sickened me to the core. SS was heavily into teutonic chivalric symbology coupled with their unspeakable inhuman acts, dipping subjects in ice water and nitrogen until they died to establish point of death, experiments on twins, the killing of Gypsies, Homosexuals, the disabled and anyone who questioned the regime. etc.

I really do not think that be associated with this in anyway is a good thing or can be condoned in anyway. BTW enjoying the debate, it hasn't descended into the ridiculous.....yet.

From Wikipedia:

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as "the Confederacy". Led by Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy fought for its independence from the United States. The U.S. federal government was supported by twenty mostly-Northern free states in which slavery already had been abolished, and by five slave states that became known as the border states. These twenty-five states, referred to as the Union, had a much larger base of population and industry than the South. After four years of bloody, devastating warfare (mostly within the Southern states), the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation. The restoration of the Union, and the Reconstruction Era that followed, dealt with issues that remained unresolved for generations.

Is this wrong?

mwnciboo wrote:Well it's true enough that Britain has put down up risings and enforced its own view of law and order but compare it to the Gulags or Holocaust shows a lack of perspective. I don't remember the UK murdering 6 million plus Irish men in Gas Chambers? But britain it has never been a wholesale industrial scale murdering of ethnic groups, unlike Nazi Concentration Camps or Gulags. I do freely admit that Concentration Camps come from Baden Powell in South Africa. Plus Britain did make a fortune off the slave trade. However we move on, learn from our mistakes. There is no way you can argue the Union Flag is the same as the swastika or the Deaths Head. These are War crimes, (Don't cite Bloody sunday or other events in Ireland because they don't even compare with the holocaust). Hundreds of Thousands of Commonwealth, American and Soviets Died (28 Million Russians at last count, although they did kill alot more post war in the Gulags than the Nazi's ever did).

You cannot as a Rational Human being, argue that the SS is just a symbol. I have been to Belsen, it sickened me to the core. SS was heavily into teutonic chivalric symbology coupled with their unspeakable inhuman acts, dipping subjects in ice water and nitrogen until they died to establish point of death, experiments on twins etc.

I really do not think that be associated with this in anyway is a good thing or can be condoned in anyway.

But there is also a lack of perspective in saying that Das Reich's anti-partisan activities are the same as the systematic industrialized murder of millions of political and religious "undesirables". Overzealous, yes, criminal, yes, war crime, yes... but in a different league to many other crimes associated with certain symbols, flags or nations. Liquidating towns and villages is not uncommon in war (however disgusting or criminal), and it is not unique to the Nazis in history. Industrial Genocide however, pretty much IS unique to them. Also, Das Reich or Totenkopf are not "The SS" in its entirety, nor is the SS just Das Reich or Totenkopf. Conflating them all is a little too close to conflating all Germans into the same crime, regardless of the accuracy of the statement. History, when considered in broad strokes, usually turns out to be inaccurate or just plain wrong, and often very misleading.

I would imagine that BF believe that if someone lives in an area where a symbol is illegal or proscribed, that they will have the sense to not display it. Everywhere else, it is surely a personal choice as to whether you feel up to the potential arguments..probably the same arguments that you might have with anyone who realises you spend a great deal of your time researching Platanenmuster colour swatches and Waffenfarbe. I've had similar arguments over book-covers (including a Totenkopf and SS runes on a serious treatise about Death Camps). Its part of the price of expressing an interest in a certain period of history.

By the by, I'm not particularly versed in Irish history, but I suspect that playing down some of the more criminal aspects of British occupation in the past is likely to trigger not inconsiderable ire from Irish readers. Don't be surprised if anger ensues.

mwnciboo wrote:Well it's true enough that Britain has put down up risings and enforced its own view of law and order but compare it to the Gulags or Holocaust shows a lack of perspective. I don't remember the UK murdering 6 million plus Irish men in Gas Chambers? But britain it has never been a wholesale industrial scale murdering of ethnic groups, unlike Nazi Concentration Camps or Gulags. I do freely admit that Concentration Camps come from Baden Powell in South Africa. Plus Britain did make a fortune off the slave trade. However we move on, learn from our mistakes. There is no way you can argue the Union Flag is the same as the swastika or the Deaths Head. These are War crimes, (Don't cite Bloody sunday or other events in Ireland because they don't even compare with the holocaust). Hundreds of Thousands of Commonwealth, American and Soviets Died (28 Million Russians at last count, although they did kill alot more post war in the Gulags than the Nazi's ever did) fighting what was clearly an immoral and quite frankly evil regime.

You cannot as a Rational Human being, argue that the SS is just a symbol. I have been to Belsen, it sickened me to the core. SS was heavily into teutonic chivalric symbology coupled with their unspeakable inhuman acts, dipping subjects in ice water and nitrogen until they died to establish point of death, experiments on twins, the killing of Gypsies, Homosexuals, the disabled and anyone who questioned the regime. etc.

I really do not think that be associated with this in anyway is a good thing or can be condoned in anyway. BTW enjoying the debate, it hasn't descended into the ridiculous.....yet.

Here if an additional Symbol of a sometimes Murderous, Deceitful, and tyrannical Nation/Empire




As a Native American, I find the hypocrisy of this flag to much to bear sometimes! Underr the guise of Manifest Destiny! There was a policy to to drive the Native Americans from their lands at any and all costs. Even lands that had been given to Native American tribes by treaties/acts of said nation. These articles were ignored, violated, and renounced all so greedy settlers could have their land. When they resisted, troops were sent in to "bring them to justice" which meant kill or destroy in most circumstances. Indian Settlements were raised to the ground, women, children butchered by US Cavalry.

Now a once numerous people are a shell of their former glory, rounded up and left to die on reservations.


Of course, the point being is that certain acts do not make others more or less evil. Nothing justifies barbarism.

Mao Zedong and the People's Republic of China makes Stalin look like an Amateur! So lets throw that flag and iconography up here on this debate.


Are the badges necessary? No they are not. Just like I do not need to see the Swastika when I play Hearts of Iron. It no less dampens my enjoyment because its not there. However, they can and if someone wants to display it. More power to them. However, given the touchy subject matter, I would not. Not because Im afraid that I will upset someone who that might offend, but because I dont want to run the risk of upsetting someone. And I mean truly upsetting them. Im sure if I came across or bumped into someone who lived through such horrors. To have that thrown in their face so casually, they dont need nor deserve that.

However, does Battlefront have a right to sell them or offer them to people who could careless or view it differently. Sure. I guess its all in the spirit of what its intended.

(now Im rambling and will stop. Hope this all makes sense. It is an interesting debate, but it also Im sure is a touchy subject to some.)

mwnciboo wrote:
From Wikipedia:

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as "the Confederacy". Led by Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy fought for its independence from the United States. The U.S. federal government was supported by twenty mostly-Northern free states in which slavery already had been abolished, and by five slave states that became known as the border states. These twenty-five states, referred to as the Union, had a much larger base of population and industry than the South. After four years of bloody, devastating warfare (mostly within the Southern states), the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation. The restoration of the Union, and the Reconstruction Era that followed, dealt with issues that remained unresolved for generations.

Is this wrong?

I have been given to understand (as a person not of the USA) that the Emancipation Proclamation was a somewhat cynical manouevre on the part of the North... "liberating" the slaves of another nation, and that reducing the conflict to a matter of "Slaves or no slaves" is a gross oversimplification of the situation. That is also the impression I got from reading Catton of an evening. The Wiki quote appears to work on the principle that if you introduce the word "slave" into the description of a nation, the war becomes about slavery.

All the Proclamation was a PR Stunt.

Country A tells Country B that Country B's Slaves are now free and that Slavery in Country B is Illegal. Infact, If I remember the document, it did nothing for slaves in the Border States.

SWING!

Comintern wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:Well it's true enough that Britain has put down up risings and enforced its own view of law and order but compare it to the Gulags or Holocaust shows a lack of perspective. I don't remember the UK murdering 6 million plus Irish men in Gas Chambers? But britain it has never been a wholesale industrial scale murdering of ethnic groups, unlike Nazi Concentration Camps or Gulags. I do freely admit that Concentration Camps come from Baden Powell in South Africa. Plus Britain did make a fortune off the slave trade. However we move on, learn from our mistakes. There is no way you can argue the Union Flag is the same as the swastika or the Deaths Head. These are War crimes, (Don't cite Bloody sunday or other events in Ireland because they don't even compare with the holocaust). Hundreds of Thousands of Commonwealth, American and Soviets Died (28 Million Russians at last count, although they did kill alot more post war in the Gulags than the Nazi's ever did) fighting what was clearly an immoral and quite frankly evil regime.

You cannot as a Rational Human being, argue that the SS is just a symbol. I have been to Belsen, it sickened me to the core. SS was heavily into teutonic chivalric symbology coupled with their unspeakable inhuman acts, dipping subjects in ice water and nitrogen until they died to establish point of death, experiments on twins, the killing of Gypsies, Homosexuals, the disabled and anyone who questioned the regime. etc.

I really do not think that be associated with this in anyway is a good thing or can be condoned in anyway. BTW enjoying the debate, it hasn't descended into the ridiculous.....yet.

Here if an additional Symbol of a sometimes Murderous, Deceitful, and tyrannical Nation/Empire




As a Native American, I find the hypocrisy of this flag to much to bear sometimes! Underr the guise of Manifest Destiny! There was a policy to to drive the Native Americans from their lands at any and all costs. Even lands that had been given to Native American tribes by treaties/acts of said nation. These articles were ignored, violated, and renounced all so greedy settlers could have their land. When they resisted, troops were sent in to "bring them to justice" which meant kill or destroy in most circumstances. Indian Settlements were raised to the ground, women, children butchered by US Cavalry.

Now a once numerous people are a shell of their former glory, rounded up and left to die on reservations.


Of course, the point being is that certain acts do not make others more or less evil. Nothing justifies barbarism.

Mao Zedong and the People's Republic of China makes Stalin look like an Amateur! So lets throw that flag and iconography up here on this debate.


Are the badges necessary? No they are not. Just like I do not need to see the Swastika when I play Hearts of Iron. It no less dampens my enjoyment because its not there. However, they can and if someone wants to display it. More power to them. However, given the touchy subject matter, I would not. Not because Im afraid that I will upset someone who that might offend, but because I dont want to run the risk of upsetting someone. And I mean truly upsetting them. Im sure if I came across or bumped into someone who lived through such horrors. To have that thrown in their face so casually, they dont need nor deserve that.

However, does Battlefront have a right to sell them or offer them to people who could careless or view it differently. Sure. I guess its all in the spirit of what its intended.

(now Im rambling and will stop. Hope this all makes sense. It is an interesting debate, but it also Im sure is a touchy subject to some.)

I think the problem is part of the larger issue of whether it is really "acceptable" to field SS armies and their paraphernalia (or the "evil" armies of other times and regimes for that matter.) and how far is it appropriate (or sensible) to extend the imagery of said regimes. It seems that BF have some sensibilities in this, as they do not produce Swastika or SS-rune dice or patches, though that could easily be in order to permit greater European sales as much to prevent offence. Reading the fluff, they also have a tendency (it seems) to gloss over the more unpalatable activities of combatants.

Hmm...maybe there is an unacceptable element to fielding Wehrmacht Armies and the SS in particular. I think I approach this from the an Intellectual exercise ( I mean wargaming) I don't necessarily subscribe to their idealogy. This is a mutual understanding in Wargaming, but to the wider public it would probably be viewed as alarming. I don't believe in the Ayran Brotherhood or anything yet i do field a Panzer Lehr Army with SS Allies. Maybe I am the hypocrite?

mwnciboo wrote:


To Most people the Iron Cross is a symbol of evil, now to us who know better it's significance goes back to before the third Reich to the Imperial era. Furthermore the modern BUNDESWEHR uses a variant of this Cross. I definitely wouldn't want to walk around with a bag with this on, especially on Buses or Trains etc.

Just to be anal... Thats a Balkenkreuz, the stylised Iron Cross.

First used in 1918 Luftstreitkräfte in 1918.

The current Bundeswehr 'Iron Cross' is far more traditional;






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:I'm irish. This is the butchers apron to me it is a symbol of opresson:



So for *safety* we should get rid of all union jacks lest other irishmen be offended?

Get over it... You have had 800 years of getting used to it. Thankfully most Irishmen are a little more sensible!

Indeed its a Balkankreuz, generally used in FOW for generic Heer formations. Heer tend to be seen as more acceptable because they weren't "as evil" as the SS (though that is a bit of a myth and a generalization.) As far as I recall the only really "clean" German units were the Fallschirmjager and possibly the Afrika Korps. The Kriegsmarine get tarnished by the U-boat brush, and the Luftwaffe were responsible for POW camps, and some of the atrocities therein.

When playing SS or their ilk, I use the following "justification".. when I was a kid, someone always had to play "Cobra" or "Decepticon"...without evil there can be no "Good Guys."

mwnciboo wrote:Hmm...maybe there is an unacceptable element to fielding Wehrmacht Armies and the SS in particular. I think I approach this from the an Intellectual exercise ( I mean wargaming) I don't necessarily subscribe to their idealogy. This is a mutual understanding in Wargaming, but to the wider public it would probably be viewed as alarming. I don't believe in the Ayran Brotherhood or anything yet i do field a Panzer Lehr Army with SS Allies. Maybe I am the hypocrite?

Question is, do you have SS Allies because you believe in what they stood for? Do you play Germans because you believe in that Ayran Birthright? Odds are you do not.


Remember, not all Germans were Nazis. Not all German Soldiers hated jews. Im not excusing the regime or justifying what was done or even attempting to gloss over it. However to write them all off as evil beings is completely unfair. Confederate Soldiers werent all supporters of Slavery.

I mean, I have no problems seeing people field those armies. Its hard to describe this without glorifying war in some manner and I do not wish to be seen as only doing that. I play Germans because of the air of invincibility. The thought that German armed forces were unstoppable. And in late war, its holding on, even in the face of an overwhelming enemy. Not because I personally believe in Nazi Propaganda. And if some one can not make that distinction, then that is their problem not mine.

I think it was best summed up by BF when they released one of their PDFs involving the SS Divisions and the Polish Uprising. They werent attempting to glorify anything or excuse anyone. Their purpose is to bring rules to us for a game that we play and nothing more and to read into it anymore then just a game of like minded Historical enthusiasts, is insane and pointless.

I believe the same arguments are had about historical re-enactors "doing" SS units, and the assumption that they must be supporters of the regime. To be fair, this is actually the case in some places, but in others, it is not. But how far does one go in censoring the related materials before one is destroying the history and the memory of the events? I believe that currently German law "sort of" allows for Anti-fascist use of fascist iconography, after a spate of cases where groups and individuals clearly opposed to Fascism were taken to court. Likewise it seems that some iconography (the Wolfsangel) is permissible when not affiliated to Right-wing groups. Might be tricky to prove in a court of law that humping around a lavishly painted company of SS-Hitlerjugend Panzergrenadiers is unrelated to Right Wing sympathies though. Perhaps if one is also carrying a company of Guards Armoured..?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=Comintern
Remember, not all Germans were Nazis. Not all German Soldiers hated jews.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:As far as I recall the only really "clean" German units were the Fallschirmjager

Crete... They shot a fair few civilians there. Even filmed it...

Over a hundred civilians were killed by Fallschirmjager led by Oberleutnant Horst Trebes at Kondomari.

http://www.fallschirmjager.net/Bundesarchiv/Kondomari/Kondomari.html


No-one was 'clean'.

Big P wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:As far as I recall the only really "clean" German units were the Fallschirmjager

Crete... They shot a fair few civilians there. Even filmed it...

Over a hundred civilians were killed by Fallschirmjager led by Oberleutnant Horst Trebes at Kondomari.

http://www.fallschirmjager.net/Bundesarchiv/Kondomari/Kondomari.html


No-one was 'clean'.

Yes, exactly. No body is ever "CLEAN" when it comes to war. The Allies turned Dresden into an burnt husk. Civilians and all...

Nah, that's still pretty damn clean by the standards of the conflict. And as has long been established, regular troops engaging "partisans" or "irregulars" or "Guerillas" or whatever term is popular is always one huge grey area as to what is or is not a reasonable response. Compared to activities in Russia, or Das Reich at Oradour, its a remarkable restrained response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This being posted, should we now add the Fallschirmjager badge to the list of verboten patches? Do they do an RAF roundel for Dresden?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Nah, that's still pretty damn clean by the standards of the conflict. And as has long been established, regular troops engaging "partisans" or "irregulars" or "Guerillas" or whatever term is popular is always one huge grey area as to what is or is not a reasonable response. Compared to activities in Russia, or Das Reich at Oradour, its a remarkable restrained response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This being posted, should we now add the Fallschirmjager badge to the list of verboten patches? Do they do an RAF roundel for Dresden?

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Both of which were targets of little military importance.

As for the Fallschirmjager badge, I don't see a problem with it. It may have the swastika, but there are still plenty of cultures around the world to whom the swastika is a religious symbol.