This is a thread I am creating as a safety valve for some of the feelings I've noticed being stirred up in Kid Kyoto's modelling thread on turning Fascist armour into Ork armour. (really Orks, especially second edition Orks, are just cartoon versions of Germans as depicted in Soviet wartime propaganda which is why it's such an intuitive conversion, but that's all the segue this needs)

Go nuts boys.

Very tastefully done this.

Everybody wants to interrupt a guy trying to get advice on how to convert a 1/35 piece for casual games telling him how the Krauts were SUCH nice people during WWII, and no one wants to talk about it in its own thread... L. O. L.

What Beef do people have with Sauerkraut?

Hey, it was never the tanks that were evil.

They made tanks out of Sauerkraut?

You Bastar !

0_o
wow, people can de-volve, its a plastic kit for F sake, it wont hurt anyone, unless you possible fall on it / it gets thrown at you.

why would anyone have a problem with it? its just people looking for an argument.

40k Orks aren't caricatures of Germans. They're soccer hooligans / lower class (Cockney) louts. I think the German thing came from the helmets being a popular biker affectation (http://www.ironhorsehelmets.com/novelty.htm), and Ork bikers were just another facet of the amusing collection of stereotypes.

Lucky he didn't use a humvee with it conertations of imperialistic America pounding the crud out of poor downtrodden sand farmers of who the hell cares...

People need to get down off their crosses and use the wood to build a bridge and get over it. Its a toy kit of a vehicle that acctually existed.

Its not like its a flying swastika or anything.

thank you gonads, i couldnt of said it better my self, allthough mine would contain alot of swearing.

Someone over on the Battlefront forums said that toy soldiers don't have ideologies.

But I don't know, they play mostly historicals over there so they're probably all fascist dogs.

Really, for me, the issue is not the figure in particular, it's what you do with the figure.

If someone chooses to show up with an SS themed IG army, replete with Swastikas festooned on everyone, dresses up appropriately and goose-steps into the store, well, I'll be a little turned off.

But lets face it, the whole freakin' game is pretty fascist. Or, as a FOAF once said, "they call 'em 'space marines' because 'space nazis' just wouldn't sell as well".

JD21290 wrote:0_o
wow, people can de-volve, its a plastic kit for F sake, it wont hurt anyone, unless you possible fall on it / it gets thrown at you.

why would anyone have a problem with it? its just people looking for an argument.

Well, if it does get thrown at me I’d rather it was Sherman than King Tiger… those things were massive.

the Nazis... go German army. For those who see them as one institution, they are not. The large percentage of German soldiers were not in fact members of the Nazi party. They were propaganda-ized German civilians tricked into thinking the same way as the Nazis.

Saying that the Germans were all Nazis would be like saying all Soviets during the Cold War were Communists or that Stalin's purges were the country's fault.

You have to have respect for them, no matter what you think of the Nazis, if it was up to France, WWII would have been another trench war; but because the Germans took the first move they used their now famous Blitzkrieg(TM 1939) to quickly overwhelm the lowland countries. The Germans, despite everything anyone says about them, revolutionalized the world with WWII. (Not saying I fully supprot WWII)

Shadow Nugz wrote: the Nazis... go German army. For those who see them as one institution, they are not. The large percentage of German soldiers were not in fact members of the Nazi party. They were propaganda-ized German civilians tricked into thinking the same way as the Nazis.

Saying that the Germans were all Nazis would be like saying all Soviets during the Cold War were Communists or that Stalin's purges were the country's fault.

You have to have respect for them, no matter what you think of the Nazis, if it was up to France, WWII would have been another trench war; but because the Germans took the first move they used their now famous Blitzkrieg(TM 1939) to quickly overwhelm the lowland countries. The Germans, despite everything anyone says about them, revolutionalized the world with WWII. (Not saying I fully supprot WWII)

Except it wasn't a particularly proud time for the German army as a whole, plenty of appalling acts were committed, especially on the Eastern front. Just as the Red army was not the party, but both did plenty of appalling things as they advanced on Berlin.

Ah, yes, the glorious lineage of the Einsatzgruppe...

The Wermacht never cleared the way for the SS kill teams to be able to come in and round up the undesirables. Nope nope nope. They are absolved of all sins.

This is part of why German historians have come to call "The Past that will not pass". The rest of the world won't let it be forgotten, and many Germans want to deny the truth of the situation. There are many accounts about how after the fall of Berlin suddenly their were no Nazis. Apparently they came into power and started a World War, but it was only like 8 Drunk guys doing it and the rest of the Germans were to busy baking bread and doing charitable work to notice.

Accept it, the Wermacht was as complicit as the others; they did some messed up stuff and were part of the problem. Trying to deny it is like picking a scab over and over, the wound won't heal.

There were of course some people that fought against it in different ways, but by and large they were the exception, not the rule.

Many of the problems we have in the US is becuase we don't want to honestly face the past (what Indian Treaties?, ect).

One day I'm going to build a giant flying swastika that that shoots candy. Yeah. That'd be great.

First to Stalingrad, for the sixty-year-old children of those lost to the huns.

Then to Disneyland with a stash of hidden liquor and a dozen bootlegged foam-mascot suits.

----

Did someone compare communists to Nazis? Come on, grow up. Your parents have that misapprehension, not you.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Did someone compare communists to Nazis? Come on, grow up. Your parents have that misapprehension, not you.

Quite the opposite in fact! I clearly remember my dad telling me "Never mention Nazis and Commies in the same paragraph, especially on internetz threads."

Those germans! Terrible the way they firebombed civilians in Dresden and Tokyo!

Wait...

No belligerent nation in a global war is innocent.

My Great Uncle Val was part of a Bomber crew during the Second World War, and I am fortunate enough to own a photocopy of his Flight Log Book.

If you want to see the difference between what a government does, and how the soldier feels, his thoughts on helping to flatten Dresden make quite an eye opener.

And that is the way to go for Historical references. Not official accounts. No excuses, no propaganda... Just the clear, un-edited thoughts of the poor mooks ordered to do it.

My only issue is that Kid Kyoto may get lazy with the number of skulls he puts on. Everry good inquisitor will have enough skulls to separate him from the average Chaos Bezerker.

"Some say 50 skulls is sufficient. Some say 100. But, my friends, I say a true Imperial citizen will not stop until every square MM is covered by a holy skull!" Inquisitor A.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Did someone compare communists to Nazis? Come on, grow up. Your parents have that misapprehension, not you.

Except context matters. In terms of greater politics there's a lot of differences between the two ideologies, but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about war crimes.

Here the two countries have a lot in common, and the comparison is more relevant given the crimes took place against each other.

grickherder wrote:Those germans! Terrible the way they firebombed civilians in Dresden and Tokyo!

Wait...

No belligerent nation in a global war is innocent.

It's good to remember that every nation commits war crimes. It's very silly to completely ignore the extent and quantity of each nation's crimes.

Of course its also good to remember in the war mentioned it wasn't the US/GB/Australia that set up death camps and killed whole populations.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Its not like its a flying swastika or anything.

Oh that´s already been done

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=AeFkwjEJnbA&feature=related

And it was a submarine too!

M.

But no skulls, spikes and especially no candy throwing breath.

M.

jfrazell wrote:Of course its also good to remember in the war mentioned it wasn't the US/GB/Australia that set up death camps and killed whole populations.

No death camps for the U.S. but they sure had no qualms about concentration camps. Didn't kill many people but they sure did imprison an entire population.

this is still going?
stelek decides to be an ass and start complaining (not that this effects him in any way) and now everyones up in arms defending everything that has happened in the past.

chill out everyone.
its a toy, it doesent fire swastika's, it doesent shoot a propaganda beam, nor does it have a speaker shouting out "hail hitla"

its a plastic toy that someone hs used to start all this crap.
i say forget it all and leave this in the past too.

Thats why its being discussed here, in the awesomeness of the OTT.

Anyone who wants to play the moral equivalency game and say that Great Britain and the US are the same as Nazi Germany isn't worth the saliva to spit on. No one has said that the other countries were perfect at any time.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Of course its also good to remember in the war mentioned it wasn't the US/GB/Australia that set up death camps and killed whole populations.

No death camps for the U.S. but they sure had no qualms about concentration camps. Didn't kill many people but they sure did imprison an entire population.

Wow no moral equivalency there...

Germans kill millions upon millions
Japanese kill millions.

We (incorrect) detain Japanese and some Germans/Italians. We pay reparations to the Japanese Americans. But we're equally bad to the Germans and Japanese?

As the epic phrase goes
"NUTS!"

Well....British Empire. Did quite a lot of good in some ways, but nothing can unbalance the harm we did, from which the repercussions are still being fealt today..

Besides we won WW II so we get to decide who's bad and who's good.

Imagine if we'd lost... all those years of documentaries and self recriminations we would have had to sit through.

And the History channel would have had no programmes at all to show !

If the Allied nations had lost, assuming all things done for victory remained done, I think the US would have a lot of trouble with the dropping of the Nukes.

Sure, it cut the end of the War some, but then, the Nazi's could claim the same of the Concentration Camps. No, I am not saying they are on a par, just trying, rather hamfistedly, to illustrate how the hindsight works depending on the Victors.

[quot]Imagine if we'd lost... all those years of documentaries and self recriminations we would have had to sit through.

And the History channel would have had no programmes at all to show !

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If the Allied nations had lost, assuming all things done for victory remained done, I think the US would have a lot of trouble with the dropping of the Nukes.

Sure, it cut the end of the War some, but then, the Nazi's could claim the same of the Concentration Camps. No, I am not saying they are on a par, just trying, rather hamfistedly, to illustrate how the hindsight works depending on the Victors.

Respectfully, that arg is full of poopy. The massed gassing of Jews, gypsies, and other desirables didn't help their war effort. One would say the same of the Japanese depradations as it hardened resistance.

But the point still stands though. The dropping of the Nuclear Bombs on Civilian targets, had the US then somehow lost the War, would be viewed extremely negatively by the world now.

Hell, I'm a Brit, and I still feel it was more than a little heavy handed. But then, thats the advantage of living in a more peaceful (well...it is a bit) age. I can afford to have softer approaches.

As to the Extermination Camps (which is a far better term for them) be under no illusions that Germany was the only anti-semitic state in Europe at the time. Had things been slightly different, the UK could have joined in. Fascism in Germany was not an isolated incidence, and had they won, it could have been credited to them 'cleansing' the undesirables from their lands. Plus, we might not have known about the Extermination Camps until well after the job was finished. IIRC, the Allies didn't realise the extent of Genocide undertaken....

ok, by now you may all think im slightly un-hinged, but the whole afghan thing isnt a war.
we cannot shoot "innocent civillians" but they can?
how is it a war if we cannot fight without worrying who we kill?
last month brit plains bombed an area and killed 42 terrorists, and 2 civillians, they were then paid compensation.
how is this a war?
just pull out the brit and US troops, level the country.

ok, its not a nice idea, but effective.

Because it is our behaviour and responsibility in the Theatre of War that stops us becoming Terrorists.

Sadly, with modern tactics, 'collateral' damage is inevitable. It's not a term I like, as I see it as papering over cases of, well, murder, with a far more pleasent term. Like when Genocide gets called Ethnic Cleansing...

However, that our Governments and Militaries accept innocents will be hurt, and are willing to aid those poor souls and the people they left behind, that is what makes our efforts just.

Doc, no all o them are innocent civs, they have alot of groups out there that train the youth to fight, how to shoot and how to react.
its just a cheap way of fighting a war.
all our boys have a uniform.
none of thiers do, s they can be walking up to one of our patrols with an AK hidden.
also, interesting piece of info;
if a terrorist is carrying a grenade you are only allowed to shoot him if he removes the pin.
by then i think its a bit bloody late.

its loads of small things like this that are holding us back.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well....British Empire. Did quite a lot of good in some ways, but nothing can unbalance the harm we did, from which the repercussions are still being fealt today..

I'm not an uber-patriot by any stretch of the imagination, but it always irks me a bit whenever I hear this (or other variations on the theme) because, imo, it's nonsense.

And again, one man's Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter. I don't mean to sling mud, but I do find it interesting that the IRA put the brakes on following the World Trade Centre attack.... could it be because funding Terrorists (and it has been proven that US Business contributed to IRA funds...) suddenly became bad?

The Taleban and Al Qaeda are a much overrated threat if you ask me. They haven't had much success since 9/11, mainly because no country has it's pants down anymore. And when they do attack, their attempts seem somehow amateurish. Take the July 5th Bombings in London. Considering where and how they hit, Casualties were shockingly *low*.

Besides, there is one way to stop Terrorism effectively. Don't live up to the stereotype that annoys the rabble rousers. IF you are seen to make good on your mistakes, you are disarming the rabble rousers somewhat. But, if we just bomb away regardless, everything they say becomes true. Information is a weapon. And thankfully, our's is a lot bigger than their's.

Jazz Is For Losers...but it is true. Problems in Africa, the Middle East, largely down to our interference, and lack of support once we'd taken all we could. We went in, destroyed their infrastructure, replacing it with our own. When we left we took it with us. Old borders were gone, and people took advantage. Ergo, many problems are directly and indirectly our fault. We got rich, they got screwed.

Besides, there is one way to stop Terrorism effectively. Don't live up to the stereotype that annoys the rabble rousers. IF you are seen to make good on your mistakes, you are disarming the rabble rousers somewhat. But, if we just bomb away regardless, everything they say becomes true. Information is a weapon. And thankfully, our's is a lot bigger than their's.

no offence doc, but thats bollocks, you cant stop terrorism.

its one of those things that will allways be around.
instill fear to control.
if they know that they will lose a % of thier population every time they do something then they will stop.

hitla may have done alot of things that were not only wrong, but psychopathic, but in the end he gained control of his country through fear.
if we can do that then it will cut down all of this crap.
not saying its right, but it will work.

sorry my oppinions are harsh, but after losing a brother in all of this my views are swayed somewhat.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The Taleban and Al Qaeda are a much overrated threat if you ask me. They haven't had much success since 9/11, mainly because no country has it's pants down anymore. And when they do attack, their attempts seem somehow amateurish. Take the July 5th Bombings in London. Considering where and how they hit, Casualties were shockingly *low*.

Besides, there is one way to stop Terrorism effectively. Don't live up to the stereotype that annoys the rabble rousers. IF you are seen to make good on your mistakes, you are disarming the rabble rousers somewhat. But, if we just bomb away regardless, everything they say becomes true. Information is a weapon. And thankfully, our's is a lot bigger than their's.

Sure. Let me just stop being Jewish and get rid of my Israeli passport and that should square everything, right?

With regards to Israel, I cannot help but wonder just how it would cope with it's Bully Boy tactics if the West withdrew their support. I mean, surely there are only so many UN Resolutions you can ignore before that happens? However, that is to do with a Government and not a Religion. Got no problem with any faith, despite being a self confessed Agnostic with distinctly Atheist leanings.

But when it comes to Israel...well, long convoluted story, bound to get me labelled anti-semitic when I am anything but.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Besides, there is one way to stop Terrorism effectively. Don't live up to the stereotype that annoys the rabble rousers. IF you are seen to make good on your mistakes, you are disarming the rabble rousers somewhat.

Going by that logic we should probably embrace Sharia law too. I have always suspected that my wife going to work annoys the terrorists no end.

i cant imagine it jazz

and i myself, have no religion, it just causes gak.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And again, one man's Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter

Yes, we should all give up on trying to determine right from wrong. It's all just, like, in your head man. Everything is ok and nothing is ok. You know, like, man, that cops and terrorists, are like, man, the same thing, man. Ya know? The capacity to think and make determinations, is, ya know, way overated man, and, ya know, having any kind of conviction, is like, like, totally stupid. Ya, know?

Jazz is for Losers wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Besides, there is one way to stop Terrorism effectively. Don't live up to the stereotype that annoys the rabble rousers. IF you are seen to make good on your mistakes, you are disarming the rabble rousers somewhat.

Going by that logic we should probably embrace Sharia law too. I have always suspected that my wife going to work annoys the terrorists no end.

Actually, not following Sharia Law isn't much of a concern, not when you consider claims of a new Christian Crusade attempting to wipe out Islam....

And interesting footnote, Sharia Law is something of a misnomer. It was my great fortune to work with a well read Muslim at an Opticians. The word Sharia itself means Law. Ergo, Sharia Law is Law Law, like Mount Fuji or the River Oos, meaning Mount Mount and River River respectively. Sharia Law itself simply does not exist, and is symptematic of the misinformation peddled by our media.

i say ban religion.
its all starting to get irritating and out of hand.

Religion Bad, Faith Good.

I mean, look at the Catholic Church and their new list of 7 Deadlies...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3517050.ece

Obscene Wealth? Lucky they didn't put Hypocricy or wilful covering up of Child Abuse, or they'd all be royally stuffed!

But I fear I have somewhat dragged this off topic, and for that I apologise.

is there any topic here?
i assumed thiswas athread for pure ranting about WTF happened to our countries over the years.

all i know is in a few years im off to Aus.

Shhh! If you don't advertise the crime you're planning, you might get away with it still! No need to resign yourself to the Hulks just yet!

to be honest, blair should of been hung
we dont need a queen.
and just after i post this im sure i will be arrested XD

I think Tony Blair cops a bit too much flak for the Iraq thing. A Premiers job is to make the hard decision, in the assumption that the information given is accurate and from reliable sources.

Sure, there is the question of how much did he *know* was bollocks, but even so. He had to make a decision, and it turned out to be a bad call.

Blair started toruin this ountry even more than it allready was.
he didnt need to go into iraq, he just needed to get his head a few more inches up bushes ass.

and you agree about the queen?

Yes and no. It is proven that the Monarchy bring in far more than they cost, so it's not all bad.

I just kind of object to all the minor Royals.

they dont work, or do hardly anything for that matter, look at the life they lead compared with the average worker.

Less Teutonic Tactics and more Teutonic Titwillow!

But, but, but... they have women ?

M.

JD21290 wrote:no offence doc, but thats bollocks, you cant stop terrorism.

its one of those things that will allways be around.
instill fear to control.
if they know that they will lose a % of thier population every time they do something then they will stop.

hitla may have done alot of things that were not only wrong, but psychopathic, but in the end he gained control of his country through fear.
if we can do that then it will cut down all of this crap.
not saying its right, but it will work.

sorry my oppinions are harsh, but after losing a brother in all of this my views are swayed somewhat.

Sorry to hear about your brother, but you probably need a bit of time to work through your thoughts before deciding on a sweeping political philosophy.

Regimes built on fear are inherently unstable, and rely on ruthless internal suppression to be maintained. They are more violent and more chaotic than the alternative.

And ultimately people aren't cowed by fear. Hitler's regime didn't simply scare the people into line, many agreed with his arguments, and most agreed enough not to look at what was really happening. In contrast, look at the impact of purely fear based campaigns - they're utterly ineffective every single time. What the response of the US to the terrifying events of 9/11? It wasn't submission. What about the bombing of London... not submission.

JD21290 wrote:the queen s actually german of some descrption.
kinda funny that the queen of england isnt english.

Not quite. She has German heritage, as well as ties to most other royal families. You get that after multiple generations of marriage between royal families to ensure alliances.

But that doesn't make her 'not English'. Anymore than me having English and German heritage makes me 'not Australian'. I was born here, therefore I am Australian.

How did you lose your brother in all this? Was he a soldier or a civilian caught in some terrorist act?

Bit odd to make a fuss about gamers making use of WW2 german model kits when GW have based several figures on the subject. Several of the IG officers wear uniforms and trench coats that appear based on german officers, then there's the old ork Stormboyz which are obviously wehrmacht and the Steel Legion which are based on fallschirmjager.

And people who can't dissociate the nazi party from the german army, don't forget the germans were conscripting too, the public at large didn't know a lot of what the nazis were doing in secret and the main thing on a lot of people's minds was that we were bombing their wives and children. For instance, few fought harder than those flying over Berlin trying to take down our bombers, for many the priority wasn't being a nazi.

So if someone uses a WW2 german kit in a conversion, people need to chill. Most people build these kits into the models they are supposed to be, if you think someone covering it in bolters and skullz is somehow pandering to nazism then what of people who build the models as accurate representations of the real thing, are they neo-nazis? All rather childish and self-righteous IMO.

Howard A Treesong wrote:And people who can't dissociate the nazi party from the german army

I don't think anyone has said they are the same. What has been said is that they are not without their share of guilt, that somehow the Wermacht is absolved of any wrongdoing. There are several books about the role of the Wermacht, as well as the desire to try and separate it from the actions it took under Nazi leadership during that time period.

Howard A Treesong wrote:the public at large didn't know a lot of what the nazis were doing in secret

No, they just knew what they were doing overtly, which was pretty bad already.

With the trouble being you objected to it and it was done to you. And your Family. And your Dogs family.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Bit odd to make a fuss about gamers making use of WW2 german model kits when GW have based several figures on the subject. Several of the IG officers wear uniforms and trench coats that appear based on german officers, then there's the old ork Stormboyz which are obviously wehrmacht and the Steel Legion which are based on fallschirmjager.

And people who can't dissociate the nazi party from the german army, don't forget the germans were conscripting too, the public at large didn't know a lot of what the nazis were doing in secret and the main thing on a lot of people's minds was that we were bombing their wives and children. For instance, few fought harder than those flying over Berlin trying to take down our bombers, for many the priority wasn't being a nazi.

So if someone uses a WW2 german kit in a conversion, people need to chill. Most people build these kits into the models they are supposed to be, if you think someone covering it in bolters and skullz is somehow pandering to nazism then what of people who build the models as accurate representations of the real thing, are they neo-nazis? All rather childish and self-righteous IMO.

There's two issues there that you're conflating.

First up, modelling an army doesn't equate to supporting it. Thinking a jagdpanther or the uniform of the Afrika Korp looked pretty cool doesn't mean you fantasize about lebensraum. Besides, if people couldn't model the Germans who would the Brits and Americans fight against in FoW?

But that doesn't relate to the actions of the German army during WWII. Simply put, they committed a wide range of atrocities, across multiple theatres as a direct result of a really messed up military culture. It doesn't mean everyone who joined the German army went around eating nuns, but it doesn't mean the organisation as a whole shouldn't be criticised because there were humane people in there. That line of thought leads to every organisation being deemed 'mostly good'.

It's like that hoo-ha over the F1 Boss and the Hookers.

Apparently, it had 'Nazi Overtones'. Maybe I'm just forward thinking, but somehow a 6 foot Dominatrix in a Leather Trench Coat spanking someone is hardly reminiscent of The Third Reich and it's Final Solution.

so if you use WW2 nazi stuff for added bits and conversions you are a nazi.....
on this note, i think my guard army will have.
1st platoon.
1st squad. steel legion guard painted up with lots of gray, mounted in a chimey half track converted from somehting WW2 german.

2nd squad. valhallan painted up wioth lots of brown and red.... warrior weapons ware every one has a hammer in one hand, and a sickel in another. mounted on a chimey converted from a T34.

3rd squad. tallern. painted up in light brown / sandy camo. mounted on.... goats??? everyone has an auto gun that looks like an AK-47.

4th squad. cadian. painted up with a lot of green, with a star on one of the shoulder pads. they get to ride in a hummer.

5th squad. squats..... just because

there, i am a nazi, commie, terrioist, dwarf hating republican (important note, america is not a democracy, we are a republic)... nazmieoistlican.

***VOTE ENVY89 FOR PERZ 09** i am running on the nazmieoistlican platfourm... i cant be racist, i hate EVERYONE.

hear are a few quotes for yall

For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself. -Churchill-

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. -Churchill-

In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. -Churchill-

When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise. -Churchill-



you got to dig deeper then the history books people. the historys books only show what the victor wants to be shown.

jfrazell wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Of course its also good to remember in the war mentioned it wasn't the US/GB/Australia that set up death camps and killed whole populations.

No death camps for the U.S. but they sure had no qualms about concentration camps. Didn't kill many people but they sure did imprison an entire population.

Wow no moral equivalency there...

Germans kill millions upon millions
Japanese kill millions.

We (incorrect) detain Japanese and some Germans/Italians. We pay reparations to the Japanese Americans. But we're equally bad to the Germans and Japanese?

As the epic phrase goes
"NUTS!"

I'm not trying to say that we're just as bad as the Germans and the Japanese in the war crimes department, I'm just trying to point out that our moral high ground isn't quite as high as most people think.

We freed what % of the Earth's surface from murderous tyranny again? I think its justly pretty high.

Assuming Japan and Germany both conquered about 10 times their original territory?

Germany = 357,021 km2
Japan = 377,835 km2


So

3,570,210 km2
+ 3,778,350 km2
_________________

7,348,560 km2


Total Surface Area of the Earth = 510,065,600 km2

So we freed approximately 0.0144% of Earth's surface from murderous tyranny.

land area. Lets back that into continents:
-Western Europe
-Northern Africa
-East and Far East Asia

Honorable mentions: keeping the Japanese out of India and Australia.

Britain did more than that when we lost the Empire.

Well, we didn't lose it per se. The Countries are still there. You can't, to my knowledge, actually misplace a Continent or Subcontinent.

jfrazell wrote:We freed what % of the Earth's surface from murderous tyranny again? I think its justly pretty high.

You did? You did a solid job on beating the Japs (though looking at their losses in China it was pretty clear their Empire was never sustainable). But you didn't beat the Germans, that claim goes to a different murderous tyranny in Soviet Russia (although you did help out by sending them a lot of trucks).

Yup.

Thats true. The Americans and Brits just stayed out of that one. Oh wait they didn't...

just realised this was still going strong.

Ahtman, my brother was a R.E.M.E (engineer) and his squad was posted to go on a quick tour and he tagged along out of interest.
ended up caught in a fire fight and died along with 2 other UK soldiers.

JF- of course, but anyone who’s studied WWII at all will tell you most of the heavy lifting was done by the Russians. Germany beat up its own military attacking Russia, Russia took it, turned them back, and then marched back to Berlin. We and the English certainly fought hard, but simply saying “we beat the Germans” or “we freed Europe from Facism” is misleading to the point of historical inaccuracy.

jfrazell wrote:We freed what % of the Earth's surface from murderous tyranny again? I think its justly pretty high.

And helped perpetuate a communist dictatorship that threatened us with nuclear warfare and attempted thrust its ideology upon the rest of the world.

And how would we have changed that?

JD21290 wrote:just realised this was still going strong.

Ahtman, my brother was a R.E.M.E (engineer) and his squad was posted to go on a quick tour and he tagged along out of interest.
ended up caught in a fire fight and died along with 2 other UK soldiers.

Bless you and your family then.

Grignard wrote:

jfrazell wrote:We freed what % of the Earth's surface from murderous tyranny again? I think its justly pretty high.

And helped perpetuate a communist dictatorship that threatened us with nuclear warfare and attempted thrust its ideology upon the rest of the world.

Same could be said of the United States though. Numerous attempted Coups around the World to enforce Democracy. I do believe North Vietnam Democratically elected a Communist Government.....

jfrazell wrote:Thats true. The Americans and Brits just stayed out of that one. Oh wait they didn't...

You stated the US freed the world. I pointed out the Soviets did most of the work. Now you're pretending I was ignoring the US and British contribution?

Come on.

Envy89 wrote:you got to dig deeper then the history books people. the historys books only show what the victor wants to be shown.

You should try taking your own advice. Just because something was recorded by the "victor" doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Same could be said of the United States though. Numerous attempted Coups around the World to enforce Democracy. I do believe North Vietnam Democratically elected a Communist Government.....

And let's not even get started on South America. We did a number down there during the Cold War. Had a proseminar on US - Latin America Relations and the stuff the CIA pulled in the 60's~80's is nuts. Good times.

And this is the curse of an educated mind.

We can see the same things going on, and nobody batting an eyelid.

Sadly, propaganda is very much part of the human condition, and quite possibly a necessary evil.

Mannahnin wrote:. We and the English certainly fought hard, .

British, not English.

Whilst the actions of the allies did indeed help the communist regime in the USSR survive in the short term, they were also the main people who then spent the next few decades standing up to said evil empire.

I still don't understand the USA's aversion to Communism.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I still don't understand the USA's aversion to Communism.

Because some people feel that it is a soul crushing concept that requires the sacrifice of the individual for someone else's opinion of what the common good is. It has a pretty bad track record, which perhaps is an unfair association with the Soviet Union and the PRC, of respect for individual life and liberty.

It is a philosophy that reduces everything down to a struggle between those who own the means of production and those who actually do the producing. That is a little one dimensional.

Many people in countries with an aversion to Communism are religious, and would have an issue with the atheism associated with it. ( Its been a long time since I've read the Manifesto, does anyone who knows more about it know if that is a Communist thing or just a PRC/Russia thing?)

I have poor playground skills and I don't like to share.

Communism *is* a workable system. However, it needs to be a global effort, and done in an abundant soceity.

But the Domino effect predicted during the Cold War? What a load of bunkum if you ask me.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Communism *is* a workable system. However, it needs to be a global effort, and done in an abundant soceity.

But the Domino effect predicted during the Cold War? What a load of bunkum if you ask me.

I'm not sure what Domino effect you're refering to...but post WWII history was never something I knew a great deal about.

How exactly is Communism workable? The onus is on the reds to explain that position, or any other political position that involves changing the status quo. We can't judge it positively based on past performance, though I give you that you can't say it might not work tommorrow.

Do you think there is any parallel to be drawn here between Communism and National Socialism? I hear young people all the time pratter on about how Communism is workable, but if anyone suggests Nazism is "workable", then all of a sudden that whole freedom of speech thing goes right out the window ( most of whom are bourgoise college students, which I always have a little inward giggle at ). To some extent are they not two sides of the same totalitarian coin?

What happens in your ideal, abundant, globally united society when I decide not to participate? The bottom line is that men with guns are going to come and force me to. You can't have universal participation in something like that without the threat of force.

Men with guns is quite a leap in logic. Just because pretty much all sides have done that so far is no guarantee that the future would be the same.

The idea with Communism is that nobody would really want to opt out. After all, if every has the same amount of everything they need, and nobody wants for anything (hence the requirement for an abundant soceity) why would people need more?

Generally speaking, the most ruthless, and thus successful, people seem to come from fairly simple Roots, and it was the drive and determination of either their ancestors or themselves (depending on the case) that elevated them from having nothing. This then breeds further ambition, and eventually, ambition gives way to outright greed. With Abundant Communism (I may have just invented a new offshoot!) nobody would be coming from such deprived Roots, and thus, the drive and ambition to escape such social and economic restraints would not be necessary.

And the main thing I would challenge is the idea of Communism as an alternative to Democracy. Communism is an alternative to Capitalism. You can still have a Communist Democracy, and indeed, Democracy is at the very core of the Communist agenda, with everyone having not just an equal share, but an equal say.

However, as a species, I think it's fair to say that outright Dictatorship is probably the 'natural' order. Consider Pack Animals. There is the Alpha Male and Female who take, to coin a phrase, The Lions Share and lead the pack, and various ranks inbetween down to the poor old Omega. Human soceity is still the same beast, just with different prey. Where once the Alpha would tend to be the fittest in the pack, we have perverted it somewhat so that Alpha Status is easier maintained by a certain bloodline, regardless of how fit the current head of that Household is to lead. Add social strata introduced by Business, where the loss of key staff to a competitor can severely change it's prospects, and things get even weirder.

Having studied Marx for a year under an expert, I have to say that your take on Communism is interesting and wildly divergent from the original texts and comments. It's really more of a overly idealized neo-communism.

Or as when even Marx said to his friends "I am no Marxist".

Grignard wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I still don't understand the USA's aversion to Communism.

Because some people feel that it is a soul crushing concept that requires the sacrifice of the individual for someone else's opinion of what the common good is. It has a pretty bad track record, which perhaps is an unfair association with the Soviet Union and the PRC, of respect for individual life and liberty.

Also Cambodia. Really especially Cambodia, relative to population there hasn't been a greater bodycount.

It is a philosophy that reduces everything down to a struggle between those who own the means of production and those who actually do the producing. That is a little one dimensional.

Many people in countries with an aversion to Communism are religious, and would have an issue with the atheism associated with it. ( Its been a long time since I've read the Manifesto, does anyone who knows more about it know if that is a Communist thing or just a PRC/Russia thing?)

I have poor playground skills and I don't like to share.

It's hard to get a full view of communism from Marx' writings. He spent most of his time on historical inevitability and analysis of capitalism (much of which is remarkably valid, even today). He didn't spend much time at all talking about the future communist state.

While state owned capital, the core element of communism, isn't inherently undemocratic or oppressive, there's no denying communism keeps leading to undemocratic, oppressive states. There are elements and ideas in communism that seem to lead to oppressive governments, Orwell is probably the best known author who has written on the subject.

One of the biggest condemnations of communists today is that there has been no attempt to address exactly what part of communism has led to so many horrible governments. They simply discard each attempt as a perversion of true communism and move on.

Grignard wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Communism *is* a workable system. However, it needs to be a global effort, and done in an abundant soceity.

But the Domino effect predicted during the Cold War? What a load of bunkum if you ask me.

I'm not sure what Domino effect you're refering to...but post WWII history was never something I knew a great deal about.

How exactly is Communism workable? The onus is on the reds to explain that position, or any other political position that involves changing the status quo. We can't judge it positively based on past performance, though I give you that you can't say it might not work tommorrow.

Do you think there is any parallel to be drawn here between Communism and National Socialism? I hear young people all the time pratter on about how Communism is workable, but if anyone suggests Nazism is "workable", then all of a sudden that whole freedom of speech thing goes right out the window ( most of whom are bourgoise college students, which I always have a little inward giggle at ). To some extent are they not two sides of the same totalitarian coin?

No, their similarities are vague and superficial.

What happens in your ideal, abundant, globally united society when I decide not to participate? The bottom line is that men with guns are going to come and force me to. You can't have universal participation in something like that without the threat of force.

Not necessarily. Required participation isn't really an issue. The state controls all key resources, if you didn't want to take part you'd be on your own, poverty stricken. This is no different to any other economic system.

Just becasue this is definitely a vent topic, here goes.

What's superficial about the similarities between communist thought and national socialism? It's not like they don't go together a treat.

Big Bad Communists are just like Big Bad Younameit.

Scenario 1: Government controls everything, but is kind of corrupt and/or wants everyone involved.
Oops.

Scenario 2: Government controls roads, water and electricity, communication, whatever, but taxes people who have to work for a shrinking number of Big Evil Companies who are allowed by financial means to do pretty much whatever they want. Somehow government is still in charge of inflation because they couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the Big Evil Companies. Sometimes they can still afford to go to war.
Oops.

Scenario 3: Israel.
Oops.

Scenario 4: Elvis returns, everyone boogies. The old people boogie and the knee doctors boogie. Wait a second, Elvis was more rock-and-roll than boogie-woogie...
Oops.

People who don't want to participate AT ALL in the society that THEY'RE IN are very definitely selfish, and should generally be hated by the sorts of people that hate things. If you don't want to work at all and expect to get anything, you're a piece of turd. You don't have to work in the service industry or anything - even spending helps the local community. It doesn't matter who has the most money, because if they're participating with it then it's everyone's wealth.

In the end I hate the white-obese-and-lazy and the daddys-rich-and-so-am-I far more than I hate those with the guts to support... hell, even _defend_ their community and way of life.

You don't need to fear punishment to be a good person - you have to be shown examples of good itself. I'm not a religious person. But selfishness is selfishness.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Just becasue this is definitely a vent topic, here goes.

What's superficial about the similarities between communist thought and national socialism? It's not like they don't go together a treat.

Big Bad Communists are just like Big Bad Younameit.

Scenario 1: Government controls everything, but is kind of corrupt and/or wants everyone involved.
Oops.

Scenario 2: Government controls roads, water and electricity, communication, whatever, but taxes people who have to work for a shrinking number of Big Evil Companies who are allowed by financial means to do pretty much whatever they want. Somehow government is still in charge of inflation because they couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the Big Evil Companies. Sometimes they can still afford to go to war.
Oops.

Scenario 3: Israel.
Oops.

Scenario 4: Elvis returns, everyone boogies. The old people boogie and the knee doctors boogie. Wait a second, Elvis was more rock-and-roll than boogie-woogie...
Oops.

People who don't want to participate AT ALL in the society that THEY'RE IN are very definitely selfish, and should generally be hated by the sorts of people that hate things. If you don't want to work at all and expect to get anything, you're a piece of turd. You don't have to work in the service industry or anything - even spending helps the local community. It doesn't matter who has the most money, because if they're participating with it then it's everyone's wealth.

In the end I hate the white-obese-and-lazy and the daddys-rich-and-so-am-I far more than I hate those with the guts to support... hell, even _defend_ their community and way of life.

You don't need to fear punishment to be a good person - you have to be shown examples of good itself. I'm not a religious person. But selfishness is selfishness.

You should be able to communicate in a more sophisticated manner than personal attacks and stereotypes.

I did in all the other threads. Read first line. Appreciate that I don't usually use these stereotypes and I'm demonstrating the futility of the discussion. What the hell was your point?

Oh yeah, something about communism involving men with guns coming to force you to do things. I also caught a 'red' in there.

The 'Big Bad Communists' are the stereotype you're working with. I don't think there's a government in the world that could handle Communism. But that's because it has nothing to do with government - the community is right here. But governments that embrace social services are well on the way to actually treating people fairly rather than as resources. Giving people a vote in a capitalist system... It's an illusion of service when you're voting for celebrities. I have to say, there are countries and regions that will elect leaders because of their economic tactics and so on...

The problem is always that the wrong sorts of people are often the ones compelled to have power, and they're usually the ones that get it.

Basically no one is going to come and get you with a gun for any non-reason. Be realistic. Your paranoia is astonishing.

I'm also going to restate my wilder stereotypes something from earlier...
I hate all fat and lazy people. Not just white ones. If you serve your community, you rock. Otherwise, screw you, you blob of human cancer. Your car uses more petrol because you're bigger than you're supposed to be. You drive to the supermarket more often. You don't even desrve a car - you should be buried under a tree. Admittedly some people are fat because they've driven a truck for ten years or whatever. No problem there. If someone can convince me that obese people keep the price of food down, I might change my mind...

Now GRIGNARD, did anyone deserve to hear that?

Possibly. I'd rather not spread the gore first post, but by all means ask me to expound.

I also hate rich, snobby, stupid people. It doesn't need to be said, but I said it. I even hate snobby smart people, and it doesn't matter how wealthy they are.
I'm sure you're a decent person, Grig. If you're rich, I hope you worked hard, and I'm sure your friends and community benefit from your 'wealth'. They wouldn't be your friends if they were nothing but saps.

You have to be pretty damned humble to waste money on imported British poly though. I know I am

Arctik_Firangi wrote:governments that embrace social services are well on the way to actually treating people fairly rather than as resources.

That's the best laugh I've had in awhile, thanks!

Don't make me stereotype you too.

American.
Thread-sniper.

If you feel belittled by only being a number in a computer system, I can't help you. But that's got nothing to do with you. So maybe the highest mark is where the governing body is self-sufficient, and we don't pay them taxes? It isn't going to happen, I know. Marxism is a crock too. Not everyone wants to be in the same club... but Warhammer has brought us together, despite our political views.

Of course, in here you're a number in a system too, with a very clearly defined definition and content. Google makes money because people use this site and most people don't understand why - it just happens.

Don't mean to rage - someone dented my steam-valve. I find laughing at horrible things is the best way to deal with them too. It's also a good way to miss details you've previously misconceived.

Oh god your naivete is still cracking me up. Please tell me more about me, Internet Tough Guy™. Everyone is deluded but you, after everything has happened in this world and all the scholarship and views, you have all the answers and know how Things Are And Ought To Be. Tell us more about how we can live up to your enlightened perspective.

Cordially, 118745274

In Britain, we made a move towards a more socialist state following the Second World War.

We now have an NHS. Sure, it doesn't work as well as it could, but it is a nominally free service, though drastically underfunded following decades of neglect at the hands of various Governments.

But I would rather have a slightly wonky, free Health Service, than have Paramedics check my wallett before my pulse.

Governments *should* be elected to serve their people. Most however, including my own, seem best suited to serving themselves, and the corporations that hold far too much sway.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Just becasue this is definitely a vent topic, here goes.

What's superficial about the similarities between communist thought and national socialism? It's not like they don't go together a treat.

A communist state holds the welfare of its people as the primary aim. This is based almost entirely around material measures, hence the fixation most communist nations have shown for production measures and five years plans. A nationalist socialist state holds the state and nation as the primary aim. In the case of Germany, the Nazis focus was the apparent manifest destiny of the aryan race.

The key assumption of a communist country is the class struggle and dialectic materialism (the idea that one economic model creates conditions that lead to new model, serfdom to mercantilism, mercantilism to capitalism, capitalism to communism). It is very much focussed on the idea of history shaping the individual. National socialism, facism, is based around the idea of the will of the individual, on the idea of the individual shaping history.

Facism developed largely as an opposing movement to communism. All those street battles weren't because they were arguing over calling themselves communist or facist. They were fighting for fundamentally different belief structures.

sebster wrote:

A communist state holds the welfare of its people as the primary aim.

HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH

-The Communist state is like every other state. Its sole existence is to gain and retain power for those in charge.
-Theory is wrong but also irrelevant. In practice, in over what 30 countries and a century, its proved to be a complete disaster. The exceptions are China and (now) Vietnam. However, thats only becuase both are moving towards classical fascist models and are becoming communist in name only.

jfrazell wrote:-The Communist state is like every other state. Its sole existence is to gain and retain power for those in charge.
-Theory is wrong but also irrelevant. In practice, in over what 30 countries and a century, its proved to be a complete disaster. The exceptions are China and (now) Vietnam. However, thats only becuase both are moving towards classical fascist models and are becoming communist in name only.

I don't mean to be rude but I think you need to try reading. If you had, you'd have noticed I already pointed out the atrocities in Cambodia. I'd already pointed out the inevitability with which communism creates oppressive governments.

And if you think China isn't to be included in the list of disasters, I'm not really sure what you're criteria might be. In terms of the welfare of its people, it's certainly no better than the USSR in the 80s, and that's after you consider how much more China benefits from the global markets Russia couldn't access.

Honestly, if you want to talk about this, cool. If you want to quote a couple of sentences out of context and head off on a rant, I've got better things to do.

Our Governments are oppresive as well, as Taxation is little more than money with menaces.

Only difference is, we kept getting told we are free, and examples of far harsher regimes constantly used as comparisson.

sebster wrote:

jfrazell wrote:-The Communist state is like every other state. Its sole existence is to gain and retain power for those in charge.
-Theory is wrong but also irrelevant. In practice, in over what 30 countries and a century, its proved to be a complete disaster. The exceptions are China and (now) Vietnam. However, thats only becuase both are moving towards classical fascist models and are becoming communist in name only.

I don't mean to be rude but I think you need to try reading. If you had, you'd have noticed I already pointed out the atrocities in Cambodia. I'd already pointed out the inevitability with which communism creates oppressive governments.

And if you think China isn't to be included in the list of disasters, I'm not really sure what you're criteria might be. In terms of the welfare of its people, it's certainly no better than the USSR in the 80s, and that's after you consider how much more China benefits from the global markets Russia couldn't access.

Honestly, if you want to talk about this, cool. If you want to quote a couple of sentences out of context and head off on a rant, I've got better things to do.

And I don't mean to be rude please show me something, anything anywhere, where a communist government cared about its people. The statement "lacks merit" on its face.

jfrazell wrote:And I don't mean to be rude please show me something, anything anywhere, where a communist government cared about its people. The statement "lacks merit" on its face.

Cuba is an oppressive dictatorship which constantly ranks among the worst in the world for media and political freedom, but to argue that it's medical and welfare programs don't show a genuine interest in the welfare of the people. Your question was basically a gimme, but it was also irrelevant to the discussion here, on whether communism is fundamentally different to fascism.

Thing is, the theory that the two are the same only really works if you say 'both political systems likely to fail and probably get a bunch of people killed along the way'. But that's a very superficial reading.

Fascist states fail because nationalist, expansionist governments inevitably bite off more than they can chew, and because the draw of the great leader only lasts as long as things are going well.

Communist states consistantly fail as well, but the reasons are very different. There's no doubting that the large state planned economies suffer crippling economies of scale, but not every communist government has to be a state planned economy. Rather, they fail because communism, whether as an inherent part of the system or just because, been undemocratic. It is impossible to maintain and undemocratic government while simultaneously attempting to meet the needs of the people. Inevitably you have to give absolute control or give up trying to help people... human nature being what it is, the controlling party typically gives up trying to help people long before they give up power.

Actually fascist states fail generally because their leaders had a bad tendency to go to total war with the USSR. Those that didn't: Spain, Argentina, now China, generally and unfortunately do much better.

jfrazell wrote (on the first page of this threat):
What Beef do people have with Sauerkraut?

Thick pieces of boiled ham or german sausages. And mashed potatos.

jfrazell wrote:Actually fascist states fail generally because their leaders had a bad tendency to go to total war with the USSR. Those that didn't: Spain, Argentina, now China, generally and unfortunately do much better.

Fair point. I'd argue that extreme nationalism and believing that anything can be done by men of real will tends to lead towards doing very silly things like going to war with the USSR.

That still leaves Spain and the like as having carried on a little longer, but I'm not sure just hanging around is really that good a metric of success. The USSR started before Franco and lasted longer, but I don't think we should be calling that a success. Cuba is still going, but I don't think they're all that much of a success either. I think in additional to durability, you also have to look at living conditions and whether the state managed to meet the principles it was founded under.

I'm also not sure I'd call China a fascist state. It's economic system has fascist trappings, but there's a lot more to fascism than just economics.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

jfrazell wrote (on the first page of this threat):
What Beef do people have with Sauerkraut?

Thick pieces of boiled ham or german sausages. And mashed potatos.

you sir, just saved me my lunch time.

Really? I hate it.