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.

Really, the thing is too subjective for a decisive, non biased comment on whether or not it is appropriate.

For instance, If for the first 20 or so years of my life, a bunch of people wearing the iconic symbol of the yellow smiley face came and burned my home, killed my family, and oppressed me, and then I finally was able escape that persecution to another country, and settle down.

Only to find that some of the inhabitants there decided to use the symbol on dozens of products and signs I would see everyday, the same symbol I associate with the horrors I had to deal with everyday for the my life. I doubt I say that it's ok for me to see that smiley face everywhere.


On the other hand, If I was born in this country, and I was not exposed to any of the negative stigma that the other man in my example witnessed, I would have no problems with it.


An example springs to mind that is similar in concept to this issue, drawing Muhammad. You might be thinking, what the hell is he doing trying to connect Muhammad with Nazis? Stick me, alright, i'll make sense in a minute. There was alot of uproar about the censoring of Muhammad http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/south-park-mohammed-censo_n_547484.html In response, images of Muhammad were put up everywhere, and I even a draw muhammad day sprouted up. People thought that this was a way to 'take free speech back'.

Now, think about this from the perspective of a Muslim, a country is insulting your prophet, a individual you have been taught from birth to (literally) worship. What these Americans are doing is mocking your prophet by putting him on an animated TV show for their entertainment.

Now, you may think, well too bad, 1st Amendment, I can say what I want, feth censoring myself. Well, you do have the right, but that doesn't mean you [/b]shouldn't[b] censor yourself. Case in point, it's why a successful businessman doesn't walk up to a poor fat kid on the street and yell in his face, "You fething suck you poor piece of gak!", well.. most of the time. Same thing when you avoid saying something or doing something that might offend a friend, and the biggest example I can think of people censoring themselves is Santa [I'm not going any farther, we all know about the horrible wages he pays those elves, and we shouldn't dwell on it].

(P.S. the whole Muhmmad debacle is supposed to be somewhat of an allegory to this Nazi situation, it's not perfect, but it's major points of get a thicker skin vs. you are deeply offending me is present)

To wrap all this up, you have the right to do what you want, but you shouldn't if you feel like you are going to horribly offend lots of people.

In this case, I personally don't see much of a Nazi Connection, I don't feel offended by the army, and see the points made by many about why it's alright for historical games, so why not this, and people shouldn't be offended, get a thicker skin, ad infinitum...

Yet, in the mixed societies we live in nowadays many people can be offended at this others would feel no pain at whatsoever. So, I think it's alright for you to play games with the army at the flgs, but avoid walking into a synagogue or something with it, alright?

Hopefully one day we can get to the point where it won't matter if anyone uses the swastika or other offensive (at this point in time) imagery, eventually...

Sorry if it's a bit rambling, its my first post and I wanted it to have some beef to it, sorry for the typos that were bound to happen, and, now excuse me while I nurse my aching fingers...

Focused, in essence your argument is that because Mel Brook's did a parody, thus everyone is entitled to wave flags and call it art and freedom of expression? I recognize that you are both intelligent and knowledgeable, but perhaps you are being overly insensitive in this matter. In general, it is not appropriate to publically display, particularly in this context, because of what it has become to represent, and primarily because DarkDM has made it clear its not freedom of expression nor for art (which as you should know is another medium for freedom of expression).

Sazzlefrats wrote:Focused, in essence your argument is that because Mel Brook's did a parody, thus everyone is entitled to wave flags and call it art and freedom of expression? I recognize that you are both intelligent and knowledgeable, but perhaps you are being overly insensitive in this matter. In general, it is not appropriate to publically display, particularly in this context, because of what it has become to represent, and primarily because DarkDM has made it clear its not freedom of expression nor for art (which as you should know is another medium for freedom of expression).

I thank you for your kind words, but I think your missing my point on several levels.

Point 1)It wasn't an argument based off of the concept of is somebody else got to do it then we should too. The argument was that people are claiming a similar connection, to this portion of history, as the actual survivors when they have no right to do such. These same people, who are trying to inherit the previous generations pain, are attempting to dictate to the previous generation and younger groups how they are allowed to express themselves on the subject.
I disagree with the concept of inherited psychological trauma.

Point 2)The next point is when we allow individuals to censor things based upon personal psychological trauma we are doing everyone a dis-service. When doing such, we first fail to help the individual to come to grips with and recover from the traumatic event. If such an event creates a strong reaction early on then as time passes it will often prove to be progressive and eventually become debilitating in some form or another. Early treatment is key to preventing the response to the trauma from becoming deeply ongrained within the psyche.
Secondly, we fail society in that such censorship both perpetuates the stigma (Preventing society from dealing/coping with the issue) and that the entire subject becomes taboo. When the subject becomes socially unacceptable then proper education on the subject becomes difficult to unavailable, leaving society to quickly repeat the horrors of the previous generation(s).

Point 3) As to the appropriateness of displaying such. In general it is ok to display such in museums, historical re-creations and in your private collections. People that preserve such history should not come under accusation of upholding the ideals for promoting an educational experience that explains how this chapter in history occured. When society caves to the pressure of not upsetting particular individuals or groups it begins to repress the knowledge and will view the keepers of this knowledge with suspision at best and outright hostility soon after.

Point 4) While I understand what the OP stated his goals were, I feel that our current discussion has progressed past focusing on his intentions and intead is now focusing upon the effect of allowing our emotions to have rule over our logic when it comes to censorship. Also, whether the OP recognizes the hobby as art or not is not relevant because the subject is not confined to just our hobby and the skiils learned in this hobby is giving rise to very talented artists.
Now if the OP does not wish for me to continue I will of course respect his wishes.

Lastly in reply to your concern about my being insensitivity, I am sure that to some I may seem insensitive to out right callous. This has to do with my life experience and what such has made of me versus what others life experiences has made of them. I also admit to having an anylitical veiw on such things. This is because off the cuff emotional reactions are where I get myself into trouble and I have recognized such about myself.
I look foreward to a time when words are just words and such symbols are just heraldry as opposed to the load of other peoples baggage that I am forced to carry. When you force my decision then you make me into a bell boy having someones emotional luggage thrust upon them, rather than being treated as an equal that has the chance to show courteousy.

Again, I am reasonable so if the subject is of discomfort to you, I can withdraw. We have been gentlemen in this discussion so we both may avail ourselves of the courteousy of being mutually considerate. Would you not agree?


Hope to chat more later.

Sazzlefrats wrote:To Ollieholmes, if I saw a swatsticka on a model, even on a historically correct model, I would be offended and I would take action (and have).

So a historically accurate miniature would offend you? I honestly have no good words for that. To me that's as ignorant as the views of those who you claim to object to. Still, it's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it.

The point that a lot of pro-swastika people seem to miss is this:

There is a difference between "can" and "should", which ges rigth to the original question of "offensive".

Politeness isn't required, but it's preferable in many circles.

Simple as that.

First off, I'd like to apolgize for not getting pictures of the shoulder pads up. I got off work, and stuff came up. Sadly, they won't be up for a few days.

One quick note, I feel as though the armbands served a pratical purpose whilst being, to a degree, artful. I wouldn't have wanted to put it on my mini unless it looked at least ok (as it also served another purpose), but since it doesn't look as good as I'd hoped, it's scraped.

Edit: I will be trying red on the shoulder pads, but there won't be any more black squiggles.

I hear the "well, you can play actual Nazis in FoW, so why not put svastikas on your Marines" defense quite a lot. I'd say there is a difference between making, say, a scale model of the Hindenburg (with two massive Nazi svastika emblems on its rear fins), and a fictional army that just happens to use the symbol.

In the first case, I don't have a choice. If I want to make an accurate rendition, the symbol goes there. In the second, the modeler is choosing, willy-nilly, to replicate Nazi iconography. It's a much more trivial usage than someone making scale models of WW2 technology

JohnHwangDD wrote:The point that a lot of pro-censorship people seem to miss is this:

There is a difference between having a dis-like and creating an uncomfortable situation for everyone else because you choose to make a scene.

Politeness isn't required, but it's preferable in many circles.

Simple as that.

Fixed that for you.

Sorry John but you made it to easy. My point here is that you make it sound like everyone will be immediately uncomfortable and that is very often untrue. People will often think nothing more of such themed armies(also Space commies, Inter-galactic Jihadist) than a chance to kick futuristic space nazi butt. It is not until someone shows a lack of self control and makes a scene that people become uncomfortable. You seem to think that it will be the guy that brought the army that will be the jerk. My personal experience differs in that it is just as often someone not even ivolved in the game, a self-righteous instigative type sitting on the sidelines that decides to make a scene because they get off on the power trip of being a pc bully.

Whoever it is that choses to make a scene, the second that person choses to disrupt the friendly atmosphere of the Gaming area they have made a choice that puts them in the wrong. There is nothing forcing such individuals to watch or play the game. Also understand the difference between table talk about playing the Space Nazis and people openly promoting the nazi ideals. You may not believe it, but people choose the level of and even whether or not they will be offended in a given situation. Its called self controll and being willing to give your fellowman the benefit of the doubt.

Focused, I haven't missed your points, I was being obtuse about Mel Brooks, but you have traveled onto a tangent that has obviously exceeded the scope of this thread. I don't agree that inherited psychological trauma should be transferred anymore than you do, but I won't play devil's advocate either, not while we (the United States) have the largest neo-nazi movement in the world. And we are stupid as a country for so doggedly defending freedom of expression even to the detriment of our own society, there is a fine line and that one was crossed a long long time ago. So your crucifixion of second generation victims needs to be reevaluated, maybe they are justified, regardless of whether they exist because of inherited trauma or personal trauma. The causation still exists, so it just follows. Cure the causation, and then you may have something. Maybe you missed an important point, do normal decent folk allow swastikas to be displayed in their lives? I don't think they do; neither do I. Labeling them traumatized is doing them a disservice. Consider censorship for a moment, Germany censored the swastika, do you think that's inappropriate? Was it just a small group of people who cowed that entire country to banned it? Maybe it was a larger group? Maybe a global group, and maybe it wasn't even that. But who can argue that banning of gratuitous displaying of nazi inconography is a bad thing? Displaying the swastika is obviously socially unacceptable, education of it, however, is not. Whatever meaning it held, was forever changed 60 years ago, and not in our lifetimes or even 10 generations from now is that likely to change. Thus we don't have to worry about history repeating itself.

With regards to self control, insensitivity and mutual consideration. If one excercises reasonable self control in their painting of iconography, which shows sensitivity to their fellow gamers, there will be mutual consideration from their peers. And there will be no scenes.

I for one entirely agree with John. Focused... why don't you make a poll on whether painting nazi garbage on minitures is acceptable for public gaming, it'll be one of those 90% unacceptable to 10% acceptable results. Then find a popular general public forum, and do the same, the results will be 99% or more unacceptable. Your presumption that John's assumption is wrong, is well... wrong. The vast majority prefer not to say anything, while hoping the "uncomfortable" situation will just go away. If you want to press your point, make the poll. Otherwise do as I am doing, I withdraw from the thread.

IILeiBlazeII wrote:The Inquisition (zealous military force = SS) hunts out members of different religions (Tau, Chaos, Orks, Necrons, etc, etc, etc = Jews) and wipes them off the face of the galaxy. I just drew a correlation between the actions of the Inquisition and the Nazi SS!

Why even do that when you can draw far easier comparisons between the Inquisition and the actual Inquisition. Talk about an odd analogy...

Interesting Topic. I vaguely recall seeing an SS-Themed Imperial Guard Army. I think everyone that Posted - including myself - is over-thinking the matter. At the time, when I saw the SS-IG, I didn't think twice about, 'This Player Is A Nazi', and I'm damn sure he wasn't. If you want to use a Colour Scheme based on a Military Force in World History, then by all means do so. I think, so long as you do not brand them with Swastikas, nobody can accuse you of taking any particular viewpoint or standing.

Think of it this way. Is everybody that plays Germany in FoW a Nazi, or does it show that they support Hitler's Ideas, or those of his followers?

It doesn't.

Its miniature.

I do not think your mini is Nazi themed. Till I told.

BTW,At my local hobby center,There is one guy who paint IG Nazi color. And Call his "Pask" as Rommel.
And here is no problem. May be because in Japan? I dont think so.

I'm fluff-mad man. But I belive 40k is super large universe,there could be "Neo-Nazi" like planet.
Imperium & IG are not always "GOOD" side. So dont have to be play good-men side.

I dont fear "Nazi-like" planet but I fear Women Space Marine.

@ff: the creation of pretty much anything incorporating known controversial elements is deliberately provocative when the option exists not to do so.

Hence, can vs should.

For example, if I were to meet your family, I can give your mom the finger and refer to her as a c*nt to her face, but should I?

By your argument, my doing so is blameless, and any negative reaction is on her, not me, right?


Anyhow, I think the OP has what he needs.

Over and out,

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The OP perhaps should make his little black squiggle a bit clearer, by recreating it on a large banner carried by the appropriate officer. That way, similar little badges on red armbands can rather be associated with the first thing in the army your eye is drawn to - the big red banner. As long as the symbol on it is very, very clearly not anything like a swastika, you should get away with it clean.

That actually sounds like a good idea, really. Also completely in character, and heroic banner-bearers tend to have 'good' connotations.

+1 on the banner idea.

For example, if I were to meet your family, I can give your mom the finger and refer to her as a c*nt to her face, but should I?

I think the connection of red armbands and saying 'for example' is the same while if you acted on that it is the same as extolling the virtues of Nazi policy. The first resembles a disrespectful act while the latter is disrespectful.

I feel the intention of painting up Nazis for the sake of shock value is disrespectful; painting up minis as nazi-esque implies art. As art is the expression of emotion or rather the memory of emotion. It was stated that the Nazis were snappy dressers and chose the colors they did because of the emotion the colors invoked. Imagery is some powerful mojo.

There's little question that the Imperium as described in the official lore is a terrible, horrible place, that makes the worst of both the nazi and communist dictactures look like a friendly picnic. The Imperium is so loaded with xenophobia, fascism, religious fundamentalism and other assorted unpleasantness that could you say it's a caricature of all the worst, ugliest traits of humanity. And that's the point.
The Imperium (and pretty much the whole 40K universe), its society, its values and its iconography aren't meant to be taken seriously, and especially not as an example ! It's supposed to be entertainment and distraction, not a political statement...
As such, someone who deliberately chooses to represent his units with real-life totalitarist imagery is at best missing the point. At best.
Besides, it's not like imperial troops aren't already loaded with such themes. So why feel the need to go further ?

You'll note that battlefront walks a very thin line with FoW, and often spends a good amount of time reminding everyone that representing something faithfully doesn't mean you're approving or glorifying it. Maybe they're touchy, but when you design and sell a game where one can fields units that are known to this day for their war crimes, I'd say it's a healthy precaution.

P.S for the OP : I know I'm a bit late to the party, but as pictured on page 4, yeah, you couldn't make those arm bands look more nazi-like even if you had actually used swastikas. Even worse, bright red arm bands look badly out of place on battle troops. "Oops".

H.B.M.C. wrote:Why even do that when you can draw far easier comparisons between the Inquisition and the actual Inquisition.

That too, eh? Seriously... last I checked, the Christian Inquisition did a heck of a lot of damage to non-likeminded individuals... I was, however, trying to draw the analogy based on WW2 Nazis to stay with the subject of the thread. But I have a question that digresses from the Nazis - and before I get to it, I just want to say I'm not trying to change people's minds but rather let them see the subject through my eyes. I realize this is an internet forum debate and nobody ever wins these.

I had a (relatively) close friend of my family that passed away in the 9/11 attacks (not necessarily close to me, but close to my folks). Now, when I look at these...





... should I see Middle Eastern Terrorists or Tallarn Desert Raiders? While they may look similar, I can tell that the lasguns are futuristic weaponry... but thats about all that's separating them. Now, since I had someone I know (not my extended relatives, not fellow members of ethnicity or fellow members of my religion, *me*) killed by Muslim extremists, should I tell the next Tallarn IG player I sit down with that I can't/won't play him? No. In fact, I came VERY close to purchasing a giant bag of mixed IG regiments at the most recent Bizarre Bazaar at my local GWS that had Tallarn mixed in! *And* I was going to paint/use them in a mixed-stormtrooper unit for my Inquisition (a la Ragged Edges of Raege). This is the kind of thing I'm trying to point out - Warhammer 40k is a *game*. Reality is *reality*. I mean this with zero disrespect, but when you start mixing the two, you need to re-evaluate the situation. I know as a kid my parents didn't let me watch R-rated movies until I was able to separate what was fact from what was fiction. Perhaps 40k is a little too grimdark for you - after all, it *is* about killing billions of people on a battlefield again and again and again...

On one more note, this thread has altered my opinion on showing graphic imagery in the classroom (primary sources, in particular) without parental consent. Apparently, some people are far more sensitive about the subject than others. I'll feel really bad for the kids that aren't allowed, though... reading history books only teaches you so much.

IILeiBlazeII wrote:(...)

You might want to remember 40K is a british game.
You might also want to enquire about historical figures such as the Long Range Desert Patrols, or Lawrence of Arabia. ASAP.

HudsonD wrote:You might want to remember 40K is a british game.
You might also want to enquire about historical figures such as the Long Range Desert Patrols, or Lawrence of Arabia. ASAP.

^---British Desert Forces in WW2



^---Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence of Arabia was a *man* that dressed in middle-eastern robes... the Tallarn Desert Raiders are a *force* that does. Thank you for proving my point, though - apparently, if someone who wants to find real-life similarities between a *game* and *real life* and looks hard enough at something, they'll find a correlation to something in real life and have a reason to snipe at it.

This getting rather far off topic though, as I had asked about my minis and how close they were, not if I support Nazis in painting them close to Nazis. Or why somebody should or should not be offended by them. All I asked was if it was treading too close or on a touchy subject.

I was kind of hoping the thread wouldn't get closed until at least after I'd have some thoughts on ideas I have for the shoulder pads instead of the armbands, but if the conversation keeps off topic like it is I may asked that it gets closed.

So unless you have something to say about the minis shown, the idea presented, or any alternatives, I'd rather you post somewhere besides this thread...

IILeiBlazeII wrote:
Lawrence of Arabia was a *man* that dressed in middle-eastern robes... the Tallarn Desert Raiders are a *force* that does. Thank you for proving my point, though - apparently, if someone who wants to find real-life similarities between a *game* and *real life* and looks hard enough at something, they'll find a correlation to something in real life and have a reason to snipe at it.

Ok, here are a few results from the first and second pages of a google search on "long range desert patrol" :
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo5/no3/images/Special-2.jpg
http://mcwarr.orconhosting.net.nz/genealogy/leslie/tpatrol.jpg
http://www.lrdg.org/LRDG-P2.jpg
http://worldwartwozone.com/photopost/data/500/medium/LRDG.jpg
Can you say "Tallarn desert pat... raiders" ?

Anyway, anything might be offending for some people, perhaps, but there's quite a difference between thinking a certain too-obvious-to-even-fit red arm band complete with white circle and black logo looks a little too much like another rather infamous arm band, and mistaking the very british LRDPs with talibans.

Frazzled wrote:You're right. I completely forgot how the marines stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima, brushing aside the ork defenders, with their new anti Shokk Attack Gun battle armor...

Sigg'd.

On topic, no, I would have no problem with you using these models in a game against me. I do not look at these models and think "OMG ITZ THE NAZI!". In fact, if you hadn't asked the question I likely wouldn't have made the connection.
In the long run-just don't mention it to an opponent. If they take notice of it, just explain that you wanted a way to make regular Cadians stand out more on the battlefeild, and it was in no way ment to evoke Nazi symbolism. If they still take offence, then apologise, continue the game, then pack up and don't play them again-its the best option for both of you I think.

I really don't see the big deal at all and not sure how this has sprung into a six page discussion. Even if the armbands do somewhat resemble the Nazi's, even if only by the same colors, wouldn't an opposing general possibly enjoy whipping darkdm in a game more than he would otherwise just because he's thinking "kill dem evil Nazi's"?
Most of us are grown men and women playing with toy figurines--let's not take ourselves too seriously!

This thread is fascinating.

I would have no issue with the models, but I think the banner idea is wonderful regardless.

kirsanth wrote:This thread is fascinating.

I would have no issue with the models, but I think the banner idea is wonderful regardless.

I have to disgree with the banner idea (I really appreciate the idea as an alternative though), and here's why:

1) Gaint banners for the officers would negate the need for the armband/shoulder pad painting anyways because then it'd be easy to pick out the officer anyways. I really do like the banner idea, but since the minis have already been assembled and I'd rather not go back and remake the sergeants and other officers, so it's not quite feasible

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
The OP perhaps should make his little black squiggle a bit clearer, by recreating it on a large banner carried by the appropriate officer. That way, similar little badges on red armbands can rather be associated with the first thing in the army your eye is drawn to - the big red banner. As long as the symbol on it is very, very clearly not anything like a swastika, you should get away with it clean.

2)If I were to go with exactly what was said here, I think it'd look even closer to Nazis then just armbands alone. Big red banners with matching armbands screams nazi to me...

But, if I were to do banners, I would do them similar to SM banners in the Codex: SM, so that they carry the officer's personal heraldry, which wouldn't be remotely close to anything nazi like. There would also be no need for armbands, so they wouldn't be there.

My thought on the banner was that it would show the army's device, allowing the icons on the sleeves to be variations denoting rank.

I agree that a banner itself does not work so well as a means of showing rank.

/shrug

To be honest when I saw your initial idea and then the pics I did say to myself "Hmmmm..... those look like Nazis".

Since you are planning on doing something different now have you considered doing things like white pants with one or two colored stripes down the legs? This would look good with your overall grey scheme and not jump out as being Nazi themed at all.

brettz123 wrote:To be honest when I saw your initial idea and then the pics I did say to myself "Hmmmm..... those look like Nazis".

Since you are planning on doing something different now have you considered doing things like white pants with one or two colored stripes down the legs? This would look good with your overall grey scheme and not jump out as being Nazi themed at all.

My laziness is coming out here
I could, but I'd rather not paint white over the grey. Plus, I could just put the stripe on the officer anyways with the grey and it'd probably look fine.

Thanks for the idea though! I may end up combining a red stripe on the fatigues with the shoulder pads.

darkdm wrote:

brettz123 wrote:To be honest when I saw your initial idea and then the pics I did say to myself "Hmmmm..... those look like Nazis".

Since you are planning on doing something different now have you considered doing things like white pants with one or two colored stripes down the legs? This would look good with your overall grey scheme and not jump out as being Nazi themed at all.

My laziness is coming out here
I could, but I'd rather not paint white over the grey. Plus, I could just put the stripe on the officer anyways with the grey and it'd probably look fine.

Thanks for the idea though! I may end up combining a red stripe on the fatigues with the shoulder pads.

Cool. A red stripe actually looks pretty sweet down the leg of officers. I did that on my Rogue Trader IG with white trousers.

The banner bearer doesn't have to be the commander, just part of his command squad... I'm not too familiar with IG anymore but it might fit as some sort of interesting Wargear. You used to be able to get some good parts for this kind of thing from the Empire Command Sprue. No idea if that is available separately or from bits dealers, though.

Sure, it makes the command squad obvious, but this is 40k where everything tends to be over the top.

A basic guideline for this kind of thing, in my mind, is if you're concerned it may be a problem.