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.

Off-topic:

Sazzlefrats wrote: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

Good, And would have been more beneficial if left off at this point, but then you continued on with a post that spiraled downward from logic to casting unfounded asperssions that do nothing more than to prove my point about where PC thinking is leading us. You end up using propoganda techniques to imply that I have an agenda with no basis or fact to support such and have with your statements shown that you are no longer being gentlemanly, but instead one who seems to be engaged in emotional manipulation to support an emotion based argument.

Here, I will respond to this spiral:

Sazzlefrats wrote: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.

First, your use of the term devil's advocate is the beginning of your propaganda attack in that it implies several incorrect motives or associations. This is because, even though you use it to reffer to yourself, the phrase was used in the context of a comparison which does the following:
1)It attempts to discredit my argument by alluding to me as possibly just "Playing Devil's Advocate". This implies that I really don't believe in my side of this debate.
2)By using the term "Devils Advocate" with a statemet that implies doing such is negative or beneath you, you engaged in the propaganda technique of Demonization. In other words your saying this is an old debate trick to associate me personally with some form of evil.

Your descent into the use of these propaganda techniques is both sad and ironic for the same reason in that some of them were pioneered and perfected by those that you find upsetting

As to the statement about size of the american Neo-nazi movement. Quotation please? Also please to read the history of such. You will find that memberships to such groups were at an all time historical low in 1980 with a percapita level that was lower than any other developed multi-cultural nation. Something changed in 1980, a law was passed and it was recognized that the law would increase racial tensions to the point of driving people towards such groups. That law was affirmative action. Before the Law these groups were in a steady decline with the FBI estimating membership totals of around 10,000 before the law and 100,000 5 years after the law.
What I am saying here is that maybe Free Speech is not the problem but a government that has been practicing favoritism and to some extent segregation in the legislation it ennacts.

Now as to the U.S. policy on free speech. Who decides where free speech ends? The Nazis were and are a political entity. When you say that one political entity is verboten(forbidden) you pave the path to make other parties illegal. Making political entities with opposing ideologies illegal is how totaltarian regimes (including Adolphs and Stalin's) maintain control of a country. When you argue against the nazi party's right to assemble and function as a political entity then you are in fact arguing for the creation of a totalitarian regime within our borders.
I disagree with this.

Sazzlefrats wrote: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.

Now you make a very inflamatory statement that implies that I am persecuting a group. This is a progession of the demonization I mentioned earlier. Such tactics are employed when one side is losing the logic portion of their debate or argument and goes for an emotional response from the people they are trying to sway to their stance. Essentially it is an unwarranted personal attack that only works in face to face debates/arguments because it is relying upon a knee-jerk reaction from those that are listening. It is a tool used by the irrational to shout down the voices of reason. Now I would like to address the assumptions that this statement implies and how you just proved one of my earlier points:

1)Your statement about crucifixion when considering the subject matter is a very poor choice of words that seems to allude to my possibly being anti-semetic. Huh, I am a self-hating Jew simply because I refuse to engage in censoring others.
I, too, could play the PC I'm offended card by asking, "What do you mean by curcifixion? Are you saying that just because I am of Jewish decent that I am out to crucify people?"
See how this works.

2)Earlier, I made the point that creating a taboo about the subject and its imagery will lead to people casting false aspersions on those who disagree with having the knowledge and aristic use limited. Your statements and use of the demonization tactic in this thread just proved my point.

3)I disagree with your concept of causation. There is a difference between the trauma the holodaust survivors personally underwent and the current generation saying the imagery traumatizes them because something bad once happened that was associated with the image.
You made a callous offensive comment about my "crucifixion" of the second generation, my reply to that comment is that they have put themselves up on and bound themselves to those crosses without any help from me. Please to refrain from blaming me for their actions.

Sazzlefrats wrote: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.

1)My other Grandfather had war memorabilia displayed in his den and on the living room walls. When it came for the 4th of July parades these items would go on the veterans float to show the enemies/evil vanquished by our veterans. He had no problem with wargames that used the imagery and found the censorship of such as an insult to his service. He wanted people to see and know exactly what he fought against. I consider him to have been a normal decent man.

2)Yes, I think germany's current censorship is innapropriate. It comes across as trying to sweep their history under the rug and has not prevented the ideology from being embraced by some of the following generations. The criminalization of the imagery has just driven these groups underground where it is harder to track their movement and affect on the rest of the populace.

3)As to the why of Germany's law- I'd say that as a conquered country that was taking orders from those that won the war, finding the root of why the law was passed is fairly evident. It was tied to programs to re-educate a generation that was taught only one political philosophy and a bit of an allied sponsored PR move to show that germany was abandonning the ideology. Thing is there is a difference between re-educating a generation that prosecuted the war and the accurate education of subsequent generations.

Sazzlefrats wrote: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.

1) I can argue such. If it is ok to ban one political groups iconography then you are saying that it is ok for all political groups iconography to be banned. The reasons for currently pushing for such bans would be based upon a matter of dis-comfort over topics that people would find personally traumatic. This would lead to political parties being banned over issues that people find stressful, isues like abortion, civil rights and the deathpenalty.

2)Displaying a swastika is only unacceptable in parts of the world and only because it is being held as a taboo symbol by some groups. If the onus was taken off of the symbology and instead people followed Mel Brookes approach, you would see the connection between the symbol and these groups fade. The Swastika would instead become a historic symbol of a political movement that commited atrocities on its path to becoming an epic failure. When this happens the swastika as a political symbol will be less viable than a clown costume.

3)The point that I have been making, and your emotion based argument has been proving, is that by insisting upon perpetuating a social stigma and pushing for restrictions upon political imagery based upon personal dis-like you are insuring that history will repeat itself.

Sazzlefrats wrote: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.

So, your argument is that if you perceive anothers actions as wrong that you are then allowed to engage in behavior that everyone knows is wrong. Here the problems with this line of thought.
A) You cannot prove the individuals motivations.
B) You are in effect demanding everyone must respect your feelings without question, yet you are unwilling to do the same for others.
c) People have differing capacities for sensitivity, not everyone is empathic and not everyone is going to agree that painting such shows a lack of reason or sensitivty. Demanding that everyone lives and agrees with the same perception of what is acceptable is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.

Maybe, just maybe if you behaved like a growm man and discussed with the individual what bothers you about such a paint job, they might suprise you. Then again the person with the army has every right to say,"If you dont like it then don't look." You see the problem is not his, it is instead yours and you are seeking to make it everyone elses problem via emotional manipulation. You are the one with the problem concerning the look of the army, no one is making you look at it. If you can not maintain control when seeing things you don not like the US has an extensive penal system waiting for you when you take things to far. It us not the other persons fault when you decide not control your behavior. Your statement here implies the same thought process as many who find them in trouble with the law.(He/She had it coming, look at what he/she wearing)

Sazzlefrats wrote: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.

If you really believe this then why don't you set up a non-biased poll.
Oh, you are biased and any numbers you'd generate or post will reflect your opinion rather than fact. There is no other evidence needed for me to say this than to point out that you have obviously become so emotional about this subject that you are making the assumption that anyone who would field such an army is the provocateur.

There are many logical, creative and perfectly acceptable reasons for fielding such an army and the fact thart your prejudice blinds you to them indicates that your afforementioned trauma may be more of an issue than what you currently perceive. This is not an attack, this is pointing out that you are attacking someone for simply disagreeing with you.

You seem to think that not being offended is an inalienable right. It is not. Your inalieable right is that you can disagree with the things that you don't like. Just be a chap and don't turn your LGS into a den of drama with your disagreement, when you can instead handle whatever problem you have maturely and quietly without disturbing those who are not involved.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@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?

Wrong in that there is a difference between I am describing a passive choice that only invoves the player and opponent and yours that descibes what could be an aggressive and hostile attack. My response would be situational and depend upon if my Mom was being a C*nt or not.

1)If she is being a C*nt or a B**ch then call her on it. She is a grown up and can handle her own arguments. Just be aware that when you descend into name calling it reflects poorly upon you.
2)If she wasn't being rude but was wearing a shirt with a message you disagreed with, I'd quickly show you the door.
3)If you are an English Punk and Mom knows the differences in language and culture and is prepared for such, then go ahead
4)Now, if you decked my mom because you disagreed with what she said , was wearing, ect..After i dropped and subdued you, I would call the authorities.

Different responses for different situations.

@John and Sazz- I am going to follow the OP's wishes and call this an end to my part of this conversation in this thread.

No hard feelings, just a discussion. Best to you both




On Topic:

darkdm wrote: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...

Just saw this.

I apologize for my part in pushing the thread off topic and will refrain from replying on anything other than what you have described.

The poster that brought up the banners had a good idea or you could always use the trick of different coloured and rank on the helmets.

I still think that a darker richer blood red would look best as a contrast colour. Have you considered an urban block print camo pattern for the army?


Again, my apologies




Edits: Spelling 6x, dropped wording 2x, quotes for clarification, replly to OP

They are plastic toy men.

7 pages?

I saw the images, I think the arm bands look fine.

Balance wrote: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.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense now.

My issue wasn't trying to make the command squads stick out. The issue was getting the actual officer himself to stick out within a squad. I run a blob squad (combined Infantry Squads) with 31 models in it, and it gets hard to tell where the sergeants are sometimes. I aslo run some 10 man squads of Veterans where the Sergeant is armed the same as his squad-mates, so it's difficult to pick them out there too.

As far as banners in any command squad for IG go (both PCS and CCS), they both could a flag in the squad, so your idea would work too in that regard.

@darkdm-How about painting your commaders helmets Grey? If not that then how about painting the base colour of one shoulder pad a different color. On my Tau I painted the top and bottom plates of the shoulder shield mithril siver. It really doesn't take much to make the leader easy to spot.

My Grandparents were factory slaves to the Nazi's... I won't go in to the long "fun" detail. But I honestly have nothing against the OP's mini's- except one thing...

It kinda does look bad/almost swastika like from a distance like in group shot 2 on page 4, my first reaction was "oh this motherf better be kidding..."- for about half a second. On closer inspection you can see the chevrons (?the angled lines?) and what you are obviously doing. I'd Honestly give their guns a slapping of red, rather than painting on armbands, but thats just me- a lighter crimson? But, hey, thats just me.

My father was orphaned during the occupation of Hungary by the Red Army.

This doesn't give me the right to tell the player of a Valhallan or kislevite or Khador or that other pig-ugly 40k "russian" faction to change aspect 'x' of his army because I dislike it - no matter how much I might like to.

My IG commissars have red armbands and black uniforms. They were painted like this when I first got them (back when they were FIRST released and the examples were the same) and they will stay this way.

They are not "camp counselors" who encourage with treats. They 'encourage' through rule by fear tactics. Like the RL cadre they are based off.

chromedog wrote:My father was orphaned during the occupation of Hungary by the Red Army.

This doesn't give me the right to tell the player of a Valhallan or kislevite or Khador or that other pig-ugly 40k "russian" faction to change aspect 'x' of his army because I dislike it - no matter how much I might like to.

My IG commissars have red armbands and black uniforms. They were painted like this when I first got them (back when they were FIRST released and the examples were the same) and they will stay this way.

They are not "camp counselors" who encourage with treats. They 'encourage' through rule by fear tactics. Like the RL cadre they are based off.

Your missing the point. The OP wasn't asking if anyone had the right to tell him what to do he was asking if people thought it would could / would be offensive to some people. Obviously the answer is yes it would be to SOME people.... and based on this thread a not insignificant number of people. Please try to understand the question before answering


Just to get a little back on topic..... have you considered using different helmet stripes and what not? A lot of the old Rogue Trader art work features things like helmet stripes of different colors to denote rank and I believe different squad types in imperial guard armies. Not sure what kind of resources you have but those old Rogue Trader books are pretty cool for those types of little differences that can really make models stand out.

Nazi party symbols on a mini would probally be in bad taste.

If you are going to use nazi uniform colors though and are worried about negative response, simply use a large number of standards with your own (destintly not nazi) symbols on them, and splash simular designs over all your tanks.

John wrote:

Shaman wrote:Hope to see a discussion containing things like this..

Oh, where the hell did this come from?!? It's freakin brilliant. I could see this thing as a demon prince leading a whole bunch of demonettes.

I saw it on the chan.. so no idea.

I love this thread.

So much anger makes Khorne strong.

I still think its funny that if someone painted Ig as stalin era russians no one cares at all.

Tip to genocide kill your own people and the world doesn't care. Sad but true.

@FocusedFire - tell us the truth are you Emmanuel Kant? Dont be shy! (I've noticed that nearly every second point you are making is deontological in nature )

Seriously though, props to people in this thread for actually coherently discussing the Nazi issue.

As to the OP - another option would be rank on the chest plate, maybe off centre just below the shoulder? not sure if you would have enough room to do what you want there though.
Come to think of it, do soldiers normally wear their rank in the field? I was under the impression that Australian officers do not, and you are not supposed to salute them either, to make it more difficult for the enemy to target the "head" of a force, might be different for other forces/non-coms though?

With all do sincerity focusedfire, thank you. You made your points brilliantly and I quite readily agree with you. Not many of us would have the ability to be so rational in such a debate.

Now, as to the OP, I look forward to seeing more of your pictures. But I do think the armbands look fine as they are, though a bit bright in contrast to the rest of the miniature.

I finally had to time to paint up some more test minis and take pics. This time, I've taken some of the advice given to me and used a darker red. I've included two guardsmen with painted shoulder pads and 1 with red trimming on his fatigues. I'm curious to know if anyone still thinks that that shoulder pads or trimming are still treading too close to Nazi imagery. I painted up close to what the marking on the shoulder pads will look like. The red paint would only be on the "leader" of each squad (ei. Sergeant). Once again, sorry about the crummy paint job, as these are just test minis.

Picture 1: Group shot with all 3 minis.
Picture 2 and 3: Just one shoulder pad painted solid red.
Picture 4 and 5: Red trim on both shoulder pads.
Picture 6 and 7: Red trim on the fatigues, no red on shoulder pads.

Two thumbs up. That scheme looks a lot better too.

Agreed. Much better.

I like the trim on both the fatigues and the shoulder pads, have you considered doing both?

I like these better. The full darker red shoulder pad really makes for a nice contrast yet isn't so stark that it constantly distracts.

Definitley a step in the right direction. Have you considered a black trim on your officers and around the red shoulder piece? Sort of a same theme but with reversed colours between the officers and enlisted.

Much much better. Good job.

They look good but they need a devlan mud or badab black wash STAT.

Firstly, I'm glad everyone (so far) thinks it looks better. I'm also glad to hear no one thinks it's close to Nazi symology any more. If anyone still thinks it does, please feel free to let me know.

DeadGuard wrote:I like the trim on both the fatigues and the shoulder pads, have you considered doing both?

I have, but then again I really like the red on the fatigues and may end up doing it for everyone. But I don't like the red trim on the shoulder pads as much, and like it better as one red pad and one gray one.

focusedfire wrote:Definitley a step in the right direction. Have you considered a black trim on your officers and around the red shoulder piece? Sort of a same theme but with reversed colours between the officers and enlisted.

If I was going to do something similar throughout my army, I'd do something like that But only the officers will have red shoulder pads, thus distinguishing them from the enlisted men.

Vladsimpaler wrote:They look good but they need a devlan mud or badab black wash STAT.

Yes, I am aware that they badly need a wash. But these are test figures I didn't care about, as I didn't want to mess up already completed minis with my silly and wierd ideas.

In addition to not having to worry about anyone being offended, the new paint job just looks better. I like the red trim on the fatigues.

People can and will get offended by certain iconography (even mistaken) on little toy soldiers. I got a severe talking to from an ex girlfriend of mine who was from South Africa about the shields on my Skaven. The little round shield with the triskelion on it ( not the triangle, that 3 armed thingy) looks almost exactly like the device on the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement) flag. Despite explaining that the use of that type of symbol was long and varied she was still upset (blame GW , they made the little plastic bits for the shield ). You never can tell how people will react.

darkdm wrote:I finally had to time to paint up some more test minis and take pics.

Thanks for the pics.

The white-on-red army insignia pad looks great. A definite keeper.

The white-on-black squad identifier also looks great.

The red uniform piping is a bit iffy - it looks Mordian and your hand isn't completely steady, so it looks kinda "off". Maybe if you weather it with Devlan Mud, it'll be OK.

The red shoulder pad edging is good and easy to spot from the player's POV. The edging has similar issues as above as the edging isn't completely even - it looks painted and out of scale.

Consider varying the squad insignia like this:
- white-on-black for regular grunts
- black-on-white (reversed) for Sergeants and Veterans
- white-on-red (and/or red-on-white) squad / command insignia for Officers
The colors all tie together, and it's super-easy to spot sergeants, veterans, and officer models. You get out of the rather difficult edging business, down to simple two-color squad insignia, and very simple visual color coding.

If such schemes were "wrong" then historical wargaming would have to be missing WW2 stuff IMO. In my opinion it's all about context. An army such as some mentioned based around the German army yep cool go for it. Hell Steel Legion models take inspiration from them!
If however it's done by someone who decides to also shave a swastika in their head, play the game in an SS uniform with a hilter tash stuck his under nose while ranting about how certain groups of people are not human then I just might have an issue with the player.
Seriously I don't see the problem with it as long as it's context is there. Model and colour scheme the IG on that era cool, use the imperial icons etc to put it in the context of 40k again cool. It all comes down to the player not the models.
Edit: In the furture, at 4AM when posting, look for pages after the first urgh.

Agreed with the above- the white on red shoulder pad looks excellent! I thought giving it black trim for officers was a good idea, but I can see you wanting to reserve the red shoulder pad for officers only as-is.

The red edging I'm not totally sure about, but overall, this is great!!!

It keeps your colors and great contrast, but avoids anything you don't want to allude to. Fantastic solution!

I like the new look, the colors are better, everything. Thumbs up.

First off
I love your Daemonette Defiler, that thing is freakin' sweet.
The IG you think look like Nazi's. They do not.
Your IG tread kinda does, but that should not trouble you since your army as a whole will look much different all ranked up. If anyone picks that out and zooms in on that and gets frothing over it.
Well, let them. You cannot change peoples minds about things. You can reason with them and forge a compromise, you can even enlighten and change their POV. but you will never be able to change someones mind without a mind wipe.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my wife looks at a picture of a kitten and sees beauty. I see the same thing and think its cute. But i also see an A-10 Thunderbolt and think its beautiful.
My wife sees an A-10 and says thats ugly.
Paint your army the way you want it. You paid for it.
If someone is truly offended by your work they will say their piece and whip out a check book to get rid of it themselves.
Cause unless they are ready to buy it from you and deal with it as they see fit. They are only blowing on a fire, to make it worse.
I dont see your army as having crossed a line or even toeing the line.
Its not in poor taste, lewd, offensive, and you are not making a statement. Your working with colors on models, and your choice is an elegant one. Simple and it will bland in to a majority of back drops.
If someone gives you grief over it, ask them how much they are willing to buy them for. If the number is less than your willing to part with them for. They can shut up, nearly every country these products are sold in are free countries where you are allowed to express yourself. Enjoy your models, you paid for them. I enjoy them. Thank you for sharing them.