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.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Skylifter wrote:

You mean that symbol which looks almost identical to the imperial aquila except for the latter having two heads? Or even like the IG skull eagle? Well, feth, I'm not going to use that on my models then if I ever travel to america...

Seriously, you made a fool of yourself, first by telling others not to use false German when you cannot do it any better, then by trying to row back and saying how you were doing it wrong on purpose, now you try to argue that there were hard and fast rules about what symbols you can or can not use when that is clearly a matter of personal opinion.*

I am not saying you were a fool, but you should just stop trying to argue this. You will not convince anyone. I will have a much easier time trying to respect you if you can at least admit defeat instead of childishly repeating that everyone else were wrong.


* The exception being actual laws. In Germany, you may not display a swastika openly, unless it is absolutely obvious from the context that it is intended for educational purposes, or, in fact, actually used as a religious symbol. But I doubt that there is a law in the US that you cannot use that eagle you linked to. And neither is there in Germany, and for good reason.

I realize my claiming that the symbol was forbidden was totally over the top.

Yeah, I realize it was wrong of me to bring this up. As one of the other users mentioned, I was directing this at a group of people who aren't here.

I want to make it clear that I don't have an intention of setting a rule, I was only offering a suggestion. And at that, it was clearly unnecessary and totally ineffective.

Fair enough. #chapeau And I do agree with you on one point I think: that people are annoying who just put swastikas or other symbols looking nazi-esque (and pseudo-German slogans) all over their armies in order to provoke a reaction, so basically to troll their opponents - as opposed to creating an army that is similar in style to WWI or WWII German armies because they enjoy interpreting that historical period. The problem is, I think, that you cannot always be sure which is which at first glance. I would give both the ones you linked to the benefit of the doubt, for example, whereas you seem to be less lenient in that regard.

Bad thing to argue in this thread: the Nazi's did good things.

You're just proving the OP's point. Focus on his logic and example problems, not the Nazi's being good.

The Nazi's "doing some good" doesn't mean very much considering a decade after taking power their policies led to Germany being a pile of rubble, under foreign occupation, and divided for the next 50 years. Temporarily decreasing unemployment through conscription and blah blah becomes moot when one considers this.

I must admit, I am perplexed at how the swastika is such a hated symbol, and yet the hammer and sickle, the communist star, the cross, and so on, are not. Many millions were killed under all those symbols. The Soviets killed many times more civilians than Hitler ever did, and that was just during WWII. Great numbers were killed by both the Crusaders and Jihadists during the Crusades, yet the symbols of both are still used today. Millions have been killed under the symbol of the cross, yet it is one of the most common religious symbols in the world today.

All in all though, I think it boils down to context. Would I find an army modeled after Nazis/Soviets with symbolism all over the place, scenes of civilians being murdered and burning *insert religious text here* offensive? You bet! I imagine anyone would be politely (or maybe not so politely) asking that person to leave the store, and probably never come back.

However, an army modeled, tastefully and artfully, after a period of history with snappy uniforms (let's admit, Wehrmacht uniforms were good looking, and I'm sure they were intended that way), with maybe a Iron Cross or maybe even a Balkenkreuz here and there? I think it's debatable, but I would have no problem with it so long as it's not conveying a racist message.

I do want to make it clear, I am NOT saying that any of the above symbols I have mentioned are bad per se, just that context matters. The communist star is just a five pointed star. You see it everywhere. It's probably the most common form of a star you see. The swastika has religious and cultural use, and, within proper context, is not offensive to me and I don't think it should be.

In Latvia, the swastika, as well as a reversed version, has been a cultural symbol for centuries and still is. It was used as a business logo in Europe prior to WWII. It was used by the Finnish Air Force for medals long after WWII. None of them are pro-Nazi.

tl;dr, many common symbols have had atrocities committed under, many of them are still used today. Context matters. If an army isn't very obviously displaying pro-Nazism, I say go for it. If it's artistic and historic, that's one thing. If it's racist or hateful, that's another.

@Hitler "did stuff for his country", yes, he did. He did make some contributions. However, what he did, and the murder he committed, and the oppression he subjected anti-Nazi Germans to far outweigh what he did for his country. He was an evil man, the Nazis were an evil party, and nothing will take away from that.

@ Dragearen

You put a good line of thought in your posting. Thank you.

However there will be people who are so.... slanted in their view point that they will not understand nor will they bother thinking about perhaps their view point might not be completely right.

The Nazi party predates Hitler's rise to power, just by the way. Hitler's rise was made possible by the beliefs that the Nazi party fostered as part of their plan to instill national pride into a beaten down country.

And no, I'm not arguing that "Hitler was good" - you're making an association error. The Nazi party wasn't Hitler, and vice versa.

The political party, before and even during Hitler's rise, was good for Germany. It wasn't until the early 1930s that things changed; and rather abruptly at that. But to completely ignore the period from 1918 to 1930 (give or take) is stupid, since that's when all the things I'm talking about happened.

If you're going to argue about history, then you should at least have a basic grasp of history, and a semblance of ability to rationally discuss points, instead of an overwhelming talent of completely missing them.

Could we perhaps carry this fun conversation about the significance of Hitler's political accomplishments into the off-topic forum, please?

As much as I would love to discuss it, this is really not the place for it. Start a thread, post a link, and I'll be there.

I've been warned about the offtopic forum though! Once people go there, they never get out again *cue ominous trumpet flourish*.

Adam LongWalker wrote:@ Dragearen

You put a good line of thought in your posting. Thank you.

However there will be people who are so.... slanted in their view point that they will not understand nor will they bother thinking about perhaps their view point might not be completely right.

Yeah, I definitely agree too. I have a friend who wants to play a Sturmkrieg army with Rotstein in particular, and has talked about including models of Stalin and the hammer and sickle. While it wouldn't be "offensive" in this country, it would be totally out of place in 40k, and therefore still inappropriate. I can't say I'd censor such content if he or anyone else posted it on Sturmkrieg, at least not unless people complained, I've recommended to him that he leave it out since it's pretty game breaking.

I'm really not out to dictate fluff to people as I've recently made it seem. While I oppose various things in fan fluff and armies, I wouldn't censor any of it if someone posted it on Sturmkrieg, unless of course they actually put up a swastika or something like that, or if it draws complaints. It's just personal preferences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TedNugent wrote:Could we perhaps carry this fun conversation about the significance of Hitler's political accomplishments into the off-topic forum, please?

As much as I would love to discuss it, this is really not the place for it. Start a thread, post a link, and I'll be there.

I was about to suggest that. Good idea.

Here's a little known fact: The German phrase "Ach du lieber, meinen Feierabend!" translates to "Yabba-dabba-do!" in English.

Oh my celebration evening? Thats what I get it as. Yet again, my German fails.

TheRobotLol wrote:Oh my celebration evening? Thats what I get it as. Yet again, my German fails.

This is what Fred Flintstone says when he gets off work in the respective languages, so the translation is absolutely solid factually.

"Feierabend" is the evening after work.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Germany is littered with Nazi eagles where only the swastika has been erased. The german government is completely paranoid regarding being considered even slightly right-wing, all of them, but eagles don't seem to trouble them. The German Army's university in Hamburg has a massive Nazi eagle statue on its grounds, where, again, only the swastika has been erased. That's because the eagle is still the heraldic animal of Germany, and the styling in which it is rendered is not considered all that important by most people.

So yeah, the Nazis used eagles as symbols and Nordic mythology for some bullgak rituals, but neither were an actual Nazi symbol. The swastika wasn't one, either; but it was basically unknown in Europe and had no meaning in European culture before the Nazis used it. Both the eagle and the Nordic gods did. Therefore, the swastika is nowadays considered a Nazi symbol, eagles and guys with long blond hair and beards carrying a hammer aren't.

And while I absolutely think that glorifying Nazis should not be tolerated, I also think that you shouldn't always scream "Burn the witch!" too quickly. Because if we all did, then GW's rendition of the IoM would absolutely burn first of all, and anyone who can tolerate playing this game must be an absolute arch-Nazi.

While it might be ok in Germany, using this symbol in the US is considered an automatic Nazi reference.

Uh, the eagle appears on all Euro coins minted in Germany up to this date, and it did appear on all one and five Mark coins we had before. The eagle has been a symbol of central Europe ever since the Romans brought it here. If the US consider it an automatic Nazi symbol, that's about a scientific as some Germans believing that Americans eat Hamburgers all day.

Nevermind, it's not worth the trouble.

I'd eat hamburgers all day but the Hamburglar ate all my hamburgers

Am I the only one who agrees with this?

I do think it is a point though that IG use WW1/WW2 style tanks,planes,ect.

Jidmah wrote:

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Germany is littered with Nazi eagles where only the swastika has been erased. The german government is completely paranoid regarding being considered even slightly right-wing, all of them, but eagles don't seem to trouble them. The German Army's university in Hamburg has a massive Nazi eagle statue on its grounds, where, again, only the swastika has been erased. That's because the eagle is still the heraldic animal of Germany, and the styling in which it is rendered is not considered all that important by most people.

So yeah, the Nazis used eagles as symbols and Nordic mythology for some bullgak rituals, but neither were an actual Nazi symbol. The swastika wasn't one, either; but it was basically unknown in Europe and had no meaning in European culture before the Nazis used it. Both the eagle and the Nordic gods did. Therefore, the swastika is nowadays considered a Nazi symbol, eagles and guys with long blond hair and beards carrying a hammer aren't.

And while I absolutely think that glorifying Nazis should not be tolerated, I also think that you shouldn't always scream "Burn the witch!" too quickly. Because if we all did, then GW's rendition of the IoM would absolutely burn first of all, and anyone who can tolerate playing this game must be an absolute arch-Nazi.

While it might be ok in Germany, using this symbol in the US is considered an automatic Nazi reference.

Uh, the eagle appears on all Euro coins minted in Germany up to this date, and it did appear on all one and five Mark coins we had before. The eagle has been a symbol of central Europe ever since the Romans brought it here. If the US consider it an automatic Nazi symbol, that's about a scientific as some Germans believing that Americans eat Hamburgers all day.

First of all, I wasn't talking about a generic eagle symbol. Second, I realize that my post was clearly ridiculous and incorrect. Also, it has been mentioned here that in Germany people do not always see the technical distinctions between the various eagle symbol designs. I see that symbol and the GW 40k logo as completely different.

I do not agree with this, but I have been told by laypeople that I should not use the GW eagle because they think it looks like the Nazi eagle, My friend has made fun of this, but I'm just saying it's there. To make this clear, I do not agree with that line of thinking.

So based on the OP, as reenactor I must be in bad taste.

DoctorZombie wrote: So based on the OP, as reenactor I must be in bad taste.

No, I encourage that. As other in this discussion have pointed out, the "but Flames of War tanks have swastikas" is not an argument. Flames of War is a historical game that is dedicated to WWII. Overly historical armies in 40k are technically game breaking, but people don't usually care unless they have something too coincidental because historical armies are generally not offensive. When you put a swastika on a WWII 40k army, people stop tolerating the deviance from the canon. If you put a swastika on a Flames of War tank, than it's probably supposed to be there. However, if you used swastikas in Flames of War in a historically inconsistent way, people would probably be offended by it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think at the very least, you should view a swastika as game breaking. While an American flag wouldn't be offensive, it would be totally out of place.

And I think that about sums it up.