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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You mean those US cavalry officers who routinely castrated the Native American warriors and used the scrotum as a tobacco pouch?

Actually, I'm not even sure if that's historically factual, but the fact it's even plausible demonstrates my point.

Phrase it how you like, one man's meat is another's poison or one man's Rebel is the other's freedom fighter, history is all a matter of perspective.

I don't mean this to be cruel, but this is argument from prejudice. What I mean by that is you are, essentially, arguing that if a group is sufficiently disliked, then they must have done something to earn that dislike.

I don't mean to say that you hold these views, but how would you distinguish such logic from, for example: millions upon millions of people believe that the Jews kidnap and ritually kill Christian children in order to make their Matzoh, are we saying that they are all wrong?

Because this is the internet, let me be completely clear here: yes, they are, in fact, all wrong.

No, I'm arguing that if a group has done something dislikable, then they're probably going to be disliked.

You appear to be trying to argue degrees of moral justification for various heinous acts, all of which should be equally contemptible, but somehow millions of people view one event as "better" than another because the goodies won.

Makumba wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's actually a question:

Has anyone seen anyone get offended/angry/annoyed at Axis armies in historical games?

I did. Guy got thrown out of a store here, because his machine gun ammo guys were made to look as if they were were death camp overalls.

Hmm... does that have any basis in history?

Well how do you even measuere how heinous a regime is? If its in magnitude of death and suffering, Stalin was worse than Hitler and Colonial-era Americans combined. If its in the cruelty or depravity of incidences, how do you even measure that? I don't think anyone here is trying to advocate that Nazism wasn't evil, so much as to point out that yes, all nations have commited attrocities in their past or recent history that were as bad or almost as bad as what happened under the Nazis. I think this is pointless to discuss, becasue you can't quantify evil, or wrong.

Also another valid point someone mentioned -important to differentiate between "German soldier" and "Nazi" or "SS trooper" in WW2. It's not as though the majority of German trooops believed rigorously in Nazi doctrine, or even personally hated Jews. That doesn't vindicate soldiers who shot Jews under order to do so, but bear in mind that to defy an order like that under that regime, would probably result in a soldier's execution at the hands of his superiors. I will iterate again -not defending their actions-just pointing out the realities of what was a very dark time.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm arguing that if a group has done something dislikable, then they're probably going to be disliked.

You appear to be trying to argue degrees of moral justification for various heinous acts, all of which should be equally contemptible, but somehow millions of people view one event as "better" than another because the goodies won.

Y'know, I don't really support the idea that "We're not evil because the other guys are more evil" either.

 adamsouza wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

In complete honesty, to say that the United States and Nazi Germany occupy anything other than similar moral plains is to either reveal an irremediably miseducation, or an abhorrent moral outlook.

Fixed it for you.

I'm sorry, when did the United States commit mass genocide based on religous and or sexual preferences ?

The Holocaust wasn't based upon religion, but on race. The Nuremberg Laws judged whether someone was a Jew or not based upon the number of Jewish grandparents, not if the person was a practising Jew [many German Jews were either not practising or religion was not a huge factor in their lives but were still persecuted]. Is your argument that it is okay to commit genocide based upon race but not upon religion? I'll run with that ... Much of the justification of the persecution of the Native Americans was based upon the notion that they were 'savages' as they were not Christian, and therefore did not deserve the land that they dwelt on, so yes, persecution of the Native Americans was based upon both race and religion.

Interesting that, with a few notable exceptions, the Christian Church either supported the Nazi regime or tried to ignore it, very similar to the approach taken by the Christian Church in North America during the persecution of the Native Americans. Anyway, one man's Holocaust is another man's Manifest Destiny, and 100 million Native Americans killed is a lot greater than 6 million Jews [although both were obviously beyond reprehensible]; if you can't be objective, nothing I will say will convince you

 liquidjoshi wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm arguing that if a group has done something dislikable, then they're probably going to be disliked.

You appear to be trying to argue degrees of moral justification for various heinous acts, all of which should be equally contemptible, but somehow millions of people view one event as "better" than another because the goodies won.

Y'know, I don't really support the idea that "We're not evil because the other guys are more evil" either.

Y'know, I don't really support the idea that "Everybody that conducted military actions and wars throughout human history in ways that were wholly acceptable at the time but don't align with the current moral standards of western civilization in 2014 are best described as "evil" either."

Ah, so killing the indigs, often in a brutal and unnecessary fashion is fine as long as you didn't know better?

Sorry, not buying that one.

This has turned in to a parody of the Guardian comments section.

Come on lads, life is serious enough.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ah, so killing the indigs, often in a brutal and unnecessary fashion is fine as long as you didn't know better?

Sorry, not buying that one.

Nobody said that.

This thread is acrimonious enough without you building a Straw Man and beating the gak out of it.

The guy I was responding to was saying more or less exactly that!

There's a reason why ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law, murder has been against the law for as long as any sort of legal system has been in existence, and there has been some sort of framework for declaring war for almost as long (albeit not always followed.)

To argue that it somehow mitigates what has happened in history from a moral standpoint because the people committing the acts 'didn't know better' is shaky at best, downright fallacious at worst.

One could perhaps argue that a soldier killing a native of a country his nation is colonising is just a question of him following his job, but when that act becomes associated with brutality, mutilation and other acts which are unnecessary to achieve this, then things start to get a little dodgy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's actually a question:

Has anyone seen anyone get offended/angry/annoyed at Axis armies in historical games?

40K is not a historical game though.

I thought the whole point of making nazi models was so that *people can kill the nazis* not to glorify them....

you wouldnt claim wolfenstein glorifies the nazis would you? its putting their iconagraphy on non canon units as well after all...

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Also another valid point someone mentioned -important to differentiate between "German soldier" and "Nazi" or "SS trooper" in WW2. It's not as though the majority of German trooops believed rigorously in Nazi doctrine, or even personally hated Jews. That doesn't vindicate soldiers who shot Jews under order to do so, but bear in mind that to defy an order like that under that regime, would probably result in a soldier's execution at the hands of his superiors. I will iterate again -not defending their actions-just pointing out the realities of what was a very dark time.

Their 'not-believing in Nazi doctrine' still did not stop them from commiting atrocities. The Germans destroyed 1700 cities and towns and almost 70.000 villages in the Soviet Union. Half of all households in European Russia was destroyed, and in Belarus, a third of the total population was massacred in Germany's ethnic cleansing. One in three of all Belarusians died. Most atrocities were commited by 'ordinary' Wehrmacht soldiers. The myth of the 'innocent German soldier' that just did his duty was, like most other myths about the Wehrmacht invented after the War in West Germany by former nazis trying to clear themselves from blame, and widely accepted for their Cold War propaganda value.

German atrocities are in no way a justification for the horrible atrocities committed by the Allies, which are often swept under the carpet, but in both judging by both effect and intention, the Allied warcrimes never even came close to the massive scale on which the Germans committed atrocities. The huge scale and especially the extremely evil intent of German warcrimes is unprecedented in World History. We should never be forgiving towards Nazism. Nazist sympathies should be fought at every step, so that it may never get the chance to rear its ugly head again. If you ever encounter a person, wargamer or otherwise of whom you suspect to have Nazi sympathies, confront him with it. Never just look away.
There is no possible moral justification for Nazi symbols outside of historical accuracy.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Much of the justification of the persecution of the Native Americans was based upon the notion that they were 'savages' as they were not Christian, and therefore did not deserve the land that they dwelt on, so yes, persecution of the Native Americans was based upon both race and religion.

Which was a bs justification. They had land, and not the people or technology enough to defend it from invaders. Early Amercian's didn't wage a genocidal war against Native American's, into neighboring countries, beacuse of thier race or religion, they wanted their land.

Also, you're going back very far into early American history for that example. Settlers at that point included large portions of immigrants. It was no where close to a unified country or modern culture at that point. Africans were used as slaves, Chinese laborers treated as second class citizens, Irish immigrants still descriminated against, women didn't have equal rights yet, etc..

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Also another valid point someone mentioned -important to differentiate between "German soldier" and "Nazi" or "SS trooper" in WW2. It's not as though the majority of German trooops believed rigorously in Nazi doctrine, or even personally hated Jews. That doesn't vindicate soldiers who shot Jews under order to do so, but bear in mind that to defy an order like that under that regime, would probably result in a soldier's execution at the hands of his superiors. I will iterate again -not defending their actions-just pointing out the realities of what was a very dark time.

Their 'not-believing in Nazi doctrine' still did not stop them from commiting atrocities. The Germans destroyed 1700 cities and towns and almost 70.000 villages in the Soviet Union. Half of all households in European Russia was destroyed, and in Belarus, a third of the total population was massacred in Germany's ethnic cleansing. One in three of all Belarusians died. Most atrocities were commited by 'ordinary' Wehrmacht soldiers. The myth of the 'innocent German soldier' that just did his duty was, like most other myths about the Wehrmacht invented after the War in West Germany by former nazis trying to clear themselves from blame, and widely accepted for their Cold War propaganda value.

German atrocities are in no way a justification for the horrible atrocities committed by the Allies, which are often swept under the carpet, but in both judging by both effect and intention, the Allied warcrimes never even came close to the massive scale on which the Germans committed atrocities. The huge scale and especially the extremely evil intent of German warcrimes is unprecedented in World History. We should never be forgiving towards Nazism. Nazist sympathies should be fought at every step, so that it may never get the chance to rear its ugly head again. If you ever encounter a person, wargamer or otherwise of whom you suspect to have Nazi sympathies, confront him with it. Never just look away.
There is no possible moral justification for Nazi symbols outside of historical accuracy.

Exalted. Though I would include Communism too.

There were things done by the Allies that should have been resulted in War Crime investigations but didn't. History is written by the Victor and all that. The Nazi's WERE bad, and so were the Communists. But we were the designated "Good Guys" and the crimes were committed were glossed over.

Hell, I think Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair is a war criminal.

This one has wandered pretty far afield.

Rule #1 has either been left behind, or is about to be abandoned.

As such, it is now locked.