The morality behind playing as "Nazis" in SH3

[Mudrik]

This post is in no way meant to offend anyone.

I have recently been involved in a discussion in the thread concerning the setting for SH5.

In that thread a post had been made by someone saying that they hate to play as a Nazi. I pointed out that not all Germans were Nazis and that the U-boat crews were brave men who were sent to their certain deaths.

I was not defending Nazis or suggesting that they are morally sound people. I was simply trying to look at the situation from the point of view of the men who actually had to fight and suggest that they were not climbing into their subs with swastika armbands.

There then proceeded a discussion during which many issues of morality were raised, where I think I was accused of having no moral compass and of basically sitting on the fence. Funny that seeing as I am a pacifist and believe that we should all try to live together in peace and harmony.

Can I just point out to anyone who is interested, a few facts which I believe illustrate how it was not just the Nazis who were the big bad wolf in history and therefore back up my view that we can all be as bad as one another given half a chance and that very few people in the world can confidently stand up and say that their country has never been involved in immoral activities:-

It was the Assyrians who first used mass forced resettlement of a population for their own territorial gains.

The Romans forcefully expanded into a massive empire over many centuries and hated the Christians.

The Vikings raided countries throughout Europe and created settlements wherever they went.

Napoleon was responsible for gaining France huge portions of Europe and expanding their empire.

Between the 11th and 16th centuries there were the Crusades where a huge army of devout Christians went to the Holy lands to forcefully take them back from the Muslims. A holy war which I think is what the hard-line Muslims seem to be trying to throw back at the western world and everyone is complaining about (hey, we started it).

Between 1915 and 1917 the Turks entered into a policy of Genocide and wiped nearly a million Armenians off the face of the planet.

For centuries the English fought their way around the world taking vast continents under their control and effectively turning countries into slaves for the gain of the British empire.

The British, French and Dutch invaded the USA, slaughtering (some argue Genocide) and relocated the indigenous peoples who had been there for approximately 30 thousand years.

Spain and Portugal invaded South America. (that’s why they all speak Spanish and Portuguese over there).

The French invaded Canada (that’s why there are French Canadians).


The British invaded Australia and began widespread slaughter and relocation of the Aborigines who had been there for between 40 and 70 thousand years.

Genghis Khan created one of the most powerful empires in history, not always peacefully I’m sure.

The Americans used to ship thousands of "Negros" (I don't like that word at all) across the world and sold them into slavery. A situation which was still echoing through society until the 60’s and 70’s.

During the Spanish civil war the Americans supplied military hardware to the Franco regime. Franco was a dictator just like Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin.

Stalin who was allied with the UK and USA in WW2 was responsible for the deaths of approximately 20 million people (makes Hitler look like an amature). Does anyone object to playing as a Russian in IL-2 because Stalin murdered 20 million?

Countries which at one time or another have been accused of war crimes include - Canada, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, UK, USA and Yugoslavia.

Admiral Donitz was accused of war crimes for his use of "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare". He received no punishment after it came to light that both the UK & USA had issued similar orders.

The firebombing of Dresden (always a touchy subject) is thought to have killed between 25 & 35 thousand people and was not proved to have any significant military facilities.

The US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (another very contentious subject) together killed approximately 250 - 300 thousand non military personnel in a split second with many tens of thousand deaths afterwards attributed to the radiation produced.

Wernher von Braun was a member of the Nazi party but welcomed with open arms by the USA as they needed his expertise to allow them to develop a delivery method for their new found nuclear might. I guess he must have been one of the "OK to be a Nazi Nazis".

The USA backed Ho Chi Minh during WW2 and then turned the tides and tried to defeat him in Vietnam.

The USA also supplied military aid to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war but are now trying to justify a means to enter into a war with them as they are now classed as being in the “axis of terror”.

The Irish were fighting a terrorist war with Britain for many years, trying to secure independence. The USA provided financial backing and military hardware to assist them in their terror campaign (war on terror anyone?).

North Korea has one of the worst human rights policies with approximately 200 thousand people held in detention camps (does the world try and stop them?).

Should I mention the apartheid system in South Africa and the imprisonment into labour camps of people who spoke out against this system, most notably Nelson Mandela who spent nearly 30 years in prison for his beliefs?

How about Saddam Hussein and the chemical weapon attack on the Kurdish people.

Idi Armein who is thought to have been responsible for 300 to 500 thousand deaths.

Tito and his concentration camps.

Pinochets’ dictatorship.

The Ayatollah Khomeini.

Galtieri and the estimated 30 thousand political objectors who simply disappeared.

The list could go on and on.

I find it amusing that whenever the Gulf war and the way in which the west justified going to war with Iraq (to secure oil rights for the next few decades? no, really?), people always knee jerk and suggest that what is being hinted at is that it is all Bush’s fault, Hey wake up guys, we have one too, ever heard of Tony Blair?

Whilst on the subject of the Bush administration. They have a pretty poor human rights reputation for what is going on down in Guantanamo.

If there was no Nationalism in the world there would be no need for borders, national anthems and national flags. Most countries in the world are nationalistic by default.

So, when you are discussing the morals of playing as a German submariner, when you are saying that if you don't agree with something you should fight against it, when you are suggesting that people have no moral compass and when you are on your soap box shouting about how great it is to be a citizen in (insert country here) because they have done no wrong, have a look at some history.

History has been filled with dictators and genocidal maniacs from many countries and many political persuasions. Take a better look at the world around you and don’t get too over emotional about history. What’s done is done and we must try to be positive and move on with a view to taking care of each other and our planet.

[Sailor Steve]

We have a special forum reserved for topics like this. It's called 'General Topics'.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=175

[Canonicus]

Its simple....U-boats were commanded and crewed by brave men who, unfortunately, were fighting for the death and destruction of free civilizations.

BTW... you didn't happen to mention the genocide Japanese occupiers perpetrated upon the civilian population of Nanking, China..... You know...the infamous "Rape of Nanking"?

The A-bombs were the Japs getting their Karma back.

[heartc]

This post is in no way meant to offend anyone.

I have recently been involved in a discussion in the thread concerning the setting for SH5.



Jesus Christ, give it a rest. And leave that discussion where it was, I don't want to repeat myself. Or better yet, heed what Sailor Steve said. I'm sick of political discussions on the internet. Makes you learn more about people than you ever wanted to.

[STEED]

This topic has been talked about many times, but feel free.

[joea]

Not again please lock someone...:nope::damn:

[Hitman]

1.- I don't understand what this thread is doing here, it should go to the general topics forum

2.- I fail to understand what you are trying to say. You seem to have done a post to justify your opinions, yet because it is disconnected from the thread where the discussion was going on, I probably don't get where you are going to.:-?

3.- History shows, that's right, how many different nations used violence as the main mean to ensure their expansion and supremacy. It's in human nature to do that, after all. I agree with it.

4.- In SH3 you don't play as nazi, you play as a U-Boot commander who doesn't have to be a nazi, and who is fighting to avoid that his country, where is family and beloved ones are, loses a war with all that implies.

My 4 cents

[SUBMAN1]

You have many contradictions in your post and inaccuracies. Some examples:

The USA also supplied military aid to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war but are now trying to justify a means to enter into a war with them as they are now classed as being in the “axis of terror”.

You are talking about two different governments, with the only link as being the same land mass here. The US backed the Shaw of Iran, but when Kohoemeni overthrough the Shaw, that is when the US turned its back.

Between the 11th and 16th centuries there were the Crusades where a huge army of devout Christians went to the Holy lands to forcefully take them back from the Muslims. A holy war which I think is what the hard-line Muslims seem to be trying to throw back at the western world and everyone is complaining about (hey, we started it).

This was not started by the Christians. You must be getting your history from the Muslims or something. This was in response to the Muslims ever expanding their own territory - especially into Spain and surrounding countries.


The Americans used to ship thousands of "Negros" (I don't like that word at all) across the world and sold them into slavery. A situation which was still echoing through society until the 60’s and 70’s.

This was mostly a Brisitsh endevour who then turned around and sold them to the US for work on US plantations. The rounding up of the slaves themselves was not even really the work of the British, but the work of the people of the very own countries these people were native from. Nice brotherhood they have. Also, loose the PC garbage. Its a word and its only a negative word due to PC'ness.


Countries which at one time or another have been accused of war crimes include - Canada, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, UK, USA and Yugoslavia.

Yes - Many countries have been accused falsely of war crimes. Some of these countries in your list include Canada, the UK, and the USA. The reason? Some people think war is a crime in itself. To constitute a war crime of a country involves a country giving an explicite order to do something against the Geneva convention. Inidividual soldiers acting on their own accord does not make a whole country guilty of war crimes. Some people just don't get that however.

The firebombing of Dresden (always a touchy subject) is thought to have killed between 25 & 35 thousand people and was not proved to have any significant military facilities.

People don't seem to get that civilians in a war are not protected. They actually can be of military value because you break the will of the people, you break the back of the country. I beleive they are a teir 5 target in the scheme of things. Teir 1 targets would be like C & C, headqaurters, etc.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this, but you get the idea.

-S

[Mudrik]

OK (he says with hands held high). I apologise if I've upset anyone, covered old ground, posted in the wrong forum or used gross historical innacuracies. No offense meant to anyone.

I'm not a politically motivated person and I guess I have a poor understanding of why people would want to have a war.

I'll shut up now and go and play SH4

[CCIP]

Here's what I will say:

Any good, sane simulation gamer knows the difference between 'realism' and 'reality'. Simulation gamers are generally distinguished not only by their level of obsessiveness over detail, but also their overall maturity.

So, any mature simulation player that can't, at the end of the day, distinguish playing the Nazis from supporting the Nazis should probably seek counseling :hmm:

[Dowly]

This subject has been talked over dozens of times already. And like stated already, not every german in WWII were nazis, they had no choice to not fight (well, they had and it was death). And Uboat arm was one of the least politically affected arms of the german military.

[Lt. Staumeier]

So, uh...people actually claimed that playing SH3 makes you pro-Nazi? C'mon people, you ever heard of videogames? In closing, I'd like to say I agree with the op here. Noone is innocent, and few are good guys. Some just hide their bad side better than others.

[robbo180265]

Erm - Nah I've done this before,but hey - you guys be my guest:D

[geetrue]

I had pizza last night and went to see "At Worlds End" the Pirates 3 movie. I had a really good time ... :p

I don't want to offend anyone either. :cool:

Why don't we lock the thread before it's time or just say, "Hello" :up:

[Takeda Shingen]

This thread will stay open unless there is behavioral cause to close it. If we can tolerate 22,549 discussions about Iraq, we can have 5 discussions about games and fascism.

EDIT: I would appreciate, since newer members are not clarvoyant, if our upstanding regulars could refrain from decapitating the newbies if they start a topic that has been discussed before. Do try to be, at minimal, civil.

Thanks,
The Management

[robbo180265]

This thread will stay open unless there is behavioral cause to close it. If we can tolerate 22,549 discussions about Iraq, we can have 5 discussions about games and fascism.

EDIT: I would appreciate, since newer members are not clarvoyant, if our upstanding regulars could refrain from decapitating the newbies if they start a topic that has been discussed before. Do try to be, at minimal, civil.

Thanks,
The Management

You have a point, and I hadn't really thought about it enough obviously. I was attempting to say that I didn't want to participate in the inevitable argument, and I apologise.

[kiwi_2005]

History has been filled with dictators and genocidal maniacs from many countries and many political persuasions. Take a better look at the world around you and don’t get too over emotional about history. What’s done is done and we must try to be positive and move on with a view to taking care of each other and our planet.
Thats it all in one.

And thanks for the history lesson :up:

[geetrue]

Good! Now I can make a simple statement, "I love sub sims", because I was on the winning side of at least
two of the Silent Hunter series.

I have never met a Nazi and I have no intentions of meeting one, but I did know a German girl one time ...
however she didn't have much clothes on and our conversation soon turned to one of mutal respect for one another. :yep:

[kurtz]

You have many contradictions in your post and inaccuracies. Some examples:

The USA also supplied military aid to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war but are now trying to justify a means to enter into a war with them as they are now classed as being in the “axis of terror”.

You are talking about two different governments, with the only link as being the same land mass here. The US backed the Shaw of Iran, but when Kohoemeni overthrough the Shaw, that is when the US turned its back.

:up: Total agreement -Kurtz


Between the 11th and 16th centuries there were the Crusades where a huge army of devout Christians went to the Holy lands to forcefully take them back from the Muslims. A holy war which I think is what the hard-line Muslims seem to be trying to throw back at the western world and everyone is complaining about (hey, we started it).

This was not started by the Christians. You must be getting your history from the Muslims or something. This was in response to the Muslims ever expanding their own territory - especially into Spain and surrounding countries. The Americans used to ship thousands of "Negros" (I don't like that word at all) across the world and sold them into slavery. A situation which was still echoing through society until the 60’s and 70’s.

IIRC the three crusades were started by the christians to reclaim Jerusalem as it had fallen into the hands of the infidel. There was also around that time a massive muslim expansion which if it hadn't been halted and reversed in Spain would have ended civilisation.-Kurtz
This was mostly a Brisitsh endevour who then turned around and sold them to the US for work on US plantations. The rounding up of the slaves themselves was not even really the work of the British, but the work of the people of the very own countries these people were native from. Nice brotherhood they have. Also, loose the PC garbage. Its a word and its only a negative word due to PC'ness.

Agreed mostly Arabs acting through local Africans, I like to think we made it more efficient. Also do we credit for stopping it.-Kurtz


Countries which at one time or another have been accused of war crimes include - Canada, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, UK, USA and Yugoslavia.

Yes - Many countries have been accused falsely of war crimes. Some of these countries in your list include Canada, the UK, and the USA. The reason? Some people think war is a crime in itself. To constitute a war crime of a country involves a country giving an explicite order to do something against the Geneva convention. Inidividual soldiers acting on their own accord does not make a whole country guilty of war crimes. Some people just don't get that however.

The firebombing of Dresden (always a touchy subject) is thought to have killed between 25 & 35 thousand people and was not proved to have any significant military facilities.

People don't seem to get that civilians in a war are not protected. They actually can be of military value because you break the will of the people, you break the back of the country. I beleive they are a teir 5 target in the scheme of things. Teir 1 targets would be like C & C, headqaurters, etc.

Apparently we were going to charge germany with this at Nuremberg but then we realised we'd done it ourselves and thought better of it. I believe it's still a crime according to either the Hague or Geneva convention. Still, as they say in Apocalypse now, charging people with murder would be like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500.


Anyway, I could go on and on about this, but you get the idea.

Agreed we got the idea the first time. I'm just nitpicking on the details, sometime when there's a war on people get overexcited, happens in peacetime too:D

[Heibges]

I believe Hap Arnold said famously to Curtis LeMay that if the United States lost the War, they would both the arrested as War Criminals. And many other American officers were against targeting cities including Ray Spruance, who won WWII in the Pacific for the United States at the Battle of Midway.

The way Statistical Analysis mad terror bombing to logical and so predictable was probably hard to argue with during WWII.

And come on. Arnold and LeMay were going to do what they had to do for job security.

If Jimmy Carter had one the election in 1980 we might not have any manned bombers today at all, and 400 Submarines.

I think the military policies of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century was a battle between the follower of Curtin LeMay and the followers of Hyman Rickover.

[geetrue]

I think the military policies of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century was a battle between the follower of Curtin LeMay and the followers of Hyman Rickover.

Now don't get me wrong Heibges I'm on your side, but I thought Hyman Rickover was non-polictical or did you just mean his thought's on nuclear power usage?

Rickover was one strange dude. He interviewed people for the nuclear power porgram and always had them sit in a chair with the front two legs two inches shorter so the person he was interviewing was uncomfortable. When he made captain he just sewed another new stripe on his coat sleeve. Three old faded gold stripes and one new gold stripe made him an unusal looking fellow.

[Chock]

The fact that many of the Kriegsmarine might not have been Nazi party members themselves is well documented, but signing up to join a military force, this is the sort of chance you take. I daresay there are quite a few Democrats in the US Army right now who don't necessarily agree with G W Bush's policies, but follow their orders nonetheless, that they do so doesn't make them Republicans. I know many friends of mine in the British forces wouldn't p*ss on Tony Blair if he was on fire, but they still do as they are ordered, as that was the pledge they took when they signed up.

Here's some interesting takes on the matter:

Adolf Hitler: "I have a reactionary army, a National Socialist air force, and a Christian navy.'

Ace U-Boat commander Reinhard Suhren (U-564), once famously shouted up to the quayside as his U-Boat came in from patrol: 'Are the Nazis still in charge?'
Upon receiving the reply that they were, he promptly put his U-Boat engines into reverse and backed away from the dock as a joke. Not everyone was amused onshore, but the vast majority were it seems, as he never got into trouble for doing this.

U-802 commander, Helmut Schmoeckel was in fact half-Jewish, and amongst other things, he is famous for writing the book 'Menschlichkeit im Seekrieg' (ISBN 978-3813202250), which is about instances of U-Boat crews rendering assistance to allied sailors.

Many noted Allied leaders came forward at the end of the Second World War to speak up for Kriegsmarine officers and men who were under the threat of being charged with war cimes, in fact, Admiral Karl Donitz himself was not prosecuted because of testimonials from many Allied commanders who stepped up in defence of him. The same cannot be said for the Luftwaffe's Herman Goering.

And there are many more tales of a similar nature which prove the point.

U-Boat crews were noted for many transgressions from official Nazi doctrine: They regularly wore clothing other than their official issue, quite often they wore British Battledress outfits that had been captured when the Allies evacuated Dunkirk. A notion which hardly sits with the common movie misconception that U-Boat commanders spent all their time Goose-stepping up and down the interior of their U-Boat in an SS uniform.

Whilst other military units and civilians in Nazi Germany were prohibited from listening to Allied radio broadcasts (and faced stern punishment if caught doing so, men of the Kriegsmarine made no secret of the fact that they did so, under the pretence that it offered intelligence on Allied shipping.

Similarly, jazz records - another severely frowned upon vice in Nazi Germany owing to the fact that most of the decent jazz artists were black - were known to be favourites amongst the U-Boat crews. All this is also far cry from the oft-portrayed Nazi fanatic U-Boat commanders of many Allied propaganda movies, and of course, the preposterous movie, U-571. The portrayal of this in Das Boot might be seen as somewhat apologist to many, but it is apparently very close to the truth, although Karl-Friedrich Merten refuted some of (the book) Das Boot's portrayals in his own book 'Wir U-Bootfahrer sagen: "Nein! So war das nicht!' (We U-Boat men say: No, it wasn't so!).

So if it really bothers anyone to simulate driving a U-Boat around, they can take solace from this if they choose, but at the end of the day, it's a computer game, and I'm pretty sure playing it won't turn you into a Nazi.

Anyway, Sieg Hei... ooops, I mean, erm, have fun.

:D Chock

[CCIP]

Many noted Allied leaders came forward at the end of the Second World War to speak up for Kriegsmarine officers and men who were under the threat of being charged with war cimes, in fact, Admiral Karl Donitz himself was not prosecuted because of testimonials from many Allied commanders who stepped up in defence of him. The same cannot be said for the Luftwaffe's Herman Goering.
Well not to nitpick too much, but he was prosecuted and convicted, except on a much lighter charge than the others. :p

Also, while I don't agree that German armed forces always deserve some sort of forgiveness, but... step into their shoes for a moment. If you're a young German man in 1939 or even 1944, would you really become a deserter, a criminal, and all those other nasty things instead of doing what any patriotic man would consider their duty?

[Chock]

Yup, that's true CCIP, I merely meant that Donitz was not hung, or put in prison for a very long time, as opposed to many other German big names from WW2, who certainly were.

And to look at it another way, much of the view back towards historical events is controlled by the victors of wars, who often 'get to write the history books', so when you consider that, it's fairly indicative that the U-Boat guys were mostly just soldiers doing a job, since their reputation has managed to survive even though they were on the losing side.

In the end, much of what we view as right and wrong depends on which side of the line we are standing at the time. However honourable someone is in a war, war is still about killing people and making them suffer, so I'm not pretending that the Nazis weren't ultimately evil, just pointing out, as many others have on this thread, that you can't always tar the populace of an entire nation with the same brush.

I daresay some victims of ANC attacks probably viewed Nelson Mandela as a bad guy, and the civilians and POWs that drowned as a result of the RAF's attacks on the Ruhr dams could be regarded as victims of a war crime by Arthur Harris, or the crews of the 617 Squadron Lancasters if you choose to look at it from another side. Had Germany won the war, we might even have been discussing the morality of flying a simulated Spitfire or a P-51 Mustang on a forum, and Destroyer Command might have been severely frowned upon.

Fortunately, I think most people here can appreciate the technology of some German military stuff from WW2 without revelling in the nastier aspects of things, or throwing Nazi salutes everywhere they go.

:D Chock

[Skybird]

I would appreciate, since newer members are not clarvoyant, if our upstanding regulars could refrain from decapitating the newbies if they start a topic that has been discussed before.

:lol:

[P_Funk]

The French invaded Canada (that’s why there are French Canadians). Actually it wasn't Canada back then. It was just French Territories of what they might loosely refer to as Canada. And it was actually the English that attacked the French. At the Battle of the Plains of Abraham the English General Wolf drew Montcalm out of the his walls to fight in the open. Stupid cause Quebec City was walled, as can still be seen today in the old part of the city.

Another proud day for French military genius.:roll:

Sorry, but I had to get that little bit of Canadiana cleared up. ;)

As for the morality of playing a German officer in a WW2 sim... well its a game that simulates war. War is bad. So anything where we fetishize war is bad, unless we take it for what it is. And I can't find any historical source that says that German U-boats did anything that the American subs didn't with a few rare exceptions in individual commanders on both sides. So the argument is irrelavent. Crying "OMG Nazi!" is meaningless without any actual evil present. The blanket of Naziism doesn't characterize every person in the war.

Now, maybe a game like say... Auschwitz Tycoon could be seen as a truly disgusting game. But thats not the case here.

[Frenssen]

Simulations are games. We are launching torpedoes against pixels on a screen. No one gets boiled alive in the engine rooms of our unfortunate victims. No one drifts on a lifeboat dying of hunger and thirst.
If we take this discussion to the extreme we shouldn`t be playing violent games at all. Because we all know taking lives is wrong.

[fatty]

The way I see it, whether or not you think you are these guys:

http://www.anairhoads.org/graphics/nazi.jpg

you're playing a simulation of the blowing up of these guys:

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MoreImages6/Anglo-Saxon.jpg

with the overall objective of helping this guy:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/adolf.gif

beat these guys:

http://www.famouspeople.co.uk/w/images/winstonchurchill2.jpg

Maybe they weren't all nazis, but they weren't many Marco Ramiuses either. Did any u-boats actually defect before 1945? Anyway, if taking part in the above bothers you, that is okay. It doesn't bother me - submarines are too cool.

[tycho102]

I see no issue with playing a kraut in a video game. Plus the music is pretty darn good. Panzer General 2 also had good music. What makes these games even better is the historical accuracy of them -- even if the AI isn't quite a Bradley or Patton.


@Mudrick
Your little god damn blurb for the Great Khan is wonderfully underwhelming. The Great Khan was a wise man, he was a kind man, he had plans, he had wisdom.

He'd massacre an entire city of 300,000 people so that the next city would be more apt to surrender before resisting....and killing Mongols in the process. City-states would send out envoys to the Mongols hundred of kilometers before they arrived, negotiating for the survival of the city and pledging no resistance to Mongol rule. The Great Khan lost fewer Mongols as a result.

He poured molten silver and gold into the eye sockets and mouth of several enemy monarchs and leaders...while they were still alive. Word got around that it was better to surrender than resist.

He conquered all the way down to, and including, Persia. The moslems are still pissed at him to this day. They employ his same level of barbarity but they hate the fact he dominated them using their same tactics against them. It's a wonderful display of alpha-male behavior within a pack of animals.

He used the mobility of his horse-archers much as modern armies use their mechanized infantry. The logistics of the Great Khan are still studied at West Point, in depth, simply because the guy moved his army and lived "off the land" at a rate the world had not yet encountered.

The recurved bow. Not quite a compound, but it got the job done from horseback. And it was a Mongol invention -- not captured technology from China, Korea, Russia, India, etc.

[P_Funk]

@Fatty

The way I see it is that any game that make a fetish of war (important term there in my opinion) is taking this
http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2006/12/29/1167391833_6136.jpg

giving him this
http://www.odcmp.org/1006/images/ShiftyImg/Rifle.jpg

and making him do this
http://sinoemedicalassociation.org/pathologylectures/algerian.jpg

We love to get hooked on the fact that they're Nazis but the fact is that all sides in war are evil. Evil is the nature of war. But you are doing evil for a cause. Murder to protect life. Its all some weird paradox. Its not about Nazis or Hitler. Its about the paradox of human conflict. And we make a game out of it. My grandfather said that he didn't like the war, that he hated killing, but he did it and brutally. He told me once not too long ago "whatever you do with your life, don't join the fuc*ing army". So its all evil anyway. But we make it into something entertaining and joyous and that however is the weird fetishization of war that is the real conflict in all of this. How we rationalize our perverse taste in conflict as a form of entertainment is the real question.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Maybe they weren't all nazis, but they weren't many Marco Ramiuses either. Did any u-boats actually defect before 1945? Anyway, if taking part in the above bothers you, that is okay. It doesn't bother me - submarines are too cool.

Somehow, I don't think most of them were helping Hitler. They were probably more interested in helping Germany. By your logic, any American who currently feels the occupation of Iraq is wrong should run and help the Iraqi insurgents.

And I don't get why you like Marko Ramius. Sure, the death of his wife was very tragic, but let's face it, if an American Captain lost his wife to incompetence in the American government's health system and the Captain decided to take revenge on the "American State" by taking his Ohio to Russia as a result, Tom Clancy would be blasting him right alongside everyone else.

Marko Ramius is not punishing the Soviet State so much as he's punishing all of the Soviet Union's people for his one wife's death. It is not noble. It is sick.

[SinisterDexter]

It shouldn't bother you any more than say, playing Hitman, Grand Theft Auto series, Mafia, etc.

[Heibges]

I think the military policies of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century was a battle between the follower of Curtin LeMay and the followers of Hyman Rickover.

Now don't get me wrong Heibges I'm on your side, but I thought Hyman Rickover was non-polictical or did you just mean his thought's on nuclear power usage?

Rickover was one strange dude. He interviewed people for the nuclear power porgram and always had them sit in a chair with the front two legs two inches shorter so the person he was interviewing was uncomfortable. When he made captain he just sewed another new stripe on his coat sleeve. Three old faded gold stripes and one new gold stripe made him an unusal looking fellow.

Basically, Rickover thought the entire surface fleet was obsolete, and would be destroyed in a few days in a real war. At the same time, manned bombers were being viewed as obsolete. The crossroads came during Jimmy Carter's (Rickover's protege) presidency.

Like Clinton gets credit for the drive to balance the budget which actually started under Bush, Reagan gets credit for a defense buildup that actually started under Carter.

Carter was going to build the Ohio with the D-5 and Los Angeles Class submarines, but he was not going to fund the MX Missle or the B-2 Bomber. And in retrospect they both turned out to be huge pork barrel projects along with Star Wars. It is doubtful we would have much of a surface fleet at all if Carter had won a second term.

But when Reagan got elected there was that push for a 600 fleet Navy, and the MX Missle, B-2 Bomber, and Star Wars were heavily funded.

[mookiemookie]

Also, while I don't agree that German armed forces always deserve some sort of forgiveness, but... step into their shoes for a moment. If you're a young German man in 1939 or even 1944, would you really become a deserter, a criminal, and all those other nasty things instead of doing what any patriotic man would consider their duty?
Exactly...not to excuse the atrocities of the Third Reich, but think about the viewpoint of your average Otto or average Heinrich or whoever, who's 18 or 19 years old and has been fed propaganda for most of his adult life that his home and family is being attacked by outside forces and the only way to save everything he loves, his homeland and family, is to to fight....you bet your butt he'd sign up for submarine service. I have a healthy respect for U-boat crewmen. Too bad they were fighting on the wrong side, but as combatants, they were very honorable. Read the introduction to Iron Coffins, written by a U.S. Navy captain in the 1960's for a good viewpoint on this.

Draw the line between the chess game you play as a U-boat commander and the ideology of the Nazi party, and you will have no problems playing SH3 or Aces of the Deep, et al.

[Iceman]

I would appreciate, since newer members are not clarvoyant, if our upstanding regulars could refrain from decapitating the newbies if they start a topic that has been discussed before.

:lol: Lol :up:

[The Avon Lady]

The way I see it, whether or not you think you are these guys:

http://www.anairhoads.org/graphics/nazi.jpg

you're playing a simulation of the blowing up of these guys:

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MoreImages6/Anglo-Saxon.jpg

with the overall objective of helping this guy:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/adolf.gif

beat these guys:

http://www.famouspeople.co.uk/w/images/winstonchurchill2.jpg

Maybe they weren't all nazis, but they weren't many Marco Ramiuses either. Did any u-boats actually defect before 1945? Anyway, if taking part in the above bothers you, that is okay. It doesn't bother me - submarines are too cool.
That was a great post and that's all I want to say on this thread. Bye!

[joea]

Agree with Fatty, I'm really sick of relativising and revisionism I see everywhere in the world today.

[Heibges]

I think it was revisionist at the time when they made everything so black and white.

Folks like Norman Mailer in "Naked and the Dead", pointed out there was very little difference between the bad guys and us.

And the Barney Greenwald character also makes this clear in "The Caine Mutiny".

[geetrue]

The real difference is in what your fighting for (insert 1960's song of choice) the nose art on any WWII airplane was available to be a helpful reminder for the United States fighting forces.

Notice the surge in building projects after WWII on both sides :lol:

[Hitman]

So its all evil anyway. But we make it into something entertaining and joyous and that however is the weird fetishization of war that is the real conflict in all of this. How we rationalize our perverse taste in conflict as a form of entertainment is the real question.

Probably Skybird would be the most indicated to tell you the reasons, (He is psychologist) but I can anyway say that we have in our basic instincts since we were apes pre-programated a taste for war and for killing anyone who is different, as well as for expanding territory. Reason: 150.000 years ago men lived in small groups where males went out for hunting and women kept the childs and collected fruits. Males were pre-progamated by nature to kill animals or anything that moves (We have a vision adapted to movement, you will notice easily something moving in the extreme side of your vision angle but not something static), and to keep any other human-groups out of the hunting territory. Reason: Potential competitor for the same (scarce) resources. Humans develop a strong instinct of identification with a group and its characteristics, and also instinctively hate and want to kill anyone looking different because nature ensures they perceive it as a threat to own survival (That's probably the main reason for the racism and hate for inmigrants, and it comes from our guts like it or not).

What modern society has done with sports and video games is simply make an acceptable form of exteriorizing and satisfying those instincts in a a "ritual" or simulated form. :up: So IMO there's nothing wrong in war-video games AT LEAST if you know what is behind them and can and want to control it.

[Camaero]

Humans are a very warlike people. I have to say, I dislike killing and I wish there weren't any wars, but I absolutely love anything to do with combat simulations. I love reading books upon books about military conflicts, and my favorite movies involve war. War isn’t going away anytime soon for us.

Am I a sick SOB who likes death? No. What I am attracted to is what men can do under extreme situations. I like to read about courage and the amazing things ordinary people do when they have to. The camaraderie people develop under those situations are also second to none.

This is why I respect most of the Germans in WWII. A lot of them were drafted, a lot of them were not Nazis. A lot of them didn’t have much choice. I also fully understand the overwhelming need to defend ones country. When the walls started closing in on them, children started picking up guns and fighting. If I was a German back then, I would have too. I would not stand for my city being obliterated by bombers even if I HATED my government.

Now what about the SS and the boys who were responsible for the Jews? Those people, and anyone like them, I will never respect or feel sorry for. They all deserve to die a thousand times over in horrible ways.

See what I mean? Would anyone play a game where you got to heard Jews into a gas chamber and push the button? Well, other than the KKK or Muslims. (If you were offended by that, then it was a joke. If you weren't, then it wasn't.) :doh:

The attraction is with the courage of men, not the killing of men, at least for me.

[joea]

Folks like Norman Mailer in "Naked and the Dead", pointed out there was very little difference between the bad guys and us.


Again I disagree very strongly, but then I guess that's my last word.

Edit: NOT ;)

[kurtz]

Now what about the SS and the boys who were responsible for the Jews? Those people, and anyone like them, I will never respect or feel sorry for. They all deserve to die a thousand times over in horrible ways.

See what I mean? Would anyone play a game where you got to heard Jews into a gas chamber and push the button? Well, other than the KKK or Muslims. (If you were offended by that, then it was a joke. If you weren't, then it wasn't.) :doh:

The attraction is with the courage of men, not the killing of men, at least for me.

The last part you've put better than anyone else I've heard has done.

As for the SS the first draft of those was men who wanted to be special forces and often aquited themselves with honour, although, perhaps later in the war they became a haven for the mentally ill.

Just for a moment watch this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY

Okay it's for comedy, but surely people didn't sign up to be baddies?

Mike

[fatty]

Maybe they weren't all nazis, but they weren't many Marco Ramiuses either. Did any u-boats actually defect before 1945? Anyway, if taking part in the above bothers you, that is okay. It doesn't bother me - submarines are too cool.

Somehow, I don't think most of them were helping Hitler. They were probably more interested in helping Germany. By your logic, any American who currently feels the occupation of Iraq is wrong should run and help the Iraqi insurgents.

And I don't get why you like Marko Ramius. Sure, the death of his wife was very tragic, but let's face it, if an American Captain lost his wife to incompetence in the American government's health system and the Captain decided to take revenge on the "American State" by taking his Ohio to Russia as a result, Tom Clancy would be blasting him right alongside everyone else.

Marko Ramius is not punishing the Soviet State so much as he's punishing all of the Soviet Union's people for his one wife's death. It is not noble. It is sick.

Hi sir, thanks for your reply. Firstly I think you read into my Ramius analogy a bit too much. The point I was attempting to make is that while I appreciate that most u-boat commanders were nazis, they were not popping their hatches and surrendering/defecting - as Ramius did. Even if the commanders were interested in helping Germany and not Hitler, they're embarked on an offensive war - their objective is not (at least, not until ~1944) the defence of the Fatherland, but to choke out shipping to England to resume an aggressive expansion across Europe.

For the America-Iraq example, I think if the U.S. was systematically destroying entire cultures then the logic would follow that you should join the insurgents or at the very least not participate in combat operations. But they aren't, so it's a little different.

[kiwi_2005]

I heard once that someone was making a mod where you play as the nazis in Call of Duty 2 for the PC, dont know if it ever finished but i would of played it without a second thought.

[P_Funk]

Folks like Norman Mailer in "Naked and the Dead", pointed out there was very little difference between the bad guys and us.


Again I disagree very strongly, but then I guess that's my last word. Well how were the Germans any different from anybody else? You can say what you will about Hitler, the SS, the Nazis in general, but this is all a case of hindsight where we accuse the Germans of supporting something that wasn't even fully understood until it was over.

If you actually look to pre-39 Germany you see a different drive than just war. Thanks to the punitive terms of the Versailles Treaty Germany was left post-WW1 as a bankrupt state, punished by the Republic of France (the punitive terms was their sweetheart really) for the crimes of their monarchs. There is no doubt that Germany was abused during the interwar years and as a result the desperate situation in Germany lent to a more radical sense of survival. Then comes along this really charming and rousing guy. He calls himself a national-socialist. He gives great speeches and promises to return Germany to her old glory.

In a desperate situation like that the Germans went with the strength of a man who was a great leader, and Hitler was a great leader in those days before he unleased his real madness. He worked at evil but he led like nobody else in those days. So the people are reinvigourated. They want hope and he gives it to them. They want pride and he gives it back to them. That Hitler was more evil than the average lame duck president was just luck I guess. But the Nazis and the German people are two seperate entities and regardless of what the history books tell us Germans weren't any different than other people. My grandfather gives me the best point of reference.

One story he told me of an SS man that they came accross. Fired at them from a shed. They fire back, wound him. They walk up to him, see he's SS, look at each other, shoot him dead. According to my grandfather SS didn't deserve mercy. But on a different occasion he remarked to me "I didn't like killing them. When I killed one of them I thought 'this guy is just like me. He was just caught up in this mess like anyone else'." He was talking about regular army of course. But that is the distinction. The rare animals that colour the propoganda of the winning side aren't characteristic of the majority. The vast majority of Germans were just doing what they saw as their patriotic duty. Hitler and his cohorts were hatching their own scheme.

This isn't people forgiving crimes. And sometimes history needs to be revised. I believe Winston Churchill once said "History is written by the victors, and I intend to write history." So that really is it. I'm not saying that there is no guilt on the part of Germany for their part in supporting a man like Hitler. But many nations of righteous people have supported bad man and been complicit in all kinds of crimes. America, Canada, Britain. We all allow evil things to happen. So maybe the German people deserve a fair share of the blame for Hitler (I myself encourage blaming the French in part too for their irrational revenge seeking in 1919), but they aren't alone in that. We are all complicit in something daily. But to say that they were somehow different human beings than us is just the rascism of war.

[The Avon Lady]

If you actually look to pre-39 Germany you see a different drive than just war.
Mein Kampf, copyright 1925-1926, by Adolf Hitler, all rights reserved.
And sometimes history needs to be revised. I believe Winston Churchill once said "History is written by the victors, and I intend to write history."
What Churchill said was "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

Too bad he didn't say "History will be kind to me for I intend to revise it."

You just revised the meaning of his quote. Come to think of it, much of your post is baseless revisionism.

What Churchill also said was:

"An immense responsibility rests upon the German people for this subservience to the barbaric idea of autocracy. This is the gravamen against them in history - that in spite of all their brains and courage - they worship power and let themselves be led by the nose"

One last Churchill quote:

" Learn all you can about the history of the past, for how else can one even make a guess what is going to happen in the future?"

[dean_acheson]

[quote=Heibges]If Jimmy Carter had one the election in 1980 we might not have any manned bombers today at all, and 400 Submarines.
[quote]

Doubt it, we would still have inflation rates around 23% and couldn't afford much more than a few patched up GATO boats. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Fish]

The Dutch did there share of slaughtering around the world, but not in the US, back you pardon.


New Amsterdam (Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language): Nieuw Amsterdam) was the 17th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century) Dutch colonial town that later became New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City).
The town developed outside of Fort Amsterdam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Amsterdam) on Manhattan Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Island) in the New Netherland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland) territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_%28country_subdivision%29) (1614–1664) which was situated between 38 and 42 degrees latitude as a provincial extension of the Dutch Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic) from 1624. Provincial possession of the territory was accomplished with the first settlement which was established on Governors Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governors_Island) in 1624. A year later, in 1625, construction of a citadel comprising Fort Amsterdam was commenced. Earlier, the harbor and the river had been discovered, explored and charted by an expedition of the Dutch East India Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company) captained by Henry Hudson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hudson) in 1609. From 1611 through 1614, the territory was surveyed and charted by various private commercial companies on behalf of the States General of the Dutch Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_General_of_the_Dutch_Republic) and operated for the interests of private commercial entities prior to official possession as a North American extension of the Dutch Republic in the form of an overseas province in 1624.
The town of New Amsterdam became a city when it received municipal rights in 1653 and was unilaterally reincorporated as New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) in June 1665. This makes NYC the oldest incorporated city in the United States. The town was founded by New Netherland's second director, Willem Verhulst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Verhulst) who, together with his council, selected Manhattan Island as the optimal place for permanent settlement in 1625 by the Dutch West India Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_West_India_Company). That year, military engineer and surveyor Cryn Fredericksz van Lobbrecht (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryn_Fredericksz_van_Lobbrecht&action=edit) laid out a citadel with Fort Amsterdam as centerpiece. To secure the settlers' property and its surroundings according to Dutch law, the third director, Peter Minuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Minuit), created a deed with the Manhattan Indians in 1626 which officially authorized legal possession of Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan) according to Dutch Laws.
The city, situated on the strategic, fortifiable southern tip of the island of Manhattan was to maintain New Netherland's provincial integrity by defending river access to the company's fur trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur_trade) operations in the North River, later named Hudson River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River). Furthermore, it was entrusted to safeguard the West India Company's exclusive access to New Netherland's other two estuaries; the Delaware River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_River) and the Connecticut River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_River). New Amsterdam developed into the largest Dutch colonial settlement in the New Netherland province, now the New York Tri-State Region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Region), and remained a Dutch possession until August 1664 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1664), when it fell provisionally into the hands of the English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England).
The Dutch Republic regained it in August 1673 with a fleet of 21 ships, renaming the city "New Orange". New Netherland was ceded permanently to the English in November 1674 in the Treaty of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westminster_%281674%29). The 1625 date of the founding of New Amsterdam is now commemorated in the Official Seal of the City of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Us-nycsl.png&action=edit) (formerly, the year on the seal was 1664, the year of the provisional Articles of Transfer, ensuring New Netherlanders that they "shall keep and enjoy the liberty of their consciences in religion", negotiated with the English by Petrus Stuyvesant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Stuyvesant) and his council).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam

[Subnuts]

Why do I want to watch Das Boot so bad after reading this thread? :-?

[joea]

Again I disagree very strongly, but then I guess that's my last word. Well how were the Germans any different from anybody else? You can say what you will about Hitler, the SS, the Nazis in general, but this is all a case of hindsight where we accuse the Germans of supporting something that wasn't even fully understood until it was over.

If you actually look to pre-39 Germany you see a different drive than just war. Thanks to the punitive terms of the Versailles Treaty Germany was left post-WW1 as a bankrupt state, punished by the Republic of France (the punitive terms was their sweetheart really) for the crimes of their monarchs. There is no doubt that Germany was abused during the interwar years and as a result the desperate situation in Germany lent to a more radical sense of survival.

Well, I won’t do that again, I will promise never to say I’ve had my last word … I’ll just simply not post unless I change my mind.


Ok, let me be clear, war is immoral, perhaps amoral, but I believe the reasons may not be. The clearest case is when one is forced to make a choice, submit or be wiped out or dominated, in WWII many countries in Eastern Europe, Russia and China faced that choice. Some ethnic groups faced extermination. Some countries had the choice like the Commonwealth or the USA (besides the Axis) but felt for self interest (not necessarily bad) they ought to get involved. The heaviest moral responsibility always falls on the initiators / aggressors, though in my opinion “preemptive war” has always been risky and rarely been successful. Responding to unfair treatments of Versailles by going to war beyond just getting the Rhineland back is an example.

One of the reasons I reject moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies can be fouind in this link:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Please, use it as a start…it is one of the better wikipedia articles and the sources are well-noted and acknowledged. What will get comments I’m sure is this graph:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png



Now, I have quibbles too, for example counting countries that switched sides from the Axis to Allies could be tricky and what counts as victims (Bengal famine or say the various small nationalities deported by Stalin). I seriously doubt any alternate count could greatly affect the disproportionate distribution of victims.


I do not however wish to excuse actions like the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima or the expulsion of German civilians at the end of the war especially as they were in no way necessary to stop the Axis. I also recognize other highly immoral very disproportionate aggressions in history…the conquest and exterminations of the Americas and the colonial wars that took place in Congo or Algeria are others. I am sure the Incas or Aztecs would have loved to wipe the Conquistadores out…they were not able to…

I also firmly believe, that the aggressor and those by design or negligence who support them bears responsibility for the evils that fall on his own people. This is my big problem with “revisionism” not that saying “bad” things were done by the other side-even the victims-but downplaying what one did AND the responsibility in unleashing a catastrophe.

[P_Funk]

I also firmly believe, that the aggressor and those by design or negligence who support them bears responsibility for the evils that fall on his own people. This is my big problem with “revisionism” not that saying “bad” things were done by the other side-even the victims-but downplaying what one did AND the responsibility in unleashing a catastrophe. I don't disagree. In fact a mostly agree with you there. However its not as cut and dried as just saying they voted for Hitler, supported him and that was that. The Treaty of Versailles put Germnay in a position where Hitler could make a stab at grabbing power. Germany was a crippled nation and the rest of Europe was sucking the life out of her. Of course the German people were complicit in Hitler's power. But so was the rest of Europe in leaving the German people to rot. When you starve a people and deny them real freedom and then extinguish any real sign of a future you start rolling the dice. Not only were the terms of the Treaty punitive but France continued to enforce the terms that Germany couldn't pay by occupying territory. An angry nationalist could easily see this as a reason to go back to war. France saw Germany as a threat and maybe they helped it along to making her one again.

You just revised the meaning of his quote. Come to think of it, much of your post is baseless revisionism. At worst I paraphrased the quote. And my characterization of it, though lacking as much of Churchill's special wit, carried most of what he meant anyway. I don't see what else he was trying to say. And I didn't revise history. I just pointed out something we always like to gloss over. The military build up was the big thing, the economic recovery from the Versailles blood letting was just an afterthought I'm sure.

I'm not excusing anything, I'm giving motive. This isn't about downplaying the horrors of the Third Reich. Its about making sure nobody can get away with saying as joea did, that the German people were somehow different than us.

[Heibges]

If you actually look to pre-39 Germany you see a different drive than just war.
Mein Kampf, copyright 1925-1926, by Adolf Hitler, all rights reserved.
And sometimes history needs to be revised. I believe Winston Churchill once said "History is written by the victors, and I intend to write history."
What Churchill said was "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

Too bad he didn't say "History will be kind to me for I intend to revise it."

You just revised the meaning of his quote. Come to think of it, much of your post is baseless revisionism.

What Churchill also said was:

"An immense responsibility rests upon the German people for this subservience to the barbaric idea of autocracy. This is the gravamen against them in history - that in spite of all their brains and courage - they worship power and let themselves be led by the nose"

One last Churchill quote:

" Learn all you can about the history of the past, for how else can one even make a guess what is going to happen in the future?"

Glad you like Churchill.:doh:

"It would be a dangerous folly for the British people to underrate the enduring position in world history which Mussolini will hold; or the amazing qualities of courage, comprehension, self-control, and perseverance which he exemplifies." Winston Churchill 1938

[Camaero]

I prefer his good quotes.

[The Avon Lady]

I prefer his good quotes.
Google around for Heibges' quote and you'll find it put to use by Pat Buchanan and Stormfront. :roll:

I prefer context.

If you look around and if you read up on Churchill just a bit, you'll find plenty of non-complementary words Churchill had for Mussolini at around the same time. On its own, Churchill's 1938 article "Dictators on Dynamite" contains enough to show why something is peculiar with Churchill's supposed admiration for Mussolini.

Could it possibly be that Churchill was attempting to appease Il Duce in an attempt to break up the German-Italian Axis alliance and keep Italy out of the war? I wonder..... :hmm:

Of course Churchill made mistakes, however, this might actually not have been one of them. And all this is assuming the quote is in context and factual.

I believe another Churchill quote is appropriate here:

"The only way a man can remain consistent amid changing circumstances is to change with them while preserving the same dominating purpose."

A sharp fellow, that Churchill was. Wish we had some of the same stuff today. :nope:

[P_Funk]

A sharp fellow, that Churchill was. Wish we had some of the same stuff today. :nope:
Now theres something we can totally agree on.

[Camaero]

A sharp fellow, that Churchill was. Wish we had some of the same stuff today. :nope:
Now theres something we can totally agree on.

Hear hear!

[geetrue]

A sharp fellow, that Churchill was. Wish we had some of the same stuff today. :nope:


Sharp fellow? I'll agree England needed Churchill as a strong leader against the fear of German take over artist Hitler, but a bit strange or queer the English would say in the 1940's meaning of strange.

Strange of him to sit around in his hotel room in the nude and calling in his secretary to take a letter, forgetting of course that he was in the nude. She refused to do shorthand :lol: for Churchill while he had no clothes on.

It's a battle for what we think ... Churchill was on the winning side. :yep:

[Camaero]

When the man had an idea or something to say, he needed it written down then and there! He worked all night and slept all day. That's my style.:lol:

[The Avon Lady]

A sharp fellow, that Churchill was. Wish we had some of the same stuff today. :nope:


Sharp fellow? I'll agree England needed Churchill as a strong leader against the fear of German take over artist Hitler, but a bit strange or queer the English would say in the 1940's meaning of strange.

Strange of him to sit around in his hotel room in the nude and calling in his secretary to take a letter, forgetting of course that he was in the nude. She refused to do shorthand :lol: for Churchill while he had no clothes on.
On the contrary! Churchill was a big history buff! :)

[P_Funk]

A sharp fellow, that Churchill was. Wish we had some of the same stuff today. :nope:

Sharp fellow? I'll agree England needed Churchill as a strong leader against the fear of German take over artist Hitler, but a bit strange or queer the English would say in the 1940's meaning of strange.

Strange of him to sit around in his hotel room in the nude and calling in his secretary to take a letter, forgetting of course that he was in the nude. She refused to do shorthand :lol: for Churchill while he had no clothes on. On the contrary! Churchill was a big history buff! :) Tell me about it. I have first editions of "The Gathering Storm" and "Their Finest Hour"!:yep:

[joea]

[quote=P_Funk I don't disagree. In fact a mostly agree with you there. However its not as cut and dried as just saying they voted for Hitler, supported him and that was that. The Treaty of Versailles put Germnay in a position where Hitler could make a stab at grabbing power. Germany was a crippled nation and the rest of Europe was sucking the life out of her. Of course the German people were complicit in Hitler's power. But so was the rest of Europe in leaving the German people to rot. When you starve a people and deny them real freedom and then extinguish any real sign of a future you start rolling the dice. Not only were the terms of the Treaty punitive but France continued to enforce the terms that Germany couldn't pay by occupying territory. An angry nationalist could easily see this as a reason to go back to war. France saw Germany as a threat and maybe they helped it along to making her one again.


I'm not excusing anything, I'm giving motive. This isn't about downplaying the horrors of the Third Reich. Its about making sure nobody can get away with saying as joea did, that the German people were somehow different than us.[/quote]



Well I can agree with you on that point...Europe is complicit in that sense (as was the US for not joining the League of Nations IMO), as Liddel-Hart wrote if you let a madman stoke a boiler til it explodes you are guilty as well. This is not the first time that in trying to eliminate a threat nations create worse ones. ;)

I think you misunderstood I was not saying Germans were different I was rejecting the moral equation in the specific instance of WWII between Axis and Allies. I could have brought up other instances (and did with the colonial wars) were one side plunders another (much more lopsided in the colonial war cases). In any case, many in occupied Europe colloaborated with or even embraced the Nazi cause, for example in the Waffen SS foreign volunteer divisions.

Finally, I agree most of what was said about Churchill here, even though he did participate in some of those colonial wars I condemn. ;)

[P_Funk]

[quote=P_Funk I don't disagree. In fact a mostly agree with you there. However its not as cut and dried as just saying they voted for Hitler, supported him and that was that. The Treaty of Versailles put Germnay in a position where Hitler could make a stab at grabbing power. Germany was a crippled nation and the rest of Europe was sucking the life out of her. Of course the German people were complicit in Hitler's power. But so was the rest of Europe in leaving the German people to rot. When you starve a people and deny them real freedom and then extinguish any real sign of a future you start rolling the dice. Not only were the terms of the Treaty punitive but France continued to enforce the terms that Germany couldn't pay by occupying territory. An angry nationalist could easily see this as a reason to go back to war. France saw Germany as a threat and maybe they helped it along to making her one again.


I'm not excusing anything, I'm giving motive. This isn't about downplaying the horrors of the Third Reich. Its about making sure nobody can get away with saying as joea did, that the German people were somehow different than us.



Well I can agree with you on that point...Europe is complicit in that sense (as was the US for not joining the League of Nations IMO), as Liddel-Hart wrote if you let a madman stoke a boiler til it explodes you are guilty as well. This is not the first time that in trying to eliminate a threat nations create worse ones. ;)

I think you misunderstood I was not saying Germans were different I was rejecting the moral equation in the specific instance of WWII between Axis and Allies. I could have brought up other instances (and did with the colonial wars) were one side plunders another (much more lopsided in the colonial war cases). In any case, many in occupied Europe colloaborated with or even embraced the Nazi cause, for example in the Waffen SS foreign volunteer divisions.

Finally, I agree most of what was said about Churchill here, even though he did participate in some of those colonial wars I condemn. ;)[/quote] Hey I'm glad we agree. I always like finding accord in argument. Sometimes you just need to flesh everything out.

I often take on the controversial arguments when I see something thats a blanket statement or something that is generally accepted but not necessarily substantiated. I like to keep you honest or at least challenge you to intellectualize it.;)

Cheers.

[Heibges]

I think you must admit that out of the Big 3, Churchill had the most lasting influence.

Stalin didn't do the cause of Communism any good in Russia or elsewhere.

FDR is often seen, to quote a line Danny DeVito said on the Simpsons as Homer's brother, as a "Fuzzy Headed One Worlder".

But really the Bush Doctrine is nothing more than the Churchill Doctrine.

Watching "The Queen", where Churchill is mentioned, really made me wonder if he had that old school condescending attitude as the old Royals do today.

[fatty]

I think you must admit that out of the Big 3, Churchill had the most lasting influence.

Stalin didn't do the cause of Communism any good in Russia or elsewhere.

FDR is often seen, as Danny DeVito said on the Simpson's a Homer's brother, to be a "Fuzzy Headed One Worlder".

I disagree. Just ask CCIP how much Stalin is still revered by some Russians today. If you had have said "most lasting positive influence," thay might have been a little better.

Churchill gave some nice speeches but I have never really seen him as anything too special. I guess I missed the invitation to join the Churchill cult.

[The Avon Lady]

Watching "The Queen", where Churchill is mentioned, really made me wonder if he had that old school condescending attitude as the old Royals do today.
I didn't see the movie (yet). Condescending to whom?