I just said this, because Chris Roberts is known as a big WW2 Fan (you also saw it in the Wing Commander movie, which remember me about another film which calles "Das Boot". But okay, i surrender. Maybe, my lack of english language made some misunderstandings which could have been prevented if i used a dictionary some times.
Is Chris Roberts a racism?
- Thread starter Calzone
- Start date
I just said this, because Chris Roberts is known as a big WW2 Fan (you also saw it in the Wing Commander movie, which remember me about another film which calles "Das Boot". But okay, i surrender. Maybe, my lack of english language made some misunderstandings which could have been prevented if i used a dictionary some times.
The Wehrmacht was foundet 1934. Before this, the german army called Reichswehr and after this it called Bundeswehr (in west germany) and Nationale Volksarmee (in east germany).
And i don´t said that all germans are munsters. But if you have seen what they have done in russia (yes, not just the SS and the gestapo) than you know that you can´t glorify this soldiers. At least, i can´t.
P.S.: There is (sadly just in germany) a really interesting exhibition about the crimes of the Wehrmacht. It called "Dimensionen des Vernichtungskrieges. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht von 1941 - 1944". You should inform yourself about this exhibition it is really interesting and shows another face of the "glory Wehrmacht".
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I think it's an inate and arguably necessary tendency of society itself to glorify war, though... it's certainly not something you can blame Chris Roberts for.
Mekt-Hakkikt
Mpanty's bane
Originally posted by Calzone
No it wasn´t a offense to "gave" us big ships. I like big ships like the bremen or the könig (but i really dislike starlancer). But i dislike it, if the typical "Chris Roberts german soldier" was a recreation of a typical "Wehrmachts" soldier. Why he doesn´t bring in the "Waffen-SS" or the "Gestapo" too? (oh, i forgot, he allready done it in WC4, there it was called Black Lance). It makes me ill, when i think about it, that he glorified a war which costs 60 million lifes.
(...)
Huh? If he actually glorified a war in SL then surely not WW2 IMO.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Yes... the names were changed a few times. The traditions have remained, still remain, and will remain.
Without a doubt, there were some segments of the German army in WWII that did really awful things, but that is not sufficient reason to claim that everything about the Wehrmacht was bad.
Zarathustra
Spaceman
Ye shall love peace as a new means to war, and love a short peace more than a long one.
And what is wrong with glorifying war? Much of the worlds greatest works of literature glorfy war. WHo can equal HOmer or Vergil? They both glorify war. These are two of mankinds greatest writers, adn they both show war as something filled with honor and glory. Sure wars today aren't that cool. What is so cool about using cruise missles and smart bombs? Nothing really (except the daisy cutter is kinda cool).
THe thing i always liked about the wing commander games is that they did glorify war. It was individual and nationalistic, it was like you got the best of both worlds, the greek view of gaining reputation, and the roman view of gaining glory for your nation.
And what is wrong with glorifying war? Much of the worlds greatest works of literature glorfy war. WHo can equal HOmer or Vergil? They both glorify war. These are two of mankinds greatest writers, adn they both show war as something filled with honor and glory. Sure wars today aren't that cool. What is so cool about using cruise missles and smart bombs? Nothing really (except the daisy cutter is kinda cool).
THe thing i always liked about the wing commander games is that they did glorify war. It was individual and nationalistic, it was like you got the best of both worlds, the greek view of gaining reputation, and the roman view of gaining glory for your nation.
There are BIG differences between the Reichswehr and the Wehrmacht.
1. In the Reichswehr they never used 14 years old childrens as soldier.
2. In the "Reichswehr" the soldiers had to swear to the german empire. Since 1934 they had to swear there loyality to Adolf Hitler.
3. The "Reichswehr" never assigned "research contracts" at concentration camps.
Some segments? ROFL Nearly the whole army in russia have done awful things. Here is something (in a lousy translation
) what the OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres) wrote to there soldiers. With the handling of the Russians, we may set not the same yardsticks as in the west. Additionally you should show not too much mildness. The stomach of the Russian is flexible, it is it used to be hungry.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Hmm, does Homer really glorify war? The Iliad can be read the other way around -- it's full of all these horrific, graphic descriptions of honorable men dying for a pointless cause...
Starkey
Avenging Rooster
Maybe because they never got to the point where there were no older men available.
In the Brazil-Paraguay War (1865-1869) the Paraguayans deployed just about anyone able to fight in that war. It was so bad that after the war they had lost 75% of their population and had only 0.5% (zero point five percent
) of their male population left - probably just very old men and very young boys.BTW, they lost.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Not at all... the differences you point out are almost irrelevant. They're cosmetic, and in many ways, they can be only considered negatively in the light of today's world.
A bad thing by today's standard, but back then, this was standard procedure for many countries. Hell, the Polish used boyscouts against the Nazis... does that make us as bad as the Nazis?
And even today, the British swear their loyalty to their monarch. It's a perfectly normal thing to do, and it makes absolutely no difference from a moral point of view.
Naturally, but you cannot condemn a whole organisation for what some parts of it did.
And more importantly, you cannot condemn a value just because it was misused in the past. The fact that the German armies, trained to be honourable, often did very bad things, does not mean that showing a German to be honourable is a bad thing.
No. Such quotes are easy to find, but they are meaningless. I am not saying they are false - there can be very little doubt about their authenticity, really. However, most works about Nazi Germany do not take an interest in the majority of the army, who just tried to serve their country. This is unsurprising, since anyone who does try to say something positive about German soldiers of WWII immediately gets branded a Nazi sympathiser.
Starkey
Avenging Rooster
Originally posted by Ghost
You egocentric one
Ok, sorry, it´s called just "the Paraguay War", but then everyone would ask "Paraguay versus who" so I tried to explain. Although we had the toughest part, you guys helped a lot.
I should have written the "Brazil-Argentina-Uruguay-(England) x Paraguay War".
Zarathustra
Spaceman
Homer does glorify war. Read Diomedes Arestia, book 5. THat shows true heroism in combat. IT also glorifies the struggle to retrieve Patroclus' body through great heroic acts of violence. It may seem that war isn't as glorious from the Trojan perspective but that's natural, they were going to lose and they knew it. For the greeks though, war was a chance to gain individual reputaion, kleos, and gain trophies of war, geras, that would improve your reputation.
Zarathustra
Spaceman
Also, the greek warriors were fighting to uphold an oath to protect Helen (b/c they were all former suitors), and upholding an oath wasn't pointless, especially in their culture. It was something that you would give your life for without question, after all Zeus was the god of oaths, and to break an oath was to put Zeus on your bad side, and therefore they had a religious obligation as well as the obligation to their friend Agememmnon (they were all his friends at the beginning of the war, in case you wanted to bring up the arguement between Agememmnon and Achilles).
Zarathustra: If Homer is trying to glorify war then why do so many of the Greek heroes end up badly? For example Menelaus ends up marooned in Egypt, Agamemnon is murdered when he gets home, Odysseus gets stuck on a 10 year odyssey in which he loses all his men, booty and almost his wife and hearth, Diomedes is forced to flee his home, Ajax the Greater kills himself because he is ashamed of his conduct, Ajax the Lesser is drowned for blasphemy, Achilles dies a somewhat ridiculous death - I mean am I the only one that's noticing a trend here? And that's not even mentioning what happened to the Trojans.
Calzone: All the stuff you mentioned is justified by the state of emergency that prevailed during the time of war. Bombing Dresden, Hiroshima et al, was never acknowledged as being the morally righteous thing to do. But it was calculated to bring the war to an end on the Allies terms more quickly and with less bloodshed than any other method.
You mentioned before you'd prefer an invasion of Japan as opposed to the nuking? Well if that were to happen more people would've died. Its important to note that American airstrikes, utilizing conventional ordnance, managed to kill as many people in one night as one nuke did. In the end nukes were seen to be yet another legitimate weapon of war, which could be utilized to end the war quicker - and it was used as such. These events and the parallel events in WC place emphasis on the necessity of the action.
Calzone: All the stuff you mentioned is justified by the state of emergency that prevailed during the time of war. Bombing Dresden, Hiroshima et al, was never acknowledged as being the morally righteous thing to do. But it was calculated to bring the war to an end on the Allies terms more quickly and with less bloodshed than any other method.
You mentioned before you'd prefer an invasion of Japan as opposed to the nuking? Well if that were to happen more people would've died. Its important to note that American airstrikes, utilizing conventional ordnance, managed to kill as many people in one night as one nuke did. In the end nukes were seen to be yet another legitimate weapon of war, which could be utilized to end the war quicker - and it was used as such. These events and the parallel events in WC place emphasis on the necessity of the action.
Zarathustra
Spaceman
The greek heroes wind up all screwed up not because of the war, but because during or after the war, they each violated codes of conduct that the Gods held sacred. Agememmnon sacrificed his own daughter (not electra, the other one whose name escapes me) before the war so they can get off of cyprus. That pissed of clymenestra. Ajax the greater kills himself because he lost a contest to Odysseus for achilles armour and then pouted like a little bitch when he lost, and when realizing that he was acting dishonorably, he killed himself, that wasn't related to war. Odysseus was stuck on Calypso's isle because he maimed polyphemus, one of Poseidon's children.
Menalaus did not properly honor the gods before his journey home, which is why he was marooned in egypt.
Keep in mind that most of this isn't mentioned in the illiad, but rather in the odyssey. ACcording to the illiad, war is a great honorable thing.
The illiad served as a way for greeks to feel proud that their ancestors were so strong and powerful. Have you ever wondered why so many warriors have their geneologies mentioned, even those who are barely even minor charactters? Because the greeks want to hear the names of hteir relatives fighting bravely. THe illiad is not an antiwar book...
Trojan women by euripedes, that was an anti war play...but greece was different when Euripedes lived and when homer lived. IT was more primative the people more warlike, and war was accepted in homer's time...Euripedes wrote during the golden age of athens, when the athenians were fighting the spartans and also going through their philisophical birth.
Whenever someone reads any famous, classic book that has to do with war, everyone assumes that it is anti war. Glorifying death seems like a horrid thing to us. However, we live now, and they lived then. THe world was not civilized. the people were warlike and wanted to revel in their strength nad bravery. Sometimes modern men and women dont' accept that because it would ruin their nice idea of the writers they think are great
Menalaus did not properly honor the gods before his journey home, which is why he was marooned in egypt.
Keep in mind that most of this isn't mentioned in the illiad, but rather in the odyssey. ACcording to the illiad, war is a great honorable thing.
The illiad served as a way for greeks to feel proud that their ancestors were so strong and powerful. Have you ever wondered why so many warriors have their geneologies mentioned, even those who are barely even minor charactters? Because the greeks want to hear the names of hteir relatives fighting bravely. THe illiad is not an antiwar book...
Trojan women by euripedes, that was an anti war play...but greece was different when Euripedes lived and when homer lived. IT was more primative the people more warlike, and war was accepted in homer's time...Euripedes wrote during the golden age of athens, when the athenians were fighting the spartans and also going through their philisophical birth.
Whenever someone reads any famous, classic book that has to do with war, everyone assumes that it is anti war. Glorifying death seems like a horrid thing to us. However, we live now, and they lived then. THe world was not civilized. the people were warlike and wanted to revel in their strength nad bravery. Sometimes modern men and women dont' accept that because it would ruin their nice idea of the writers they think are great
Mystery muppet
Spaceman
That daughter, would it be Ifigenia?
I can't shake the feeling that this topic is being sidetracked...
I can't shake the feeling that this topic is being sidetracked...