Are the Germans really the bad guys.

[Nordengrund]

The Nazis were most certainly the bad guys during WW2, but I think it is harder to paint one side as good and the other evil when it comes to WW1. The war was started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Even though Habsburg may have been wrong in ruling the Serbs when they wanted independence, I don't blame Austria-Hungary for being pissed about the assassination.

Now, I will not say whether it would have been better if the Central Powers had won, but maybe the Holocaust and the rise of Hitler could have been avoided if the other countries did not punish and humiliate Germany so badly.

[Tanzoria]

What is this starvation nonsense? There was never any mass starvation or famine in Germany in the interwar years. That is not to say some did not die of malnutrition, but the same is true of any country in Europe during the depression. This whole argument is just Nazi apologia at its worst.

Malnutrition and starvation is nearly interchangeable. Starvation is merely the most extreme form of malnutrition. It's not that you die, but you suffer hunger induced pain.

Malnutrition did not occur on a scale any larger than any other European country, certainly not approaching famine levels as you seemed to imply earlier

[Tanzoria]

My take on this:

In the first world war, neither side was morally advantageous (Allies and Central Powers). Both used chemical weapons, both mowed down their enemies with machine guns, and both killed civilians caught in the crosshair. Germans fighting in WW1 were just as moral as the soldiers fighting for France, Russia, Britain, and America.

In the second world war however, the sides were a lot different. The Allies clearly had the moral high ground (at least the Western allies, I personally don't consider the USSR to be a true democratic ally). Nazi Germany was a horrible, genocidal, murderous, Aryan supremacist state that was responsible for the worst genocide in human history. Allied soldiers were fighting to stop this monstrous belief know as Nazism, whereas German troops (whether or not they knew it) were fighting in defense of Nazi Germany.

No one talks about the sinister evils that the Japanese did in history books (except if you count Pearl Harbor)

Absolutely false. Just because you've never heard of the Rape of nanking or any other Japanese atrocities does not mean they're 'not talked about.' Go to China or Korea and I think you might be disabused of the notion that 'no one' talks about Japanese atrocities. The existence of Japanese war crimes does not in any way minimise or excuse the actions of Nazi Germany.

[Impaled Nazarene]

1. Germany is rarely portrayed as outright 'evil' in a ww1 setting and on the rare occasion they are the director needs to be slapped.
I'd point out that one of the most famous ww1 films is All Quiet on The Western Front which the Nazis banned for being 'anti-war' and it was entirely from the perspective of a German soldier.
2. Yes Nazi Germany actually was that fucking bad.
3. As to video games I'd say it's because game devs are a bit squeamish about the idea of switching the perspective to Germans in ww2 because that inevitably would lead to the player shooting American soldiers.
Personally I'd be okay with playing from an Axis perspective.

1)Was it really good?

2)Yeah they were, not all Nazi soldiers and commanders. I heard Rommel was loved by both sides.

3)But it's okay for an American player playing as a Russian Spetnaz kill another American player playing as an American G.I?

The Rommel Myth is a fabrication to excuse the Wehrmacht soldiers and commanders from having anything to do with the regime. This myth is entirely bullshit.

[Holy Tedalonia]

No one talks about the sinister evils that the Japanese did in history books (except if you count Pearl Harbor)

Absolutely false. Just because you've never heard of the Rape of nanking or any other Japanese atrocities does not mean they're 'not talked about.' Go to China or Korea and I think you might be disabused of the notion that 'no one' talks about Japanese atrocities. The existence of Japanese war crimes does not in any way minimise or excuse the actions of Nazi Germany.

I meant world wide. It seems to me that the world at large tends to solely focus on the nazis. They are put on this pedestal of absolute evil even though they had other equally evil nation's around like imperial japan and the USSR. You just tend to find the nazis as this absolute evil complex while people tend to ignore the other atrocities.

Malnutrition and starvation is nearly interchangeable. Starvation is merely the most extreme form of malnutrition. It's not that you die, but you suffer hunger induced pain.

Malnutrition did not occur on a scale any larger than any other European country, certainly not approaching famine levels as you seemed to imply earlier

Even when malnourishment is happening it still drives people to desire food, and with that desire urges people to find the reason of why it happened and fix it. that's complex of my reasoning.

[Vulkata II]

1)Was it really good?

2)Yeah they were, not all Nazi soldiers and commanders. I heard Rommel was loved by both sides.

3)But it's okay for an American player playing as a Russian Spetnaz kill another American player playing as an American G.I?

The Rommel Myth is a fabrication to excuse the Wehrmacht soldiers and commanders from having anything to do with the regime. This myth is entirely bullshit.

You sure?

Now, no one in my family has ever enlisted nor conscripted and I don't have any true references that could be told by Rommel but I trust Indy Neidell and he said that his grandparents, who were British, hated the Germans during WW2 but not Rommel.

Maybe the myth was that he was a good person but still, both sides respected him for his skills and slyness. Same thing happened to Manfred Von Richtonfen right?

Both sides paid their respects to him.

[Republican Corentia]

Yes. Anyone who made the decision to go to war was the bad guy.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

Yes. Anyone who made the decision to go to war was the bad guy.

That's very black and white, morality-wise. Is it bad to declare war if that war is for the independence of your nation? It's not. US declared war because of taxes and no representation for the government in GB. Indonesia declared war to stop the Dutch's attempts to recolonized Indonesia. Philippine declared war to Spain for independence.

Were those wars bad, because they declared wars? No.

[Ardavia]

shooting crewmen from a sinking ship is a war crime yes, the British weren't saints by any stretch of the imagination

it doesn't in the slightest excuse the summary execution of tens of thousands of civilians in the occupied territories by the German Army, or the forced deportation of thousands more to work as slave labor in German industry, or the unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping, or the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as part of an attempt at cultural genocide against the Poles, or any of the other shit Germany did

so you can take your whataboutism and shove it
two wrongs don't make a right

I don't think anyone who's not a Nazi would seriously sympathize with Nazi Germany in WWII.

I was describing the German Army's conduct in WWI, just FYI

[Izvbard]

1)Was it really good?

2)Yeah they were, not all Nazi soldiers and commanders. I heard Rommel was loved by both sides.

3)But it's okay for an American player playing as a Russian Spetnaz kill another American player playing as an American G.I?

The Rommel Myth is a fabrication to excuse the Wehrmacht soldiers and commanders from having anything to do with the regime. This myth is entirely bullshit.

True. Rommel was also glorfied in post war years by the Allies because the British and the Americans desperately needed good PR after the war to get the Western German public support the rebuilding of their military in face of the threat of Communism.

[Izvbard]

The Nazis were most certainly the bad guys during WW2, but I think it is harder to paint one side as good and the other evil when it comes to WW1. The war was started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Even though Habsburg may have been wrong in ruling the Serbs when they wanted independence, I don't blame Austria-Hungary for being pissed about the assassination.

Now, I will not say whether it would have been better if the Central Powers had won, but maybe the Holocaust and the rise of Hitler could have been avoided if the other countries did not punish and humiliate Germany so badly.

Contrary to what most people think, the Treaty of Versailles was not that harsh. Germany was left as one of the foremost economic powers, and later on, their debt was cut by a factor of ten, and even then, they did not still fully pay. Besides, it was Germany who reestablished Poland by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which Germany forced Russia to sign. Germany had no right to moan about it. In fact, the Entente was far more gentler to Germany then Germany was to Russia, as they were forced to cede Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and also Ukraine.

[Letwinist States]

Contrary to what most people think , the Treaty of Versailles was not that harsh. Germany was left as one of the foremost economic powers , and later on , their debt was cut by a factor of ten , and even then , they did not still fully pay. Besides , it was Germany who reestablished Poland by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , which Germany forced Russia to sign. Germany had no right to moan about it. In fact , the Entente was far more gentler to Germany then Germany was to Russia , as they were forced to cede Estonia , Latvia , all their eastern territories , and also Ukraine.

True that, while Germany was indepted greatly and this had an enormous effect on the economy when the USA recalled its loans during the financial crisis, Russia lost most of their industry, farmlands, population without a great ammount of successful participation.

[Ardavia]

The Nazis were most certainly the bad guys during WW2, but I think it is harder to paint one side as good and the other evil when it comes to WW1. The war was started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Even though Habsburg may have been wrong in ruling the Serbs when they wanted independence, I don't blame Austria-Hungary for being pissed about the assassination.

Now, I will not say whether it would have been better if the Central Powers had won, but maybe the Holocaust and the rise of Hitler could have been avoided if the other countries did not punish and humiliate Germany so badly.

Germany wasn't "humiliated" by Versailles in the minds of anyone but the deeply deluded German population, who'd spent the whole of the war being fed lies by their own government about how well the war was going, while also being untouched by any consequences of the war except for the blockade - no German farms were burned, no German cities were levelled in the fighting, etc etc.

So when Allied troops were about to march into Germany, and the German high command almost immediately surrendered, they weren't willing to accept that they'd lost. So the Germans came to the negotiation table for Versailles, and they were rudely shocked that they weren't being given "due" consideration as party to the treaty, because in their minds the war had been going well and this was a mutual peace negotiation, not a German surrender.

The use of "armistice" was also probably partially at fault, tbh. It let the German high command turn around to their own people and present it as a negotiated peace when in reality, it was a defeated nation desperately prostrating itself before its conquerors to avoid being utterly ruined, thus sowing the seeds for the Dolchstoss myth.

[Genivaria]

The Nazis were most certainly the bad guys during WW2, but I think it is harder to paint one side as good and the other evil when it comes to WW1. The war was started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Even though Habsburg may have been wrong in ruling the Serbs when they wanted independence, I don't blame Austria-Hungary for being pissed about the assassination.

Now, I will not say whether it would have been better if the Central Powers had won, but maybe the Holocaust and the rise of Hitler could have been avoided if the other countries did not punish and humiliate Germany so badly.

Germany wasn't "humiliated" by Versailles in the minds of anyone but the deeply deluded German population, who'd spent the whole of the war being fed lies by their own government about how well the war was going, while also being untouched by any consequences of the war except for the blockade - no German farms were burned, no German cities were levelled in the fighting, etc etc.

So when Allied troops were about to march into Germany, and the German high command almost immediately surrendered, they weren't willing to accept that they'd lost. So the Germans came to the negotiation table for Versailles, and they were rudely shocked that they weren't being given "due" consideration as party to the treaty, because in their minds the war had been going well and this was a mutual peace negotiation, not a German surrender.

The use of "armistice" was also probably partially at fault, tbh. It let the German high command turn around to their own people and present it as a negotiated peace when in reality, it was a defeated nation desperately prostrating itself before its conquerors to avoid being utterly ruined, thus sowing the seeds for the Dolchstoss myth.

Strange that Austria didn't face more blame I think.

[Proctopeo]

Germany wasn't "humiliated" by Versailles in the minds of anyone but the deeply deluded German population, who'd spent the whole of the war being fed lies by their own government about how well the war was going, while also being untouched by any consequences of the war except for the blockade - no German farms were burned, no German cities were levelled in the fighting, etc etc.

So when Allied troops were about to march into Germany, and the German high command almost immediately surrendered, they weren't willing to accept that they'd lost. So the Germans came to the negotiation table for Versailles, and they were rudely shocked that they weren't being given "due" consideration as party to the treaty, because in their minds the war had been going well and this was a mutual peace negotiation, not a German surrender.

The use of "armistice" was also probably partially at fault, tbh. It let the German high command turn around to their own people and present it as a negotiated peace when in reality, it was a defeated nation desperately prostrating itself before its conquerors to avoid being utterly ruined, thus sowing the seeds for the Dolchstoss myth.

Strange that Austria didn't face more blame I think.

Part of the problem was that Germany got more or less all the blame. I think it's safe to say that is unfair.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

In WWI Germany (in the few games and movies of that time) is given the neutral treatment I think. Battlefield 1 for example even has that scene where the American and German soldier point their guns at each other among the pile of bodies and then decide to let each other go. A touching scene, if somewhat ruined by the fact that the rest of the campaign you play entirely as Entente nations.
Meanwhile in movies, what about All Quiet on the Western Front? An excellent book and movie (I heartily recommend the book) and entirely from the perspective of a German soldier.

In WW2 though... yeah, sorry, but Nazi Germany really was a *uniquely* horrifying regime. There are often comparisons between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia, but what they forget to mention is that Hitler in *13 years* killed off a similar number of people as Stalin did in *30*. Especially if you count the war deaths (which is reasonable considering Nazi Germany started the whole thing). So yes, they absolutely deserve to be called the bad guys.

If it bothers you too much though, at least know you can play as a Nazi soldier in various CoD multiplayer rounds.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

Germany wasn't "humiliated" by Versailles in the minds of anyone but the deeply deluded German population, who'd spent the whole of the war being fed lies by their own government about how well the war was going, while also being untouched by any consequences of the war except for the blockade - no German farms were burned, no German cities were levelled in the fighting, etc etc.

So when Allied troops were about to march into Germany, and the German high command almost immediately surrendered, they weren't willing to accept that they'd lost. So the Germans came to the negotiation table for Versailles, and they were rudely shocked that they weren't being given "due" consideration as party to the treaty, because in their minds the war had been going well and this was a mutual peace negotiation, not a German surrender.

The use of "armistice" was also probably partially at fault, tbh. It let the German high command turn around to their own people and present it as a negotiated peace when in reality, it was a defeated nation desperately prostrating itself before its conquerors to avoid being utterly ruined, thus sowing the seeds for the Dolchstoss myth.

Strange that Austria didn't face more blame I think.

It should be noted that there wasn't really a need to. Austria quickly disintegrated into several smaller states after the war, and lost a ton of land to various Entente countries (Romania, Serbia, Italy and Russia to be precise).

[Alvecia]

I can't read this thread title without thinking of that Mitchel and Webb sketch

[Nancivania]

My take on this:

In the first world war, neither side was morally advantageous (Allies and Central Powers). Both used chemical weapons, both mowed down their enemies with machine guns, and both killed civilians caught in the crosshair. Germans fighting in WW1 were just as moral as the soldiers fighting for France, Russia, Britain, and America.

In the second world war however, the sides were a lot different. The Allies clearly had the moral high ground (at least the Western allies, I personally don't consider the USSR to be a true democratic ally). Nazi Germany was a horrible, genocidal, murderous, Aryan supremacist state that was responsible for the worst genocide in human history. Allied soldiers were fighting to stop this monstrous belief know as Nazism, whereas German troops (whether or not they knew it) were fighting in defense of Nazi Germany.

Everybody focuses in on Nazis to much. Massacres happened everywhere in that time. First the Spanish civil war which was the dark gruesome prequel to WW2, which for the most part was mainly run by Spanish (obviously), then theirs he japanesse who'd rape and murder chinesse woman, and there's ofcourse Stalin killing his own people for his reformation of Russia. There was a lot of death, so how come the Nazis get put on the "most evil bad guy totem" when there are people equally as bad? No one talks about the sinister evils that the Japanese did in history books (except if you count Pearl Harbor), and we don't talk about the sinister evils that Stalin did nearly as frequently as Hitler's. The whole Nazi evil badguys thing is just a pedestal- a representation of the evil within that era.

Of course i know of the atrocities in the USSR and Japan, my focus was simply on the question "were the Germans moral during the Second World War". The answer is an astounding no. Were they better then the Russians and Imperial Japanese? That's a more complicated question which deserves its own thread in my opinion

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

To the point of murdering millions?

No. You allready got out of starving. At this point, there was no fear of going back to starving.

Killing millions beacuse of "Mental scars" is no answer at all.

It was mindless killing.

Yes, but who do you blame? Who caused the Great starvation? You must ask yourself this, because it is the very reason why your family starved, thus there is a reason. Hitler made a reason by saying it was their fault. That's when the mass murdering comes in.

I'd blame Hitler, for making made them into a scapegoat.

But who cares about the faults from your perspective? You're not starving anymore and there is no need at all to start murdering millions.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Everybody focuses in on Nazis to much. Massacres happened everywhere in that time. First the Spanish civil war which was the dark gruesome prequel to WW2, which for the most part was mainly run by Spanish (obviously), then theirs he japanesse who'd rape and murder chinesse woman, and there's ofcourse Stalin killing his own people for his reformation of Russia. There was a lot of death, so how come the Nazis get put on the "most evil bad guy totem" when there are people equally as bad? No one talks about the sinister evils that the Japanese did in history books (except if you count Pearl Harbor), and we don't talk about the sinister evils that Stalin did nearly as frequently as Hitler's. The whole Nazi evil badguys thing is just a pedestal- a representation of the evil within that era.

Of course i know of the atrocities in the USSR and Japan, my focus was simply on the question "were the Germans moral during the Second World War". The answer is an astounding no. Were they better then the Russians and Imperial Japanese? That's a more complicated question which deserves its own thread in my opinion

My issue is that typically humans love to place a certain person as examples and idols. Like Alexander being the worlds best warrior, Julius Ceaser being the best Empire builder, and Napoleon who was a incredible general. They also have their dark sides that people don't discuss like how Alexander destroyed cultural buildings and important buildings, Julius Ceaser was a super slave merchant, and Napoleon's wars caused so much death. Everything's more morally grey then we assume is my point, and the more we assume that one group of people or a person is an absolute evil the more we remove their human aspect. We all have a good side and a bad side, and Hitler has one too, because he is human. My point is everything is morally grey rather than the black and white were presented. I do believe Hitler was immoral, but not absolutely evil.

[Letwinist States]

I can't read this thread title without thinking of that Mitchel and Webb sketch

Made my day.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Yes, but who do you blame? Who caused the Great starvation? You must ask yourself this, because it is the very reason why your family starved, thus there is a reason. Hitler made a reason by saying it was their fault. That's when the mass murdering comes in.

I'd blame Hitler, for making made them into a scapegoat.

But who cares about the faults from your perspective? You're not starving anymore and there is no need at all to start murdering millions.

After making the mistake of trying to control the populace of Rome by starving them. (Aka fabricates famine and makes claims about bandits or something) Cleander's head was torn off and paraded around the city of Rome. Starving causes people to become immoral, and even if it's simply malnutrition it causes a desire for food and a yearning to place the blame.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'd blame Hitler, for making made them into a scapegoat.

But who cares about the faults from your perspective? You're not starving anymore and there is no need at all to start murdering millions.

After making the mistake of trying to control the populace of Rome by starving them. (Aka fabricates famine and makes claims about bandits or something) Cleander's head was torn off and paraded around the city of Rome. Starving causes people to become immoral, and even if it's simply malnutrition it causes a desire for food and a yearning to place the blame.

This excuses nothing.

[Holy Tedalonia]

After making the mistake of trying to control the populace of Rome by starving them. (Aka fabricates famine and makes claims about bandits or something) Cleander's head was torn off and paraded around the city of Rome. Starving causes people to become immoral, and even if it's simply malnutrition it causes a desire for food and a yearning to place the blame.

This excuses nothing.

Does it not excuse the malnutrition and starving or is this you saying that my arguements invalid? What I'm saying is starvation and hunger are incredibly influential motivators.