Are the Germans really the bad guys.

[Pope Joan]

I like Russia. Germany's domination of Europe today makes them the bad guys I am most concerned about.

[Vionna-Frankenlisch]

If you're a history nerd and/or love either World War 1 or 2, be it the people, the uniforms, the generals, the battles or etc. then you'll know most of what happened to Germany and the German people(Austria-Hungary included).

Austria-Hungary shouldn't be included because as a nation A-H didn't exist during WW2 and during the Great War they were a whole different kettle of fish, ethnicity aside.

And the movie industry is even worse, the only movie I can think of that's neutral is War Horse letting the viewers show how all sides of the war affected everyone but with recent movies like Dunkirk only shows us that the Nazis are evil and that's it.

Personally, I'd disagree with the example... The Nazis were and are evil but I think Dunkirk does actually quite a bad job at portraying the Germans, in fact, I'd estimate that you can see Germans or German aircraft for perhaps 25% of the film. Rather pitiful, wouldn't you say, for a film based on the events at Dunkirk.

Why do we always have to fight the German/Ottoman empire or Austria-Hungary or Nazi Germany? Why can't we fight as the Ottomen in Gallipoli? Is it so wrong to support the losing side?(Please don't tell me I sound like a Nazi sympathizer.)

We don't... Most reliable strategy games have campaigns from both sides and the ability to play as these nations in multiplayer modes. Recent examples such as BF 1 admittedly don't have campaigns for the Central Powers but to be honest that game is held up by its multiplayer more than anything else.

In RTS games like Company of Heroes seems to be more forgiving of this with you at least commanding two brothers as they fight the Allies in Operation:Market Garden albeit it's maybe inaccurate but to FPS games, the closes they got is letting you fight as a former Nazi scientist as you kill zombies.

And the movie industry is even worse

Company of Heroes has two, or possibly three, I cant remember, campaigns for the Germans. And there are plenty of FPS games that allow the player to play as the Germans, I mentioned BF1's multiplayer and I presume that you'll allow that as you mentioned COD's Nazi Zombie mode, I can think of many recent and older examples of shooters and other such games that allows the player to play as an Axis soldier. As for the movie industry, I do agree there, there are far too few films that portray the Axis forces of WW2 or the Central Powers of WW1 in a fair light.

Why do you think Germany is portrayed as this evil nation in both sides?

Edit:Yes I am aware Nazi Germany did bad. Very, very bad but still there were some okay people in Nazi Germant like Erwin Rommel.

Probably because the Germans were so unredeemably evil during the Second World War, but admittedly, they do get unreasonably blamed for the Great War.

I'd do some more research into Rommel if I were you, he was certainly one of the best of the Nazis but, for all the praise he gets, his history can still be surprising.

[Luziyca]

For WW1, they were morally grey, but for WW2, yes.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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.

And that they are influential motivators exists nothing.

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

And that they are influential motivators exists nothing.

You don't understand that malnourishment was a big thing still especially during the war

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And that they are influential motivators exists nothing.

You don't understand that malnourishment was a big thing still especially during the war

And it excuses nothing.

[Holy Tedalonia]

You don't understand that malnourishment was a big thing still especially during the war

And it excuses nothing.

You know that's a narrow thinking process. Think, "I'm hungry and the government isn't providing for the lack of food," that's the thinking process of the German at the time, then Hitler comes in makes promises of improving day to day conditions and suggests that, "it was the Jews fault," which typically helps unify angry starving people.

honestly it doesn't matter about excuses it was "my family's starving and it's his fault." It's essentially the blame game and a very dangerous one. One that got that Roman Cleander killed. In the end people will make any excuse to make it reasonable. As I said history is morally grey, and most nazis (who were malnourished and hungry) wanted more food available and Hitler wanted an easy target to accuse. Most Germans didn't know about what the camps did only that was where Jews went. When they did find out Hitler moved the camps farther away, so that the people didn't know it was happening anymore.

[Ism]

And it excuses nothing.

You know that's a narrow thinking process. Think, "I'm hungry and the government isn't providing for the lack of food," that's the thinking process of the German at the time, then Hitler comes in makes promises of improving day to day conditions and suggests that, "it was the Jews fault," which typically helps unify angry starving people.

honestly it doesn't matter about excuses it was "my family's starving and it's his fault." It's essentially the blame game and a very dangerous one. One that got that Roman Cleander killed. In the end people will make any excuse to make it reasonable. As I said history is morally grey, and most nazis (who were malnourished and hungry) wanted more food available and Hitler wanted an easy target to accuse. Most Germans didn't know about what the camps did only that was where Jews went. When they did find out Hitler moved the camps farther away, so that the people didn't know it was happening anymore.

If it's narrow minded to say hunger doesn't justify genocide, then I guess I'm narrow minded.

[Genivaria]

You know that's a narrow thinking process. Think, "I'm hungry and the government isn't providing for the lack of food," that's the thinking process of the German at the time, then Hitler comes in makes promises of improving day to day conditions and suggests that, "it was the Jews fault," which typically helps unify angry starving people.

honestly it doesn't matter about excuses it was "my family's starving and it's his fault." It's essentially the blame game and a very dangerous one. One that got that Roman Cleander killed. In the end people will make any excuse to make it reasonable. As I said history is morally grey, and most nazis (who were malnourished and hungry) wanted more food available and Hitler wanted an easy target to accuse. Most Germans didn't know about what the camps did only that was where Jews went. When they did find out Hitler moved the camps farther away, so that the people didn't know it was happening anymore.

If it's narrow minded to say hunger doesn't justify genocide, then I guess I'm narrow minded.

The Holocaust was evil.-My narrow-minded opinion.

[Vulkata II]

If it's narrow minded to say hunger doesn't justify genocide, then I guess I'm narrow minded.

The Holocaust was evil.-My narrow-minded opinion.

That sound's about right.

[Holy Tedalonia]

You know that's a narrow thinking process. Think, "I'm hungry and the government isn't providing for the lack of food," that's the thinking process of the German at the time, then Hitler comes in makes promises of improving day to day conditions and suggests that, "it was the Jews fault," which typically helps unify angry starving people.

honestly it doesn't matter about excuses it was "my family's starving and it's his fault." It's essentially the blame game and a very dangerous one. One that got that Roman Cleander killed. In the end people will make any excuse to make it reasonable. As I said history is morally grey, and most nazis (who were malnourished and hungry) wanted more food available and Hitler wanted an easy target to accuse. Most Germans didn't know about what the camps did only that was where Jews went. When they did find out Hitler moved the camps farther away, so that the people didn't know it was happening anymore.

If it's narrow minded to say hunger doesn't justify genocide, then I guess I'm narrow minded.

Genocide was happening, but it doesn't mean that the Germans were supporting it. Hitler was very effective at censoring what would happen to Jews, so that the everyday German doesn't rebel. The everyday German just knew that hitler was going to put them somewhere else.

[Edenite Republic]

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

No he wasn't.

He was hated by soldiers under his command (loved at the home front) and certainly not loved by the British forces in Africa. Respected, perhaps, admired for his chivalrous treatment of pows perhaps, but not loved in any sense by the British public or army. This is a total misconception.

[Ism]

If it's narrow minded to say hunger doesn't justify genocide, then I guess I'm narrow minded.

Genocide was happening, but it doesn't mean that the Germans were supporting it. Hitler was very effective at censoring what would happen to Jews, so that the everyday German doesn't rebel. The everyday German just knew that hitler was going to put them somewhere else.

Oh, so they were only supporting some atrocities. When you put it like that they were practically Saints. And for the record, you are sorely misinformed about the German public's knowledge. If they didn't know, they weren't paying attention, or they didn't want to know. Neither are an excuse.

[Uxupox]

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

No he wasn't.

He was hated by soldiers under his command (loved at the home front) and certainly not loved by the British forces in Africa. Respected, perhaps, admired for his chivalrous treatment of pows perhaps, but not loved in any sense by the British public or army. This is a total misconception.

Source for this?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Genocide was happening, but it doesn't mean that the Germans were supporting it. Hitler was very effective at censoring what would happen to Jews, so that the everyday German doesn't rebel. The everyday German just knew that hitler was going to put them somewhere else.

Oh, so they were only supporting some atrocities. When you put it like that they were practically Saints. And for the record, you are sorely misinformed about the German public's knowledge. If they didn't know, they weren't paying attention, or they didn't want to know. Neither are an excuse.

Most of that was ally espionage giving information to German citizens, and those protests were beaten done brutally and they (the nazis) told the people that the protesters were lying and crap like that. Besides the other stuff was rumors, and speculations which if your a German who had supported the nazis would likely not accept that reality, although there's one part that was important that corrected my previous statement and that was the camps.

Look the camps varied and I did generalize them by accident. I meant the execution camps where they killed Jews. Yes, people did see Jews in slave camps, but when some Jews tried to retaliate they were shot. The German people didn't like seeing Jews killed, and showed much displeasure to Hitler, so Hitler moved them into the less populated regions of Germany to get them killed, and claimed to the public that he was removing them from Germany. This happened much more in the later half rather then the early years of his reign.

Regardless most of the information to the public knowledge of Germans that article was sourced from was from outer interference, and I don't think their to inclined to listen or debate about what was happening to the Jews from people who took their land from them and put them in debt. The rumors can be repelled with denial. The only thing that the Germans truly knew was a fact was the camps next to them, and Hitler quickly remedied that after learning that the masses weren't completely ignorant.

[Engleberg]

In World War I, Germany is portrayed as "bad" because the Entente won.

In reality, the British and French were the evil ones. France, in particular, was a militaristic power wanting to reclaim its lands liberated by Prussia in 1870.

The United States was only brought in because Britain faked a telegram to piss em' off after the US sent ships with ammunition into areas they shouldn't have been in, as warned by the Kaiserliche-Marine.

[Impaled Nazarene]

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.

Rommel was a monarchist who exploited Hitler's fascination with the celebrity commander to disobey OKW whenever he wanted. His skill is very debatable in the Second World War as some will say he was just above average and is considerably overrated while others make the somewhat valid point that after the destruction of the Italian fleet there was no way for any General in the whole war to crack El Alamein, and the North Africa Failure combined with his lack of fighting on the Eastern Front means there isn't much to go by.
Rommel had pulled off amazing victories using the most simple of maneuvers: the flank attack. He took the risk of the desert to flank and encircle british strongholds, however just South of El Alamein was the Qattara depression which is completely impassable for conventional army maneuvers. Auchinleck (NOT MONTGOMERY) broke the Axis' back and from then on the Allies with their superior positions and better supply routes would hold the advantage.
If Rommel had fought on the Eastern Front there would have been a much different narrative. War Crime allegations would be attached to him like every other Wehrmacht commander. Rommel's celebrity status and disputable involvement with the July plot let the allies build the myth of a clean Wehrmacht which made it easier for them to secure western Germany and use former Wehrmacht forces for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rommel_myth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Wehrmacht
Since someone will inevitably complain about Wikipedia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw1UJCwcgNc

[Engleberg]

WWI Germany wasn't as bad as the Nazis, but they were still the force fighting for aristocracy, colonialism, empire and all that stuff. So yeah, bad guys.

None of those are bad.

[Engleberg]

The Germans were worse than the Allies during WW1, not necessarily how bad we think they were, but they were practically an absolute monarchy, as was Austria Hungary. The world could have avoided WW2 if during the 1920s the Allies didn't tale so much off of Germany.

Please explain to me how an absolute monarchy is a bad thing.

[Holy Tedalonia]

WWI Germany wasn't as bad as the Nazis, but they were still the force fighting for aristocracy, colonialism, empire and all that stuff. So yeah, bad guys.

None of those are bad.

Ideologies such as colonialism, imperialism, and aristocracy came from the human mind. These were considered morally acceptable at the time. It is typical to look back and call people amoral, but you just wait until people in the future call your morals amoral. It is a cycle that of which will never be broken, because all humans create certain ideals and those change as time progresses.

[Genivaria]

The Germans were worse than the Allies during WW1, not necessarily how bad we think they were, but they were practically an absolute monarchy, as was Austria Hungary. The world could have avoided WW2 if during the 1920s the Allies didn't tale so much off of Germany.

Please explain to me how an absolute monarchy is a bad thing.

The oppression, the instability, the out of touch ruling class?
Take your pick.

[Engleberg]

Please explain to me how an absolute monarchy is a bad thing.

The oppression, the instability, the out of touch ruling class?
Take your pick.

"Oppression" is a term normally thrown about to describe anything nowadays.

Not much instability in many absolute monarchies, except with those pesky republicans.

The ruling class is not "out of touch," but instead knows what is best for the nation.

[Kubra]

The oppression, the instability, the out of touch ruling class?
Take your pick.

"Oppression" is a term normally thrown about to describe anything nowadays.

Not much instability in many absolute monarchies, except with those pesky republicans.

The ruling class is not "out of touch," but instead knows what is best for the nation.

"no instability except those pesky rebels" said everyone with political instability ever

[Genivaria]

The oppression, the instability, the out of touch ruling class?
Take your pick.

"Oppression" is a term normally thrown about to describe anything nowadays.

Not much instability in many absolute monarchies, except with those pesky republicans.

The ruling class is not "out of touch," but instead knows what is best for the nation.

So you don't actually know the history of monarchies very well I take it.

Not much instability in many absolute monarchies

The number of uprisings and civil wars says otherwise.

The ruling class is not "out of touch," but instead knows what is best for the nation

Yes all that poverty and starvation can be adequately solved by the man qualified by walking out of a certain woman's womb.

[Engleberg]

"Oppression" is a term normally thrown about to describe anything nowadays.

Not much instability in many absolute monarchies, except with those pesky republicans.

The ruling class is not "out of touch," but instead knows what is best for the nation.

"no instability except those pesky rebels" said everyone with political instability ever

It is true, though. No matter what nation it is there will be annoyances such as that.

Socialists, fascists, republicans, etc.