Are the Germans really the bad guys.

[Chestaan]

The idea that the 'victors write the hisotry books' is proven false when you see how accepted the myth that the Versailles treaty was 'unfair' is.

Fair or not it is one of the main reasons the second world war happened.

On a separate point, while the Germans were undoubtedly the "bad guys" in WW2, there is an element of Hollywood and related pro-American industries capturing the narrative with regards to wars in the last few centuries. Older Westerns are a good example, where the Natives Americans are almost exclusively shown to be savages and the "bad guys". The same absence of balance was applied to WW2 and other wars such as Vietnam, where there's a pretty strong argument that the Americans were in fact the "bad guys".

The most recent example of outright propaganda I can think of is American Sniper. It's a disgusting movie about a disgusting individual and it's nothing but propaganda, plain and simple. It reminds me of that movie within Inglousrious Basterds, where the German sniper killed several Allied soldiers.

[Sriker]

Because SJWs and censorship.

sorry bud this is not /pol/

[Ardavia]

The idea that the 'victors write the hisotry books' is proven false when you see how accepted the myth that the Versailles treaty was 'unfair' is.

Fair or not it is one of the main reasons the second world war happened.

it really wasnt but k


tbh the real issue is the germans deluded themselves they didn't get btfo

good thing the allies made sure they couldn't try that one again the second time

[Chestaan]

Fair or not it is one of the main reasons the second world war happened.

it really wasnt but k


tbh the real issue is the germans deluded themselves they didn't get btfo

good thing the allies made sure they couldn't try that one again the second time

Funnily enough,when the economy goes to shit people turn to extreme figures like Hitler. Versailles wrecked the German economy and surprise surprise the Germans turned to a strongman. Keynes predicted it all well before it happened.

[Community Values]

Yes, the Germans (as a nationality) started WW1, and WW2.

[Ardavia]

it really wasnt but k


tbh the real issue is the germans deluded themselves they didn't get btfo

good thing the allies made sure they couldn't try that one again the second time

Funnily enough,when the economy goes to shit people turn to extreme figures like Hitler. Versailles wrecked the German economy and surprise surprise the Germans turned to a strongman. Keynes predicted it all well before it happened.

Most non-revisionist historians regard Keynes' Carthaginian Peace Theory as obsolete and wrong since the 50s. If you want some actual modern historiography on the topic, I'd suggest reading Sally Marks' The Myth of Reparations.

FYI the German economic collapse has more to do with the German government deliberately fucking over their own economy to get out of paying reparations, than Versailles itself being any kind of harsh (it wasn't, in fact it was pretty proportional to the damage Germany had inflicted on France and Belgium during the war). The economic crisis was also largely over by the time the Nazis rose, mind you.

[Infected Mushroom]

The Germans fought with honour (in both world wars). Despite losing, they fought valiantly, fairly, and courageously; for the most part following the rules of war.

As such, despite their crimes in World War II, I think there should be more movies with Germans as the protagonists.

[Genivaria]

The Germans fought with honour (in both world wars). Despite losing, they fought valiantly, fairly, and courageously; for the most part following the rules of war.

As such, despite their crimes in World War II, I think there should be more movies with Germans as the protagonists.

Debatable.

[Community Values]

The Germans fought with honour (in both world wars). Despite losing, they fought valiantly, fairly, and courageously; for the most part following the rules of war.

As such, despite their crimes in World War II, I think there should be more movies with Germans as the protagonists.

I don't think they followed the rules of war.

[Genivaria]

The Germans fought with honour (in both world wars). Despite losing, they fought valiantly, fairly, and courageously; for the most part following the rules of war.

As such, despite their crimes in World War II, I think there should be more movies with Germans as the protagonists.

I don't think they followed the rules of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_wa ... orld_War_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_wa ... rld_War_II

Nope.

[Community Values]

I don't think they followed the rules of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_wa ... orld_War_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_wa ... rld_War_II

Nope.

I mean, to be fair I don't think the Allies always followed the rules of war either. Especially the Russians/Soviets.

[Torrocca]

The Germans fought with honour (in both world wars). Despite losing, they fought valiantly, fairly, and courageously; for the most part following the rules of war.

As such, despite their crimes in World War II, I think there should be more movies with Germans as the protagonists.

I'm certain murdering millions of innocent men, women, and children is the exact opposite of being "honorable".

[Genivaria]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_wa ... orld_War_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_wa ... rld_War_II

Nope.

I mean, to be fair I don't think the Allies always followed the rules of war either. Especially the Russians/Soviets.

There's a reason why the Eastern Front was considered the most horrifying theater in the war.
War crimes on both sides almost constantly.

[Letwinist States]

I mean, to be fair I don't think the Allies always followed the rules of war either. Especially the Russians/Soviets.

To be fair, it was decreed to differentiate between war crimes committed in cold blodd (planned beforehand, etc) and those committed in the midst of battle.

Rape, the shooting of surrendering enemies, of course those things are disgusting and unspeakable already. But the things of pure evil committed by the Nazis trump such acts by millions. Without even looking at genocide, civilian displacement, etc.
Ever heard of Oradour-sur-Glane? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-s ... e_massacre

In Germany, we fight constantly for the crimes of the Nazis not to be forgotten, especially since right extremist parties are starting to question our current philosophy of remembrance and relativating German crimes. Please, do not make the mistake of relativating these horrors.

[Ardavia]

The Germans fought with honour (in both world wars). Despite losing, they fought valiantly, fairly, and courageously; for the most part following the rules of war.

As such, despite their crimes in World War II, I think there should be more movies with Germans as the protagonists.

Summary execution of tens of thousands of civilians, forced deportations and forcing abducted civilians into functionally slave labor in German industry, deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, drumhead law, unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral and allied shipping, being the first to use lethal chemical weapons, so on and so on.

I guess you must have a very different definition of "honorable" to me, because that sure doesn't imply "fought with honor" to me.

[Infected Mushroom]

The Germans fought with honour (in both world wars). Despite losing, they fought valiantly, fairly, and courageously; for the most part following the rules of war.

As such, despite their crimes in World War II, I think there should be more movies with Germans as the protagonists.

I'm certain murdering millions of innocent men, women, and children is the exact opposite of being "honorable".

I'm talking about their conduct in the field of combat against the Allies... soldiers vs soldiers

[Ardavia]

I'm certain murdering millions of innocent men, women, and children is the exact opposite of being "honorable".

I'm talking about their conduct in the field of combat against the Allies... soldiers vs soldiers

Not only can their conduct in battle be divorced from their conduct off it, they weren't particularly "honorable" there either: they massacred prisoners with alarming regularity, for one.

[Socialist Czechia]

Not only that, but they they also totally sucked in occupation.
I mean, it's really, really good idea to slaughter two villages just because one guy. Especially in moment when majority is content and obedient.

[Sovaal]

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).

But to most of the entertainment industry you start to notice that everyone picks the Allies even if the game was set in World War 1. Why is it that you always have to fight Germans in most World War games?

Partly, I would imagine, because the majority of the people you speak of are from the Anglosphere, which fought for the Allies both times.

Sure you could say it's because of censors and of course Germany nowadays does not want to be reminded of Hitler and the Nazis(who would?)

Someone who wants to learn the fults of humanity thru history might not want to forget.

but still this is history and if you know history then you know what happened through books, eyewitnesses accounts and reliable searches.

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.)[/b]
Again, wrong target audience.

And depends on what the losing side did.

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, 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.

Dunkirk only showed the Germans for like a total of four minutes, slightly more if you count the Luftwaffe planes.

Der Untergang on the other hand shows us the final days of Hitler and that's really good and satisfies my arguement here but it's still overshadowed on how many movies there are about the Americans doing this and that, it's gonna get redundant someday(don't get me wrong I love America but there are more countries than them.)

Books seem to be the least guilty since both sides wrote stories, poems, biographys and autobiographys of people in both sides in both wars but I've seen stories that just focus on WW2 with either German defectors or Jewish concentration camp escapists.

So what's your thoughts with my confusing rant?

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.

Because they've been the enemy of the people who produce the most books and movies and video games, or at least one of the largest; the English speaking world, and not only for one war, but two.

[Sovaal]

Yes, the Germans (as a nationality) started WW1, and WW2.

So the Germans arraigned for the Archdukes assassination?

[Torrocca]

I'm certain murdering millions of innocent men, women, and children is the exact opposite of being "honorable".

I'm talking about their conduct in the field of combat against the Allies... soldiers vs soldiers

You can't separate their conduct in combat (especially considering they committed war crimes in combat) from what they did out of combat. That's nonsensical. The German soldiers in both world wars lacked honor.

[Letwinist States]

Yes, the Germans (as a nationality) started WW1, and WW2.

So the Germans arraigned for the Archdukes assassination?

Ah, but the Serbs did not start a world war, did they?

[Sovaal]

So the Germans arraigned for the Archdukes assassination?

Ah, but the Serbs did not start a world war, did they?

Except they kinda did. Well, a Serbian extremist group, at least.

[Letwinist States]

Except they kinda did. Well, a Serbian extremist group, at least.

I don't know, it is hard to say who did. After all, it could have been a conflict between Austria-Hungary and the Serb extremists, except Russia guaranteed Serbia, except Germany (and others, like Turkey) gave Austria Hungary a blank check on joining in a wa of aggression, except France was allied to Russia. So maybe the action which led to a world war was actually the invasion of Belgium by Germany. (Its only philosophy here, it is a difficult subject)

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd actually argue they're bad in different ways for both.

For WW1 you've got the issue of Prussian Militarism and the institutions of germany basically being all geared toward permanent conquest. The whole "They aren't so bad" thing ignores this. There's a reason the Nazis were able to sweep to power beyond mere economics, the institutions and culture of germany assisted them.

In comparison, the UK isn't a militaristic power at the time. It fields a small army prior to WW1, because it isn't interested in global conquest, but rather, global trade. (An admitted side effect of which is conquering those who refuse to trade.), and additionally, In the first six months of world war two, we had more planes and balloons dropping leaflets and propaganda than bombs.

"The great questions of the day will not be decided by resolutions or majorities, but by blood and iron." - Bismark

"As soon as anybody can show me it is sound policy, I shall be equally satisfied to see our troops open fire at the french, the russians, the english, or the austrians." - Bismark

2 years into Bismarks term, he attacked Denmark and won.

The history of Prussia and subsequently Germany is one of constant aggression and expansion until WW2 and total occupation.

Germany was formed by the defeat of France and militaristic fervor uniting the german princes behind the dream of total conquest.

The racial myths of the Nazis and the master/warrior race shtick was Germanic through and through.

Germanies railroads were constructed according to military needs, not trade and resource flow, etc.

Germany was basically on a path to world conquest and wasn't going to stop until it was undeniably and unquestionably defeated, the reason WW2 was even necessary was that they weren't occupied after WW1 and their institutions dismantled.

Consider the unrestricted naval warfare of the Kaiser to get an idea of the mentality. Germany was, in effect, at war with the whole of humanity and intended to continue being so and expanding.

Conquered people should be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with.", etc. Clausewitz: "Just as Prussia has been fated to be the core of Germany, so Germany will be the core of the future German empire of the west."

This is the driving force behind German policy from before it was even Germany. "Germany's symbol is Victoria (shown atop the Brandenburg gate) bearing arms, NOT the liberty bell, NOT the magna carta, NOT liberté, egalité, fraternité."

German culture and institutions were proud of war and conquest and such. They were a medieval society with modern arms, that's all. They enjoyed dueling instead of football in their schooling systems, etc.

The germany of today bares almost no resemblance to them.

If you look at the economy of Germany and how it was managed and the elites who controlled it, as well as the interests of those in charge of its institutions, it becomes fairly obvious that Nazi Germany is basically just the Kaisers germany, but with modernist militarism instead of medievalism and a bit more racism. The extent to which Germany was geared for conquest is often ignored by people when talking about WW1.

The "Germany was the aggressor." narrative is these days denied, but that ignores the overall context of the situation. Germany had been rapidly expanding its army, it had destabilized and wished to destabilize the world, etc.

The modern germany is now more proud of its musicians and such rather than those who had any influence over the state of germany or prussia, for good reason. They have no Washington to celebrate. There was no "good guy" in the German system, only militarists, and eventually, racist militarists.

The transition from the Kaiser to the Republic was a farce. The industrialists remained in charge of industry. The state officials remained in place. The teachers remained the same, still preaching ultranationalism and racial superiority.

During WW1, the german populace was told of a string of military victories, and following surrender, there was no foreign army marching through the capital. Instead, the german military returned home to parade, waving the flag. The stab in the back myth is part of this, but consider. Why should a stab in the back myth matter to a country in these circumstances unless they WANTED to prosecute WW1?

Consider that the elites of the Kaiser "cliffed" (Like glass cliff) the democratic republic by forcing them to be the ones to sign the treaty, then immediately set about undermining democracy to keep control among the elites, subsequently collaborating with the nazis, etc.

The original nazi party was at first a coalition of Nazis and Kaiserrists. This is not a coincidence. In fact, arguably, the Nazi Germany that initiated WW2 was not really Nazi in nature, but rather "Anti-semitic Republican Kaiserrism.", as the night of the long knives represents the purge of half the party as the Nazi officials more closely align with the already established powers in germany, siding with the Industrialists and elites against the Socialists within the Nazi Party who demanded the "Second revolution." to destroy the landed elites and capitalists. Point 11 of the nazi 25 points was the abolition of "unearned income" (A Georgist term), this obviously could not be allowed to stand. (As in, no landlords, no stocks, no benefits, no capitalism, workers only.)

The reason the "Socialist" side of the nazi party didn't make headway is that it was co-opted by German institutions and forced to be more like the already established german system. So arguing that the system pre-nazis wasn't bad too is kind of mind blowing to me.

WW1 germany was bad too, just not as genocidal, but consider, the officials and powers of that germany were happy to align themselves with genocide if it meant keeping the military industrial complex of germany going. (Not being facetious, that's pretty much what happened.)

For the record, point 12 of the Nazi programme (Also eventually unfulfilled post-purge.)

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

This should tell you something about the character of Germany, that this was deemed important enough to be one of the 25 policy promises of the NSDAP. For the record also:

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

Etc.

That they didn't achieve this stuff should alert you. It was easier to convince the german system to genocide jews than turn against the wealthy.