board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Is dressing up as a Nazi an acceptable pastime?

Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 51 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Areanor
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 2:00 am
Sharpe-sighted
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 7:46 am
Location: Hyrule
 
Din, if you really want to know why it's creepy, please come over to visit in mid-august. Around Rudolf Hess' death-date (17.8.1987).

Hess (Hitler's vice) is buried at Wunsiedel, a small town nearby. And you can't image the sight of those neo-nazis, who come every year in greater numbers. The town and the inhabitants don't want them there, but they went to court to get permission to meet then and there. They call it a "Gedenkmarsch" , a march to remember Hess. But even innocent eyes can see they use it as political platform.

To think these people may ever be able to rule again gives me the creeps.

It may have been sixty years ago, but in some people the spirit is still there. And seeing somebody as prominent as Harry in such an uniform just gives them encouragement.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 8:48 am
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
Ok, evil Nazi's aside, don't you think you are dishonouring the memories of those who died for Germany by villianising any mention of the War?

Most who fought did so to make Germany great, or to survive. They did some incredably heroic things, and they were not the only villians of the 1930-1940's.

Why make out that the uniform was evil, why make out that somebody who wore the uniform was evil?

Had he been parading round in Gestapo trench coat or as an SS Colonel I could see that would offend. He was dressed as a member of the Afrika Corps. They were not villified by anybody who fought them, they were led by Rommel who (although signed up Nazi) was a gentleman by ALL accounts.

The swastika is part of the Uniform, or should we remove every image of the Swastica from around the world and in history because it reminds people of a mad dictator?

What about the memories of thoses who died. They died for a bad cause. Should they therfore be ignored or forgotten?

Germany did not go to war to kill Jews and gays and gypsies, and Britain didn not fight them to save these people. But you can bet that in most peoples mind that argument is there.

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 9:05 am
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
Excuse me, Din, but I am convinced in almost all points of the entire opposite.

First of all, you cannot talk about World War 2 with "evil Nazis aside" (except you talk about the war with Japan). They wanted the war, they started the war, they fought and fortunately lost the war.

The problem of heroism for a bad or wrong cause is interesting indeed. It leads to a de-valuation of "heroism" itself, as it has no worth of its own, but must be seen in connection to its end.

The uniform isn't evil. It's a symbol of evil. Contrary to Uruk-Hai armour, it's the symbol of a non-playful, very real evil.

This special uniform is specially evil. It isn't a desert fox uniform, as the swastika was never part of the Wehrmacht uniform except political officers (not even the SS had these markers at the front). Rommel, while being ressourceful and cunning, was inm his immanent opposition to Hitler a tragic person, but I wish he had been a less able general who had lost earlier and with less loss of life.

The swastika is an indian fertility symbol, imho it may be used by the indians and their friends at their liking. It is a european symbol of fascism and may not be used in that context.

Those who died for the bad cause shouldn't be forgotten, of course not. They should be mourned and lamented, along with those they killed.

Germany did fight the war to get the world rid off Jews, gays, Gypsies and everybody non-aryan.

_________________

– – –


Top
Profile Quote
Guruthostirn
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 9:28 am
That Weird American
Offline
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:30 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest U.S.
 
Actually, that particular symbol can be found all over...and personally, if I want to use it for my own purposes, as with anything, anyone that has a problem with that can go take a hike, or suffer in hell for their sin of inflicting their views on others, whichever works for them.

As for heroism, what exactly defines a hero or a brave person? Is it their acts? Or is it the cause they act for?

In this specific case, Mumm, it seems you're implying that every German soldier in WW2 was a fervent Nazi who strongly believed in the cause and was willing to go out of their way to kill every single living soul they encountered. The point Din is making is that many, probably most, of the regular soldiers were just doing a job, and I'd imagine, fighting for their country. It's not their fault that their sense of patriotism may have been subverted by one of the most skilled politicians in history. What they achieved on the battlefield did not come from their political views. It came from their abilities as people. By denying those aspects, you're denying them as individuals.

Btw, why shouldn't a symbol of fascism be used? That's an extreme example of "one apple is bad, toss out the whole basket". Yes, yes, I know, it's specifically a symbol of the Nazis, when in the context of European fascism, but my point holds. If there are certain things you can't forgive, here's one I won't forgive: a blind rejection of history, to the point of inability to examine the details, and generalized rejection.
Quote:
Germany did fight the war to get the world rid off Jews, gays, Gypsies and everybody non-aryan.
Can this be established without a doubt? Is there a hint that the war was for something else, as Din suggested? Or that the anti-non-aryan stance was fake for unity purposes?

_________________

That crazy American Jerk...

"No stop signs, speed limits, no body's gonna slow me down..."

"You can run, but you'll die tired." -- What the archer said to the knight.


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 12:01 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Guruthostirn wrote:
Can this be established without a doubt? Is there a hint that the war was for something else, as Din suggested? Or that the anti-non-aryan stance was fake for unity purposes?
Yes, that can be stated without any doubt. Many of the decisions in this war were directly opposite to the aim of winning it, but allowed the poursuit of the genocide. Some historians go as far as saying that Hitler's army has lost the war because of too massive implication of troops for genocide purposes. Several tactical choices were nonsense in regard of an aim of winning the war and only made sense in regard of ideological decision of a genocide.

I don't see anywhere in Mummpizz statement the idea that the German soldiers were all fervent nazis - but maybe I'm used to German rethoric about WWII - no, of course many were not. They were just doing their job - and a huge part of the population were not enthousiastic when the war started. Should for this reason be forgotten that they fought for the wrong reasons? Both of my grand-fathers died in WWII... and for one his family was without news for nine years before getting the official death notice from the Soviet authorities. But I don't admire him - I happen not to admire any military exploit. Heroism can just as much, if not more, be the heroism to desert.

As for the use of fascist symbols: I can see (and I'm after all a history teacher) only one use for someone with a European cultural back-ground: remember and explain. The symbol cannot be used as it was before, but with the implication of what it stands for. And thus, only carefully, and certainly not as a simple indian or pagan sun-wheel.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 12:11 pm
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
Of course you can use any symbol for any of your purposes, but with symbols as pieces of communication and communication something shared with others, you'll soon experience that the use of symbols is not a private thing, but one dictated by the common use of it.
Except, of course, you don't use it for communication. Then you can do anything with it. With the same effect as if you'd never done it.

Bravery and valour of those fighting for a bad cause, whether knowingly or not, is in fact an open discussion. I tend to support the aspect that the cause is more important than the quality of action, e. g. I honor the allied armies for overthrowing my own country's, but I admire the valour some particular units displayed (particularly the deserters who risked death but wouldn't fight for Hitler anymore).

Thereby: of course, not all soldiers were fervent Nazis. Some were forced to fight, others realised what they were fighting for and ran. Even Generals mutineered, others handed over their armies to the allies. But the majority fought with dedication and a sense of duty that was (and is) inhuman both in respect to the doer and his deeds.

I tend also to generalise fascism as bad in itself. It is an inhuman, brainless state of mind, and I would rather have my forefathers krept over a free land in mule-carriages than have Hitler build Volkswagens and Autobahnen.

And yes, many apologetes try to excuse the war as provoked or something, but 6 million Jews, and I don't know how many Poles, Gypsies, Russians killed out of pure ethnical reasons make it more than a "fake".

_________________

– – –


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 12:12 pm
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
I love how Nin says "poursuit" and "enthousiastic" :D

_________________

– – –


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 1:53 pm
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
Quote:
The swastika is an indian fertility symbol, imho it may be used by the indians and their friends at their liking. It is a european symbol of fascism and may not be used in that context.
You do know that the Nazi's used it back to front don't you? I think it was from the Tibetan expeditions that it was picked up. But I do find it wrong to say that it couldn't be used now because its tainted. By that logic the Cross should be consigned to history because of the Crusades ;)

I will admit the uniform refernece though. Sorry, I forgot the Swastic was optional for ordinary troops, and was Kaaki on vehicals.
Quote:
Thereby: of course, not all soldiers were fervent Nazis. Some were forced to fight, others realised what they were fighting for and ran. Even Generals mutineered, others handed over their armies to the allies
Did you know that a large portion of the 'German soldiers' who fought the allies on D-Day were Ukrainian prisoners given guns and German NCO's. Aside, but interesting one.
Quote:
Yes, that can be stated without any doubt. Many of the decisions in this war were directly opposite to the aim of winning it, but allowed the poursuit of the genocide. Some historians go as far as saying that Hitler's army has lost the war because of too massive implication of troops for genocide purposes. Several tactical choices were nonsense in regard of an aim of winning the war and only made sense in regard of ideological decision of a genocide.
This is both true and not true. The war started with the Generals in control. Not for ethic cleansing, but for land. The ethnic cleansing (as in drive those not pure aryan out) was part of it but not the cause.

The genocide came later, when the politicians and a certain Corpral took over military matters. Germany lost when Hitler decided he was strong enough to beat Stalin before he beat the Brits and their remaining (very limited) allies. It lost the war because it was overwealmed, there were too many Russians to beat, and no other reason. The killing s happened because there was a need to get troops back toi the front though.

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject: The World Wars
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 3:35 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
The definition of Great Powers has been, up to and including the present time, the Great Colonial Powers. That definition may (one hopes will) change, but it was certainly the case during WWII. Two would-be colonial powers, Germany and Japan, took on two established colonial powers, England and Russia, and one colonial power in denial, the US (Italy and France are both afterthoughts here).

What makes the Nazi regime different is not so much a distinction of kind as of approach. All colonial powers subjegate. Most do so murderously. But few create an elaborate framework as justification for what they do. The USSR killed millions of Ukranians in the 1930s, and the US wiped out most of the aboriginal population in the territory it expanded into, but neither claimed it was to make the world a better place. That's the real terror I feel at the Nazi regime--they thought, they really thought, they were doing the right thing, not for political or military expediency, but for moral reasons. And tens of millions of Germans acquiesced or cooperated.

That's scary. And it remains scary. As Graham Greene said, "God save us from the innocent and the good."

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 3:56 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
International criticism of 'stupid, insensitive' Prince grows louder
By Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter - The Independent
14 January 2005


In one of the most embarrassing incidents to face the Royal Family, Prince Harry was under mounting pressure last night to make an unprecedented apology in person for wearing a Nazi uniform, complete with swastika armband, at a fancy-dress party.

Michael Howard, the Conservative Party leader, condemned his actions and said the two-sentence apology issued by Clarence House was insufficient recompense for the offence he caused.

The Prince's gaffe not only provoked widespread anger among politicians, anti-fascist groups and Jewish organisations, but also led to international criticism from Israel's Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, and the EU's external affairs chief, Javier Solana.

The timing for the Prince, 20, who is third in line to the throne, of being pictured in the uniform of Rommel's Afrika Corps on the front page of The Sun could not have been worse. Later this month, his grandmother, the Queen, is to meet Holocaust survivors to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. In May, he is due to start a course at Sandhurst.

The issue is especially sensitive for the Royal Family, which is closely associated with the defence of Britain during the Second World War. Harry's father, Prince Charles, prides himself on his relationship with Jewish groups. It also serves as a reminder of the historical links between the Windsors, Germany and the Nazis, and the infamous meeting between the Duke of Windsor and Adolf Hitler.

The affair follows a series of incidents involving the party-loving Prince. Palace aides have tried to improve his image by stressing his charity work.

In a statement issued by Clarence House, the Prince said: "I am very sorry if I caused any offence or embarrassment to anyone. It was a poor choice of costume and I apologise." Clarence House said there were no plans for him to say anything further.

Mr Howard said many people would be offended by the photograph, adding that the Prince should "tell us himself how contrite he now is''.

Charles Kennedy, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, told the BBC that Prince Harry had "let himself down".

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, one of the largest international Jewish human rights groups, urged the Prince to visit Auschwitz, as his uncle, Prince Edward, will do on the anniversary. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the centre's founder, said: "This was a shameful act displaying insensitivity for the victims, not just for those soldiers who gave their lives to defeat Nazism, but to the victims of the Holocaust."

Lord Janner, a former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: "What Harry did was both stupid and evil. The time has come for him to make a public apology. I would send him in to the Army as fast as possible. I hope that would teach him not to behave like that."

Stephen Smith, the chair-designate of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, said the incident served as a reminder of the importance of Holocaust education for the young. The Anti-Nazi League said the outfit was "grossly insensitive".

Doug Henderson, the Labour backbencher and former armed forces minister, argued that the incident demonstrated Harry was unfit to go to Sandhurst.

In Israel, Mr Shalom added that the use of Nazi symbols was "intolerable". He said: "Anybody who tries to pass it off as bad taste must be made aware this can encourage others to think perhaps that period was not as bad as we teach the young generation in the free world."

Mr Solana said: "It's not an appropriate thing to do."

German social democratic MP Ursula Mogg said: "From a German point of view, it is hard to understand that there can be any circumstance to wear that kind of uniform."

The photograph was taken in secret during a private party in Wiltshire at the weekend to celebrate the 22nd birthday of one of the Prince's friends, Harry Meade, son of Richard Meade, the Olympic medal-winning horseman. It was attended by many of the wealthy young people who formthe so-called Highgrove set.

The picture was sent to The Sun by a reader who alerted the newspaper to the sight of Prince William in a leopard-skin outfit. But staff decided that his brother's choice of costume was more newsworthy. It was reported last night that Prince William was present when his brother chose his costume.

WERE YOU OFFENDED BY HARRY WEARING THE ARMBAND?

Leon Greenman, 94, is author of 'An Englishman in Auschwitz'. His wife and children died in the concentration camp.

The swastika is an old symbol, but Hitler used it. Whenever survivors of the camps see that it gives a little shock thinking about a deeply painful past. I wish I could take [the Prince] to Auschwitz and show him what went on. If you start taking it lightly, there is always the chance it could happen again.

Simon Weston, Falklands veteran

I understand why the Jewish community should be offended. But people are being very, very pious because he is an easy target. He didn't set out to cause offence. He might not be the most thoughtful human being, but there aren't many people who haven't done something stupid at 20. The reaction of the press is over the top. He has already apologised.

Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Edgbaston (German by birth)

It was very silly, but he is a particular position and ought to be more aware of the implications than any other lad his age. What it also shows is that the average 20-year-old does not understand what these uniforms stand for. But in his case, what you can't separate is who he is. I think in Germany there would have been more of an awareness, for very good reasons.

Lord Janner of Braunstone, former war crimes investigator and chairman of the Holocaust educational trust

It is utterly offensive to soldiers who fought the Nazis and people like myself whose family was killed by the Nazis. I hope that he would not have done this had he known the kind of offence this would have caused. He should come out as a man in public and apologise, not send a statement.

Anthony Beevor, historian

It was stupid, and obviously he's going to have to apologise. The whole thing should not be taken out of proportion. It was a private party, a photograph was taken secretly and then sold, and the media exploited the opportunity. Any comparison with the Duke of Windsor is preposterous. What is far more shocking is that 50 per cent of people in this country have never heard of Auschwitz.

Zeddy Lawrence, editor, 'Jewish News'

We're disappointed more than outraged. We think it's very sad. The Holocaust attacked Jewish people, so naturally we are more sensitive, but we should remember that it wasn't just Jews. We would invite him to join us on a trip to Auschwitz. It would be courteous and right of him to investigate further what happened to the Jews in the Second World War.

Nick Hornby, novelist

The main point about this is Prince Harry's stupidity. He is not in a position where he is allowed to be juvenile. If there is any point to having a Royal Family, it demands being more intelligent. I think some kind of public reaction is required. It would be pretty tragic if no one spoke out against public figures parading as Nazis. The swastika never meant anything other than evil, it cannot be reclaimed.

Katharine Hamnett, fashion designer

He is at an age when people make stupid mistakes. Unfortunately for the Royal Family, it turned out to be a huge mistake. People are still shocked by the swastika because of everything it represents. He is an idiot, but surely he has been chastised enough. He must be deeply sorry already, and you can't let this turn into a witchhunt.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 6:04 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
Dindraug wrote:
Ok, so the Nazi's did want to remove the stain of the Slav from the world, but lets face it, after Tannenberg (1410) wasn't this an issue for them.
GRUNWALD damnit.

:P
;)

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 6:13 pm
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
Quote:
The definition of Great Powers has been, up to and including the present time, the Great Colonial Powers. That definition may (one hopes will) change, but it was certainly the case during WWII. Two would-be colonial powers, Germany and Japan, took on two established colonial powers, England and Russia, and one colonial power in denial, the US (Italy and France are both afterthoughts here).
Why? France and the Netherlands both had significant overseas territory. Italy was on the expansion in Africa, as shown in the Abyassinian exploits, and held much. Strangly Germany did not, but did want to retain former colonies.

Japan was already involved in taking over the recently 'free from European colonials' China, and aiming for expansion into South East Asia. It did not take on Britain (and the Dutch and French) until thoses poweres were caught up in aEuropean war that was taking up most of their time and effort. Their real opponent was america who was flexing colonial expansion in their littlecorner of the world (Philapines)

Germany took on the colonial powers of France, Netherlands, Britain and thrashed them. Ok so the Brits stopped them, but at a huge cost. It then took on Russia, and failed.

Incidentally, did you know that Rusia declared war on Japan in 1945, between the dropping ofthe two atom bombs. They used it as an excuse to 'liberate' Mancuria of its industry, and population.

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject: Afterthoughts...
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 7:16 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
...in terms of the war. I mean, Belgium had colonies too, but wasn't a great power by any stretch of the imagination. France was, but took a dive. The Netherlands were somewhere in between. But only England and Russia had both the resources (courtesy of the colonies to a great extent) and the industrial capacity to make a difference against Germany.

Italy had African possessions, but they were recent and tenuous by comparison to the other Europeans there.

I agree about Japan, although it's pretty clear they wanted what was then the Dutch East Indies and Malaysia/Singapore (British) early on, for the oil and rubber. But the US was Japan's chief Pacific competitor.

And the USSR did in fact grab a chunk of Manchuria, and the Sakhalin Islands, in August 1945.

At any rate, my real point was that the whole theme of the party was based on a morally dubious idea, and that what Harry did was extreme--but not necessarily out of place there.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jaeniver
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 8:17 pm
I can't count but I'm cute
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:20 am
Location: Holland, ski resort.
 
I should really read up on this subject.I have little knowledge on the East Indies at that time. highly interesting to read all this though.

sorry continue ;)

_________________

So give me your forever.
Please your forever.
Not a day less will do
From you

~Other half of the Menacing Glare Duo~ partner-in-crime out to confuse the world!


Top
Profile Quote
Leoba
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Jan , 2005 10:09 pm
Troubadour of Ithilien
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:04 am
Location: Bree, Buckinghamshire
 
From the Living History forums, courtesy of a WW2 re-enactor who posts as 'Panzerman':
Quote:
...the burks at the Sun got it wrong again - teh Swasitka he is wearing on his arm is actually a Finnish one not a Nazi one!!!!!

Please feel free to browse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
and see how this lovely and ancient symbol came to be much maligned.........

I think a far more obescene symbol can be seen here
http://www.thesun.co.uk/
Plastered all over in garish red and white.....

My missus summed it up thoough when the item came on the news - She looked across at me and said - "He's a twat!" I was quite taken aback by this utterance from my normally shy, demure and retiring partner (yeah, right!)
"Why? Dearest" I tentatively enquired.
"Because........ he's got the collar patches on too low down, they are on the wrong collars and should be reversed, the eagles i all wrong and the armband is crap - Besides, they wouldn't have worn an arm band with Afrika Korps (21 Leichte Divisone) uniform..... And it should be olive green to chocolate in colour not the ubiquitious sand as seen in Hollywood movies!"

"Oh" says I.

She went back to her cross stitch and I continued reading Dr. Goebbel's biography......

Last edited by Leoba on Sat 15 Jan , 2005 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 15 Jan , 2005 4:04 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I'm trying to imagine a son of one of our Presidents going to a party dressed as a Japanese kamikazi pilot or a Nazi stormtrooper. I'm sure it would provoke intense criticism, and our 'homeland' was not even attacked during the war as Britian was.

How much time must pass before a government personage in the U.S. could safely make jokes about Osama bin Laden? In my opinion, that day will never come.

The Royal Family represent the British people everywhere they go. They have a responsibility to behave with decorum whether this interferes with their fun or not. They're public figures and the rules are different for them.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 15 Jan , 2005 12:09 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Jnyusa wrote:
They're public figures and the rules are different for them.
Jn
Amen! :mrgreen:

And I just wanted to say like Jae, I have no-where near the knowledge about WWII like you guys have and I'm learning a lot reading! Thanks :mrgreen:
_______________
Resident witch
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 15 Jan , 2005 2:25 pm
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
Quote:
The Royal Family represent the British people everywhere they go. They have a responsibility to behave with decorum whether this interferes with their fun or not. They're public figures and the rules are different for them.
Strange, I thought they were human beings who are allowed, at a private party to let their hair down and do something shocking. His brother, at the same party was dressed in a skin tight leotard as a leopard :Q

But it was some unscrupulous twat at the party who sold their piccys to an even more unscrupulous tawt from the gutter press for £10,000 because of a picture of William dressed up. Said twat bought the whole reel and printed another, the infermous one of Harry. It is like a picture being taken of a father bathing his daughter, being stolen, and sold to the press branding the father as a peadeophile.

Of course as ever, the real winners are the gutter press who have sold more newspapers than even to the gullible whingers who are shocked, but want to see more (I believe the broadsheets have special editions tommorow). Oh, and the Goverments who have used this 'shocking escapade' to cover a whole raft of legistlation, which was being published anyway, but is lost in in this ruckus.

Cynical, moi :roll:

And I have to ask this Mumphy, please don't take offense because its not meant that way but a genuine question.
Quote:
I'm trying to imagine a son of one of our Presidents going to a party dressed as a Japanese kamikazi pilot or a Nazi stormtrooper.
Your dressing up as a Stromtrooper. Now I know the orgional Stormtroopers were WWI trench warfare experts, but the stormtrooper is synonymous with German troops, or SS troops of WWII, but do you see the Star Wars Stormtrooper name as based on the Wehrmacht, insulting or is were they called something else in Germany?

I ask because I remember seeing the film at age 10 and not being to scared of the Imperial forces and even Vadar until I found out they were called Stormtroopers and I just got terrified of them and even (in my child like way) hated them.

So, is dressing like a Stormtrooper wrong because the name used is synonymous with evil?

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 15 Jan , 2005 2:50 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I didn't even know they were named Stormtroopers.... does that answer your question? The Swastika (learned a new word through Harry) is so well-known as symbol that it makes a difference.

And even going to a private party, Harry remains a public person - her gets the money that goes along with it, he has not chosen whom he was born, I'm sorry for him, but he is a public person - and whomever, when your grandmother has been chosen to preside the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz two weeks later, you don't dress like this.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 15 Jan , 2005 8:48 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Haven't the time to reply at length to all the points mentioned, but I must say that Din's posts have scared hell out of me. Mummpizz and Nin have made some good answers, but I hope I'll have the time to add something, too, later.

Just to answer the initial question, there are some things you don't joke about, it's as simple as that.
What about someone showing up at a party dressed as Marc Dutroux?
Funny?
I think not.

Lidless had a point about the horror becoming acceptable for fun when it's removed in time, but even then it's a question of sensibilities. I'd be with Ber on finding colonialism tasteless for a costume party theme.
I also find Guy Fawkes Day appalling - which Din brought up as an example. The pepetuation of anti-Catholic feeling disgusts me. Or the perpetuation of any hate-inspired movement, for that matter.

I do think re-enacting WWII is likely to be rather tasteless - yes, some battles might be looked upon as mere battles, part of the politics of war, so it wouldn't make a difference whether you enacted some of them, or Agincourt or something. But the border to tastelessness is crossed sooner.
I heard from a friend some time ago (yet another military historian) that her favourite board-game was "Battle of Stalingrad".
I was rather shocked that this could be considered a subject for a game and wondered, if maybe there's some "Concentration Camp" board game out there as well.

It might have to do with my being German - I think it has more to do with people (Germans as well as members of other nations) not being properly sensitized about those issues. There are PC games about "Total War" in different ages, for example - I read a post on TORC about that once, and it was all I could do not to post a sarcastic remark about how much fun total war must be - (the poster apparently was naive and didn't think any harm, so wouldn't have got the sarcasm).

Great to see some real discussion in this place, btw! :mrgreen:

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 51 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Jump to: