Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Wmaker on February 25, 2002, 04:25:38 PM
-
Couple of days ago in the CT I saw one guy saying that he would like to fly the G-2 but he feels unconfortable because of the swastikas painted on it. I explained to him that they have nothing to do with Nazi regime and that Blue swastika was national insignia of the Finnish Airforce between 1918 and 1945. He believed right away and we could discuss about it in good understanding without any hard feelings. He thanked for the lesson and took G-2 for a spin. :) If you are reading this, . Everyone I've tried to explain it haven't taken it so well... I've known this as far as I can remember and that's why I always forget how it isn't very clear to everybody, especially for foreigners.
The following is a quote from the home page of VLeLv Icebreakers (http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers/). They are currently flying in WarBirds, WW2OL and Il-2. I highly recommend visiting on their pages, especially the history section. Anyway, what I came to tell you I couldn't say any better than this:
For those not "in the know" do not start shooting off your mouth about our squadron insignia before you know better. That is not the nazi swastika you see there, but a Von Rosen cross which was the insignia of the Finnish Air Force (FAF) from 1918 to 1945 - estabilished way before a certain Austrian corporal made a similar symbol infamous with his national socialistic ideology. For that very reason the FAF was forced to change it's insignia to the current blue and white roundel.
The common foreigner would have not believed it has nothing to do with the nazis anyway. But as you are now here, we can safely assume that you are either a current or potential WarBirds pilot. Which means you probably are educated enough in the history of aerial combat to indeed know better. In case you are not, here is a quick crash course on that certain aspect of FAF history:
It is called a Von Rosen cross because the first two airplanes, Thulin Parasols - licence-built copies of a Morane Saulnier design - that formed the FAF were donated by a Swedish count Erik Von Rosen shortly after Finland's independence from the chaos of Russian revolution. The cross was the traditional symbol of good luck for the Von Rosen family. They probably had picked it up from Indian Aryan mythology where the swastika is a symbol for the Sun and, incidentally, good luck.
We display the cross proudly, aware of its true and lethal heritage, and furious at a crazy dictator who stole and dishonoured it. Our Hornets would sure look more handsome with the Von Rosen crosses on their shiny plastic wings. Oh well, those were the days of iron planes and er... depleted uranium men.
I hope everyone who reads this tries to explain/correct a person who is referring to G-2 as "nazi-plane" or similar in AH.
-
Those of us in the know fully acept the Finns are not, and were never "fake Germans".
They're fake Swedes........
-
Aargh Seeker!!! That hurt! Not that there is anything wrong with swedes...we just love to hate each other...
-Charge+
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Couple of days ago in the CT I saw one guy saying that he would like to fly the G-2 but he feels unconfortable because of the swastikas painted on it.
* * *
I hope everyone who reads this tries to explain/correct a person who is referring to G-2 as "nazi-plane" or similar in AH.
LOL! The swastikas make it a Nazi plane? What were all those other planes with the big black crosses on them, then?
- Oldman
-
Oldman,
This guy I'm talking about never called it "a nazi plane" just didn't want to fly it at first because of the swastikas on it.
I have heard the word "nazi" pop up in AH when talking about G-2 but that's a long time ago and only heard it once or twice but considering the true orgins of our old Airforce insignia that's once or twice too many and that's why I wanted to post some info...to prevent it in the future.
-
Well, black crosses hasn't got anything to do with Nazi eithers, Luftwaffe still use Black crosses today, very cool looking crosses aswell I must say :)
It is the 45 degree twisted Swastika, which has unfortunatly become the symbol of something terrible.
-
S!
Swatika has long history way before nazi's took it.
But do you know whos patch is this:
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/cool/goodtry.gif)
Anyone?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Well, black crosses hasn't got anything to do with Nazi eithers, Luftwaffe still use Black crosses today, very cool looking crosses aswell I must say :)
We aren't flying today's aircraft. Black cross planes in WWII were Nazi planes. It doesn't pay to forget that.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Black cross planes in WWII were Nazi planes.
- oldman
According to who, besides you?
I doubt british & us pilots were thinking of fighting against nazis rather than fighting against enemy air force pilots (and sometimes even respected their opponents!).
Nazis = national socialists = german party
Luftwaffe = german air force
Let's keep these two separated.
-
oh, come on. every German that fought in WWII was a Nazi just like every American that fought in WWII was a Democrat, because that's who was in power at the time. Everyone knows that! :D
-
Vector, I don't recall the unit, but it was the insignia for a Ranger unit? from , hmmm memory sucks, New Mexico maybe?
kidcol
p.s. pretty sure it was based on a Native American design
-
Originally posted by Vector
Nazis = national socialists = german party
Luftwaffe = german air force
Let's keep these two separated.
Let's not, because they weren't.
Equating National Socialists with a "German party" ignores the obvious; there weren't any other parties. There was just the one. By pretending that it had nothing to do with the rest of the populace, you're simply putting blinders on yourself to reach a happy thought that you want to reach. Germany in WWII WAS Nazi Germany. Those nice Nazi pilots you're trying to protect generally went through Hitler Youth training, identified themselves with the Fuehrer in adult life, and never questioned what they were doing to the rest of the world. Not a lot of them involved in any plot to get rid of Hitler, that I've ever heard of.
And please don't substitute your desired thoughts for those of the US pilots in WWII. The ones I've spoken to were quite clear in failing to see any distinction between Nazis and Germans.
- Oldman
-
Originally posted by Nifty
oh, come on. every German that fought in WWII was a Nazi just like every American that fought in WWII was a Democrat, because that's who was in power at the time. Everyone knows that! :D
Geez. You know, the last time I saw a photo of a P-47, I don't recall that it had an elephant painted on the tail. Why is that?
- oldman
-
45th Infantry Div?
(http://www.45thdivisionmuseum.com/DivFormed/Divformimages/Tbdswas.gif)
-
heya guys im a austrian.
i live in Salzburg near Germany i want to say that the swastika on both wings of G-2 arent the NSDAP( Nationalistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei = National Socialist German Party)
the first cross what looks like the nazi cross was the cross of an antisemitism organization named Thule-Gesellschaft.
fact is that Germany was Nazi-Germany betwenn 1933-1945.
Hitler was was the Führer of Germany he had the power of whole Germany, it is not right to say that all germans were nazis
hitler and Goebbls wanted to hide their political way to kill all jews.
perhaps you dont know that their were some organizations who fought the nazi-regime with great effort.
i know 2 of em
1. weisse rose - white rose
2. 06 (0-o, 6-e = oe = österreich = austria)
sry but my english isnt the best but i think youll understand what i want to say.
bye
-
The Jewish people born and raised in Germany, were they not Germans?
Does that make them Nazi's?
Kanth
Originally posted by crossjob
it is not right to say that all germans were nazis
-
Todays German AirForce. The MODERN Luftwaffe. still retains the iron cross. just like the brits kept there Bullseye:p This is one of the german fighters in the NEW luftwaffe. DON'T FREAK OUT PEOPLE. And the Swazstika had a meaning to the Nazi's. Just like our flag to americans. It was a symbol of pride to them. but to us modern day folk its a sing of hate. Think of it and reply.
-
Originally posted by Viper17
...........And the Swazstika had a meaning to the Nazi's. Just like our flag to americans. It was a symbol of pride to them. but to us modern day folk its a sing of hate. Think of it and reply.
What I've always failed to understand is why no one has any problem with displaying a Rising Sun , the Russian red star, the British roundel, the US Star and Bar, the Italian...er...what is that Italian thing anyway?....or any of the other roundels or insignias of the Air Forces of the world at that time.
Now, I understand that the swastika was not the marking of the Luftwaffe, that, rather, was the 'Iron Cross' Balkankruez.....the swastika being the symbol for the nazi party. And that all the others I mentioned , except perhaps the Rising Sun, are the Air Force identification markings of their respective countries.
What I want to know is....why is it any differant to show the Rising Sun than the Swastika? both are symbols of nations that committed atrocities ( BTW, ALL countries committed attrocities...it was war, a fairly atrocious state of affairs all round) The Brits fire bombed Dresden, the Japanese were fairly brutal everywhere, the Americans nuked a target specifically chosen because of it's military insignificance, the Russians were none to gentle on the population of Germany when they got there, the Italians......? did they get up to any nastiness? dunno.......I can find a lot of first hand stories of Australian airmen straffing lifeboats, survivors in the water etc, so we arent exactly all squeeky clean ourselves.
What I'm getting at is this.....the whole show was some fairly gruesome, nasty, toejamty bussiness, attrocities were committed by all sides and in all theatres, why is the swastika so vilified, and yet the others are regularly shown?
PS, dont take this question, and the fact that I am a member of a LW squad to mean I have any sympathy for Nazism, I dont, I'm just curious as to the hypocricy of it all.
Blue
-
"According to who, besides you?
I doubt british & us pilots were thinking of fighting against nazis rather than fighting against enemy air force pilots"
Wrong, I'm afraid. Alled armed forces were very aware what they were fighting, effective propaganda stating the Allied cause was part of the recruitment drive.
"Nazis = national socialists = german party
Luftwaffe = german air force
Let's keep these two separated"
As seperated as Chirchill and thier finest hour?
-
When it comes to fight or die at the hands of your own country what do you do?
The Nazi's used fear and intimidation against their own country.
Calling all members of the german military durin ww2 nazi's... is just plain wrong +)
Of course if you want to inspire your troops to fight em, its a great idea!!
I've known Germans who fought in WW2, who were not Nazi's...
Media... can never be trusted during times of war
Media... can never be trusted period...
But I guess the Allied propaganda will never be forgotten
SKurj
-
the Italian untill 1943 was what is on the MC.202 and .205. After that it was the Italian flag. And the one thin i know was when the kiled mussoline they hung him uoside down outside.
-
Black or blue, a swastika is just a symbol. If we have to ban any associated symbols everytime some nut commits major attrocities, then we will be left with no symbols at all. Should all red stars and bears be spit upon? I can assure you Stalinist USSR was every bit as evil as the NAZIs, they killed even more people for no good reason. Yet I don't see everyone upset about the Yak and La aircraft having red stars.
It's kind of like racism/sexist issues. Certain minorities get to declare certain insults to them off limits, while everyone else is expected to tolerate equally insulting words.
If I say "cupcake" in public, jury's would tend to forgive those who would beat me to a pulp for saying it. But if I say "pollack", "chinc", "gook", "redneck", "honky", "nip", or any of the other derogatory terms, few respond violently and they would be in jail if they did.
Likewise, if I say " bigtoe" most women flip out, but "squeak" is tolerated. What is the difference?
I would be annoyed if people came to school wearing Nazi SS uniforms because I would assume they aren't wearing them just because they look cool. I would also be annoyed if a WWII book retouched all of the photos to eliminate all of the swastikas. People shouldn't be promoting Nazi ideals, but they shouldn't be revising history either. Overreaction is just as bad as no reaction.
Of course I am sure some of the people at school are somewhat annoyed when I come dressed in European woodland BDUs since college types don't care for military types to begin with, much less ex-military types who just happen to like wearing camouflage once in awhile (I wear full battledress on test days :)).
-
dont eaven get me started on stalin. FU**ING COMMY ILL RIP HIS FU**ING MUSTACH OFF ANS SHOVE IT UP HIS A:eek: :eek: THAN MAKE HIM EAT IT FOR KILLING ALL HIS BEST MILITARY LEADERS AND KILING MOTHERS FATHERS BABYS AND EVERYTHING ELSE:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
A lot of people during the war and after the war referred to anything German during the war as "Nazi".
I think this was done partly to make a distinction between the Germans who did bad things under Nazi rule and the nice postwar Germans who are our allies and helped us defeat Communism.
Nazis = Enemies from Germany
Germans = Friendlies from Germany
Obviously they were largely the same people, but the labels helped people forget about past conflict and focus on working together to stop the Red Menace.
Regardless of whether this is sound reasoning, it is how many people (at least in the US) have referred to them during and after the war, and any PC revisionist who wants me to refer to them differently can kiss my ass. I doubt that any real German would have a problem with me drawing a clear distinction between the evildoers of 1939-1945 and the prosperous and friendly Germans of the postwar era.
And if the revisionists are trying to convince us that not all Germany military people 1939-1945 were Nazis, that is utter BS. I don't care if they were a member of the party or not. If somebody was paid by the Nazis, followed orders from the Nazis, wore Nazi symbols, and had Nazi symbols on their equipment and facilities, then I don't really care about their political views or party affiliation. They were tools that Hitler used for evil, and they deserve to be lumped in with all the other Nazis who did the same.
-
Viper, meds dude, meds.
-
Just a symbol??
Symbols are meaning.
-
Does wearing an eagle make a person good or American? Or wearing a swastika make a person bad or Nazi? Symbols are like any other tools, it is not the tool that does good or bad, but how it is used. So if a bunch of punk psycho kids wear black trench coats when they cap a bunch of people, now all kids that wear black trench coats are evil bad people? The swastika had a lot of meanings before Hitler ever tainted it, some of them even with the Christian faith. One man's flagrant misuse of an otherwise neat looking design shouldn't forever render it undisplayable.
I understand there were plenty of people who were emotionally and physically scarred by the events of WWII, and that these people are somewhat traumatized by even the sight of a swastika. However, their numbers are rapidly dwindling. Should their fears and hatred be passed on to another generation? The mistakes of the past should not be forgotten. But if they are never forgiven, you end up with a situation like the Middle East where there will be no peace until either all of the Israelis or all of the Arabs are dead.
There are also quite a few people that aren't too happy when they see a Japanese flag, but no one made Japan change its symbol.
As it is, there are quite a few people in the present world that are offended at the sight of any American markings. But I don't think it is the colors, stars, or bars that really bother them, its the aircraft delivering bombs and the rich companies exploiting their resources that really pisses them off.
If a party in our own country similar to the Nazis were to incorporate our stars and bars, would we change symbols? No, becuase this has already happened. KKK are all "red-blooded, flag-waving" Americans.
Hell, some states still fly the rebel battle flag. To some, it might be a symbol of slavery. To others, a symbol of a proud independent South that had the balls to stand up to the greedy North. Plenty of people were still slaves in the North until after the civil war, but the South got portrayed as the "bad guy". I am certain that even if the South had won, its days of slavery were numbered as all western civilization outgrew it. In the end, the North merely traded one form of slavery for another. How well did all those immigrants working in factories and building railroads live compared to slaves? What did all those freed slaves end up doing for a living and how did their quality of life change?
Symbols are in the eye of the beholder. One arrangement of red, white, and blue makes you a proud American, the other makes you a racist redneck. I say both flags mean the same things depending on who you are. The victor gets to write the history.
A WWII German aircraft with historically correct markings is nothing to be ashamed of, especially in a flight sim. Nobody should even be reacting to it beyond those who actually lost loved ones to the Germans. On the other hand, if I saw modern German MiG-29s sporting swastikas with "SS" for their tail codes, I would advise the French and Russians to look out, the tanks will be rolling any minute... and to hold out long enough for Britain and us to get there so we could all kick their bellybutton again :)
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Couple of days ago in the CT I saw one guy saying that he would like to fly the G-2 but he feels unconfortable because of the swastikas painted on it. I explained to him that they have nothing to do with Nazi regime and that Blue swastika was national insignia of the Finnish Airforce between 1918 and 1945.
Just out of curiosity, Wmaker, where were the G2s manufactured? Did the Fins build the G2s or were they built in Germany?
This is not a leading question ... just curious.
curly
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Let's not, because they weren't.
Equating National Socialists with a "German party" ignores the obvious; there weren't any other parties. There was just the one. By pretending that it had nothing to do with the rest of the populace, you're simply putting blinders on yourself to reach a happy thought that you want to reach. Germany in WWII WAS Nazi Germany. Those nice Nazi pilots you're trying to protect generally went through Hitler Youth training, identified themselves with the Fuehrer in adult life, and never questioned what they were doing to the rest of the world. Not a lot of them involved in any plot to get rid of Hitler, that I've ever heard of.
And please don't substitute your desired thoughts for those of the US pilots in WWII. The ones I've spoken to were quite clear in failing to see any distinction between Nazis and Germans.
- Oldman
The Luftwaffe also has the highest concentration outside of the SS of Nazi party members. Most of Germany's aces here Nazi party members, not to mention die hard Nazi's.
Of all the armed forces the Werhmacht and navy had the least numbers of Nazi party members. But just because they didn't have more Nazi's then the other branches, does that make them differen't? No, they still fought for the regime in its name and cause so they were Nazis by action.
Ack-Ack
-
If history serves me correct the "swastika" is like the Horse shoe in the USA, its just a symbol that has been around for a long long time thats suppose to mean Good luck.As a matter of fact in the early early 1900's there was a canadian womens hockey team that had the swastika on there uniforms.
Just my 2 pesos worth
-
You know
This thread was supposed to be informative.
Now it's just another pissing match.
Personally, I don't care either way if there were swastikas on the LW planes. I don't believe in hiding from history, no matter what the cost, but also the restrictions Germany places on that symbol force companies selling a product in that area to comply.
Either way, it's just a silly symbol of times gone past. No use ruining some good information with this needless babble.
-
I think some Luftwaffe pilots were Nazis and pervicaciously believed in Nazism. And others were simply just going along, not necessarily being a vehement Nazi; yet simply following orders and defending their homeland. Most of these guys didn't have the chance to see anything the 'other way', and were inculcated of pro-German Nazism starting in their teens.
Early on they probably had a strong belief that Germany would eventually win the war, so what was their reason for not fighting? None. I doubt that many even knew what atrocities the death squads were comitting. Some did witness atrocities, however, one example is Hermann Graf. Who, after the war, to the suprise of many other ex-LW pilots--became a staunch communist and denounced everything he did during the war as a pilot, "wrong".
I'm sure the same can be true of most Whermacht and some Waffen-SS.
-
I have seen this symbol on Shinto Temples in Japan, those temples dated back to 11th Century if I recall well.
Nazi germany didn't invent it, they borrowed it.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Just out of curiosity, Wmaker, where were the G2s manufactured? Did the Fins build the G2s or were they built in Germany?
This is not a leading question ... just curious.
curly
G-2's were made in germany. Finnish pilots were also trained for G2 in germany. First G2's came to Finland in saturday 13.3.1943 and landed to Malmi airfield at 16.00 Pm.
Later Finland get also G-6 models and even G-8 models (2 x G8)
This is one G6 model and in my knowledge it still exists
(http://www.savanne.org/ah/suomimersu.jpg)
-
.
There are also quite a few people that aren't too happy when they see a Japanese flag, but no one made Japan change its symbol.
Didn't the U.S. force Japan to remove the "sun-beams" from their flag after the war, now it's just the red circle
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Let's not, because they weren't.
Equating National Socialists with a "German party" ignores the obvious; there weren't any other parties. There was just the one. By pretending that it had nothing to do with the rest of the populace, you're simply putting blinders on yourself to reach a happy thought that you want to reach. Germany in WWII WAS Nazi Germany. Those nice Nazi pilots you're trying to protect generally went through Hitler Youth training, identified themselves with the Fuehrer in adult life, and never questioned what they were doing to the rest of the world. Not a lot of them involved in any plot to get rid of Hitler, that I've ever heard of.
And please don't substitute your desired thoughts for those of the US pilots in WWII. The ones I've spoken to were quite clear in failing to see any distinction between Nazis and Germans.
- Oldman
Let's do because they were.
When you claim that there was no difference between the nazi party and the Luftwaffe, you are plain wrong. Im not sure if you are aware of this or not, based on your post, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with the nazi party. It can be said that there were no difference between the nazi party and the SS, since the SS was a part of the nazi party, and party membership was required for SS membership. The same cannot be said for the Luftwaffe. Do you understand the difference here?
Not seeing any distinction between Nazis and Germans has alot more to do with wwii propaganda than anything else. It has a psychological effect also. By dehumanizing your opponents (i e "we are fighting the nazis", instead of "we are fighting against other human beings, men, women and children") it is easier to do things to them that you would not otherwise be able to do. Few British night bomber crews pictured themselves firebombing women and children. They were either dropping on a target, or bombing nazis. The fact that the target was a city or town full of civilians, or the fact that women and children are just that, regardless of political orientation was ignored. This is all very understandable, because if they had had a full realization of what they did, not many of them would have remained sane for very long.
In a war, people fight for alot of reasons. Some out of ideology, some out of love or hate, but most people fight simply because they have to. When your country is at war, for whatever reason, you will find yourself fighting in that war, regardless of what you think is right or wrong.
To say that Germany in 1933-45 was "Nazi Germany" and to imply that all Germans fought either because they were nazis, or to preserve nazism is not only both stupid and wrong. It is also insulting to all those men who fought and died -because their country was at war.
-
Originally posted by elstevie
If history serves me correct the "swastika" is like the Horse shoe in the USA, its just a symbol that has been around for a long long time thats suppose to mean Good luck.As a matter of fact in the early early 1900's there was a canadian womens hockey team that had the swastika on there uniforms.
Just my 2 pesos worth
That's correct. Here in Chicago, the building on the southwest corner of Wacker Drive and Michigan Avenue is decorated with a row of swastikas, about thirty feet (10 meters) up.
That said, Hitler and the Nazis pretty much cornered the market on that symbol. There's no rehabilitating it, I think, and I tend to look askance at anybody who tries.
-
Did you know that there was plenty of jewish people fighting in finnish army during war. Three of them even get german ironcross medal but they denied to take it.
A little story about it:
Captain Salomon Klass was ordered to save a group of Germans who were rounded by russians. He did it because that was an order. His brothers in arms told him not to do it but Klass did it anyway cause he was a soldier.
Later 3 german gigh officers came to give Klass a Ironcross but he said that he is a jewish soldier in finnish army and he dont want anything from germans. German officers became white and walked away....
-
Originally posted by funkedup
And if the revisionists are trying to convince us that not all Germany military people 1939-1945 were Nazis, that is utter BS. I don't care if they were a member of the party or not. If somebody was paid by the Nazis, followed orders from the Nazis, wore Nazi symbols, and had Nazi symbols on their equipment and facilities, then I don't really care about their political views or party affiliation. They were tools that Hitler used for evil, and they deserve to be lumped in with all the other Nazis who did the same.
After all, it's not like non-Nazi Germany would have prevailed, had these non-Nazi warriors won. The Nazis, and only the Nazis, would have benefitted, to the incalculable woe of the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong -- I've visited Germany, I love German culture, and I (sort of -- at least I can tell when a train conductor is asking me for change) speak the German language. All the Germans I've known speak of "die Hitler-zeit" as a great tragedy -- I had an exchange professor who couldn't bear to speak about these events that happened before he was born. I think it's well and fitting that the United States and Germany are such close allies now.
I think, however, that some of the apologists go way too far. These non-Nazis may not have been enthusiastic supporters of Hitler's policies, but they fought and died to protect the government that Hitler created. They deserve respect for some impressive feats of arms, and forgiveness, but let's not go equating them with Hans and Sophie Scholl -- they fought in the name, and to the benefit, of an evil regime.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
"According to who, besides you?
I doubt british & us pilots were thinking of fighting against nazis rather than fighting against enemy air force pilots"
Wrong, I'm afraid. Alled armed forces were very aware what they were fighting, effective propaganda stating the Allied cause was part of the recruitment drive.
Frank Capra didn't just direct "It's a Wonderful Life," after all.
(Capra directed the "Why We Fight" series; it definitely made few distinctions between the Nazis and other Germans -- after all, what does it matter what the person shooting at you *believes*?)
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
Hell, some states still fly the rebel battle flag. To some, it might be a symbol of slavery. To others, a symbol of a proud independent South that had the balls to stand up to the greedy North. Plenty of people were still slaves in the North until after the civil war, but the South got portrayed as the "bad guy". I am certain that even if the South had won, its days of slavery were numbered as all western civilization outgrew it. In the end, the North merely traded one form of slavery for another. How well did all those immigrants working in factories and building railroads live compared to slaves? What did all those freed slaves end up doing for a living and how did their quality of life change?
You are heading down a rhetorical dead-end. By your reasoning, it would be better to live under the Nazis, than to die fighting them.
No immigrant factory worker ever had their children sold to another factory owner, if I recall correctly.
Again, you are building an extremely shaky argument. Get out now, before it collapses on you!
-
Originally posted by funkedup
And if the revisionists are trying to convince us that not all Germany military people 1939-1945 were Nazis, that is utter BS. I don't care if they were a member of the party or not. If somebody was paid by the Nazis, followed orders from the Nazis, wore Nazi symbols, and had Nazi symbols on their equipment and facilities, then I don't really care about their political views or party affiliation. They were tools that Hitler used for evil, and they deserve to be lumped in with all the other Nazis who did the same.
So, anyone claiming that not all German military personnel in wwii were nazis is a revisionist?
But either way, it doesnt matter, because nazi or not, all Germans who were in Germany between 1933-45 deserve to be lumped in with the nazis.
Well, to me (and indeed to the rest of the civilized world) it is a bit more complex than that. In the western civilization specifically we tend to see guilt as an individual thing. Arguments along the lines of "Hitler was a evil nazi and he ruled over all Germans, this guy is German thus it does not matter whether he was a nazi or not, he was a tool Hitler used for evil, and he should be punished like all other nazis." dont hold very well in any court.
To me, and indeed to all civilized legal systems on the entire planet, guilt is individual. We also play around with such strange concepts (you obviously care little about) as criminal intent. In my opinion, there is a difference between the female switchboard operators at the Reichstag, and some SS butcher roaming the countryside gunning down civilians. To you there cant be any difference between those, since those female switchboard operators were members of the SS (they had to be). Is there a difference between a 17 yr old kid manning a Flak gun outside Berlin in 1945, a radio officer on a submarine, or a concentration camp guard? No? How about a 11 yr old kid who joined the Hitler youth when he was 4, a 32 yr old SD interrogation leader, and a 55 yr old infantryman on the eastern front? Same guilt? Oh, wait, guilt doesnt matter, they should just all be lumped together since they were all Germans..er..nazis.
EVERY single German military man or woman in wwii followed orders from the nazis (since Hitler was Supreme commander of all German forces), and they all wore nazi symbols on their uniforms…I dont think anyone was payed by the nazis though (although I am a bit unsure about the SS units), but since their pay was ordered by Hitler, we can ignore that petty detail. Guilty on all accounts huh.
But I dont want to be accused of being a revisionist here, so I think I'll shut up now.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Let's do because they were.
When you claim that there was no difference between the nazi party and the Luftwaffe, you are plain wrong.
Hmmm. Did I claim there was no difference between the Nazi Party and the Luftwaffe? Don't think so, but I apologize if I did. What I MEANT to claim was that there was no difference between the Luftwaffe and the Nazis. I do not buy your notion that the term "Nazi" equates to "membership in the Nazi party." Of course not all Germans were members of the Nazi party, although, as Akak pointed out, the Luftwaffe had a very high proportion.
Instead, what I meant to say was that Luftwaffe personnel identified themselves with, and fought and died to preserve, spread, and, when that failed, to defend, the ideals of the Nazi party. Those ideals were inextricably part of the society created in Germany after WWI. It took masses of treasure and millions of lives to rid the world of these values. I am frankly offended when people try to make nice about this by attributing the horror of Naziism to only a few key guys at the top who somehow hypnotized a whole nation and then bent its unwilling population to their nefarious means through application of terror. You don't have to search hard to find newsreels of thousands of happy Germans cheering Hitler on in 1939. So long as things were going their way, they were pleased to overlook the odd disappearance of the Jews and Communists from their midst, and to "set things right again" by absorbing Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia....and, hard to believe, the list goes on. Now I'm supposed to believe that these folks really detested Hitler and would have refused to go around conquering other countries if it weren't for the Gestapo?
Im not sure if you are aware of this or not, based on your post, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with the nazi party. It can be said that there were no difference between the nazi party and the SS, since the SS was a part of the nazi party, and party membership was required for SS membership. The same cannot be said for the Luftwaffe. Do you understand the difference here?
Yes. Please see my correction, above.
Not seeing any distinction between Nazis and Germans has alot more to do with wwii propaganda than anything else.
Not in my case, at least.
It has a psychological effect also. By dehumanizing your opponents (i e "we are fighting the nazis", instead of "we are fighting against other human beings, men, women and children") it is easier to do things to them that you would not otherwise be able to do.
True. You might, for example, dehumanize the Jews so that you wouldn't feel so bad about trying to exterminate them.
Few British night bomber crews pictured themselves firebombing women and children. They were either dropping on a target, or bombing nazis. The fact that the target was a city or town full of civilians, or the fact that women and children are just that, regardless of political orientation was ignored.
I believe this phenomenon was first observed in the bombings of Guernica, Rotterdam, London and Coventry.
This is all very understandable, because if they had had a full realization of what they did, not many of them would have remained sane for very long.
Many of them didn't live long enough to go insane.
In a war, people fight for alot of reasons. Some out of ideology, some out of love or hate, but most people fight simply because they have to. When your country is at war, for whatever reason, you will find yourself fighting in that war, regardless of what you think is right or wrong.
Perhaps true, but beside the point. People who disagree with the causes they fight for make very poor armies. Examples include the Russians in WWI, the Italians in WWII, the Americans in Viet Nam. We did not see this happen with the Germans in WWII.
To say that Germany in 1933-45 was "Nazi Germany" and to imply that all Germans fought either because they were nazis, or to preserve nazism is not only both stupid and wrong. It is also insulting to all those men who fought and died -because their country was at war.
Stupid I may be, wrong often, but you, by pretending that the Germans in WWII were effectively no different from anyone else, are being deliberately ignorant.
- Oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Instead, what I meant to say was that Luftwaffe personnel identified themselves with, and fought and died to preserve, spread, and, when that failed, to defend, the ideals of the Nazi party.
[/b]
I'm not really sure how to answer this. From what you write, you seem to have an awful lot of knowledge about how and why Luftwaffe personnel fought and died in wwii. Let me start out by asking you if you have any kind of source for your statements, or if you are writing on a gut feeling here. Or perhaps you are using some abstract way of thinking here...lets start in this direction: What where the ideals of the nazi party that these men fought and died for? And how do you know the personal motivation behind the "Luftwaffe personnel"? No offence, but to me your statement sounds like an enormous generalization that undoubtedly is true in some cases, but false in many many more.
Those ideals were inextricably part of the society created in Germany after WWI. It took masses of treasure and millions of lives to rid the world of these values. I am frankly offended when people try to make nice about this by attributing the horror of Naziism to only a few key guys at the top who somehow hypnotized a whole nation and then bent its unwilling population to their nefarious means through application of terror. You don't have to search hard to find newsreels of thousands of happy Germans cheering Hitler on in 1939.
[/b]
Who ever said anything like that? Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40. But you have to realize and understand that the true horrors of nazism hadnt shown its face yet...that started later, in 1941, and it wasnt something that was shown on the newsreels in Germany either. But what is your point with that "fact"? Suppose I show you some newsreels from 1941 where US troops put japanese americans in barbed wire camps, and people cheering that. Would that prove anything whatsoever?
So long as things were going their way, they were pleased to overlook the odd disappearance of the Jews and Communists from their midst, and to "set things right again" by absorbing Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia....and, hard to believe, the list goes on. Now I'm supposed to believe that these folks really detested Hitler and would have refused to go around conquering other countries if it weren't for the Gestapo?
[/b]
Here we are drifting into some psychological analysis of the German population as a whole I see.
First, countrary to the Hollywood version of things, Gestapo was not responsible for keeping the general population in order, the SD was. If your gonna make smirk remarks, make them right. Second, you try being a soldier in any army and decide that you dont particularly like the orders you are given. What are you gonna do? Complain? No..you follow orders..because that is what soldiers do. But I fail to see what your point to all this really is. Are you building some kind of argument here along the lines "The Germans cheered for Hitler in 34-41, therefore they were all nazis and, aware of it or not, in on his plot to murder millions of people". Please clarify what you are trying to say.
True. You might, for example, dehumanize the Jews so that you wouldn't feel so bad about trying to exterminate them.
[/b]
Exactly. The more you dehumanize your opponents, targets, victims, the easier it is to kill, maim or butcher them. That is why we should not try to dehumanize anyone, anyway, anymore (such as by generalizing and oversimplifying for example).
I believe this phenomenon was first observed in the bombings of Guernica, Rotterdam, London and Coventry.
[/b]
Actually I doubt that (why did you leave out Warsaw and Belgrade btw?). I dont think any British bomber crews took part in those missions.
Many of them didn't live long enough to go insane.
[/b]
Nor did their victims on the ground...
Perhaps true, but beside the point. People who disagree with the causes they fight for make very poor armies. Examples include the Russians in WWI, the Italians in WWII, the Americans in Viet Nam. We did not see this happen with the Germans in WWII.
[/b]Ah, but how then, do you explain the French? (couldnt resist).
The reason we didnt see this in Germany was the nature of the conflict the soldiers were involved in. In 39-43 they were pretty much winning all the time, no one gets disillusioned by that. 44-45 it was a struggle for the very survival of themselves, their families, indeed their entire nation. This is especially true on the eastern front. You dont go sulk in a corner then, that option is closed.
Stupid I may be, wrong often, but you, by pretending that the Germans in WWII were effectively no different from anyone else, are being deliberately ignorant.
[/b]
I'm not being deliberately ignorant here. But apparently I am ignorant. You tell me what the difference was between an average German soldier and an average US soldier in feb 1945. Besides the flag they fought under. Do you actually think that German soldiers in wwii fought for the sake of nazism? Do you actually think that a majority of Germans in 33-45 were pro-nazi? (key question to follow) How many Germans do you think would have supported the nazis had they known about what Hitlers real plans were? And before you answer that, read your sentence about dehumanizing groups of people up there again.
-
Ah, but how then, do you explain the French? (couldnt resist).
About the same reason ... WWI was such a butchery that the french soldier were not "motivated" and the great head-quarter was full of incompetent chief (*)
As I'm ma familly was not french at this time I will use the exemple of my wife's familly :
her 2 grand-grand-father were involved in WWI one was killed at Verdun the other was "gazed" and died 5 year after the war ...
I asked my collegue in front of me : of his 4 grand-grand-father (yes he is youngest than my wife :)) 3 were wounded (one so badly that he didn't survived the war and the other was lucky enought to not being in front line but in Artillery.
If you do a short trip in any french village you will see a lot of "monument au mort" (death monument?) having lot's of names on it ...
BUT if you look at the rate of losses for french troops during the 1940 campaign you will be surprised it was huge for the relative short duration of this campaign (almost equivalent of the US losses for the ETO)
(*) incompetent for the new form of war the German used.
-
My ISP was acting up and the board was unreachable for me so couldn't come here to stop this BS. Though I suspect that nothing I'd said would have made any difference :(. There's actually nothing wrong with the discussion itself but...I *THINK* IT'S IN THE WRONG THREAD!! :mad: I came to general discussion to post "a FYI-post" regarding AH, a post that I could punt up from time to time for the new guys. Hmm...I guess I won't be doing that now... Right now this post has nothing to do with AH and is O'Club material...frankly, I hope someone at HTC deletes this.
Moose,
for trying to stop this nonsense.
I'm at fault here too tough. I was going to put a note in the end of my post to prevent this but didn't because I tried to be open-minded and not always assuming the worst...a bad misjudgement on my part, I know.
Now, I hope everyone stops this "nazi-nonsense". In time I'll post this again with a proper note.
-
S!
It is funny how these threads seems to develope way off the subject :)
Lighteng up all, look, they are laughing at you!
(http://www.gentleswastika.com/images/smileyright.gif) (http://www.gentleswastika.com/images/smileyright.gif) (http://www.gentleswastika.com/images/smileyright.gif)
Follow this (http://www.locksley.com/6696/swastick.htm/) link to read some facts about swastika.
Ketil got it right, it's a Pre-WW II United States Army 45th Division patch!
-
Wow does this thread need to be locked or what?
This is one of those arguments that cannot be won.
While everyone's position is based on some set of
facts, the positions themselves are skewed by
your perspective and emotions.
I have a co-worker who is a philosophy major.
He will take any position and argue for it, just for
arguments sake. Very freaking annoying.
-
It really doesn't matter who was a Nazi and who was not. In my opinion, the German people as a whole were responsible for Hitler and thus for World War II. After President Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor, Hitler called for elections to confirm his party's rise to power. The German people could have voted "nein", but they didn't. 90+% voted "Ja".
After President Hindenburg died, Hitler abolished the the title of President, and instead decreed himself Fuhrer and head of state. Once again, a vote was held to affirm this, and the German people once again voted "Ja" overwhelmingly. Another vote of confidence was held after the Nazis' took away the rights of free speech and freedom of the press, and abolished the unions. Again, the German people said "Ja".
The German people were responsible for electing Hitler and the Nazis and for keeping them in power in the crucial time between when Hitler was appointed chancellor, and when the Nazis' removed all human rights. They had the chance to overthrow them legally, and they didn't.
If you want to learn about this subject, an excellent book to read is "Adolf Hitler", by John Toland. Or "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer.
One last thing. Even though the German people deserve most of the blame for WWII, the Allies also deserve a huge amount of blame for coming up with the oppressive treay of Versailles after WWI.
-
Oh man!! What part of my last post didn't you guys get ?!?
-
"One last thing. Even though the German people deserve most of the blame for WWII, the Allies also deserve a huge amount of blame for coming up with the oppressive treay of Versailles after WWI."
Very much the key to it all, that, and the way the victorious Allieds helped the vanquish rebuild their nations post WWII.
Further, we should also remember one of the key purposes of the EC: to so firmly intwine the administrative and commercial concerns of Europeans as to make armed conflict an act of civil war.
And it seems to have worked, in a European context.
-
I have to agree with Oldman, and there's not much sense in reposting his well-developed arguments. I do get a kick out of the "defending the homeland" crowd. Yeah, they were bravely defending the homeland in Poland, the Low Countries, France, BOB, Greece, N. Africa and Russia...
The overwhelming support for Hitler and his general policies among the German people, party members and otherwise, is well documented. The documentation consists not only of secondary sources but by primary sources including town records, Gestapo records, film, audio and many Germans from the era who are alive today. This popular support may have waned somewhat by 1945, but it never collapsed. You can clearly look at countries where it did (Italy springs to mind) and draw a direct comparion.
Some, of many, interesting books to read on the rise of Nazism are: "The Nazi Seizure of Power - The Experience of a Single German Town 1930-1935" by William Sheridan Allen and "Himmler" by Peter Padfield. Now, these are not as interesting and filled with daring-do like "The First and the Last," for example, being filled with dry research and such, but they do tell what the Nazi's and the Greman people were all about. Try them sometime (and again, any number of others dealing with the rise of Nazi power). A former co-worker's father could also be a resource, I suppose, since he felt Hitler had the right idea until the day he died. I don't think he was a party member.
With the German military, well, they made a deal with Hitler that guaranteed his support of them by their support. The LW cannot be excluded, and while there may have been some differences between the level of Rudel's Hitler worship and Galland's Hitler worship, they supported a war of domination based on mythological racial theory and the greed for territority.
The senior officers hid/hide behind that "Oath of Honor" to explain why they couldn't do anything to stop Hitler. Canaris was a real hero, however, and showed that at least someone in high military/intelligence circles had a true sense of honor. The assassination conspirators eventually somewhat regained German military honor, though on train of though strongly suggests that it wouldn't have happened had Germany been doing better in the war under Hitler's leadership.
Were the German people too afraid of the evil Gestapo to stand up? The much maligned "Intellectual Elite" minority soon learned not to speak too loudly, though the members of The White Rose stood up for their principals and paid for it. The White Rose (http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/). However, the vast, well-documented historical record suggests they were the minority and had more to fear from their neighbors than some boogey man in a leather jacket.
Gestapo records show that they functioned primarily as collectors, who acted mainly on leads sent in by the local citizens. Here's a link that covers it in greater detail:Gestapo Records (http://www.hevanet.com/kort/CONTROL1.HTM)
I saw a History Channel documentary (I believe produced by Germans) on this as well. They took one record, of an "odd" woman who looked a bit too masculine and had "unusual" friends that visited her regularly -- the implication being that she was a lesbian. After enough of these complaints came in (there were more than a few) they acted and she went to one of the camps, where she was exterminated. The German crew interviewed one of the people who filed a complaint. The sweet looking, elderly grandmother just couldn't understand why she was being persecuted by the film crew. She said something like, "Why are you bothering me? I didn't kill her!"
That kinda sums this revisionist attitude up for me. "Oh no, It wasn't me! What choice did I have! I just went along with the program!" Bull toejam.
To get back on topic, Finland was allied with Germany, but it had tough choices to make and faced a clear threat from the Soviet Union. The historical record suggests that Finland, while cooperating with the Nazis to fight the USSR, clearly worked to deflect the "Aryan" supremacy and Jewish deportation efforts that were encouraged by Germany (unlike some of the occupied counties, who participated willingly in some cases). They further managed to avoid becoming a full satellite communist nation after the war, which shows a real talent for threading a needle.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
My ISP was acting up and the board was unreachable for me so couldn't come here to stop this BS. Though I suspect that nothing I'd said would have made any difference :(. There's actually nothing wrong with the discussion itself but...I *THINK* IT'S IN THE WRONG THREAD!! :mad: I came to general discussion to post "a FYI-post" regarding AH, a post that I could punt up from time to time for the new guys. Hmm...I guess I won't be doing that now... Right now this post has nothing to do with AH and is O'Club material...frankly, I hope someone at HTC deletes this.
Moose,
for trying to stop this nonsense.
I'm at fault here too tough. I was going to put a note in the end of my post to prevent this but didn't because I tried to be open-minded and not always assuming the worst...a bad misjudgement on my part, I know.
Now, I hope everyone stops this "nazi-nonsense". In time I'll post this again with a proper note.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Right now this post has nothing to do with AH and is O'Club material
(Oldman steps back)
All right, Wmaker. Sorry to have made a fuss in your nice place here. We'll be leaving now.
(Glares at Vector and Hortlund)
I'll see YOU TWO over in the O-Club.
(Pushes through door, kicking a small dog on his way out)
- Oldman
-
:D
-
Originally posted by banana
One last thing. Even though the German people deserve most of the blame for WWII, the Allies also deserve a huge amount of blame for coming up with the oppressive treay of Versailles after WWI.
tss tss ....
Ever heard of 1870 or 1815 ?
In fact the truth is something like that :
Grr'ompfff the prehistoric man raped kte'rrr's wife soon after kte'rrr killed Grr'ompfff and he asked for reparation and ............
ALL STARTED !
-
Wmaker made this post to educate some people and was nice enough to post a link with some nice history, if you're gonna discuss politics, don't hijack the thread, do it in the O'club, even I might join there.
-
I agree that the argument belongs in the O-club, but I disagree about the subsequent arguments being off-topic from the original post. Whenever someone states an opinion about anything on this board, it is to be expected that others with contrary opinions will reply. This post clearly includes the argument that a blue swastika is ok because it is Finnish while a black one is not because it was used by Nazis. I think it is well within the topic to question this by asking "what difference does the color make?" and "should the swastika be synonomous with Nazis?".
In my opinion, the swastika in any color appearing on a German WWII plane as a historical fact has no evil intent by itself. No one should flip out when they see a simulated German aircraft painted as it was in reality.
The majority apparently feels that simply displaying the swastika on anything indicates direct support or sympathy for the Nazi cause.
If a German ban on swastikas is what restricts the markings on AH aircraft (as HiTech has confirmed in the past), is the German law written so specifically as to permit blue ones?
Saying that blue ones turned 45 degrees are too different from proper black ones to be offensive is absurd. If I were a Nazi supporter and I knew black swastikas were banned (as in Germany), but blue ones are acceptable, then I would start wearing armbands with "Finnish" markings. I am sure Nazis wouldn't care about the color change. Likewise, most people have trouble telling a Finnish 109 from a German 109, or this wouldn't have even been posted at all.
I do have to say that I disagree with the posters last statement. Whether they were flown or marked as Swiss or Finnish, Bf109s were most certainly Nazi planes and the money those countries gave to Germany to purchase those planes helped promote the Nazi cause. Just as Germans who did not take action to stop Hitler were held accountable, people and countries that monetarily supported his efforts should be considered just as liable.
If symbols like the swastika are so offensive that no one should ever display them, I submit that the 109 and the Stuka are also symbols just as strongly associated with the Nazis and as such shouldn't be in the game at all. But somehow most people will denounce me for saying the swastika is "just a symbol" while happily flying their German and Finnish 109s to victory.
When the US Air Force created Red Flag to simulate fighting against the USSR, they realized to get the full training value, proper simulation involves every aspect: color schemes, insignias, and even thinking like your enemy. The aggressor pilots worked in quarters complete with Communist magazines.
If AH is a simulation, nobody should fault people willing to fly German planes as authentically as possible. It should make the game both a better simulation and more entertaining.
Since AH is purely a game, nobody should fault HTC for omitting Axis aircraft entirely since the only purpose they serve is historical accuracy and are otherwise totally disrespectful of anyone who died fighting the Axis.
In the end, whether people want to admit it or not, this is a game that involves simulating killing other people purely for fun. All the people playing this game don't have a problem with that, why should it matter what markings are on the aircraft of such a game?
Originally posted by Wmaker
Couple of days ago in the CT I saw one guy saying that he would like to fly the G-2 but he feels unconfortable because of the swastikas painted on it. I explained to him that they have nothing to do with Nazi regime and that Blue swastika was national insignia of the Finnish Airforce between 1918 and 1945. He believed right away and we could discuss about it in good understanding without any hard feelings. He thanked for the lesson and took G-2 for a spin. :) If you are reading this, . Everyone I've tried to explain it haven't taken it so well... I've known this as far as I can remember and that's why I always forget how it isn't very clear to everybody, especially for foreigners.
The following is a quote from the home page of VLeLv Icebreakers (http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers/). They are currently flying in WarBirds, WW2OL and Il-2. I highly recommend visiting on their pages, especially the history section. Anyway, what I came to tell you I couldn't say any better than this:
For those not "in the know" do not start shooting off your mouth about our squadron insignia before you know better. That is not the nazi swastika you see there, but a Von Rosen cross which was the insignia of the Finnish Air Force (FAF) from 1918 to 1945 - estabilished way before a certain Austrian corporal made a similar symbol infamous with his national socialistic ideology. For that very reason the FAF was forced to change it's insignia to the current blue and white roundel.
The common foreigner would have not believed it has nothing to do with the nazis anyway. But as you are now here, we can safely assume that you are either a current or potential WarBirds pilot. Which means you probably are educated enough in the history of aerial combat to indeed know better. In case you are not, here is a quick crash course on that certain aspect of FAF history:
It is called a Von Rosen cross because the first two airplanes, Thulin Parasols - licence-built copies of a Morane Saulnier design - that formed the FAF were donated by a Swedish count Erik Von Rosen shortly after Finland's independence from the chaos of Russian revolution. The cross was the traditional symbol of good luck for the Von Rosen family. They probably had picked it up from Indian Aryan mythology where the swastika is a symbol for the Sun and, incidentally, good luck.
We display the cross proudly, aware of its true and lethal heritage, and furious at a crazy dictator who stole and dishonoured it. Our Hornets would sure look more handsome with the Von Rosen crosses on their shiny plastic wings. Oh well, those were the days of iron planes and er... depleted uranium men.
I hope everyone who reads this tries to explain/correct a person who is referring to G-2 as "nazi-plane" or similar in AH.
-
StreakEagle:
"Whether they were flown or marked as Swiss or Finnish, Bf109s were most certainly Nazi planes and the money those countries gave to Germany to purchase those planes helped promote the Nazi cause"
Actually those planes and money helped to keep Finland sovereign country and propably saved half scandinavia same time.
StreakEagle you're just a another amurrican who doesn't have a clue :)
-
oh btw I'm sure it's not your fault, some sources say U.S education system is not the best in the world :)
-
So survival at any cost, even aiding one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen is acceptable?
It is equally regrettable that the US allied with the USSR under Stalin since it was just as bad as the Nazis. If France hadn't of collapsed and Britain wasn't being threatened with invasion while Japan was trying to take all of Asia, we might have left the Nazis and the Commies to kill off each other.
But by your argument, French who did what they had to do to survive Hitler's occupation should be excused for co-operating with the Nazis too.
Integrity is important to me on both a personal and national level. I would rather die than compromise certain principles. I would rather see my country disappear completely than compromise the values so many died defending.
Finland has proven to be somewhat opportunistic. With the Nazis gone, they were more than happy to fly Russian planes. Now with the Russians gone, who are they friends with?
The US has exploited plenty of situations as well, making friends and enemies with political expediency. But I can assure you that it doesn't make me very happy. At least we have one true ally in the form of the UK.
I have studied the air war in Finland to some level of detail, I can discuss the situation there far more intelligently than this thread would otherwise indicate. In any case, the point of my argument is not to insult Finnish politics or the difficult decisions they faced and made in order to resist Russian aggression. I simply went to the extreme to show how silly it is to be so sensitive to the markings on aircraft in a historical simulation.
"Oh my God, the German planes have swastikas on them!"
Walk into any good hobby shop in the US, you are sure to find German WWII models complete with swastikas. I don't see any customers in shock or protestors marching with bullhorns and signs. The people who originally fought the Germans never complained about accurate depictions in photos, models, or movies over a period of decades. It is the politically correct baby boomer generation that blew this all out of proportion. Should we go back through every other entertainment medium besides flight sims and edit out the swastikas? The fact that political correctness has reached even the otherwise unregulated internet disturbs me.
-
"Finland has proven to be somewhat opportunistic. With the Nazis gone, they were more than happy to fly Russian planes. Now with the Russians gone, who are they friends with?"
Oh yeah those russian DH Vampires, Russian Folland Gnats, Russian SAAB Drakens, Russian Fouga Magisters etc...
edited 'cause I was little too rude :)
-
Israelis flew anything they could get their hands on as well. Their friends are anyone who will fuel their military.
Flying a diversity of aircraft from anywhere they can get them is by definition "opportunistic"
But most countries didn't have access to Soviet equipment unless they co-operated in some way with Soviet interests... whereas the French were far more open with their sales: to anyone with the money except Israelis in 1968.
Am I wrong in saying Finland flew MiG-21s and MiG-29s in time frames when the West couldn't even get their hands on one?
Western enemies of the USSR could not even look at MiG-29s. Finland got an airshow... hmmmmm... not an enemy, must be a friend ;)
Be as colorful as you like in your responses, nothing said here can really hurt me. I think the whole point is to say what you think without worry.
-
Streakeagle, I have to say I agree with your general points. :)
It's just my opinion, But staga - no matter if we had vampires and so on - Soviets had their influence over finland after ww2. Finnish media was very careful about talking "bad" about our eastern neigbors. For many years after war fear about possible soviet occupation lived on. Yes, we got soviet fighters and at least seemingly friendly political relations, but none in finnish army could have it unclear who was our threat number 1.(soviets, but it was something not spoken aloud offically) In this I see same kind of political balancing as during ww2.
...today there isn't any necessity to lean in any direction. I hope our politicans understand that too. :D
-
ouch ! ...
Russian Fouga Magisters
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
My ISP was acting up and the board was unreachable for me so couldn't come here to stop this BS. Though I suspect that nothing I'd said would have made any difference :(. There's actually nothing wrong with the discussion itself but...I *THINK* IT'S IN THE WRONG THREAD!! :mad: I came to general discussion to post "a FYI-post" regarding AH, a post that I could punt up from time to time for the new guys. Hmm...I guess I won't be doing that now... Right now this post has nothing to do with AH and is O'Club material...frankly, I hope someone at HTC deletes this.
Moose,
for trying to stop this nonsense.
I'm at fault here too tough. I was going to put a note in the end of my post to prevent this but didn't because I tried to be open-minded and not always assuming the worst...a bad misjudgement on my part, I know.
Now, I hope everyone stops this "nazi-nonsense". In time I'll post this again with a proper note.
-
Wmaker, how can one say something like:
I hope everyone who reads this tries to explain/correct a person who is referring to G-2 as "nazi-plane" or similar in AH.
Then later on say:
I'm at fault here too tough. I was going to put a note in the end of my post to prevent this
So if someone makes a post about a controversial topic, but puts a note at the bottom saying that no one should respond other than in support of the post, then no one should challenge what was said? That is quite contrary to the function of a bbs and certainly contrary to the usual conversations here ;)
Maybe HTC should get a BBS server that has a button on it so that when someone makes a post, they can disable replies. If it was really advanced, it could detect and prevent attempts to start threads in response to threads that had this option. :D
In case you are confused, the G-2 was and still is a "nazi-plane" no matter whose markings they are painted in. The fact that a person could be upset at seeing the G-2's markings and then be calmed down by realizing that the swastika is blue and not black is ludicrous. He shouldn't have been upset to see a Nazi plane with Nazi markings. Does anyone else see the irony of this?
If changing the colors to blue makes it Finnish and therefore acceptable to someone otherwise highly offended by that symbol, HTC should put swastikas where they are supposed to be on all the German paint-schemes, but make them the Finnish version so it won't offend anybody.
If swastikas are so tabboo, they shouldn't even be on the Finnish Bf109. Most people outside of those who play the game or read this bulletin board don't know the difference and will view AH in a negative way for having it.
A US town named Swastika long before WWII ended up changing its name to be rid of the Nazi stigma. They got tired of explaining their history and arguing with people who always assumed they were pro-Nazi.
If I ever go psycho and do something so reprehensible that everyone will hate seeing any reminder of me, I am going to make sure I commit such an act wearing clothes everybody loves with commonly loved symbols just to punish those who respond to such.
"Oh my God, they are all wearing Levis, Nikes, and a t-shirt with 'Have a Nice Day' and a Christian cross on it... they must be devoted followers of that evil Streakeagle guy! I say ban all such clothes, yellow smileys, and symbols based on the cross and arrest anyone who wears them!"
-
-
not :)
-
I 2nd that with another "not" ;)
Besides that isn't even a full swastika and it is red, therefore it clearly has nothing to do with the Nazis :D
When someone realeases media the encourages others to put on SS uniforms and seriously plan to seize the government and wipe out everyone else, I still wouldn't be shocked. I would be concerned and expect the FBI to do their job.
-
So, end of this BS? Please?
This matter is further discussed in the grand O.
-Charge+
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
This post clearly includes the argument that a blue swastika is ok because it is Finnish while a black one is not because it was used by Nazis. I think it is well within the topic to question this by asking "what difference does the color make?" and "should the swastika be synonomous with Nazis?".
The whole idea of my post was to tell the historical difference between the symbols used by the Finnish Air Force and the Nazi regime. I couldn't care less if the german planes in AH had the swastikas on them or not. But obviously it's good for HTC and german simmers to have them disabled so that HTC gets broader group of customers and german guys get to enjoy AH. The color or the symbol itself shouldn't be a point here at all but the history and the orgin of the symbol should. Finnish Air Force started using Von Rosen Cross way before Nazis started using swastikas. If Hitler/Nazis would have picked some other symbol there would be no arguing about this. Is it Finnish Air Force's fault that they happened to pick swastika?
Originally posted by streakeagle
The majority apparently feels that simply displaying the swastika on anything indicates direct support or sympathy for the Nazi cause.
This was the reason I posted my post, to try to shed some light into the issue. The fact that the plane in question happened to be made in germany is really irrelevant. I would have posted the same thing if AH had some other plane in Finnish Air Force markings (Brewster for example).
Originally posted by streakeagle
If a German ban on swastikas is what restricts the markings on AH aircraft (as HiTech has confirmed in the past), is the German law written so specifically as to permit blue ones?
Saying that blue ones turned 45 degrees are too different from proper black ones to be offensive is absurd. If I were a Nazi supporter and I knew black swastikas were banned (as in Germany), but blue ones are acceptable, then I would start wearing armbands with "Finnish" markings. I am sure Nazis wouldn't care about the color change. Likewise, most people have trouble telling a Finnish 109 from a German 109, or this wouldn't have even been posted at all.
Once more, it isn't the symbol itself but what it supports and what it's meant to symbolize. This is, again, the reason why posted this. To inform people where Von Rosen Cross comes from and what it does/doesn't symbolize.
Originally posted by streakeagle
I do have to say that I disagree with the posters last statement. Whether they were flown or marked as Swiss or Finnish, Bf109s were most certainly Nazi planes and the money those countries gave to Germany to purchase those planes helped promote the Nazi cause. Just as Germans who did not take action to stop Hitler were held accountable, people and countries that monetarily supported his efforts should be considered just as liable.
Finnish Air Force Messerschmitt Bf-109G fighter aircraft were flown by finnish pilots and carried finnish national markings.
They were planes of the Finnish Air Force, period. In 1943 Finland badly needed modern fighter aircraft and the only country we could get them from was Germany.
Originally posted by streakeagle
Just as Germans who did not take action to stop Hitler were held accountable, people and countries that monetarily supported his efforts should be considered just as liable.
I find it insulting what you are accusing finns of here. During that time our nation was fighting of its independence. Germany and Finland had a common enemy because of very different reasons, I might add. Well, you've already told us your principals. So according to you we should have just watched from the side as Red Army would have overrun our country? Please tell me what other choise Finland had but to fight with Germany if it wanted to stay independent?
Originally posted by streakeagle
So if someone makes a post about a controversial topic, but puts a note at the bottom saying that no one should respond other than in support of the post, then no one should challenge what was said? That is quite contrary to the function of a bbs and certainly contrary to the usual conversations here
Maybe HTC should get a BBS server that has a button on it so that when someone makes a post, they can disable replies. If it was really advanced, it could detect and prevent attempts to start threads in response to threads that had this option.
Where did I specifically say what I was going to put in the end of my post? Where did I say that everyone should only post comments that support my post? Honestly, best thing would have been a post that only explains the history and the orgin of the Finnish Air Force insignia in which no one could reply to but everyone are free to draw their own conclusions. Then facts would be there that could be punted up somehow by the poster from time to time and if it raises discussion it could be done in a separate thread. The way Finnish Air Force adopted their first national insignia is A FACT there's no need to discuss if it's true or not. It's not an opinion either.
Originally posted by streakeagle
Flying a diversity of aircraft from anywhere they can get them is by definition "opportunistic"
After World War II it took almost 18 years before Finland bought military aircraft from Soviet Union (4 Mig-15UTIs arrived to Finland 10.11.1962). Before Mig-21F-13s our frontline fighters were Bf-109Gs (last flight: 13.3.1954), De Havilland Vampires (last flight: 17.7.1965) and Folland Gnats (last flight: 24.10.1972). It's a pretty cheap shot to call Finland opportunistic because our country didnt/doesn't have big military rescourses like USA. It's very true that just before WWII our Air Force tried to get fighter aircraft where ever possible. Again, tell me what choise did Finland have? What is wrong in gathering an air force to defend your country's independence? ...And btw FAF never had Mig-29s...
Originally posted by streakeagle
The fact that a person could be upset at seeing the G-2's markings and then be calmed down by realizing that the swastika is blue and not black is ludicrous. He shouldn't have been upset to see a Nazi plane with Nazi markings. Does anyone else see the irony of this?
Well I think it's pretty obvious. I never said he was "upset". You are making it up in your own mind. I said he didn't feel confortable flying an aircraft because he tought it had nazi markings on it. When I explained to him that they are markings of the FAF he liked to fly it.
Originally posted by streakeagle
If changing the colors to blue makes it Finnish and therefore acceptable to someone otherwise highly offended by that symbol, HTC should put swastikas where they are supposed to be on all the German paint-schemes, but make them the Finnish version so it won't offend anybody.
Changing the colour doesn't make it finnish. The history behind the Von Rosen Cross does and the fact that it's displayed in an aircraft of the FAF. What you are saying here is total nonsense.
Originally posted by streakeagle
If swastikas are so tabboo, they shouldn't even be on the Finnish Bf109. Most people outside of those who play the game or read this bulletin board don't know the difference and will view AH in a negative way for having it.
This is part of the reason why I wanted to clarify this. To infrom about the true heritage of the Von Rosen Cross...you just don't get it do you?
Now this is my last reply to this thread. Now I'm REALLY counting on everyone to let this post die down and if there is any reason to discuss Nazi regime-issues or anything else nazi related, please...take it to the O' Club. Streakeagle (and others) I'm not saying this to get the "last word" on this...as I said if you have to talk about it do it in the O' Club, it's there for it. This was meant to be "an information bit" with maybe 5 replies. :(
-
You guys suck bad, learn some history for crying out loud.
Btw, I will let it die out, however, it's not the color that makes it, it's the rotation...
POOF
-
Okay, substitute the word "uncomfortable" for "upset" in may statement. Does the meaning change?
The fact is, both the individual in question and the public in general don't notice the color or angle of the swastika. Your clarification of those differences only bypasses the real problem.
The problem is not the historical significance of the Finnish symbol versus the Nazi version. The problem is the logic of people who are "uncomfortable" with the swastika but not "uncomfortable" with the Bf109, since both are symbols of the Nazis regardless of anyone else who used either one.
The black swastika, at the correct angle, became the official symbol of the Nazi power.
But, likewise, the Bf109 and Ju87 were products of the Nazi war machine and quickly became symbols of Nazi power in their own right during the Blitzkriegs as much as the swastika and "SS".
A 109 in any colors is still a 109. The Nazis funded, developed, produced, and sold the 109s. If you can't understand that a 109 in any color scheme is still a "Nazi" plane, then you won't ever understand what I have been trying to say.
If people don't mind flying Nazi planes in the first place, why are they so "uncomfortable" with the swastika? Both are well known icons of Hitler's Germany, why is one considered so evil it should never be displayed while the other doesn't even merit a 2nd thought. To me it is a major contradiction in logic. I don't mind 109s or swastikas. If one really bothered me, the other would as well.
I don't see how you can argue Bf109s in Finnish service were not Nazi planes. Just because Finland owned and operated them does not change their origin. Switzerland did the same. After the war, Israel flew them as well with the big blue Star of David. I would still call any 109 ever made or flown a Nazi plane. Who designed it? Who built it? Who used it more than anyone else? If a church is in desperate need of financial aid, and gets a donation from a druglord, is it not still called drug money since that is where it came from?
F-4 Phantoms were built in Japan, but I would still call them an American plane, Yankee plane, or any other term that is synonomous with the political machine that ultimately produced 5,000 of them. McDonnell Douglas and Mitsubishi were the factories, but the development, production, sales, and distribution were controlled by the U.S. government. The same held true with the 109.
With regard to Finland and the war, countries in desperate need of help always resort to anything it takes to get the help they need, but that doesn't make it right. In the world of law, the ends do not justify the means. A crime is still a crime even if it was committed with the best of intentions.
If I am a poor farmer in Colombia struggling to feed my family, I will do anything I can to provide for them. Perhaps the only choice I have is to support the local drug lords by harvesting crops for them (or whatever else it is that I can do for them and feed my family). But the drug lords are still criminals. Anyone who helps them becomes criminals.
Because somebody ends up in a position where they have no better choice does not make the course of action they take correct or legal.
My country operates based on self-interest and as such breaks the laws and is frequently immoral or supports those who are. I don't approve of it, but I don't deny it either.
In a war where it was the USSR, UK, US vs GE, IT, JP, Finland fought against the USSR and was supplied primarily by GE. Regardless of the Finland's motives, that is a fact.
Obviously, receiving supplies from Nazi Germany to defend against the USSR wasn't considered to be such a bad thing by the US and Britain, or the Allies as a whole would have treated Finland as an enemy and invaded/occupied it. But you will never convince me it was the "right" thing to do. Of course with Germany gone, it was in the interest of the West to prevent Russia from expanding any more than necessary. It makes perfect sense that the German planes would be replaced by aircraft from Western countries.
Did the US and UK really care about the fate of Finland? No, they only cared about how Finland affected the USSR. During WWII, they looked the other way. After the war, they preferred opposing Soviet expansion in any way shape or form.
Yet somewhere along the way, Finland ended up being more closely allied with the Soviet Union than NATO. Strange results indeed.
-
THere were 109s manufactured by Italians in Italy during WWII... I believe they were called Buchon to denote their power plant.
Does that make them Nazi planes because they resemble 109s manufactured in Germany, or does it make them Italian planes?
BTW, only humans can be Nazis. Nothing can choose a political power if it doesn't have the ability to think (logically or not is irrelevant). It's a German plane built for the Nazi Wehrmacht, not a Nazi plane.
-SW
-
Willy Messerschmitt was as Nazi as they come (despite post war efforts to deny that fact), and his design is by my definition above Nazi, just as Japanese built F-4s are American. He knew what he was doing and proudly served the Third Reich.
You are arguing semantics: the meaning is the same.
The German government, led by Hitler, known as the Third Reich, which used the swastika as its emblem and designed, built, and flew the Bf109... is unmistakenly recognized by simply saying Nazis.
In this context, the words "Nazi" and "German" are interchangeable at least from the time WWII started to the time it ended.
German troops... Nazi troops.
German planes... Nazi planes.
I did not create this definition. It is an adjective describing nationality, possession, and/or origin that is entirely appropriate and commonly used in bonafide historical documents.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
If I am a poor farmer in Colombia struggling to feed my family, I will do anything I can to provide for them. Perhaps the only choice I have is to support the local drug lords by harvesting crops for them (or whatever else it is that I can do for them and feed my family). But the drug lords are still criminals. Anyone who helps them becomes criminals.
Obviously, you've never been a poor, Columbian farmer. More is the pity. Experience gives a fellow a keener insight into matters like this.
And
But you will never convince me it was the "right" thing to do. Of course with Germany gone, it was in the interest of the West to prevent Russia from expanding any more than necessary. It makes perfect sense that the German planes would be replaced by aircraft from Western countries.
Let me get this right. :) Your country is being invaded; your family members are being killed; the industrial base of your country is being destroyed. Indeed, your very identify is being erased in a systematic manner. And you're telling us that you would look down your long, arrogant nose and say "no, I won't use this weapon - it's tainted." Is that right?
Either you've consumed a full ration of rabbit pellets or you are out of touch with reality.
curly
-
Okay, a Japanese built F-4 is American... I don't deny that. It's an American design.
But why is it you can apply double standards? Because it's in your best interest? You were raised this way? You were taught that Germany was not Germany but only Nazis from '35-'45?
So if you call a Japanese built F-4 American, why do you not call a Bf-109 a German plane as opposed to a Nazi plane?
You don't call a Japanese built F-4 an American political party name? You don't call Russian built aircraft Communist aircraft? You don't call Israeli jets their political party? (I have no idea what it would be)
All I see is double standards in this thread, people are Nazis or white supremecists. A machine is a machine. BMW built engines for the Nazi Wehrmacht... why are they no longer a nazi company?
-SW
-
Hello there! :)
A german speking here...
I followed the first half of this Threat with great interest. Just to see what the half of the World thinks about us germans.
(And because i´m not that good in english Grammar, i´m going to write in lower Case from now on. Hope that you don´t mind...)
First of all, i´m at the age of 33 now. So i dont know for sure what was going on in WW2! Keep that in mind, please. But i read and heard (from survivors) that this times were really bad. It might sound as a kind of "Excuse me, please!" but i am only trying to get the things right.
FACTS:
- Our cuontry startet the war!
- We had some sick minds as a leadership.
- Many of our countryfolk believed in what our leadership said.
But:
- Not every german was a nazi!
In 1935 to 1938 (before WW2) the nazis were a threat to everyone. If your not with them, you were against them! The simple german citizen was afraid of this.
- When the dogs of war were unleashed, the nazis got all the power to spread their propaganda. At least two thirds of germany believed, that there was the "final victory" in sight. One third, at least, didn´t believed that. But if you dont believe it (at these times) you were dead.
- The german army "Heerestruppen" had a rather great percentage of "real" nazis amongst them. But not all of them were nazis.
- The german navy "Kriegsmarine" had them, too.
- The german airforce "Luftwaffe" probably had them also, but Toliver, Constable and Brown wrote in their books that german fighterpilots were "some" kind of good guys. And if i can believe these authors then they interviewed allied pilots some 20 years (or more) ago.
Why i try to hold my ground here? Simple thing...
- even today i have to hear something like: "Hey ironas, youre a nazi!". Or such crap! Why dont people realize, that it happened for about 60 years ago? Am i a nazi only because i´m german? Or every other german? THIS PISSES ME OFF!
- Germany has a rather big problem with Neo-Nazi´s! They were celebrating the birthday of some great nazi-guy these days. And guess what? The beat up some greeks in our country just to have fun! REALIZE IT! One of them greeks was beaten up that bad that he probably was dying! But some turkish guys interfered and drove them nazis away, saving this greek. SALUTE! to them!
I´ll tell you something: were do you live? America? Britain? Italy? or somewhere else? no matter.
I understand, that some of you think, that all germans who participated in the war, active or passive, were some kind of nazi´s. O.K.
But thats not right. And this nazi-threat is alive. Skinheads, not all of them but many, are a great problem. We try to hold them at bay.
So, as a final word: Dont thing that germans in WW2 were all that kind of nazi´s as you think of! A nazi is a german who does evil. A german is a german who lives and acts as a normal human!
Ironas out!
-
This keeps getting further away from the original swastika, but what the hell... the thread is already here and nobody has to click on it if they don't like it...
It still isn't right to make a deal with the devil.
Humans tend to put survival above principles. Though not entirely. If they were so concerned about dying, they could surrender rather than fight.
Some principles are worth dying for, like nationalism right? So what is the point of fighting to save your country from one invader, if the means to win must be provided by another equally aggressive invader?
Suppose Germany had defeated the USSR and her allies, where would Finland have been getting its military supplies when Germany inevitably invaded Finland?
The past cannot be changed, and arguing doesn't alter what took place. Europe looked the other way while Hitler set the stage for another world war. The US helped the greatest enemy it has ever faced: the USSR. Finland was almost completely isolated from the so-called "world war" and as such saw no problem with co-operating with one of the most evil governments ever to exist.
Necessity and morality are two different issues. People tend to do what they feel they need to regardless of morals or laws. That need and the actions taken to fulfill it does not change the morals or laws.
-
@StreakeEagle
"In this context, the words "Nazi" and "German" are interchangeable at least from the time WWII started to the time it ended."
this is not right.
They were alot of germans, who were sick of the war in 1943 to 1944 and after. They didnt belived in "the final victory" so they werent nazis. Sure, a part of them were nazis. Maybe a great part. But do you really think a sane citizen can be fooled for 6 years? And dont try to tell me, that ALL german citizens were not sane for more than 6 years...
Please try to realize that "Nazi´s" and "Germans" are two very different groups.
Nazi´s are: We are the top of the human race and we rule all others! We are the Kings! (And such crap...)
Germans are: We are Germans. Not French, not British, not Americans, just Germans. Thats all!
Nazi´s and Germans are NOT interchangeable! Not in the present and not in the past! There were a lot of German´s who got alot of trouble because they DON´T obeyed to the "Fuehrer´s" (Hitlers) power.
-
AK,
There is no double standard beyond that built into our language. Clearly, I am following American conventions used in American history books.
Americans call their weapons the "arsenal of democracy", but we tend to identify both our politics and our nation with our continent.
Canadians make cars too, but almost no one would misunderstand what I meant if I said "American cars". They would assume General Motors/Chrysler/Ford, though I guess Chrysler could be considered German now.
T-72 tanks and MiG-21s are commonly referred to as Communist, Soviet, or Russian equipment. Depending on the context, all could be synonomous.
Saying German planes is too general for what I am referring to: it could mean any plane made by Germany in since Germany started making planes to the present.
Saying Nazi planes is much more specific. Few would think of aircraft outside of those produced while the Nazi regime controlled Germany. The Bf109 is simultaneously associated with Germany in general and Nazis specifically.
It is much shorter and equally correct to say "Nazi planes" than say "planes of the evil government that existed in Germany under Hitler".
Again, I did not create the convention... but expressing ideas with the fewest words possible makes sense.
Ironas,
To be fair to you, I have been using "Nazi" in its WW2 context, but of course it can also be used in a context that refers to anyone who believes in or practices those principals, not just Germans. But of course, when anyone in the US (or the world?) thinks of Nazis they think of Germans, just like Commies are Russian and Chinese. The US has many well-known organizations that support Nazi values including neo-nazis. It is amazing that in this day and age, well educated people can have such beliefs. It is sad that the actions of a fraction of the German population over such a short timeframe have tainted the reputation of all Germans. I would no more call a German "Nazi" than I would an African "cupcake" except perhaps in conversational humor among close friends.
So, as a final word: Dont thing that germans in WW2 were all that kind of nazi´s as you think of! A nazi is a german who does evil. A german is a german who lives and acts as a normal human!
-
Have U ever been to Europe streak? Planning to visit us? I would be glad to see the reactions of our veterans when you say they were flying 'NAZI' planes.
It would be interesting to see somebody call german vehicles as NAZI vehicles for example in WW2Online. The forum would probably rip to pieces...LOL
Of course it is linquistically very economic to use such words as you have explained. But I remind you: You are not writing to Americans only. There is a lot of European players who have a totally different way of using those dangerous words. In this kind of a international forum I would describe it as very impolite behaviour.
I don't think you imagine that ie. German players find it very amusing when you use the word NAZI at all. I really don't think they need you to remind them what happened. Or is it your concious intention to insult them and us Finns by referring to us by calling us indirectly nazis, or the Russians by calling them COMMIES? I hope you don't mind me calling you a slaver, do you? Maybe your ancestors had a part of that dark era of your history, maybe not. But what do I care? It's economical to call YOU a slaver.
Hey streak, I'm not serious here. But I hope you get my point.
I find it hard to believe that I actually allowed myself to be pulled into this conversation...
If this game turns out to be a way to people trying to express their national superiority over others, I surely will just vanish from this board and the game altogether. I'm here to have fun and enough people already think I'm insane yanking the stick with sweat pouring from my head and empty beer cans clanking on the floor cursing ponies and spits.
I have been here only a short time and I really thought that I found a place where we are all friends and enjoy this great game without any national boundaries. Please let it be so.
Yours,
-Charge+
:confused:
-
Streakeagle!
Finland didnt want the war in 1939 -->
We fought in winterwar and it was a miracle that we survived. In that time usa and england were in our side and promised some help. It never came. So winterwar we had to fiht alone and without help.
In 1941 Soviet attacked again. Only possible country where we could get some support and help was germany.
If we wouldnt use that help, we would have been in same situation with baltic countries. Soviets would have beat us without german weapons and other help.
You guys in USA seem not to realize that Finland was fighting for life and exist. We were in corner and we had to fight or disappear. We are very lucky to be free and have one of the best or even the very best country to live in the world now. And all honour belongs to our veterans.
Keeping us or our fight as a nazifriendly fight is an insult what I will not tolerate. Streak I understand that you think that we should have let russians to occupie our country? Would that have been the right thing?
-
With a few bad rolls of the dice... the Germans would have eventually overrun Finland.
As I have said, I don't fault Finland for doing what it did. After all, the US and Britain chose to ally with the USSR. But right and wrong are different from necessary and unnecessary.
Ever heard the phrase "dead right", or "better dead than red". Some people put their integrity above their survival. Some people sell out their integrity even when their survival isn't on the line.
Of course every man ultimately has his price (where he will sell out his values), just for some, it's pretty low.
Perhaps if Finland had resisted without German help, the Russians would have had more resources available to fight Germany? France represents well what could happen if you give in to an invading force. Perhaps Finland would have been in a similar situation: under the control of the Soviet Union, but still fighting them the whole time. Certainly, if Finland could have found a way to survive without German support, or lost valiantly trying to do so, stupid Americans like myself might better appreciate and know more about what went on there in that time. As it is, the only aspects I am clear on are the aircraft variants used and the kill ratios. Who would think the Brewster Buffalo could get such a good kill ratio based on its brief disastrous Pacific performance? Any situation in which small numbers of 2nd rate planes hold off large numbers of 1st rate planes is always fascinating. Getting a handful of first rate planes from Germany is almost cheating... I am sure the Russians were not happy about it ;)
If it counts for anything, I apolgize wholeheartedly for the failure of Britain and the United States to help Finland out, leaving you only a few unpleasant choices. But it was like voting in an American Presidential election, no matter who you vote for, you still lose.