How does Germany commemorate its military?

CplFerro · 31st August 2009, 02:38 PM

Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom." Yet, that paints our army as the Good Guys, which means at some point other countries' armies were the Bad Guys. That leads us to Germany, wherein I wonder, how does Germany commemorate its military? When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"? Is it just Holocaust-memorial time, or do they have something besides this? Do they celebrate traitors?

Chaos · 31st August 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom." Yet, that paints our army as the Good Guys, which means at some point other countries' armies were the Bad Guys. That leads us to Germany, wherein I wonder, how does Germany commemorate its military? When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"? Is it just Holocaust-memorial time, or do they have something besides this? Do they celebrate traitors?

We mostly prefer to keep things factual.

theprestige · 31st August 2009, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom." Yet, that paints our army as the Good Guys, which means at some point other countries' armies were the Bad Guys. That leads us to Germany, wherein I wonder, how does Germany commemorate its military? When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"? Is it just Holocaust-memorial time, or do they have something besides this? Do they celebrate traitors?

Do you think it's possible that Germans today draw a distinction between the Nazi regime's military and the present military?

HansMustermann · 31st August 2009, 03:19 PM

The "german army", is something that existed for longer than WW2. Sorry.

It goes back all the way to the Franks' phalanx under Carolus Martellus stopping the Islamic Caliphate's expansion at the Battle of Tours and generally keeping them in check before and after. It had come this close to having an islamic France or maybe Europe.

Yeah, the Franks were Germans. But then you probably knew that.

How's that for a fight for freedom?

Floyt · 31st August 2009, 03:32 PM

ATM, the get intermittent kudos for piling sand bags when the Elbe starts eating suburbs. Other than that, the current version is mostly your standard monetary black hole with a low profile that gets neither celebrated nor vilified in a conspicuous manner. Or so it appeared to a not particluarly politically involved guy growing up in Germany.

I'm all for bringing back Pickelhauben though. Now there's a trademark!

ddt · 31st August 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It goes back all the way to the Franks' phalanx under Carolus Martellus stopping the Islamic Caliphate's expansion at the Battle of Tours

If we're going that way, what about:

- defeating Attila at the Catalaunian fields, 453 AD. Those were also Germans (Visigoths, Alans) fighting together with Aetius (let's skip the part that there were also Germanic tribes on Attila's side). Otherwise we'd all be Huns now.

- defating the Magyars at Augsburg (?) in 962 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Hungarian now.

- defeating the Poles at Tannenberg in 1403 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Poles now.

Germany as a state goes back to 1871. You can argue that its military tradition goes back to Frederic William the Great Elector who first really started the Prussian army, but the rest is IMHO stretching it.

ddt · 31st August 2009, 03:41 PM

On the lighter side, I remember that possible use of German troops was a hot point of discussion in the early 1990s, and also a theme for comedians, with sketches like:

Ma'am, you can be proud of your son.
...
Yes, he is KIA.
...
He is really special, he's the first Bundeswehr soldier KIA.

Of course, it was the "pacifist" Joschka Fischer who pulled it through that German troops were used for the first time outside NATO (in Yugoslavia) in battlefield actions.

Ryokan · 31st August 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom."

Both Union and Confederacy military? And does it include all the actions against the native Americans?

Originally Posted by CplFerro

When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"?

I had the honour of serving together with German soldiers in Bosnia.

WildCat · 31st August 2009, 03:49 PM

More importantly, how does the "Call of Duty" video game series go down in Germany?

HansMustermann · 31st August 2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

If we're going that way, what about:

- defeating Attila at the Catalaunian fields, 453 AD. Those were also Germans (Visigoths, Alans) fighting together with Aetius (let's skip the part that there were also Germanic tribes on Attila's side). Otherwise we'd all be Huns now.

Good point, though those were Roman foederati and clients IIRC, rather than anything resembling a German state's army.

Originally Posted by ddt

- defating the Magyars at Augsburg (?) in 962 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Hungarian now.

Well, that's a fair bit after the Battle Of Tours. I wasn't meaning it's a singular event, though, so yes, your mention of that is another such event along that line.

Originally Posted by ddt

- defeating the Poles at Tannenberg in 1403 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Poles now.

Hmm... I can't remember one in 1403, but then I'm not a real historian or anything. The one I remember was in 1410 and ended up in a defeat of the Teutonic Knights and a stop of _their_ expansion. Still, since the Teutonic Knights were really direct vassals of the Pope, I wouldn't really consider the "German army" there.

Originally Posted by ddt

Germany as a state goes back to 1871. You can argue that its military tradition goes back to Frederic William the Great Elector who first really started the Prussian army, but the rest is IMHO stretching it.

The modern state we call Germany, yes. But the HRE before it was just as German, I would argue, and its predecessor in many ways. And that in turn was just the state that the Franks founded, after being shafted by the Pope

So I don't have a real problem with seeing HRE or the Franks as part of Germany's history, military or otherwise.

Same as the UK is a new-ish state, but when they talk about the 100 year war they don't go "oh, wait, that was England, not us"

ddt · 31st August 2009, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Hmm... I can't remember one in 1403, but then I'm not a real historian or anything. The one I remember was in 1410 and ended up in a defeat of the Teutonic Knights and a stop of _their_ expansion. Still, since the Teutonic Knights were really direct vassals of the Pope, I wouldn't really consider the "German army" there.

I stand corrected (link). And I'm not a real historian either.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

The modern state we call Germany, yes. But the HRE before it was just as German, I would argue, and its predecessor in many ways. And that in turn was just the state that the Franks founded, after being shafted by the Pope

So I don't have a real problem with seeing HRE or the Franks as part of Germany's history, military or otherwise.

Same as the UK is a new-ish state, but when they talk about the 100 year war they don't go "oh, wait, that was England, not us"

The difference is that England has a continuity as a state that goes back to at least William the Conqueror. That they ~~swallowed up~~ merged with Scotland in 1707 doesn't negate that.

Trying to find that continuity in German history is a bit difficult. You could try to stretch that by arguing that the HRE was succeeded by the Deutsche Bund, the Norddeutsche Bund and the Zollverein before the Empire was declared in 1871, but that is a bit tenuous. The HRE was a joke after 1648 the latest, and the title of Emperor nothing more than a title.

And when you go back in history with the HRE before the Verdun split of 843, that France also can claim that heritage. And Belgium - Charles Martel was born in Herstal in the Ardennes.

ETA: and the Netherlands - Nijmegen had one of Charlemagne's palaces.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 31st August 2009, 04:49 PM

I used to work with a German immigrant. I never thought someone would still want to argue about World War One. He was positively hostile to Remembrance Day ceremonies.

"Lousy Serbians!"

HansMustermann · 31st August 2009, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

And when you go back in history with the HRE before the Verdun split of 843, that France also can claim that heritage. And Belgium - Charles Martel was born in Herstal in the Ardennes.

ETA: and the Netherlands - Nijmegen had one of Charlemagne's palaces.

I'm still not seeing the problem. The Roman Empire also split into two at one point, and nobody would deny it being part of Italy's heritage anyway.

Birth places and palaces... well, Trajan was born in what now is Spain, but nobody would say that the conquest of Dacia is clearly Spain's to claim. Sure they can claim that heritage too, but it's not like it's an either-or situation.

Comrade Raptor · 1st September 2009, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

More importantly, how does the "Call of Duty" video game series go down in Germany?

I've wondered that, actually.

That goes for Medal of Honor, too. And MOH Pacific in Japan.

"Play the game, kill your countrymen!"

Seems a weird concept. I mean, in Godzilla vs. Mecha King Ghidorah there was a controversial scene where Godzilla (in this version a T-Rex fighting for the Japanese before he got nukerified) attacked American marines storming the beach that seemed to cause considerable upset.

So how would we respond if Japan produced a game where you played the role of a Japanese soldier going all Banzai on the Americans at Guadalcanal?

At the same time, we could produce such a game and it would be far less controversial. We made Panzer General, nobody batted an eye. But if the Germans had been the first to make a game where you could play the Germans and win WW2... would the reaction have been the same?

HansMustermann · 1st September 2009, 04:06 AM

Well, personally I'm not much of a FPS fan, but AFAIK people play it just fine.

Generally I don't see why anyone would have a problem with "Play the game, kill your countrymen!" as long as it's in, you know, a game.

I mean, what about the Americans? Do people over there refuse to play Civil War themed games so they don't kill their countrymen? Or do they play only the North? Did you guys refuse to play the Zerg or Protoss campaigns in Starcraft because they involved shooting at the Terrans?

And how did games like Return To Castle Rammstein... err... Wolfenstein fare in multiplayer in America if nobody wants to play the Germans and shoot at the Americans?

Or maybe, and this is just a wild guess, you really have nothing against shooting your countrymen in a computer game either

thatguywhojuggles · 1st September 2009, 04:14 AM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Chaos · 1st September 2009, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, personally I'm not much of a FPS fan, but AFAIK people play it just fine.

Generally I don't see why anyone would have a problem with "Play the game, kill your countrymen!" as long as it's in, you know, a game.

I mean, what about the Americans? Do people over there refuse to play Civil War themed games so they don't kill their countrymen? Or do they play only the North? Did you guys refuse to play the Zerg or Protoss campaigns in Starcraft because they involved shooting at the Terrans?

And how did games like Return To Castle Rammstein... err... Wolfenstein fare in multiplayer in America if nobody wants to play the Germans and shoot at the Americans?

Or maybe, and this is just a wild guess, you really have nothing against shooting your countrymen in a computer game either

I know plenty of Americans who have no problem playing the Japanese in War in the Pacific, and kicking plenty of US ass. On the other hand, I´m not aware of any Japanese playing that game.

bignickel · 1st September 2009, 06:19 AM

As someone who's put plenty of hours into Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat, and Darkest Hour, I can say that I've had no problem playing on either team, Axis or Allies.

The important thing in the game is helping your team win, whoever that happens to be when you hit "Auto-Select". Anything else beyond that is secondary.

(that said, I prefer the Garand to the Mauser 98K. I prefer having a bullet already in the chamber instead of having to load it manually after everyshot. A split second can get you killed in these games)

ddt · 1st September 2009, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I'm still not seeing the problem. The Roman Empire also split into two at one point, and nobody would deny it being part of Italy's heritage anyway.

Birth places and palaces... well, Trajan was born in what now is Spain, but nobody would say that the conquest of Dacia is clearly Spain's to claim. Sure they can claim that heritage too, but it's not like it's an either-or situation.

But the Roman Empire clearly started out as a Roman and then Italian affair. That's clear-cut. The Kingdom of the Merovingians and Carolingians started with the Salian Franks. They lived in Belgium and Northern France, so Martel's birthplace is not so coincidental as, say, Trajan's. Sure they were a Germanic tribe, but they lived outside of what has historically been called Germany, and first set out to conquer the rest of France. You don't associate of the Visigoth empire in Southern France/Northern Spain either with German tradition. In fact, the Carolingians had quite some trouble with the Bavarians, and the Thuringians and, above all, later the Saxons.

I think it's more apt to see Charlemagne's empire as a European empire. French and Germans both claim his heritage, and others to a lesser degree. When you look at the borders of his empire, it quite coincides with the EU founders, and his efforts to standardize things as currency and measures also nicely tie in with that.

But okay, if you want to see the Carolingians as a predecessor of Germany, I won't oppose you as long as you let others claim them as well.

(btw, what's the connection between the Salian Franks and the "Frankenland" region around the river Main?)

HansMustermann · 1st September 2009, 09:33 AM

Well, maybe the Roman Empire is a bad example, as in the West it collapsed fair and square and there's hardly any continuity between it and Italy.

But consider China.

The official story is that it's the oldest continuous country still in existence, all the way to Qin Shi Huangdi or even all the way to the Xia dynasty, but is it?

China essentially broke apart several times, and different dynasties were actually different regions and cultures which conquered the others and claimed a Chinese version of Translatio Imperii from the previous dynasty. The Yuan (mongolian) or Qing (manchurian) dynasties had just about as much reason to call themeselves "China" as the Ottoman Empire had to call itself the Roman Empire after it took Byzantium.

And there were periods where China fell apart horribly. E.g., the "Five Dynasties And Ten Kingdoms" period was almost aptly named. China had actually split into 12 different states, which warred bitterly for supremacy. E.g., during their Three Kindoms period, the fight for the throne killed off (one way or another) over 2/3 of the total population. (Which also meant a ridiculous percentage of the estimated total human population world-wide at the time.) Not 2/3 of the army, but actual difference in census numbers between the start and end of the war.

So basically if China gets to gloss over the split into 12 bitterly warring states and call itself continuous, then I figure I can be excused if I gloss over the German split resulting from Francis II's unilaterally disolving the HRE.

But yeah, I know it's heterodox as heck

HansMustermann · 1st September 2009, 09:37 AM

As for letting others claim the legacy, hey, I'm not stopping anyone

Probably the silliest example of claiming a legacy actually comes from Romania, who, from what I hear, made a big issue off their their legacy from Trajan. The whole legacy being, of course, having been personally smacked down by Trajan.

I figure if someone can claim a legacy just for taking a beating from the Great Man Himself... heh, forget the French. I'll happily even let the Arabs, Magyars and Poles claim that kind of legacy from the Franks

ddt · 1st September 2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

As for letting others claim the legacy, hey, I'm not stopping anyone

Let's keep it at that. Your China example was quite convincing.

And as to German military heroes, what about Hermann, 9 AD? Not quite the continuity either, what happened to the Chauci anyway?

One Skunk Todd · 1st September 2009, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

More importantly, how does the "Call of Duty" video game series go down in Germany?

World War II Online has a lot of German players, both axis and allied, although I suspect the preponderance play axis.

Ryokan · 1st September 2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Both Union and Confederacy military? And does it include all the actions against the native Americans?

Why did CplFerro never return to this thread to answer these questions?

Chaos · 2nd September 2009, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Why did CplFerro never return to this thread to answer these questions?

Because he is CplFerro. He never returns to his threads to answer questions.

NoZed Avenger · 2nd September 2009, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by bignickel

(that said, I prefer the Garand to the Mauser 98K. I prefer having a bullet already in the chamber instead of having to load it manually after everyshot. A split second can get you killed in these games)

The sound with the Garand is nice -- though in a real fight, announcing the end of my magazine would not be my favorite thing ever.

But the Gewehr 43 is not bad; the MP40 probably beats the Thompson for automatics, and the MP44 assault rifle is a beast. In the games, anyway.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 2nd September 2009, 06:16 PM

I work with an Austrian who wanted to know which side Austria fought for in the World Wars. I'm guessing they might just gloss over the first fifty years or so of the twentieth century in history class over there.

ddt · 2nd September 2009, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

I work with an Austrian who wanted to know which side Austria fought for in the World Wars. I'm guessing they might just gloss over the first fifty years or so of the twentieth century in history class over there.

And else, they'd state that Austria was the first victim of Nazi expansion. Sly people, those Austrians. They make the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 2nd September 2009, 07:41 PM

I simplified things and told him that Austrians were the bad guys.

31st August 2009, 02:38 PM	#1
CplFerro Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,383	How does Germany commemorate its military? Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom." Yet, that paints our army as the Good Guys, which means at some point other countries' armies were the Bad Guys. That leads us to Germany, wherein I wonder, how does Germany commemorate its military? When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"? Is it just Holocaust-memorial time, or do they have something besides this? Do they celebrate traitors?

31st August 2009, 03:10 PM	#2
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,776	Originally Posted by CplFerro Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom." Yet, that paints our army as the Good Guys, which means at some point other countries' armies were the Bad Guys. That leads us to Germany, wherein I wonder, how does Germany commemorate its military? When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"? Is it just Holocaust-memorial time, or do they have something besides this? Do they celebrate traitors? We mostly prefer to keep things factual.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

31st August 2009, 03:17 PM	#3
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by CplFerro Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom." Yet, that paints our army as the Good Guys, which means at some point other countries' armies were the Bad Guys. That leads us to Germany, wherein I wonder, how does Germany commemorate its military? When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"? Is it just Holocaust-memorial time, or do they have something besides this? Do they celebrate traitors? Do you think it's possible that Germans today draw a distinction between the Nazi regime's military and the present military?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

31st August 2009, 03:32 PM	#5
Floyt Chordate Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cape Town! Not mugged yet. Looking for chameleons. Posts: 1,425	ATM, the get intermittent kudos for piling sand bags when the Elbe starts eating suburbs. Other than that, the current version is mostly your standard monetary black hole with a low profile that gets neither celebrated nor vilified in a conspicuous manner. Or so it appeared to a not particluarly politically involved guy growing up in Germany. I'm all for bringing back Pickelhauben though. Now there's a trademark!
	__________________ They had no god; they had no gods; they had no faith. What they appear to have had is a working metaphor. - Ursula K. Le Guin, "Always Coming Home"

31st August 2009, 03:35 PM	#6
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,314	Originally Posted by HansMustermann It goes back all the way to the Franks' phalanx under Carolus Martellus stopping the Islamic Caliphate's expansion at the Battle of Tours If we're going that way, what about: - defeating Attila at the Catalaunian fields, 453 AD. Those were also Germans (Visigoths, Alans) fighting together with Aetius (let's skip the part that there were also Germanic tribes on Attila's side). Otherwise we'd all be Huns now. - defating the Magyars at Augsburg (?) in 962 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Hungarian now. - defeating the Poles at Tannenberg in 1403 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Poles now. Germany as a state goes back to 1871. You can argue that its military tradition goes back to Frederic William the Great Elector who first really started the Prussian army, but the rest is IMHO stretching it.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

31st August 2009, 03:19 PM	#4
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,799	The "german army", is something that existed for longer than WW2. Sorry. It goes back all the way to the Franks' phalanx under Carolus Martellus stopping the Islamic Caliphate's expansion at the Battle of Tours and generally keeping them in check before and after. It had come this close to having an islamic France or maybe Europe. Yeah, the Franks were Germans. But then you probably knew that. How's that for a fight for freedom?

31st August 2009, 03:41 PM	#7
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,314	On the lighter side, I remember that possible use of German troops was a hot point of discussion in the early 1990s, and also a theme for comedians, with sketches like: Ma'am, you can be proud of your son. ... Yes, he is KIA. ... He is really special, he's the first Bundeswehr soldier KIA. Of course, it was the "pacifist" Joschka Fischer who pulled it through that German troops were used for the first time outside NATO (in Yugoslavia) in battlefield actions.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

31st August 2009, 03:42 PM	#8
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,166	Originally Posted by CplFerro Here in North America our military is commemorated for "defending our freedom." Both Union and Confederacy military? And does it include all the actions against the native Americans? Originally Posted by CplFerro When did the German army ever "fight for freedom"? I had the honour of serving together with German soldiers in Bosnia.
	Last edited by Ryokan; 31st August 2009 at 04:02 PM.

31st August 2009, 03:49 PM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,966	More importantly, how does the "Call of Duty" video game series go down in Germany?

31st August 2009, 03:59 PM	#10
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,799	Originally Posted by ddt If we're going that way, what about: - defeating Attila at the Catalaunian fields, 453 AD. Those were also Germans (Visigoths, Alans) fighting together with Aetius (let's skip the part that there were also Germanic tribes on Attila's side). Otherwise we'd all be Huns now. Good point, though those were Roman foederati and clients IIRC, rather than anything resembling a German state's army. Originally Posted by ddt - defating the Magyars at Augsburg (?) in 962 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Hungarian now. Well, that's a fair bit after the Battle Of Tours. I wasn't meaning it's a singular event, though, so yes, your mention of that is another such event along that line. Originally Posted by ddt - defeating the Poles at Tannenberg in 1403 AD. Otherwise, we'd all be Poles now. Hmm... I can't remember one in 1403, but then I'm not a real historian or anything. The one I remember was in 1410 and ended up in a defeat of the Teutonic Knights and a stop of _their_ expansion. Still, since the Teutonic Knights were really direct vassals of the Pope, I wouldn't really consider the "German army" there. Originally Posted by ddt Germany as a state goes back to 1871. You can argue that its military tradition goes back to Frederic William the Great Elector who first really started the Prussian army, but the rest is IMHO stretching it. The modern state we call Germany, yes. But the HRE before it was just as German, I would argue, and its predecessor in many ways. And that in turn was just the state that the Franks founded, after being shafted by the Pope So I don't have a real problem with seeing HRE or the Franks as part of Germany's history, military or otherwise. Same as the UK is a new-ish state, but when they talk about the 100 year war they don't go "oh, wait, that was England, not us"

31st August 2009, 04:14 PM	#11
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,314	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Hmm... I can't remember one in 1403, but then I'm not a real historian or anything. The one I remember was in 1410 and ended up in a defeat of the Teutonic Knights and a stop of _their_ expansion. Still, since the Teutonic Knights were really direct vassals of the Pope, I wouldn't really consider the "German army" there. I stand corrected (link). And I'm not a real historian either. Originally Posted by HansMustermann The modern state we call Germany, yes. But the HRE before it was just as German, I would argue, and its predecessor in many ways. And that in turn was just the state that the Franks founded, after being shafted by the Pope So I don't have a real problem with seeing HRE or the Franks as part of Germany's history, military or otherwise. Same as the UK is a new-ish state, but when they talk about the 100 year war they don't go "oh, wait, that was England, not us" The difference is that England has a continuity as a state that goes back to at least William the Conqueror. That they ~~swallowed up~~ merged with Scotland in 1707 doesn't negate that. Trying to find that continuity in German history is a bit difficult. You could try to stretch that by arguing that the HRE was succeeded by the Deutsche Bund, the Norddeutsche Bund and the Zollverein before the Empire was declared in 1871, but that is a bit tenuous. The HRE was a joke after 1648 the latest, and the title of Emperor nothing more than a title. And when you go back in history with the HRE before the Verdun split of 843, that France also can claim that heritage. And Belgium - Charles Martel was born in Herstal in the Ardennes. ETA: and the Netherlands - Nijmegen had one of Charlemagne's palaces.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group Last edited by ddt; 31st August 2009 at 04:16 PM.

31st August 2009, 04:49 PM	#12
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	I used to work with a German immigrant. I never thought someone would still want to argue about World War One. He was positively hostile to Remembrance Day ceremonies. "Lousy Serbians!"
	Last edited by Sir Robin Goodfellow; 31st August 2009 at 04:50 PM.

31st August 2009, 10:26 PM	#13
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,799	Originally Posted by ddt And when you go back in history with the HRE before the Verdun split of 843, that France also can claim that heritage. And Belgium - Charles Martel was born in Herstal in the Ardennes. ETA: and the Netherlands - Nijmegen had one of Charlemagne's palaces. I'm still not seeing the problem. The Roman Empire also split into two at one point, and nobody would deny it being part of Italy's heritage anyway. Birth places and palaces... well, Trajan was born in what now is Spain, but nobody would say that the conquest of Dacia is clearly Spain's to claim. Sure they can claim that heritage too, but it's not like it's an either-or situation.

1st September 2009, 03:37 AM	#14
Comrade Raptor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by WildCat More importantly, how does the "Call of Duty" video game series go down in Germany? I've wondered that, actually. That goes for Medal of Honor, too. And MOH Pacific in Japan. "Play the game, kill your countrymen!" Seems a weird concept. I mean, in Godzilla vs. Mecha King Ghidorah there was a controversial scene where Godzilla (in this version a T-Rex fighting for the Japanese before he got nukerified) attacked American marines storming the beach that seemed to cause considerable upset. So how would we respond if Japan produced a game where you played the role of a Japanese soldier going all Banzai on the Americans at Guadalcanal? At the same time, we could produce such a game and it would be far less controversial. We made Panzer General, nobody batted an eye. But if the Germans had been the first to make a game where you could play the Germans and win WW2... would the reaction have been the same?

1st September 2009, 04:06 AM	#15
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,799	Well, personally I'm not much of a FPS fan, but AFAIK people play it just fine. Generally I don't see why anyone would have a problem with "Play the game, kill your countrymen!" as long as it's in, you know, a game. I mean, what about the Americans? Do people over there refuse to play Civil War themed games so they don't kill their countrymen? Or do they play only the North? Did you guys refuse to play the Zerg or Protoss campaigns in Starcraft because they involved shooting at the Terrans? And how did games like Return To Castle Rammstein... err... Wolfenstein fare in multiplayer in America if nobody wants to play the Germans and shoot at the Americans? Or maybe, and this is just a wild guess, you really have nothing against shooting your countrymen in a computer game either

1st September 2009, 04:33 AM	#17
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,776	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Well, personally I'm not much of a FPS fan, but AFAIK people play it just fine. Generally I don't see why anyone would have a problem with "Play the game, kill your countrymen!" as long as it's in, you know, a game. I mean, what about the Americans? Do people over there refuse to play Civil War themed games so they don't kill their countrymen? Or do they play only the North? Did you guys refuse to play the Zerg or Protoss campaigns in Starcraft because they involved shooting at the Terrans? And how did games like Return To Castle Rammstein... err... Wolfenstein fare in multiplayer in America if nobody wants to play the Germans and shoot at the Americans? Or maybe, and this is just a wild guess, you really have nothing against shooting your countrymen in a computer game either I know plenty of Americans who have no problem playing the Japanese in War in the Pacific, and kicking plenty of US ass. On the other hand, I´m not aware of any Japanese playing that game.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

1st September 2009, 06:19 AM	#18
bignickel Mad Mod Poet God Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,723	As someone who's put plenty of hours into Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat, and Darkest Hour, I can say that I've had no problem playing on either team, Axis or Allies. The important thing in the game is helping your team win, whoever that happens to be when you hit "Auto-Select". Anything else beyond that is secondary. (that said, I prefer the Garand to the Mauser 98K. I prefer having a bullet already in the chamber instead of having to load it manually after everyshot. A split second can get you killed in these games)
	__________________ "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

1st September 2009, 06:54 AM	#19
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,314	Originally Posted by HansMustermann I'm still not seeing the problem. The Roman Empire also split into two at one point, and nobody would deny it being part of Italy's heritage anyway. Birth places and palaces... well, Trajan was born in what now is Spain, but nobody would say that the conquest of Dacia is clearly Spain's to claim. Sure they can claim that heritage too, but it's not like it's an either-or situation. But the Roman Empire clearly started out as a Roman and then Italian affair. That's clear-cut. The Kingdom of the Merovingians and Carolingians started with the Salian Franks. They lived in Belgium and Northern France, so Martel's birthplace is not so coincidental as, say, Trajan's. Sure they were a Germanic tribe, but they lived outside of what has historically been called Germany, and first set out to conquer the rest of France. You don't associate of the Visigoth empire in Southern France/Northern Spain either with German tradition. In fact, the Carolingians had quite some trouble with the Bavarians, and the Thuringians and, above all, later the Saxons. I think it's more apt to see Charlemagne's empire as a European empire. French and Germans both claim his heritage, and others to a lesser degree. When you look at the borders of his empire, it quite coincides with the EU founders, and his efforts to standardize things as currency and measures also nicely tie in with that. But okay, if you want to see the Carolingians as a predecessor of Germany, I won't oppose you as long as you let others claim them as well. (btw, what's the connection between the Salian Franks and the "Frankenland" region around the river Main?)
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

1st September 2009, 09:33 AM	#20
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,799	Well, maybe the Roman Empire is a bad example, as in the West it collapsed fair and square and there's hardly any continuity between it and Italy. But consider China. The official story is that it's the oldest continuous country still in existence, all the way to Qin Shi Huangdi or even all the way to the Xia dynasty, but is it? China essentially broke apart several times, and different dynasties were actually different regions and cultures which conquered the others and claimed a Chinese version of Translatio Imperii from the previous dynasty. The Yuan (mongolian) or Qing (manchurian) dynasties had just about as much reason to call themeselves "China" as the Ottoman Empire had to call itself the Roman Empire after it took Byzantium. And there were periods where China fell apart horribly. E.g., the "Five Dynasties And Ten Kingdoms" period was almost aptly named. China had actually split into 12 different states, which warred bitterly for supremacy. E.g., during their Three Kindoms period, the fight for the throne killed off (one way or another) over 2/3 of the total population. (Which also meant a ridiculous percentage of the estimated total human population world-wide at the time.) Not 2/3 of the army, but actual difference in census numbers between the start and end of the war. So basically if China gets to gloss over the split into 12 bitterly warring states and call itself continuous, then I figure I can be excused if I gloss over the German split resulting from Francis II's unilaterally disolving the HRE. But yeah, I know it's heterodox as heck

1st September 2009, 09:37 AM	#21
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,799	As for letting others claim the legacy, hey, I'm not stopping anyone Probably the silliest example of claiming a legacy actually comes from Romania, who, from what I hear, made a big issue off their their legacy from Trajan. The whole legacy being, of course, having been personally smacked down by Trajan. I figure if someone can claim a legacy just for taking a beating from the Great Man Himself... heh, forget the French. I'll happily even let the Arabs, Magyars and Poles claim that kind of legacy from the Franks

1st September 2009, 09:46 AM	#22
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,314	Originally Posted by HansMustermann As for letting others claim the legacy, hey, I'm not stopping anyone Let's keep it at that. Your China example was quite convincing. And as to German military heroes, what about Hermann, 9 AD? Not quite the continuity either, what happened to the Chauci anyway?
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group Last edited by ddt; 1st September 2009 at 09:55 AM.

1st September 2009, 10:31 AM	#23
One Skunk Todd Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 300	Originally Posted by WildCat More importantly, how does the "Call of Duty" video game series go down in Germany? World War II Online has a lot of German players, both axis and allied, although I suspect the preponderance play axis.

1st September 2009, 12:37 PM	#24
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,166	Originally Posted by Ryokan Both Union and Confederacy military? And does it include all the actions against the native Americans? Why did CplFerro never return to this thread to answer these questions?

2nd September 2009, 01:17 AM	#25
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,776	Originally Posted by Ryokan Why did CplFerro never return to this thread to answer these questions? Because he is CplFerro. He never returns to his threads to answer questions.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

2nd September 2009, 02:02 PM	#26
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by bignickel (that said, I prefer the Garand to the Mauser 98K. I prefer having a bullet already in the chamber instead of having to load it manually after everyshot. A split second can get you killed in these games) The sound with the Garand is nice -- though in a real fight, announcing the end of my magazine would not be my favorite thing ever. But the Gewehr 43 is not bad; the MP40 probably beats the Thompson for automatics, and the MP44 assault rifle is a beast. In the games, anyway.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

2nd September 2009, 06:16 PM	#27
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	I work with an Austrian who wanted to know which side Austria fought for in the World Wars. I'm guessing they might just gloss over the first fifty years or so of the twentieth century in history class over there.

2nd September 2009, 06:27 PM	#28
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,314	Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow I work with an Austrian who wanted to know which side Austria fought for in the World Wars. I'm guessing they might just gloss over the first fifty years or so of the twentieth century in history class over there. And else, they'd state that Austria was the first victim of Nazi expansion. Sly people, those Austrians. They make the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

2nd September 2009, 07:41 PM	#29
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	I simplified things and told him that Austrians were the bad guys.