As I said earlier, there is no legal or moral pressure for anyone to re-enact WWII. So “we need someone to play the Nazis” is a false argument. They chose to play Nazis.
You wrote:
The Soviets were amongst those doing no better, and they responded by embarking on aggressive war. The details of why they were struggling are different, yes, but why should that matter? Having little to eat is having little to eat, whether it’s from the Depression or collectivization.
There were, as you say, plenty of countries in rough shape at the time. Several fledgling democracies were taken over by despots, and a sub-set of those countries launched aggressive wars of conquest. The Soviets are among that sub-set.
Well, you made it clear that you personally find any display, even in private, of the swastika outside of film and theater to be unacceptable. Why that should be so remains a mystery, but such is the nature of subjective opinions, yours and mine.
The only replies here containing real psychopathy are every one of your disgusting Nazi apologetics.
It’s not wrong to challenge stpauler or me or anyone else on this topic. I’m not saying that at all. But neither is it clear to me that the circumstances around this gathering are completely innocent. Maybe they are. Maybe this is a few guys getting together to reenact a Nazi dinner party. Maybe this is some sort of inside joke we’re not in on. It’s possible.
But it’s still a little weird, right?
So short of accusing them of being closet Nazis, we can openly inquire about their motives without you getting all bent out of shape and all ACLU about it. Right?
Unconventional, sure, but many geeky hobbies are. I wouldn’t do it, myself.
Right, and I don’t think I’ve gotten bent out of shape over inquiry. Reviewing my posts, I’ve made my own suggestions about their possible motives, linked to the WW2HRS site, argued that stpauler’s use of the quote in the OP was out of context and supplied further context, debated whether the dinner violated the spirit of WW2HRS bylaws, etc. I haven’t shouted anyone down, just supplied evidence for my point of view. Maybe using “RO” was a bit strong, but it was in the narrow case of WheatCat calling the notion of re-enactors as educators a “ridiculous disclaimer”, not a general label for people who think the re-enactment group was in the wrong.
I’d have to start with “no Nazis”. That’s my personal preference and hey, if that means that the re-enactment can’t happen, oh well. Now let me iterate lest it be taken out of context that I’m not stating that this is a legal issue. They can do what they want to just like people can dress up like Klan members and walk up and down the street or have a private party. I can still judge them as sad members of the planet.
There’s no legal or moral pressure for anyone to re-enact the Civil War, World War 1, the Vietnam War, the Korean War or be in the SCA but lots of people choose to. Why is this so different?
Nothing at all. Except the choosing to play a Nazi on weekends part.
Maybe it’s just an interest in the history of Hugo Boss fashions.
There’s the full flavor of the recreational outrage we’ve been looking for.
Cut to the chase. Just give us disgusting Nazi apologetics the full ration of Hell we clearly deserve for offending your sensibilities.
Or, maybe more honestly, if you’re capable of it, acknowledge that your offended sensibilities have absolutely no impact outside the confines of your skull.
You are no different from the original Nazis in that you over-esteem your own factually baseless emotion-driven ideology.
So the Korean War re-enactments must be right out too. Both North and South Korea committed major atrocities. There are reenactments of the Trail of Tears as well, better not represent US soldiers of that period either.
Creating a living version of historical events is something that is done all the time, for many periods and many events. Marking this one as being off limits doesn’t make sense to me.
Let me put it this way- agricultural crisis did not help create the political conditions supporting foreign aggression by the USSR. Depression-era economic conditions did exactly that in previously democratic Germany and Japan; Italy was already a dictatorship, but not a militarily aggressive one until after the economic crisis set in.
The USSR was not a democracy 1917-1987, fledgling or otherwise, and your saying so betrays real historical ignorance. Who are the others are you are referring to? Partition of Slovakia by Poland and Hungary? Polish annexation of land claimed by Lithuania? If you want to be finnicky and claim them I can be finnicky too, and point out they were not wars, strictly speaking, since there was no fighting involved. The central European Axis allies acted under German duress after 1939 so they do not count. Finland’s Continuation War 1941&ff does not count either, because the Finns did not try to win any more ground than they had lost to Soviet aggression during the Winter War. That leaves the Spanish temporary loan of its Blue Division to the Eastern Front. Pretty slim picking, none of it set in motion by economic crisis, but rather by Germany’s initiative aggression.
We have already covered this. Do you or do you not think it is wrong to beat your wife if no one ever finds out about it?
You really think having a dinner party in German army uniforms is the same as beating someone?
Still not sure why that matters, but this is so tangential to the topic at hand, I’ll concede that the conditions you had in mind when you wrote your post must exclude the Soviet Union.
Ok, extremely fledgling, in that the provisional government was trying to organize elections.
The set of fledgling democracies that were taken over by despots include Germany, Japan, Spain, the Soviet Union (admittedly a borderline case), Italy, Portugal, Greece…others, too, but there’s a start.
The sub-set of nations that launched wars of conquest in that era is Italy, Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union.
It’s wrong because it hurts my wife. Wearing Nazi-era German military uniforms in private hurts no one. You might be able to make a case that wearing it in the streets would distress people, but what possible harm comes from wearing it in private?
How would you finish this sentence: Wearing a Nazi-era German military uniform in private is wrong, because…?
…You’re Prince Harry, fourth in line to the throne of England, and everyone has a phone camera so you should bloody well know better!
It must run in the family.
Are you forgetting, ignoring or just too enlightened to accept “Nazi” has a rather unique spot in our society’s lexicon? That they are held up as the very definition of evil and malice? Should I also ignore it because hey people are people and some people have a burning desire to reenact WWII?
Nazi ideology and white supremacy still have their adherents. Many think the whole “Nazis were evil” thing is a bit of a bum rap. I think a lot of people have trouble not suspecting there’s some crossover between people who think the Nazis weren’t so bad and people who like to dress up as Nazis in their spare time.
So, I guess building a model airplane Stuka makes you evil too.
I’m not forgetting at all. Being gay, they probably would have imprisoned or killed me. When I was younger, I knew Jewish people that survived it and still know their children and grandchildren.
Without evidence that people in this and other re-enactment groups actually do think that the Nazi’s weren’t that bad, I have no reason to believe that they do. From what I can see, they are people that have a passion for history and want to preserve history and educate. I find that to be a noble cause.
You summed up my point so perfectly that I no longer need to post in this thread. Thanks!