I imagine that they had some sort of "character" or "historical figure" day at his school. The point is that people were calling him a Nazi, when that was a WW2 party, not WW1.
But, ok, let's say we get to veto his choice because of the reasons some of you have come up with. There will be a lot of other historical figures vetoed if the criteria include "must not offend anyone, even those offended for a wrong reason." American Revolutionary people may offend a British immigrant or someone if British ancestry. Joan of Arc...pro-Catholic. It makes it hard to anticipate who might be offended if you're including people who take it on themselves to be offended by their own wrong understanding of things.
Why not? People always glorify American soldiers and british soldiers? What's wrong with german soldiers, they are people as well. They fought the same war, just different sides.
The problem is that the people who tend to venerate german soldiers from WWI or WWII are white supremacists, since the WWI German empire is considered by them to be the Second Reich.
▼
deleted
· 6 years ago
There's a great book everyone here should read— Germany: A New History, by Hagen Schulze.
It's a modern (2000s) look back on all of Germany's history, from the Roman Empire to post-Berlin-wall stuff. Written by a German scholar of German history. It has some beautiful insights into the different phases Germany went through and the radicalism that created the Nazi state. It'll really help a lot of people differentiate between WWI and WWII.
Just to make this clear: I am not having any problems in differentiating between WW1 and WW2. As a german citizen, I have gone through an enormous, ever-repeating cycle of being educated about the backgrounds for both wars and my personal interest in it was pretty big when I was younger, so I think I know my facts.
Now, in WW1, German soldiers maybe didn't terrorize a complete continent and they didn't torture and kill every single civilian they found (they still killed more than enough), but still, they were at war. And it was not a "ok guys, we're under attack, so we have to defend our families" war, it was a "let's slap every other bitch in Europe 'cause we're better than them" war.
I personally have an extreme problem with the glrification of soldiers in general.
Every army in this world these days will be rated as a defence measure, if you ask the citizens and parliaments of their countries.
Well, they may be, but does anyone still believe in soldiers defending their families, friends, or homes? No, every soldier is part of an organisation that's solely there to defend business interests, and it doesn't change a thing if the singular soldier still is stupid enough to think he would be fighting for "freedom" or even better and even more paranoid "peace".
And yesterdays armies were full of extremists, nationalists and xy-supremacists, depending were they came from and they went to war because in all education systems prior to the ones of today war was considered to be cool and the hippest thing to do for young men.
So again, and just from my point of view:
There is no single reason for me to glorify, praise or even respect any soldier in existance or of the past. Countries are nothing than a random piece of earth, where some d*ckhead insisted to put up his fence somewhen in the past and they're nothing worth do die for. If someone wants to defend their family, then stay the f*ck at home instead of flying to the other side of the world and coming back with two limbs less and nothing achieved.
And please, don't start arguing with the threads coming from some countries, cultures, or even religions and read some history. If you come to any other conclution than any war being just a result of the war before and that every army is just there to either conquer new raw materials or to please the thirst for revenge of some cowardly "leader" who is sitting in a perfectly safe armchair while young people die, read it again.
Well really it was Austria-Hungary fucking Serbia and Germany was worried Russia would attack A-H so they had to send troops and fight off Russia before a theoretical mobilization. But Russia was allied with France so in order to defeat Russia they would have to beat France too. Therefore they decided to go through Belgium to reach Paris, but Belgium was under Britains protection. Though tensions were high on all sides and the war would probably have broken out either way. It was partially a "we're better" war, but both sides were just as guilty. I salute ww1 german soldiers because in my eyes they were the most effective and disciplined ones in general.
But, ok, let's say we get to veto his choice because of the reasons some of you have come up with. There will be a lot of other historical figures vetoed if the criteria include "must not offend anyone, even those offended for a wrong reason." American Revolutionary people may offend a British immigrant or someone if British ancestry. Joan of Arc...pro-Catholic. It makes it hard to anticipate who might be offended if you're including people who take it on themselves to be offended by their own wrong understanding of things.
It's a modern (2000s) look back on all of Germany's history, from the Roman Empire to post-Berlin-wall stuff. Written by a German scholar of German history. It has some beautiful insights into the different phases Germany went through and the radicalism that created the Nazi state. It'll really help a lot of people differentiate between WWI and WWII.
Now, in WW1, German soldiers maybe didn't terrorize a complete continent and they didn't torture and kill every single civilian they found (they still killed more than enough), but still, they were at war. And it was not a "ok guys, we're under attack, so we have to defend our families" war, it was a "let's slap every other bitch in Europe 'cause we're better than them" war.
I personally have an extreme problem with the glrification of soldiers in general.
Well, they may be, but does anyone still believe in soldiers defending their families, friends, or homes? No, every soldier is part of an organisation that's solely there to defend business interests, and it doesn't change a thing if the singular soldier still is stupid enough to think he would be fighting for "freedom" or even better and even more paranoid "peace".
And yesterdays armies were full of extremists, nationalists and xy-supremacists, depending were they came from and they went to war because in all education systems prior to the ones of today war was considered to be cool and the hippest thing to do for young men.
There is no single reason for me to glorify, praise or even respect any soldier in existance or of the past. Countries are nothing than a random piece of earth, where some d*ckhead insisted to put up his fence somewhen in the past and they're nothing worth do die for. If someone wants to defend their family, then stay the f*ck at home instead of flying to the other side of the world and coming back with two limbs less and nothing achieved.
And please, don't start arguing with the threads coming from some countries, cultures, or even religions and read some history. If you come to any other conclution than any war being just a result of the war before and that every army is just there to either conquer new raw materials or to please the thirst for revenge of some cowardly "leader" who is sitting in a perfectly safe armchair while young people die, read it again.