382
383

New art! (pbs.twimg.com)

DANNYonPC が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Eisenblume -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I always get a little annoyed when the so called "rape of Belgium" is mentioned as a reason for german "evil".. The only reason the idea of german brutality continues is because "the rape of Belgium" is an evocative name. It was a pretty usual occupation during war time. The bombing of Dresden during the second world war had equally many casualties as the "rape" had in all 4 years combined - and that is if you count those who starved, which people did in Germany itself as well. 27 000 or thereabouts.

The germans certainly were no cuddly compatriots to the belgians, but that the german occupation should be called a "rape" and be seen as especially heinous I find historically inconsistent. The rape of Nanjing the other famous "rape" cost the lives of half a million people in a singular event.

A life is of course a life and Belgians have the right both to mourn and to be angry, but as war-time occupation goes, it was not very unusual. A french occupation of a war-time Rheinland would probably have been roughly the same.

[–]Dressedw1ngsDressedWings 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

It was called the rape of Belgium because mass raping and pillaging occurred. We are not comparing to WW2 events because the Germans were even more cartoonishly evil during that war. And its a ww1 game. Comparing it to Nanjing and Dresden is just odd, as Nanjing was the same sort of situation, just amplifies by 10000. Dresden was a "strategic" bombing target that was defended.

Germany also violated Belgium's neutrality just to attack France. Seems pretty cut and dry to me when it comes to Belgium

Dresden was not a war crime. What the Germans did in Belgium was. You can say its grey but under international laws at the time that is the way it is. Doesn't make Dresden any less terrible.

[–]Eisenblume -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am comparing to the second world war so people understand the scale of things. I find that helpful to put the numbers into context.

It's called the Rape of Belgium because it is emotionellt resonant and the british wanted to whip up support for the war by demonizing the germans. Literal rapes were not greater than other warfare, it was to evoke emotion. The term was not coined by historians but by newspapers.

Yes, everything done certainly wasn't legal and breaking into Belgium certainly was a dick move. But let's not forget that the americans ferried arms and equipment on civilian ships, very much illegal as well and putting unknowing innocents in danger.

My point is not that the germans are saints - quite obviously, they were not - but we rarely hear of the other war crimes, like the cossacks unleashing hell on polish and hungarian jews with Russian support.

It was a dirty, dirty war and the germans were certainly brutal. But they were not an evil mass of blonde bodies without a shred of decency and portraying them as such is a disservice to the game and to history.

[–]Dressedw1ngsDressedWings 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The scale of warfare jumped up in WW2, it isn't right to compare it to WW1 events, especially if you are looking at the historical context (hague for example)

And as far as occupations go, calling what the Germans did normal doesn't make it ok. Its like saying the rape of Berlin was ok, and the rape all the way into Russia was ok. The newspaper wanted to ramp up support for the Belgians because the British were their allies.

Most historians agree its an appropriate title. Stop saying that what the other countries did is brutal, the French and the British didn't rape their way into Germany once their lines started to collapse.

Attacking a neutral country is far beyond a 'dick move'. They dragged a country into a war that had already gone to great length to avoid, then killed and raped the people in it because they "believed" they could be guerrillas.

I'm sick of people saying the Allies were just as bad. The allies did terrible stuff, but they didn't participate in the aggressive murder of civilians (on any fronts). And don't get me started on what the other Central Powers got into as well.

Portraying them as bad guys is not a disservice. The game isn't selling itself as historically accurate. I doubt they will be stereotype bad guys anyways since it seems Dice is hinting you will play on both sides in the SP.

E: I get what you're saying. The common "not all of them (or even most of them)" does apply to WW1 Germany, but I don't think Dice has the writers with the ability to produce a deep story that would display this in action. I'm kinda tired of arguing about the same stuff in this thread though, so I'm not really sure where to progress.

[–]Eisenblume 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I see some your points as well. Let's stop there. Seeing there is some validity in each others point of view is certainly good enough for an internet-argument, I'd say!