[JoshuaZ]

Nothing says fun like great WWII propaganda to remind us how far we've come in 60 years.

http://www.superdickery.com/propaganda/1.html

Maybe I should show these in class.....

[hickey]

good lord. I didn't we fought against weird oriental octopii:

[yakkiebah]

More propaganda posters

Some real cool designs.

[SirCastor]

This is seriously depressing... Superman is probably my favorite superhero, but pushing this kind of stuff of kids is awful.

On a humorous note, #25 apparently Daredevil is taking on Hitler, and you'll find The Chupacabra on the cover as well.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

My best friend's grandfather was shot down over France somewhere (I believe) and captured. Anyways, he somehow escaped by taking out a German motorcycle patrol dude and made off with his motorbike.

In the saddlebags he found some random stuff, as well as a Nazi propaganda poster. It's pretty cool – the evil British, noble Nazi, that sort of thing. My friend's dad has it on the wall of his shed – he's got a lot of antique stuff all over the walls, as well as some cool old cars (he just got his 1907 Maxwell working...total coolness!).

Anyways, I'm sure that's relatively commonplace in Europe or wherever, but it was pretty cool to see that sort of history in the middle of the woods in northern British Columbia.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Huh?

[itistoday]

Yeah... those are pretty disgusting... I'm glad I didn't live during that time period...

[spatterson]

"japanazis" thats horrible - those are really bad

[- - e r i k - -]

I found this link pretty interesting though.

[- - e r i k - -]

*kick the baby*

[production_coordinator]

To be fair, you should show both sides and how they used propaganda. Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. etc. all used it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

To be fair, you should show both sides and how they used propaganda. Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. etc. all used it.

Some of the anti-jew Propaganda was just as bad. Remember, Jews aren't human like you and I.

I think they US was trying to project that about Japan too, making them look almost vampiric.

[ambush]

Nothing beat the Nazi esthetics. Even if I do not agree with the ideology.

And I thought this was still actual.

[subego]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

More propaganda posters

Some real cool designs.

Originally Posted by ambush

Nothing beat the Nazi esthetics. Sorry.

Sad but true. They understood graphic design at the gut level.

Though I'd say the Soviets were the same way.

Maybe it's some weird side-effect of totalitarianism.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

More propaganda posters

Some real cool designs.

That Japanese one looks cool.

[ambush]

Russian and Nazi artwork is the best.
I've seen the excellent movie "Downfall" about Hitler's last days in his bunker. It shocked me how Nazis where esthetic and all. And I love that font they always use. Anyway.

one of my favorite (I ordered it on their store...)

Jaw dropping art...

[JoshuaZ]

Every time I see a flea market in my area I keep wanting to go just to look for old magazines from during the War. Some of the stuff the Japanese had was just great. I'm a history nerd. Sue me.

[demograph68]

I found a lot of interesting propaganda like that using del.icio.us. Here are some of the bookmarks I have.

http://poster.genstab.ru/eng/
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/
http://www.psywar.org/leaflets.php
http://www.happydeathinc.com/propaganda/

[JoshuaZ]

Then again, nothing beats good old fashioned Chinese propaganda.



http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/

[demograph68]

[subego]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Then again, nothing beats good old fashioned Chinese propaganda.

She looks... tough.

[JoshuaZ]

Yeah. Meeting her in a dark alley would turn me commie.

[Cubeoid]

She's building a...uhh.... a thingo.

[ShotgunEd]

Originally Posted by subego

She looks... rough.

Fixed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShotgunEd

Fixed.

Don't you mean ruff ruff?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Heh. Speaking of propaganda:

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I just finished a course on World War II, and the prof spent a couple hours going over Nazi art.

The art itself wasn't really anything special – very traditional and boring for the most part, with a focus on their artistic expression of the Nazi ideology. It was focused on providing "answers" and removing the collective spirit and artistic desire to "ask questions." I find Hitler's comment that "Art at all times... [is an] expression of ideological and religious meaning and significance" rather telling on his viewpoint of art (Hitler was, of course, a rather unimpressive artist in his younger days). Modern art was closely related to urban centres (the image of bohemian Picasso and Modigliani comes to mind), while true "Aryan art" was linked with the countryside and physical fitness and health – important images of the Nazi ideology.

Of course, Mein Kampf states that modern art is the "product of diseased minds," which were in themselves products of degenerate races. By this he meant "the Jew," who of course was driven only by money and devoid of idealism and culture. Reinhold Krause, the Ministry for Education and Science, wrote in 1937 that "radicalism, cubism... and other -isms are a poisonous flower" that would eventually be removed.

Anyways, I just finished that final last week, so I suppose this had to be gotten out of my system. I just kinda feel a little wary admiring German art from that particular time period, knowing how closely Nazism was integrated into it.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I just finished a course on World War II, and the prof spent a couple hours going over Nazi art.

The art itself wasn't really anything special – very traditional and boring for the most part, with a focus on their artistic expression of the Nazi ideology. It was focused on providing "answers" and removing the collective spirit and artistic desire to "ask questions." I find Hitler's comment that "Art at all times... [is an] expression of ideological and religious meaning and significance" rather telling on his viewpoint of art (Hitler was, of course, a rather unimpressive artist in his younger days). Modern art was closely related to urban centres (the image of bohemian Picasso and Modigliani comes to mind), while true "Aryan art" was linked with the countryside and physical fitness and health – important images of the Nazi ideology.

Hmm... Interesting.

I definitely make a separation between art and design. Hitler seemed to have a very clear definition of his "design goals".

As for Hitler's own skill as an artist, all can judge for themselves:

http://www.snyderstreasures.net/pages/hartworks.htm

I surely don't consider myself a fan, but I've always been impressed with his technical skill. Some of his watercolors look more like illustrations. Considering the, well, "wateryness" of the medium, I'm surprised at the detail he was able to coax out of the stuff.

Not surprising at all though, that it didn't take him very far in an early 20th-century European art-school.

As an aside, "Inside the Third Reich", written by Albert Speer (Hitler's architect), is full of Speer's (and Goering's) low opinion of Hitler's taste in art.

In fact, I would say Speer, due to his own participation, felt uncomfortable criticizing the Reich, as it would imply he was trying to escape fault.

He felt no such hinderance when it came to Hitler's taste, and spends a good quarter of the book on it.

Good Times.

[JoshuaZ]

Thanks for the link, I`d never actually spent time looking at any artwork by Hitler. Kind of interesting work.

[subego]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Thanks for the link, I`d never actually spent time looking at any artwork by Hitler. Kind of interesting work.

You're welcome.

One tries to be objective when considering art, but I still end up feeling uncomfortable looking at them. I guess I can't really separate something so intimately connected to the personification of evil.

It's a little creepy that the guy is selling them on the open market. They should be in a (history) museum.

[Doofy]

Seems to me that Hitler's art only seemed to get any good when he was painting his other favourite "off duty" subject - buildings.

http://www.hitler.org/art/

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego

It's a little creepy that the guy is selling them on the open market. They should be in a (history) museum.

I heard that some of his artwork went up on Sotheby's or one of the other larger auction-houses a few years back, but there were no buyers.

I'd totally buy some if I could afford it...and probably donate them to a museum or something, as you said.

greg

[ghporter]

Hitler was a fairly good draftsman and a fair scenic illustrator, but every time he tried "art" as such, he failed. He later rationalized that as the pseudofact that true art only comes from a sick mind. Oops-got that backwards, Adolph!

Please don't anyone condemn the patriotic spirits of the time because of our more "sensitive and all inclusive" social awareness today. In the 1940s most Americans felt that there was a scientifically provable difference between "the races." The French seemed to feel that way, at least with Africans, into the late 1950s. Further, keep in mind the truly inhuman behavior of the Japanese Imperial Army; the Rape of Nanking, kidnapping and forcing into prostitution thousands of Korean women, and wanton abuse of prisoners of war, are not the sort of thing to lend itself to cultural relativism. While most people think only of the Nurnburg (SP?) war crimes trials in Germany, there were even larger trials in the Pacific. It was incontrovertibly proven that it was Imperial Army policy to commit the atrocities they committed, and a lot of high ranking officers hanged for it. Those anti-Japanese posters reflect that reality as much as the then-prevalent xenophobia.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ghporter

our more "sensitive and all inclusive" social awareness today.

[unfairlybanned68]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I heard that some of his artwork went up on Sotheby's or one of the other larger auction-houses a few years back, but there were no buyers.

I'd totally buy some if I could afford it...and probably donate them to a museum or something, as you said.

greg

I think the money should go towards Jewish organizations. That'd be funny.

[unfairlybanned68]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Hitler was a fairly good draftsman and a fair scenic illustrator, but every time he tried "art" as such, he failed. He later rationalized that as the pseudofact that true art only comes from a sick mind. Oops-got that backwards, Adolph!

Please don't anyone condemn the patriotic spirits of the time because of our more "sensitive and all inclusive" social awareness today. In the 1940s most Americans felt that there was a scientifically provable difference between "the races." The French seemed to feel that way, at least with Africans, into the late 1950s. Further, keep in mind the truly inhuman behavior of the Japanese Imperial Army; the Rape of Nanking, kidnapping and forcing into prostitution thousands of Korean women, and wanton abuse of prisoners of war, are not the sort of thing to lend itself to cultural relativism. While most people think only of the Nurnburg (SP?) war crimes trials in Germany, there were even larger trials in the Pacific. It was incontrovertibly proven that it was Imperial Army policy to commit the atrocities they committed, and a lot of high ranking officers hanged for it. Those anti-Japanese posters reflect that reality as much as the then-prevalent xenophobia.

Yeah, the japanese army in WW2 was pretty disgusting. Shows to go you what extreme patriotism/worship of an emperor/ dictatorship can do to a large mass of people.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Please don't anyone condemn the patriotic spirits of the time because of our more "sensitive and all inclusive" social awareness today. In the 1940s most Americans felt that there was a scientifically provable difference between "the races." The French seemed to feel that way, at least with Africans, into the late 1950s. Further, keep in mind the truly inhuman behavior of the Japanese Imperial Army; the Rape of Nanking, kidnapping and forcing into prostitution thousands of Korean women, and wanton abuse of prisoners of war, are not the sort of thing to lend itself to cultural relativism. While most people think only of the Nurnburg (SP?) war crimes trials in Germany, there were even larger trials in the Pacific. It was incontrovertibly proven that it was Imperial Army policy to commit the atrocities they committed, and a lot of high ranking officers hanged for it. Those anti-Japanese posters reflect that reality as much as the then-prevalent xenophobia.

Take the Trials (both Nuremburg and Tokyo) with a grain of salt; they were the product of victors demanding some sort of retribution for the pain they'd been caused. That's not to say they were not deserved, because often they were, but it's a highly skewed viewpoint.

Of course, the "Rape of Nanking" gets all sort of detail, but no one mentions the destruction of every major city in Japan through American firebombing – and the Americans didn't even have the British excuse of "well they attacked our civilians first." You can look at Admiral Donitz, the German head of the Kriegsmarine (U-boat force), who Hitler named as Chancellor when he committed suicide...he got 10 years in jail at Nuremburg because they convicted him on "not following the rules of war," ie. he waged "unrestricted warfare" on British ships, including merchant ships. The Americans did exactly the same thing, on Japanese ships, in the Pacific, and many of their submarine commanders showed sympathy towards Donitz because of this. On the other hand, the Red Army's march through eastern Europe was just total massacre – they raped and looted at will, as the Polish will attest. They won the war for the Allies, though (at least in effect).

Again...I'm not excusing Axis atrocities, or condemming Allied actions. History allows us to look at both sides, while they were faced just with trying to win a battle. However, "atrocities" occurred on both sides, and the Trials were (by definition) definitely skewed in favour of Axis condemnation.

greg

[Spliffdaddy]

Yeah, we should have kept all the land we won.

Instead, we traded it for a few moments of Axis condemnation.

[unfairlybanned68]

See, here's the thing. Japane was a dictatorship at the time. The ONLY WAY to win that war was to ruin the moral of hte people, which unfortunately means bombing the **** out of everything. If you fight a clean war, the dicator/emperor in charge will order every single civilian to fight until they die, until he has no people left.

At least that's how I take it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by unfairlybanned68

At least that's how I take it.

Well, that's what historians have spent the last 60 years debating.

Some say no, some say yes. Either way, my question was whether Allied atrocities "to win the war" are much different than Axis atrocities "to win the war."

It's interesting to think about, anyway.

greg

[Azzgunther]

It's easy enough for me to simply excuse allied "atrocities" as a reaction to an attack. I'm one who feels that if a person/entity attacks you without provocation, anything you do to them (within degrees of what they did to you) is perfectly acceptable.

Plus this viewpoint saves me much inner conflict. And time. There is more time for video games this way

[wdlove]

A way to get out you point of view. The source of the propaganda has to be evaluated.

[Jawbone54]

Read the book Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley. When you read about how vicious the Japanese were during this time period, you see that only by extreme measures would we ever be able to force a surrender. We'd have nearly wiped out the entire race if they had not surrendered as "quickly" as they did.

[JoshuaZ]

Things were tough on the Japanese side. Remember the Japanese had been in China fighting for over 10 years before the US ever started bombing them.

The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then both the atomic bombs combined.

Yeah, as much as I'd like to say the atomic bombing was bad (the Hiroshima peace museum is quite the place to visit) its quite clear that fighting a land war would have been extremely costly on both sides. Though some have argued that setting off a the bomb in Tokyo Bay, which was considered as a show of power, would have had much the same effect.

But lets also not forget the Korean 'Comfort Women' which is something Japan conveniently forgets. Forcing thousands of Korean women to become sex slaves for the Japanese armed forces.

Its a very complex issue. Both sides sucked.

Prewar Japan in Asia = All of Europe 100 years before. Just trying to get some colonies to make some money. We often forget how brutal Europe was on all of its colonies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Though some have argued that setting off a the bomb in Tokyo Bay, which was considered as a show of power, would have had much the same effect.

I've heard it proposed that seeing the effect the bomb caused on a civilian population is a major factor in why it hasn't been used again.

This strikes me as a somewhat convenient argument however.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Take the Trials (both Nuremburg and Tokyo) with a grain of salt; they were the product of victors demanding some sort of retribution for the pain they'd been caused. That's not to say they were not deserved, because often they were, but it's a highly skewed viewpoint.

Of course, the "Rape of Nanking" gets all sort of detail, but no one mentions the destruction of every major city in Japan through American firebombing – and the Americans didn't even have the British excuse of "well they attacked our civilians first." You can look at Admiral Donitz, the German head of the Kriegsmarine (U-boat force), who Hitler named as Chancellor when he committed suicide...he got 10 years in jail at Nuremburg because they convicted him on "not following the rules of war," ie. he waged "unrestricted warfare" on British ships, including merchant ships. The Americans did exactly the same thing, on Japanese ships, in the Pacific, and many of their submarine commanders showed sympathy towards Donitz because of this. On the other hand, the Red Army's march through eastern Europe was just total massacre – they raped and looted at will, as the Polish will attest. They won the war for the Allies, though (at least in effect).

Again...I'm not excusing Axis atrocities, or condemming Allied actions. History allows us to look at both sides, while they were faced just with trying to win a battle. However, "atrocities" occurred on both sides, and the Trials were (by definition) definitely skewed in favour of Axis condemnation.

greg

I disagree with your assessments. There was not a single hectare of Japan that wasn't in some way committed to war production. Almost every home in Tokyo had a part in building guns, loading ammunition, making uniforms, etc. That made them war targets. I should also further point out that the U.S. did not treat its POWs in any way like either Japan or Germany did, though at least Germany tried to some extent to be somewhat in compliance with the requirements. Japan did not even bother to try. Also, what sort of non-military shipping did Japan conduct? Materiel for war is a valid target; are you suggesting that there were "businessmen" traveling by sea on exclusively civilian ships under the Japanese flag? I don't think so.

I agree that the firebombings of the home islands seem extreme from our perspective, but by the time they were going on, Japan had strategically and militarily lost. How else would you suggest that that particular point be made?

And you do know that all the war crimes trials were monitored by the Swiss to ensure that they were more than "retribution," don't you? Further, the U.S. Army put its very best attorneys on BOTH sides of the cases; it was very important to show that these trials were for actual offenses, not just for show.

[andreas_g4]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I disagree with your assessments. There was not a single hectare of Japan that wasn't in some way committed to war production. Almost every home in Tokyo had a part in building guns, loading ammunition, making uniforms, etc. (SNIP)

I agree that the firebombings of the home islands seem extreme from our perspective, but by the time they were going on, Japan had strategically and militarily lost. How else would you suggest that that particular point be made?

The firebombs were more devastating by far (in terms of infrastructure) than the RAF campaigns in Germany. The Americans used a high-incendiary jellified petrol, and the Japanese cities were wood and paper for the most part. By the end of July, 60% of the ground area of the country's 60 larger towns/cities had been burnt out. I can't remember any hard facts on human cost, but it was over 300,000 with well over 10-13 million people made homeless (and, of course, over 2 million buildings destroyed). That doesn't include the nuclear bombings, of course.

Through it all, as MacArthur and other generals had already argued, the devastation did not deter the Japanese government from continuing the war. This is exactly the same pattern as was found in Germany in preceeding years. Although the Japanese bombings by the end did seem to break the people's morale (unlike in Germany), that sort of destruction staggers me. It's interesting to note that the US didn't learn from this; in Vietnam, they completely destroyed the North (it has been described as a "brown moonscape"), with no effect on the enemy's morale or willingness to fight.

The Japanese government had issued orders for over a milllion civilians to help in the war effort; in particular, by the end they were forced to dig up certain roots for aviation fuel, I believe (haha, crazy). However willing their assistance in other areas may have been (and I'm sure that for the most part it was voluntary), these people were starving. Rations were reduced to below 1500 calories (considered the minimum for survival), steel and chemical industry were on the brink of total collapse, and not even a million tons of shipping remained afloat (not even enough for movement between the home islands). There was no war production to speak of. There was no oil.

Again, I'm not condoning or condemning these actions that were taken. In fact, I'm generally on the side of "it's what they had to do" – they couldn't tell if Japan had enough oil back then, they only had guesses on what they could do. Okinawa and Iwo Jima seem enough indication to me that taking the Home Islands would've been bloody death for the Americans. On the other hand, one undeniable part of the Allies' decision to drop the atom bombs was to get the war over before Russia could help out and then make any more claims to Japan or China. They took Manchuria as it was. It was a "quick and easy" way to win the war, for the victors – just kill everybody. It's for larger minds than mine (ha, ha) to determine how immoral that decision is.

Originally Posted by ghporter

...That made them war targets. I should also further point out that the U.S. did not treat its POWs in any way like either Japan or Germany did, though at least Germany tried to some extent to be somewhat in compliance with the requirements. Japan did not even bother to try. Also, what sort of non-military shipping did Japan conduct? Materiel for war is a valid target; are you suggesting that there were "businessmen" traveling by sea on exclusively civilian ships under the Japanese flag? I don't think so.

And you do know that all the war crimes trials were monitored by the Swiss to ensure that they were more than "retribution," don't you? Further, the U.S. Army put its very best attorneys on BOTH sides of the cases; it was very important to show that these trials were for actual offenses, not just for show.

Donitz was tried under a couple things, but convicted on "planning war(s) of agression" and "crimes against the laws of war"; I think specific charges involved waging unrestricted warfare and issuing orders not to pick up survivors of ships attacked by his submarines at a certain battle (I can't remember what it was called...some sort of "Incident" anyway, in which a German submarine accidently torpedoed a civilian ship, realized its error and started to pick up survivors, and was attacked by Allied planes and ordered by Donitz to cease rescue operations). At his trial, Donitz produced signed proof from Chester Nimitz (American Admiral in the Pacific) who stated that the Americans also used unrestricted submarine warfare, and did not pick up survivors when they thought it would be dangerous to themselves. Donitz was sentenced to 10 or 11 years in jail, despite the fact that he was found guilty on these exact issues which the Americans also admitted to doing. Now, I'm not excusing Donitz – as far as I'm aware, there is current evidence that he could've been very well sentenced to death along with other German leaders for some of his actions. He got off lightly. However, the issues on which he was charged were certainly biased.

If the trials were so "impartial" as you insist, where were the Red Army allies being prosecuted, may I ask? You know, the ones who raped and pillaged and ravaged Eastern Europe in retribution for what had been first done to them during Barbarossa. The forced migration of millions of Germans and East Europeans ahead of the Red Army's advance in 1944/45 wasn't just coincidence, you know, and many of those people had little part in the war. The Red Army was vicious in its counterattack, but I didn't see too many of them standing up on trial. That will tell you how "impartial" it was, right there.

All I'm say is that judging the actions of Japanese or Germans by the Nuremburg or Tokyo trials is a mistake. Those trials were held by the victors, to punish the causes of the war which had cost them so much. Were they justified? Absolutely, I believe. I'll state again – I see nothing wrong with the Trials. I wouldn't expect the conquerors to start convict ing their own men who'd won the battles. But, using their results to judge history or cultures or people is a mistake, and I believe any historian will agree with me on that point.

(At least, the ones who teach me seem to, anyway. )

I had lots more to say, but I should be studying. Yay for incomplete arguments!

greg

[ghporter]

I'd say that Donitz's orders to the wolfpacks were for the most part far beyond Nimitz's orders. Picking up survivors DURING an air attack (or when one was imminent) is basically what Nimitz was concerned, while Donitz seems to have banned it completely. There were also a number of apparently condoned incidents where U-Boat crews killed survivors in the water.

We didn't have a lot of hard evidence about Russian atrocities in 1945, and we DID have a lot of "problems" with them. Rather than trigger what could have been another war, the non-Soviet allies decided to bide their time. Further, most of the Russian war crimes were committed by individuals, not the leadership of the regime (that was what Stalin did...).

I'm not judging the leadership of either Japan or Germany by what was presented at their trials. I'm simply using that evidence to point up the depths of unacceptable behavior they went to. The Allies did understand the bias expected of conquerors, and they also had learned why "conquest" by the victors was the wrong approach; that's what the victors of the FIRST World War did, and look at the problems that caused (particularly in Germany). So the war crimes trials were held under the highest ethical and moral standards possible, precisely because it was expected that they would be examined with a jaundiced eye.

[teknopimp]

i always wondered where Kubrick stole the rocket riding idea:



...Japanazis ...heh.