It wasn’t a bad analogy, it was a disingenuous interpretation by other readers, like you. That or, just really ignorant of the relevant history, such as who the Waffen SS were…
So if people want to play the “what about the good Nazi” game with it, then fine, we can skip straight to the source material and inspiration for the Fire Nation: the Japanese Empire.
But again, I don’t believe art has to directly reflect reality. So I don’t consider this cartoon to be a war criminal, but if people insist interpreting it as a direct reflection of reality, then yes, an IJA General would be his historical analog.
Are you actually saying that a soldier who participated in the Rape of Nanking, decapitated 30 babies, but who then felt bad and deserted before the end of the war, wouldn’t be a war criminal…?
I honestly think the real confusion here is that you have no idea how the Geneva Conventions, ICJ, or just the concept of war crime culpability actually work…
Hint: you’re so wrong, that it’s actually embarrassing. I’m cringing for you. You should delete your comment before anyone else stumbles across it…
I think maybe you don’t realize that at no point did anybody say or imply in any way that Iroh was not a war criminal. You keep arguing that like it’s your main point of contention, but no one ever said that. The original comment was saying “he didn’t “get away” with war crimes by being cute. He “got away” with them by performing a huge heel turn.”
That is what you responded, but for some reason, you were arguing something completely irrelevant to the conversation.
The inspiration for the Fire Nation was Imperial Japan…
That means his historical analog was an IJA General tasked with conquering China, Korea, Philippines, etc.
Why don’t you open history book, and find me the IJA General on one of those campaigns who wasn’t a war criminal.
Brother what the fuck are you talking about? What did any of this have to do with the bad analogy you used?
It wasn’t a bad analogy, it was a disingenuous interpretation by other readers, like you. That or, just really ignorant of the relevant history, such as who the Waffen SS were…
So if people want to play the “what about the good Nazi” game with it, then fine, we can skip straight to the source material and inspiration for the Fire Nation: the Japanese Empire.
But again, I don’t believe art has to directly reflect reality. So I don’t consider this cartoon to be a war criminal, but if people insist interpreting it as a direct reflection of reality, then yes, an IJA General would be his historical analog.
deleted by creator
He made a bad analogy so he decided to move the goal out of the stadium.
Because I said Nazi SS officer, instead of IJA General…?
I’m sorry, they’re both war criminals… Are you saying that using a different race invalidates the analogy about war criminals…?
I’m saying that using someone who participated in the event and only fled once they lost.
Is not the same as someone who participated, won, and then worked against the system they helped put in place.
Go build your strawman somewhere else. Or better. Burn it.
Are you actually saying that a soldier who participated in the Rape of Nanking, decapitated 30 babies, but who then felt bad and deserted before the end of the war, wouldn’t be a war criminal…?
I honestly think the real confusion here is that you have no idea how the Geneva Conventions, ICJ, or just the concept of war crime culpability actually work…
Hint: you’re so wrong, that it’s actually embarrassing. I’m cringing for you. You should delete your comment before anyone else stumbles across it…
Aren’t you a passionate one.
What do you think you’re responding to?
Who do you think I’m talking about? I thought it was pretty obvious one was a nazi. And the other was Iroh.
Because you know. THAT was the comparison you made.
Did I say or mention anything about rape or decapitation? No. So take your strawman and stick up your ass
I think maybe you don’t realize that at no point did anybody say or imply in any way that Iroh was not a war criminal. You keep arguing that like it’s your main point of contention, but no one ever said that. The original comment was saying “he didn’t “get away” with war crimes by being cute. He “got away” with them by performing a huge heel turn.”
That is what you responded, but for some reason, you were arguing something completely irrelevant to the conversation.