this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
376 points (98.5% liked)
Avatar: The Last Airbender
1272 readers
28 users here now
A community for all things related to Avatar: The Last Airbender, Legend of Korra, cartoon or live action TV, movies, comics, novels, etc.
Rules:
- Be kind, regardless of nation or tribe
- Credit artist(s) when possible
- Post relevant content
- No spoilers in title, mark spoilers
- No spamming or trolling
- Only relevant posts
- Let people like what they like
- Follow all Lemmy.world rules
Please report any rule violations.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No he "got away" with decades of war crimes by becoming disillusioned of the society he was born and bred in and becoming a political enemy of the state and putting his physical wellbeing at risk to free the people his country had waged war on all while mentoring the person who would take over that country and try to create a better country and a better world. One of the most poignant moments is when he says he didn't realize his visions of conquering ba sing se would be him taking it back for its own people.
The Mikhail Bakunin of Nickelodeon cartoons.
Tea Santa.
... wait, that's Kropotkin.
Which is why this is fictional, and he's allowed to have a narrative story arc.
However, if this was a Nazi SS Officer, who fled to South America, and then went on to redeem himself by [insert narratively compelling redemption story], he'd still be a war criminal.
But again, it's a cartoon, and we don't have to treat his character as if he were an actual Imperial General commanding troops during wars of conquest, especially one from the IJA.
Pretty big difference in your scenarios there yours has a Nazi war criminal fleeing after the war is ended. Yeah it doesn't really hit as hard when it's after the fact and there's no skin in the game. A person who realizes his nation is wrong and fights to stop his Nation during the war has a lot more redeeming qualities than someone who claims to have changed his mind after the war is over and while they're running and hiding.
A sort-of close example might be Erwin R- you know what I'm going to stop myself right now because I'm in over my head and I'm about to wake up some hard-core ww2 historians with very strong opinions
Before diving into the topic of if the Desert Fox committed any war crimes, or the myth of the good Nazi, you should start here.
Yeah I've read a bit about him. I know he wasn't a great guy. But history is complicated and so are people.
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.
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.