main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Saga Did TFA make the OT pointless?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Darth Weavile, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    You stated Hitler wanted a WWI redux, which as you previously stated was to defeat the enemies of WWI. After showing this premise to be demonstratably false, as Hitler wanted Germany's WWI enemy England for an ally, and actually had Germany's WWI enemy Italy as its closest ally, whilst being motivated by a very different ideology, you move the goal post by now claiming in Hitler's mind the Kaiser's and the Nazi goals were the same, because both sought to expand Germany's territory and influence, which to me would seem to be the generic description of any militaristic aggressor in history, meaning WWII would also be a redux of the Napoleonic wars, and even Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, and Africa.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  2. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Whom he blamed for the state of Germany after that war and also blamed them for internally sabotaging the German Empire during that war. That was the pretext to the war. The racist personal motives and pseudo-ideological fantasies he used to justify this are another issue.

    If a redux meant what you are tying to impose on this arguing, then Hitler and the rest of Germany would have also wanted the Third Reich to lose as the German Empire did in the previous war.
     
  3. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    No, that is demonstratably false. Hitler did not preemptively attack the countries he blamed for the state of Germany. He proceeded with his plans of expanding German territory, first by annexing Austria, and then by annexing territory in the East, Tjechoslowakia, and Poland. It's only after Britain and France declared war on Germany, that he attacked France, and invaded the low countries in a strategic move to prevent a way for Britain to stage an attack. After Hitler's rapid victory over the French army, he opted to not occupy the whole of France, which was never his intention, and he once again attempted to form an alliance with Britain in order to prevent a future war on two fronts, one which the British rejected. He then again focussed on his real goal, the conquest of Russia. Hitler was never really interested in war with Britain and France, whom he thought highly off, and saw as racially and morally equivalent to the Germans, particulary the Britains. His real ideological and racial enemy was in the East, which is where the war would be the most brutal. So, the entire premise, that Hitler wanted to defeat Germany's enemies in WWI is simply untrue. Sovjet Russia wasn't even a major enemy of Imperial Germany in WWI, and the Sovjets quickly sued for peace with the Central Powers once the Tsar had been overthrown. He wanted Britain and France to become allies in his war against Nazi Germany's ideological enemies, and as I've shown previously, he was willing to reluinquish the territory he had gained in the western part of Europe in exchange for free reign in the East to achieve this end, a reality that completely refutes your entire premise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    Snafu55 likes this.
  4. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    He attacked them in part because it was strategically favourable if he was to be fully take back territories stripped from the German Empire by Versaille, and to claim further lands that had been continuously changing hands in the wars of conquest and Empire for hundreds of years.

    He attacked Poland first. Not the Western Allies. There was a phony war for over a year while the Third Reich and USSR carved that country up consumed them into their Empires.

    Germany eventually invaded Hollland, France and Belguim, like in 1914, in order to stand unopposed in their conquest of the rest of the continent, including Russia.
    This is irrelevant. The German Empire did not specifically want France or Britain either. Due to treaties intended to prevent wars like this, the Kaiser was compelled to fight his old enemy France along with her allies and his Imperialist cousins George and Nicholas. When the war between them was over, the new borders of their respective Empires would be drawn. And Germany was out to take what it could get. Not protect what it already had. Hitler would have preferred if Britain and France looked the other way while he overran the east. Churchill was favourable to doing this very thing, initially. But Germany, and Hitler had been traditionally been resentful of Britain's Empire. And it was generally considered it wouldn't be long before Hitler came after those assets or Britain itself in order to hold on to any gains they made elsewhere. Because - Hitler was insane and considered everyone else inferior no matter how much he "liked" them. His foreign policy was based ultimately on contempt. He drew up maps of how the US was going to be conquered and carved up.

    That's because the disastrous price of preserving Empire was extreme hardship in Russia for its subjects and the undermining of the ruling society there. Partly due to the Tsar and his generals military incompetence. All amid a climate of revolutionary fervour that existed before the war but the Tsar chose to ignore.


    Destroying the jews and bolshevists internally and externally was one part and parcel with winning WWI the second time around. A victorious new Reich purged of the influences that held back the Germany and betrayed it in the first war was one and the same thing as redeeming their surrender in 1918. Nazism was invented expressly for that end from the mind of a maniac.

    The excellent Michael Powell film The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp outlines the distinction between the sentiment that many Germans entering into WWI held, the evil ideology that was exploiting it, and the measures that might just have to be taken in order to beat them again this time, or face annihilation.

    The two characters are an old German officer and his English counterpart. They both fell in love with the same girl prior to WWI. Theo was made redundant following his country's surrender.


    Here is a transcript from an earlier scene set after the 1918 armistice, after Theo has been invited to his English friend's house for dinner as POW being released back to Germany the next day

    If you want to define WWII completely apart from the surrender of 1918 and the ensuing hardship in favour solely of Hitler's mania for destroying Jews and Bolshevism (which he blamed for that defeat). You go ahead.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  5. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Germany did not invade Holland in 1914. The Netherlands were a neutral country during WWI.

    It is relevant, because you stated: "...resumption of a war of conquest and vengeance against those who denied them victory in the previous one." You state Hitler wanted vengeance against the Allies of WWI, which was not the case. He allied himself with former enemy Italy, and wanted an alliance with former enemy Britain.

    Not true. Hitler admired Britain to the point that he wanted to emulate the British Empire, and stated as much in Mein Kampf.

    This is again not true. Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain. The Britains were Aryans in his view like the Germans. Hitler saw the US as an inferior version of Great Britain. He despised the African-American influence on American culture, particularly jazz.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  6. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    OMG. Not relevant to their reasons why.

    He wanted vengeance for the surrender of 1918, which he blamed on the Jews and the bolsheviks. I can't make that clearer.
    I thought you said that Hilter wasn't interested in a war of conquest. The British Empire came through conquest.


    It was far preferable to fighting them before or during their planned war of conquest.

    Hitler saw everyone else as inferior. If Nazism could disease Britain and it purged itself of the racially and ideologically subhuman contaminants, all the better than having to conquer Britain also.

    But not everyone in Germany was similarly mad or racist etc. They had a beef with the way the war ended and the way they were treated and that was enough for many ordinary Germans to get behind Hitler.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  7. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    It's very relevant. You used the example of the low countries as evidence of the similarity between the German Empire and Nazi Germany.

    WWI was not about the Jews and the bolsheviks. Ergo WWII cannot be a redux of WWI. The fact that Hitler blamed the Jews and Bolsheviks for Germany's loss in WWI, does not imply that WWI itself was driven by a fight against Jews and Bolshevism, even in Hitler's mind. The fact that Hitler framed his motivations for WWII in this context, does not retroactively alter the context of WWI, as you continue to erroneously argue. I can't make that clearer.

    I never stated Hitler wasn't interested in a war of conquest. I stated Hitler was not interested in a war of conquest against the west. I also stated waging a war of conquest is too general a description to be consired a redux in a historical sense, without considering the motivations of the parties involved, their respective ideologies, and the way the war was executed.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  8. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Holland was not in a treaty in 1914. Hitler couldn't give a damn about treaties or respecting neutrality because he anticipated, correctly, that anyone seriously considering to invade and take Europe back from him would be compelled to disrespect neutrality.

    Tell that to Hitler.

    And I said that he'd rather not have to conquest the west if they were agreeable to his policies the way that he fantasised. They weren't and he still waged war on them because he needed them subdued before he recommenced his war of conquest that was begun by invading Poland in 1939. That conquest recommenced immediately as soon as it was decided that Britain could not be effectively invaded or pacified. The western countries were conquered by default. Not by desire.
     
  9. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Wrong! The fact that Hitler blamed Germany's loss on betrayal by Jews and Bolshevisks back home, does not imply he believed WWI itself was waged in an effort to fight Jews and Bolshevisks.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  10. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    I didn't say that he did believe that's why Germany fought WWI. [​IMG]


    I'm saying that he believed that the enemy that defeated them was as much internal as external. And he was determined to punish those enemies at home as well as abroad once Europe had either been conquered or subdued.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  11. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Exactly, but this implies he was aware WWII would not be fought under the same pretext as WWI, and can thus not be a redux of WWI.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  12. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    I didn't say that he did believe that's why Germany fought WWI. I'm saying that he believed that the enemy that defeated them was as much internal as external. And he was determined to punish those enemies at home as well as abroad and take their lands from them.
     
  13. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Hitler would stoke Germany up to a war of conquest on the pretext of claiming the victory that they should have had in 1918 but were denied and then humiliated with at Versailles, which many Germans were unhappy about. Thus he facilitated his racial and ideological fantasies that many Europeans also shared.

    What you're implying by continuing to argue this, in this thread, is that WWII didn't make WWI "pointless" (in the way the FOvsR conflict in ST supposedly makes the GCW in the OT "pointless) because the madman that instigated WWII had predominantly racist and ideological motives for creating a racist and fascist new German Empire (the Third Reich).
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  14. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    No, I'm saying WWII was very different from WWI, and cannot be considered a redux, because the motivation, and ideology of those involved was very different, resulting in a completely different execution of the war partly due to technological advancement, but mostly driven by ideological considerations.

    Conversely the war of between the Resistance and the FO should be considered a redux, because the ST does not even attempt to distuinguish the parties involved from the Empire and rebellion in terms of their motivation, and ideology, whilst also keeping the same aesthetics, resulting in an undeniable feeling of deja vu.
     
    Lt. Hija likes this.
  15. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Ar redux means reviving and bringing back. Nazi Germany brought back the European/World War it fought and believed it should have been victors of in 1918.

    You must mean a different word from "redux". This is about whether a period in GFFA history is "pointless" because ssome people were compelled to revive and bring back galactic warfare a generation later.

    The FO wants to reconquer the galaxy that the Empire legitimately controlled before the GCW. In other words, break the ceasefire and take the victory denied them.



    Again. You are effectively arguing that the extermination of the Jews and communists that Hitler folded into the resumed conflict of the second world war means that the first world war wasn't pointless. I'm sure the holocaust victims will feel reassured about WWI's maintained validity on those terms.
     
  16. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    No, I've already stated WWII was nothing like WWI, and therefore the Nazis did not bring back the war they fought in WWI. Consequently WWII cannot be considered a redux of WWII. It's just a different war. Restoring German greatness or waging a war of conquest are too generic descriptions to seriously consider a term like redux. However, we're going around in circles, so let's agree to disagree.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  17. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Particularly since you just selected those two terms out of the thin air.

    Like I said. The enemies murdered under the cloak of WWII must take great comfort that, according to you, their sacrifice meant that the previous war of 1914-18 wasn't made pointless. Phew!
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  18. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Nice try, but completely irrelevant to the argument, especially considering you cannot compare real life atrocities with the entertainment value and originality of a war in a fictional universe.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  19. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    The argument is about whether or not the resumed conflict in ST makes the conflict of the OT pointless.

    You are using the added extermination of jews and political enemies conducted under the concealment of the second world war to prove that WWI-WWII does not set a precedent that the ST is following, meaning that WWI (meant to facilitate Germany's Imperialist expansion ambitions) is not rendered pointless thanks to the added war crimes that Hitler was able to commit during his war of Imperial conquest.
     
  20. Oissan

    Oissan Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Mar 9, 2001
    @DrDre
    I really have no idea what you are even trying to argue here...

    The point was made that the war that is happening in the ST makes everything that has happened in the OT pointless. That is completely identical with the idea that WW2 would have made fighting WW1 pointless. Whether some details of the wars or things that happened during that time may have been drastically different, that isn't even the point at all. In fact, it couldn't have less to do with the point.

    The whole concept is that because there was yet another war between what basically represents the same factions as the last time around, the outcome of the earlier war doesn't really matter anymore. In other words: the rebellion beating the Empire - and the Emperor and Vader being dead - is supposedly irrelevant now, because a successor to the Empire is fighting the successor of the rebellion ~30 years later. Applying that very same logic onto 20th century history, WW1 would be irrelevant, because a successor to the German Empire is fighting the successor to the Allies of WW1 in WW2 over 20 years after that war.

    That whole approach obviously makes little sense. A war is a war, it doesn't set peace for all eternity. Nor does another war breaking out a few decades later somehow invalidate the fighting of the earlier war. Achieving something doesn't guarantee lasting success. The French revolution is a perfect example for that. France ended up changing its government-system every few years afterwards. None of which somehow took away from the accomplishments of the revolution or the ideas that came out of it. All of that had a lasting impact, even if there were minor to major issues along the way. Which leads to the answer of the original question: no, a war breaking out relatively soon after the last one doesn't take away the impact of the earlier war, if the ideals survive.
     
    Martoto77 likes this.
  21. Bazinga'd

    Bazinga'd Saga / WNU Manager - Knights of LAJ star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Lets make sure this thread stays on target. I am pretty sure this forum is not designed to handle real world history lessons. @anakinfansince1983
     
  22. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    You are ignoring the fact that unlike for real wars, conflicts and wars in fantasy are supposed to have entertainment value. So, the idea that largely rehashing a conflict, story threads, and set pieces that have already played out in earlier chapters of a story makes the earlier story chapters pointless to a great many people, and greatly reduces its emotional impact is very relatable to me. To then argue that such a point of view would imply these people also feel the victory of WWI is rendered pointless by the outbreak of WWII is a very low blow in my book, and in very poor taste, as is the suggestion that I was arguing the holocaust makes the context and victory of WWI more meaningful @Martoto77. So, while a real world victory is never pointless, because of the many lifes that are spared in the process, a fictional victory that largely defines the outcome of a story and the character arcs in that story cannot be judged with the same criteria, and can thus be considered pointless, if it renders the story's emotional climax, and the related character developments mute.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  23. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    A fictional story isn't obligated to do anything you've described in order for it to be entertaining. That's an entirely self serving rule you've just invented. It still doesn't make the OT "pointless" even if you are not entertained by the familiarity of the combatants.
     
  24. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    That's nonsense. It's not a rule, it is a rationalization why many people feel the way they do. Self serving is to dismiss any point of view, that doesn't align with your own, and to put a burden of proof on the opposite view, when you should know that your point of view is no more objective than anyone else's point of view.

    That depends on your personal definition of "pointless". It is not up to @Martoto77 to determine what is and isn't worthwile in anyone else's view, or how it affects their enjoyment of earlier installments in the context of the saga as a whole. Using the synomym fruitless the fruits of the OT, and PT for me are the emotional climax of the personal and galactic conflicts, and the related character developments in the story. If it is the opinion of the beholder (in this case me), that much of that fruit has become rotten in the ST era, than by that definition the saga elements related to those story developments have become fruitless, and have thus become pointless.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2018
  25. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Not feeling entertained due to familiar set of parameters is no rationalization at all for entertainment or otherwise.

    I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm challenging the spurious arguments you're presenting to uphold it.

    The point of the war in the PT was sedition in order to break part of the republic away from itself (though engineered to allow the republic to form itself into and empire. The point of the war in the OT was revolution and reform it back to republicanism. The point of the war in ST is vengeful conquest and destruction by the FO (losing society in the OT) of its neighbours (the winning revolutionaries of the OT).

    You having an opinion that originates from a point of view of displeasure and denial of something else, as yet undefined, does not make the films and the conflicts prior to the new ones "pointless" by any definition. Except by the definition that anything that someone does that we personally don't want is "pointless" .