|
Post by tuigirl on May 17, 2020 11:35:29 GMT
This is an example of "equivalence" which I find deeply offensive. Please learn some history before you repeat accusations like that.
I know that some on the far-left in the UK and the far-right in Germany like to describe Dresden (for example) as a 'war crime' but they do that for their own current political ends.
Please don't fall into that trap and never do anything to compare such actions (or for that matter the Blitz inflicted on us in the UK) with Nanking, Belsen, Dachau, the Death Railway and all the other horrors committed by the Axis powers, or Mao's Cultural Revolution and Stalin's gulags where untold millions were murdered for being politically the 'wrong' people. There's a massive, massive difference between the horrors of war on one hand and war crimes on the other. See, murdering one fella is bad, and as much a crime as murdering dozens. It’s only the punishment that varies, not the criminality of the action itself. Just because my neighbour burned down an orphanage doesn’t immunise me from prosecution for stealing one car. Churchill was a racist prick (Sorry “product of his time”) who hated unions to the point of sending squaddies to break up strikes by workers. But yes, Hitler was worse. Using ‘Hitler was worse” excuses everything short of genocide. So yes, Dresden was a war crime. Belsen was a war crime. The machine gunning of POWs was a war crime. Hiroshima was a war crime. Unit 13 was a war crime. The Kakoda Death March was a war crime. One side committee terrible crimes. Crimes that history cannot be allowed to forget. But history must not forget that the other side also committed crimes. If the Nazis performed the Dambuster raid, Barnes Wallace would be called a War Criminal. If the allies dropped V-weapons on Berlin, it would be ignored because Hitler did worse things. So you can take your offence at equivalence and boil it. Agreed. I remember my time in New Zealand.
They have a cool army museum, and there are all the medals displayed of the heroes of war. The uncle of my landlord was even a very famous Kiwi war hero in WWII.
What makes a war hero? How are they different from mass murderers? What justifies the killing? How can it be that the same acts of heroism are either celebrated or vilified depending on who won?
One of my granddads was rewarded several medals because he was such a ferocious close combat fighter. He never gave up. He was honourable and brave and risked his life to help prisoners of war and even shared (under threat to be shot in sight when caught) his rations with the prisoners. He even (forbiddenly) took pictures of some of the atrocities committed (which he used to teach us kids about the horrors of war).
If he had fought for New Zealand, his medals and his picture would be on the wall in that Kiwi army museum. He was not. He was German and he fought the Sovjets.
So was he a war criminal then?
All I can see is that village farm boys were forcefully ripped from their homes and families. Someone forced weapons into their hands and pointed them at a supposed enemy and threatening to shoot them if they did not follow orders. They either killed or would be killed. Some of them were better at killing than others.
The ones that were, survived. In a different setting, the same farm boys, if they spoke the same language and were meeting for a soccer match, would maybe have become best of friends. Who is at fault here? Is it the fault of these farm boys that the dead pile up?
My granddad returned home broken, missing a leg and suffering from severe PTSD (even before that was even a term that existed) and all his life was telling us kids that war was the biggest crime against humanity. No matter who started it and who fought it. He had a whole photo album to prove his point.
There were pictures of great tank battles, with grenades exploding all over the place, pictures of the great general mustering his army, pictures of dead bodies in trenches and pictures of the prisoners of war marched to the camps. And he did spare nothing to us as kids. Some of these pictures were horrific and traumatised us kids. But even my parents agreed that is was necessary that this was burned into our minds as a lesson.
Never again on our watch.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on May 17, 2020 11:52:39 GMT
Well this has certainly led to a lot of discussion!
|
|
|
Post by chrischapman1981 on May 17, 2020 12:16:10 GMT
Well this has certainly led to a lot of discussion! I know! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2020 12:29:07 GMT
I suppose throwing in a snarky comment about why the Doctor felt it was ok to spare the humans in France/Germany from the fire monster by sending it off to commit genocide on another planet isn't very appropriate at this time?
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on May 17, 2020 12:41:37 GMT
I suppose throwing in a snarky comment about why the Doctor felt it was ok to spare the humans in France/Germany from the fire monster by sending it off to commit genocide on another planet isn't very appropriate at this time? I am pretty sure the Doctor knows that the Daleks can take care of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on May 17, 2020 12:42:42 GMT
I suppose throwing in a snarky comment about why the Doctor felt it was ok to spare the humans in France/Germany from the fire monster by sending it off to commit genocide on another planet isn't very appropriate at this time? They're stinking Daleks. Who cares? Who. Cares. But it would be interesting to see an earlier(?) Doctor arrive on Skaro when this creature is running amok.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on May 17, 2020 14:15:37 GMT
I suppose throwing in a snarky comment about why the Doctor felt it was ok to spare the humans in France/Germany from the fire monster by sending it off to commit genocide on another planet isn't very appropriate at this time? To paraphrase a meme: "F*** them Daleks."
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 17, 2020 14:34:12 GMT
This is an example of "equivalence" which I find deeply offensive. Please learn some history before you repeat accusations like that.
I know that some on the far-left in the UK and the far-right in Germany like to describe Dresden (for example) as a 'war crime' but they do that for their own current political ends.
Please don't fall into that trap and never do anything to compare such actions (or for that matter the Blitz inflicted on us in the UK) with Nanking, Belsen, Dachau, the Death Railway and all the other horrors committed by the Axis powers, or Mao's Cultural Revolution and Stalin's gulags where untold millions were murdered for being politically the 'wrong' people. There's a massive, massive difference between the horrors of war on one hand and war crimes on the other. See, murdering one fella is bad, and as much a crime as murdering dozens. It’s only the punishment that varies, not the criminality of the action itself. Just because my neighbour burned down an orphanage doesn’t immunise me from prosecution for stealing one car. Churchill was a racist prick (Sorry “product of his time”) who hated unions to the point of sending squaddies to break up strikes by workers. But yes, Hitler was worse. Using ‘Hitler was worse” excuses everything short of genocide. So yes, Dresden was a war crime. Belsen was a war crime. The machine gunning of POWs was a war crime. Hiroshima was a war crime. Unit 13 was a war crime. The Kakoda Death March was a war crime. One side committee terrible crimes. Crimes that history cannot be allowed to forget. But history must not forget that the other side also committed crimes. If the Nazis performed the Dambuster raid, Barnes Wallace would be called a War Criminal. If the allies dropped V-weapons on Berlin, it would be ignored because Hitler did worse things. So you can take your offence at equivalence and boil it. Thank you for that and I do not disagree with all of it. Churchill was racist towards black and Indian people, at a time when, shockingly, most people of his class were, though that's no excuse. It is strange though how that gets mentioned quite so often, but not the fact that he wasn't anti-Semitic or homophobic, at a time when, shockingly, most people of his class were, though that's no excuse. People are products of their times and there's only a limited value in judging everything in history by our standards, unless it suits us.
Your mention of strike-breaking is a classic weaponised complaint of the left. It's worth noting that at that time there was no level of law enforcement available between local coppers and sending in the army. So if matters got out of hand, troops were the only option. Governments and ministers of various political shades did precisely the same for decades before and after. But who else of them do you know this about, except Churchill? The hard left cannot forgive him for being a 'Tory Toff' and doing a vast amount to save civilisation. And worse still, being voted the Greatest Briton at the Millennium!
Attlee, Bevin, Morrison, Dalton and the other Labour leaders of the time opposed him politically in peacetime and held him in the highest possible regard as their wartime colleague and leader and said so, variously and in writing over many years. They were giants of their party and having never met the great man, I trust their judgement - it's what contemporary political opponents think of each other that is often the most revealing view of politicians.
(On the wider issues it would be worth while (for anyone) to read the speech given by the President of Germany earlier this year at the 75th anniversary commemorations of Dresden.)
|
|
|
Post by adamfinch on May 17, 2020 19:21:06 GMT
I loved this - I really like a clearly stated moral dilemma which is explored cleverly.
The only line that was an issue I thought was the Doctor telling Nazis, “No one deserves to be hunted” and I thought “Tell that to the people who dedicated themselves to hunting down and bringing the Death Camp murderers to justice.
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on May 17, 2020 20:26:40 GMT
I loved this - I really like a clearly stated moral dilemma which is explored cleverly. The only line that was an issue I thought was the Doctor telling Nazis, “No one deserves to be hunted” and I thought “Tell that to the people who dedicated themselves to hunting down and bringing the Death Camp murderers to justice. Yeah, I do have to agree with that one. They did need to be hunted.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on May 17, 2020 20:33:13 GMT
I loved this - I really like a clearly stated moral dilemma which is explored cleverly. The only line that was an issue I thought was the Doctor telling Nazis, “No one deserves to be hunted” and I thought “Tell that to the people who dedicated themselves to hunting down and bringing the Death Camp murderers to justice. Perhaps the line needed to be “no one deserves to be hunted like an animal”.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on May 17, 2020 20:39:59 GMT
I thought this was superb. We haven't had a good moral dilemma story since the days of Peri and Erimem. I could understand most of the view points here and found it very thoughtful listening. I can understand that it may have made some people feel uneasy and uncomfortable as it did myself as I empathised with the 'villains' and the 'heroes'. I'm sure the anger doesn't just disappear for many people in these situations and the events surrounding WWII will remain a fascinating study for generations to come. More from Chris Chapman please!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 17, 2020 21:46:03 GMT
More from Chris Chapman please! This, definitely. I may have been in the minority (of one?! ) in not loving this particular story but that was a first time for me for any of his BF stories.
In fact his 'Hosts of the Wirrn' in 'New UNIT 7 : Revisitations' is my favourite story of the whole UNIT series. I listened to it three times in a row when it came out!
Also greatly enjoyed 'Iron Bright' in the solo Sixie run, and 'The Middle' - which had a tough slot coming between 'The Behemoth' (I do like pure historicals and it's a beauty) and the modern classic "ghost story for Christmas" that is 'Static', but ' The Middle' more than lived up to the challenge and made a superb trilogy. In fact the run of stories from 'Time in Office' to 'Serpent in the Silver Mask' is a modern highlight of the MR imo.
|
|
|
Post by axelotl38 on May 18, 2020 2:27:25 GMT
Just wanted to say that I loved this story (though I do agree that, whilst I liked the monster and a symbol of hatred is very poetic, it could've been served better by being a pure historical). As the above discussion shows, it's certainly a thought-provoking story. I love that Chapman didn't take the easy way out in his characterisation (and I do greatly approve that he distinguished the fact that not all German Soldiers were Nazi's, something that is often forgotten). I can certainly see some of the issues people may have, and I think there probably could've been a bit more emphasis from the Doctor on the views of the Nazi's, but that small niggle aside, it's a thought-provoking, morally grey story. Certainly, I don't think Chapman was saying the Nazi's were good or that he was belittling their impact on history. If anything, to me, it kinda makes sense: The Doctor isn't human. So he's less likely to view some humans as being deserved to be hunted etc, being above that. He's there to stop the monsters attacking monsters.
On top of that, whilst many people love it, I've never been completely sold on Constance. Flip, yes? But in general I've not been as enamoured with this team as others, but holy hell he did a good job writing them (and in turn, Greenwood and Raison performed beautifully).
Anyway: A really well done story. I can't wait to hear more from Chapman (which we already have confirmed he's writing another Sixie story!)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on May 18, 2020 5:26:17 GMT
Chapman certainly “gets” the voices of the characters, making ol’ sixie both pompous and compassionate, literate and clever.
|
|
|
Post by Who Review on May 18, 2020 5:43:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on May 18, 2020 15:15:21 GMT
Chapman certainly “gets” the voices of the characters, making ol’ sixie both pompous and compassionate, literate and clever. This is what I loved most about this release. Has this team ever been written this well? Sixie in his verbose and arogant but compassionate and kind nature, Flip in her utter modernity and principled nature, and Constance with her properness and wartime ideals. This is a top tier TARDIS team and this story proves it.
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on May 18, 2020 15:31:53 GMT
Hmm, this was good, but I think it fell a little short from being exceptional on a couple of points. One is it should have been a pure historical and the other is that it should have been better balanced. It tries to show that there are innocent and guilty parties from all sides, but it does it in a very straightforward way that doesn't work in the stories favour.
The only French resistance member we meet is deemed to be bad and the only German army individuals are Nazis that are deemed to be good, which is just clumsy; to do it justice and appropriately there needs to be conflict within each side, not just switching the general consensus. It's particularly hard to sympathise with the Germans being good, when the two portrayals are a senior ranking Nazi and his aide; I struggle with the idea that they didn't really know the atrocities that were going on. In fact, it seems inevitable they would have been involved with it. The Doctor just saying they'll get their comeuppance doesn't quite cut it; the Sixth of all incarnations would make an effort to tell them what's right and what's wrong. Then the British soldiers basically boil down to missing everything by mere minutes and the actual only traitor is a young woman who's only crime is falling in love; not a true traitor.
Essentially what I'm saying is a sensitive and heavy subject matter shouldn't be so black and white, especially when the story is trying to go to the effort of introducing grey elements!
The three leads all put in fantastic performances and I do buy into Constance & Flip's fallout. They very much have their contrasting opinions in the heat of the moment and separate. They're not at loggerheads throughout the whole story and it hasn't caused a permanent rift in their relationship, so I do find it believable.
It's a good story, but there's the scope to make it a truly exceptional release. Remove the alien elements and add in some more people from the French and German sides with conflicting views. It just feels like it's inverted expectations and been a little heavy handed with it. The discussion that's stemmed from it in this thread is a fascinating read, but I think there's a more engaging discussion to be had if the story did present some more contrasting views and nuances. Where it does succeed is the contrasting nature of this TARDIS team and how distinct they all are.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on May 18, 2020 19:06:40 GMT
Chapman certainly “gets” the voices of the characters, making ol’ sixie both pompous and compassionate, literate and clever. This is what I loved most about this release. Has this team ever been written this well? Sixie in his verbose and arogant but compassionate and kind nature, Flip in her utter modernity and principled nature, and Constance with her properness and wartime ideals. This is a top tier TARDIS team and this story proves it.Indeed they are.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on May 18, 2020 20:41:36 GMT
Finally caught up on this one.
Wow, I was not expecting this level of discussion, but I’m glad to see the Monthly Adventures are still provoking this kind of attention.
As for the story itself, I liked it. Quite a lot actually. Personally, when it comes to Big Finish, I think the Sixth Doctor stories are in a league of their own - very few stories from other Doctors even compared to Ol Sixie’s heights. This TARDIS team’s tenure is beyond any doubt the best Big Finish has had in years and I don’t mean that as any slight against the other marvelous companions we’ve had.
I think Chapman just writes this team better than anyone and I especially like that he was given the chance to REALLY explore how the different eras the companions come from affects their personalities. This is the kind of stuff that I loved about the Erimem stories - in particular The Council of Nicaea.
I don’t think the story attempted to say both sides have bad sides or made a point of portraying the Nazis as sympathetic. First that’s a very dangerous false equivalency today’s Nazis like to promote. And second, I just personally don’t believe there was enough focus put on either side to make the case that that’s what the story was aiming to say. The message I gathered is that we should treat our enemies after war humanely and justly rather than from a position of rage and hatred. There’s still a lot to unpack there that’s still relevant to today and in the process of trying to find a way to put this into words, my mind wandered all over how relevant that theme is today. Anyways, I don’t believe the German soldiers here were necessarily meant to be understood as a stand-in for all Nazis in general.
I do think I’d have liked to see a more pure historical approach, but I also don’t think the alien in this was out of place or underused. Perhaps I’m just biased having just recently seen some REAL hammy, OTP villains in my Eighties Who marathon, but I also don’t think the French Resistance character came across that way.
Overall, I’m still thinking this one over. There’s a lot to process here, but I’m still left with the feeling that this was absolutely worth listening to and several times more afterward.
|
|