Yes, in fact it may make him more dangerous in the future, and mentoring him only makes him hate you more if you make an enemy of him at Januszkovil.
And? I really don’t get your point here?
The US and USSR and Fascist Spain and the Great British Empire and Rome all declared civilians as ‘partisians’ and had them killed, every country does. They also like to declare people alien sabatuers and confiscate their shit, see the inquisition and the US treatment of Asian Americans and the british treatment of German British.
The thing that made Germany’s actions in WW2 so dramatically horrifying was that they used modern computing technology from IBM to track and record populace, and to carry out their purges in a systematic and extremely complete fashion.
For comparison most Italian Jews survived WW2, and the Japanese Army mostly just raped, and murdered for fun like what happened in the siege of kataranga… other than the infamous unit that practiced biological experimentation and got (mostly) pardoned for their crimes, most of what they got hit in the trials with was mistreatment of surrendered american soldiers. Arguably they didn’t even have the logistics to care for their POWs, so it debatebly wasn’t their fault, but that’s what they were convicted with. Japan even gets away with teaching children that it didn’t happen and wasn’t as bad as people say it was… a major source of tension with China and Korea for sure. But the US doesn’t care.
The Geneva conventions don’t give a flying fuck what you do to your own populace, and only care about what you do to an occupied populace that’s not ‘fighting back’.
Or take a look at Facist Spain which did the exact same thing, killing non-Catholics, but got away with it because they kept everything within their own borders. People don’t actually care. Other nations don’t actually care. Genocide is going to happen, and noone is going to actually try to stop it. It’s just how the world works. We only care if our spills past your borders.
And, really, what they got in trouble for was losing. You think if the US had lost the French-Indian war our savagery and greed towards the natives wouldn’t have been used politically against the british?
Tldr: war crimes only exist if you lose or if you have something that someone stronger than you wants.
Most smaller countries use war crimes and breaches of honor as a way to fight larger countries, see Washington’s crossing of the ptomic which happened during a holiday. The enemy german christian mercenaries were drunk because it was considered uncivil to fight on holidays. That was basically a war crime. Just not one a modern person would recognize.
Fair warning, I come from a family that suffered under both the Japanese and Germans. So believe me- I know exactly what they did. Also the author is Chinese and understands what the Japanese did to China.
I haven’t forgotten the pain and anguish my grandparents feel whenever they slip back into their childhood and recall the horrors of the Japanese occupation. It is a very very personal topic of mine considering my grandmother had cousins who died as “Partisans” in the Philippines.
Thank you for your kindness and consideration.
Yeah, and my family was drafted repeatedly to fight in wars we wanted no part of. We were drafted right off of the boat to fight in the place of the rich in the civil war, right off of the boat to fight against the country we came from in WW1 in the very same war we were fleeing, and were drafted in WW2 and Vietnam, once more against our will. I come from a long line of very unsuccessful draft dodgers.
Fuck, one branch of us, the Soissons, fought against their will in the french-indian war. Notice the French last name? Yeah, we were forced to fight for the English, under Washington.
As for victims of atrocities, my second most recent to the US branch of the family is jewish. Well, was. They haven’t practiced in about 4 generations. My and spouse is Chinese as well. So, yeah. My family has been the victim of how horrible humanity is too. Doesn’t make humanity less horrible, you know?
Anyway, Japan is the US’s closest, most reliable ally and friend in the east, and are so stained with blood and so in denial about it that if we, as a country, at all cared about ‘war crimes’ they would not be. But they are. Shinzo abe even went to a ceremony honoring war criminals. Because America doesn’t. Japan is also racist and sexist.
Also, It’s not like the US and Douglass McArthur didn’t oppress the philipino people as well. And they’re now being oppressed by the man they elected, now that i think about it. Abuse by others often leads to self abuse, i suppose.
Besides, Facist Spain was worse. Ask a survivor how bad it was. You probably can’t. There were not many survivors. And we allowed it to happen freely.
This is a gentle reminder to please keep posts centered on the topic and debate the points being made, and not centered on the people making them.
Focusing replies on the individuals themselves instead of the topic at hand can lead to friction between members and often causes the thread to derail.
Please also remember that it is often not so much what ones opinion is that causes friction, but how one chooses to express that opinion. Using negatively-charged value words are a good way to start friction, as is generalization and sniping.
Finally, if you see disrespectful posts please do not reply to them. Rather please use the report feature and let forum staff de-escalate friction.
Let us all refocus on the Infinity series at this point and prevent a further spiral down.
Since I don’t ever remember making him an enemy, is this a fairly common route or uncommon route?
Maybe someone would expand on this for me?
To make him an enemy go to Juzenko and perform the correct action: shoot the dangerous female enemy combatant. Actually, he’ll also be your enemy if you do the wrong thing and take get captive.
My troops aren’t hardened so i usually have to shoot her myself.
On the other hand, the person who replaces him if you’re disgraced is impressed if you do the right thing.
I’m assuming you stay more for 2K then doing the secret mission in your playthroughs ?
Basically Kian hates Takara and they treat their women like shit because Takara doesn’t as a form of petty revenge.
I’d still rather be allied with them than Takara.
It’s not like one of the main themes of this series is about the moral compromises that minor powers have to make to survive and how that feeds into the cycle of empire or anything. /s
There’s a serious difference of scale here.
There’s a difference between governments that shove “enemy aliens” into concentration camps and take their stuff and the ones which commit genocide as policy. A society which has consistently been able to convince itself that it’s under existential threat is more likely to commit the latter than the former. People as a whole are instilled with a certain level of empathy for other human beings because they need that empathy to survive in an ordered society. Their ability to suppress that empathy to inflict upon others “what needs to be done” is based on just how desperate a population thnks their struggle is, as well as how like them they consider the people they’re doing the inflicting on.
History has shown us that human societies are capable not only of calmly acquiescing to, or viciously exceeding orders to commit violence on others, but also capable of resisting or subverting the command to do so. Governments have used the actions of a neighbour (or even a faraway regime) against their own people as justification for their own foreign policy, and the moral outrage of a population can seriously undermine a government’s ability to do anything when the outraged are the people who have to be on the sharp end.
A blanket statement of “humanity is horrible and that’s just how things are” isn’t really helpful. There are underlying causes behind when people commit to atrocity, and understanding those causes is an important part of understanding the reason why bad things happen and even how to prevent them, instead of covering them in a blindly cynical gloss of “the default state of the “civilised” human being is turbo-hitler”. Humans act in a way which they believe to be rational based on their subjective view of the world, and understanding why they view the world a certain way goes a long way towards understanding why they might act in a given fashion.
It’s less a form of petty spite than it is divergent social evolution. The conditions on the ground in the Takaran home islands (and the conditions of the Takarans themselves) encouraged one form of societal development, the Kian continent encouraged another.
Much like a lot of differences between cultures which have popularly considered “civilised” and “uncivilised”, a lot of it comes down to a quirk of geography.
Perhaps one use would be giving him some common sense, as he will be the future Duke of Cunaris and Colonel of Dragoons.
Pretty sure that the American genocide of the natives and the Roman genocide of Carthage and Stalin’s genocide of his enemies, and Franco’s genocide, and Pol Pot’s genocide, and the australian genocide of the natives, and the Turkish genocide of the Armenians and the Rowandan genocide were all pretty comparable to, but often less organized than, the massacre of homosexuals, jews, gypsies, communists and ‘defectors’ by the germans, sad to say.
And i’m pretty sure that in those genocides some heroes risked their lives to save the victims, some people gleefully threw the corpses into the flames, and the majority… just didn’t care. At best they muttered condolences to one another about the horrible things happening without acting in any fashion to stop it. I wouldn’t call not caring ‘turbo hitlers’. I would call it humanity’s default state.
The courts even struck down the actions that lead to the trail of tears, but the individuals responsible got away with it.
Human society, sadly, rewards sociopathy, and those without empathy rise to the top. That’s not a 100% bad thing, sociopaths are very predictable, but it’s hardly ideal. Society has traditionally handled it with the occasional violent revolution, which traditionally puts even worse people into power, but they’re traditionally bad judges of character and they hand the reigns to someone who’s actually empathic, and then things get better.
But you’re right about the scale. Anything hitler has done was seriously dwarfed by the colonial powers, especially what happened in Haiti.
Edit: i’m not talking about the Haitian massacre of the white folk. I’m taking about the Haitien slave trade, one of the most brutal slave trades in history, an already brutal topic.
You have to go into the keep and get Princess Anna to surrender. You need like Antari level 2 and some serious Charisma. The ransom will be much lower because you have share the ransom with Grenadiers. Whoever is your Lieutenant will let Alexsandra and the Hussars escape. Kat won’t be happy but you can make it up to her in LOI.
He might inherit the noble title, but there can be only one colonel of the dragoons, if you know what I mean…
…What I mean is that it’s obviously gonna be Cazarosta somehow. Fuck that relentless overachiever.
If you go get Anna, Kat won’t blame you for your men losing Alex.
That’s the secret to success: Always dodge responsibility.
I can see Weathern getting a new deputy and the first thing Weathern does is show them the deficit and debt amount.
“It appears we are going bankrupt.”
I feel that it is the equivalent of telling the officer on watch on the Titanic. “We hit an iceburg.”
Antari Level 1 and charisma 65 will be enough to persuade Anna to surrender, alternatively MC could apprehend her and she will still be alive ( and consider as surrender since the later scene will be similar )
True, but even when i want to take the blame, Katarina would convince me it wasn’t my fault , that was heart warming …
You’re cherry-picking examples from societies which believed at that snapshot in history that they were under existential threat (whether they actually were or not), which is kind of proving my point. Societies which are secure in their positions act differently from societies which fear for their existences, which is part of the reason why leaders who use the language of existential threat to mobilise their populations are so dangerous.
Rome razed Carthage and made deals with the Marcomanni. The American Government was happy enough to systematically wipe out most of the natives on their own continent, but this is the same government which has literally spent vast fortunes to “clean up” their wars of empire with precision munitions, special forces, and half a dozen doctrinal changes to reduce collateral damage. To point to a human society at its worst and say “this is our default state” disregards the context of how and why that particular society has reached that particular point.
Humans aren’t a monolith, and human society isn’t a monolith. People bring sociopaths to power when they are desperate enough to think they need a sociopath. Likewise, sociopaths rarely remain in power, because they also tend to be poor rulers without the ability to empathise with the people who put them in power. You’re sublimating the complex factors of human behaviour and history into fortune cookie wisdom, and as a historian, that’s almost an insult.
Hitler was able to cause the death of nearly a hundred million people in twelve years. No colonial empire (European or otherwise) has been able to match that sort of bodycount. It’d take the concerted efforts of several European Colonial empires several centuries to even come close to matching that number.
What France and the US did to Haiti over the course of 300 years, Nazi Germany did to much, much more populated countries over the course of half a decade. If you think the former outscales the latter, your scales are off.
This is as an amateur instead of someone with an actual history degree (or psychology degree, as this relates to where the two elements of studying humans meet), but I think the more meaningful lesson - if one is going in the direction of “humans are awful” - is that humans are really good at rationalizing harmful acts.
But “humans are scarily good at rationalizing and justifying what they want to do” is not quite the same thing as “humans default to wanting to be harmful”.
Take the siege of Badajoz, say, for an example of truly atrocious conduct:
Angry men burning to avenge their companions and feeling that the defenders had wronged them first did that.
This may not excuse it - one could make an argument that it’s wrong to behave that way even when feeling like that - but if the British army in Spain had been made up completely of unfeeling monsters who cared not about if others were hurt at all, it would have destroyed itself before it had the chance to take the city.
One of them then walks into a Privy Council meeting and does this.