u/Fuzzy_Breadfruit59

Mich würde mal die Meinung der Community zu Unternehmen Barbarossa und den tatsächlichen deutschen Erfolgsaussichten an der Ostfront interessieren.

Glaubt ihr, dass es überhaupt jemals eine realistische Chance gab, die Sowjetunion militärisch so weit zu schlagen, dass sie den Krieg nicht mehr hätte fortsetzen können? Oder war das Unternehmen aufgrund der Größe und Ressourcen der Sowjetunion und der deutschen Logistik von Anfang an zum Scheitern verurteilt?

Mich interessieren dabei besonders ein paar bekannte „Was wäre wenn?“ Szenarien:

1941 – Moskau:
Hätte sich der Kriegsverlauf entscheidend verändert, wenn die Wehrmacht im August 1941 ihre Kräfte stärker auf Moskau konzentriert und es beispielsweise geschafft hätte, die Stadt noch im September/Oktober zumindest einzukreisen?

1942 – Stalingrad:
Was wäre passiert, wenn die 6. Armee Stalingrad vollständig erobert und gehalten hätte? Hätte das die strategische Lage tatsächlich entscheidend verändert, oder wären die grundlegenden Probleme der deutschen Offensive im Süden trotzdem bestehen geblieben?

1943 – Kursk:
Angenommen, die Wehrmacht hätte die Schlacht um Kursk entgegen dem tatsächlichen Verlauf deutlich gewonnen. Hätte Deutschland zu diesem Zeitpunkt überhaupt noch eine realistische Möglichkeit gehabt, die strategische Initiative dauerhaft zurückzugewinnen, oder war der Krieg im Osten 1943 im Grunde bereits entschieden?

Mich würde vor allem interessieren, wo ihr den eigentlichen Point of no Return seht. War Barbarossa schon aufgrund seiner ursprünglichen Planung unrealistisch? Lag die letzte wirkliche Chance vor Moskau 1941? War Stalingrad der entscheidende Punkt? Oder hätte selbst ein anderer Verlauf dieser großen Schlachten am langfristigen Ausgang kaum noch etwas geändert?

Bin gespannt auf eure Einschätzungen.

I honestly never expected Game Freak and co. to make a game like this. I only found out about it by chance today and then saw all the negative reviews on Steam. I have no idea how people can rate a game this beautiful, emotional and touching so badly. The soundtrack alone is incredibly moving.

A game like this gets hated on, while something like Stellar Blade gets praised as if it were something completely new. That’s not meant as a dig at Stellar Blade. I just think it’s a shame that a creative and emotional game like BoR don’t get a fair chance.

Just remember, you’re not alone in what you’re going through. Let’s hope brighter days are ahead and that, one day, everything will be okay

Ich weiß, völliger Bullshit aber ein Teil von mir hätte es echt gefeiert, wenn der Dude den Saftladen übernommen hätte 😂

Do you ever just sit there and the same questions keep running through your head over and over again?

Why? How did it get this far? Maybe if I had done this or that. You already know the answers, and still you keep asking yourself why. I wish everything had gone differently… and then you realize once again that you couldn’t have changed anything anyways, and somehow you just have to keep going.

Ich habe vorhin einen Beitrag gelesen, in dem sich jemand darüber beschwert hat, dass es Deutschen aufgrund ihrer Sprache schwerfallen würde, Emotionen und menschliche Zwischentöne zu verstehen. Andere Länder hätten einen viel größeren Sprachschatz, um Emotionen auszudrücken. Das Fazit des Users war, dass Deutsche, überspitzt formuliert, aufgrund ihrer Sprache emotional behindert“ wären.

Das hat mich zum Nachdenken gebracht und zu der Frage: Gibt es überhaupt so etwas wie eine spezifisch deutsche Kultur oder deutsche Eigenarten, die man sonst nirgendwo auf der Welt findet? Was unterscheidet denn einen deutschen von einem Polen oder einen Franzosen?

Die Klassiker für deutsche Tugenden sind ja zum Beispiel Fleiß, Pünktlichkeit, Ordnung und Disziplin. Aber ich kenne genügend Menschen auf der Arbeit, die weder ordentlich noch pünktlich sind, und ich vermute, dass Menschen in Frankreich oder England nicht weniger pünktlich oder ordentlich sind als Menschen in Deutschland.

Das bringt mich zu der Frage: Gibt es so etwas wie eine deutsche Kultur überhaupt und was macht sie aus? Vielleicht gibt es hier im Subreddit auch ein paar Leute, die ein paar Jahre im Ausland gelebt haben und von ihren Erfahrungen berichten können, ob sich die Menschen z.B. in den USA oder Frankreich und deren Art zu leben und zu denken grundlegend von dem unterscheiden, was in Deutschland Alltag ist.

Wir bekommen im Grunde zwei völlig unterschiedliche Interpretationen der Heimkehr. In Pasolinis Version (2024) wird die Rückkehr des Odysseus mit deutlich mehr Wärme und Emotion dargestellt. Als er das erste Mal wieder Fuß auf Ithaka setzt, küsst er vor purer Freude den Boden und gräbt sogar seine Hände in die Erde um sie zu essen. Ein klares visuelles Symbol dafür, wie sehr er gelitten hat und wie überwältigend es sich anfühlt, nach 20 Jahren endlich wieder zu Hause zu sein. Der Szene mit Argos wird ähnliche viel Raum und Sorgfalt eingeräumt; sie nimmt sich die Zeit, dem Zuschauer zu zeigen, wie tief diese Moment Odysseus berührt.

Nolans Version hingegen ist deutlich düsterer und zurückhaltender. Die Reaktion des Odysseus darauf, wieder zu Hause zu sein, wird vor allem von dem Bedürfnis beherrscht, unerkannt zu bleiben. Er ist zutiefst skeptisch gegenüber allem, was ihn auf Ithaka erwarten könnte. Selbst das Wiedersehen mit Argos fühlt sich, obwohl eine gewisse Emotionalität vorhanden bleibt, deutlich kühler und distanzierter an.

Aufgrund der Gefahr und der feindseligen Umgebung hat Nolans Odysseus kaum Raum, Verletzlichkeit zu zeigen. Alles ist auf die Bedrohung und aufs Überleben fokussiert. Für offene Emotionen bleibt nur sehr wenig Platz, der Ton bleibt ernst, schwer und von Schuld und Misstrauen geprägt.

Wie habt ihr diese deutlich kühlere, gebrochenere und emotional zurückhaltendere Version des Odysseus empfunden

We basically get two completely different interpretations of the homecoming. In Pasolini’s version (2024) Odysseus’ return is portrayed with a lot more warmth and emotion. When he first sets foot on Ithaca again, he kisses the ground out of pure joy and even digs his hands into the earth and eating it. A clear visual symbol of how much he has suffered and how overwhelming it feels to finally be home after 20 years. The scene with Argos is given similar space and care, taking its time to show the audience just how deeply the moment affects Odysseus.

Nolan’s version, on the other hand, is significantly darker and more restrained. Odysseus’ reaction to being back home is dominated by the need to remain unrecognized. He’s deeply skeptical of everything that might await him on Ithaca. Even the reunion with Argos, while still emotional, feels cooler and more distant. Because of the danger and the hostile environment, Nolan’s Odysseus barely has room to show vulnerability. Everything is focused on the threat, on staying invisible, on surviving. There’s very little space for open emotion the tone stays serious, heavy, and marked by guilt and suspicion.

How did you feel about this much colder, more broken and emotionally restrained version of Nolan’s Odysseus? Did you like it, or did you find it hard to empathize with Nolan’s Odysseus?

My algorithm has been showing me a lot of videos over the last few days that focus on the historical authenticity of the film. I personally find it interesting to learn about the historical background of a movie, but what I don’t understand is why this is suddenly the main measuring stick for a film like The Odyssey.

Homer’s original isn’t a historical retelling of what actually happened in the late Bronze Age either. it’s an epic fantasy story with cyclopes and gods that was used to process certain themes. So even if the film takes a lot of liberties with its depiction of the Bronze Age, it can still be a good movie.

Take Gladiator as an example. One of the best films I’ve seen and one that affected me emotionally on a deep level but it’s definitely not a realistic portrayal of ancient Rome. It feels much closer to a Shakespearean version of history. And yet it remains an excellent film.

This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have made some different decisions myself. The Trojan armor looked really terrible, and I probably would have cast Helen of Troy with a white actress but that doesn’t change anything about the film itself, the effort that went into making it, or the story it’s trying to tell the audience.

I’ve already played 2 and 3, but never got around to the first one. So I was just wondering what you all think did you enjoy the first game as much as the others? Did you like the story and gameplay, or did you have more fun with 2 and 3?

I’m asking because I’d really like something to distract myself a bit right now, but before I drop 70 bucks on it I figured I’d ask you guys first.

Thanks in advance

Around 1200 BC, multiple catastrophes seem to have converged, leading to the collapse of trade routes between Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt. This triggered probably a large-scale migration of the so called „Sea Peoples“, which possibly devastated important trading hubs like Ugarit. According to the inscriptions at Medinet Habu, Ramses III succeeded in stopping the invasion of the „Sea Peoples“ in two great battles around 1177 BC. In the „Papyrus Harris I“ it is allegedly mentioned that these defeated „Sea Peoples“ were settled on the borders of Egypt after their defeat. Perhaps similar to how the Romans in late antiquity settled the Germanic tribes on their borders in order to pacify them and use them for their own purposes.

In his inscriptions, Ramses III. also recorded the names of these Sea Peoples, and two of them bear striking similarities to the names Homer gave to the Greeks who sailed against Troy.

The Akawasha and Denyen may well be the Achaeans and Danaans from Homer’s epic.

That’s why the question arises: Could Homer’s epic be a way of processing these turbulent historical events? Could the thousand ships that sailed to Troy in the Iliad because of Helen and besieged the city for ten years actually have been a large fleet of Greek refugees. Forced by a series of catastrophes that struck in rapid succession searching for wealth and new land?

Perhaps the Odyssey is the processing of what happened after these turbulent times and what price Greece had to pay for it.

Odysseus embodies the classic “Sea Peoples” type: he proudly calls himself a sacker of cities and a raider. On his way home, he repeatedly plunders towns and villages (for example, the Cicones or the island of the Cyclops). He is cunning, brutal when necessary, and survives through cleverness and violence exactly the image one would expect from a successful Sea Peoples leader.

Many of the heroes of the Iliad meet no happy end after Troy: Agamemnon is murdered upon his return, Ajax commits suicide, Menelaus only returns home after many years of wandering. Odysseus himself needs ten years to return, loses all his men, and comes back a broken man. This sounds very much like the reality of a failed or extremely costly expedition in chaotic times.

The Odyssey can thus be read as a form of trauma processing for a people that wanted to process their former downfall and turned it into an epic myth. The long and dangerous journey home could symbolically represent the decades of wandering and plundering by the Sea Peoples, the immense difficulty of returning to a civilized society after years of violence and displacement, and the painful realization that the old world no longer existed.

Do you think there’s a realistic possibility that the „Sea Peoples“ largely consisted of Greeks, and that the heroes mentioned in the Iliad (Achilles, Odysseus, Agamemnon, etc.) were in reality raiders, bandits, and refugees?

Around 1200 BC, multiple catastrophes seem to have converged, leading to the collapse of trade routes between Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt. This triggered probably a large-scale migration of the so called „Sea Peoples“, which possibly devastated important trading hubs like Ugarit. According to the inscriptions at Medinet Habu, Ramses III succeeded in stopping the invasion of the „Sea Peoples“ in two great battles around 1177 BC. In the „Papyrus Harris I“ it is allegedly mentioned that these defeated „Sea Peoples“ were settled on the borders of Egypt after their defeat. Perhaps similar to how the Romans in late antiquity settled the Germanic tribes on their borders in order to pacify them and use them for their own purposes.

In his inscriptions, Ramses III. also recorded the names of these Sea Peoples, and two of them bear striking similarities to the names Homer gave to the Greeks who sailed against Troy.

The Akawasha and Denyen may well be the Achaeans and Danaans from Homer’s epic.

That’s why the question arises: Could Homer’s epic be a way of processing these turbulent historical events? Could the thousand ships that sailed to Troy in the Iliad because of Helen and besieged the city for ten years actually have been a large fleet of Greek refugees? Forced by a series of catastrophes that struck in rapid succession, they were looking for plunder and new land, destabilizing the Mediterranean region, and perhaps eventually settled in the Middle East? Do you think there’s a realistic possibility that the „Sea Peoples“ largely consisted of Greeks, and that the heroes mentioned in the Iliad (Achilles, Odysseus, Agamemnon, etc.) were in reality raiders, bandits, and refugees?

Are there any archaeological finds that suggest people from what is now Greece settled in Egypt Palestine or Syria, founded new settlements, or intermixed with the local population? Or is this just a speculative theory of mine with no real evidence?

TL;DR: Nolan’s Odyssey is at its core an anti-war film and a sharp critique of Western civilization. The Greeks, who see themselves as the pinnacle of humanity, are in reality the barbaric destroyers who commit mass murder and atrocities in Troy and thereby trigger the downfall of their own world. Odysseus’ guilt and trauma (projected onto Athena) show how war scars people forever. The final warning is clear: Civilizations that forget their own crimes are doomed to repeat them.

I‘ve heard a lot about this Movie. Some call it a masterpiece, while others are disappointed because it’s not faithful to the original, too political, and so on. I think both sides have valid points, but for me a film is successful when it leaves me thinking and Nolan achieved that with his interpretation of the Odyssey.

As I understood it, the film is essentially a warning to us, the audience. At its core, Nolan’s Odyssey is an anti-war movie and a critique of the Western world. On one hand, it depicts the horrors of war and how deeply people are scarred by what they experience and do in such extreme situations. Scars they carry for the rest of their lives. In Odysseus’ case, he thinks he’s actually speaking to the goddess Athena, but it feels more like he’s projecting his guilt about the Trojan girl who begged him to help her right before Greek soldiers beheaded her onto Athena as a way to cope with and process his traumatic experiences and guilt.

On the other hand, it’s also a critique of Western civilization. Early in the Movie, there is a scene that show the Greeks (who clearly represent the Western world) believing they are the pinnacle of civilization. Yet a catastrophe is brewing on the horizon: a mysterious and barbaric Sea People that destroys everything in its path is approaching the shores of Greece.

There’s also an early scene where Odysseus and his men try to restock supplies on a small island before their journey. In the next shot, the village is burned to the ground. One of Odysseus’ men is shocked and asks an old man why the villagers fought back. After all, they were Greeks (civilised and peaceful people.) The old man replies that he thought they were the barbaric Sea People. When you really think about it, Odysseus and his men are seen almost everywhere they arrive as a threat and as destroyers. This is already foreshadowing what gets picked up again at the end of the film.

Long story short: I think the core message of the film, as I understood it, is that precisely the people who always claim to be the height of civilization are responsible for one of the greatest crimes of their time through the Trojan War. They broke the sacred laws of Zeus and completely destroyed Troy and its people. Those who saw themselves as the peak of civilization were in reality the barbaric Sea People. Through their lies, betrayals, and the mass murder of the Trojan people, they bear responsibility for the downfall of civilization a collapse so complete that it cannot be stopped, because their sin is so great.

In the final scene, Odysseus sails west with Penelope, and the two of them speak indirectly to us, the viewers. They ask why these stories about Troy will matter in the future. Their hope is that future generations can remember the mistakes of their forefathers. Civilization will eventually triumph over darkness once more but here is the warning aimed directly at us: One day this new civilisation will forget the story about the downfall of Troy and commit the same mistakes again.

That’s at least my take on the film. Now I’d really like to hear what you all think. How did you guys interpret the movie?

I just watched the Director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven, and now I’m wondering whether you can play as the Kingdom of Jerusalem in CKIII

Thanks in advance

Tuchel wird in der englischen Presse und von sehr vielen Fans gerade regelrecht zerissen und für das Scheitern im Halbfinale gegen Argentinien verantwortlich gemacht. Das halte ich persönlich für völlig überzogen.

Dass es so ablaufen würde, war natürlich irgendwie abzusehen. Die englische Boulevardpresse ist nicht gerade dafür bekannt, sachlich und neutral zu berichten. Trotzdem finde ich diese Art des Umgangs maximal bodenlos und undankbar.

Anstatt ständig auf den Trainer einzuschlagen, der bereits nach dem Spiel gegen Norwegen klare Worte gefunden und darauf hingewiesen hat, dass das Team einige Defizite aufweist, sollte man doch auch mal hinterfragen, welche Verantwortung eigentlich die Spieler tragen.

Wo war denn ein Kane oder Bellingham, als das Team nach dem Führungstreffer ohne Anweisung des Trainers plötzlich 30 Minuten lang den Bus parken wollte? Wo waren die ganzen Topstars, die Millionen verdienen und angeblich gut genug sind, um Weltmeister zu werden, während die Argentinier langsam die Schlinge zuzogen?

Eigentlich kann es mir ja am Arsch vorbeigehen, was die Engländer machen. Sollen sie halt die nächsten 60 Jahre weiter ohne Titel bleiben und nach Sündenböcken suchen. Aber der Umgang mit Tuchel fuckt mich dann doch ab 😡

Ich finde solche Aussagen einfach nur traurig und maximal respektlos gegenüber den Spielern.

Ja, die Eltern oder Großeltern waren Einwanderer aus den ehemaligen Kolonien. Aber deshalb Spielern wie Mbappé oder Dembélé die Zugehörigkeit zu Frankreich abzusprechen, nur weil sie für diesen Spanier die „falsche“ Hautfarbe haben, ist meiner Meinung nach einfach nur asozial.

Mbappé ist in Frankreich geboren, aufgewachsen und ausgebildet worden. Französisch ist seine Muttersprache und er spielt mit Stolz für sein Heimatland. Damit ist er Franzose auch wenn er für manche leider die „falsche“ Hautfarbe hat.