How to write an unbiased WW2 story

[srebak]

A while back, i started writing a story about a dog who served in WW2. He was an American canine and the antagonists are Dobermans serving the Nazi party, I also included two British dogs, a French farm dog and a French cat. But the problem isn't with the American, British or French characters, it's with the way i portray the German characters.

I'm worried that i might end up offending my German audience by making the villains members of the Nazi party, as it could imply that i think that all Germans are evil and cruel, or worse, that i think that America is superior to Germany in every way.

 

[Queshire]

I wouldn't worry about it. From what I hear Germany is even more anti-nazi than America. They'd be more likely to be offended if you portrayed a sympathetic Nazi or something like that. (Don't quote me on any of this)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

If your characters are dogs, why would they owe allegiance to human political parties or ideologies?

Wouldn't it stand to reason their loyalties would lie with their masters alone, the people they love regardless of the human's affiliations?

I wouldn't write or read characters that aren't human. It just isn't an interesting aspect of fiction, to me. But, if I did write a story starring dogs in war & on opposite sides, that's how I'd spin it. I'd show how the dogs are basically the same even though they are on opposing forces. If done well, it could create a nice reflection on the soldiers themselves, how they are all people who want the same basic things in life...men pitted against one another under the pressure of situations not of their own doing and not under their control.

 

[Penpilot]

When you have two sides, and you're telling a story from one point of view, you're by default being biased toward your protagonist.

I think what you want to aim for is fairness and balance. In war, each side will have people who do bad things, and on each side there will be very good people.

You want to be fair, show some evil dogs on the allies' side and some good dogs on the axis' side.

 

[Trick]

From the perspective of knowing dogs rather well, it's the frightened ones you need to watch out for. Even trained attack dogs scare me less than a big dog who is scared and cornered. Dobermans definitely range in personality but most un-neutered males are somewhat to very aggressive. Add semi- to very abusive training and you might end up with a killer. If you can make the source of their abusive training a particular (preferably imagined) Nazi, you shouldn't have a problem. No one likes Nazis, except maybe other Nazis. I've heard that most folk in Germany won't even mention WW2 for the shame and hatred directed at Hitler and the Nazis. So, a bad Nazi? is there any other kind?

If you had a regular German soldier as the antagonist dogs' trainer/handler, that could be offensive.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

You want to be fair, show some evil dogs on the allies' side and some good dogs on the axis' side.

You can also have a protagonist and antagonist, in a tragedy, where both sides are good.

 

[George Lightgood]

This is just my opinion, obviously, but I think it can easily be done if you tell the truth, even if it is a fictionalized version of it. There were a great many subtext causes of WW2 and it is not nearly so cut and dried as the one-dimensional, sanitized version commonly vomited around. By the way, anyone mentally challenged enough to infer that I approve of Nazism based on this post, please do not respond and hijack the thread.

To say all Nazis (the National Socialist Party was exactly that: A political party) were "bad" is like saying all Democrats or Republicans were "good". Not all Nazi's were military and a huge percentage of military members were not Nazi's. World War 2 was fought between nations, not political parties and for reasons which are irrelevant to this thread.

There was ample horror and atrocity inflicted by both sides as well as plenty of acts of honor or heroism. One great example would be the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler story. The book and their ultimate friendship, post war, are both interesting stories. That could provide some ideas for you, perhaps.

One can pull an example from today's headlines. Regardless of which side you stand on, it is obvious that there are heroic and good police officers as well as some evil SOB's in the same profession. Pretty much the same in all professions, I imagine.

Rather than address any factual errors of the war (of which there are many bandied about) it would be wiser, I think, to focus on a character driven story which would give you more latitude for interpretation in your storytelling. Plot driven or not, most people seem moved more by characters anyway.

As for the collective shaming of a race or country, answer this: There are a huge number of people worldwide who dislike America and Americans because of our actions. Are we all (Republican, Democrat, Independent) equally guilty for the actions of a relative few? Should California liberals be blamed for the actions of Bush 2? Should Idaho conservatives be blamed for Obama's actions? But it is just my opinion and you know what they say about those!

One would think you could write an unbiased and interesting story using WW2 as the setting.

 

[CupofJoe]

GL makes a point... Germany for much of the 1930s and through to the end of WW2 was a one party state. If you wanted the right job, a car/motorbike, or a house [and sometimes just food for the table]; then joining the NSDAP was the only way to get ahead.
There were plenty of people that believed the ideology and did terrible things and there were even more that said and did what was required of them to keep out of trouble or worse...
But I would give up on any attempt on being seen as "unbiased", someone somewhere will read what they want into your writings. Write the story you want, the way you want it and then let others dissect it for meaning and allegory.....