A community for all things related to Avatar: The Last Airbender, Legend of Korra, cartoon or live action TV, movies, comics, novels, etc.
Rules:
Please report any rule violations.
There's evidence he was trying to prevent worse things from happening. He hid the last dragons, he joined a extremist group, he was WAY ahead of Azula capturing him, his prison escape plan was likely a long term thought process he already had. Iroh was never going to be fire lord.
He was first in line to be Fire Lord until his son died.
I don't think Iroh would have been as ruthless as his brother. But he did see conquest as a sort of duty.
But then his son died, and he realized that it was all pointless.
I want them to dive into exactly that in NATLA, more than they already have.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm really enjoying it as an 'AU' that explores some off-screen scenes and implications from the original. I think people are getting too hung up on it being 'not ATLA' (just like LoK).
I keep meaning to give that a try, but after Shyamalan... No. Just the memory of that is enough to give pause.
Also, Netflix live action has been... well, never quite as good as the original. They often don't lean into the genre as hard as they need to.
What Shyamalan movie?
(Seriously, it's nothing like the movie).
And it's fine, its entertaining and a spectacle with some emotional moments. I mean, it depends what else is in your TV queue, as there's a TON to watch these days, but I wouldn't skip it just because it's not ATLA.
No he "got away" with decades of war crimes by becoming disillusioned of the society he was born and bred in and becoming a political enemy of the state and putting his physical wellbeing at risk to free the people his country had waged war on all while mentoring the person who would take over that country and try to create a better country and a better world. One of the most poignant moments is when he says he didn't realize his visions of conquering ba sing se would be him taking it back for its own people.
The Mikhail Bakunin of Nickelodeon cartoons.
Which is why this is fictional, and he's allowed to have a narrative story arc.
However, if this was a Nazi SS Officer, who fled to South America, and then went on to redeem himself by [insert narratively compelling redemption story], he'd still be a war criminal.
But again, it's a cartoon, and we don't have to treat his character as if he were an actual Imperial General commanding troops during wars of conquest, especially one from the IJA.
Pretty big difference in your scenarios there yours has a Nazi war criminal fleeing after the war is ended. Yeah it doesn't really hit as hard when it's after the fact and there's no skin in the game. A person who realizes his nation is wrong and fights to stop his Nation during the war has a lot more redeeming qualities than someone who claims to have changed his mind after the war is over and while they're running and hiding.
A sort-of close example might be Erwin R- you know what I'm going to stop myself right now because I'm in over my head and I'm about to wake up some hard-core ww2 historians with very strong opinions
Before diving into the topic of if the Desert Fox committed any war crimes, or the myth of the good Nazi, you should start here.
Yeah I've read a bit about him. I know he wasn't a great guy. But history is complicated and so are people.
The inspiration for the Fire Nation was Imperial Japan...
That means his historical analog was an IJA General tasked with conquering China, Korea, Philippines, etc.
Why don't you open history book, and find me the IJA General on one of those campaigns who wasn't a war criminal.
Brother what the fuck are you talking about? What did any of this have to do with the bad analogy you used?
It wasn't a bad analogy, it was a disingenuous interpretation by other readers, like you. That or, just really ignorant of the relevant history, such as who the Waffen SS were....
So if people want to play the "what about the good Nazi" game with it, then fine, we can skip straight to the source material and inspiration for the Fire Nation: the Japanese Empire.
But again, I don't believe art has to directly reflect reality. So I don't consider this cartoon to be a war criminal, but if people insist interpreting it as a direct reflection of reality, then yes, an IJA General would be his historical analog.
He made a bad analogy so he decided to move the goal out of the stadium.
Because I said Nazi SS officer, instead of IJA General..?
I'm sorry, they're both war criminals.... Are you saying that using a different race invalidates the analogy about war criminals...?
I'm saying that using someone who participated in the event and only fled once they lost.
Is not the same as someone who participated, won, and then worked against the system they helped put in place.
Go build your strawman somewhere else. Or better. Burn it.
Are you actually saying that a soldier who participated in the Rape of Nanking, decapitated 30 babies, but who then felt bad and deserted before the end of the war, wouldn't be a war criminal....?
I honestly think the real confusion here is that you have no idea how the Geneva Conventions, ICJ, or just the concept of war crime culpability actually work...
Hint: you're so wrong, that it's actually embarrassing. I'm cringing for you. You should delete your comment before anyone else stumbles across it...
Aren't you a passionate one.
I think maybe you don't realize that at no point did anybody say or imply in any way that Iroh was not a war criminal. You keep arguing that like it's your main point of contention, but no one ever said that. The original comment was saying "he didn't "get away" with war crimes by being cute. He "got away" with them by performing a huge heel turn."
That is what you responded, but for some reason, you were arguing something completely irrelevant to the conversation.
What do you think you're responding to?
Who do you think I'm talking about? I thought it was pretty obvious one was a nazi. And the other was Iroh.
Because you know. THAT was the comparison you made.
Did I say or mention anything about rape or decapitation? No. So take your strawman and stick up your ass
People change, we should all learn to see people for who they are, not who they were.
I'm not sure siege is considered a war crime. Isn't that just standard medieval warfare?
Depends on the culture The Japanese viewed siege tactics as cowardly and armies at the gates would deliver food and supplies to the people in the walls. Ba Sing Se was able to convince it's citizens there wasn't even a war going on, I don't think they were starving or being killed with siege weapons.
The source you provided makes clear that sieges are lawful provided non-combatants aren't affected (so starving civilians, barring humanitarian aid, etc. makes a siege unlawful). Furthermore, it states that sieges where non-combatants are affected were lawful prior to the 20th century.
In the context of ATLA, there's not really enough known about the geopolitics of the world to properly gauge whether or not besieging a city is a war crime. The frequency of sieges in the show (North Pole, Ba Sing Se) can't be used as an argument for their legality since they're undertaken by a state that is known for mistreating prisoners of war, disrespecting geopolitical boundaries, and so on. Regardless, you can't judge the Avatar universe by real world law.
If they were laying siege to a military base, sure.
But they were laying siege to a city.... Maybe you should go read up on the history of siege warfare to get a better understanding of how that impacts civilian populations. Heck, forget medieval times, just look back to the '90s to the Siege of Sarajevo.
Also, prior to this 20th century, there were no Geneva Conventions, and prior to Nuremberg, no international war crime tribunals. So not sure what your point is.
Either way, it's a cartoon world. My entire point was that cartoons shouldn't be held to a standard that must reflect our reality, but that logic must applied equally. Either it reflects our reality, or it doesn't.
You can't say it reflects our reality, but because he was a good guy in the end, that negates his war crimes. That's not how war crimes work.
So, if we're discussing this in terms where the cartoon parallels our reality, then yes, laying siege to a city full of civilians is a war crime, full stop.
The other nations wouldn't see it that way.
There's no central authority, but it's not a machiavellian free-for-all like medeival Europe. The rest of the world was rather unhappy with the Fire Nation's aggression, even in light if the world's long history of warfare. He would be tried for that, no doubt.
And his reputation/nickname is subtext for crimes he did commit but that the cartoon couldn't spell out.
I mean, that's essentially saying it's a war crime to be in the military during a war. Which is kind of silly to put it like that.
He's Ozai's brother and a general, a leader of the Fire Nation, not just some regular soldier.
A general isn't just some regular conscript, or enlisted soldier.
I mean really the existence of war crimes relies on the existence of treaties between the nations defining what those crimes are. Gonna guess the Fire Nation was not a signatory.
The Nazis weren't signatories to the Nuremberg charter, yet they were judged by it. So there is precedent for judging war crimes without pre-existing law.
I'm also not exactly sure how international law works in a world that only has ~~four~~three countries.
Maybe it's like original sin, and any general in the same army that destroyed 25% of the world's nations, is automatically a war criminal?
No, it's not a war crime that I can find, however we can attribute harm caused to civilians through these actions, such as starvation due to supply lines cut off. So he did some vile shit, had a moment where he realized the error in his ways, then did everything in his power to make things better.
Except there no evidence of starvation in Ba Sing Se. After all, there was so little impact that the citizens could be convinced that there was no war.
As to supply lines, earth benders cannot be locked in by a siege. They can create tunnel networks with a literal wave of the hand.
So you're inventing crimes that didn't exist.
Varrick bombed buildings and tried to kidnap a president to start a war for profit and got away with it too.
He did it as a capitalist though so it's no big deal.
If Varrick were real, he would have blown himself up because he had a hissy fit, threw his briefcase at the wall, but forgot there was a bomb in there.
Well he does leave the army and help the opposition so I'd say he redeemed himself hard
Not only does he help the opposition, I'd argue he was one of the most involved people in bringing peace to the world, between everything he did to train Zuko to become a great leader and all the ways he helped team Avatar, I think the world would have turned out far darker if Iroh hadn't existed.
A war crime according to... Who? Is there some treaty or convention that happened? Is there some customary international law that he violated? I can't find the Hague anywhere on any maps in this universe but maybe I missed something.
There is no war
I like how NATLA goes into his "war crimes" more.
And Lu Ten's funeral... I cried over that scene.
There's a lot to not like about live-action atla, but I was there for all the Iroh/Zuko scenes. Kinda like Book 1 of ATLA, to be honest.
I agree, I love the change they made to include the fact that Zuko's soldiers where the same ones he spoke out against sacrificing.