Lord Brocktree, son of Lord Stonepaw, starts out as a prince badger and a haremaid named Dotti going back to Salamandastron, which is a huge mountain where the badger lords reign. The wildcat, Ungatt Trunn, captured it from Lord Stonepaw. A peaceful civilization, Salamandastron had hardly any fighters, and the ones who could fight were either old but experienced warriors, or young wet-behind-the-ears young ones. When Brocktree learns of his fathers downfall, he quickly races to the mountain to assess the damages. Along with Dotti, an otter accompanies him named Ruffgar. Trunn is ruler of the highlands in the north and his followers are all but righteous vermin. They are dirty creatures who lie and cheat their way up to power. Backstabbing occurs a few times and if anyone would speak up for the fowl play, they would be executed. Trunn calls his followers the Blue Horde, for the blue face paint that they wear before battle. Stonepaw unfortunately dies defending his people, but also takes many of the Blue Horde with him. Young and unexperienced, Brocktree heads off to what was once his father's mountain. One of Brocktree's allies, Jukka the Sling, a squirrel chieftain, dies alongside Brocktree in his battles. Jukka was a peaceful chieftain, but she fought with Brocktree when it did not affect her people whatsoever.
1. War is a terrible thing. It starts when leaders get greedy and want more than they already have, or just out of pure hate for one another and their differences. If you were the leader of a group of people, and another leader asked you to help aid in the war in which he was wronged, would you accept? Even though the war would not affect your people, what would you take into consideration?
2. The United States have fought in World War 1 and 2. Not being in Europe, the war did not directly affect the United States, but they participated in it anyways. Having come from the UK, the United States put away the past and fought for what they believed was right. Being from different "countries" (animal species) , Jukka still fought for what she thought was right. Could the past ever be erased, or would it be better if it was learned from and "apologized" for? With Germany in WW2, could the German people ever be forgiven?
3. People may join causes because of their fears. Do you think any world powers or people joined the Axis in WW2 out of fear of their lives?
11 comments:
To answer question 1, I feel that I would aid another person in war if I knew that this person would aid me in return. This idea commonly shows up in the formation of allies. Allies are there for each other and they know they can trust each other in a time of war. If I had formed some type of alliance with this person I would have no problem aiding them in war. If there was no alliance, however, I would not give my assistance and risk my men for someone that may not help me in return.
1) I agree with Kristen, that it would be worth joining the war if an alliance could be formed. It would have to be worth the time and man power that I would donate to help them. If the war did affect my people in any way, I would likely help even without the promise of the alliance, with the hope of gaining respect and making a difference.
For question one, I agree with kristen and betsy, but also, just like in my life, if my best friend was in trouble and it had nothing to do with my troubles, I would without a doubt jump to his or her side immediately.
For three, yes. I believe the smaller countries in Europ like Hungary and Yugoslavia did not have much of a choice when joining the war.
In question two, I think that fighting for what is right is very subjective. While the Americans were fighting for what they believed was right, so were the Germans. The Germans were only wrong because they lost. If they had won, textbooks would have been glorifying the Germans in their success in the war and not the Alliance. Even though I personally believe that what the Germans fought for in WW2 was wrong, I do not believe that we should hold a grudge against her people. They are mostly just like us, raising families and living their lives to the best of their ability. We should not continue to blame them for the past just as we do not continue to blame England for her past.
If I felt that the leader asking for my assistance truly needed it and deserved it I would help in a heart beat. I would take into consideration the leader's loyalty to my people as well as his/her loyalty to the cause that they are fighting for. I would not aid a fellow leader if I believed them to be untrustworthy.
1. There are several things I would consider before entering someone else's war. As previously stated I would take into consideration whether the group I ally with could help me in the future. More importantly I would consider the cause for the war. I would not join a war on a side that I do not agree with, obviously.
2. It is completely unnecessary to continue to hold a grudge on Germany. The Germans of today are not the Germans of 1939 so it would be unfair to view them as the WW2 era Germans. As for forgiving the WW2 Germans, it's a tough call. Many of the people joined the army out of fear and a good lot were already in the army and were obeying German leaders. The leaders then cannot be forgiven, but the soldiers is more complex.
Kristen- Jukka and Brocktree's "clans" never really interacted with each other. It was just an act of kindness and her selfless risk of her people's lives for the justification she thought was right, which in turn was. Brocktree probably would have done the same, but they had never really interacted so it is not certain.
Betsy-That is the golden idea; doing what you believe is right and trying to make a difference in the world for the better.
Eric-Jukka and Brocktree hardly knew each other, but yes, loyalty is a golden trait to possess. And yes, smaller countries that can not defend themselves and are away from the group that they wish to join are pretty much forced into things they might not support. But, if you were the leader of a small country during war, what would matter the most? The lives of your people, or the pride of your country? Which one would fade and the other remain the same? It's a terrible decision to make, but things like that are not taken into consideration all too much. It's all about pride.
Megan-Everyone's views are always wrong in someone's eyes. But, also many of the germans did not believe what they were doing was right. There were many germans helping the jews as well. Most of them supported hitler because they now had jobs, and the economy was getting better, but instead of voicing their opinions when the hatred on the jews began, they were scared that they might have been persecuted along with them by their peers who, in turn, probably thought the same. And you are correct. If mistakes did not happen, there would be no history.
David- What about your people's lives though? If there had been no interaction, would a riot form? There are many ways to go about making a hard decision like this one, and you're always wrong in someone's eyes. It's all about what you think is right. It shows your true personality at the risk of being subjugated for your thoughts. But yet again, what's more valuable, life or pride? One lives one dies. One is remembered forever, one is remembered for 3 generations.
Kenny- Instead of thinking about your people's lives in the future, what if the reputation was to be harmed? If your reputation is not credible, then no one would ally or defend you. Thinking outside the box and taking in the bigger picture is often required, and also mostly overlooked. Of course, every generation is uniquely different than any other. That is why people use stereotypes to try and label the things they do not understand, when the human race just keeps getting more and more diverse. But you are correct, grudges should not be held. Also, the fact that fear "forced" them into taking lives of others is hardly righteous. Leaders should be persecuted, but they are nothing without the support from the people. We elect our government officals, yet when things don't go the way we like them to, we automatically blame them. If we elect the people we think that would do best, are we just as much to blame? Even if they're not elected, a leader without support dies.
1. i would help the wronged leader because people who wrong fellow people should be punished. if the war had an effect on my people then i would have to consider a lot of things. but because my people would not be affected i would help as much as i could if the result is justice.
2. the past cannot be erased but actions of the past can be forgiven. i dont fully understand what the question is asking because learning from mistakes is always a good thing to do. the germans have already been forgiven because not all germans were nazis. i dont understand the question.
3. of course people joined the axis powers out of fear. wouldnt you if someone as powerful as hitler threatened your whole country's life?
To answer question one, it ultimately depends on the situation. If the leader asking for help was a friend or ally whose future help could be beneficial, then yes I would subject my country to war. If it was just another random country, then no. The answer does not necessarily lie in whether war is right or wrong, it lies in the physical, social, mental, and economic bonds between the leaders/nations.
1. I would have to weigh the pros and cons. If I knew i could win fron joining I would join. But if the war was not easy to win I would have to decline, because war always affects your people. Maybe they won't die but the war will strain reasources and affect the soldiers and the families of people who die in the war.
Thread graded, closed
Post a Comment