http://youshi-semenjyu.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
youshi-semenjyu.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
hetalia2010-01-24 10:45 am
youshi-semenjyu.livejournal.com) wrote in hetalia2010-01-24 10:45 am
Nations, Moral Ambiguity, and World War II
Grüß Gott, Hetalia Fans!
This topic has been bothering me for a few days; I suppose I'm a bit more sensitive to it than I realized, so I am here asking for your opinion in order to perhaps find peace with my dilemma.
As we all know, a number of nations (Not just Nazi Germany) committed horrific atrocities to people during World War II.
Here, to save you from my wall of text-
What did the nations think of all this? Were they indifferent? Horrified but powerless to stop it? Any number of other reactions?
Germany, Austria, and Poland (and most likely Belgium, if not others, though they were occupied territories)had to deal with Hitler and his concentration camps, the ghettos, and, in Poland's case, the infamous Warsaw Ghetto, and his ethnic cleansing. The Kristallnact, the 'disappearing' of over six thousand people Hitler deemed undesirable, including Roma, mentally and physically handicapped, Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals.
US had to deal with the US Internment Camps for Japanese Americans, which though not as bad as the German concentration camps, were still rather abyssal. The dropping of two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan. Though it may have stopped the War in the Pacific Theatre, no one can tell me that it was not horrifying.
Japan and the Rape of Nanking. War is always horrible, but what the Japanese did during their invasion of China was a crime against humanity in and of itself.
Russia had to deal with Stalin and Stalin's own brand of political murder. It's said that Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler ever killed during his Holocaust.
In the aftermath of the war, the Allies refused to administer enough aid to ethnic Germans, many of which were innocent of any wrongdoing, and were essentially being punished for being German. Thousands, if not millions, died because of lack of food, medical care, and other necessities. When the Vatican send aid to the Germans, the Allies REFUSED it and sent it back.
Here is my dilemma. Being a fan of Hetalia, and a fan of history, I would rather not think that my favorite countries condoned such actions, because naturally, we want to think the best of the characters we care about. I know that Germany mentions once about his crazy boss in a slightly negative manner. He even expresses minor regret when ordered to forcibly annex Austria in the Anschluss (as Italy begs him not to), but then he states that he has his orders to do so. So it's almost as though the leaders have some power over the nation, probably more so if the leader is extremely popular with the people. It's as though the nation HAS to obey their leader and the will of their people, regardless.
I would like to think that, especially for Germany and Austria, being nations and holding a great love for all things that are theirs (their people, cultures, etc), that they would be appalled by the treatment of everyone that they consider theirs. Jewish or Roma, they were still Austrian, they are still German. (Poland and Belgium just wanted Germany to get the hell out of their house, I'm sure.)
After a while, do you think even the nations grew tired of the warmongering and the increasingly bloody battles and realized that, at least for the Axis' part, the battle was fruitless?
But do you think about this? Insights? Similar dilemmas?
BONUS QUESTION:
If the health of a nation depends on the life and vitality of its people and culture and reflects that, do you think that things like the Holocaust would be reflected as a sickness? The larger the negative effects of war in the nation, the worst the wounds and the worst the illnesses?
EDIT:
I want to thank everyone who gave their input. I really do feel a bit better about all this thanks to the comments. (It also helps me work my way around RPS and such that deal with the time period!) ...I think I take things a little too seriously. XD
This topic has been bothering me for a few days; I suppose I'm a bit more sensitive to it than I realized, so I am here asking for your opinion in order to perhaps find peace with my dilemma.
As we all know, a number of nations (Not just Nazi Germany) committed horrific atrocities to people during World War II.
Here, to save you from my wall of text-
What did the nations think of all this? Were they indifferent? Horrified but powerless to stop it? Any number of other reactions?
Germany, Austria, and Poland (and most likely Belgium, if not others, though they were occupied territories)had to deal with Hitler and his concentration camps, the ghettos, and, in Poland's case, the infamous Warsaw Ghetto, and his ethnic cleansing. The Kristallnact, the 'disappearing' of over six thousand people Hitler deemed undesirable, including Roma, mentally and physically handicapped, Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals.
US had to deal with the US Internment Camps for Japanese Americans, which though not as bad as the German concentration camps, were still rather abyssal. The dropping of two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan. Though it may have stopped the War in the Pacific Theatre, no one can tell me that it was not horrifying.
Japan and the Rape of Nanking. War is always horrible, but what the Japanese did during their invasion of China was a crime against humanity in and of itself.
Russia had to deal with Stalin and Stalin's own brand of political murder. It's said that Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler ever killed during his Holocaust.
In the aftermath of the war, the Allies refused to administer enough aid to ethnic Germans, many of which were innocent of any wrongdoing, and were essentially being punished for being German. Thousands, if not millions, died because of lack of food, medical care, and other necessities. When the Vatican send aid to the Germans, the Allies REFUSED it and sent it back.
Here is my dilemma. Being a fan of Hetalia, and a fan of history, I would rather not think that my favorite countries condoned such actions, because naturally, we want to think the best of the characters we care about. I know that Germany mentions once about his crazy boss in a slightly negative manner. He even expresses minor regret when ordered to forcibly annex Austria in the Anschluss (as Italy begs him not to), but then he states that he has his orders to do so. So it's almost as though the leaders have some power over the nation, probably more so if the leader is extremely popular with the people. It's as though the nation HAS to obey their leader and the will of their people, regardless.
I would like to think that, especially for Germany and Austria, being nations and holding a great love for all things that are theirs (their people, cultures, etc), that they would be appalled by the treatment of everyone that they consider theirs. Jewish or Roma, they were still Austrian, they are still German. (Poland and Belgium just wanted Germany to get the hell out of their house, I'm sure.)
After a while, do you think even the nations grew tired of the warmongering and the increasingly bloody battles and realized that, at least for the Axis' part, the battle was fruitless?
But do you think about this? Insights? Similar dilemmas?
BONUS QUESTION:
If the health of a nation depends on the life and vitality of its people and culture and reflects that, do you think that things like the Holocaust would be reflected as a sickness? The larger the negative effects of war in the nation, the worst the wounds and the worst the illnesses?
EDIT:
I want to thank everyone who gave their input. I really do feel a bit better about all this thanks to the comments. (It also helps me work my way around RPS and such that deal with the time period!) ...I think I take things a little too seriously. XD
Re: A rant.
But why do you have to choose? Those two subjects should be obligatory for students!! tsk tsk
there's a tendency to be politically correct with ex-colonies because they were "oh, so mistreated", and they usually get portrayed as "those black people/indian/asian that lived bursting with happiness between bananas, monkeys and frogs till the Big Bad colonizers came to abuse them", which IMHO, is usually trueXD. But some of them were also cannibalistic, incredibly prejudiced, enslavers of their own right, barbaric, etc. The aztecs have the added coolness of some pretty neat and surprisingly advanced scientific discoveries...which in my opinion cast an even poorer light on some of those primitive rituals
and just to be clear, when you talk about british erradication, are you talking about colonies in africa or america?
Yes. But the British were bastards of one kind or another to all of their colonies, actuallyXD
(I swear England is my favourite character; I swear)
didn't kno that about africa tho, so you're prob right...-3-
it's no wonder. Our minds can't actually fathom the rampant hypocrisy that the old colonizers practiced, lol. If you think about the fact that France and Spain, both absolutist monarchies AND colonizer empires helped the USA to declare independence against...a semi-absolute monarchy with an empire of colonies...yeah, hypocritical bastards, the lot of them
(and that's not even taking into consideration that though France sided with the indians, Spain treated his South American colonies ok and England didn't actually massacre all of his colonies' original inhabitants...all of them were in the slave trade. LOL)
...didn't spain hold all that territory that became mexico once it gained its independence?...i think that's a pretty large chunk. i mean, that's a third of modern US and all of mexico...(i kno the spanish got some of that land following the Revolutionary War, b/c france promised it to then, but still...that's quiet a bit of land)And i thought the spanish used catholicism coversion as a cover-up when they were really searching for the fountian of youth or whatnot...i mean, some montasaries were legit, but others were just shams...god, gold and glory, no?
On the first issue...Spain controlled all of South America (except Brazil) up to the USA border with Mexico, and some USA states (California, Florida, and some of the southern ones close to the border). But he lost all of them before the XX centuryXD (except Phillippines)
They got a large chunk out of the Revolution, but had to give it back, lost it or had to sell it back in less than a century ^^U
On the Fountain of Youth...naaah. The nobility and monarchs, the guys behind the money that enabled the expeditions, didn't believe in that. Some cracky guys probably believed it, and as things go nowadays, their names are probably more famous than the more usual Spanish colonizers...who were
a)clergy men. seriously, many lots of them
b)people looking for a better life. they usually got it, even if at first the New World was dangerous
c)guys under the service of the Crown. Usually with a pretty clear straight cut-out mission from the start, usually involving "finding X land that's supposeddly there", "cross that river and see what's beyond", "circumnavigate" or "bring me some gold/slaves/spices/insert random colony item".
The saying "God, gold and glory" is exactly in the priority order the guys hadXD (well, even this is a simplification; this all depends on the time. When they first started it was all about adventure, science and glory; after that, gold, because Charles I had many wars going on; under his son? God. The following monarch? It probably changed again. But the colonies owe so much to the Church...and this admitted by a very vocal atheist like meXD)
ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO AMERICA I CAN TOTALLY TALK ABOUT THO!!!! >:D *sparkling american idiot* ehehe~i love my nation.
Can you tell me about French influence? (and Prussian? the last one I didn't even know till HetaliaXD)
Re: A rant.
choose between what? APUSH and WHAP? you don't. most schools require you take some US and World history your sophmore and junior year, it's just up to you if you want to do AP or not...
oh, no. i def knew that...up until middle school tho, you're usually taught the pochahontas disney ver of things...and then in high school, they kinda show you that, no, the natives were not butterflies and rainbows but warring and bloodythirsty peoples, just like the rest of europe. kinda kills the whole pochahontas dream tho....;A;
yeap~mercantile system...they were def. lighter on the american colonies tho (salutory neglect and whatnot...truth be told, the only reason the american revolution happened was because of the salutory neglect that had existed for years prior to the french and indian war...the english really did not tax america that much...the average american at that time payed much less in taxes than the average englishman...)england's pretty awesome, but america's still my fav character~<3
XDDD ZOMFG you have nooo idea how confusing it is to keep track of all the land that went back and forth during this time...like, when we first learn about the french and indian war, we learn that france lost all its territory in north america. and then, in 1805? jefferson buys the louisiana purchanse from napoleon. XD THAT CONFUSED ME SOOO BAD IN MIDDLE SCHOOL. i mean, once you figured out what happens, it's ok...but still...i suppose it's not as bad as the land exchanges in europe...0___o...
yea....def. ehehe~atheist power! (it sucks to be atheist when you're living in america's bible belt...) XD they don't tell us about those "normal people" in history class tho...-3- i personally think it's b/c talking about the fountian of youth is cooler..
but if you ask an average american who they think of when they think of the spanish spread to the new world, 9 out of 10 times, they will say "Cortez" so, that's how most americans percieve the spanish spread to the new world...-3-
Re: A rant.
Re: A rant.
concerning the french and prussian influence...ok, so when america first decided to leave the british empire, he realized that there was no way in hell that he could fight off the brits by himself. so, he called upon europe for help...and the bad touch trio responded. (poor america) as much as i hate to admit it, america would have never gained independence had it not been for france....
king louis the XIV (the "sun king") was the grandfather of louis the XVI. louis the XIV lost all north american territories to the brits in the French and Indian war. Louis the XIV, seeking revenge for his grandfather's loss, sent TONS of troops and support to America. He only did this, however, after the americans had won the battle of saratoga and proved to the french that they did have a chance at beating the british..before, france had been indirectly aiding them, but in fear of retribution from the mighty british empire, did not do so directly (however, louis XVI couldn't afford this...his actions further bankrupt his country, which was already bankrupt from his grandfather's war, and embedded the idea of revolution in his people...so, it's safe to say that the american revolution caused the french revolution)
the decisive battle for the american revolution came at the seige of yorktown in 1781. There, the american forces trapped the british on land, and the french forces trapped them at sea. Had it not been for the french, the british would have just used the sea route. There's a lot more detail of how the british even would up in such a position (the incompetence and overconfidence of the british generals, mainly) but that would take forever to explain and my fingers are getting rather tired from all this typing.
Re: A rant.
around the same time of the end of the french revolution, britian, being a giant douche, decided to start impressing american soilders. (in their defense, america didn't exactly uphold what it promised to do in the treaty of paris either, but not to the extent that the brits did) france, now under the control of napoelon, also started impressing american sailors. america was trying to stay neutral, but had to do something about it. however, america was far too weak at this time to even think of taking on the british or the french. jefferson tried to impose and embargo on the british and french, and though while it eventually suceeded, it murdered the american economy. america was more hurt by the embargo than britian or france, and buckled first, actually. around this time, america also took on the idea of "manifest destiny" that it was the destiny of america to go west and stretch "from sea to shining sea" (this resulted in mass genocide of the natives on behalf of america...-3-) in order to do so, america needed the territory controlled by france and spain. jefferson sent ambassadors to talk to napoleon and buy the territory of the emporer. napoleon, at this time, had given up his dreams of an oversea empire, and was more focused on the conquest of europe. in need of money, he instantly sold the territory to jefferson, in what came to be known as the louisiana purchanse. America got the land at a RIDICULOUSLY low price (15 million), and most importantly, took over the city of new orleans and the mississippi. (lousiana, consequently has TONS of french influence. the ppl there, creoles, actually have been rather secluded b/c of this)
when maidison took office, the impressing was still occuring, so he threatened to cut trade with the power that did not stop first. napoleon (lying through his teeth) told american he'd stop impressing the soilders. consequently, the americans told britian they would no longer trade with them...and then, driven by young congressional hotheads seeking their own glory, known as "warhawks" declared war on the brits. not a smart thing to do. (actually, britian agreed to stop impressing the sailors, but b/c of slow communication, america didn't hear about it till AFTER we declared war...) america then tried to invade canada (for the second time), believing that the canadians would also want to throw off the chains of british oppression. however, since most of canada at this time was of french descent, and while britian actually granted them decent rights and whatnot, while americans just wanted their land, they retaliated. america was easily defeated in canada, and then, britian invaded and set DC on fire. ;A; luckily, it rained before it got out of hand...eventually, the two nations called it a draw, and ended the war, with no changes whatsoever
The Prussians didn't have as much of an influence as the french did. Many of the prussians sided with the british, but many also decided to help the americans with troops...one of the most famous instances (i forget the guy's name) some prussian came and whipped the american "miniutmen" (who were really just farmers with guns...unlike the highly trained brits) into shape. spain and prussia both sent troops and money, but france was really the one that helped america the most...
my god, that was long....and that was the compressed ver....-3- and imma too lazy to spell check, so sorry if there are mistakes.