hetalia | Nations, Moral Ambiguity, and World War II

Entry tags:

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

WHAP and APUSH taught us that the spanish were horrible. I mean, yea, we knew that they had children with the natives as well as set up missonaries and whatnot for them, but when you compare that with what happened to many of the natives (most infamously the aztecs) that doesn't seem really important...I was under the impression that the English WERE interested in colonizing the new world, I mean, escape from religious persecution (so they could start their own and murder the natives XD) the pilgrims, william penn, the quakers and whatnot...in APUSH we had to learn the different foundings of each of the thirteen original colonies...-3-

And truth be told, I know virtually nothing about South American history before the 20th century...i mean, we learned it all in WHAP, but then you forget it all, and well, APUSH is just about America...so we don't pay attention to the rest of the world really...so yea. (srsly, like with the french and indian war, unless you take WHAP, you don't realize that the New World Theatre was the LEAST important one....) I know about the natives in North and maybe central America, but South America? No, not really...

Yea...didn't the natives like the French? I mean, they were trading with them and whatnot...so it seems like the Frenc (in north america, again idk about south america) were pretty chill in comparison....

I don't know enough about South American or African history to make a difference...My knowledge lies mainly in American history...and ancient civilizations..and some European, Russian, and Chinese history...but def. not South American...do you think the Spanish were kinder to the natives in north America or was that just in south America?

And I was talking about before the French and Indian War...when France did have a foothold in the new world...

Sorry for the ridiculously long response...

First, I must mention that I have absolutely no idea what WHAP and APUSH mean ^^U

Second, compare mixing with the population and not erradicating them to what the British did...and then tell me who was better. Also, the aztecs were a barbaric culture that offered live human sacrifices to the gods and had all sorts of bloody religious practices, which probably apalled even the barbaric Europeans of then. They were also the big empire there, so of course, if you wanna seize power, you're gonna shake them hard. But they weren't erradicated.

Yea...didn't the natives like the French? I mean, they were trading with them and whatnot...so it seems like the Frenc (in north america, again idk about south america) were pretty chill in comparison....

Yes, but what I'm saying is that France's colonies in America were very few; the big amount of his colonies was in Africa, and they didn't behave quite so well there. Also, the fact that the indian natives allied with them only means they weren't as brute as the British, which frankly, doesn't mean anythingXD

do you think the Spanish were kinder to the natives in north America or was that just in south America?

Interesting question. We didn't hold much of North America to begin with, but to my knowledge, there are absolutely no accounts of indian massacres by Spanish. My guys simply didn't do that; they were more set on converting them to catholicismXD

Well, we all have our gaps in history ^^U
I know next to nothing about Asian history pre-XX century, and slightly more about Japan, only thanks to manga. I know my African and Eastern Europe history decently, my American history fairly well, and I'm an ace at Western Europe history ^^

I agree with your comment.
You've brought up very intersting points about Spain's empire and treatment of native peoples compared to other countries' colonies around the world.
Spain is my favorite character so I'm really glad to read more about his history!

WHAP (World History Advanced Placement) and APUSH (Advanced Placement US History) I think are the top level history classes taught in US high schools (usually passing national exam with an A or B mark counts as credit for first year of university)
IDK I didn't take AP history classes. My last history class was in 2002 or 2003 - don't remember...I had 2 years of US history and I only had one year of world history in which we learned about....Ancient Greece/China/Egypt civilizations OTL -__- American teaching standards are not good, especially modern (20th century) events

Thank you! well, Spain is my country, so I should know about its (I swear to God I just wrote 'his' xD) history better than other countries, though European history as a whole fascinates me. I have to study music better, though, I feel apalled at my ignorance in that subjectXD

Curious...I remember, in Spain we get more years of History (and that's the subject titleXD), but weirdly spaced out...first is when we're 10 and continues till we're 15. Then we stop for a year, and the following you can choose it depending on the career you wish to pursue. Then, for our last year at highschool (just before entering college), it's mandatory againXD. But you can choose to take the Philosophy exam instead of the History one (but you still have to take the classes the entire year)
And some college degrees also have History subjects...I study Audiovisuals and I've had two "general history" subjects.

Yeah, Americans seem to have huge gaps on their History...but then, you guys have some of the best universities there are...that's pretty weirdXD

-3- i hate to admit it, but that's true...however, in the defense of my public school, the education standard was VERY high....i kno most of america's education is messed up, but i really hate it when ppl are automatically like, "Oh, well you're american and therefore you must be an idiot." when i applied for college in the UK, i saw that almost EVERYWHERE. it pissed me off to no end....ppl were always like "Oh, APs are sooo easy compared to IBs" and then i compared the highest level IB math test to the Calc. BC test...no contest. Calc BC was much, much harder...

i'm sorry, for saying that. i totally kno you were generalizing education in america, and you're right about it (personally, i blame the teachers and our idiot president for not making education a priority) you didn't need to kno that, but it always annoys me when ppl who have never taken AP tests dismiss them as easy after i slaved my ASS off for three years trying to pass them.

WHAP-World History AP (covers 3000 years of hist. from the neolithic revolution to the 21st century and taught me what the word "orgy" meant)
APUSH- AP US History (covers 200 years of awesomeness in detail. lots and lots of detail. -3-)

XD sorry. i sometimes forget ppl don't kno what they mean...you're not american or canadian then? (i'm guessing that by the "we" you're spanish? that would b awesome...)

ahaha~you are the first person i kno who has just come out and said that the aztecs were cruel bastards. usually, when we talk about the aztecs, we acknowledge the cruelty with which they treated many of their neighbors, but then mainly look towards their scientific and architectual achievements. and just to be clear, when you talk about british erradication, are you talking about colonies in africa or america?

ohhh...that makes sense. My knowledge on african history, as i said, is VERY limited...(guess who was sleeping in class when we learned about that~) so i thought the french were ok, b/c in north america (which is the only place i really kno) they were...didn't kno that about africa tho, so you're prob right...-3-

...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?

*lesigh* i kno...i kno nothing about jap history and i AM japanese...-3- ehehe~western europe is VERY interesting...ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO AMERICA I CAN TOTALLY TALK ABOUT THO!!!! >:D *sparkling american idiot* ehehe~i love my nation.

Hahah, yeah, I'm Spanish, and apparently much more of a pervert than you Americans, because I stepped into my highschool already pretty clear on what an "orgy" was, all in my eleven-years-old of gloryXD
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)

no....americans are actually horribly perverted...depending on where you are. i'm just kinda extreme. (i didn't even kno how sex really worked until my junior year...when i moved from houston to Washington...there, the freshmen were more than happy to explain everything to me in a VERY graphic manner)

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-

That's another thing that amuses me, this "horrible Cortes" (not Cortez, by the wayXD) legend. The man was no worse or better than any other conqueror ever.

-Can you tell me about French influence? (and Prussian? the last one I didn't even know till HetaliaXD-

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.

after american gained independence, france fell into revolution itself. the french noble class called upon america for aid, (since they had helped america during their revolution) but america was torn on what to do. apart from being horribly unstable, not united AT ALL, and weak, america had adopted a position of neutrality, urged upon the people by washington in his farwell address. half of america supported the french revolution (after all, america supported the idea of a nation ruled by its ppl, which is what the french revolutionaries claimed they were doing...to support against the french revolutionaries would seem hypocritical) but then others supported helping the nobility (we owed them our independence, after all, and the bloodshed of the french revolution was just ludicrious). ultimately, america did nothing.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Nations, Moral Ambiguity, and World War II

Re: A rant.

Re: A rant.

IAWTC

Re: IAWTC

Re: IAWTC

Re: A rant.

Re: A rant.

Re: A rant.

Re: A rant.

Re: A rant.

Re: A rant.