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

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

My personal theory on all this has stemmed from the "Black Kiku" rumor.

Black Kiku - Fandom has portrayed him as somewhat of a dark side of Japan, so if that turns out to be true, it would make sense for the other nations to have dark sides as well.
The twist - While in their right minds, they would look back on what their dark sides did, freak out, and feel so guilty that they would get alcohol poisoning if they were human.
I just can't think of the characters doing all that evil stuff while in their right minds...

See, I guess I'm sort of the opposite in this matter. I imagine it's not an overly popular opinion and I sort of feel like I'm going to get bricked for saying it, but one of the things that I really like about this fandom is that, if you look at historical canon, pretty much everyone is a heartless bastard.

Regarding WWII in particular... I think that the extent to which any of the Nation-tans would be directly involved with any particular event is really, really open to interpretation. (And in a lot of cases, they might very well have not had more than a vague idea that anything was going on at all.) That being said, I also think that there was a lot of callousness going around at that time, so imo it's fair to say that everyone's at least guilty of not really caring too much about what to happened to [insert any number of categories of people here].

This topic has caught my attention too when I think about Hetalia, and this is my personal headcanon about it.

Nations are essentially the people, and the will of the people controls the Nation. Kind of like you said, the bosses have some control over what the Nations do, especially if they're backed by the people. I tend to think that the Nations themselves change viewpoints to match their people's. Like, if the majority of the people supporting a certain decision while there's a small number against it, the Nation would support the decision but have some doubts about it. Then when the general masses regret the decision, or when the government sends an official apology for a mass crime, the Nation begins feeling the heavy guilt. Similarly, when the people of a nation begins growing weary of a war, so does the Nation.

I also think that the Nations all have this sort of understanding for each other, since they all work in this way.

So while the Nations are beloved characters, they make terrible mistakes sometimes because they're technically [i]people[/i] and what the people decide, and they're really only human in that sense.

In terms of injuries, just simply what you said. The bigger the negative affects of war on a nation and its people, the more injuries the Nation acquires. Things like contagious diseases, biological warfare, and economical failure leads to sicknesses. Things like bombs, war, and high death rates will lead to physical injuries.

... that ends my rant. But this is all just my personal headcanon! \o/

Yea, this is def. a sensitive topic...

Germany: I personally think that he didn't (at the time) feel too bad about what he was doing to the Jews. I mean, I believe the Nazi regime just brainwashed the shit out of him, so he didn't actually see the magnitude of his sin. However, following WWII, and once he realized what he had done, he was absolutely HORRIFIED. He witnessed all the trials, and felt that his Nazi leaders truly got what they deserved, and since then has really tried to atone for his sin. I love Germany, and am part German myself, so I really thought about this one too.

Japan: Again, he saw what he was doing as OK. The Japanese have always had this mindset of a "chosen people". They saw their emperor as a God, and thought themselves of invincible. When they raped/invaded China, they believed they were just emulating European imperialism and colonization, so they saw nothing wrong with it. I mean, hey, if the powers that forced you to come out of isolation were doing it, why couldn't you? Japan was kinda brainwashed as well by its leaders. The Japanese, at this time, were completely crazy. They committed suicide(kamikazi, suicide bombings, etc) and I honestly believe their mindset was on the same level as the extreme Islamic terrorists of today. However, once they were bombed and got back on their feet, I think they focused their energy on improving themselves and moving forward. My mother is Japanese, so I hear her side of the story all the time. -3-

Italy:....did they do anything...?

America: Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Personally, I believe this was fully justified. (Japan refused unconditional surrender, the potential loss of American life had we chosen Operation Olympic, and the need for Russian aid during Operation Olympic that would have potentially left Japan in a similar situation as Korea) I think America saw it as justified too, but still feels insanely guilty at having done it. It's kinda like those things where you know you have to do it, but afterwards, you just want to bash your head against a brick wall for doing so. "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds" captures how he felt afterwards perfectly. So, after he had done it, he tried to help rebuild Japan. Again, this is a terribly sensitive topic at my house, because my mom's Japanese, so she sees it as slaughter, whereas my brother's hardcore American, so he sees it as OK. I had great-uncles who were in Hiroshima, so I can relate to their pain, but I still see it as a necessary evil.

Your bonus: Yea, Germany and those countries were def. ill at the time, and their leaders, those selfish bastards, ignored their sickness and just continued to kill their people. The nations themselves were too brainwashed and fucked up in the head to notice their illness, and notice the full implications of their illness.

Overall, I believe the nations saw what they were doing at the time as ok, since they were just so caught up in the war, and it wasn't until after they had done it did they feel guilt and remorse.

Sorry for the rant.

I have similar dilemmas myself, and I've sort of resolves them for myself like this: I think that countries, like their people, can get convinced to take part in some really horrific stuff at times. The right (or maybe 'wrong' is more correct here) kind of fragile political and social atmosphere combined with other national baggage like a history of racist attitudes and then a charismatic leader who can talk people into doing all kinds of things...that kind of situation can lead groups of people to do awful things, which doesn't necessarily mean that all the people who were a part of those horrible things were monsters themselves. Some were, certainly, but some just got caught up in the mob mindset of the time. It doesn't excuse it at all, but it's understandable at least.

Point is, I see countries as being the same. They too can get caught up in something terrible, and can live long enough to realize when they've made horrible mistakes. Sometimes they might be kind of aware that what they're doing is awful, but can push it out of their minds because they, like their people, have been conditioned to think a certain way. But after the fact, once the smoke settles and they can really see what they've done, they're horrified with themselves. I think almost all the countries are troubled with guilt to one degree or other. Mind you, it takes some of them a while to really come to terms with what they've done, and they might be in denial over their guilt for a while, and then there are times when one country might see something as an atrocity while the other sees the act as totally justified, but that's another story.

I don't think they always are actually a part of the various atrocities, but at the same time I can't see them as virtually blameless for every horrible act their country commits.

I have kind of a...weird view. (Prepare for rant.)

It wasn't just World War II. Throughout history, some pretty awful stuff happened, from all sides. English colonists in America killed off Native Americans on purpose using smallpox-infected blankets, because non-whites were considered inferior and in the way. It's difficult to think of either England or baby America doing those things. That's why it helps that the series itself is a comedy, because it doesn't really go to the dark places we take it to in the fandom, so each person can decide whether they want to see that darkness or not. Often, I don't want to - but I'll explain how I think when I do.

Now in my headcanon, the countries represent the people, not their bosses (hence Germany's conflict). But a lot of the time, people are stupid. So...when I think about it seriously, I usually come to the conclusion that, yeah, the countries do this stuff. Sometimes they even think it's the right thing, depending on the prevalent view of the population. But their morality and their consciences are so much more vast and complex, because they're made up of so many people with so many views. Their sins are huge, but so are their good deeds. It's almost like we can't judge them on a human scale. In the end, even the most "innocent" country is going to have a dark past. But the thing about "dark" is that it's relative. So...if everyone is dark, then would they really consider themselves that way? For them, it's almost like a necessity, and therefore sometimes it wouldn't even seem noticeable to them.

It's really all about how you want to view the series. If you take a literal view of history, there's gonna be some stuff that makes you squirm. But there's plenty of good stuff that happens in history too; I like to take an at least somewhat hopeful view. :)

My theory is that the bosses have control over the Nations, and that the Nations have little to no say in what goes on in their politics. After all, they're only a representative of their given country. While they have to be there for all political matters, such as health care reforms, bills being signed into law, and whatnot, they have little say in how their country is run, thus why they have "bosses".

Also, it's my headcanon that these types of things were more of mental illnesses. Like the American Civil War for example. There is a lot of speculation about America during one of the most difficult times of his life. My headcanon? His mental state deteriorated so badly after the War of 1812, among other occurences, that he developed schizophrenia, or something of the like. He developed another personality, which turned into the Confederate States of America. Germany's Holocaust could have been very similar, as well as England's Black Plague, although the Black Plague could have been violently physical, more than mental.

I read a story on the Kink_Meme once about how the Nations can die, but unless another Nation kills them (like France killed the Holy Roman Empire) they can come back to life. http://hetalia-kink.livejournal.com/10530.html?thread=16557858#t16557858

But then again, this is all just really my personal opinion. :3

Personally i think that none of the nations had a choice in a matter, i think of it like the nations had no power and that they had to do what their boss says, weather they wanted too or not, it is quite sad thinking that the nations had to go through this, having their own emotions but still having to destroy their fellow nations, their fellow friends.

as for germany, i think the same but i also believe that he had no idea what was going on. for the most part.

i also think that america had no control over bombing japan, the military did it without telling allot of people, alfed could have never done anything to stop them.

i cant really explain alfreds part on the japanese camps they set up in america, i actually live close to one, they have since tuned it into fairgrounds and hold fairs their (>_<) but i also know that the americans screwed up and sent allot of chinese and koreans in them by mistake.

idk i also feel horrible for russia, i have so much sympathy for him, because he had to watch his own people suffer and he had to do so many horrific things, and he had no choice behind the matter, no wonder he is so messed up, i feel so bad.

um...that is all i have to say.

I forgot to spell check my post i am sorry for the horrible grammar.

My headcanon is usually that the nations are very gullible. Not because they are stupid but because what they are, they trust in their government's policies even if they don't like them. If the government decides to intern Japanese America honestly believes they are a threat to his country. Russia honestly believes that there are conspiracies everywhere and if they don't throw a lot of people into gulags the nation will go under etc. The point where the nations stop trusting the government is when there are revolutions and extreme unrest among the people.

Well just because I like history to be accurate, don't forget that half of the french territory was occupied by Germany during WWII. And the other part was also more or less ruled by Germany too.
Don't forget either that another part of the territory was annexed by Germany, and so there is one nazi concentration camp on today french territory.(living in that part of France I feel bad whenever our special history is forgotten, so sorry ^^)

And for the Anschluss, when asked to vote Austrian said yes to an unification with Germany, which was impeached by the Allies.
That was for History accurateness.

Now for your question. I follow the mental illness theory. For example, temporary turning into a violent paranoid psychopat for Germany at that time, along with his neighbours suffering depression due to the US rise at that time which allowed Germany to do whatever he wanted and such.

Like several other people have said, I believe the nations represent their people and as such they have little say in what their bosses do. At the same time, in the case of Germany, a lot of soldiers who took part in persecuting the Jewish people were not "evil people". They were following orders and they believed to some extent that this was necessary. How Germany is characterized in Hetalia makes it fairly easy to imagine that he is rather faithful about following orders - and by the time he got in too deep (because even though they were Jews they were still his people), it was kind of...too late.

At the same time, not trying to be a pessimist, these nations have been around for so long that sometimes their senses of guilt/obligation/moral right and wrong are a bit...skewed. I'm not really sure yet where I fall in the discussion of how much was really "their fault". I mean, Canada had internment camps for Ukrainians and Japanese, and our treatment of our Aboriginal people was and is still atrocious...on one hand I want to be a coward (or an optimist? Haha I don't know which one) and plug my ears and pretend Matthew Williams has no say in that...but at the same time?

I don't know. D: Haha I'm so bad at these discussion things, sorry!

Someone wrote a story about Germany's view on Hitler's rise to power, that being Germany could see that it was a horrible mistake, but he was powerless to stop it. A lot of the countries, especially Axis powers during WWII were pretty much completely controlled by their bosses. The people had little say in the atrocities that occurred during that time.

In my headcanon, Germany knew what was going on, but he was, as other people said, following orders. On top of that, he felt the cowardice over what would happen to him if he did anything to prevent such horrid things from happening. The same can be said for the other Axis nations; like Japan's Unit 731, the Rape of Nanking and Italy's various massacres. Something generally similar can be said about Russia, though the people in his country were a little more vocal about their disagreement with Stalin, and the split of popular consensus is what drove Russia insane in the end.

That being said, every country has their own share of horrible bits of history. Countries have been doing crazy things for centuries, morals change over time, as do how people view right and wrong.

In answer to the bonus question, I'm not firm on my headcanon here, but here goes anyway. The overall war situation left all countries involved feeling tired, depressed and generally achy. During the end of the war, the Axis powers became more and more irritable and paranoid. America couldn't use his arm after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Germany felt near constant agony after the death camps came into play. Japan couldn't move at all after Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Russia could hardly stand while Stalin was in power.

Like I said, working on that bit, but that's the gist of it.

I guess I have various views on the nations, depending on their context.

First, there is the "Hetalia world," where the nations are representatives of their country but still have boss troubles (like in the strip where Germany mentions his crazy boss Hitler). In this context, the countries are a lot more innocent and wars look more like rivals competing in sport. In Hetalia world, WWII Germany can still be a fun and lovable character.

Then there is "Historical world," where you can't really gloss over events like the Holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this context, I believe the nations represent the majority views in their country or the views of the most powerful group. In Germany's case, many of his people supported Hitler which would mean Germany supported him too. I don't know whether the majority of Germans actually supported him (since there was no vote to appoint Hitler); but because the most powerful group (also meaning the group with the most voice in the nation's decisions) supported him, I would say Germany supported him as a representation of them.

So in my head canon, I think of the characters exactly like I would think of their nations. When talking about Pearl Harbor, you would say that the nation of Japan bombed America before America received a declaration of war. So when referring to the characters, I would say that Japan participated in the bombing and supported it. The same goes for the United States dropping the atomic bomb. Although the majority of the people did not know about the decision, the people in power authorized it. As a representation of the most powerful group, the character America also supported this.

Then there are cases like terrorist attacks, which are performed by a person or a group of people from a country (like Iraqi terrorists - since I'm from the US this is the most prevalent for me) not the actual country. You would say "an attack by an Iraqi terrorist," not "an attack by Iraq." In cases like this where the action of event was not authorized by the nation, I would say that the character had no say in it. They may agree with the action (if the powerful group in their country does), but they didn't authorize it or carry it out.

tl;dr - if you're studying history, and it talks about a nation doing something, then my head canon is that the character supports and participates in that action.

The Italians actually did some pretty neat things around that time.

A teacher at my school lived in Italy during the Holocaust. While they had concentration camps, they were somewhat designed to protect the Jews.

At lest, this is what I remember from a presentation we had last year .__. someone wrote a book about it, the name escapes me though.

What a sensitive topic, truly. But I'm of basically the same mind as everyone else here. Prepare for rant everyone.

I treat the nations as people, to an extent; meaning I look at their personalities, thought processes, etc. as I would a person's. That being said, I want to say that I feel like many of us have no idea what people are actually capable of. You psych nerds most likely know these already, but how many of the rest of you know about Stanley Milgram's experiment on obedience to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment)? Or Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_study)? Their outcomes are a bit frightening.

I fully believe that, no matter who we are and what we believe in, every one of us is completely capable of committing unspeakable acts under the right conditions and circumstances. I don't believe there's any need for a "dark version" of a nation, because the potential for this "darkness" exists within them already. I'm not saying we or they are bad people, not at all--I'm saying that, in essence, we and they are human.

Considering that, I also believe that a nation's boss has considerable authority over the nation itself (give it some thought in non-Hetalia terms and it makes much sense, no?). Like most everyone else, I think a nation's attitudes/opinions/etc. reflect those of its general people, and that its ruling power is a separate entity. The rest, as they say, is history. Authority, brainwashing, the dismal situations in which these nations find themselves, among other factors, all work together to produce the atrocities that these nations committed.

I could go on, but this is long enough already. xD This is pretty much the core of my thinking and sets the foundation for the rest of my headcanon regarding Hetalia + history.

*random thought is random*

I remember watching a program about the nuclear bombings in Japan, and when asked about the surrender, they gave a sort of noncommittal response. Due to the way the Japanese speak (especially the never saying "no" and being really vague with things like this), their response could have been translated very differently, and the bombings may not have happened. For this, America feels very guilty in hindsight, I think.

*end random thought that is random*

\o/
if you look at historical canon, pretty much everyone is a heartless bastard.
Exactly my thought, too.

Oh good, I'm glad that other people think that too.

And the thing is, I like them that way. I mean, not that I don't like the Hetalia canon, because it is very sweet and cute, but I like them even better when they're portrayed more accurately.

Also, your icon. O.o

Your bonus headcanon has been my favourite so far. Do you mind if I incorporate your ideas into any future fanfics?

I also like your headcanon. I think Germany would definitely be feeling effects from the concentration camps--they were his people, after all, and I don't think he could be so truly brainwashed to completely disassociate with them.

Which makes me wonder if, during WWII, he harbored a sort of bitterness toward the Jews brought about by Hitler and the rest of the Nazis... he's forced to feel what's going on from his boss's orders, and while he may have WANTED to 'cleanse' himself racially, he's unable to do so without great pain.

Man, if I wrote fanfics...!

I'm glad too ♥

It's the same thing for me, I really like the Hetalia canon, but nothing's better than a good fanfic/fanart/something about how the nations really are.
I mean, looking in the past, they all acted selfishly and/or with cruelty once in their History. It gives something more to the characters, I don't even know how to explain it.

8D Scary, isn't it?

I totally agree with you on what you just said, but especially this part: I don't believe there's any need for a "dark version" of a nation, because the potential for this "darkness" exists within them already. I'm not saying we or they are bad people, not at all--I'm saying that, in essence, we and they are human.

I mean, really; "Black Kiku"? (or anything of the sort) To me saying that there's a separate, dark version of each nation, is the same as saying "Oh, I didn't do it, they did it, I'm totally innocent!"

It's basically like saying "little slugger/Shounen Bat did it" when we were the ones at fault, due to letting go of the leash, being careless, or otherwise. (Not that I'm saying the nations are evil; like you said, Nations = People, not government, plus those experiments you brought up clearly illustrates your point :'D)

I see Nations in Hetalia as the embodiments of their peoples, subject to the same laws and controls of their leaders as the common citizen. Leaders rule nations, so the Hetalia characters are subjects of the ones in power. They also reflect the prevailing zeitgeist of their citizens at any given time.

I can see why some fans would prefer to gloss over the shadow aspects of their favourite countries - it can be hard to reconcile that Canada (portrayed, as it is, by such a meek character) is the same nation where the Residential Schools existed, or where enforced sterilization of those deemed 'unfit' was carried out in the first half of the 20th century. That's one problematic aspect of the Hetalia characterizations: the nations are so moe that it's hard to imagine them doing anything awful. Yet History is written by the victors, and blood is the ink on its pages.

With respect to the Holocaust and Ludwig, I can see him not knowing the extent of what went on - considering the incredible propaganda machine Goebbels had in place. The 'beautification' of the camp at Theresienstadt. for example. I also think that Ludwig would have supported the Reich's regime because of that same propaganda. Likewise, my headcanon is that both Ludwig and Roderich underwent denazification after the end of WWII, just as their peoples did.

Personally, I've found it best to look at Hetalia as fiction, rather than try to reconcile it with actual history, or view history in a Hetalia way. It's less headache-inducing, lol.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 4

Nations, Moral Ambiguity, and World War II

no subject

no subject

no subject

A rant.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Only mildly coherent, pardon me.

no subject

Re: A rant.

no subject

Re: A rant.

no subject

no subject

Re: Only mildly coherent, pardon me.

Re: Only mildly coherent, pardon me.

Re: Only mildly coherent, pardon me.

no subject

no subject

no subject