The Sweet Success of Revenge
This unsettling story came to my attention today; A Heroic World War II Nurse Is Finally Being Honored For Intentionally Giving STDs To Nazi Patients.
I understand that WWII was a different time, that some things done were not considered taboo; in example the bombs on Japan as well as a story like this. I also understand the adage, 'All is fair in love and war'. Only I've never really agreed with either.
One might call me a Nazi sympathizer; I wouldn't be surprised if they did, considering I've been called a Southern sympathizer (as in routing for ole Johnny Reb; the American Civil War.) Really, I just like the facts, while also allowing for the grey area's that most certainly make up the life of the human race, which in both 'sympathizer' aspects, are, in fact, true and not mere human emotion playing make believe.
And just as one can be referred to as a Nazi or Southern sympathizer, depending upon the group, one can also be called a Haulocost sympathizer, as there are groups of people out there who refuse to believe that a haulocost happened.
So, since I need to start somewhere I will start with the American south.
No doubt you have probably learned from your education that the southerners were all greedy plantation owning snobs who owned slaves and that the north was slave free, wanted freedom for the enslaved, as well as equal rights afforded to freed men who were previously enslaved. That the southern states started slavery since the beginning of time, as well as the slave trade in North America. The north never had racial segregation. You would also, probably, have learned that the south seceded from the north because the south wanted nothing more than to keep their slaves. The north wanted to reunite the country, as well as abolish slavery and there you have it. But victors do write the stories and I have found that humans, in general, paint their own pictures of what they like, so to speak.
If you are a logical person, you will see a glaring innacuracy with at least one sentence up there; "That the southern states started slavery since the beginning of time, as well as the slave trade in North America." I kid you not, I couldn't count how many times I have heard that stated as the truth (as well as other things in that paragraph), and a lot of times from well educated people that should know better. Let's take a moment here to do a small time-line and incase you didn't learn this, also a precursor.
You have three major time periods, but we won't be discussing the first era because when people were present they were hunter gathers and it's agreed they hadn't the time for slavery. So we'll be discussing points from B.C. or B.C.E.; Before Common Era, and and A.D. or C.E.; Anno Domini which means The Year of Our Lord, and the latter is Common Era. I'll be using B.C. and C.E.
B.C.: this is the ancient time period, first humans, first civilazations, etc. This period counts down from a higher number to zero.
C.E.: this is us. It counts up from zero to the present day and encompasses everything from the dark ages, the middle ages, the renaissance, the 1800s, vietnam, etc. It is the modern times.
6500 B.C.: The first permanent civilization.
5000 B.C.: Mesopotamia (remember the permanent settlement between the Tigres & Euphratis Rivers; the cradle of civilization? Yeah, that one.) first established.
3100 B.C.: First written language.
1760 B.C.: The first known record of slavery in the Code of Hammurabi, Babylon; though slavery had been practiced before this date by other early civilizations including that of Sumer.
1492 C.E.: Christopher Columbus lands in the Americas; on the island that he named Insula Hispana, known today as the area of Española or Hispanoila, which is really the present Dominican Republic (and Haiti). And subsequently enslaved the native people's (Native Americans/American Indians) that he found there, forcing them back to England with him. So begins Europe's hand in slavery in the America's. The native people's would be used as slaves until the African Slave Trade is started up.
1502 C.E.: The first wave of the Atlantic Slave Trade (of Africans) to supply slaves to the Portuguese and Spanish colonies in South America.
1513 C.E.: Spanish colony of Florida founded.
1565 C.E.: Spanish settlement of St. Augustine, Florida founded. It is the first permanent European settlement in present day United States.
1607 C.E.: British colony of Virginia founded.
1620 C.E.: Second wave of Atlantic Slave Trade (of Africans) to supply slaves to the British colonies in North America.
1632 C.E.: British colony of Maryland founded.
1636 C.E.: British colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations founded.
1664 C.E.: British colonies of New Jersey and New York founded.
1680 C.E.: British colony of New Hampshire founded.
1681 C.E.: British colony of Pennsylvania founded.
1682 C.E.: British colony of Deleware founded; French colony of Louisiana founded.
1682 - 1699 C.E.: The French set up two forts in present day Mississippi. The French colony of Louisiana consisted of the present day states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota. It also included parts of Eastern Canada as well as the Gulf Coast area's of Texas and Alabama.
1692 C.E.: British colony of Massachusetts Bay founded.
1712 C.E.: British colonies of South Carolina and North Carolina founded.
1714 C.E.: The oldest, permanent French settlement (not fort that later turned city) in the New World, Natchitoches, Lousiana, is founded.
1716 C.E.: French settlement of Natchez, Mississippi founded.
1718 C.E.: French settlement of New Orleans, Louisiana, founded.
1732 C.E.: British colony of Georgia founded.
1762 C.E.: Spain acquires French Louisiana from France.
1776 C.E.: Start of the American Revolution; hopes of England treating colonists more fairly, ended up in separating the two.
1777 C.E.: Vermont Territory prohibits slavery. No new slaves, but current slaves are only encouraged to be freed by their masters, it is not a must.
1781 C.E.: American colonies gain independence from England.
1793 C.E.: Congress founds the Fugitive Slave Law Act in which slaves are to be returned to their masters.
1796 C.E.: State of Tennessee founded.
1802 C.E.: France regains French Louisiana from Spain.
1803 C.E.: United States acquires French Louisiana from France.
1817 C.E.: State of Mississippi founded.
1819 C.E.: State of Alabama founded.
1821 C.E.: American Colonization Agency formed by such notable northerners as Henry Clay, James Monroe, and Abraham Lincoln; intention to return slaves to Africa, whether they wanted to or not.
1822 C.E. The A.C.A. founded the colony of Liberia on the coast of Western Africa as a home for former slaves.
1833 C.E.: The Slavery Abolition Act banned slavery in all British Territories; also in the northern United States one set of Abolitionist simply wanted to stop the spreading of slavery, while the other wanted immdiate abolition of all enslaved peoples.
1836 C.E.: State of Arkansas founded; also owner of Prospect Hill Plantation in Mississippi dies, his will stipulates that the slaves be freed and those that wish should be sent to the freedman colony of Liberia.
1840 C.E.: The Underground Railroad gains a name. Abolitionist resistance movements to help slaves escape to freedom had been going on since the 1660s, but didn't reach their peak until this time. Northern and Southerners alike, helped to conceal and ferry slaves to freedom north of the Mason Dixon line, as far north as British owned Canada as well as Mexico to the south.
1845 C.E.: States of Florida and Texas founded.
1847 C.E.: Forced former slave colony of Liberia gains independence from United States.
1850 C.E.: Congress updates the Fugitive Slave Law Act, not only to include returning runaway slaves to their masters, but fining people from hiding runaway slaves.
1860 C.E.: South Carolina secedes from the Union.
1861 C.E.: Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina secede from the Union (Maryland & Deleware did not secede, but the people were divided between north and south); the American Civil War begins.
1863 C.E.: Lincoln issues Emanicipation Proclomation; freeing slaves only in southern states, not union states that still had slaves or the territories which were all still part of the union. It did not grant citizenship to any enslaved peoples whom this freed.
1864 C.E.: Congress abolishes slavery; The Thirteenth Amendement.
1865 C.E.: The American Civil War ends and President Lincoln is assisinated.
1866 C.E.: Prohibition of interacial marriages lifted in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and South Carolina.
1868 C.E.: Congress grants citizenship to all former slaves; The Fourteenth Amendment.
1879 C.E.: Congress grants former male slaves the right to vote; The Fifteenth Amendment.
1877 C.E.: Racial Segregation begins in the south (also known as the Jim Crow Laws/Separate But Equal).
1883 C.E.: Prohibition of interacial marriages reinstated in above mentioned states.
1920 C.E.: Congress grants all women the right to vote, including women of colour; The Nineteenth Amendment.
1948 C.E.: President Truman ends Racial Segregation in the military.
1949 C.E.: Racial Segregations ends in the north.
1954 C.E.: Racial Segregation starts to end in the south with Brown vs The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, which ended school segregation.
1964 C.E.: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ends all state laws regarding Racial Segregation in public places.
Now, I realize that was alot, but there's all the pertinent information. Let's quickly break it down and put it with that original paragraph up there.
01. Southern states started slavery since the beginning of time, as well as the slave trade in North America.
As we can see the first written record of slavery is from Mesopotamia in 5000 B.C., also the first instance of European induced slavery in the New World happend in 1492 with Christopher Columbus, a Portuguese man sailing for Spain. Also, we have the first record of Africans being brought to the new world as slaves in 1502 for the Portuguese and Spanish colonies in South America.
02. The north was slave free.
As we can see from the time line, this is far from true. What became the north were nine of the original thirtheen British colonies. The British helped start the second wave of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The British did not abolish slavery until fifty two years after they lost the British colonies to the American Patriots. I will not deny that the north being more urbanized than the rural south, didn't need as many slaves, nor will I deny that Quakers and other religious groups had been trying to abolish slavery since the late 1600s. All of that is true. But what is also true is that, no matter the number, the north had slaves. To deny that, is a slap in the face to all the slaves who served northern masters and are buried in the north. It diminishes their enslavedness. It diminishes their lives.
03. (The north) wanted freedom for the enslaved, as well as equal rights afforded to freed men who were previously enslaved.
While this is true, it is also true that not everyone in the north even cared. There were more factions of abolitionists in the north than in the south, but just as you had southern abolitionists, you had northerners who didn't care if the people remained enslaved or not. And a lot who wanted them free, simply didn't want them free around them. They wanted them shipped back to Africa. A lot of abolitionists in the north were all for abolishing slavery, but that didn't extend to granting rights to the enslaved who would then be free.
04. The north never had racial segregation.
Everytime Congress is mentioned in the above timeline that means THE Congress, as in The United States of America or during the Civil War, The Union. This is no way means the seceded states that formed the United States of the Confederacy, meaning the south during the Civil War. So many people I encounter assume it's the Confederacy, but that's illogical as the Confederacy didn't have any rights to anything in the Union during the civil war. The southern states that would secede didn't make up the majority of Congress before seceding or even after reunification.
Congress founds the Fugitive Slave Law Act in which slaves are to be returned to their masters. Congress updates the Fugitive Slave Law Act, not only to include returning runaway slaves to their masters, but fining people from hiding runaway slaves. Congress does abolish slavery, but not until four years into the war. Congress does grant citizenship to former slaves, but not until three years after the war (fives years after the Emancipation Proclamation, four years since abolishing slavery). Congress does grant voting rights to former male slaves, but not until fourteen years after the war (fifteen years after abolishing slavery, sixteen years after the Emancipation Proclomation).
Also when President is mentioned, that means the United States, not the Confederation.
So, when President Truman ends racial segregation in the military, that's not the south he's speaking for (besides the fact that you should already know this is almost 100 years after the Civil War, but some people just jump on board saying he was speaking for the south. What?). Ever see the film Glory? The Emancipation Proclomation afforded freedmen to serve in the military, but in segregated regiments. The black regiments were treated as lesser than compared to their white, Union (the north) counterparts in the Civil War.
Remember in #3 when I say a lot of people in the north didn't care about slaves, and half the abolitionists didn't want to extend rights to freedmen? The slaves from the south, run away to the north thinking it's the place to be (honestly I would think it's better, but still we've been taught lies, so I'm outing that), and most runaway slaves experience racial segregation. They are free which is awesome, but they are segregated; lesser than.
But of course, the American Colonization Agency, we can't forget. This was pre-Civil War. This was a thing among a lot of people, Union and some who would be part of states that secede. It was only in favour for about thirty years, but that was a period of time when it was really in favour. President Lincolns' wife was the faction of abolitionist who wanted to end slavery and grant former slaves citizenship. President Lincoln, however, wanted to abolish slavery, but just wanted to send them all back, until that idea fell out of favour, which was before The Emancipation Proclamation.
Also with slavery vs The Emancipation Proclamation; the freeing of slaves was only for the states that seceded the Union, so basically all the rebellious southern states that formed the Confederacy. It did not end slavery in the north, nor did it end slavery in the territories, all of which were still part of the Union.
So many people think The Emancipation Proclamation formally abolished all slavery everywhere in the United States and that all those now free slaves were granted citizenship and voting rights. It's simply not true, which is sad.
What is true is that while slavery does have heated events prior to the Civil War that lead up to the Civil War, slavery was not THE reason for the war. Remember how I was saying it is true that the north didn't have as many slaves as the south, and it was because the north wasn't as rural and was more urbanized than the south? Yeah, that. There was so much room in the south for sprawling plantations. Room that the north didn't really have. With sprawling plantations you need a lot of labour to work that, thus more slaves. Economically, one would realize that more room to grow things means more things to sell. More slaves to work and harvest means quicker over-turning of profits. The south was making money hand over mouth compare the the north. The north wanted a share in that money. The south seeing that they'd be getting paid for not doing the work basically said fuck you. The north pressured, the south felt they shouldn't be told what to do. Bam Secession.
Slavery was a factor, obviously. But it was one of many factors that led to secession. Secession led to war, because the north's (& Lincolns) main goal was to force the southern states to return. United, there's a chance for sharing the wealth. Divided there was none. Three years into the war and northern morale over a forced reunification was waning. Lincolns cabinet advised him to make slavery the issue as it was something a lot of northerners could get behind, as well as the Union giving its own fuck you to the south. Bam Emancipation Proclomation. Union regiment inlistment soared. Though, I have to wonder how if the seceded states had, you know, actually seceded and formed their own government, how in the hell was the north supposed to really regulate the freeing of slaves in 'nation' they didn't own, nor had no authority in governing. Which, of course, is why no slaves were freed in the south after the proclomation. But that was the norths plan, as weird as it is.
05. The south seceded from the north because the south wanted nothing more than to keep their slaves.
This also extends to the people in the south who fought in the war. I hear all the time how EVERYONE in the south owned slaves/were for slavery. But this is illogical as well as wrong.
Absolutely the wealthy plantation owners owned slaves and one reason (one) they seceded and fought against the Union in the war, was so they could keep them. But even the wealthy planation owners shared something in common with just about all the other people who fought for the south; chalk it all up to 'stay out of my damn business, I can do what I want.' You hear about "The Cause", THIS was THE Cause. Freedom, plain and simple. Freedom to do whatever YOU wanted, freedom to not be told what to do. I agree, quite hypocrytical since one of their freedoms was to keep people enslaved to help turn profits. The Cause wasn't slavery, the cause was freedom.
Actually that's only partly true. Generally speaking that is what The Cause was about. But the south was a lot more unorganized than you have been led to believe. While that was the general concensus of The Cause, there were a lot of little groups in the south, and each one had their own Cause.
Besides that general concensus, you had wealthy slave owners who for them, The Cause, was slavery. You had fresh off the boat immigrants, mainly Scottish and Irish, who if they wanted to keep their families fed, they had to keep their jobs, and keeping their jobs meant supporting the war effort. Most had no opinion what-so-ever about slavery or plantations, they just wanted to keep their jobs. So, for them, The Cause, was all about survival. Other immigrants could get on board with The Cause because it meant freedom.
Then you have the groups of established (meaning not fresh off the boat) Scottish and Irish people. They were poor. The Cause, for them, was most certainly all about freedom. However, this group couldn't care less about slavery or north vs south or any of that. They fought to get out their anger over past injustices from the English. They had their own regiments; all Scottish or all Irish, they wore their kilts, they carried their Old World battleflags, they carried not drums and flutes but bagpipes and harps into battle. Their Cause was basically, 'fuck you, England'. They knew they were not fighing the English, but it was a chance to fight and they took it.
And there were groups who thought The Cause was all about wealthy people keeping their slaves. This group was not about to fight for wealthy people that they detested, so instead these groups seceded from the already seceded south. Some even formed their own militia to thwart southern regiments by stealing horses, food, etc. This group was basically the same as the major southern group; they seceded because they didn't want anyone telling them what to do, they wanted their freedom.
The Cause is still instilled in southerners today. I don't even know if it's something they learn or something they are born with. They do not like people coming into their states and towns that know nothing about anything and telling them what to do. And it was only made worse by the way reunification went down.
06. The north wanted to reunite the country.
It is all well and true that President Liconln wanted to reunite the country. This really was his most determined mission by having a war. As I am sure there were people living in the north who agreed with the President, and did, in fact, want to be reunited.
But the majority of people in the north, simply didn't care about reunification. Reunification means more than coming back together. President Lincoln knew this. You have to heal wounds, you have to come to agreements, you have to become one nation again through love, not hate.
But President Lincoln was assisinated shortly after the end of the war. His dreams of a real reunification never happend, as they died with him. The majority of northerners who came to the south after the war, to "reunify", only came with hate in their hearts. They did not reunite, as much as take over. They beat and raped the women, they belittled, they pillaged what was left untouched during the war. Their actions only helped to further separate the north from the south. You can see it, still, today.
The news stories, articles, surveys, ect. are still greatly biased towards the north. Of course I'm not saying all southerners hate northerners or vice versa, or that all news stories only paint the north (and anything held by the Union, which were all territories, so that expands to everything except the seceded states) in a favourable light. But, in the general scheme of things, there is still a great distrust amongst southerners towards the people living in the north, as well as a great dislike amongst the northerners towards the people living in the south. We may all be apart of The United States of America, but their is still a division, wounds that have never healed. The north says it's because the south lost; because they all lost their slaves. It isn't really that, as much as the over exaggerated arrogance of them winning. And we know that the slave holders in the south were not a majority. The majority of southerners could not have lamented the loss of something, or a way of life, that they knew nothing about.
I would only agree with the 'poor loser' mentality if the north had come to the south after the war and played it cool, you know the type of attitude where one helps people rebuild because you are all the same nation. Things are forgiven on both sides and you work together, as one people to be a nation again. If the south was bucking that, I'd be screaming 'poor losers' too. But, the scenario is brought to a different level all together when all the people's in the south, and I mean ALL of them. All of the poor people, all of the immigrants, all of the slaves, as well as the minority of plantation owners are starving and have lost everything (including family or homes), they are a people without nothing and then people from the north come down and keep them ALL starving, kick them when they are down, kick them some more, mock them, spit at them, beat them, raping the women, etc. This is inhumane. And the very people you think that the north valiantly died in battle to save, the slaves, were not excluded. Not at all. They were starved and beaten and raped by the northerners in the south as well. Again generally speaking. This IS something that happened, however not all northerners were this way and not all of the enslaved were treated this way by the north. But it also was not a 'few and far between' occurance either.
I am also well away of the general opinion that the southerners got what they deserved. But, did they really? If the bad people are the slave owners, if the bad people are the wealthy plantation owners, if the bad people are the ones who really had the power to secede? And let me reitterate. These bad people are the minority (MINORITY, meaning a small percentage of the entire population of peoples living in the seceded south), and you 'punish' not only them but 80 - 90% of all people's living in the seceded south, then how has any form of justice really been served? Justice was served and then went way beyond that into madness.
It is because the general population only sees things in black and white and rarely do they even acknowledge the grey area's, even though life is nothing but grey area's. A black and white issue (there is no pun, I'm not talking races here) became EVERYONE in the south is evil because EVERYONE in the south owns slaves, loves slavery, fought to keep slavery, all of them dared to secede in the first place, with no acknowledgement to ALL of the grey area's, which ARE important.
It's exactly like a court show on the television. YOU, as the audience knows that Sally up on the stand only murdered her husband because he beat her and killed their children. But, a court of law does not allow for grey area's. The question is simply, "Did you murder your husband?", where only a yes or no answer will suffice. But, if one knew WHY her answer is yes, most would understand that and take it into consideration when passing a judgement. But, only in court shows on television is the grey area's of life, the why's, really allowed.
Without the grey area's, everyone is a monster. Black and white issues leave no room for human emotion, though humans are basically nothing but emotion.
Which leads me to WWII, specifically the terrible Nazi's. Generally you are lead to believe that Nazi's were the first people in history to hate Jewish people and that nothing before or since their atrocities has happened. That every single German person was ecstatically thrilled to sign up and continued to defend their Nazi ways even after the war. But that is severly black and white. Without the grey area's, one can not fully understand the context.
There were several periods in history where Jewish people were murdered, in great numbers, by Europeans. During the first and second Crusades, Jewish populations were decimated, with refugees seeking asylum in Poland. They were not Christians, therefor they were the enemy. During the 14th Century Black Death epidemic, Jewish people's were executed, because according to most Europeans of the time, it was their fault. Again, Poland offered asylum.
During the Spanish Inquisition there was a forceable removal of all Jewish people from Spain. Those that did not want to have to leave had to be baptised as Catholics. Later around 5,000 Jewish people would be burned at the stake during the years of the Inquisition. You guessed it, Poland offered asylum once again. I have to hand it to the country of Poland. If there was an award for awesome, they win it all.
During the 19th Century in the Papal States (Italy), Jewish peoples were forced to live in ghetto's. They were required to attend church sermans and urged to covert to Catholicism. Jewish peoples were taxed more for education and one could not convert from Catholicism to Judaism. There were involuntary baptisms of Jewish peoples.
Antisemitism was rampant during the latter half of the 19th century in Europe and early part of the 20th century.
And in walks The Great War (WWI) and with it The Treaty of Versailles at the end of the war. France thought it was not harsh enough, everyone else thought it was too harsh. Instead of peace agreements, it was an ultimatum; sign the treaty as is, or we resume the war. It stated that Germany had to take all of the blame for the war and everything that was destroyed. Something that was never usually implemented in treaties of past wars. Also, the repirations amounts were exceedingly large to everyone but France. Plus, Germany had to give up all of it's acquired land. Normally in a treaty, the losing side gives up only the land they acquired pertaining to that war. But Germany had to give up any and all land they'd ever acquired since the beginning practically. No other country has ever had to do this in Europe, until after WWII when it was decided for European countries that their colonial acquisitions had to go, which left a bad taste in their mouths.
The treaty was above and beyond what was normal for treaties. It is no wonder that Germany felt slighted. Think of a school yard. You have a few bullies who beat up on some kids. As punishment, only one bully is singled out and the authority takes away all of his toys, spanks, him, gives him detention AND won't let him go to any future parties. That kids is going to be seriously upset and will probably end up going for retribution in the future. I do not believe in retribution, but I am not like other people apparently, either.
So, Germany is practically bankrupt after the treaty, their pride is injured, they've had their asses handed to them ten times over and as a country, feel objectified, not to mention they are also mourning their own losses of life. Because of what I have already stated, it was not uncommon practice to "blame the jews" for everything. And that's basically what happened.
Hitler was an evil man, but he was also very smart. Smart enough to know how to weasle his way into something undetected; appearing the friend, the one who cares. To use his words to rile up human emotion that was already tender. There was never a more perfect playing field for Hilter than post WWI. Psychologically, when groups of humans are vulnerable and you rile them up, most of them will follow you anywhere, especially with promises of food and jobs and a better way of life, when that is what they are lacking at the moment.
Post war Germans were blinded by emotion and loss. Hitler was charasmatic and charming, at first. He seemed like a winning bet. It is no wonder the people rejoiced. But, after awhile people just became afraid. I hear a lot of people say that if confronted with a situation between life or death, that they would choose death, than willingly go along with something. But, from historical things I have read, people rarely ever choose death. Most of the population will cow-tow, will follow, will do whatever you say so that their family or themselves will not be killed. That is not to say all will do that. There have always been resistance movements, but the resistance is always the minority.
So, you have a divided Germany. Hilter assumed he had a unified, willingly faithful following of people. What he actually ended up with was a mass of scared people unwillingly following him. Then there were the people who did actually stay loyal to Hitler. Groups that tried to defy him (assasination attempts, resistance movements, smuggling of Jewish people to safety). And some even still who were only out for number one (not Hitler), so used their power however they felt it should be used.
You had the scared, the willingy and defiant in all groups; families, scientists, military, inner circle, etc. One would say that it was righteous to kill a Nazi soldier in battle, as in they all deserved to die. But did they? Without the grey area's, all you see are a group of blood thirsty monster in swastika's. But are they truely proud to fight and die for Hitler, or are they fighting because of fear, to keep their mothers, fathers, siblings back at home safe?
Some people also think that what the Germans went through post WWII is better than they deserved. Does anyone really undestand what that means? The German people had no food left by the end of the war and the winning sides kept it that way, people were eating dead horses in the streets, rotten dead things. Babies and children were dying of starvation. And on top of all that, while they are dying of starvation, they are having the clean up the ruins, as ordered by the winning side.
All of the truely evil people were gone. Hitler and everyone in his bunker had killed themselves. Anyone captured to await trial at Nuremburg, were already in custody, or would soon kill themselves with cyanide pills before the trial. The others had fled, most never to be found again. All of the troops had been captured and were in POW camps; whether or not they believed in the fighting or fought out of fear.
The only people left in Germany after the war were the elderly, the women and the children. THE ELDERLY, THE WOMEN, and THE CHILDREN! Not that that automatically exempts them for anything, but MOST (80 - 90%) of these people had lived in fear for the better part of the last decade. They had followed because they did not want them and their entire families murdered by the dictatorship that had taken over. I am reminded of my grandfather's story. He was mainly a tech sergeant/mechanic for the US Army in the war, but also had to do some fighting. In one battle he encounted a scared German teen. My grandfather tried coaxing him over with "Kommen Sie hier." So that he would not die, but just be taken prisoner. My grandfather, in battle, could differientiate between monsters and people. The boy was staring to move, wanted to come to my grandfather, but someone ended up killing that scared boy.
I find that my grandfather's story is not that uncommon. There are a lot of nations that send people to fight; they are too young or they do not believe in what is being faught for. Some men try (and succeed) in helping them to not be killed. Other men will kill first and ask questions later. War is never pretty. War is always sad for every "enemy" or "hero" fighting in it, or those who feel the effects, from home, of the losses.
People would want to rebuttle that they still deserved it because they followed him in the first place, voted him in so to speak. But, how many times have you voted for someone for an elected office because they promised things you wanted, only to have them turn out to be crooked? Do not tell me never, because I will know you are lying. So, what would happen if you followed the candidate that seemed really great... and oops now that all is said and done and there is no going back he turns out to be Hitler? What then. You deserved it? You deserve all that fear and horror you lived through, your friends and neighbours murdered, your sons dying in a war you never even thought would happen, all the death and sorrow, dying of starvation at the end, eating dead, rotting horses; feeding that to your dying children?
Grey area's matter, people. They really do.
Now, this does not really apply to the holocaust, it is separate because A) that was seen out by select military, so does not include civilians and B) most of the general population of Germany (including most of the military) had no idea about concentration camps, or the evils perpatrated within. And the one's that did, just avoided that because they couldn't upset anything lest they be killed.
While the holocaust IS a part of things that went down under Hitler and are a part of the war, most people had no idea about them until the end of things. So, it is rather separate.
None of my article is intended to justify slavery or the holocaust. On the contrary, those were horrible events in history. I also do not use the history of slavery or the killing of Jews to say, "Oh, there has always been slavery, so who cares." or "Jewish people have always been killed, so who cares.", as some people would. I supply that information, because it is factual, historical information. It helps to portray what the world was like during those times; to help you understand where things came from, the mentality of the world up to that point and during that point.
Not that it is right, because I do not believe it to be right and honourable, but knowing that Europeans persecuted Jewish people's through out history and antisemitism was rampant before WWII, helps one to understand the cultural climate of the time, coupled with an unfair treaty in the history of treaties, of how an entire nation could follow someone so blindly into hell basically.
Also, to understand that slavery was not uncommon helps one to realize that, while barbaric, Europeans at the time did not think of their actions as barbaric; they were being 'normal' and 'civilized'. Not that I would agree they were, in fact, 'civilized', it doesn't matter, they did what they did and at the time it wasn't seen as any big deal. Which of course is very sad and unfortunate for all of the Indeginous people's of the America's and later the Africans. I also do not agree with forcibly sending people back somewhere if they do not want to go, but giving this information helps you understand that during that time period, it was a generally accepted idea.
I supplied all the information, mainly to show that people only learn or only want to believe one side of events. I have supplied both sides, the greater picture, which is accurate to anyone's knowlege; as in this is the factual history that is there. Sure there could be things we don't know, but as far as testimony's and eye witness accounts and historical documents of the time, this is what is out there.
But this all leads to the article I linked to at the beginning of this post, and how I do not understand or abide retribution. I understand that it is a part of most people's genetic make-up. They feel slighted, they retaliate, no matter how small or grand the scale. So, this woman knowingly giving STD's to soldiers, knowing it will kill them, her own fuck you in the war, is something to praise? But, I think that is horrible to do to someone. I am not a very religious person, but I can get on board with the things that Jesus said about 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Obviously he didn't say those words exactly, but that is what he meant when he said the thing about if someone hits you, then offer up the other side of your face to them, as well as the one about the person who has no sin can cast the first stone. Those, I think are pretty important.
I think there are more important and better ways to "stick it to the man" than something like this. Instead of knowingly infecting soldiers who may or may not even be willingly fighting to take over your land, kill your people, etc. Why not use your energy to, I don't know, help smuggle Jewish people out to safety? Or help smuggle out your fellow non Jewish country men out to safety? or start a resistance movement so that you stop new regiments, or supplies from crossing your borders?
This is inline with allowing the German people to starve after the war. I'm sure the general consensus of the Allied Powers were that "you forced people to starve, so we'll force you to starve." Besides the fact that 90% of the population didn't even know people were being starved, what was the point? You are horrified at the starvation of people's, just to sink to the level of the perpetrators by doing the same thing? It is the same as "You killed my family member. Murder is wrong. Now I'm going to kill your family member." How is becoming the monster any different than the monster?
I may have way too much compassion for people, but I can not help it. People are people. People do a lot of stupid things. As none of us are really innocent, it is unfair to punish the "innocent". I agree with punishment, but not when things go to extremes. As with WWII, yes, punish the actual master minds and the people who have no remorse. They gladly did what was told of them, reveled in it. But this is after all is said and done. The war is over, they've been captured and are going to be judged by a war court. But broad generalizations lead to gross justification which leads to the punishment of people who should not be punished.
I personally do not find that woman a hero. I find her weak. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about something and I think she went about it the wrong way. Should she be killed for it? Of course not. Should she be honoured for it? Absolutely not.
*And in case anyone does read this entire post, I'm well aware that people out there like to scream "Sources!". I dislike this because to me, it seems like those people don't want to work for the information, they just want you to tell them. My sources are almost a life time worth of book reading (non fiction, historical), internet searches, library time, news publications, and a plethora of documentaries.
I understand that WWII was a different time, that some things done were not considered taboo; in example the bombs on Japan as well as a story like this. I also understand the adage, 'All is fair in love and war'. Only I've never really agreed with either.
One might call me a Nazi sympathizer; I wouldn't be surprised if they did, considering I've been called a Southern sympathizer (as in routing for ole Johnny Reb; the American Civil War.) Really, I just like the facts, while also allowing for the grey area's that most certainly make up the life of the human race, which in both 'sympathizer' aspects, are, in fact, true and not mere human emotion playing make believe.
And just as one can be referred to as a Nazi or Southern sympathizer, depending upon the group, one can also be called a Haulocost sympathizer, as there are groups of people out there who refuse to believe that a haulocost happened.
So, since I need to start somewhere I will start with the American south.
No doubt you have probably learned from your education that the southerners were all greedy plantation owning snobs who owned slaves and that the north was slave free, wanted freedom for the enslaved, as well as equal rights afforded to freed men who were previously enslaved. That the southern states started slavery since the beginning of time, as well as the slave trade in North America. The north never had racial segregation. You would also, probably, have learned that the south seceded from the north because the south wanted nothing more than to keep their slaves. The north wanted to reunite the country, as well as abolish slavery and there you have it. But victors do write the stories and I have found that humans, in general, paint their own pictures of what they like, so to speak.
If you are a logical person, you will see a glaring innacuracy with at least one sentence up there; "That the southern states started slavery since the beginning of time, as well as the slave trade in North America." I kid you not, I couldn't count how many times I have heard that stated as the truth (as well as other things in that paragraph), and a lot of times from well educated people that should know better. Let's take a moment here to do a small time-line and incase you didn't learn this, also a precursor.
You have three major time periods, but we won't be discussing the first era because when people were present they were hunter gathers and it's agreed they hadn't the time for slavery. So we'll be discussing points from B.C. or B.C.E.; Before Common Era, and and A.D. or C.E.; Anno Domini which means The Year of Our Lord, and the latter is Common Era. I'll be using B.C. and C.E.
B.C.: this is the ancient time period, first humans, first civilazations, etc. This period counts down from a higher number to zero.
C.E.: this is us. It counts up from zero to the present day and encompasses everything from the dark ages, the middle ages, the renaissance, the 1800s, vietnam, etc. It is the modern times.
6500 B.C.: The first permanent civilization.
5000 B.C.: Mesopotamia (remember the permanent settlement between the Tigres & Euphratis Rivers; the cradle of civilization? Yeah, that one.) first established.
3100 B.C.: First written language.
1760 B.C.: The first known record of slavery in the Code of Hammurabi, Babylon; though slavery had been practiced before this date by other early civilizations including that of Sumer.
1492 C.E.: Christopher Columbus lands in the Americas; on the island that he named Insula Hispana, known today as the area of Española or Hispanoila, which is really the present Dominican Republic (and Haiti). And subsequently enslaved the native people's (Native Americans/American Indians) that he found there, forcing them back to England with him. So begins Europe's hand in slavery in the America's. The native people's would be used as slaves until the African Slave Trade is started up.
1502 C.E.: The first wave of the Atlantic Slave Trade (of Africans) to supply slaves to the Portuguese and Spanish colonies in South America.
1513 C.E.: Spanish colony of Florida founded.
1565 C.E.: Spanish settlement of St. Augustine, Florida founded. It is the first permanent European settlement in present day United States.
1607 C.E.: British colony of Virginia founded.
1620 C.E.: Second wave of Atlantic Slave Trade (of Africans) to supply slaves to the British colonies in North America.
1632 C.E.: British colony of Maryland founded.
1636 C.E.: British colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations founded.
1664 C.E.: British colonies of New Jersey and New York founded.
1680 C.E.: British colony of New Hampshire founded.
1681 C.E.: British colony of Pennsylvania founded.
1682 C.E.: British colony of Deleware founded; French colony of Louisiana founded.
1682 - 1699 C.E.: The French set up two forts in present day Mississippi. The French colony of Louisiana consisted of the present day states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota. It also included parts of Eastern Canada as well as the Gulf Coast area's of Texas and Alabama.
1692 C.E.: British colony of Massachusetts Bay founded.
1712 C.E.: British colonies of South Carolina and North Carolina founded.
1714 C.E.: The oldest, permanent French settlement (not fort that later turned city) in the New World, Natchitoches, Lousiana, is founded.
1716 C.E.: French settlement of Natchez, Mississippi founded.
1718 C.E.: French settlement of New Orleans, Louisiana, founded.
1732 C.E.: British colony of Georgia founded.
1762 C.E.: Spain acquires French Louisiana from France.
1776 C.E.: Start of the American Revolution; hopes of England treating colonists more fairly, ended up in separating the two.
1777 C.E.: Vermont Territory prohibits slavery. No new slaves, but current slaves are only encouraged to be freed by their masters, it is not a must.
1781 C.E.: American colonies gain independence from England.
1793 C.E.: Congress founds the Fugitive Slave Law Act in which slaves are to be returned to their masters.
1796 C.E.: State of Tennessee founded.
1802 C.E.: France regains French Louisiana from Spain.
1803 C.E.: United States acquires French Louisiana from France.
1817 C.E.: State of Mississippi founded.
1819 C.E.: State of Alabama founded.
1821 C.E.: American Colonization Agency formed by such notable northerners as Henry Clay, James Monroe, and Abraham Lincoln; intention to return slaves to Africa, whether they wanted to or not.
1822 C.E. The A.C.A. founded the colony of Liberia on the coast of Western Africa as a home for former slaves.
1833 C.E.: The Slavery Abolition Act banned slavery in all British Territories; also in the northern United States one set of Abolitionist simply wanted to stop the spreading of slavery, while the other wanted immdiate abolition of all enslaved peoples.
1836 C.E.: State of Arkansas founded; also owner of Prospect Hill Plantation in Mississippi dies, his will stipulates that the slaves be freed and those that wish should be sent to the freedman colony of Liberia.
1840 C.E.: The Underground Railroad gains a name. Abolitionist resistance movements to help slaves escape to freedom had been going on since the 1660s, but didn't reach their peak until this time. Northern and Southerners alike, helped to conceal and ferry slaves to freedom north of the Mason Dixon line, as far north as British owned Canada as well as Mexico to the south.
1845 C.E.: States of Florida and Texas founded.
1847 C.E.: Forced former slave colony of Liberia gains independence from United States.
1850 C.E.: Congress updates the Fugitive Slave Law Act, not only to include returning runaway slaves to their masters, but fining people from hiding runaway slaves.
1860 C.E.: South Carolina secedes from the Union.
1861 C.E.: Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina secede from the Union (Maryland & Deleware did not secede, but the people were divided between north and south); the American Civil War begins.
1863 C.E.: Lincoln issues Emanicipation Proclomation; freeing slaves only in southern states, not union states that still had slaves or the territories which were all still part of the union. It did not grant citizenship to any enslaved peoples whom this freed.
1864 C.E.: Congress abolishes slavery; The Thirteenth Amendement.
1865 C.E.: The American Civil War ends and President Lincoln is assisinated.
1866 C.E.: Prohibition of interacial marriages lifted in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and South Carolina.
1868 C.E.: Congress grants citizenship to all former slaves; The Fourteenth Amendment.
1879 C.E.: Congress grants former male slaves the right to vote; The Fifteenth Amendment.
1877 C.E.: Racial Segregation begins in the south (also known as the Jim Crow Laws/Separate But Equal).
1883 C.E.: Prohibition of interacial marriages reinstated in above mentioned states.
1920 C.E.: Congress grants all women the right to vote, including women of colour; The Nineteenth Amendment.
1948 C.E.: President Truman ends Racial Segregation in the military.
1949 C.E.: Racial Segregations ends in the north.
1954 C.E.: Racial Segregation starts to end in the south with Brown vs The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, which ended school segregation.
1964 C.E.: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ends all state laws regarding Racial Segregation in public places.
Now, I realize that was alot, but there's all the pertinent information. Let's quickly break it down and put it with that original paragraph up there.
01. Southern states started slavery since the beginning of time, as well as the slave trade in North America.
As we can see the first written record of slavery is from Mesopotamia in 5000 B.C., also the first instance of European induced slavery in the New World happend in 1492 with Christopher Columbus, a Portuguese man sailing for Spain. Also, we have the first record of Africans being brought to the new world as slaves in 1502 for the Portuguese and Spanish colonies in South America.
02. The north was slave free.
As we can see from the time line, this is far from true. What became the north were nine of the original thirtheen British colonies. The British helped start the second wave of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The British did not abolish slavery until fifty two years after they lost the British colonies to the American Patriots. I will not deny that the north being more urbanized than the rural south, didn't need as many slaves, nor will I deny that Quakers and other religious groups had been trying to abolish slavery since the late 1600s. All of that is true. But what is also true is that, no matter the number, the north had slaves. To deny that, is a slap in the face to all the slaves who served northern masters and are buried in the north. It diminishes their enslavedness. It diminishes their lives.
03. (The north) wanted freedom for the enslaved, as well as equal rights afforded to freed men who were previously enslaved.
While this is true, it is also true that not everyone in the north even cared. There were more factions of abolitionists in the north than in the south, but just as you had southern abolitionists, you had northerners who didn't care if the people remained enslaved or not. And a lot who wanted them free, simply didn't want them free around them. They wanted them shipped back to Africa. A lot of abolitionists in the north were all for abolishing slavery, but that didn't extend to granting rights to the enslaved who would then be free.
04. The north never had racial segregation.
Everytime Congress is mentioned in the above timeline that means THE Congress, as in The United States of America or during the Civil War, The Union. This is no way means the seceded states that formed the United States of the Confederacy, meaning the south during the Civil War. So many people I encounter assume it's the Confederacy, but that's illogical as the Confederacy didn't have any rights to anything in the Union during the civil war. The southern states that would secede didn't make up the majority of Congress before seceding or even after reunification.
Congress founds the Fugitive Slave Law Act in which slaves are to be returned to their masters. Congress updates the Fugitive Slave Law Act, not only to include returning runaway slaves to their masters, but fining people from hiding runaway slaves. Congress does abolish slavery, but not until four years into the war. Congress does grant citizenship to former slaves, but not until three years after the war (fives years after the Emancipation Proclamation, four years since abolishing slavery). Congress does grant voting rights to former male slaves, but not until fourteen years after the war (fifteen years after abolishing slavery, sixteen years after the Emancipation Proclomation).
Also when President is mentioned, that means the United States, not the Confederation.
So, when President Truman ends racial segregation in the military, that's not the south he's speaking for (besides the fact that you should already know this is almost 100 years after the Civil War, but some people just jump on board saying he was speaking for the south. What?). Ever see the film Glory? The Emancipation Proclomation afforded freedmen to serve in the military, but in segregated regiments. The black regiments were treated as lesser than compared to their white, Union (the north) counterparts in the Civil War.
Remember in #3 when I say a lot of people in the north didn't care about slaves, and half the abolitionists didn't want to extend rights to freedmen? The slaves from the south, run away to the north thinking it's the place to be (honestly I would think it's better, but still we've been taught lies, so I'm outing that), and most runaway slaves experience racial segregation. They are free which is awesome, but they are segregated; lesser than.
But of course, the American Colonization Agency, we can't forget. This was pre-Civil War. This was a thing among a lot of people, Union and some who would be part of states that secede. It was only in favour for about thirty years, but that was a period of time when it was really in favour. President Lincolns' wife was the faction of abolitionist who wanted to end slavery and grant former slaves citizenship. President Lincoln, however, wanted to abolish slavery, but just wanted to send them all back, until that idea fell out of favour, which was before The Emancipation Proclamation.
Also with slavery vs The Emancipation Proclamation; the freeing of slaves was only for the states that seceded the Union, so basically all the rebellious southern states that formed the Confederacy. It did not end slavery in the north, nor did it end slavery in the territories, all of which were still part of the Union.
So many people think The Emancipation Proclamation formally abolished all slavery everywhere in the United States and that all those now free slaves were granted citizenship and voting rights. It's simply not true, which is sad.
What is true is that while slavery does have heated events prior to the Civil War that lead up to the Civil War, slavery was not THE reason for the war. Remember how I was saying it is true that the north didn't have as many slaves as the south, and it was because the north wasn't as rural and was more urbanized than the south? Yeah, that. There was so much room in the south for sprawling plantations. Room that the north didn't really have. With sprawling plantations you need a lot of labour to work that, thus more slaves. Economically, one would realize that more room to grow things means more things to sell. More slaves to work and harvest means quicker over-turning of profits. The south was making money hand over mouth compare the the north. The north wanted a share in that money. The south seeing that they'd be getting paid for not doing the work basically said fuck you. The north pressured, the south felt they shouldn't be told what to do. Bam Secession.
Slavery was a factor, obviously. But it was one of many factors that led to secession. Secession led to war, because the north's (& Lincolns) main goal was to force the southern states to return. United, there's a chance for sharing the wealth. Divided there was none. Three years into the war and northern morale over a forced reunification was waning. Lincolns cabinet advised him to make slavery the issue as it was something a lot of northerners could get behind, as well as the Union giving its own fuck you to the south. Bam Emancipation Proclomation. Union regiment inlistment soared. Though, I have to wonder how if the seceded states had, you know, actually seceded and formed their own government, how in the hell was the north supposed to really regulate the freeing of slaves in 'nation' they didn't own, nor had no authority in governing. Which, of course, is why no slaves were freed in the south after the proclomation. But that was the norths plan, as weird as it is.
05. The south seceded from the north because the south wanted nothing more than to keep their slaves.
This also extends to the people in the south who fought in the war. I hear all the time how EVERYONE in the south owned slaves/were for slavery. But this is illogical as well as wrong.
Absolutely the wealthy plantation owners owned slaves and one reason (one) they seceded and fought against the Union in the war, was so they could keep them. But even the wealthy planation owners shared something in common with just about all the other people who fought for the south; chalk it all up to 'stay out of my damn business, I can do what I want.' You hear about "The Cause", THIS was THE Cause. Freedom, plain and simple. Freedom to do whatever YOU wanted, freedom to not be told what to do. I agree, quite hypocrytical since one of their freedoms was to keep people enslaved to help turn profits. The Cause wasn't slavery, the cause was freedom.
Actually that's only partly true. Generally speaking that is what The Cause was about. But the south was a lot more unorganized than you have been led to believe. While that was the general concensus of The Cause, there were a lot of little groups in the south, and each one had their own Cause.
Besides that general concensus, you had wealthy slave owners who for them, The Cause, was slavery. You had fresh off the boat immigrants, mainly Scottish and Irish, who if they wanted to keep their families fed, they had to keep their jobs, and keeping their jobs meant supporting the war effort. Most had no opinion what-so-ever about slavery or plantations, they just wanted to keep their jobs. So, for them, The Cause, was all about survival. Other immigrants could get on board with The Cause because it meant freedom.
Then you have the groups of established (meaning not fresh off the boat) Scottish and Irish people. They were poor. The Cause, for them, was most certainly all about freedom. However, this group couldn't care less about slavery or north vs south or any of that. They fought to get out their anger over past injustices from the English. They had their own regiments; all Scottish or all Irish, they wore their kilts, they carried their Old World battleflags, they carried not drums and flutes but bagpipes and harps into battle. Their Cause was basically, 'fuck you, England'. They knew they were not fighing the English, but it was a chance to fight and they took it.
And there were groups who thought The Cause was all about wealthy people keeping their slaves. This group was not about to fight for wealthy people that they detested, so instead these groups seceded from the already seceded south. Some even formed their own militia to thwart southern regiments by stealing horses, food, etc. This group was basically the same as the major southern group; they seceded because they didn't want anyone telling them what to do, they wanted their freedom.
The Cause is still instilled in southerners today. I don't even know if it's something they learn or something they are born with. They do not like people coming into their states and towns that know nothing about anything and telling them what to do. And it was only made worse by the way reunification went down.
06. The north wanted to reunite the country.
It is all well and true that President Liconln wanted to reunite the country. This really was his most determined mission by having a war. As I am sure there were people living in the north who agreed with the President, and did, in fact, want to be reunited.
But the majority of people in the north, simply didn't care about reunification. Reunification means more than coming back together. President Lincoln knew this. You have to heal wounds, you have to come to agreements, you have to become one nation again through love, not hate.
But President Lincoln was assisinated shortly after the end of the war. His dreams of a real reunification never happend, as they died with him. The majority of northerners who came to the south after the war, to "reunify", only came with hate in their hearts. They did not reunite, as much as take over. They beat and raped the women, they belittled, they pillaged what was left untouched during the war. Their actions only helped to further separate the north from the south. You can see it, still, today.
The news stories, articles, surveys, ect. are still greatly biased towards the north. Of course I'm not saying all southerners hate northerners or vice versa, or that all news stories only paint the north (and anything held by the Union, which were all territories, so that expands to everything except the seceded states) in a favourable light. But, in the general scheme of things, there is still a great distrust amongst southerners towards the people living in the north, as well as a great dislike amongst the northerners towards the people living in the south. We may all be apart of The United States of America, but their is still a division, wounds that have never healed. The north says it's because the south lost; because they all lost their slaves. It isn't really that, as much as the over exaggerated arrogance of them winning. And we know that the slave holders in the south were not a majority. The majority of southerners could not have lamented the loss of something, or a way of life, that they knew nothing about.
I would only agree with the 'poor loser' mentality if the north had come to the south after the war and played it cool, you know the type of attitude where one helps people rebuild because you are all the same nation. Things are forgiven on both sides and you work together, as one people to be a nation again. If the south was bucking that, I'd be screaming 'poor losers' too. But, the scenario is brought to a different level all together when all the people's in the south, and I mean ALL of them. All of the poor people, all of the immigrants, all of the slaves, as well as the minority of plantation owners are starving and have lost everything (including family or homes), they are a people without nothing and then people from the north come down and keep them ALL starving, kick them when they are down, kick them some more, mock them, spit at them, beat them, raping the women, etc. This is inhumane. And the very people you think that the north valiantly died in battle to save, the slaves, were not excluded. Not at all. They were starved and beaten and raped by the northerners in the south as well. Again generally speaking. This IS something that happened, however not all northerners were this way and not all of the enslaved were treated this way by the north. But it also was not a 'few and far between' occurance either.
I am also well away of the general opinion that the southerners got what they deserved. But, did they really? If the bad people are the slave owners, if the bad people are the wealthy plantation owners, if the bad people are the ones who really had the power to secede? And let me reitterate. These bad people are the minority (MINORITY, meaning a small percentage of the entire population of peoples living in the seceded south), and you 'punish' not only them but 80 - 90% of all people's living in the seceded south, then how has any form of justice really been served? Justice was served and then went way beyond that into madness.
It is because the general population only sees things in black and white and rarely do they even acknowledge the grey area's, even though life is nothing but grey area's. A black and white issue (there is no pun, I'm not talking races here) became EVERYONE in the south is evil because EVERYONE in the south owns slaves, loves slavery, fought to keep slavery, all of them dared to secede in the first place, with no acknowledgement to ALL of the grey area's, which ARE important.
It's exactly like a court show on the television. YOU, as the audience knows that Sally up on the stand only murdered her husband because he beat her and killed their children. But, a court of law does not allow for grey area's. The question is simply, "Did you murder your husband?", where only a yes or no answer will suffice. But, if one knew WHY her answer is yes, most would understand that and take it into consideration when passing a judgement. But, only in court shows on television is the grey area's of life, the why's, really allowed.
Without the grey area's, everyone is a monster. Black and white issues leave no room for human emotion, though humans are basically nothing but emotion.
Which leads me to WWII, specifically the terrible Nazi's. Generally you are lead to believe that Nazi's were the first people in history to hate Jewish people and that nothing before or since their atrocities has happened. That every single German person was ecstatically thrilled to sign up and continued to defend their Nazi ways even after the war. But that is severly black and white. Without the grey area's, one can not fully understand the context.
There were several periods in history where Jewish people were murdered, in great numbers, by Europeans. During the first and second Crusades, Jewish populations were decimated, with refugees seeking asylum in Poland. They were not Christians, therefor they were the enemy. During the 14th Century Black Death epidemic, Jewish people's were executed, because according to most Europeans of the time, it was their fault. Again, Poland offered asylum.
During the Spanish Inquisition there was a forceable removal of all Jewish people from Spain. Those that did not want to have to leave had to be baptised as Catholics. Later around 5,000 Jewish people would be burned at the stake during the years of the Inquisition. You guessed it, Poland offered asylum once again. I have to hand it to the country of Poland. If there was an award for awesome, they win it all.
During the 19th Century in the Papal States (Italy), Jewish peoples were forced to live in ghetto's. They were required to attend church sermans and urged to covert to Catholicism. Jewish peoples were taxed more for education and one could not convert from Catholicism to Judaism. There were involuntary baptisms of Jewish peoples.
Antisemitism was rampant during the latter half of the 19th century in Europe and early part of the 20th century.
And in walks The Great War (WWI) and with it The Treaty of Versailles at the end of the war. France thought it was not harsh enough, everyone else thought it was too harsh. Instead of peace agreements, it was an ultimatum; sign the treaty as is, or we resume the war. It stated that Germany had to take all of the blame for the war and everything that was destroyed. Something that was never usually implemented in treaties of past wars. Also, the repirations amounts were exceedingly large to everyone but France. Plus, Germany had to give up all of it's acquired land. Normally in a treaty, the losing side gives up only the land they acquired pertaining to that war. But Germany had to give up any and all land they'd ever acquired since the beginning practically. No other country has ever had to do this in Europe, until after WWII when it was decided for European countries that their colonial acquisitions had to go, which left a bad taste in their mouths.
The treaty was above and beyond what was normal for treaties. It is no wonder that Germany felt slighted. Think of a school yard. You have a few bullies who beat up on some kids. As punishment, only one bully is singled out and the authority takes away all of his toys, spanks, him, gives him detention AND won't let him go to any future parties. That kids is going to be seriously upset and will probably end up going for retribution in the future. I do not believe in retribution, but I am not like other people apparently, either.
So, Germany is practically bankrupt after the treaty, their pride is injured, they've had their asses handed to them ten times over and as a country, feel objectified, not to mention they are also mourning their own losses of life. Because of what I have already stated, it was not uncommon practice to "blame the jews" for everything. And that's basically what happened.
Hitler was an evil man, but he was also very smart. Smart enough to know how to weasle his way into something undetected; appearing the friend, the one who cares. To use his words to rile up human emotion that was already tender. There was never a more perfect playing field for Hilter than post WWI. Psychologically, when groups of humans are vulnerable and you rile them up, most of them will follow you anywhere, especially with promises of food and jobs and a better way of life, when that is what they are lacking at the moment.
Post war Germans were blinded by emotion and loss. Hitler was charasmatic and charming, at first. He seemed like a winning bet. It is no wonder the people rejoiced. But, after awhile people just became afraid. I hear a lot of people say that if confronted with a situation between life or death, that they would choose death, than willingly go along with something. But, from historical things I have read, people rarely ever choose death. Most of the population will cow-tow, will follow, will do whatever you say so that their family or themselves will not be killed. That is not to say all will do that. There have always been resistance movements, but the resistance is always the minority.
So, you have a divided Germany. Hilter assumed he had a unified, willingly faithful following of people. What he actually ended up with was a mass of scared people unwillingly following him. Then there were the people who did actually stay loyal to Hitler. Groups that tried to defy him (assasination attempts, resistance movements, smuggling of Jewish people to safety). And some even still who were only out for number one (not Hitler), so used their power however they felt it should be used.
You had the scared, the willingy and defiant in all groups; families, scientists, military, inner circle, etc. One would say that it was righteous to kill a Nazi soldier in battle, as in they all deserved to die. But did they? Without the grey area's, all you see are a group of blood thirsty monster in swastika's. But are they truely proud to fight and die for Hitler, or are they fighting because of fear, to keep their mothers, fathers, siblings back at home safe?
Some people also think that what the Germans went through post WWII is better than they deserved. Does anyone really undestand what that means? The German people had no food left by the end of the war and the winning sides kept it that way, people were eating dead horses in the streets, rotten dead things. Babies and children were dying of starvation. And on top of all that, while they are dying of starvation, they are having the clean up the ruins, as ordered by the winning side.
All of the truely evil people were gone. Hitler and everyone in his bunker had killed themselves. Anyone captured to await trial at Nuremburg, were already in custody, or would soon kill themselves with cyanide pills before the trial. The others had fled, most never to be found again. All of the troops had been captured and were in POW camps; whether or not they believed in the fighting or fought out of fear.
The only people left in Germany after the war were the elderly, the women and the children. THE ELDERLY, THE WOMEN, and THE CHILDREN! Not that that automatically exempts them for anything, but MOST (80 - 90%) of these people had lived in fear for the better part of the last decade. They had followed because they did not want them and their entire families murdered by the dictatorship that had taken over. I am reminded of my grandfather's story. He was mainly a tech sergeant/mechanic for the US Army in the war, but also had to do some fighting. In one battle he encounted a scared German teen. My grandfather tried coaxing him over with "Kommen Sie hier." So that he would not die, but just be taken prisoner. My grandfather, in battle, could differientiate between monsters and people. The boy was staring to move, wanted to come to my grandfather, but someone ended up killing that scared boy.
I find that my grandfather's story is not that uncommon. There are a lot of nations that send people to fight; they are too young or they do not believe in what is being faught for. Some men try (and succeed) in helping them to not be killed. Other men will kill first and ask questions later. War is never pretty. War is always sad for every "enemy" or "hero" fighting in it, or those who feel the effects, from home, of the losses.
People would want to rebuttle that they still deserved it because they followed him in the first place, voted him in so to speak. But, how many times have you voted for someone for an elected office because they promised things you wanted, only to have them turn out to be crooked? Do not tell me never, because I will know you are lying. So, what would happen if you followed the candidate that seemed really great... and oops now that all is said and done and there is no going back he turns out to be Hitler? What then. You deserved it? You deserve all that fear and horror you lived through, your friends and neighbours murdered, your sons dying in a war you never even thought would happen, all the death and sorrow, dying of starvation at the end, eating dead, rotting horses; feeding that to your dying children?
Grey area's matter, people. They really do.
Now, this does not really apply to the holocaust, it is separate because A) that was seen out by select military, so does not include civilians and B) most of the general population of Germany (including most of the military) had no idea about concentration camps, or the evils perpatrated within. And the one's that did, just avoided that because they couldn't upset anything lest they be killed.
While the holocaust IS a part of things that went down under Hitler and are a part of the war, most people had no idea about them until the end of things. So, it is rather separate.
None of my article is intended to justify slavery or the holocaust. On the contrary, those were horrible events in history. I also do not use the history of slavery or the killing of Jews to say, "Oh, there has always been slavery, so who cares." or "Jewish people have always been killed, so who cares.", as some people would. I supply that information, because it is factual, historical information. It helps to portray what the world was like during those times; to help you understand where things came from, the mentality of the world up to that point and during that point.
Not that it is right, because I do not believe it to be right and honourable, but knowing that Europeans persecuted Jewish people's through out history and antisemitism was rampant before WWII, helps one to understand the cultural climate of the time, coupled with an unfair treaty in the history of treaties, of how an entire nation could follow someone so blindly into hell basically.
Also, to understand that slavery was not uncommon helps one to realize that, while barbaric, Europeans at the time did not think of their actions as barbaric; they were being 'normal' and 'civilized'. Not that I would agree they were, in fact, 'civilized', it doesn't matter, they did what they did and at the time it wasn't seen as any big deal. Which of course is very sad and unfortunate for all of the Indeginous people's of the America's and later the Africans. I also do not agree with forcibly sending people back somewhere if they do not want to go, but giving this information helps you understand that during that time period, it was a generally accepted idea.
I supplied all the information, mainly to show that people only learn or only want to believe one side of events. I have supplied both sides, the greater picture, which is accurate to anyone's knowlege; as in this is the factual history that is there. Sure there could be things we don't know, but as far as testimony's and eye witness accounts and historical documents of the time, this is what is out there.
But this all leads to the article I linked to at the beginning of this post, and how I do not understand or abide retribution. I understand that it is a part of most people's genetic make-up. They feel slighted, they retaliate, no matter how small or grand the scale. So, this woman knowingly giving STD's to soldiers, knowing it will kill them, her own fuck you in the war, is something to praise? But, I think that is horrible to do to someone. I am not a very religious person, but I can get on board with the things that Jesus said about 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Obviously he didn't say those words exactly, but that is what he meant when he said the thing about if someone hits you, then offer up the other side of your face to them, as well as the one about the person who has no sin can cast the first stone. Those, I think are pretty important.
I think there are more important and better ways to "stick it to the man" than something like this. Instead of knowingly infecting soldiers who may or may not even be willingly fighting to take over your land, kill your people, etc. Why not use your energy to, I don't know, help smuggle Jewish people out to safety? Or help smuggle out your fellow non Jewish country men out to safety? or start a resistance movement so that you stop new regiments, or supplies from crossing your borders?
This is inline with allowing the German people to starve after the war. I'm sure the general consensus of the Allied Powers were that "you forced people to starve, so we'll force you to starve." Besides the fact that 90% of the population didn't even know people were being starved, what was the point? You are horrified at the starvation of people's, just to sink to the level of the perpetrators by doing the same thing? It is the same as "You killed my family member. Murder is wrong. Now I'm going to kill your family member." How is becoming the monster any different than the monster?
I may have way too much compassion for people, but I can not help it. People are people. People do a lot of stupid things. As none of us are really innocent, it is unfair to punish the "innocent". I agree with punishment, but not when things go to extremes. As with WWII, yes, punish the actual master minds and the people who have no remorse. They gladly did what was told of them, reveled in it. But this is after all is said and done. The war is over, they've been captured and are going to be judged by a war court. But broad generalizations lead to gross justification which leads to the punishment of people who should not be punished.
I personally do not find that woman a hero. I find her weak. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about something and I think she went about it the wrong way. Should she be killed for it? Of course not. Should she be honoured for it? Absolutely not.
*And in case anyone does read this entire post, I'm well aware that people out there like to scream "Sources!". I dislike this because to me, it seems like those people don't want to work for the information, they just want you to tell them. My sources are almost a life time worth of book reading (non fiction, historical), internet searches, library time, news publications, and a plethora of documentaries.
Comments