Well...I just spent maybe half an hour or so exploring pictures I could potentially post here from the Nuremberg Trials. In my searches, I stumbled upon this site which disputes the credibility of charges of inhumane medical experiments being carried out by Nazi doctors. In fact, it does much more than that. It says that the Jews completely fabricated the charges and that people hung because of these lies. Further exploration of the site led me to a page which depicts Auschwitz as a livable, humane place complete with an orchestra, dental facilities, a brothel, and a daycare center. This is really what makes my stomach turn. I honestly feel sick to my stomach, but I'll try to say something.
Today in class, we discussed the Nuremberg Trials: their legitimacy, rationale, and effects afterward. I tend to agree with Liz on this one when she says that, "Though we're uncomfortable with the "victors" deciding what is right and what is wrong, the horrible crimes involved were not just German crimes, but human ones, and thus the determination and trial of these crimes should involve the whole world." What still irks me is the fact that "the whole world" was really only the victorious countries. Briefly in class we debated the hypocrisy in trying Nazis for war crimes when the U.S. itself had firebombed civilians in Germany and dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Sadly, while ideologically it's completely outrageous that they/we shouldn't have been put on trial for this, it's not as if the tribunal was about to point the finger at its creating countries. So the tribunal at Nuremberg wasn't a "world tribunal," so the system was imperfect. Does that make it any less necessary?
Showing posts with label WWII. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WWII. Show all posts
March 30, 2009
Russia Milking It Big Time
Regarding: Grace's post questioning: "Was it fair for the Soviet Union to receive control over Eastern Europe?"
Today in class, the phrase that came to mind when thinking about Stalin and Russia post-WWII was "milking it." I can't deny that I don't milk things. If I'm sick at home I like to be fussed over a little, brought cold compresses, gingerale, etc. But that milking it is more than slightly forgivable. My mother doesn't especially mind buying me soda or making up ice bags. When looking at the matter of an entire swathe of Eastern Europe, I assumed it'd be hard to say the same of the U.S. giving up the territories to the Soviets. Oddly, it doesn't seem like it was.
As far as our studies have taken us, I can't remember reading anything about how distraught the U.S. or Britain was to give up Latvia, Estonia, and other countries which would become a buffer between East and West, this time imposed by the Communist East. In the Percentages Agreement made by Churchill and Stalin, the two simply carved up Southern Eastern Europe into spheres of influence.
Russia's main claim was that they "deserved" Eastern Europe as a form of both protection in the future (from Western conflicts) and a sort of reparation for their sustained losses in WWII, and while I definitely agreed that Russia essentially won on the Eastern front by virtue of pure numbers and willingness to suffer through the war effort, it seems extremely odd that the Allies wouldn't have argued more for control in Eastern Europe. But perhaps I am missing something.
Today in class, the phrase that came to mind when thinking about Stalin and Russia post-WWII was "milking it." I can't deny that I don't milk things. If I'm sick at home I like to be fussed over a little, brought cold compresses, gingerale, etc. But that milking it is more than slightly forgivable. My mother doesn't especially mind buying me soda or making up ice bags. When looking at the matter of an entire swathe of Eastern Europe, I assumed it'd be hard to say the same of the U.S. giving up the territories to the Soviets. Oddly, it doesn't seem like it was.
As far as our studies have taken us, I can't remember reading anything about how distraught the U.S. or Britain was to give up Latvia, Estonia, and other countries which would become a buffer between East and West, this time imposed by the Communist East. In the Percentages Agreement made by Churchill and Stalin, the two simply carved up Southern Eastern Europe into spheres of influence.
Russia's main claim was that they "deserved" Eastern Europe as a form of both protection in the future (from Western conflicts) and a sort of reparation for their sustained losses in WWII, and while I definitely agreed that Russia essentially won on the Eastern front by virtue of pure numbers and willingness to suffer through the war effort, it seems extremely odd that the Allies wouldn't have argued more for control in Eastern Europe. But perhaps I am missing something.
March 27, 2009
How...appeasing.
There's something about the name "Chamberlain" which conjures up greatness. Perhaps, and most likely, this is just some bizarre obsession I have with Anglo-Saxon names, but I'll admit that "Chamberlain" really can't compare with "Churchill." There's just something so solid about "Churchill."
Anyways, this is kind of spinning off of this post which discusses the Munich Agreement.
To me, the idea of appeasement is very much like the following cartoon:
(Source here)
Essentially, one person attempts to pacify another person via concessions. I was actually reminded in class of taking a dog biscuit and tossing it across the room in hopes that my very large, ill-behaved Rhodesian Ridgeback might follow the treat and leave me alone. I think this is what Chamberlain attempted to do. He was very much concerned with preserving peace...at least in Western Europe, specifically Britain. Czechoslovakia was the doggie biscuit, meant to distract Hitler, but while it did (perhaps) create more time for the armament of Britain (and France), what happened is best shown in this cartoon:
(Source here) Click to enlarge.
However, I do acknowledge that appeasement can be a rational decision, and even an intelligent one (for all the reasons we discussed in class).
Anyways, this is kind of spinning off of this post which discusses the Munich Agreement.
To me, the idea of appeasement is very much like the following cartoon:
(Source here)
Essentially, one person attempts to pacify another person via concessions. I was actually reminded in class of taking a dog biscuit and tossing it across the room in hopes that my very large, ill-behaved Rhodesian Ridgeback might follow the treat and leave me alone. I think this is what Chamberlain attempted to do. He was very much concerned with preserving peace...at least in Western Europe, specifically Britain. Czechoslovakia was the doggie biscuit, meant to distract Hitler, but while it did (perhaps) create more time for the armament of Britain (and France), what happened is best shown in this cartoon:
(Source here) Click to enlarge.
However, I do acknowledge that appeasement can be a rational decision, and even an intelligent one (for all the reasons we discussed in class).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
