prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
In fairness/wholeness, the Soviets did initiate hostilities, just alongside instead of against the Germans.
Confederate history month
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
In fairness/wholeness, the Soviets did initiate hostilities, just alongside instead of against the Germans.
In an ideal world both the nazis and the soviets would have collapsed after the war letting poland be free again.
Fair enough, if that's how you feel that's how you feel. However, most people find attempted murder directed at them to be much worse than abusive behavior directed at others.
I assure you, it's not easy to say "Hey, you know the Nazis sorta got a raw deal". But it's still true, principles don't stop being principles because applying them is uncomfortable.
That is actually wrong: Soviet Invasion of Poland.
You’re missing Finland too, which led to the Finnish joining the Axis to get their land back.
King Arts
Well-known member
Yeah many minor powers like Romania and Hungary joined the Germans simply for protection against the Soviets, sadly they got dragged into a war due to German autism but what can you do.
You forget lynchings were a thing?
Saying it was just 'abuse' in the South during reconstruction is really underselling what happened for the black community down there. Some of the first 'gun laws' were used to disarm newly free slaves, which enabled the Klans shit.
Some times new paradiagms are created by create events, which means principles must be amended to work within the realities of the new circumstances.
What do you think foreign relations, and conflicts, would have looked like post-war, WITHOUT Nuremberg, but WITH nukes in play now?
In fairness/wholeness, the Soviets did initiate hostilities, just alongside instead of against the Germans.
Those are...Poland happened is a very...yeah that I guess would count.
Finland...that was a continuation of a previous conflict, pre-WW2 conflict, more than anything, but yes that was an attempted land grab.
A full on Guerrilla War in the South would have resulted in what Sherman did being a minor incident. Don't underestimate just how brutal a conquering force can be if you decide to piss them off. The South would have been turned into worst version of Beirut Lebanon. If they would have did that.
StormEagle
Well-known member
I think you severely overestimate the north’s willingness to commit to a wholesale slaughter and destruction of the south, as well as their will and frankly ability to keep fighting and bleeding for potentially decades as the war continues.
Murder was not the norm in Jim Crow, whereas it is the intended goal of war.
What "new paradigm"? After WW2 and Nuremberg, everyone was all very solemn and swore that this would be the last time, we would never again allow such a horrible crime against the innocent and helpless to take place.
Then it happened like 20 or 30 more times, and everyone was all "oh, well, you know, this pretty bad, and all, and we don't like it and would love to go and bomb whoever's doing it, but I called up the Navy and they said the entire carrier task force had to wash it's hair that day, so we're gonna have to ask for a raincheck."
If this was actually the beginning of a new era and change, I might be more forgiving, but as it is...no.
Oh yeah, threatened to invade Romania unless they handed over Bessarabia and invaded and took over Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. So in some total the Soviets outright annexed three nations entirely, split one in half in an alliance with the Germans, and threatened two nations with invasion for territory and when another nation refused to hand it over invaded them as well.
No, it wasn’t Pre-WWII. World War II was in full swing during the winter war. The Soviets used the Allies war with Germany as cover to annex territory from five different neutral nations, three in their entirety, and did a whole bunch of war crimes while they were at it.
Last edited:
Never underestimate people. That has been a mistake made by everyone during the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries.
Look at the modern situation with racial issues, and tell me a large part of the black community didn't see it as a war, one that isn't actually over.
The corpo's and politico's who inflame it would not have a fire to begin with if not for what happened during Reconstruction.
I thought the first conflict pre-dated the invasion of Poland by the Germans? Or did it only pre-date Hitler breaking the non-aggression pact with the USSR?
I know there's only two topics worth covering in American History but c'mon, we're talking about the Civil War here, not World War Two.
What is this? The (pre-Pawn Stars/Ancient Aliens) History Channel?
What is this? The (pre-Pawn Stars/Ancient Aliens) History Channel?
It was before the non aggression pact. While Germany had all the attention on them for their annexations of different territories, the Russians used that opportunity to do exactly what Germany was doing with its Anschluss and taking of the Sudetenland etc to go and do all the same things Germany was doing and invaded multiple nations and then did a bunch of war crimes to them, and it’s commonly stated that the Baltics in particular initially were pretty supportive of Germany accordingly, and they had a fairly sizable SS contingent as well. And following WWII absolutely nothing was done about any of this and the Soviets were allowed to keep all the territory they took during WWII from neutral nations and then some.
That’s not really true. Jefferson and many others saw that having two very distinct groups with natural differences and animosity between each other would lead to racial conflict which is why things like the American Colonization Society started. The very fact that you have Africans and Europeans living in the same society means that there will be some level of ethnic conflict between each other because that’s what always happens with different ethnic groups in the same borders.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
So...on the topic of the Confederates' treatment post-war, would it really have been that bad to whack at least a few more politicians and egregiously criminal officers than just Henry Wirz? I'd understand if men like Lee were off-limits for purposes of not overly alienating the South, of course; though not as saintly as has been traditionally portrayed (troops under his command enslaved free blacks they encountered in Pennsylvania in the lead-up to Gettysburg, for instance) he was almost certainly too beloved to face any serious punishment and, in any case, was far from the worst offender on the Southern side. So fair enough, if the goal of Reconstruction is to actually reconstruct the South and not just beat that part of the country into the Earth's core, him and others like him can and should have been let go as they were historically.
But surely Jefferson Davis, who made no friends and a whole lot of enemies in his capacity as the Confederate president (a job in which he was a pretty consistent failure) and whose participation in the war ended when he was disgracefully captured in his wife's clothes, wouldn't be considered a martyr even if he should actually be hanged from a sour-apple tree? There were also other unloved Confederate leaders whose deaths or life-imprisonment terms would likely have Reconstruction a less bumpy ride - Forrest is the most obvious name in this category, but how about Jubal Early (an early post-war propagandist and overall extremely odious character even by 19th century standards), Robert Rhett (an extreme fire-eater before the war who, to my knowledge, did not recant his stance afterward) or Wade Hampton III (founder of the Red Shirt paramilitaries who re-enforced white supremacy in South Carolina and mentor to the even more openly murderous Benjamin Tillman, who betrayed him and put an end to his Senate career later)?
But surely Jefferson Davis, who made no friends and a whole lot of enemies in his capacity as the Confederate president (a job in which he was a pretty consistent failure) and whose participation in the war ended when he was disgracefully captured in his wife's clothes, wouldn't be considered a martyr even if he should actually be hanged from a sour-apple tree? There were also other unloved Confederate leaders whose deaths or life-imprisonment terms would likely have Reconstruction a less bumpy ride - Forrest is the most obvious name in this category, but how about Jubal Early (an early post-war propagandist and overall extremely odious character even by 19th century standards), Robert Rhett (an extreme fire-eater before the war who, to my knowledge, did not recant his stance afterward) or Wade Hampton III (founder of the Red Shirt paramilitaries who re-enforced white supremacy in South Carolina and mentor to the even more openly murderous Benjamin Tillman, who betrayed him and put an end to his Senate career later)?
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I am not especially knowledgeable on this but from what I've heard the failure of the case was more about prosecutorial incompetence and politics than an actually weak case on the fundamentals.
The Trouble With Treason: Prosecuting Jefferson Davis
The Confederate president's trial was bungled from beginning to end
www.historynet.com
Also, you had just finished talking about how ex-Confederates were given leniency, and not going after a ton of people for treason would naturally be the lowest hanging of such fruit.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Let’s try to put lynching into perspective. According to the NAACP (hardly a friendly source to my side of the argument) between 1882 and 1968, there were 4,743 lynchings in the United States. Of those lynched 3,446 were black.
Of course, mob justice is highly problematic to say the least, but over a fourth of those lynched were white. Mob justice is likely to be really biased and not follow due process of law, it also used to happen a lot in rural isolated areas without much strict law and order. These killings weren’t all just white racists terrorizing innocent black people, a quarter of the victims were white, surely some of the other victims actually committed the crimes that they were accused of, and many other cases likely had well meaning killers who honestly thought that they were inflicting a just punishment on a criminal but who were biased, emotional, and limited in their objectivity so ended up killing an innocent person.
I’m not saying that lynchings are good, they aren’t, but let’s not also think that every one of the almost 5,000 lynchings was an act of racial terror against blacks.
Though what if every single one of the 3,446 lynchings were hate crimes by whites directed at blacks? That would be bad, any murder is bad, but to further put things into perspective. Based on the FBI’s 2018 murder statistics, black people committed 3,177 murders in 2018, of which 20% were white. So in a single year, black people murder almost as many people as all of the blacks lynched over the course of 86 years. To further put this into perspective, in 2018 white people and Hispanics combined killed only 3,011 people.
According to that FBI data, 514 whites were murdered by blacks in 2018. If we treat that as typical, the it takes only 7 short years for blacks to pay back 86 years of lynching. We can increase that to 12 years if we only count difference between whites murdered by blacks and blacks murdered by whites, assuming also that all Mestizo people are counted as white.
Of course, mob justice is highly problematic to say the least, but over a fourth of those lynched were white. Mob justice is likely to be really biased and not follow due process of law, it also used to happen a lot in rural isolated areas without much strict law and order. These killings weren’t all just white racists terrorizing innocent black people, a quarter of the victims were white, surely some of the other victims actually committed the crimes that they were accused of, and many other cases likely had well meaning killers who honestly thought that they were inflicting a just punishment on a criminal but who were biased, emotional, and limited in their objectivity so ended up killing an innocent person.
I’m not saying that lynchings are good, they aren’t, but let’s not also think that every one of the almost 5,000 lynchings was an act of racial terror against blacks.
Though what if every single one of the 3,446 lynchings were hate crimes by whites directed at blacks? That would be bad, any murder is bad, but to further put things into perspective. Based on the FBI’s 2018 murder statistics, black people committed 3,177 murders in 2018, of which 20% were white. So in a single year, black people murder almost as many people as all of the blacks lynched over the course of 86 years. To further put this into perspective, in 2018 white people and Hispanics combined killed only 3,011 people.
According to that FBI data, 514 whites were murdered by blacks in 2018. If we treat that as typical, the it takes only 7 short years for blacks to pay back 86 years of lynching. We can increase that to 12 years if we only count difference between whites murdered by blacks and blacks murdered by whites, assuming also that all Mestizo people are counted as white.
Last edited:
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Sorry, I can't get behind that sort of mathematical masturbation. Otherwise I'd be up in arms about all these memorials to war dead. I mean seriously, Vietnam? That's like a presidential term worth of influenza. Where's the Flu Memorial and why isn't it visible from space?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
It’s not mathematical masturbation, it’s comparing murders that everybody are outraged over to murders that people don’t give a damn about. People get really emotional over some crimes but not others because the elites create these biased narratives and saturate our society with propaganda about them. A white on black killing creates this sort of powerful knee jerk reaction for most people, a conditioned reaction, where they see it as just one part of a terrible epidemic of racist persecution of blacks by whites. A black on white killing is, for similar reasons, seen as a rare anomaly that doesn’t represent any trend or social issue and thinking that it does makes you literally worse than the killer.
Also, the deaths of young soldiers in a war, who were most likely drafted, is far different from the deaths of elderly sickly people, who constitute the majority of flu deaths. It’s silly to compare them.
Last edited: