Friday, August 24, 2012

History is written by those who have won a war!



First of all, any history is written by those who have won their war.... Therefore, even though the Communist party in Communist Russia (The USSR) was much more vile, ruthless, and inhuman than Nazis, the USSR tends to be seen to be just deluded but not evil whereas Nazis tends to be described as something worse than the USSR.

Stalin and his leading party have committed the holocaust of the particular ethnicity and racial groups. Some of the researches indicated that Stalin's racial holocaust was far more intense than Nazis between 1930s and 1940s. The Jewish holocaust committed by Nazis was certainly the worst ultimately evil crime in the human history without a doubt because it is ultimately wrong to target one particular race for an unjust holocaust lead by a cause based on an irrational superstitious reasoning. Nazis' way of killing a particular ethnic and racial group was pathetic and went beyond what conscious human-beings are able to do. Nonetheless, this cannot be the reason to say Nazis was more oppressive and vile than Stalin and his leading USSR. Nazis ethnic and racial holocaust was well-announced, well-planned and deeply reasoned by the cause more than the USSR ethnic and racial holocaust. But, the number of ethnic minority groups targeted by the holocaust was higher in the USSR, and how they suffer from the USSR administration was more oppressive and contiguous than what Nazis did.

Although the USSR did not "explicitly" declare to target "particular" ethnic and racial groups like what Nazis did, the USSR "nonexplicitly" committed the ethnic and racial holocaust. So, not only the number of victims but also the number of categories suffered from the holocaust should be higher in the USSR than Nazis Germany. The government officials were more likely to be selected from the main stream Russians, and the administration put priority on the ethnic majority to the ethnic minority to give any benefit. Under the USSR, almost everything was planned to distribute. Economy, finance, natural resources, individual right and freedom, and political power were distributed under the collective planning. If these things are collectively planned to be distributed under a centralised authoritarian administration, people with a closer relationship with the centralised authoritarian administration obtain more than the other counterparts. Any sorts of resources are limited. When Russians wanted to secure resources for Russians, eventually they needed to abandon the distribution of resources to the others. Therefore, although the USSR did not target one particular ethnicity and race, the USSR injured various ethnic and racial groups! Even many of these victims of the USSR injury died off by the harsh treatment. The typical example is the suffrage of the middle Asian ex-USSR satellite nations. People in these nations still suffer from the oppression of the USSR. The exact figure of victims under the USSR administration is never known. The fact we may know is that the number of victims was higher and the way these people were treated were worse in the USSR than the current Russia.



Some historians also claim that the historical aspect of the American Civil War is very similar to the previously mentioned Nazis v.s. USSR debate. Not as much as about either Nazis or the USSR, this American Civil War history is not controversial. But, this part of American history is still yet very controversial. The point is that the South has been described an an ultimate evil even though the North industrialists were not innocent as saints at all! Both the North (Union) and the South (Confederate) fought the civil war for their own la raison d'etre, and were burdened with their own vice.

Of course, it was inevitable for the North to defeat the South due to the superiority in the productivity level in the North. The reason why the North had a significantly higher productivity than the South was that the North developed what the individuals and the economic development required at the contemporary time period. The U.S.A. had to adapt the industrial revolution and evolved from the feudalist pastoral economy to the modern industrial economy.

Nevertheless, we must not forget that evolution and progress mean to gain something by losing something. The modern civilised human-beings have gained knowledge, technology, order, and wealth. However, they have also lost the wide sensation, physical strength, intuitive emotion, and relaxing life style. The modernisation has provided us individual liberty and right, and developed the technology to improve the living standard. However, at the same time, it increased the inequality of wealth, made individuals' life very hectic, and

Actually, many industrial workers in the North were deprived as same as or even worse than the slaves in the South. Even though these industrial workers in the North had more freedom of choice, their life style was not always better than the counterpart of the slaves in the South. The North actually did not need to provoke the war (Even though the North claimed they "had to" under the federal law) to kill the citizens in the South! The North was indeed quite an authoritarian owing to that attitude...! Only the condition of the South's victory was remaining at least one state leaving from the union. So, the South did not have an intention to conquel and convince all the states to follow the Southern rule. Therefore, the North did not need to invade the South to protect the Northern interest. All in all, the Northen aggression and occupation would not have been that necessary....

----

*** Following added up on 11th May, 2015 ***

The case of slavery is typical scapegoat the Northern totalitarian has been using since the secession! The contemporary Northerners too much suffered from the paranoia of wrongly believing that the Southerners were invading the North with the slavery ideology! No, the Southerners have never been such a bunch of the Dark force led by the imaginable Doom Vader!   Actually, the Southern big slave owners were minority, and the rest majority Southerners were the pretty much decent citizens loyal to their family, peers, and homeland! The Southern business cycle was very detached from the Northern counterpart, and kept the independent diplomacy. Yeah, the Southern secession could be unconstitutional, but the Northern aggression with various brutal massacres was not peaceful like the US constitution suggests at all! You must have at least studied about the "Sherman's march to the sea" ! Furthermore, even though there were many sensible Northerners like George B. McClellan who supported ceasefire agreement after dealing enough damages to the Southerners, the Northerners kept clang to their brutal aggression because their intention of action was morally correct, and I found this was too hypocritical like socialists!  

No comments: