Why is it we forced "de-nazification" on Germany but not the equivalent on Confederates?
In some respects, Lincoln was too kind to Southern leaders, wanting a gentler, conciliatory reconstruction rather than bringing their leaders low and root out violent racists the way Ulysses S. Grant later did as president--but too late to have the public behind him.
As Dylan Roof lamented, the Klan and other racist groups never quite recovered from Grant's work in South Carolina.
It seems a little reminiscent of the Wall Street bailout. Wealthy Southern planters profited mightily from the labor of slaves, started a war that damaged the entire country, and Lincoln was most concerned about bringing those very enslavers and traitors back into the family.
That soft approach seems to have led to Jim Crow and the lingering injured pride of Southerners, whose heroes were allowed to keep their honor.
= new reply since forum marked as read
And the Confederacy was mainly confined to their original territory where Nazi Germany had expanded hither and yon through Europe, burning and looting as they went along.
And as FYI, "Reconstruction" was particularly brutal on the South and there was a major recession ("Panic"
during the period, although when Reconstruction ended, all hell broke loose for blacks.
Sometimes an apple is an apple. The nation needed the goods that could be produced in the warmer climes of that part of the country and it was critical to get those areas back in the fold. And alot of the issue had to do with "voting mattering", where the only voters at the time were male and they voted someone into office to neuter what had come about after the Civil War.
in US history took place July 12-16, 1863 at the time of the Battle of Gettysburg. Mobs of angry poor working class laborers and immigrants including Irish Catholics attacked and burned wealthy businesses, homes and targeted black people, 10 of whom were killed, two by lynching after being brutally beaten.
The mobs sacked and burned a Colored Orphanage Asylum with more than 250 children who had been evacuated by staff fortunately. Historians estimate that at least 115 people were killed during the 4 day riots and looting.
The call to conscript/draft soldiers for the military angered and caused resentment among the working class poor who would have to join the US Army to fight for the Union in the Civil War, unlike wealthy men who could pay substitutes to serve for them, and black men who were ineligible for the draft because they were not legally American citizens.
With Lincoln's Emancipation, soon after this horrific event black men were permitted to join the US military in federal US Colored Troops Regiments and they fought bravely for the North in combat in South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia and other Union engagements.
~ History, Four Days of Fire, the New York City Draft Riots, July, 1863 ~
http://www.history.com/news/four-days-of-fire-the-new-york-city-draft-riots
See: "Gangs of New York" (2002) movie by Martin Scorsese with Leonardo Di Caprio, Daniel Day Lewis, fictional historical drama set in NYC in 1863 during the Civil War, and "Glory" (1989) movie based on the true story of the Civil War Union 54th Massachusetts black regiment with Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman.
Since they provide us with this smilie 
which stands for what the fuck, or shortened to "the fuck".
Seriously, that is your reply to being shown there was segregation and busing in the north? To attempt a south bashing insult? What the fuck?
Get some bad news recently? 
We need truth and reconciliation on the civil war. We need to remove the symbols of racism and American apartheid and have a frank and open dialogue on what hundreds of years of slavery and oppression have gotten us to where we are now as a nation.
Many factors inhibited bringing about the social changes needed in the post-Civil War period. Lack of leadership on the national level didn't help and neither did widely held views about African Americans inferiority. If you look at the period before and after the Civil War, it seemed that there was little consensus on what to do with freed slaves. Even some abolitionists supported policies of repatriating African Americans to Africa. When Jim Crow laws began to sprout in the 1880s and 1890s, the courts could have stopped it, but did not.
De-nazification wasn't the panacea either. It didn't work because a large part of the population - for one reason or another - was left untouched There were many obstacles that complicated the process. Membership in the Nazi party comprised maybe 7% of the German population or roughly about 6 million members. The sheer number of Germans and Austrians subject to de-nazification was overwhelming to the various Allies. The bulk of Nazi party members lost voting or other privileges for 3 or fewer years.
Some who weren't classified major offenders spent less than a decade in jail. There's a reason it's taken 70 years for some people working in concentration camps to be brought to trial. The formerly West German criminal justice system required proof that a person killed specific people. That requirement was only lifted about a decade ago. "Former" nazis played a role in the West German criminal justice system and didn't make it easy to bring people to justice.
There were also tens of thousands of ordinary Germans engaged in the mass murder of European Jewry and others Nazi ideology deemed unacceptable. Daniel Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, basically destroys the myth that Hitler and his SS henchmen murdered millions of people all on their own.
Sexism also played a role. Some female guards were apprehended and prosecuted, but the vast majority of women who were complicit in carrying out war crimes were never brought to justice because of their gender. You know because women are genetically incapable of committing atrocities. Insert eye roll. Insert eye roll
There's an excellent treatment of female nazis by Wendy Lower called Hitler's Furies. You can read a synopsis here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432620/Hitlers-Furies-The-Nazi-women-bit-evil-men.html
I think what there were split off sections of who controls who or in Berlin but it wasn't a fully independent Germany (which both West & Europe were scared shitless) which led to the wall which the US initially took as a sign that USSR probably doesn't want to invade West Berlin since they are building a wall. I'm far from a historian on this but do know there were as an incredible amount of paranoia on the US side which Russia or USSR was paranoid in return with the US flying around 24/7 with a nuke "just in case" and vice versa hence they started shoveling money into the fire (defense spending) but particularly an independent Germany or another Nazi-like Germany were what both sides of Europe was afraid. The official name of the wall "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"
Here is what I'm saying and I'm reluctant to research much of this due to bias but since I'm not well aware of the other side but only this side I take into account there was a lot of bias on this side & probably a lot of bias on the other side. A lot of bad idea supported by propaganda like the tearing down of forests, canals, large scale collective farms, etc.
===
There is a direct historical link running from: Hitler to Hearst, to Conquest, to Solzhenitsyn. In 1933 political change took place in Germany that were to leave their mark on world history for decades to come. On 30 January Hitler became prime minister and a new form of government, involving violence and disregard of the law, began to take shape. In order to consolidate their grip on power the Nazis called fresh elections for the 5th of March, using all propaganda means within their grasp to secure victory. A week before the elections, on 27 February, the Nazis set fire to parliament and accused the communists of being responsible. In the elections that followed, the Nazis secured 17.3 million votes and 288 deputies, about 48% of the electorate (in November they had secured 11.7 million votes and 196 deputies). Once the Communist Party was banned, the Nazis began to persecute the Social Democrats and the trade union movement, and the first concentration camps began to fill up with all those left-wing men and women. In the meantime, Hitler's power in parliament continued to grow, with the help of the right wing. On 24 March, Hitler caused a law to be passed by parliament which conferred on him absolute power to rule the country for 4 years without consulting parliament. From then on began the open persecution of the Jews, the first of whom began to enter the concentration camps where communists and left social-democrats were already being held. Hitler pressed ahead with his bid for absolute power, renouncing the 1918 international accords that had imposed restrictions on the arming and militarisation of Germany. Germany's re-armament took place at great speed. This was the situation in the international political arena when the myths concerning those dying in the Soviet Union began to be put together.
The Ukraine as a German Territory
At Hitler's side in the German leadership was Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, the man in charge of inculcating the Nazi dream into the German people. This was a dream of a racially pure people living in a Greater Germany, a country with broad lebensraum, a wide space in which to live. One part of this lebensraum, an area to the east of Germany which was, indeed, far larger than Germany itself, had yet to be conquered and incorporated into the German nation. In 1925, in Mein Kampf Hitler had already pointed to the Ukraine as an essential part of this German living space. The Ukraine and other regions of Eastern Europe needed to belong to the German nation so that they could be utilised in a 'proper' manner. According to Nazi propaganda, the Nazi sword would liberate this territory in order to make space for the German race. With German technology and German enterprise, the Ukraine would be transformed into an area producing cereals for Germany. But first the Germans had to liberate the Ukraine of its population of 'inferior beings' who, according to Nazi propaganda, would be put to work as a slave labour force in German homes, factories and fields - anywhere they were needed by the German economy.
The conquest of the Ukraine and other areas of the Soviet Union would necessitate war against the Soviet Union, and this war had to be prepared well in advance. To this end the Nazi propaganda ministry, headed by Goebbels, began a campaign around a supposed genocide committed by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine, a dreadful period of catastrophic famine deliberately provoked by Stalin in order to force the peasantry to accept socialist policy. The purpose of the Nazi campaign was to prepare world public opinion for the 'liberation' of the Ukraine by German troops. Despite huge efforts and in spite of the fact that some of the German propaganda texts were published in the English press, the Nazi campaign around the supposed 'genocide' in the Ukraine was not very successful at the world level. It was clear that Hitler and Goebbels needed help in spreading their libellous rumours about the Soviet Union. That help they found in the USA.
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm
Forget the last sentence, I'm focusing on the anti-Nazi part of it and why the anti-fascist stuff & certainly the Ukraine part of it is true regardless of current events but it helps transition to my next point which was despite the efforts, there has been surging rise of the far right in places like France, Ukraine, and probably a lot of other European countries with neo-Nazis in particular. It is like there is more neo-Nazis there than here and I don't get it with all those people still falling for the propaganda after all these years and why do they like the idea of a police state. Swastikas graffited on the walls in France (not all over but they certainly are there). I picked a very controversial example but one I thought of when it came to Nazis is Ukraine, probably the most famous example is the Svobada Party but this is an example of the propaganda from the link.
“All of us can still clearly remember it was the Soviet Union who invaded Ukraine and Germany. This is exactly what happened and we need to prevent this happening again. Nobody has the right to rewrite the history and results about WWII.”
Yatsenyuk during a live interview for the German national television network ARD, 7 January 2015[111][112][113]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk
While it is true USSR invaded Germany from the East while they were invading France to the West
While it is true USSR invaded Germany in World War I from the East while they were invading France from the West in WWII the war in Europe started when Germany invaded Poland (same area the USSR invaded) this is where it gets messy
--
Adolf Hitler had declared his intention to invade the Soviet Union on 11 August 1939 to Carl Jacob Burckhardt, League of Nations Commissioner by saying, "Everything I undertake is directed against the Russians. If the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, then I shall be compelled to come to an agreement with the Russians, beat the West and then after their defeat turn against the Soviet Union with all my forces. I need the Ukraine so that they can't starve us out, as happened in the last war.".[12]
I'm saying despite their efforts. The ideology is still very common and far too common as far as Europe is concerned. As to your question on the US -- The Radical Republicans were one of my all-time favorite parties. Do think Lincoln and everybody needed to take a stronger stance in reconstruction.
Radical Republicans
The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party from about 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals" and were opposed during the war by the Moderate Republicans (led by Abraham Lincoln), by the Conservative Republicans, and by the pro-slavery Democratic Party. After the war, the Radicals were opposed by self-styled "conservatives" (in the South) and "liberals" (in the North). Radicals strongly opposed slavery during the war and after the war distrusted ex-Confederates, demanding harsh policies for the former rebels, and emphasizing civil rights and voting rights for freedmen (recently freed slaves).[1]
During the war, Radical Republicans often opposed Lincoln in terms of selection of generals (especially his choice of Democrat George B. McClellan for top command) and his efforts to bring states back into the Union. The Radicals passed their own reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect when he was assassinated in 1865.[2] Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freedmen, such as measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the Reconstruction Acts, and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederates. They bitterly fought President Andrew Johnson; they weakened his powers and attempted to remove him from office through impeachment (they were one vote short). The Radicals were vigorously opposed by the Democratic Party and often by moderate and Liberal Republicans as well.[3]
The Radical coalition
The term "radical" was in common use in the anti-slavery movement before the Civil War, referring not to abolitionists but to Northern politicians strongly opposed to the Slave Power.[4] Many, perhaps a majority, had been Whigs, such as William Seward, a leading presidential contender in 1860 and Lincoln's Secretary of State, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, and Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, the leading radical newspaper. There was movement in both directions: some of the pre-war radicals (such as Seward) became more conservative during the war, while some prewar moderates became Radicals. Some wartime radicals had been conservative Democrats before the war, often taking proslavery positions. They included John A. Logan of Illinois, Edwin Stanton of Ohio, Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts, Ulysses S. Grant of Illinois, and Vice President Andrew Johnson (Johnson broke with the Radicals after he became president.)
In a pamphlet directed to black voters in 1867, the Union Republican Congressional Committee stated:
the word Radical as applied to political parties and politicians....means one who is in favor of going to the root of things; who is thoroughly in earnest; who desires that slavery should be abolished, that every disability connected therewith should be obliterated.[5]
The Radicals were never formally organized, and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates, and War Democrats; while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became president in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. Johnson, however, was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, most of them ex-radicals, ran a presidential campaign, and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt, and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South. They were overwhelmingly defeated and collapsed as a movement.
On issues not concerned with the Slave Power, the destruction of the Confederacy, the eradication of slavery and the rights of the Freedmen, Radicals took positions all over the political map. For example Radicals who had once been Whigs generally supported high tariffs, and ex-Democrats generally opposed them. Some men were for hard money and no inflation, and others were for soft money and inflation. The argument, common in the 1930s, that the radicals were primarily motivated by a desire to selfishly promote Northeastern business interests, has seldom been argued by historians for a half-century.[6] On foreign policy issues, the Radicals and moderates generally did not take distinctive positions.[7]
Wartime
Henry Jarvis Raymond
After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality. Lincoln put all factions in his cabinet, including Radicals like Salmon P. Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), whom he later appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, James Speed (Attorney General) and Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War). Lincoln appointed many Radical Republicans, such as journalist James Shepherd Pike, to key diplomatic positions. Angry with Lincoln, in 1864 some Radicals briefly formed a political party called the Radical Democracy Party[8] with John C. Frémont as their candidate for president, until Frémont withdrew.
An important Republican opponent of the Radical Republicans was Henry Jarvis Raymond. Raymond was both editor of the New York Times and also a chairman of the Republican National Committee. In Congress the most influential Radical Republicans were U.S. Senator Charles Sumner and U.S. Representative Thaddeus Stevens. They led the call for a war that would end slavery.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican
I agree with you 100% on the US, just wanted to comment on "de-nazification" which exactly hasn't worked hence the two comments.
...in a room full of volatiles...
Anybody got a match??
