NecronLord wrote: ↑
LaCroix wrote: ↑
They must have gone around to shop for unmarried people who were single children and fit a certain emotionally distanced profile. Because nobody could just be that bad with children to bechave like that. I just refuse to believe that a parent (or anybody with contact to children) could treat a child that bad.
As someone who fits that profile, thanks for the stereotype, shit for brains.
In fact actual academic research on concentration camp guards has shown that there is no profile, and the likes of Eichmann had relatively content family lives behind the scenes. They put on their hats, went out the door, clocked on and started murdering.
The directors of Nazi children's work camps and slave farms (because that was a thing) were often recruited from people with extensive childcare experience.
People who do evil are very good at psychologically distancing themselves from the evil, and compartmentalising it.
Well, since you are protesting against being in "that" group, you obviously are not one with "that" kind of emotional profile... Don't call me out for trying to slip on that shoe, yourself.
Concentration camps were a quite different kind of thing - the children rarely did not go directly into the showers - this selection was a job for the worst of the guards, who took joy in killing en masse. Children were of no value in hard labour, so they were sorted out right ahead. (Knowing what the life inside of the camps was like, it might even be easier to rationalize for the somewhat more humane guards to outright (mercy-)kill the kids, to spare them the slow suffering death.)
Inside (most of - I don't know about all of them, but the earlier ones certainly had some, when they had not yet been turned into killing and torture camps, yet, but were pretty much gulags, still) the camps, there were only adults - and it's somewhat easier to rationalize that it's fine to treat them badly, for they are criminals, traitors, dangerous people, etc.
But that's REALLY hard with children. Anyone with children will have at least the basic knowledge that tells him that this particular child in the article is just traumatized and needs consoling. Anyone who had a smaller silbling will know and realize it. You need someone with no knowledge, at all, to have people think it's just bad behavior, or to tell silblings they aren't allowed to hug. And even of that group, a lot will have the right instinct to tellthem how to behave - empathy.
So you need some people who are very specific to be this bad at the job - someone with absolutely no exposure to young children to draw on the experience (or very bad template from their own childhood) and complete lack of empathy. Perfect would be strongly indoctrinated people (Immigrants are evil), and sociopaths are high up on the list. And even after pre-filtering like this, you will need to hand-pick the ones who will follow your policy without remorse, because even of these preselected best candidates, a good part will not be willing to follow these rules to the letter. Because our behavior towards children is hard-wired by instinct, for as long as mammals exist. It's so hard-wired that people even get useless animals as pets because they trigger our "cute, must care for" instinct.
I'm pretty sure they had to go through shitloads of staff to find some people willing to work like this.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.