World War 2, was it a War between Good versus Evil or Evil Versus Evil?

Riddle101

I look back at WW2 and i think to myself. Which side really was the good side in that war. I mean in my opinion there was no good side, it was just a conflict between Evil.

This is why i think there was no good side:
-Germany started the war not to mention the holocaust
-Italy was really in in the war for greed and to take over lands
-Japan attacked cause just as much if not more atrocities then Germany
-France and Britain allowed Germany to invade half of Europe before doing anything to stop Hitler and even then they did little, not to mention they refused to recognise Tito as leader of Yugoslavia even though he led Yogoslavia to Indepedence.
-Stalin murdered 20 Million Russians in atocities and Russia of course was known for it's ruthlessness
-USA dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan and invented Weapons of Mass destruction

To Be Honest, I have lost faith in the idea that the Allies were doing a good cause in WWII by starting and is why i prefer the countries who stayed Neutral in the War like Ireland, Spain and Switzerland. What do you think?

luckylucky

I think it's a very simplistic analysis tbh. Certainly the allies were not always whiter than white, particularly Stalin who killed so many of his own, even the allied bombing of some of the occupied French towns during the liberation of France killed tens of thousands of French civilians. Still I think there's no denying that the basic philosophies of Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Hirohito's Japan were evil. And of all wars I think it was perhaps the clearest line of all between a good and an evil side.

There were other agendas going on of course, America solidifed itself as the main world power. Britain although one of the victorious allies was no longer a main player after the war. America's dominance as a main power manifested itself clearly after the war, some might say for positive, others for negative. I think a bit of both, almost totally negative under Bush i would say.

As for countries neutrality, be it Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden...let's be honest here this was for survival purposes. If Ireland went on the side of the allies, I think we would have been very exposed to attacks from Germany, and I can't see that the defense of Irish lives would have been a priority for the British. Imo we had already suffered enough as a people , cannon fodder for our imperialist masters in the Somme 20 odds years earlier I'd say was very much in the mind of our government at the time.

Saying that I would still regard WW2 as Britain and the US's most heroic time and I think in the former case it was perhaps one of the few times they were on the side of good.

TerrorFirmer

I think bad vs evil is more apt, if even. Hitler's regime was downright evil to the core; deliberate extermination and aggressive, violent expansion with little regard to displaced peoples was an integral part of their policies. It would be naive to think that the western Allied powers waged war completely innocently, but they generally did it for both the right cause and with the right post war ideal in mind for Europe. The Soviet Union however was a different kettle of fish, it's dictator a mirror image of Hitler with regards to outlook on power and it's consolidation, including the same utter disregard for circumstance. Stalin had no qualms about the extermination of not only opposition but of minorities deemed a potential threat and the Red army plundered it's way across their own homeland, the Baltic's, Prussia and eastern Germany in the most violent, abusive way possible that reflected the behavior of the invading armies themselves. But of course, none of this is, even in todays educated world, even general knowledge. The perceived formula remains unsurprisingly unchanged...

Germany = Bad, and was defeated by the USA and the United Kingdom....oh, and that other country, the Soviet Union.

FiSe

My opinion?
In general as it stands, good vs evil. Oversimplified, but simple answer on simple question.

I will not go into such a things like comment on bombing of this or that town or analysing who fired that one extra bullet during the war.
I think, that we have to look at the WWII as a direct consequence of WWI and sanctions against Germany and generaly bad policy of the allies after the Great War.
Nazi regime was evil to the core, so was the regime in the Soviet Union and this combined with traditional medieval Japanese outlook of the world gives one horrible scenario.

So my conclusion: thanks God for the good side /no matter how bad it may seem/ winning over the evil one. But it took too long and ended too soon.

PDN

A mixed bag of good, evil & plain old incompetence versus evil.

The winning coalition were certainly no angels, but compare what happened in reality after 1945 with any imaginable scenario that would have ensued if the Nazis had won.

Thank God.

brianthebard

luckylucky wrote: »

I think it's a very simplistic analysis tbh. Certainly the allies were not always whiter than white, particularly Stalin who killed so many of his own, even the allied bombing of some of the occupied French towns during the liberation of France killed tens of thousands of French civilians. Still I think there's no denying that the basic philosophies of Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Hirohito's Japan were evil. And of all wars I think it was perhaps the clearest line of all between a good and an evil side.

Saying that I would still regard WW2 as Britain and the US's most heroic time and I think in the former case it was perhaps one of the few times they were on the side of good.

I'd pretty much agree with you opinion, however I prefer to think of WW2 as a sequel to WW1; because the allies never entered German soil in 1918 and because the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty were to a large degree what fueled the German lust for a second war. Obviously its impossible to say with certainty what would've happened if things were different but I think if Germany had felt defeat in WW1 in the way it did in WW2 then there may not have been a second war.

Fratton Fred

Can we just dispel this myth of neutrality.

Yes Ireland, Switzerland etc were neutral, but I' prety damn sure most of europe would have chosen to be as well. Britain and France tried (too) hard to stay out of a war but were more or less forced into it. I'm pretty sure Holland, Belgium and Sweden didn;t want to get involved but had o choise and if Hitler had made it over the channel would he have left Ireland alone? probably not.

Good v evil is a completely wrong analogy, it was an evil regime trying to take over europe and europe et al fighting back, that's all.

darkman2

All the players had there own selfish motives. The USA was not intending on interferingin Europe at all during the war. They seemed quite content to see the UK and France getting battered safe in the knowledge that they could not be touched. But for the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbour Britain would have been defeated.

I think it was definately a good v bad battle though. Ther is no doubt that America's selfish motives would be preferable to Hitler's!

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote:

Can we just dispel this myth of neutrality.

Operation Emerald was the german plan to invade Ireland , The UK also had plans to invade us, how far they got beyond plans is a matter of conjecture.

if you like we were neutral on the allied side, spain was neutral on the axis side

we gave weather reports to the allies, allowed overflights (so shannon is nothing new there) , "released" many allied internees but kept the German ones. Like Sweden we sold goods to the nearest belligerent.

FiSe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Operation Emerald was the german plan to invade Ireland , The UK also had plans to invade us, how far they got beyond plans is a matter of conjecture.

if you like we were neutral on the allied side, spain was neutral on the axis side

we gave weather reports to the allies, allowed overflights (so shannon is nothing new there) , "released" many allied internees but kept the German ones. Like Sweden we sold goods to the nearest belligerent.

I think that Spain was more "neutral" than Ireland and Switzerland was even more "neutral" than Spain.
For example there was no German internee ever released from Ireland as far as I know /could be wrong/, but releasing of Allied soldiers from Spain was happening all the time, Switzerland kept all the internees locked up /think/ and there was no handing over of allied/axis equipment, but this was siezed and was used to protect Swiss neutrality...
But I'm not argueing your point, it's more for illustration purposes only...

Plans are made every time and all the time. And there probably was a plan what Ireland should do in that case, I believe, that Britain would play big role in this scenario.
In my opinion, I can't imagine Germany to invade any country from the sea. With nonexistent Navy to supply and transport troops and equipment. With nonexistent top cover to ensure their safety...
I think that all the talk about Germany's seaborn operations are belogning to the same book as flying saucepans and transatlantic bombers. There were plans to build them and put them into service, but it was impossible to do it. /I know, I know.../

Red Hand

FiSe wrote: »

In my opinion, I can't imagine Germany to invade any country from the sea. With nonexistent Navy to supply and transport troops and equipment. With nonexistent top cover to ensure their safety...
I think that all the talk about Germany's seaborn operations are belogning to the same book as flying saucepans and transatlantic bombers. There were plans to build them and put them into service, but it was impossible to do it. /I know, I know.../

They invaded Norway from the sea, though, didn't they? Plus North Afrika.

Capt'n Midnight

Had they invaded the south west of Ireland they would have been out of air cover.

Then again Iran (Persia) , Iraq, Syria , Madagasgar , were all invaded by the allies too

In the pacific to some extents to the US it was a racial war plenty of stories of people collecting ears, american submarines regularily shot survivors,
While it is true that some proximity fused shells were marked "for use against jap personnel only" this was mainly because they were less concerned about the shells being reverse-engineered by the japanese than the gemans. One reason being that in the pacific dud's would be much more likely to belost in the ocean / unpopulated / heavily vegetated areas.

TerrorFirmer

FiSe wrote: »

In my opinion, I can't imagine Germany to invade any country from the sea. With nonexistent Navy to supply and transport troops and equipment. With nonexistent top cover to ensure their safety...
I think that all the talk about Germany's seaborn operations are belogning to the same book as flying saucepans and transatlantic bombers. There were plans to build them and put them into service, but it was impossible to do it. /I know, I know.../

Non-existant navy? Germany's navy might have been inferior to the Royal Navy but it was far from non-existent.

FiSe

...not bigt enough to carry full scale "D - Day" landing as it would require when invading your arch-enemy backyard, think.

Norway, OK, but I think that you're missing my point here.
And Africa? Germany didn't invade hostile territory there, they used friendly harbours to build their army, but could be wrong in both cases :cool:
And they had an air support there as well

Snickers Man

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

They invaded Norway from the sea, though, didn't they? Plus North Afrika.

Well they invaded Norway with a seaborne force of less than 10,000 troops. And Norway, with a population of about 5 million and a pretty lengthy coast line, was a) much closer to Germany and had a tiny navy compared with the Royal Navy. So it was a much less challenging target than invading the UK across the English Channel faced by the Royal Navy.

Also, Germany didn't "invade" North Africa. She sent a small force to a friendly destination to help out her ally Italy who was trying to extend her North AFrican empire by gobbling up the British posessions there. That's hardly an invasion, with all the difficulties landing in a hostile territory implies.

I don't think Germany had serious intentions of invading Britain or Ireland. Her strategic goal in the west was to put such enemies as she had there back in their boxes and secure her base for the duration of the real war, ie the one in the east.

On the real question about who were the goodies and who were the baddies? The Nazi regime was abhorrent but a question to ponder might be, what if the Germans were led by a non-racist, non eugeniscist political ideology? Would there have been a war anyway?

I suspect there might have been. Nobody in Germany accepted the eastern boundaries imposed on it after WWI. Not even Stresseman, the inter-war chancellor who won the Nobel Peace Prize for promising never to go to war with France again. The loss of Elsass/Loringen (Alsace/Lorraine) they could live with. The partition of Prussia and the theft of Silesia they could not and would not.

Given the high-minded pronouncements at the end of WWI that "national self determination for all" was to be the guiding principle of setting state boundaries, how could one argue that these largely German territories did not belong in a German state? One couldn't. One could only rely on the ad hominem arguments that the Nazis were a dreadful shower. Which of course they were.

Riddle101

Snickers Man wrote: »

Well they invaded Norway with a seaborne force of less than 10,000 troops. And Norway, with a population of about 5 million and a pretty lengthy coast line, was a) much closer to Germany and had a tiny navy compared with the Royal Navy. So it was a much less challenging target than invading the UK across the English Channel faced by the Royal Navy.

Also, Germany didn't "invade" North Africa. She sent a small force to a friendly destination to help out her ally Italy who was trying to extend her North AFrican empire by gobbling up the British posessions there. That's hardly an invasion, with all the difficulties landing in a hostile territory implies.

I don't think Germany had serious intentions of invading Britain or Ireland. Her strategic goal in the west was to put such enemies as she had there back in their boxes and secure her base for the duration of the real war, ie the one in the east.

On the real question about who were the goodies and who were the baddies? The Nazi regime was abhorrent but a question to ponder might be, what if the Germans were led by a non-racist, non eugeniscist political ideology? Would there have been a war anyway?

I suspect there might have been. Nobody in Germany accepted the eastern boundaries imposed on it after WWI. Not even Stresseman, the inter-war chancellor who won the Nobel Peace Prize for promising never to go to war with France again. The loss of Elsass/Loringen (Alsace/Lorraine) they could live with. The partition of Prussia and the theft of Silesia they could not and would not.

Given the high-minded pronouncements at the end of WWI that "national self determination for all" was to be the guiding principle of setting state boundaries, how could one argue that these largely German territories did not belong in a German state? One couldn't. One could only rely on the ad hominem arguments that the Nazis were a dreadful shower. Which of course they were.

I would say even without Hitler, Germany still would have begun the war. It seems Germany were already building up their military at the time of the Stressman era, they knew a war was inevitable. Also i believe Russia would have started it if Germany hadn't

TerrorFirmer

Riddle101 wrote: »

I would say even without Hitler, Germany still would have begun the war. It seems Germany were already building up their military at the time of the Stressman era, they knew a war was inevitable. Also i believe Russia would have started it if Germany hadn't

I doubt it, before the Battle of France, most senior German staff were entirely dismayed to hear Hitler intended attacking and believed they would loose.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Operation Emerald was the german plan to invade Ireland , The UK also had plans to invade us, how far they got beyond plans is a matter of conjecture.

if you like we were neutral on the allied side, spain was neutral on the axis side

we gave weather reports to the allies, allowed overflights (so shannon is nothing new there) , "released" many allied internees but kept the German ones. Like Sweden we sold goods to the nearest belligerent.

My point is that Ireland had the luxury of neutrality, most countries did not. OK Ireland was neutral with a Bias towards the Allies, but it was never going to throw it's lot in behind Germany, that could have brought a fledgling democracy to an abrupt end.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My point is that Ireland had the luxury of neutrality, most countries did not. OK Ireland was neutral with a Bias towards the Allies, but it was never going to throw it's lot in behind Germany, that could have brought a fledgling democracy to an abrupt end.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Ireland wasn't going to join the axis cause it wasn't a facist country??

If Ireland had been part of the war on the allies side there would have been a large amount of trade possibilities, munitions factories could've been set up (might have had to change the constitution but still). Staying out of the war meant Ireland had to set up Irish shipping which cost Ireland quite a bit I imagine, especially given the delicate state the economy was in after the thirties. It also meant that trade with Britain was curtailed to a large degree due to German U-boats. In short there were some cons to neutrality, and it was by no means a "luxury".

jmayo

Riddle101 wrote: »

I look back at WW2 and i think to myself. Which side really was the good side in that war. I mean in my opinion there was no good side, it was just a conflict between Evil.

This is why i think there was no good side:
-Germany started the war not to mention the holocaust
-Italy was really in in the war for greed and to take over lands
-Japan attacked cause just as much if not more atrocities then Germany
-France and Britain allowed Germany to invade half of Europe before doing anything to stop Hitler and even then they did little, not to mention they refused to recognise Tito as leader of Yugoslavia even though he led Yogoslavia to Indepedence.
-Stalin murdered 20 Million Russians in atocities and Russia of course was known for it's ruthlessness
-USA dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan and invented Weapons of Mass destruction

To Be Honest, I have lost faith in the idea that the Allies were doing a good cause in WWII by starting and is why i prefer the countries who stayed Neutral in the War like Ireland, Spain and Switzerland. What do you think?

Everytime you think there was no difference put on the Schindlers List movie and imagine what would have happened if the Axis powers had won.
The Allies, apart from Stalin's USSR, had at least some democracy.
The Germans and Japanese treated defeated nations and peoples with contempt and had no qaulms about exterminating people.

Anyone that thinks our neutrality would have protected us if Uk had fallen must have thought Hitler for a complete fool.
The West coast of Ireland would have been dotted with U boat pens and Shannon would have been huge Luffwaffe base patroling the North Atlantic.

Also IMHO the best nation to have first developed the atom bomb was the US.
Imagine the consequences if it had been developed by Germany, Japan or the USSR ?

A pet hate of mind is how people view Switzerland as some neutral mecca, they greedily accepted Nazi confiscated gold\loot, indeed refusing to release funds to descendents or holocast survivors and supplied intricate instruments to the Reich to keep their war machine trundeling on.

PDN

jmayo wrote: »

A pet hate of mind is how people view Switzerland as some neutral mecca, they greedily accepted Nazi confiscated gold\loot, indeed refusing to release funds to descendents or holocast survivors and supplied intricate instruments to the Reich to keep their war machine trundeling on.

+1

Zebra3

To describe the Allied side as "good" is absolute madnesss.

The USSR, which really defeated Germany (killed 3,600,000 compaared to 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France), was a nightmare state as bad, if not worse, than Germany.

The USA went on to carry our out horrendous genoicial attacks on Vietnam and Nicaragua after defeating Germany, and propped up, and still does, some of the worst regimes on the planet.

Britain, which Hitler admired so much (he loved their concentration camps in Africa) had raped its way around the world long before Germany wanted to do it more locally. Showed total disdain at the idea of independence/democracy for its non-white colonies and happily locked up Kenyans in concentration camps in the 1950s.

France, like Britain had invaded countries all over the world and treated their occupied peoples with contempt. not surprising the first thing France done after WWII was to re-occupy parts of the globe and brought terrible misery to the peoples of Indo-China and Algeria in the 1950s and 1960s.

FiSe

Zebra3 wrote: »

To describe the Allied side as "good" is absolute madnesss.

The USSR, which really defeated Germany (killed 3,600,000 compaared to 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France), was a nightmare state as bad, if not worse, than Germany.

The USA went on to carry our out horrendous genoicial attacks on Vietnam and Nicaragua after defeating Germany, and propped up, and still does, some of the worst regimes on the planet.

Britain, which Hitler admired so much (he loved their concentration camps in Africa) had raped its way around the world long before Germany wanted to do it more locally. Showed total disdain at the idea of independence/democracy for its non-white colonies and happily locked up Kenyans in concentration camps in the 1950s.

France, like Britain had invaded countries all over the world and treated their occupied peoples with contempt. not surprising the first thing France done after WWII was to re-occupy parts of the globe and brought terrible misery to the peoples of Indo-China and Algeria in the 1950s and 1960s.

A bit of propaganda above?

No country in the world, I mean: "no country", would let go its territory just like that, so after the war everybody tried to get into their old shoes...
Soviet Union grabbed a big piece of Poland and pretty big part of Czechoslovakia dissapeared in Stalin's throat as well.

Yes, the Soviet state did defeat the Germany, but not without a vital help and huge sacrifices from UK and USA /those countries get the Red Army motorized, equipped and airborne/ and with absolute disregard to human life as a such.
And as many people, who remember Soviet liberation, would say, no matter which army, they're all the same.

McArmalite

Zebra3 wrote: »

To describe the Allied side as "good" is absolute madnesss.

The USSR, which really defeated Germany (killed 3,600,000 compaared to 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France), was a nightmare state as bad, if not worse, than Germany.

The USA went on to carry our out horrendous genoicial attacks on Vietnam and Nicaragua after defeating Germany, and propped up, and still does, some of the worst regimes on the planet.

Britain, which Hitler admired so much (he loved their concentration camps in Africa) had raped its way around the world long before Germany wanted to do it more locally. Showed total disdain at the idea of independence/democracy for its non-white colonies and happily locked up Kenyans in concentration camps in the 1950s.

France, like Britain had invaded countries all over the world and treated their occupied peoples with contempt. not surprising the first thing France done after WWII was to re-occupy parts of the globe and brought terrible misery to the peoples of Indo-China and Algeria in the 1950s and 1960s.

Agree with you there Zebra. And of the 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France, I don't know if anyone could produce the stats, but since 40,000 innocent civilians were murdered in Dresden alone, I'd say the majority of the 200,000 were innocent civilians and not German military.

Also, it's been portrayed that reason for going to war with Germany was to save mankind from concentration camps etc. The concentration camps and so on were only discovered in the last few months of the war. Jewish people who told US/Britain/France asking them to bomb the railways etc bringing people to them were refused as they said there was higher military/factories etc targets to be bombed first. So much for the great crusade to save mankind.

An Fear Aniar

It makes more sense to a kind of Marxist view of it as a war between the ruling classes of each nation. The ruling classes tend to do evil, they cna't help but do otherwise.



,

brianthebard

McArmalite wrote: »

Also, it's been portrayed that reason for going to war with Germany was to save mankind from concentration camps etc. The concentration camps and so on were only discovered in the last few months of the war. Jewish people who told US/Britain/France asking them to bomb the railways etc bringing people to them were refused as they said there was higher military/factories etc targets to be bombed first. So much for the great crusade to save mankind.

Thats not really accurate, the reason for going to war was always the agreement between Britain and France to defend Poland, I've never seen/heard anyone (other than you) suggest that the war was started to save people from concentration camps.

And don't you thikn that bombing military targets would also lead to a reduction in the capacity of the Nazi army to kill people?

Zebra3

brianthebard wrote: »

Thats not really accurate, the reason for going to war was always the agreement between Britain and France to defend Poland, I've never seen/heard anyone (other than you) suggest that the war was started to save people from concentration camps.

The only reason Britain went to war was as part of its foreign policy for mainland Europe that had been in existence for a couple of centuries or so. To prevent one state (and in 1939 that state was Germany) dominating mainland Europe.

If Britain really gave a toss about Poland it failed to prove it in 1945.

States only go to war out of self-interest.

dresden8

Zebra3 wrote: »

States only go to war out of self-interest.

And all beyond that is ****e. Higher motives attributed to states are all just propaganda.

We all trade with China, they're up to their necks in slavery, politial repression, oppressio0n of the poor, land seizures and all kinds of crap. But hey, at least their runners are cheap.

There is no high ground. Politics is dirty but international politics is a sewer.

Lockstep

*points shamelessly to his own signature*

McArmalite

brianthebard wrote: »

Thats not really accurate, the reason for going to war was always the agreement between Britain and France to defend Poland, I've never seen/heard anyone (other than you) suggest that the war was started to save people from concentration camps.

And don't you thikn that bombing military targets would also lead to a reduction in the capacity of the Nazi army to kill people?

I've never seen/heard anyone (other than you) suggest that the war was started to save people from concentration camps. Jayus, is it ever portrayed as anything else ??

And don't you thikn that bombing military targets would also lead to a reduction in the capacity of the Nazi army to kill people?[/ I would have thought that bombing the railways etc carrying people to the concentration camps couldn't possibly more obviously have reduced the capacity of the Nazi's to kill people ?? :rolleyes: Rather than massacaring tens of innocent German civilians in cities like Dresden fleeing wrath of Stalin's Red army ?

PDN

McArmalite wrote: »

I've never seen/heard anyone (other than you) suggest that the war was started to save people from concentration camps. Jayus, is it ever portrayed as anything else ??

Anytime I've heard it portrayed it is as something else. Good grief, even Basil Fawlty portrayed it as starting because Germany invaded Poland (don't talk about the war!).

brianthebard

Zebra3, I wasn't saying that I believe Britain cared about Poland, just stating that the offical reason for going to war was to defend Poland, not to stop the concentration camps.
Mac, I think you know yourself that the Nazi's had more than one way of killing people and not being able to go to a concentration camp by train would have been a minor inconvience.

McArmalite

PDN wrote: »

Anytime I've heard it portrayed it is as something else. Good grief, even Basil Fawlty portrayed it as starting because Germany invaded Poland (don't talk about the war!).

True, but poor old Basil had got a bump to the head and was crazier then his usual self !!!

brianthebard wrote: »

Zebra3, I wasn't saying that I believe Britain cared about Poland, just stating that the offical reason for going to war was to defend Poland, not to stop the concentration camps.
Mac, I think you know yourself that the Nazi's had more than one way of killing people and not being able to go to a concentration camp by train would have been a minor inconvience.

Fair enough Brian, fair enough. Your a 100% right that " offical reason for going to war was to defend Poland " , I jumped the gun and wrote about the saving mankind bit which the whole thing was portrayed after the war. My apologies.

My point been, when you have one set of Imperialists, France, Britian, claiming to be defending small nations etc while they in turn have colonies all over the globe is hypocritical and hides their real reasons for declaring war on Germany. I say their real reasons for declaring war on Germany leading to WW2 where little different from WW1, i.e. fear of a colonial rival.

brianthebard

McArmalite wrote: »

Fair enough Brian, fair enough. Your a 100% right that " offical reason for going to war was to defend Poland " , I jumped the gun and wrote about the saving mankind bit which the whole thing was portrayed after the war. My apologies.

My point been, when you have one set of Imperialists, France, Britian, claiming to be defending small nations etc while they in turn have colonies all over the globe is hypocritical and hides their real reasons for declaring war on Germany. I say their real reasons for declaring war on Germany leading to WW2 where little different from WW1, i.e. fear of a colonial rival.

See when you state the facts like that you can actually come up with some decent answers! I agree with you completely that it was hypocritical of britain and france. However neither country had any colonies in Europe at the time and Germany hadn't made any push into any other continent, so I imagine it was a genuine fear of attack on their own countries (which did happen, whether it was their own fault or not is another issue) that forced France and Britain into ww2.

Kev_ps3

no such thing as good and evil. it was humans vs humans who had different beliefs.

Riddle101

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

no such thing as good and evil. it was humans vs humans who had different beliefs.

Depends how you want to see it. Would you say Mother Theresa is just an average Human, i would say she's good, what about Pope John Paul 2nd. Would Ted Bundy not be classed as Evil or maybe Charles Manson. I would say those would be examples as good and evil

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

My point been, when you have one set of Imperialists, France, Britian, claiming to be defending small nations etc while they in turn have colonies all over the globe is hypocritical and hides their real reasons for declaring war on Germany. I say their real reasons for declaring war on Germany leading to WW2 where little different from WW1, i.e. fear of a colonial rival.

thank god they did though.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

thank god they did though.

I'm sure those that lived in Indo-China during the 60s and 70s were glad they did. :rolleyes:

Fremen

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

no such thing as good and evil. it was humans vs humans who had different beliefs.

Damn right. This cackling, supervillain-style "evil" just doesn't exist. It's just people acting in their own self-interest. No-one wakes up and says to themselves "Ok, what evil can I do today?". Not Hitler, not Al-Quaeda, not anyone. It just makes things easier for us if we think of them as doing so. Granted, you do see small numbers of sociopaths who are capable of mass-murder, but I would see this as sickness rather than evil.

While Germany was the perpetrator of genocide (which is deplorable, but not uncommon throughout history), Britain didn't exactly do much to help out the victims. It had pretty strict immigration policies and regularly turned back refugees.

Riddle101

Fremen wrote: »

Damn right. This cackling, supervillain-style "evil" just doesn't exist. It's just people acting in their own self-interest. No-one wakes up and says to themselves "Ok, what evil can I do today?". Not Hitler, not Al-Quaeda, not anyone. It just makes things easier for us if we think of them as doing so. Granted, you do see small numbers of sociopaths who are capable of mass-murder, but I would see this as sickness rather than evil.

While Germany was the perpetrator of genocide (which is deplorable, but not uncommon throughout history), Britain didn't exactly do much to help out the victims. It had pretty strict immigration policies and regularly turned back refugees.

What about the Priests that molested children, they knew what they were doing and knew it was evil yet they did it anyway. Or Murderers, they know that killing innocent people is evil too, my point is where some people seem to have an ideology you can't say others don't know what they're doing, a lot of people geneuinely do know what they are doing and don't care so i don't see how there's no such thing as evil when there are people out there who don't care

Manic Moran

McArmalite wrote: »

Agree with you there Zebra. And of the 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France, I don't know if anyone could produce the stats, but since 40,000 innocent civilians were murdered in Dresden alone, I'd say the majority of the 200,000 were innocent civilians and not German military.

Firstly, I wouldn't go complaining too much about Dresden, the Blitz, or anything else of the nature. It's just the way wars were fought back then, considered taking to the maximum level, just like some nuclear missiles today are aimed at cities.

Secondly, I think you're underestimating the sheer size of WWII. The German Army lost over 4 million personnel killed or missing. Not wounded. Not captured. Dead. This was not a playground scrap, and should not be taken in context with little distractions like Vietnam or Iraq. It was a no-holds-barred, do whatever it takes to win, and every single thing in your country to include its population is a military resource to be expended in defeating the enemy, fight to the finish. I have no reason not to believe that 200,000 military were killed by the Western Allies.

NTM

jmayo

Lets simplify and bring it down to basics.
Hands up those that would rather Britain and later USA had not entered WWII.
In other words who here would have liked to have a Europe (including a united NAZI Ireland) and indeed a world dominated by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan with possibily a communist USSR in the mix also.

Then if you are happy with that scenario you can tell us all why evil US and Britain really went to war and how they did awfully bad things.

Otherwise be damm glad that somebody did stand up to Germany/Japan and be very glad that the US had the A bomb to prevent Stalin rolling over Western Europe.

PS for the poster concerned about IndoChina, they didn't exactly fare much better under the treatment they received from the Imperial Japanese Army.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

thank god they did though.

" britian the nation that likes to pump itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2 " - :D:D

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

" britian the nation that likes to pump itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2 " - :D:D

more constructive ****e I see.:rolleyes:

Zebra3

jmayo wrote: »

Lets simplify and bring it down to basics.

Why simplify it? The OP asked was it good v evil or evil v evil, not are you glad the Germans was beaten and that Russia with minimal help from the west destroyed them.

Start up a seperate thread if you want to discuss the joy of Britain "winning" the war.

FiSe

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why simplify it? The OP asked was it good v evil or evil v evil, not are you glad the Germans was beaten and that Russia with minimal help from the west destroyed them.

Start up a seperate thread if you want to discuss the joy of Britain "winning" the war.

Two things here:
- It wasn't Russia back then, but Soviet Union. And it wasn't Russians, as a nation, but Soviet nations, ie. Uzbeks, Russians, Tartars, Georgians and many many others...
- And try to get some facts on the help of "western" allies to the Red Army. You might be surprised how dependant the Soviets were on their help. I would think, that 70% of all vehicles used by the Red Army were made in the USA. quite a few armoured brigades of the Red Army were equipped totaly with Shermans...

From the other hand eastern front was the butchers yard of the WWII in the Europe. Nobody argue with that here.
But Americans were bleeding in the Pacific fighting Japanese, while Soviets were taking second seat there.

So, my point is:
Red Army did defeat the Wehrmacht, but not alone. Hope we can agree on that?

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why simplify it? The OP asked was it good v evil or evil v evil, not are you glad the Germans was beaten and that Russia with minimal help from the west destroyed them.

Start up a seperate thread if you want to discuss the joy of Britain "winning" the war.

Why simplify it? The allies won, the world is undoubtedly a better place for it. Maybe if Britain were not involved you would see it that way. Lets face it, all those involved had chequered colonial pasts, but only one side wanted the extermination of all those that did not match their ideals.

Was it good V Evil? maybe not, maybe right v wrong is a better way to put it. As for indo china, yes, I'm sure they are a lot happier than they would have been under Japanese rule.

jmayo

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why simplify it? The OP asked was it good v evil or evil v evil, not are you glad the Germans was beaten and that Russia with minimal help from the west destroyed them.

Start up a seperate thread if you want to discuss the joy of Britain "winning" the war.

Your chip on shoulder is showing :rolleyes:

Did I ever say the UK and USA defeated Germany or Japan on their own ?
The USA provided aid to keep Britain afloat and then provided aid to USSR.
The Uk and it's comonwealth (ANZACs, India, Canada, South Africa) forces kept peppering away, sometimes very unsucessfully, at both the Germans and Japs.
The USSR provided the manpower to soak up much of the German war machine on the Eastern front. Their losses were colosal and probably a level that the USA or UK could not afford to lose.

The reason I said we should simply bring it back to basics is because this like a lot of other threads has degenerated into knocking the USA or Uk by some posters who have major chips on their shoulders.

Yes both of those countires have been involved in some real dirty wars and they have done things that were/are appalling to other peoples, races and countries.
But in WWII they were ffing boy scouts in comparison to the methods used by the Axis forces in particular and indeed the USSR.

To fight regimes like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan you sometimes have to get down and dirty with them and that's what the Allies had to to do.

jmayo

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why simplify it? The OP asked was it good v evil or evil v evil, not are you glad the Germans was beaten and that Russia with minimal help from the west destroyed them.

Start up a seperate thread if you want to discuss the joy of Britain "winning" the war.

Your chip on shoulder is showing :rolleyes:

Did I ever say the UK and USA defeated Germany or Japan on their own ?
The USA provided aid to keep Britain afloat and then provided aid to USSR.
The Uk and it's comonwealth (ANZACs, India, Canada, South Africa) forces kept peppering away, sometimes very unsucessfully, at both the Germans and Japs.
The USSR provided the manpower to soak up much of the German war machine on the Eastern front. Their losses were colosal and probably a level that the USA or UK could not afford to lose.

The reason I said we should simply bring it back to basics is because this like a lot of other threads has degenerated into knocking the USA or Uk by some posters who have major chips on their shoulders.

Yes both of those countires have been involved in some real dirty wars and they have done things that were/are appalling to other peoples, races and countries.
But in WWII they were ffing boy scouts in comparison to the methods used by the Axis forces in particular and indeed the USSR.

To fight regimes like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan you sometimes have to get down and dirty with them and that's what the Allies had to to.

But I will keep hammering this point we should be damm glad that UK and USA did come into war.
Otherwise we might have had situation where Western Europe was either being run by Nazi Germany or a Stalinist USSR.

Riddle101

Why simplify it? The allies won, the world is undoubtedly a better place for it. Maybe if Britain were not involved you would see it that way. Lets face it, all those involved had chequered colonial pasts, but only one side wanted the extermination of all those that did not match their ideals.

Was it good V Evil? maybe not, maybe right v wrong is a better way to put it. As for indo china, yes, I'm sure they are a lot happier than they would have been under Japanese rule

Is the world a better place? I mean look at whats going on in the Middle East, Isreal killing Palestinians, America constantly getting ivolved in world affairs and making things worse, China's oppression of Tibet and Taiwon, Turkey's war with the Kurds, Saddam Hussein, Bin laden, George Bush, Condaleza Rice, Al Qieda, War, Famine, Poverty, Destruction of Earth and of course the threat of Nuclear War. I'm not saying that the German's would not have been any better because let's face, it is a better world but the world didn't really change for the better. The Kymer Rouge in Cambodia killed more then Germany did in the Killing Fields, they're right up there with Japan and Russia.

Did I ever say the UK and USA defeated Germany or Japan on their own ?
The USA provided aid to keep Britain afloat and then provided aid to USSR.
The Uk and it's comonwealth (ANZACs, India, Canada, South Africa) forces kept peppering away, sometimes very unsucessfully, at both the Germans and Japs.
The USSR provided the manpower to soak up much of the German war machine on the Eastern front. Their losses were colosal and probably a level that the USA or UK could not afford to lose.

The reason I said we should simply bring it back to basics is because this like a lot of other threads has degenerated into knocking the USA or Uk by some posters who have major chips on their shoulders.

Yes both of those countires have been involved in some real dirty wars and they have done things that were/are appalling to other peoples, races and countries.
But in WWII they were ffing boy scouts in comparison to the methods used by the Axis forces in particular and indeed the USSR

Like i siad before it was a discussion about whether the motives of both sides were for good or for bad, did the Western Allies really care about Poland or Czech Republic, did they care about Austria or did they just care about themselves because they saw Germany rising to power and were scared. America for it's part could haver easily beaten Japan without the use of the Atomic Bomb but instead it dropped two and in the process caused the creration of weapons of mass destruction which ironically are trying to stop now.

BTW USA had no problem beaten Germany they only lost 100,000 compared 4 Million and Russia fought back, the only people that Germany would have conquered was Europe and i'm sure they'd have been beaten by USA and Russia so the idea of Nazis running the world now is quite off

jmayo

Riddle101 wrote: »

Is the world a better place? I mean look at whats going on in the Middle East, Isreal killing Palestinians, America constantly getting ivolved in world affairs and making things worse, China's oppression of Tibet and Taiwon, Turkey's war with the Kurds, Saddam Hussein, Bin laden, George Bush, Condaleza Rice, Al Qieda, War, Famine, Poverty, Destruction of Earth and of course the threat of Nuclear War. I'm not saying that the German's would not have been any better because let's face, it is a better world but the world didn't really change for the better.

Well it worked out better for most people in Europe which is where the biggest battleground was.
Ok it took sometime to eliminate Communismin in the East.
China isn't oppressing Taiwan, they just don't recongnise them and they try to lean on them but they kwow they dare not attack.

Ehh Turkey's war with Kurds is internal with their only worry that Kurds get independence in Northen Iraq and unite with Kurds within their border.

Riddle101 wrote: »

The Kymer Rouge in Cambodia killed more then Germany did in the Killing Fields, they're right up there with Japan and Russia.

Where the sh*** did you get that from?
Do you see the death camps, concentration camps as figments of imagination?
Who bloody killed most of the Soviets approx. 20 million casualities, the Finns ?
Yes the Khmer Rouge killed their own people but so did Germany.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Like i siad before it was a discussion about whether the motives of both sides were for good or for bad, did the Western Allies really care about Poland or Czech Republic, did they care about Austria or did they just care about themselves because they saw Germany rising to power and were scared. America for it's part could haver easily beaten Japan without the use of the Atomic Bomb but instead it dropped two and in the process caused the creration of weapons of mass destruction which ironically are trying to stop now.

Why the fu** would they care about Austria, they were pro Germany and ended up fighting with Germany :mad:
One third of Waffen SS were Austrian. They still elect Nazis for God's sake.

AFAIK actually Churchhill did care a hell of alot more about Eastern Europe than Roosevelt. He pushed for the Italian front and also wanted to go through Balkans.
All Stalin wanted was them to commit to Western Front through France and leave the East to him.

Of course they cared about themselves. Every country has to look out for it's own interests.
Americans never like to take large casualties, as in Okinawa and thus they opted to drop atomic weapon.
Japan would not have surrendered easily and the loss of life would have been huge both to Japan and to USA if conventional campaign was mounted.
Also I believe it proved deterrent to USSR and Stalin.

So the Americans shouldn't have bothered inventing or devleoping the Atomic bomb?
The worry was that the Germans woudl get their first and do you think Hitler would have refrained from using atomic weapons if he had them?

Riddle101 wrote: »

BTW USA had no problem beaten Germany they only lost 100,000 compared 4 Million and Russia fought back, the only people that Germany would have conquered was Europe and i'm sure they'd have been beaten by USA and Russia so the idea of Nazis running the world now is quite off

Jeeze of course the USA only lost small amount compared to other nations.
Were they bombed or invaded unlike European countries ?

So what if USA did not enter war, Hitler defeats Uk or at least gets them to sign armistice that effectively sidelines them.
Either way UK don't have resources to bomb him relentlessly or invade mainland Europe.

Then he has at it with USSR with the winner ruling Europe.
Neither is nice prospect in my eyes.
How would USA have beaten either USSR or Nazi Germany if they did not have foothold in Europe i.e. UK ?

Again USA and UK were not angels but the what ifs could have been a lot worse for us and I mean Ireland when I say that.