Was WWII the only major war under whih there was a clear good side and bad side?

[Torie]

American Civil War
Napoleonic Wars
Korean War (if deemed major)
War of 1812 (if deemed major)
Spanish Civil War (if deemed major)
The "war" when the Spanish Armada was sunk (if deemed major)

and yes, although a closer case, WW I.

I am sure there are others IMO.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

There was no "clear good side and bad side" in World War II.

[ScottM]

The Lusitania was being used to secretly ship arms. The Germans went as far as to take out ads in the New York Times warning potential passengers. Anyone who traveled on it was an idiot. There was no good side in WWI.

Such ads could easily be taken as propaganda during wartime, and besides, what was the U.S. government supposed to say about over 100 of its citizens being killed? It's there own fault for being stupid enough to ride on that ship? That certainly wouldn't have gone over well.

[Deldem]

No. There is no good side or bad side in war. Both sides are evil and both comitted war crimes. For example, the Allies:

1. Bombed civilians
2. Firebombed Dresden
3. Massacred Axis PoWs on numerous occasions
4. Massacred Polish PoWs (Katyn)

Just to mention a few.

None of which compare at all to launching an unprovoked war of global domination and systemically murdering 15 million people.

You could say the Allies played a role in that.

Oh yeah, Hitler obviously only carried out the Holocaust because of the Allies...

[ScottM]

No. There is no good side or bad side in war. Both sides are evil and both comitted war crimes. For example, the Allies:

1. Bombed civilians
2. Firebombed Dresden
3. Massacred Axis PoWs on numerous occasions
4. Massacred Polish PoWs (Katyn)

Just to mention a few.

None of which compare at all to launching an unprovoked war of global domination and systemically murdering 15 million people.

You could say the Allies played a role in that.

Oh yeah, Hitler obviously only carried out the Holocaust because of the Allies...

Unfortunately, war is an horrible business. But, sometimes, you simply have to do what you have to do. Hitler had to be stopped. Imagine if he had achieved his final goal of world domination. If that doesn't make you shudder, something's wrong.

[SPC]

I don't think even WWII would meet that definition, what with Stalin, Tito, Mao, and Chiang being on the Allied side, and the horrific civilian bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among other cities.

Morality is relative, and progresses slowly along the march of history.

The question was whether there was a clear good and bad side. Clearly both sides of WWII were evil, it was merely a matter of degree between the Axis and the Allies.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Period.

[Bo]

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Period.

I beg to differ. Both of them were despicable people, but Hitler only targeted Jews for the most part (with some minor exceptions--Roma, homosexuals, etc.). If you were not Jewish, Roma, gay, or a political dissident, Hitler would have almost certainly spared your life. Stalin, for the most part, killed or imprisoned anyone who opposed him. There was certainly genocide and imprisonment of certian ethnicities under Stalin's watch, but he didn't take killing any specific nationality to the same extreme that Hitler took it.

[ScottM]

Stalin didn't fight on the Allies side because he believed in human rights by any stretch of the imagination. He was more concerned with saving his own hide. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil, but Stalin's positions didn't reflect those of the Allies as a whole.

[SPC]

Stalin didn't fight on the Allies side because he believed in human rights by any stretch of the imagination. He was more concerned with saving his own hide. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil, but Stalin's positions didn't reflect those of the Allies as a whole.

I suppose that's why the Allies sent 2 million people to Stalin to be slaughtered and let him take half of Europe?

[ScottM]

Post-war policy was not handled well. I agree that the Soviet Union should have been allowed to just walk over Eastern Europe, but the Cold War and Communist domination of Eastern Europe is neither here no there in discussing whether the Allies were right in stopping Hitler.

Again, let me repeat - Stalin was evil. The Soviet Union was evil. But, the fact of the matter remains that Hitler was evil and had to be dealt with immediately. But, it is true that Stalin should have been dealt with far differently than he was after the war.

[Deldem]

No. There is no good side or bad side in war. Both sides are evil and both comitted war crimes. For example, the Allies:

1. Bombed civilians
2. Firebombed Dresden
3. Massacred Axis PoWs on numerous occasions
4. Massacred Polish PoWs (Katyn)

Just to mention a few.

None of which compare at all to launching an unprovoked war of global domination and systemically murdering 15 million people.

You could say the Allies played a role in that.

Oh yeah, Hitler obviously only carried out the Holocaust because of the Allies...

Unfortunately, war is an horrible business. But, sometimes, you simply have to do what you have to do. Hitler had to be stopped. Imagine if he had achieved his final goal of world domination. If that doesn't make you shudder, something's wrong.

I was being sarcastic... Of course the Allies were right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

it was merely a matter of degree between the Axis and the Allies.

No, that isn't true at all, sorry. Dreadful things were done by the Allied powers during the War (and after), but by focusing on individual acts of mass cruelty, you miss the bigger picture. Which in that war of all wars mattered more than anything else.

[Deldem]

Stalin didn't fight on the Allies side because he believed in human rights by any stretch of the imagination. He was more concerned with saving his own hide. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil, but Stalin's positions didn't reflect those of the Allies as a whole.

I suppose that's why the Allies sent 2 million people to Stalin to be slaughtered and let him take half of Europe?

I don't really think it's fair to describe it this way- there's no way the UK and America saw the horrors of the next 50 years coming. What could they have done instead? Fight another war over it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What could they have done instead? Fight another war over it?

People on this board have actually made that argument before. Seriously.

[ScottM]

No. There is no good side or bad side in war. Both sides are evil and both comitted war crimes. For example, the Allies:

1. Bombed civilians
2. Firebombed Dresden
3. Massacred Axis PoWs on numerous occasions
4. Massacred Polish PoWs (Katyn)

Just to mention a few.

None of which compare at all to launching an unprovoked war of global domination and systemically murdering 15 million people.

You could say the Allies played a role in that.

Oh yeah, Hitler obviously only carried out the Holocaust because of the Allies...

Unfortunately, war is an horrible business. But, sometimes, you simply have to do what you have to do. Hitler had to be stopped. Imagine if he had achieved his final goal of world domination. If that doesn't make you shudder, something's wrong.

I was being sarcastic... Of course the Allies were right.

I knew you were being sarcastic. I was agreeing with you. Sorry, I should have made that clear. My bad.

[Bo]

Stalin didn't fight on the Allies side because he believed in human rights by any stretch of the imagination. He was more concerned with saving his own hide. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil, but Stalin's positions didn't reflect those of the Allies as a whole.

I suppose that's why the Allies sent 2 million people to Stalin to be slaughtered and let him take half of Europe?

I don't really think it's fair to describe it this way- there's no way the UK and America saw the horrors of the next 50 years coming. What could they have done instead? Fight another war over it?

Yes, and quickly before the U.S.S.R. built its own nukes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, and quickly before the U.S.S.R. built its own nukes.

Three questions.

1. Why so bloodthirsty?

2. Do you know roughly how many Soviet citizens were killed during the War?

3. Do you have any idea what state most of Europe was in immediately after the War?

[Bo]

Yes, and quickly before the U.S.S.R. built its own nukes.

Three questions.

1. Why so bloodthirsty?

2. Do you know roughly how many Soviet citizens were killed during the War?

3. Do you have any idea what state most of Europe was in immediately after the War?

1. Because it would have been much more beneficial for U.S. interests to make Stalin's regime collapse and replace it with a capitalist (and democratic) one.
2. About 20 million? You're just strengtening my point, since if the U.S.S.R. lost tens of millions of people in WWII, I seriously doubt it would be very prepared for another war with the U.S. & U.K.
3. A state of panic, shock, trauma, and confusion.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. Because it would have been much more beneficial for U.S. interests to make Stalin's regime collapse and replace it with a capitalist (and democratic) one.

Aha... right. Please do note that your answer was in response to the question "why so bloodthirsty?" and your response was essentially "because the result would be good for U.S interests". Do you engage your brain before you type or are you a sociopath?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you trolling me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't thinking in purely emotional terms...

[Bo]

1. Because it would have been much more beneficial for U.S. interests to make Stalin's regime collapse and replace it with a capitalist (and democratic) one.

Aha... right. Please do note that your answer was in response to the question "why so bloodthirsty?" and your response was essentially "because the result would be good for U.S interests". Do you engage your brain before you type or are you a sociopath?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you trolling me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't thinking in purely emotional terms...

1. I wasn't being bloodthirsty if I would have supported a war against the U.S.S.R.. following WWII. I was worrying about my country's interests. I see ntohing wrong with that. In fact, in a war like this, the U.S. might have lost less troops than it did in WWII.
2. No.
3. Well, you asked a question, and I just answered it.

[Хahar 🤔]

I was worrying about my country's interests. I see ntohing wrong with that.

Well, then, you have serious problems.

[Deldem]

1. Because it would have been much more beneficial for U.S. interests to make Stalin's regime collapse and replace it with a capitalist (and democratic) one.

Aha... right. Please do note that your answer was in response to the question "why so bloodthirsty?" and your response was essentially "because the result would be good for U.S interests". Do you engage your brain before you type or are you a sociopath?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you trolling me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't thinking in purely emotional terms...

1. I wasn't being bloodthirsty if I would have supported a war against the U.S.S.R.. following WWII. I was worrying about my country's interests. I see ntohing wrong with that. In fact, in a war like this, the U.S. might have lost less troops than it did in WWII.
2. No.
3. Well, you asked a question, and I just answered it.

So you think massive American losses against a very powerful opponent on their own turf makes sense.
You believe in intervening in Russian affairs in order to prevent the Cold War, which was a big deal because we intervened in other nation's affairs.

So a few questions:
Do you recall Stalingrad, circa 1942? What makes you think it would have gone better in 1945?
Do you really think any of our allies could have been ready to fight the Soviets? I doubt the UK would be able to do any such thing, and the rest of Europe was hardly in a position to run at all, let alone fight a war against one of the strongest nations in the world.
Do you really think the American people would have gone for it?
Finally, would you nuke the Russians? There's very little other way to assuredly defeat them. And I'd argue the corrupt capitalist that inevitably would have ended up on top would suck almost as much as Stalin- and the country would be far less stable.

Simply put, the reasons NOT to fight the war are far greater than the case for it. The simple fact is that it would not be worth it- we'd suffer huge amounts, for negligible gains at best. Do you really think that the Cold War, which in all honestly killed nowhere near as many Americans as World War II, is worse than a possible catastrophe in 1945?

[Beelzebub]

Stalin didn't fight on the Allies side because he believed in human rights by any stretch of the imagination. He was more concerned with saving his own hide. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil, but Stalin's positions didn't reflect those of the Allies as a whole.

I suppose that's why the Allies sent 2 million people to Stalin to be slaughtered and let him take half of Europe?

I don't really think it's fair to describe it this way- there's no way the UK and America saw the horrors of the next 50 years coming. What could they have done instead? Fight another war over it?

Yes, and quickly before the U.S.S.R. built its own nukes.

Tell me, did you support Hitler? Judging by this post, it seems you wanted both the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed.

[The Mikado]

I, personally, deeply sympathize with the Allies, and think that WW II was the appropriate action, however, the OP's title is deeply misleading.  The Allies are a clear "better" side, but any side that includes the Soviet Union and Chiang Kai-Shek isn't what I'd call a "good" side.