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

[Deldem]

If you're counting worldwide wars only, then probably yes.

Otherwise, I'd go with the Civil War as well- there's simply no way you could ever seriously suggest that the South was in any way the "good" side.

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Deldem]

No obviously, as you are forgetting the Civil War and numerous others.

Sorry NiK, but that one isn't either. Lincoln was a racist and he crushed regionalism in the US.

But he didn't want to enslave people. Say what you like about Lincoln's beliefs on equality, but he did not want slavery- and the South seceded under the threat of ending slavery.

Besides, eliminating strong state's rights was one of the main reasons for the Constitution. Remember how well state's rights worked under the Articles of Confederation? Oh yeah, they consistently undermined one another and nearly destroyed the nation before it had begun. Remember how well it worked in the CSA? Oh yeah, not at all- in fact, it greatly contributed to their defeat.

Look, we all know the real reason the South seceded was slavery, which they would justify partly by state's rights. So no, there is no doubt, the North was clearly the better side. Sure, they were bigots, but they didn't want to own other human beings, and that fact alone is enough to give them the moral high ground.