I think people here are saying that Stalin might have been just as evil as Hitler considering the number of people brutally killed.
Seeing as how the Third Reich was inflicted with most damage from its Eastern front, it is hard to say the Soviet Union did not do its part.
Drew, Other than my assertion that war was righteous that you disagree with, please point out inaccuracies in my posts. I won't argue whether you think defeating Hitler was righteous or not. If it's your opinion that we were not morally in the right in our efforts to defeat Hitler and that he was truly an evil man, well, it is your right to have that opinion.
Ok, this is wrong. As Ari has pointed out, this was not your normal 'resolve'. It was tyrannical brutality in the extreme. Stalin was just a ruthless and heartless towards his own people as to the Germans, if he thought it would aid towards his goal. The book I mentioned earlier in this thread fantastically illustrates this. I suppose you might defend it as total war, but I believe history had correctly identified Stalin not as a savior for the Russian people, but as a despot.
By this logic, wouldn't the Iraq War be considered morally righteous because Saddam is a despot and an evil man? I think DrewP is just pointing out the US actions throughout and after WW2 are purely due to self interest. And that the US government did not make any decision based on morality. Rather, they simply responded in a practical, selfish manner. In other words, even if Hitler's invasions were more humane, so to speak, would US, British, and Russian response be any different? The answer is no. Hence, the war was not righteous. It just seemed that way in hindsight because we uncovered a lot of dirt on Hitler to make ourselves look good.
We declared war on Germany because they were bombing London genius. Without the pacific attack we would have been involved anyways. Much later, but it would have still been game on. And once the USA war machine turned on, our industrial power and ability to crank out a serious amount of war machinery, greatly altered the war.
I disagree b/c Stalin's goal wasn't to exterminate Russians during WWII. I will say there is a difference between Stalin and Hitler during the war. That said, I am not trying to defend Stalin. The brutality of red army officers' towards conscript soldiers are well documented as you mentioned, and we got a glimpse of it in the movie enemy at gate.
Hindsight speaking or that was the case prior to 1942? Are you referring to Poland and Finland, and brutality towards his own people prior to 1942? Hitler was a much more of evil at 1941-42 than Stalin was, I don't think there is doubt. Hindsight judgment OTOH is unfair to people involved in that decision.
I maintain to this day that the most brutal and ruthless leader of the 20th century was not Hitler, but Stalin. Historians seem to have ignored that fact for the most part simply because most of Stalin's victims were Russians. He literally enslaved the entire population and showed an unparalleled capacity for brutality against his own people. Stalin never had a moral qualm about killing people or causing mass-scale human misery and suffering to achieve his agenda. He relocated people by force into work camps, This is the guy who was quoted as saying "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" LOL! This is the guy who literally ordered the rape of German women as the Red Army was sweeping into Germany. This is the guy who ordered the mass deportation/ethnic cleansing of the Chechen-Ingush people, which earned their eternal hostility and rejection of Russian rule to this day, it is just not something they will likely soon forget. I could go on and on, and Russians today have mixed feelings about Stalin, he still has that cult like following amongst loyalists and nationalists who believe the country today needs a strong leader, which is why so many young Russians today are in favor of Putin, they are desperate for a strong leader who will shape up Russia and take it back to its glory days. Khrushchev had some not so nice things to say about Stalin, and he blamed him for a lot of abuses and missteps, but his final legacy will forever be winning WWII and positioning Russia as a superpower. In the end, he got away with it all because people are more interested in outcomes than how we got there, and historians tend to cater to that impulse we have about how the ends justify the means. Stalin was THE ultimate ends guy.
I agree. Hitler was not worse than Stalin. However, Himmler was way worse than the other two combined. In America, when people mention Hitler, the first thing to mind is the Holocaust. But when you mention Himmler, people will have no idea who he was. And when you mention Stalin, the first things in there minds are usually the Soviet Union or communism. Worst part is, I never once learned about the Holodomor through 12 years of American public schooling.
I heard this one before. Many people will argue that Mao's track record may be even worse. Are Mao or Stalin worse tyrants than Hitler? If there was an objective standard. Jewish people might have something to say about it too. One thing, worthwhile pointing out, Hitler killed for the sake of killing, while Mao or Stalin killed people b/c they had an agenda. Well, they are close IMO, and Hitler is probably the winner.
Who defeated the Nazis or the Japs is a different question than who won the war. The USA and Russia obviously won the war, and the USA got the better of the spoils and held on to them longer. Isn't that what matters?
I'll admit that I find the ideal of using morality as a guide to foreign policy utterly idiotic and short sighted, so my response to your statement about the war not being righteous then is so what? If your definition of a righteous war would be a nation going to war without paying any regard to their own self-interest, then there has never been nor will be a righteous war, so you're merely holding things to some idealistic standard for the sake of argument. World War II was legally justifiable on security grounds, on legal grounds, and ultimately on moral grounds, so it was ultimately a just war, which is what matters instead of some foolish ideas of what is righteous.
If it was a conventional war and if the there were no Russians, I doubt the US could take out Germany in Europe. The German war machine was probably one of the best.
Considering that every country that gets attacked is "justified" for retaliating, wouldn't that make every war justifiable on security grounds, legal grounds, and ultimately moral grounds? What makes WW2 so different from other wars? I don't hold WW2 to any higher standard. I find that it's not more or less moral than any other war. Because people that wage wars(both defensive and offensive) don't do so for moral reasons. This is true for more or less every single war in history.
A lot of good posts in this thread. Many I disagree with, but good, nonetheless. Some thoughts... Hitler didn't have to declare war on the United States. When he stood before the Reichstag in Berlin and made his speech declaring war, no one was more astonished than the High Command, who thought it insane (not that they would say so, of course). Japan ignored the Axis treaty when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941, long before Pearl Harbor. There was no second front. There was never a second front until the last few days of the war, when the Soviets declared war on Japan to snap up what they could of the Empire before the peace. Hitler made some other mistakes regarding the Soviet Union that the High Command disagreed with. They strongly urged waiting to attack the USSR until Great Britain had been dealt with. Not attacking the USSR was never an option, as others have pointed out, but the timing was entirely Hitler's. His general staff was overruled, as they so often were after the war began on the eastern front. Another critical mistake was not developing a long range bomber, something the high technology of Germany could have certainly accomplished and many urged that they do so. They were ignored, as they were ignored about the need for long range fighter aircraft. Hitler and his buddies thought only of Blitzkrieg, of short to medium range bombers and fighters, with dive bombers useful at the point of action getting heavy play. Not developing those assets made bombing Great Britain into submission ultimately impossible. Not developing them, along with Japan's refusal to attack the USSR in the west, made Stalin's factories invulnerable, a crucial factor to Germany's defeat. One other critical mistake. The Me 262 jet fighter could have been produced in large numbers much earlier and would have made mincemeat of our long range bomber fleets. We had nothing that could touch it. By the time it came online, it was too late, both for the jet fighter and for the needed fuel supplies to power it. It was, like long range bombers and fighter aircraft, a difference maker Germany had in its pocket and ignored. I could go on, but if you really want to know who won the war for the West and the USSR, it was Hitler.
Great post....and IIRC the 262 could have come into service in 1942, but Hitler wanted it as a dive bomber and troop support instead of as a fighter aircraft. Unreal the tactical errors they made.... DD
Thanks, DD! WWII has always been an interest of mine, having heard about little else growing up in the '50's and my father being a Navy vet (that I found out much later saw some vicious combat). I know it's a particular interest of yours, considering the games you've been involved in producing. The conflict shaped everything happening today, for good and ill, and can still teach us a lot.
