Poll: were world war 2 and the cold war clear cut battles between good and evil?

[Thaluikhain]

In short, this idea that the US came late and did nothing is utter crap.

The point isn't that they did nothing, it's that they get all the credit, to the exclusion of everyone else.

For my part I'd say that the would not have been able to defeat either the US or USSR individually, to say nothing of together. The war would have dragged on further without either, but they'd eventually have lost. An invasion of Britain was also not feasible.

 

[Yopaz]

snip

Always nice to see a thought out, open minded approach. Frankly, I would say that most parties involved could be classed as evil... Just some more than others.

Yeah, evil vs less evil is very accurate.

 

[Joccaren]

The cold war was a battle of idealisms, so no. Yeah, Stalin and his successors, and some of the puppet leaders of the satellite states, did some bad things, but that wasn't the whole reason for the war. It was a fight between capitalism and communism, and America wasn't exactly clean and shiny that whole war through.
World War 2 I would not call a battle between good and evil, as the war didn't even really start until one of the countries of the allies was invaded, and America didn't join until they were attacked, despite knowing what the Germans were doing. Hence, whilst some might consider Germany 'Evil' (Misguided I feel would be more appropriate), the Allies certainly weren't 'Good'. They were more Neutral, waiting until they got attacked to actually give a damn.

 

[Valeran]

~150,000-200,000 civilians who used to reside in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would tell you that no war is a clean cut division between good and evil. They would, at least, if they weren't dead.

The body count from an invasion of Japan would have likely resulted in a combined casualty count greater than that on both sides of the war, but does it make it right?

A participant in the war can only be labeled as a winner or a loser, there is no greater whole "good" or "evil" or even "right" or "wrong." Perhaps you could define actions as "good," "evil," "right," or "wrong," but some actions, occasionally defined as "necessary," blur the common ideals of what is right and what is wrong.

 

[crazyarms33]

In short, this idea that the US came late and did nothing is utter crap.

The point isn't that they did nothing, it's that they get all the credit, to the exclusion of everyone else.

For my part I'd say that the would not have been able to defeat either the US or USSR individually, to say nothing of together. The war would have dragged on further without either, but they'd eventually have lost. An invasion of Britain was also not feasible.

I get that, but what I don't understand is why the US SHOUDLNT get a ton(not all mind you) of credit. The facts are(as I see them feel free to argue them) Europe was entirely under Nazi sway with the exception of England before the US got fully committed to the war. Germany was dominating the Russians. Africa was looking like it was going to fall to Rommel's armies. Japan was lurking on the eastern coast of the USSR. With that said, I think its safe to assume that American intervention was the most important occurrence of the war. Here is why:
I agree with you that a German invasion of England was not feasible, but then again the Germans wouldn't have had to invade they just merely had to blockade. England didn't have the naval or aerial moxie to break up an effective blockade of U-boats as well as surface ships, or at least not enough moxie to do it and replace their losses indefinitely. England would have had to severely ration everything(well, more so anyway) including food, steel, gasoline, cloth etc. They simply would have been unable to provide for themselves and would (eventually) had to have sued for peace. Further, I agree that the Germans wouldn't have been able to beat the USSR in a one on one situation as far as the end results went(IE there would always be some guerilla fighting, probably to this day). However if lend/lease is as involved as the US got, then I think the reality is the Germans could have won in the tactical sense. I'm not sure they would have, but without an additional 3 fronts to deal with (Italy, Western Europe, Africa)all of those resources could have been poured into the Eastern front. We're talking divisions of tanks, planes and infantry. Also with with the conquest of Africa Germany gains access to essentially unlimited oil which is why(in my opinion) the Battle of the Bulge decided the war. There was no way that after failing to get to the Allied fuel they could ever mount a serious offensive again. Japan would have rolled over Australia and eventually China and then the USSR has enemies on 2 sides with a potential blockade to prevent lend/lease ships from landing putting the USSR in the same pinch as England.

Fortunately America did get off its ass(finally) and contributed. But I would like your thoughts on the above, I enjoy talking about "what if" moments in history.

 

[crazyarms33]

I also want to respond to crazyarms. American intervention and help was desperatly needed and victories had been short coming. Except of course for the Battle of Britain. Blitzkrieg relied upon air superiority, no air, no control. You also need to remember that the Royal Navy was still one of the most powerful in the world. Germany would have been hard pushed to make an invasion. But without Britain, America would have been hard pushed to have any involvement in the European Campaign. The ability of the code breakers at Bletchley Park are also not to be forgotten, America made a smaller contribution, especially in the capture of German Enigma machines, and then made a Hollywood film claiming it was all their work. The war wouldn't have been won without that small victory at Bletchley. Britain also made large contributions to the Manhatten Project and then effectivly America shut us out. Lend-Lease did keep us in the war and I am grateful for that, however, America loses its moral superiority here. Immediatly after the war, you demanded a bankrupt nation pay you back immediatly. In the intitial years of the Atlee government, the country almost suffered a famine and mass starvation because America demanded re-payment and refused to help. They only gave a damn, when the crisis got so bad that we announced we would be pulling back all troops as we could no longer afford to pay them. Then Marshall aid came along.

As is most cases like this, Britain cannot forget the contributions America made to our past and the help it has provided. But America needs to remember that Britain suffered massivly and provided the spring board and some key skills and extra firepower that was necessary to bring the war to an end when it did. I think the continuing friendly relationship between the US and UK and our decision to join you in Afghanistan and Iraq have foundations in this idea.

I'm not saying that the UK didn't do anything, nor that the US should take/get all of the credit. What I AM saying is that the UK wouldn't have made it through the war without Lend/lease, nor without American aid to the USSR and especially not without American troop involvement. The USSR was going nowhere fast against the Germans. Their winter bought them breathing time to move supplies(American) quickly(on American trucks/trains) to the front and fight back and eventually turn the tide.
As far as your argument that the Navy for Britain was great I think I would have to bet on the U-boats. There weren't many of them but they were DEVASTATING. I think that if lend lease is as far as the US involvement went, then eventually a naval blockade around England happens simply because England would have run out of POL for their ships and planes. Unless they somehow held off Rommel(which is debatable) in Africa.

However EXCELLENT points on both the code breakers and the manhattan project. I completely forgot about the second one and I let my GRRRR 'MERICA! get the better of me on the codebreaker thing. Sorry about that. And as for the immediate debt repayment, I firmly believe that if FDR had lived it wouldn't have happened like that. The whole Lend/Lease thing was his baby after all. But yes, that certainly was a dick move.

 

[Vykrel]

i would say that WW2 was pretty close to being a good vs. evil situation.

the cold war struck me more as nothing more than a dick measuring contest.

 

[Dandark]

No. There is no such battle between humans that can be considered good and evil. The cold war wasn't even a proper war, and it wasn't good vs evil, it was two different countries and their differing ideologies.

WWII is more complicated. Germany was hugely in the wrong here. However this does not make the German people "Evil". The german people were convinced or forced into the war. A lot of the Nazi's were pretty insane, you could even call some of them evil. However I would not call the whole country evil or say WWII was good vs evil.
I'd say that Germany was in the wrong but I wouldn't want to label them evil, good and evil are such broad labels that using them is usaully not the best of ideas.

In my opinion anyway.

 

[Azahul]

Snip

Mate, the US's involvement in World War II was important. There is indeed a chance that the war would not have been won without them. And if Britain hadn't been in the war, then there's a good chance the war would not have been won either. And if Russia hadn't been attacked and brought into the war, there's a good chance the war would not have been won. The list goes on. There's a good number of nations without which Germany and its allies would have had a much easier time. Let's just split the credit evenly and call it a day. No one nation is responsible for the Allied victory in World War II. It's why it's called an Allied victory.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I get that, but what I don't understand is why the US SHOUDLNT get a ton(not all mind you) of credit.

Ah, yes, absolutely.

I agree with you that a German invasion of England was not feasible, but then again the Germans wouldn't have had to invade they just merely had to blockade. England didn't have the naval or aerial moxie to break up an effective blockade of U-boats as well as surface ships, or at least not enough moxie to do it and replace their losses indefinitely. England would have had to severely ration everything(well, more so anyway) including food, steel, gasoline, cloth etc. They simply would have been unable to provide for themselves and would (eventually) had to have sued for peace.

That sounds reasonable, yeah.

Further, I agree that the Germans wouldn't have been able to beat the USSR in a one on one situation as far as the end results went(IE there would always be some guerilla fighting, probably to this day). However if lend/lease is as involved as the US got, then I think the reality is the Germans could have won in the tactical sense. I'm not sure they would have, but without an additional 3 fronts to deal with (Italy, Western Europe, Africa)all of those resources could have been poured into the Eastern front. We're talking divisions of tanks, planes and infantry. Also with with the conquest of Africa Germany gains access to essentially unlimited oil which is why(in my opinion) the Battle of the Bulge decided the war. There was no way that after failing to get to the Allied fuel they could ever mount a serious offensive again.

As I understand it, it wasn't the German fighting forces that fell short, it was the transport capacity. The best way to transport supplies and troops is by train, and the Soviets made sure their rail links close to Germany were rubbish at the best of times, and then ripped them up as they retreated. The Germans also used different rail gauge than the Soviets, they couldn't interchange equipment. In addition to this, the sheer scale of hostile terrain they had to move stuff through was formidable.

So, the German forces could be well-supplied, except at the front where the actual fighting was.

In addition to that, they'd drastically under-estimated the strength of the USSR's forces. They kept believing that one more big battle would end them, so they didn't prepare for the extended campaign they got.

Japan would have rolled over Australia and eventually China and then the USSR has enemies on 2 sides with a potential blockade to prevent lend/lease ships from landing putting the USSR in the same pinch as England.

Dunno about that. Japan never really had a chance at conquering much of China, it was just too big. The Guomintang simply moved west and ignored the Japanese so they could fight the communists. Likewise, the Japanese recognised that Australia was too big to invade, they were planning to simply isolate it as well.

Now, I don't know if that would have worked, but there seems to be alot of blockading nations because you don't have the strength to do anything directly to them, and that doesn't look promising to me, though I'm not an expert.

...

A little bit off topic, but I don't see the US not getting involved with all this going on. Without Pearl Harbour they'd not have entered so soon, but there is only so long they'd be able to stay out of it.

 

[kiwi_poo]

well in world war 2 there were really just a couple of evil people (although hey were doing what they thought was right) brainwashing the public in germany.

in the cold war both parties were evil brainwashing bastards.

simple:
ww2= (arguably) good vs (arguably) evil
cold war= evil vs evil

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Nope, there's no such thing. Good and Evil are such vague concepts in the way you're using them that they can't be applied to anything.

 

[Gashad]

Voted no.

WW2 was between slightly evil(allies) allied with the extremely evil(soviet union) vs the extremely evil(axis) while the cold war was between moderately evil(US foreign policy) and extremely evil(Soviet Union).

 

[Thaluikhain]

Snip

Mate, the US's involvement in World War II was important. There is indeed a chance that the war would not have been won without them. And if Britain hadn't been in the war, then there's a good chance the war would not have been won either. And if Russia hadn't been attacked and brought into the war, there's a good chance the war would not have been won. The list goes on. There's a good number of nations without which Germany and its allies would have had a much easier time. Let's just split the credit evenly and call it a day. No one nation is responsible for the Allied victory in World War II. It's why it's called an Allied victory.

I'd disagree that all Allied nations were vital to victory, but they were certainly useful, yeah.

 

[TheIronRuler]

No fight of Good Versus Evil.
In the case of the Cold War, it was two Ideologies fighting each other in the guise of very powerful nations.
In the case of the Second World War, It were the fascist Aggressors that began their campaign for supremacy while their neighbors allowed it (See what happened to Czechoslovakia), but then realized what's happening a long time after they had the chance to stop it in its place (France could have invaded Germany when they took Rheinland and the Saar region).
You can't say that the world didn't know what was happening. While 1936, the Berlin Olympics event, was a relatively quiet year where the racist race supremacy ideology were suppressed a bit so that foreigners wouldn't see it, they knew. Jews knew from their relatives. The American Joint organization for the welbeing of Jews (From the First World War) knew. Hell, they operated in the Ghettos and helped the Jews there. Just look at this statistic - the average amount of food given to a Jew in a Ghetto was 180 calories per day. Half of your Twinkie bar. FOR A DAY.
But then you had the concentration camps set up in the Midwest for all of those nasty Hawaiian Japanese and their mainland cousins... which proved to be useless and cruel.
No evil or good here. Just the Fascist Aggressors being put in their place... unfortunately too late for some.

 

[Azahul]

Snip

Mate, the US's involvement in World War II was important. There is indeed a chance that the war would not have been won without them. And if Britain hadn't been in the war, then there's a good chance the war would not have been won either. And if Russia hadn't been attacked and brought into the war, there's a good chance the war would not have been won. The list goes on. There's a good number of nations without which Germany and its allies would have had a much easier time. Let's just split the credit evenly and call it a day. No one nation is responsible for the Allied victory in World War II. It's why it's called an Allied victory.

I'd disagree that all Allied nations were vital to victory, but they were certainly useful, yeah.

I wouldn't say they were all vital, no, but the ones I listed were so far as I can tell. Arguing over who should get the most credit out of the three of them is ridiculous. In any case, this is not the topic for this discussion. I stand by my previous point. No one in any war can ever be called "good", certainly not anyone in a war where targetting civilians became so widespread and acceptable.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Snip

Mate, the US's involvement in World War II was important. There is indeed a chance that the war would not have been won without them. And if Britain hadn't been in the war, then there's a good chance the war would not have been won either. And if Russia hadn't been attacked and brought into the war, there's a good chance the war would not have been won. The list goes on. There's a good number of nations without which Germany and its allies would have had a much easier time. Let's just split the credit evenly and call it a day. No one nation is responsible for the Allied victory in World War II. It's why it's called an Allied victory.

I'd disagree that all Allied nations were vital to victory, but they were certainly useful, yeah.

I wouldn't say they were all vital, no, but the ones I listed were so far as I can tell. Arguing over who should get the most credit out of the three of them is ridiculous. In any case, this is not the topic for this discussion. I stand by my previous point. No one in any war can ever be called "good", certainly not anyone in a war where targetting civilians became so widespread and acceptable.

.
The first war where The Geneva Convention was pissed on by some many combatants.
I understand your view, you're right.

 

[Raddra]

From a historians perspective, yes.

Stalin and Mao killed more people than WW2 did. In fact the figures are truly incomprehendable and blur into just being a number.

I'm not going to stand up and say 'oh but the west wasn't truly good. That is immature, ignoring the big brother trend of modern times, it was pretty dang clear cut when you probe into the human atrocity that was faux 'transitional' communism. (No, true communism never existed, they were all in the 'consolidate power' stage which was an excuse for a few murderous dictators to get into power with no plans to move on to the next stage)

Anyway I digress.

Stalin and Mao wrote the book on genocide.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Snip

Mate, the US's involvement in World War II was important. There is indeed a chance that the war would not have been won without them. And if Britain hadn't been in the war, then there's a good chance the war would not have been won either. And if Russia hadn't been attacked and brought into the war, there's a good chance the war would not have been won. The list goes on. There's a good number of nations without which Germany and its allies would have had a much easier time. Let's just split the credit evenly and call it a day. No one nation is responsible for the Allied victory in World War II. It's why it's called an Allied victory.

I'd disagree that all Allied nations were vital to victory, but they were certainly useful, yeah.

I wouldn't say they were all vital, no, but the ones I listed were so far as I can tell. Arguing over who should get the most credit out of the three of them is ridiculous. In any case, this is not the topic for this discussion. I stand by my previous point. No one in any war can ever be called "good", certainly not anyone in a war where targetting civilians became so widespread and acceptable.

Well, I'd say that the UK wasn't essential for eventual "victory".

As I understand it, however, civilians weren't targeted (at least not by Western allies so much) per se, it's just that civilian deaths stopped being a reason not to do things the military wanted to do for other reasons.