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

[toolateforsundown]

Despite what I and many people feel Democracy is not an inherently better system of government than Communism.

I would also like to point out that the systems of democracy and communism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the entire point of communism is to devolve all power, including social and economic, to the people, the simple absence of which marks the USSR as a totalitarian, and NOT communist, state. Call the USSR and the nations using a similar system Stalinist (or Sovietist, which as a reference to the organization of government, feels appropriate), but they aren't communist.

I wouldn't call Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan evil, but nor would I claim they are free of blame. Versailles 1919 was (well, almost) the most disgusting excuse for a peace treaty I have ever seen. Germany was pretty much forced to shoulder all the blame and financial responsibility for the Great War, which everyone should know by now was everybody's fault and no-one's in particular. While this does not excuse the atrocities committed by the Nazi government, it certainly puts things in an interesting context.

Where it comes to Japan, the Far East had been under brutal western domination (see Philippine-American War as an example) for decades. Japan, remember, was essentially forced into a civil war with the usual decades of social and economic upheaval by Commodore Perry, one of history's biggest dicks. With their defeat of Russia around the turn of the century, Japan was also one of the first nations to voice they were simply done with this shit. As they built up their military and navy to western standards, the United States had the gall to cut off trade with Japan, and instructed all allies to do the same. They had to invade neighboring territories to sustain what was technically their industrial revolution, which, NO WAY, matches nearly perfectly what every major western nation faced with a similar situation did. Sure, they committed war crimes and more subtle injustices against whole populations, but we Americans did pretty much the same thing to an entire continent, and still do regularly. I do not count among their "evil" deeds bombing Pearl Harbor (which was largely a military target, UNLIKE CERTAIN JAPANESE CITIES I COULD MENTION) or their mishandling of prisoners (which was a foreign concept at the time). Again, none of this excuses them for their actions. It does make us sound like hypocrites, though.

Even if we decide these actions are "evil", they were largely policies enforced by those in charge. Those beneath were only following orders (see: Milgram Experiment). My point in brief is that the issue is too muddy for it to be clear cut as anything. Personally, I prefer to stick with "war is evil", and just have everything settled from there.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

The Nazis evil because of racial persecution and politically oppressed citizens? You mean much like the USA at the same time period? Communists and blacks, gays and asians were subject to violence and hatred because of political belief, sexuality and ethnicity, much like Nazi Germany. The USSR was the exact same too and Britain wasn't exactly a haven island of tolerance either.

The only reason Britain entered the war was because Germany was a threat to the already failing empire. America only entered the war because they couldn't hold onto their isolationist attitude after Pearl Harbour and were forced into war. The USSR was the worst of them all. Stalin wouldn't even believe they were under attack despite radio transmissions where you could hear people being shot and killed. They entered the show when they did because they had to. Nobody wanted to go to war, nobody knew Hitler was committing the atrocities he was, or at least the extent, so it wasn't a war of morals, I'd put money on nobody giving a fuck if they did know though.

WW2 was forced on everyone. Germany didn't want to fight Britain or France; the USSR couldn't fight Germany; France was too chicken shit to stand up to Germany when it should; Britain couldn't stand up to Germany when it did and didn't stand up to Germany when it could; and the USA didn't want to even look at Europe.

The Cold war, on the other hand, is a lot more clear cut. The USA and the USSR were both fucked up and they had help from their Allies who were also fucked up, but to a lesser extent. Both were willing to shed copious amounts of blood because of a fear of the other's ideology and an arrogance they threw into their own. Both supported horrible people because of their ideology. Both sides were evil. Neither side was evil.

War isn't a good-evil power struggle. War is entirely about land. No side is ever truly evil and neither is a side truly good. Both sides will have the media spin their story as good and the other as evil, it just so happens that the victor decides who is good and evil[footnote]The current victor. In the case of The Cold War, the current victor would be the sides of democracy and so democracy is good. If, say in 30 years, communism emerges as the main political system then the roles will be reversed and democracy will be evil.[/footnote].

 

[mega48man]

josef mengele wasn't the only scientist, he was just the most notorious scientist at Auchswitz...Auschwitz being the key word...it's like everyone keeps forgetting that hitler gave the o.k. for the SS to systematically torture and kill millions of people. what the hell do they teach you brits in school across the pond?

So, you're back to appealing to emotion, and to assuming things about other people that you know nothing about. Hint: not a Brit here.

I think we're done talking.

things that i know nothing about?

"Things about other people you know nothing about". Like my nationality, for example.

asshole

Yep, we're done talking.

ah crap, what master morita teach me in my training, was it, don't feed the trolls? or wax on/off? no, it was definitly the trolls, gotta stop feeding them.

you completely missed the point of my argument. we're not here to talk about you're nationality. most people on the escapist are british so i assumed. of course, you wouldn't know that because you're a guest, which is really interesting. i didn't know the escapist forums allowed guests. nor did i know guests were a allowed to repeatedly post on the same forum, and repeatedly post such an ignorant point of view at that. and why have the past dozen comments come from you and only you?

have you seriously been defending nazi germany? it makes sense to label the bad things done by the allied nations to argue a point that both sides were evil, but to sympathize for the axis powers? what the hell is wrong with you?!?!? holocaust? 11 million systematically tortured and killed? the gestapo? nazi human experimentation? hell, japanese experimentation? sure germany wanted revenge for their suffered after WW1, but don't you think Hitler took it a little too far with his whole aryan race and ethnic cleansing thing?

this is the 2nd time i find myself asking someone this same question; are you from kansas? westboro maybe? only someone this ignorant and stubborn could come from westboro, kansas.

then again, you're a whovian, so the probability of you being from there is 0%.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

World War II was a battle between good and evil.
Cold War...I'd call it a conflict-of-interests or mass paranoia before I'd call it a battle of good vs. evil.

 

[Jakub324]

CoD W@W and Saving Private Ryan did a good job of showing that no side in WW2 was perfect. The Nazis themselves were bastards, but the average German soldier was just a guy named Ernst who laughed and cried like the rest of us.
The Cold War is more difficult. On the one hand, Stalin was a dickfist, but if he had become more aggressive, it would have been ordinary people who suffered on both sides.
What I've been trying to say is, no side is ever completely in the right. Allied forces in the Pacific executed Japanese POWs because Allied prisoners were executed first.
Even Hitler wasn't 100% evil - he refrained from flattening London for as long as he could, despite the urging of senior Luftwaffe commanders because he didn't want to kill civilians, and he was fiercely against animal cruelty. Meanwhile, in Britain, we turned to battery hens to feed ourselves. The RAF and the USAAF set entire cities alight, even if they had no industrial or military importance. We killed tens of thousands of civilians just to hurt German morale, and if the Cold War had escalated, nukes might have been involved, which might well have destroyed all of humanity, ensuring nobody gained anything.
Like I said, neither side was perfect.

 

[Killermud]

One thing comes to mind when I saw this thread:


Anyway, you cant say it as bluntly as that, not everyone in the Allies was good and not everyone in the Axis was evil. Hitler had many attempted assassinations one from within his own military of which the film Valkyrie was based off. Shows what some people thought of his ideals, just sayin'.

 

[Vegosiux]

have you seriously been defending nazi germany?

I have never, ever said anything in defense of Nazi Germany, seriously or otherwise. All I said was that WW2 wasn't "good against evil" and that just because Mengele was a psycho that doesn't make one side in a war "evil".

But seriously, I'll just let the mods take it from here.

 

[mega48man]

(fighting the japanese in the pacific)

Which started 2 years after the war began...

hey, pearl harbor was a little more than a rug burn. luckily, a large group of ships were out of port on the day of the attack. plus, shit's expensive. the United states were supplying the allied powers with weapons and funding before they entered the war, so we didn't exactly have the appropriate sized army for an invasion of europe, or for the pacific islands. (no wait, i can't remember if that was WW1 or WW2, probably both i think. shit). either way, americans had an isolationist policy before WW1, and then didn't want anything to do with another full scale war. the events of the great war reminded everyone, especially hitler, why war is a terrible thing. that's actually why he had that ridculous mustache; he had to shave the sides so that his gask mask would work effectively, so he keep it like that to remind him of the horrors of his experience in WW1, kinda like how an emo cuts his/her wrist, it's a symbolic gesture.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I'd say WWII was mostly good vs evil. Even if the true goal of the Allied forces was not to prevent a genocide, that is still what they did. I'm pretty sure evryone here agrees that genocide is evil.

But saying the Cold War was good vs evil is just laughable. Both sides were complete dicks for stupid reasons. Besides, it wasn't even an actual war, so that makes the statement even more ludicrous.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: strictly in terms of Europe, I lay the blame for all the atrocities of 1934 to 1989 at the feet of three individuals: Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd-George and Woodrow Wilson, the architects of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty, which ended WWI, was one of the most ridiculous, idiotic pieces of diplomacy in the history of the world. The humiliating terms forced on Germany, which only barely lost WWI, would pave the way for the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. The Nazis would never have been able to get in control of the country had the Treaty of Versailles been more carefully considered, acknowledging that everyone who fought in WWI was at fault to at least some degree, and imposing only conciliatory terms on Germany. I feel that it was the burning injustice that the Germans felt from the treaty that caused them to look for some sentiment that would make them feel great again. And when Adolf Hitler used his gift of demagoguery to touch that nerve-even though Hitler sincerely believed in what he was saying- the German people were won over.

Germany's actions in WWII against Soviet Russia caused the Soviet hostility towards all outside forces in the Cold War, coming from the perspective of "this must never happen again to Russia".

So three ideologically idiotic heads of state sitting around a table in Versailles in 1919 were the reason why the rest of the 20th Century was a militaristic nightmare.

 

[mega48man]

have you seriously been defending nazi germany?

I have never, ever said anything in defense of Nazi Germany, seriously or otherwise. All I said was that WW2 wasn't "good against evil" and that just because Mengele was a psycho that doesn't make one side in a war "evil".

But seriously, I'll just let the mods take it from here.

oh god i'm sorry! something's gone wrong with the escapist and now everyone's profile isn't showing up on the left hand side, i mistook you for someone else, sorry!

but japanese scientists were doing worse things than the scientists in auchwitz, look it up if you're interested.

 

[OneCatch]

edit, actually this guy summarizes it a lot better than I did

epic snip for epic post

See, I thought exactly the same thing about yours after I posted.

Me: "Dammit, that guy's said what I wanted to, but in about a fifth of the space!" I forgot all about Chiank Kai-shek as well...


Not sure if you'll even get this because my browser is being daft atm and labelling everyone as a guest with 0 posts, but thanks anyway!

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

(fighting the japanese in the pacific)

Which started 2 years after the war began...

hey, pearl harbor was a little more than a rug burn. luckily, a large group of ships were out of port on the day of the attack. plus, shit's expensive. the United states were supplying the allied powers with weapons and funding before they entered the war, so we didn't exactly have the appropriate sized army for an invasion of europe, or for the pacific islands. (no wait, i can't remember if that was WW1 or WW2, probably both i think. shit). either way, americans had an isolationist policy before WW1, and then didn't want anything to do with another full scale war. the events of the great war reminded everyone, especially hitler, why war is a terrible thing. that's actually why he had that ridculous mustache; he had to shave the sides so that his gask mask would work effectively, so he keep it like that to remind him of the horrors of his experience in WW1, kinda like how an emo cuts his/her wrist, it's a symbolic gesture.

The point about the mustache isn't correct, there are many pictures of hitler from 1913-14, pre war, where he also had the mustache, it was a rather popular style at the time.

And although america supplied the allies with arms, their was a massive pro nazi sentiment in the country. My point was purely that the comment of america arriving late was correct, the war started in 1939, america entered in 1941... perhaps it was difficult to tell without the whole of the original quote.

 

[jamie56]

A country fighting a country is never "good" or "evil" it is only the leaders who come close and in that case I think world war 2 was a clear cut battle but the soviet union was not at least the soviot unions leaders where motivated by greed or stupidity not pure spite

 

[plugav]

One thing comes to mind when I saw this thread:

Good one. I have to admit, not even the evil Galactic Empire had uniforms that looked this evil.

 

[dyre]

edit, actually this guy summarizes it a lot better than I did

epic snip for epic post

See, I thought exactly the same thing about yours after I posted.

Me: "Dammit, that guy's said what I wanted to, but in about a fifth of the space!" I forgot all about Chiank Kai-shek as well...


Not sure if you'll even get this because my browser is being daft atm and labelling everyone as a guest with 0 posts, but thanks anyway!

Seems like it's a general problem with the site, or at least a problem with both our browsers.

And no, yours is better, because it provides lots of links for people who might be interested in learning more, thereby spreading more knowledge! And I wasn't aware of the Allied whitewashing of Soviet war crimes (and I wonder why the general public in the US still hasn't been informed of any of the WW2 era atrocities Stalin committed...we had plenty of time during the Cold War to badmouth him).

 

[jamie56]

when a country atacks another it is done by the leader and the in the majority of the times the majority of the population dont want war

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not true, in the event of a full scale nuclear war, the majority of human beings would survive. Any number of societies might be set back a few decades or centuries, which would be appalling to live through, but not such a big deal in the long, sad story of humanity.

Except for that little thing called radiation that tends to make large areas of the planet uninhabitable for decades/centuries/a really f-ing long time, as well as causing radiation poisoning.

No, including that. Yes, radiation poisoning will horribly kill lots of people, but lots of others will survive more or less intact.

Areas left uninhabitable might be large in general terms, but compared to the size of nations or planets, not that big.

Also, you'll note that Nagasaki was attacked with a nuclear device, and rebuilt in time to hold the 1998 winter olympics, a mere 2-3 generations later.

A lot of people tend to forget this, but (objectively, at least) nuking Japan wasn't that bad. Even though it happened twice.
Nuclear attacks leveled 90% and 45% of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.

Massive-scale raids using conventional firebombs caused 58% of Yokohama to turn to ash, left only 1% of Toyama standing and (within one night of bombing) scorched away 49% of Tokyo.
That's only three of the cities they targeted.
What's honestly worse against a people who make their houses from wood and paper - a pair of nuclear bombs, or hundreds of tonnes of firebombs?

Thousands of tonnes. Mind you, the nuclear devices had yields comparable to thousands of tonnes as well, but they are inefficient things, you don't use all your explosives in the same place to cover a city.