Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[Disgustipated]

LOL FDR wasn't trying to keep us out of it. The USA was not true neutral in its dealings with either Japan or Germany.

 

[Disgustipated]

Do you know what happened to the legitimate government in exile that escaped Poland? The one who provided several divisions of troops to the allies and waged a guerrilla war behind enemy lines for the entire war?

Hint: The Soviets didn't give them medals.

Oh I know. And I know the Soviets stopped just shy of Warsaw and let the Germans crush the revolt. They probably figured that would crush any pro-western forces as well, and they wouldn't have to deal with them after the Russians took Warsaw.

 

[Patroklos]

So why did you claim Eastern Europe was not abandoned?

 

[bhsup]

Alright, so it's been acknowledged by pretty much everyone that siding with evil to fight evil is acceptable.

So then, why are people constantly bringing up the fact that we armed some people, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, who later under Pakistani guidance created the Taliban?

Or that we sided with Pinochet during the cold war?

Or blah blah.

Yes, this was the entire point of this thread. Everyone acknowledges up to this point, it seems, that it is acceptable to get in bed with some pretty damned bad people when your nation's interests are best served by doing so. So why the change of tone when it is anyone the US had any dealings with after WWII that is in any way questionable of character?

 

[GhostWriter16]

And no, I do not mean Vice President Biden.

Anyway, should the allies have gotten into bed with the Soviets in WWII? They were just as evil and murderous under Stalin as the Nazis were. Enemy of my enemy? Is it as simple as that?

For the record, I do think we did the right thing, btw. I'm just curious what others think about this.

I'd normally say "Don't get involved" but this is the rare case where that really doesn't work.

This war wasn't really about the evil of either side, in terms of people killed. We didn't even know how many people Hitler was killing until it was all said and done.

It was theoretically about Pearl Harbor, but beyond that, Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo had a vision to conquer the world. There was no length they wouldn't go to. That's when you can't just sit back and do nothing. When its a local dispute over whatever, keep out, but when a nation is trying to conquer the whole world, you have to stop them.

Stalin, for all the people he killed, wasn't trying to conquer the world at the time, and the Nazis were the immediate threat.

I would never have "Allied" with them, but I would have said "OK, we may not like you, but we've got to stop this Hitler guy." Which is basically what happened.

I ultimately do think we did the right thing.

Alright, so it's been acknowledged by pretty much everyone that siding with evil to fight evil is acceptable.

So then, why are people constantly bringing up the fact that we armed some people, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, who later under Pakistani guidance created the Taliban?

Or that we sided with Pinochet during the cold war?

Or blah blah.

Yes, this was the entire point of this thread. Everyone acknowledges up to this point, it seems, that it is acceptable to get in bed with some pretty damned bad people when your nation's interests are best served by doing so. So why the change of tone when it is anyone the US had any dealings with after WWII that is in any way questionable of character?

World War II was an incredibly unique case. Honestly, I don't think you can find any other case like it. I'm confident enough of it that I'm prepared to defend the interventionist position there even though I'm generally opposed to overseas wars on principle.

Its not about how many of their own people they killed. That's their business. I don't mean that in a heartless sort of way, but the US cannot be the world policemen.

Its true that the Holocaust was an extraordinary case, but we didn't even know about it at the time.

That's not why I support involvement.

I support involvement in WWII both because Japan attacked us, and more directly, Germany wanted to conquer the entire world. Had they stopped when they had restored their own country after Europe kicked it to the can in WWI, I wouldn't have gotten involved, heck, I wouldn't have gotten involved in WWI to begin with.

But WWII was special because Hitler wanted to conquer the world, and there wasn't anything that would stop him except defeat. Had he taken England and Russia, he would have come after us next. And so we had to get involved before we lost any assistance we would have had.

Its not really ABOUT Russia here. Russia was horible, but they weren't looking to conquer the world, at least not yet.

I don't think we should have intervened in the Afghanistan thing. Russia taking Asia should have been none of our business. Russia more wanted to stop capitalist countries from propping up on his doorstep than he did want to conquer the entire world. I would have stayed out of it.

I would never have invaded Afghanistan/Iraq either.

 

[Crezth]

1st part... says who? A lot more people died under Stalin/USSR than under Hitler... both wanted to dominate the world.

Yeah, I understand the argument and I am no fan of the Soviet Union, but I don't think you could argue fairly that Stalin was as bad as Hitler. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac and a brutal dictator of the worst sort, but he didn't quite have Hitler's colorful take on international relations (let alone the fate of Polish Jewry).

2nd part... absolutely correct. Japan attacked us, and Hitler declared war on us. We didn't have a choice really. FDR was trying to keep us out of it, but our hand was forced.

Yeah I think this is the more important point. Even if we did technically have a choice in the matter, the Russians weren't the ones attacking our boats. And it simply made more sense to work with the other guys fighting the Nazis, rather than try to work separately against the at-the-time most mobilized fighting force in the world.

 

[Patroklos]

Because angsty trench coat wearing college hippies like communism bro.

 

[Tahuti]

Was it acceptable to ally with Mussolini against Hitler?

 

[warpus]

How did we betray Eastern Europe? All these things were worked out in conferences. It was agreed to let the Soviets have a sphere of influence over Eastern European countries.

A lot of people in the former eastern bloc felt betrayed in the sense that they fought for their freedom with their western allies, but didn't get it until 50 years after the fact.

Not to mention that, for example, the Polish squadron which had the most impact in the Battle of Britain (most influential, most kills, etc.) was not talked about in the West and the surviving pilots were not invited to the victory parade in London or even acknowledged.

It was done for political reasons, but it left a lot of people under communist oppression and justified feelings of betrayal.

 

[Ajidica]

1st part... says who? A lot more people died under Stalin/USSR than under Hitler...

Difference: Stalin didn't implement policies designed exclusively to exterminate an entire group of individuals. He may have been a paranoid nutter whose agriculture policies bordered on stupidity but he wasn't trying to commit genocide.

both wanted to dominate the world.

Not really. Remember, Stalin for the most part shifted the Soviet foreign policy away from promoting world revolution and toward building 'socialism in one country'.

 

[illram]

Stalin was a horrible person but we had to fight the Axis. Once that became clear it was a marriage of convenience, wasn't it? What were we going to do, actively try and not coordinate with them?

It's not like we were buddy buddy anyway, wasn't there some fairly fierce competition with regards to who could take over Germany faster? I.e. both sides knew that once the dust settled their main competition would be their former allies.

 

[Virote_Considon]

It was absolutely the right thing to ally with Stalin in WWII.

It was absolutely morally reprehensible, however, to not follow through with Operation Unthinkable after the war.

Dominate the world? They weren't comic book villains.

Pardon?

 

[Borachio]

When the odds [of Operation Unthinkable] were judged "fanciful", the original plan was abandoned.

I see.

 

[Disgustipated]

So why did you claim Eastern Europe was not abandoned?

It's not my fault Roosevelt was weak on communism. He was a communist himself imho. I hated his New Deal policies. He was a weak negotiator. But like Obama (who is also weak in dealing with the Russians), he's our commander in chief, and we have to follow him.

 

[Disgustipated]

A lot of people in the former eastern bloc felt betrayed in the sense that they fought for their freedom with their western allies, but didn't get it until 50 years after the fact.

Not to mention that, for example, the Polish squadron which had the most impact in the Battle of Britain (most influential, most kills, etc.) was not talked about in the West and the surviving pilots were not invited to the victory parade in London or even acknowledged.

It was done for political reasons, but it left a lot of people under communist oppression and justified feelings of betrayal.

Well it's not our fault that the Russians did most of the heavy lifting on the European war. They sacrificed the most blood.

 

[Quackers]

A lot of people in the former eastern bloc felt betrayed in the sense that they fought for their freedom with their western allies, but didn't get it until 50 years after the fact.

Not to mention that, for example, the Polish squadron which had the most impact in the Battle of Britain (most influential, most kills, etc.) was not talked about in the West and the surviving pilots were not invited to the victory parade in London or even acknowledged.

It was done for political reasons, but it left a lot of people under communist oppression and justified feelings of betrayal.

So you expected the exhausted western alies to declare war on the SU and start another war with 10s of millions of deaths?

 

[Grendeldef]

For the sake of argument if nothing else, I wish that relations between the Allied & the USSR had been more hostile than cooperative. Would that have changed anything on our Eastern front is questionable but one more open question doesn't change much of anything either.

G

 

[Formaldehyde]

First, the number of deaths under Stalin were likely greatly exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude.

Second, the US continues to have allies which are quite probably far more morally despicable than the USSR ever was.

The Soviet Union really won WWII. By comparison, the US and the UK were merely bystanders when it comes to the number of military deaths, much less civilians. Yes, we provided supplies which was likely critical. But it pales in comparison to the number of lives lost.

 

[Disgustipated]

First, the number of deaths under Stalin were likely greatly exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude.

Second, the US continues to have allies which are far more morally despicable than the USSR ever was.

now that's just silly. Who now days has killed more people than Stalin?

 

[Borachio]

Proportionally? Pol Pot. For one.