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

[Smurf McSmurfington]

Yes and no.
More of a battle of slightly evil vs. very evil... or rather stupid vs very stupid.
Good and evil are subjective.
But make no mistake, both the Nazis and the USSR were wholly brutal regimes from beginning to end. They're very comparable, and while the US isn't exactly the posterboy of goodness either, it's NOTHING compared to either the Nazis or the USSR. Regimes run by megalomaniac lunatic dictators. Though obviously there is much more to it than that, but that's the gist of it.

The thing about WW2 few people know is that Hitler would've lost with or without the US intervening - he never stood a chance against Stalin's Russia.
Hitler was in many ways retarded, and more of a puppet to be used by his advisors, though the jew hate was entirely his. He was basically like Nero, the roman emperor, completely insane and having so much power that he could indulge in his insanities. Like the Holocaust in this case.

So in the end it was more of a power between comparatively sane people(who individually didn't have all that much power) and insane people who had gone mad with power.

As they say, power corrupts, especially people who have personalities that compel them to seek power to fulfill their psychological needs, sadly.

 

[spartandude]

and the internment camps werent horrible? what are you smoking? i want some because id love to live in your super kind fluffy dream world.

I've talked with a former internee. He said it wasn't good, but it certainly wasn't horrifying like a concentration camp. Of course different camps had different conditions, and I already said they were a massive violation of human-rights. Even if they weren't horrible, they weren't right.

do you know what that excuse was to fight germany? hint retaliation, in fact he didnt want a war with germany he was happy to let the non agression pact last to keep the USSR safe. you cant just excuse Britain and America but no the USSR

I was always taught that Stalin knew Hitler would break the pact. And I wasn't trying to excuse the US. How is revenge an excuse? Anger is not an excuse.

And Britain, I don't know too much other than the invasion.

in that case id like to apologise, kinda missread it in my mind

anyway while i cant claim to have spoken to a former internee and dont know their perspective, from what ive read and seen there were pretty grim, but obviously anything seems like a massage compared to the holocaust

and from what i'm given to understand abour the USSR was that Stalin was very paranoid and welcomed the non agression pact as he thought it made him more secure, was possible he may have forseen hitler braking it at some point but largely the USSR was taken by surprise during the original invasion

in terms of britain and france, we were really just trying to protect our empires, we assumed that we would easily beat germany, if we had known what it would actually be like we may not have gone to war or may have declared war during the annexation of the sudetenland

 

[AnotherAvatar]

In my opinion the cold war could be looked at as a battle of good v. evil, but not if you're trying to say capitalism v. communism is good v. evil.

No rather the cold war was good against evil in the sense that it was man's dark, destructive nature against life and man's role in it. The good in my eyes is Peace, the everlasting kind if that can be imagined by our world with continuous war, and the evil is the atom bomb and the death it promised.

We still have stockpiles capable of destroying the world several times over, so I'm sad to say that evil won this war, even if it wasn't the total victory of a barren planet, that wouldn't be lifeless, but that would certainly become a difficult place for any life form to thrive on.

The thing about wars is that since they are groups of people fighting each other you're going to have good people on both sides of the field. No matter what no human conflict should be looked at as "well, we're good, they're evil" because we're all just humans conflicting over ideals.

The world doesn't work in black and white without a million shades of gray, there may be absolutes out there, but they are few and far between, and certainly never cover as big a group as an army, a nation, or a whole conflict.

(By the way, how clear is it that I played Peace Walker recently? XD )

 

[Warforger]

No conflict between human beings is a clear "good vs. evil" fight, but World War II comes the closest. The governments of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Imperial Japan committed truly heinous atrocities against soldiers and civilians alike. The defeat of such regimes was truly worthy of praise.

But say the British got away with their genocides even the one in India that went on during the war which they could've prevented i.e. "If there is so little food in India, why doesn't Gandhi just starve to death?" -Churchhill (not exact quote but close enough) where an invasion of a bunch of mice that happens every 50 years destroyed much of the Eastern Indian agriculture, they could've diverted production of Cash crops to stop it but like that quote they didn't care. My point isn't that the allies are just as bad, it's that they're not thought of as such, when someone see's a German the first thing they think of is the Nazi's, when someone see's a British then logically they'd think of a British racist imperialists who wants to kill all the Irish in Ireland so the superior English can live there, India should be a subordinate to Britain etc. etc. It just seems pretty unfair how that worked out.

The Allies weren't exactly perfect either (Soviet atrocities in east Germany and Prussia, Japanese-American internments, American "Jim Crow" practices, etc.).

Prussia? Erm Prussia was basically East Germany, after WWII though the Germans there were forced into East Germany and they gave the land to Poland.

But Japanese-American internments and Jim Crow were only regional and they weren't nearly as bad as what the Axis or British or Soviets did during the war.


The Cold War was definitely more of a "shades of grey" affair. While I would argue that the initial mistrust in the Soviet Union was justified (Stalin wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue, after all), in the end both sides were guilty of acting in a less than satisfactory manner. The brutal Soviet suppression of uprisings in eastern Europe and the CIA supporting ruthless right-wing dictators like Ferdinand Marcos are just two of many examples of the various misdeeds committed.[/quote]

 

[spartandude]

and the internment camps werent horrible? what are you smoking? i want some because id love to live in your super kind fluffy dream world.

I've talked with a former internee. He said it wasn't good, but it certainly wasn't horrifying like a concentration camp. Of course different camps had different conditions, and I already said they were a massive violation of human-rights. Even if they weren't horrible, they weren't right.

do you know what that excuse was to fight germany? hint retaliation, in fact he didnt want a war with germany he was happy to let the non agression pact last to keep the USSR safe. you cant just excuse Britain and America but no the USSR

I was always taught that Stalin knew Hitler would break the pact. And I wasn't trying to excuse the US. How is revenge an excuse? Anger is not an excuse.

And Britain, I don't know too much other than the invasion.

in that case id like to apologise, kinda missread it in my mind

anyway while i cant claim to have spoken to a former internee and dont know their perspective, from what ive read and seen there were pretty grim, but obviously anything seems like a massage compared to the holocaust

and from what i'm given to understand abour the USSR was that Stalin was very paranoid and welcomed the non agression pact as he thought it made him more secure, was possible he may have forseen hitler braking it at some point but largely the USSR was taken by surprise during the original invasion

in terms of britain and france, we were really just trying to protect our empires, we assumed that we would easily beat germany, if we had known what it would actually be like we may not have gone to war or may have declared war during the annexation of the sudetenland

They did the pact because they were not ready for the war, but they knew it was a matter of time, that's why the production of military products by URSS rose a lot in 39 and 40 before they entered the war. They were surprised because it was sooner than they expected.

And did you know when Stalin signed the pact with Hitler, He gave UK, Russian troops to use it against Hitler in case he made a move? (Not sure if it was 100% like this, I need to find a source).

thank you clarifying that for me, i do actually find this really interesting

 

[peruvianskys]

No war is between pure good and evil, but WWII was probably reasonable in philosophy, although things like our internment camps or the nuclear strikes on Japan were terrible things to do.

But yeah, stop trying to defend Hitler or Japan or whatever just to be some edgy ponce.

 

[Thaluikhain]

-As for Russia, Stalin merely needed an excuse for war in which to seize power. He was already evil.

Not so, Stalin was in power before Germany declared war on the USSR. To ensure his power, he killed off many of the soldiers and officers, fearing the military as the only threat to him...but being a threat to Stalin and being a threat to invading Germans overlapped alot, unfortunately, which didn't help a few years later.

We still have stockpiles capable of destroying the world several times over, so I'm sad to say that evil won this war, even if it wasn't the total victory of a barren planet, that wouldn't be lifeless, but that would certainly become a difficult place for any life form to thrive on.

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.

 

[Shock and Awe]

World War 2 was about as close as one could get to a battle between good and evil, but the cold war was definitely not so clear cut.

 

[TheIronRuler]

World War 2 was about as close as one could get to a battle between good and evil, but the cold war was definitely not so clear cut.

.
Fascism is Evil? Really?
One side is Imperialistic in spirit, the way of the last century, while the other side is democratic and... enlightened . Now, who here is the aggressor - that would be Nazi Germany.

 

[Nashnir]

Neither WW2 or The Cold War was a battle b/w good and evil.
All wars are battle of ideologies. There is no right or wrong. There is only the defeated and the one with the pyrrhic victory.

 

[Griffolion]

so escapits, i have a debate question! i'm having a hard time choosing a side to argue for in this question: were world war 2 and the cold war clear cut battles between good and evil? why or why not?

it's the cold war part that gets me, i started off thinking that it wasn't clear cut, but i'm beginning to think the opposite.

if want to make an essay of it, please use supporting arguments with citation of your sources, you don't have to of course.

Define "Good" and "Evil" and then we'll talk.

On a lighter note, I'm having rib-eye steak tonight for tea tonight, whatever the definition of "Good" turns out as, that is almost certainly part of it.

 

[mega48man]

so escapits, i have a debate question! i'm having a hard time choosing a side to argue for in this question: were world war 2 and the cold war clear cut battles between good and evil? why or why not?

it's the cold war part that gets me, i started off thinking that it wasn't clear cut, but i'm beginning to think the opposite.

if want to make an essay of it, please use supporting arguments with citation of your sources, you don't have to of course.

No.

The very fact that you asked the question of WW2 and The Cold War illustrates the reason why I picked the no option.

I'm assuming that you are from the West and from an "allied" nation.

OK, so, if we take WW2 and say that the major Nations of the US, UK, France and Russia were the "good" side and they defeated the "evil" nations of Germany, Italy and Japan in a war that lasted form 1939-1945.

Where is becomes apparent that there is no "good or evil" in war is in the next part of your question, the Cold War. Why, because, accord to the West, in the course of one year, Russia is now on the "evil" side. How did happen in the course of one year?

Simple answer, id didn't Russia was never "evil" or "good" to begin with. It was simply a Nation at war for a whole raft of reasons, just like the US, Germany, Poland and and all the others.

There is no evil nations or "sides in a war only evil people. When it comes to nations there are only winner and losers.

sooooo you don't think the holocaust, gestapo, or the nazi's human experimentation preformed by Dr. Josef Mengele doesn't qualify as evil? in the question, i meant everything that happened during ww2, not just the war. this includes the united states japanese internment or the soviet's poor treatment of their own troops, which you could of used to argue that both sides did some bad things.

however, to not consider the nazis evil is extremely far too forgiving, so here's a video that will hopefully change your mind. skip to 3:15 to hear the really ugly stuff.

dr. mengele amputated and/or disected prisoners including children without the use of anesthetic just for the sake of collecting body parts for him experiments. can you imagine doing that to someone? leaning over them as their blood curdling screams of pain pierce your ears? and as dr. mengele did this to those people, he didn't care one bit....and THAT is the definition of pure evil...to kill without remorse.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

in that case id like to apologise, kinda missread it in my mind

Accepted, thank you for your internet cordiality.

anyway while i cant claim to have spoken to a former internee and dont know their perspective, from what ive read and seen there were pretty grim, but obviously anything seems like a massage compared to the holocaust

Right, and the the guy I spoke to was much younger when he was in the camps so it may have been a very different (ie. more bearable) experience as a kid.

and from what i'm given to understand about the USSR was that Stalin was very paranoid and welcomed the non agression pact as he thought it made him more secure, was possible he may have forseen hitler braking it at some point but largely the USSR was taken by surprise during the original invasion

Alright, I didn't know that aspect.

Not so, Stalin was in power before Germany declared war on the USSR. To ensure his power, he killed off many of the soldiers and officers, fearing the military as the only threat to him...but being a threat to Stalin and being a threat to invading Germans overlapped alot, unfortunately, which didn't help a few years later.

By "power" I meant "more land." Don't know why I said power.

 

[Raven_Operative]

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.

 

[Meta 99]

Good and evil are subjective, and always follow the winners. If the Nazi's had one, we would all be thanking them from "cleansing" humanity, but they didn't so we say they're evil. Alternatively, we could be thanking the soviets for removing the horrible system of capitalism. You need to look at something from all sides to get a clear picture.

 

[mega48man]

so escapits, i have a debate question! i'm having a hard time choosing a side to argue for in this question: were world war 2 and the cold war clear cut battles between good and evil? why or why not?

it's the cold war part that gets me, i started off thinking that it wasn't clear cut, but i'm beginning to think the opposite.

if want to make an essay of it, please use supporting arguments with citation of your sources, you don't have to of course.

Define "Good" and "Evil" and then we'll talk.

On a lighter note, I'm having rib-eye steak tonight for tea tonight, whatever the definition of "Good" turns out as, that is almost certainly part of it.

well if the holocaust or Dr. Mengele's experimentation on children (including amputation, disection, injections of uncertain chemicals, and so many more all without anesthetics) doesn't count as evil to you, then i'd assume you're either uninformed or you're the kind of person who'd classify cutting off a child's head while their awake as "OK".

so now that you've heard my definition of evil, i'd LOVE to hear yours.

 

[Griffolion]

so escapits, i have a debate question! i'm having a hard time choosing a side to argue for in this question: were world war 2 and the cold war clear cut battles between good and evil? why or why not?

it's the cold war part that gets me, i started off thinking that it wasn't clear cut, but i'm beginning to think the opposite.

if want to make an essay of it, please use supporting arguments with citation of your sources, you don't have to of course.

Define "Good" and "Evil" and then we'll talk.

On a lighter note, I'm having rib-eye steak tonight for tea tonight, whatever the definition of "Good" turns out as, that is almost certainly part of it.

well if the holocaust or Dr. Mengele's experimentation on children (including amputation, disection, injections of uncertain chemicals, and so many more all without anesthetics) doesn't count as evil to you, then i'd assume you're either uninformed or you're the kind of person who'd classify cutting off a child's head while their awake as "OK".

so now that you've heard my definition of evil, i'd LOVE to hear yours.

I agree with you and consider such things to be evil.

My original statement was to merely highlight the concept that "Good" and "Evil" may be relative terms between each individuals mind.