zneova itape…

I don’t think there’s a debate here. I don’t disagree with this at all. I’m not even saying that our doing this wasn’t a good thing. I’m only saying that there is no way of knowing whether the “fascist” domination we prevented would actually have been worse than the communist domination we thereby facilitated. Personally, I’m inclined to think FDR did the right thing by putting the US into the war. And I think if forced to choose, I’d choose Stalin over Hitler. However, with hindsight, it strikes me as simplistic to take the position that our participation in WWII was some kind of sine qua non vanquishment of evil that unequivocally produced a better world.

It is also unquestionable, regardless of the revisionism that has since occurred, that Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II and Lech Walesa started forces in motion that toppled the USSR.

All that said, what was worse or better is hard to determine. Is a “mere” 12 million dead worse than the 25 million, or so, in Soviet Gulags and midnight terror? Well, the Soviets were a bit less direct about their murders, whereas the Nazi’s ran their’s in an organized, industrial fashion. Horrific!

What is indisputable is that Socialism, whether of the National Socialist, Bolshevik or Maoist variety, has killed more people than every war of humankind put together. Socialism is an evil that bears no goodwill of any sort, not even the mild socialism of the US Democratic Party.

Now that I am clear that Uncle Joe is Joe Stalin; without doing my own fact checking I believe your statement is correct that Communism killed more people than Nazism. Your point is which was worse?

I would say both are terrible and both killed in the millions. Be that as it may, the U.S. eventually brought an end to Soviet Communism and many people are free as a result. Maybe the U.S. should have pursued Stalin immediately after WWII (I believe Patton was among those who wanted to do just that if my history is correct) and certainly Communism still exists in China, Cuba, and other parts of the world. Obviously, the U.S. cannot and should not make war in all these places if they are not a threat to us directly (Which is debatable. The idea of preemption seems to be a non starter now). Right or wrong, at some point those who desire freedom must fight for it themselves because the U.S. can only sacrifice so much.

I don’t think there is any question that Uncle Joe (Stalin) killed more people than Hitler did (excluding combat casualties both military and civilian): estimates range from 25 million (about the same as Hitler) to over 100 million.

Sorry for using the term “childish.” My point is merely that you’re assuming the world was better off, net, with Uncle Joe (Stalin), than with Hitler. Maybe you’re right, maybe not. The fact is, the commies killed more people than the fascists. Without US intervention Europe may well have remained under fascist control. Given the viciousness of either regime, no one can say for certain whether or not “winning” WWII was better or worse than staying out of it, for us, and the rest of the world. Maybe all we did was trade evils without knowing which one was the lesser.

What the hell would you do if you were asleep, rudely awoke by a trespasser in “ninja” gear, who was pointing a weapon at you and your family. I would’ve lunged too. As a matter of fact, I have beat the crap out of friends who thought it would be funny to jump into bed with me while I was sleeping. It’s a natural reaction.

Nick

Furthermore, if not for the U.S., Russia would have had more control of the once held Nazi territories. Though Russia did retain some of the conquered territory, the Allies kept Russia from taking much of it. The territories held by the Allies were returned to the former regimes as much as possible. Up until this time, all of the spoils of war, namely territory, normally went to the victor. The fact that the U.S. and the U.K. did not annex these lands to their countries is an anomaly in world history.

As to your second assumption, who is to say if Hitler would have ever been taken out of power if his dreams would have been realized? The point is, the U.S. DID stop his dream from being realized and untold millions of lives were saved as a result.

Speaking of dubious assumptions, where are you getting this notion that “Uncle Joe still killed way more people than Hitler did.” Are we talking about collateral damage or genocide? Are we talking recent history or are we going all the way back to the Mayflower? I’m not saying that the U.S. does not have its sins to atone for but name me one country that doesn’t.

Guess we’ll never know the truth – LULAC and activists have already staged protests and ‘played the race card’ – now its just damage control mode for authorities…

sad.

This is only partially true. It would be more accurate to say: “if not for Russia… yada, yada, yada.” Most of the German casualties occured at the hands of the Russians, and the Russians took terrible loses fighting the Germans.

You might argue that our logistical support enabled the Russian war effort, but it was still a lot of dead Russians that turned the tide.

Of course, you also assume two other things with your rather childish assessment of WWII: 1) that Eastern Europe was better off under Russian communism than Nazism; and 2) that without external conflict there would have been no successful attempts to oust Hiter from power. Dubious assumptions at best. In spite of the Holocaust, Uncle Joe still killed way more people than Hitler did.

I think its a little unfair to make a blanket statement that ALL Americans are morons. America is the most diverse country by almost every measure and especially when it comes to political opinions.

It was our American ‘moron’ grandfathers and gandmothers that rid the world of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. That’s right I FUCKING SAID IT…IF NOT FOR AMERICA YOU INGRATES WOULD ALL BE SPEAKING FUCKING GERMAN AND WOULD BE FORCED TO BOW TO THE THIRD REICH!