OP: it simply depends on if the side is an unprovoked agressor (bad) or defender (good).
OP: it simply depends on if the side is an unprovoked agressor (bad) or defender (good).
Last edited by Nikitn; February 14, 2013 at 02:16 AM.
To the extent of my knowledge and googling ability, no sides of any conflict has ever entirely obeyed the Geneva convention after this was ratified (or before for that matter), and should this be used to distinguish between Good/Bad sides in conflicts, then I suppose there are only Bad sides, or possibly Bad vs Worse.
As to the ongoing discussion about whom wore the baddest hats in WWII the Second Sino-Japanese war with its 17-22 mil. civilian casualities and use and testing of biological weapons is perhaps a bit overlooked, but I am not sure if it beats the events already mentioned (concentration camps, nukes, strategic bombings, retaliations on civilians ect.)
@NasoRoma, that is because in the first and second world wars the Germans were portrayed as vermin or aliens. Poland for example was up and at it when the were cleansing their territories of the unwanted Ukrainians, Hungarian/Slovaks and Germans. Germany however, threw the first official punch but it could just as easily been Poland attacking Silesia and East Prussia. Soviet propaganda for example, claims that the entire Soviet-German war was defensive but in reality Hitler did little more than pre-empt Stalin as neither side was fully prepared for that war. When Stalin decided to take the Romanian oil fields and amass an army on the Hungarian-Galician border the only choice Hitler had was a full offensive or be deprived of their major source of fuel and ultimately fight a two front war on the enemies terms.
Looking at all these posts is a very interesting pastime. Perhaps WWII was indeed fought by the bad guys and the extremely horrific guys. The idea of a Nazified Europe is pretty much sickening to normal people (except those madcap Neo-Nazis who seem to forget that their idol started a war that will ultimately kill over 60 million people and caused tonnes of damage). Wonder why do people support these far-right groups.
War does not determine who's right, but who's left. - Bertrand Russel
If we don't end war, war will end us. - H. G. Wells
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers. - Nikita Khrushchev
If a politician says yes, he means maybe. When he says maybe, he means no. When he says no, he definitely can't be a politician. - anon
We have always, we are and I sincerely hope that we (the British) will always be hated in France. - Arthur Wellesley
I think I know why the English prefer tea. I've just tasted their coffee... - Pierre-Jean Vaillard
"Why do people support these far right groups", because they didn't want to be Red nor Dead. It really is about what side you choose and for the most part it was the Nazis or the Soviets. Gandhi for example did not offer any support to Britain during World War 2 as he believed that he made a mistake when he did the same in the first war. Some have even accused Gandhi of collaboration with Hitler but this has been apparently covered up by the Indian government even though their own militants, Azad Hind (also supported by Gandhi and practically covered up in order to keep Gandhi's image as likeable and purely pacific), fought for Japan and Germany at various points of their existence. But can you really blame them?
World War 2 wasn't their war and it shouldn't be their problem what the Axis does. If anything Gandhi and Azad Hind just used really good politics, something that every side was not above doing.
Also I'm not sure what you are saying about Neo-Nazis but I agree that they need to go, they know nothing about the state and just want an excuse to hate people and get rid of them. Neo-Nazis are about as stupid as those Americans or Europeans that complain about immigration and foreigners. Ironically though Hitler never had such qualms as his only issue was against the Jews and other minorities considered "shifty" or powerful which inhabited Germany. Many others such as Blacks, Asians and Middle Easterners were left practically untouched by the government while only some of them suffered at the hands of "racial purity" obsessed maniacs which were later frowned upon by the Nazi government itself (ironically).
The British India's problem was that Great Britain did not bother to make India British, hence why Gandhi inevitably thought like an Indian instead like a British. It is natural that a foreigner would not want to force to fight your war, just like French refused to participate in American rampage in Iraq ten years ago.
Britain's biggest problem was not enforcing equal rights in all of their colonies nor did they make India a Domain within the empire because they wanted to exploit the populace and the land. Had they agreed to workers' wages and making India a Domain then I doubt that Gandhi would want to separate from the empire. In many occasions Britain had to provide education and food from other colonies so that the populace of India so that they wouldn't starve. But the fact that the British deprived India of the one thing that the majority of their populace wanted is the main reason. I don't think the British could ever make India fully British and niether did Gandhi see himself as an Indian national. For most of his life until the final part he willingly accepted himself as a British citizen and only demanded equal rights and the acceptance of India as an equal territory in order to fix anything that the British caused or just never repaired in that colony.
World War 2 is not a one sided coloured image, there is too many shades of grey and tinted lenses to actually say that the allies were "the good guys". World War 2 could have been avoided if Poland just accepted the German deals and if Britain and France negotiated. I mean it's not like Britain gave a damn (or anyone) when Japan invaded Manchuria, why? because they gain nothing by opposing it.
Last edited by money; February 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM.
The problem is that British used too much indirect rule in its colonies, hence direct intervene was generally not able to apply. For example, in British Malaya education was completely controlled by local administration as previous treaties agreed, largely prevented British to twist the education materials in the end.
Oh that's what you mean, so yeah then.
But wouldn't doing that cause like a huge rift with the populace and probably a revolt. India was divided into various states so it could happen differently. But the problem with India is unlike say Canada or South Africa, India was populated mostly by people from that area and there really is no way that whites could exert dominance over those regions without causing a break with the established system and a massive revolt.
But then direct rule was not much more success anyway, look the mess French had in 50s~60s.
French screwed it good, America was (again) too late to help France. Especially when France tried to make a Commonwealth but one that tied all the colonies directly to France and make everyone French.
Britain probably should have made India a Domain though, South Africa and Canada didn't try to rebel (South Africa just failed due to apartheid).
So think about it, if Russian horde was on the border of India and India was a crappy state, do you think Gandhi would try something funny?
Well better British laws than the damn gulag so I don't think Gandhi would fight Britain. But I don't think Canada ever had a feeling of separation other than the French and Pro-American rebels of 1830.
To answer this question, just ask what if?
What if all the world powers submitted to Germany and Japan?
1. There would be no Jews - at least, they would be living in underground communities and the religion would be hunted down by analogues of Grammaton Clerics (from Equilibrium).
2. German would be the spoken language in all of Europe (and maybe beyond, but whatever that's a whole other debate).
3. Homosexuality would be punishable by death, disabled offspring would be killed - despite our knowledge of genetics that says this won't eliminate defects from the gene pool (recessive/dominant alleles don't work that way).
4. Japan would have undoubtedly tried to conquer more, leading to more atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing.
So yes, you could say that there was an overall "good side" to the war.
But, this world is gray.
The Allies winning WWII marked the rise of superpowers that scared the living hell out of everyone with their ability to nuke the earth into oblivion. Proxy wars were fought all over the world to undermine the other side. More morally ambiguous wars like Vietnam were fought. Multinational corporations moved into third world countries on the pretext of "stimulating their economy" even though it destroyed the livelihoods of millions and led to mass poverty - thinking that every country wants to be like America and its allies has gotten a lot of people killed. This compounds with the fact that western nations propped up and supported dictators that were pro-Western despite their effects on the people.
We're a long way from being able to say we're good. The only way that will happen is if biology and medical research somehow figure out how to cure selfishness, greed, and overt ambition. Then there's the whole argument if that is ethical as well.
I agree with the part of the nukes but I think the other stuff is sort of seen with a wrong point of view. I agree with most of the stuff but I want to clarify some points.
1. Saying that there would be no Jews is not entirely true as not all Jews were targeted.
More likely if Hitler won the war then there would be no urgency to even use the final solution and the Jews would be most likely taken to Russia or somewhere else where they could establish some sort of country. Afterall Hitler actually proposed a Jewish nation early on and the final solution was not even implemented until later on in the war.
It is possible that Judaism may have been terminated as a religion but the same goes for Christianity. Maybe Islam would have been the religion, whichever one Hitler decides will make the Reich stronger. Or they all become no official religion or Norse Mythos becomes their religion but who really knows.
2. German might be the main language, like how English is today, but it most likely wouldn't be enforced everywhere. Chances are the Germans would annex the Scandinavian countries and huge chunks of Russia (unless they allow Russian autonomy which could have been a possibility). France and all the other countries that were there would become nations in a European Union type system headed by Berlin.
4. Japan most likely wouldn't have continued its expansion since all it really wanted was China. It's not like Indonesia or India would complain though. India would probably become autonomous and Japan would dominate Asia but leave Australia untouched. Chances are the middle east would experience some sort of unity. Then the Axis after winning the war would probably gear itself to a prolonged war against America (that Hitler believed America was a dead and weak nation is false, he actually believed that in the long run America would be stronger than the Soviets).
I'm sorry but where does that 'If Germany had won the war, we'd all be German right now'-bull always come from?
Hitler did go for a Pan-German reich in a way, but we should note the difference between conquest and occupation. If the Germans somehow would have forced England to give up and sign peace, all those Wehrmacht boys would just leave France as it was and go die on the Eastern Front.
And even those invasion in the East were rather to deal with Communism and Stalin rather than actually claiming Russian soil (since the USSR controlled pretty much everything East from Germany
I got this crap as well as learning about WW1, though they always leave out the fact that Germany already had completely crushed the French army in 1870, and after that, they all just went back home (with some minor adjustments in the mining areas of the Elzas, agreed)
I don't know. Whatever Hitler's plans for the Jews were before the war, he had his mind set in stone during the war that he wanted them gone. They had, as a scapegoat after all, unified his people and skyrocketed Germany up the economic and military ladder (amongst other important factors of course). I don't think he was interested in letting Russia survive as a country, nor any other country for that matter. He envisioned an empire greater than the Romans and a world in which space could be made for German colonies to repopulate the world. I think Christianity would have been enforced as the main religion, albeit even more skewed than what it already is - as in religious justification for everything that was done, why Aryans are the pure race, etc etc. The only reason he allowed things like Vichy France to exist was because France's colonial holdings were beyond the reach of his forces due to the British fleet amongst other things. If he had won the war, completely and totally, he would have slowly, deliberately, and surely annexed everything into a greater Third Reich and probably used most other peoples as slave labor to undertake massive projects (building cities for German colonists, etc).
Maybe his extremity would have toned down and he would have stopped touting his "Jews are bad, Aryans are good" mumbo-jumbo, but I highly doubt it, since many people actually believed in his ideology (many didn't as well, but still).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)