Got the history channel on in the back ground, and they are busy talking about the end of WWII and the division of control.
Post-War Europe.
It was the invasion of Poland that caused England to enter the war in the first place, and yet they get handed over to Stalin in the end?
I suppose by that stage people were just very tired of war, and there was no way England and America could have immediately gone to war with Russia. It is kind of like the US when they declared `victory' in Iraq a few years back. People can't handle long term things so need to claim victory as quick as possible.
I don't understand war. I see why it used to be necessary, but I am suspicious that there was ever a `good' side.
5 comments:
I've often wondered why people think we won the second world war.
Bertrand Russell argued that they should have fought Russia if they refused to leave all the countries they had occupied. I don't really see why not.
Allies vs Nazi Germany - do you really not think there was a good side?
Obviously I don't think that the Nazi's policies of institutionalised racism, and genocide was good. I don't think the german people were evil. The Allies included Russia. I don't think Stalin was good. I am not convinced anyone who drops an atom bomb (America) can be considered good. WWII involved a whole bunch of countries, each of those countries would have had plenty of good people. I would imagine that there were `good' Nazis who initially liked the idea of a patriotic germany, and didn't know the implications of all the policies.
I am out of my depth in terms of historical knowledge, but I imagine there are many policies which America `stood for' which they now hang their heads in shame about, laws that have changed. The Civil Rights movement was only after WWII.
Hmmm...
hundreds of millions of people lived in both countries, of course there're lots of good and bad people in both places, but this strikes me as kinds missing the point. support for the Nazis policy on Jews was very widespred, it wasn't just a few evil leaders.
Every country has unsavoury events from its history and none are perfect now, but civil rights v the holocaust? not so much.
I'd say the bombing of dresden was a clearer case of US war crime than the nukes.
I think saying Civil Rights v The Holocaust is taking excessive liberties with what I was trying to say. I don't think that sentiment is even slightly conveyed in what I said.
There is no competition between evil and more evil. Clearly gassing, experimenting on and trying to eliminate a race is about as evil as you get.
Were the attrocities of the holocaust really widely and transparently known by the ordinary german citizen?
The Aussies were still involved in genocide of the aborigines in the 30s.
My point is just that I don't think the good side vs. the bad side is at all clear cut.
I presume people on both sides of the crusades thought they were on the good side.
Post a Comment