Who was the more evil power in WWII ?

[GlobalExplorer]

Very true but it should still be allowed to say something evil was evil. Just dont take it to heart if someone says something bad about bad things that a country did in the war, otherwise you might still clinge to a dilusion.

And I dont see why everyone gets so upset about threads like these, a touchy lot you are. If you'd ever get spit out in front of you or someone made the Hitlergruss just because of you nationality, you might be able to shrug off a lot more things.

[bigboywooly]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

My grandfather was a Commando, he served under Lord Lovat and he told me that he did some terrible things. He said that everyone he was fighting was just like him, caught up in something this big and doing what they're told. He said that they're all someone's child and that he hates the terrible stuff he did, but that he did it for a reason. He also made a point of saying that the SS were the exception, obviously. They didn't bother taking them prisoner.


.

Ah the generalisation all SS were evil
You say SS prisoners werent taken but ???
So does that make your grandfather a war criminal ?

[joea]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

This thread began beautifully. Then it degenerated into the High School version of the topic. I remember the charts of war dead. Oh my look at the decimal points!

Well I posted some charts buddy, if you didn't get the point well I am sorry. A point I thought you understood in PM. It was not a damn stock market comparison...but to illustrate the different goals like you said about your Grandfather, bad for good (or to prevent a worse thing). There are other wars too.

[joea]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Agreed mate,

also its the matter of POV

the Japanese will tell the americans and british where evil
the Russian will tell that the germans and Japanese where evil
the brits the same as the russians and you can go scroll down the whole list.

HunterICX

Maybe, but could you say in case of a rape or robbery it is just a question of POV to determine the perpetrator or victim??

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by STEED

..Lots..

Very good point STEED, and one I should have probably put across clearer, although with the spin put across by the Reich it was quite possible that some people thought the world had declared war on poor little Germany quite unjustifiably. Which is total cattle dung as we now know.
There were warning signs that Hitlers rise to power was going to end in trouble, particularly to the Jewish community...but at the time there was a fairly high level of anti-semitism anyway, and there were a few that agreed with Hitler, particularly after the '29 crash. It was easy to find a scapegoat and use it, such as Stalin used the Kulaks, to blame all of societies ills upon it, it's still done today. Then it was easy enough to make a communist confess to the Reichstag fire, and Hitler was all set to rumble on the right.
I do ponder though, if Hitler hadn't have come to power...quite whether the Soviet Union would have stayed put in the east, or whether it would have slowly advanced across Europe. As it was it did that chasing the Reich, which worked for us so we let it happen...it wasn't until after the war that Churchills curtain came down and suddenly the Communists were our mortal enemy.
It's perhaps strange how the evilness of people change depending upon the situation. Up until 1944, Stalin was a good man, the Allies liked him (not that they trusted him as far as they could throw him), the general public liked him, because Hitler hated him. Then after the war, Stalin was the big bad wolf because suddenly it's east vs west.
We looked the other way when supporting Saddam against Iran, but then when he attacked Kuwait he became public enemy number one.
The US helped create the Taliban, gave it arms and support to fight the Soviet invaders, then thirty years later goes to war against it and denounces it as evil.
Evil depends upon the viewer and the situation. History is written by the victors as they say.

(note - This post does not condone evil or terrorism in any form...put away the flamethrowers now)

[bradclark1]

I would say to get an opinion of both peoples you have to read a biography of both Hitler and Stalin. What they did, when they did and how they did it. It's interesting reading if you get the right books and read more then one of each so you can separate the wheat from the chaff. Me? Without doing a quadruple length Skybird post I would say neither people as a majority were evil. Patriotism, fear, revenge, brainwashing and a whole list of other emotions played a part starting from approximately 1910. If you would also read the biography's you will notice a lot of parallels between them and you would also learn they each took idea's from the other.
Who was the more evil power in WWII? Simple question but no simple answer.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Mostinius

most German sailors, soldiers and airmen in that period weren't fighting for the Nazis.

They sure weren't fighting against the Nazis....

[bigboywooly]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

They sure weren't fighting against the Nazis....

No they were fighting for their country
How many US or UK soldiers in the middle east now voted for or believe in their leaders ?

Not as extreme but you go where ordered
Now todays soldiers can express their point of view or dissent for a war they dont agree with
But then they dont live in a police state as in Nazi Germany

Bigger picture to look at

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by bigboywooly

No they were fighting for their country

Which was run by Nazis.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not saying each individual German soldier and sailor was evil, but they were fighting balls to the wall to advance the goals of a murderous, evil system. I equate it to the South, where Confederate soldiers were willing pawns in defence of slavery.

[bigboywooly]

Did they know it was a murderous evil system in 39 ?
Germany before WW2 was a complex situation
After the Versailles treaty no doubt they would have followed the devil himself if he promised and delivered as Hitler did

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

They sure weren't fighting against the Nazis....

There ya go. Succinct. You said it better than I did.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Which was run by Nazis.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not saying each individual German soldier and sailor was evil, but they were fighting balls to the wall to advance the goals of a murderous, evil system. I equate it to the South, where Confederate soldiers were willing pawns in defence of slavery.

Way to take a high school thread that was very entertaining, and twist it up with sound logic that is irrfutable! Good job Neal - you screwed up the entertainment because now this thread is just going to die. I was waiting on a reply from Swede on the subject too!

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not saying each individual German soldier and sailor was evil, but they were fighting balls to the wall to advance the goals of a murderous, evil system. I equate it to the South, where Confederate soldiers were willing pawns in defence of slavery.

And in 1945 to the present they suddenly aren't? In the beginning they believed Hitler. In the middle they questioned. In the end it was for survival, but yes all the way through a portion were pure nazi.

It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery.
Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.
But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.
http://members.tripod.com/~greatamer...ry/gr02013.htm

History is never simple.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by bigboywooly

Ah the generalisation all SS were evil
You say SS prisoners werent taken but ???
So does that make your grandfather a war criminal ?

Well in the midst of war, it seemed so. Now in the aftermath we can count out the good and the evil. But at the time the same way we didn't really know the story of the Holocaust we understood that the SS were all pigs. And considering the way SS were known or rumoured to not take prisoners well... like I said evils of war. Was it right? Probably not, but then my grandpa said that when he signed up for the special forces they told them right up front that what they were doing was illegal and they sure as hell wouldn't get any medals for it. The war my grandfather fought is certainly even more hard to rationalize in peace time than the average soldier's.

Originally Posted by joea

Well I posted some charts buddy, if you didn't get the point well I am sorry. A point I thought you understood in PM. It was not a damn stock market comparison...but to illustrate the different goals like you said about your Grandfather, bad for good (or to prevent a worse thing). There are other wars too.

I didn't mean anything to you, I only meant it in response to those that obcess over the numbers. Stalin versus Hitler. Counting the dead in Dresden. If not for the meticulous records of the Nazis the number of dead in the holocaust wouldn't even be as easy to note. My point was that people were making this into a football game and focusing on the score rather than talk about the philosophy of it. Please don't confuse that with my personal respect for you.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Which was run by Nazis.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not saying each individual German soldier and sailor was evil, but they were fighting balls to the wall to advance the goals of a murderous, evil system. I equate it to the South, where Confederate soldiers were willing pawns in defence of slavery.

When Lee was asked if he would command the Union forces he said he wouldn't abandon his country, Virginia. Do you think Robert E. Lee was fighting for slavery?
Or, as he stated, his country? This is the great lie of our civil war that it was about slavery. Lincoln said:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Remember TAK's paraphrase some time back?

That being said I can see how the average German soldier could answer the call to duty without supporting or even condoning the NAZI party or what it did during WWII.