But the left is obsessed with seeing Hitler as the enemy and use holocaust comparisons in everything. Of these three, one was an exponential factor less worse than the other 2. Yet the left never talks about the other 2.
This is by design.
Comments (93)
sorted by:
Why are you putting words in people's mouths? That is classic leftist behavior. Accuse the enemy of what you want him to be instead of actually understanding anything.
The USA should not have entered the war. Hindsight is 20/20 though so it's easy to say the USA should have done this or that. I'm not saying your grandfather is a bad guy or that he shouldn't be honored for his service. All I suggested was that the 6m Jews dying may be incorrect. Then you took that far too personally.
Optimally, the USA should not have put economic sanctions on Japan and simply let the Japanese expand then the USA should never have entered the war with Germany. I do believe had those actions been taken the situation today for Americans and the world as a whole would be better than it is now. We can't know for certain though.
The only thing we do know for certain is that international communism is here today, Hitler did fight against it and lost. International communism today is worse than Hitler. That's all we know for certain. Again, questioning how many Jews died in the holocaust is not racist nor should it be considered dishonorable to your grandfather. Are you suggesting that if only 10,000 Jews died for example that somehow that would lesson the actions of your grandfather and the only reason your grandfather's actions were honorable was because of the sheer number of Jews who died. What difference does it make toward his actions whether he defeated a country responsible for 10,000 or 6,000,000? He's still a hero in that regard either way.
I have no desire to put words in your mouth, if you honestly think that then I apologize... Sadly I don't believe you're being earnest here. In my view there is no reason to put words in your mouth, I'm speaking on what you said.
What else did you mean by "Your grandfather fought the wrong enemy."? You think we should have let Hitler take over Europe and what, hope the Slavs won? And then what? Tried to fight all a united Eurasian communist state?
You didn't make the case its less than 6 million, you acted like it was 400k, which is ridiculous.
Ahh, notice it's "wrong enemy" and not "wrong people". This is an English language flaw. Think of it in a sentence, "whoops I used the wrong pencil". You still meant to use a pencil but it was the wrong one. Hitler was still an enemy but fighting Hitler was the wrong enemy. International communism was the bigger enemy and Hitler was fighting international communism. It would have made more sense to aid Hitler in his fight against international communism as the saying goes: "an enemy of my enemy is a friend" but I would not have regarded Hitler as a friend because his ideology is still anti-American.
I am being genuine in all that I'm saying and you're probably right to quickly assume with some of the words and chosen sentences I've used that I'm just some Hitler loving fascist who hates Jews but that's not me at all. I do truly genuinely believe we have a number of things about WWII wrong and yes Hitler, Jews, Communism, etc... all tie together into the actual truth.
There are 2 choices for enemies in WW2, its Hitler/The Axis Powers or its Soviet Communists. We were never going to fight the Allies.
International communist was objectively not more powerful than Hitler after the conquest of France. It is nearly impossible to see any situation where the Soviets would have won without US support.
You're arguing in favor of aiding Hitler... Is there any level of genocide he could have comitted that would change your view?
Again, we can speculate on what the USA should have done, but if xyz etc... No point really going down that road. Would allying with Hitler have made sense? Maybe or maybe not. I still think completely avoiding the war would have made the most sense if that were possible but I understand the path the USA chose. It's like those hypothetical "should the USA have used nuclear weapons on Japan?" topics. We can argue that until we're blue in the face... it's mostly meaningless.
Correct, no one truly understood the true strength of international communism. I too likely would have thought it weaker than Hitler at the time. Easy to see how that happened. The soviets being defeated and Hitler winning is the outcome I believe would have likely been better for the world. Who knows, maybe it would have been worse. The speculation is that maybe it wouldn't have been. It's a nice thought that maybe if we did things differently perhaps we wouldn't have such a huge international communist problem today.
I don't believe in committing immoral actions but I don't believe necessarily that the lack of interfering in another country committing genocide is an immoral action. You can use genocide as rational for a moral imperative to interfere if you wish but if you don't act you are not committing an immoral act. That's how I see it anyway. Your question is complicated. The USSR had ethnic purges prior to them having nuclear weapons as well and we did nothing... Why didn't we do something, hmm? Frankly, genocide on its own is not reason enough to go to war with another country, you must consider all factors. It would make no sense to go to war with a country you would lose against over genocide for example. Did the USA even know they'd win? Why take that risk? Lots of factors.