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:
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.
I generally agree about arguing hypotheticals but there is a point to discussing them. As an aside I've literally never even heard a slightly compelling reason to not nuke Japan, it saved possibly hundreds of thousands of American lives and likely even more Japanese.
Do you acknowledge that would also mean a more complete Holocaust as well as quite likely an extermination of the Slavs on top of the Gypsies and gays? Do you care? I don't think America could ever hold the moral high ground on anything if that was the case and the amazing world prosperity+relative peace we have had post ww2 would have never come to be.
The argument wasn't "ignore the genocide". We already did that, it wasn't very well hidden and was well known by our intelligence, we did not go to war based off the Holocaust but instead the Japanese attack.
The argument was "ally with those we know are invading their neighbors and are committing/have committed a genocide". I personally would say there was already an imperative to stopping Hitler when he was pushing into France as letting Europe be united by one power was the single biggest threat to US dominance, it might even still be but now we have China too.
I totally agree the USA should only be going to war for reasons of its interests and not simply to improve the internal situation inside in any other country.