Is there any argument that can be made to show that the allies were the "bad guys" in WW2? I try to be as open minded as possible, but it just doesn't seem justifiable to defend the nazis.
No.
the nazis dindu nuffin
they were both bad
>>907931
Work/isolation camps, bombing civilian populations on purpose, execution of POWs and civilians, so on and so forth. It's not really fair to say bad guy about either side. They both had their merits and drawbacks. The bad guy is just the side that lost.
>>907971
The bad guy is the one who started shit over nothing but a feeling of racial superiority and had a plan to eradicate the poles in order to make way for German expansion.
Well if you share the value system of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Imperial Japan or all of them, then sure.
>>907971
Does that mean every major war had 2 bad guys? Doesn't the mass genocide make germany just a bit worse?
>>907971
the bad guy is the guy who started the war, started the practice of area bombing, openly practiced genocide, started WW1 etc
the good guys are the ones who have morally agonised about area bombing and the like ever since the war ended
>>907971
Or the bad guy is the guy that started the war with aggressive expansion into it's neighbors nations
The same guys who also set up work and death camps, bombed the fuck out of civilians for years and execuded shitloads of POWs and civilians
Allies weren't 'good', but the nazis were nothing but bad
>>907975
>Only WE can have empires, not you
>YOU can't be trusted with them
>WE are the great powers, and if you butt in, we'll fuck you up
>You CLEARLY don't deserve power on the international stage - that is strictly for those of us who play by the rules [that we originally made and routinely violate]
Guess which side took this stance?
everywhere the americans occupied, the mafia came back
brits spent most of ww2 defending land that wasn't their own to begin with
soviets well. everything they did
![Jew_Killings_in_Ivangorod_(1942)[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CUU4pxP.jpg "Jew_Killings_in_Ivangorod_(1942)[1].jpg")
>>907997
>Nazi playing victim
Dey was good boys, dey dindu nuffin, they just needed mo gold for dey colonies
>>907997
The Nazis didn't want an empire in Africa, America, or asia, they wanted one in Europe and were planning to administer the empire with the genocidal and tyranical methods that were practiced in the Americas. The fact that they provoked such a strong reaction is a sign of moral strength, not hypocrisy. The practices in question had largely ceased abroad and the Allies in their defense of Europe made the statement that it would not happen in our lands.
Guess who wrote this:
"[In regards to attacks on civilian targets] I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking British cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that British materiel are thoroughly damaged anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of our side's soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities in Britain as worth the bones of one German pilot.
The feeling, such as there is, over London, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with royal personages and East End chimney sweeps. Actually London was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the front. It is now none of these things.[108]"
>>908026
Never knew Hitler was such a real nigga.
>>908026
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
>>908020
Not just Europe, the whole world if they could get it. And after Versailles, who could blame them? Germany was a step away from disintegration after dubydubya one, so why wouldn't it seek power by whatever means (invasion of Poland, scapegoating of Jews, Sudetenland, etc.) when it saw the opportunity? Poland and half of eastern Europe were German or Russian colonies by another name at that time. What is the qualitative difference between occupying and subjugating Poland occupying and subjugating India besides one's presence in Europe and the other's presence in south Asia?
That's not to mention the bombing of civilians on all sides by all sides. Is that supposed to be a sign of moral authority, that the Allies may have firebombed major population centers but at least they didn't perform the Holocaust? (The USSR could handle that scale of killing in Ukraine, after all.)
>>908016
>he memes, as he posts a picture of an atrocity that has been debunked as not actually being a German soldier committing said atrocity
Way to go faggot. Also,
>muh Axis atrocities
Yeah, let's not pay attention to the fact that the Allies committed just as many atrocities, with the Russians killing more people than the Nazis ever did and the British frying POWs alive in metal cages.
Yep, the Nazis were objectively the bad guys.
>>908009
>Brits don't own Britain
>>908069
<citation needed> for all that.
>>908069
I'm not arguing the Allies as being 'good'
USSR were horrible, nazi's were horrible, US and Britain weren't saints, but god damn they were far better than the mentally fucking twisted russians and germans
>British frying POWs alive in metal cages
Fucking show me a source you cock sucking nazi loving cunt
>>908060
It was on our doorstep. It was our people who were being subjugated.
>>907931
Operation Paperclip and similar activities. The Allies were demonstrably no better than the Axis.
>>908103
Letting war criminals get away with their crimes in return for vital help =/= commiting war crimes
>>907997
>countries acted in their rational self-interest and didn't just give Germany an empire
Wow, thanks for that analysis Sherlock.
Well allies had USSR on their side and we know what they did after the war.
>history has bad guys and good guys
>implying history cares
Stop with the normative arguments, gay bois.
>>908113
Co-opting Nazi organisations and using them to crush national movements America disagrees with != "vital help"
>>907997
Hahaha keep sucking that refugee cock
>>907931
You could make an argument that the Western allies were morally neutral, the Nazis were anti-heroes, and the Soviets were the bad guys.
>>908081
(a different anon btw) i would argue that the us bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki were up there on the "not good" scale. im just saying, its not all that fair to say "just because we won we were better then those other guys" y'know?
>>910805
You must realize in this scenario that if the US staged a mainland invasion of Japan, so many more people would've died. The US predicted that if they staged an invasion of the island, 1,000,000 soldiers would've died, and that's on our side. Japanese propaganda had taught the populace how to make booby-traps and weapons to fight the Americans with, and while you can say that not all of them would've went through with it, there would've definitely been a good chunk of them who would have. If anything, the bombings are justified that it was the direct option to end the war with the least amount of casualties on both sides, though they didn't factor in radiation poisoning and shit like that. If anything, the firebombings of Tokyo were WAY worse, considering that far more people died and all the industrialization Japan had worked towards up to that point was nearly obliterated due to the firebombings.
Did all that 'death camp' stuff really happen?
I thought I read somewhere that they had a swimming pool at one of the camps
>>907931
Well, the "allies" started the war by pressuring Germany with the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was just the symptom of a non resolved conflict if you ask me. Remember that for one movement to succeed, it must have the support of the majority of the people. The Nazi's were supported by the people.Just like Argentina's Dictatorship. The confusng part is that everyone denies it years after out of fear. When I see history, I see interests, I see greys, I don't believe in black and white, good and bad duality, that is just plain manipulation.
>good
>bad
Sure is spooky ITT
>>907931
I would say the British policies in both wars of mining neutral shipping lanes (a war crime by today's standards), food blockade of neutral and axis and occupied countries (another war crime), firebombing of population centers (take a guess), and massacring Irish POWS after the Easter Rising, just to name a few.
Sending munitions on civilian ships despite this being illegal. Torpedoes can't blow up nonexistent gunpowder.
Also the hilarious forgery of the zimmerman telegram, sent over British telegraph lines no less, I mean who would be dumb enough to fall for that...
>>907931
You could very well argue against the whole notion of good guys and bad guys when it comes to WW2.
It's not that difficult to advocate the position that the Allies' firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific war crimes that have gone completely unpunished. There's a significant body of literature regarding Soviet war crimes during WW2 that you could draw on alongside this.
Just because the Nazis were evil cunts, it doesn't automatically mean that their enemies were all heroic angels. You can very easily make the argument that it was a lot more morally complex than that.
>>911019
oh fuck off
everyone already knows good and evil are subjective and arbitrary, you don't need to point it out everytime people discuss whether somebody was acting like a dickhead or not.
>>910873
Read up on the camps.
The first ones started in the mid 30s and were just re-education camps for political enemies (soc dems, commies, even monarchists).
They did not have much of a master plan on what to do with them, so naturally the experience ranged from mandatory summer camp to literal abusement park (pun intended).
Then they introduced labour camps and started to imprison Jews and other degenerates, too. "Those merchants don't know what a good day's work is! Let them work.".
And then in 1942, I believe, they already had experimented easy and cheap ways of killing, after the Wannsee Conference they sneakily transitioned some of the camps into death camps.
Those good old "they had football matches and swimming pools" memesters tend to forget, that even in death camps, you have certain capacities. You can't just put a bullet into everyone who gets off a train; just imagine the panic.
No, some of the inmates might be falsely transferred, there is bureaucracy to catch up and check. Not everyone was a Jew, some did not have German citizenship, so sometimes foreign consuls made problems for the camp bureaucracy.
So, sometimes you had inmates in those camps that were there but shouldn't be, because they have seen too much, especially considering the international press.
I assume (haven't researched it too well) that they weren't treated that badly, but also couldn't go. They probably got more to eat, more free time and could do more on their own, like playing in an Orchestra or something.
>>908016
that wasn't wehrmacht
>>914462
And yet the Anglo press vilified Kaiser Wilhelm for denouncing concentration camps for Boer civilians.
>>907931
The famine in India and the invasion of Iraq and Iran.
>>910831
Read the OP faggot. If killing civilians on a massive scale isn't bad then what is?
>>914462
The only "death camps" were the camps the Soviets entered instead of the Americans. Strange how that works.
>>907931
He did nothing wrong
>>911035
With WW1, you can definitely make a good case for all the belligerents being equally bad. Britain in particular was breaking international law with their blockade and was pretty actively working to expand the scope of the war as much as they could.
With WW2, it's at the very worst "neutral vs bad." Hitler was aggressively expanding into neighboring countries and constantly reneging on promises in the years leading up to the war. Unlike WW1, it was Germany - the one that started the war - that was constantly expanding the scope of the war, and it was Germany that was committing the worst of the atrocities. Plus, the German long-term plan involved the genocide of the better part of Eastern Europe.
The most morally neutral the war gets is on the Eastern Front, and even then it's hard to support the Axis because it was Germany that unleashed the horrors in the first place.
The only time you could seriously call any Axis belligerent the good guy would be in Finland during the continuation war.
>>915556
>invade and rape the shit out of a neutral country, on the way to launching a surprise attack on a third country
>Muh international law abloo abloo abloo
>>915579
>implying Britain never threatened to invade Belgium if they permitted access.
>>914632
>Nazi
>>915601
If Belgium gave military access, it would become a combatant and be fair game for invasion.
>>915579
>muh rape of Belgium
The atrocities in Belgium were vastly exaggerated by the British to stir up popular support for getting involved in the war. There were attacks on civilians, but they were on a far smaller scale than the British made it out to be and subsided once it became apparent that the "5th Column" forces weren't actually a thing. The sacking of Galicia was far worse than anything that happened in Belgium.
If the British actually cared about atrocities against civilian populations in the war, then they would have been bitching about Ober Ost or the Russian sacking of Galicia or the forcible relocations of ethnic Germans in Russia, not Belgium.
The blockade the British were performing was just as much a war crime as anything Germany did. Hell, the U-boat blockade the Germans were running was more legal (under international law) than the British blockade was up until the unrestricted warfare started in 1917.
I'm by no means trying to claim Germany did nothing wrong in WW1, but don't act like the British were holding any kind of moral high ground.
>Soviets
>Good
>>915731
>The atrocities in Belgium were vastly exaggerated by the British to stir up popular support for getting involved in the war
There are two sides to this story. British did make up a lot of stories for propaganda during the war. However, post-war investigations showed that Germans actually lived up to the British propaganda and more.
>>915723
See. They are doing it even now. This is the aggressive anglo in his wild state. Look at him beat his chest and roar.
>>907931
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdDnbXXn20
>>915476
It's not strange at all given Russia came from the East.
The nazis might not have been the good guys, but there were literally no good guys in that war.
>USA firebombing Tokyo
>levelling Hirohito and Kawasaki with nukes
>Brits firebombing Dresden
>Russians mass raping German women and throwing a shitload of Eastern European civilians into gulags
>the US tossing Japanese people to concentration camps simply for being Japanese
There's literally no fucking way you could call the Allies the good guys.
>>916073
Except maybe the Allies didn't start the war. Are you saying that trying to end a war that you didn't ask for is bad? Sure, Allies firebombing cities isn't a good thing, but what did you want them to do, just do nothing and get fucked in the ass?
>>907931
The USSR and Communist China
Both carried out mass murders greater than the Holocaust.
Other than that, people can say shit like the internment camps, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden, but this all pales compared to the Nazis
>>916399
>you need to firebomb a city totalling 25 000 civilian casualties for no reason other than dickwaving, by the time the war is largely over
>otherwise you're just getting fucked in the ass
>>916073
All this is nothing compared to what Germans did.
