The farce of Nuremberg trial. (generals, France, Russian, Germans)

[canaliculus]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

And the answer is because, for all the faults of Stalin's USSR, the Soviet military consumed the vast bulk of the German ground forces. Imagine if the USSR and Germany had made a separate peace when the USSR reached the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact line late in the war. Imagine most of the eastern German forces suddenly deployed westward against the Allies. (For that matter, imagine the bulk of Poland still under German control.) No fun for Ike and Alexander.

As unsavory as the Stalin regime was, the USSR played a major role in defeating Hitler and had a reasonable right to influence the aftermath (the specifics, however, remain a valid point of debate). Had it decided to stop helping to defeat Hitler, the western Allies would have had trouble on their hands, since the great majority of the German land forces were engaged on the eastern front. Had the West denied the USSR this right after the war, perhaps the next war would have begun then and there, and with no certainty of a Western victory. The Red Army was huge, well-equipped, experienced and had a direct overland line of supply to its sources. No one in the world had the power to just tell it to run along.

You reason from a point of view that only Germany had to be defeated. That nobody was even a close to the evilesness of Hitler.
But in my opinion there were two agressive countries and simply Stalin got better allies. Actually many people from my country at that time thought that Germans were better(if we can use this word) occupiers than Russians. Our victory would be if both of them got defeated and their armies pushed back to their homelands. But it didn't happen. And we don't care in what language speaks our oppressor - German or Russian.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by canaliculus

Actually many people from my country at that time thought that Germans were better(if we can use this word) occupiers than Russians.

If your country is Poland, and it would make sense if it were, what percentage of your population died in that war? Something like 20%. The figure staggers the mind. As atrocious as Katyn was, it wasn't anywhere near 20% of the entire population. Granted, the best occupation is no occupation. But let's not forget that Poland paid the highest human price per capita of any nation in Europe for WWII, and that largely at the hands of Germany. How any Pole could see German occupation as preferable to Soviet is incredible to me--even at that time. Especially at that time, because those at that time knew exactly what was happening to their nation under the jackboot.

[Angus Podgorny]

Originally Posted by canaliculus

You reason from a point of view that only Germany had to be defeated. That nobody was even a close to the evilesness of Hitler.
But in my opinion there were two agressive countries and simply Stalin got better allies. Actually many people from my country at that time thought that Germans were better(if we can use this word) occupiers than Russians. Our victory would be if both of them got defeated and their armies pushed back to their homelands. But it didn't happen. And we don't care in what language speaks our oppressor - German or Russian.

Obviously your people weren't jews.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

As unsavory as the Stalin regime was, the USSR played a major role in defeating Hitler

Unsavory? LOL.

You may as well describe Hitler as "cranky."

The USSR was not only as evil as the Third Reich, but fascism can only be understood in proper perspective as a reaction to the hell-horror evil of Bolshevism. That's what it was understood as at the time, and that's what educated people still understand it to be.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

If your country is Poland, and it would make sense if it were, what percentage of your population died in that war? Something like 20%. The figure staggers the mind. As atrocious as Katyn was, it wasn't anywhere near 20% of the entire population. Granted, the best occupation is no occupation. But let's not forget that Poland paid the highest human price per capita of any nation in Europe for WWII, and that largely at the hands of Germany. How any Pole could see German occupation as preferable to Soviet is incredible to me--even at that time. Especially at that time, because those at that time knew exactly what was happening to their nation under the jackboot.

Nobody knew exactly what was happening to their or any nation, or indeed anything that wasn't going on in front of their eyes. There was no free press. Rumors and atrocity stories flourished on both sides. But Stalin had a much worse record, historically, than Hitler--certainly up to 1939 and perhaps even up to the time of Barbarossa. The memory of Communists rampaging across Eastern and Central Europe in the aftermath of WW1, looting and massacring as they went, was fresh in people's minds. It's entirely understandable that many people in Eastern Europe would conclude they could've gotten a better deal from Germany than from Russia.

Keep in mind, in America we are marinated almost from birth in the association of the mere name Hitler with "ultimate evil". That wasn't the case in the 1930s. In the 1930s he was just another bellicose dictator, whereas Stalin had already committed his own Holocaust. Stalin's name was as reviled in Eastern Europe at that time as Hitler's is now--and much more feared, since he was actually a looming threat.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny

Obviously your people weren't jews.

Is there any reason why the best interest of Jews represents a claim check on everyone else?

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by djacques

Unsavory? LOL.

You may as well describe Hitler as "cranky."

The USSR was not only as evil as the Third Reich, but fascism can only be understood in proper perspective as a reaction to the hell-horror evil of Bolshevism. That's what it was understood as at the time, and that's what educated people still understand it to be.

So anyone who has a differing viewpoint is uneducated. I am so glad you have condescended to speak with such a bumpkin as myself, and lift him up from darkness.

You can nitpick my words all you like, I guess; you'll always be able to find something I could have put more precisely, if you get sport from that. But if fascism was a response to the hell-horror of Bolshevism, then why did it arise in Germany (abortively, but with some support that would build), Italy (and take hold), and several other European countries before most of the USSR's famines and purges were obvious to the world?

[djacques]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

But if fascism was a response to the hell-horror of Bolshevism, then why did it arise in Germany (abortively, but with some support that would build), Italy (and take hold), and several other European countries before most of the USSR's famines and purges were obvious to the world?

Because what "the world" decided to take notice of and what people in Central and Eastern Europe had seen with their own eyes between 1917 and around 1921 were two entirely different things.

Ever heard of Béla Kun? Kronstadt? The Spartacist Uprising? The Red Army invasion of Poland? Any of that ring a bell?

It certainly did ring a bell when the fascists promised the people protection from the Communist savages. What do you think it was that appealed to people about fascism--the snappy uniforms?

ETA: I apologize for the remark about education and such. Plenty of educated people certainly disagree with me, and I have to conclude that they are guilty of either hypocrisy (i.e. not comparing like to like), or moral cowardice (not wanting to stray from the consensus) or simply never having taken the issue seriously enough to consider in depth.

[catman]

You're right again. The USA didn't have any more bombs ready to use after Nagasaki, did it? In any case, it would likely have been a question of whether the threat would have been enough to stop Stalin, and judging by his willingness to sacrifice soldiers, probably not. The Russian A-bomb came along in 1949, anyway.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by djacques

ETA: I apologize for the remark about education and such. Plenty of educated people certainly disagree with me, and I have to conclude that they are guilty of either hypocrisy (i.e. not comparing like to like), or moral cowardice (not wanting to stray from the consensus) or simply never having taken the issue seriously enough to consider in depth.

Wonderful apology. If they are educated, they're hypocrites or moral cowards. In short, anyone who holds a different view than you is worthless. What is worth far less is to have a discussion with someone who holds such a position.