9 ms·

You can hold the position that Hitler and the Nazis were evil while also believing US involvement in WWII was unnecessary and detrimental in the long term. The

You can hold the position that Hitler and the Nazis were evil while also believing US involvement in WWII was unnecessary and detrimental in the long term. The history of Europe is one of unending conflict all the way back to Roman times. So what if Hitler controls all of Europe? From an American perspective very little changes. Had Hitler not been beligerent toward the British and allowed trade with the US to continue there was basically no reason for the US to be involved. Everyone would likely have been better off: 30 million civilian deaths could have been avoided, the iron curtain moves much farther east and millions more avoid the purges and starvation under the rule of the USSR after Europe us divided at the end of the war. An alternate universe exists where Operation Barbarossa is successful because Hitler is not fighting a war on two fronts, and the USSR is either fragmented or controlled by Germany and the Cold War never even commences. Additionally, Europe doesn’t become defacto occupied by the US for decades and atrophy to the point where half their cities are smaller than they were a few generations ago. I personally don’t think such an outcome would have been better, but a strong argument can be made, and making it doesn’t mean you’re a nazi.

andsoitis 1mo ago
> You can hold the position that Hitler and the Nazis were evil while also believing US involvement in WWII was unnecessary and detrimental in the long term. One could hold that position, but I think the vast majority of people would agree that it was the best choice for the US to get involved in WWII in the way it did.
- MisterMower 1mo ago
  Best for whom?
watwut 1mo ago
Hitler in power does not mean less civilian deaths. It means more civilian deqths as Hitler continues his genocidal dreams. Europe was better off with postwar peace. Germany was occupied ... as it should. Go eff yourself with these pro-nazi crap. > The history of Europe is one of unending conflict all the way back to Roman times. So what if Hitler controls all of Europe? What a load of nonsense.
- MisterMower 1mo ago
  Nonsense? I think you are mistaken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe Go read up on the Final Solution. The nazis tried to expel the Jews before killing them. The industrialized genocide they’re infamous for didn’t start in earnest until 1942, right when significant US combat involvement began. The pace of killing increased as they saw the writing on the wall and realized they would likely lose the war. In 1940 there were plans to send the Jews to Madagascar but the allied blockade made such plans untenable. The general state of combat in Europe toward the end of the war also made leaving on foot impossible. Additionally the US did next to nothing to stop the genocide throughout the course of the war, save accept some Jewish refugees. US involvement accelerated Hitler’s desire to kill the Jews quickly but did nothing to prevent Hitler’s death camps from operating. Railways to the camps were generally not considered strategic objectives and weren’t bombed, despite ample knowledge of what was happening. None of this is to excuse any of the actions taken by the Nazis, but again, history is path dependent, and absent US involvement things turn out very differently. Jews might have been mostly deported en masse instead of killed on an industrial scale in concentration camps. Many of them are more able to escape on foot because Europe isn’t blown to bits and swarming with allied troops fighting the Nazis. Many East Germans, Hungarians, and Ukrainians would vehemently disagree with your claim they were better off with the postwar “peace.” The concentration camps the Nazis invented were perfected by the Soviets, and given perfect hindsight, it’s not clear to me most would choose a to be “liberated” by the Soviets in a war to destroy the occupying Nazis knowing how everything would turn out. Were the Nazis evil? 100%. Did the US have to fight them when and how they did? Or even at all? To reiterate my original point, the answer to that question is much less clear and a good argument can be made that US involvement was counterproductive.

andsoitis 1mo ago

> You can hold the position that Hitler and the Nazis were evil while also believing US involvement in WWII was unnecessary and detrimental in the long term. One could hold that position, but I think the vast majority of people would agree that it was the best choice for the US to get involved in WWII in the way it did.

MisterMower 1mo ago
Best for whom?

watwut 1mo ago

Hitler in power does not mean less civilian deaths. It means more civilian deqths as Hitler continues his genocidal dreams. Europe was better off with postwar peace. Germany was occupied ... as it should. Go eff yourself with these pro-nazi crap. > The history of Europe is one of unending conflict all the way back to Roman times. So what if Hitler controls all of Europe? What a load of nonsense.

MisterMower 1mo ago
Nonsense? I think you are mistaken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe Go read up on the Final Solution. The nazis tried to expel the Jews before killing them. The industrialized genocide they’re infamous for didn’t start in earnest until 1942, right when significant US combat involvement began. The pace of killing increased as they saw the writing on the wall and realized they would likely lose the war. In 1940 there were plans to send the Jews to Madagascar but the allied blockade made such plans untenable. The general state of combat in Europe toward the end of the war also made leaving on foot impossible. Additionally the US did next to nothing to stop the genocide throughout the course of the war, save accept some Jewish refugees. US involvement accelerated Hitler’s desire to kill the Jews quickly but did nothing to prevent Hitler’s death camps from operating. Railways to the camps were generally not considered strategic objectives and weren’t bombed, despite ample knowledge of what was happening. None of this is to excuse any of the actions taken by the Nazis, but again, history is path dependent, and absent US involvement things turn out very differently. Jews might have been mostly deported en masse instead of killed on an industrial scale in concentration camps. Many of them are more able to escape on foot because Europe isn’t blown to bits and swarming with allied troops fighting the Nazis. Many East Germans, Hungarians, and Ukrainians would vehemently disagree with your claim they were better off with the postwar “peace.” The concentration camps the Nazis invented were perfected by the Soviets, and given perfect hindsight, it’s not clear to me most would choose a to be “liberated” by the Soviets in a war to destroy the occupying Nazis knowing how everything would turn out. Were the Nazis evil? 100%. Did the US have to fight them when and how they did? Or even at all? To reiterate my original point, the answer to that question is much less clear and a good argument can be made that US involvement was counterproductive.