Besides WW2, what are some other wars with a clear cut good guy and bad guy sides? pic related...

I mean come on, the Soviets were evil, but they weren't nearly on the level of the Nazis.
Pic related is for you

oh sorry, for the first two you are right, for WW1 arguably too, but Napoleon was an expansionist dictator, not a good guy.

>but they weren't nearly on the level of the Nazis

That's not what people crushed between both regimes thought. Calling Soviets lesser evil is a combination of Brits and Americans feeling guilty over allying with them and the fact that they didn't know the full extent of their crimes. In some instances they even repressed that information.

>That's not what people crushed between both regimes thought.
Right the people might have felt that way, and Katyn, the Holodomor, the purges, the expulsions and the restrictions were (very) bad and evil, but objectively the Nazis were clearly worse. (I don't think I need to elaborate on that, do I?)

Mahdi War
Taiping Rebellion
2nd Balkan War
War of the triple alliance

No in fact they still had plans of European conquest just like in 1920 (at the very least they wanted to go as far as they can which is what they did).

When it comes to daily life under occupation between 1939 and 1941 both were similar. Gestapo and NKVD used the same tactics (in fact during their alliance Gestapo actually studied the Soviet tactics). Stalin just like Hitler started ethnic cleansing programs directed at particular nationalities. Primary sources also tell us that many victims were selected seemingly at random. German occupation had round ups and Soviet one had officers with orders to arrest a given number of people. Of course it's just scratching the surface.
One user even showed me that it was Stalin's idea to use "gas vans."

What happened after Barbarossa is a different matter. Germans were in critical situation, Holocaust was accelerated etc. we all know that although the number of victims killed by each side remained still more or less similar percentage-wise. (not counting people actually sent to concentration camps from other countries).

Both regimes decided to exterminate the elite, officers, clergy and even olympic athletes. Basically anyone potentialy dangerous to the regime. And the Soviets never stopped doing this even after switching sides. They also set a number of labor camps in the new eastern block after WWII. According to people living there at the time Soviet soldiers were more brutal than Germans.

look up Soviet camps/Gulags and German camps like Treblinka. That is another level of malice.

Except for the fact that Napoleon became a dictator which kind of betrayed the fact that the revolution was to overthrow the monarchy.
Also France shot first, the anglo was trying to stop France taking over all of Europe.

Soviet camps were for making use out of would be dead people and those who somehow finished their sentences weren't allowed to leave the place anyway. Officially a correction facility for new communist society.
They did have formal extermination programs especially in the 30s but the Soviet-style execution was usually more simple. Bullet in the back of the head which allowed people like him to become the single biggest killer in human history. Unless we count dropping of atom bombs but that was more of a team effort.

>Terrorist mass-murderer dictator is the clear good guy
>This is what frogs actually believe

>France shot first

t. Nigel Huntington

Gave freedom to a number of people oppressed by other monarchies.

30 years war after the initial years. Literally everything not involving the czechs is outright IRA-tier rebellion and interventionist unjustified agressions by foreigners.

Rwanda Patriotic Front during Rwanda Civil War

>come out of exile in Uganda to invade Rwanda
>defeat French and Belgian backed genocide government
>end genocide
>establish unitary government with strict impositions on mediums used to promote genocide

>killing people and turning their country into a puppet state is "freeing" them

Killing what people? Armies? Map of Napoleonic era Europe has rather few countries. Napoleon freed a lot of them.

Assuming holocaust happened, killing jews doesn't make you the bad guy. Quite the opposite.

>what is the occupation of Spain

War waged on another country. Don't care.

D-dubs of truth!

t. Jean Mamadou

>Don't care.

The absolute state of Ouiaboos

You knew this would happen OP

>War
>waged on another country.
Is there another way?

>>WW1
>>Revolutionary Wars
>>Napoleonic Wars
come on

Spain was independent country. Napoleon was an ally to a number of subjegated nations of Europe

>t. Teaboo false flagger trying to differ from the War of Anglo Aggression that was the English War
Stop trying to use the slaughter of a few Spaniards to further your cause. English killed more Spanish than France

this guy get it

>France was the good guy in the Hundred Years' war

They literally stole the throne from the rightful (French) king due to their autism about "muh English monarch" and sent 19-year-old peasant girls to die for them like the cowards they are

Jehanne didn't die because of war, she died because the cowardly English wanted to discredit Charles VII, the rightful King of France by Salic law.
When the English couldn't make her look like a madwoman or a whore, they dug up some old biblical law modern Fundamentalists wouldn't have upheld, and burnt her to death.

Let's take a moment to remember that the best and brightest English law and Clergymen were outsmarted by an illiterate Peasant girl. You get off on murdering poor saints, Nigel?

>Charles VII
>the rightful King of France
>what is the treaty of Troyes

kek
Who broke the peace of Amiens, remind me ?

>USSR
>clear cut good guys
lol

>what is the treaty of Troyes
Bullshit, that's what. Forcing someone to sign away their rightful heir at gunpoint would only be seen as just by an Englishman.

>loses to said peasant girl and kills her out of pure butthurt

>we all know that although the number of victims killed by each side remained still more or less similar percentage-wise
Not really. It's more like 75% killed by the Nazis 25% killed by the Soviets.
>not counting people actually sent to concentration camps from other countries
If we don't count Gulags then it's even less for Soviets.

>gunpoint
>1400s France

It's an expression. Hal had the France by the balls, and Isabeau was forced to consent to the insane treaty that sold her daughter to the man who slaughtered countless French and disinherited her son. This all while the King was ailing.
Hal may be the most perfidious cunt who ever lived. That French blood ran in his veins must be questioned. He was Anglo to the bone.

>This is what frogs actually believe

They did tho. By refusing to surrender all French children under the age of 5 to the anglo blood refineries (aryans were in short supply at this time) they had completed an act of aggression towards Britain akin to that of Pearl Harbour.

France did. Malta is a de jure part of the kingdom of England, Britain cannot will not be made to evacuate it.

It's true. Justify the treaty as anything other than an egregious show of Force. It was a ploy by Hal to convince the French that they should bow before the King of England. England may have taken much of France by force, but her people were never subjugated, and Hal knew that.

Henry was by right the King of France, both by blood and by conquest, having retaken his kingdom from the insane Charles. All he demanded was to be made Charles' heir, and even married his daughter to bind their houses together. And then the French and their lunatic king threw the treaty in the garbage.

Are you talking about Napoleon or the USSR?

;^)

Where it belonged in the first place. France's right to Valois rule is backed by Salic Law, and England only continued to claim right because of the momentum they had. The Plantagenet claim was so weak that Hal had to marry into the rightful house.
>The French and their lunatic King
Surely you mean Henry VI, since he was the rightful king at the time. Charles VII was the "King of Bourges" wasn't he? Unless you're saying you recognize Charles VII as French King

>Semantics autism
Charles VI was both French and a king.

>muh Salic law
There was no written rule excluding daughter's sons from inheriting the throne.

So a daughter can't inherit a parcel of Salic Land, but can transfer the right to rule all Salic Land? Surely this is the intention of the writers. The Spirit of Salic Law clearly expresses the sentiment that Women do not transmit their father's lands or rights to land through their bloodlines. Their sons inherit their father's lands. This rule is why Frankish Kings gave away their daughters to foreign magnates without fear that their Byzantine grandsons would become king of the Frankrijk

reddit

...

There is a part that say that a woman is not allowed to inherit the Salic Land, it is the same as "women aren't allowed to inherit the land or to give it to someone else "

You can't really say that, I mean Communists are indeed vile murderers but they at least believed they were doing it for the greater good.

>this amount of autism in one thread
and here i was thinking Veeky Forums was intelligent

Everything I said about the 100 years war is true