Were there really any good or 'bad' guys during ww2? objectively its just a matter or perspective

>t. soviet apologist

It was grey vs grey as it usually is. I'd say the germans were better though, they saw the true threath in communism and they actually sued for peace.

>US still has Jim Crow
>UK still has it's fucking empire
>UK was concentration-camping the Boers
>Soviet Union invades Poland just as Nazi Germany does
the Axis powers were some serious dickheads, but the more i learn about the geopolitical situation, the more it is shades of gray to me

i struggle to see Finland, the Baltic states, Hungary, and Franco's Spain as bad guys just because they were on the "bad guy" team for example, nor can i see the Soviet Union, Mao's PLA, and a good portion of what the UK did as good guys just because they were Allied.

Morality is subjective. Everyone thought they were the good guy.

My grandfather was exiled for being an anti-communist and would have been sent to a gulag if he returned, so I am no Soviet apologist.

>Franco’s Spain
>not bad

Hello /pol/

t. Republican Scum

Attached: communists shoot at christ.jpg (856x834, 160K)

'Evilness' ranking (Main Participants):
1.Germany-Japan
2.USSR
3.Italy
4.USA
5.UK
6.United Chinese Front

The axis were composed primarily of two evil countries and one lackey country that created the evil ideology of fascism.

The allies were composed of two evil countries (USSR and Britain) and one neutral country trying to be good (USA).

Allies turn out to barely be the good guys.

Just because your grampa was an anti-communist doesn't mean that you are.

>USA more evil than the UK
how

Yes, but this cannot be used in defense in Germany since they were the ones who invited the Soviets to invade together in the first place.

Yes. The allies. Hitler did nothing wrong except being too kind and honorable.
Mussolini ruined the world because he forced the germans to help him in Greece, so they had to posticipate the invasion of Russia, resulting in the Axis defeat.

Well I'm not, and it's childish to assume I sympathise with the USSR just because I, for some crazy reason, consider them less evil than Nazi Germany.

Oh, my mistake; it should be the opposite. They did commit some war-crimes though.

America was a country with racial segregation who recently genocided a different ethnicity and who put people in camps during the war,Britain conquered a third of the world and did horrible things to the people she subjugated.
During the war proper both sides commited insane atrocities. Germany wasn't more evil than the allies.

I don’t see what’s bad about the UK having an empire. They were supplying their territories with technology and civil infrastructure. They were a net positive for the world I would say.

t. Sir William Faggotson III

Wow, good argument.

>Deliberately conscripting orcs and deploying them against civilians as an occupying force
>trying to be the good guys
No.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Katsuyama_killing_incident

Daily reminder that Hitler wanted peace since the beginning of the war
quora.com/Did-Hitler-try-to-make-peace-with-Churchill-several-times

There is literally no reason to consider the Soviet Union less evil than the Nazi regime, at minimum they were equivalents. Doing so is immediately suspect.

As good as your baseless claims, Sir William.

Yes, Germans were assholes. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a moron or super edgy.

because our violent ambitions to better our people at the expense of the blood of foreigners is ok when we do it, but not when you do it

America is unironically some of the most blameless of the war
>join war only when declared war upon
>rather gentlemanly in wartime conduct with the Germans, beneficial in post-war occupation
>only goes to shit with the Japs after
>a sneak attack
>Bataan Death March
>horrific wartime conduct on their part

There was still legal racial discrimination though and acts of barbarism (even if they were an answer to the axis lack of civility), but.. yeah, for once the americans were the 'heroes'.

Nazis/Italians/Soviets/Japs=Aggressors (Bad)

Western Allies=Defending their way of life (Good)

Everyone else=Just along for the ride

Attached: 1521643765633.jpg (2147x2997, 1.04M)

yeah, i agree you can't throw labels of racism around while Jim Crow is still a thing, but the Japs easily asked for it.

>Britain
>defending their way of life
lmao

Remind me who was planning to invade whom first?

I'm pretty sure Operation Sealion was in the planning stages long before any British soldier set foot on German soil.

Attached: 1200px-OperationSealion.svg.png (1200x1017, 693K)

>were there really any good or 'bad' guys during ww2?
Nope. Both sides had valid grievances and both sides committed war crimes.

>The UN were morally good because they opposed wars of aggression
lol, [citation needed]

>Yes, the Axis and the fascists were objectively evil, due to their mass murdering and genocidal racist totalitarianism.
>Communism killing more people is okay because it wasn't racist.

>The only evil in the Allies was the communist USSR,
[citation needed]

>Communism
>Lesser of 2 evils.
Choose one.

>maybe I'm letting /pol/ memes get to me, but did the Soviet Union not invade Poland as well, making them an aggressor?
Yes.

>The communists and fascists (i.e. collectivists) are evil from any rational and moral standpoint.
I used to believe this until coming to the realization that fascism is a reaction to communism.

>It was grey vs grey as it usually is. I'd say the germans were better though, they saw the true threath in communism and they actually sued for peace.
This. I agree but I am biased though.

This so fucking much.

>Morality is subjective. Everyone thought they were the good guy.
This also. Theoretically they were. Unfortunately with finite resources, your best interest might not be in the best interest of someone who doesn't agree with you.

1. USSR
2. Japan
3. UK
4. Germany
5. Italy
6. United States
7.China

>Fascism.
>Evil.

>Allies turn out to barely be the good guys.
History is written by the victors.

>Yes, but this cannot be used in defense in Germany since they were the ones who invited the Soviets to invade together in the first place.
The Soviets could have said "no" at anytime. Quit being an apologist.

>Hitler did nothing wrong except being too kind and honorable.
I have sympathies for Hitler but he definitely did a lot of fucked up shit.

>The Soviets could have said "no" at anytime. Quit being an apologist.
I never disputed that, and I'm not being an apologist for anything the Soviets did.

Seev it's funny, I said 'trying to be' because we still had Jim Crow and were thus vaguely evil.

>Germany lower than the UK
>>>/stormfront/

Alright, this is pretty good.

>we want peace even though weve proven to be diplomatically untrustworthy
>also if you could disarm your military thatd be great, of course we wont invade you bro!

not an argument

>Albion complaining of foreign perfidy

>Wanting to ethnically cleanse Europe from the french atlantic coast to the Kama river.
>Somehow a snownigger thinks that a colonial empire was worse than you.

>legal racial discrimination

Virtually every country on the planet at the time of WW2 (Germany and the USSR in particular) had rampant systemic racism.

Germany and Japan take the most shit for it because they took it to the worst extreme.

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1981-150-34A,_Russland,_Identifizierung_ermordeter_Volksdeutscher.jpg (800x572, 62K)

You know the Boer War had been over for 37 years when WW2 started?

>Wanted peace
>repeatedly breaks every promise he made and took actions that would guarantee war

No, No, I'm sure he REALLY means it this time.

Only good guys in ww2 were finns and maybe like norwegians or something.

Always remember that Churchill let German take Poland so that Hiter dealt with Stalin instead.

In an ideological viewpoint the Nazis were definitively wrong, systematically killing people is bad.

Thanks, bro.

>Wanting to ethnically cleanse your homeland. (Germany)
or
>Wanting to ethnically cleanse every continent that ins't your homeland. (Britain)

Also:
>Implying ethnic cleansing is a bad thing.

The eternal a*glo... Racist, genocidal, and thirsty for Aryan blood.
After betraying and ruining the injuns, the africans, the indians, the chinese and the aryans.... the next victim could be YOU! Stand up against the ang*o menace

Brits weren't really in much of a position to help Poland at the start of the war. Mostly because Germany is sitting between them.

>Implying ethnic cleansing is a bad thing.

Tell me, are you upset with the ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe after the war.

Attached: ethnic-cleansing-of-Germans-when-ww2-ended-005.jpg (850x649, 92K)

>Wanting to ethnically cleanse every continent that ins't your homeland. (Britain)
>Stormtards unironically believe this

>Implying ethnic cleansing is a bad thing.
Oh, a 12 year old, i see. I am out then.
Here, go have some fun with your friends:

>Communism killing more people is okay because it wasn't racist.
Sauce: In my fridge

USSR didn't kill more than German.
really, where the fuck did you get that?

This retarded argument again. Breaking the treaty of versailles does not make Hitler untrustworthy. That treaty was made to either be broken or to completely break the germans. There is nothing to suggest Hitler wouldn't hold up his end of the deal, he even told them he would attack the soviet union for crying out loud.

Communism was more than the USSR

and frankly, Nazi Germany were the only fascists to truly and totally have mass slaughter attributed to them

Versailles wasn't the only example

>Tell me, are you upset with the ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe after the war.
A criminal gets upset when he goes to prison but that doesn't somehow invalidate the idea of prisons.

>niggers

The allies since their ideology (barring the soviets) would eventually give rise to a more egalitarian and civil world

>egalitarianism is good

Attached: condescending wojak.png (750x750, 26K)

define "good"

You are a retard.

Communists are the bad guys always

Please shut up.

>Communists are the bad guys always

Agreed

So are Nazis

Attached: 20709CCD-6F66-4045-97DF-B85259F881E2.png (687x1117, 728K)

Yes. Germany.

Attached: 14768417121.jpg (1280x855, 197K)

ITT: whataboutism

Attached: 1494276119079.png (1024x669, 665K)

>they actually sued for peace
Hitler wiped his ass with literally every single fucking treaty he ever signed. Why on Earth do you think he had any diplomatic credibility whatsoever at that point?

Attached: 1520029112640.png (1254x1787, 221K)

>That treaty was made to either be broken or to completely break the germans.
Funny, Weimar wasn't having much trouble following it before Hitler took power.
>There is nothing to suggest Hitler wouldn't hold up his end of the deal, he even told them he would attack the soviet union for crying out loud.
Besides the fact that this would require him to betray the Soviet Union...his ally at the time. You think this makes him seem trustworthy?

Furthermore, Versailles was not the only treaty he ignored. The Munich Agreement is a sterling example, considering he had literally no justification for doing so since he already had absorbed the Sudetenland Germans. He had even said that his territorial ambitions had been finished after Munich and then he tore up the treaty less than a year later.

And then you have the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the one Great Britain signed unilaterally without consulting France that invalidated all of the Versailles naval provisions. The one that Germany had already violated before they had even signed the fucking thing.

Attached: 1521228185255.png (1226x716, 1.26M)

Germany for sure, destroying the fabric of international relations and any sort of measure of trust making the collapse of the world order into war inevitable forcing an entirely new bipolar world to emerge after it. Not even the Soviets were this homosexual, they were opportunistic for the most part.
What I’m interested in is how much of a role Japan might have played in this too, as their role in this is often overlooked.

Hell, Versailles wasn't actually that harsh. They didn't WANT to break the Germans in 1919; they wanted them as a bulwark against the Soviets. They only started reevaluating that stance when Germany started becoming a much bigger more immediate threat to European stability than the Soviets were.

Japan invaded Manchuria despite warnings. Then broke the Naval Treaty. Then invaded China for no genuine reason outside of imperialism.

At least the Germans had a clear aim, albeit just as evil. The Japanese wanted total dominance to an almost fantasy degree.

>Democratic and free western nations are morally equivalent to genocidal empires built on pseudoscientfic racial superiority.

Attached: vO7lRZ7.png (621x702, 56K)

It could be argued that Japan, by projecting its internal warring(this batshit policy had a lot to do with internal politicking) unto the outside world, destabilized the world order so much that Germany saw it fit to be torn down entirely like the rotten carcass it was.

Finland literally did not even one single thing wrong from a strategic or moral standpoint those two entire decades

To be honest, Japan was always scarier than Germany. It wasn’t until Germany’s defeat of France they became truly terrifying, since the allegations expected a failed Nazi offensive would allow for movement into the Rhineland.

Japan on the other hand would have been a total nightmare to invade. Some estimated over 3 million allied troops would die.

Japan’s economy was pathetic compared to Germany’s though. The US only used a fourth of its industrial and military power against Japan while using the other three quarters against Germany. Nobody expected Germany to get its shit together as quickly as it did.

virtuous, specifically, the four cardinal virtues, namely justice

from a guy who is pretty sympathetic to a lot of the secondary axis powers, this meme is all too true

>empires
literally Britain

that's why i said they were good, despite being Axis-aligned

>falling right back in line with the neoliberal world viewpoint of GOOD v EVIL
wow so brave, not willing to see history in shades of gray

this post reeks of a sort of reddit-esque bullshit that i find hard to describe but smell strongly

This makes me pretty angry. Knowing that somewhere in the world, a britbong is dumb enough to think they were supporting the lesser of two evils with the Soviets. Oh boy, their crimes were so horrific that you downplay them even to this day. Commie supporting pieces of shit, do you know how many peiple lost their lives because of that?

Hope you anglos die in hell for your crimes.

*cough cough treaty of versailles cough cough

*cough cough wasn't being enforced worth a single goddamn cough cough
*cough cough Re-militarization of the Rhineland cough cough

yeah but what about the whole...genocide thing?

Forgive me, I'm new here but wtf is wrong with me, why am I so turned on by pregnant Anne Frank?

They were though, they proved to be more concerned with stability than anything else after WWII something that the germans definitely weren’t, up to their neofeudal internal organisation.

This. The Allies supported these brutal murderers, and are thus on par with any other ebildoer.

Nazis were obviously in the 'bad' during WW2.
You can really debate aggressor invading a peaceful nation(who is protected and you know this) for stupid expansionist racial reasons,murder hundreds of thousand of their civilians and later millions, after that invade 5 more of peaceful innocent nation for "strategic use" bombing/demolishing their cities while killing many of their civilians and after that invade a giant powerhouse nation for means of racial subjugation/extermination and once again expansion... and after that claim "dude lmao everybody did that, we wuz just most scapegoated, did you remember how mean germany was treated after ww1?!"

You can technically debate rather if soviets were really 'bad' or 'good' guys because it's clear they invaded peaceful nation themselves and did many war crimes, but there is no justification on invading good countries like Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway,Yugoslavia and Greece etc. these nation did nothing to anyone but then claim you weren't the "aggressor who brings death and suffering", but nazis clearly didn't care about that.

Attached: Untermenchen holding the Aryan Nordic Master Race.jpg (640x448, 42K)

I'm pretty sure the bongs declared war on Germany first.

>>Implying ethnic cleansing is a bad thing.
Watch out with that edge, user. You might cut your last blood vessel to the brain.

Attached: Edge.jpg (476x717, 66K)

>And then you have the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the one Great Britain signed unilaterally without consulting France
Yes, the Perfidious Albion screwed the frogs, and then murdered them at Mers al Kebir.

After Germany declared war on Poland. After Britain guaranteed Poland against German aggression. No matter how hard you try to spin it, Germany declared war first.

>If you hit him, I'm going to punch you in the teeth.
>lol as if fag, that promise is worth less than a fart
>*punch*
>WTF WHY THE FUCK DID YOU HIT ME YOU FUCKING BULLY

Attached: 1517692045383.jpg (3600x2760, 1.74M)

No, the bongs declared war on Germany first, that is a fact. And now they're huddled up on their containment island, undergoing a fresh invasion. How'd that all work out then?

>Wars only start after the formal declaration has been completed and not a second sooner