In hindsight, should the WAllies not have helped the Soviets?

Deleted member 1487

What are you trying to say exactly, because the Soviets or Jews number less than the Chinese they are more deserving of genocide because of this fact? That the US should let one genocide happen just to stop another genocide, that is very morally suspect
No, I'm saying that the Chinese are no less deserving than anyone else of life; you seem to be arguing that their mass murders are somehow ok not to prevent because taking out the Nazis no matter what was the most moral thing to do.

Also I'm not saying it is my opinion that the war in Europe should have been extended to potentially prevent the Cold War, rather that there is an argument there given what happened as a result of the US enabling Stalin's conquests and spread of his ideology.
Based on your own line of argument, it is arguable that you are saying that it's just fine for the victims of the Soviets and other Communist regimes to have died because the Nazis were worse in your opinion.
 
No, I'm saying that the Chinese are no less deserving than anyone else of life; you seem to be arguing that their mass murders are somehow ok not to prevent because taking out the Nazis no matter what was the most moral thing to do.

Also I'm not saying it is my opinion that the war in Europe should have been extended to potentially prevent the Cold War, rather that there is an argument there given what happened as a result of the US enabling Stalin's conquests and spread of his ideology.
Based on your own line of argument, it is arguable that you are saying that it's just fine for the victims of the Soviets and other Communist regimes to have died because the Nazis were worse in your opinion.
The victims of commonisem in europe would have died, alongside many many many more if they stayed under Nazi rule. The Nazis *were* worse.
They wanted to kill *everyone* in eastern Europe.

To better solve the problems of communist china you need to make Mao to step down right after the establishment of the PLC. Thus you avoid his decent to tyrany and prevent the cultural revolution.
The KMT were facist thugs, not the light of democracy that you seem to think they were.
You *don't* solve the cultural revolution by making the holocost worse. You prevent it by changing events in china, and you can do it *after* the establishment of the PLC.
 
I think the definitive answer besides a castro / cuba Segway along the way is that yes.. even in hindsight, we needed to help the soviets, ESPECIALLY in hindsight. The Nazi's were VILE, hell they made most other groups look down right nice. ( not all . some are on par or damn close )


Even Comrade Joe, and the Soviet Union, as screwed up as it was at the time had nothing on the Nazi's were trying to accomplish, hell and the NKVD, KGB, and CO were pretty murderous and when you combine that with incompetence in the planning committee you got starvation, and the police state of the SU that we have all come to know. but they don't even hold a candle to what the hell the Nazi's were doing.


Much different time, brutal, bigoted, racist, end of an era of power trippers who think they had some god given right to kill, rape, plunder and destroy. Also a time before modern travel, modern news, the internet, Instagram and facebook posts too. news traveled slow, and was refined before it was published back then.

one can debate until the cows come home, Uncle joe, or Adolf? Sure, do I really have to choose?! .. but in the end.. the choice was fairly simple.

I'll touch on my last post again, the USSR lost MILLIONS of soldiers and MILLIONS of CIVILIANS .. The war was one of SURVIVAL for not just the soviet state, but of the Slavic people(s) and those living in those occupied areas.

The us lost under 500,000 in the war.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The victims of commonisem in europe would have died, alongside many many many more if they stayed under Nazi rule. The Nazis *were* worse.
They wanted to kill *everyone* in eastern Europe.

To better solve the problems of communist china you need to make Mao to step down right after the establishment of the PLC. Thus you avoid his decent to tyrany and prevent the cultural revolution.
The KMT were facist thugs, not the light of democracy that you seem to think they were.
You *don't* solve the cultural revolution by making the holocost worse. You prevent it by changing events in china, and you can do it *after* the establishment of the PLC.
I hope no one is arguing that the Nazis were less bad than the Soviets/Communists given their plans for the East. The lack of support for the Soviets ITTL is not to go easier on the Nazis or let them survive the war, rather it is to limit what the Soviets can do beyond survive and reclaim their pre-1939 territory. Certainly a victorious or at least surviving Nazi Germany in control of Eastern Europe would have killed more people than the Soviets did IOTL, though as a point of order Generalplan East did not call for the deaths of everyone, not that it makes it any less heinous.

The problems of Communist China go well beyond just Mao, but Mao certainly was the driver of much of the worst of the regime. The cultural revolution and Great Leap Forward could easily have happened without him (why would he step down right after victory BTW)?
I never claimed the KMT was good, but I don't recall them calling for policies that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of their own countrypeople.
You could well prevent the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward by weakening the USSR so it is not able to support the Chi-Coms in 1945 and beyond. That doesn't mean they won't get in power anyway, but it would lessen the chance dramatically, especially if the US is the ones that has to occupy all of Korea and Manchuria, which shuts off Mao and his forces for a LOT of support they got IOTL. Though a KMT run China wouldn't be a great place, it is really hard seeing it ever being as bad as Communist run China (especially thanks to US aid) or things like the Korean and Vietnam wars being possible without Communist China. Mao being removed early on doesn't prevent the wars in Asia post-communist victory, so limiting Soviet reach there and in Europe even if WW2 does last longer means preventing a great number of the tragedies post-WW2, especially if there is a collapse of the Communist regime in Russia and the extension of US aid to them as a result.
 
Top