"You think the Nazis were bad, I think the USA was equally bad."
I'm sorry for immediately launching into the pedantic, but mind = blown. I'm going to attempt to address this mindset, which has been kinda scattered throughout the thread.
Like I said a couple of pages ago, the Nazis were pretty bad dudes. We have substantial filmed and photographic evidence, heaps of testimony from affected peoples, and perhaps most ****ing of all, the excellent records kept by the SS. We know a lot of the things they did, and let's face it, the record's pretty bleak.
The morality and ethics of the Allied powers is a topic that has been argued for much longer than I've been alive, and by people with a greater understanding of the mindsets involved than I possess. I freely admit this, and it's part of why I'd encourage you to look into the short reading list I'll be providing below. Suffice to say, it is true that atrocities were committed by the Allies, most notably the USSR. Even that is a direct result of Nazi practices, though; the Soviet push towards Berlin was, in the end, a veritable blanket of ****, pillage and murder, all out of revenge. They had, in the minds of many Russians, earned that revenge. Some of them saw it as justified and right, and whether or not you agree with that premise, it's easy to see why they might think as such.
There is an argument to be made that Britain and France were responsible for much of German expansion prior to 1940. I won't even go into the mess of the Treaty of Versailles, but they repeatedly failed to follow through on their threats towards Germany. There was lots of saber rattling, and some degree of hawkishness, but in the end, when Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland fell, nothing substantial was done. Even this, however, is an understandable series of events: the Great War had deeply scarred Europe, and there was great trepidation at the prospect of another one. Prior to the occupation of Norway, the Franco-Brits had planned on invading it themselves to keep Norwegian and Swedish resources out of German hands. After the war, in a pretty ballsy display of hypocrisy, they attempted(with undue success) to use the occupation as evidence of Germany's wrongdoing and war crimes. One wonders what they would've had to say had they been the first to invade.
So Britain and France? Not really evil. Now America seems to be the big boogeyman here, and I'm going to do something important. I'm going to give America the same benefit I have given to every European power thus far discussed: focusing squarely on their actions and policies during the war itself. This is not intended to be a discussion of the colonies, colonial policies, annexation, etc.
America's greatest sin in WWII was waiting. This is not to diminish the terribleness of the Japanese internment camps, the treatment of German or Germanic Americans throughout the war, or the dropping of Fat Man & Little Boy. It is simply to state that, had the USA chosen to intervene in events sooner, other atrocities may have been prevented. The Soviets' aforementioned swath of doom through the German countryside may have been less necessary, had the Allies opened a solid front in the West as Stalin repeatedly demanded.
Alright, this is getting to feel about as long as my first post, so I'm going to wrap things up. First of all, thank you, Alderon, for your kind words. I hope this can serve as an example for people and show that a reasoned discussion on equal terms can lead to a much more amicable and sensible conclusion. To be honest, I read the entire thread before posting, and when I started, I was not a big fan of your position. I had a negative gut reaction, which is just something we humans do. However, your steady demeanor in the face of insults and accusations essentially forced me to take your argument seriously. I did, addressed it as such, and look: we wound up in agreement.
Y'see people? That's how you do it. It's easy. Much easier than the alternative.
Also, almost forgot my reading list. These were the first four WWII books I had on my bookshelf, so I may post an expanded list on my profile later.
1. History of the Second World War by B. H. Liddell Hart. A good, thorough compendium of information from the perspective of a Brit who lived through both World Wars. There's an element of misfortune in that he partially blames himself for the advent of the blitzkrieg, but that aside, it's a solid read.
2. The Third Reich at War by Michael Veranov. Similar in purpose to Hart's book, but with a broader scope, and less inclined to one national perspective or another. It goes into greater detail about Germany's history and the motivations for the war in the first place. Good, good read.
3. How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander. Another book largely focused on the military aspects of the war, but an interesting analyses of the real reasons for Nazi failure.
4. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer. This is the big one. If you don't read any of the other three, I don't care; read this one. It's one of the best, most respected works on Nazi Germany ever written. Shirer's perspective, as a journalist inside Berlin during Hitler's rise to power, is unbeatable. If you want a look into the German mindset at the time, look no further.
