Was WWII the only major war under whih there was a clear good side and bad side?

[Gustaf]

Wow. What a thread full of dumb...I don't think there is much to add to the elegant points made by Al, James, Dead0man, jokerman, etc but still, just for the sake of reiteration.

1. Hitle delcared war on the US so the whole discussion of whether the US "should" have entered the war is moot. America was attacked and didn't choose involvement.

2. That right there illustrates a clear difference between the Soviet Union and Germany.

3. Viewing Stalin's crimes as something that equates the Allies with the Axis is narrow-minded.

4. The war could most likely NEVER have been won without the Soviet Union on the allied side. People in the West tend to be a little bit too brain-washed by American and British propaganda from the war and onwards to realize this, but victory against Germany was like 80% thanks to the Soviets and 20% US+UK. So it isn't just convenience, the Soviet Union was needed.

5. Given the end-result (a free, democratic and increasingly prosperous Eastern Europe) I find it hard to argue that the policies of WWII were bad. Granted, there was a lot of suffering in a lot of places but this was WWII, for crying out loud. There was no way of avoiding that. The world order that resulted was still among the best that I can imagine.

6. The idea that one can argue that violence is bad because one arbitrarily defines violence as a specific subset of bad actions is philosophically immature to put it mildly.

[Gustaf]

1. Hitle delcared war on the US.

That's one thing I've never seen explained btw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's more like, while the US and UK involvement was needed, the SOviet Union is who won the war.

As to the general question, I disagree there was a "clear" good side. There was a "clear" bad side along with a murky baddish side, which is different from most wars which just have two murky baddish sides, and there's no denying I would have "taken sides" wherever I was, which is more than can be said of just about any war fought in my lifetime. Which is near enough the original question I suppose.

Hitler wasn't really all that bright in the strategic sense and Germany has never been very skilled at diplomacy (at least not since Bismarck).

I don't think there is very much in the way of a rational explanation, to be honest. I think he wanted to stand with the Japanese or something and in his worldview the Americans probably couldn't be much of a threat anyway.