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

[Bo]

Good side=U.S., U.K. (U.S.S.R. not so much)
Bad side=Germany (especially), Italy, Japan

[Bo]

On another note, it was the only war of the past hundred years, where the U.S. was perfectly justified in it's involvement.

WWI?

[Bo]

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Period.

I beg to differ. Both of them were despicable people, but Hitler only targeted Jews for the most part (with some minor exceptions--Roma, homosexuals, etc.). If you were not Jewish, Roma, gay, or a political dissident, Hitler would have almost certainly spared your life. Stalin, for the most part, killed or imprisoned anyone who opposed him. There was certainly genocide and imprisonment of certian ethnicities under Stalin's watch, but he didn't take killing any specific nationality to the same extreme that Hitler took it.

[Bo]

Stalin didn't fight on the Allies side because he believed in human rights by any stretch of the imagination. He was more concerned with saving his own hide. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil, but Stalin's positions didn't reflect those of the Allies as a whole.

I suppose that's why the Allies sent 2 million people to Stalin to be slaughtered and let him take half of Europe?

I don't really think it's fair to describe it this way- there's no way the UK and America saw the horrors of the next 50 years coming. What could they have done instead? Fight another war over it?

Yes, and quickly before the U.S.S.R. built its own nukes.

[Bo]

Yes, and quickly before the U.S.S.R. built its own nukes.

Three questions.

1. Why so bloodthirsty?

2. Do you know roughly how many Soviet citizens were killed during the War?

3. Do you have any idea what state most of Europe was in immediately after the War?

1. Because it would have been much more beneficial for U.S. interests to make Stalin's regime collapse and replace it with a capitalist (and democratic) one.
2. About 20 million? You're just strengtening my point, since if the U.S.S.R. lost tens of millions of people in WWII, I seriously doubt it would be very prepared for another war with the U.S. & U.K.
3. A state of panic, shock, trauma, and confusion.

[Bo]

1. Because it would have been much more beneficial for U.S. interests to make Stalin's regime collapse and replace it with a capitalist (and democratic) one.

Aha... right. Please do note that your answer was in response to the question "why so bloodthirsty?" and your response was essentially "because the result would be good for U.S interests". Do you engage your brain before you type or are you a sociopath?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you trolling me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't thinking in purely emotional terms...

1. I wasn't being bloodthirsty if I would have supported a war against the U.S.S.R.. following WWII. I was worrying about my country's interests. I see ntohing wrong with that. In fact, in a war like this, the U.S. might have lost less troops than it did in WWII.
2. No.
3. Well, you asked a question, and I just answered it.