Was the Iraq-Iran War the worst example of an evil vs. evil war of the 20th century?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Absolutely. Not only were both governments involved absolutely atrocious they both engaged in massive war crimes and human rights violations by the bucket load. Both were absolutely irredeemably repugnant.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obviously you've never heard of the Congolese Civil Wars, or since they continued into the 21st century, you ignored them.

Or maybe you excluded them because instead of being a simple evil vs. evil war, they were evil vs. evil vs. evil. vs...

[buritobr]

Eastern Front of WWII.

The Soviets were better than the Nazis, but that's probably the only good thing you can say about them.

There were no virgin nuns in a monastery in the western allies too. France and UK were still colonial empires in the 1930s. There was the great famine in India. But of course, the Axis was worse than all of them.

In the WW2, we can say that one side had moral superiority. But in the WW1, there were only imperialist powers against imperialist powers. We can say that it was an example of evil vs evil

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I voted no because even more fitting choices exist, but it is true that this is among the most suitable candidates for the title.

[darklordoftech]

France and UK were still colonial empires in the 1930s. There was the great famine in India.

Robert Taft opposed Lend-Lease on the basis that the UK and France might use the weapons against colonial subjects.

[Orser67]

Certainly it's a good example, but if I had to choose the prototypical "evil vs. evil war of the 20th century", it would be tough to pass up Hitler vs. Stalin.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Eastern Front of WWII.

The Soviets were better than the Nazis, but that's probably the only good thing you can say about them.

I neither agree nor disagree. Different kinds of evil, even if not equivalent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Eastern Front of WWII.

The Soviets were better than the Nazis, but that's probably the only good thing you can say about them.

There were no virgin nuns in a monastery in the western allies too. France and UK were still colonial empires in the 1930s. There was the great famine in India. But of course, the Axis was worse than all of them.

In the WW2, we can say that one side had moral superiority. But in the WW1, there were only imperialist powers against imperialist powers. We can say that it was an example of evil vs evil

I am not fond of this reductionist view of World War I's history to "both sides were evil" and the even worse interpretation of this "Central Powers should have won because then no Hitler". This is a very flawed view because it fails to account for the devastation that caused the rise of Hitler and how they were responsible for creating that situation in the first place.

1. Imperial Germany under Wilhelm II spent 25 years isolating Germany and surrounding itself by enemies. Its behavior towards Russia and the fact that it drove the most repressive Monarchy in the world perhaps into bed with Europe's only large Republic (France), speaks volumes of the ineptitude of German Foreign Policy in the 1890s and beyond. Britain and Russia hated each other, but Germany managed to push those two together as well thanks to the naval arm's race.

2. Imperial Germany's arrogance does deserve a larger share of blame for the start of the war. They completely misread the disturbances in Russia (riots and strikes in 1913 - 1914) into believing they were on the verge of collapsing and thus felt free to let Austria go all out with their demands on Serbia, which is what set off the chain of events leading to war.

3. Imperial Germany ceded Bolshevism into Russia in 1917 and thus created the foil which Hitler used to ride to power on fears of a red tide.

[Alcibiades]

Eastern Front of WWII.

The Soviets were better than the Nazis, but that's probably the only good thing you can say about them.

There were no virgin nuns in a monastery in the western allies too. France and UK were still colonial empires in the 1930s. There was the great famine in India. But of course, the Axis was worse than all of them.

In the WW2, we can say that one side had moral superiority. But in the WW1, there were only imperialist powers against imperialist powers. We can say that it was an example of evil vs evil

I am not fond of this reductionist view of World War I's history to "both sides were evil" and the even worse interpretation of this "Central Powers should have won because then no Hitler". This is a very flawed view because it fails to account for the devastation that caused the rise of Hitler and how they were responsible for creating that situation in the first place.

1. Imperial Germany under Wilhelm II spent 25 years isolating Germany and surrounding itself by enemies. Its behavior towards Russia and the fact that it drove the most repressive Monarchy in the world perhaps into bed with Europe's only large Republic (France), speaks volumes of the ineptitude of German Foreign Policy in the 1890s and beyond. Britain and Russia hated each other, but Germany managed to push those two together as well thanks to the naval arm's race.

2. Imperial Germany's arrogance does deserve a larger share of blame for the start of the war. They completely misread the disturbances in Russia (riots and strikes in 1913 - 1914) into believing they were on the verge of collapsing and thus felt free to let Austria go all out with their demands on Serbia, which is what set off the chain of events leading to war.

3. Imperial Germany ceded Bolshevism into Russia in 1917 and thus created the foil which Hitler used to ride to power on fears of a red tide.

You can say that Imperial Germany’s foreign policy was inept, but it certainly does not make them evil. They entangled themselves in a pointless treaty with Austria-Hungary, which forced them into declaring war on Russia, which after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand they didn’t actually think they’d have to do. Compare this to the UK, which was actually quite eager to declare war to protect its status as an imperial and naval power by destroying its main competitor Germany. Whipping millions of young men into a patriotic, religious frenzy and sending them to die horrible deaths to protect your great power status is surely deserving of just as much, if not more, condemnation as Germany’s actions in WWI.

[NewYorkExpress]

World War II (both Europe and the Pacific).

Obviously, all sides in Europe were pretty evil groups of people (except possibly for Churchill, and even he's sketchy, to be honest)

In the Pacific, you have the militaristic Japanese Empire, the corrupt and collapsing Chinese Government, and a U.S Government, that probably would be the aggressor in almost any other situation, because "muh racism."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

France and UK were still colonial empires in the 1930s. There was the great famine in India.

Robert Taft opposed Lend-Lease on the basis that the UK and France might use the weapons against colonial subjects.

Hardly a serious objection under the circumstances and mostly an indicator that the man was a repulsive sophist.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

How do we define evil?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Iraq winning that war would have been a good thing.

[Kingpoleon]

I am not fond of this reductionist view of World War I's history to "both sides were evil" and the even worse interpretation of this "Central Powers should have won because then no Hitler". This is a very flawed view because it fails to account for the devastation that caused the rise of Hitler and how they were responsible for creating that situation in the first place.

1. Imperial Germany under Wilhelm II spent 25 years isolating Germany and surrounding itself by enemies. Its behavior towards Russia and the fact that it drove the most repressive Monarchy in the world perhaps into bed with Europe's only large Republic (France), speaks volumes of the ineptitude of German Foreign Policy in the 1890s and beyond. Britain and Russia hated each other, but Germany managed to push those two together as well thanks to the naval arm's race.

2. Imperial Germany's arrogance does deserve a larger share of blame for the start of the war. They completely misread the disturbances in Russia (riots and strikes in 1913 - 1914) into believing they were on the verge of collapsing and thus felt free to let Austria go all out with their demands on Serbia, which is what set off the chain of events leading to war.

3. Imperial Germany ceded Bolshevism into Russia in 1917 and thus created the foil which Hitler used to ride to power on fears of a red tide.

If inept foreign policy qualifies you for being evil, the Allied borders in the Middle East and the denial of the right to self-determination to the MENA region are certainly evil. Also, their refusal to seriously intervene in the Russian Civil War surely counts as a strike against them.

[Samof94]

Would the USSR invading Afghanistan count?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Iraq was clearly the worse party in that case, no? They were the aggressive actor; a blatant and old-fashioned attempt to land-grabs by conflict because they thought post-revolutionary Iran looked like a pushover. Anyway, like most starry eyed Westerners, I am fond of the Kurds, and both the KDP and PUK threw their lot in with the Iranians here.

[PSOL]

Most Interstate wars actually would fall under this moral paradigm.