To the extent that he was killing the people who’s welfare he was supposed to be looking after, it does seems more evil. Perhaps one consequence of not having to justify rule by divine right. I wouldn’t call the Ukrainian peasants who starved elites, and it could be argued that some of that killing was driven by ethnic animosity. At least Stalin buried his massacres behind lofty ideals, making it easier for eager interventionists to dupe their public into not rejecting the alliance.
I suppose you are right regarding both the peasants and the evil. But let me put it this way:
Around 1850 in Romania we respected the Russians even though they took Basarabia in 1812 as a consequence of the war between the Russia and the Ottoman Empire. We even named Kiseleff one of the major boulevards Bucharest recognizing the positive role of the Russian officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Şoseaua_Kiseleff).
In 1945, after we lost the WWII and Russians occupied Romania, we had no respect for the Russian officers, we simply remember them as barbarians.
I guess that Communism made the difference.
Regarding the peasants I would say that they where idiots – this is in the original understanding of the word (Old French from Latin idiota ‘ignorant person,’ from Greek idiōtēs ‘private person, layman, ignorant person,’ from idios ‘own, private.’). Communists do not like independent (private) people, all people have to depend of the State. This is why they had to die.
I am not fully satisfied with any of the responses to the first post.
Those who were really adamant about overthrowing Hitler could have sent money to the their country of choice, or, got on a boat and gone over there themselves to fight. I don’t know if joining the British or French armies was an option but I’m sure guerilla fighting was. To your debate opponent this may seem absurd. The point is, I don’t think World War II justified drafting and confiscating the wealth of Americans who were content to mind their own business. Hitler was not an imminent threat to the US.
In regards to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese obviously didn’t intend to take over Hawaii or the rest of the states for that matter. It was a preemtive strike in anticipation of US military involvement in the Pacific. An adequate response probably could have been to do nothing…although that was probably the last thing on most Americans minds at the time.
In modern times when I hear people discuss how “we” need to intervene in Sudan, Iraq, or anywhere else I tell them to go over there themselves; leave me out of it.
Not true. The UN declared that palestine should be split into two states. The British never supported the plan and actually washed their hands of it by ending their occupation when it was set to begin.
Of course, Israel that exists today is nothing like the two state UN plan.
Well, alright, although frankly, their washing their hands of it, at the last minute, after decades of colonial rule, I hardly think makes them innocent (Pontius Pilate, anyone?). Fine, the UN (itself an abomination), which did it over the objections of the large majority of Arabs in the region, who were 3/4 of the population.