Curious on non-USian's answers

[godix]

I think which is worse is all a matter of perspective. Does sheer body count make you worse? In that case, Stalin wins by a long shot. Does what was intended make you worse? Hitler probably would be worse given what his goals were. Sheer coldhearted indifference? Probably Hitler, his methods were so mechanical. Stalin seems to have understood he was killing people, he didn't care but he did understand. Hitler seemed like he was a plant manager. It wasn't people he was having killed, it was part #4295301 that he was discarding.

Regardless, I wish either of their parents had a still birth instead.

[8bit_samurai]

If there's something video games taught me, it's that even if either of their parents had still birth, someone would take their place. For instance, if there was no Hitler, then there would be the Brotherhood of Nod, and if there were no Stalin, there would be Yuri, and if there were no Yuri, there would be Emperor Yoshiro/Crown Prince Tatsu, etc. etc.

[Otohiko]

And well, if Poland teaches us anything... it didn't take Stalin for Poles to be mad at Russians - they'd been perfectly good imperialist jerks in occupying Poland (under not-much-better circumstances) for a good 150 years prior. And the Tsarist regime was no cakewalk and honestly is treated far too leniently by history, all because of how good it looked compared to Stalin

European history is messy and dirty, and I honestly think that if it taught me anything, it's that noone's hands are clean. I just prefer that credit is given where it's due, and that historical figures and events are seen in proper light and without too much ideology. As WWII goes, I don't think there was a "good" side, but there was a side that was infinitely preferable and that wouldn't have worked without compromise and cooperation of all the Allies. While the West likes to sideline Russia's role, I'm also often ticked at Russians sidelining the West's role. Fortunately there's also many Russians who remember and appreciate the US's lend-lease input. It didn't provide for the bulk of Russian materiel at the crucial stage of the war, but it was just the right extra bit at the right time. It was really that last keystone that held the whole front together when it really mattered, and I hope Russians don't forget that.

In general, while "US saving everybody" is IMHO a huge misreading of WWII, by the same token people also often don't give the US proper credit. Militarily I don't think the US really achieved anything huge in WWII (in Europe, anyway) and anything they may have done really pales in comparison to what Soviets did (and people also like to think that the Soviets ended up winning by sending more cannon fodder to the front than the Germans - which is VERY unfair to Soviet tactical and strategic effectiveness of the late war). This doesn't take away from some of the individual and collective military successes and sacrifices that the US achieved of course, but what people really need to remember is the massive material and industrial input that the US threw into WWII. Maybe people just forget that because "the US workers and builders won WWII" sounds too communist.

[mirkosp]

To sum it up:



YOU'RE WINNER!

[godix]

In general, while "US saving everybody" is IMHO a huge misreading of WWII, by the same token people also often don't give the US proper credit. Militarily I don't think the US really achieved anything huge in WWII (in Europe, anyway) and anything they may have done really pales in comparison to what Soviets did (and people also like to think that the Soviets ended up winning by sending more cannon fodder to the front than the Germans - which is VERY unfair to Soviet tactical and strategic effectiveness of the late war).

The only thing the US did in Europe is accelerate the obvious conclusion to the war. Hitler was beat before we got in. Now Japan, we pretty much can claim sole credit for that (well, Australia too), even if we did rush a bit in the end there to finish it before Russia joined in.

And to be fair, in the early stages of the war Russia did send tons of cannon fodder to the front. That and practicing a scorched earth policy on their own cities is what kept them from being defeated. Tactics, equipment, and strategy came later. In the beginning, it was little more than an attitude of 'So what if 10 of ours are killed for every one of theirs, we can always have more babies...'

[BurningLeaves]

In general, while "US saving everybody" is IMHO a huge misreading of WWII...

I believe number 5 would apply here.

5 most widely believed WWII facts that are actually bullshit