3 ms·

> Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US a

> Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war. > Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance) OK... EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?

toss1 10y ago
Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.

toss1 10y ago

Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.