a million pieces/segments sneering at hasan piker and the co-chair of the DSA, meanwhile a republican congressional candidate in upstate new york named peter oberacker is the grandson of an actual nazi germany soldier and his former staffer was part of the ‘i love hitler’ young GOP group chat
Because the sides (which, to be clear, were mostly USSR vs nazi germany) were clearly not equally “morally and ethically bankrupt”?
USSR, while very far away from perfect as I will be the first to admit, was a socialist nation struggling to build an equitable, just, and advanced society for all working people, first inside its borders then worldwide.
Germany was a bunch of rich capitalists pushing nazi propaganda on its population, aiming to turn the entire European continent into an ethostate, enslave all slavs and kill all jews, with reactionary&inhumane views about gender, sexuality, disability, and a thousand other topics.
If you think that those two sides are somehow “the same” and thus it’s somehow OK if Germany won that war, why would USA vs Iran be different?
lol you think we joined the Allies because of Russia, and not the UK, which we had been selling war supplies to for years prior to us joining? Russia, the country we started fighting against before the Third Reich had even collapsed?
You are right that the majority of the conflict was between Germany and Russia, but you have eluded my point about why the US joined the fight. FDR was not salivating at the prospect of entering WWII to help Stalin. He was interested in the economic benefits.
I assume the soviets were the most morally just out of all the major WW2 players bc I know the least about their history, and what I do know has a veneer of anti russia propaganda. Had we intervened on their behalf out of a moral obligation, I can see how you got to the Iran thing- that was my excuse for supporting and fighting in wars against Iraq and Afghanistan- obvious mistakes at the time and even clearer with a little hindsight. But during WW2 we helped England, even if we were helping Russia, and England in the 1940s was objectively abhorrent.
It doesn’t really matter why someone joined one side of the war over another, the thing that matters is that they did. In this harsh world, you will need to choose the “lesser of two evils” all the time, and in the case of WW2 it’s patently obvious which side is the lesser of two evils. USSR was not only a more progressive and less awful country overall but also it was defending itself from an existential threat. Fighting on its side, even for the wrong reasons, is the right thing to do.
None of this applies to any other war the US was involved in post-WW2. I can understand that you can look at the string of genocide and war crimes and generally awful shit and apply the same lens to WW2, but it is just not the case then. US soldiers were fighting an opponent which was by all accounts about as awful as US itself, for the first and last time in history.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, and we did not have to choose a side. That same false choice is why the US has been involved in so many quagmires around the world over the last 80 years.