In Defense of WWII: Part 5 of 5

Firm but Fair, very funny.

Slobodan Miloshevich was national socialist?

Yes, fascist scum and a friend of Saddam, but they're both dead now I am glad to say.

Sadaam was more like Stalin not like Hitler.

I disagree. He had the insanity that Hitler had, and was far less rational than Stalin. Saddam had more in common with Hitler than most people think.

Hitler had greater loyalty that Saadam did not have. Stalin ruled with fear alone just like Saadam

Hitler had loyalty??

Need I say 'Barbarossa'?

It's possible they had personality traits in common (and unsurprisingly, the Baath party actually had its roots a group of Nazi allies during WWII), but Saddam didn't REMOTELY have the power Hitler weilded. Saddam was a neutered psychopath, Hitler had an awesome war machine.

Would Hussein have killed and murdered in numbers like Stalin and Hitler if he could? I'm glad that was never close to being answered.

Peter Robinson did a responsible job. The discussion would have been infinitely better served by the two actual authors getting to speak. They kind of glossed over 100 million deaths due to the appeasement of Stalin, and the abysmal statesmanship of Churchill as far back as W.W.I.

I would argue with the assessment that Stalin was "appeased." That implies that there was something else that could have been done.

There was no will to continue fighting after Japan and Germany fell nor was there reason to believe that the allied forces could really defeat Stalin. Remember, we spent our 2 nukes and Stalin had a massive army ready to take Germany. As bad as the USSR was they could have taken even more territory in a conflict.

That truce was the best of the bad options.