Originally Posted by doggin94it
Perhaps not, but it would have made coordination much more difficult and that war wasn't exactly the Texans v. the Dolphins; it was a close run thing. Under those circumstances, withholding condemnation until the war was over was the right move if, based on the analysis of the decision makers at the time, providing the information might have lessened the chance of victory.
If it was kept secret based on the belief that its disclosure would imperil the war effort, I would agree with you - and would defend that decision as well. That's not the justification that's ever been offered, as far as I know.
No, they weren't the same. Both were evil, but only Hitler was aggressively seeking to export his rule (at the time). There was no way to remove Hitler while also combating Stalin, and Hitler was the greater threat.
When the options are:
1) Defeat Hitler without condemning Stalin; or
2) Lose to Hitler while condemning Stalin
Condemning Stalin would actually be the immoral thing to do.
After Hitler was out of the equation, that's a whole different story.
You seem to have studies Ethics. I don't mean business ethics but philosophical ethics. Have not heard your line of reasoning in awhile. It is correct and I, of course, agree with you.
You also use logic. Admire that. Not many people your age understand logical reasoning and progression.