No better than them

[InsaneApache]

Revisionist poppycock.

The Third Reich started the war and lost. When you lose a war that you started and given the atrocities the nazis propagated they were lucky they got off lightly.

The war may not have started out as a 'just' war but it certainly ended as one.

I had a conversation with my dad recently, whos brother one one of the first British soldiers into Belsen. He came back a different man after what he had seen. There was a feeling after the war that Germany should be dismantled and turned into a meadow for sheep and cows. Understandable after what had transpired.

To equate the war as shades of grey is absurd. It was a straight choice. Democracy or tyranny. At least in the west.

It's interesting to watch the younger generation decry the behaviour of the allies after the war. It's shameful IMHO.

[Slyspy]

I think it is better to look at the different styles of occupation than the various methods of war-making.

[KukriKhan]

Two things:

1. I want to commend the posters for carrying on this difficult conversation without the usual "OMG Outrage!" level we often see. That has made for a much more readable topic, and one that provides food-for-thought to all 'sides'. Bravo, and please continue.

2. One thing on which we can all agree, after reading through this thread: war is bad, atrocities are bad, killing is bad; no 'side' has ever come out 100% clean through a war. And the only ones left to argue any level of clean-ness are those us still alive. The dead, unfairly, have no voice.

[Strike For The South]

I find it amusing that some people are willing to overlook history, certain land sin what are Poland had been Germanic in culture for hundreds and hundreds of years, as is already said most of whom were not conquering warriors.

The expulsion was the final solution of the Eastern European governments, who had resented these poeple for wel over fifty years for being different. It was quite simply racism of, that some of you are willing to accept this illustrates for me, at least, a fundamental lack of humanity.

It was Western backed mass murder and ethnic cleansing, nothing can or should justify that, I am shocked that some on these boards who profess to be Christians take no issue with that.

You start a war you need to finish. I have said in this thread that it wasnt right what the eastern goverments did but Im not going to be up in arms about it. War sucks we know that and it especially sucks if you are on the losing side. So feign your shock all you want but Im glad it was the Czechs doing this to the Germans in 45 rather than the other way around.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The nazis could've ended Allied violence against them at any given moment. Surrender, and *poof* the allied violence stops and aid replaces bombs. It was that simple.

The nazis chose to fight on. They are responsible. The nazis chose to bled Germany dry rather than give up power. All who uphold humanitarian vaues ought to decry the fate that befell Germany. But responsibility over the loss of German lives should be aimed at the nazis.

This in stark contrast to the way the nazis treated the nations they overthrew. This was when their killing really started. There is no moral equivalence. In fact, this is a grave insult to the allies.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

On to the less friendly part. Sorry, Kukri, you are too late. I have other vows to uphold.

I have always expressed my admiration for the allied soldiers that lay buried in Normandy, and will always stand up for their honour - British, American, Canadian or otherwise.

You are gravely insulting them, Panzer, by putting them on the same moral level as the nazis, these mortal enemies of America. These murderers which the Americans so bravely fought, for which many American servicemen paid the ultimate price.

If you come here and dare insult fallen Americans like you do here, you will find in me a bitter enemy. I do not tolerate their graves desecrated, I do not tolerate their sacrifice mocked and spit upon.

No Panzer, America's fallen did not die in an attempt to show off. They died fighting for America, they died fighting for freedom. They died, and this is their eternal honour, for the freedom of another people.

Shame on you.

[Ser Clegane]

America's fallen did not die in an attempt to show off. They died fighting for America, they died fighting for freedom. They died, and this is their eternal honour, for the freedom of another people.

And in addition it should be noted that, after the war, they also received the German population with open arms to join the civilised world again*.
On a larger level there might be the argument that even that was politically motivated to keep the Western part of Germany as a buffer to the Communist countries in the East - however, the countless experiences that German citizens had with American soldiers after the war clearly show that the amazingly friendly and helpful attitude of the American G.I.'s was genuine.


* While not as completely forgiving as the Americans it should be noted that also the other Allies (even Russia) treated the German population in Germany very decently after the war considering what they had to endure at the hands of the Germans during the war.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sarmatian belongs to a “race” which was “genocide”. Read about Jasenovac and Stari Gradica…

I understand that and am trying to keep my comments respectful and on topic. Despite SwedishFish's implications, I hold no judgments about Slavic peoples. I have always found Sarmation to be an intelligent and informed poster, and I enjoy his comments.

“Everything I've posted is simply fact”: Interpretation of facts, in a very well known path by all the “deniers”. All what you are actually writing was said by Le Pen in France: detail of History (well footnote for you), victims are only estimation, the Allies were guilty as well and comparing an aggressive state to all others.
I know you don’t care, but can I remind you that the USA were attacked by Japan and Germany?

By comparing me to certain unsavory people instead of arguing my points, you simply acknowledge their validity. The allies proved themselves to be just as morally bankrupt as the Germans. That is my point. Insulting me is not a counterpoint.

About communist, they killed more nazi than every body else. In fact, the communist lands were the graves of Nazis. Millions of them. Each time my communist grand father blow-up a nazi train he killed some.

Is that supposed to make me angry? Come on, bud, you can do better. How about mentioning the slaughter of German POWs during the Normandy Campaign, or describing the manner in which partisans tortured their captives. That would be slightly more appealing bait, although it would show just how low Allied could, and did, sink.

Ok, let's put thing into historical context.

Soviet Union: military deaths - 10,700,000; civilian deaths - 11,400,000
Poland: military deaths - 240,000; civilian deaths - 2,360,000
Yugoslavia; military deaths - 446,000; civilian deaths - 514,000
Nazi Germany: military deaths - 5,533,000; civilian deaths - 1,600,000

So, all three countries that were the victims of Nazi aggression had more civilians then soldiers killed, the most extreme example being Poland who lost 10 time more civilians then soldiers. On the other hand, Nazi Germany lost almost 4 times as many soldiers as civilians.

So, bring down the allies, no problem with that. Just stop when you get to 4%.

I would have to see your source for that graph to respond in detail, but off the top of my head I can only assume that the majority of those Allied civilian casualties come from Russia and China, where displacement caused massive death tolls. Now an argument can be made that the Germans (and Japanese) had an obligation to feed and care for the civilians that came under their control, but that is a much different situation than directly killing them. I think that if you compared the number of allied civilians killed directly by axis bayonets, bullets, or bombs - that graphic would be far less disproportionate.

As for the lopsided ratio of military casualties - I would never argue that the German military was anything less than devastatingly effective.

I do understand that the chance for us to come to an agreement is very slim, so let me just say this before I quit. There are two main reasons why I disagree with you:

1. Cause and consequence - Nazi ideology was the cause of all those Allied deaths and all those German deaths were consequence of Allies fighting back.

2. Scale - the graph illustrates it better then words ever could...

Well, I would agree with your earlier statement about shades of gray. If we limit that to the Nazi and Western Allied leadership, I'm definitely willing to accept that the Nazis were of a much darker shade. (Although, as information comes to light about what FDR really knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and when he knew it, his tint suddenly gets very much darker.)

As to your points:

1. One wrong does not justify another. Bombing German and Japanese cities was far from a necessity, it was a choice. Worse, the choice was made for reasons of terror and show. IMHO, that's hardly better conduct than was demonstrated by the Nazis.

2. My above comments address this one...

[PanzerJaeger]

On to the less friendly part. Sorry, Kukri, you are too late. I have other vows to uphold.

I have always expressed my admiration for the allied soldiers that lay buried in Normandy, and will always stand up for their honour - British, American, Canadian or otherwise.

You are gravely insulting them, Panzer, by putting them on the same moral level as the nazis, these mortal enemies of America. These murderers which the Americans so bravely fought, for which many American servicemen paid the ultimate price.

If you come here and dare insult fallen Americans like you do here, you will find in me a bitter enemy. I do not tolerate their graves desecrated, I do not tolerate their sacrifice mocked and spit upon.

No Panzer, America's fallen did not die in an attempt to show off. They died fighting for America, they died fighting for freedom. They died, and this is their eternal honour, for the freedom of another people.

Shame on you.

I am sorry you feel that way Louis, and I understand where you are coming from. As I said in the beginning, there were a great many honorable Allied soldiers - and I respect them.

However, I am not willing to simply ignore the great many German soldiers who too fought for country, family, and their fellow soldiers. I am not going to sugarcoat history in order to paint the conflict in the black and white Hollywood terms of good and evil.

There were sad and horrendous atrocities committed by the Germans, both on the individual and state sanctioned levels. The exact same can be said of the Allies.

If you take the mere mentioning of the facts I've brought up in this thread as insulting to yourself or the memory of honorable Allied soldiers, your problem lies not with me, but with the historical record.

[PanzerJaeger]

And in addition it should be noted that, after the war, they also received the German population with open arms to join the civilised world again*.
On a larger level there might be the argument that even that was politically motivated to keep the Western part of Germany as a buffer to the Communist countries in the East - however, the countless experiences that German citizens had with American soldiers after the war clearly show that the amazingly friendly and helpful attitude of the American G.I.'s was genuine.


* While not as completely forgiving as the Americans it should be noted that also the other Allies (even Russia) treated the German population in Germany very decently after the war considering what they had to endure at the hands of the Germans during the war.

Of course both sides ingratiated themselves to the Germans. It's hardly surprising considering that they both needed them during the Cold War. Also, I know of many hundreds of thousands of German soldiers who would disagree with your caveat, had they survived the gulags.

[Fragony]

I am sorry you feel that way Louis, and I understand where you are coming from. As I said in the beginning, there were a great many honorable Allied soldiers - and I respect them.

However, I am not willing to simply ignore the great many German soldiers who too fought for country, family, and their fellow soldiers. I am not going to sugarcoat history in order to paint the conflict in the black and white Hollywood terms of good and evil.

There were sad and horrendous atrocities committed by the Germans, both on the individual and state sanctioned levels. The exact same can be said of the Allies.

If you take the mere mentioning of the facts I've brought up in this thread as insulting to yourself or the memory of honorable Allied soldiers, your problem lies not with me, but with the historical record.

Nothing but fair, and that should be pretty obvious if you ask me, holocaust and ww2 should be seen as seperate events, world war 2 was inevitable.

[Koga No Goshi]

Nothing but fair, and that should be pretty obvious if you ask me, holocaust and ww2 should be seen as seperate events, world war 2 was inevitable.

But, they weren't separate. I mean, I can just arbitrarily say "well the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be treated as separate from WWII, because really it had nothing to do with ending the war with Japan, it was more about showing Russia and kickstarting the Cold War."

And then voila, the Allies killed a lot fewer civilians in WWII. That would be revisionist though, wouldn't it? The nuking of two Japanese cities had nothing whatsoever to do with the war against Germany, yet Panzer invokes it in a comparison of the Allies and the Germans. You can't have it both ways.

[Fragony]

But, they weren't separate.

World war 2 is really World war 1,5. Was bound to happen. The way the german army fought in world war 2 was progressive warfare at it's finest with maximum concern for civilians. The evil wasn't in the army, dear Adolf tended to get a little frustrated by the unwillingness to fight a total war.

[Ser Clegane]

Of course both sides ingratiated themselves to the Germans. It's hardly surprising considering that they both needed them during the Cold War.

As I said - this might be true from a high level political perspective - it certainly was not the motivation that drove the individual soldiers. US soldiers certainly treated German citizens much better than German soldiers treated the population in Poland or Russia.

Also, I know of many hundreds of thousands of German soldiers who would disagree with your caveat, had they survived the gulags.

Yes - hundreds of thousands of German soldiers died as POWs of the Soviet Union.
Soldiers of a country that absolutely devastated the Soviet Union killing millions of civilians. Soldiers of a country that let millions of Soviet POWs die in their camps.

A million dead POWs is a terrible number, and behind each of them there is an individual fate with a grieving family (my grandfather also died in Russia) - considering what Germany did during the war to the later victors, it still seems that Germany was pretty well off after the war - even under Soviet occupation (much much more so under the Western Allies).

Comparing the unprovoked systematic murder of millions of civilians with the death of one third of the German POWs in the SU after a war that destroyed the country is indeed shameful.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let's look at this another way.

Look at Germany today. And the status of the German people.

Would that be a good representation of the enemies of the Reich if Hitler had won the war?

Very simple question, IMHO.

The question you have to ask yourself is:

Does saying "look what would've happened if" absolve the Allies of guilt?

Not at all. It has been stated in this thread that one atrocity does not justify another. If you believe that deportation of German civilians after the war, mass rapes in Berlin when Nazi Germany was practically finished, and so on and so forth helped to win the war, if your logic is that horrifically twisted, then fine. But none of these crimes helped win the war for the Allies, so the "what would've happened if" excuse is entirely null and void.

In the end, the whole "well, they deserved it after what they did to _____" excuse is complete and utter tripe. Was the child in Dresden guilty of war crimes in Russia? Was the raped woman in Berlin guilty of the bombing of Coventry? No. Punishing someone for something they are not guilty of is unjust.

Yes, the Western Allies at least killed a lot fewer civilians when compared to Nazi Germany. But there is something that one side in this argument does not understand:

That. Doesn't. Matter. Saying that the Allies committed crimes doesn't somehow detract from the fact Nazi Germany did as well. So, in short, bite the bullet and acknowledge that. Acknowledge history.

Revisionist poppycock.

Revisionism is not something that is universally bad, though it seems to have garnered that connotation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...al_revisionism

The Third Reich started the war and lost. When you lose a war that you started and given the atrocities the nazis propagated they were lucky they got off lightly.

Some people in this thread need to make the distinction between people who were guilty and people who were not guilty. Saying that all Germans are somehow Nazis or guilty is not revisionist, but it is certainly poppycock.

It's interesting to watch the younger generation decry the behaviour of the allies after the war. It's shameful IMHO.

So it is wrong to point out that someone committed an injustice? Here's an analogy for you:

Someone kills a murderer who is in the process of killing more people. They are right and just to kill that murderer. But is it also right to kill the murderer's parents, who started the murderer off by conceiving him? I think not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am sorry you feel that way Louis, and I understand where you are coming from. As I said in the beginning, there were a great many honorable Allied soldiers - and I respect them.

However, I am not willing to simply ignore the great many German soldiers who too fought for country, family, and their fellow soldiers. I am not going to sugarcoat history in order to paint the conflict in the black and white Hollywood terms of good and evil.

There were sad and horrendous atrocities committed by the Germans, both on the individual and state sanctioned levels. The exact same can be said of the Allies.

Not good enough.


I'll continue to put the ball in your court. You say: 'the allies were no better than the axis on moral terms'
This I take as an intolerable insult to the Americans who lay buried in our soil. Who's sacrifice I hold in the highest esteem.


America's fallen are the moral equivalent of nazis, or are they not. Which is it Panzer? A simple yes or no will suffice. Either they are, or they are not.

[InsaneApache]

Talk about dancing on the head of a pin.

As a member of the only allied nation left to fight the nazis after 1940, I certainly don't feel any guilt associated with the treatment of the Germans during and just after the war.

The nazis were like a big playground bully, throwing their weight around. Even after beating some of his victims to the floor they didn't stop kicking his head in.

Cue two more lads enter the playground. They take the bully to task and stop him kicking in the heads of the subjegated ones.

Then they mete out some of the same to the nazi bully, only with this caveat. When he's beaten to the ground they stop kicking. Then when the bully says he's sorry and won't do it again, they give him a hand up, dust him down, take him for a slap up meal and buy him a house.

That's the difference. Intent is all.

[Strike For The South]

Yup I highly doubt The Germans would've have been as altruistic as we were to them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I had considered a lengthy post on the notions of Good, Evil, and morality.

IA, however, has a shorter version which, through analogy, encompasses most of what I intended to say. Well done IA.

Panzer:

You are not the first wargamer to become enamored of things German. The mental project in which you are engaged, however, is fruitless. Do not discard notions of "right" and "wrong" to replace them with total relavism -- that path ends poorly.

Good luck, and goodbye.

[Fragony]

Not good enough.


I'll continue to put the ball in your court. You say: 'the allies were no better than the axis on moral terms'
This I take as an intolerable insult to the Americans who lay buried in our soil. Who's sacrifice I hold in the highest esteem.


America's fallen are the moral equivalent of nazis, or are they not. Which is it Panzer? A simple yes or no will suffice. Either they are, or they are not.

Why deny the germans a human side of all this. It's their tragedy as well.

[Strike For The South]

......

[Brenus]

“Is that supposed to make me angry?” No. It was just a reminder of the fact: The Nazi lost against the Communists which were as well Slavs. Communist and Nazi were in fact mortal enemies and for this instance, the Communists won.


“It would show just how low Allied could, and did, sink.” Some individual, Pz, some individuals. Lt Calley is a disgrace for the US Army but not all the US Army. There are no special units in the Allies camp designed to killed officers and SS after the battle like the Einsatzgruppen. There is no equivalent to the directive issued by the OKW about killing Commissars and Jews in the Allies side.
And yes, to deport and take all the Japanese origin US citizens in camps and to take their properties is wrong. But nothing compared to what happened to the Jews in Budapest, Novi Sad, and Rotterdam or in the unknown villages in deep Russia.

I do understand the fear and the pain of the innocents Croats forced to flee in front of the Russian Army, but what did during the Ustasa Regime? The German Refugees running for the Red Army, drown in a night of terror in the sinking of their boat have my sympathy. But as said by Louis, all the responsibility of their faith lies on their leaders, civilians and Generals, from the SS and Army, Navy, Air Forces, by the choice they made in conducting the battle.

“Insulting me is not a counterpoint.”
I didn’t. As you, I am stating factual points.
I was just pointing out that what you are writing is actually used by all the holocaust deniers, and it is a well known tactic. First you start to question the figures (well, like if to exterminate “only” 4 millions would be more acceptable), then when you start to accept that the total numbers of victims are unknown, they start to question the genocide itself.
Then in a second stage, they put Dresden and the savagery of the Red Army in Eastern Prussia on the table and then state there are no differences. I was in Lyon III university where one this denier teaches. And they end in saying, as you do, Allies=Nazi. No. Fascism isn’t Nazism. Cetniks aren’t not Ustase.
However French Milice IS Nazi.
The systematic operation of gathering people, then to carry them to kill them in a remote area is not comparable with even useless bombing campaign terror. Tactic initiated by the Germans, as said before.
I even can tell you: I have some (some) sympathy for the young 16 years old French boy joining the 33 SS division Charlemagne and fighting against the Russian in Berlin (alongside the Flemish and Belgium SS), when all the German so-called brothers in arms have deserted. Wrong choice made bad parental influence and Catholic education, so there you go to fight against Bolshevism. The Hero of France, the Savour, Pétain did agree with this…
But as he wrote later, it was a mistake. He did say, and I believe him, he didn’t know about the Camps. And he was ashamed of this. He was deeply ashamed to have supported this.

“which partisans tortured their captives” Well, again, comparing with the Gestapo, they were pure amateurs… Not I defend torture but put this in perspective: How many in each side?

“One wrong does not justify another. Bombing German and Japanese cities was far from a necessity, it was a choice. Worse, the choice was made for reasons of terror and show.”
I agree. However you evacuate the very specificity of the Nazi terror in waging war: Reprisals and Extermination (in camps or on the fields).
2000 civilians to be killed for one soldier killed, 500 for one injured. Civilians...
They did a little in village. Missed my grand-father mind you, but still raped (oh yes, the Germans did that as well) burned few houses and killed few dozen of villagers (population of the village 500). So, after things like that, you can’t really expect too much for people who experimented this on a rather bigger scale like the Russians.
I can’t even imagine what I would do if somebody would hurt my Grand Daughter… So I can only guess the feeling and the desire for revenge of the Russian Soldiers from Minsk, Kharkov, and Leningrad when arriving in Germany…
And for the Russian, the Germans were the Evils. Not imaginary one like the Jews for the anti-Semitic one, no, the ones who really came to hang their fathers, rape and killed their daughter, mothers and sister, and wanted them to be slaves…
Doesn’t make it right, but we are far from a cold and planned extermination campaign based on murders, slaughters, pillage and terror.

[Hooahguy]

are we comparing the allies to the nazis?
wow.....

what a no-brainer.

[PanzerJaeger]

As I said - this might be true from a high level political perspective - it certainly was not the motivation that drove the individual soldiers. US soldiers certainly treated German citizens much better than German soldiers treated the population in Poland or Russia.

In general yes, but on an individual basis that is debatable. Of course, the conduct of the war in the West was completely different than that of the East, and the Allies were not facing a vicious partisan insurgency.

Comparing the unprovoked systematic murder of millions of civilians with the death of one third of the German POWs in the SU after a war that destroyed the country is indeed shameful.

If you don't think the German POW deaths were systematic, I've got news for you. I see nothing wrong with comparing one orchestrated mass murder with another.

Not good enough.


I'll continue to put the ball in your court. You say: 'the allies were no better than the axis on moral terms'
This I take as an intolerable insult to the Americans who lay buried in our soil. Who's sacrifice I hold in the highest esteem.


America's fallen are the moral equivalent of nazis, or are they not. Which is it Panzer? A simple yes or no will suffice. Either they are, or they are not.

Some were, and some were not. That is the peril of the broad brush mentality that you've adopted.

In comparing John McCaffrey to Michael Wittmann, or Arthur Harris to Irwin Rommel, I would say both Nazis were morally superior. The same comparisons could be made many million times over - as you cannot place that many people in neatly marked "good" and "evil" boxes.

Talk about dancing on the head of a pin.

As a member of the only allied nation left to fight the nazis after 1940, I certainly don't feel any guilt associated with the treatment of the Germans during and just after the war.

The nazis were like a big playground bully, throwing their weight around. Even after beating some of his victims to the floor they didn't stop kicking his head in.

Cue two more lads enter the playground. They take the bully to task and stop him kicking in the heads of the subjegated ones.

Then they mete out some of the same to the nazi bully, only with this caveat. When he's beaten to the ground they stop kicking. Then when the bully says he's sorry and won't do it again, they give him a hand up, dust him down, take him for a slap up meal and buy him a house.

That's the difference. Intent is all.

So all are bullies, only one of the bigger bullies is slightly nicer to the one he just beat down because his fellow bully just turned enemy. Sounds about right to me.

Panzer:

You are not the first wargamer to become enamored of things German. The mental project in which you are engaged, however, is fruitless. Do not discard notions of "right" and "wrong" to replace them with total relavism -- that path ends poorly.

Good luck, and goodbye.

As opposed to many here who seem enamored with the Hollywood version of WW2, I am only interested in historical realities. Good luck to you, as well.

[Koga No Goshi]

The question you have to ask yourself is:

Does saying "look what would've happened if" absolve the Allies of guilt?

No one absolved the Allies of guilt. That misrepresentation of the discussion has been repeated over and over again. This thread didn't start with a bunch of people arguing "the Allies were better." This thread started out with people jumping on the bandwagon that "the Allies were just as bad and immoral." Two completely separate things from claiming the allies were "blameless" or "guiltless."

Since the whole rest of your post was predicated upon a false misinterpretation of what we've been saying, it doesn't need addressing.

[HoreTore]

“The nazi's just put the theory to the test on a much larger scale” JUST? And I think THAT is the difference. THEY put the THEORY in PRACTICE. I don’t care if you hate French, I will start to care if you start to exterminate.

We agree on that.

[Sarmatian]

1. One wrong does not justify another. Bombing German and Japanese cities was far from a necessity, it was a choice. Worse, the choice was made for reasons of terror and show. IMHO, that's hardly better conduct than was demonstrated by the Nazis.

2. My above comments address this one...

1. It doesn't, you're right. But there is a huge difference between revenge taken in hot blood that stopped when the momentum was lost and planned, systematic killing on an industrial scale... That's something that you should come to terms with...

2. That's from wikipedia, it was the easiest one to show on short notice. You pick a source, they won't differ that much...

[Ser Clegane]

I the conduct of the war in the West was completely different than that of the East, and the Allies were not facing a vicious partisan insurgency.

What kind of argument is that supposed to be?
You are seriously using the partisan insurgency as an excuse?

If you don't think the German POW deaths were systematic, I've got news for you. I see nothing wrong with comparing one orchestrated mass murder with another.

Classical
You are putting words in my mouth while completely ignoring the actual statement.
Well done...

[Tribesman]

what a no-brainer.

I don't think you are allowed to call panzer that , its against the rules

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No one absolved the Allies of guilt.

Then why, pray tell, are we getting posts that state that "the Germans had what was coming to them" (Post #27)?

[Koga No Goshi]

Then why, pray tell, are we getting posts that state that "the Germans had what was coming to them" (Post #27)?

Because people feel that while destruction was sometimes wanton on both sides, and neither side was innocent of any wrongdoing, the Allies--- despite much more direct cause to have done so than Germany had when it came to the Jews or other "enemies" of the German State, didn't set up camps for the industrialized mass destruction of the German people. Nor did the Allies carry out such a thing on the Japanese, or any other group during the war.

Kicking someone out for being x ethnicity = not a moral thing to do

But in the greater context of the war? To point out that this happened and then insist that the countries doing so made the anti-Nazi war effort every bit as immoral as Auschwitz or the final solution is offensive to many, and, I believe, logically unsupportable.