I don't see how you can feel that strongly about it.

I mean there's soooo much that would go into this argument, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, I would definitely never go as far as saying "fuck anyone who believes X side of this argument".

UN/NATO is a pretty good starting point. Purely playing the numbers game, how many lives have we saved just from the number of wars prevented from those organizations? They might have come eventually, but later. And at what cost to human life?

Then let's just talk medicine. We've advanced in both technology from the war, and scientific (horrific) experiments done by the nazis to advance our basic knowledge of human biology and medicine.

If we're 20 years ahead technologically speaking because of that war, because of what Hitler did - how many lives are we talking? How many sick people are saved every year by medicine we wouldn't have access to?

If you add up everything that we've advanced to as a direct result of that war, including the nuclear bomb as a deterrent of major global war... I mean, I won't even pretend to have a guess at the number. But millions? Tens of millions?

I'm willing to bet that if we're talking numbers of life, and if you could somehow measure quality of life now VS the theoretical quality of life (including how many peple haven't died as a result of that war) without the war ever happening - we're in a MUCH better place as a result of the war.

Your comment strikes me as purely reactionary. Like you haven't been willing to even CONSIDER the truth, however harsh, of such a statement. I don't condone what Hitler did even remotely, but I'm pretty sure "Hitler made the world a better place" - however fucked up - is a factually accurate statement.