[FreedomCalls]

While I agree that communism in East Germany wasn't "just as bad" within the scope of East Germany (ie, vs Nazism in Eastern Germany), when the larger picture is looked at, and Nazism and Soviet Communism are compared, I think it is very reasonable to say that they were approximately equal on the evilometer. Stalin exterminated large parts of eastern Europe by starvation as a means of maintaining control.

I agree, but given the choice between a post-war communist East Europe or a post-war Nazi East Europe (and that was the only choice we had), I think most people (Churchill and Roosevelt certainly) would go with a post-war communist-dominated east. Patton alone was probably the sole dissenter to that decision in any position of power.

[95Tarheel]

Patton and Churchill were pretty prescient with regards to the peaceful intentions of papa Joe and the Soviets.

I know there was unhappiness with where the lines were drawn in Europe (especially among the generals), but I don't think there was ever any serious consideration to allowing German Nazism or any form of nazism/fascism to be in control in east europe. Even if there was a plan to support a "buffer of Nazism", the Soviets wouldn't have allowed it.

So I don't think there was really a choice for East Europe post-war, except in where the line was drawn, and then later in a strategy for facing communism, the Soviets, and their satellite gov'ns.

[inquest]

I agree, but given the choice between a post-war communist East Europe or a post-war Nazi East Europe (and that was the only choice we had)

Nonsense. Nazism was to be defeated regardless - that much was settled. What do you think all that haggling with Stalin at Potsdam, Yalta, and Tehran was all about? Do you think they were talking about whether to allow the Nazis to keep some territory? Of course not, it was about which parts of Europe would become free, and which would become Communist.