Topic: US History (the good war aka ww2)?

Question

World war 2 is often referred to as "the good war" evaluate that title for the war as it was fought abroad andand at home. Is it appropriate? why or why not?

Answer 1

While it would be impossible to describe any war as "good", World War II was more morally clear-cut that most conflicts over the last century.
Hitler was waging a campaign of genocidal agression across Europe that clearly needed to be stopped. Likewise, Japan was waging a war of agression across the Pacific.

It was a clear case of resisting people with evil ambitions that ended definitively when they were defeated. From that standpoint, one can argue it was "good." Certainly better than the morally ambiguous conflicts the US has been involved in since the 1960s.

Answer 2

I would say not. I think 'Good Wars' are granted that title after there's been a victory. On the surface, WW 2 is seen as a good war because we were united against an evil enemy. But there are some problems with that. First, we weren't so united until it was almost too late. There was a strong peace movement in this country and in Britain that didn't want to repeat the "mistakes" of the First World War. Our entry in WW 2 only came after we were attacked. My point: we were very, very tardy getting into that war. And I'll go further: not only do I have a problem with calling WW 2 a 'good war' (was the Civil War any less moral?) but I don't even like calling World War 2, World War 2. In a hundred years, i don't think people will talk about those wars by those numbers. They will be lumped together as The German Wars, or The Eurpoean Wars or something. There are too many similarites between the war that erupted in 1914 and the one that began in 1939.

Answer 3

if you have to say is war generally good or bad, then of course it's not good, but then again, the US didn't start the war in Europe, or in the Pacific. In the case of the Pacific conflict, Japan attacked America, of course not expecting the US to fight back. In the case of Europe, the US was supporting the allied demoracies and Soviet Russia initially with war materials (Lend Lease) then fought Germany following Hitlers declaration of War in December 1941.

Would we have a better world if the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese in Asia had dominated?

I personally think that on balance, confronted with such a choice, America took the stronger and more moral choice.

As for how it was forght, well, the US did firebomb cities all over Germany (same as the UK) and Japan but then again, the Germans firebombed civilian centers in the UK and in Eastern Europe...

Yes, the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, but so was the firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 civilians in one night... and the same for Dresden, Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg...and from the other sisde, so was the Holocaust, so was the rape of Nanking in China that killed 350,000 civilians in 3 days during the 1930's

For me, the US and her allies did what had to be done to win the war... and the war had to be fought.

After all, if you consider the alternative, letting Germany dominate Europe, and the Togo government dominate Asia, then I'd choose our history any day.

BTW, I'm English, living in Luxembourg, and the earliest memory of my colleagues mother (sitting opposite me) was being carried out of a burning village in the Ardennes in Dec 1945 by an American G.I.

Hope that helps

Answer 4

It was a war that most people approved of as it was waged against aggressive and often genocidal dictatorships. To the Allies it was clear who the bad guys were, and that there was only the choice between fighting or submitting. Later wars have not been so morally clear cut. In context it is appropriate as it was largely defensive. Many later wars were relatively optional.

Answer 5

Good because Hollywood backed it! Most of the Hollywood crowd were Jews and/or communists. Had the US lost and the Nazis prevailed then quite a few actors, actresses, producers and directors would have vanished up the chimney. So they had a personal stake in seeing the US enter the war and win!

Answer 6

there is no such thing as a good war. WW2 saw some of the same atrocities that we see today. Gas Camps, Murder, Mutilation, Mustard Gas.

Answer 7

it is not commonplace, this is properly documented. it is likewise regarded for the worldwide effect and great human sacrifices, uncomparable to something interior the history of mankind.

Answer 8

I don't see any good at it. But without it, some things would be still the same! Like how would it be with the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany still existing! (Please, I do not want to offend, but it's how I see it.)