Many believe that World War Two was completely justified as a war for justice, yet considering Dresden, Hiroshima, the decision on not to bomb thr railways leading to concentration camps, it seems................
2007-03-18 10:28:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Victories do not get more complete than that. Germany and Japan were defeated. That things could have been done better is another matter, almost anything one does upon reflection could have been better or different. It is no different for governments, governments are ran by people and have the same weaknesses as people not everything they do is perfect.
War should not be confused with morality. There is nothing just about life, we simply try to perceive a fairness and apply that to principals of right and wrong.
War is people killing people. Hopefully when we go on the war path we go for a purpose worth the suffering and slaughter. But when viewing suffering and slaughter it is very hard to find the justice.
Veteran.
2007-03-18 11:35:10 · answer #1 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.
The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2007-03-18 12:23:51 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it truly is actual in case you in simple terms seem on the completed killed, about 11 million vs. 66 million. even if, what in case you imagine of it as a share of the inhabitants? Germany lost 8 million, of seventy 9 million people; or over 10%. Its uncertain that any Allied united states - except Russia, which lost 25 million of two hundred million people, or about 13% - ought to have lost as tremendous a share of people. Then, what in case you regarded on the completed inhabitants of Allies and Axis? The Allies blanketed the biggest international locations in the international, in words of inhabitants: China, India (as area of the Commonwealth), the Soviet Union, and the U. S.. those international locations, alongside with something of Europe that fought as Allies, ought to nicely have had 6 circumstances the inhabitants of Germany and Japan.
2016-11-26 21:05:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because the agreements in yalta where not made
all countries in europe should have free and democratic institutions but stalin did not kept his promise.
he communized eastern europe and the eastern part of germany and the soviets became hostile to the americans and other western nations and the cold war started
2007-03-18 21:53:27 · answer #4 · answered by The Glove 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it was nto but not for the reasons you cite, becuz of the potsdam and malta confreneces we succumbed to the soviets and divided europe and put many people under a tyranny as bad as hitlers for 50 years, Hitlers reich was only 12 years, so which was worse, FDR was the WORST president america has ever had, peopel that claim Bush is dont know anything abotu history and choose to discrd teh facts. stalin killed more then hitler did, and we facilitated it. we are now reaping the "benefits" of FDRs decisions
2007-03-18 11:04:53 · answer #5 · answered by cav 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I cannot see how it could not be called a complete victory for the allies. Unconditional surrender says it all.
2007-03-18 11:04:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it was a complete victory. You're talking about morality, which is something different.
Edit: cav is an idiot.
2007-03-18 10:37:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it was.
2007-03-18 10:40:03 · answer #8 · answered by Judas Rabbi 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋