English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The public imagination, WWII was known as the "Good War". Is this accurate? Why, why not?

2007-05-11 07:13:16 · 10 answers · asked by julie 2 in Arts & Humanities History

10 answers

It could be seen as a justifiable war,as it prevented Nazi Germany and Japan from dominating the world. Other wars have been fought for much more obscure reasons.

2007-05-11 07:27:28 · answer #1 · answered by Alion 7 · 0 0

No war is a "good war". However, WW2 can be seen as having been a "just war" in that it was fought by the Allies to combat aggression and injustice. Read up on theories of the just war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

For many, including my own parents, WW2 was a "good war" in the sense that they were better off materially than before the war. For the first time ever my father had three square meals a day, decent clothes and access to health care.

Spiritually people were united in a common purpose, and socially they seem to have had the time of their life's as social constraints and class barriers were lessened and weakened during the war.

2007-05-11 10:29:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't think I have ever heard WWII described as the "Good War" nor do I believe that wars are good. However, if ever there was a war that I would consider to be necessary, then it would be WWII.

The reason it might be referred to as the "Good War" by people is that it is one of the few wars in which their is a definite deliniation between good (the Allies) and evil (the Axis), at least from the standpoint of those who supported the Allies. Hitler was a madman who was trying to create his own Fortress Europe and eradicate those whom he felt inferior. Hirohito, while not mad, was considered equally devious in his attempt to conquer the Pacific Ocean and Asia.

2007-05-11 07:34:18 · answer #3 · answered by OldSage 3 · 1 0

No war is good. But it had popular support, uniting the country against enemies that were out to, and had the capacity to, do us great harm. There was not much question that we were in a fight for our lives. There was not too much moral hand wringing about whether the war was necessary.

Add to that the eventual outcome. We emerged the greatest nation on Earth and made staunch allies of the enemies we fought.

2007-05-11 07:29:07 · answer #4 · answered by jehen 7 · 0 0

The reason we view it as the "Good War" is we had a valid, noble cause; the defeat of Nazi Germany, and the Empire of Japan. Both of our enemies had demonstrated a lack of regard for their fellow man, they had to be stopped.

In general it's an accurate sentiment. But even a good war is still war.

2007-05-11 13:45:04 · answer #5 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0 0

It feels like your talking a pair of merely conflict the place there are a number of regulations to stay with to be sure that the conflict to be seen merely or Unjust. those are: A merely conflict can merely be waged as a final motel. All non-violent ideas ought to have been seen and deemed ineffective. A conflict is merely on condition that it quite is waged by making use of a valid authority. for this reason orders must be from a central authority or regardless of that united states of america is ruled by making use of. A merely conflict can merely be fought to redress a incorrect suffered. further, a merely conflict can merely be fought with "top" intentions: the only permissible purpose of a merely conflict is to redress the harm. A conflict can merely be merely regardless of if it quite is fought with a life like probability of success. Deaths and harm incurred in a hopeless reason at the instant are not morally justifiable. the final purpose of a merely conflict is to re-set up peace. extra especially, the peace universal after the conflict must be best to the peace that would have prevailed if the conflict had not been fought. The violence used interior the conflict must be proportional to the harm suffered. States are prohibited from making use of stress not mandatory to realize the constrained purpose of addressing the harm suffered. The weapons utilized in conflict ought to discriminate between fighters and non-fighters. Civilians are by no skill permissible objectives of conflict, and each attempt must be taken to ward off killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified on condition that they are unavoidable sufferers of a planned attack on a armed forces purpose.

2017-01-09 15:58:13 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Wars are only "good" relative to what they stop or prevent. Stopping the genocide of millions and the enslavement of millions more seems like a good reason to fight.

2007-05-11 10:14:08 · answer #7 · answered by kenai_sailor 3 · 0 0

It is probably being compared to world war 1 which was pure horror.

2007-05-11 07:18:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

"good" to the extent that we were united against world-wide evilness.

2007-05-11 16:18:53 · answer #9 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

it was? what on earth was good about it, if anything,

2007-05-11 07:16:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers