WWII- A good war or an evil war?

jonniebgood1

Yes, it was a good war," writes Richard Cohen in his column challenging the thesis of pacifist Nicholson Baker in his new book, Human Smoke, that World War II produced more evil than good.
........
Was World War II "a good war" for the Poles?

Was it a good war for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, overrun by Stalin's army in June 1940, whose people saw their leaders murdered or deported to the Gulag never to return? Was it a good war for the Finns who lost Karelia and thousands of brave men dead in the Winter War?

Was it a good war for Hungarians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Romanians and Albanians who ended up behind the Iron Curtain? In Hungary, it was hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the "liberators" of the Red Army. Was it a good war for the 13 million German civilians ethnically cleansed from Central Europe and the 2 million who died in the exodus?

Was it a good war for the French, who surrendered after six weeks of fighting in 1940 and had to be liberated by the Americans and British after four years of Vichy collaboration?

And how good a war was it for the British?

They went to war for Poland, but Winston Churchill abandoned Poland to Stalin. Defeated in Norway, France, Greece, Crete and the western desert, they endured until America came in and joined in the liberation of Western Europe.

http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12630

A recent book by Michael Burleigh:

“While I do not think any war has ever been good, the Second World War, which killed 55 million people, was a necessary war against at least one regime which, uniquely, modernised barbarism into an industrial process, and another that visited cruelty and savagery on the many peoples of East Asia, from the Chinese to indigenous tribes on remote Pacific islands.”

http://www.troymedia.com/2011/04/06/defining-good-and-evil-in-war/

the view is also expressed in simplistic terms as follows (I have taken this piece out of context):

World War II is often viewed as the last good war. In contrast to the wars that followed it — Korea and Vietnam, primarily World War II is said to have had a clear purpose: the smashing of Nazism and fascism and all the horrible things for which they stood. The description "last good war" also implies that the outcome, unlike those of later wars, was an unambiguous victory for America and its Allies — a victory for freedom and democracy. Korea remains divided. Vietnam was unified under Ho Chi Minh. But in World War II, good triumphed over evil. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan were completely defeated and then transformed into unthreatening democracies that then took their places among the world's peace-loving nations. And France and the rest of Western Europe were liberated from tyranny.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1191c.asp

There are of course many ways to look at this- What do people think of WWII in a broad sweep- Did the end justify the means? Or were all sides let down by lowering of morals on all sides?

Jelle1880

If any, it was a justified war.
What happened afterwards with the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviets nobody could predict.

I don't agree with the 'They abandoned Poland'.

The Soviets had rebuilt their entire war machine and were at full strength, nobody wanted a new war at that point.

jonniebgood1

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If any, it was a justified war.
What happened afterwards with the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviets nobody could predict.

I don't agree with the 'They abandoned Poland'.

The Soviets had rebuilt their entire war machine and were at full strength, nobody wanted a new war at that point.

This is logical regarding Poland at the end of the war. However at the beginning, in 1939 Britain went to war in protest at Polands invasion by a foreign army. The 1945 ceding of Poland to Russia contradicted the initial justification for going to war. I understand though that this is overly simplistic given what happened in the intervening war years. Perhaps in literal terms the only way the war would truly be justified would be if Poland's freedom had been achieved at the end?

Tony EH

There is no such thing as a "good" or "evil" war. Those biblical terms simply don't apply.

jonniebgood1

Tony EH wrote: »

There is no such thing as a "good" or "evil" war. Those biblical terms simply don't apply.

In a sweeping terms passing judgement on the overall conflict there is no doubt that you are correct in this. There is no doubt though that the outcome favoured some countries more than others, for example it was a bad war for Japan/ Germany as it was a good war for USA (I'm generalising).

Can you think of a more suitable adjective Tony?

Tony EH

If you're talking about positive and negative outcomes for various countries, then that is a very different story.

Of course the war was "bad" for Japan as opposed to being "good" for Russia.

But, the quotes you've offered in your first post aren't positing this. They are saying that the Second World War was one fought between essentially "goodies" and "baddies".

jonniebgood1

I guess what I was wondering was did the end justify the means. It killed more people than any other conflict in history yet it is recorded in the majority of books and films in a heroic manner. This suggests to me that there is an overly romantic notion out there about this war. As you point out in your post tony it is perceived to have been a good war for Russia yet they suffered phenominal casualties. So did the end justify the means?

Tony EH

The problem here Johnnie, is that the primary set up of the thread is saying one thing, while your question is itself, an entirely different one.

The last two quotes from Burleigh et al are arguing that WWII was a "good" war, in the sense that it was fought by "good" nations against "bad" nations. This is a very romanticised "American" view of the Second World War and frankly, when one looks into that argument with even the tiniest of depth, it falls apart completely.

You seem to be saying that certain nations came out of the war in a "good" way despite having made sacrifices.

Your question is more valid and yes, one can say that the likes of Russia and especially America came out of the war in a "good" way, compared to Germany, Japan and Italy, who suffered devastating defeat. Britain may have been on the side of the "winners", but she got nothing out of WWII, except bragging rights. Even though before the war she was the worlds top super-power, she would remain second fiddle to the new super-power of the US, who was the only major combatant to come out of the war unscathed. The century, post WWII, would be the American century.

In the case of Russia, whose sacrifices for victory outweigh ANYTHING that their allies offered, it can still be said that it was worth the cost. Although she lost many millions, her industry remained intact and in fact was strengthened by the war. Her territory was increased by a huge amount and she was the dominant factor in Eastern Europe for decades. So, in short, Russia was far stronger post war, than she was before it.

As far as your question on the ends justifying the means is concerned, that's a philosophical question that has been bandied about since man took his first steps and I think it's one that depends on matters of degree in most cases. However, in the case of WWII, it's a very difficult question to answer as there was no clear endgame for most of the combatant nations involved. Many nations fell into the war and were carried along by subsequent events and their desired "ends" changed radically during the period.

But, one "end" was desired by all of the major players and that was power, which is the reason why most wars are fought anyway.

COUCH WARRIOR

One could consider the Vietnam war, a good war. The strugle to throw off the shackle of an imperial aggressor is as "good" a war an any. Or are wars only good if the Western power involved are the "good" side. The Vietnamese defeated the French and then the American aggressors, I think that they have as good a claim as anyone to consider their strugle for independance a "good war".

COUCH WARRIOR

Tony EH wrote: »

If you're talking about positive and negative outcomes for various countries, then that is a very different story.

Of course the war was "bad" for Japan as opposed to being "good" for Russia.

But, the quotes you've offered in your first post aren't positing this. They are saying that the Second World War was one fought between essentially "goodies" and "baddies".

all wars are fought between goodies and baddies. It just that my guys goodies are the othersides baddies. I taught everybody knew this.:)

Tony EH

COUCH WARRIOR wrote: »

One could consider the Vietnam war, a good war. The strugle to throw off the shackle of an imperial aggressor is as "good" a war an any. Or are wars only good if the Western power involved are the "good" side. The Vietnamese defeated the French and then the American aggressors, I think that they have as good a claim as anyone to consider their strugle for independance a "good war".

The situation re: Indochina notwithstanding, the Americans were being defeated by Northern Vietnamese aggressors themselves.

There are no clear "good" sides, or "bad" sides.

citizen_p

"Good" and "Bad" is a matter of preception, and there is NOT a set guidline that all people follow in choosing what is Good and what is Evil.

The millions of soldiers in the Axis on the eastren front in WW2. German, Italian, Bulgarian, Romanian... thought thy were fighting a "Good" war against the Godless Bolshiveks. A struggle present before the WW2 and The same "Good" war against "Evil" communism that was taken up by the westren powers soon after WW2 ended.
Then again was the soviet side in WW2 not also A "Good" war Against the "Evil" Facist Invaders?

jam_mac_jam

I cant see it as a good war, ok they were justified going to war with Hitler but that doesnt make it "good", so much horror for the whole continent, for the whole world. It was like a monster was realised in the thirties and all the progress that was made in the previous 60 /80 years was used to kill each other on mass. No country had a "good"war.

So does the ends justify the means? I dont know, what ends? That the USSR got half of the continent, no not really. The ends that the Nazis were beaten, yes, that the Japaneese were stopped, yes in that sense, overall I dont think you can generalise.
The means, bombing civilians,war crimes, no. so was it a good war?I dont think you can generalise but I doubt you could call it a good war.

xflyer

COUCH WARRIOR wrote: »

One could consider the Vietnam war, a good war. The strugle to throw off the shackle of an imperial aggressor is as "good" a war an any. Or are wars only good if the Western power involved are the "good" side. The Vietnamese defeated the French and then the American aggressors, I think that they have as good a claim as anyone to consider their strugle for independance a "good war".

Maybe you should talk to the Vietnamese. They still live under a repressive Communist regime, not much of a victory and they gained no freedom. The South Vietnamese were invaded, not liberated. They know it to this day as many will tell you once they get to know you. Because of course they daren't speak openly. Even in the North there is a growing realisation of what they lost in their victory.

Look past the propaganda and you'll see it wasn't a 'good' war for anyone least of all the victors who expended millions of people for their cause.

There are no good wars. Least of all WW2. If it had a redeeming feature it helped remove two evil regimes and changed everything about the way we fought wars. It certainly killed most militarism in Europe and in Japan. The better for all of us.

HavingCrack

I suppose WW2 killed off a lot the nationalism, imperialism, jingoism and expansionism that led to it in the first place so I suppose that was a positive result of sorts. Western Europe hasn't seen any major conflict (obviously low level fighting in Northern Ireland, Basque Country, Corsica excluded) since and neither have any of the ex-Soviet states since their full independence. The only outburst of nationalism since then occured in the Former Yugoslavia and we all now how that turned out.