Wwii the good war

Why was World War 1 considered a bad war in Canada? From a practical standpoint, WWI was not a good war for Canada or any other nation. The fatalities for Canadians was 56, All nations pay economic prices too, it takes tre…mendous time, money, and effort to put troops on the fronts, feed them and provide them with munitions, and get them to attack.

Wwii the good war

It brought profound and permanent social, governmental and cultural changes in the United States, and has had a great impact on how Americans regard themselves and their country's place in the Wwii the good war.

This global clash -- with the United States and the other "Allies" on one side, and Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and the other "Axis" countries on the other -- is routinely portrayed in the US as the "good war," a morally clear-cut conflict between Good and Evil.

Whatever doubts or misgivings Americans may have had about their country's role in Iraq, Vietnam, or other overseas conflicts, most accept that the sacrifices made by the US in World War II, especially in defeating Hitler's Germany, were entirely justified and worthwhile.

For more than 60 years, this view has been reinforced in countless motion pictures, on television, by teachers, in textbooks, and by political leaders.

The reverential way that the US role in the war has been portrayed moved Bruce Russett, professor of political science at Yale University, to write: Whatever criticisms of twentieth-century American policy are put forth, United States participation in World War II remains almost entirely immune.

According to our national mythology, that was a 'good war,' one of the few for which the benefits clearly outweighed the costs. Except for a few books published shortly after the war and quickly forgotten, this orthodoxy has been essentially unchallenged.

As we shall see, it does not hold up under close examination. First, a look at the outbreak of war in Europe. When the leaders of Britain and France declared war against Germany on September 3,they announced that they were doing so because German military forces had attacked Poland, thereby threatening Polish independence.

In going to war against Germany, the British and French leaders transformed what was then a geographically limited, two-day-old clash between Germany and Poland into a continental, European-wide conflict. It soon became obvious that the British-French justification for going to war was not sincere.

When Soviet Russian forces attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, ultimately taking even more Polish territory than did Germany, the leaders of Britain and France did not declare war against the Soviet Union.

And although Britain and France went to war supposedly to protect Polish independence, at the end of the fighting in — after five and a half years of horrific struggle, death and suffering — Poland was still not free, but instead was entirely under the brutal rule of Soviet Russia.

Sir Basil Liddell Hart, an outstanding twentieth-century British military historian, put it this way: The immediate purpose was to fulfill their promise to preserve the independence of Poland.

Leading up to World War II

The ultimate purpose was to remove a potential menace to themselves, and thus ensure their own security. In the outcome, they failed in both purposes. Not only did they fail to prevent Poland from being overcome in the first place, and partitioned between Germany and Russia, but after six years of war which ended in apparent victory they were forced to acquiesce in Russia's domination of Poland — abandoning their pledges to the Poles who had fought on their side.

Wwii the good war

In his famous "Blood, Sweat and Tears" speech, the great British wartime leader said that unless Germany was defeated, there would be "no survival for the British empire, no survival for all that the British empire has stood for Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.

Even though Britain supposedly "won," or at least was on the winning side in the war, the once-mighty British empire has vanished into history. No British leader today would dare defend the often brutal record of British imperialism, including killing and bombing in order to maintain exploitative colonial rule over millions in Asia and Africa.

Nor would any British leader today dare to justify killing people in order to uphold "Christian civilization," not least for fear of offending Britain's large and rapidly growing non-Christian population.

Americans like to believe that "good guys" win, and "bad guys" lose, and, in international affairs, that "good" countries win wars, and "bad" countries lose them. In keeping with this view, Americans are encouraged to believe that the US role in defeating Germany and Japan demonstrated the righteousness of the "American Way," and the superiority of our country's form of government and society.The Second World War is often called “the good war.” But was it?

After all, this “good war” brought mass destruction; death to tens of millions of men, women, and children; and . But was World War II—the neocons’ all-time favorite war—a bad war in itself, as Buchanan maintains? It was, even though the destruction of Hitler and Hitlerism was an undoubted good.

World War II has been called "The Good War," which is a strange title for the bloodiest military conflict in human history.

There was so much blood, even Quentin Tarantino would've been queasy. Back to issue 10 | PDF Version of this article International Socialist Review Issue 10, Winter World War II: The Good War? By Ashley Smith.

MOST PEOPLE think of the Second World War as "the good war"--a war against fascism and for democracy. How Good Was the Good War? The consensus Buchanan has challenged holds that World War II was the Good War, the necessary war, precisely because it was against Hitler.

Wwii the good war

If, therefore, you. The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two. By Mark Weber. World War II was not only the greatest military conflict in history, it was also America's most important twentieth-century war.

How Good Was the Good War? | The American Conservative