World War II is widely known as the last “Good War” especially by United States of America. This statement gained more acceptances with the onset of wars like Vietnam and Korea which proved very unpopular to the American public. But was World War II truly a “Good War”? The second world war had always been considered to be a fight against Nazism and Fascism which represented the unimaginable evils. More than 70 million lives were lost fighting for the cause including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombing which resulted in the nuclear arms race. Though the evil forces of Nazism were defeated, a sobering account of atrocities caused by the allied forces and the unpleasant after-effects proves the opposite and renders the theory of “Good War” invalid.
Contents
1. Abstract
2. The Good War and Allied Bombing
3. Casualties and Economic Costs
4. Postwar Conflict and the Atomic Bombings
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay examines whether World War II can be considered a “good war,” weighing the defeat of Nazism and fascism against wartime conduct and its human, economic and political aftermath.
- The origins of the “Good War” label
- Allied bombing and civilian casualties
- War crimes and economic costs
- Decolonization and Cold War tensions
- Conscription and restrictions on personal liberty
- Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the nuclear arms race
Excerpt from the Book
Was world war 2 a “good war”?
World War II was the last major war that involved the most powerful nations of the world. These nations dominated and ruled the world and were also called “Great Powers”1. On one side, were the “good” forces called Allies, viz., United States of America, Great Britain and Soviet Union and on the other side were the enemy called “Axis”, Viz., Germany, Italy and Japan. The war estimated a death toll of 50 million to 70 million2 making it the history’s deadliest war and far more casualties were reported in the Allies camp than the Axis powers. Though the Nazi and Fascist powers were defeated for good, did this war produce any other positive outcome? The answer is a sobering no.
The first cries of “Good War” had emanated from the opponents of Vietnam war who justified their opposition to the unprovoked war on Asian internal affairs by comparing it with the “goodness” of purpose of world war II. World War II was a war that opposed the domination of fascism and Nazism that is best known for the concentration camps and genocide committed. However, the “good” war has the record of many not-so-good details which gave a very devastating aftermath.
Paul Fussel, in his book Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, in 1989, said even those who fought the war "knew that in its representation to the laity what was happening to them was systematically sanitized and Norman Rockwellized, not to mention Disneyfied.... America has not yet understood what the Second World War was like and has thus been unable to use such understanding to reinterpret and redefine the national reality and to arrive at something like public maturity." The Second World War has been glamorized by movies like “Casablanca”, “Mrs. Miniver” and has displayed the atrocities performed by the enemy camp which were bravely fought by the allied forces but failed to highlight the equal amount of barbaric actions performed by the allied forces. For example, the World War II brought in the air attacks that killed people without discrimination and resulted in the murder of millions of innocents and rendered an equal number homeless.
Chapter Summaries
Abstract: Introduces the question of whether World War II deserves its reputation as a “good war” and outlines the essay’s argument.
The Good War and Allied Bombing: Discusses the label’s association with opposition to the Vietnam War, representations of World War II and the consequences of Allied air attacks.
Casualties and Economic Costs: Considers civilian and military losses, Allied war crimes and the war’s economic effects on several countries.
Postwar Conflict and the Atomic Bombings: Addresses decolonization, Cold War rivalries, American conscription and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Conclusion: Returns to the central question through a series of reflections on civilian suffering and the postwar order.
Keywords
World War II, Good War, Allied powers, Axis powers, civilian casualties, air bombardment, war crimes, economic costs, decolonization, Cold War, conscription, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, nuclear arms race
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this essay about?
It questions the description of World War II as a “good war” by considering the conduct and consequences of the conflict.
What are its central topics?
The essay addresses Allied bombing, casualties, economic costs, decolonization, Cold War tensions and nuclear weapons.
What is the main question?
It asks whether World War II can be called a “good war” despite its destructive consequences.
What method does the author use?
The author develops a historical argument using published sources, casualty estimates and quotations from historians.
What does the main discussion cover?
It moves from wartime representations and Allied actions to economic damage, postwar conflicts, conscription and the atomic bombings.
Which keywords characterize the essay?
Key terms include Good War, civilian casualties, air bombardment, Cold War, Hiroshima and nuclear arms race.
How does the essay connect the Vietnam War to the “Good War” label?
It describes opponents of the Vietnam War contrasting that conflict with what they regarded as the purpose of World War II.
Which films does the essay mention when discussing representations of the war?
It mentions “Casablanca” and “Mrs. Miniver” in its discussion of how the war has been portrayed.
- Quote paper
- Shilpa Mudiganti (Author), 2008, Was world war 2 a "good war"?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/117849
