Hello, I am writing a research paper on why World War Two is the "last good war". I have been searching the internet for a concrete definition of a "good war" and am having no luck. Any one know any websites or have any information as to what a good war is and why world war 2 was the last one? All I have come up with so far is that good wars are ones fought for noble reasons and that world war 2 helped boost the American economy after the Great Depression. Any help or suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks.
WW2 was such a dirty war that I would find it difficult to classify it as a 'good war'. Maybe some isolated aspect could qualify, but remember even a diamond has many facets. Per what I have read I'm not sure that entering WW2 to fight Depression is a good motive, that piece of economical knowledge came only after the event. Maybe some starry-eyed idealists saw the war as a crusade against Fascism, but I also have read that it served excellently as a method of fostering imperialism. I have yet to know which was the first good war, or if there was any at all. Sorry if I sound pessimist! Oh, and welcome to this forum!
I see it as the last true "uniformed" war. I guess Korea could be put into that category but the scale of WWII was much greater.
I would suggest JG, trying to establish WWII as the last ‘good war’ is too great a task because, as it was a true ‘World War’, you will find it difficult if not impossible to show morally noble motives and agendas for all countries involved who opposed nazism. Perhaps better to deal with a small war such as the Winter War of 1939 or the Falkland’s War of 1982. In each case there was invasion of sovereign territory without provocation or declaration. No.9
Thank you for the suggestion, but unfortunately I did not get to choose the topic, it was assigned to me. Thank you though.
It's a "Sucker" question. Tell your teacher that. As in Star Trek, it's the "Kobioshi Maru" test. The No-Win scenario! Good War...(World War II)?, the very definition of an Oxymoron. Necessary, inevitable, unavoidable, forced upon you, just about anything....but not good! Give him/her the total number of deaths, (soldiers & civilians) & displaced people, crippled and insane people, destroyed cities, wrecked economies, and crying children & orphans world-wide.......... Then ask him/her just exactly what you're supposed to find "good" about that? [ 21. March 2006, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: skunk works ]
Understood JG, I’d like to read your teacher’s essay on this? In one way it begs the question that if they are making a definitive statement that WWII was the last ‘good’ war, how then do they regard Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraqi??? Perhaps you could argue that WWII was not the last good war? No.9
Perhaps your teacher was thinking it was a good war because there were clearly defined winners and losers. The only problem with that is the "losers" have the best enconomies and the "winners" have relativly poor enconomies today. such as Japan and Germany being losers and France and Australia and New Zealand and Russia being winners of WWII. Yet the winners have lower standards of living than the war losers.
JGT, why don't you give us the full text of the brief your teacher provided you? Perhaps we could address your question better then.
The topic assigned to me for the essay is: "In a concise, logical essay, defend the premise that the Second World War was the last 'good' war. This essay should be the regulatory five paragraphs with three convincing arguments." I have never refered to any war as good because no matter what precious lives are lost. I am finding this a difficult assignment but thank you all for trying to help.
I think Robert Cooper in The Breaking Of Nations makes a case for WWII being the last Good war in the sense that it was the last war fought over ideologies, i.e. ideology against ideology. It is a short book and well worth reading. The book is not about WW2 but he makes a short case about it as an introduction to his own theory about the state of states in the 21st century and the role of conflict... Its been a while since I read it but it could give you an theoretical basis for your paper and some interesting arguments....
Just picking up info from the net; I suppose this is what your teacher wants to read (?) ----- 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 outcome, unlike those of later wars, was an unambiguous victory for America and its Allies — a victory for freedom and democracy. 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. The U.S. was the " home front" ; the " war effort" was priority No. 1; and complaints were met with a standard reply: " Don't you know there's a war on?" This was an unambiguous struggle between good and evil. It was not just about national interests but also about values. the Germans were never demonized and dehumanized in American propaganda and popular culture as the Japanese were a difference grimly reflected in the way Japanese-Americans were interned but German-Americans were not(?) The Japanese Rape of Nanking and her sneak attack on Pearl Harbor along with Nazi Germany's villainous use of the gas ovens gave the World War Two Allies a moral justification seldom found in warfare.
Thank you for stating your essay brief JG, and I appreciate your dilemma. Not knowing the teacher, I’m assuming there is no ambiguity in this assignment as skunk suggests, so, perhaps adopt this tack. This assignment is an American project so reply from an American view point only. For the three contention points asked for, perhaps use ethical, social and economic. You may feel among these there are very valid ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’, but for the purpose of this assignment concentrate on the positive and exercise a little spin? e.g.: Ethically the US did not adopt an aggressive stance towards other nations and did not engineer or promote discourse between Nations in conflict or close to it. On occasions where the Japanese and Germans acted aggressively towards the US and/or its citizens, the US sought mediation and redress through diplomatic channels. The unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was not preceded by a formal declaration of war, but the scale and ferocity of the attack made their position abundantly clear. Reluctantly American was forced to war, including against the wholly undemocratic regimes of Germany and Italy who did subsequently declare war on the US. Socially, FDR walked a fine line between sympathising with traditional Allies and decrying crimes against humanity and democracy, while respecting and reflecting the views of the majority of the American electorate not to enter America into another World War. Post the attack on Pearl Harbour and subsequent war declarations on America, public opinion changed to support a move to war, when mobilisation and substantial expansion of industry had a great effect on advancing the status of American women. Economically the move to war caused a huge expansion of American industry from a depressed state, which fuelled considerably increased employment, forging America’s new position as ‘The Arsenal of Democracy’. In this position, exceptional war exports occurred which were paid for by barter and/or repayments with interest once the war was over. I’m sure other members can add to this brief outline. No.9
Sorry to let loose, I guess I've heard the "Good War" thing too, too much. Finding out they're still teaching it sorta lit the fuse. I know it's just an assingment, and you didn't pick it, and you'll suffer if you don't do the work. I believe I know what the teacher wants. They want to hear that good triumphs over evil. Jobs were created to bolster a slumping economy, as a result of "fighting the good fight". National unity and pride became the forefront instead of a dream. Inventions abounded, better planes, ships, machines. New public initiative increased productivity to the extreme highest levels, with no complaints. The feeling of a good cause motivated people to forget "petty" desires, for a higher cause. We became a nation of hope for the oppressed of the world, a big brother if you will. We spread our idology to receptive others worldwide. One look at film clip/movies (back then) of "cheering" liberated crowds will show this. Not seen since. These same clips were all the confirmation this country needed to believe they were right. Now the flip-side This was the past, and things change. I don't believe there are many politicians who believe "War" is not good for the economy since all that. Either as job creation for the winner, or Marshall Plan for the loser (as in the film "The Mouse that Roared")... Wrong I believe, again, many politicians believe others "want" us to come into their houses and fix (to our standards) their problems... Wrong again. The success of the U.S. in WW II was a blessing and a curse. A blessing because of the obvious results. A curse because the people of money/power (did I repeat myself?)have been trying to do the same thing over and over, in an attempt to re-live the past...go back in time to have a "Good War". That plane is piloted by the DEVIL and DEATH is the co-pilot
Well I sincerely thank you all very much for the information and your opinions. I believe I have a good starting place and an idea of how to advance on this topic. Once again, thank you all very much.
Glad if we've been of some help JG, you realise you have to let us know how it went? If you haven't already looked in, visit the quize Jack found. Maybe a few pointers? WWII Quiz Hope to see you post regularly here. No.9
