World War II the Good War, Essay Example

There are occurrences, which once they happen, history takes a different course, and they leave a mark that could never be erased. Although the world has known many wars, the famous World War II has had great significance.  Often called the “good war” for various reasons, many historians signify the fact that World War II was just, as it was not focused on gaining territory or power, but to defeat an empire that was threatening humanity itself.

People have had varying perceptions of the war with many associating it with great success, hence referring to it as the good war. However, it must be noted that while to some it must have been a ‘good war’ to some people it meant death and the scars left behind could never be healed (Smith). The below essay takes a critical look at the Second World War as to why it could be referred to as the good war, analyzing the main features of warfare. Looking at both positive and negative impacts of the war, the below analysis will attempt to reveal just how ‘good’ the war was.

World War II would rightly be referred to as the global clash because it involved all ‘major’ countries across the globe, either joining hands against another or being in the opposition (Nardo 7). For the United States, the main motivation to join the war was to join the fight between what was perceived the evil (Nazi Germany) and good (civilized, western world)  while the attack on Pearl Harbor greatly contributed towards the decision. The war would be categorically said to have involved US on one side, and Nazi Germany, joined by Japan and Italy.  According to Leland (2), World War II has claimed more American lives than any other military conflict, 405,399 compared with 116,516 in World War I. Therefore, it is important to compare the results achieved with the sacrifices of nations in order to determine whether or not the war was good.

Nazism was an evil that went against Western values, and the expansion of Nazi Germany made the rest of Europe see it necessary to step in. After World War I, Germany propagated very punitive and vindictive system of governance through Hitler that led to many deaths and misery from the natives Germany. Many people believe that the spread of Nazism in the early 20th century was detrimental to the welfare of the pacifists and any better treatment by the Germany administration would be progressive for the people at that time.

Nevertheless, Hitler rose to power and destroyed the socialists and communists in Germany. The US held that by sending more troops to the war, the gains would be for the general well-being of the citizens. Nevertheless, some authors (Bustos) claim that the use of blacks and Caribbeans in the war was disproportionate.

The genesis of the world war and the main powerful states competed for dominance and power in what historians perceived as efforts meant to bring about global re-division. In particular, Germany attacked Poland, and this called for the formation of Allies of other nations to assist Poland reclaim its sovereignty. Some authors, however, state that the countries acted in their own interest (Bustos 107). The main blocks were comprised of Germany, Italy, and Japan against the Allies, joining France US, Russia and Britain. Many civilians and military personnel lost their lives in the conquest of power, and this was estimated to be by far more than the lives that were lost during the First World War. In order to advance the agenda of military power and superiority (Efthymiou, para 3) , the blocks engaged in the war that led to US rising as the global leading power before Russia. However, in order to prove this, the United States had to use weapons of mass destruction, which had not been used in other wars, a situation that forced Japan to surrender. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very destructive, and this would be regarded as an evil, but a necessary decision to prove the American’s superiority. As Smith (para 9) states, the main motivation of America to drop the atomic bombs was to increase its dominance and power in Asia.  According to the Americans, the bombing was necessary in testing the military power, it would help save lives and it was also a  sign to show to the other nations of American’s superiority. By the end of the world war, US regained its perceived leadership in military power that other countries like the USSR competed for. It is, however, clear that America entered the war to increase its power, as well as for defending democracy and the country.

Besides, bombing Japan was a necessary tool to be used by the US in order to deter Russia from taking over a part of Asia hence expanding its power. Efthymiou (para 3) states that the involvement in the war provided America with the opportunity of economic expansion, which in turn increased its political and military power on a global scale.

A power struggle between ideologies and nations played a great part in the war. Japanese people and other rival countries saw America as inhuman for causing such suffering and loss of lives of innocent people in Japan, which they argued, had failed to surrender. The Americans justified the cause as they could have risked the lives of many civilians and military personnel if Japan would have failed to surrender. This equally justified the position of the war as being a good war as against what critics would cite as having nothing to celebrate about (Roback, Jennifer, and Jason 76).

The motives of the winning nations to fight on can be questionable. While the Nazi Germany was defeated, the war reshaped the entire map of Europe. This resulted in the division of Germany, and gave way for a new regime in Eastern and Central Europe, which claimed millions of lives. As the Rense website highlights: “According to de-classified archive data released by the successor agency to the KGB after Perestroika, a total of 1,053,829 people died in the GULAG from 1934 to 1953, not counting those who died in labor colonies”(Rense, para 5). Therefore, World War II cannot be viewed as a good war, as it resulted in the rise of the Soviet Union, a power that used the same methods as the Nazis in Germany. After the peace, Eastern Europe was “given” to Russia to be ruled and abused for more than 45 years. As Wingfield (127), the Soviet Union forced uniform rules and radicalized states towards communism, interfering with the autonomy of Central and Eastern Europe. Therefore, stating that World War II was a good war, as it stopped radical and anti-democratic world order from spreading is without merit. It stopped Nazism, but did not stop Communist Russia rising to power over half of Europe.

The ideology of democracy was used to justify the war. US fetched for military personnel from as far as the Philippines, besides targeting the minority blacks from the Caribbean America. In fact, the United States advanced the propaganda that the main enemies of the US were all non-democratic, and hence fighting them would only help advance the course of democracy and justice to the majority of people. Contradicting this statement, according to Bustos (para 3), 40.000 people in America refused to fight based on moral and religious grounds. They suffered inhumane treatment in mental hospitals and became stigmatized by the American state for not agreeing with the official ideology.  However, Japan was neither anti-democratic, nor power-hungry. Koshiro (441), the main motivation of Japan to refuse to surrender was to avoid ideological shift, and not to impose aggression. The US claimed to fight against Nazi dictatorship, which saw the lives of many people, destroyed, but did not do anything to prevent the dictatorship of Stalin.

From the above review it is evident that as much as US approached the war with the deception of advocating democracy, America’s democratic principles did not did not apply to every country, and were not applied regarding the racial diversity of the U.S. itself (Preston).

The main question is whether or not war can be good at all. The Second World War indeed shaped the worldview of superiority in weaponry and military strength (Preston, para 3). According to analysts, the war served as the ground in which the modern military structures, security as well as intelligence were tested for possible improvements. Further, Allies created great intelligence forces to support the war, while the rivals lost because of relying on physical equipment alone (Efthymiou). Based on their advancement in warfare and intelligence,  America would still cite the good side of the war for having had the chance to prove and test the infrastructural advantage it had over the other global nations. As Kirsch concludes, the war was full of moral compromises, and it cannot be labeled “good”, as looking at the number of dead, displaced, executed, and oppressed after and during the war, humanitarian disaster happened.

Literature cites the large scale execution of people by both sides over the period through which the war lasted. In fact, an estimated figure of over fifty million civilians lost their lives during the war period with combat death toll surprising 10 million limits. On the other hand, Hitler executed an estimated over 15 million in concentration camps and political executions, out of which it is estimated that 6 million were Jews (Silverstrim, para 2). The execution of civilians and the combatant groups from either side was inhumane, immoral and unethical. When evaluating the entire war on the basis of ethics and dignity of human lives, the United States would have nothing to be proud of, considering the huge numbers of unnecessary deaths.

At the commencement of World War II, the United States of America remained neutral. The perceived threat of destabilization of world power made the US decide to take sides in the war. The mass execution of people by the Nazi-led Germany, and the increased threat the  United Sataes faced from the Japanese state were the main reasons that led to the US getting actively involved in the war. After attempts to bomb the United States by Japanese, America sought full subjection by total destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the atomic bombs (Koshiro, 426). The bombs left long lasting effects on the nation of Japan, which was forced them to retreat, and surrender to the power of the United States. Asada (512) finds that the war could have been ended without using nuclear weapons, and President Truman missed several opportunities to stop military aggression prior to the bombing.

The use of nuclear weaponry in the war resulted in the rise of the US for proving itself stronger in matters of military power and technology, but the bombing affected the lives of many generations in Japan. This, accordingly contradicts the actual meaning associated with ‘good war’. Mass destruction of property and deaths would be nothing to celebrate about, even at the most primitive level of civilization.

While the world war two has attracted a lot of attention, especially from the history of the global power, greater insights can be derived from the rollout of the war and the associated effects. First, it is noted that the war was not a creation of one factor or nation, but a creation of various countries as explained by various factors. Germany threatened the sovereignty of nations, and this led to the formulation of various allies; those in support of communism and capitalism. The United States was to join in the war as necessitated by various factors as discussed above, and the interest in power and influence was among one of the country’s motivations. Whereas the effects of war are never positive, they can be justified, according to some authors (Kirsch).  US claims that the power of Americans made the war a success. However, labeling the war as a good war cannot be justified. It achieved several goals and stopped the Nazi empire from expanding, but gave way to the rise of the Soviet Union (Wingfield).  A war, based on the above review of the destruction caused and the consequences should not be called ‘good’, and calling it `just` might still be arguable. While the war can be considered good because it advanced the agenda of redemption, curtailed capitalism, institutionalization of democracy as well as an illustration of military power, it also resulted in mass destruction and anti-democratic movements in Europe, against which the Western World allies did not step up.

The nuclear bombing had far-reaching effects, and was a disproportionate counter-attack of Pearl Harbor. Moreover, deaths and destruction were in large scale; therefore, World War II was not a good war. As Preston (para 13) quotes Bob Dole: “There’s a good cause, but there’s no such thing as a good war”. Based on the above, World War II was not a good war, and – like many other war – was influenced by individual countries’ self-interest.

Works Cited

Asada, Sadao. “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration.”The Pacific Historical Review (1998): 477-512.

Bustos, Rob. “The Good War and those Who Refused to Fight it: The Story of World War II Conscientious Objectors.” Library Journal 127.15 (2002): 107. ProQuest. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Efthymiou,P. “The Emergence Of The United States As A Global Power”  2013. Web.

Kirsch, Adam. “Is world war still ‘the good war?” the New York Times, New York. 2011. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Koshiro, Yukiko. “Japan’s World and World War II.”Diplomatic History 25.3 (2001): 425-441.

Leland, Anne. “American war and military operations casualties: Lists and statistics” DIANE Publishing, 2010.

Nardo, Don. World War II. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2005. Print.

Preston, Charles. “Over the Top Over World War II.” The Christian Science Monitor: 9. Jul 23 2001. ProQuest. Web. 3 Mar. 2015 .

Rense. “German Labor Camps vs The Soviet Gulag”. 2008.

Roback, Diane, Jennifer M. Brown, and Jason Britton. “The Good Fight: How World War II was Won.” Publishers Weekly 248.15 (2001): 76. ProQuest. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Silverstrim, Karen. “Overlooked millions: Non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.” Unpublished manuscript(2005).

Smith, Ashley. “World War II: The Good War?” International Socialist Review 10 (2000). Web. 3 Mar. 2015

Wingfield, Nancy Meriwether. “Return to Diversity: A Political History of East Central Europe Since World War II.” Ed. Joseph Rothschild. Oxford University Press, 2000.