WWII was not a "just war"

[Fast Walker 52]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/09/world-war-two-not-just-war.html#more-61336

World War II is often called “the good war,” and has been since the U.S. war on Vietnam to which it was then contrasted. World War II so dominates U.S. and therefore Western entertainment and education, that “good” often comes to mean something more than “just.” The winner of the “Miss Italy” beauty pageant earlier this year got herself into a bit of a scandal by declaring that she would have liked to live through World War II. While she was mocked, she was clearly not alone. Many would like to be part of something widely depicted as noble, heroic, and exciting. Should they actually find a time machine, I recommend they read the statements of some actual WWII veterans and survivors before they head back to join the fun. For purposes of this book, however, I am going to look only at the claim that WWII was morally just.

No matter how many years one writes books, does interviews, publishes columns, and speaks at events, it remains virtually impossible to make it out the door of an event in the United States at which you’ve advocated abolishing war without somebody hitting you with the what-about-the-good-war question. This belief that there was a good war 75 years ago is a large part of what moves the U.S. public to tolerate dumping a trillion dollars a year into preparing in case there’s a good war next year,[ii] even in the face of so many dozens of wars during the past 70 years on which there’s general consensus that they were not good. Without rich, well-established myths about World War II, current propaganda about Russia or Syria or Iraq or China would sound as crazy to most people as it sounds to me. And of course the funding generated by the Good War legend leads to more bad wars, rather than preventing them. I’ve written on this topic at great length in many articles and books, especially War Is A Lie.[iii] But I’ll offer here a few key points that ought to at least place a few seeds of doubt in the minds of most U.S. supporters of WWII as a Just War.

[zipplewrath]

1. It's what you do after you've missed all the chances to do the "right" thing.

War is what you do after you missed all of your chances to do the right thing.

WW II was merely a continuation of WW I. Arguably, WW I was a continuation of the 100 years war, although that's a bit more tenuous. What is more solid, is that WW II came out of Wilson's failure to get the allies to negotiate a peace treaty that would have brought about a Germany that would not have been aggressive. His League of Nations was a failure, to a great degree because of the Treaty of Versailles, but also because of his inability to generate support for it here in the US, most notably in the Senate itself. Much of this is connected to his poor relationship with the senate.

WW II, or more importantly its aftermath, was how WW I should have ended, with a Marshall Plan and a Germany that was encouraged to enter into the European community, as opposed to trying to dominate it, not to mention supporting a dictatorship in Spain. The entire rise of the Soviet Union could have been avoided if the Treaty of Versailles focused on uniting Europe (east and west) instead of punishing Germany.

WW II wasn't the "good war", it was one generation having to clean up the mess of the last generation. The millennials might find some sense of camaraderie with the "greatest generation" soon.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. "the 100 years war"? No, that was a fight by English kings to grab the throne of France

in the 14th and 15th centuries. The Battle of Agincourt, Joan of Arc, things like that.

WW1 started largely as the conflict between the German and Russian spheres of influence. It's hard to see that as a continuation of anything - they had been on the same side in conflicts as much as on opposite ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Prussia_and_Russia

[malthaussen]

4. Maybe by "100 Year's War" the 18th century wars are meant.

France and Britain did spend a good portion of the 18th century trying to settle who was #1 in Europe (and the rest of the world).

WWI/II can be seen as an episode in the ongoing struggle of European nations for world hegemony, out of which the only clear victor was the U.S., who lost least of the major players. (The USSR lost the most of the Allies, and the Great Patriotic War was a "victory" only in the most Pyrrhic of senses; one could argue that they never really recovered, especially as they were immediately plunged into an arms race with the West) I don't think it is coincidence that after WWII, the European nations rather rapidly divested themselves of their major imperial possessions, which curiously left the U.S., always claiming to not be an imperial nation, as the holders of the largest empire in the world. It may not be wholly out of line to represent the 20th Century as "The American Century" (certain caveats apply), which might lead one to ask what we did with it. Certainly improved our own material standard of living.

-- Mal

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Perhaps, though since in WW1, Britain and France were on the same side

it's hard to connect them. France was often, but not always, fighting some German states in the 18th century (and they, and Austria-Hungary, weren't always on the same side), but it really ends up as not some ever-lasting enmity, but continual jockeying for advantage.

Yes, it can be seen as an ongoing struggle; but I think, and disagree about this with Swanson who wrote the article in the OP, that WW2 really was different, with well signalled hatred on the part of the Nazis right from the start, rather than just the international politics of power. And I think he has zero evidence that non-violent resistance would have worked against the Nazis.

[malthaussen]

8. No, I don't think non-violence would have worked...

... especially as the Nazis did start it.

Taking a long view of European history and the seesaw struggles for dominance, one thing that emerges in the latter half of the 19th century is the rise of Prussia as a dominant threat, as Bismarck acted out his dream of creating a unified Reich. France and Britain and Russia made common cause to meet the new threat, which was perhaps not as difficult as it would have been earlier because the rest of the world was already pretty well parcelled out. It's curious that Austria-Hungary didn't hold any overt grudges with Prussia over the war they fought (after the one they fought as allies: it was hard to tell the players without a scorecard around then). Certain cultural ties are relevant, and mutual fear of the Bear, but religious and other aspects also militated against alliance. In any event, they sorted it out.

But if we accept the interpretation of the beginning of WWI as mobilization gone mad, then WWI looks just like another episode in the ongoing game of European King of the Hill. The tyranny of the timetable meant that one had to get the jump on his potential enemy or else the ensuing war would go badly; and once mobilization was set in progress, it had its own dreadful momentum. Politics and international relations are subject to the Laws of Motion, just as mundane physical things are. (Yes this is simplistic, and trust me, I'm not arguing for a single cause to the idiocy of WWI)

After WWI was out of the way, a new and very frightening reality occupied the minds of the rulers of all nations: the creation of the USSR and the Commie menace. I tend to view all of history post-1918 through the lens of the abject fear of Communism in Western minds. Policies domestic and foreign were enacted to address this overriding threat. But meanwhile, the erstwhile Central Powers were spoiling for revenge; and let's not forget that as humiliating as the Versailles treaty was for Germany, Austria-Hungary was broken up and humiliated, too. Lots of ethnic Germans in Austria were very happy about the Anschluss, including, of course, the Little Dictator himself. Here anti-Communism played a part, too: major industrialists in Germany and around the world supported the Nazis as a counterpoint to the Soviets, and one might even speculate that some considered a rearmed and resurgent Germany as a Good Thing, so long as it was used to check Communist ambitions. While anti-Communism may have been an expediency for the Nazi faithful, it was also a real thing; and I think much the same can be said about hatred of Jews. It provided a convenient (and traditional) scapegoat, and was right in line with their deepest convictions. I think Churchill and Eden were correct, however, questions of shipping notwithstanding (the Dunkirk evacuation is hardly relevant here, and does nothing to advance the author's case; it is rather a different order of tasks to evacuate 6 million civilians compared to 300,000 soldiers): Hitler would have cheerfully allowed the Jews to leave Germany with their skins, provided he could take everything else from them before they left. But there was surely no way the rest of the world was going to absorb 6 million Jewish refugees.

The twin desires of revenge and lebensraum combined to cause the second act in the European suicide. But it is still an outgrowth of Business as Usual, although the Communist threat added a new factor to the mix. But, as far as the European portion of the war is concerned, this is why I see it as an outgrowth of the Same Old Shit, with a new constellation of players, perhaps.

None of which addresses the question of the Japanese/Far Eastern part of the war, but that's a separate dissertation.

-- Mal

[vinny9698]

28. Russian TV has two drama documentaries on WW2 and WW1, very well done

It gives you the war from their perspective.
Below is the link for WW2, but you go to their YouTube site for more such historical drama documentary.

&index=1&list=PLhuA9d7RIOdaJ8jAIBVwV3ToGxzo3AK0h&t=30s

[Fast Walker 52]

6. yes. all good points

[Nitram]

3. I see the "greatest generation's" experience in WWII as the reason...

the U.S. is such a highly militarized country, with an overblown level of adulation of the military and our service men and women. It is also, I believe, the reason we have been so eager to jump into new wars in spite of the debacle in Vietnam. That debacle, of course, is blamed on anti-war protestors, hippies and America-hating liberals. Conservatives keep thinking that we're going to "get the next one right." They were so eager for a quick "win" in Iraq. And assumed that once the Taliban were defeated, democratizing Afghanistan would be a cakewalk. If anyone has any doubt about this, have a look at the way the military is portrayed in SF movies of the 50s.

[Fast Walker 52]

7. yes... one other factor is that WWII established the US as the pre-eminent global super-power

and that gave us license to rule the world, more or less. And, the global monetary system was set up around the dollar.

[MicaelS]

9. Fuck Swanson.

For pedaling that filth that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen.

I supposed the West was responsible for Japan invading China and killing between 10 and 25 million Chinese, not to mention all those others in Asia.

Just more of the same old crap that the West and the US is the source of all evil in the world.

[kristopher]

12. Just more of the same old crap that the West and the US can do no wrong.

FDR knew exactly what would happen when he cut Japan's oil supply. I've never heard anyone claim that he knew the date or location for the commencement of hostilities, but the fact that he was provoking Japan to make the first move is as clear as any event in the record.

[MicaelS]

14. And why did he cutoff Japan?

Because of Japan's actions in China. Which you ignore.

The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis. But people weep tears for the “victims" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if the Japanese did nothing to start the war in Asia. The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). The Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery as “comfort women” in field brothels where the women were forced to sexually service, as many as 70 Japanese soldiers a day. In other words these women were raped 70 times a day for years on end. Everywhere the Japanese conquered, they acted like barbarians toward Allied POWS and civilians. The Japanese beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as living test subjects in their infamous biological warfare Unit 731.

People these days find it easy to take some moral high-ground when they are not involved in a war to the knife for the future of civilization. Hindsight is easy.

[kristopher]

15. I didn't ignore anything.

The Japanese conducted themselves exactly as did the colonial powers they modeled their behavior on. What's your self-righteous opinion of the US fling with slavery? How about the British in India?

All you are doing is reciting the jingoistic Western rhetoric that emerged out of the war. It really can't withstand a critical analysis of the influences and times.

ETA: The reason was that he wanted to join Churchill in the fight against Germany, but it was politically impossible. The new alliance between Japan and Germany gave him a path to declaring war against Germany.

[SFierro2004]

18. An apologist for Imperial Japan and its war crimes. Wonderful.

You're right, Japan should have been allowed all the oil and resources that they could get, so that they could continue to commit such heinous acts like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre (an atrocity that is STILL denied by many in Japan, who insist it never happened)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sook_Ching

Regarding Sook Ching, I think Lee Kuan Yew's comments about the Japanese during that time speaks volumes (he would later serve as the first PM of Singapore):

"But they also showed a meanness and viciousness towards their enemies equal to the Huns'. Genghis Khan and his hordes could not have been more merciless. I have no doubts about whether the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. Without them, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished"



But what would he know. After all, he was just a "subhuman" Chinese who was unfit to serve his Japanese masters, the rulers of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[kristopher]

19. Where am I acting as an apologist?

If you equate striving for historical accuracy and balance to be what you claim, then I feel sorry for you. Japan didn't seek to adopt western ways, it was forced on them by US ships with cannon. Once the pressure from western colonial powers became focused on them, they bowed to the inevitable; and as a response restructured their entire economic, political and social structures. They emerged from 300 years of isolation and sent emissaries and students around the world to study the ways of those threatening them. This remarkable effort gave them the distinction of being the only country to successfully block western colonization, but the price was what you point to and was direct result of the behavior they observed in their new rivals.

Do you really believe you can ignore the behavior of the US toward indigenous Americans? Or the policies towards Africans, Chinese and anyone else that had resources we felt entitled to take? To our credit we often tried to get what we wanted with trade, but the threat of violence was always a part of the "negotiations" that natives worldwide were subjected to.

[SFierro2004]

20. More whataboutery, I see.

I'm sure that my close friend, whose grandfather in Manchuria was buried alive by the IJA for no real reason, will be so relieved to hear that the Empire of Japan was simply misunderstood. Great.

[kristopher]

21. I feel very sorry for people who can't muster any degree of objectivity.

I feel even more sympathy for those who must deal with them.

[SFierro2004]

22. Thanks for your concern

Again, I am sure that my friend, whose grandfather was cruelly murdered by an IJA soldier in Manchuria, is truly able to objectively understand why that soldier was such a monster, and that he isn't to blame for his own brutality.

Same with my other close friend, whose grandparents in Quezon resorted to covering themselves with feces in order to repel the Japanese soldiers, who had a penchant for raping the young girls whenever possible, at the point of a bayonet. But I guess it's not their fault for behaving like barbarians.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. 12/11/1941

Hitler declared was against us first.

THEN FDR declared war against Germany.

I only bring up this small point - because of 'irl and online debates' with pro Iraq War people who tried to bring Bush up to FDR's level.


Anyhoo - enjoying this discussion. Will keep reading.

[MicaelS]

29. As someone has pointed out...

Hitler declared war on us first. If he had not it might have become politically impossible for FDR to declare war on Germany. Or did FDR somehow force Hitler to declare war on us?

[kristopher]

17. BTW, what's your opinion of the fire bombing method the Allies used against civilian targets?

You know, where multiple waves of aircraft drop incendiary bombs in a plus (+) pattern on a city, then overlay an X pattern on the +.
Next they put a circle of fire around the perimeter of the population zone. That responds to the huge updraft caused by the inferno in the center pulling the flames from the outside ring of fire towards the middle.

Pretty effective way to kill all of the civilians within the circle, don't you think?

For reference:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
http://time.com/3718981/tokyo-firebombing-1945/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/tokyo-wwii-firebombing-remembered-70-years-on/6287486
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/firebombing/introduction.htm

[Marengo]

23. Karma maybe? Intentionally targeting residential areas in airial bombings as the Japanese...

Had done for years previously in China has got to stir up some bad juju. Anyway, fuck Imperial Japan. I know the history as well as most, and really don't care what compelled them to choose the Imperial path. No one is responsible for their collective behavior in the occupied territories but themselves. To your question, yes, very effective way to destroy infrastructure and in context entirely justified.

[MicaelS]

24. Bombing civilians from the air

Became standard practice as soon as airships and airplanes became practical weapons platform. Once again, both Germany and Japan were seen as starting the wars in their areas, so IMO, it was justified.

[Blue_Tires]

25. +1

[raccoon]

10. It bothers me that some people seem to think the US got into the war to save the Jews.

So I like # 3.

3.The war was not humanitarian and was not even marketed as such until after it was over. There was no poster asking you to help Uncle Sam save the Jews

[Igel]

11. If not just, then unjust.

All wars fought for no decent reason are unjust. There's little middle ground, and you actually have to get fairly far into "just" territory to use the word.

It's conveniently self-bashing (well, "self" minus the speaker, so "everybody domestically that I disapprove of&quot . Because the post-WWI outcome wasn't just therefore the Germans were, in some sense, "just" in their attacks and what they did.

Because we didn't stop Hitler in Bohemia, it was okay and we shouldn't have stopped him.

Because we--the US--didn't stop Hitler in Austria and Poland, it was all okay. It's our fault; we're omnipotent, and failure to live up to such low standards renders us Christlike in needing to die for the sins of others.

Because we didn't stop the hyperinflation in Germany--notice that we did a rather crappy job of stopping the Depression in the US, when we were much weaker economically--it's okay.

And it's especially bad, we're told, to try to look for morality after the fact. Although, to be honest, when you're being attacked it's unlike most to stop, sit down, ponder the situation, and decide whether or not in some sense the attacker might be justified. In many ways, the justification is always after the fact if only because the sufficient and necessary cause for the war is simply utilitarian. In a sense, there's little difference between Hitler and FDR--both acted in their country's perceived self-interest as they saw it. It's looking at the rest of the context, a context often not entirely evidence in its entirety when hostilities break out, that provides fuel for argumentation over "just" or "unjust."

It's reverse hypocrisy, rendered non-hypocritical because the speaker's expectations aren't of himself but of others only apparently in his same community. It's like Trump waxing reflective over "our" sins, by which "our" he means African-American or liberal shortcomings (real or perceived). Such a use of the pronoun is more intended to deceive than educate. Through enlightenment the speaker escapes the penalty for the crimes adduced, while calling them down upon his erstwhile companions more properly terms "enemies."

Good rhetoric. Piss-poor logic. For those who focus on emotion and validation, a good article.

[Blue_Tires]

26. Swanson... Figures