Was WWII a Good War? (ie as regards US participation)

[Bossy Monkey]

Should probably throw good war into quotation marks, but as quotation marks have eveolved into a way of putting down a given proposition (more or less to be read as so-called), I figured I would leave them out to in hopes of not biasing the poll. The question then is whether the US' participation in the war a noble crusade or something else. If you say yes, I'd be interested (but can't figure out how to put it on the poll) whether it was the last good war.

(I looked it up; Kristallnacht in fact happened before the European war started, but I assume that you get the idea)

Edit: Still trying to word that dang subject line

EditEdit: trying capitalizing the g and w in good war in vain hope that that will be clearer

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. No, it wasn't a good war.

There's no such thing. It was vicious and stupid and pointless and horrible. But if an axe wielding psychopath is running around town killing people somebody's got to stop him.

[Yollam]

2. It may have been relatively just, but it was not "good"

There is no such thing.

And the way it was ended, with the bombings of Dresden and firebombings/atom bombings of civilians in Japan was not just.

But compared to our present endeavors, it was justified, and the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japan did much to make up for any wrongdoing.

[mmonk]

3. It's end created something worthwhile

that we now ignore such as international law concepts and outlawing aggressive war concepts which we now ignore.

[Bossy Monkey]

4. Geneva Conventions largely predate WWII, but your point is a good one n/t

[mmonk]

6. True

but I was thinking primarily of the additions, especially in the areas of war crimes and the United Nations (vs. League of Nations).

[BlooInBloo]

7. There's no "largely" about it. They are a single specific body of work...

... that were adopted in 1949, and took force in 1950.

Many of the ideals, etc. of the GC may have been insipired by previous works and practices, but the GC themselves simply did not exist before 1949 - and ipso facto after wwii.

[Bossy Monkey]

8. Then you need to go correct Wikipedia, which says otherwise n/t

[BlooInBloo]

10. I see your Wikipedia, and raise you a UN Human Rights Council.

Call or fold.

[Bossy Monkey]

24. Wasn't correcting you, arguing with you nor trying to one-up you;

just pointing out that if you're confident of your sources, you may want to correct Wikipedia (which is user-created).

[BlooInBloo]

5. "necessary" might be a better word than "good".

[Hosnon]

20. I agree. A good war seems to me to be something that effectively

accomplishes its purposes - whatever they may be.

Morally good? Eh...I tend to try to stay away from such things. It was necessary and reasonably effective.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. 62,536,500 deaths in an unnecessary war.

Hitler could have been stopped and overthrown long before the war even started.

It wasn't even necessary to shoot at the Germans. At the Saar, The Ruhr, Austria, the Sudetenland. The Brits and the French and the Americans continued to supply him and passed up opportunity after opportunity to remove him from power.

They shunned alliances with the Soviet Union in fear of Bolshevism when they were available. Instead of even protesting the takeover of the Saar, The Ruhr, Austria, the Sudetenland, and finally the rest of Czechoslovakia, they bargained and ignored them. The German Army was ready, for their own reasons, to toss Hitler out and pleaded with the Brits to stand up to Hitler. They refused. The German economy was at the point of collapse because of re-armament. Hitler was actually faced with a dilemma after Munich. One of "use it or lose it".

The Brits and French were finally awakened enough to start preparing for war. Stalin was rebuilding the Soviet military that he had destroyed in preparation for the war he knew was coming. If Hitler waited to attack Poland and start the war, he would face certain defeat. He fully expected the western powers to come to terms with him after the fall of Poland and finally join him in a crusade against the Soviet Union, or at least, stand by while he achieved his dreamed of "Lebensraum" in the east. Thus the "phony war" that followed Poland's fall. He was waiting for the Brits and French to "come to their senses".

The Japanese were faced with a similar dilemma of "use it or lose it". They were bogged down in China and totally dependent on imports of vital resources. Their economy was collapsing because of military expenditures and there was very real fear of revolution if things continued to get worse. Their hope was to inflict one smashing blow and then negotiate favorable peace terms that would allow them access to resources in Indonesia, Indo-China, and the rest of the East. They would never have attempted it, had it not been for Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union which relieved the fear they had of Russian intervention. And, at the end of the war, it was that fear of Communist revoltion or Russian invasion that ultimately decided them to surrender.

Wars are not "noble". They are murder at the hands of politicians and the powerful.

[rinsd]

14. "Hitler could have been stopped and overthrown"

All of things "could" have happened but to so glibbly assert that is ridiculous. Maybe Hitler would have beeen taken out but would Himmler have taken over?

"They shunned alliances with the Soviet Union in fear of Bolshevism when they were available."

Those good hearted Soviets signed a non aggression pact with Hitler while they merrily carved up Poland then onto Finland.

"Their economy was collapsing because of military expenditures and there was very real fear of revolution if things continued to get worse."

Quick name the history of peasant revolt in Japan. A coup was more likely than any revolution at least at that time, though towards the end of the war faced with devastation and starvation it became a large inssue and factor in the eventual surrender.

This was not about economic collapse for either Japan or Germany. It was about control of natural resources as almost all wars are about.

"Their hope was to inflict one smashing blow and then negotiate favorable peace terms that would allow them access to resources in Indonesia, Indo-China, and the rest of the East."

Very true. People forget the series of attacks coordinated with Pearl Harbor that resulted in Japanese control of virtually everything to the Indian border down to almost bomber striking distance of Australia.

"They would never have attempted it, had it not been for Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union which relieved the fear they had of Russian intervention"

Not true. What Russian intervention would be possible? The Russian Navy wasn't remotely ready to take on Japan at that time though they had start the modernization process of their military, most of their navy was comprised of Lend-Lease ships from the US which were basically old stuff. Add to that the fact that the navy had movement restrictions created by minefield by Germany and the Finns. My feeling is a big factor was the abscence of the only other powerful navy in the Pacific, the Brits. By the time Pearl Harbor happened the Brits had repositioned most of their navy in the Atlantic(much to our dismay since Japan had already shown an imperial bent hitting China). So by taking out the US navy, with the Brits engaged+ and having a very formidable navy herself, Japan was in a position to dominate the Pacific.

"Thus the "phony war" that followed Poland's fall. He was waiting for the Brits and French to "come to their senses"."

I would partially agree, Hitler figured they were afraid of him but believed they would join him in the fight against bolshevism.

"And, at the end of the war, it was that fear of Communist revoltion or Russian invasion that ultimately decided them to surrender."

This was a factor not the factor. The Japanese were faced with (after two nuclear bombings)the very real, very likely threat of US invasion with weapons of unheard of devastation. Japan had sought Soviet assistance for mediating a conditional surrender but were rejected.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. In answer.

Himmler was in no position to take over. Or any of the Nazi leadership. The Army was plotting a coup and awaiting the west to block Hitler and end his "diplomatic" victories. When Hitler marched into the Ruhr, there were orders to scamper back across the border if the west even threatened intervention.

Stalin was open to pacts with the west and saw the threat developing after the Sudetenland and Munich. He wanted time and a barrier between Russia and Germany before the inevitable war with Germany. Not to forgive him, but it was smart on his part and he gained even more room with the acquisition of the Baltic States.

Before the Pacific War even started, the Japanese people were already on rationing and the economic situation was worsening. The militarists used the unrest to sieze effective control by using threats of a "communist revolution" before the war.

In case you haven't noticed Russia borders Manchuria. There had already been border fights in which the Kwangtung Army had been severely thrashed by the Russians and had to accept their terms. You don't really need a navy to walk across the border. As was seen at the end of the war when the Russians attacked Manchuria and thrashed the Japanese. At the outbreak of the war, most of the Japanese forces were still in China/Manchuria and, not until Okinawa, did the Japanese dare to start moving away from the Russian threat.

The Japanese did seek Soviet help for a negotiated peace. On offer, was surrender of territory, which the Russians rejected, knowing that they could pretty much get what they wanted if they entered the war.

Another note. Part of the decision to use the bombs the Hiroshima/Nagasaki was to frighten the Russians and keep them from sweeping through China and threatening Japan. Truman was, by that time, worried about Russian/Communist gains in Europe and Asia.

[rinsd]

27. Response

"Himmler was in no position to take over. Or any of the Nazi leadership. The Army was plotting a coup and awaiting the west to block Hitler and end his "diplomatic" victories."

Elements of the German Army plotted a coup, a key distinction. And the power of SS had grown substatially by this time along with the firing/resignations of high ranking members.

"When Hitler marched into the Ruhr, there were orders to scamper back across the border if the west even threatened intervention."

Likely, though had two armies met they may have fought. I don't think a simple threat would have dissuaded Hitler at that point, I think there would have had to have been boots on the ground.

"Stalin was open to pacts with the west and saw the threat developing after the Sudetenland and Munich. He wanted time and a barrier between Russia and Germany before the inevitable war with Germany. Not to forgive him, but it was smart on his part and he gained even more room with the acquisition of the Baltic States."

So would you then agree that the use of atomic weapons was smart? Not forgiving Truman in the moral sense though.

Moving on, Stalin indeed knew he was going to fight Hitler at one point or another his actions to put himself in the best position to fight that fight are rather questionable.

"Before the Pacific War even started, the Japanese people were already on rationing and the economic situation was worsening. The militarists used the unrest to sieze effective control by using threats of a "communist revolution" before the war. "

Exactly, a coup vs. a revolution.

"In case you haven't noticed Russia borders Manchuria. There had already been border fights in which the Kwangtung Army had been severely thrashed by the Russians and had to accept their terms."

Zhukov's first great victory.

"You don't really need a navy to walk across the border."

But you do to take an island.

"As was seen at the end of the war when the Russians attacked Manchuria and thrashed the Japanese."

I don't think you can compare the two, the Japanese were not nearly the same fighting unit(especially in Manchuria since most of the Army's were reassigned to fighting the Americans) by the end of the war and the Soviets was dominant in numbers and experience.

"At the outbreak of the war, most of the Japanese forces were still in China/Manchuria and, not until Okinawa, did the Japanese dare to start moving away from the Russian threat."

Repositioned to Japan? Well of course. But prior to that the army was occupying a large swath of islands throughout the Pacific.

"The Japanese did seek Soviet help for a negotiated peace. On offer, was surrender of territory, which the Russians rejected, knowing that they could pretty much get what they wanted if they entered the war."

Stalin knew what was up.

"Another note. Part of the decision to use the bombs the Hiroshima/Nagasaki was to frighten the Russians and keep them from sweeping through China and threatening Japan. Truman was, by that time, worried about Russian/Communist gains in Europe and Asia."

Definitely that was part of the deal. The man power/tank power the Red Army had ammassed by that time was simply staggering.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. And, back to you.

BTW It's rather pleasant to exchange thoughts with someone who has more than a smattering of knowledge of history.


"Elements of the German Army plotted a coup, a key distinction. And the power of SS had grown substatially by this time along with the firing/resignations of high ranking members."

Hardly mere "elements". Halder & Canaris, just to name two. The SS was growing stronger, but hardly in a position to fight the Wehrmacht. At that stage, the SS was still little more than high-powered police, camp guards, and Hitler's personal Praetorian Guard. The Waffen SS had yet to evolve, and even when they did, would not have been able to take on Wehrmacht. And, Himmler was still in the second rank of bigshots around Hitler at that time. Goring was the heir-apparant with enemies of his own. Including Goebbels and Canaris. And, he was frequently at odds with Himmler.

The troops that went into the Ruhr were under orders to back off as soon as resistance was threatened by the French. Which, many historians believe would have spelled doom for Hitler. Most Germans were thrilled when Hitler managed to pull it off, but up to that point they were terrified of another war, and remained so. Hitler only succeeded in winning their confidence by being successful due to the wavering of the West. When he marched into Czechoslovakia, thus breaking the Munich Agreement, William Shirer (among others) notes the "gloom" of the German populace. Even the SS and Gestapo noted the same in their reports.

Truman and his advisors were not only worried about Russian military might, but about the power of the Communists in the various countries where they had become very powerful. Greece, Yugoslavia, Poland, China, Hungary, even Italy and France. Austria and Germany were also threatened by the allure of Communism.

MacArthur was installed as master of Japan, in no small part, to counter an internal (whether true or not) threat of a popular uprising by the left. Which is one of the reasons Hirohito was kept in figurative power.

Truman was "smart" to use the bomb, in the sense of fighting the misnamed "Cold War" which had already started. Just as Stalin was "smart" in the partition of Poland.

Unfortunately, for the world, the "smart" guys, the bosses, are still doing the same things. Bush and his advisors thought it smart to attack Iraq in response to that other smart guy Osama bin Laden. Other smart guys in various countries, and for various reasons, thought it smart to jump on the mighty American bandwagon. Some, in Spain, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and now Italy, have discovered they weren't so smart after all. Even Blair has paid a steep price and has managed to drag the Labour Party down with him.

In 1962 I, and my comrades, were literally locked in our barracks so we wouldn't get it into our heads to get off ground zero while the smart guys decided our fate. A year later, we were again locked down awaiting orders to board the C-130s to take us to Laos. Fortunately, (for most of us), the smart guys waited a couple of years before sending the ordinary cannon-fodder to SE Asia.

[rinsd]

38. It has been a pleasure.....

If you haven't read them, try Klemperer's diaries from the mid 30's thru the war.

Difficult reading (its a translated diary of a German literature professor) but gives a picture of the slow descent into total Nazi domination of the populace.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

11. ALL war is bad and immoral

However I recognize that somethings are worse than war.

Standing by and letting Germany/Japan do what they may would have been worse.

[genie_weenie]

12. There is no good war.

The problem is modern Statists have successfully grafted the idea of "If a Murderer is on a Rampage *WE* need to stop him" from Protection of Oneself/Family onto Nation-State vs. Nation-State power politics.

Additionally, it is ground into children at school to identify with the Nation, even if historically the Nation has always cheated, robbed, beaten or stolen from you. Unfortunately, Man appears to be suseptible to this kind of loyalty transfer from Kin -> Tribe -> People -> Nation. Which "men" like Lincoln, Wilson and * take advantage of...

So, while I am adamantly opposed to State Run Violence, I'm not a Utopian Pacisfist and I believe in Man's inherent right to defend himself and loved ones.

The Ultimate problem of course being that the Right to Self-Defense is not acknowledged by the US or the UN and Individualism is looked upon as selfish or even evil. The history of the US is replete with the crushing of individuals if they the State views them as threats, the Bonus Army of 1932, Eugene V. Debs, Ludlow 1914, Haymarket Square 1886, Chicago 1968, Kent State 1970...

[Hosnon]

21. The right of self-defense is most definitely acknowledged by the

United Nations: Article 51.

[genie_weenie]

23. Wrong, the UN recognizes Nation-States

Here is the Article you reference:

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
emphasis added

So, if the Nation of Turkey wishes to fuck over the Kurdish people time and again they can since the Kurds fall under the boundaries drawn on a map. Or China can if it wishes to kill thousands in Tienanmen Square, since this is merely the "proper" Government of a Member maintaining order. The Roma get screwed and the Knights Hospitalier recognized since the no longer own "land".

The UN has floundered and failed for years in recognition of peoples who do not have a nation but are currently considered under the suzerainty of an established Nation. Members of the UN are Nations only. IMO, the Individual is the measure of things but as long as the UN is set up the way it is, it will merely be used to enforce Security Council Foreign policy, especially the US.

[Hosnon]

25. My mistake. I assumed you were talking about the right of a state to

defend itself.

[mzteris]

13. Didn't we

"manuever" Japan into "attacking us?"

We wanted to enter the war, but the public did not want to. The politicians (and corporatists) *needed* a "reason" - et voila - Pearl Harbor.

[rinsd]

16. If you believe rw historical revisionists who hate FDR

[mzteris]

18. Why is it rw historical revisitionists?

From what I've read, the oil embargo basically "forced" the Japanese to do what they did. And there were a lot of other steps in there. I haven't read about it in a few years so I don't remember all the pieces.

FDR was a politician - just like the rest of 'em. He did some good, he did some bad. He wasn't an icon of virtue. It was a terrible time for America - and indeed, the world.

Should we have intervened earlier - most definitely - based on what was going on in Europe. But the whole manipulation of Japanese in order to goad them into attacking us - so we could "enter the war" (and benefit those who profited off of the WAR) - is pretty much accurate, from what I remember.

[rinsd]

26. Why was the oil embargo in place?

We did so because Japan refused to leave Indochina having already waged war on China for a few years. They invaded to get at the huge resources of tin and rubber.

And its rw historical revisionists who started it(I have a Pat link below) and people desperate to portray Japan as a victim in the never ending fight over whether the atom bombs should have been dropped. That's where the Japanese invasion of IndoChina and the need to feed Japan's imperialist war machine are ignored. Its a bunch of bullshit.

http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm

That's like saying its okay to invade Venezuela if Chavez embargoes our oil. After all we got a war machine to feed too.

"FDR was a politician - just like the rest of 'em. He did some good, he did some bad"

This is true. But to say his admin allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked as a pretext for getting into the war is not backed by the facts. The US knew an attack was likely but they didn't know where but many thought the Phillipines would be hit first.

And here's something to chew on about unintended consequences. The Japanese hit us in great force at Pearl Harbor and couldn't believe how well they had done. Their fighters were better than ours. They had more carriers when hitting the base. What would have happened to our two carriers had they returned to defend the island? Would we even had anyone to fight at the battle of Midway?

[mzteris]

30. **The US knew an attack was likely

but they didn't know where but many thougthought the Phillipines would be hit first. **


so that makes it okay, then?

And I've read other documents that indicated they suspected that PH was also a target.


Why would rw'ers be "apologists" for the Japanese? Aren't *they* the warmongers?

I didn't say it was "ok" for Japan to bomb PH - I said that the US manuevered them into doing it so we'd have an "excuse" to sell the American people to enter the war.

And, from what I understand, dropping the bomb could WELL have been avoided as well. It was overkill.

I'm not understanding you here.

As for whether it was a "good war" - WWII Pacific Theater and WWI with Germany need to be considered separately, don't they?

[rinsd]

31. Knowing a potential target and knowing THE target are big differences

PH was a potential target, so were the Phillipines, Sinapore etc and while PH was at heightened alert they were not on a war footing. There were signs and intentions missed throughout the chain of command and this happened even at the local level (a Japanese sub was sunk a few hours before the first wave hit).

Now look at Midway, we knew for a fact the Japanese were coming and we were ready for them. But we took heavy casualties and were lucky in the casualties we inflicted.

"I didn't say it was "ok" for Japan to bomb PH - I said that the US manuevered them into doing it so we'd have an "excuse" to sell the American people to enter the war. "

I never thought you felt it was okay but the "manuveuring" is a bunch of crap. The Japanese felt they were faced with two options; back down from their militarist ambitions or fight the US/UK. Preparations for Pearl Harbor were in the making even before we set the embargo. Which brings me to another point, people pften point to secret negotiations between the Japanese and Americans and discussions of various conditional surrenders as reasons to not to drop the bomb. But I have to ask why should we have trusted them considering the duplicity under which peace negotiations were conducted in late 1941.

"And, from what I understand, dropping the bomb could WELL have been avoided as well. It was overkill"

Overkill vs. what? The low altitude fire bombing that we were doing? The Okinawa invasion where 15,000 Americans, 100K Japanese troops and perhaps 100K Japanese civilians were killed?

There is a serious reason why war must only be undertaken as a last resort, because winning the war means defeating your enemy by killing them.

[mzteris]

36. My dad was on Okinawa

I don't enter the discussion lightly.

But do I think the US govt was capable of such heinous acts as actively trying to get another country to attack us so that we could go to war?

Do I think that the US govt was capable of dropping the bomb when it *could* have been avoided?

Unfortunately, the answer to those are 'yes'.

I don't know definitively that it happened. I no longer have the research I did a few years back on this - it's long gone - and I'm not up for doing a whole new research project.


We'll just agree to disagree on this. I don't *know* and neither do you - you have your opinion and I have my questions. And no, I don't think it's a rw conspiracy to suggest such. Maybe an anti-war "conspiracy" if you really want to have a conspiracy to point to, but rw? Whatever for? They LIKE war (as long as it's other people's sons doing the dying.)

****

General Douglas MacArthur: I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international disputes.

[LSK]

15. Germany declared War on the US 1st

Japan attacks
Germany declares war
US enters the war

The comparison to Iraq is total BULLSHIT because Saddam has not attacked ANYONE since Gulf War 1.

A more reasonable argument can be made for invading Germany AGAIN because of WWII. Not that that is logical either.

[Jara sang]

17. It was a great war for the America brand.

Pretty much zero destruction to our infrastructure while globally projecting our new found military might in it's aftermath.

[Cosmocat]

22. It most certainly was justified ...

Our involvement was most assuredly justified ... We forced Japan to attack us ??? WAH ??? Like you can force someone to punch you in the nose ...

Also, this preventing it before it got started ... That is a specious ... You just can't project like that, you can't know that far in advance that something would go to that extent ... I mean, by that rationale, someone should have taken the shrub out while he was in Yale ... And, this is the premise that the clowns running our country have used to rationalize every single one of their covert efforts to screw with the affairs of other countries ...

Wes Clark has it right ... You don't use your force until you absolutely have to ... We stayed out of the way until we had to jump into it ... The result speaks for itself ... A just fight, with a clear and decisive win ... I think the mixed results since reflect that increaslingly we got ourselves into situations that we did not belong in ...

[Terran1212]

28. War cannot be Good

Yes there were legitimate threats to world peace to be fought, but much of what the Allies did was as evil as the Axis.

So yes military action was called for but how can you call it a good thing, 60 million died!

[Charlie Brown]

32. I voted no

My grandfather was in the Pacific during WWII, and was always reluctanct to talk about the experience. When he did, the account was very bloody and gruesome (he always said the beaches "ran red with blood" of both Japanese and US Marines, from his vantage point on a mine sweeper).

He was incredibily cynical about Vietnam because WWII had been pitched to his generation as the war that would benefit their children and future generations.

At best, WWII was an inevitable defensive action, but it was by no means a "good war."

[kwolf68]

33. Hell No

While I respect what our nation and the people of that time did and I label it as a justified war, I will never EVER say any war is "GOOD".

War is a product of the failure of man, and failure can never be a good thing. the only hope is that we may learn from that failure and sadly, we have not.

[themaguffin]

34. It's not B&W

First, there is no good war.

Second, while ultimately we and the allies helped defeat a horrible regime, the regime was allowed to manifest itself to begin with and as a result of a previous war

Third, while the U.S. was attacked, it did provoke Japan.

Again, yes, we were fighting horrible regimes, but the way the whole war began and our entrance into it, isn't a simple Hollywood war script.

[Hidden Stillness]

35. A Rare Example, but, Yes

The real threat starts when most of the older people start dying off, and there is no one here to explain the simple explanations of some of these situations, or to correct errors; there aren't even the source materials being read anymore, to clear things up. This is when you start totally losing the facts completely, and have Japan as the "victim," and everything America doing--especially the great Roosevelt, whom the rich still hate--as "wrong" or "cover-up for a crime."

Japan was one of the most vicious, merciless warring armies in history, committing countless atrocities, war crimes and genocides, even wiping an entire country, Manchuria, off the map, by genocide and annexation. They had savaged China, a real victim, and were marching on to greater conquest in the whole region, when they sought to knock off the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor, to leave the entire remaining area undefended. It put us into war. Japan, like Germany, had concentration camps/work camps, and death camps, and "medical" experimentation was done on prisoners of war, just like the Nazis. Oddly, it is almost never referred to. Women were kidnapped and tortured as "sex" slaves, and even after many attempts at lawsuits over the decades, Japan has never paid restitution to these victims, or even apologized. The U.S. and Canada have both paid restitution to internment camp victims here. Americans and Canadians were both held as concentration and death camp victims by the Japanese, and when the atomic bombs wre dropped, the Japanese guards made a point of leaving the U.S. and Canadian prisoners in their cells, where all Japanese residents were evacuated. The bombs were dropped--agree with it or not--to end the war, as Japan was refusing to surrender, yet again, and was on a particularly brutal killing campaign. Further, Russia was about to invade Japan, an "ally" during the war, but if you think they would have left, I believe you are sadly mistaken, so it was a hugely complicating factor. This is just Japan; there was also Germany and Italy.

America acted like America then, which you may not even remember--there was the Roosevelt Administration's "Good Neighbor Policy" with Central America; moral leadership, the rule of law. This current Republican Party has all our National behavior so tainted, so lawless, so completely against the will of the world, even of our allies, that you cannot remember the attitude of "the good people who were going to stop fascism," unless you either actually remembered it, or had parents who did, so you know it was real. You also need to face the fact that sometimes, war is the only thing that brought the great change to freedom. How, apart from the Civil War, would the slaves ever have been freed and slavery ended? The Abolitionists, if you read your history, were generally being ignored. Sometimes, the most immoral thing you can do is refuse to fight a war, under many circumstances; "wouldn't lift a finger to help you."

It is also scary, and depressing, to read, for example, the claim that the Geneva Conventions largely pre-date World War II--impossible; from what possible source would there have been a concord on international rights and treatment of prisoners?--and to have the source of that outrage given as "Wikipedia"! Please tell me that people are not reading Wikidikisuck, and believing it, especially after the horrific experience of the journalist and one-time assistant to Attorney-General Robert Kennedy (Senior), John Seigenthaler, who tried for months and months to get the most outrageous lies and slander--from neo-con readers of Wikidikisuck--removed from Seigenthaler's "biography," and they would not help until a lawsuit was threatened. Anyone can type anything there; that would be like thinking that a thread on DU was the gospel truth, just because somebody put it there. Have any opinion you want, but at least go to some effort to learn something about earlier times, or even just our own current ones. Read a book, and at least get a basis of factual knowledge; read Studs Terkel--something. Otherwise, everything slips away to nothing.

[Bossy Monkey]

37. For two paragraphs there, you had me ready to suggest that you expand

this and submit it to admins as an article, but then you just had to rant. I have a degree from U. Penn in International Relations and an MA in Economics and have read enough books to blind a fucking monastery. Somebody asked about the Geneva Conventions and I looked it up on Wikipedia because it's easily accessible, and whether you hate it or not, largely accurate. In this case, as in every other case when I have consulted it, the information checked out. The Geneva Conventions were agreed not only in 1949 but also in 1864, 1906, and 1929, building on the work of the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907. (This is from the Columbia Encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/wa/war-laws.html which I feel confident that you will momentarily tell me is a neocon tool.) It struck me as a sufficient answer to a casual question on an Internet discussion board. I am deeply sorry that it was not sufficiently post-doctoral for you. I hope still that you will consider expanding your reply to article length and submit it to DU admins, but in future, maybe consider researching the factual underpinnings of your own harangues before letting fly. Good day.

[Hidden Stillness]

40. A Reply

Please forgive me for my angry part about Wikipedia, but sources like that really bother and worry me, as they are so often full of total distortion and fake information, and they are treated by so many people with the same respect as verified, real, researched sources, when they are generally not. I feel this way especially after the very bad experience of John Seigenthaler, a decent person who had a "biography" that was being poisoned by neo-cons posting things about "murders," etc., that they claim Seigenthaler had committed--a total nightmare--and Wikipedia would not correct it for months, until a lawsuit was threatened. This really bothered me, coupled with my more general fear that people do not read books, and that the perspective of the wonderful New Deal generation is fading away. I have also read outrageous lies even on this website--from horror sources like Oliver Stone, etc.--claiming that Lyndon Johnson was connected with the Pres. Kennedy assassination, etc. Scary. It was the larger issue of people being so easily duped, that has come to bother me, so I perhaps overreacted with this case. My apologies.

[VOX]

39. The U.S. stood on the sidelines for 3 years before entering WWII...

Most of Europe, North Africa and half of Russia was in fascist hands. Japan, in a misbegotten notion that their mission was holy, laid claim to much of Asia and half the South Pacific, and was knocking on Australia's door. Innocent people were being executed by the millions.

All of this transpired before the U.S. got involved.

No question, there are some dark stains on U.S. history during this time: the internment of Japanese-Americans, and the use of the atomic bomb. While it is true that all wars are immoral, some wars are necessary.

WWII was such a war -- global fascism was defeated.