Thread: The Good War

Throughout some circles, ww2 {both European & Pacific theatres} was considered the 'good war'. Naturally, the good guys in this good war were refered to as the 'allied powers' and the bad guys as 'axis' {of evil}. In theory, battling the ever growing possibility of the evil presence {Fascist Germany/Italy & Imperial Japan} was the forefront of goodness and light. Fighting for freedom and democratic flavour worldwide. While little is examined by the hypocrisy and contradictory perspectives that seemingly are left unturned. These historical subject and notions are far to sacred to critique or question. To explore the historical character of said 'good guys' of pre-war, wartime, and post-war eras one finds easily that they {the good guys and their good war} were just barbarous, atrocious, and injust as the so-call evil doers. Naturally, these items are never brought to our attention or ever explained, as to shed a darkness on the deluded light and goodness we naturally associated with ourselves. So what was the real difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'?? Virtually, not much difference. This model usually depends on how one wants to perceive history. Historic convention does you and yours a disservice.....

Bellus Justus?
No such thing, the innocent always suffer!

How is this world news?

To explore the historical character of said 'good guys' of pre-war, wartime, and post-war eras one finds easily that they {the good guys and their good war} were just barbarous, atrocious, and injust [sic] as the so-call evil doers. Naturally, these items are never brought to our attention or ever explained, as to shed a darkness on the deluded light and goodness we naturally associated with ourselves.

Speak for yourself OP, not everybody believes it was 100% righteous versus 100% evil. Things are seldom that way.

Naturally, these items are never brought to our attention or ever explained

oh?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

How is this world news?

Wasn't sure where to post it. {???} Perhaps the mods will put it in it's rightful category, yes?

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

. So what was the real difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'?? Virtually, not much difference.

Care to expand on that? Seems a bit of a lazy throwaway line for what should be the core of your argument.

Originally Posted by Texpat

To explore the historical character of said 'good guys' of pre-war, wartime, and post-war eras one finds easily that they {the good guys and their good war} were just barbarous, atrocious, and injust [sic] as the so-call evil doers. Naturally, these items are never brought to our attention or ever explained, as to shed a darkness on the deluded light and goodness we naturally associated with ourselves.

Speak for yourself OP, not everybody believes it was 100% righteous versus 100% evil. Things are seldom that way.

Naturally, these items are never brought to our attention or ever explained

oh?

Than you, being the obvious and inquisitive historian that you are, can reason around the selected consciousness that imperils Eurocentric historiography..??

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

ww2 {both European & Pacific theatres}

So what was the real difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'??

The 'Bad guys' started it.

the 'Good guys' finished it, via horrific, but mostly needed means.

War sucks. Want u want?

Rule of thumb. The good guys win and write the history books.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Rule of thumb. The good guys win and write the history books.

No they don't. Anybody can write a history book. Are you saying that most modern historians are liars? No doubt one or two are but they don't last long.

No, most historians aren't liars as such. But most circles of social science instinctively is subjective and unconsciously linear.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

. So what was the real difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'?? Virtually, not much difference. ..

This is simply not true (at least in the context of the second world war). The PRIME difference was that the allied powers fought not for conquest of lands and peoples or to subjugate those peoples (as was the case with the axis powers) but to FREE lands and peoples from conquest.

You can argue the case of the occupation of Japan and to a lesser extent germany) - but at no time was Japan even thought of as the 53rd (or whatever) state of the American Union.

Treatment of civilians and prisoners of war by the allied powers was (almost without exception) far, far, far above treatment of civilians and prisoner in other theatres of the war. If you want I can fish out the figures for prisoners of war held by various powers in the European theatre (Allies by germans, germans by allies, Germans by russians, russians by germans etc). It makes sobering reading - off hand (I would need to get my reference source out) I think something less than 1% of german prisoners of war died in allied hands - compared to the figures of (off memory) 30 to 70% (germans by russians, russians by germans).

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Rule of thumb. The good guys win and write the history books.

No they don't. Anybody can write a history book. Are you saying that most modern historians are liars? No doubt one or two are but they don't last long.

No, most historians aren't liars as such. But most circles of social science instinctively is subjective and unconsciously linear.

You're making a lot of sweeping generalisations in this thread. Is there any chance that you'll ever get around to specifics? Granted that subjectivity is a problem, that's what peer review is meant (not always successfully) to deal with. And what on earth does "unconsciously linear" mean? BTW have you yet worked out the difference between an historian and a historiographer?

We really ought to place the chief blame on the historiographicocustodians for the insufficient unveiling of the histrionics of the historians on part of the historiographers.

Anti-histamines, the lot of them.

^communist!

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

. So what was the real difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'?? Virtually, not much difference. ..

This is simply not true (at least in the context of the second world war). The PRIME difference was that the allied powers fought not for conquest of lands and peoples or to subjugate those peoples (as was the case with the axis powers) but to FREE lands and peoples from conquest.

You can argue the case of the occupation of Japan and to a lesser extent germany) - but at no time was Japan even thought of as the 53rd (or whatever) state of the American Union.

Treatment of civilians and prisoners of war by the allied powers was (almost without exception) far, far, far above treatment of civilians and prisoner in other theatres of the war. If you want I can fish out the figures for prisoners of war held by various powers in the European theatre (Allies by germans, germans by allies, Germans by russians, russians by germans etc). It makes sobering reading - off hand (I would need to get my reference source out) I think something less than 1% of german prisoners of war died in allied hands - compared to the figures of (off memory) 30 to 70% (germans by russians, russians by germans).

Thank you for being the voice of reason in this modern world of reinventing histories. Of course both sides in a war will do evil but it is historically clear who was comparatively worse.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

the difference between an historian and a historiographer

is one a cockney that drops his H's?

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Originally Posted by DrB0b

the difference between an historian and a historiographer

is one a cockney that drops his H's?

Nope, "an historian" or "a historian" are both perfectly correct English usage, as is "a historiographer" or "an historiographer". The use of "an" is slightly more archaic, the "a" usage being a consequence of declining educational standards and a trend towards simplification. As I realise that there are some on this forum not quite up to snuff with the Queen's English I decided to provide something for everybody and used both "a" and "an".

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Throughout some circles, ww2 {both European & Pacific theatres} was considered the 'good war'. Naturally, the good guys in this good war were refered to as the 'allied powers' and the bad guys as 'axis' {of evil}. In theory, battling the ever growing possibility of the evil presence {Fascist Germany/Italy & Imperial Japan} was the forefront of goodness and light. Fighting for freedom and democratic flavour worldwide. While little is examined by the hypocrisy and contradictory perspectives that seemingly are left unturned. These historical subject and notions are far to sacred to critique or question. To explore the historical character of said 'good guys' of pre-war, wartime, and post-war eras one finds easily that they {the good guys and their good war} were just barbarous, atrocious, and injust as the so-call evil doers. Naturally, these items are never brought to our attention or ever explained, as to shed a darkness on the deluded light and goodness we naturally associated with ourselves. So what was the real difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'?? Virtually, not much difference. This model usually depends on how one wants to perceive history. Historic convention does you and yours a disservice.....

Good sequel to your first book

most academics have a strong incentive to depict the truth, why could it be impossible that some historians are actually telling the truth and not just add another opinion ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

most academics have a strong incentive to depict the truth, why could it be impossible that some historians are actually telling the truth and not just add another opinion ?

Unfortunately, everyone within this thread miss the point. Perhaps my prose was sloppy and not coherent. The point and the reference was to European colonialism.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Unfortunately, everyone within this thread miss the point. Perhaps my prose was sloppy and not coherent. The point and the reference was to European colonialism.

Was it? Where?

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by Butterfly

most academics have a strong incentive to depict the truth, why could it be impossible that some historians are actually telling the truth and not just add another opinion ?

Unfortunately, everyone within this thread miss the point. Perhaps my prose was sloppy and not coherent. The point and the reference was to European colonialism.

considering you started the original post with:

"Throughout some circles, ww2 {both European & Pacific theatres} was considered the 'good war'"

you above statement is sloppy and incoherent.