Wonder if I could ask the same question about Vietnam? Although, it was never declared a War. Guess I could've done a separate thread, but, if that needs to be done, I'm sure Ken will do it.
I don't see how most of the populations ended up worse off; Americans and British didn't see any changes and the Japanese moved to a democracy. Which populations ended up worse off? (I have not made much effort to study the after-effects of WWII, so I'm curious.)
I've often said the same thing myself. My father fought over there. My uncle was a Spitfire pilot...he was never the same man after the war. And for what? Hitler destroyed a republican government in Germany, and the "It's only a free trade zone" lie has destroyed a continent. Wasted blood. And wasted lives...even among those who physically survived.
Nearly every country on the continent has lost the right to self-govern because of the lie of the EU that was forced on them. It was "only a free trade zone," and then more and more control was centralized in Brussels. Cultures that are millennia old have been destroyed by mass, forced immigration invasion. It would be like us being lorded over by a non-elected body that governs us, Mexico and Canada. The people of Ireland saw what the EU was, and they voted "NO!" to joining the EU. The powers that be decided that was the wrong answer...so another vote was taken and "magically" this time the result was "Yes."
I don’t think War 2 was a necessary evil. I think it was the right thing to do at the time. England needed more help than we we were able to give them under the lend-lease program. Although I was too young to be in th military at that time, I believed then and I believe now, where possible, English speaking peoples should should support each other where possible. We can debate Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and the Afghan thing, another no win situation, but War 2 was necessary. What did it accomplish? It opened up the world for our women.
Murdering so many (millions) men, women and children is not a good price to pay for such a very questionable and often terrible result, is it ?
Worse than nothing. As many military members from privates to generals found out between 1980 and 1999, they even went awol in huge numbers every year, because as they said "we are killing innocent men, women and children" or "harming many populations" instead of helping or setting anyone free. They said "we were lied to to get us to sign up and agree to fight, agree to war" , and many did not continue to do so - they left, awol, instead of continuing the devastation they saw firsthand. i.e. if no one did anything, it would have been better, according to active duty military who were there. The reason for the wars (and police actions, so-called) the usa was involved in since at least 1900 was not ever what people were told. Remember what the usa government and people did previously ? Slaughtered native americans, destroyed communities in Alaska - taking their children and livelihoods away - and other communities and cultures . Motivated by what ? G r e e d, P r i d e (not any sort of good kind of motivation) And multitudes of lives wasted, (along with billions of dollars) who did not go to war, messed up by all the propaganda, set at odds with all those trying to show the truth of what was happening. The lies are what keep oppressed and controlled people in their place(s). (possibly in every country, for centuries)
Because lots of sacrifices were made to rescue Europe from Hitler, only to have it end up in this state anyway. In the end, little (if anything) was gained.
In my opinion, not at all. It was more or less forced upon us. In a manor of speaking it was survival of the fittest. Our enemy actually got off pretty easy.
...? ...the enemy is in charge. in control. running things. on both (all) sides. He doesn't care at all for what's good for any group of people other than, maybe, his own family, his own group, and even then they are disposable. The idea of survival of the fittest came from the enemy - it is not a truth, a given, nor right. Look at humans as one example - terrible condition, terrible fitness, terrible health(mentally, mentality, morally, and physically) compared to almost any animal.. i.e. not fit , yet destroying thousands of species, wiping them entirely off the earth and out of the air and the oceans.
If the Axis had prevailed, do you think that Adolf would've made it his mission to eliminate Jews globally, as well as any other demographic group that falls short of his "standards"? How would Japan have dealt with Mao?
That's what those poweres (and the usa ) did historically. Eliminate people who were in their way. Destroy whole cultures because they were in the way, or had something the powers in force wanted. How did Japan deal with any enemy when they had the power to do so ?
Politically, like you said, it sure messed things up for most countries involved. Health wise , it was the licensed doctors doing medical evaluations for those inducted into the military who discovered that something had cause a huge increase in disease . Instead of one in a hundred men being not accepted for service (usually due to flat feet), so many were being declared medically unfit for duty that they had to lower the health standards/ criteria/ needed to pass to be accepted. If not for the war, and observant doctors who served in wwi and wwii, some other means might have resulted in finding out what caused the great increase in disease/poor health/ , but as it turned out it was those doctors and the ones who studied it who discovered and published around 1948 (officially) what caused the great increase in disease.
I don't think that black people got in Adolf's way but I'd be nervous as hell if I were black and he were calling the shots. Seem to recall that Japan whupped-up on China before WWII.