Myths of WWII

[Beirut]

The casus belli versus Japan was clear-cut. The morality of the Pacific war wasn't, because of the way the Japanese were depicted, treated both in the war theatre and in the United States, etcetera.

And how, pray tell, could the Japanese have been better treated in the war theater? Should the US have have killed the Japanese with bombs that were not only smart, but polite and courteous as well?

And how, pray tell once more, should they have been depicted? As misguided men who were simply not hugged enough as children, therefore not responsible for their actions? "Listen, sorry about the massacres and rapes of millions, but don't judge them too harshly, they had a bad collective childhood."

The Japanese in the US should have been deported or jailed for the extent of the war. American citizens of Japanese descent should not have been mistreated in any way.

The same goes for the bombing of German cities toward the end of the war in Europe. The ambivalence of such episodes has been haunting the war generation, whether you like it or not. And rightly so. That war was fought in the name of certain ideas and ideals, remember?

The bombing of German cities towards the end of the war was partly for military reason and partly as a kick in the balls once you're down. It was punishment. Revenge. It was Sherman saying "I will make war on these people in such a fashion that generations will pass before their ancestors ever think of using war as an option again." Considering the brevity of the peace between WWI and WWII, it is not hard to understand the motivations of those who desired a longer span between WWII and WWIII. At that time, it was reasonable to fear a Germany that would rise again in twenty years and start a war that would kill hundreds of millions.

You're debating windmills.

They don't call me Beirut Quixote for nothing!