What made WW2 go down in history as a "good war"?

by Yases

The "standard" story of WW1 is that of slogs through mud, shoddy commanders leading men to their deaths as they charge into machine gun fire, it starting either from a mess of diplomacy or gross self-service on the the combatants' part, and that the war was "unnecessary" or "not worthy".

In contrast, WW2's famed commanders and heads of state have been portrayed more respectfully (especially Rommel and Churchill), the sides (or at least the Allies) are portrayed as fighting for ideals beyond dealing with threats and advancement, and perhaps most importantly that the war was "necessary" or "worthy".

What made WW2 go down as the "Good War", including everything coming with that? Was it down to the war crimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? The Allies were in a better position to have histories with helpful portrayals for their commanders and heads of state?

DuxBelisarius

^ These previous answers I've given should help.

In short it was a number of factors. Technology played a huge role, in that television, radio and film in the 1930s and 40s connected the experience of the Second World War to people in a way that WWII never was. Perceptions played a huge role as well; the popular images of both wars are overwhelmingly dominated by an Anglophone bias, which favours American, British and Commonwealth perspectives. While the end of WWII saw a period of affluence and apparent ascendancy for the English-speaking West, the same could not really be said in the aftermath of WWI, especially with the failure of the Allies to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, and the Great Depression which led to Hitler coming to power. There was a feeling that the Second World War had achieved a decisive ending in a way that appeared missing for WWI.

The "standard" story of WW1 is that of slogs through mud, shoddy commanders leading men to their deaths as they charge into machine gun fire, it starting either from a mess of diplomacy or gross self-service on the combatants' part, and that the war was "unnecessary" or "not worthy".

That's the basics of the standard, wholly misleading and insufficient popular narrative of the Great War.

In reality:

  • Tactics grew very sophisticated, especially from 1915 onwards; there was very little, if any, 'running into machine guns'

  • The war's 'worthiness' is a matter of opinion really, but I see nothing 'unnecessary', although certainly tragic and ghastly, about the Allied sacrifices

  • the idea of a 'mess of diplomacy', or a 'slither into war' is a bankrupt myth; the modern consensus is that military and political decision makers in Berlin and Vienna bare primary responsibility for the outbreak of war

Was it down to the war crimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?

This was a huge part of it; it was easy ex post facto to portray the Nazis and the Japanese as an evil that needed to be subdued (and they were), conveniently ignoring the inaction of the Great Powers in the 30s, admittedly not purely by choice, that allowed them to develop into the threats they became. In truth, Britain, France, America, the USSR, China and the rest of the Allies found themselves pitted against the Axis for very sensible reasons, maintaining a balance of power, defending their borders, etc none of which involved 'defeating tyranny' and 'saving democracy'. Doesn't downplay their efforts, or the IMO very apparent righteousness of their cause, though it's too easily forgotten that the Allies, in WWI and WWII weren't all a spotless bunch (of course that interferes with the popular narrative so...)