militaristic goal. Such impressions have lasting implications. For example, every time England and Germany meet in a soccer match the British newspapers make explicit connections to wartime.  The chant of “Two World Wars and One World Cup” is still sung by English supporters to illustrate the apparent equivalence of national victory in global conflagration and a soccer tournament (and neatly ignoring that Germany usually beats England at soccer).

However, some recent mainstream movies have focused more on the agony and personal cost of World War II. Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers, two movies directed by Clint Eastwood, tell a very different story of the war. Indeed, Flags of Our Fathers, the book and the movie, honors the individuals who served while asking critical questions of the nature of heroism and the morality of the actions of the U.S. government in using the Iwo Jima “heroes” to raise public support for the war.

Parallel to these trends in popular culture is a change in the academic discussion of World War II. Historians and philosophers have raised questions about the motivations and conduct of the Second World War. The question can now be asked whether it is correct to continue to see this conflict as the “Good War” by which it has become to be known. From a philosophical perspective, the established framework to evaluate the morality of a conflict is known as Just War Theory. With a long tradition based on arguments first developed within the Christian Church, Just War Theory posits that there are certain situations when countries and individuals are morally bound to fight. Put very simply, the philosophical position, rather than a theory, says that if a country has been invaded, or invasion is imminent, then there is a moral obligation to fight. Also, countries are morally obligated to intervene in another country, with military force if necessary, to end gross violations of human rights. In addition, it is just, or moral, for a country to aid another in any of the above. Though Just War Theory is a much debated body of knowledge, these four points are the essence of what are argued to be just causes for going to war. There is another part of the evaluation of just war that must be considered. Is war conducted in a just manner? We will concentrate upon one aspect of this question, and that is whether the deliberate targeting of civilians by strategic bombing was undertaken in an immoral manner.

Was World War II a war fought for just purposes? Let’s begin with an obvious starting point for an American audience: Pearl Harbor. In the popular and mainstream interpretation of the conflict the bombing of Pearl Harbor is seen to come out of the blue, literally. An alternative interpretation is that this one event was part of a long historical process that began with another military action. In 1853, Commodore Matthew Perry “opened” Japan to U.S. trade by arriving with a flotilla of warships and making the military consequences of a failure to “cooperate” quite clear. This event is seen as marking the beginning of U.S. attempts to gain economic advantage in East Asia, in direct competition with Japan. From then on the two countries sparred diplomatically, and the establishment of a U.S. base in Hawaii was seen as the final straw by the Japanese. Of course, this does not exonerate the Japanese. Their own actions in Asia had been brutally imperial. The point is that the U.S. entry into war is usually seen as a provoked reaction to an unwarranted attack on its territory: An interpretation that stands comfortably within the tenets of Just War Theory. Such a position is currently under question.

Let us now consider the conduct of the war. Much has been written lately about the bombing campaign conducted by Britain and the United States against civilian targets. This has been a thorny question for a long time. With respect to the U.S., the question is further complicated by the debate over whether the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary to end the war without the loss of thousands of GIs in a land invasion of Japan, or was it instead a calculated demonstration of military power aimed at Stalin. Focusing just upon the use of non-nuclear weaponry to flatten cities in Germany and Japan, the morality of these actions has been challenged. The defense that the bombing was mainly for strategic purposes, aimed at industrial facilities, holds little water. The British soon realized that they did not have the technical capability for the accurate bombing that such a task required, and numerous documents and quotes are available demonstrating the political intentions of bombing civilians into a state of submission. Though the U.S. resisted this strategy initially in Europe they embraced it wholeheartedly in Japan. One more point about strategic bombing can be made. The concentration camps in which the Holocaust was taking place were not selected as targets despite the vocal lobbying of Jewish groups. This was one use of strategic bombing that, arguably, would be supported by Just War Theory’s concern for ending humanitarian catastrophe.

Of course, it is very hard to talk about these issues without raising the ire of people who have had direct experience in the conflict. To argue about the morality of the bombing campaign against Japanese or German cities, for example, does not question the bravery of the individuals who jeopardized their lives in one of the most high risk components of the war. To say that Pearl Harbor was not the beginning point of the war in the Pacific theater does not demean the extraordinary acts conducted by individuals on the day or in the subsequent campaign.

The purpose for this article is broader than the behavior of individuals. Rather, I want to conclude with a consideration of the political implications that emerge from this questioning of the just causes and conduct of what, for so long, had been assumed to be the “good war.” The recent critiques of U.S. goals and means in World War II cannot be separated from the contemporary context. They raise concerns of whether the U.S. acted, in the past, with imperial goals and inhumane means. These questions have been aired and debated continuously since the invasion of Afghanistan post-9/11 and the emergence of the “Bush doctrine.” Their salience remains given President Obama’s use of drones to attack targets in Pakistan and the admission of civilian casualties in these raids and similar ones in Afghanistan.

What does a re-interpretation of World War II mean for our acceptance of the Global War on Terror? That is a matter of public debate rather than my personal proclamation. However, if a broader recognition of the U.S. as acting militarily for economic interests and in a manner that is, at best, cavalier regarding civilian deaths becomes part of the discourse then the meaning of another attack that is said to have come “out of the blue” (9/11) must be considered in a broader historical perspective. Ultimately, the question centers around the moral intentions of the U.S. Is this a time of hope and change? Or is the War on Terror another example of what is framed as a “good war” but is conducted for ulterior motives and with questionable tactics? The revisionary interpretations of World War II not only put these questions on the table but place them in a broad historical narrative.