The book, and subsequent HBO miniseries, Band of Brothers didn't hurt either. I remember a vet who served in the 82nd Airborne quipping that the 101st gets all the breaks just because it had the luck of being at Bastogne. That's probably true. That's how history can be sometimes: Fickle.
Nonetheless, BoB enjoyed a brief time when, for a moment, we cast our eyes back at the WWII generation for one last salute. Most of my life it was not like that, Vietnam was the social obsession where American wars were concerned. The Civil War was a lightning rod issue as always. But WWII? It was generally just 'that war' Archie bunker or Jonathan Higgins prattled on about and younger generations quickly ignored. It was fodder for comedic sparring and not much else.
That is, until Tom Brokaw wrote his book The Greatest Generation. At the same time, Spielberg released his popular, albeit flawed, WWII tribute Saving Private Ryan. I've often thought that was penance from a generation defined, rightly or wrongly, by walking with middle fingers perpetually raised at its parents. Then, by the late 90s, those parents were beginning to pass. Therefore their kids needed to rush out and give a few hasty nods to the generation that their children seemed to work overtime to forget.
In any event, those days are gone, and the war is largely forgotten. Even the Holocaust, which dominated the majority of the war's focus for most of my life (the A-Bombs and our Japanese internment camps being most of what else was emphasized), is largely forgotten as anything other than a political punch line. From what my sons observe from their peers, it's not an uncommon narrative now that the whole of WWII was basically a vast American Military Industrial Machine conspiracy. Hitler and his party were hoisted by the USA to produce need for an American military power able to subjugate the world and funnel endless trillions into the pockets of our industrial lords.
Nonetheless, for a time in the late 90s and early post-9/11 years, the generation of the 101st and their fellows enjoyed its last bow in a shrinking spotlight. By the 75th Anniversary, most media coverage was focused on their racism and prejudice, and contemporary movies made about that time followed suit, reminding us that, more than anything, they were racists and sexists fighting for a racist nation and not much more.
For my part, I wonder if I've met him. Years ago, when my three oldest were much younger and before our fourth son came along, we were in a local Wendy's. While I was heading to the counter for a drink refill, I noticed an elderly gent with a military ball cap. On it was the 101st. I can't remember if it said which company. I plucked up the courage to approach him, like some groupie, and asked if he was in the service in the war.
He was actually quite approachable and understanding. He was in the war and served in both D-Day and Market Garden, where he was wounded and put out of commission for the rest of the war. I told him I had learned much from the book and miniseries, and asked if he knew of any of the men featured. He said he knew Richard Winters and several others. He named some others, but I can't remember which other ones. He wasn't with E Company, but he was in the 506th. I asked him if I could call on him, and he said yes. Though when I did, it seemed he was having difficulties with his wife's health and not to revisit the conversation. I decided to leave it drop.
I've often remembered him, however. I wonder if this fellow is him, it's been so long. The story doesn't give me much info, and that's probably just as well. It gets the year of the D-Day invasion wrong, as can be expected at this point. But I'll leave it go. At this stage, he's served his time and can pick and choose the parts of his memories he wishes to revisit.
Just for fun, here are a couple of clips that demonstrate how the WWII generation was generally portrayed in the broad sweep of pop culture when I was growing up:
And here is how it was portrayed, albeit briefly, in those formative years of my sons - especially my three oldest. I often wonder if that is one reason why they are less inclined to see America before the 60s as nothing but a racist fascist state of sexist deplorables. Timing, as they say, is everything. (Language Advisory on this one)
I find it weird to hear about college students trying to downplay the dark side of Nazism at a time when Hitler is the boogyman used by Democrats to smear anyone right of center.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the rhetoric I hear from the Sean Hannity/Brett Beahr crowd about WWII being a simple story of good vs. Evil fought against overwhelming odds, with the fate of the entire plannet at stake doesn't quite sit well with me considering that America was allied with Stalin and Mao, Germany had a crappy navy that never could have invaded America, German logistics were 40% horse-drawn etc......
As I said, it was never 'all good vs. all evil' by the time I came along. At that stage, the macro-narrative was that the world certainly had its evils, and the USSR was bad ... but the USA was often no better. Now seeing where things have gone, I wonder if that didn't lay the groundwork for what we see today.
DeleteAs for the decision to ally with the USSR, that has a complex background and had much to do with looking to the post war era.
But sometimes it is easy to miss how unsure things were at the early stage of the war. It wasn't really until 1943 that things began to swing against the Axis without any hope of them stopping the Allies. Through 1942 there was much give and take. For instance, we often remember Midway as the turning point, but the months that followed were hardly a one way street. In fact, the US Navy would suffer its worst defeat against the Japanese well after that. So in hindsight, yeah, we win. But in 1941 and 1942? It looked far less promising.
By pointing out the inadequacies of the Axis Navy's, I wasn't denying that they could have won. I was questioning the Hollywood idea of Axis troops landing in North America and conquering the entire plannet. A large portion of the US seems to genuinely believe that if the Axis won the war we would be speaking German today, which doesn't make sense considering the geography and logistics. The idea of "Good vs. Evil," is alive and well among people like Sean Hannity. The actor Mike Rowe once said WWII was complicated (he wasn't even talking about the morality, just the strategy) and Hannity immediately lost his cool and said "it's very simple, good vs. evil," as if Rowe had just insulted his wife's cat or something. This simplidtic idea of WWII seems to be motivating Hanniy's anti-Putin extremism. One older woman I know iseems to be convinced that Putin will attack America next. Brett Beahr was on Rush Limbaugh's show talking about a WWII book he had written and unironicly said "if D-Day failed we could be speaking German today." Rush agreed uncritically.
DeleteI think some of that 'Goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Ave.' comes from old WWII propaganda. I remember seeing old maps with a Swastika over the Eastern US, and a Rising Sun over the Western. Not that most in charge ever imagined it would go there, but it did point to the threat of an Asia-Pacific Empire under Japan, and a European Empire under the Nazis. Sometimes propaganda has to be simple: get the shot - stop the spread.
DeleteBut I do think it was a case of good versus evil, and here's why. I think as a generation - a few generations - we've become too focused on the sins of everyone (before us) that we've almost come to the point of validating inaction on the grounds that anything less than perfection brings you down to the level of the evil you're fighting. That's because decades and decades of focusing on the evils of a period - like WWII - eventually sees generations rise up with no real clear distinction between the US/Allies and the Nazis or Japanese. And that, based on what we're seeing today, doesn't look like a positive result. It's also a mentality that sets the groundwork for accepting such gibberish as the 1619 Project.
In my experience the simplistic "good vs. evil," view of the war does more to benefit the left than anyone else. Once we accept that Hitler was a cartoon villain it becomes easier to de-humanize less extreme positions that disagree with us. If more people knew the nuances of Hitler and Nazism, the whole "everyone I dislike is Hitler," routine that we see ANTIFA and others use would be far less effective.
DeleteI actually disagree on that. The 'Hitler as Cartoon Villain' arose for multiple reasons, but not the 'good/bad' narrative. It came culturally because it was easier to vilify the Nazis than the Japanese owing to racial considerations, plus Japan was far less willing to fess up than Germany. Plus, by the 70s and beyond, the Holocaust emerged as THE event of the war, with the majority of our focus on that, as opposed to almost anything else. Since Hitler became the face of the Holocaust, that became the focus, and culturally going after Nazis was the easy way out (see Lucas/Spielberg), I think that's why Hitler as Cartoon Figure emerged. Plus, by the 90s, it became more and more difficult to unpack the Nazis and try to see them as humans gone awry. It almost became forbidden to think of them as anything but cardboard cutout monsters (just ask Marge Schott).
DeleteBut the focus on 'not good/bad, but muddled middle' has had baleful effects on our society and the world. It's set out the idea that anyone less than perfect deserves to be scrutinized as well, which is fine. But it didn't stop there, and soon became an excuse to ignore the good for only the bad, especially when convenient. That's why now we see memes about an army of white supremacists storming the Normandy beaches to fight an army of white supremacists. It's also spilled over into the Founding Fathers, American and Western heritage, Christianity and anything convenient - find something bad and that can now be the exclusive focus (thus the destruction of ‘white Jesus/Mary’ statues in 2020, just to name one result).
And it's given rise to another, dangerous trend. Since now we've established that we define people by their sins and failings, and since we can jettison notions of forgiveness and reconciliation (see BLM), it stands to reason I can't possibly be wrong. After all, to be wrong is to be defined by the wrong. Therefore not wanting to suffer the same fate as a Robert E. Lee, a Jefferson, or a WWII vet (esp. white), I'm going to fight like a mad dog to avoid any idea that I'm wrong or sinful or anything less than perfect. Something we see more and more in modern activism and rhetoric, especially among the younger ages.
Donald, I saw a comment you made in response to what I said. I thought it was good and I agreed. It vanished, however, and I have no clue why (usually even if someone deletes their own comment it shows it was deleted). Let it be known I agreed with much of what you said at that point!
DeleteYeah, there certainly were no movies made about WW2 before Brokaw, and if there were, I'm sure they were overwhelmingly dismissive or negative. No one would have made triumphant movies about Midway, the Battle of the Bulge, the Longest Day, the Great Escape, etc.; Archie Bunker was just about the only one to mention WW2. At least in the alternate universe you are remembering, populated as it was with the Berenstein Bears and Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the 1980's.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to be getting a lot of visitors from alternate realities these days. Every freakin' election seems to bring in more, who remember the election being won by the other side.
Every movie you mentioned was produced in mid-70s or well before that. I grew up in the late 70s and 80s. Thanks for proving my point. :) Oh, Archie Bunker, Mr. Roper, Jon Higgins - why the tropes 'telling old, boring war stories' were endless. Again, it appears the alternate reality is somewhere else than my recollections.
Delete