Too much Homeric virtue infused in World War II

Perhaps a closer examination is needed of the term "the good war," as a description of World War II. No one takes it literally of course. Not sure of the history of it - maybe it sprang from the disillusionment that came about with subsequent wars. The climax of that was Vietnam. Unbelievable that the U.S. could get sucked into the vortex of Southeast Asia conflict. 

We hear about Korea, but if this military adventure was planned as WWII redux, no dice. So we look back on World War II as being this unique niche of exuberant triumph. Arguably it was nothing short of hell on Earth. Look how crazed the German and Japanese people became. We might view them today as victims or pawns of propaganda. 

This is why I'm so scared at present with what is going on in our United States with the MAGA movement. There are parallels with past uprisings that today are scorned by history. And to think that "evangelical Christianity" has largely given us the Trump phenomenon. We could all take a deep breath and reject this at any time. But the more time passes, the more it seems people get "dug in."

I grew up in the 1960s when the hell of Vietnam got put before us. The media had grown more capable of piercing through the government version of things. We still had a "gatekeeper" media that pushed most of the sheer crazy stuff off to the side. Media is a constantly-evolving organism of course. So while the media was able to open our eyes about Vietnam in an arduous, painfully slow process, it kept morphing and fragmenting to where the gatekeeper seemed lost. So now we see "extreme conservative" media flex its muscles and adjust the tone of America. It pushes in a reactionary direction that is counter to the good sense of most people. 

I put "conservative" in quotes because the people who brandish the term now have polluted it. True conservative philosophy I respect. That would be like Liz Cheney. The Cheneys have gone along a 180-degree pattern from being darlings of the people who call themselves "conservative," to an actual enemy, most likely warranting tight security measures for them. Because, a corner could be turned toward violence again. 

Bad as January 6 was, it took six months for an investigative committee to even be established. Perhaps it makes sense: if the U.S. could be asleep at the wheel during the early stages of Vietnam, just shows how these things can happen. Historians will try to explain someday. We hope the "someday" arrives with the USA still in existence. 

But let's get back on how WWII was "the good war." Strange how the previous world war was pushed way in the background in our consciousness. We'd see the grainy images from WWI - yes, very archival - and the whole thing just seemed so "primitive" with the trenches etc. We heard about the poison gases. The tanks and planes were mere precursors to what was to come. The late author Tony Horwitz talked about "technology to kill with industrial efficiency." 

(The World War I planes could still sink the Bismarck. They were "Swordfish" planes.)

 

On the big screen

The aftermath of WWII saw Hollywood present "the good war" in dramatic terms. The WWII movies of the '60s had a particular quality. They instructed us about a lot that had happened. We were protected from the most gory stuff. Hollywood went out and sought to remedy that with "Saving Private Ryan." Hollywood showed in the '70s that it could present a major Allied failure in an epic picture - "A Bridge Too Far" - with Robert Redford no less. And Sean Connery. 

Before there was "Saving Private Ryan" there was "The Longest Day," the latter being the epitome of '60s-era WWII flicks. It leaves a quite different impression from "Saving Private Ryan." It was Homeric as it projected heroism from the U.S. "grunts." Of course, you could not envision a bigger hell on Earth than what happened at Normandy. 

The Allies sent in troops from the sea which meant there was no retreat. In the U.S. Civil War, "flankers" were sometimes used to keep troops from running. Yes, just shoot the guys. It was considered an extreme measure that endangered morale, but it was used where winning was paramount like at Gettysburg. 

So at Normandy, the masses of young men came off the landing craft and had only one direction to go. "The Longest Day" did not show the extent of the casualties and carnage at Omaha Beach. The movie is careful about showing the troops falling, though we do see this. So many of the troops who fall seem instantly dead, whereas in reality it's harder to kill a human being than that. Once dead, the soldiers become forgotten as the movie moves on to more drama. We reserve our sympathy for the living. 

 

A question of taste

Stop and think: the WWII veterans had an odd detachment from the war's horrors in the years following. Their kids acquired military facsimile toys, for example. 

The vets acted like they had no aversion to reminders of the war's misery. Why would any war veteran family accept a "board game," of all things, called "Hit the Beach?" There it was, a kids' game from 1965. I was ten years old and my own father had served in the Navy in WWII. 

My father just seemed indifferent about all that stuff. You can read about the board game today: "Players control U.S. Marines racing to be the first to island hop to the objective." 

I can't imagine a more harrowing reminder of WWII than the cry "hit the beach." But there it was, a board game. 

Might we view "The Longest Day" as kind of a "cowboys and Indians" movie? Isn't the appeal largely the same? Movies about the Pacific campaign might be a better example. The Japanese could be seen as "the other." John Wayne gave us "Sands of Iwo Jima." Iwo Jima! As nightmarish as Normandy. 

The TV show "Combat!" was a clone of "The Longest Day." It depicted the hellish combat in France. Normandy was just the beginning of all that. 

 

And in war's aftermath. . .

The immediate post-war movie "The Best Years of Our Lives" is just as instructive as anything I'm citing here. Was this the ultimate "male bonding" movie? The opening is so touching: three guys on their way home from the war. They become friends by accident. They're headed for the same city, the fictional "Boone City." 

We are supposed to be touched by their overwhelming camaraderie: fellow servicemen who helped "win the war." They develop a closeness that seems to supersede their own families and friends. They cling to their wartime roles. They develop ongoing closeness. 

So after the movie, I'm wondering about the message here: I'm wondering if we're supposed to conclude that these three guys have a better life because of the military and war, than they would have had otherwise. 

It is said the war pulled the U.S. out of the Depression. If no war, would two of these guys have had a miserable hardscrabble existence? (The third was a banker.) 

The most obvious question we should ask: what of the many soldiers who never made it back? No movie could be made about them, no "best years" lying ahead for them. We forget about them, just as we forget about the soldiers killed on the big screen. The story moves on, we focus on those still surviving. We reserve our sympathy for the living. 

I cannot fathom how WWII vets countenanced stuff like the board game "Hit the Beach." But then again, so much around us is inscrutable. Think of MAGA now. We are so human an animal.

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com