PBS "The War" Series

[poetman]

I can't help but consider Burns' film in light of America's current military crisis. I found two ideas striking: 1) He titles the film, "The War," as if to suggest it is a definitive war in American history, perhaps global history. Furthermore, to name WWII "The War" is to--by effect--diminish the importance of WWI (in comparison) Why do you think Burns sees WWII as "The War" as opposed to an important war, or the last real war, or a slew of other titles. I would really like to know how Burns views WWII in the sense of military history. I think he sees WWII as definitive--perhaps his conclusion will answer this question. 2) It's very interesting to note how different America approached WWII and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the former, the entire country involved itself: factories stopped their normal productions to assist with the war effort, and people rationed goods to assist the military. I can't help but wonder how the modern world would respond if similar sanctions were enacted for our present wars. I feel like Americans are far more spoiled in 2007 than they were in 1941--if for no other reason than they have more things they don't want to give up (technology, etc.). As a result, I tend to think Americans would simply disobey and complain--many would fail to see the connection. Perhaps instead of furthering our national debt, our chief military commander could request the help of the citizenry? It strikes me that if perhaps Americans at home were more involved in the war overseas, they would feel a greater sense of responsibility and implicate themselves with the activities--and consequences--occurring in the East. I'd love some ideas exchanged.
Thanks.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

2) It's very interesting to note how different America approached WWII and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Too political a topic for this website. Sorry about that. [huh]

.

 

[scotrace]

Right you are, Marc. That discussion is beyond the scope of The Fedora Lounge.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

I can't help but consider Burns' film in light of America's current military crisis. I found two ideas striking: 1) He titles the film, "The War," as if to suggest it is a definitive war in American history, perhaps global history. Furthermore, to name WWII "The War" is to--by effect--diminish the importance of WWI (in comparison) Why do you think Burns sees WWII as "The War" as opposed to an important war, or the last real war, or a slew of other titles. I would really like to know how Burns views WWII in the sense of military history. I think he sees WWII as definitive--perhaps his conclusion will answer this question.

I'm pretty sure that he wasn't trying to make a statement, "The War" is was the people that fought it and are being interviewed referred to it at the time. This entire program is from their point of view.

 

[Shearer]

As an aside, I read in the preface of the companion book that after The Civil War, Burns didn't want to do a series based on World War II. The process of making The Civil War was exhaustive and took years and years of research, and going through it again didn't appeal to him (The War ended up taking 6 years to finish.)

However, he finally agreed to embark on World War II after he read a statistic that a large number of high school students believed the US teamed up with Germany to fight against Russia :eusa_doh:

Yikes.

 

[leaette]

I've been a WW2 historian for 7 years now with my main focus on women war workers. I was SOOOO excited to see a segment on that last night. I loved it so much that I watched it again at the second showing at 10.

You never hear about women war workers. That's a shame.

 

[scotrace]

Be sure and grab the free podcasts from iTunes that provide a lot of background on this series.

My grandmother was a war worker. She helped turn out shell casings at the Reeves Sheet Steel mill in Dover, Ohio. All she ever really said about it was that she was proud of doing her part, and that it "seemed like we made an awful lot of them." She would have been about 40 at the time.

 

[Lincsong]

The term "The War" is what World War II has become in the vernacular and lexicon. My Dad, a WW II vet, refers to WWII as "The War". Most men who served in WW II whom I ever talked to will say "when I came back from 'The War'" while Korean War vets I know always refer to that as "Korea". The same with Vietnam vets, it's "Vietnam", not "The War". Probably because there were so many WWII vets as opposed to the veterans of later wars.

I like the footage, I'll have to watch it a couple times to absorb the commentary, but right now I'm enjoying all the footage.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

My grandmother in France was the same way.
She lived through both of the world wars, but only referred to WWII as "La Guerre" ("The War").

.

 

[imoldfashioned]

I thought tonight's episode continued the high standard set by the previous chapters.

Some thoughts;

I find it simultaneously distracting and helpful that the focus is so narrow--outside of that mention of the New Zealand/Indian troops in Italy there's been very little mention of what the other Allied troops are doing.

One of my Great Uncles served in the South Pacific. I never really grasped what that meant until I saw this documentary--all the conflicts look awful but truly, those battles in the South Pacific look like hell on earth.

Also, I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen this episode yet but the last 20 minutes or so made me cry a bit. I totally saw it coming but it still affected me. The interviews in this work are so strong.

 

[imoldfashioned]

2) It's very interesting to note how different America approached WWII and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the former, the entire country involved itself: factories stopped their normal productions to assist with the war effort, and people rationed goods to assist the military. I can't help but wonder how the modern world would respond if similar sanctions were enacted for our present wars. I feel like Americans are far more spoiled in 2007 than they were in 1941--if for no other reason than they have more things they don't want to give up (technology, etc.). As a result, I tend to think Americans would simply disobey and complain--many would fail to see the connection. Perhaps instead of furthering our national debt, our chief military commander could request the help of the citizenry? It strikes me that if perhaps Americans at home were more involved in the war overseas, they would feel a greater sense of responsibility and implicate themselves with the activities--and consequences--occurring in the East. I'd love some ideas exchanged.
Thanks.

I'm really sorry we can't talk about this at FL--I've been thinking about it constantly while watching this series. I've also been mulling over the difference between our present war and The War on many different levels, how our current situation may have (or not) colored Burns' work.

However, I understand why such discussion has been banned and I bow to the decision of MK and the Mods.

 

[leaette]

imoldfashioned: i was thinking the same thing. when the one lady was talking about how she wrote letters and sent boxes to the boys from her neighborhood....i don't even know who is serving in my neighborhood. if a list exsisted....i would write letters and send packages.

i think the reason why people in the community were so involved during WW2 is because there wasn't much to do with your time other than working and doing chores. Think about it: no Walmart, no TV, no videogames, most people didn't take a week long Orlando vacation, no cell phones, no internet, etc.
Most women knew how to knit and crochet so they were constantly making items for the Red Cross (I wish the show would talk about that). I love to crochet and I know that I am a minority.
I've been making scarves and afghan squares for current troops and I can't tell you how great it makes me feel. I don't have any relatives in the war right now, but it still makes me feel good that I'm giving someone a present and hopefully it makes them smile.
But I can tell you, that if I had a brother in the war, I'd be more involved. And since almost every family had an immediate family member serving during WW2, involvement was more frequent.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I'll try to answer without venturing into contemporary politics. Here are two of many reasons for our behavior back then:


Many WWII homefront civilians had lived through and clearly remembered how things were when the U.S. entered WWI. In that war, women and minorities worked in factories, too. War bond drives were held with movie and stage stars. Victory food gardens were promoted. German-Americans were viewed with suspicion and worse. Propaganda was everywhere: in films, magazines, newspapers.
In other words, World War I's homefront environment paved the way for Word War II's.


In addition, the American people, notwithstanding their isolationist tendency, were well-informed beforehand about the Axis powers. Since the early 1930s, they'd seen many newsreels, heard innumerable radio broadcasts, and read tons of articles and photo essays about the doings of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan. And even before our Pearl Harbor, they'd watched as the countries of Europe, Asia and North Africa suffered their own 'Pearl Harbors.' Three expansionist empires had already gobbled up and devastated huge swathes of major and minor countries in three continents.


There! How's that for abiding by the no-politics rule?

.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Oh, this would be great if i was allowed a political rant. But no.

bk

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

However, he finally agreed to embark on World War II after he read a statistic that a large number of high school students believed the US teamed up with Germany to fight against Russia :eusa_doh:

Yikes.

This just seems so strange. If any war is "understood" by the American public it would have to be WW2. Think about all of the pop culture infusions of WW2 in modern life. Everything from Hogan's Heroes, Dirty Dozen, etc of decades ago, to Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc. Not to mention the scores of computer games such as Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms, etc. etc.

I would be willing to bet that young people know more about WW2 than most (maybe all) wars in American history. How many Americans of any age know anything about The War of 1812? The Mexican American War? WW1? The Spanish-American War? Korea?

Even in terms of WW2, the areas of the conflict least understood by Americans are those outside the American experience. The Eastern Front? The war in China? Crete?

Did we really need yet another look on the WW2 "American Experience?"

 

[Doctor Strange]

Regarding how the US pulled together for the war effort, keep in mind that in many ways the culture was much less fractured in the 1930s. The emergence of movies and radio in the years leading up to the war had created a national character of shared experience in a way that hadn't ever existed before. (Now that we live in a world of subcultures and narrowcasting, the whole idea of a "general audience" - or a general anything - no longer applies.)

Or, as my freshman history professor said back in 1973: "Do you people want to understand your parents? Think of it this way: they all went through the Depression and War together... It was like the entire country had gone to the same high school - rooted for the same team, knew the important inside stories on all the popular kids, listened to the same records, pitched in and helped to support the school in every way needed. They were *united* by that experience in a way that's hard to understand now."

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Did we really need yet another look on the WW2 "American Experience?"

Good question. I'd say no. There are already plenty of fine documentary films and series out there. Students can be shown those.


What we need from talented folks like Ken Burns are really good, thorough documentaries about the Korean War, the Grenada and Panama actions, and the Gulf War.

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

They were *united* by that experience in a way that's hard to understand now."

In the Depression (and largely because of it), they were also united into sides by their massive divisions. New Dealers vs. Free Marketers. Communists vs. Capitalists. Labor vs. Management, and vice-versa. America Firsters vs. Interventionists. Large, organized groups were clashing with each other throughout the era. Only WWII ended the conflicts --for a time. And indeed, the war brought on its own divisions and clashes, especially racial ones.

.

 

[BeBopBaby]

I thought tonight's episode continued the high standard set by the previous chapters.

Some thoughts;

One of my Great Uncles served in the South Pacific. I never really grasped what that meant until I saw this documentary--all the conflicts look awful but truly, those battles in the South Pacific look like hell on earth.

My great uncle Witold served with the Free Polish army at Monte Casino. And after watching part 2, I had the same revelation as you did imoldfashioned. My uncle was sent to a gulag in Siberia, escaped from the gulag and joined the Free Polish Army only to be captured by the Germans at Monte Casino and sent to a concentration camp that he also escaped from. Most of his family disappeared during WWII and he came to the U.S. after the war because he had nothing left. My uncle passed away when I was in Junior High School. I only wish I had comprehended what he had been through while he was still alive, but I was too young. Somewhere I have a picture of him at Monte Casino, I'll have to find it and post it.

Another thing that struck me was how WWII almost seemed to be one of the catalysts for the future civil rights movement. I had never thought of it in that context before. I'm looking forward to watching Part 3 tonight.

 

[imoldfashioned]

Regarding how the US pulled together for the war effort, keep in mind that in many ways the culture was much less fractured in the 1930s. The emergence of movies and radio in the years leading up to the war had created a national character of shared experience in a way that hadn't ever existed before. (Now that we live in a world of subcultures and narrowcasting, the whole idea of a "general audience" - or a general anything - no longer applies.)

Or, as my freshman history professor said back in 1973: "Do you people want to understand your parents? Think of it this way: they all went through the Depression and War together... It was like the entire country had gone to the same high school - rooted for the same team, knew the important inside stories on all the popular kids, listened to the same records, pitched in and helped to support the school in every way needed. They were *united* by that experience in a way that's hard to understand now."

Good points all.

Watching that bit in last night's episode about the mother sending a letter with the addresses of the relatives in Rome to her son in service got me thinking. In the 30's and 40's the European immigrant experience was much more recent for many Americans--after all, 20 million immigrants went through Ellis Island between 1892 and the early 50s. I know my experience may not be typical but my Great Grandmother immigrated in the 1880s and I remember my Grandmother talking about how her family had regular contact with their Danish relatives through the 1940's; I have no idea what relatives I may have there now.

This is all a long winded way of saying I wonder if WWII touched Americans more personally because more of them had personal ties to their European relatives? Folks may have had more personal information about what was going on in Europe through letters and more of a personal interest in what was going on their because they knew thier European relatives.

Doing my best to avoid politics here, but if you need to delete Mods please feel free. Also, I'm using "Europe" as a catchall for all of the countries involved in WWII--hope this doesn't offend, I'm just trying not to go on longer than I already have.