This is not a photograph taken by me, obviously; it comes from my father's archives. I hope that that's personal enough to justify my publishing it here.
This is a silver print [one of 5] that was given to my father by what must have been a close buddy, 'Paul'. Somewhere along the line, the box that housed these images took on some water. The letters and photographs I found in it were in various stages of decomposition.
The dedication reads: 'To Bob -- In memory of the days when the issues were clearer. Paul. Guam. August 1944'.
.
A tad more info: my mother recalls that Paul was a war correspondent, photographer, for the San Francisco Chronicle [what he's got around his neck looks a lot like a light meter, in fact]. It's no certainty but strikes me as plausible.
This was in 1944. How many recounts of soldiers' disillusionment have there been since?
Why we have not learned from them is the question we need to be asking ourselves.
Inevitably, regardless of epoch, soldiers become disillusioned.
Why this pattern can be repeated as frequently as it is ... collective amnesia, power of propaganda? That's the question.
That war, WWII, was as much a showdown between financial interests as any other war has been.
War games for profit have always followed the same paradigm.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that; Vietnam was not the same as WWII and nor is Iraq. I don't think most veterans of WWII, on the "Allied" side were, in general, "disillusioned" as far as the cause was concerned, it's still known as the "Good War" - the Nazis and the Japanese military were pretty obviously bad guys to most Allied soldiers and remained so for many of them. Bush lied about Iraq's supposed WMD, the Japanese actually attacked Pearl Harbour.
A major turning point in enforcing this new "good war" memory regime was the controversy over the "Enola Gay" exhibit in the Smithonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Whereas the initial more scholarly concept envisioned placing the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima fifty years ago within the larger concept of the racist and dehumanizing "war without mercy" in the Pacific theater, the veterans' lobbying groups forced this concept to be ditched. Instead, a filiopietistic much smaller exhibit was shown beholden to the "good war" paradigm. While in Germany the veterans' organization had failed to salvage their selective memories of the killing fields on the Eastern front, in the United States the veterans succeeded in enforcing their one-sided memory of heroic marines and valiant sailors. Their killing frenzies in the island campaign and trophy taking of Japanese body parts was purged from the public memory http://hnn.us/articles/5419.html
A major turning point in enforcing this new "good war" memory regime was the controversy over the "Enola Gay" exhibit in the Smithonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Whereas the initial more scholarly concept envisioned placing the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima fifty years ago within the larger concept of the racist and dehumanizing "war without mercy" in the Pacific theater, the veterans' lobbying groups forced this concept to be ditched. Instead, a filiopietistic much smaller exhibit was shown beholden to the "good war" paradigm. While in Germany the veterans' organization had failed to salvage their selective memories of the killing fields on the Eastern front, in the United States the veterans succeeded in enforcing their one-sided memory of heroic marines and valiant sailors. Their killing frenzies in the island campaign and trophy taking of Japanese body parts was purged from the public memory
http://hnn.us/articles/5419.html
This is not to say that it WAS a "good war" of course:
At the time consciences were numbed the war had to be won, and ``they had it coming'' but it is not now easy to look back with pride on the scores of thousands of women and children incinerated in Hamburg in July 1943 or Dresden in February 1945. Nor on the other moral compromises at the war's end. Great Britain did not go to war to save the Jews from Hitler's torment (and did not succeed) but to protect the freedom and integrity of Poland, an aim that Churchill, with Roosevelt's encouragement, abandoned at Yalta. Worse still was the forcible repatriation of prisoners to torture and death in Russia and Yugoslavia. And yet all this was not simply conspiracy or betrayal: The Iron Curtain, with half of Europe under Soviet rule, was a painful but logical consequence of the way the West had let Russia do most of the fighting. Was it ``a noble crusade''? For the liberation of western Europe, maybe so. Was it a just war? That tricky theological concept has to be weighed against very many injustices. Was it a good war? The phrase itself is dubious. No, there are no good wars, but there are necessary wars, and this was surely one. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full
At the time consciences were numbed the war had to be won, and ``they had it coming'' but it is not now easy to look back with pride on the scores of thousands of women and children incinerated in Hamburg in July 1943 or Dresden in February 1945.
Nor on the other moral compromises at the war's end. Great Britain did not go to war to save the Jews from Hitler's torment (and did not succeed) but to protect the freedom and integrity of Poland, an aim that Churchill, with Roosevelt's encouragement, abandoned at Yalta. Worse still was the forcible repatriation of prisoners to torture and death in Russia and Yugoslavia. And yet all this was not simply conspiracy or betrayal: The Iron Curtain, with half of Europe under Soviet rule, was a painful but logical consequence of the way the West had let Russia do most of the fighting.
Was it ``a noble crusade''? For the liberation of western Europe, maybe so. Was it a just war? That tricky theological concept has to be weighed against very many injustices. Was it a good war? The phrase itself is dubious. No, there are no good wars, but there are necessary wars, and this was surely one.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full
But I'm sure most soldiers, on all sides, came to understand that war is a horrific business, and not the idealized adventure presented in so many films - even if they continued to think WWII was a necessary war. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
But I'm sure most soldiers, on all sides, came to understand that war is a horrific business, and not the idealized adventure presented in so many films - even if they continued to think WWII was a necessary war.
I thing not.
'I think not'
and 'precisely'.
I simply don't adhere to the disagreement :-)
Wars are contrivances, used as tools to manipulate societies.
I do not see the pretexts for WWII as having differed from those of any other wars the world has known.
I simply don't adhere to the disagreement :-) Wars are contrivances, used as tools to manipulate societies. I do not see the pretexts for WWII as having differed from those of any other wars the world has known.
We don't disagree about THAT - see the second part of my original response - we disagree about your general claim that soldiers in all wars become disillusioned with the reasons for the war. As I pointed out many on the Allied side remain convinced it was a necessary war - whether this is so or not is another issue. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
I would add, however, that you're splitting hairs.
Review the photograph I posted and its dedication. Listen to the veterans of the Viet Nam war. Lend an ear to the testimonies of Iraq war veterans and others.
They tell strikingly similar stories.
My question is how we can continue to accept indulgence in these same infractions time and again. Repeatedly. And, moreover, relentlessly, today?
If this is not sign of deep-seated illness, what measure should we be using?
Wars are contrivances, used as tools to manipulate societies. I do not see the pretexts for WWII as having differed from those of any other wars the world has known.
Yes, in general war is used to manipulate societies, but that's not all that's involved every time - and wasn't in the case of WWII, particularly on the Allied side. Hitler did use war to help drag Germany out of its economic problems and to exert control over society by restoring national pride (after the humiliation of defeat in WWI). However the British establishment in general and most of the public did want to avoid a rerun of WWI which had caused such huge losses - hence appeasement. Churchill was a relatively lonely voice warning about Hitler and German rearmament. Hitler forced the issue by invading Poland (rather different from Vietnam - which was invaded by the US). The American population in general were not interested in getting involved in another European war - and Hitler actually declared war on the US, while, as I said, the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbour.
SO there are significant differences between WWII - on the Allied side - and later imperialist attacks by the US on Vietnam, Iraq, etc. This is reflected in the differences in attitude of most Allied WWII vets and vets of later US attacks. The difference is significant, not hair-splitting.
Similarly I think it's over-simplifying to say that
we... accept indulgence in these same infractions time and again. Repeatedly. And, moreover, relentlessly, today? If this is not sign of deep-seated illness, what measure should we be using?
we... accept indulgence in these same infractions time and again. Repeatedly. And, moreover, relentlessly, today?
Again there are differences in the public's response to various wars which are important and which don't mean we're just doomed to go on making the same mistakes. As I've pointed out before in ET, Chomsky is pretty cynical about the powers that be, but not pessimistic about people in general:
Looking more closely at the anti-war movements in both cases, I think, as noted, that it has actually been greater in the case of Iraq than it was during any comparable state of the Indochina wars. Furthermore, this country has significantly changed as a result of 60s activism and its aftermath. The movement against the war in Vietnam, when it finally developed, was not "diluted" by the wide-ranging concerns of activists today. I can easily elaborate even keeping to my own experience. Consider just talks. In the late 1960s almost all requests were about the Vietnam war. Today, only a fraction are about the Iraq war, not because the war is not a concern, but because there are so many other live and important concerns. Furthermore the deluge of invitations is far greater in scale, on all sorts of issues that were scarcely discussed 40 years ago, and audiences are far larger and much more engaged. And there are many other factors detracting from activism, such as the enormous amount of energy drained away by the "9/11 Truth Movement." There may be an impression of less anti-war activism today than in Vietnam, but I think it is quite misleading - even though protest against the war in Iraq is far less than the crimes merit. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11718
Looking more closely at the anti-war movements in both cases, I think, as noted, that it has actually been greater in the case of Iraq than it was during any comparable state of the Indochina wars. Furthermore, this country has significantly changed as a result of 60s activism and its aftermath. The movement against the war in Vietnam, when it finally developed, was not "diluted" by the wide-ranging concerns of activists today. I can easily elaborate even keeping to my own experience. Consider just talks. In the late 1960s almost all requests were about the Vietnam war. Today, only a fraction are about the Iraq war, not because the war is not a concern, but because there are so many other live and important concerns.
Furthermore the deluge of invitations is far greater in scale, on all sorts of issues that were scarcely discussed 40 years ago, and audiences are far larger and much more engaged. And there are many other factors detracting from activism, such as the enormous amount of energy drained away by the "9/11 Truth Movement." There may be an impression of less anti-war activism today than in Vietnam, but I think it is quite misleading - even though protest against the war in Iraq is far less than the crimes merit.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11718
And the disillusionment of the US military has set in far more quickly in the case of Iraq than Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
But as a preamble to what I would say and hopefully will explain further, soon: motivations for all wars, regardless of epoch, boil down to the reconfiguration of power relative to competing poles, at the expense of civilian populations, the very populations that finance them.
The cannon-fodder, "patriots", or whatever you might like to call the poor bastards who go to war based on ulterior motives, lies and illusions, are bound, eventually, to ask themselves just why they're being asked to kill fellow humans.
WWII was no exception to the rule.
In the pacific, a good argument can be made that the US and UK political and diplomatic classes forced the Japanese into attacking,and them maneuvered the Japanese into a position from which they could sell the attack on perl harbour in a light that was favourable propaganda wise. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
WWII has been described as the last war worth fighting.
So was WWI
But we're coming up on another major confrontation, here.
Do you not see a continuity between the present world context and the previous 2 world wars?
Clues: havoc in Central Banks, economic configuration, worker compensation, purchasing power, wage disparity.
The ingredients that comprised the basis of the previous world wars are all there/here. But instead of addressing these issues, head-on, the decision is to smash yet another defenseless nation.
Smash 'n bash.
Otherwise known as 'fuite en avant'
I hope the series is receiving a broad viewership in the US.
