This struck me as strange:
The following sentence on msn.com began an article on a tragic episode in the lead-up to D-Day where several vessels carrying hundreds of allied troops were sunk by German torpedo boats.
Lured across the English Channel by an unexpected frenzy of radio chatter, the Nazi predators sliced through the waves toward an unknown enemy.
Far be it for me to defend the leadership or goals of Germany in WWII, but it seems more than a little loaded to refer to the German crews of torpedo boats as "Nazis" (I'm guessing that none of the sailors aboard those craft were members of the party) and "predators" (Would American bomber crews be referred to by that term?). Is there any other conflict where we so villify the foot soldiers of our enemy? Does our collective understanding of WWII depend on it being a crusade against evil?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Much to agree with in your comment, Mark, though I think that the process by which all conflicts, and especially the "good wars," become mythologized makes such treatment of the enemy (even in retrospect) almost inevitable.
ReplyDeleteWe had a yard sale yesterday, and I sold off a bunch of old books. One I rescued from the pile was a dog-eared copy of John Keegan's "Six Armies at Normandy," which caught my eye in part because of the D-Day anniversary. Re-reading portions of it (especially his brilliant chapter about the 1st Polish Armored Division in the fighting at Falaise), I was struck by how sympathetic Keegan was to the courage and deeds of the Germans fighting desperately to escape the Allied advance.
Good historians like Keegan can make the moral consequences of events (including the Warsaw Uprising, for example, which occurred simultaneously with the fight to close the Falaise Gap) clear while still making the motives of all the participants (even the "bad guys") come back to life.
". . . the long term effect of World War II on the thinking of the world was pernicious and deep. It made war, so thoroughly discredited by the senseless slaughter of World War I, noble once again. It enabled political leaders, whatever miserable adventure they would take us into, whatever mayhem they would wreak on other people . . and our own,to invoke World War II as a model.. . ." -Howard Zinn, On War, p. 103.
ReplyDeleteI don't always agree with Zinn's interpretation of US motives and actions in WWII, but I think he is right about Americans' deep investment in the good war narrative of WWII.
David: I'm also reminded of Cornelius Ryan's "The Longest Day," written in the '50's, with its threefold narrative from Allied, German, and French points of view. Interestingly, Stephen Ambrose's first book on D-Day, tells the story of a heroic mission with brilliant leadership, undaunted courage, and wild episodes (concerning the commando raid by British glider troopson Pegasus Bridge). At the time he published "Band of Brothers," he regretted that he was not as reverent to the British as he had been to the American paratroops. In other words, he would prefer to write hagiography over gripping narrative. If anything, the myth has become even more firmly entrenched over the last decade.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes Zinn's comment all the more interesting. One would think that the experience of Vietnam would blow the varnish off the myth of the good war, bringing us back to where we were after WWI. Instead, WWII seems to remain the Good War,, perhaps as a counterpoint to the subsequent conflicts. How many vets, from Oliver Stone to Bill Caum, have said that they went to Vietnam expecting to be John Wayne in "The Sands of Iwo Jima"? An entire antiwar culture grew up in the subsequent generation, but WWII remains untouchable. And while I think that it is hard to romanticize any war in the era of 24 hour news netowrks and youtube, WWII still looms large in the imagination.
*I have to qualify my last sentence above. I spent Saturday morning looking at photo archives from WWII. The photos of dead, wounded, and shell-shocked GI's are powerful and moving. It served to remind me how little we see of the tragedy of the current wars in any of our media.
Implied, perhaps, by Zinn in the quote that Julie found, is a grudging recognition of the nobility of what the Allies accomplished in World War II (the destruction of Nazism). While it may be the case that Allied triumphalism led us astray in later situations (Vietnam in particular), it's important to remember that in some cases, war (an inherently bad thing) can be used to achieve good purposes. That war is the pursuit of politics by other means (remember Clausewitz) does not diminish its moral potential.
ReplyDeleteThe German Army of that era was a great one, regardless of what Hitler did to it (Thank goodness he was so bizarre because they were good enough to win the whole damn thing). Most of its high command and the common foot soldier were simply good Germans, fighting for their country. I find that quote to be ignorant of the facts and blinded by ideology.
ReplyDeleteKendall