"The War" (by Ken Burns) Part 6 of 7; Airing on PBS @ 7PM Central 10-1-07

pbs.org ^ | undated | PBS staff

[VOA]

Please see following posts for URL links to the discussion threads
for Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the series.

(VOA's boilerplate from prior threads)
All commentary regarding personal experience, family tales of WWII,
and critique of how Burns (and PBS) handles topics are welcome.

Hopefully the threads on the seven episodes will serve as
guides when this large documentary becomes required viewing in
high schools.
Comments on how Burns handled the documenatry (positive,
negative, or neutral) will come in handy when "the younger
generation" sees the series. Especially if Burns takes a
"Smithsonian" tact to some topics...leaving people to wonder
"who the good guys were" during the epic struggle.

[berdie]

Most of the vets of any war are unwilling to talk about the nitty gritty unless it is to someone who has had a like experience. They tell the funny stories, the bravery stories. And why would they not? It was horrible for them.

Maybe some of the vets on this series are ready to share after this length of time. And that is good, too. I don’t see any shame in saying “I was scared”. Who wouldn’t have been? Why would you want to relive an experience so contrary to our culture? Your Grandfather and the vets (of all wars) I know want protect who they are..and who we are. Very brave and undefeated people.

[raygun]

Yeah, it was good. But two things were not mentioned.

1) Patton wanted to pincer the Nazis, but was over ruled by higher ups who insisted on full frontal assault (and essentially pushing the Nazis back into Germany across the length of the front).

2)One commentary that I recall from a war special about the BoB was from a local that lived in the area. She said that when they returned to their home after the conflict she remembres looking out across the fields early spring/late winter (it was one of the most brutal winters on record) and seen the whole field littered with these dark little circular pools a yard or so in diameter of water several yards apart. She explained that as the snow melted, the water pooled into the foxholes dug by the soldiers and so they became evident in the fields still covered in snow. She said it took her breth away to see the whole field (as far as the eye could see covered with foxholes. She said that it became apparent that they fought for every yard. She said that the foxholes would make their appearance for many years after the war, and then everybody knew spring was just around the corner.

I don’t know what to say about all the negative sentiment about the series though. Sure there’s a lot of PC nuance there, but I can get passed that. Were there incompetent officers? Certainly and without a doubt. Did the allies engage in some attrocities. Without a doubt.

WWII was as brutal as it was savage. The one poignant commentary made was that it was anticipated that soldiers couldn’t remain on the line for longer than 256 days before going mad. The chances were that the soldier had a higher risk of being dead than going mad. My question is: what do madmen do?

Here’s another poignant fact: the casualty raids for B-25 Liberator raids was 4%. That equates to a 36.7% chance of completing the tour. Standing in line and look to the guy to the right and to the left and neither would be coming home. Catch-22 stems from the psychological ramifications that set in due to the stress of such environment. Any rational and sane person would be positively freaked out of their mind ever more so as time went on until the soldier cracked (and it didn’t bother them any more). Then they were unfit for duty.

The series talks about these guys having nightmares for 50 years afterwards. The one pilot had to land the plane with his left hand because his right hand wouldn’t work any more. To this day he still periodically has troubles with a non-functioning right hand on occassion.

I can’t even conceive of one week of combat like that shown, let alone 8.5 months of non-stop combat 24/7.

[VOA]

I don’t know what to say about all the negative sentiment about
the series though. Sure there’s a lot of PC nuance there, but I can
get passed that.

Even if the comments do lean negative during this first viewing,
there have been a modest number of positives.
And, as a first viewing, some folks (and myself at times) probably
do lean a bit hard on Burns.
But, so far, I do give Burns credit for capturing the atmospherics
of the homefront, as it fits with everything my extended family has
told me.

I will probably still say he could have gotten across the problem
of a still-segregated America and unfairness to the Japanese-Americans
in much better way, with about half the air-time.

In time, with a second viewing some day, the average rating
probably will slide more to neutral/positive.
Heck, even the Parisians had a fit when the Eiffel Tower was
put up!

[dfwgator]

I think tonight’s show will deal heavily with the Nazi Concentration Camps the US soldiers liberated.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

I agree. They called the general who put all those Japanese Americans in camps in California a hard core racist. We had no clue what was going to happen. Why is that always brought up? ...were they lined up and shot as happened to prisoners in some Japanese prison camps? Sad thing is, this is what they teach about WWII in school along with how disastrous it was for America to drop the atomic bombs. They are not told how many American lives would be lost if Japan had to be invaded by U.S. ground forces.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Last night, one navy or marine pilot said that in the officers club on Iwo Jima a large bra was framed above the bar with a notice below it stating, “Remember Pearl Heffelman”....(last name not correct)..laughed out loud at that one!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I have to keep reminding myself that, as is stated at the start of each segment, this is a story about four towns during the war rather than the war itself

A lot of people seem to be missing that point. It's not a history of the war--that ground has been gone over again and again--it's the story of how Americans experienced the war, at home and overseas.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

They called the general who put all those Japanese Americans in camps in California a hard core racist

Well, he was. The treatment of Italians on the west coast was pretty bad, too. Somehow the US managed to do just fine without treating east coast Italians (a much larger population much closer to Italy) or Hawaiian Japanese (a much larger population much closer to Japan) in the same way.

[VOA]

Burns has done a decent job of showing we sent human beings off to
fight the war...they were not a band of always-hyper-moral bullet-proof
John Waynes.

And for that I do tip the hat to Burns. He does seem to follow my
take on what “heroes” are: fallible humans that do/endure things
almost beyond belief.
Even when they have “feet of clay”.

[ex-snook]

"A lot of people seem to be missing that point. It's not a history of the war--that ground has been gone over again and again--it's the story of how Americans experienced the war, at home and overseas."

That is true. It also shows that draftees won the war in Europe [probably same in Pacific] because, after Africa and Italy, the regular army troops were pretty much gone. It also shows that a fighting Army can be created in a pretty short time front line led by what was termed 90 day wonders and battlefield commissions. Lessons in how to win wars and train an Army useful today.

[colorado tanker]

I think for someone who knows the basic history of WWII, this is a useful series and an antidote to some of the rose tinted glasses view of the war Americans often have. But by constantly dwelling on the negative and glossing over the more successful battles and operations, he would give someone who didn't know better a very skewed view of the war.

I hope there is an unintended consequence from this, that Americans put Iraq in perspective and realize just how few casualties we've lost in comparison to our casualties in the "good war" and how much went wrong in the most successful war we've fought.

[Romulus]

Patton wanted to pincer the Nazis, but was over ruled by higher ups who insisted on full frontal assault (and essentially pushing the Nazis back into Germany

Only the Nazis? What about the rest of the German Army?

[colorado tanker]

Patton wanted to pincer the Nazis, but was over ruled by higher ups who insisted on full frontal assault (and essentially pushing the Nazis back into Germany across the length of the front).

The "broad front" strategy wasn't the best, tactically, but in hindsight I don't see how Ike could have played it any other way, politically. The Brits never would have stood for giving Patton the priority over them. And Churchill wanted the Brits on the left and given a priority to take out the rocket launch sites in the Low Countries, which would eventually position them in the best tank country, the North German Plain, but with slow as molasses Monty in charge.

Where I get angry about the broad front is Hurtgen Forest, where we spilled so much blood for no tactical reason. It was the classic kind of place the Pacific commanders just bypassed.

It is fun to speculate if instead of Market Garden, Patton had gotten the priority and launched a drive around the east side of the Ardennes and Rhine to threaten to cut the Germans in the Low Countries off.

[VOA]

“I hope there is an unintended consequence from this, that Americans put
Iraq in perspective and realize just how few casualties we’ve lost
in comparison to our casualties in the “good war” and how much went
wrong in the most successful war we’ve fought.”

I certainly agree with that.
And, as I commented above in post 16, that WWII metric of men only being
able to take 240 days on the line
(before mental breakdown became a near-certainty)
becomes interesting when in the present-day, we have guys/gals
heading out on some of the most tense “police duty”, some for 12-15 month hitches.
Sure, I suspect the commanders try to spread the risks around the
troops as much as possible. And the risk is IEDs, sniper bullets and
ambushes, not waves of Panzers, 88 mm shells and amphetamine-jazzed
German troops...
but 12 months of wondering “is this my day” sure is a test of intestinal fortitude.

And there’s the REAL Courage factor that hits me (as a naive civilian).
How on world do the US personnel do a tour in Iraq/Afghanistan,
come home, visit the family...
AND THEN pack up and go back on a transport jet and do it again?
Especially as they may have seen more than a couple of buddies
do the ultimate sacrifice on the previous tour.
That’s some intestinal fortitude.

I don’t know if I’d be able to do that.

[colorado tanker]

You make a good point. I don't know how today's soldiers do it, either. In my Cold War era we never had the tempo of overseas deployments soldiers have been doing for a number of years now.

I think Rummy was very good on the GWOT, but one place I fault him is thinking we could fight this long war and not expand the Army. The cycle of deployments is too much and is too stressful on soldiers and their families, especially when you consider how young many of them are. My wife and I were apart for a year and a half after we had 10 years under our belts and that was very stressful.