Posted on 12/03/2002 4:50:54 AM PST by bibarnes
Do we need a WWII memorial
I am a Vietnam Vet, the son of a WWII vet Grandson of a WWI vet, Great Grandson of a Civil War vet, the Brother-in-law of a Korean War Vet and father to a Gulf War vet. I think that a WWII Memorial will drag the WWII vets down the the level we Vietnam Vets were placed. The lasting memorial to our WWII vets is evident everyday in our freedom and the relative freedom in Europe. The numerous movies from the late 40's nd 50's always portrayed the WWII soldiers/sailors in a positive light. These folks came home to parades, GI benefits and a very grateful people.
The Vietnam Memorial was built by an embarrassed nation to apologize for how we were treated when we came home. .
Don't get me wrong, I think all of our service people deserve respect and thanks. I just don't want to see the men and women of WWII patronized like we were.
I expect to take a lot of flak over this, but that's OK. It's just my opinion and my ancestors fought to give me that freedom.
Merry Christmas to all.
Bill
The number of dead in the Vietnam conflict was slight, considering how long we were involved in that "police action."
In Korea we lost about 34,000 killed in about two years of fighting. In contrast, there were about 50,000 killed in TEN YEARS of fighting in Vietnam, where the Tet Offensive in '68 was about the only major action you could actually call a "battle."
Yet the Korean War Memorial is shiny-new, only just now constructed, and is simply a memorial to those who served (as well as those who died).
In contrast the Vietam "wall" lists every single service-person who was killed, and people go there to weep as at the wailing wall.
The only reason that is so, is because there is a significant minority of "whiners" among the contingent of thsoe who served in Vietnam. Not all, mind you, but enough Oliver Stone-types who want to make it sound like their experience was the American equivalent of the Holocaust.
I've never gone to see "The Wall" for that reason alone. Yes, those men who served and died should be honored, but not in such a maudlin fashion.
The reason there's no WWII memorial is EXACTLY as you say: People didn't see the need to whine and cry about it, since the legacy of those who served was apparent, all around us, in continued American freedom.
Okay, my asbestos suit is on. Flame away.
The WWII movies don't run much anymore and the stigma of Vietnam is gone. This memorial has nothing to do with Vietnam. A memorial in the nation's capital honoring the vet's of a hard fought WWII win is appropriate. It's fitting to honor our nation and the Americans of that time period for coming together in their unselfish patrioticism .
And the Vietnam War memorial statue with the three guys on it is fine.
It's just that I can't imagine WWII veterans standing around with heads bowed and moist tears in their eyes reading names of the departed. It's just so self-absorbed, it's depressing.
But it is the PERFECT memorial for the Vietnam generation, the first true "Me Generation" in the U.S., and the first not to notice that theirs was not only NOT the only sacrifice ever made, but that it was, in comparative terms, rather trivial.
To them, it was a defining moment, but in the life of the nation, only a blip on the radar screen. Many of them have lost perspective.
Not as long as the History Channel is on the air, at least! ;-)
The last thing I will do is fence with you or even attempt to dignify your childish question with an answer. The only thing I will do is bump your idiotic comments from the beginning of this thread.
___________________________________________________
"The number of dead in the Vietnam conflict was slight, considering how long we were involved in that "police action."
In Korea we lost about 34,000 killed in about two years of fighting. In contrast, there were about 50,000 killed in TEN YEARS of fighting in Vietnam, where the Tet Offensive in '68 was about the only major action you could actually call a "battle."
Yet the Korean War Memorial is shiny-new, only just now constructed, and is simply a memorial to those who served (as well as those who died).
In contrast the Vietam "wall" lists every single service-person who was killed, and people go there to weep as at the wailing wall.
The only reason that is so, is because there is a significant minority of "whiners" among the contingent of thsoe who served in Vietnam. Not all, mind you, but enough Oliver Stone-types who want to make it sound like their experience was the American equivalent of the Holocaust.
I've never gone to see "The Wall" for that reason alone. Yes, those men who served and died should be honored, but not in such a maudlin fashion.
The reason there's no WWII memorial is EXACTLY as you say: People didn't see the need to whine and cry about it, since the legacy of those who served was apparent, all around us, in continued American freedom."
~Illbay
_________________________________________________
Just in case someone with an ounce of decency and respect might have missed them. Maybe even a Gold Star Mother or two might catch your remarks.
It's just that the Vietnam generation, in many (though, I believe, not most) instances firmly believe that their PERSONAL tragedy needed to be translated to the national level. This was unique.
WWII vets didn't expect constant hand-wringing and tears shed every time their sacrifice was brought up. And as for Korean war vets...forget about it (America mostly did).
It would have been considered "unmanly" to whine about it.
But not so the hippy-dippy 60s version. Many of them seemingly expected an endless parade of emotion-laden soliloquies in the form of books, movies, plays, works of art and yes, even The Wall, to constantly remind us how "bad" it was, in a bid, I assume for a sort of "mass closure."
The contrast is clear to see, even now.
We have one fellow in our church who as a young man of 18, was a gunner on a B-24 that was shot down over Munich in December 1943. He spent that first Christmas, wounded and in a POW uniform.
Only now, in his 70s, has he begun to speak of his experiences--his wife said she tried to get him to do so for years and he'd just shrug and say "I did what my country asked of me, just like hundreds of thousands of others. It's no big deal." In his generation, "seeking closure" was not a manly thing to do.
We have another man, a very good man, who was in Vietnam. He has ALWAYS relished talking about it, and how "terrible" it was and how he saw a buddy killed, etc.
In fact, when you compare the stories, he saw a buddy killed, and our friend from the US Army Air Force saw dozens of his friends killed during the war.
But to the first guy it was "no big deal." To the second, it's the defining moment of his life and something he'll "never get over."
For years after he got home he rode around on a Harley hog with long hair and a beard trying to "get over the war."
I'm sorry, but it's just more than I can take sometimes. War is war--and it's hell. Death is death, and violent death of youth in war is always tragic.
But in the case of the WWII generation, they seemed to get over it well enough. But for a large minority of Vietnam vets, it's never over.
I admit: I don't get it.
More than you can take? Who is asking you to take anything? Which one of these three conflicts, or any other conflict of the 20th Century, that you are sophomorically and inappropriately trying to compare, did you serve? Not to say that makes any difference but your rambling insults do a disservice to the memory of many of my friends and many others on this forum who have lost loved ones in any war. In the very least your generalizations and silly little anecdotes should be left for drunk-talk at closing time.
I agree, you don't get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.