[Peace-discuss] "The War" by Ken Burns

[n.dahlheim at mchsi.com]

I am reminded of the famous David Sloan novel "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" written to describe 
the plight of William Whyte's "organization man" trying to escape from the memories of committing 
violence and murder in World War II.... My grandfather fought and flew reconissance planes in the 
Pacific, including missions piloting PBY planes in the Battle of Leyte Gulf that finished the Japanese Navy 
in November 1944.  Needless to say, the war scarred him deeply.  He frequently suffered from 
alcoholism and depression until his death in 1981; nobody would have dared consider that he and 
other war veterans suffered from shellshock or post-traumatic stress disorder in the disingenuously 
celebratory climate of the affluent 1950s.  This side of the story of WWII seems to be the most forgotten 
of all---the true impact of the psychological damage WWII caused on the soldiers who survived the 
carnage.  

P.S. I have not yet seen the Burns documentary, but I must say that I am intrigued by how much 
discussion it has generated on this list.  


----------------------  Original Message:  ---------------------
From:    "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
To:      Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
Cc:      Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "The War" by Ken Burns 
Date:    Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:53:50 +0000

> In the same spirit  as that of Ricky, I attach what I wrote in my own  
> personal diary, just after seeing the Burns series.
> 
> Reflections on the Ken Burns  War on PBS
> 
> Watched all seven episodes, trying to fit what I saw there on what I  
> remembered of the “good” war. The start was promising, stating that  
> WWII was not a good war, but was a necessary war. However, as the  
> series progressed I became disappointed. It ended up glorifying our  
> battle, our good guys, our guys of conscience that had to do their  
> job even if it meant killing civilians. Of course, there were scenes  
> of the horrors committed by the “Japs” and the Nazis, which  
> reinforced the theme that the war was fought for moral and humane  
> reasons. But there was little analysis of other reasons for the war  
> and why we had to bomb cities, destroying them and their inhabitants.  
> The worst part, the last episode of the series, concerned the bombing  
> of Japan. They made the case through prisoners of war and those who  
> fought on the brutal Pacific campaigns that if Japan had to be  
> invaded, it would be hugely costly in American lives, and that the  
> Japanese were fanatic, would never surrender. And our prisoners of  
> war in Japan would all be killed. Ergo, the bombs had to be dropped,  
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki [i.e. the bombing] were unfortunate but  
> needed. Nothing was said for other motivations for dropping the bomb.  
> No questions or analysis, whereas now we know that the Japanese would  
> have surrendered if only we had let Hirohito remain emperor. Should  
> this not have been mentioned? There was no discussion of the racism  
> that wars engender, that Japanese or German (civilian) lives were as  
> valuable as American ones. That Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki,  
> … were atrocities equivalent to those committed by our enemies was  
> never considered. They said Hiroshima was a transportation hub, hence  
> a reasonable target! They also said we had only two bombs---implying  
> that dropping them for demonstration purposes would not have been  
> practical (despite the suggestions of prominent scientists of Los  
> Alamos that they do just that, also not mentioned), and that it would  
> have taken many months to fabricate others after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> I was suspicious for the reasons why this series was now shown. To  
> support our troops now, veterans day soon, to show that despite what  
> they do, they are all honorable men? Burns said that it had to be  
> done now, because the survivors of the war were dying off, and we  
> should document what they went through from their own words.
> 
>   I was left with a feeling of dissonance: Yes, WWII may have been  
> necessary—we were attacked—but as was graphically illustrated, war  
> makes (too many of) its warriors (as well as its civilians) monsters.  
> They lose their empathy for others under the stress of combat, with  
> their sense of duty to their superiors or to support their buddies.   
> We have since learned that U.S motives belie the pretended good  
> arguments of our leaders. What they care about is power, and  
> maintaining a status quo which keeps them in power, whatever the  
> costs to human life and society. No war or foreign action the U.S.  
> has engaged in since WQWII has had any decent excuse. On the contrary!
> 
> Hence I found it difficult to absorb the messages of this TV series,  
> even while I was fascinated with the battle scenes, was moved by the  
> personal stories,  and recalled what life was like on the home front.
> 
> 
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> 
> > Interesting series, which at least is good for some discussions  
> > with coworkers and others - maybe
> > even a letter to the editor or two?
> >
> > I noticed particularly in the episode about Pearl H. what was left  
> > unsaid, jarringly, in my view.
> > There was 'intelligence' that the Japanese were planning some  
> > attack somewhere, etc., etc.  But
> > why?  A threat to 'Japanese expansion' - true enough, but only half  
> > the story, as an undisciplined
> > observer would notice later in the story about how the Pacific war  
> > went badly at first, lower
> > priority than Europe, etc., etc.
> >
> > Along with the Japanese incursions into China and abuse of Chinese  
> > people, and it seemed to me
> > given at least equal emphasis (without actually tallying up the air  
> > time), the Japanese were
> > wiping out *US* bases - in the Philippines, and so on - until  
> > (remarked with shock and horror)
> > "there was not one American base" left in a huge strategic Asian/ 
> > Pacific area.
> >
> > That the US had its own imperial designs in the Pacific and Asia.   
> > Why did the US have bases in,
> > e.g., the Philippines?  Not a word.  The question shouldn't be that  
> > obscure.  Mark Twain and other
> > famous personalities had been involved in the anti-war movement  
> > (although sometimes for very bad,
> > racist reasons) against US invasion and occupation of the  
> > Philippines (originally in support of a
> > popular uprising against their previous Western colonial masters,  
> > followed by US refusal to leave
> > even when asked by those among the locals who had supported US  
> > intervention - sound familiar?).
> >
> > But of course that would put some of Japanese propaganda in  
> > context: there was some truth to the
> > hypocrisy of US talk of "democracy", and so on.  No, better to  
> > focus on Japanese belief that they
> > were "a superior race" and other, more comfortable thoughts  
> > concerning our enemy - not including
> > of course how viciously racist the US anti-Japanese propaganda  
> > itself was.
> >
> > Add this to the usual omissions of Western support for, and reasons  
> > for tolerance of, fascists in
> > Europe - replaced by an old Alabama woman's (as in a woman of old  
> > Alabama) discussion of how
> > Americans had developed a dislike of Hitler through newsreels - and  
> > I have to wonder, were there
> > no WW2-era leftists still alive to interview?  Someone with  
> > something a little different to say?
> > No one who fought, say, in the Spanish Civil War?  There would be  
> > an interesting perspective!
> >
> > Personally I would like to have heard from Bob Wahlfeldt, for  
> > example ...
> >
> > Ricky
> >
> >
> > --- "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> At 04:41 PM 10/7/2007, Laurie wrote:
> >>
> >>> Carl,
> >>>
> >>> While your points have validity, both you and John fail to notice  
> >>> one
> >>> significant factor.  Ken Burn's work purports to be a historical  
> >>> documentary
> >>> while the other works referred to by John are anti-war novels.   
> >>> Novels make
> >>> no claim to historic or "factual" accuracy or any degree of  
> >>> completeness of
> >>> perspective and coverage; documentaries do either implicitly or  
> >>> explicitly.
> >>
> >> Naw, I didn't fail to notice it.  At the end of the day, though, a
> >> documentary (historical or any other kind) is still a "work of  
> >> art" that
> >> requires many, many choices on the part of the artist/filmmaker.   
> >> How to
> >> portray events.  What to include and what to exclude.  In that I'm  
> >> sure we
> >> all three agree.
> >>
> >> Ken Burns couldn't make a film about The History of Everything.   
> >> He chose
> >> to tell the story of World War II from the point of view of the  
> >> ordinary
> >> soldier, as opposed to the perspective we always get, that of the  
> >> generals
> >> and the politicians.  In that characteristic it's a bit like  
> >> Howard Zinn's
> >> "The People's History of the United States", though of course less
> >> detailed.  Since the ordinary soldier has only a limited perspective,
> >> rather than an overview of all the events taking place  
> >> simultaneously,
> >> that's the perspective we got in the film.  "I was there at  
> >> Normandy, at
> >> Anzio, at Iwo Jima, at the Battle of the Bulge; this is what  
> >> happened to
> >> me; here's what it felt like."  The hope is that a composite view of
> >> hundreds of ordinary soldiers will give us some sense of what  
> >> World War II
> >> felt like for those, now dying rapidly, who experienced the horror  
> >> up close
> >> and personal.
> >>
> >> While we don't get the total historical background - that Allied  
> >> policies
> >> following German's defeat in World War I led inexorably to the  
> >> rise of the
> >> Nazis, etc., etc. - I think it would be the rare viewer who  
> >> emerges from
> >> the documentary thinking that War Is a Good Thing.  It would be nice,
> >> perhaps, if those infantry soldiers could, while recounting the  
> >> horrors of
> >> the Bataan Death March, give us at the same time a succinct  
> >> lecture on the
> >> Rise of Japanese Hegemony Caused by America's 'Discovery' of China  
> >> in the
> >> mid-19th Century.  But that's another documentary for another day.
> >>
> >> Yeah, we do get a certain sense from Burns' film that World War II  
> >> - given
> >> the unexplained confluence of myriad historical events that led up  
> >> to that
> >> "day that shall live in infamy", granted - was a War That Had to  
> >> Be Fought,
> >> relatively speaking.  But we still know, at the end of the film,  
> >> that War
> >> Is a Bad Thing, to be avoided at all costs if possible.
> >>
> >>
> >>> As a side note, it appears to be a characteristic of Americans to  
> >>> take
> >>> things out of setting or context and treat them in isolation as
> >>> atomistically as possible, ignoring the interconnected and  
> >>> interrelated
> >>> aspects within the general context historic or otherwise.
> >>
> >> It may be a characteristic of Americans, but it also seems to be a  
> >> function
> >> of being human - the quality of existential aloneness.  What did I do
> >> earlier this evening, Laurie, and how is that going to affect your  
> >> life in
> >> the weeks and months to come?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Our esteem for
> >>> immediate gratification is only trumped by our lack of historic  
> >>> perspective
> >>> and acknowledgement of interdependence.  We also have a  
> >>> propensity to reify
> >>> what typically are abstract typifications and treat those  
> >>> typifications as
> >>> concrete factual objects and events.  Thus history becomes an  
> >>> ahistoric and
> >>> acultural series of finite events rather than an infinite  
> >>> continuum of
> >>> ongoing processes and phenomena.
> >>
> >> Or else it becomes an infinite continuum of ongoing processes and  
> >> phenomena
> >> which are interpreted in radically different ways by different  
> >> people, as
> >> different aspects of the continuum are emphasized or de-emphasized  
> >> by said
> >> individuals.  The five blind men and the elephant come to mind.
> >>
> >>
> >>> In part, this may stem from the positivist
> >>> philosophy that underlies the scientific method and enterprise  
> >>> which the
> >>> Western world has totally embraced and popularized as well as the  
> >>> Western
> >>> world's (as exemplified by the US) focus on empirical science and  
> >>> practical
> >>> engineering and away from theoretical science and analytical  
> >>> interests.
> >>
> >> So I guess that five Chinese historians, say, would all interpret,  
> >> say, the
> >> Cultural Revolution in precisely the same way?  Or am I missing  
> >> something?
> >>
> >> John Wason
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace- 
> >>>> discuss-
> >>>> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 3:51 PM
> >>>> To: Peace-discuss
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "The War" by Ken Burns
> >>>>
> >>>> It was generally asserted that irony was over after 9-11, but  
> >>>> John it
> >>>> seems didn't get the memo.
> >>>>
> >>>> He also apparently chooses to ignore the strong implication of both
> >>>> novels, that the situation that causes the protagonist's suffering
> >>>> arose
> >>>> from a failure of historical and political analysis.  Each is a  
> >>>> strong
> >>>> if futile plea that that not happen again.
> >>>>
> >>>> However tacit, Trumbo's political lesson was so clear that the  
> >>>> book was
> >>>> removed from publication, probably by Trumbo himself (an  
> >>>> anarchist who
> >>>> joined the US Communist Party during WWII), on the eve of US  
> >>>> entry into
> >>>> the war.  (The CPUSA went from a pacifist to a pro-war position  
> >>>> in the
> >>>> summer of 1941, with the German attack on the Soviet Union.)  A few
> >>>> years earlier Remarque had had his German citizenship revoked  
> >>>> because
> >>>> of
> >>>> the political implications of his books.
> >>>>
> >>>> Burns' apparently apolitical approach is of course thoroughly
> >>>> political.
> >>>>
> >>>> As Mark Twain pointed out, history doesn't repeat itself, but it  
> >>>> does
> >>>> rhyme.  --CGE
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> John W. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've just recently read two anti-war novels written many years  
> >>>>> ago:
> >>>>> Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo, and All Quiet on the Western
> >>>> Front
> >>>>> by Erich Remarque.  They too are failures, unfortunately, because
> >>>> they
> >>>>> also don't delve deeply into exquisitely detailed historical and
> >>>>> political analysis, but merely present the human effect of  
> >>>>> war.  It's
> >>>>> appalling, really, that so many authors and filmmakers don't
> >>>> recognize
> >>>>> the obvious necessity of proper, correct political analysis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Wason
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 01:45 PM 10/5/2007, you wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> [Burns' account of WWII appears to bear as much relation to the
> >>>> facts
> >>>>>> as TV sitcoms usually do to family life.  Here's a typical  
> >>>>>> critique.
> >>>>>> For a partial corrective, see
> >>>>>> <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/196709--.htm>  "On the  
> >>>>>> Backgrounds
> >>>>>> of the Pacific War: The Revolutionary Pacifism of A.J.  
> >>>>>> Muste."  --
> >>>> CGE]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         Critique, "The War" by Ken Burns
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't know how many readers here spent 14 hours over the past  
> >>>>>> couple
> >>>>>> of weeks watching the PBS documentary on World War II by Ken  
> >>>>>> Burns.
> >>>> I
> >>>>>> think I have now seen it all -- given our local TV's  
> >>>>>> rebroadcasts, I
> >>>>>> think I have pieced in the parts I missed initially.  I  
> >>>>>> expected so
> >>>>>> much more, and I feel deeply disappointed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have three big objections.  The First is the decision before  
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> documentary was really made to avoid or eliminate any  
> >>>>>> discussion of
> >>>>>> both politics, political leadership, and strategy and the  
> >>>>>> makers of
> >>>>>> strategy which would be the military leadership.  For the most  
> >>>>>> part
> >>>>>> the documentary managed this, which contributes to it's failure.
> >>>>>> Without a political framework virtually none of the combat  
> >>>>>> makes all
> >>>>>> that much sense.  For it is persons in power through political  
> >>>>>> means
> >>>>>> that have the ability to attack this today, and something else
> >>>>>> tomorrow -- and there is no way to comprehend a war without the
> >>>>>> element of who was in power, and who had the political means to
> >>>> direct
> >>>>>> combat.  Ken Burns lost this one before he began if he made that
> >>>>>> decision early on.  (Does one think one eventually will be  
> >>>>>> able to
> >>>> do
> >>>>>> the History of the Iraq war without really comprehending the  
> >>>>>> nature
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> the Bush Administration?)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This Documentary was advertised as about the impact of the War on
> >>>>>> various local communities -- Luverne Minnesota, Waterbury Conn.
> >>>>>> Sacramento Calif, and Mobile Alabama.  What did we really learn
> >>>> about
> >>>>>> these communities?  Well, they all were letter writers, and they
> >>>>>> followed the news and they collected scrap metal -- but we  
> >>>>>> learned
> >>>>>> little else.  Minnesota Public Radio talked with some of the  
> >>>>>> Luverne
> >>>>>> Witnesses, and they were disappointed that Burns had not included
> >>>>>> their community canning operation.  They actually replaced
> >>>> commercial
> >>>>>> canned commodities with their efforts.  Corn, Beans, Beets, Peas,
> >>>>>> Tomatoes, Potatoes, Carrots, -- they canned it all, and exchanged
> >>>> with
> >>>>>> other communities who could do peaches and cherries further  
> >>>>>> south,
> >>>> and
> >>>>>> they were proud of this accomplishment.  It got left out.  If the
> >>>>>> Documentary was to be about the Home Front -- this was a huge  
> >>>>>> part
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> it, and they apparently are upset that it was dropped from the  
> >>>>>> film.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Third, in line with the promise that the Documentary was to be  
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>> the home front, I expected it to include much more about
> >>>> sociological
> >>>>>> change.  The Documentary went out of it's way to avoid this.   
> >>>>>> Part
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> this is the timeline used in the film.  The Period for the war
> >>>> begins
> >>>>>> with Surprise Pearl Harbor, and ends with the surrender of Japan,
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> implications of change did not become apparent in this  
> >>>>>> timeline. Not
> >>>>>> only does this avoid all the politics, and the process by which
> >>>>>> Americans moved toward war from let's say their position at  
> >>>>>> the time
> >>>>>> of the fall of France in June, 1940, or the Nazi Attack on the
> >>>> Soviet
> >>>>>> Union in June, 1941, to the position of probable support (by 66%)
> >>>> for
> >>>>>> war in October, 1941, (last poll before Pearl Harbor), it totally
> >>>>>> avoids discussion of the dynamics of that change.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Otherwise, I object to Ken Burns periodization.  For the vast
> >>>> majority
> >>>>>> of the combatents and the victims, the war began in 1939 -- but
> >>>> Burns
> >>>>>> sticks with the American Timeline that begins Dec. 7, 1941.  I
> >>>> object
> >>>>>> to his failure to comprehend that American Generals such as  
> >>>>>> George
> >>>>>> Marshall were convinced that there would be another World War as
> >>>> early
> >>>>>> as about 1923, because the conclusion of World War One had  
> >>>>>> been so
> >>>>>> flawed, and they saw the seeds of the next one in the failure of
> >>>> peace
> >>>>>> making in the wake of the first.  Burns decision not to insert  
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> positions of politicians and Generals into the mix because it was
> >>>>>> politics or strategy means that those watching his documentary  
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> denied both what they knew and anticipated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Likewise, Burns ended his work at least with reference to Europe
> >>>> with
> >>>>>> the surrender, and then a short shot of Potsdam.  Marshall's
> >>>> doctrine
> >>>>>> was that wars were about politics, and that the conclusion of  
> >>>>>> a war
> >>>>>> was about finding a means for fixing the politics. on your terms.
> >>>> that
> >>>>>> had caused the war.  If you failed at that, forget the glory  
> >>>>>> of your
> >>>>>> combat victory.  In my mind this is the only principle that  
> >>>>>> applies
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> Iraq even at a distance.  By not dealing with Occupation, and the
> >>>>>> aftermath, Burns essentially blanks out the possibility of  
> >>>>>> drawing a
> >>>>>> useful comparison.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But what really bothers me is the Burns Trademark on this totally
> >>>>>> inadequate film.  I know all too well that these days, High  
> >>>>>> School
> >>>>>> Teachers do not really teach the Civil War -- they give the kids
> >>>> hours
> >>>>>> of Burns films on that subject.  I fear that will happen with  
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> latest effort.  And this latest effort is profoundly off key.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/10/ 
> >>>>>> critique->
> >>> the-wa.html>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >        
> > ______________________________________________________________________ 
> > ______________
> > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s  
> > user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/ 
> > yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss