I received a recent note regarding this blog, which will probably alter the tone of future posts as I wanted to make this approachable by the modern audience.
"... since I'm not really familiar with the history at all... it is a blur of stuff that I really can't picture or at least draw on some background information. It isn't that it was "high brow" and really went over my head, as it is... a puzzle that I can't piece together because I don't really 'get the picture'..."
Not having a context to piece together the events is likely troublesome for most readers. We didn't grow up in those times and have no real cultural mindset to view 'current' headlines from 70 years ago. But picture them this way. The current conflict in the Middle East with terrorism is much the same. A faraway place that is shaping world events. Few of us pay attention to exactly where and why these conflicts are. Those that do have little understanding as to why the U.S. had to get involved and believe we have no business over there. Our current economy is such a mess that we should probably focus a lot of the money spent on military efforts over there here instead.
The same held true for Americans who read their newspapers 70 years ago. Full of names and events and places that had little bearing on their day to day lives. Who was this Hitler guy and why was he stirring up so much trouble in Europe?(Some Americans while finding National Socialism alarming, saw him as a legitimate leader of his country and supported socialism themselves). Why does our government care so much about getting involved when we should just stay out of it?(Much of America was still locked in an attitude of isolationism). Persecution of the Jews; maybe they were meddling in affairs they had little right to.(Americans at the time were fairly antisemitic themselves). What do we owe Britain and France, didn't the last war do enough to bail them out?(Of course they were still stinging from the casualties taken only the generation before). We just ended the Great Depression, spending money and industry on another war instead of feeding and housing our own is ridiculous.(Again, the root cause of this attitude was isolationism and really tough economic times, much like today).
So times then were little different from times today, just less technology. Although the advancements in wireless radio and instruments of warfare, particularly airplanes and tanks, were quite a cultural shock much like computers and internet today. The conflicts and threats to world and American security seemed far away, but were no less a threat than modern-day terrorism. It has only been made public in most recent years that Hitler's plan for conquest included the United States eventually.
I hope that my 'headlines' are read from a perspective that while the battles and locations may seem foreign and strange that we would fight in these countries, but the political and social situations then were little to no different than todays.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It makes more sense to me after you saying that. Thanks for taking into consideration us folks who are not "history buffs". I would appreciate the "tie in" to be spelled out for me, because otherwise I may not appreciate the relevance to our present situation.
ReplyDeleteI have to also comment that I have watched two "old" WWII movies this past week, one from 1945 and the other from 1943. One was so lame, that it was hard to watch (Walk In the Sun with Dana Andrews). Of course, I take into account that their ability to make movies then were limited, but the one made in 1943 (Gung Ho with Randolf Scott) was much better and at least had a decent story line and enough action to actually hold your interest. I know that the war must have been hell for the soldiers and know that "movies of the day" were not accurately depicted, probably so as not to "put off" the viewers. If we knew more what it was "really" like, perhaps we would try harder to avoid it.
ReplyDelete"Gung Ho" (1943) was definitely a propaganda film, intended to rile up the soldiers still headed over before the war ended. In 1943, the outcome was still in doubt. The character portrayed by Scott was Carlson Makin, of Makin's Raiders. He purportedly walked out of the film in disgust when it originally was shown. "Walk In The Sun" was one of the first attempts by Hollywood to show a grittier realistic portrayal of the war. At the time it was shocking and a hit, but has not weathered well over time.
ReplyDelete