STANDING AT ARMAGEDDON – REFLECTIONS

 

Michael Adams’s book, The Best War Ever, gives a new light to the history of World War II by calling into question many issues which surround the war that have been exaggerated to the point of myth and folklore.  He exposes these myths to gain a fuller understanding of what really took place in World War II.  To illustrate this theme within the text, Adams first sets up the myth by providing evidence that Americans have a glorified image of the war.  Adams then explains factors which led up to the war commonly neglected in the gloried war image.  He continues by exposing the ineffectiveness of the American war machine, then opens the reader’s eyes to the reality of warfare, and lastly, he argues the view of the strong, equal, and effective American home front is largely distorted and the reality is much more grim. 

In the first chapter of book Adams reveals many popular believe surrounding World War II.  He explains that we as people “tend to dwell on the victories because they make us feel good about ourselves.  We see them as events that showcase our national strength, collective courage, idealism, and other desirable traits. … One task of the historian is to try to keep our knowledge of the past as complete and accurate as possible…” (1) Adams claims that it is his obligation in the work to show how “our popular version” strays from reality in order to shift our understanding of history to what actually took place.  He continues to show:

Such a process happened with World War II, which has been converted … from a complex, problematic event, … to a simple, shining legend of the Good War. For many … the war years have become American’s golden age, a peak in the life of society… It was a great war. For Americans it was the best war ever. (2)

Adams backs up this claim by showing the representation of World War II in film that perpetuated an idea of the strong good soldier killing evil in a bloodless war.  World War II fighting men “were seen as determined, sure of their cause, and united,” (3) free from committing bad actions which were only associated with the enemy’s side.  This glorification of the war spilled over to other walks of life.  People believed things lasted longer, kids behaved better, and families were happier, while mothers went to work in safe effective factories which provide superb goods to the soldiers on the front line.  These half truths conceal a darker underside of the times which Adams makes clear. 

            First Adams addresses the reason why the world went to war.  He explains that the popular idea that the Treaty of Versailles, which punished the Germans with war reparations, and the policy of appeasement, which is making concessions to an aggressor (in this case Hitler) in order to avoid war, is not the full truth.  Adams rather claims that there is no easy answer, but the Dawes plan and the Great Depression had a very large influencing force in the conditions which lead up to WWII. (24-30) The Dawes plan was to float Germany millions of dollars in foreign loans, primarily from the United States, so Germany would be able to pay the heavy reparations imposed on them by the Versailles Treaty after the Great War.  This tactic was faulty because it made the German economy dependent on the United States.  Adams writes:

The financial crash and resulting Great Depression undercut the democracies’ ability to show that capitalism could bring prosperity and security… The financial crash and global Depression hit Germany particularly hard, as it was dependent on American loans, which dried up during America’s monetary crisis. (30)

As the great depression spread to foreign markets, other nations moved to protect their home markets by slowing international trade, gutting Germany’s export based economy.   “With the additional stagnation cause by an agricultural glut German’s prosperity crumbled.” (30) This economic falling out set the stage for the rise of Hitler.  The desperate times created desperate Germans, which turned to Hitler, who gave the people hope of a better tomorrow.   Appeasement does not provide such a clear answer either.  Adams argues that,

We now see that Hitler’s territorial ambitions could not be curbed by diplomatic means, but this was not so clear at the time. Nor does it follow that every world leader who opposes American is a Hitler who cannot be brought to reason short of war. (156)

The lesson here is much more complex.  America did not try diplomatic negotiations with Japan and if appeasement would have been tried the results might have changed how the pacific theater developed. 

            Adams reveals the myth surrounding America’s powerful and flawless war machine.  “American industry provided the need of its own military and contributed substantially to arming its allies. … However, there is a tendency in popular thought to magnify America’s contributions. The American war machine is sometimes seen as not one factor but the only factor in the Axis defeat.”  (69) The American war machine, while it was powerful and effective, it was not flawless or the only factor in victory.  An example is the flying Fortress, the B-17, which was described as virtually invincible, but in reality they had suffered heavy losses in the bombing runs above Germany until long-range fighter planes could be developed. (8) Also, American torpedoes were of poor quality at the beginning of the war until Axis designs were imitated. (7) Battle fatigue hurt America’s effectiveness.  The ratio of service personnel to combat personnel was 27:1.  This meant that out of 2 million enlisted men only 365,000 men were flagged for combat.  The fighting men at the front were always short of soldiers and rest was rare; these men might have to be at the front for weeks. (97) It was so bad the breakdown rate for personnel consistently in action for twenty-eight days ran as high as 90 percent. (7) While the American war machine was strong and the industrial out put was significant, in no way was it perfect or the only factor leading to the Allied victory.

            The glorified image of WWII does not come close to the hell American soldiers had to endure on the combat field.  Admiral LaRocque who served in WWII explains, “I hated to see how they glorified war. In all those films, people get blown up with their clothes and fall gracefully to the ground. … You see only and antiseptic, clean, neat way to die gloriously.” (100) The death and terror of war is lost when the myth of WWII is spread.  The real carnage is glossed over.  Ernie Pyle describes the scene from D-Day:

The beach itself was a surreal hell … for a mile out the coast was littered with shattered boats, tanks, trucks, rations, packs, buttocks, thighs, torsos, hands, heads. … Young soldiers milled around, often crying, soiling themselves. (101)

            Life on the home front was not a tranquil place.  Strikes were common place.  Industrial strikes doubled between 1942 and 1943 and rose again during 1944 and 1945.  In 1944 nearly nine million workdays were lost to strikes.  It is believed that in the absence of working men, women were able to pick up the work load and help American fighting soldiers.  This created the image of Rosie the Riveter who was an eager hard working female who wanted to help the American war cause by working in the factories.  A Gallup poll taken in 1943 showed the contrary.  According to the poll 70 percent of married men opposed war work for their wives and that 75 percent of female homemakers agreed. (70) War factories were dangerous not only because of the industrial and mechanical line of work but because the threat of sexual assault, especially during the night shifts.  Most of the women, who worked in the factories during WWII, where already in the working class before the war.  The women who did work during war did not break gender barriers in the work place, as it is commonly assumed.  Women gained little in law or medicine, only gaining in female positions such as nursing and teaching.  “The war did not radically change employment patterns, and most women were in the kind of low-echelon positions that were easily terminated.” (134) For the women who did work did not benefit their family.  Many housewives believed that if they started to work and become more self-sufficient, it became more likely that their husbands would be drafted.  Mothers who did work, only left their children unattended at home which fostered a rambuncous youth.  Adams makes this argument when he writes, “the Depression and the war appeared to lessen parental authority. … If the mother worked too, the stage was set for wildness among unsupervised children.  Adults worried about adolescent hostility and rebellions, which was expressed in growing number of street gangs.”  This set the stage for the antiestablishment teenage culture.