doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT: "The War" series by Ken Burns on Public TV

In an interview with the WSJ, Burns stated that PBS required him to go back and put additional material into "The War" about Hispanics and American Indians. IMHO, the series also dwells overlong on the Japanese-Americans and the problematic role of African-Americans. The selection of Luverne, Waterbury, Sacramento and Mobile is as geographically PC as the cornball Hollywood infantry squad that always has to have a Brooklyn wise guy, a straight-shoootin' hillbilly, an innocent Midwest farm boy, an angry black man, etc.

In effect, Burns' "The War" reflects America's ethnic and social issues of today, not the reality of 1941-45.

Thanks, jack. His series was of our time and context, then, far different from the time and temperament of the years at war.

I guess no harm done if Burns added something to general knowledge that had been left out of the contributions of minorities.

No harm done? Exaggerating the contributions of minorities may be "good" social work, but it's bad history.

Hollywood and PBS have done stories galore about the Japanese-American internment, about the fighting 442nd, about the Tuskegee airmen, about the Codetalkers. And no one has denied or minimized their contributions - quite the opposite. Burns' series added nothing but repetition to their stories.

It might be politically incorrect, but the overwhelming burden of America's fighting and dying in WWII was carried by white males. Rewriting history to mollify today's ethnic pressure groups is intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant.

"Homogenous" elements of the state militia type circa Civil War or the more recent Guard and Reserves which also mobilize as a unit (athough MOS requirements may mean reassignment) are the reason for saving "Pvt. Ryan" or giving some thought to not killing another family of sea-going Sullivans, or whatever. Come full circle on this one. Homogenous was the least offensive euphemistic adjective I could think of for everyone you knew in high school. The genius of the Draft Act of '68 was that it was administered relatively consistently and fairly as a lottery and gave everyone (however non-homogenized)a chance to do their duty. It goes without saying that the fleas come with the dog.

grunt (another bit of slang which I have chosen to take as a compliment)

I had several thoughts about "The War." It dramatically brought home to me the differences in quality of leadership and preparation between then and now. If our generals today performed like the generals of WWII we'd be clamoring for them to be in jail. Also, the general lack of information allowed to the civilians of then would in no way be tolerated now (unless it was a democrat president). The level of war planning, soldier prepartion and training, etc. of today is incredible compared to WWII(in spite of all the bitching about our President, the Sec of Defense, Pentagon and in-theatre leadership). Literally thousands of people lost their lives in training exercises on our own East coast simply preparing for the D-Day invasion let only the additional thousands involved in the actual invasion in Normandy. The loss of thousands on Pelelieu when it wasn't even strategically important borders on criminal. I have modified downward my view of FDR, Eisenhower, MacArthur and others while increasing my respect for Patton as a result of watching the show.

Also, was somewhat outraged by Burns' highlighting apparent war crimes in WWII in his stated effort to show the "worst" of war.

History is always being rewritten, jack, and I see nothing repugnant or intellectually dishonest in mentioning those who served even if the majority was white in a majority-white nation.

Far better to give tribute to those who served whatever their background than to be politically correct and intellectually dishonest by not mentioning those who didn't want the war and equivocated.

That social history, too. Burns cut a thin slice of the war, small enough to be manageable and large enough to be significant. If he erred by including again the celebrated minorities, better respect for them than remorse.

I am reluctant to get involved in this discussion of PC vs. actual history, but I do think some important things are being overlooked.

First, my credentials. I am a veteran of WWII, 83 years old; spent 7 mos. in combat in France and Germany prior to VE Day, May 8, 1945, and another 10 mos. in the Army of Occupation in Germany after the war ended. For most of that time, I was fully expecting to be sent to Japan, but was saved by the A-bomb.

I was a demolition specialist in the 14th Armored Division, 125th Armored Engineer Batallion, 3rd Army (Patton) from the time we crossed the Rhine until the War ended. We were not in the Battle of the Bulge, but just south of that epic battle in Alsace. We were,however, involved in Operation Nordwind, Hitler's counterattack to the south after the Bulge had failed. We saw extensive fighting in the two little towns of Hatten and Rittershofen, which were literally wiped off the map. A few weeks later, we captured the huge POW camp (130,000 prisoners, if memory serves me right) at Moosburg, which served as the model for the movie "Stalag XVII." And at the end of the war, units from our Division took part in the liberation of the first Nazi concentration camp at Dachau, just a few miles from Munich.

I must say that I approve of Ken Burns' portrayal of war. The constant sense of unreality and fear. Of course, he is using mostly actual footage from the War, but his narrative and exceptional editing has resulted in conveying the actual taste and feel of combat better than any other production I have ever seen. I think he can be forgiven a few extra PC commentaries. They are not overdone; they are based on history.

I must agree with King Brown, who said "better respect for them than remorse."

Bill

Bill, I deeply appreciate your addition to this thread. I am the son of a WW II veteran, China Burma Theater - B25's, and I served 29 years in the U.S. Army. I thought Ken did a masterful job and I am glad to hear someone who really was of that generation comment on it.

In Dec of 99, I was loving life as the Assistant Division Commander (Maneuver) of the 4th Infantry Division. Just before Christmas, I received a call from an old mentor, Rick Shinseki, who was Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, asking me to come to Washington to act as his Chief of Legislative Liaison. He is a truly remarkable figure, which history will treat well. At the time he was engaged in a bitter struggle with a new SECDEF who was determined to draw down an Army which was no longer "relevant" in the post cold war era.....a SECDEF who was convinced that SPECOPS and "Shock and awe" would win all future wars. Shinseki was determined to preserve a ten division force and I was privileged to play a small role in that effort on Capitol Hill.

Rumsfeld's strategy was to ridicule and discredit Shinseki - an effort which failed largely because of what Shinseki represented and the point of this digression. A Japanese American, Shinseki was born to a family under local detention. He earned a commission, and eventually two purple hearts and three bronze stars with V devices in Vietnam. His mentor was a man by the name of Daniel Inouye. Senator Inouye lost his arm and gained a medal of honor during WWII. Those of you who saw the Burns series, saw him. He is every bit as remarkable an American citizen as Shinseki. The environment which produced such men needs to be remembered. I deeply resent the notion that it is somehow politicaly correct to do so.

And though I did not serve at Normandy or Mogadishu, I have at least been shot at, and I have been responsible for the deaths of quite a few of my country's foes. I do know four of the Delta operators and Rangers that responded to that downed Black Hawk. From a professional perspective, it is pretty well done - which is why both Delta and the Army supported the filming. My colleagues who were there, universally agree. As for as SPR, how could anyone not be moved by that movie? Other than a couple of nits regarding the weapons and tactics, this is a superb study of small unit combat. The Army leadership, all combat veterans, presented Spielberg with an award of recognition when the film was released.

History is, by its very nature, the interpretation of events through the prism of the time in which it is written. It is also different as viewed through the prism of those experiencing it. For instance, I have yet to read a "correct" account of the Battle of Medinah Ridge - at least as how I experienced it. These are not issues of Political Correctness, but rather, issues of perspective.

Great thread, however off topic.

Bill and Joe - Thanks for telling us your views. My father-in-law is another 80+ year old veteran of WWII who thought Burns did a great job. He didn't complain a bit that Leyte Gulf -- where he saw most of his action -- got barely a sentence of mention. The credibility you and Bill bring to this discussion adds welcome heart and makes it easy to forget the niggling of some who seem to award themselves a big badge of honor for being unimpressed.

Jay Gramith

Is this discussion about our opinions of a documentary series, or our opinions of each others' opinions?