9/23/2007 - Ken Burns new documentary: The War

Colleges & Universities Service Academy Parents
1

<p>A review by John Sponauer.
<a href=“http://www.sponauer.com/thewar/[/url]”>http://www.sponauer.com/thewar/&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/thewar/[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/thewar/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Refighting “The War”
by John Sponauer</p>

<p>“I really can’t tell you what I saw,” would seem to be the antithesis of what Ken Burns’s new documentary The War is about; the veteran speaking those words, Ray Leopold of Waterbury, Conn., struggles on film to find a description of the horror he witnessed as a young G.I. helping to liberate a Nazi medical experimentation facility. He finally gives up, staring into space, as Burns mercilessly shows some of what Leopold can’t describe: the sheer evil at the core of the most savage conflict of the 20th century. </p>

<p>The War is not for the weak of heart, stomach or mind.</p>

<p>For those fortunate enough to see some of Burns’s masterwork before its premiere on September 23 on PBS, the WWII of a thousand books and movies has come alive yet again, but rarely has it ever been so personal and intimate on film. From the brief preview shown in Waterbury (one of four cities chosen by Burns as a feature location in the documentary) on September 10, it seems likely that The War will resonate in public discourse for a long time.</p>

<p>Much of that will turn the work and the war into a parable of Iraq, and we will be poorer with each occurrence. Supporters and opponents of today’s war will naturally grab the film’s messages for their own purposes. Those critical of the president will cite the shared sacrifice shown in WWII but seemingly absent from today’s America. Those supporting the war—and for the record, I am one—will long for the era when it was not considered naïve to paint the world in stark colors. Both comparisons, and dozens more like them, fail for the same reason: we don’t live in the same times as those Burns has so skillfully captured on film, and in many ways, we’re not the same country, for good or ill.</p>

<p>In an era of self-published blogs, irresponsible mainstream media, and when even sports columns commonly reflect the trite political positions of their writers, letting loose a 14-hour epic about “a necessary war” like WWII into the public domain seems to be nothing but an invitation to view and discuss the conflict and the film through the prism of the present, or the other way around. Whether that’s a sign of the narcissism of our era, a natural reaction to the art, or something else entirely, it may actually diminish the sacrifices of the generation of Americans who fought in either war.</p>

<p>Instead, it would behoove the viewer to use the occasion instead to simply honor the generation that did what it did, and try to grasp the enormity of it all in the times it occurred. Judging by the brief segments shown during the Waterbury preview, Burns has made a remarkable film about a remarkable era, and that should be enough for his portion of the work that needs to be done.</p>

<p>Burns has said repeatedly that part of his motivation for making The War was to educate today’s youth, but one could argue his mission actually needs to be broader than that; depending on the generation, WWII seems to have been viewed in jingoist propaganda, dismissive elitism or historical ignorance, sometimes more than one at a time.</p>

<p>The truth is that WWII was, at times, as heroic, stoic, necessary, wasteful and evil as all of humanity, and, at times, of wars immortal, and Burns has done an excellent job of capturing the conflict in a raw, unsentimental manner that could just as easily be profiling American warriors of any other generation. What we do with our viewing experience after we turn the TV off is our responsibility, but it’s my belief that we owe both the veterans of WWII and Ken Burns a devotion not to turn their story into our own platform simply because it’s possible.</p>

<p>There are lessons in The War, for sure, and it’s hard not to be moved toward one’s political inclinations by watching it. But for the honor of those who fought it, let their amazing story tell itself, even for those who—after all these years—haven’t been able to find the words to accurately do so.</p>

2

<p>This is an excellent documentary. Mr. Burns gave a preview of it last year at USAFA.</p>

3

<p>Waited two years for this to finally hit television!</p>

4

<p>I found it pretty light in the evil of Japan and Germany and unbalanced in its criticism of the USA. This is not good history but easily digested pop art made to be popular today with typical shallow liberal sensibilities. That sells. It is very pretty though and its use of gruesome footage should not be mistaken as any proof of veracity. Good fun - terrible history.</p>

5

<p>Excellent documentary so far. It was interesting to see some of the WW2 vets comments as it was the first time I had seen any one publically talk about situations where prisioners were just not taken, for a variety of reasons, that to one side can be labeled as justifiable, to another as murder. I have spoken to some WW2 and Vietnam Vets personally who relayed the same info but never publically like this. Really shows the horrors, contradictions, and sheer brutal reality of what happens when nations go to war, when you strip away the propaganda laden-hollywood style portrayals we have all gotten so accustomed to. I agree with those that say it was certainly a “just” war, but it certainly shows that when it comes down to it, motives and reasons aside, war itself is an abomination. Eisenhower said as much when it was over.</p>

<p>I certainly didn’t see anything that I recognized as non-factual. Perhaps someone could point to some part of it that was not historically correct? I didn’t see any particular criticism of the US other than our lack of preparedness. There was certainly plenty of visual examples of the brutality of the Japanese and the Germans in part 1. Perhaps those who have commented above have seen the whole series already and can point to something for me to watch for to substantiate the criticism? Last night was surely just part 1, right? I have a feeling if you are looking for more on the evils of Germany and Japan beyond the scenes last night of the “rape of Nanking” and the atrocities committed on the Russian front, you are bound to see more in later episodes. Lets watch the whole thing before we parrot the blogs who seem to already want to denounce it as “liberal anti-war propaganda.” History is history. Lets learn from it together, and remember that there is ALWAYS more to discover about the past! 70 million people died. We should always do more than just try to “honor their memory”.
Should we be afraid of this documentary because we aren’t sure how people will “feel” about current events after seeing it? Boy, I hope thats not true. If its unfactual then it will be exposed. If not, well, as one great American said, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”</p>

<p>Will be watching again tonight.</p>

6

<p>First off, I have found Ken Burns’ documentaries to be well done and I expect The War series will meet that standard.</p>

<p>I also expect that this show on balance will add more weight to the argument that “war is a horrible, barbaric undertaking”, which it most certainly is. </p>

<p>My concern is: when and where do our children get exposed to programs and school books that provide supporting arguments for determining when going to war is necessary? I am not talking about glorifying warfare (not very glorious in my opinion) but, instead, a discussion of when this ‘necessary evil’ is really necessary. Yes, I do believe that war has been, and will likely continue to be, necessary.</p>

<p>Maybe I’m not paying attention but I haven’t seen much programming directed at that aspect of our nation’s foreign policy. I certainly didn’t see it in the high school history textbooks of my kids.</p>

<p>During their lives so far, my 18 and 21 year old sons have received tons of commentary about the downside of warfare and the failures associated with military undertakings of the United States during the past 50 years. This is information I believe is good and proper for them to have been exposed to. </p>

<p>What concerns me is that they have received virtually nothing about the strategic political, social and economic ‘upside’ of war ( yes there really were some benefits derived by the US and other countries from wars) and how to determine when war is the necessary and right choice (Not to be confused with a good choice).</p>

<p>If I was an inquiring 18 year old who has been paying attention at school and to the media, I would be hard pressed to conclude that war by the United States was anything but a terrible, mean spirited, self-serving, waste of people and resources. </p>

<p>While I certainly believe some good will be conveyed by Mr. Burns documentary, I am afraid that the overall impact of ‘The War’ will be to add to the unbalanced message our citizens are hearing and continue to undermine our Nation’s ability to convince its people that sometimes, despite its horror and evil, war is the best of some really bad choices facing our country.</p>

<p>I hope I am wrong.</p>

7

<p>Good points Aspen. Sometimes it is so hard to cut through the bull all around us to get a really balanced outlook on such important issues.</p>

8

<p>

Neither did I. We had a very good discussion at work yesterday morning as I believe we will again this morning. I work at a historical archives with many historians. The consensus was that it was very well presented.</p>

<p>My father was an Army Air Corp B24L pilot in asia, Flying the India - China Hump. Many of his stories have echoed those presented by Burns. </p>

<p>If you know of any Veterans, they should seek out the Veterans History Project. The Library of Congress has set up a network of participating institutions where veterans can tell their stories. LOC if the final depository for the Oral Histories however most participating institutions are keeping their copies. Our institution also provides the Veteran with a DVD or VHS and a transcript.</p>

<p><a href=“About  |  Veterans History Project  |  Programs  |  Library of Congress”>About  |  Veterans History Project  |  Programs  |  Library of Congress;

<p>Participating institutions: <a href=“http://www.loc.gov/vets/partners/partners.html[/url]”>http://www.loc.gov/vets/partners/partners.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

9

<p>Last nights episode was excellent! I have always shuddered when I saw and read stories about those Army Air Corps crews in their B-17’s. What brave men! I saw a B-17 fly into McClellan AFB in the early 1990’s and had the chance to tour through it. They seem big until you get inside. Talking to one vet there who had to bail out of one over Germany, he said that once they started spinning unless you were standing by an exit or a hole in the plane you just couldn’t get out. Even the cockpit seemed like a shoebox.</p>

10

<p>re: unbalanced criticism of the US.</p>

<p>What is it that has been unbalanced?</p>

<p>The overt racism that existed at that time?
The relocation of American citizens of Japanese ancestry?
The conscious decision by the government to mislead the public as to how poorly the war was going in the early years? [hmmm. . . .should I take an opportunity to compare to modern-day governments?]</p>

<p>The show seems to have taken great pains to show The War affected the everyday lives of Americans at the time.
Teh show seems to have shown the heroism of the ordinary soldier.</p>

<p>It seems this is a story about the American War. How the war affected Americans.
During the early years, I don’t think the average American had a clue as to why the Germans or the Japanese were considered “evil.” Why they wanted to dominate us or anything like that.</p>

<p>“Typical shallow liberal sensibilities”? What does this mean. No, really, I would really like to know what has been presented in these episodes that deserves this comment?</p>

<p>My only criticism, which critics have made, is that it seems a bit slow in some spots. But, I am watching it all.
Fascinating perspective on a time when the entire country was united. Too bad that the immediate-post 9/11 time could not have been extended in this same fashion.</p>

11

<p>Profmom, I had no idea your work was in historical archives! I’m very envious! What were some of the thoughts discussed today at your work as to last night’s episode? The Veterans History Project is of great interest to me. Priceless in fact. Thanks for providing the link reminding me I’ve a project to do.</p>

<p>I find my group of friends and family are eerily becoming a part of the series through the events that happened with their families during the War. Some of us are fortunate enough to have some of the family oral history & we‘re discussing it a great deal. I’ve sat with a box of Kleenex through the entire thing so far. Last night was very hard to watch due to the things that Bill mentioned. </p>

<p>30 minutes before, we’re getting a local view through a special called “The Vanishing Generation” about GA & SC Veterans & their families. Are any of you finding such on your PBS stations?</p>

12

<p>Jamzmom,
Yes, here in California there have been a couple of specials run around the Burns Documentary focusing in on California durng the war.
Part 3 (last night) was pretty powerful. I had heard about the controversy over the Tarawa newsreels and seen one or two stills from them in books, but to actually see the footage was an emotional experience–Im sure it was even more so for the population at that time. Putting life in the US in context with the war and showing its effects on the way different ethnic groups were treated in parts of the US both before and during the war was very interesting to say the least. When one looks back on it now its hard to believe that this was happening only 60 years ago in OUR country! In that light its easier to see how racism still pops its ugly head up out of the sand once in a while—after all, 60 years wasn’t really that long ago. In some very meaningful ways the war at home was beginning to facilitate the waking up of America as to how it was treating and viewing both women and minorities. Suddenly they were seen as adding value to the economic progress and the defense of the nation. Forcing groups to suddenly have to think about working together for the national good was bound to have some long lasting consequences.</p>

13

<p>I suppose I must take this opportunity to point out the true shame of Mr. Burn’s decision to exclude from his primary work any mention of the Hispanic contribution to the war effort.</p>

<p>He says something to the effec that many different ethnicities contributed to the war effort and he did not want to point toward one’s contribution over the other. Yet, he points out the Japanese squadron; I think he mentioned or will mention the black squadron.
He then suggests that, since he was focusing on only the four towns, the emphasis was on residents from those towns.
He could not find any Mexican-Americans from the Sacramento area to feature?</p>

<p>Yes, he added the extra twenty minutes in the first episode, but it clearly was just sop being offered to Mexican-Americans who protested this use of public money that excludes M/As. </p>

<p>Mexican-Americans–I’m pretty sure this is correct–earned more medals of honor than any other ethnic group.
In Texas, M/As-at the time–were subject to just as much discrimination as blacks were in Alabama. Separate water fountains and all.
My father recalls seeing restaurants that hung signs which said: “Mexicans and Dogs served in back.” That was part of the US at the time. Under modern scrutiny, such actions are shameful.</p>

<p>My grandparents came from Mexico to the US in tje 1920’s. Their crossing and arrival was not as dramatic as for those who went through Ellis Island but they became as much a part of this country as those who did.</p>

<p>I will watch the movie; I enjoy th emovie; I will learn from the movie.
It is unfortunate that he made the choice to exclude a group from its presentation.</p>

<p>I will tie this up with some, additional, thoughts on the Constitution. It is this document’s protection of the minority [numerically speaking] that has bound this country together. As this country continues to splinter–along ethnic, religous, or political-party lines–this country will be in danger of falling apart. That is unfortunate.</p>

14

<p>Bill, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Japanese and African Americans were segregated both in the armed forces and in civilian life. The story is more about that segregation than about the fact they were “different”.
Im not aware of any all-hispanic units (forced or otherwise) or systematic “lawful” segregation of hispanics. In that sense they were just “part of the Armed Forces”, like Jews, German, Irish, Italian, and Chinese Americans. There was prejudice to be sure, but the Irish, jews, Germans, Italians, etc were probably facing similar situations depending on where they were and what they were doing. The Hispanics faced what I would call prejudice based upon the bigotry of individuals and local communities–horrific to be sure, but the African-Americans and Japanese were systematically segregated (and interned in the case of Japanese Americans) by their government as a matter of federal and state laws and public policy, and in the Japanese case as a result of the war. I don’t see the slight to Hispanics by Ken Burns at all. The story of the Japanese-Americans and African Americans was unique in the American experience. I think that is what Burn’s was concentrating on. To be sure there are stories to tell about all ethnic groups in the War but singling those two groups out was justified in my mind because their experience was unlike any of the other ethnic groups.</p>

15

<p>Good thoughts Bill & Shogun. I have the dearest friend who helped me put together a book on my Grandfather’s ship after he’d passed. His name is Nicholas Gonzales, the son of immigrants from Mexico who’d made a home in NYC. He was a Midshipman engineering student at Pratt University in 1942 & said they’d rushed every Mid through their program & within three months found himself graduated & a LT (JG I think) & on his way to an LSM ship making $21.00 a month. He stayed with the ship from beginning to end & through 100 or so emails & letters, gave me the exciting story of it all. In all of his writings, he never once mentioned racism which I know existed. None of the other mates hinted at it either when speaking of Gonzales. Brings to my mind new questions. He has mentioned several times that Norfolk was completely awful & he wished never to return there & hasn’t. Now I wonder about his experiences there as he feels so strongly. I should probably ask although I dread any such answer. Out of the 6 mates I found from my Grandfather’s ship, I fell head over heels in love with this one. Especially his 1944 photo…. Wow he was yummy. :slight_smile: I’m looking forward to tonight’s episode in hopes that I am able to see some footage on Guam in it’s Liberation.</p>

16

<p>If the film spoke solely to the battlefield relationships of which you speak, e.g. segregated units, or, even, to how those soldiers were treated once home, then your observations would be correct.</p>

<p>The film, however, spends a great deal of time on “life on the home front.” There was a considerable amount of time spent on the Mobile riots that occured in a shipyard.<br>
There was time spent on how relocation affected Japanese business interests in the Sacramento area.</p>

<p>Of course, considerable time has been spent on rosie the riveter, life at home, etc., etc., etc.,
The ugliness of white on black segregation in the deep south has received a lot of attention.
Was there no such segregation against Mexicans in the Southwest during the war? Despite honorable service–albeit in non-segregated units–many Mexican-Americans were subject to such segregation when they returned home. [As were native-Americans, i.e. most prominently Ira Hayes.] These, ALSO, are stories of THE WAR–not only on the battlefront but on the homefront.</p>

<p>The reason you don’t know of “systemic and lawful” segregation of Mexican-Americans is because it has not ben taught as a part of American history for the most part. [No budget! Certainly not as big a budget as the Jews have, for example, in keeping the Holocause front and center. The Native-American faces the same dilemma: No budget to keep the systemic slaughter of millions of Indians on the big screen.] Thus, this part of Southwestern history is not taught to any great degree. There is a Hispanic Heritage month, fro example, but it is nowhere emphasized as much as Black Heritage month. [I have to laugh; in my kids schools, which are about 90% anglo, 5% Hispanic, and 4% asian, they have to go “to the other side of town” during Black Heritage month so the little white kids can see life “on the other side.”]</p>

<p>there is historical evidence–court cases and other findings-- of Americans citizens of Mexican extraction who have had land appropriated, schools short-funded, and rights violated in a systematic and organized fashion by state-sponsored entities. Especially in Texas, New Mexico, California.</p>

<p>The point is, that the film is NOT about groups that were segregated against during the war. It IS, however, about the American experience during the war and, a significant part of the experience, during the 1940s was about segregation against many minorities who, otherwise, performed valiantly during the war. This includes M/As.<br>
While one might argue that Poles, Irish, etc. were discriinated against, I think you would find little evidence of such during the 1940s.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, it is still a slow trudge but otherwise interesting movie.</p>

17

<p>Points well taken Bill.
Thanks</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>During WWII, thirteen Hispanic-Americans were awarded the Medal of Honor.</p>

<p>Seven recipients were African-American.</p>

<p>Six were Native Americans.</p>

<p>Twenty-four recipients were Asian-Americans.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.homeofheroes.com/e-books/mohE_hispanic/index.html[/url]”>http://www.homeofheroes.com/e-books/mohE_hispanic/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

19

<p>Luigi-thanks for providing those stats! I had no notion that Asian-Americans accounted for that many MOH’s.</p>

<p>I think its important to note that one group has no claim to being “more brave” or more “self-sacrificing” than another. In the end the heroism came down to the individual, and the situation. How many MOH’s were earned unseen or unreported? Watching those boys climb into those B-17’s or coming off those landing craft at Tarawa, or slogging it out with the Germans and Italians in Italy last night made me think how much every one of those young men (most of them not much more than kids) deserved a medal for valor.</p>

20

<p>Yep. Very cool stuff. If anyone should be near Charleston SC sometime, check out:
<a href=“http://www.patriotspoint.org/exhibits/medal_honor/[/url]”>http://www.patriotspoint.org/exhibits/medal_honor/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and of course the USS Yorktown. Very worth the visit.</p>