At what point was there ever a nuanced, even-handed treatment of WWII in popular culture?
WWII was already about good-guy America vs. bad-guy Hitler during WWII. Specifically, it was about good-guy Donald Duck vs. bad-guy Hitler. I guess you could make a case that Hogan’s Heroes strove to encompass a wider historic perspective, but that’s about it. I think a Japanese soldier may have popped up once on an episode of Gilligan’s Island.
Computer games present a simplified view of the war because computer games exist now. The problem itself is not new. Earlier, we only had movies and novels to warp our impressions. It’s not because the war generation is dying off: they were the most invested in the fairy tale to begin with.
All right, well, what does Australia teach about WWII in schools? What’s the history curriculum like? Seems to me that Australians ought to be learning about it in school. (Of course I say this knowing that the study of history all over the English-speaking world has gone to the dogs, so I guess the answer is going to be rather depressing.)
But those same popular culture combatants also fought in Africa and the Italian front – and I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen “popular culture” focusing on on of those. There’ve been some good movies set in the Africa campaigns, but it’s been a while since them. And the only thing that comes to mind set in the Italy campaigns is Catch 22.
I didn’t go to school here so I’m not sure, but they do seem to cover Australian involvement in the Pacific Theatre of WWII in some detail. Gallipoli (WWI) also gets a lot of coverage.
Australia is very proud (and rightly so) of their military history and rightly so, but that doesn’t mean the younger generation pays much attention to it in school.
I suspect most of the stuff focusing on the Italian campaign tends to be in the form of “Arthouse” movies that your average punter never sees. It’s a good point though; besides Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome people my age could be forgiven for realising there even was an Italian Campaign, or that it kicked off in 1943- before D-Day.
“At what point was there ever a nuanced, even-handed treatment of WWII in popular culture?”
Ever seen the Longest Day? Fascinating to contrast that with Saving Private Ryan as a D-Day Hollywood film.
Personally I have never thought of WW2 as a simple battle between good and evil. The Nazis were certainly evil but so were the Soviets who played the major role in defeating them. The European empires in Asia and Africa were also evil in many ways. The Allied policy of deliberately bombing civilian populations in Japan and Germany was also evil IMO. Certainly the Western Allies were the lesser evil compared to the Nazis but the Soviets were just as bad if not worse.
The “media” is not some monjolithic entity that must be fair and evenhanded in its creation of stories based on real events. The reason the US’s involvement is emphasized is that lots of media is made for a US audience. Your rant is really no different than the rant of someone who wants more Firefly episodes or wishes their favorite band didn’t break up.
WWII was hardly good vs evil. The Allies had their own skeletons, the fighting in the Pacific was over colonies famine was induced in India by the diversions of food supplies the Europe.
I would agree that WWII has become the “feel good war” in the states. How an event is remembered is hardly an accurate reflection of how it was percieved. British culture rarely remembers the effort in the Far East, yet at the time it was seen as a war to preserve empire. Since the empire was in anyway lost a few short years later, not something worth remembering. Remember the European War.
There is tons of acknowledgment of this. Read a book sometime. When you’re talking about popular culture you can’t really expect American films made in America primarily for an American audience, or American television programs made in America primarily for an American audience or American video games made in America for Americans to focus on things like Australia or Canada’s involvement in the war or the specifics of the U.K.'s involvement.
That sort of depth isn’t really the goal of mass media, looking to mass media for nuanced and detailed coverage of a topic is kind of foolish. Although in defense of the H-Channel, while they are very American-centric some of their programs have been devoted entirely to the Battle of Britain and such, which is clearly British-focused.
The last COD game I played was the third, I believe. It’s worth noting that in Call of Duty 3 there are four campaigns, one is focused on the Americans. One is focused on the British, one on the Canadians, and one on the Polish forces who fought in France. So that’s pretty good for mass media.
Please. Lack of more Firefly episodes or favorite bands breaking up do not continue to affect modern politics – which the events of WWII most certainly do.
I’d like people affecting decisions in the world to be at least somewhat educated as to what occurred in the past. People are easy enough to convince that “We have never been at war with Eastasia” as it is (witness Hollywood’s propaganda for “Uncle Joe” Stalin in WWII), without ignorance of the past making it easier.
The new movie Australia is partly about the Japanese bombing of Darwin. OTOH, it’s also a western about spunky cattle baroness [del]Barbara Stanwyk[/del] Nicole Kidman and rough-hewn cowboy [del]Randolph Scott[/del] Hugh Jackman taking on another cattle boss, [del]Burl Ives[/del] Bryan Brown.
As I was playing COD: WAW last night it struck me (as it always does playing these games) that I was being entertained from recreating some of the most horrible things that have ever happened to the world. That made start to design a game in my head where you are trying to escape the WTC collapsing.
When I was in school, none of my history classes covered World War II in any detail … if we got to that point at all. We would get up through the Great Depression, and then breeze on to “and then World War II happened,” with a strong hint of “ask your grandpa.”
The trouble is, it’s so hard to depict World War II in a way that shows the subtleties of global war in the various far-flung theaters (ha!). Since about World War I, when army gear has usually been green or camouflage-colored, all soldiers look the same and only the background and weapons change. A smart person, or a military buff, could tell the uniforms and helmets and guns apart, but the average citizen probably looks at the film’s visual vocabulary.
Trenches = World War I. Jungle = Vietnam. Desert = Middle East (at least recently; used to be Afrika Corps). Airplanes over water = WWII Pacific theater. Airplanes over land = WWII European theater. Submarines = WWII. Battleships = WWII. Beach landing = Normandy. Looks like it was shot in Spain = Italy. Looks like it was shot in Italy = Mussolini. John Wayne = WWII Pacific Theater.
That makes it hard to sell films about the wider scope of WWII: North Africa, Burma, Crete, India, the Battle of the Atlantic, etc.
Prior to U.S. involvement in World War II, most of the battles make poor stories (from an Allied point of view). There were heroic withdrawals, desperate retreats, foolish stands, stalwart resistance, and gritty stalemates, but not very many satisfying endings. Are audiences satisfied with a movie that ends with, “Well, we got most of the BEF out of France before the Nazi war machine crushed us. Tea and medals all round! Hurrah!” I don’t know; it’d be a hard sell.
Yeah, The one comment that rings out from players is how great it is to use the flame thrower. Think about it. A thrill from simulating the deliberate burning another human being alive with a chemical flame. A weapon that is so horrible it has been since banned by many nations.
I wonder how much fun the real marines had doing this to other human beings. Not only did they get the “thrill” of the sight and the “coolness” of the sounds of the agonized screams but they also got to experience the “awesome” stench of burnt human flesh.
I know it is just a game and it won’t turn people into psychos or inhuman killers but still I get uncomfortable that this is a selling point for entertainment and I too am facsinated enough to want to try it out.
Has WWII become a fairy tale? Yep. The horror of the war is now entertainment and the reality of it is gone. A product of the distance of time I suppose.
I’m not so sure. For example, which member of the Entente powers suffered the greatest losses in World War I? You’d never know the answer to that question from popular culture.
To me, one of the biggest tragedies of American understanding of WW2 is the complete ignorance of what happened in the Eastern theater. If the US fully understood the staggering losses that the USSR suffered to help defeat Germany, and how absurdly little the US sacrificed in comparison, post-war diplomacy may have gone better and the Cold War may have been ameliorated or avoided completely. bar chart of WW2 casualties by country
I really think that Americans think we sacrificed more than everyone else in WW2, and that’s just a shame.
I was aware of that. But isn’t it more important which of the Entente powers inflicted most casualties. After all, the Russians dying in large numbers didn’t win the war. It arguably did prevent it being lost, as the Russians repeatedly launched offensives (as did the British later) at moments contrary to their own tactical best interests in order to relieve pressure on the French army.
What is stunning about the Soviet contribution to WWII isn’t just the level of casualties they suffered, but the overwhelming role they had in inflicting casualties on the Wehrmacht. And that is how modern wars (US Civil War, WWI and WWII) tended to be won - place the enemy in a position where he was forced to eat his seed corn by putting children into uniform.
Wait a minute–you think the fact that Saving Private Ryan doesn’t mention Australians means that people who make decisions will be less informed about the world? That is an even nuttier position than the OP is taking.
