News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

I watched last night’s episode of Ken Burns WWII documentary The War and I came away conflicted. While it is always interesting to hear first hand accounts from WWII veterans I was left thinking that perhaps many of these veterans were chosen to promote an anti-war message. Make no mistake about it, there is a difference between being anti-war and disliking war while having a patriotic understanding of the need for war when faced with ruthless murderers such as the Nazi and Imperial Japanese fighters from WWII. The anti-war activist doesn’t subscribe to the concept of a necessary war and the other understands the concept of kill or be killed, fighting to protect your families back home and wiping the face of evil from the planet no matter what the cost.

Overall I felt that the heroes depicted in this movie that did echo anything that could be construed as anti-war are not themselves anti-war but rather were placed to tell their story so that it may be depicted in an anti-war light.

One element that I found particularly offensive was the sweeping characterization of American medics as conscientious objectors. The history of the conscientious objector changed in WWII from earlier wars. During WWI conscientious objectors were jailed. This changed during WWII where co’s as they were called were given the opportunity to fulfill their obligation in programs such as “alternate service” under the Civilian Public Service Program (CPS) or in non-combat roles such as medics. This is all fine, we get it, this was the advent of the conscientious objector as an officially recognized moral stance.

However, the generalization of all medics as conscientious objectors is a bit of a stretch. Consider that 16 million Americans fought during WWII. Of those 16 million soldiers only 25,000 of them went into service as non-combat medics using a conscientious objector status. The CO medic did not carry a weapon but it was not like MASH. It was a harrowing experience that was depicted well by Burns but I thought the reference out of place. That’s fine though. The conscientious objector role during WWII included life threatening medical help as well as civic service back home as firefighters, etc. although they were generally despised by those who understood the threat of the war.

I also didn’t like the depiction of American soldiers as revenge seeking murderers who mercilessly and in total disregard for “international law” killed 25 German soldiers as payback for the bloody massacre at Malmédy. It was at Malmédy where German soldiers are known to have surrounded and massacred 84 U.S. servicemen and many of the civilian population. Many of the soldiers were found dumped in mass graves with bullets in the head, some smashed skulls and many with missing eyeballs. Apologists that want to rewrite the stories passed on from survivors perform the typical speculative insight such as the heads could have been smashed in by shelling or the eyeballs could have been removed by crows. Thankfully Burns doesn’t go there, instead letting the pictures of the dead and desecrated speak for themselves.

But there is plenty of speculation to go around in the film. Burns uses this massacre as a timeline reference when depicting American soldiers as murderers who did the deeds of a West Point commander by mercilessly ordering the execution of 25 German soldiers in total disregard for “international law”. The speculation that Burns injects into his documentary is that the soldiers executed the Germans in this case as payback for the bloody massacre at Malmédy. This is a common belief and not one of Burns creations. Historians often mention this massacre when noting that it was typical for soldiers not to take any SS soldier alive.

I am not here to contradict a soldier on the ground. But he never implied that the killing was in payback for Malmédy and we don’t know what could have been done otherwise. There is no name given to the West Point commander but it is implicated that the person from West Point was an inexperienced ruthless commander who was thrust onto the soldiers with his brutal command. This is my problem. I can understand the ground soldier verses West Point commander relationship but I find it difficult that Hollywood often takes advantage of the complex relationship to summarily paint the commanders as out of touch and uncaring brutes. They were on the ground as well and the Hollywood depiction is more than a bit self serving in an environment where anti-war activists are more than just a simple majority.

Malmédy occurred during the battle of the Bulge so we know that American soldiers were trapped without backup. It was the bloodiest battle of WWII where American’s lost some 19,000 soldiers during that fight alone. They certainly weren’t going to release the ruthless Nazi’s back to the field and they couldn’t take them as prisoners while fighting the threat from the Bulge. It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback but you never know what was really happening during such a brutal war other than the fact that American soldiers were fighting for their lives against an enemy that was beyond comprehension in terms of brutality. The Nazi’s were killing men, women and children. They were executing American soldiers without a doubt and the prisoners that they did take fared no better.

Thus we can imagine that the incident did in fact happen as told. So what? The options were bad and worse. What’s the point of rehashing the claim? It doesn’t make the Nazi’s any less brutal in my estimation. This is the cost of war. Losing was not an option. Our soldiers did what they had to do and that was that.

Since I didn’t see the whole documentary I wonder if Burns mentioned other documented massacres by the SS such as the massacre at Wereth 11. This happened during the Battle of the Bulge as well. Nobody is disputing that the SS captured, tortured and executed 11 African American soldiers after they surrendered peacefully. In a documentary where racism was often depicted I wonder how this got missed.

Finally, the music was terrible and boring. I understand the allure for slow moving violin pieces in a war documentary but music has a tendency to paint its own picture and for me it didn’t elicit the feelings of sadness; it only made me want to turn it off. The movie would have done fine without the music at all and the feelings evoked would have been of my own interpretation as gleaned by Burns presentation. Wars should make you depressed but I could have done without the added wet blanket on what eventually turned out to be one of the greatest triumphs of American and European will to defeat a tyrannical worldwide menace. This is a lesson that would well serve many across the world today.

I am not sure if I am going to complete the series. I doubt it. Perhaps I will get the Victory at Sea series or something a little less tinged with the aura of judgment.

 Send this post a Friend  

Trackback URI | Comments RSS