The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
CONCLUSION
Universality and Particularity of War
Everybody embellishes the truth a little bit. I don’t lie, but I don’t always tell it a hundred percent.
-- World War II veteran Roger Tuttrup1
Personal memories of war have turned out to be problematic for numerous reasons. Apart from
conscious alterations, as Roger Tuttrup appropriately mentions, the setting or social and
political context in which memories are recalled reconstructs them. In a society that is as
frequently involved in war as the United States, there is an interesting interaction between the
metaphorical memories of war within society, which clearly reflect the political and cultural
context and national identity, and the first-hand experiences of war veterans that can either
resemble or contradict that context or identity. As the close readings of veterans’ memories as
expressed in oral histories and war poetry have illustrated, this interaction should be regarded
as a primarily one-way street where cultural memory can influence individual recollections but
individuals are barely able to change or adjust master narratives through these two types of
media. This has consequences for the way in which oral histories and war poetry have to be
interpreted and it reveals the vast power of cultural narratives.
Master narratives of American wars give insight into the place and image of war in the
United States. This thesis shows the constructiveness of the cultural images of World War II and
the Vietnam War and memories of a “Good War” and a “Bad War.” The dichotomy between these
two wars is telling of the dualism in American culture, which is related to the national belief in a
global mission to bring freedom and democracy to the repressed regions of the world: the free
liberate the “unfree,” good defeats evil. This ideology has helped to create an image of World
War II as a just, necessary, and overall “good” war. World War II is therefore commonly
interpreted as the standard for modern American wars because it is the epitome of America’s
1
Quoted in Terkel, “The Good War,” 176.
89
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
ideology and identity of exceptionalism and freedom. The Vietnam War’s inability to meet these
requirements turned it into the “Bad War.” The war challenged the perceived moral superiority
of the United States and questioned American power. Consequently, its master narrative creates
ample opportunities to emphasize, and sometimes even over-emphasize, the atrocious behavior
of American soldiers, political and military mistakes, and the general misery of war. As we have
seen, similar elements of the Second World War, notably the dehumanization of the Japanese
enemy and the dropping of the atom bombs, are underrepresented or justified in order to fit
within the narrative of the “Good War.” The constructed master narratives of World War II and
the Vietnam War are therefore as much reflections of cultural needs as they are of historic facts:
the problematic “Bad War” is needed to illustrate the dreadful reality of war but also to
emphasize the victorious “Good War,” which remains a justification for American power until
this day.2 It shows the interdependency of the constructed images as well as the risks of
stressing a “Good War” or a “Bad War” image. Next, the other findings of this thesis will be
discussed.
VETERAN MEMORIES AND MYTHS OF WAR
This study has revealed that many veterans in oral histories reinforce the American cultural
interpretations of World War II and the Vietnam War. Despite the similarities between accounts
of everyday warfare in both wars, which illustrate the universality of war, most World War II
veterans review having fought in a necessary war while many Vietnam veterans refer to the
doubtful purpose of the war they fought, revealing the particularities of the wars. Following
from this, Vietnam veterans explicitly speak of atrocities, killings, drug abuse, or racism whereas
World War II veterans ignore, for instance, the bad treatment of German soldiers. On the other
hand, some veterans do elaborate on racism, atrocities and the atom bombs, but their accounts
fail to alter the narrative. The contemptible treatment of the Japanese enemy is also frequently
discussed by veterans, once more likening the Vietnam War to World War II. A possible
2
Lieven, America Right or Wrong, 17.
90
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
explanation for the different accounts on the two enemies of the Second World War is the Cold
War context in which the memories were recalled. While unable to test whether the actual
memory of veterans – or their willingness to speak truthfully about it – is altered by the master
narrative, the close readings do illustrate that the framework in which these memories are
placed is the framework of American cultural memory, suggesting a perhaps more indirect
influence of context but an influence nonetheless.
In contrast, the war poetry reflects a different element of cultural and individual
memory. Much more consistent than veterans in books of oral history, the poets paint a horrific
picture of war. In doing that, they diminish the differences between the two wars even further
than the accounts in oral histories do. Unlike most interviewed veterans, the poets fiercely reject
the “Good War” image and stress the general horror and needlessness of war, illustrating that
they are more autonomous than the veterans in books of oral history. The poets reinforce the
image of a “Bad War” and often apply that label to all (American) wars. We can thus distinguish
two layers of the “Bad War:” one that is explicitly applicable to the Vietnam War and another
that is used as an illustration of the general gruesomeness of war. However, even in a universal
denunciation of war, the war poetry examined in this study frequently refers to the war in
Vietnam because it was the clearest example of a horrific war at the time the poetry was written.
In comparison to the diverse responses and messages that veterans express in
interviews, the four poets try to get a remarkably similar message across that has the
characteristics of a distinct narrative as a response to, and rejection of, cultural memory. This
narrative is political and particularly critical of American involvement in war. However, it relies
greatly on the image of Vietnam as the “Bad War,” by stressing its senselessness and cruelty, and
tends to turn that war into the standard of modern American wars. At the same time, the poets
are aware of the marginalized position of poetry in American culture and of the limited impact
their message has. Together, veteran accounts in oral history and poetry therefore reveal an
influence of the cultural and political context on the veterans, but the veterans have a very
limited influence on cultural memory or even no influence at all. My hypothesis of a circular
91
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
interaction has proven mainly incorrect for these types of individual media. However, the
numerous rejections of the master narratives through poetry as well as those in oral histories
illustrate that cultural and political context might influence an individual memory but it never
dictates it.
I further suggested that veterans want to share their war stories so that cultural memory
will reflect their experiences, memories, and points of view. Although this turned out to be true
for the poets, especially Howard Nemerov and W. D. Ehrhart, and some veterans in interviews,
namely E. B. Sledge, Oliver Stone, and some others, most interviewees in oral histories do not fit
in with this image. Clearly, every veteran wants to tell a story, otherwise they would not have
agreed to an interview, but most men simply tell that story without trying to change cultural
memory. The urge to have memories of the war written down is thus more personal as expected.
Those who want their memories to bring about a change in cultural perspectives usually find
other outlets than the rather passive medium of interviews. The poets and, for instance, Sledge’s
memoirs of the war in the Pacific are examples of this.
For Vietnam veterans, there is a slight difference. Even the most outspoken poets,
moviemakers, or novelists – like Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic, respectively – vigorously reinforce
the already common, yet somewhat overstated, image of the “Bad War” in which young and
powerless Americans fought atrociously. Their resistance often tends to lie in emphasizing the
bad war, rather than the bad soldier or veteran. However, as Eric Dean illustrates, this is in fact
an essential aspect of American cultural memory of the Vietnam War in which “[t]he public
clearly discriminates between its negative attitudes towards the war in Vietnam and its feelings
for the warriors who fought there.”3 Veterans who express feelings of guilt or shame over their
actions during the war, such as W. D. Ehrhart or Arthur E. “Gene” Woodley, often refer to their
victimization. Many Vietnam veterans point to the victim image that, Andrew Huebner
illustrated, has been a popular narrative of war since the end of the Second World War. The
3
Dean, Shook over Hell, 182.
92
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
veterans’ rejection and demonization of the Vietnam War is thus a reinforcement of other
narratives of American cultural memory.
The victim narrative is a surprisingly central element in the accounts of veterans. With
the exception of the portrayals in Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation, many veterans
consciously or unconsciously depict themselves as victims of the circumstances of war. Whether
they are explicitly describing racism, injuries, or traumas, or whether their experiences are
placed within the framework of “man’s most terrible occupation” by the authors of oral histories,
the victimhood of veterans is ever-present in these two types of media, especially in regard to
the Vietnam War.4 Even when the veterans stay away from victim imagery in their accounts, the
cultural context, if not the editor of a book of oral history, links them to it. This illustrates the
great influence of the author on the accounts in oral histories. Furthermore, the poets’
continuous references to their war experience reveal that they are unable to leave it behind
them, which is their somewhat distinct narrative of victimhood. This is not to say the
interviewed veterans are different, but it is in most cases impossible to draw similar conclusions
from a single interview, unless interviewees explicitly refer to it. This suggests that some of the
differences detected in this study are caused by the dissimilarities inherent in the different
genres of personal documentation.
Finally, one of the aims of this study has been to illustrate the problems of reinforcing
myths of the “Good War” or the “Bad War” and to dismiss some of the perceived contrast
between World War II and the Vietnam War. As explained, Samuel Hynes illustrates the cultural
need for myths of war to make sense of war’s “incoherences and contradiction” and Jürgen
Straub has pointed to the tendency to turn memories into familiar and straightforward plots.5
This provides explanations for why the master narratives of World War II and the Vietnam War
are constructed in such a contrasting manner. In relation to a questionably necessary war like
the one in Vietnam, World War II becomes even more necessary and just. Nonetheless, such
readings gloss over, or simply do not even mention, the problematic characteristics of the
4
5
Terry, Bloods, xviii.
Hynes, “Personal Narratives and Commemoration,” 207.
93
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
Second World War discussed in this study. On the other hand, a “Bad War” reading dominated by
drugs, prostitution, and violence also creates a misleadingly one-sided narrative of the war in
Vietnam.
In the introduction to The Myth of American Exceptionalism, Geoffrey Hodgson explains
the possible problematic consequences of exceptionalism on which the popular reading of the
Second World War relies:
It is dangerous, for oneself and for others, to create a myth that seems to justify,
even demand, domination […]. [This book] is a plea for looking with a skeptical
and humble eye at the many and subtle dangers of self-praise.6
Although primarily a critique on American exceptionalism in the twenty-first century, Hodgson’s
warning is related to the “Good War” myth, which justifies American power to a large extent.
Another danger of the myth is that it tends to honor the war before the people who fought it.
This is visible in Terkel’s “The Good War” cover and the National World War II Memorial as well
as the Iwo Jima Memorial. Such emphasis creates an illusion of war with limited sacrifice and
horror; an illusion that Howard Nemerov tries to debunk. The cultural need for myths of war
aside, there has to be a greater awareness of the myth-like qualities of master narratives of war.
The multifaceted individual accounts of veterans discussed in this thesis can help provide such
awareness.
FURTHER RESEARCH ON AMERICAN CULTURAL MEMORY OF WAR
It has never been the purpose of this thesis to find factual truths about World War II and the
Vietnam War and test whether veterans recite these happenings accurately. As W. D. Ehrhart
wrote in Beautiful Wreckage, even if veterans would make up stories of their war experiences,
the reality of war is not altered. Instead, this is a study on the impact of society and culture on an
individual’s personal recollections. This impact is in some ways even greater as expected.
Veterans either reinforce a master narrative or they reject it, but when they reject it, they
immediately reflect another master narrative of war. Whereas Roger Tuttrup’s quote suggests
6
Hodgson, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, vxii.
94
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
that veterans make conscious alterations to their memories, they are actually much more reliant
on cultural narratives; their memories are constantly reconstructed as American culture and
national identity evolves. Tuttrup’s remark illustrates that he regards his memory as something
that can be reproduced unaltered at any time and that every modification is intentionally made
by him. In reality, external factors play an immensely important part in all acts of memory. More
research should thus be done on these external factors, master narratives, and American cultural
memory of war in particular.
In this thesis, I have limited the master narratives to their most basic and public
elements and left out the press and influential mass media such as film or iconic photography to
locate and describe the cultural memory of World War II and the Vietnam War. These popular
media require extended analyses that lie outside the scope of this study. Moreover, expecting to
find a greater interaction between the individual and the collective, I presumed a basic
characterization of cultural memory would be sufficient. Now that the magnitude of the impact
of cultural and political contexts on personal memories has become clear, however, it would be
useful to delve deeper into the origins and development of master narratives. A possible
research topic for a follow-up study could therefore be the interaction between American
cultural memory and popular culture. As Rob Kroes correctly states in Photographic Memories,
“[f]rom the moment that photographs acquire iconic status and enter the realm of the mass
circulation of imagery, they begin to affect history rather than merely reflecting it.”7 The same
can be argued about film or TV imagery. The way in which these media affect cultural memory,
and in turn individual memories, should be examined.
Another important related research topic is the cultural and individual memory of the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Comparisons can be made between the current troublesome wars
and the Vietnam War to analyze cultural and individual interpretations of these wars and their
relation to the culturally perceived dichotomy between the “Good War” and the “Bad” one. These
wars can also give insight into the experiences of female combat veterans. However, given that
7
Kroes, Photographic Memories, 76.
95
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
the wars have not ended, their place in cultural memory has not yet fully taken shape. Yet, as
many scholars see the attacks on 9/11 as the beginning of a new era in American politics and
history, the cultural and individual memory of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be used to
reinforce or contradict such statements.8
Analyses of other wars would furthermore make a stronger point of the universality of
war experience. Wilfred Owen’s “Insensibility” has shown that this close-to-a-century-old poem
about numbness speaks to World War II veterans and can even articulate the state of mind of
Iraq War veterans, which reveals the cultural importance of poetry as well as the similarities
between war experiences. Illustrating both points, Iraq War veteran Allen J. Caruselle wrote an
illuminating poem in 2003, “The Virtual Soldiers,” on the contrast between modern warfare and
the eternal uncertainties of war.
We are the soldiers of the new millennium.
[…]
We train on virtual simulators
[…]
Disconnected from the battle zone by constant and clever training,
We are taught to live only in the between hours of liberty and leave,
Silicon knights out to save the world
From the newest threat of terror and disorder.
We step into the darkness.
Situation: Unclear;
Mission: Unknown.9
Caruselle captures the essential paradox of warfare: despite the ever-evolving tactics and
technologies of war, the day-to-day reality of fear and opaqueness in a warzone has not changed
since the very first war. The juxtaposition of ultra-modern silicon – a synonym for technological
innovation as well as for fake – with the ancient knight illustrates this perfectly. The knight, with
connotations of grace and courage, appears to be a satirical reference to the American armed
forces. Like the poetry of World War II and Vietnam veterans, “The Virtual Soldiers” is a critical
comment on American war policies. Decades after Howard Nemerov’s and W. D. Ehrhart’s
explicit warnings against the continuity of war, this poem painfully illustrates the lack of
8
John Gray and Anatol Lieven, for instance, argue that the attacks on September 11, 2001 created a new phase
in American politics.
9
Andrew Carroll, ed., Operation Homecoming. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front, in the Words of U.S.
Troops and Their Families (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2006), 282.
96
The Good, The Bad, and The Memory
Conclusion
influence of war poetry and the constant appeal of, or perceived need for, war in American
society.
Such research topics reveal the importance of understanding the ongoing construction
and development of context, identity, and memory in American culture – especially regarding
war. This study has illustrated that history within that society is made by powerful, mythical
master narratives that reflect an ideology and national identity of freedom and moral
superiority. The memories of war veterans are placed within this cultural framework. Individual
memories as expressed in books of oral histories or lyrical war poetry should therefore be
interpreted in relation to the master narratives of the “Good War” and the “Bad War” which, in
turn, spring out of American ideology. These powerful narratives prevent war veterans who
want to change cultural memory from doing so via the types of media examined in this study.
Yet, it is precisely because of the dominance of master narratives that war veterans should share
their personal memories and why these accounts need to be analyzed. Even when we are aware
that they are inseparable from their context, veterans’ memories contain valuable lessons about,
and new outlooks on, war and society. Moreover, even without directly influencing master
narratives, individuals who resist or reject narratives of popular national history ensure their
continuing evolution, for no master narrative is uncontested. As W. D. Ehrhart states, “I no
longer believe that even all of us together are going to change the world. But I do believe that we
have to keep trying […].”10 This statement guarantees the never-ending process of the
construction of memory and history of America’s wars, “Good” and “Bad.”
10
Quoted in Chattarji, Memories of a Lost War, 149.
97