THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE
HOME FROM WAR: WISCONSIN’S FORGOTTEN VETERANS
Department of History
By
David Alger
SUPERVISING PROFESSOR: JOSEPH ORSER
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
December, 2011
Copyright of this work is owned by the author. This digital version is published by McIntyre
Library, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, with the consent of the author.
i
CONTENTS
Abstract……………..…………………………………………………………………………….iii
Introduction……..………………………………………………………………………………....1
The War…………………………………………………………………………………………...6
Strikes…………………………………………………………………………………………....11
Newspaper Coverage of the War………………………………………………………………...15
Coming Home……………………………………………………………………………………18
The War and Popular Culture……………………………………………………………………25
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..32
ii
Abstract
This paper looks at the issue of forgotten veterans of the Korean War with an emphasis
on those from Wisconsin. It looks at the atmosphere in America during the time of the war,
including strikes and newspaper coverage, and tries to use this as a way to explain the public’s
treatment of returning Korean War Veterans. The legacy of the Korean War is examined in the
film The Manchurian Candidate as well as two memorials from Wisconsin.
iii
Larry Gittleson had been away from home for a while. He had not left because he had
wanted to. Like everyone else, he just wanted live his life in peace. But he had little choice in the
matter; when the government calls a body must answer. Like many of his generation, he had
been called to war by his government. Being drafted had been tough for Gittleson. He was, after
all, a self-proclaimed conscientious objector. Still, he did not try to use his personal views as a
bulwark against serving his country. Instead, he tried to apply for a position in the military that
didn’t require him to take the life of another person. He eventually became part of a relatively
new unit that used trained dogs to sniff out the enemy position. Gittleson was satisfied with this
compromise because being a dog handler meant his primary job was to detect the enemy, not
dispatch them. He would still be operating dangerously close to enemy units, but at least he did
not have to trade in his beliefs to serve his country. After a stint of service overseas, he was
finally able to return home. Gittleson had not gone through that experience unchanged. He found
that he was more understanding of conflict and the military. Being shot at on his first patrol had
contributed to that shift in philosophy. But all that fighting was in the past. He could finally look
forward to returning home with the pride of public service at his back. Gittleson came home
expecting that people would be eager to talk about his time in a foreign land. If previous wars
were anything of an indicator surely people would want to congratulate him for his service. The
reality, however, was that no one seemed to care. Nobody said anything. Nobody did anything.
Nobody paid attention. Gittleson retrieved his belongings from the attic where he had stored
them two years earlier. None of it seemed to matter anymore. While his life was abruptly halted
to go to war, the lives of people back home continued to go on unabated and uninterrupted.
There seemed to be little indication that anybody had noticed his absence. The Korean War had
affected Gittleson so poignantly. The same could not be said for the American public.1
1
Larry Gittleson, Interview, conducted November 19, 1996 by Mark Van Ells. All interviews were provided
1
The Korean War is an oft overlooked time in America’s history. It occurred at the
beginning of a decade more popularly remembered for its wholesome family values and
increased prosperity tempered by an ever-present fear of nuclear annihilation woven in between.
In the wake of World War II’s desolation America had emerged relatively unscathed and poised
as one of the world’s preeminent superpowers. Despite the dangers and despairs of the Cold War
there are few times in American history that have been looked upon with a fonder gaze. It was
from this setting that a portion of U.S. citizens were transplanted only to find themselves as
participants in the Korean War.
The purpose of this paper is to look at the recognition and remembrance of Wisconsin
Korean War veterans particularly during and immediately after the war itself. It will try to gain a
sense of how the veterans themselves perceived public recognition and remembrance of their
service through the use of interviews. These two terms, recognition and remembrance, are
crucially relevant to this war’s veterans because it seems that they were neither recognized nor
remembered for their service for many decades after the guns stopped firing.
This paper will also attempt to ascertain the public’s attitudes towards the war. In this
last regard it will look at newspapers of the time to gain a sense of how much the war was part of
the public consciousness, or at least the print media’s consciousness. It will discuss the numerous
strikes that were present during the early 1950s and how this was a sign that the Korean War was
a matter of little priority to Americans. By observing both the atmosphere at home and the
thoughts of the veterans themselves this paper will show that in general Wisconsin Korean War
veterans fit the mold of the forgotten veteran.
To launch this discussion, a short and brief overview of some of the literature about the
Korean War will be examined. The following examined works primarily address the war as a
courtesy of the Wisconsin Veterans Museum.
2
whole rather than the subject of veterans specifically. Still, they provide good background
information about the conflict that proves important in understanding Korean War veteran
remembrance and recognition.
The scholarly work regarding the Korean War, let alone Korean War veteran’s
remembrance and recognition, is somewhat sparse compared to the literature of other wars.
Therefore the works of authors who have taken a broader scope of the conflict will be taken into
account. Much of the historiography of the Korean War covers its political and military aspects,
but little on the social sphere. For instance, Truman’s firing of MacArthur has gained a lot of
scholarly attention and it has been said that the Marines are disproportionately represented in
Korean War histories.2 Social factors sometimes show up as a result of explaining political
policies, but are largely ignored. Many works about America’s involvement in Korea mention
that the returning veterans were often treated to an apathetic public. However, few authors delve
into this question to give it a satisfactory explanation.3
Bruce Cumings’ The Korean War: A History provides a less U.S. oriented perspective of
the Korean War. Cumings is highly critical of the U.S. and how it waged war on the Korean
Peninsula. He claims that both the U.S. and South Korea committed more devastating war
atrocities than North Korea. Throughout his book Cumings challenges the common conception
that the U.S. was wholly “good” and the North Koreans were wholly “bad.” Cumings strives to
understand the motives behind North Korean aggression and animosity towards the West rather
than dismiss it as the consequence of an evil inherent to Communism. To this end, he portrays
the causes of the Korean War as something more deeply ingrained in the peninsula’s history than
2
Clay Blair, The Forgotten War: America in Korea 1950-1953 (n.p.: Times Books, 1987), p. xi; Blair’s hefty tome
covers the war in excruciating detail. It is considered one of the most complete works on the Korean War to date. It
fits the description of books that discuss the military and political aspects of the war.
3
For a more complete historiography of the Korean War consult The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and
Research.
3
simply an ideological battle between Communism and the West. Cumings believes that the war
was a civil war first and foremost, but that Western histories often portray it as a war fought by
the superpowers of the U.S, China, and the Soviet Union. Cumings goes on to say that the root of
the conflict could be traced to Japanese imperialism dating back to the early parts of the 20th
century. A good chunk of the book is dedicated to discussing U.S. occupation of South Korea in
the interwar years of 1945-1950 and some of the rebellions that sprung up then. Cumings uses
these events to show that the U.S. was capable of instigating conflict in the region. One of the
main intents of The Korean War is to reveal the extent of U.S. war atrocities. To this end
Cumings looks at the air war in Korea and the intense bombings that took place. As seems to be
the case with many books by Cumings about the Korean War there are chapters that address the
“party of memory” and the “party of forgetting”. Cumings uses these two phrases to describe
what the Koreans remember about the history of the war and what the West (specifically the
U.S.) forgets about it respectively. It is an interesting discussion that highlights his point that the
role of Koreans in the war is often forgotten or downplayed in many Western versions of the
war. The book concludes by describing the Korean War as having large significance on U.S.
history and will hopefully be remembered one day as an important factor in shaping American
foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. 4
Paul M. Edwards’ book To Acknowledge a War: The Korean War in American Memory
attempts to address the way the war is remembered. Edwards takes the first quarter of his book to
explore how memory and history are related. The remaining three-quarters consist of the many
different ways the war is remembered. For instance, Edwards states that the North Koreans recall
the war being initiated by the aggressive actions of South Korean leader Syngman Rhee. Of great
4
Bruce Cumings, The Korean War: A History (New York: Modern Library, 2010)
4
interest to this paper is Edwards’ chapters “The Long Silence” and “Naming the War.” The first
chapter discusses the ways in which the war was ignored or forgotten in American society.
Edwards explains that a nation’s memory is formed by the celebrating and acknowledging of
events. He looks at the way the war is taught in textbooks and describes the lack of information
he sees there. From there he describes the Korean War’s presence or lack thereof in literature and
film. Films about Korea, says Edwards, followed the format of World War II movies. Korean
War literature is lacking as he shows by citing numerous authors who have found little substance
on the matter. Edwards seems to think that all literature produced as a result of the conflict is
shrouded in the uncertainty of the war itself. He also says that today’s foreign policy can be
difficult to grasp because people lack factual historical knowledge about the history of their
country and of this war. The next chapter, as previously mentioned, is about the war’s name.
Edwards starts this chapter with some philosophical discussions about the relationship between
naming things and its effect on memory. This chapter contains an interesting discussion about
the public’s relationship to veterans as well as a brief mention of veterans’ relationship with the
military. Edwards says that veterans were treated as a scapegoat for the poor outcome of the war.
He even goes so far as to say that the military took part in the condemnation of veterans. The rest
of Edwards’ book goes through the important controversies and events of the war all the while
explaining how they are remembered and by whom, as well as how the specific type of
remembrance came to be. Overall, these two chapters have strong relevancy to anyone hoping to
learn about the American attitude towards foreign policy, the treatment of veterans, and the role
of the Korean War in the American conscious.5
5
Paul M. Edwards, To Acknowledge a War: the Korean War in American Memory (Westport, Conn.: Praeger,
2000)
5
David Halberstam’s book The Coldest Winter is almost the polar opposite of Cumings
work in terms of viewpoint. Also, unlike Edwards who focuses on the social impacts of the war,
Halberstam takes a U.S. perspective that largely recounts the military and political histories of
the Korean War. Halberstam takes a lot of time and effort in establishing the major players in the
war. He gives plenty of background information on people like Truman and MacArthur. In the
case of MacArthur he goes as far back in the general’s history as to discuss his parents’
influences on him. Despite the books overwhelming length, Halberstam does not cover the entire
war. The Coldest Winter looks largely at the events immediately before the war and the events
that transpired within the first year. Halberstam deftly weaves the events on the ground with
events of a larger scope. For those who wish to learn about some of the decisions being made on
the ground in Korea this book provides a few good narratives but does not make any in-depth
analysis of them. The following two years of conflict are almost entirely neglected. Halberstam
ends his book by discussing the Truman-MacArthur controversy. Throughout the book
Halberstam is fairly critical of MacArthur’s decisions and leadership. He describes the general as
an egotistical man who tended to have a degree of disrespect for civilian authority. Overall, The
Coldest Winter covers little that would interest historians hoping to better understand the social
aspects of the war.6
The War
The Korean War was indeed a war. It was no small conflict and cannot be dismissed as
merely a police action. The sheer number of casualties alone is enough to substantiate it as war
6
David Halberstam, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War (New York: Hyperion, 2007).
6
regardless of its legal legitimacy at the time. Over 33,000 American soldiers died in battle in
Korea with an additional 20,000 who died due to causes other than combat. The total number of
American dead is usually cited at around approximately 54, 246.7 Cumings claims the total
number of dead for all sides to be at around 4 million people with 2 million of those being
civilians.8 It is important to acknowledge what happened in Korea as a war because to do
otherwise is to diminish its impact on the lives of those who were involved. Calling it a police
action or a conflict sidesteps all of this. A short recounting of the course of the war will show
that it possessed the magnitude of force seen in other American military exploits and was no
mere police action.
It began on June 25, 1950 when the Communist North Korean army crossed the 38th
parallel. The Truman administration reacted quickly by committing troops to the peninsula two
days later. Accompanying this decision was the realization that troop levels would need to be
increased since America had pursued a policy of downsizing the military and military
expenditures following World War II.9 Public support going into the war was relatively high10
and within a year Congress was able to pass the Universal Military Training and Services Act
with 80 percent of Gallup poll participants strongly in favor of the bill. The bill increased the
effectiveness of the Selective Service by lowering the draft age from nineteen “to eighteen and a
half; lengthened the period of service for draftees from twenty-one to twenty-four months
and…established lower physical and mental standards for induction” amongst other things. It did
7
Harry G. Summers and Jr, Korean War Almanac (New York: Facts on File, 1990), pp. 75-7; There is some debate
over the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the war. Some sources will exclude the additional 20,000 non-battle
related deaths.
8
Cumings, p. 35
9
Francis H. Heller, ed., The Korean War: a 25-Year Perspective (Lawrence: Univ Pr of Kansas,
1977), p. 116; Blair, pp.3-30
10
John E. Mueller, “Trends in Popular Support For the Wars in Korea and Vietnam,” American
Political Science Association 65, no. 2 (jun., 1971): 358-75, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1954454
(accessed December 6, 2011). p. 385
7
not however institute a system of universal military training within the U.S.11 In effect, it
allowed the Selective Service to cast a larger net and draw from a larger pool of potential
draftees.
In all, over 1.7 million Americans were drafted during the period from 1950 to 1953.12
The total number of U.S. servicemen and women considered to be veterans of the war is about
6.8 million. This number factors in those who were not in theater as well as those who served
from the period after the peace talks until 1955. Anyone in the armed forces from June 27, 1950
to January 31, 1955 is considered to be a veteran of the war. Possibly due to the uncertainty of
the peace talks, the date of the war was extended to the end of 1955. The extended date also gave
veterans serving during this time period benefits associated with military service.13
While most Americans may not be overly familiar with key aspects of the Korean War,
many probably know that it is often considered America’s first “losing” war. One of the
contributing factors to this idea is the fact that the initial goals of the war were undefined or at
least unclear. The idea of stopping the spread of Communism was generally agreed upon, but
just how this would be accomplished was debatable. In the early years of the war identifying
goals was relatively easy. When U.S. forces were pushed into the Pusan Perimeter the goal was
simply to not be overwhelmed. After the Marine landing at Inchon U.S. forces broke through the
perimeter and the goal became to push the North Korean Army back to the 38th parallel at the
very least. Once this was accomplished, the goals became less clear. General MacArthur wanted
to continue to push the North Korean forces all the way back to the Yalu River, North Korea’s
border with China. President Truman opposed this idea because of the risk of involving Chinese
11
Heller, p. 136
Summers and Jr, p. 103. The encyclopedia entry states that “50,000 men were being drafted each month.”
13
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Data on Veterans of the Korean War, Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Analysis Office of Program and Data Analyses, June 2000.
12
8
intervention. This is one of the great debates about the Truman-MacArthur relationship.
Historically, MacArthur has been viewed as going against the wishes of President Truman when
he proceeded towards the North Korean-Chinese border.14
Eventually the Chinese did enter the war in October of 1950. Up until this point it could
be argued that the U.S. was winning the war in the traditional sense. It was moving the frontline
forward. But once China began to push the line back towards the 38th parallel it was no longer
clear what would constitute a victory. With the advent of Chinese involvement American
military momentum stagnated. Several more years of bitter fighting along the demarcation line
(the line roughly along the 38th parallel) ultimately reduced combat to trench warfare. The
morale of the average U.S. soldier was probably not at an all-time high.15 There was almost no
hope of an outright military victory anymore.16 If elements of the public looked upon Korea as
America’s first losing war, it would most likely be due to the Chinese ability to push U.S. forces
back to the 38th degree. After the conclusion of hostilities on July 27, 1953 thanks to the peace
talks at Panmunjom, many veterans were able to look forward to coming home.17
The Korean War was complicated and contrasted sharply with the clear-cut objectives of
World War II. The goals of the Korean War were, at times, ill-defined and as a result the
outcome even more so. The overall objective may have been to stop the spreading influence of
Communism, but the way in which this was to be accomplished had become unclear. It could be
14
Halberstam, p. 323; To be fair to General MacArthur even Halberstam states that the decision to cross the 38 th
parallels was one that “ the senior civilian [Halberstam’s italics] officials thought they would control when they
finally faced it.”
15
John F. Haines “Soldier in Korea Critical of Rhee” in “Voice of the People” section, The Leader Telegram, July
19, 1953
16
It should be noted that issue of victory in Korea is still up for debate. If victory was to be defined as preventing
Communists forces from occupying territory south of the 38 th parallel then it can be said that America won the war.
If victory was to be defined as occupying the entirety of the Korean peninsula then it would seem that America had
lost. The lack of clear goals manifests itself most notably in the debate over whether or not America had victory in
Korea.
17
Bruce Cumings, The Korean War: A History, pp. 23-31;
9
said that a conventional military battle was used to combat an ideological force. MacArthur’s
decision to press on towards the Yalu River helped muddy the waters by attempting to reunite
the peninsula. Had the war ended shortly after the return to the 38 parallel perhaps the war would
be remembered differently today. 18
Technically the war in Korea never ended, only an armistice was signed, a ceasefire.
Much like the wars of recent times, veterans of the Korean War may not have had a clear sense
of purpose in carrying out their work even though, at the time, some may have believed stopping
the advance of Communism was reason enough. However, unlike most war veterans of modern
times, Korean War veterans did not enjoy the explicit, active, and engaging support of the
majority of their fellow citizens.19 This is not to say that they were outright despised by some, as
some Vietnam veterans were, but rather that they were ignored. They had the misfortune of
fighting their war during a time when many Americans were looking forward to returning to
normality after four years of rigorous sacrifice at home and abroad in a World War just five
years prior. For this reason the Korean War has earned nicknames like The Forgotten War or The
Unknown War.20 At the time it was fought, the war was called only a ‘conflict’ or a ‘police
action.’ It was not given the more serious title of war for political reasons, though some
newspapers still carried the ‘war’ moniker.21 Many people did not know what to think about the
war let alone the veterans. One aspect of the time period was that public support of the war and
the veterans were not entirely separated.22 This would create problems for the U.S. soldiers
returning home from a conflict that had no clear victor, a situation Americans may not have been
18
Halberstam, p. 631
Edwards, pp. 31-39
20
Bruce Cumings, War and Television (London: Verso, 1992),pp. 145, 149 Cumings observes that by labeling the
Korean War “The Forgotten War” we are still remembering it. This is why he prefers to call it “The Unknown War.”
21
A quick search of the archives for the New York Times reveals that it was being called a war as early as 1951.
One example is “47 Korean War Veterans To Be U.N. Guests in Paris”
22
The term “war” to describe the events in Korea was still used by some newspapers in Wisconsin. The Eau Claire
Leader Telegram and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel both call the conflict a war.; Edwards, pp.31-39
19
10
accustomed to especially in the wake of the World War II’s glory-ridden conclusion. Accenting
the public’s lack of concern with the Korean War was the number of strikes that were taking
place in the U.S. during its occurrence.
Strikes
Remembrance and recognition of veterans can be shown in several ways and is
influenced by the outcome of the conflict. It also seems to depend on the conflict’s scale and
impact on the society that the veterans are returning to. In the case of a total war, like World War
II, public support can be seen in rationing, manufacturing of war materials, and is often
facilitated by propaganda. It should also be noted that in a total war, civilians are actively
involved in the war effort. They are an integrated part of the war-making process. Civilians have
a degree of control over its outcome because they have become part of the mechanism that drives
it. The more they produce and of higher quality they produce it the easier it becomes for the
fighting men or women to do their job.
As a result of their increased participation in a total war, citizens are more likely to be
emotionally invested in its outcome. It is quite reasonable to assume that they are also more
understanding towards the armed forces successes and failures in the field. After all, they were
responsible for producing the materials with which the military would use to execute its purpose.
The Korean War, however, was not a total war. Despite President Truman’s efforts towards
reactivating a war economy by extending controls over prices and wages, the American people
were not as eager to concede the luxuries of life that they had come to enjoy in the interwar years
11
and unconditionally support yet another war effort. 23 As a result the public would have been
emotionally less invested in the outcome of the Korean War than they were in the outcome of
World War II.
One of the ways this was most visible was in the number of strikes that were occurring at
the time of the Korean War. Steel strikes were the most apparent, but other strikes were taking
place as well. They were not limited to any single industry but were occurring in a diverse array
of professions and occupations. Several strikes pockmarked the time period of the Korean War in
the nation and in Wisconsin specifically. Everything from steel strikes in Philadelphia to trucker
strikes in Wisconsin could be found in the newspapers either buried a few pages deep or on the
front page depending on how slow of a news day any one paper was having.24
The Eau Claire Leader Telegram and other papers report these strikes happening around
the same time as the Korean War. The Rhinelander Daily News carried an article on August 23,
1950 that claimed rail workers were halting their strikes “out of consideration for President
Truman’s peace efforts.” The Oshkosh Daily Northwestern adds more rubber worker strikes on
top of phone worker strikes for the day of August 27, 1953. The Eau Claire Leader Telegram
reports steel strikes in Pennsylvania in 1952 and a walkout of plumbers on July 21, 1953. The
newspapers were peppered with stories of walkouts, strikes, and other wage negotiating tactics
throughout the period of the Korean War. President Truman actually seized control of the steel
industry due to the fears he had about its effects on the war. Congress eventually denied
President Truman the authority to take control of the steel industry. Still, the president’s seizure
23
24
Heller, pp. 115, 138-9
The Leader Telegram. May 1, 1952
12
and the general labor unrest are indicative of the scale and subtle omnipresence of workers’
strikes during the time period of the Korean War. 25
John Edward Wiltz notes in his essay “The Korean War and American Society” that the
war in Korea brought with it enhanced economic activity contributing to a period of great
prosperity. He mentions that “wage earners…must have thought that America had become a sort
of economic utopia.”26 While Americans at home were enjoying a better lifestyle created
partially on the foundations of the Korean War, others were enduring the realities of that war.
Whatever small consolation it might have been to soldiers in Korea that America was enjoying
better times than ever before would have been tempered by the realization that once the war
ended so would the prosperity. The strikes that were occurring at this time could only strain the
relationship between the soldier in the field and the citizenry back at home.
Strikes may have also upset veterans because of their difficulty at finding a job after the
service.27 The unemployment rate in July of 1953, the year of the war’s end, was 2.6%, one of
the best months ever in the 20th century. By December of that same year it had increased to
4.5%. By August of 1954 unemployment was at 6%, over double of what it was just a year
before. 28 Veterans may have felt cheated out of the economic prosperity that was created during
the war. One such incident in Wisconsin lends credence to this notion. Elroy W. Roeder from
Rothschild, Wisconsin describes what happened to him when he returned home looking for
work. He says “I come back to home here, and a guy, to get my job back, the guy didn't know I
25
Heller, p. 149
Heller, p. 121
27
Harold F. Gosnell, Truman's Crises: a Political Biography of Harry S. Truman (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood
Press, 1980), pp. 486-88
28
“U.S. Unemployment: A Historical View,” The Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JOBSHISTORY09.html (accessed December 11, 2011).; Elroy
Roeder, Interview, conducted September 24, 2004 at Wausau, Wisconsin by Mik Derks, Wisconsin Korean War
Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television. Roeder’s experience shows that he had great difficulty getting his old job
back after returning home.
26
13
was in service. And he was my boss when I left.” Roeder was only able to return to his job after
he had a “service officer over at the courthouse” intervene on his behalf. Even then Roeder quit
because he was upset with his former bosses treatment of him. This shows that Roeder had a
difficult time sharing in the general prosperity of the time because of his service. The rising
unemployment rates after the war would mean that this was unlikely to change. 29
Another soldier expressed his feelings of frustration with the standstill in Korea and the
apparent lack of support at home in a letter to his friend back home. John F. Haines wrote in to
The Leader Telegram where his letter appeared in the “Voice of the People” section on July 19,
1953. Haines relays a part of a letter he received from a friend whom he served with in Korea.
After criticizing South Korean leader Syngman Rhee’s political maneuvering during the
Panmunjom peace talks at the expense of American lives the friend laments that “everyday we
are losing in a fruitless war a countless number of young, hearty men. The flower of our youth,
the hope of our future. We are losing them not only in battle, but also to bitterness,
disillusionment, and frustration.” His statements show that he, and probably other soldiers, were
growing weary of the conflict and saw little value to be gained from the fight. It reveals the low
morale that must have plagued the front lines during that time. He goes on to say “We are told
that this is not a forgotten war, and that we are not forgotten men. What a hollow sound this has
over here. The civilians support us with steel strikes, labor walkouts, and shipping tie-ups. The
military supports us with ammunition shortages and military aid of new weapons to Europe.”30
While Haines’ friend starts his letter by lambasting Rhee for prolonging the war, he finishes by
revealing that he feels as though the American public has forgotten about the war that is still
being fought in Korea. One of the reasons he cites for his belief that the public has forgotten
29
Roeder, Interview.
John F. Haines “Soldier in Korea Critical of Rhee” in “Voice of the People” section, The Leader Telegram, July
19, 1953
30
14
Korean War veterans even as the war was still being waged was that they were striking. Clearly
strikes and other economic factors back home were negatively affecting the way some veterans
viewed public support for them and their efforts overseas.
Newspaper Coverage of the War
Televisions were not yet the primary medium for consuming news in the early 1950’s.
Instead newspapers and other forms of print were how many Americans received their daily dose
of journalism.31 Wisconsin newspapers were varied in their coverage of the war and its veterans.
Papers like the Leader Telegram might feature small, two or three sentence articles notifying the
public of any local wounded or any military activity in general. For example, a Leader Telegram
article published on May 2, 1952 reads “Pvt. Evan H. Hill, son of Mr. and Mrs. Myron Hill, has
been wounded in Korea, according to an announcement by the Department of Defense. Pvt. Hill
was one of five Wisconsin men on the latest list issued by the Department of Defense. He is in
the army.” A July 21, 1953 publication of The Daily Telegram contains the following in its
“News Brief” section: “Pfc. Patrick J. McInnis, son of Mr. and Mrs. R.J. McInnis, route 1 is
attending the Marine Corps administration school at Camp Pendleton, Cal. He completed his
recruit training at the marine base in San Diego.” These small stories may seem inconsequential,
but they provide proof that some newspapers were reporting on the activities of local service
members no matter how mundane or exciting some of the news may seem.
At other times papers would run a story that would last for a couple of days. The story of
a Cadott mother whose son was found to be one of the few survivors of an attack on an outpost
31
James R Mahala ed. Encyclopedia of the Korean War: a Political, Social, and Military History. Vol. 1. Edited
by Spencer C. Tucker et al. 3 vols. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2000. pp. 427-428
15
in Korea was fairly big news for the area. The Leader Telegram followed up this story the next
day to describe the woman’s reaction to the news. These human interest pieces would have
reminded the American public that there was still a war being fought by U.S. citizens. But
perhaps more importantly to the newspaper it was a dramatic story that could draw in
readership.32 Overall, it seems like newspapers did a fair job in recognizing the Korean War and
its veterans.33
It is worthwhile to note that the terminology regarding the intervention in Korea was not
entirely clear. This was reflected in the newspaper articles reporting on the story. One of the
major issues of any problem is defining it.34 If the United States entrance into a foreign conflict
was to be properly understood then it needed to be defined. Originally it was labeled a “police
action” or a “conflict.”35 This sort of wordplay is indicative of how the war was downplayed.
The term ‘police action’ implies a mild-mannered confrontation instead of a war that claimed
thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands if not millions of others. This weak
terminology may also have confused both the military and the citizenry in regards to just how
they would think about and behave towards events in Korea. One Wisconsin Korean War veteran
spoke in an interview “I was very unsure politically where it was” meaning that he did not
understand the reasons for the war.36 If veterans themselves were unsure of the purpose and
motivation of the war, then the average citizen was probably even less informed. This could have
contributed greatly to the way people back home would have treated returning veterans. To the
“Cadott Mother Spends Anguished Hours Before Learning Son is Safe”, The Leader Telegram, July 22, 1953;
“Cadott Mother Spends Anguished Hours Before Learning Son is Safe”, The Daily Telegram, July 21, 1953
33
The Leader Telegram and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel were the primary two papers consulted to judge
Wisconsin’s newspaper coverage of the war. The reason for this was their ready accessibility on microfilm courtesy
of UW-Eau Claire’s McIntyre Library. All other papers mentioned were found through key word searches from a
newspaper database. Some of the search terms included to “Korean War”, “police action”, “veterans”, and “strikes.”
34
Edwards, p. 27-39
35
“The President's News Conference of June 29, 1950,” TeachingAmericanHistory.org,
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=594 (accessed December 9, 2011).
36
Larry Gittleson, Interview, conducted November 19, 1996 by Mark Van Ells.
32
16
citizenry it may not have seemed like any war they had known and so its returning combatants
were only seen as returning from a ‘police action’ or some other non-war activity.
Despite the Truman administration’s labeling of Korea as a ‘police action,’ newspapers
like The Leader Telegram and The New York Times were often using the term ‘war.’ This shows
that at least the media acknowledged that the conflict was more than just a light dustup in the Far
East. Even so, the media’s labeling of the events as a war may just have been a result of trying to
communicate an unfamiliar situation its readership by using familiar words and phrases the
public could understand. However, terminology alone cannot adequately define how citizens felt
about the war. Public opinion polls can help provide a more complete understanding of the
public’s attitude toward the war if not their attitudes toward the veterans.
Public opinion data compiled by John E. Mueller helps capture just how concerned the
American public was with the Korean War. The data reveals that the American people can best
be described as “fair weather fans” regarding their attitudes about the events occurring on the
Korean peninsula. Public approval at the beginning of the war was at seventy-five percent. By
the time U.S. forces were marching towards the Yalu River public approval had gone to eightyone percent, the highest it would be for the entirety of the war. This brief trend would soon
change. When China entered the war, public approval plummeted to fifty-five percent. As the
months dragged on the war became increasingly stagnated along the 38th parallel. Public
approval at this time dropped to as low as twenty-seven percent. Generally speaking, when the
war was going well for the U.S. public opinion was high. When U.S. troops were being pushed
back or stalemated public opinion would drop precipitously.37 These polls offer a window into
Mueller, p. 360 ; Also see Mueller, John E. “Public Expectations of War During the Cold War.” American
Journal of Political Science 23, no. 2 (May, 1979): 301-79. www.jstor.org. for data related to that subject. The data
compiled there continues to show that military setbacks were causes for serious downturns in public opinion while
military victories were boons to public opinion polls.
37
17
the public mindset during the Korean War. From them it can be seen that the war was only
thought to be worth fighting when it was being won. Despite the war being based largely on
ideological differences the poll numbers show that Americans either did not view it as such or
were very unconcerned with the strength of capitalism abroad. The public seemed to take a
passing interest in it and no more. This attitude would be reflected in the way the public would
treat Korean War veterans when they returned from duty overseas.
Coming Home
Unlike World War II, veterans of the Korean War did not return home in droves. Nor was
the scale of their conflict quite as large as that of the preceding war. Instead, troops were drafted
for a term of twenty four months but the average length of service was 19 months.38 Each month
citizens were being drafted and each month draft obligations were ending.This meant that instead
of troops coming home in large quantities they would have rotated home after a certain length of
service in Korea. This would have contributed to the lack of public recognition of veterans as
soldiers would have been coming home all the time, little by little. Instead of coming home after
a clear and concise victory, veterans would have been coming home during the duration of a war
that was not won, lost, or even clearly defined. The uncertainty of peace ensured that there
would still be large numbers of troops maintained on the peninsula immediately after the
conclusion of open hostilities. Many American citizens would likely have felt that celebration
was inappropriate. Additionally, after several hard years of war in Europe and the Pacific the
American public may have grown tired of war, especially ones they were not sure they were
38
2004. World War II Vets Served the Longest. USA Today.
18
winning, and wished to return their focus to domestic matters. Indeed, domestic matters were
clearly a concern for many Americans as exhibited by the many strikes that occurred during the
early 1950’s.
Another reason public recognition of returning veterans may have been lacking was
because it was unclear just how events on the Korean peninsula would affect or had affected
Americans at home. As Wisconsin Korean War veteran Dick C. Nooe notes “people are not
gonna feel the same about Korea as they did World War II because we were bombed by Japan.”
The public lacked the connection and emotional investment to the war that they had after the
U.S.’s entrance into World War II. As a result, general disinterest in the war would have set in as
shown by the public opinion polls. Americans were still dying, but the chances that an individual
back home would have known someone who died, or even served, in Korea would have been
small compared to World War II. Nooe helps corroborate this claim when he says “people didn't
really think that much about it.” 39 The public at large lacked concern for the issue of the Korean
War because it had not impacted their lives and sense of security the way Pearl Harbor had nor
did it rip away a large portion of the population in a draft on the scale that the previous war had.
Many Wisconsinites were participants in the Korean War. According to the Wisconsin
Korean War Veterans Memorial website over 132,000 Wisconsinites served in Korea with 801
of those dying. The website does not mention how many of those who served were drafted.40 The
39
Dick C. Nooe, Interview, conducted May 19, 2005 at Appleton, Wisconsin by Mik Derks. Wisconsin Korean War
Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.; Wiltz, p. 156 This is further collaborated in Wiltz’s essay where he states
that “the conflict in Korea from 1950 to 1953 was not a particularly traumatic interlude in the life of the people of
the United States.”
40
“The Gateway to the Isle of Honor,” Wisconsin Korean War Veterans Memorial,
http://www.koreanmemorial.org/gateway.html (accessed December 9, 2011).;Sarah A. Larsen and Jennifer M.
Miller, Wisconsin Korean War Stories: Veterans Tell Their Stories from the Forgotten War (Madison, WI.:
Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2008), p.xi; Wisconsin Korean War Stories is a compilation of selected
veteran’s oral histories that are dissected and ordered topically. It is useful for anyone beginning to look into the
history of Wisconsin’s Korean War veterans. For a more complete collection of Wisconsin veteran’s oral histories
the Wisconsin Veterans Museum website has begun to upload oral history transcripts as of the time of this writing.
19
experience of Wisconsin Korean War veterans’ homecoming was often varied. In some cases
their stories conform to the idea of the forgotten veteran who was paid little attention to. Other
cases reveal that veterans felt not so much forgotten as outright despised by some. Still other
scenarios end with a soldier coming back to Milwaukee to find a band, dance, parade, and
television reporters all waiting for him. This confusing variety of public responses to Korean
War veterans is indicative of the ambiguity that presided over the public’s perception of the war
itself.
The experience of Wisconsinite and Oneida Indian Valdor W. John is definitely
incongruous with the concept of the forgotten veteran. Valdor was injured and captured early on
in the war sometime before the Chinese entered into the conflict. He remembers that after being
injured he was sent back to the United States where he received medical treatment in a San
Antonio hospital. Once he was well enough, he was sent to Milwaukee by airplane. When he
landed he found that “there was a huge reception out there at the airport. VFW and other
organizations were out there. And, and my old school. All friends and relatives. It was quite a,
it was quite a deal. TV was interviewing us and, and, this friend of my father's, he was a
department store owner there in Milwaukee, he, he organized a little homecoming dance, band
and so forth, and, at the, at the VFW hall there.” He adds “ So, that was real nice, got there and
that's when I got the, they presented me with the headdress for Chief Warrior, I mean, yeah,
Chief Warrior it was. So I'm an honorary Chief Warrior of the Consolidated Tribes of North
American Indians. I had the other places I had to go and speak at different functions they had
there in Milwaukee. It was nice.”41 He informs the interviewer that all of this was for him. He
makes no mention of other veterans being present. Another peculiar aspect to this is that it
41
Valdor John, Interview, conducted May 6, 2004 at Oneida, Wisconsin by Mik Derks, Wisconsin Korean
War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
20
occurred early on in the war’s history. Valdor was an enlisted man and so he was one of the first
Americans to see any fighting in Korea. Valdor himself says that he did not think people realized
there was a war going. He explains that while he was in Texas receiving his medical treatment a
stranger asked where he had been injured. When Valdor told him he was wounded in Korea the
stranger did not even know where Korea was let alone that a war was being fought there. This
seems somewhat unlikely since Valdor was also a prisoner of war for several months, meaning
that at the time he had returned home the public should have been well aware that the United
States was currently involved in a war. But if the stranger’s ignorance is true then it is probably
an extreme example of the American public’s unawareness of foreign affairs.
Valdor’s memory of what happened in Milwaukee makes the Texan stranger’s comments
sound even more ridiculous. Once he was in Milwaukee he received the complete opposite of
what he experienced in Texas. Music and dance abounded and an enormous amount of praise
was showered upon him. How did Valdor come to receive so much attention for his part in the
Korean War? Valdor himself says that a friend of the family sponsored part of the festivities.
This might indicate that it was actually more of a private than public event, but the presence of
television reporters and Valdor’s recognition as a Chief Warrior would keep it in the realm of
public recognition. Another possible explanation for Valdor’s experience is that the war was still
popular when he returned home the first time. While Valdor does not provide a definite time for
the celebratory occurrence it can be inferred from his interview that the Chinese had not yet
involved themselves openly in Korea. Therefore Valdor was swept up in the war’s popularity
during that particular time. Valdor eventually returned to the fighting in Korea, but does not
discuss his second homecoming in the interview. Valdor’s experience is by no means the norm
21
for returning veterans of the Korean War. Still, others do report having homecoming experiences
that were positive even if they were not on the scale of Valdor’s celebration. 42
John Breske Jr. reports that, while there was “no welcome party or nothing like that” he
still had a fair amount of recognition in his small hometown of Eland, Wisconsin. He reports
being able to have free meals at the local hotel. He also reports being bought drinks at all the
local bars for at least six months after he got back. He describes the people in Eland as “very
receptive.” One reason for this small town’s positive receptivity of Breske may lie in the fact that
two other people from the community were killed in Korea making Eland particularly sensitive
to the matter of veterans from the war. While Breske did not have the large displays of
recognition that many veterans may have hoped for, he still counts his homecoming experience
as a positive one largely because he says he was just happy to be back home.43
Despite the extreme example of recognition provided by Valdor, the idea of an indifferent
public seems to hold true. Larry Gittleson, who did not move to Wisconsin until approximately
twenty-five years after his return from Korea, says that his homecoming was not acknowledged
by those he had known before his departure. His memories of coming home from the war are
rather cheerless and depressing. By mimicking a dialogue between himself and another,
Gittleson conveys how he was treated when he returned home: “ ‘Well, I’m back.’ ‘From
where?’ ‘Well, I was gone to Korea, you know.’ ‘Oh yeah?’ ‘Yeah’ ‘So what do think about the
Cubs this year?’” Gittleson portrays the reaction he received from others upon his return as one
of indifference. Nobody wanted to talk about it or perhaps even knew how to talk about it. The
lack of a clear victory would have certainly exacerbated this matter. Gittleson’s explanation of
The author claims to be no expert on American Indian Studies but the cultural differences surrounding Valdor’s
status as a member of the Oneida tribe may provide some explanation for the attention he received upon returning
home.
43
John Breske, Interview, conducted September 22, 2004 at Wausau, Wisconsin by Mik Derks,
Wisconsin Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
42
22
his going away and coming back reflects the public perspective of Korean War veterans. He says
“I just got up early in the morning … packed up my stuff, asked the landlady there can I put my
stuff up in the attic. She said yeah. Put it up there. Went down to the induction center by myself,
inducted into the Army, took off. That's it. Came back, went up to the roof, got my stuff down,
saw everything was obsolete, and started life all over again. There was no welcoming home
party. There was no nothing. Nobody said anything. Nobody did nothing. Nobody paid
attention.” He left and he came back. There was no accounting of what happened in between nor
was one ever asked for. Gittleson paints a picture of a person who was unceremoniously plucked
from society, sent to war for a few years, and then just as unceremoniously returned home. His
statements certainly resonate with the idea of the forgotten veteran.44 Veteran Gerald A. Buza
describes his homecoming more succinctly. He flatly states that “there was no reception.” 45
Cornelius A. Hill says that when he came home there “was no big hullabaloo about it like
they do now .” Hill, however, did not expect much when he had been called to war. He says that
the reception his uncle received after coming home from World War II was similar to his own so
he did not think there would be any celebration when he came home. He admits that there was a
band playing “I See Those Harbor Lights” at the San Francisco harbor when his boat docked
there from Korea and that any soldiers with relatives in the San Francisco area were usually there
to receive them right off the boat. Still, Hill says there were “no big crowds” and “no parades.”46
44
Gittleson, Interview.; It should also be mentioned that Gittleson does relate a positive interaction between the
American public and himself during his time in Korea. He states that he wrote a comic letter to the publication “The
Brooklyn Eagle.” In it, he made light of the situation he and his unit found themselves in as well as requesting letters
from people back home. Gittleson says that after this he and people from his unit were flooded with letters. It seems
that the public was willing to support veterans when prompted. He also mentions members of the public trying to
supply the soldiers on a troop train with alcohol unsuccessfully.
45
Gerald A. Buza, Interview, conducted October 11, 2004 at Stevens Point, Wisconsin by Mik
Derks, Wisconsin Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
46
Cornelius Hill, Interview, conducted May 6, 2004 at Oneida, Wisconsin by Mik Derks, Wisconsin Korean War
Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
23
Wisconsin veteran Elroy W. Roeder says that the return home from Korea was “just like
Vietnam.” He recalls being treated differently several times during his service. He remembers “I-when I got home, I got off that ship, I took my uniform off already because people look down at
you, they really did. It was just like Vietnam. I come home and--well, we never had no big
celebration to come home, you know, like they do now.” 47 Roeder’s experience is more in line
with common conceptions of Korean War veterans’ public receptions, but it also resembles the
experience of veterans from other wars.
Roeder’s statement contains two interesting ideas. One is that he says he was treated
with a sort of mild repugnance for being associated with the military on top of being ignored for
his service. The other is that in his recollection he is placing his experience within a larger
historical context. The two ideas may even be connected. He is not purely remembering what he
felt at the time of his own service, but rather comparing it to other events. In this case, Roeder is
comparing his own personal experiences to his knowledge of Vietnam veteran’s relationship
with the public at large.48 This makes for a more complicated analysis of how he actually felt at
the time and casts doubt on what actually happened. However, if these statements are true then
Roeder’s experience adds an interesting dimension to the way the public treated veterans. It
would show that some people actually showed something of a sense of hostility towards
returning veterans. The possibility of hostility towards returning veterans of the Korean War is
not something to be discarded wantonly. Edwards describes a public that was quick to accuse the
nation’s youth of being weak. Furthermore, one military officer made the claim that many
captured Americans had given in too easily to “brainwashing.” There are certainly instances of
47
Roeder, Interview.
In many of the interview transcripts researched for this paper, veterans often mentioned another war such as
Vietnam or World War II. The necessity or perceived necessity to compare Korea to other wars further indicates its
stature as a Forgotten War that cannot stand on its own in public memory.
48
24
the public blaming the veterans for the outcome of the war. Further research into public hostility
towards Korean War veterans would better help to determine its ubiquity.49
Despite a few special cases, Wisconsin Korean War veterans experienced the same public
apathy towards their service commonly associated with their war. As a group they were neither
overtly recognized by the public, nor were they wholly condemned. They served, they returned,
and they melded back into American society. Once again, excepting Valdor’s case, the few
displays of appreciation shown to them were usually private occurrences. They were not publicly
organized and executed, but performed out of individual senses of appreciation. This is not to
diminish the actions of those individuals who did recognize the service of Korean War veterans,
but to observe that a public show of recognition was wanting for many years. The term
“forgotten veteran” holds a substantial amount of applicability in discussing Wisconsin’s Korean
War veterans.
The War and Popular Culture
Wars are notorious for their destruction, but they also inspire creation. The Korean War
may not have spawned the number of films, literature and other works as other wars but it still
produced some nonetheless. The little literature produced by Americans during the Korean War
was heavily influenced by the nature of the war itself. The themes of uncertainty and
inconclusiveness were apparent in many of these works.50 Most are not recognized as iconic
pieces of American culture. The mediums of film and television, however, can claim to have
helped America remember that there was such a thing as the Korean War.
49
Edwards, pp. 34-5
Philip West and Suh Ji-Moon, eds., Remembering the “Forgotten War”: The Korean War Through Literature and
Art (Armonk, N.Y.: East Gate Book, 2001), p. 40-1; Edwards, pp. 23-4
50
25
The television series MASH is one of the most well-known of those set during the
Korean War. Broadcasted well after the conclusion of open hostilities in Korea, the show is
about a group of army hospital personnel and their experiences dealing with the trials and
tribulations of working in a warzone. While the show is set in Korea, Bruce Cumings calls it “a
series about Vietnam, once removed to Korea.”51 Cumings similarly dismisses most of the films
and television shows about the war coming out of this time as well. Still, there was at least one
notable film set in the time period surrounding the war that is a mainstay in American popular
culture. The Manchurian Candidate is probably the film most people of think of when they think
of Korean War inspired cinema. Still neither MASH nor The Manchurian Candidate could have
affected the public’s attitude towards Korean War veterans in the early 1950’s due to their being
released long after the Korean War was over. However, they possessed the ability to contribute
to the way the war was remembered.
Movies like The Manchurian Candidate released nearly a decade after the conclusion of
hostilities on the Korean peninsula portray Communism as a program easily written into the
minds of anyone who is exposed to the proper indoctrination procedures. Even America’s most
respected and honored citizens were to be suspected of Communist affiliations. The movie was
based on a novel by author Richard Condon and does not appear to mirror any actual occurrence
of veterans exhibiting the kind of behavior seen in Sergeant Shaw.52 The movie taps into the
fears of brainwashing that many people had during the Korean War. So great was this fear that
POW’s were succumbing to the Communist brainwashing that President Eisenhower issued a
“Code of Conduct” in 1955 for soldiers to follow in the event that they were captured. In
addition, Americans had difficulty understanding why twenty-one POWs refused to leave their
51
52
Cumings, War and Television, p.148
R.M. Hodgens, “The Manchurian Candidate,” Film Quarterly 16, no. 3 (Spring, 1953): p. 59 www.jstor.org.
26
Communist captors even when provided the option to do so. They rationalized these POWs
behavior by explaining it away as the effects of brainwashing.53 The Manchurian Candidate
serves as a monument to these public fears of Communist brainwashing of POWs.
In the movie Sergeant Raymond Shaw, a Medal of Honor recipient, and his mother
Eleanor, a woman with strong ties to American politics, are both successful, powerful
Americans, in many ways ideal. But it is revealed that during his time in Korea Raymond was
captured and indoctrinated by the Communists. As a result he is susceptible to losing his selfcontrol whenever he sees the queen of hearts found in common playing card decks and
submitting to whatever other people tell him, particularly Communists. His mother is also
revealed to be a planted Communist which further exhibits American fears of Communists
infiltration of positions of power. Shaw is ultimately able to overcome his Communist
programming but only after leaving a long trail of blood behind him. Consequently he claims his
own life.
The message of the movie does not exactly strive to remember veterans of Korean,
particularly POWs, with respect even if that was not the filmmaker’s intentions. Instead, Korean
War veterans are regarded with a certain level of suspicion. It shows them as possible tools of
Communist forces subject to ruthlessly execute their objectives with the mere flash of a card.
The war itself is hardly portrayed in the movie except for the first few minutes in which Shaw
and several other U.S. soldiers are captured and turned over to Chinese and Soviet Communists.
It ultimately contributes to furthering the lack of understanding the public had about the war by
complicating it with a nonfactual portrayal of brainwashing. After the movie’s release, members
of the public may have viewed veterans of Korea differently. It portrayed them as unstable tools
under Communist control. Thankfully, films like this are not the only way in which the public
53
Summers and Jr., pp. 69-70; Edwards, p. 34
27
can remember its veterans (though they seem to be a large part of it). There are more traditional
ways to venerate veterans with perhaps more respect than fixtures of popular culture. The
memorial has been used throughout history to acknowledge a person or a group’s contribution to
society.
Memorials and monuments are some of the most explicit ways the public can honor,
recognize, and remember the service of veterans. From national monuments in Washington D.C.
to the dedicating of a local highway or football field the ways in which veterans are
memorialized are numerous. The National Korean War Memorial in Washington was dedicated
on July 25, 1995. It was built with money from “small, personal donations and large
contributions from U.S. subsidiaries of Korean corporations” that amounted to over $18 million
dollars.54 Its creation was a step towards acknowledging the veterans of a war that for decades
had been subsumed under the haze of the early Cold War. Wisconsin also has dedications to
Korean War veterans. Two of these dedications are the Korean War Memorial at the Neillsville
Highground memorial park and the Wisconsin Korean War Veterans Memorial located in
Plover, Wisconsin.
There are a number of Korean War memorials in Wisconsin. These memorials take the
form of plaques, highway dedications, and parks as well as monuments in a few cases. A search
on the Wisconsin Veterans Museum’s Memorial Database for Korean War veterans’ memorials
in Wisconsin reveals forty-eight search results. These include everything from the
aforementioned plaques and parks to cemeteries, football fields, and tennis courts. Surprisingly
this number is slightly more than the forty-six search results for Vietnam veterans’ memorials
and only six less than the fifty-four World War II veterans’ memorials. The number of
54
David S.Trask ed. Encyclopedia of the Korean War: a Political, Social, and Military History. Vol. 1. Edited
by Spencer C. Tucker et al. 3 vols. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2000. pp. 375-6
28
memorials is a sign that Wisconsin has not forgotten its Korean War veterans, at least in recent
years.55
One indicator that Wisconsin had not acknowledged its Korean War veterans in the past
is the website for the The Highground. The Highground contains memorials to nearly all of the
U.S.’s major wars. World War I, World War II, The Vietnam War, and the Revolutionary War
were all represented at The Highground prior to the inclusion of a Korean memorial. The
Highground Korean War memorial webpage implies that many visitors often asked where the
Korean War Memorial was until one was finally installed. On July 28, 2007, a day after the fiftyfourth anniversary of the cease-fire, The Highground dedicated a memorial to the veterans of the
Korean War. 56
Countering The Highground’s admission that it lacked a proper Korean War Memorial
until recently is the Wisconsin Korean War Veterans memorial in Plover, Wisconsin. The
memorial in Plover was slightly behind the national curve regarding Korean War memorials
being completed two years after the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. in
1997. Large parts of the funding for the construction and maintenance of the memorial comes
from the Wisconsin state legislature as well as veterans groups and sales from individually
purchased memorial tiles. An indicator that Wisconsin is acutely aware of the lackluster
reception of Korean War veterans is seen in the name of the annual event labeled
“Homecoming”.57
“Veterans Memorial Catalog,” Wisconsin Veterans
Museum,http://museum.dva.state.wi.us/Memorials/Memorials.aspx (accessed December 11, 2011).; The search
criteria used to produce these numbers are as follows. The search was narrowed to the state of Wisconsin only. From
there the box “All Veterans” was selected. Then each war was selected individually.
56
“Korean Veterans Tribute,” The Highground, http://www.thehighground.org/tributes/korean/index.html (accessed
December 12, 2011).
57
“Wisconsin Korean War Veterans Memorial,” Wisconsin Korean War Veterans Memorial,
http://www.koreanmemorial.org/index.html (accessed December 12, 2011).
55
29
The memorials at Plover and Neillsville are two great additions to Wisconsin’s tribute to
veterans. They are small steps in reconciling the relationship between the public and Korean War
veterans. This relationship could almost be said to have been nonexistent due to the lack of
concern many Americans shown towards the war at the time and even today.
Veterans of the Korean War were not treated to the glorious returns experienced by those
who had fought in World War II. Instead, Korean War veterans were treated with apathy. They
were largely not recognized for their service due to several factors. During the war, economic
issues seemed to take precedence over any foreign policy issues of the time. Strikes which had
the ability to affect the war effort were happening across the nation. Americans were more
concerned with getting on with their lives at home rather than battles being fought on an
unknown peninsula in the Far East. Newspapers covered the war adequately, but it seems to have
done little to inject the public with a sense of concern for U.S. involvement in Korean affairs as
indicated by public opinion polls. Americans apathy towards the war was transferred to the
veterans. Many Wisconsin Korean War veterans claim to have come home to little public
fanfare. The type of reception they received seemed to correlate heavily with how the public
viewed and felt about the war at any given time. As time went on, the war was portrayed in many
different ways. From a substitute for commentary on the Vietnam War to being portrayed as the
cauldron from which the Communists drew their sleeper agents the Korean War was hardly ever
depicted honestly in American popular culture. Its true significance and events masked by
brainwashing sensationalism and the problems of another decade. In Wisconsin and nationally
memorials have sprung up within the last two decades showing that the public is becoming
increasingly aware of its neglect. Ironically, as Korean War Veterans are beginning to be
recognized more and more it is wondered if that group of Americans who risked as much as any
30
veteran of war only to be treated as less than such will ever be able to free themselves from being
remembered as “forgotten.”
31
Bibliography
Axelrod, George, John Frankenheimer, Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh, Angela
Lansbury, Henry Silva, James Gregory, and Richard Condon. The Manchurian
Candidate. Santa Monica, CA: MGM Home Entertainment, 1998.
Bemis, Michael. 2010. Encyclopedia of the Korean War: A Political, Social, and Military
History. Library Journal. 135, no. 14: 138.
Blair, Clay. The Forgotten War: America in Korea 1950-1953. N.p.: Times Books, 1987.
Brune, Lester H. The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood, 1996.
Cornelius Hill, Interview, conducted May 6, 2004 at Oneida, Wisconsin by Mik Derks,
Wisconsin Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
Cumings, Bruce. The Korean War: A History. New York: Modern Library, 2010.
Cumings, Bruce. War and Television. London: Verso, 1992.
Dick C. Nooe, Interview, conducted May 19, 2005 at Appleton, Wisconsin by Mik Derks,
Wisconsin Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
Edwards, Paul M. To Acknowledge a War: the Korean War in American Memory. Westport,
Conn.: Praeger, 2000.
Elroy Roeder, Interview, conducted September 24, 2004 at Wausau, Wisconsin by Mik Derks,
Wisconsin Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
Gerald A. Buza, Interview, conducted October 11, 2004 at Stevens Point, Wisconsin by Mik
Derks, Wisconsin Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
Gosnell, Harold F. Truman's Crises: a Political Biography of Harry S. Truman. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980.
Halberstam, David. The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. New York: Hyperion,
2007.
Hamby, Alonzo. 1978. Public Opinion: Korea and Vietnam. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-). 2,
no. 3: 137-141.
Heller, Francis H., ed. The Korean War: a 25-Year Perspective. Lawrence: Univ Pr of Kansas,
1977.
32
Hodgens, R.M. “The Manchurian Candidate.” Film Quarterly 16, no. 3 (Spring, 1953): page nr.
www.jstor.org.
John Breske, Interview, conducted September 22, 2004 at Wausau, Wisconsin by Mik Derks,
Wisconsin Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
“Korean Veterans Tribute.” The Highground.
http://www.thehighground.org/tributes/korean/index.html (accessed December 12, 2011).
Larry Gittleson, Interview, conducted November 19, 1996 by Mark Van Ells
Larsen, Sarah A., and Jennifer M. Miller. Wisconsin Korean War Stories: Veterans Tell Their
Stories from the Forgotten War. Madison, WI.: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2008.
Mueller, John E. “Trends in Popular Support For the Wars in Korea and Vietnam.” American
Political Science Association 65, no. 2 (jun., 1971): 358-75.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1954454 (accessed December 6, 2011).
Mueller, John E. “Public Expectations of War During the Cold War.” American Journal of
Political Science 23, no. 2 (May, 1979): 301-79. www.jstor.org.
Robert J. Andler, Interview, conducted August 27, 2005 at Madison, Wisconsin by John K.
Driscoll
Summers, Harry G., and Jr. Korean War Almanac. New York, N.Y.: Facts on File, 1990.
“The Gateway to the Isle of Honor.” Wisconsin Korean War Veterans Memorial.
http://www.koreanmemorial.org/gateway.html (accessed December 9, 2011).
“The President's News Conference of June 29, 1950.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=594 (accessed December 9,
2011).
Tucker, Spencer C., Jinwung Kim, Michael R. Nichols, Paul G. Pierpaoli Jr., Priscilla Mary
Roberts, and Norman R. Zehr, eds. Encyclopedia of the Korean War: a Political, Social,
and Military History. 3 vols. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2000.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Data on Veterans of the Korean War, Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Analysis Office of Program and Data Analyses, June 2000.
“U.S. Unemployment: A Historical View.” The Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JOBSHISTORY09.html (accessed
December 11, 2011).
Valdor John, Interview, conducted May 6, 2004 at Oneida, Wisconsin by Mik Derks, Wisconsin
Korean War Stories, for Wisconsin Public Television.
33
“Veterans Memorial Catalog.” Wisconsin Veterans
Museum.http://museum.dva.state.wi.us/Memorials/Memorials.aspx (accessed December
11, 2011).
West, Philip, and Suh Ji-Moon, eds. Remembering the “Forgotten War”: The Korean War
Through Literature and Art. Armonk, N.Y.: East Gate Book, 2001.
“Wisconsin Korean War Veterans Memorial.” Wisconsin Korean War Veterans Memorial.
http://www.koreanmemorial.org/index.html (accessed December 12, 2011).
World War II Vets Served the Longest. USA Today 2004.
34