"The Good War": An Oral History of World War II
From OHA Wiki
Contents |
Background
"The Good War" was published by The New Press in 1984. The book was written by Studs Terkel.
Summary
"The Good War": An Oral History of World War II is divided into four books, each containing several chapters. Interviews with more than one hundred people from various backgrounds and relationships to the war comprise the book. Most of the interviews begin with a short description of the narrator, while some have no background information at all. The vast majority of the interview questions are omitted. However, they are sometimes used to show the context of an interview or to transition between different topics or people within the interview.
"Book One" covers the beginning of the war including reactions to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, soldiers’ experiences in the South Pacific, the roles of women, and the effects World War II had on different groups of people.
"Book Two" focuses mostly on the experiences of those closest to combat. In addition to interviewing soldiers and military officials, Terkel recorded the experiences of civilians affected by the war as well as a USO performer.
"Book Three" chronicles the economic and social changes that occurred in America during the war. It discusses the changing roles of "New Dealers," the wartime industries that led to an economic boom in rural areas, the changing position of African Americans in the military, and the different ways the media was involved in the war. This book also includes the beginning of the Cold War.
"Book Four" concentrates on the end of the war and includes reflections of those disillusioned by it. This book includes stories of military police duty, imprisonment, forced hard labor, and relief workers in Europe. Terkel also interviewed Russians who were impacted by the siege of Stalingrad. There is also a chapter devoted to the the atomic bomb during which Terkel asked scientists who worked on the atomic project if the attack on Nagasaki was necessary. This book also includes an epilogue that captures the views of Baby Boomers and members of following generations.
Reviews
According to Loudon Wainwright of the New York Times, "Mr. Terkel's book gives the American experience in World War II great immediacy. Reading it, I felt a renewed connection with that slice of my own past and a surprisingly powerful kinship with the voices from it."1
The Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature called the book "honest," stating that it discussed "never-recorded-before insights into features of World War II like the Zoot Suit Riots on the West Coast… and the atom bombing of Nagasaki."2
Awards
"The Good War" won the 1985 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction.3
Quotations
"We came back to Los Angeles at the end of the war, believing that there was no other way but to be American. We were discouraged with our Japanese culture. My feeling at the time was, I had to prove myself. I don’t know why I had to prove myself. Here I am, an ex-GI, born and raised here. Why do I have to prove myself? We all had this feeling. We had to prove that we were Americans, okay?"4
"World War Two was not a pleasant experience. It’s anti everything I stand for. It was a frustrating and revealing time of my life."5
"That was the real military meaning of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was not that the bombs were so destructive. It was not that the bombs created radioactivity. Terrible, of course. It’s that the atomic bomb, now the nuclear bomb, is cheap. That’s why we’re in this big trouble."6
"When it started out, this was the greatest thing since the Crusades. The patriotic fervor was such at the beginning that if the “Star Spangled Banner’ came on the radio, everybody in the room would stand up at attention…Our enthusiasm waned and we became cynical and very sick and tired of the bloodshed and killing. It was a completely different thing than the way it started. At least, this is how I remember it."7
"Aaaah, I feel that if countries are gonna fight a war, find yourself an island with nobody and then just put all your men in there and let them kill each other. Or better, send the politicians, let them fight it out. Yeah, like this stupid race that we're having of atomic wars. So much money is being devoted to killing people and so little to saving. It's a crazy world."8
"I think a lot of women said, Screw that noise. 'Cause they had a taste of freedom, they had a taste of making their own money, a taste of spending their own money, making their own decisions. I think the beginning of the women's movement had its seeds right there in World War Two."9
Discussion Topics
The above quotes, as well as Terkel's methodology and writing style, sparked discussion around several themes and questions.
Seminar participants discussed the use of oral history to gain factual information. Particularly, the issue was raised whether or not an author/editor should address misinformation given in a narrator's interview. This question led into a debate about the process of remembering and the vadility of an individual's memory and their truth. The decision to edit misinformation really depends upon the aim of the study. Most oral histories set out to give a record of the memory of an event and explore the way an event is taken in, processed, and remembered either immediately following the event itself or over a period of time. It is important to honor the memory that is shared and to maintain the integrity of the aim of the study by printing the memories as verbatim as is possible.
Conversation also centered on the involvement (or lack thereof) of Terkel in the writing, editing, and interviewing. The snippets provided by Terkel before narrations may prejudice views toward a narrator. Terkel only infrequently includes his questions in the written version of the interview. It seems to be Terkel's way of getting out of the way to let the narrators tell their story. In a way, it makes the narratives more powerful as they are able to speak for themselves, without the interruptions of an interviewer. On the otherhand, readers may be far removed from an event by culture or time, and at times it could be helpful to hear the interviewer's analysis to help the reader process what was said.
Participants felt that Terkel was able to highlight the individuality of war experiences and memories by including a great variety of narrators in "The Good War." Many of the participants felt that this individuality created a balanced account of World War II. Some narrators expressed an unwavering belief that this war really was a "good" one that needed to be fought, while others felt disillusioned at the war's end. The stories of many narrators fell in the middle, conflicted and unable to decide whether the war was indeed completely "good" or not. The wide spectrum of stories illustrates not only the range in perspectives and demographics of the narrators, but also the different stages that narrators must go through with their memories. Each narrator's life would have shaped his or her individual perception and memory of the war. Memory is not static, but is changed by experience and circumstance. In addition, it was noted that immense sensitivities were required in exploring these different and often traumatic experiences.
The Second World War changed the landscape of Europe and the minds of the soldiers. How does The Good War illustrate how their lives changed when they returned home?
As they recall their stories how do the narrators view their past beliefs and actions? How did the war change the nation's mentality at home and overseas?
The Good War does not necessarily present the heroic and idealistic image of America that is usually conjured in stories of World War Two. However, Terkel is able to create a much more honest story that has great depth and value for readers looking for a more complete version of the war. Throughout the book, the narrators convey a sense of unity that was created by the war. National unity had been shattered by the hardship of the Great Depression, but being thrown together in combat made best friends out of strangers. Propaganda film would have viewers believe that the war was about “getting the Japs,” but as one rifleman reflected, “The reason you storm the beaches is not patriotism or bravery. It’s that sense of not wanting to fail your buddies. There’s sort of a special sense of kinship.” As readers encounter story after story recanting friendships made, buddies lost in battle, and people joining together on the home front, they can begin to understand the powerful bonds that the war bought about.
However, World War Two was also a time when Americans were turned on one another. Japanese internment was the most outwardly visible act of the xenophobia that was manifest in Americans. Many of the stories reveal the fear that isolated Americans from one another, despite common citizenship. One man enlisted in the Army, even as his family was in an internment camp. While black men were allowed to enlist, they were given the most menial tasks with very little respect. What is impressive and
valuable about Terkel’s book is that he is able to capture both the war that brought unity and the war that brought division, and present both without sacrificing one for the other.
References
(1) Wainwright, Loudan. "I Can Remember Every Hour." New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/09/26/specials/terkel-goodwar.html?scp=5&sq=studs%20terkel%20the%20good%20war&st=cse.
(2) Willis, Lonnie L. "Review [Untitled]." Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature 39, no. (1985):165-167.
(3) Grimes, William. "Studs Terkel, Listener to Americans, Dies at 96." New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/09/26/specials/terkel-goodwar.html?scp=5&sq=studs%20terkel%20the%20good%20war&st=cse.
(4) Ota, Peter. "The Good War," 31.
(5) Steward, Lowell. "The Good War," 343.
(6) Morrison, Philip. "The Good War," 514.
(7) Hahne, Dellie. "The Good War," 120.
(8) Garcia, John. "The Good War," 24.
(9) Hahne, Dellie. "The Good War," 122.
