#2. The "Greatest Generation" Was Better Than Later Generations

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

As Tom Brokaw will gladly tell you for the low, low price of $16.95, the Americans who fought in World War II were "the Greatest Generation." The men of that era were, quite simply, special. After all, a man doesn't grow up during the Great Depression and breaststroke across the Atlantic to crotch-punch the Nazi hordes into submission just to wind up some shiftless pot smoking hippie, like their ungrateful kids.

David Shankbone
"They birthed the baby boomers because their balls burst with bountiful brawn."

Why It's Bull****:

The Greatest Generation was just like you, had you been forced to serve in a monstrously destructive war. In other words, they were scared ****less and miserable.

Big emphasis on "forced," because no matter how many times we're told that the Greatest Generation went to war because it was "the right thing to do," it doesn't change the fact that two-thirds of the U.S. servicemen were drafted. But we're told that the Greatest Generation was different from those who've come since, and in a way that's true -- because two-thirds of the men who fought in Vietnam volunteered.

Hulton Archive/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Only partly because 'Nam's such an awesome vacation destination.

World War II's draft dodging numbers dwarf both Vietnam's and World War I's. Desertion rates between World War II and Vietnam were pretty much neck and neck. And when they weren't dodging or deserting, the Greatest Generation was doing the third best thing: getting completely ****faced. Soldiers in Vietnam took a lot of heat for drug abuse, but the Greatest Generation was dying of alcohol poisoning so fast that the U.S. Army started putting up warning billboards displaying the "Deaths from Poison Liquor to Date" (G.I.s weren't picky about their booze and often drank methanol -- aka antifreeze). Not to be outdone, creative sailors sometimes swilled the alcohol that fueled torpedoes. When the U.S. Navy caught on and started putting additives in the "torpedo juice" to make the soldiers sick if they drank it, the submariners one-upped them and learned the art of distillation via torpedo engine.

The lesson here is: Never underestimate the resourcefulness of a conscripted serviceman looking to drink away his misery. Drunk finds a way. Drunk ... finds a way.

#1. It Was the "Good War"

history.co.uk

Unlike today's wars, where we have only a vague idea of what our soldiers are fighting against (terrorism? Or wait, is it still drugs? Or ... Christmas?), World War II was pretty goddamn straightforward: We were fighting for what was right. Freedom versus fascism. Good versus evil. God almighty versus Hitler the were-devil himself (dibs on the graphic novel idea).

It's no wonder, then, that our military folk haven't seen anywhere near the level of support that was rained upon them during World War II.

Why It's Bull****:

If people back then really thought World War II was such a good war, it would stand to reason that most American vets would've been met by parades and celebrations upon their return. To the contrary, wounded soldiers returned to find that folks on the homefront treated them like lepers. The truth is that Americans weren't sure what the hell to think about the war, and nearly half the country would've given you a blank stare if you'd asked them what it was all about.

Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Image
"Someday scientists will be able to send you moving images and news from all sorts of important wars."

Still, that didn't stop 13 percent of Americans from favoring the extermination of every last Japanese person from the planet. After Japan's surrender, nearly twice that number of Americans said they regretted that the war had ended before the Japanese could be more thoroughly nuked. If history was a Batman movie, this is the spot where Robin would intervene to remind Batman that revenge isn't justice.

But at least when the war ended, the sacrifice was worth it. After all, the Allies did roll up one of the most despicable, murderous dictators in history ... and slapped a bow on most of Europe for Joseph Stalin, one of the most despicable, murderous dictators in history.

PBS
If your "Righteous Cause" is represented by blood red, it might be time to rethink your map.

So why does this myth about World War II being a "good war" persist? Maybe because no one wants to watch a war movie about an army of terrified amateurs fighting for a homeland motivated more by hatred than nobility, only to eventually wind up chumming up alongside a brutal dictator. But wait! Stay tuned for the obligatory after-credits scene, it's a real doozy: millions of German civilians displaced, Berlin subjected to the largest mass rape in history, and the Allies ending things much as they'd begun -- with book burnings and censors to rid Germany of everything undemocratic.

"Good war" remains, to this day, an oxymoron.

my father, two uncles and several of my cousins fought in that war--many of THEIR friends volunteered as well and never came back--you can't truly glorify war though there are moments in its progression that can be glorious indeed--because of the bravery and valor of their deeds--or the breadth of their compassion and sacrifice--why you choose to dwell on the horrors of war ( and particularly rape ) is almost pathological, ed--makes me wonder if you are so steeped in the victim mind set of that conflict, so bent that you've been blinded to the truth that if the allies had lost, the outcome would have been drastically worse for the entire world

of the men that fought in that conflict and those have had the privilege of meeting for myself--not ONE of them related raping innocent civilians as a practice of US or British / Commonwealth forces in either the European or Pacific theatres and to imply such via the reference to some whack job like grossman is an insult to those soldiers

whether they were indeed " the greatest generation " or not will be for history to ultimately decide but to label them as hoodlums / criminals run amok is patently false and absurd

I think it was written by one of those mamby pamby, anti war babies who think everything can be solved by hugging it out.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

That generation was the greatest. Greatness is not what you are before, greatness comes from perseverance. Of course they were scared. It's stupid to think they were not.

My grandfather was in that war. He was in the medivac unit. The things he saw, put his hands into, and still came home to raise a family and not become a sniveling, coward or a maniac says a lot about the kind of men that generation was.

What ever else you say, fine, I am not a WWII expert

But to say that wasn't the greatest generation is flat out wrong.

---

 I agree, my Uncles fought in ww2, one of my uncles  was at d-day. They were young men who grew up in the great depression  and like lily said had perseverance  not only the troops  but also the citizens  back home.

burns07 wrote:

---

my father, two uncles and several of my cousins fought in that war--many of THEIR friends volunteered as well and never came back--you can't truly glorify war though there are moments in its progression that can be glorious indeed--because of the bravery and valor of their deeds--or the breadth of their compassion and sacrifice--why you choose to dwell on the horrors of war ( and particularly rape ) is almost pathological, ed--makes me wonder if you are so steeped in the victim mind set of that conflict, so bent that you've been blinded to the truth that if the allies had lost, the outcome would have been drastically worse for the entire world

of the men that fought in that conflict and those have had the privilege of meeting for myself--not ONE of them related raping innocent civilians as a practice of US or British / Commonwealth forces in either the European or Pacific theatres and to imply such via the reference to some whack job like grossman is an insult to those soldiers

whether they were indeed " the greatest generation " or not will be for history to ultimately decide but to label them as hoodlums / criminals run amok is patently false and absurd

---

When the author talked of the "rape" of Berlin, it was not about sexual assault. 

Did you see any reference in the article that DID talk of sexual assault?

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

This is a BS article, full of facts but slanted. Technology was catapulted from WWII you cannot compare it to today's technology, that is just stupid. in fact, much of today's technology would not have been developed had the US gov't not put tremendous amounts of money toward the defense budget in development of weapon systems to include the first computers.

---

Yeah.  Ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

 

The Weimar government in Germany was HOPELESS.  Inflation was rampant, the nation was divided between the Communists--and those who feared the Communists and ended up supporting the Nazis by default.  It pave the way for Hitler.

 

If the Weimar government had been anywhere close to as good as this ridiculous article paints--Hitler would never have come to power. 

 

As far as the atom bomb goes, Germany was perilously close to developing one--Holocaust, or no.  The efforts of the allies to destroy their heavy water plant in Norway and other efforts played way more of a part in keeping them from getting the bomb than anything this ridiculous article puts forth.

 

As far as the American war effort is concerned--Americans knew DAMN WELL why we were fighting.  Pearl Harbor put it into stark reality.  There was not a question in the minds of all but a small minority of Americans after that.

 

As far as "draft dodgers" go--the article paints a RIDICULOUS comparison between WWII and Vietnam.  They are not remotely comparable.  When you put THIRTEEN MILLION men in uniform in the space of less than 5 years--yeah, there are going to be some draft dodgers among the bunch.  That does not mean it was some sort of epidemic given the numbers of men in uniform.   

 

ed, I certainly hope you just posted this for general discussion and don't believe the nonsense contained in it.

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Had the other countries recognized the economic impact the WWI fallout had on Germany and the resulting political choices in Germany, Hitler would not have come to power, he was an economic genius. He took a country that had zero economic growth and turned it around in a short time. That is why people did what he wanted. That is why he was able to build his murderous machine. And that is why, today, we have to stay close to those countries we fight so they do not allow such a monster to come into power. I find it interesting how stupid people are with that concept these days. We have to keep a presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc just for this very reason. Don't be stupid and rally against our presence in those countries, don't blame it on "oil and money" it is not about oil. It is about no more holocausts.

---

 Exactly! The vacuum of power created by the fall of Saddam and Bin Laden is what led to Isis (among other factors of course). Take out the strong leaders without replacing them with stronger leaders and someone else will take their place.