From Henry V.WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Members of the 4442nd Regimental Combat Team in action in Italy. The 4442nd's enlisted ranks were entirely made up of Japanese Americans, largely recruited from internment camps. It is the most decorated unit in the American Army of World War Two.
The recent anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy, which commenced on June 6, 1944, and which started the nine month period in which the Allies in the west marched towards Germany, and into it (while of course the Soviets marched in from the east at the same time) has caused a lot of public recollection of the nation's World War Two veterans. And that's a good thing. But one of the things we hear a lot in such recollections, not by the veterans themselves, but by those recalling them, is the term applied to them by Tom Brokaw in his book about their generations; i.e., "The Greatest Generation".
It may be a minor thing, but the term has long bothered me to a certain extent. I was surprised recently when author Rick Atkinson, who wrote the phenomenal three volume series on the American Army in the ETO during World War Two, The Liberation Trilogy, stated the same thing, in much blunter terms, in an interview on the occasion of the release of his third volume, The Guns At Last Light. He flatly stated that they aren't the "greatest" generation and was slightly condescending regarding the term.
I don't mean to suggest that the American generation that fought World War Two isn't highly admirable, I think they were, but I am glad to hear at least Atkinson make that comment. Here's why.
For those with long memories, or perhaps just for those who grew up in the 60s and 70s, "the war" meant World War Two. We all knew a lot of World War Two veterans. So, "the war" was World War Two. Even when Korean War veterans like my father spoke of "the war", they meant World War Two.
A soldier comforts a comrade grieving over the death of a wounded comrade. Fought using a mix of new and World War Two weapons, the Korean War caught the American Army off guard when it featured conventional combat recalling World War Two and World War One. It never achieved the status in the public's mind that World War Two had, and it quickly seemed to be forgotten by the nation during the booming 1950s.
Unless people were speaking in the present tense. In that case, the "war" was the Vietnam War, which the country fought actively from 1965 to 1973, and which came to its final end the year before the nation's bicentennial, in 1975.
American soldiers in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Fairly significantly younger on average than their World War Two counterparts, they were also better educated and more ethnically diverse. In spite of the common myths about them, they had volunteered for service in Southeast Asia in fairly significant numbers and their desertion rate was one of the absolute lowest of all time for a U.S. War (the Mexican War has the highest) up until the wars following 1990.
It's important to remember that life went on for the survivors of World War Two, who remained active in public life well into the 1980s, and in many instances well into the 1990s. And they resumed, or in many instances sort of started their lives, after World War Two. Indeed, one of the greatest films of all time, for those who like to follow movies, is 1946's The Best Years Of Our Lives, which dealt with the subject of restarting a life while that topic was still a bleeding wound in American society. It's stunning, watching it, to realize the war had just ended when the film was made.
When I was a young, it was common to call this generation "The Depression Era Generation", and in some ways that term is a better one than "The Greatest Generation", as it includes the larger population of men and women and it stretches the generation out a bit on both ends, including people whose age or occupation exempted them from service in World War Two, or who were a little to young to serve in it. Be that as it may, a feature of this generation is that they'd grown up in an era of economic strain and deprivation that's nearly unimaginable now and went on to fight a war that was so Titanic we frankly can't imagine it now.
Food line, 1937.
None of that is news, nor is it news that a "baby boom" followed the war as that generation returned home and made up for nearly 15 years of lost time.
It's Holscher's Fourth Law of History that "war changes everything." and this is certainly true of World War Two and the generation that fought it as enlisted men (it's often forgotten that the oldest American commander in the war had been in the Army during the Spanish American War, and that there were plenty of old soldiers in World War Two in every army). The war opened up education and opportunity, following the war, for the survivors of it in a way that had not existed before. Very often missed by current commentators, the war and the Depression produced a political outlook in that generation that was quite Liberal in political orientation, while remaining socially conservative. That expressed itself in a definite comfort with the Federal government being active in funding and expanding education, with education otherwise remaining traditional in its structure.
The net result was that the fortunes of those who fought World War Two were fairly good following the war, although for a variety of reasons, and by the 1950s this was expressing itself to even a greater extent in the fortunes of that generation's children, who were reaching university age. For the first time in American history a university education went on from being a privileged to a middle class expectation.
And its here were, I think, we return to the term "The Greatest Generation." The Depression Era Generation was a great one, and suffered and rebuilt in ways we can hardly imagine, but pretty early on, as a generational characteristic, that was lost on their children.
This is a broad statement, of course, and nothing that can be said about any one generation is true of everyone in the generations, which is extremely important to remember. But it is also the case that people grow up in an environment and accustom themselves to it, unless they are aware its abnormal. The Depression Era Generation regarded the Depression and World War Two as abnormal, which it certainly was, and they reminded their children of that quite a bit. Their children grew up in a time of economic plenty and educational opportunity, and regarded that as normal.
In our society, we're accustomed to speak of youthful rebellion as a norm, and something that repeats itself every generation. But there's no good evidence of that whatsoever. By and large, that doesn't occur, and quite often the difference between one generation and another is thin indeed. But the difference between the youth of the Boomers and the lives of their parents was vastly different. And this seems to have at least contributed to the massive social upheaval in the western world in the 1960s and 1970s.
During that period, it was pretty common for those in their early adulthood to hold the World War Two generation in contempt, and those holding that contempt were their children's generation. Individuals certainly admired the lives of their individual parents, but there was a pretty widespread contempt as a generational aspect. Frequently the World War Two or Depression Era generations were regarded as "squares" or the like, with their children probably not even grasping the extent to which their parents lives had been transformational. Contempt tends to be returned, and to some extent in this case it was, but with not much of an effect. A person can't take this too far, of course, but that it was a feature of the climate of that times can't be really denied.
This really began to change in the 1990s. By that time the aging Boomers had abandoned revolution themselves and were looking back to an imagined more conservative time for guidance. In doing that, the generation began to redress some things had felt guilty about from its youth. In regards to the Vietnam War, it's interesting how the Boomers who fought that war, and who had been vilified to some extent for doing so, were suddenly regarded as heroes. And shortly thereafter, the same generation rediscovered their parents and were awestruck by the ordeals that their parents had endured. With a short view of history, they went from regarding their parents as squares to their being "The Greatest Generation".
But are they? Well, that's a pretty long claim, and a person has to look at it pretty carefully. For one thing, if that claim is a valid one, does it apply to those in that generation form any of the Allied nations of World War Two? The Great Depression, for example, was even worse in Canada than the United States, and Canada entered the war in 1939. Shouldn't the term apply to them as well? And certainly it must to the generation of British youth who served in the war.
The Winnipeg Rifles land in Normandy, June 6, 1944. Up until late war, Canadian solders serving overseas, including my Uncle Terry who participated in Operation Overlord, were all volunteers for overseas service.
Those British youth, it should be noted, if university educated (which only a tiny minority were) had infamously declared in the early 1930s that they'd never serve in another war, turning their back on the sacrifices of the UK during World War One. But when the time came, they more than rose to the occasion.
What about Soviet youth? No European nation had suffered more in the first half of the 20th Century than the Russians, although often at their own hands. Those who fought as young men in the Red Army had grown up in a period of horrifying oppression and deprivation, and they died in droves during World War Two. Over 80% of all German battlefield deaths were due to the Red Army, and yet at the same time, but at the same time the Red Army served a political leadership that was as evil as any that the world has ever produced.
Taking it out further, however, is The Greatest Generation greater than the generation that fought the Civil War? That seems a pretty tall order. Or what about the generation that fought in the Revolution? For those men, who signed up to fight on the side of the Continental Congress, they were taking a step which arguably made them criminals for a crime punishable by death. And even if the British did not take that view, at the time they engaged to serve the new nation, the volunteers did not know that and could not be assured that the view of Parliament would not change.
Union cavalry, Civil War. By the second year of the Civil War those entering the service had no illusions about winning quickly, but they showed up anyhow.
And what of the generation that fought World War One? Recently I've heard a couple of interviews of authors who wrote on that generation of Americans and their findings are shocking by modern standards. That generations seemed to have regarded the war as one more hard bad thing in a hard life, not expecting much going in, and not expecting much going out. If they aren't perceived as great it might be because they expected nothing much out of life other than hard work, and World War One was just one more example of it.
Sometimes the term The Greatest Generation is used ironically by those now in the Boomer generation to castigate the youth of today. No doubt the world and our nation has changed enormously since 1945, but much of the change that commentators now complain about came about due to the "revolution" that that very generation brought about. If the youth of today do not seem to have the values and views of the generation that fought World War Two, and which we now so admire, perhaps the generation that brought so many changes about and created the world that the youth of today are living in should take stock of that, and no doubt many do.
First Division Victory Parade, Washington D. C. The sign nearby is still urging the public to "Save Food".
Sometimes the term The Greatest Generation is used ironically by those now in the Boomer generation to castigate the youth of today. No doubt the world and our nation has changed enormously since 1945, but much of the change that commentators now complain about came about due to the "revolution" that that very generation brought about. If the youth of today do not seem to have the values and views of the generation that fought World War Two, and which we now so admire, perhaps the generation that brought so many changes about and created the world that the youth of today are living in should take stock of that, and no doubt many do.
But also, that just sells the youth of today short. There are plenty of reasons to worry about things, including culture and society, but to assume that people would not rise to the occasion is to assume a lot without much evidence. What we have seen is that today's youth has volunteered to fight in three wars in 25 years and it has done so without compulsion. No draft exists today, as it had for every American War since the Spanish American War leading up to the first Gulf War. Indeed, the war in Afghanistan is the first American war that has ever been fought in which the combatants were 100% free of some sort of compulsory service at some point. There has not been a draft since 1973, but the last soldier brought into the Army via conscription retired only last year, that being a long serving NCO who had first come into the Army as a conscript. Up until 1865 every American male had some sort of compulsory militia duty and there were still men who had entered service in that fashion, or through Civil War conscription, serving as late as the Spanish American War. This current generation of servicemen is therefore really unique.
Epilog
Recently the Federal Court interviewed some of the seventy (that's right, seventy) World War Two veterans who are still serving on the Federal Bench. I'll comment on that elsewhere, but one of the questions the interviewer asked is whether they thought they were the Greatest Generation. The answers were interesting.
Federal Judge Tom Stagg, a Nixon appointee who plans on serving on the bench until he dies, sure thought so:
Judge Jack Weinstein sure didn't, however:
Judge Arthur Spatt agreed with the term, but had a more nuanced view:
Solder of the 1st Infantry Division, with M14 rifle, in Afghanistan.
All that goes to say, I suppose, that some generations rise to their times, and some sink. The World War Two generation certainly rose to theirs, but then the one that immediately followed and served in Korea did as well. The one that had fought World War One also had, and certainly the Civil War generation did as well. The current generation lives in the richest times the country has ever known, in spite of a widespread assumption to the contrary, and while it faces a lot of challenges, those challenges aren't of its making. All in all, they're doing well.
Epilog
Recently the Federal Court interviewed some of the seventy (that's right, seventy) World War Two veterans who are still serving on the Federal Bench. I'll comment on that elsewhere, but one of the questions the interviewer asked is whether they thought they were the Greatest Generation. The answers were interesting.
Federal Judge Tom Stagg, a Nixon appointee who plans on serving on the bench until he dies, sure thought so:
Q. Do you consider yourself to be part of a “Greatest Generation”?They didn't all feel that way, however. Here's the quote from another serving Federal Judge who is a World War Two veteran:
A. Compared to what I see today, yes. I think you get duty pounded into you, or did in those days, and you learn it as boy, as a Boy Scout, as a member of a military unit. You have assigned duty and you have to do it. You even want to do it. I would no more have stayed home during World War II. I can’t imagine doing that. This is my country. I’m proud of it.
Q. Do you like the phrase “the Greatest Generation”?Judge Leonard Wexler, however, also agreed with the Greatest Genreation tag:
A. I don’t like it. I think it glosses over the imperfections of the American society in that time. They forget that we were terribly racially biased in the Army. Black troops were treated miserably. … This is part of the Greatest Generation that isn’t mentioned, and I’ve seen terrible things that the military did. That inevitably will happen. I think it’s overblowing the character of the people who were in the Army, were in the Navy, in the Air Force. Which is not to diminish what they did, or in any way detract from their contributions, but I think to blow up any particular generation as the Greatest Generation is a mistake.
Q. Do you like the phrase “the Greatest generation”?
A. Yes, I like it. I think it fits. We were the greatest generation. I mean, everybody was united. Everybody stood together. I’ll give you an example. When I got home and I would take the train, a Brooklyn kid, I had a cane, everybody would stand up to give me a seat. Everybody was so nice. I really felt good that we were a great country at one time, united.
Judge Jack Weinstein sure didn't, however:
Q. Do you like the phrase “the Greatest Generation”?
A. It’s nonsensical. Every generation is great. We responded to difficulties of the depression and the war, and people I see today are responding to other problems. Every generation has greatness, and it has despair and has things that it should be ashamed of doing. For us, it was no different. I remember seeing things that were absolutely disgraceful—the way African Americans were treated and the way women were treated. Ours was not the greatest generation.
Judge Arthur Spatt agreed with the term, but had a more nuanced view:
Q. Do you feel you were part of a “Greatest Generation”?
I think the greatest generation was this country as a whole. It was united. Everybody worked toward one goal, whether it was giving up your food, rationing, or becoming an air raid warden on the block to make sure the lights were out at night. Everybody participated, with a full heart and no dissent. So, when in the history of this country does this ever happen?
