The Best War Ever: America and World War II (American Moment) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Much of the events of WWII has been mythologized not only by Hollywood and government propaganda, and over the years this mythology has been perpetuated by those who lived through the war themselves. Michael C. C. Adams has sought to expose these stories for what they are, fabrication and oversimplifications, and provide the basic facts that facilitate a truer understanding of WWII and the world wide cultural changes surrounding it, both before and after the war itself.
In chapter one, "Mythmaking and the War", Adams sets out the myth itself, as defined by Hollywood dramatization, government propaganda, advertisement agencies, and the revised memories of those who stayed home, as well as those who fought in the war itself. The war became "America's golden age, a peak in the life of society when every thing worked out and the good guys definitely got a happy ending." (Adams, 2) The WWII era came to serve a purpose; to be the bygone age which America once was, and if worked hard enough for, could be again. It was, in a sense, America's Garden of Eden, the time and place where all things were right. Of course, this was a manufactured ideal, what Adams calls a "usable past." "In creating a usable past, we seek formulas to apply in solving today's problems. Americans believe that WWII proved one rule above all others...it is usually better to fight than to talk." (Adams, 4) "To make WWII into the best war ever, we must leave out the area bombings and other questionable aspects while exaggerating the good things. The war myth is distorted not so much in what it says as in what it doesn't say." (Adams, 7) This applies not only to the war itself, but also to the home front.
Chapter two, "No Easy Answers," begins the process of deconstructing the myth, and demonstrating that the events leading up to WWII began long before the Treaty of Versailles, and the ramifications of WWII will last much longer than the generation that fought it. Adams lays out the frame of the complex political, cultural and economic histories of each of nations which would become involved in WWII, and shows that there was no obvious point at which one decision would have prevented the war from happening. Taken in context, the actions each nation took leading up to WWII make sense. Adams asks, what could have been done differently? Apparently, not much; appeasement didn't work in Europe, and determent didn't work in Asia. There really were no easy answers.
Chapter three, "The Patterns of War, 1939-1945" lays out the way in which each nation fought the war, with a new speed and brutality made possible by technology and the remoteness of the enemy. Chapter four, "The American War Machine," demonstrates how the tools were created and sent into battle, and how the soldiers and organization of each army differed, for better or worse. Chapter five, "Overseas," outlines the realities of life for the American soldier both in the European and Pacific theatres, while chapter six, "Home front Changes," does the same for those who stayed home. These chapters have one unifying purpose; to define the reality of the WWII era, expose the complex history and actors, and above all, disabuse us of the reigning WWII mythos. Chapter seven, "A New World," takes us one step further and debunks the myth that returning GIs readjusted quickly with out lasting physical ailments and emotional traumas and into a society awaiting them with open arms, friendly smiles and loving families.

Above all else, Adams has provided an interesting and easily accessible framework with which one can examine WWII and appreciate the complexities and realities of the era. While his history is intentionally brief and uncomplicated by example and detail, it does achieve its purpose. By identifying the mythos and realities of WWII, the "Good War" can be appreciated for what it actually was; an ugly, brutal and ultimately necessary war.

A staple in U.S. history college courses in the United States, Michael C.C. Adams' The Best War Ever: America and World War II ought to have the former part of its title in quotations. That, for all intents and purposes, is the argument Adams crusades against over the span of 155 pages, divided almost evenly into seven chapters. A revered historian with a sterling amount of sources, Adams tears away at the almost wholesome aura of the second World War, bringing to light both unfavorable and factual information pertaining to America's involvement. In doing so, Adams debunks the caricature of World War II, going against the sometimes sensational Hollywood byproduct and the embellished lore that is responsible for it.

Acquiring this book was done through Amazon.com. While waiting for the book to arrive at my doorstep, I read the reviews in attempt to enlighten myself on what to expect. Some of the reviews were penned by college students, so I paid special attention to these reviews especially. Having now read the book, I did not find any notion made by Adams that "the world would have been better off with the victory of the Axis powers" (as suggested by user "William J. Shepherd") or any of his sources to be holocaust deniers (suggested by "mrmani"). I also do not think Adams' argument was an attack on "the last bastion of American historical pride" nor would I consider it another example of "liberal academia" trying to destroy "Americans' faith and pride in just about everything else good and successful in their culture and history" (articulated by customer "GrummanTBF"). However, these reviews are indicative of what Adams effectively dispels in his argument: the abridged, histrionic American account of World War II. Nowhere in Adams' novel does he downplay the threat the Third Reich presented, nor does he deem the war in the Pacific as unnecessary. Adams' argument comes in the form of thorough analysis of the myth of World War II and how America has embraced it. Peeling each layer away with a bank of over hundreds of sources at his disposal, Adams puts the kibosh on many fallacies. One, he defies the notion that soldiers returning from war looked back on their war escapades without regret or sadness; that they were seamlessly integrated back into society without emotional and mental setbacks. Two, he reminds us that while the Axis embodied intolerance, the United States had yet to make strides in civil rights and racial harmony. And three, he puts to test the concept that World War II was the best of times in America, during the worst of times elsewhere.

The famous Life magazine picture of a U.S. sailor dipping a nurse and planting a kiss on her during a V-J Day parade in New York's Times Square portrays the ideal serviceman returning from the war; confident, full of pride and seemingly impervious to the exposure of war. It's this generalization Adams attacks, bringing up the practicality of soldiers returning with mental wounds, if not physical. It's war, after all. There's nothing blasphemous about Adams bringing up the posttraumatic stress inflicted on WWII veterans, if you think logically. Listing accounts of people choosing their seats in restaurants with cover-from-gunfire in mind, waking up night after night drenched in sweat, and being cautious anytime a plane flew by is almost academic to bring up, solely because it's completely understandable. So is the 90 percent breakdown rate of soldiers faced with twenty-eight consecutive days of act (though it is said to be 98 percent on the back of the book) and the 25 percent of post-war hospitalization being psychiatric cases.

There's no refuting found in Adams' book that the Third Reich was a military faction fueled by intolerance, discrimination and disharmony. The Nazi archetype is not defied nor called into questioning. Indeed, they were anti-Semitic, homophobic, and racist. But it's not an issue of nationality, these characteristics. Not every German was a Nazi or embodied their intolerance. That said, Adams relies on realism and facts to dispel the notion that every American fighting in for their country was understanding, tolerant, and mindful of their fellow man and woman's race, religion, or orientation. Armed forces were racially segregated up until Harry Truman, three years post war, orders that units no longer implement said segregation. Though unreported by the media at the time, black soldiers were beaten, sometimes killed by their brothers in arms. Preceding the war, they were even victims of draft discrimination. Adams also notes that this was a hindrance of a civil rights movement and probably acted as a delay of the call for such privileges until the 1960s. Homosexuals were subjected to ridicule and hazing, often sought out and persecuted. When soldiers dabbled in deprivation homosexuality, it was subsequently followed by witch hunts. Adams dismisses a correlation between sexual preference and battlefield performance and brings up a sound point that homosexuals, being targets of the Third Reich, had been given quite the incentive to fight for their country. However, the homophobia and the prejudice tainted any sentiments of nationalism and idealism.
American life during wartime is often romanticized. There are misconceptions that during such a period of international warfare, Americans get their collective act together in a display of unity and selflessness. In this ideal world, Intellectualism thrived, education was top priority, and family values were stronger than ever before. Adams pollutes the atmosphere of said ideal world with statistics and polls: a majority of adults said adolescent behavior had degenerated, a record three million marriages were broken up by war's end (the illegitimate birth rate rose 40 percent, indicating infidelity), and people preferred TV and radio over books. 59 percent of people could not locate China on a map; intellectually demanding teachers were fired. Findings by the armed services were that students had poor math, science, and foreign language skills. There was social unrest, prejudice towards minorities (especially Japanese citizens).

These attributes are to be expected as strange as it sounds, regardless of moral reprehension. Adams, in making his arguments such as the three above, correlates them all to the second World War in terms of context and relevance. With survey journals and poll anthologies making up the majority of his sources (like John Costello's Virtue Under Fire and Allan Winkler's Home Front U.S.A) , Adams cites all these unfavorable statistics as a result of the effects of the war. Explaining that teachers being drafted no doubt had an effect on education isn't `Unamerican'; it's realistic. Taking into account the strain war had on a marriage rationalizes the infidelity rate and number of divorces. War is not wholesome and neither are the effects, direct or indirect. And that's Adam's goal: presenting a realistic account of the happenings of World War II, both away and from within our shores.

As Michael C.C. Adams recounts in his book, there was a time when pictures of corpses of soldiers who perished were printed in newspapers. The reaction to this was unfavorable, people wrote the editors insisting such images never be printed again. Adams also provides an admission from John Steinbeck, confessing to slanting wartime stories to omit anything that would shock the news reading public (like soldiers' inhumane living conditions and homosexual activity) ; the same public who immersed themselves in wartime movies where good and bad were easily distinguishable given the patriotic themes of said films. Written in 1993, The Best War Ever slants nothing. It's realistic and its perspective leaves no statistic unturned. It humanizes World War II, not sanctify it. Ultimately, that's in the best interest of history and those who lived it.

I must have read hundreds of books about all aspects of World War 2, and if asked what is the worst book, I will easily say this one. About every 5 pages, you come across something that is either wrong, or was obviously written by someone that doesn't know much about World War II. I have to wonder how this book gets assigned to students. Just one of his many goofy facts- "Venereal disease caused more casualties than the German V2 rockets." Well that sounds real shameful for American soldiers if you don't know that the V2, while a terrifying weapon, killed relatively few people in comparison to the massive casualties of WW2. The V2 was a terror weapon aimed at central London. Most Americans in England were either in rural airbases, or along the southern coastal areas staging for the continent. In addition, V2s weren't launched at England till September of 1944, and if you recall starting June 6th 1944 Americans began leaving England for France in a big way. The book is full of these apple/oranges type of "facts".

In another passage he talks about army general Douglas MacArthur leading the "Battle of Leyte Gulf." While he was there because the battle was in support his land operations onshore, the "Battle of Leyte Gulf" was not an army battle. It was a massive sea and air battle. True, he led the Army as it worked it's way north to recapture the Phillipines. However, he was little more than a spectator in what is called the "Battle of Leyte Gulf". The book is full of these clues that the author is not an expert on World War II.

In another case of sloppy scholarship, while trying and failing to make a point that the allied assassination of Reinhard Heydrich opened the door to the removal of heads of state and atrocities in later US conflicts and Vietnam, he shows his lack of knowledge. First, Heydrich was assassinated by Czechoslovak soldiers under the direction of their exiled government in Britain. By not stating this, he leaves the impression that the United States somehow had something to with the assassination. Second, he states, "Reinhard Heydrich, whose crimes included the massacre of the citizens of Lidice Czechoslovakia". Well, insert "game show wrong answer buzzer noise" again. Does the author really not know that the village of Lidice was ordered to be destroyed and it's citizens murdered, not by Heydrich, but by the Nazis after his death, in retribution for the killing of Heydrich.

If one of the author's students wrote this book as a homework assignment I guess it would be a C-. The fact that it is being presented by the Johns Hopkins University Press as "history" by a history "professor" means this book gets an F.

The United States didn't fight World War II mistake, and problem free. Such a massive undertaking is bound to involve some blunders. There certainly was racism, friendly fire, profiteering, etc by some of our leaders and soldiers. These things aren't hidden. There are many scholarly books, articles, and documentaries that describe the history of the United States in World War II which go into these issues. There is nothing new here.

If you want to write a book about our nations shortcomings, go ahead. However, please be a little more knowledgable about the history you are using to run down our aging, and deceased veterans. World War Two veterans might not have all been perfect, but what they accomplished for world freedoms will never be matched by a revisionist college professor.