Customer Reviews

The Best War Ever: America and World War II (The American Moment)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

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.

The Best War Ever was written to combat the images which surfaced in the 70's about the war. Adams argued the media and servicemen glorified the war in the minds of Americans. Our troops were kind and generous, well ordered and glad to fight. No one avoided the draft. Men mingled in the trenches and found friends among other races. Men thought the war had meaning and purpose. Adams goes through systematically and bebunks these myths. Most soldiers were not kind, but became hardened to death. When soldiers took Japanese prisoners, they killed them brutally out of hatred and revenge. Men raped women, killed little children and looted houses. Men lived in filthy conditions, lived among dead bodies for weeks and despaired of ever coming home. Many resorted to homosexual or erotic activity. They could not find meaning in the war. Many in the United States got married or had children to avoid the draft. Of those were were drafted only 20 percent ever served in battle, and only half of those who served ever fired a gun or saw the enemy. This meant 80 percent were behind desks or in communications. It was them who told the wonderful stories of glory and courage. Men in the trenches seldom told their stories due to trauma. Races were segregated and black units often never saw battle. All these realities argue against the John Wayne Hollywood WWII hero. Adams is a masterful story teller; the book is well written and entertaining. The newer generation has always been exposed to these attrocities and realitites due to the change in how the War was taught. This book is written to inform those who still think it was the best war ever.

I had to read this for my history class. It reads like a freshman paper, but longer.

It's riddled with typos, downplays Hitler's role in the war, argues concentration camps were a normal way of dealing with 'criminal' aspects in society (whoops, didnt realize all those people were criminals!), cites holocaust deniers and revionists to back those claims up, and uses the words 'justifiably' and 'legitimately' without further explanation.

Adams makes claims like he's the first to tell me when everyone knows about PTSD and Hiroshima by now. He is writing a revisionist history and usually those revising history (and any historian for that matter...) know better than to use phrases like "The truth is.." The whole point of history and alternate histories is that there is NO concrete truth, and one can't just go around proclaiming something as the TRUE cause for something else, when these things are open to interpretation.

In general this book has poor organization and is very boring to read, and is only made worse by the shaky ground Adams bases his arguments on. He references sources such as "some feminists" or "one infantryman" as the sole support for bold and sweeping claims.

I'm extremely interested in alternate discourses on history, and demythologizing the past...as long as these works are intelligent and well-researched and documented. One more example of poor writing before I go .. at one point Adams tells us that "One state experienced a 17 percent increase" in high school dropouts during the war. WHAT STATE??? How hard can it be to give that kind of information? Don't waste your time here.

It is said that those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it. But those who buy into a sanitized or mythical version of the truth, may do even worse; they may work so hard to avoid repeating what they think they have learned from history that they create even worse problems. This book presents the truth behind many of the collective myths comiong out of WWI. It is compelling reading, and highly recommended reading for every voter!

This unfounded work is by far the worst case of historical revisionism I have yet to encounter in my studies. I was assigned this book in a history course, and found it to be extremely biased with no references whatsoever. Michael CC Adams simply notes things such as "various editions of Time Magazine from the 1940's" as his references. Adams makes broad claims that he fails to backup.

He does not include both sides of the story. For example, when talking about the battle of Okinawa he states that ONLY 7,000 Americans (the lowest figure I have ever encountered anywhere is 13,000) died whereas the United States "brutally" killed 110,000 Japanese. Adams does not even mention the enslavement of the Okinawan people by the Japanese forces or the extreme difficulties involved in taking such a difficult objective. He states "over 1500 shells were expended per Japanese kill", claiming this was "overkill." This is just one example of his twisted view of World War II.

If someone is going to undertake such an extreme view of the past, they should certainly reference it, and include both sides of the story.

This book is not revisionist at all, the author uses primary sources and debunks some of the silly myths about the US in WW2. Well worth a read.

Some of the negative reviews for this book are puzzling. I found it well written and appropriately argued. I think it is important, particularly for a younger generation of which I'm a part, to understand a more accurate picture of WWII. For one, maybe we shouldn't feel so bad about ourselves when we judge our generation against "the greatest." And perhaps soldiers in Vietnam did not face such different conditions than the boys spread around the world in the 40s. If read with a true desire to learn, any supposed slant some feel this book professes should not bear heavily on the reader.

The book offers many thinking points such as what young men expected to be a part of in Vietnam after the WWII portrayal to which they were exposed and what the role of the teenager and woman became during and after the war. Most of the information in Adams' book is not new, but it is arranged well and framed into the context of how perceptions of this generation, time period, and supposed American perfection at war are often based upon lore and pride rather than fact and pragmatism.

This is by far the worst book on World War 2 I have every read. The liberal "blame America first" viewpoint, along with the potshots at modern Republicans are simply shameless.

War is hell, any student of history is well aware of this. Adams makes it appear that every American soldier in the war was an exhausted, bloodthirsty, rascist, bigoted, sex starved rapist, stuck with inferior weapons, incompetent leaders and a home front who didn't even bother to send enough condoms and alcohol to these poor boys about to die.

If you want insight into this crazy mindset, which is still pervasive despite having most liberal president in this history of the country in charge of our current war, this book does provide some, but the sickening defense of Nazi programs, and moronic comparisons of American strategy in the war as re-fighting the plains Indian are enough to turn one's stomach. Otherwise only someone naive enough to think something like Hogan's Heroes is realistic could possibly benefit from this book.

Should rate no stars if that were permitted. As another reviewer so aptly put it, "the worst book ever." The extreme politically correct view of World War II. America was so bad that perhaps the author believes the world would have been better off with the victory of the Axis powers.