War Games: Inside the World of Twentieth-Century War Reenactors Hardcover – June 17, 2004

This book is a must read if only because it's one of the few on the subject. Grunska's book is not worth reading, and "Confederates in the Attic" only deals with Civil War reenacting for a chapter or two. To be fair, I have not read Jay Anderson's Time Machines yet.

Thompson's treatment is fair, honest, balanced, and accurate. If you are interested in the subject, it is a must read. If you are interested in reenacting as a study of history, get it.

My only complaint is that Thompson was only able to meet East Coast reenactors. The Midwest and California both have active reenacting communities with a flavor all their own. Not to mention reenactors in foreign countries.

Her book is not definitive, but it is an excellent treatment, and very valuable for it's rare subject matter.

Good book about reenacting. A bit long to read but good info.

Loved it. Does a great job of describing the lives of people who have devoted so much of their lives to reenacting war. I particularly enjoyed the sections about Nazi reenactors and how they dealt with letting other people know about their potentially controversial past time.

War Games is based upon the author's doctoral thesis in American Studies at the University of Maryland. This book looks at 20th century war re-enacting; World War I, World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War. The book does not directly address the more popular Civil War re-enacting or the less popular "Span-Am", Spanish-American War. In 20th Century re-enacting, World War I and II predominate, with Vietnam just beginning to be recognized as a venue for re-enactment.

Ms. Thompson has taken a clinical or social scientific approach to her investigation of re-enacting. Not only was she an actual re-enactor for some ten years, but she distributed for her research several hundred questionnaires most of which were returned to her. She is in a very good position to describe this phenomenon and from what I can gather, she knows her subject.

The central thesis of the book is stated on page xviii of the Introduction: "Instead, as I hope to show, re-enactors use the hobby in general and focus on the issue of authenticity in particular in order to cope with the real-life issues that reflect the broader culture in which the live. However much it masks its relation to the present through elaborate rituals, costumes and props, re-enacting is both a product of and response to the very society from which it emerged." Thompson is stating that in spite of the emphasis on history, period clothing and weapons, what we are talking about here is life and all its aspects as it is lived today, not as it was 60 or 90 years ago.

On page 153, Ms. Thompson begins a discussion which strikes at the heart of re-enacting. And that discussion concerns the fact that re-enactors spend very little time re-enacting actual historical battles. The definition of "re-enact" means to act that which has already been acted. With this definition, one would logically expect re-enactors to do this. One would expect that they follow the history of a particular battle in detail and act it out. However, they by and large do not. They will establish a general scenario for a mock battle with general goals which determine a "winner", and then proceed to skirmish, attack and out-flank one another to achieve those goals. She recognizes this fact when she discusses private battles versus public battles. Private battles are open and free-flowing, where as public battles are organized and scripted. Creativity with a basis in history is sought after in private battles which are largely the type of battle most often preferred by re-enactors.

It is amusing that Civil War re-enacting is often referred to as "Silly War" by WW II re-enactors [Note: I refer consistently to WWII re-enactment because it represents the majority of 20th century re-enactors], and yet most probably Civil War comes closest to defining re-enacting through adherence to military historical fact. One reason that Civil War comes closest to true re-enactment is because the scope of the battles is limited to smaller areas. Opposing armies can establish themselves in ranks, facing one another, and have at it and according to the history of the battle, follow the action through to its conclusion with the appropriate side achieving victory. This is next to impossible in WWII re-enacting. The distances and battle areas between armies in WWII were substantial. Much of the fighting was mechanized and done in and around villages the types of which are not found in the US. But even if the re-enactor could duplicate the general landscape, very few re-enactment groups will sit down, read the history of even a small unit action, and plan out the process of the battle. Why? Because re-enactors do not want to be scripted, they want to proceed on a general basis with general objectives, they want to employ their creative abilities to overwhelm an objective and they, and it must be said, want to enjoy themselves. The point has been made many times over by re-enactors that they have spent considerable time and money on the hobby, and enjoyment is paramount. In fact, re-enactors will jump units and even organizations to achieve the goal of enjoyment.

History to the average WWII re-enactor is only useful because it can provide a name for the scenario; "North Africa 1942, Normandy 1944, the Battle of the Bulge etc. Indeed this approach to history proves the general thesis of this book, re-enacting is about real life issues, not historical fact. To illustrate this point, Thompson relates the re-enactment of the Normandy invasion in 1994 at Virginia Beach. This was a public battle, and it was scripted. After the battle, one of the veteran re-enactors approached her and said "A realistic public battle? Now there's an oxymoron". Here was a scenario which probably stuck as close to historical fact as possible in a WWII battle, and we have a "re-enactor" declaring that the battle is a farce because it was scripted and witnessed by the public! Professional historians who criticize re-enactors have nothing to worry about. Most re-enactors are concerned with history only in the most general sense. After all, reading compilations of secondary history, let alone delving into primary source material is probably more than most re-enactors want to bite off. Veterans and critics who maintain that re-enactors trivialize war are also off base. And my assumption here is that "war" means frontline combat, not the other 90% of war which is boredom, drilling, eating and sleeping. This aspect of war can readily be re-enacted. Re-enactors are not at war, even when engaged in mock battles. They are essentially at play. They are at what amounts to an expensive game of "capture the flag".

So if re-enactors are not re-enactors, what are they? As Thompson has suggested they are "commemorators". Their interest in history, clothing, weapons, the manner and lifestyle of the 40's commemorates the lives of the combatants who fought WWII. It is their way of saying, "We remember what you did for us and America, and we do what we do so that others may remember it also". Re-enactors also have been shown to have a wide variety of motives, and these are described in this book. Some re-enact because a relative was in WWII; some are avid collectors of militaria and re-enact to display and demonstrate what they have collected. Some are vehicle collectors and join a unit so that they can not only display, but use their vehicles in mock combat. And some neither know nor care about the history of the period or their particular unit in the war. They are there for the camaraderie and the excitement of mock combat. Re-enactors are as diverse as the military they seek to represent. Just as the average infantry company contained motivated individuals who wanted to become soldiers, it also contained those who bent the rules in order to get by. The industrious served with the slackers; the dedicated with the goof offs, the clever with the mundane. Indeed the average group of re-enactors is comprised of the same personalities as one would find in today's army or the army of 60 years ago. In this respect if not in any other, re-enacting does reflect historical accuracy.

I believe Ms. Thompson has done an admirable job in describing the phenomenon of re-enacting. She approached it from the perspective of the social scientist. She not only immersed herself in the hobby, but she conducted extensive interviews and obtained additional data through questionnaires. Her conclusions are correct. I think I could hand her book to any fellow re-enactor and tell him "Read this, and herein you will find yourself and most of your buddies".

I am 3/4 through it and I must say that the author has nailed the subject. I am very impressed with her level of work and dedication to this subject. This lady is HARDCORE!

Thank you Ms. Thompson for a riveting read!

Gary

Being a reenactor of both world wars, I am pretty used to people outside of "the hobby" putting it down. While reenactors span a remarkably wide demographic, from high school drop-outs to PhD.s, from right-wing Republicans to left-wing Democrats, from conscientious objectors to combat veterans, we are often painted by academics and the national media with the broad brush of all being gun-crazed proto-fascists in desperate need of love and shock therapy. It is with this in mind that I approached Thompson's War Games with a mixture of both anticipation and dread; anticipation because I was excited to see somebody actually trying to explore the unique hobby in which I participate, and dread because I was afraid that the book would simply reinforce the incorrect stereotypes without attempting any sort of in-depth analysis of why people reenact.
Fortunately, my anticipation was richly rewarded by War Games. Thompson, having spent seven years attending reenactments and spending a considerable amount of time with reenactors, has successfully dug beneath the surface to get to the fundamental question of why people reenact. The situations and personalities that she describes are very familiar, and in my opinion, are accurately represented. She raises many of the existential questions of reenacting that I have asked myself, and the answers she provides offer a great deal of insight.
While Thompson obviously has a great deal of affection, and dare I say respect, for reenactors, she does not sugar coat the hobby. The fundamental issues of what represents "authenticity" and what relationship reenactors maintain with veterans and the public are often bitterly divisive among reenactors. Thompson also does not ignore the moral implications of reenactors portraying soldiers in the armies of America's enemies. But she addresses all of these issues with fairness and balance.
I would hope that everybody who reenacts, or is considering reenacting, 20th century wars reads this book. More than that, though, I would hope that those who question the propriety or sanity of reenacting will read this book with an open mind. I certainly don't expect everybody to accept the hobby. But I would hope that, through reading War Games, these people would at least develop a better understanding of why people reenact.

Great book, that concisely and candidly details the lives of the people recreating the World War II time period.