******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Date: October 19, 2018 at 8:40:11 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Subject: H-Net Review [H-War]: Folse on Lamay Licursi, 'Remembering World > War I in America' > Reply-To: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > > Kimberly J. Lamay Licursi. Remembering World War I in America. > Studies in War, Society, and the Military Series. Lincoln University > of Nebraska Press, 2018. 294 pp. $55.00 (cloth), ISBN > 978-0-8032-9085-3. > > Reviewed by Mark Folse (University of Alabama) > Published on H-War (October, 2018) > Commissioned by Margaret Sankey > > Kimberly J. Lamay Licursi's Remembering World War I in America is a > welcome addition to the growing scholarship on memory of the Great > War. She joins the ranks of Steven Trout's On the Battlefield of > Memory_: The First World War and American Remembrance, 1919-1941 > _(2010) and Lisa Budreau's Bodies of War: World War I and the > Politics of Commemoration in America, 1919-1933 (2010) in > illuminating why World War I failed to elicit a consistent and > unified memory within popular American culture the way the Civil War > and World War II did. Based on her examination of state war > histories, combat memoirs, war novels, and motion pictures, Licursi > argues that the collective memory of World War I suffered from > Americans' conflicting understandings of the war's larger meaning. > Most Americans, she asserts, either saw the war as a patriotic > crusade or a tragic waste of men and resources. This failure to agree > on the war's legacy, mixed with a strong undercurrent of apathy, > precluded the formation of a consistent memory in popular culture in > the 1920s and beyond. Instead of commemorating the veterans' > sacrifices in the Great War, Americans chose instead to simply put > the war behind them. > > Efforts from state governments to produce comprehensive war histories > usually resulted in one of several outcomes that ranged from projects > never getting off the ground to those that fell short of their aims. > Based on research from the state archives in New York, Virginia, and > Kansas, Licursi asserts that some communities never put much effort > into their projects. Researchers encountered people, including > veterans themselves, who took umbrage at government-led efforts to > commemorate the war in the first place. Many people did not cooperate > and either ignored or chose not to provide information. Numerous > communities published some sort of commemorative volume but very few > could gather enough information from local veterans and their > families to create comprehensive lists of those who served. She > concludes that apathy is the culprit here. "The experiences in New > York, Virginia, and Kansas," Licursi argues, "establish a pattern of > behavior that demonstrates a pervasive apathy, if not disdain, for > war remembrance in postwar America" (p. 5). > > In her chapter on war memoirs, Licursi contends that even though > veterans of the Great War published hundreds of books about their > experiences, the public largely ignored their work. Despite often > being compelling and well-written works, many veterans' war memoirs > became victims of postwar Americans' disinterestedness. Albertus > Catlin's _With the Help of God and Few Marines_ (1919) and Hervey > Allen's _Toward the Flame_ (1926) received good reviews but sales for > both were very low compared to other more popular genres, such as > Western novels. The literature itself, however, reflected many > Americans' views of the war in that most memoirs were saturated with > themes of patriotism and glory or unnecessary slaughter. For example, > Catlin had a much more positive view of the war than Allen who is > associated with being anti-war. Bereft of any consensus, > "Biographical war writing was simply not engaged with on any level by > most Americans during the interwar years" (p. 90). Within a > generation, the voices of America's Great War veterans would be > drowned out by a new, larger war. > > This discord over the war's meaning pervaded war-related fiction as > well. The war either "wrecked an entire generation of American youth > or made them stronger as they passed through its trials" (p. 146). > Booth Tarkington's _Ramsey Milholland_ (1919) and Ernest Hemingway's > _A Farewell to Arms _(1929) tended to romanticize the war in varying > degrees. Willa Cather's _One of Ours _(1922), whose protagonist found > courage, confidence, and even redemption in battle, won the Pulitzer > Prize in 1923. Other books, such as John Dos Passos's _Three Soldiers > _(1921), Thomas Boyd's _Through the Wheat _(1923), and William > March's _Company K_ (1933), were devoid of romanticism and > glorification of war. Battle and killing had no rejuvenating effects > for American youth, according to these authors. On the contrary, war > brutalized and dehumanized them. Licursi argues that the relatively > weak sales of _all_ these books around their release further reveals > the apathetic attitudes people had toward the war. Rather than argue > over its meaning, "Americans were content to agree to disagree about > the war and put the whole affair behind them," Licursi concludes (p. > 146). > > Motion pictures probably had the most potential to instill a > consistent and popular collective memory of the Great War, but they > also failed in this regard. Licursi analyzes the top-grossing movies > (based on ticket sales) of the interwar period, such as _Sergeant > York _(1941), _What Price Glory_ (1926), and _The Four Horsemen of > the Apocalypse_ (1921). Unlike war-related fiction or combat memoirs, > which often came across as either anti-war _or_ overly romantic, > movies about the Great War veered into both realms. In movies one > could find scenes of tragedy, death, and destruction while also > seeing more wholesome elements of patriotism, comedic relief, and > friendship. As a result, audiences could find themes in movies that > validated their point of view. Hollywood tried to appeal to as many > viewers as possible. "This is probably why ... the message about war > in many films was malleable," Licursi suggests. "War could be > presented as patriotic, adventurous, and tragic all at the same time" > (p. 149). The dichotomous nature of these films, however, attenuated > their ability to foster a collective understanding and memory of the > war in American minds. The opposing views on the war remained > unreconciled. > > There are a few points of contention that bear mentioning. A book > about war and memory should be more exact regarding > military/historical information, but Licursi's handling of the basic > military command structure is clumsy at times. For example, she > claims that Colonel Albertus Catlin was the commanding officer at > Belleau Wood, when, in fact, it was Army Brigadier General James G. > Harbord (p. 60). Then, it appears she confuses two separate branches > of service. To support her claim that the US Army loved King Vidor's > _The Big Parade_ (1925), Licursi provides a quotation from a 1974 > issue of the _New York Times _that reads "the marines 'had more > recruits after that picture than they'd had since World War I'" (p. > 160). How marine recruiting proves the army liked the movie is not > clear to me. These instances are sloppy but minor and do not detract > from the greater value of the book, however. > > Licursi succeeds in recounting why the Great War failed to garner the > commemorative efforts and the cohesion of popular memory that exists > in other larger American wars. But, more than that, and this is the > book's greatest value, she uncovers a glimpse of how Americans _felt > _about the war. It is important to remember that Americans were never > of one mind about fighting the Germans in 1917. Popular opinion swung > incrementally toward war with the sinking of the _Lusitania_ and the > Zimmerman Telegram. By war's declaration, George Creel's Committee of > Public Information whipped up even more popular support for the > conflict. But there remained a significant portion of the population > that believed war to be tragic and wasteful. These Americans balked > at pro-war claims that war would rejuvenate American manhood, arguing > instead the opposite view. Licursi demonstrates how, after the > armistice, public opinion about the war swung back their direction. > Her analysis of state histories, memoirs, and fiction reveals the > effects of this swing. > > Licursi adds not only to the growing scholarship of World War I > memory but also to larger works on the war itself and the Progressive > Era, such as David M. Kennedy's _Over Here: The First World War and > American Society _(1980), Robert H. Zieger's _America's Great War: > World War I and the American Experience _(2000), Jackson Lears's > _Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920 > _(2009), and Michael McGerr's _A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall > of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920 _(2003). Licursi > demonstrates that the Americans written about in these books, both > veterans and civilians, many of whom were swept up by the > Progressives' appeals to national honor and promises of the > rejuvenating powers of war, became disenchanted about a conflict that > did not live up to its description as a crusade. This is reason > enough for scholars interested in the impact of the Great War on > American history to become familiar with this book. > > Citation: Mark Folse. Review of Lamay Licursi, Kimberly J., > _Remembering World War I in America_. H-War, H-Net Reviews. October, > 2018. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=51727 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -- _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
