4 ms·

"They knew that in its representation to the laity, what was happening to them was systematically sanitized and Norman Rockwellized, not to mention Disneyfied."

"They knew that in its representation to the laity, what was happening to them was systematically sanitized and Norman Rockwellized, not to mention Disneyfied." The author seems to have little understanding of how much this was true of World War 1, or probably every large scale war ever. The home audiences for news reports in World War 1 (in pretty much every country) were not allowed to know how FUBB'd things were, and it was only after the war ended and troops went back home that the word partially got out. There were governments that did not let troops go on home leave for long periods because they didn't want them talking to the civilian population. I don't think this was something unique about World War 2.

hutzlibu 4y ago
Well, in WW1 in britain they actually did an authentic frontline documentation for the home front to watch in the new cinemas. It turned out, this was kind of bad for the morale of the civilians, who were expecting heroics and glory and were devastated by the gruel pictures of reality of war and so they never showed it again in this shape. (I try to find the video again)
williamcotton 4y ago
The author does mention this: “IN THE POPULAR AND GENTEEL ICONOGRAPHY OF war during the bourgeois age, all the way from eighteenth and nineteenth-century history paintings to twentieth-century photographs, the bodies of the dead are intact, if inert, sometimes bloody and sprawled in awkward positions, but, except for the absence of life, plausible and acceptable simulacra of the people they once were.”
- hulitu 4y ago
  It is because the propaganda machine does not want you to see what the war is about. They dont want you to see bodies of desecrated children spread all over the place.
pschw 4y ago
> The author seems to have little understanding of how much this was true of World War 1... Fussell wrote _The Great War and Modern Memory_, so I'd say he was pretty well-versed on how WW1 was portrayed.

hutzlibu 4y ago

Well, in WW1 in britain they actually did an authentic frontline documentation for the home front to watch in the new cinemas. It turned out, this was kind of bad for the morale of the civilians, who were expecting heroics and glory and were devastated by the gruel pictures of reality of war and so they never showed it again in this shape. (I try to find the video again)

williamcotton 4y ago

The author does mention this: “IN THE POPULAR AND GENTEEL ICONOGRAPHY OF war during the bourgeois age, all the way from eighteenth and nineteenth-century history paintings to twentieth-century photographs, the bodies of the dead are intact, if inert, sometimes bloody and sprawled in awkward positions, but, except for the absence of life, plausible and acceptable simulacra of the people they once were.”

hulitu 4y ago
It is because the propaganda machine does not want you to see what the war is about. They dont want you to see bodies of desecrated children spread all over the place.

pschw 4y ago

> The author seems to have little understanding of how much this was true of World War 1... Fussell wrote _The Great War and Modern Memory_, so I'd say he was pretty well-versed on how WW1 was portrayed.