Turning the Good War Home Front Bad: Historians' Counterattack on the Greatest Generation

Abstract

Historically Speaking September/October 2005 humankind and the requirements for personal salvation. Since there was only one God, and he was unchanging and eternal, it was absurd to think that more than one interpretation of these things could be correct. Much flowed from this idea. Ifthe teachings ofChristianity were true, it followed that salvation was available only within its confines. Ifthis was not so, it made no difference whether Christians accepted the claims of their religion or not. As the 17th-century English pastor Matthew Newcomen tartly observed, "he that admits contrary religions believes neither ofthem." More toleration meant less religion; complete toleration meant no religion at all. Viewed in this way, heresy posed a threat to souls. This danger was far greater than anything presented by modern terrorists—or even natural disasters like epidemic disease. Those contaminated with false belief would suffer eternally. Worse still, they would spread the same fate to others. The 13th-century French preacher Yves of Narbonne observed sadly that heretics were "collecting a treasure ofsouls" for hell. The desire to prevent this calamity motivated the great religious reform movements ofthe Middle Ages and the Reformation. Persuasion was normally preferred to force, but most Christians accepted Augustine's view that coercion was sometimes essential for the higher good. Intolerance also meant obedience to God. Despite the ecumenical statements occasionally attributed to Jesus, the Bible frequently enjoins religious intolerance. Jesus warned against "false prophets" and asserted that "he who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 20.30). In response to the threat of schismatic doctrines, St. Paul instructed Titus to reproach and abandon those who erred from the true faith (Titus 3.10-11). In the same vein, he warned Timothy that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines ofdevils " (1 Tim. 4.1). For most premodern readers of this text, it followed naturally that these fatal voices should be stilled. Where do these reflections lead? First, they confirm the words of the American historian David Stannard that the premodern age "was a rational world, in many ways more rational than our own." This may not surprise academic historians; but popular accounts of the past still present religious wars and witch trials as tokens of ignorance and hysteria. This tendency diminishes the humanity of people in past societies and prevents us from identifying with their actions. Since these actions sometimes make us shudder, this response is understandable but cowardly. Second, the apparently strange beliefs of past cultures shed light on the process by which we normally make sense of things. These beliefs seem strange because they were based on assumptions we no longer hold; and this indicates the role ofshared knowledge in understanding the world. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz has stressed the importance ofprior assumptions to our perception ofnatural phenomena and social situations. In a very real sense, we are what we know. And most of our knowledge, like that of the early modern world, was established before we were born. This leads to a final question. How strange will our own beliefs appear to future generations? If we can accept that Henri Boguet really believed in the possessed apple, and resist the temptation to dismiss him as crazy, we can better appreciate—and perhaps even question—the inherited beliefs that frame our own perception ofthe world. Darren Oldridge is a senior lecturer in history at the University of Worcester, UK. He has published extensively on early modern religious and cultural history . This article surveys some ofthe arguments presented in detail in his latest book, Strange Histories: The Trial of the Pig, the Walking Dead, and Other Matters of Fact from the Medieval and Renaissance Worlds (Routledge, 2005). Turning the Good War Home Front Bad: Historians1 Counterattack on the Greatest Generation Roger W. Lotchin Most Americans are familiar with the outstanding performance of the U. S. armed forces in World War II, yet fewer appreciate the achievements of the home front. The home front's miracles of production supplied not only everything that our forces required, but also many necessities that our British and Russian allies needed , such as planes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, shoes...