I am so glad that you are writing about the men of that generation. I have been thinking about them a lot these days along the lines you propose.This was my father's generation and these men embodied ideals of manhood when I was growing up.

It does seem that this generation of men had learned to "endure the horrors of war by cutting down their emotions at the knees," as you say so well. And also that many were unhappy and angry in their work and their lives, even though they fulfilled their duty as it was then defined.

Your final question is fascinating. I look forward to other responses. Will come back later to see and say more.

Dear Ted,

I'm mainly in disagreement with you, so I'll stick largely with where I disagree, or want to raise questions.  I think you do raise some cogent points: that it's this generation that was, at least sometimes, emotionally crippled; that the movements of the 60s were a rebellion against many of them.  These seem to me worth exploring; you'll note that I've modified your generalizations to make them, to my mind, more reasonable. For example, while the revolts and feminism of the 60s were powerful, I doubt that they were the majority.  Having lived through that time, I can tell you that in the South, at least, most people didn't know or care about such things.

  I do think that a lot of the problem is a plethora of over-generalizations, which weaken the post significantly.

But starting with your lead paragraph, you introduce a note, as I read it, of sarcasm, even, perhaps, of near anger.  A kind of dismissing of the idea of "the greatest generation."  I think the sarcastic tone hurts your post.

I don't doubt that there's some romanticism in praising this generation, but implicit is admiration for the horrible circumstances they had to endure during the War. That they, and their children, paid a heavy price, I think a useful notion.  But it's also true that the millions that fought the war had a stoicism that is sadly lacking in our current culture, often characterized as narcissistic and celebrity-obsessed.

You note that the idea of "the greatest generation" refers to the allies only, and seem to object. But how could it be anything but the allies.  They were fighting Hitler's war machine; certainly you couldn't want to include both sides.  If you study the rise and fall of Nazism, you'll see more grotesque human evil than has ever existed before or since.  The "Great Courses" (the Teaching Company) has a course on this.  The classic is Wm Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a great read, by the way, all 1245 pages.  But there have been thousands of books and articles on the subject; you can come at it in so many ways. For example, I just finished a medical history of FDR, and learned that he had no less than 30 aliases he used in his almost daily hospital visits at certain periods in his fight to keep his braces hidden from the public. 

1938 began the rape of Europe, the Holocaust, a brutal regime unimaginable to so many that when it could have been stopped in the 30s, few in this country took it seriously. Shirer (1959) writes that "...the German generals agree[d] unanimously that Germany would have lost the war, and in short order." (p. 423)  He adds, "Germany was in no position to go to war...against Czechoslovakia and France and Britain, not to mention Russia.  Had she done so, she would have been quickly and easily defeated, and that would have been the end of Hitler and the Third Reich." (p. 426) Then it was almost too late.  Churchill knew better, when Hitler attacked Poland in 1939.  The Brits knew better when London was largely destroyed in the blitz of 1940, having declared war against the Nazis when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.

As for the women, this was before they were in the fighting armed forces, but if you study the times, you'll see that huge numbers of women took over the places of men, in the factories, in the fields.  Remember "Rosie the Riveter?"  It's also my impression that millions served in the Services, though not in combat.  I'm uncertain about this.

You go on to belittle William Bennett.  This is an ad hominem fallacy: it doesn't matter whose idea it was: the idea rises or falls on its own merits.

You also write, "These were the boys who were thrown into the street and expected to bear the weight of failed sole providers."  I don't understand this sentence: "thrown into the street?"  "failed sole providers?"

I take issue with the notion that these men were "in themselves largely valueless."  The Nazi Regime posed such a dire threat to the entire world that the point was that if we wanted to preserve a free and decent way of life, we had little choice but to join Britain and France and the rest of occupied Europe to deny him victory.  Many believed Hitler  posed even a serious threat to the United States. 

These men were not "valueless."  They were sometimes pulled in with little enthusiasm, I'm sure, and sometimes, I imagine, against their will.  (I can't remember when the draft started and ended in this country.)  But many joined up as part of the growing recognition of the threat that the Nazis posed.  It was an important time for patriotism and awareness in this country.

Then comes, for me, an odd sentence.  You suggest that "by in large, they were made into emotional cripples.  They earned their title by not complaining.  It's about time we stopped blaming them."  You seem to start with some compassion for "emotional cripples," then move onto objecting to "blaming them."  I don't get it.  You go onto the "youth and feminist movements of the sixties" being reactions to "them," and question, "...was that blame misplaced."  I'm confused. 

I understand your argument as an attempt to throw doubts on whether this was "the greatest generation."  I believe you do succeed to a very limited degree, but hurt your argument both in tone and in substance.

I remain confused for the remainder of your post.  There's a nice point in noting that "we had them for fathers," but I don't understand quite what you're saying with regard to that notion.

I apologize if I'm being a little dim-witted in not understanding what may be clear to others. I may be missing an attempt at humor or irony. Neither am I entirely comfortable in disagreeing with you so very strongly.  We'll see how this plays out in the comments that follow.

Alan

The boomers had parents who lived through hard times and long separations.
All our dads (mostly) had been away 3-4-5 years and came home after god knows what horrors to women who were running the show.
It was horrible for everyone from first to last.  No psyche treatment back then but there was the GI Bill.
And there was Valium and alcohol and lots of kids.  And that was just in the USA.
I don't see any way to put it into perspective.
Low tech, hard times, no one to talk to.  None of the men my dad's age--my uncles, neighbors...ever talked about it.
They had all been there. 
Some had come home and everyone was changed.
Husbands and wives didn't know each other anymore.

From my own personal point of view, I was glad when the 60's came.  There was motion for the first time.
The adults in my family (looking back, I can see it now) were depressed, alcoholic, broke and so traumatized that none of them could talk to a kid about it.

And why did we want to talk about it either?  All our dads had been there, all our moms were back in the kitchen and none of us knew why they were all so pissed off.
How could any of them explain the War to us?  They couldn't talk to each other.

Looking back my heart just breaks for all of them. 
I don't think that any generation is the greatest.  We're all in the time stream and we have to make do with what we find.
It would be good if humans could learn from history and build something other than resentment.

We'll keep working on that.

Talk more about this.