Anyone familiar with ww2, vietnam, and OEF/OIF memoirs?

I'm conducting research looking specifically into reintegration of veterans returning from war. I'm hypothesizing that the growing exclusivity of the war experience has radically changed the reintegration process. One thing that is so radically different is the number of tours and repeats - one soldier died on his 14th tour in the War on Terror. This kind of experience, of seemingly endless tours, would compound with the fact that so few today were at war.

During ww2, a man returning from war could would see another veteran every fourth or fifth man he walked past in the street. But less than one in hundred men today served in the war on terror. My idea is that the sheer fact that there are so few veterans negatively impacts the reintegration process, because veterans return to a world so alien - almost no one knows what they went through, and people at home (who weren't in the service) didn't feel the sting of war even at home, like people did in ww2.

So I'm going to refine that but that's the rough idea of where I'm going with this. So I've already started compiling a list of memoirs, but if anyone knows of any particular memoirs (ww2, vietnam, or OEF/OIF) that include post-war experience of a US vet, I would greatly appreciate you letting me know what book it is and what you thought of it.

 

I've only read 3 or 4 Iraq/Afghanistan memoirs, but they really were focused on being deployed, not what came after, and generally lacked much introspection.

 

Yeah that's unfortunate - most memoirs don't talk about after the war. And some, like the sequel to "Chickenhawk" are just downright shameless attempts to make money.

 

You left out Desert Storm (Gulf war) so I wasn't sure if this means you have no interest in it or since it was a shorter conflict did not think it merited further analysis.

Anyway, regarding the latter...I would recommend Falcon's Cry: A Desert Storm Memoir by Major Michael Donnelly. He developed ALS a few years after his combat experience as a fighter pilot during the Gulf War. 110,000 Desert Storm veterans are sick, many dying of mysterious cancers and neurological diseases, including more than ten times the normal incidence of ALS; this book discusses the establishment's steadfast denial of Gulf War syndrome.

 

I am leaving it out of my research, simply because it doesn't fit in as well to the effect I'm trying to go for - namely how veteran population affects reintegration. For a few very obvious reasons, Desert Storm just doesn't fit into the specific thing I'm researching.

And this is for my senior thesis so I've got a limited amount of length to work with and adding Desert Storm into the mix would just be too much - comparing 3 wars in regards to veteran reintegration is hard enough with the short page limit they've given me: 30 pages. :/

 

694,550 deployed, yet it's the forgotten war, overshawdowed by the protracted global war on terrorism.

 

Desert Storm vets had to reintegrate just like my generation.

 

The argument, again, is that the reintegration process is to some degree a function of the number of veterans (that the fewer vets there are of a conflict, the harder reintegration is), exacerbated by long and repeated deployments. Of course people from other wars had to reintegration too: Vietnam, ww1, Civil War, etc., but the point I'm arguing is most easily displayed by looking at these 3 wars (ww2, vietnam, and oif/oef), and all 3 of these are more worthwhile to study for the sake of my argument than is Desert Storm.

 

One thing to keep in mind for both ww2 and Vietnam was the draft selected a wide variety of people....a much more diverse group. Educated, affluent, poor, rich, etc... The dynamics of a draft army vs an enlisted army is going to be completely different. I would wager that the enlisted army is going to have a much harder time placing soldiers in the everyday world than a draft army due to many reasons.... 1 crucial one being the average skill set/education of an enlisted.

 

Us old Vietnam Vets will always be grateful and thankful to the Desert Storm Vets. After Vietnam quite a lot of civilians looked down on the Vietnam Vet with disdain and a lot of Vietnam Vets tried to hid the fact they had served. That was lifted with Desert storm. They made it okay to be military again. Thank you to all desert storm vets.

 

Although modern apologists try to dismiss the fact that US military troops WERE spit on, like in the book "The Spitting Image..." by a Neo-Com activist named Lembcke---there are accounts that substantiate these events:

"Yes, I am a Vietnam veteran who was spat upon -- literally and figuratively. By hippies? I don't know. In the airport? Yes. San Francisco International Airport on October 11, 1971 at 3:15 p.m., and yes, I was still in uniform. To be exact, it was the same uniform that I wore during the last Fire Support Mission I was involved in, just 36 hours before landing in San Francisco Airport. No, I didn't have mud, dirt, or gunpowder on my uniform. A very kind Vietnamese woman at the Transit Company washed and ironed it for me so that I could come home to the country I love looking nice. This was one hell of a lot more than I received upon arrival.

If I were the only one to be spat upon, the score would be: not spat upon, 1,999,999, spat upon, 1. Of course, I know this score to be wrong. Literally because I saw others spat upon, and figuratively because to spit on one Vietnam veteran is to spit on them all.

The person who spat on me was wearing a shirt that said 'Welcome Home Baby-Killer.' ...


Homecoming: When Soldiers returned from Vietnam by Bob Greene.

http://www.military-money-matters.com/vietnam-veterans-spit-on-part-2.html#axzz3mUr6zFzr

I think you book should understand that Allied soldiers from WW2 WERE "the Greatest Generation" and that none, not one has ever been convicted of a war crime. Quite an accomplishment huh?

Why WW2 vets are so great is hard to understand, they must be greater than you or me or anyone else who has faithfully served before or since. Perhaps your work can explain this more in depth.

 

Something doesn't jive with this chart.

I suppose it includes all people living in America combined with women and children to be able to come up with those percentages.

Doing a quick search on the Vietnam War, there were 26 million males of military age from 1964-1975. Of those 8,744,000 served in the U.S. military. If you include reservist and the Guard, it's 10 million.

From what I have read, 40% of the males of military age during the Vietnam War era served. If you include women of military age in the numbers you would have 20%.

80% of the males of military age during WW ll served.


From Gallup, 2012:

 

Many of the commanders of the Gulf war, including Gen. Schwarzkopf and Gen. Powell, were combat veterans from the war in Vietnam. They took those lessons and applied them to the Gulf War. If the positive response of the public to the Gulf War crisis, helped at all with the unresolved feelings for many Vietnam veterans, then I'll take that as a positive.

One thing that will always worry me, was the success of the Gulf War made waging war appear too easy and too bloodless for the average civilian back home watching it on the nightly news. Aside from the threat of incoming Scud missiles with chemical and/or biological agents, all the public saw was overwhelming victory in combination with limited coalition casualites. Essentially a bloodless war in terms of the good guys; the ground phase lasted all of 100 hours.

This may have given the false impression that the decision later on to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein in 2003, would be equally bloodless and quick. The young men and women deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom were set up with unreasonably high expectations, due in no small measure to the success of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Althought OIF is often referred to as Gulf War II, in my opinion these are completely different campaigns, but in the public's eye, war is war and after Desert Storm the U.S. Armed Forces were looked upon as an invincible force....never a good way to approach going to war in the future.

Our young men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan paid the terrible price of re-establishing the reality that war is never easy.

 

You know Herk, I associate with a lot of Marine fighter jocks and infantry and artillery Marine officers. But I get a chance every once in awhile to talk to enlisted Marines who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. One question I always ask enlisted Marines who served in Afghanistan during the Obama administration is what they thought about Obama's rules of engagement. Almost all first laugh, a strange laugh and then say "We don't pay any attentions to Obama's ROE."

Then the converstion would continue and the Marine brings up incidents that most combat vets from prior wars just don't talk about, they have tried to forget them. But again it was this strange laugh. They all have the same laugh.

I've known hundreds of combat vets who served during WW ll, my father, his buddies, all of my uncles and all of my friends fathers. None ever laughed about WW ll.

Known a hundred or more Korean war vets, none ever laughed about Korea.

Never heard a Vietnam vet laughing about Vietnam.

Knew a lot of enlisted and officer Marines who served during the first Gulf war, Desert Storm, Desert Shield what ever you want to call it. None ever laughed about it. Except some Marine fighter jocks who seem to been having a lot of fun time and laughing that their ground crews couldn't rearm and refuel their aircraft quick enough to get back into the air.

But what's with today's Iraq and Afghan combat vets and that strange laugh ? What's bugging them inside ? The first generation to go to war that grew up playing violent video games and who brings a gun to a fist fight.

How many WW ll and Korean combat vets had PTSD ? Why so many Vietnam vets have gone to the VA claiming PTSD ? Was it because of the war or because how they were rejected by their peers and the nation when they returned to "the world" ? Or was it free money ? Or was it that some white beard scratching liberal who never served was telling them that they were broken because of the war and needed help ?

Remember the last Marine general that Obama purged from the military because he wasn't a "yes man" and not politically correct enough for Obama and Valerie Jarrett ?

 

I agree. This nation should never enter a war unless it intends to fight to win and to win as quickly as possible with whatever it takes. Ala Desert Storm. Afghanistan, at least the first few weeks where we only had a few SF and paramilitary on the ground letting the 14 tribe Northern Alliance doing the fighting on the ground. Us, using our airpower to supplement them and driving the Taliban out of the country reminded me a bit of the war I fought in Laos.

We could have then kept that very small footprint and our planes on standby. But we decided on the policy of national building then. That was where we began our misadventure in Afghanistan.

 

WW2
Roughly 17,867,000 served
1945 population roughly 140million.

using these figures for rough calculations, that'd put it at about 12.7% of the population having served. Depending on how you dice it it could be much smaller - only 73% served overseas (same source as above).

Vietnam.
8.7 million served
1970 pop of roughly 205
using these figures for rough calculations, that'd put it at about 4.25%.


So I think we can see that these aren't really that far off. I'd probably want to see it amended to reflect those who served in theater rather than those who were on active duty - not b/c "their service doesn't count" or any other kind of straw man type stuff, but because a) when someone says "I served in Vietnam" people rarely think, "oh, you were an office clerk in St. Louis" and so its deceptive, and b) the reintegration experience of those who served overseas is wildly different. So, just for kicks and giggles, if I were to take a rough count at this point I think I'd find that:

9.73% served in WW2 (this includes only those who served overseas)
1.3% served in Vietnam (2.7m actually served in Vietnam - this excludes who served during that time frame but not in theater)
0.78% served in War on Terror - this is as of 2013, and is a 'loose' source, which cites a person saying 2.5m and not a precise figure (2.5mil were deployed in War on Terror [so this, I presume, would limit to those who served in combat zones])



So yeah, I'm pretty sure the original source of the graph counted those who served on active duty as a percent of the population. I don't think they widdled it down to a percent of "military aged men".

 

Thanks for sharing the article.

As far as the greatest generation, I think it has a lot to do with how big the war effort was and government policy. Like I pointed out in a post above, it turns out that only about 1% of the population served in theater in Vietnam, despite it being such a long war, but about 10% served "abroad" in WW2. So not only could a vet returning from home know that about every fifth male he saw served overseas, but that further every fourth male he saw served in uniform. So many people served, and everyone knew someone who served, and they "knew" that these people were serving against "the Axis of Evil" - the evil Japanese who attacked us without cause, the wicked Germans who wanted to take over the world and declared war on us (this is all a reflection of general public perception, not necessarily the facts). Of course few people would spit on the GIs from WW2.

But Vietnam? It was an unpopular war, few people served - at the END of the war, a veteran of it walking down the street would have about a 2% chance that another male he saw also served in theater, with about no chance (of course) that a woman served in theater. People perceived it as a war of aggression - there wasn't this great evil that attacked us and wanted to take of the world (again, public perception). And then there were all of these atrocities that were reported because the government propaganda wasn't a tenth of what it was in WW2, and the news service wasn't nearly as restricted, nor pro-war as it was in WW2. And people also had much more of an aversion to being drafted because... well, it wasn't as if they were on hard economic times in the 60s (which was the case in the 90s), and so serving wasn't seen as an opportunity for stability (or to get out of poverty), it was seen as an economic hindrance (you'd earn less) and, duh, life-threatening (as is always the case).

One thing that is odd to think about is that, as many people have noted, so many more people died in Vietnam than in the War on Terror - about 10x the number. But when you look at Vietnam wounded vs. War on Terror wounded (2nd source here) it appears that there have actually been more wounded in the War on Terror. What would account for this seeming discrepancy? Well the first thing that might be assumed is that GWOT veterans had better access to immediate medical care, and that it was harder for Vietnam vets to get treatment in theater. The second thing we might notice is that the awareness of wounds previously largely ignored, like head trauma, has increased - and so we can suspect that many Vietnam vets died in the field because of poor access to medical care there (poor logistical planning at the strategic level), and we can also assume that many, many Vietnam veterans had serious medical issues that have never been diagnosed or treated. And that is a tragedy.

 

I've read several books on the different battles fought in WWll, like the disasters on Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal Canal,the Beaches of Normandy; the Korean War, and battles of Viet Nam. We here a little from the vets from Viet Nam, and what their post-war experiences were like, but not too much about the post-war lives of vets from earlier wars.

I read one autobiography written by a soldier (I forget the name) who was at Iwo Jima, and Guadalcanal but it was only about his experience as a soldier. He ended the book with his homecoming. Because of the absolute, barbaric horrors that those men suffered in the wars, I suspect that most of them suffered from severe, undiagnosed PTSD; and as a consequence, didn't talk to much about the war when they got home--too painful.

My grandfather fought in WWll, and afterwards, became an alcoholic. Many managed to live good lives though, but I suspect the pain was right behind the smiles. You can tell that when you see the WWll, and Viet Nam vets talk about their experiences. It is hard for them to not breakdown and cry.

As far as reading about the wars, try to read only autobiographies. The literary armchair warriors leave out the human part of the wars.

 

So why would they count everyone including babies to 100 year old geezers ?
They were including the entire population of the country from one day old babies to 100 year old geezers and are counting women who really didn't start serving in the military until the late 1970's.

40% of the males of military age during the Vietnam War era served.

What is it today for today's generation of military age males, in the single digits ?

STATISTICS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN UNIFORM AND IN COUNTRY VIETNAM VETERANS:

* 9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam Era (August 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975).

* 8,744,000 GIs were on active duty during the war (Aug 5, 1964-March 28,1973). (Reservist and Guardsmen are not included)

* 2,709,918 Americans served in Vietnam, this number represents 9.7% of their generation. (This includes females of that generation)

So if males made up 49% of that generation and females 51% almost 20% of the males of that generation served "in-country."

* 3,403,100 (Including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the broader Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters).

* 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (Jan. 1,1965 - March 28, 1973). Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964.

* Of the 2.6 million, between 1-1.6 million (40-60%) either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.

* 7,484 women (6,250 or 83.5% were nurses) served in Vietnam.

* Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 196.

http://www.nationalvietnamveteransfoundation.org/statistics.htmsource ->

 

Why do you call the battles fought on Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima "disasters " ??? They were disasters for the Japs not for the Marines and sailors who fought on those islands. My father fought on Iwo Jima.

BTW:
There were no soldiers on Iwo Jima, just Marines and sailors.

If roughly 17,867,000 served during WW ll, there are 17,800,000 untold stories. Combat vets rarely talk about their experiences. Those that do usually end up having problems. As they get older into their 50's and 60's they do start talking. During WW ll Americans serving were forbidden from keeping personal diaries or journals.

My father never talked about his combat experiences. Just stories when he was on liberty.

Most Vietnam vets didn't start talking until after the first Gulf war.

When I was in-country, with the draw down that started in late 69 my unit 1/13 was going home to be deactivated. But only short timers wouldn't have to serve their entire13 month tour of duty. So I was reassigned to the Sub Unit One 1st ANGLICO NGF Platoon at Hoi An. Who do I see, someone I went to high school with.
We served together for six months.

When we got back to the world we partied together for about ten years and never talked about the Nam. Lost contact with him around 1982. For thirty years never heard a word from him until a couple of years ago when he tracked me down. We hooked up but this time we did talk about Vietnam. He would say "remember this" or "remember when" and half of the time I didn't remember because I had blocked it out. Had to think for a minute or so until it came back to me.

I have a friend who graduated a year after I did. He enlisted in the Marines in 69. About the time I was getting on that Cathay Pacific 707 at Da Nang air base headed back home he was just arriving in-country. After his tour of duty he seemed ok. For over forty years he didn't mention that any thing was wrong but then he said he had PTSD.

I do need to talk to him. Have to ask him is it because of your combat experiences or what all of us went through, our experiences after returning to the world and being rejected by our peers and by the nation ? Or did some liberal who never served finally got to you and convinced you that you were broken because you fought in Vietnam ?

Why do Vietnam vets have so many claiming PTSD more than WW ll and Korean war vets ? Why are there even a larger percentage of Afghan and Iraq vets claiming PTSD. Why are their soldiers and airmen claiming PTSD and they have never left the CONUS ? I (*)(*)(*)(*) you not.

After Obama purged the best general America has seen in decades, Gen. Mattis, he had a talk to veterans. I think he's on to something.

 

Probably most obvious is that it's easier, but also because you're really splitting hairs when you say things like "men of military age". Why do women not count - are they not a part of the population? And why do we count a man up to a given age (usually 45) but exclude a day difference (so 46 as of the previous day)? Sure, babies can't serve - should we also say that those with disabilities don't count? Now let's go through and rule out the blind, amputees, those with spinal disorders, etc., etc. Quite simply put it's better and easier to use the whole population rather than the arbitrarily limited "military age men" descriptor you prefer. Why? Because these %s from above are "_% of the popukation", not "_%of those we deem to have been able and desirable for service" or anything like that. No matter how you try to shake it, women are half the population.

 

But when I served in the Corps (69-71) they weren't part of the military that much.

During my three years of active duty I can count on one hand how many times I saw a female wearing the uniform.

#1. When I was a just a puke going through boot camp at MCRDSD. I was at Regimental HQ's for some reason and there were four or six female Marines typing away at a desk.

#2. When I was medevaced to the navy hospital ship, the USS Repose that was off shore of I-Corps I saw some navy nurses.

#3, I saw some navy nurses on China Beach. (They were out of uniform wearing bikinis and were in officer country.)

#4. After my tour of duty in Vietnam I was assigned to the 5th Marine Amphibious Brigade at Camp Pendleton. One day I went to the main PX at Main Side and saw two enlisted female Marines.

#5. One day I was at the 5th MAB HQ's and saw a room full of male and female Marines typing away. The female Marines were typing so fast each typewriter sounded like a M-60 while the male Marine clerks were typing using two fingers. A Staff Sergeant nodded at the female Marines and said those girls are three times more productive than those boys.

 

Having myself only been a "Cold Warrior" never firing a shot in anger, I have no personal narrative of value for your work.

I feel that US war veterans from Vietnam and to a lesser extent Korea, had more problems adapting to civilian life because of the public perception problem you mentioned.

And why was public perception so down on the Vietnam War and our troops?

Answer: the mass media. The powers running the mass media were, and still mostly are, very Left-wing. The Federal government did not allow much "bad press" and shocking images of the brutality of war---certainly anything caused by our troops was censored. In Vietnam, LBJ and Nixon had no luck when fighting an enemy of the far-Left, when Leftists in the major media were editing the news.

The Viet-Cong and NVA and Uncle Ho were not Nazis---they weren't even "Imperial Japs." The socialists running the media had no great dislike for communists. There were almost no TV shows or news editorials on the evils of the enemy. So protest movements were able to gain momentum. Had there been protests from college campuses during WW2 for all the brutality going on---they would have been stoned to death in short order.

More than our leaders not having a plan and will to win in Vietnam, or the lack of other Vietnam Vets being around to support them, or the bad conditions of the war----I think it was primarily the major media's fault for the feeling of non-acceptance by the returning Vietnam Vets.

 

"White Feather" delves into it somewhat for Vietnam.

WWI I have to say Mein Kampf, it go's extensively into the mind of returning soldiers. (Hitler knew how to target the necessary audiences"

WWII there's a book written by a combat/test pilot that I can't remember the name of, I'll find it.

The Gulf War has a ton of memoirs to go by.

Etc

 

https://maketheconnection.net/events/transitioning-from-service

A good resource for on-line stories about transitioning personnel after the end of their active service.