The WWII Memorial: A National Dishonor

Drew Smeltz

History 371. Fall 2000.

On Veteran’s Day of 2000, President Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt took place in a symbolic groundbreaking ceremony for the long-awaited National World War II Memorial on The Mall in Washington DC. There is little, if any, dissent over the need and appropriateness of such a monument. However, the process of bringing the Memorial into reality has been long and continues to be contentious. There are two main axes of disagreement concerning the Memorial. First, many people feel that the proposed site of the monument on the National Mall is inappropriate, and will mar the continuity and openness of the area between the Washington and Lincoln Monuments. An organization that opposes the site has filed suit against the planners of the Memorial, and have received an injunction delaying its construction. The second source of disagreement concerning the World War II Memorial concerns the approved design of the monument. Critics portray architect Frederich St. Florian’s design for various reasons, and feel that it does not justly honor all of those who took part in the war effort. This paper will examine the effectiveness of the proposed World War II Memorial as an instrument for remembering those who fought in the battle. I will begin by tracing the origins of the movement to create a WWII Memorial, and following the various legislative and planning stages that led to the current location and design. From there I will examine both of the controversies concerning the Memorial. After determining the appropriateness of both the design and the location of the proposed monument, some conclusions can be drawn concerning the place that the Memorial will hold as an instrument of remembrance for future generations, as well as those who contributed to the war effort and visit the new Memorial in Washington.

 

I.

In 1987, Roger Durbin, a WWII veteran of the Battle of the Bulge approached his representative, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, and asked why there was no monument in Washington honoring the men and women who served in WWII. Congresswoman Kaptur wondered as well, and introduced legislation calling for such a monument to be built. Six years later, on May 25, 1993, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-32, authorizing that a WWII Memorial be built in Washington. The construction of the Memorial was put under the auspices of the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), an independent agency of the executive branch, whose purpose is to commemorate the actions of the American Armed Forces who have served since April 6, 1917, the date of U.S. entry into World War I. By 1995, the ABMC and a 12 member advisory board appointed by the President began hearings on choosing a site for the monument. Originally, six locations were proposed, of which the Constitutional Gardens site was unanimously chosen as being most appropriate. However, in the following months, various governmental agencies concerned with planning and development in Washington expressed concern that the Constitutional Gardens site was not prominent enough to justly convey the gravitas of the war effort. The ABMC then proposed the Rainbow Pool location, which was assented to by the various groups which opposed the Constitutional Gardens site.[See Appendix One] On Veteran’s Day of 1995, the President officially dedicated Rainbow Pool site with a plaque.

The next task of the ABMC was to come up with a design for the proposed monument. It began a two-stage, design competition that was open to all American citizens. The purpose and philosophy of the competition was as follows:

It is to honor and express the nation's deep and enduring

  • respect and gratitude to all the American men and women who served in the United States Armed Forces during WWII, those who gave their lives as well as those who survived. Without hubris or vainglory! The memorial should convey a sense of remembrance and national pride in the fortitude, valor, suffering and sacrifice of its fighting forces and their heroic accomplishments. Further, the Memorial is to acknowledge and honor the Nation at Large, the patriotism and vigorous, spirited commitment of the American people to the war effort and

    the Home Front's vital contribution to the victory won.

    •

    Over 400 entries were considered, from which a shortlist of 6 finalists were selected. A design panel of experts and planners convened, and the design of Frederich St. Florian was unanimously selected in late 1996.

    Having considered and selected both a site and a design for the monument, the AMBC still needed to raise the appropriate funds to finance the project. The original bill authorizing the Memorial’s construction called for it to be privately financed. In 1997, the AMBC appointed Senator and WWII veteran Bob Dole and FedEx CEO Frederick W. Smith to serve as Co-Chairmen of the fundraising campaign. The campaign has received widespread support, including a national advertising campaign sponsored by the Ad Council, a private, non-profit organization that produces public service advertising. Tom Hanks has been featured in the ads, which so far have solicited about $80 million in donations from individuals and corporations. The goal of the campaign is $100 million.

     

     

    II.

    While no one doubts the need for a WWII Monument, the site chosen for it is an issue over which there is widespread disagreement. The constitutional Gardens location was abandoned because planners felt that it failed to convey the true weight and import of the effort put forth by America during the war. Certainly, few places in the capital are more central, visible, and historic than the Rainbow Pool location. The monument will bisect the previously uninterrupted expanse which stretches from the Lincoln to the Washington Monuments. Critics of the site feared originally that it would obstruct the view between these monuments, however, provisions in the design competition called for height limits that would preserve the view.

    Critics of the location often begin with the historical events that have happened on the Mall. The political significance of the Mall cannot be overlooked. The LA Times Stated that, "The Mall's long expanse of lawn is hallowed political ground, the place where Americans gather to express themselves on virtually any issue." For instance, the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial in 1922, Martin Luther King Jr’s "I Have a Dream" speech, and the million man march all occurred on ground where the new Memorial will stand, meaning that future events of such magnitude will be obstructed by the structure. A Wall Street Journal opined that juxtaposing the Memorial between the Lincoln and Washington Monuments will mean that the new Memorial, "…would have us henceforth viewing these monuments literally and symbolically through that war, an inversion of historical priorities surely no veteran will be comfortable with." Finally, it is unquestionable that the new Memorial will strike a blow to the freedom and openness which makes the Mall such a unique and representative monument to the freedom of America. Creating a new national monument, however deserved, should not be done at the expense of another. Therefore, the AMBC has erred in choosing the middle of the Mall as the location of the new WWII Memorial. Although no one doubt the necessity of such a monument, the damage it will do to the Mall will harm the effectiveness of the monument as a vehicle for remembering those who took part in the war effort.

     

    III.

    War monuments are a tool used by many nations to aid the remembering of soldiers and battles, as well as educate future generations about national history. In analyzing the approved design of the WWII Memorial, it is important to examine it in terms of the two other war monuments that rest in other parts of the Mall, as well as the battle monuments erected after WWI. In his book Commemorations, John Gillis examines the nature of commemorative activity. He states that, "…commemorative activity is by definition social and political, for it involves the coordination of individual and group memories, whose results may appear consensual when they are, in fact, the product of processes of intense contest, struggle, and in some instances, annihilation." If Gillis is correct as to the fractious nature of commemorative activity, than it is important not only that a WWII Memorial exists, but that it achieves an appropriate balance of individual and group memories, and remains timely and poignant for generations to come.

    Gillis identifies various eras in the history of commemoration. During the ‘national’ era of commemoration, which followed World War I, the focus was on the heroism of the fallen soldier. Commemorative activity at that time centered around cemeteries and notions of anonymous nationalism. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery provides an example of a national era monument. It is monolithic, impersonal, and focuses only on those who perished in the conflict. The only other national memorial to WWI is the Allied Expeditionary Force Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue, which is a tribute to the 2 million soldiers who served in the First World War. It consists of a stone plaza with a statue of General Pershing, who led the AEF. This monument too fits the impersonal nature of national era commemoration that was consistent with the post-WWI era.

    In the second half on the 19th Century, America has moved into what Gillis identifies as the post-national era of commemoration. This era is distinct from the national era of commemoration because it engendered, "…a democratic and pluralistic vision, embracing a view of society that includes racial and gender consciousness. The Vietnam and Korean War memorials illustrate this new approach to remembering, and are a stark departure from the WWI-era monuments. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, a non-profit organization founded in 1979. Its purpose was, "…to bring long overdue honor and recognition to the men and women who served and sacrificed their lives in Vietnam. The memorial was careful not to make a political statement about the controversial conflict, and focused on honoring those who contributed to the effort. The first part of the memorial was completed in 1982, and consists of a long, sloping, black granite wall that lists the more that 58 thousand servicemen who gave their lives in the conflict. In 1984, an additional statue of three servicemen was added, which portrays a white soldier, a Hispanic soldier, and a black soldier walking on the battlefield. Later, the final piece of the present Memorial took its place alongside the Three Servicemen, when the Vietnam Women’s Memorial was unveiled. It depicts women in their role aiding the war effort. The Vietnam Memorial surely captures the pluralistic vision and racial and gender consciousness which characterize the post-national era. The statues depict the plurality of people who served in the conflict while the wall of names brings a person aspect to the commemorative experience.

    Similarly, the Korean War Memorial is an example of post-national commemoration. It has several parts. First, a triangular, simulated battlefield houses 19 lifelike statues of soldiers advancing toward the dedication stone. They represent an ethnic cross-section of America, and all service branches are represented. Next to this field of statues is the mural wall, on which a collage of over 2400 photographs from the War, which together form images of statues and the landscape of Korea. Finally, at the entrance to the memorial a kiosk is available which can be used by visitors to look up the histories of servicemen who participated in the war. Like the Vietnam Memorial, this monument is not monolithic, allowing visitors to explore its various components. Also, it fits the post-national model, by expressing the pluralism of those who served.

    Clearly, based on the nature of the Vietnam and Korean War Memorials, the US is in a post-national era of remembrance. For the approved design of the WWII Memorial to fit in with these tributes to past conflicts, and avoid the grave and impersonal nature of the WWI monuments, the new Memorial must express a post-national ethos. The goals of the ABMC for the completed monument were to, "…honor all military veterans of the war, the citizens on the home front, and the high moral purpose and idealism that motivated the nation’s call to arms." Certainly, the goals of the ABMC are consistent with post-nationalist commemoration, as they draw on both democratic values and a pluralistic set of honorees.

    Frederich St. Florian’s design for the new Memorial calls for a round granite plaza stretching from tree line to tree line across the Mall and encircling the Rainbow Pool. Around its perimeter will stand fifty-six 17 foot tall pillars, one each for the states of the union and its six protectorates. On each side a 40 foot high arch will rise, representing the Atlantic and Pacific theaters of battle. In the center of the monument next to the pool there will be an eternal flame and a stone cenotaph. [See Appendix II]

    In analyzing the appropriateness of the approved design, the post-national goals of the ABMC must be considered. St. Florain’s design seems to be a reversion back to the national era of commemoration. The ring of pillars can be looked at a series of monoliths, one for each state and protectorate. The pillars are certainly impersonal, failing to put any notion of individuality into the Memorial. In its failure to express individuality, it also fails to represent the plurality of races and genders who took part. Here, the citizens on the home front are ignored wholesale, directly failing one of the stated goals of the Memorial’s planners. The two arches can be criticized as another reversion to the more cemetery-oriented national era. ‘Triumphal’ arches are a featured in many military cemeteries. Also, arches are connotated as classical imperial symbols, and for some are reminiscent of, "…the fascist architecture of Mussolini and the imperial schemes Albert Speer designed for Nazi Germany." Obviously this association was not an intention of the architect, but it nevertheless harms the overall effect of the edifices. Finally, it must be noted that no reference to of the moral purpose and idealism that carried the US into the war can be gleaned from the current design. This is another dimension on which the ABMC has approved a design that is incongruous with its goals.

    IV.

    Unless current challenges to the proposed site of the WWII memorial are successful, in a few years the memorial will be completed on the National Mall in Washington. This paper has concluded that the planners of the Memorial have erred in choosing both a location and a design for the Memorial. The Mall location will interrupt the openness of the Mall and encroach on hallowed ground in the history of our nation’s political struggles. The monument itself is an impersonal and anachronistic throwback to the era of national recollection, and lacks the personality and poignance of the Korean and Vietnam War Memorials. Nevertheless, because of its location and the publicity it receives, the new Memorial will undoubtedly take a place of high prominence for those who remember the war now, and will learn about it in the future. I feel that the Memorial will be a disappointment primarily to those who took part in WWII and will visit the Memorial in order to reflect on their memories of what occurred from 1941-45. They will surely be uninspired by the expanse of cold stone and the lack of personality evoked by the pillars and arches. Memorials are most significant to those they honor, and the current Memorial does not do the people of the "greatest generation" justice. The greatest shame for future generations of patrons of the Memorial and Mall will be that they never get to enjoy the expansive, wide-open Mall that Americans have enjoyed for decades.