Service on the Homefront

It could be said that World War II revolutionized the entire world, and the changes that took place in America were not less different than those in the war-torn countries of Europe. When the Japanese attacked an unsuspecting Pearl Harbor on December 7^th, 1941 and the United States was plunged headfirst into a grueling war in two theatres, life changed drastically for everyone.  The Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy claimed most of the able-bodied men in America, making for a completely different dynamic for those left at home. Women, children and men who could not fight were left in the States to pray for those in combat and try to make ends meet. They put away entitlement and self-interest in the name of winning the war. Women went to fill jobs in factories, children collected scraps of materials needed by the army and men volunteered as air raid wardens. Life on the homefront was radically different from what it had been a decade, five, or even two years before war was declared. The 1930’s had been a difficult time of poverty and economic hopelessness. Families had struggled to feed themselves on just the bare necessities. The start of World War II came on the heels of this hard time, and ironically brought a better economy for reasons

that are to be discussed. The American “homefront” was an intrinsic part of winning the war--those fighting small battles at home had just as much significance as those who fought the larger battles abroad.

With the advent of the war came a new need for manpower: manpower in the military and in the factories. Inconveniently, there were not nearly enough men to fill positions in both of these places, and the majority of young, able-bodied men either enlisted or were drafted into the army. Because this claimed most of the male workforce, the factories were at a loss—until Rosie the Riveter came on the scene. “Rosie the Riveter,” known primarily because of the iconic Westinghouse poster and the Norman Rockwell painting, (both of which portray a strong woman wearing a factory jumpsuit and headscarf), was not actually one individual. Instead, she stood for the influx of American women who stepped up to fill the jobs in the factories. These new employees were paramount to winning the war—they manufactured things such as bullets, bombs, planes, military-issue automobiles and even battleships. Oftentimes, the jobs were quite dangerous. Occasionally, the workers had to package detonators and other explosive items—one false move and the entire factory could blow up.  This new workforce was to become an important part of the story of World War II for three reasons. First, the things made in the factories were, as has been stated, as significant toward winning the war as the soldiers themselves. According to A Patriot’s History of the United States, part of the reason we won the war was because America was able to out-produce all the other countries. Without the influx of materials and weapons that the factories supplied, the war may not have had the same outcome, or at least may have dragged on even longer than it did. Another was that the economy enjoyed quite a boost from the new level of production and wages (and therefore spending money) available.The other result, mostly noticed after the fact,  was a perceived new empowerment for women—no

longer were they “limited” to being housewives,  they could now also work in factories. While, in hindsight, female employment in factories was nothing new, the “Rosie the Riveters’” new-found employment opportunities were regarded as great advances, and Rosie herself was later revered by some as an icon of the feminist movement.

            There was a loud call for everyone to “do their bit for the war effort;” from the oldest World War I veteran to the youngest child. Although money troubles lessened, American families were by no means indulging in excesses. The war brought about shortages in any materials that could be conceivably used for military equipment: rubber, aluminum, silk, nylon, gasoline, leather and food items were available in rationed quantities. Ration books that limited the amount of these things that one could use were issued and the coupons were used simultaneously with money. One way that the government paid for the war was through the sale of war bonds. Rallies were held in which patriotic celebrities, either national or local, would support the war effort by pleading with the people to buy war bonds that they could cash in a few years later with interest to help Uncle Sam win the war. People also participated in drills and blackouts in case of a German or Japanese attack. When the siren went off, the people would turn out all their lights, pull closed their blackout shades and hide in their basements. Wardens would patrol to make sure that all were doing it correctly. Posters were displayed everywhere to raise awareness for the ways that everyone could take part: some admonished the public that “loose lips sink ships,” because secrecy was highly valued. Soldiers writing home were not even able to tell their loved ones where they were because of the risk of interception. Another poster featuring a smiling soldier in a combat helmet and holding a tin cup asks the American public to “do without so they’ll have enough!” These and other “campaigns” illustrate the patriotic attitude of the majority of those on the homefront.

Scrap was a large part of stock-piling materials. Radio programs asked housewives to save bacon grease, children organized scrap drives in which they scoured neighborhoods and city dumps gathering paper, tires, metal, fat and other items that their owners had no more use for. Families tore up the grass in their yards to plant “victory gardens” so that they could feed themselves while taking as little from the soldiers as possible.  Hardly a woman in America could say that she was not related to, or at least acquainted with,  a man who was fighting. This war was very close to home.

World War II brought much upheaval and many changes to the civilized world. While, aside from Pearl Harbor, America herself was not prey to a major direct attack, the people left at home were just as committed to winning the war as their sweethearts, husbands and sons fighting overseas. These civilians had a clear objective, a clear enemy and a strong determination to beat the Axis powers that wanted to take over the free world. The war was not distant, it affected every life in the United States, whether that life was linked to someone overseas or not. There was a clear call for civilians to step up to the plate and help the boys in the Pacific and in Europe—and civilians were willing. Even when, during the four years that the war dragged on, the initial outrage of Pearl Harbor was forgotten, the men, women and children left at home did not slack off or let themselves doubt the righteousness of America’s cause. They knew that if America fell, the free world fell. World War II was fought and won on the homefront through sacrifices and hard work just as it was fought and won in Europe and the Pacific by the fighting men.

Henry V: A Person Who Led

         William Shakespeare’s Henry V is the tale of a king who claims the throne of England and wishes to claim that of France and he is willing to use whatever means necessary to achieve this end, especially war. After gaining powerful allies (and financial backers) in the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely, he travels to France to fight the French king in a determined bid for the crown. There are strong undercurrents of corruption and selfishness in the events of this play, stemming mainly from Henry.  He is a fiery young man prone to outbursts of rage, both warranted and unwarranted. His cause for putting so many of his people in danger was most unjust, but he was nothing if not an effective leader. Examples of his leadership are apparent in his two speeches, before the siege of Harfleur and before the battle of Agincourt. He offers a moderately inspirational speech at Harfleur, but his “magnum opus” was not to come about until he, knowing that the morale of his soldiers was spiraling downward, gave his memorable speech on St. Crispin’s day.

The war with France was, according to all medieval standards “unjust.” Henry dragged his troops into a fight for what was not rightfully his—the French crown. Aside from an insult paid him as he was already  contemplating war, Henry had no reason to invade France. In fact, the French were so eager to avoid war that they offered their princess to be Henry’s bride—but he wasn’t having any of it. He would not take a part of what he wanted, he would take all that he wanted. So, he invaded France, laid siege to Harfleur, and then fought the bloody battle of Agincourt. Hot-headed as Henry was, he was not a complete fool, he was capable of spurring his men on to victory—no small feat when they did not consider

their cause to be just. 

After the English are handed  the village of Harfleur, the troops advance to Agincourt. In the time leading up to the battle, Henry descends from his “throne” and mingles incognito with his troops and talks with a couple of men of the coming battle. It is here that he meets a common soldier who expresses his true thoughts of the king and what he wishes the king would do instead of involving countless lives in battle: “ I would he were here alone…and many a poor man’s lives saved." Henry replies and says that he doesn’t mind accompanying the king, “his cause being just and his quarrel honourable,” but the soldier

does not agree. 

After this discouraging exchange, which one could only assume would represent  the opinions of most of the army, Henry makes his memorable speech.  In it, he plays to the need of humans to be remembered. He tells his troops that those who survive will someday “stand tip-toe when this day is named” and that they will be part of “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers." His eloquent speech is riveting and his men are spurred onto victory. It is not an ordinary leader who can so potently inspire those he leads.

Henry’s fight with the French is not just. It is based on selfish greed and appetite for more power. He drags his men into a war that is not honorable and they know it. They stop believing in him and his cause, a problem that no king wants to have. But Henry manages to pull them up with pride and hope of glory, a sign that he is an effective (if not particularly wise) leader. King Henry V is an example of the phenomenon that is seen in the modern day; a person is an stirring orator, one that can practically hypnotize those willing to be entranced—but whose experience and wisdom is not necessarily that of a great head-of-state. Someone who is good at leading is not necessarily a good leader.

Hamlet and Macbeth: Walking a Mile in His Shakespearean Shoes

William Shakespeare penned approximately thirty-seven plays during his lifetime. In these plays, he created such characters as Romeo, Juliet, Henry V, Othello, Hamlet and Macbeth. These last two are the ones to be discussed today. Hamlet was a Danish prince whose uncle murdered his father and then married his widowed mother. Hamlet harbored a festering anger toward both of them which morphed into a spirit of revenge after being visited by the ghost of his father. The play revolves around the theme of taking revenge for wrongdoing, even if it involves committing a crime of his own. Macbeth, on the other hand, is a Scottish king who kills innocence to gain power, not to wreak vengeance on someone who did him wrong. In fact, Macbeth’s motives and actual actions reflect those of Hamlet’s nemesis, Claudius. However, Macbeth and Hamlet are connected by the common actions of killing and scheming. It is always interesting to see just how two different people would act in the same situation. In this case, the situation is that of the story of Hamlet, but Hamlet has been exchanged for Macbeth.

Scene 1

[In castle, Macbeth appears out of the fog.]

Macbeth: O cursed world where my poor father was killed by that vile serpent, Claudius. He that did drip venom into his ear has now married my mother—improper deeds! And that, worst of all is his usurpation of that which ought to have been mine, the throne!

[Enter Claudius, Macbeth becomes brighter.]

Macbeth: ah, beloved Claudius! How goes it with one such as you?

Claudius: Macbeth! It goeth well with me, yourself?

Macbeth:  I yet mourn my poor father—such unlucky fate! But aye, glad am I to have been favored with such a replacement to him as yourself!

Claudius: Thou dost flatter me too much, my son. Glad am I to have gained such a son as you. Enough chattering, though—let’s away to sup!

Scene 2

[enter Macbeth and Ophelia]

Ophelia: Macbeth! Why dost thou hesitate in your revenge? Your father was killed by the serpent, it is true, but far worse is the offense that he paid you by taking your rightful throne. Why not strike his head from his shoulders?

Macbeth: I feel the desire to do away with Claudius, it is true, but has he not treated me kindly? I would feel as if I murdered someone who thought of me as their son, as he may well think.

Ophelia:  Hast thou not always told me that in this world, a person can not afford mercy or feelings? Believe my woman’s intuition—Claudius will kill if you do not strike first.

Macbeth: Thou speakest the truth, though I feel that your words appeal to my baser feelings. I must keep minded that Claudius has done me great wrong, and all right is pushed aside in favor of vengeance.

Scene 3

[Ophelia and Macbeth meet, Macbeth is covered in blood, Ophelia helps him wash his hands off]

Macbeth: My hands will never get them clean, not an ocean can wash the blood of vengeance from my hands.

Ophelia: Harden thy heart, Macbeth. Every sane-minded man would say that you were in the right.

Macbeth: I feel that I should not have done it in secret surprise, but in open challenge, like a man.

Ophelia: Harden thy heart, Macbeth. Think as a victor, not a man.

Scene 4

Macbeth: Vengeance is the sole property of the One above, the Holy Writ says. Those who take such a deed into their own hands in such unmanly fashion reap the desserts. Ophelia, the one who spurred my intent has drowned, both in insanity and water. And now, I also perish, poisoned by order of the man that I killed. Life is ended for me with shame and punishment, surely a fate not destined for a prince of a country!

[Dies][Exeunt]

Yes, Macbeth and Hamlet each had differences in their plays as to motive and circumstance, but they were connected by the theme of killing and violence that was not theirs to employ. Their actions reaped dire consequence that eventually led to tragic ends for them--and almost everyone around them. While Macbeth’s motive was a lust for power, and Hamlet’s a lust for revenge, Shakespeare makes quite clear that fact that coldly premeditated violence is not a good solution, whatever the reason.

An original, new title..."First Post"

I just wanted to get a head start on writing on this blog...even though it will probably be more in use during the school year. Just keep in mind, "more in use" is a relative term.

I am going to be using this one in a more business-like way...mostly to write about things I'm learning in school. My subjects this year include Latin, British Literature (second time I've done it, but that's a long interesting story not a little related to the fact that I am my parents' first highschooler...), art history, speech and many other avenues of homework, (and interest. Interesting homework. I sound cynical. I should probably stop now...) so it will be a wide variety of posts, I'm sure.

Well, I look forward to writing on this blog, so if you're in the mood for semi-intelligent Olivia, read here. If you want a little more whimsy and fun stuff, go to Begin the Beguine . :)