American History Teachers’ Collaborative

Summer Institute Reflection Paper

Bruce Rummenie

I have chosen three specific documents to analyze in context of the American History Teacher’s Summer Institute. While all three share a simple similarity in that they are written documents directed to the families of soldiers who served in World War I, each document has a profoundly different content, has an extremely different tone and voice, and would elicit a significantly different response from the reader.

Each letter was located in ILLINOIS AT WAR, 1941-1945: A Selection of Documents from the Illinois State Archives. Furthermore, each is typewritten. (This is especially significant to me, as I wrote papers as an undergrad on a typewriter - using white-out copiously, and wrote my dissertation in grad school on a laptop!)

The date of document #1 - “a communication of condolences regarding the death of a sailor at Pearl Harbor”- is February 27, 1942; the second document, #38 - “a communication of condolences regarding the death of a soldier near AAchen, Germany" -is dated April 7, 1945; the final document #40 - “Staff Seargeant Clyde L. Choate’s Medal of Honor Citation” - is dated October 25, 1944.

The author of each missive is neither made clear in the documents themselves, nor in the teacher’s manual supplied with the collection. That question, “Who was the author?” is one of the most intriguing surrounding the documents. I am assuming that each was written by a government employee, perhaps by someone whose job it was to write such communications. That question, as I will indicate below, would be an effective topic for writing and discussion among students. Were letters of condolence ever written by military commanders? Politicians? The president?

The audience for each document is similar, with one big difference: for all three documents, the mother and father and siblings of the soldier would be the primary audience. Document #40, the Medal of Honor Citation, would primarily be written for the recipient – and to share with members of his family and community. For the recipient of the third document, it might possibly have been considered an achievement of a lifetime and proudly displayed.

One of the things I think that is important in Document #1 is the somewhat confusing, and perhaps heartbreaking, acknowledgement, “A subsequent casualty report received from the Fleet Pooling Office listed the known dead, the wounded, and the ‘missing’, and stated that all persons not therein listed were then presumed survivors. Therefore it was upon receipt of this report that the Bureau sent its second telegram indicating that your son had been found.” This raises the question: Did this soldier’s family initially receive a telegram that their son was “found” and then receive further word that there was a mistake and he was, indeed, dead?

In Document #38, I think it is important to mention that in the letter it noted that the enemy forces, “…fought with all the power at their command…(they) could not halt the attacking troops as they drove forward to establish the first American foothold on German soil and to flank the important fortress city of Aachen. In this action, while advancing with his company against an enemy strongpoint, your son was instantly killed by the explosion of an enemy artillery shell.” This letter’s purpose is twofold in some respects: One, it is to assure the family that the son died in a honorable endeavor, and two, that he did not suffer.

In Document #40, the citation, there is a similar description of the action that occurred on the battlefield: “The Nazi tank was overrunning the shallow foxholes of the Americans when Sergeant Choate set after it with a bazooka. The sergeant fired a rocket from 20 yards in front of the tank, stopping it, then approached to 10 yards of the disabled vehicle, despite the fact that it still was firing. From his spot near the tank, Sergeant Choate killed members of the crew attempting to flee the burning tank. Then he closed in with a pistol until he was near enough to drop a grenade into the turret.”

I found it interesting how each document differs in its details regarding the battle. One gives little details, one gives brief and probably edited details, and the final one gives a more accurate – and harrowing – account of the battlefield.

It is clear that these documents, as I noted, are all meant to inform the family of events that occurred on the battlefield – yet with significant additions, deletions, and – perhaps – euphemisms. The documents allowed me to understand, in a historical context, what has changed regarding information disseminated during wartime; however, it also helped me understand what hasn’t changed. These issues of how to, and of what to, inform parents and the public are hotly debated today.

For example, many citizens who are against the Iraq war often regard the information we receive in the media today as highly biased in favor of the war. Some categorize it as right-wing propaganda. Interestingly enough, those who support the current administration’s war policies often categorize today’s media as just the opposite: left-wing, liberally biased, and bent on undermining the war effort. In any case, the issue of just what constitutes “propaganda” and what separates journalism from editorial is an interesting and complex one.

Furthermore, what happened in regards to Pat Tillman’s death in Afghanistan, and the current litigation against the military regarding false reports of the details surrounding his death, illustrates that there are difficult moral questions regarding what to say and what not to say regarding a soldier’s death. Do you give the exact details, however disturbing, to the public and the family, or do you edit and employ euphemism in order to soften the emotional blow? Is withholding the truth ever justified?

The citation for the Medal of Honor document gives specific details – yet the details are given in the spirit of honor and acknowledgement of bravery. While the family of the medal winner may find the details edifying, I’m sure the parents of the German soldiers who died in the tank, at the hands of the aforementioned soldier, might appreciate a less thorough explanation of their son’s death. The moral questions - and their application to public policy decisions – abound.

A careful perusal of these documents tells me (and would also illustrate to students) that the speed and style volume of communication and information has changed dramatically from World War I to the present. However, I would note to them especially, the importance of clear and accurate communication still remains.

Obviously, my questions in regard to these letters would have to be age-level appropriate. Higher grade level students might assess the pros and cons of modern media and communication versus the media and communication of World War II. They could also address the moral questions that arise regarding truth and accuracy in reporting: should the public know all aspects of wartime occurrences? Is there a difference between propaganda and patriotism? How would you define the two? Is there ever a time when we should not know the truth?

In any case, these documents would have to be presented in a historical context, preferably as a part of an inter-disciplinary unit between social studies and English classes. If I were to use these documents in my seventh grade English class, I would probably read each aloud first, as the length and complexity of each might dissuade poor readers from even attempting the reading. I might then ask some questions orally to elicit discussion, and/or have written questions for them to address. Possible questions for discussion or written response are as follows:

Questions:

• What is the purpose of each of these documents?
• When were they written? How do you know?
• Do you think it would be a difficult job to write letters of condolence to family members who had lost a son/daughter? Why or why not?
• Would it be a difficult job to write citations for the Medal of Honor? Why or why not?
• Which would you rather write and why?
• Explain how your choice of language and tone would differ if it were your job to write either a letter of condolence or a Medal of Honor citation?
• Do you think people would save these documents? Explain why.
• Would you rather receive important information in an e-mail, a television broadcast, a video conference, or a letter? Why?
• Are there differences in the form and requirements of e-mail and a standard letter?
• If you were the mother or father of the soldier in document #1 would you be angry?
• Why or why not?
• Considering the documents we just read, why is it important to know your audience, your purpose, and use appropriate tone and style in writing?