Product Description
The first in-depth, insider’s study of the strange and often shocking world of twentieth-century war reenactors D-Day with beach umbrellas in the distance? Troops ordering ice cream? American and German forces celebrating Christmas together in the barracks? This could only be the curious world of twentieth-century war reenactors. A relatively recent and rapidly expanding phenomenon, reenactments in the United States of World War I, World War II, the Ko… More >>
War Games: Inside the World of Twentieth-Century War Reenactors
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:18 pm
This book deals with the hobby of reenactment. Reenactments are big throughout the USA, Europe (and even Japan) as well, attracting thousands of spectators.
Unusually, the author limits her coverage to only 20th Century reenactments in the USA which limits the scope of reasons for getting into the hobby, I think. I am cross-reading this book with another book “Living History” (Brassey Pub)which covers other reenactment groups as well.
Accoding to the author, these 20th century groups are focused on private events (no public involvement), with unscripted firefights using blanks being the primary reason for reenactment. The public events with scripted performances and living history presentations appear to be barely tolerable to most of the reenactors, who have to deal with the ignorant public on their displays. This gives the impression that these reenactors enjoy their hobby only within a tight network of similar minded folks.
This would contrast with other period groups who appear to be more focused on the scripted performance, public displays and the historical aspects of reenactment.
Given this approach, I doubt that the book or the hobby would appeal to many of the ignorant lay public.
Rating: 3 / 5
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:10 pm
I was asked to read this by a fellow reenactor (yes, I am a female WWII reenactor) and we have passed it around our little group for discussion. I know some of these other reviewers are also reenactors, and I am a little surprised that they rated this so high.
Yes, it is “interesting” mostly because we are very much an invisible part of society. But attending 2 reenactments a year, in the same 2 places is not representative of the hobby or its members.
Jenny Thompson is neither historian nor reenactor. The University system-created “ethnography” major she sports no more makes her qualified than my cat. But I will give my reasons for why I take issue with this book.
First, she never gets past the staid and boring academics’ “need” to dote on the “social, economic and political causes and effects” of WWII (p. 109). Give me a break! Those are the things that have given history the bad rep of being “boring.” You have to know the background in this of course, but Real People want something to tangibly relate to — the humanity of war — and that’s what reenactors provide. (explained on p. 160). Interviewed reenactors get it across eloquently about the lack of education in both the public and among academics and school teachers (p. 91).
The only reason I gave this book 2 stars is the reenator acccounts. They are genuine and I can relate to them. They are entertaining — but just as I was really getting into the real reasons we reenact by the real people who do it — Jenny Thompson intrudes and ruins the tone by saying she finds it “disturbing.” She was the most disturbed person in this book all the way through. That’s her favorite word. I’d like to run it through the computer for the number of times she used this word. Unfortunately there are no women interviewed. And I have talked with women reenactors who said they spoke with her during her interviewing and thesis work, but they didn’t say what she wanted to hear.
Her “quotes” from unknown scholars (and I’m pretty well read) and unnamed National Park Personel show what a narrow and critical audience she knows. I have participated at many NPS sites. Reenactors draw crowds to some places where these Rangers would hardly see a visitor otherwise. And some of these Rangers are wrong in their information. Many times she uses vague references to whatever critics she is depending on to carry her argument as “people” or “those who”. Not very scholarly, Jenny! And as for her remarks about Reenactors knowledge — most reenactors I know only read primary sources, and scrutinize historians’ agendas when their work is not heavey on primary sources. Her accusation about the desire to “own” history is wrong. That implies not sharing, and the very opposite of what we do.
I agree also with the reviewer who points out how dated this book is, with references to the Oklahoma bombing and Waco. (p. 170).
Regarding female reenactors and her assessment (p. 79): She’s wrong that women are not interested in war! The main problems with women reenactors and their participation are the limited roles women played historically, and also our modern lifestyles. Women with small children can’t take them on tacticals. Jenny’s just too overfeminist to strike a balance or understanding.
The book gets very repetitive. Chapter 10 is virtually the same material as Chapters 5 and 8. Somehow around every 3 chapters she gets back to being puzzled why anyone does WWII Germans. Talk to a few German-Americans.
For Readers who hoped this book would answer their questions: My suggestion is to just seek out some reenactors and ask them yourself why we reenact! I assure you there will be many different answers. But I think all reenactors will agree that “reenacting” isn’t something in our intellect. It’s in our soul. And Jenny Thompson never will “get it.”
Rating: 2 / 5
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:52 pm
While this book was published in 2004, the events and opinions discussed in the book are from the early to mid 1990’s. As the members of the “Greatest Generation” are passing away, there is much renewed interest in WWII reenacting, in particular. The death of my own father two years ago sparked my interest in the period, and my subsequent discovery of reenacting. As I was new to the hobby, I was anxious to read the book and discover what all the excitement was about…the “infighting”, the lingo, and the constant struggle for authenticity. When I read Jenny Thompson’s book, I understood much of what I had seen in MEN’s groups. The problem is, I’m a WOMAN doing a woman’s impression- I’m not part of a man’s group. When Ms. Thompson wrote her book, there were few, if any women’s reenacting groups out there. Women in reenacting have totally different motivations and goals for participating in the hobby, and while we also have arguments over authenticity, there are many more problems that are unique to women’s reenacting. Ms. Thompson wrote a great book that offers some intriguing insight to men’s groups, but should have been updated to include research after 2000, when more women’s groups were emerging. She also should have ventured into other areas of the country, where cultural norms are quite different from the Northeast. Overall an excellent book- particularly for anyone interested in, or new to reenacting. Just realize the info is based on a very small portion of the hobby, and is far from all-encompassing.
Rating: 4 / 5
May 4th, 2010 at 12:55 am
This book is a must read if only because it’s one of the few on the subject. Grunska’s book is not worth reading, and “Confederates in the Attic” only deals with Civil War reenacting for a chapter or two. To be fair, I have not read Jay Anderson’s Time Machines yet.
Thompson’s treatment is fair, honest, balanced, and accurate. If you are interested in the subject, it is a must read. If you are interested in reenacting as a study of history, get it.
My only complaint is that Thompson was only able to meet East Coast reenactors. The Midwest and California both have active reenacting communities with a flavor all their own. Not to mention reenactors in foreign countries.
Her book is not definitive, but it is an excellent treatment, and very valuable for it’s rare subject matter.
Rating: 4 / 5
May 4th, 2010 at 3:17 am
War Games is based upon the author’s doctoral thesis in American Studies at the University of Maryland. This book looks at 20th century war re-enacting; World War I, World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War. The book does not directly address the more popular Civil War re-enacting or the less popular “Span-Am”, Spanish-American War. In 20th Century re-enacting, World War I and II predominate, with Vietnam just beginning to be recognized as a venue for re-enactment.
Ms. Thompson has taken a clinical or social scientific approach to her investigation of re-enacting. Not only was she an actual re-enactor for some ten years, but she distributed for her research several hundred questionnaires most of which were returned to her. She is in a very good position to describe this phenomenon and from what I can gather, she knows her subject.
The central thesis of the book is stated on page xviii of the Introduction: “Instead, as I hope to show, re-enactors use the hobby in general and focus on the issue of authenticity in particular in order to cope with the real-life issues that reflect the broader culture in which the live. However much it masks its relation to the present through elaborate rituals, costumes and props, re-enacting is both a product of and response to the very society from which it emerged.” Thompson is stating that in spite of the emphasis on history, period clothing and weapons, what we are talking about here is life and all its aspects as it is lived today, not as it was 60 or 90 years ago.
On page 153, Ms. Thompson begins a discussion which strikes at the heart of re-enacting. And that discussion concerns the fact that re-enactors spend very little time re-enacting actual historical battles. The definition of “re-enact” means to act that which has already been acted. With this definition, one would logically expect re-enactors to do this. One would expect that they follow the history of a particular battle in detail and act it out. However, they by and large do not. They will establish a general scenario for a mock battle with general goals which determine a “winner”, and then proceed to skirmish, attack and out-flank one another to achieve those goals. She recognizes this fact when she discusses private battles versus public battles. Private battles are open and free-flowing, where as public battles are organized and scripted. Creativity with a basis in history is sought after in private battles which are largely the type of battle most often preferred by re-enactors.
It is amusing that Civil War re-enacting is often referred to as “Silly War” by WW II re-enactors [Note: I refer consistently to WWII re-enactment because it represents the majority of 20th century re-enactors], and yet most probably Civil War comes closest to defining re-enacting through adherence to military historical fact. One reason that Civil War comes closest to true re-enactment is because the scope of the battles is limited to smaller areas. Opposing armies can establish themselves in ranks, facing one another, and have at it and according to the history of the battle, follow the action through to its conclusion with the appropriate side achieving victory. This is next to impossible in WWII re-enacting. The distances and battle areas between armies in WWII were substantial. Much of the fighting was mechanized and done in and around villages the types of which are not found in the US. But even if the re-enactor could duplicate the general landscape, very few re-enactment groups will sit down, read the history of even a small unit action, and plan out the process of the battle. Why? Because re-enactors do not want to be scripted, they want to proceed on a general basis with general objectives, they want to employ their creative abilities to overwhelm an objective and they, and it must be said, want to enjoy themselves. The point has been made many times over by re-enactors that they have spent considerable time and money on the hobby, and enjoyment is paramount. In fact, re-enactors will jump units and even organizations to achieve the goal of enjoyment.
History to the average WWII re-enactor is only useful because it can provide a name for the scenario; “North Africa 1942, Normandy 1944, the Battle of the Bulge etc. Indeed this approach to history proves the general thesis of this book, re-enacting is about real life issues, not historical fact. To illustrate this point, Thompson relates the re-enactment of the Normandy invasion in 1994 at Virginia Beach. This was a public battle, and it was scripted. After the battle, one of the veteran re-enactors approached her and said “A realistic public battle? Now there’s an oxymoron”. Here was a scenario which probably stuck as close to historical fact as possible in a WWII battle, and we have a “re-enactor” declaring that the battle is a farce because it was scripted and witnessed by the public! Professional historians who criticize re-enactors have nothing to worry about. Most re-enactors are concerned with history only in the most general sense. After all, reading compilations of secondary history, let alone delving into primary source material is probably more than most re-enactors want to bite off. Veterans and critics who maintain that re-enactors trivialize war are also off base. And my assumption here is that “war” means frontline combat, not the other 90% of war which is boredom, drilling, eating and sleeping. This aspect of war can readily be re-enacted. Re-enactors are not at war, even when engaged in mock battles. They are essentially at play. They are at what amounts to an expensive game of “capture the flag”.
So if re-enactors are not re-enactors, what are they? As Thompson has suggested they are “commemorators”. Their interest in history, clothing, weapons, the manner and lifestyle of the 40’s commemorates the lives of the combatants who fought WWII. It is their way of saying, “We remember what you did for us and America, and we do what we do so that others may remember it also”. Re-enactors also have been shown to have a wide variety of motives, and these are described in this book. Some re-enact because a relative was in WWII; some are avid collectors of militaria and re-enact to display and demonstrate what they have collected. Some are vehicle collectors and join a unit so that they can not only display, but use their vehicles in mock combat. And some neither know nor care about the history of the period or their particular unit in the war. They are there for the camaraderie and the excitement of mock combat. Re-enactors are as diverse as the military they seek to represent. Just as the average infantry company contained motivated individuals who wanted to become soldiers, it also contained those who bent the rules in order to get by. The industrious served with the slackers; the dedicated with the goof offs, the clever with the mundane. Indeed the average group of re-enactors is comprised of the same personalities as one would find in today’s army or the army of 60 years ago. In this respect if not in any other, re-enacting does reflect historical accuracy.
I believe Ms. Thompson has done an admirable job in describing the phenomenon of re-enacting. She approached it from the perspective of the social scientist. She not only immersed herself in the hobby, but she conducted extensive interviews and obtained additional data through questionnaires. Her conclusions are correct. I think I could hand her book to any fellow re-enactor and tell him “Read this, and herein you will find yourself and most of your buddies”.
Rating: 5 / 5