56 pages • 1 hour read
Studs Terkel“The Good War”: An Oral History of World War II
Nonfiction | Biography | Adult | Published in 1984A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Introduction
Book 1, Section 1
Book 1, Section 2
Book 1, Section 3
Book 1, Section 4
Book 1, Section 5
Book 1, Section 6
Book 1, Section 7
Book 2, Section 1
Book 2, Section 2
Book 2, Section 3
Book 2, Section 4
Book 2, Section 5
Book 3, Section 1
Book 3, Section 2
Book 3, Section 3
Book 3, Section 4
Book 4, Section 1
Book 4, Section 2
Book 4, Section 3
Book 4, Section 4
Book 4, Section 5
Book 4, Section 6
Epilogue
Key Figures
Themes
Symbols & Motifs
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaEpilogueChapter Summaries & Analyses
“Nora Watson” Summary
Born in 1943, Nora Watson grew up with fresh memories of war. She was deeply influenced by photos she saw of the Holocaust when she was 12: “There was not a place in the world, no matter what its potential, that can be relied upon” (576). At the same time, Nora also remembers her and her younger sister growing up without fear of poverty and with more concern about consumer goods like clothes. Also, because of the lack of knowledge about the dangers of radiation, she lived near a radium-processing plant that may have been responsible for her mother’s death from cancer.
“Joachim Adler and Marlene Schmidt” Summary
Joachim and Marlene, both German, discuss how Germans and other Europeans are much less concerned with nationalism and will refuse to go to war. Further, they discuss how the German educational system denounces Hitler, although it also villainizes rather than humanizes the people who followed him. Likewise, they claim that the generation that lived through Hitler’s rule often say that they were ignorant of the Holocaust.
“Steve McConnell” Summary
A member of the baby boomer generation, Steve McConnell remarks that his generation “had the luxury of free time and economic security” (581). There was an awareness of the possibility of nuclear war, but bomb shelters were treated like just another consumer item. Otherwise, the postwar era saw optimism and confidence centered on technology and business. The historical memory of World War II is a positive one for Steve. However, he notes that it was harder to cope with the Vietnam War “because there was such a contrast” (584) with World War II. Steve also argues that people in his time are more concerned with their own economic self-interest than with the well-being of the nation as a whole.
“George Seymour” Summary
A 28-year-old at the time of his interview, George Seymour notes that he and many of his friends believe they will die in a nuclear war. George contrasts his attitude to that of his older brother, who was in college during the 1960s and believed he could influence politics through activism. George says, “I can put my two cents in, but I don’t entertain the notion that it will affect anybody” (585).
“Debbie Cooney” Summary
A 17-year-old, Debbie says she became aware of the possibility of nuclear war at age 10. She worries for her 18-month-old niece, who must also live under the prospect of nuclear war.
“Street-Corner Kids” Summary
This last interview is with a group of Italian American, Hispanic, and black kids living in Chicago. Each one talks about how they live knowing that a nuclear war would probably mean the end of the world. One of the kids, Monk, says, “The fear that most kids got, I got that fear, too. They might just tell you they ain’t got any future in this world” (588).
Epilogue Analysis
In contrast to the optimism and solidarity of World War II and its immediate aftermath, the stories here suggest a darker and much more lasting legacy: the fear of nuclear annihilation. The narratives Terkel collects here suggest that young people are negatively affected by the fear of nuclear war. Terkel’s interviewees also suggest that American society has become more focused on consumer goods and materialism, and that Americans feel less sure they have a voice in politics. Rising consumerism, political uncertainty, and geopolitical tension further complicate the idea that World War II was “the good war.”
