The Digital Past X

June 20, 2013 | 1 Comment

The memorial honoring those whom had served in WWII was a controversial topic for some when the American Battle Monuments Commission in 1987.  Upon Representative Marcy Kaptur’s introduction of the World War II Memorial act to the House of Representatives, the project was acknowledged, but back-burnered.  Kaptur introduced a bill for the memorial three more times before a Senator Republican Senator of South Carolina, (Strom Thurmond), broke through and had both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved the bill by May 12th, 1993.  The World War II Memorial Act became public law when President Bill Clinton approved it on May 25th in 1993.

President Clinton then appointed 12 members to a Memorial Advisory Board and gave the group the responsibility of deciding where the memorial should be placed.  Despite the acquisition of funds from individuals, and veterans’ groups, (like the Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion), the placement of the memorial remained controversial and advocates of the Washington Monument, Washington Mall, and the Lincoln Memorial.  The United States Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Memorial Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service all attended the meeting to discuss where the memorial should be placed.  The meeting occurred on January 20th, 1995 and was organized by Colonel Kevin C. Kelley.

Sites that were considered included the U.S. Capitol Reflection Pool, the Constitution Gardens, the Tidal Basin, West Potomac Park, and Henderson Hall in close proximity to Arlington National cemetery.

There has been controversy about the whereabouts of the memorial.  Can you still see the National Mall?  Can you still respect the Lincoln Memorial?  Yes.  The World War II Memorial has no obvious intention of detracting or distracting from the two monuments it is placed between, and though war-related memorials might harbor more intense emotion than others, most of those emotions are of a grateful persuasion juxtaposed an essence of regret or resentment.  Despite the painful memories the memorial may provide for those involved in World War II, it should still be identified that the designers, architects,, engineers, and construction workers  poured their heart and soul into maintaining and commemorating the memories of fallen soldiers and those fortunate enough to survive, (but still graceful enough), to lend us their presence in the war and exemplify the solidarity that they had for their country.

The D.C. community may have skiddish behavior around the monument because of the location.  The area that was chosen for the sight has ruffled the feathers of folks who would prefer a clear path of the National Mall from the Lincoln Memorial, but the design of the memorial hasn’t substantially inhibited enjoyment and view of all three memorials enough to cause reconstruction.

The biggest problem that is faced by people trying to explore the mystery of a history on their own is the fact that they get to bond over the fact that none of them are certain of what they are viewing.  As a victim, veteran or just a witness of the atrocities that occurred during this international struggle, one can surely understand the significance of the memorial.  What’s even better is that that those merely exposed to the tribute can try to and want to understand the magnitude of the affect the U.S.’s involvement took on our citizens.  The memorial is not just for U.S. soldiers, either.  It seems to champion all who were affected by the war.  The peacefulness and serenity of the fountain and the orderly way the 56 columns representing each territory seems to thank everyone who was involved in contributing to U.S. efforts.

Sidenote:

“Kilroy was here.”  This inscription on the monument is unique to the World War II era and is not limited to any particular party that was involved.  It is infamous in the United States for adding comedic levity to situations during intense times because of it’s silliness and representation of solidarity amongst soldiers and citizens, alike.  Though there are many theories behind the origination of the silly cartoon with said inscription, the New York Times credited the phenomenon to J.J. Kilroy in 1946.  Kilroy was an American shipyard inspector that, (according to the New York Times), would tag every ship as it was being built.  The tag peaked in popularity during World War II because soldiers, (that had found the insignia on ship or heard about it from peers), began replicating it on surfaces in their stations sending a supportive/silly message to the men following them.  The meaning of the cartoon is still unknown to this day, but remains a light-hearted, legendary icon in times of turmoil.



Speak your mind

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *