Military Music & Military Justice
Once upon a time, in a land far away and distant, I worked for a lawyer who endorsed as required reading, “Military Justice Is to Justice as Military Music Is to Music,” written by Robert Sherrill. The book title came to mind in reading a recent opinion piece by Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speech writer. In the op-ed, Noonan targets President Donald Trump as a gangsta in Hollywood movies from the 1950s.
Noonan rambles about President Trump’s statements concerning powerful battleships of old. She seemed surprised and chagrinned that the President knew the name of the famous World War II dreadnoughts, the Missouri, Iowa, and Alabama.
Peggy Noonan observed that what was, “more interesting was his engagement in what he was saying. Suddenly, I was certain he grew up watching ‘Victory at Sea.’” She mistakenly stated that the “documentary” was about battleships of World War II.
It is unclear what the writer’s point was, other than to suggest that Donald Trump was caught in the past in terms of his understanding of war and peace.
The article caused me to research Victory at Sea, which I watched with my Dad every time it was on television. It was my first and earliest introduction to the boob tube.
Victory at Sea was just amazing. It opened each segment with the same melodic haunting strains timed to the peaks and valleys of ocean swells. So addictive was the opening, that my Dad used to hum it when we went out on his fishing boat. When I started sailing with my kids, I could not resist a poor vocal impression of the opening strains of Victory at Sea.
The narrator and the text are amazing. The script written for the narrator’s deep and grandiose voice is graphic, erudite, and unique in its ability to capture the hearts and minds of the listener. Words like “carnage” and “slaughter” are liberally used.
Virtually all of the captivating footage is accompanied by the music of composer Richard Rogers, arranged by Robert Russell Bennett. However, there is no narration during the most dramatic fighting scenes. Explosions and flashes are seen, with not a word spoken. To accompany violent footage with music was a deadly dangerous decision for the composer.
The interplay of narration, film clips, and music made the series into a form of opera. The creators of the series utilized repetition, difficult scenes from combat, and victory marches in a carefully orchestrated sequence that was hard not to watch. All of the series is available today on YouTube and should be watched by anyone interested in history, drama, and political theatre.
The early segments are clearly demonstrative of the awful position that the United States and the free world was in after Germany conquered all of Europe, except for Britain, and subsequent to Japanese control of the Pacific, Manchuria, and the Far East generally.
While Hitler was attacking Russia, his last opponent, and embedding himself in North Africa, the Japanese were moving towards the rest of Southeast Asia and threatening New Zealand and Australia.
The narrator was not wrong to state that the old world would not survive without the new world. At times, some of the narration is jingoistic, blatantly stating that it was up to the United States to save the world.
The 25-minute segment leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor is a must see for any student of history. Each 25-minute segment explores a different chapter in the history of World War II. Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway, Molta, North Africa, and other names shrouded in the historical fog are graphically revealed.
The greatest generation who fought in World War II are mostly dead. Several of the men in my own family served overseas. They rarely talked about what they saw during World War II but clearly, the experience was emblazoned in their consciousness.
The question is whether watching Victory at Sea, if Donald Trump did indeed do so, made him more or less war-like. There are those who say, perhaps like Peggy Noonan, that “Victory at Sea” caused Trump to be impressed with big and powerful weaponry. Others would have the opposite view. Anyone who watched “Victory at Sea” could not escape for a moment the necessity of American alliances with its democratic friends. NATO and organizations promoted by the United States in Southeast Asia have kept the world safe since the end of World War II. One would think that any viewer of Victory at Sea would support our allies, the alliances which arose after World War II, and would be strong opponents of Russian, Iranian, North Korean, and Chinese aggression.
President Trump’s constant battles with American allies are at odds with the message of Victory at Sea. Many of the program segments focus on America’s relationship with Canada, Greenland, Australia, New Zealand, Britian, and even Russia.
The depiction of the Battle at Guadalcanal is one of the most vivid and heart-rending scenes ever depicted on TV. No AI or modern film thriller comes close to stirring emotions the way “Victory at Sea” does.
The power of America is touted impressively. Seen are American factories belching out smoke, tool and dye rooms creating important parts for war machine, “bare ass” new inductees running upstairs after their physicals, working women, tanks and airplanes pouring off the assembly lines.
Towards the end of the Guadalcanal March, the narrator states that it is America’s job to “save the world”; and that we did.
The message of Victory at Sea is a message of the vulnerability of the free world and its obligation to stick together against tyranny. It is a simple, direct, and strongly delivered message for our generation and all generations to follow.