Saving Private Ryan: Why Wartime Camaraderie During the Second World War Matters

Artistic media, from time immemorial, has had a complex relationship with treating and representing humanity’s belligerent past. Steven Spielberg’s 1998 dramatic full-length film Saving Private Ryan introduces a unique perspective on the theme of wartime comradery in the Second World War. Albeit arguable, it is clear that notions of friendship, bravery, and camaraderie are themes that humanity’s collective memory has exalted and continues to exalt, as the only remaining elements of humanity in a War that saw unspeakable atrocities and inhumane actions. The idea of camaraderie among similar ranking soldiers is not a novelty to warfare; yet, it is the only speck of recognizable humanity in soldiers that were otherwise desensitized to the atrocities they experienced during the war.

Spielberg’s moving war drama is uncannily accurate: while historians such as Edward Coffman claim that, “since World War II, many Americans have relied too much on movies for their knowledge of military tradition,”[1] Saving Private Ryan, though fictionalized, provides an account as accurate as a fictionalized piece could be. Issues of cowardice versus self-sacrifice are explored in the movie, as ultimate adhesives (or lack thereof) between battle companions. In most literature of wartime camaraderie, the phenomenon of super friendships between soldiers is often tied to cultural aspects of civil society or training army morale. However, in Saving Private Ryan it is clear that camaraderie is necessary to survive, and this recognition allows soldiers to retain a sense of normality that reflects their life prior to the war. Therefore, while the movie is notorious for the realistic undertone of its scenes, Spielberg’s interpretation of wartime camaraderie and attached issues of patriotism deserve higher recognition for their echoes in today's nostalgia of the American effort in the War.

This underscoring is clear: the focus of the movie is a small party of eight set to save the life of one. Naturally it follows, why would eight risk their lives for the life of one, in a war that desensitized soldiers to life’s worth?

Saving Private Ryan’s initial scenes are an incredibly accurate graphic, visual, and auditory experience of the Omaha Beach Assault, June 6th 1944. As part of the Normandy Invasion Campaign, most soldiers that disembarked on Omaha were from the United States Army. Veterans that have reported from this bloody invasion have recalled a bloodbath unlike anything they had previously seen in prior campaigns. The environment’s chaos, confusion, and complete mess contrast with the inner concentration and determination that are essential to the soldiers’ survival. According to a secondary character in a scene following the initial attack, “no one’s where they’re supposed to be.” This last remark is pertinent not only to the Normandy invasion, but also to its remembrance in time.

What remains from the tragic nature of the Second World War is fictionalized and extensively romanticized by those who were not alive to experience the Second World War, many of whom, like Steven Spielberg, have regarded it as the ultimate act of patriotism and love of country. In Saving Private Ryan, it is evident that Spielberg chose a style of narrative that focused not entirely on the war as a historical event or a clash of civilization, but as a story of human relationships and bonds that survive beyond the horrors of the war. The central narrative of the movie focuses on Captain Miller’s small battalion of eight foot soldiers, including a surgeon and a sniper, who are tasked with retrieving private Ryan from an unknown location he was parachuted to and send him back home safely.

The movie is not, as many have criticized it, an effort to narrate history, but it takes a sort of poetic license “to describe moments of danger, [when] the sense of community and camaraderie rises to new and unforeseen heights.”[2] Honor, patriotism, a sense of duty are all characteristics that are heightened in Saving Private Ryan and seem purposefully augmented to create a sense of resounding pride in the American generations to follow.

Yet, while the protagonists of the movie seem easy to overcome their fears and obey their inner sense of duty, one might question why would higher ranking officers in operation rooms risk the lives of eight of the best soldiers to save the life of one private. While the issue of life’s value is questioned repeatedly throughout the movie, the movie itself is not just a Hollywood blockbuster aimed at creating a generation of World War II romantics, but details a true military policy. The Sole Survivor Policy, was one issued by the U.S. army following the Civil War that dictated that if every brother of a family perished in battle, and there was one brother left still alive, then that brother was to be given indemnity and sent back home to his family. Families that have inspired or since obtained benefits from this policy—and upon which Saving Private Ryan is loosely based—are the Borgstrom brothers, the Sullivan brothers, and the Niland brothers.

Hence, the issue of camaraderie is pivotal to the narrative of Spielberg’s touching classic, because it is mainly the only “good” thing our collective culture has ingrained us to believe about the war effort. Camaraderie and patriotism are still examples of stamina, virtue, and idealism, that to this day allow generations to remember the war with pride—a sentiment shared by the victors and the vanquished. The bonds created between men in the same situations seem to be attributed to a number of things; yet, among generals and higher-ranking officials, “the general consensus seems to be that the political or patriotic instruction is important in getting the soldier to the front, in inculcating the sense of duty which causes him to volunteer or to report on mobilization, but it is at best implicit rather than explicit when in the field.”[3]

In effect, while “indoctrination” occurred also in liberal democracies as in dictatorships (not to the same extent), it seemed that the officer class was unaware of the emotional and psychological portent of the war front. The implicitness of patriotism in the war field is best described as an insensitivity of a top-down approach. Possibly, the strong will to survive maintained the soldiers in a tightly knight band of brothers, which furthered trust and respect among each member, and each member’s sacrifice. In a poignant scene towards the middle of the movie, Captain Miller is confronted by Private Ryan when he is found because he is unwilling to abandon his post. Private Ryan exclaims: “Tell her [his mother] that when you found me I was with the only brothers I got left” in an attempt to appeal to Captain Miller’s understanding of the bond between “war brothers” and the betrayal that the others would incur were he to abandon his duty.

“For most US servicemen, the war was understood in civilian terms as a ‘job’. The positive values which these men, for whom the mass unemployment of the Great Depression was still a recent memory, attached to work were directed towards the ultimate ‘job’ of winning the war.”[4] The civilian implication is widely underscored in Saving Private Ryan as the protagonists have a longing for home that can be fulfilled only if they complete the task at hand. However, the soldiers also understand that American pride is recognizable in avoiding desertion because that may lessen a fellow’s soldier’s chance to go home. “Why do I deserve to go? Why not any of those guys? They fought just as hard as me!” exclaims Private Ryan to Captain Miller once he is told he is to go back to the US. The interesting complexity Spielberg highlights is the value of the “job”. For Cap. Miller’s team, “we do that we get to go home” says Sargent Horvath: their “job” would be done if Private Ryan is sent home. Yet, the civic sense of completing the job moves Miller’s team to stay and aid Private Ryan’s small group in protecting an important bridge crossing against an approaching Nazi panzer division. “The concept [of civic duty] encouraged soldiers to accept military authority and take pride even in mundane tasks, linked front and home by providing a common point of reference, and delimited the horror and violence of combat, cast it in a familiar and more comprehensible light and thereby made it more manageable.”[5] Thus, the civilian connotation to the “job” allows every task to be seen as an obstacle to overcome, and each obstacle renders the soldier closer to home.

However, Spielberg manifests a keen understanding of the international perception of the American war effort: the director aptly shows an image of American patriotism and camaraderie that is somewhat exalted but also anchored in reality. There exists, in popular American culture a “clear understanding of a basic tenet of the American military tradition—that the citizenry could be depended upon to defend [the United States].”[6] In fact, internationally, America is known for its well-founded pride and patriotism, glorifying every individual soldier’s war effort. Spielberg renders each character of Saving Private Ryan a common Joe back in his homeland: some are teachers, some are mechanics, and so on. There is also an intersection of religions, personalities, and races. There are Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, so on and so forth. This marginal detail outlines a very important factor about camaraderie: while racism and prejudice back home in the States was rampant, every individual’s worth was based on his effort, and not his faith or skin-color.

Spielberg understands the role of the civilian population is shaping the image of the American army oversees. According to the military historian Edward Coffman, “the civilian military tradition has always been predominant. After all, it is not only the oldest, but also more Americans have participated in it.”[7] Saving Private Ryan develops as an analysis of a camaraderie of normal folks who up until the war had carried out normal lives: the intention was to create the sense that camaraderie and friendships during the war were not for some special soldiers, but for everyone. Moreover, while many have criticized the American bravado as “totally indifferent to great causes, [the American troops] fought during the Second World War because they felt they were on the side of ‘right’, vaguely associated with democracy, against ‘wrong’.”[8] In fact, while Sargent Horvath in Saving Private Ryan claims that “maybe one day we’ll look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole god-awful shitty mess,” the movie cements American bravery and camaraderie as the “one decent thing” that the American troops “were able to pull out of that god-awful shitty mess”.

A new kind of narrative has emerged among historians regarding what influences camaraderie: while the old narrative suggested the importance of morale training, the new narrative accounts for “[…] subtle cultural factors [which] possess considerable influence on the variable success of armies in the field.”[9] “Societal culture therefore impacted on militaries in a number of ways. It contributed to shaping their form and composition […]. It also played a role in shaping their ethos […].”[10] When considering cultural factors, one might imagine dictatorships such as in Germany and Russia to have had a greater impact in indoctrinating the soldiers with a camaraderie based in shared ideology, and enemy-building. According to important historians, “the Wehrmacht proved so resilient primarily because the cultural values which the Nazis established with their ideology actually reinforced the quintessentially military value of ‘comradeship’.”[11] In fact, the army continued fighting despite Hitler’s suicide and despite the officers’ understanding that they would lose the war. Yet, one might also consider “the alleged results of more liberal regimes” such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the respective armies of which experienced “closer inter-rank relations, less mistreatment of conscripts, and an emphasis on cultivating individual initiative among other ranks.”[12]

In the case of American troops, Spielberg, in Saving Private Ryan tries to reinforce the myth “that some peoples are naturally good warriors. […]”, emphasizing in his characters an array of military virtues, “the natural qualities of warlike people [are] bravery, aptitude, powers of endurance, and enthusiasm […].”[13], Nevertheless, director Steven Spielberg also includes characters that embody military vices of cowardice, such as the translator character in Captain Miller’s squadron, who fails to supply his comrades with ammunitions enough to defend themselves, spares the life of a German foot-soldier who then murders Captain Miller, and fails to intervene against a hand combat that results in the death of a fellow comrade. Nevertheless, Spielberg associates this cowardice and enemy-like behavior of some characters to the general character of the enemy. The characterization of enemies, acts as a background to contrast the virility, bravery, and camaraderie of American soldiers, against a problematic narrative in which all enemies are evil by virtue of being an enemy. In fact, “the popular stereotypes of peoples in conflict are hugely problematic, for they exaggerate national groups’ homogeneity while simultaneously disguising their often considerable similarities with members of other warring parties.”[14]

Regardless of Spielberg’s creation of a hyper-sensationalized American troop, certain characteristics of protagonists’ personas are central to understanding how and why camaraderie developed. Not only were cultural implications incredibly influential in the formation of brotherhoods within troops, but personality and storytelling were also incredibly appreciated, as underscored by the characters in Saving Private Ryan. Among the main characters, the sniper is deeply Catholic, utilizing his faith as his anchor when justifying his actions, as well as providence for him to be able to kill his enemies and save his battle brothers. “Personal belief in salvation or divine protection constituted their most important psychological support in battle,”[15] as denoted by the many soldiers who remained anchored to their civilian reality by wearing crosses or David’s stars on their necks in Saving Private Ryan.

Moreover, beyond the issue of spirituality, comradery is also about storytelling: as Keegan remarked thirty years ago, “what battles have in common is human.”[16] Comradery is built upon storytelling, through which each soldier’s personality shines. “Humor too was not only universally appreciated to quash fear and humanize horror but […] appears to have been similarly dark and macabre among all combatants.”[17] Humor is intended not only in the sense of cracking jokes, but as Spielberg denotes in the movie, it is about creating and drawing connections between the civilian past and the present, as well as between comrades’ experiences. Storytelling allows men at the front to bond over things they have in common, such as their mothers, their jobs back home—anything that would distract them from the atrocities witnessed. As a way to remain sane, and as a way to remain human, storytelling created bonds of camaraderie.

In Saving Private Ryan, storytelling is also about passing time together. The togetherness of storytelling in turn creates relationships of respect and ultimately trust among soldiers. Sharing things such as stories, socks, gum, jokes and even code words such as FUBAR (fucked beyond all recognition/repair/reason) are small uniting secrets that create camaraderie. As evident in Saving Private Ryan, of which the majority of the storyline is based on saving one private, during World War II “in addition to war heroes, the individual foot-soldier and his deeds stood in the foreground.”[18] In fact, personality, persona, and individual war effort transcend wartime camaraderie and create an understated respect from future generations about the sacrifices and loss of those who served during the Second World War. In World War II the shift from fallen war heroes to everyday people being glorified is especially apparent in Spielberg’s piece. The focus on the persona of one private shows the importance of identity, story, and that soldiers were not just numbers for war of attrition.

To effectively analyze the type of camaraderie Spielberg is directing in Saving Private Ryan one must look at the fact that while it is true that instances of bravery, camaraderie, and patriotism manifested within small groups, there is a contrast that Spielberg details in the movie between one small group, led by Captain Miller, and the rest of the American forces’ attitude towards one another. The military concept of small group effectively produces more comrade behavior: the small group allows for soldiers to personally know each other and cooperate in a way that creates respect and trust based on a mutual agreement that each will help each other out. In fact, there are some historians that see the small group as an exacerbation of the relation to tactics and strategy: “[…] The small group identifies itself by its difference from others. In the context of an army, that sense of difference can amount to a divorce from the collective goals of the higher organization which the group is designed to serve. The solidarity of the small group can lead it to refuse to fight, to disobey orders and even to mutiny.”[19] Thus, while the small group effectively creates comradery among its members, it may sometimes lead the soldiers astray. In fact, “cohesive primary groups were actually discouraged for fear that close relationships between soldiers might lead to subversive activity.”[20] Nevertheless, sometimes these small groups were necessary to carry out small tactical operations to open the ground for the larger army.

As seen in Saving Private Ryan, the small group actually increased the percentage of survival for its members as each one could rely on the other for survival. The group members only start to die in the movie when they are confronted with larger armies from which Captain Miller refuses to back away from, in case fellow American troops be ambushed. Moreover, small groups can move more stealthily and pass incognito.

While in Saving Private Ryan this fails to be explored in depth, the civilian setting from which Captain Miller’s soldiers were extracted is far different from its social counterpart post-World War II. In effect, many historians have regarded “American society [as] less hierarchical and more individualistic,”[21] which would imply disorder and disobedience in a conscript army such was the American in the Second World War. In previous wars, especially in the Civil War, veterans had almost entirely been volunteers, “men whose very act of enrollment demonstrated an initial and dominating desire to fight.”[22] An army of prevalently conscript soldiers meant that the patriotic spirit so glorified in Saving Private Ryan was an eventuality of small group troops. Not to say camaraderie and patriotism were not there; mostly, the conditions pre-World War II were that of a society that placed more value on the individual rather than the collective self-sacrifice, perhaps as a result of the hardships of the Great Depression.

Hence, camaraderie seems both an innate sentiment and something taught. Yet the question follows: how can one be indoctrinated to self-sacrifice? The focus of Saving Private Ryan is eight men risking their lives to save the life of one. Questions of the worth society allocates to one life rather than another seem totally arbitrary. Yet, “even American society, often portrayed as pragmatic, anti-hierarchical, and individualistic, supplied its soldiers with a cause to uphold and a framework through which to interpret battle experiences.”[23] This framework was morale training. Perhaps, other than cultural factors and personality and identity, morale training also offers another interesting perspective on acquired virtues.

It is clear that all the soldiers represented in Saving Private Ryan were trained civilians in the art of warfare. One does not simply become a sniper overnight, nor show exceptional leadership skills in the face of incredible atrocities. It is widely accepted that “[training] distinguishes the soldier from the civilian and so generates professional pride. [It] creates unit cohesion. The value of sending into action group of men who have trained together and who are commanded by the officers who have been responsible for that process, has been particularly remarked upon in the USA.”[24] This cohesion then translates into camaraderie in small group troops such as the team led by Captain Miller.

Spielberg demonstrates that not only are these men who become able of killing—like a sniper—but they are trained to kill, and do this effectively. Arguably, training “sets out to overcome the civilizing effects of peacetime norms and to defy the most obvious commandment of all”[25]—murder. Moreover, training creates morale among conscript soldiers. In fact, many military psychologists were aware that the soldiers post-World War I were demoralized and did not have high “morale and the ‘will to win’” thus recommended it to “be instituted systematically.”[26] Perhaps in copying the German system[27] the American troops were able to overcome individualism. Regardless, “morale is sustained in the terrifying conditions of industrialized war [because of] the primacy of the small group. Men, it is argued, fight for their mates rather than their country.”[28] Hence, men are more inclined to fight for themselves and for their will to survive rather than their country. This element was extremely evident as a strong sentiment among Captain Miller’s battalion soldiers, who longed to go back home, yet not to necessarily protect the home. Many regarded their duty as a job to be done, one which the repercussions would be the survival or lack thereof, of the small group.

The movies’ Omaha beach scenes occur in a flashback, as an old man walks through the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in France. The importance of memory is paralleled to the importance of soldiers’ experience of war. “No one’s where they’re supposed to be:” soldiers fallen in Normandy were often unrecognizable in the carnage that had left many bodies formless and together with those bodies that had managed to stay intact, were buried where they had fallen. The Normandy American Cemetery is portrayed as a vast green park, almost echoing an American prairie, with a countless multitude of white crosses, star-and-crescents, and David’s crosses. The cemetery is almost anonymous: the massacre at Normandy seems to echo only in the collective memory of those that survived it. In the literature regarding the contrast between the post-WWI myth of the war experience and post-WWII somberness, it is widely accepted that monuments were avoided in the post Second World War to remind future generations of the fear that those atrocities could be repeated. Moreover, the sentiment in historiography is that “when the borders between the front line and the home front became blurred, as in the second world war, it affected the way in which the conflict was seen in retrospect.”[29] Thus, the traumatizing experience of war had left a somber silence that was ominous of the past, to avoid its repetition, quite significantly different than the decades following 1918. Out of every horror witnessed, it seemed that veterans “as they resumed civilian life, they remembered the security, purposefulness, and companionship of the war,”[30] while trying to forget the dehumanizing effect of the war itself. They tried to remember what kept them human, rather than the events that attempted to deny their humanity.

****

Bibliography

Camfield, Thomas M. “Will to Win—The U.S. Army Troop Morale Program of World War I.”

Military Affairs 41, no. 3 (October, 1977): 125-128

Coffman, Edward M. “The Duality of the American Military Tradition: A Commentary.” The

Journal of Military History 64, no. 4 (October, 2000): 967-980

Marshall, S.L.A. Night Drop: The American Airborne Invasion of Normandy. Boston: Little,

Brown and Company, 1962.

Mosse, George L. “Two World Wars and the Myth of the War Experience.” Journal of

Contemporary History 21, no. 4 (October, 1986): 491-513

Spielberg, Steven. Saving Private Ryan. Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. 1998. Los Angeles:

Dreamworks Pictures and Paramount Pictures.

Strachan, Hew. “Training, Morale and Modern War.” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2

(April, 2006): 211-227

Turner, John Frayn. Invasion ’44: The First Full Story of D-Day in Normandy. New York: G.P.

Putnam’s Sons, 1959.

Watson, Alexander. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 529-546

Endnotes

[1] Edward M. Coffman, “The Duality of the American Military Tradition: A Commentary.” The

Journal of Military History 64, no. 4 (October, 2000): 968

[2] George L. Mosse, “Two World Wars and the Myth of the War Experience.” Journal of

Contemporary History 21, no. 4 (October, 1986): 495

[3] Hew Strachan, “Training, Morale and Modern War,” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2

(April, 2006): 214

[4] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 543

[5] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 543

[6] Edward M. Coffman, “The Duality of the American Military Tradition: A Commentary.” The

Journal of Military History 64, no. 4 (October, 2000): 968

[7] Edward M. Coffman, “The Duality of the American Military Tradition: A Commentary.” The

Journal of Military History 64, no. 4 (October, 2000): 969

[8] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 544

[9] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 532

[10] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 538

[11] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 535

[12] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 533

[13] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 529

[14] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 539

[15] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 543

[16] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 545

[17] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 544

[18] George L. Mosse, “Two World Wars and the Myth of the War Experience.” Journal of

Contemporary History 21, no. 4 (October, 1986): 497

[19] Hew Strachan, “Training, Morale and Modern War,” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2

(April, 2006): 213

[20] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 536

[21] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 542

[22] Thomas M. Camfield, “Will to Win—The U.S. Army Troop Morale Program of World War I.” Military Affairs 41, no. 3 (October, 1977): 126

[23] Alexander Watson. “Culture and Combat in the Western World, 1900-1945.” The Historical

Journal 51, no. 2 (June, 2008): 544

[24] Hew Strachan, “Training, Morale and Modern War,” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2

(April, 2006): 216

[25] Hew Strachan, “Training, Morale and Modern War,” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2

(April, 2006): 217

[26] Thomas M. Camfield, “Will to Win—The U.S. Army Troop Morale Program of World War I.” Military Affairs 41, no. 3 (October, 1977): 127

[27] Thomas M. Camfield, “Will to Win—The U.S. Army Troop Morale Program of World War I.” Military Affairs 41, no. 3 (October, 1977): 125

[28] Hew Strachan, “Training, Morale and Modern War,” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2

(April, 2006): 211

[29] George L. Mosse, “Two World Wars and the Myth of the War Experience.” Journal of

Contemporary History 21, no. 4 (October, 1986): 491

[30] George L. Mosse, “Two World Wars and the Myth of the War Experience.” Journal of

Contemporary History 21, no. 4 (October, 1986): 494