Talk:The Greatest Generation (book)

Bold text

'Bold text'

I’ve removed the Strauss and Howe chart, which belongs only on the Strauss and Howe page. By putting that chart on each generation page, it gives a false impression to readers that that chart represents an official or widely-accepted list of generations, which is certainly not the case. While Strauss and Howe have contributed to our knowledge about generations, their theories are still very controversial, and have become very discredited in some circles. Many generations experts, for example, strongly disagree with the long length of their generational constructs. In any event, it was very misleading to put that chart on other pages than theirs.Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Man on the moon

Bold text Mention of putting a man on the moon as a contribution to this generation? - Unsigned noted on 09:03, 19 July 2006 by user:68.59.109.121

No. No applicability to the meaning and purpose of the term, which really only reflects their war stamina and dedication. Softlavender 03:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1924?

I thought the term really applied to anyone who was old enough to serve in WWII. Since you could legally enlist at 18 anyone born prior to 1927 fits the bill. I think all the combat veterans born in 1925, 1926 and 1927 would be surprised to realize they're not considered part of this generation. Was the year 1924 actually suggested as a bound by one of the sources? Or was this just someone's back-of-a-napkin math? 1945 - 21?? I read Brokaw's book years ago, but I'm fairly certain it would certainly apply to any combat veteran. --JayHenry 17:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

==Terminology==Bold text Was this referred to as "Greatest Generation" before Brokaw's book? If not, what was the terminology used for this generation before then? --Logotu (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I did a little Googling on "greatest generation ambrose" to see if maybe Stephen Ambrose had used the term. Also tried to see if texts from Ambrose's books about it were online at Amazon. They are not. According to this article Ambrose had the idea, but not the phrase: "It was Brokaw, however, who christened the men and women who experienced World War II as The Greatest Generation." I'd suggest looking in the indexes of Ambrose's books or otherwise researching it, though, to confirm that. Or maybe a big dictionary like Oxford that gives first use citations. Colfer2 (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

==World POV==Bold text Is this neccessarily only US citizens from that era? Many people from other countries would consider the people who faught in both world wars to be their greatest generation, it's a term I've heard numerious times to refer those from my country at that time. Especially since many other countries faught in WW1 and WW2 twice as long (from the beginning of the wars) than most US soldiers Thoughts?--72.139.35.107 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why only Carter's WWII service?

I may be missing something, but the "US Presidents" section goes like this:

Seven consecutive U.S. presidents were from this generation: George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy. President Jimmy Carter was a midshipman in the United States Naval Academy during the war.

They all served in WWII except for Johnson. Why mention only Carter's naval service?Originalname37 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I fixed that, but I put them in chronological order by date of presidency. Wowest (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Now that the article is just about Brokaw's term, does he define year parameters? I see some reviewers give 1900-1920 and some give 1910-1925. I don't have access to the book though so I don't know if he ever proposes specifics. Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

People born in 1901-09 (1900 was the tail end of the Lost Generation) are an odd kettle of fish. They were neither Lost Generation or Greatest Generation, but a transitional group. 208.101.138.126 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Eisenhower mentioned on page

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a hero of World War II, but he was born in 1890. Wouldn't that make him a member of the Lost Generation instead of this one? ---Eman91

Correct. He was a member of the Lost Generation just like MacArthur, Patton, and most of the other WWII generals. 208.101.138.126 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Recruits section

I am struggling a little to understand the purpose or intent of the "Recruits" section. It consists of only two quotes without explanation. It seems like it might be intended to act as a sort of criticism of the "greatest generation" terminology, but it doesn't really make this clear. Anthropoidape (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Famous members

Which people did Tom Brokaw cite? Is Cyd Charisse part of the cohort or just someone who tookthe trouble to be born aound that time. This comment is in no way meant to downplay or belittle the tremendous skill, dedication, and hardwork Ms. Charisse showed during her hoofing career. Stikko (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

@Stikko, since you obviously haven't read the book, or even the quote "Greatest Generation" within the context of the book, now would be a good time to stop editing the article regarding it. Thanks. --A2fwiki (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Howe and Strauss references

It was mentioned that Howe and Strauss used the term G.I. generation for a British group of cohorts. However, their book on generations uses the term "G.I. Generation" for american cohorts born 1901 to 1924. I made changes to reflect this and included citations.Corenabh (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What's so great about them?

Americans today work harder for less, are better educated, have better personal hygiene, heck we even smoke less then the so called "Greatest Generation".98.165.15.98 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete "Famous Members" Section?

It's a bit much. And none of the other generations contain such a list. Est300 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What's so great about them?

I'll tell you what's so great about them. Raised in dire economic straights, they never fell for self-pity. Asked to fight against the two greatest and most brutal military machines in history, they put down their plows and tools of their trade, traveled half-way around the world and beat both the Nazi war machine and the Empire of Japan, two forces which had been terrorizing the world. They did so under the most brutal conditions, without complaint. Not only did the greatest generation fight, but on the home front they created an industrial giant, whose unbelievable productivity supplied other countries, such as the Soviet Union, with the means to fight, without which their willingness to fight would have meant nothing. It was the generation which came home from the war not whining about "post traumatic stress syndrome," but ready to get back to work and make this country the world's leading industrial and business leader it became.

The new generations are soft, cowardly, lazy, and self-entitled. When you see an old, bent-over man somewhere, shuffling along on painful legs, don't make fun of him. Remember this, in his prime, he stood fire. Could you?98.170.199.37 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)