MovieChat Forums > The Unfaithful (1947) Discussion > Why 'overseas' and not 'at war'?

Why 'overseas' and not 'at war'?


Something I noticed about this movie was the repeated use of the term "overseas" when describing Mr. Hunter's absence immediately after his marriage to Mrs. Hunter. It was only during the trial at the end that the actual words "the war" were used to describe what he was doing during that time, even though it was obvious that this was what was meant by "overseas". Does anyone know why this film deliberately used this euphemism throughout? I have not seen this in other post-war films, so I'm curious.

reply

I was fourteen when this came out and as I remember, the term "overseas" was often used in referring to somebody in the armed forces.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

reply

My father was a WWII vet and I remember it being commonplace to refer to wartime service as going "overseas". It was a good euphemism and everyone knew what you meant.

reply

I haven't watched the movie yet, but might it have been that the term overseas meant he was in the services but not fighting in the war? Diplomatic corps? Desk job?
It seems to me that saying "in the war" would imply fighting but "overseas" shows that he is serving his country but non-fighting capacity.



Eddie Valiant: Nice booby trap. RIP, Bob.

reply

There are also references to Hunter's having "shipped out," his coming back from Japan, and when he had "to go back to camp." Besides, back then the war was something that people were eager to put behind them and the word "overseas" pretty much covered all anyone needed - or wanted - to know. It's only in recent decades that we've come to be so nostalgic about the war.

reply

Maybe the war was over but he was still overseas.

reply

One possibility is that they were emphasizing that he was active and in the war zone.

During WW II 16 1/2 million people served in the armed forces of the United States. That 16 1/2 million out of a population of about 135 to 140 million, or about 12 percent of the entire population, including women, children, and the elderly. If we take the 16 1/2 million out of those who were male and between the ages of 18 and 44, then we are at 16 1/2 million out of about 30 million or 55 percent. That 30 million is still probably a little too high as the draft age capped at 40 years old, but you get the idea. Everybody that could be in the military was. This is much more detail than we need to understand the situation, but I tend to get a bit pedantic.

There were many more people in the military during WW II than we had the resources to send overseas, even more that we could effectively use overseas if we could get them there. So, there sere many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who in the words of General George S. Patton spent the great WW II "shoveling s*** in Louisiana."

By saying that the guy was "overseas," they were saying that he was in a 'real' wartime job.


reply

Boy, how times have changed!

Today everyone is "shoveling s*** in Washington", and our so-called leaders are sending all our great soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines "overseas"!

reply

You're on the right track here.

The US military in the world wars was overwhelmingly civilians in uniform for the duration. Serving in uniform became a status symbol during World War I, exemplified by the service flag each family hung in their window, which was repeated in World War II. The red and white flag with the blue star did not differentiate between servicemen and women serving at home or overseas. A member who died while in service had a gold star on the flag to replace the blue, and again there was no differentiation as to location or manner of death. The sacrifices of all were equal. This status was so important that Congress codified the practice, in essence licensing the manufacture and designating who was authorized to display.

The huge military described in the above post has often been characterized as a spear, with the fighting man at the "sharp end of the spear." It was not so much that the resources were not there for everyone to serve overseas, but that the spear was mostly a support organization to maximize efficiency for a war machine fighting globally. More than half of the military served in the continental United States (CONUS now, Zone of the Interior--ZI--then), as training cadre, in home defense units, transportation organizations, in procurement, in a plethora of staff and desk positions. Likewise, of the those that did serve overseas, most of those served in similar functions. It was said that for every fighting man there were nine who supported him and never saw the front.

"Serving overseas" was a means by which families of those at the sharp end could recognize the additional hardship without demeaning those who didn't. It became the most common expression used for that recognition. This continued after the war when the military demobilized the civilians in uniform. They returned to a life where being in uniform no longer had status and used the expression as a reminder that whatever capacity they served in, they (and their families) sacrificed more than those who remained behind.

We know that Bob Hunter served in the South Pacific which at minimum exposed him to serious diseases such as malaria. The late Michael Tanner did not.

reply