Chapter 9 of this book analyzes Wartime Romances during World War II. The chapter's introduction, followed by a series of personal accounts, paints a picture of romantic life in the early to mid 1940s in the United States. It is one in which the war intensifies relationships of all kinds, leading to quick and hasty marriages which did not always end happily. It describes the immediate draw the uniform had on women, its glamour and romanticism, its honor, sense of duty and pride. The book also deals with the Homecoming of troops in chapter 12. Once again, through personal account of returning servicemen and their families, men came back home changed, permanently altered. They were eager to leave the service, but unable to detach from it and their many war experiences and memories.

This book certainly helps create a social and cultural understanding of America during and immediately after the war that puts elements of The Best Years of Our Lives into proper context. The relationship between Fred and Marie, married for only 20 days before he left for the war, serves as a perfect example of hasty marriage during wartime. Also, the idea of the glamour, prestige and romanticism of the uniform serves as the sole basis for Marie's attraction to Fred. Her dismayed and crestfallen reaction to Fred's assumption as a civilian role is the beginning of their marriage's end.

In addition, the detailed insight this book provides into the soldiers' unexpectedly complex and painful readjustment to life back at home and inability to abandon thoughts helps one understand the internal tension veterans experienced up their return home. It clarifies the grounds for many men's conversion into civilian life, which all too often included adultery, alcoholism, ostracism and alienation. The ability of The Best Years of Our Lives to capture these feelings through the stories of the three protagonists is one of many reasons it received so much critical and box-office success at its time of release.

Doherty creates a social, historical and cultural context to better understand the production environment in 1946, of which The Best Years of Our Lives could be considered a consequence.  Wyler, himself a veteran of the war, sought not to create a classical, heroic depiction of decorated servicemen’s celebrated and joyous return home, but rather, an honest film with rife with social and cultural implications.  Rather than giving audiences an idyllic and glorified portrayal of the return home, he recreated the difficult readjustment of veterans back into their “normal lives” at home.  That the film was met with wild success is a testament to Doherty’s argument that the postwar American audience found a deeper meaning in film, and sought it as a tool not to escape from, but to address social problems.

This book examines the life and political career of the 33^rd president of the United States, Harry S. Truman.  Born in Missouri, he went off to serve as a captain of artillery in World War I.  Upon his return, he began his career in politics and quickly rose to great local and state popularity due to his "reputation of honest and efficiency as well as for party regularity."  His political shrewdness caught the attention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, searching for a new vice presidential candidate to replace Henry Wallace in the 1944 election.  After Roosevelt died in April of 1945, Truman assumed the presidency and was initially preoccupied with foreign policy: the Allied conference in Potsdam  and the conclusion of the war in Europe.  But perhaps the issue that took precedence at the time, and remained a major point of political debate the year after (1946, when The Best Years of Our Lives was made), was the decision in August to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.  Though Truman maintained till his death that he made the decision solely on the basis of ending the war, preventing an invasion of Japan and saving American lives, the book explores alternative beliefs that Truman had alterior motives, such as preventing participation of the Russiancs in the Japanese defeat, as they had pledged to do at the Yalta conference.

The decision to drop the bomb was initially greeted with great acceptance by most Americans, who were relieved to see the surrender of Japan, the end of the war, and the return of the troops.  Soonafter, however, people began to question the morality of leveling an entire city and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians with a single bomb.  People began to question if dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good decision, if perhaps the US should have warned Japan of the awesome power their new weapon was capable of, if it should have been dropped on a military base rather than a city.  This debate was very much alive and well during 1946, the year of The Best Years of Our Lives, and this social commentary is very much interjected into the film.  For example, upon Army Sergeant Al Stephenson's (Fredric March) return home, his son promptly asks him if when in Hiroshima he saw the damaging of effects of radioactivity on survivors of the bomb.  The film is not a sterotypical, patriotic postwar film for many reasons, and its ability to recognize domestic debate over foreign policy is one reason for that; its discussion of complex issues lends it a layer of intellectualism.  At that point in American History, and still to this day, the American conscience has not been able to completley accept the decision to use the atomic bomb.

This book examines the portrayal of the war at different stages in books and movies of the time, and draws a correllation between the movie and the purpose it was considered to serve.  In the essay “New Heroes: Post-War Hollywood’s Image of World War II,” Philip Landon strives to characterize the common war film of postwar period.  He claims that “war films of that time shared a myth essentially similar to the western,” films that lacked critical acclaim due to their uniformity and generic context in portraying the war.  As Paul Fussell wrote, “Hollywood shared the mass media’s aversion to examining the actual horrors of the War’s mechanized battle fronts.”  The attempts of these war films were not to push any limits as far as conventions, depth and complexity of story, and level of provocation, but rather sought to create a “mythic hero remarkably well-suited to the mood and circumstances of post-war America,” as it was perceived by the studios.

This observation raises an interesting point touched upon in the biography of Samuel Goldwyn. During the war, Hollywood naturally made heroic war tales to instill sentiments of hope and pride in American citizens. However, Hollywood generally tended to apply this same belief to the immediate post-war period, Goldwyn included. Any actual dramatic portrayal of the war and its negative effects was considered a risky bet, especially casting a real-life double amputee with hooks for hands. But as the ARI analysis and the film's wild success both demonstrated, Americans were no longer disillusioned about the war, and in some way, shape or form, were seeking an outlet for this. The war had profound and negative effects on their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons who brought these effects home with them. The ability of The Best Years of Our Lives to translate the true-to-life experiences of returning veterans from all ages and socio-economic levels to film was groundbreaking at the time, and was what the American public wanted to see.