My suspected reason(s)...
- It ended in a stalemate. WW2 is remembered in the Anglosphere because 'we' won. Vietnam is remembered because 'the Americans' lost. How can you celebrate or villify a draw?
- The war [as mentioned] was pretty similar to WW2 - in tactics, in kit [only real exception; the Fagots - Sabre/Meteor jet dogfights]. Thus, it didn't generate many iconic pictures, weapons etc - and many of them could be mistaken for WW2 images.
- Korea merely confirmed the lessons from WW2 from the view of the Western officer's corps. Therefore, no need to be really remembered.
- It was 'relatively' small. WW2 featured [in the USA] 16.1m serving, with 1m casulties. 2.7m fought in Vietnam, and with 211k casulties. Korea only featured 1.8m and 129k respectively.
- There was rather little memorable 'home front' effects. For Americans, WW2 led to mass rationing, women working in factories and so on. Vietnam led to mass draft riots and protest songs. The Korean War led to a few early shortages and then strong surge in the economy, due to wartime spending - the main 'negative' Americans might have noticed was a uptick in inflation [the UK effects were stronger; increased military spend caused cuts which might have helped the Labour Govt lose the 1951 election].
- Censorship. It was the last conflict where it was fought without the glare of the modern media - and the military's efforts to stop/control journalists was pretty much successful. What's more, 'the Brass' did not feel they needed to do 'public relations' for the conflict [unlike WW1/2] which meant they didn't even have much incentive to do propaganda for it. Result; an 'information bias' against the Korean War rather than other conflicts - the lack of primary sources leading to a lack of the second, leading to lack of pop-culture etc.
All the above I'll argue hit each other to create a storm to 'forget Korea' in the West's mind. Creatives want to 'make a story set during a war' and they end up falling to WW2 by default. It's hugely well-documented, it's something almost everyone knows a bit about [this is a help in narrative terms; nobody has to explain why we're fighting Hitler or how it all started for the film to make sense!] and for the veterans, often will like to see/hear how they were great and won in the end against the Big Bad.
Vietnam caters for the other aspect needed in war films; the 'futility of war', the fear, the catch-22 situations, the 'caught by the machine' mentality and the 'banal evil' acts being done by and experienced by the lowly grunt. You don't need to know the 'why are we here' bit because most of the time, the characters don't know either.
Both of these have created a feedback loop; the fictionalised previous two wars dwarf Korea, so it continues well into the 21st Century.
- It ended in a stalemate. WW2 is remembered in the Anglosphere because 'we' won. Vietnam is remembered because 'the Americans' lost. How can you celebrate or villify a draw?
- The war [as mentioned] was pretty similar to WW2 - in tactics, in kit [only real exception; the Fagots - Sabre/Meteor jet dogfights]. Thus, it didn't generate many iconic pictures, weapons etc - and many of them could be mistaken for WW2 images.
- Korea merely confirmed the lessons from WW2 from the view of the Western officer's corps. Therefore, no need to be really remembered.
- It was 'relatively' small. WW2 featured [in the USA] 16.1m serving, with 1m casulties. 2.7m fought in Vietnam, and with 211k casulties. Korea only featured 1.8m and 129k respectively.
- There was rather little memorable 'home front' effects. For Americans, WW2 led to mass rationing, women working in factories and so on. Vietnam led to mass draft riots and protest songs. The Korean War led to a few early shortages and then strong surge in the economy, due to wartime spending - the main 'negative' Americans might have noticed was a uptick in inflation [the UK effects were stronger; increased military spend caused cuts which might have helped the Labour Govt lose the 1951 election].
- Censorship. It was the last conflict where it was fought without the glare of the modern media - and the military's efforts to stop/control journalists was pretty much successful. What's more, 'the Brass' did not feel they needed to do 'public relations' for the conflict [unlike WW1/2] which meant they didn't even have much incentive to do propaganda for it. Result; an 'information bias' against the Korean War rather than other conflicts - the lack of primary sources leading to a lack of the second, leading to lack of pop-culture etc.
All the above I'll argue hit each other to create a storm to 'forget Korea' in the West's mind. Creatives want to 'make a story set during a war' and they end up falling to WW2 by default. It's hugely well-documented, it's something almost everyone knows a bit about [this is a help in narrative terms; nobody has to explain why we're fighting Hitler or how it all started for the film to make sense!] and for the veterans, often will like to see/hear how they were great and won in the end against the Big Bad.
Vietnam caters for the other aspect needed in war films; the 'futility of war', the fear, the catch-22 situations, the 'caught by the machine' mentality and the 'banal evil' acts being done by and experienced by the lowly grunt. You don't need to know the 'why are we here' bit because most of the time, the characters don't know either.
Both of these have created a feedback loop; the fictionalised previous two wars dwarf Korea, so it continues well into the 21st Century.
