A.P. Herbert
It was not righteousness, it was not luck
That made the Fort, the Sherman and the Duck,
Or launched the Liberties and L.S.T.’s
To take St. George across the narrow seas.
And when we modestly proclaim our might
Let us be glad Big Business joined the fight,
And sing for ever on the Day of Thanks
The vast inventive genius of the Yanks.
© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes
Analysis (AI Assisted)
This poem offers a sharp, almost cheeky reflection on the often-overlooked contributions of industry and commerce in wartime success. In particular, it praises the role of “Big Business” in helping to produce the equipment that made the D-Day landings and other pivotal moments of the war possible. The tone is slightly tongue-in-cheek but carries an underlying respect for the ingenuity and scale of American industry during the war effort.
The opening lines set the tone by denying that “righteousness” or “luck” were the primary factors behind military victories like the creation of the Fort (likely a reference to the fortified military vehicles or strongholds), the Sherman tank, and the DUKW (affectionately called the “Duck” – a versatile amphibious vehicle). Instead, the poem places the credit squarely on practical, industrial know-how and invention, suggesting that these machines, which played a crucial role in World War II, were the results of hard work and ingenuity rather than divine intervention or mere chance.
By referencing “Liberties” and “L.S.T.’s” (Landing Ship Tanks), the poem nods to the massive logistical efforts that went into building the armaments needed for such large-scale operations. These were not small, hand-made pieces of equipment, but massive, industrial efforts involving corporations and factories. The “narrow seas” in the final line of the stanza is a reminder of the channel crossing during the invasion of Normandy, where these vehicles would have been essential.
The poem then shifts its focus, almost mockingly, to praise “Big Business,” an entity that is often seen as a villain in discussions of war and profit. In this case, the poem suggests that without the collaboration between the military and big industry, many of the successes of the war could not have been achieved. This feels like a celebration of the often-ignored role that commercial interests played in ensuring victory.
The final two lines offer a playful tone, calling for the American public to “sing forever on the Day of Thanks” for the “vast inventive genius of the Yanks.” The capitalized “Yanks” is not just a reference to the American soldiers but also, as the poem implies, to the American industrialists and engineers who played an equally vital role. The phrase “vast inventive genius” plays with the idea of celebrating the war effort with a kind of ironic praise, as if to say that while we may be used to celebrating soldiers and heroic deeds, it’s time to give credit to the people behind the machinery and production lines that made those victories possible.
The overall tone of the poem is sardonic but appreciative. It’s not just a pat on the back for soldiers or generals, but for the people who built the machines that allowed the war effort to progress. By focusing on Big Business, the poem nudges readers to reconsider their assumptions about war and the forces that drive it. While soldiers take the front line, it is often the factories, the engineers, and the businesses that supply them with the tools they need to succeed.
The poem feels timely in that it shifts the typical narrative of wartime heroism away from the battlefield and onto the production floor. It acknowledges that war is not just about fighting but also about the ability to create and supply on an industrial scale. Yet, there’s an ironic twist to it — a gentle mocking of the ways in which the real heavy lifting, in terms of innovation and ingenuity, is done behind the scenes in the factories, away from the spotlight usually reserved for the battlefield.
Ultimately, this poem is both a praise and a satire of the American industrial effort in World War II, and it challenges us to think about all the players involved in wartime success. While soldiers fought on the ground, there was another kind of war going on in factories, and that, the poem suggests, was just as crucial to victory. The playfulness in its tone invites readers to appreciate the massive, coordinated effort behind wartime victory, making the poem both a critique of and a tribute to the industrial prowess that helped change the course of history.