The difference I think is the perception of the viewer. I think that comparing the WW2 Memorial with the Vietnam & Korean memorials is comparing apples & oranges.

The Vietnam and Korean memorials are viewed in a “war is bad”, “anti-war”, and a “no war is a good war” light. We “lost” the Vietnam War and most people feel like it was unnecessary. The Korean War is our “forgotten war” and one that was never brought to conclusion. Both these memorials capture that sentiment and do so beautifully.

Enter the WW2 memorial.
This was a “good” war that had to be fought. The war was fought all over the globe and there was DEFINATELY a winner. It was costly in military, material, and civilian terms but there was no way to avoid it and it had to have been fought.
How do you capture all of aspects of WW2 in one memorial? I would argue that you can’t.
Do you spend the effort on memorializing the dead? The holocaust? The civilian casualties? The triumph of good over evil?

Not an easy task but most of the things I just mentioned are covered under other memorials.

I think that in the end, the monument pays tribute to the fallen, but just as importantly, validates and celebrates the victory all of the world’s survivors.

Back to the trenches….