This surely has to rank as one of the great "shorts" of all time. Released by MGM at the perfect time - in 1939, with the world poised on the brink of the Second World War - the cartoon portrays a family of squirrels living in an era after humanity has wiped itself out in war, as Grampa Squirrel (voices by Mel Blanc, who would of course become most famous as the voice of Bugs Bunny) attempts to explain to two babies on Christmas Eve why the Christmas song being sung says "peace on earth; goodwill to men." "What are men?" ask the babies, and Grampa Squirrel relates a story that should make all human beings squirm at our hypocrisy as he explains how humans killed each other off, and then relates the discovery by the animals who survived of a book that has a set of rules including "thou shalt not kill."It's simplicity probably makes this all the more thought-provoking.

This is a beautifully-made and quite poignant animated short film, but while no one can doubt the sincerity of the sentiment, it reduces the discussion of war to a level of simplification unfitting for the subject. To diminish such a topic to a five-minute short, and to aim it at children using anthropomorphic squirrels (or mice, in the 1950 remake "Good Will to Men") is the essence of propaganda.In 1939, Europe was torn by Nazi aggression, but the United States had yet to enter the war. Many people of good conscience were arguing that the U.S. should remain neutral, essentially ceding all of Europe to the tender mercies of Adolf Hitler. It was in this climate that "Peace on Earth" was made, arguing that both sides in a conflict are morally equivalent, since both have violated the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (which is more correctly translated as "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder", a very different thing.) It's a good thing that minds of more mature reasoning decided that it would be very necessary for us to fight the Axis powers. "Peace on Earth" comes from the same sort of personality that states in all earnestness that "war never solves anything" while conveniently ignoring the many things that war has indeed solved: tyranny, oppression, slavery, genocide, fascism, Nazism, and (in the cold war) Soviet communism; the elimination of totalitarian Islamist extremism is still underway. Peace is not just the absence of war, but the presence of justice, and there are some things for which is is worth while to fight or even die. Diplomacy is of course preferable to armed conflict, but if honorable goals are abandoned in the course of diplomatic negotiation, then the result is simply defeat by a different means, and the justice that was desired was perhaps never deserved.

I'm amazed at movies whose content preaches one thing and their form uses exactly the forbidden paths.Often it is a teen film about being unique, about not following formulas, but is presented in a rigid formulaic method. Or it may be a comedy that makes fun of a certain type of person but depends on that very same person to buy tickets.It is such a common situation, I have stopped remarking on it unless the effect is particularly striking. It is here.On its surface, this has heart. It is a strong antiwar statement that uses Christmas, the Bible and good old family/community values to argue about the stupidity of war.(Let's set aside the context: Europe was at war — all the uniforms here are European — and America was divided about entering the war except through its clients. Already by this time, the war would be all but over if America hadn't committed to finance Russia and Britain. A huge sector of the US population wanted to remain "neutral," meaning in that context, unviolent. In its day, this would have been seen as a suggestion to not oppose Hitler.)Here's the thing that rankles me as a lucid moviewatcher. Look carefully at the argument. It is based on values that do not transcend cultures. In other words, it is saying that the guys that are fighting are doing so about things that don't matter because they are not *these things* over here that we know and trust and love.Eventually, the sentiments in this cartoon would be behind the US entry into the war: the US as the preservers of goodness. So it was a good thing in retrospect, for a generation. And then the questions begin.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Back in the 1940's, men fought a cataclysmic war until all were killed, leaving the animals behind to build a peaceful society in the ruins.This has probably the strongest impact of any cartoon I have ever seen -- taking the era in which it was made into account -- and must have been virtually without precedent in 1939. Powerful post-war rivals might include "Animal Farm", "Watership Down", or "When the Wind Blows". Or Art Spiegelman's Pulitzer Prize-winning "Maus" in the field of the graphic novel.There are scenes here of animated warfare which are still a little grim by modern standards. Childlike innocence gets temporarily suspended. "All Quiet on the Western Front" is an immediate comparison.As was normal in the '30's, the coming war in Europe was viewed as an extension of the Great War, so we see the technology familiar from 20 years previous -- trenches, gas masks, unturreted tanks. When Neville Chamberlain bought peace for all time from Hitler at Munich, the sort of war he had succeeded in averting was the one depicted in this film. The new World War II technology did not enter the general consciousness until the averted war got underway in Sept. 1939.I first saw this film about a decade ago, and rediscovered it recently on a compilation video entitled "MGM Cartoon Christmas". The other cartoons on the tape, "Alias St. Nick" and "Pups' Christmas", show quite clearly what a break with convention "Peace on Earth" was at the time.