Opinions wanted on WWII

[johnsmith]

Also, ALL HAIL XENU!

[RandomGuy]

If there was a proposition on the ballot that gave us the option of 2 million people dieing in Europe and Asia to various causes in order for 9-11 to not have happaned, there is no chance that Americans wouldn't jump at it. Let alone with a 60 years ago mentality.

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.

[johnsmith]

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.

Yeah, but I don't think the hypothetical ballot would be left in the hands of the American people, thank you Washington DC.
Just think of the re-elections if such a bill was passed, "I helped save the lives of 3,000 some odd Americans", they would use that like crazy. So therefore, I agree with the one guys post, it would be jumped at in a heartbeat.

ALL HAIL XENU!

[sickdsm]

Most WW2 military casuaties were either Chinese or Russian, neither group would have had much impact on american consciousness in any event.

Casualty rates for US forces in terms of men lost per combat day in WW2 were far less than WW1 in any case.

Another thing is that the sheer determination of the american people would not have been much in question. It was an "easy" fight in terms of knowing what needed to be done, with very clear outcomes.

Again, given the overall support for the war, and the relative moral clarity involved, and the only other comparison being ww1's sheer slaughter, I doubt people would have felt much diffrently.

If we were so worried about moral clarity we would have taken more preventive measures to stop or slow down Hitler, not wait until we were punked by the Japs.


We would have done the "peal harboring" on Germany if it was about moral clairity and not U.S. interests.

Had we waited another year or two i feel that american soil would have been some sort of battleground.

[sickdsm]

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.

Really? What say you then? 1.75? 2 mill tops?



Try explaining that stance to the widow's.

[sickdsm]

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.

Ahhhhh, decency.


Deceny would be if no one in the world found out that you did this. If it was like going back in time. There would be no added hatred of the U.S. simply because there would be no knowledge. It would be the biggest lanslide vote in the history of history.


That's the only thing stopping anyone from checking that box.

[RandomGuy]

If we were so worried about moral clarity we would have taken more preventive measures to stop or slow down Hitler, not wait until we were punked by the Japs.

We would have done the "peal harboring" on Germany if it was about moral clairity and not U.S. interests.

Had we waited another year or two i feel that american soil would have been some sort of battleground.

I didn't say we were worried about moral clarity.

I said that the moral situation in ww2 was much more clear than it is now with the "war" on terror.

[Marklar MM]

WW2 was a justified war. Hitler was not going to stop when he toppled Europe then Russia. Would you rather fight them on their soil, or have the Japanese attack from the West, and Germany the East. Possibly Mexico from the South.

[johnsmith]

WW2 was a justified war. Hitler was not going to stop when he toppled Europe then Russia. Would you rather fight them on their soil, or have the Japanese attack from the West, and Germany the East. Possibly Mexico from the South.

What's your point numbnuts? So how would the media have spun the casualties? Read from the beginning of the posts ya lazy jerk.

[Marklar MM]

What's your point numbnuts? So how would the media have spun the casualties? Read from the beginning of the posts ya lazy jerk.

I did that. I am just saying that everyone knew this was a war needed to be fought, not something such as Vietnam or Iraq that is pointless, unecessary, unjustified or any other word you can throw in there, with the media putting body counts out there to show that.

I am horrible with wording, but you can probably get the fiber out of what I am saying.

[Extra Stout]

American tolerance of casualties is directly tied to the existentiality of the threat. It was understood in the national consciousness that the Axis powers had to be defeated in order for free nations to survive, that if Europe fell and Germany controlled the Atlantic, that the East Coast would fall under attack.

The U.S. had to win at all costs to survive.

The difference today is that people do not believe that the war in Iraq has to be won at all costs in order to survive, so the tolerance of casualties is low.

There is also the question of progress. In the Pacific War, there was a turning of the tide. There was a successful North African campaign. We knew what we had to accomplish, and we knew what it would take to get there. It was communicated that an invasion of Europe would be difficult and bloody.

In Iraq, we know that we want to establish a stable democratic moderate state, but we don't have any idea how to get there, and we're not making any progress. Our leaders told us the war would be quickly over.

In WWII, we had competent national leadership that inspired confidence and allegiance.

In Iraq, we have George W. Bush, the result of an experiment mixing the genes of Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding.

[johnsmith]

American tolerance of casualties is directly tied to the existentiality of the threat. It was understood in the national consciousness that the Axis powers had to be defeated in order for free nations to survive, that if Europe fell and Germany controlled the Atlantic, that the East Coast would fall under attack.

The U.S. had to win at all costs to survive.

The difference today is that people do not believe that the war in Iraq has to be won at all costs in order to survive, so the tolerance of casualties is low.

There is also the question of progress. In the Pacific War, there was a turning of the tide. There was a successful North African campaign. We knew what we had to accomplish, and we knew what it would take to get there. It was communicated that an invasion of Europe would be difficult and bloody.

In Iraq, we know that we want to establish a stable democratic moderate state, but we don't have any idea how to get there, and we're not making any progress. Our leaders told us the war would be quickly over.

In WWII, we had competent national leadership that inspired confidence and allegiance.

In Iraq, we have George W. Bush, the result of an experiment mixing the genes of Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding.

But do you think the media would have spun it that way?

[Extra Stout]

But do you think the media would have spun it that way?

Yes, I do, because of how the media acted from 1933 to 1941. "Hitler's not so bad," "it's Europe's problem," "the Jews really are that bad," "don't get involved," "Churchill is a wingnut," "Stalin is worse anyway," "the Japanese are reasonable," "the Chinese are none of our business," etc, etc, etc.

Once there came a point there was no turning back, there was consensus.

The media treated Korea much the way they have Iraq. It was the same journalists mostly -- less than a decade following V-J Day. But Korea was not viewed the same way as WWII because Americans did not perceive an immediate threat.

[johnsmith]

Yes, I do, because of how the media acted from 1933 to 1941. "Hitler's not so bad," "it's Europe's problem," "the Jews really are that bad," "don't get involved," "Churchill is a wingnut," "Stalin is worse anyway," "the Japanese are reasonable," "the Chinese are none of our business," etc, etc, etc.

Once there came a point there was no turning back, there was consensus.

The media treated Korea much the way they have Iraq. It was the same journalists mostly -- less than a decade following V-J Day. But Korea was not viewed the same way as WWII because Americans did not perceive an immediate threat.

Honestly, I totally agree with you, but my original post was about if we had the same type of media back then that we do now.

[DarkReign]

Unless those damn scientoligists are right, then it will have to be "Welcome Lord Xenu".

[sickdsm]

I didn't say we were worried about moral clarity.

I said that the moral situation in ww2 was much more clear than it is now with the "war" on terror.

Huh? You were directly comparing WWI with WWII.



The topic may have started on media comparisions but in no shape, way, or form were you comparing today to II on that post.





You don't have to lie to kick it.

[Extra Stout]

Honestly, I totally agree with you, but my original post was about if we had the same type of media back then that we do now.

You can go back to the 1780's even, and if anything, the media was more vitriolic than it is now.

You should read some of the things editorial writers would say about George Washington.

[johnsmith]

You can go back to the 1780's even, and if anything, the media was more vitriolic than it is now.

You should read some of the things editorial writers would say about George Washington.

Actually, that would be pretty interesting, I can't say I've ever read any of that. Well, I guess I could say it, but I'd be lying then.

ALL HAIL XENU

[RandomGuy]

Actually, that would be pretty interesting, I can't say I've ever read any of that. Well, I guess I could say it, but I'd be lying then.

ALL HAIL XENU

There is a really good series on the History channel on the revolution.

Interesting stuff.

[Marklar MM]

The History channel kicks ass.

[RandomGuy]

Huh? You were directly comparing WWI with WWII.

The topic may have started on media comparisions but in no shape, way, or form were you comparing today to II on that post.

You don't have to lie to kick it.

I mean this kindly:

You are missing the point. Go back and re-read what I have written, because you don't seem to be comprehending it.

I will try to help clarify here:

The question at hand is present day media and its affect on perceptions as compared to ww2, and what effect present day media would have had if it had existed in its current form during ww2.

I say that the analogy doesn't work well because the people and issues involved aren't the same.

The people that remember ww1 were a heck of a lot different thant the people who remember vietnam.

To say that if they had the same access to information they would have thought differently about d-day holds is not a logically substantiated premise.

[sickdsm]

I don't think you have any basis talking about US citizen's moral situation/clarity/etc.. when you don't acknowledge the moral tradeoff when it corresponds to US involement.


And then we have liberal yahoo's poking fun at the decling morals of this country the repubs bring up and wonder what moral value's are.


We won't throw our mother under the bus to get what's ours but we will RUSH to throw our foreign brother's non american mother under the bus to take what's theirs.


Is that wrong? Its only wrong if you can't admit it. Its like when you were 16 and one of your friends asked if you've ever jacked off. We all've done it yet it takes a while for us to admit that.


You want a comparison? How about that? We don't give a about the war on terror, the drug war, rogue nations until it effects us. We do commando missions to get one female soldier out of enemy hands yet we witness people dieing due to starvation the world over.


You don't think the media would sway things? Go re-read 1984. Go watch the hezballah video
http://www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

Anythings possible and in case you weren't aware of it, shock and outrage sell in news coverage. Go see how many compasinate stories are the top stories of the day. We don't care about the candy us troops give out. we care about the one ing soldeir that takes candy from a kid.



You still were comparing one and two on that post when you mentioned moral's.

Moral's and the consequences of what might have happaned in WWII are two COMPLETELY different things.

[boutons_]

VN and Iraq were wars of choice.

WWI and WWII were wars of necessity to keep Europe (a very important market for the USA, never forget that. $$$ make the world go around ) from being dominated by Germany. Apart from the $$$, immigrant America also had huge cultural and family ties to Europe going back only 1 or 2 generations. Those two wars were clear and present dangers from German state in formal wars and invasions.

VN and Iraq were totally different. Neither were clear and immediate dangers to the USA or any of its allies, neither had declared war or even attacked US interests.

I think if Germany, yet again the most wealthy, most industrially powerful, most populous country in Europe, were to start invading, the Americans, even with their abundance of news/opinion/information sources, would go fight Germany again now.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think you have any basis talking about US citizen's moral situation/clarity/etc.. when you don't acknowledge the moral tradeoff when it corresponds to US involement.

And then we have liberal yahoo's poking fun at the decling morals of this country the repubs bring up and wonder what moral value's are.

We won't throw our mother under the bus to get what's ours but we will RUSH to throw our foreign brother's non american mother under the bus to take what's theirs.

Is that wrong? Its only wrong if you can't admit it. Its like when you were 16 and one of your friends asked if you've ever jacked off. We all've done it yet it takes a while for us to admit that.

You want a comparison? How about that? We don't give a about the war on terror, the drug war, rogue nations until it effects us. We do commando missions to get one female soldier out of enemy hands yet we witness people dieing due to starvation the world over.

You don't think the media would sway things? Go re-read 1984. Go watch the hezballah video
http://www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

Anythings possible and in case you weren't aware of it, shock and outrage sell in news coverage. Go see how many compasinate stories are the top stories of the day. We don't care about the candy us troops give out. we care about the one ing soldeir that takes candy from a kid.

You still were comparing one and two on that post when you mentioned moral's.

Moral's and the consequences of what might have happaned in WWII are two COMPLETELY different things.

(breathes deeply)

1) Half of what you write is too hastily formed and very unclear. It is genuinely hard for me to understand some of your points.

2) I never mentioned morals. I mentioned moral clarity. That you don't seem to understand the difference leads me to conclude you don't seem to understand half of what *I* am saying.

Please take a bit more time to read, comprehend and compose.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think the media would have swayed things in ww2.