I have a question for you guys, if at the beginning of WWII (as far as America is concerned) we had mass media at the same level of today, what do you think their opinions and general consensus on the war would have been? Remember, somewhere around 10,000 allied soldiers died on or around D-Day alone.
Just like the media covered the first Gulf War. I suspect you have an agenda and are trying to make a point.... but I'll play along. Did the media report 10,000 died on that day? If they did report the deaths then I am not sure what would be different?
Of course they didn't report that 10,000 died that day, the first war to have a "death count" was Vietnam, of course they were a little more extreme then we are nowadays, what with a ticker on the bottom of the screen and all. Really I don't have an agenda, I just had read an article talking about the "liberal media" of which I don't have much of an opinion on as I think the entire media is about as worthless as the government itself (GOP and Dems) and I thought it was an interesting point. Does the media create a national opinion regarding every conflict America goes into nowadays? Or is it a genuine opinion of the people?
I don't think it would have been different. Japan attacked the United States. Germany declared war on the United States. Trouble had been brewing with the Japanese for 30 years, and with the Germans for 8. Germany only 25 years earlier had conspired to return Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California to Mexico. These nations represented an existential threat to the United States.
The U.S. waited to go to war until it had no other choice. There had been hawks urging the U.S. to take care of these threats pre-emptively for a long time. There were doves urging avoidance of war at all costs. There were appeaseniks, even sympathizers with Hitler. The media climate would be shockingly familiar to you.
The Axis powers already had been attacking U.S. supply shipments to the Allies. Our interests had been under attack for two years and we still did not act.
Only after Pearl Harbor did the country snap to it.
It's a catch 22.. The opinion of the people does matter and they should be informed of what is going on. I certainly don't think the public needs battlefield stragtegy but we have a right to know. Currently our govt would like to control what comes out of Iraq because they feel that the primary culprit in waning support is the media coverage. I think the waning support has more to do with the necessitiy of the war. People have Vietnam in the back of thier minds and I think we have wanted to avoid a vietnamesque mistake again. Iraq becomes more and more like Vietnam everyday .. our govt should worry less about the perception of thew war and be honest on what's going on.. Bush , Rummy and 5 deferrment say things are better than they are being reported and then 300 more people die right after those comments... very hard to reconcile what our govt says and what is reported..
Little different.
Most of the people still remembed WW1, with the massive casualties involved.
They would have been/were happy that so few were being killed compared to how bad it could have been.
Sometimes not knowing the entire truth is a good thing...........
Like when your new bride gets banged around by the best man more than Chris Mihm on every single christmas day.
So few? Ok, I thought there were far fewer US casualties in WWI as opposed to WWII, allow me to google that, God I love the internet.
WWI Combat Casualties: 53,513
Other Casualties: 63,195
Wounded: 204,002
WWII Combat Casualties: 292,131
Other: 115,185
Wounded: 670,846
So wouldn't they have been apalled that nearly 10,000 allied troops died in at the very beginning of the war? Furthermore, by your logic, most people compare Iraq to Vietnam, myself included, so shouldn't we be happy that there are far fewer casualties in Iraq then were in Vietnam?
I didn't say US casualties. I said casualties in general. What are the figures for TOTAL WW1 casualties on all sides?
"we had mass media at the same level of today"
We also have a much more sophisticated, educated, sub/urban society that is even less "down on the farm" ingorant. The flow of information from all sources on all topics, including the conduct of governemnt, is effectively infinite. Modern societies have achieved what the US FF's said was important to a free and open democratic society: information. This situation is exactly why non-democratic societies control their media and Internet, so the power structure can keep the populace ignorant and exploitable.
Against this exorable increase in information flow, head/Repugs have been re-classifying do ents that were in the public domain for decades, and generally increasing the secrecy around government operations and policy decisions (eg, head's secreet national energy plan concocted with and to serve the profit interests of the enery co's). Their big lie is that the secrecy is a national security requirement, when in fact it's to game the system more in favor of the Repug party and their corporate paymasters.
Damnit, now you are going to make me google again.
Total military casualty figures:
9M+
Often hundreds of thousands in one day. Over the top and into machine gun fire.
Compared to that, even had they known the full extent, people were smart enough to realize the extent of what was going on.
You don't give people enough credit for common sense, then or now.
Beat you to it. I wouldn't have said anything if I hadn't had some idea in the first place.
Yeah but I have 24 million for WWII (military only). So, I'm still confused why people would be happy there were less being killed, plus there weren't less being killed.
Clearly not fair, I had to do some actual work for a minute. No one can touch my googling skills damnit.Beat you to it. I wouldn't have said anything if I hadn't had some idea in the first place.
...holy crap.
Now, extrapolate that out to todays population and military weapon capabilities; probably could rusult in 200 - 300 mil. dead in a WW.
There's the solution to global warming right there. Dead people don't use fossil fuels.
I'm curious, have you ever answered any of this stuff with an explanation other then, "It's the republicans fault"? Damn, I may have been giving randomguy a hard time yesterday, but that was just for fun, at least he backs up his statements with intelligent thoughts that don't just place blame but actually have merit to it and usually provide an idea for a solution, you are just angry.
Well, the loss of water supplies in China and India when the Himalayan glaciers have melted will significantly reduce global populations anyway.
I have a good feeling we will all blow eachother up before it gets to that, so don't worry about it.
So, global annihilation by 2050?
I suppose I soon should get started on my "Welcome Lord Jesus" banner.
Unless those damn scientoligists are right, then it will have to be "Welcome Lord Xenu".
Just trying to get an idea of what you're getting at.
Are you saying that Americans thought in global terms of casulties and death?
We''ve never really cared what happaned to other countries interests before, whether there allies, enemies or bystanders, don't think for a minute that if 5,000 more hezballah, civilians, monks, or Taliban folks were dead but our U.S. troops, reporters and civilians total dropped to zero that there wouldn't be parades on every street and G-Dub would have a 86 percent approval rating or whatnot.
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.
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.
I am saying that the American experience in war was pretty much from ww1 with a lot of senseless slaughter for little gain.
Weighed against that experience, most Americans would have had the sense to realize that even given the initial casualties, the gains were important enough to merit the cost.
Wait a second though, we're getting off the point. I want to know what you'd think the media coverage would be and how that would affect the peoples opinion. Personally, I think the media would have went nuts with 10,000 dead in a weekend's time and suddenly America would have said, let's worry about the Japanese that attacked us and let the Euro's stand for themselves, in my opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
