If WW2 was televised, would the US have pulled out prematurely?

Question

Keep in mind that the allies lost over 10,000 people on D-Day alone.

Sounds like a pointless military disaster overseas, to me. Given certain people's standards...

Answer 1

Unfortunately yes, the American public are cowards when it come to war, and the soldiers are the true hero's, and the protesters are the true losers.

Answer 2

"Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).

Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.

The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach."

I would hardly call the Normandy landings a disaster. I suggest you actually do some research before making such a ludicrous claim.

If the Allies had lost, then it would have been a disaster.

Answer 3

I doubt it. There was a lot of coverage of WWII & D-Day for that matter. The media at that time felt it had a vested interest in victory over murderous dictators. The World War II generation knew hardship & were just a lot tougher then our generation as a whole. I believe most of our citizens today believe in what we are doing. We are just bombardid with all of this liberal anti-war/Bush rhettoric. It makes it hard to keep up support here at home & the liberal media knows it. They could care less about the war & the people dieing for this great cause as long as their rhettoric hurts President Bush politically. You do make a very good point.

Answer 4

Thats like asking if they had TV in 1492 would columbus have just watched the travel chanel. The very reason the war was the way it was was because of the way the world was and TV wasn't a part of it yet. FYI.. Photos of bodies weren't even shown until 1944 and the pacific island hopping battles. It was a photo of a dead marine face down in the surf. They did have many more papers back then and radio. People knew what was going on. They weren't stupid. Families were notified of deaths. Papers printed the death tolls of major battles. People did far more sacrificing than almost every american today. Almost every able bodied man was in the service. People back then knew better what was going on than many today. They didn't need TV to tell them that. People knew there country was right and stood behind her and sacrificed. not like today.

For the record, less than 2500 were killed on D Day out of 180,000 troops who landed.

I see a lot of talk about FDR. Democrats back then were WAT diferent than democrats today. Lets not forget, FDR pretty much dropped the nuclear bomb. Truman just sat back and observed. FDR did all the dirty work. Truman was kept in the dark and only learned of the bomb after FDR died. I can't see ANY democrat today having the balls to do what was neccessary to end the war and save millions of americans lives. Clinton would still be thinking about it and hemming and hawing and conducting polls.

Answer 5

If the attitude of some people, from today, were returned to era of World War II - then yes. Some people would have demanded Eisenhower be relieved, fired and the troops brought home immediately.
Can you imagine a politician then calling the troops, "...stupid", after the D-Day landing?

Answer 6

No, because there were metrics for sucess that one could show. Territory could be taken, enemy cities captured, enemy forces could measurably be damaged, ect. In other words, the people would be able to see that there was sucess, and that victory was possible. Even if I were to grant you that victory was possible in Iraq, and I don't you're comparing apples to oranges.

Answer 7

We knew why we were over there: we were attacked by the Japanese, so we fought the Japanese. The Nazis threatened freedoms of others, so we relieved them of power. Why were we over in Vietnam, can anyone tell me? And it's still heavily disputed why we're in Iraq, so don't compare them. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Answer 8

Yes, especially if FDR had been a Republican, and the liberals then were like the liberals now. (Sidenote: I make a distinction between the progressives, which are what liberals used to be back in FDR's day, and the liberals now, who are like rabid dogs!)
Besides, since people are accusing President Bush of being a war criminal because of the civilian casualties in Iraq, I wonder how outraged they would have been at the civilian casualties during WWII: Twenty-five MILLION.

Answer 9

Yes, just take a look at what happened to the US in Vietnam.

Answer 10

Good point. Yes, I think you are right. The world would look very different today, especially Europe.