Would we have won WWII with today's media?

Question

If we had the media of today during the second world war, would they have encouraged us to pull out by constantly showing the fatalities, civilian deaths, etc (as they do today with the Iraqi war)? Or, were Americans different then in their respect for the military and understanding of military deaths? We all know the amount of soldiers killed in the Iraqi war (given daily by media), but that doesn’t even compare to the deaths in WWII (civilian and military). However, the media treats the Iraqi war deaths as if a significant number of our forces are KIA (which is flat out not true). We lost more men in the invasion of Europe than we have in the entire Iraqi war for an example. What do you think?

Answer 1

It makes me wonder if we would have entered the war a lot sooner than we did, if our modern media had been around to hound our leaders into it. We were very much critisized for waiting until Pearl Harbor "awoke the sleeping giant", as Adm. Yamamoto is quoted as saying.
Some things are not that changed. We still have "embeded media" who travel with the troops. Different is the soldiers with phones with cameras.
Could we have kept military secrets away from the media? Would the langauge of the code talkers been revealed? Would the date of D-day been revealed?
We knew a lot about the Japense codes, would today"s media have let the enemy know that?
I 've seen enough film footage to know that the media in WWII told it like it was, men died. They gave the numbers, they did the human interest stories back home, they filmed and talked about military errors. The difference is that this war is percieved to be all about oil, and terrorism, and a couple of power mad maniacs. . WWII was a world war, in which a couple of power mad maniacs could have dominated the world.

Answer 2

WWII was a completely different experience, and I think you know that already. The civilain population was asked to take a large amount of the burden of fighting that war, unlike today in which the average non-military citizen gives nothing to the war effort. There was rationing, war bond buying (we couldn't put wars on Chinese credit cards back then) and THE DRAFT, in which citizens were actually conscripted into the military to fight the war.

Americans knew what we were fighting for. We were attacked by a foriegn national force, not a group of criminals. We declared war on the country that attacked us, not on a country that had nothing to do with the attack.

I love how you try to explain how military deaths don't count as much as regular people deaths. Is that your idea of "respect for the military?" When one fights an army in the hundreds of thousands, as we did WITH OUR ALLIES at Normandy, the casualties will be much higher. When one fights in another country's civil war, such as this country's solo sojurn in Iraq, there will be fewer casualties. That doesn't mean that those men and women count less or are "acceptable losses." Any number of casualties in this war is significant.

So, to answer your inane question, yes.

Answer 3

Sure we would have won. It is not the media that you should be blaming. After all, regardless if the media is pro democrat or pro republican, they are all saying the same thing. When you compare the two wars, first, in WWII, you had the entire world on one side or the other. In this war, we started with a bunch of lies, half truths, fabrications and innuendo from the president and his staff, and no support from the majority of other countries in the world. If it weren't for the media, would you even know that there weren't weapons of mass destruction that the president said there was? Would you know that Sadam didn't personally train the terrorists of 9/11? Would you know anything about the war without the media? Heck no! I'm sure that you wouldn't be traveling to Iraq to find out for yourself. You would have relied on Bush to tell you the truth, and we all know now, because of the media, that he wasn't telling the truth then and isn't now. Bush said to listen to the generals in the field. But, when the generals in Iraq said that they didn't need more troops, BUSH FIRED THEM and got new generals to replace them, that thought along the same lines as he did. Does that sound like a person that you would trust with your life?

Answer 4

Wars in Vietnam and Iraq are very different from WWII.

WWII had a fairly well defined goal and it was much easier for people to support. In reality though the public was turning against the war against Japan at the end because of the huge death toll (as reported in the media).

We would have suspected the war in Europe would have been more like the Gulf War, with positive media reports, while the war against Japan would have been more negative, with the possibility of a negotiated settlement with Tojo.

Though don't forget, in the end Russia won the war against Germany and didn't actually need any help from the US to win.

Answer 5

No, WW2 substitute right into a liberal conflict. Roosevelt substitute right into a liberal. Then as now the media substitute into controled with the aid of the liberal press, and due to that, the conflict substitute into framed as something nobel and mandatory. there have been particularly very few different alterations. a solid guy commiting atrocities on helpless populations. One united states of america taking over others against thier will. bigger manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. religious zealotry. Agression against the U. S. those issues have been all in place in the process the time earlier we entered WW2, merely as they're now and have been for a while. while we entered WW2 we've been advised that it would be an particularly short conflict, in spite of the undeniable fact that it wasn't, and after it substitute into over, our involvement in Europe did not come to an end. We nevertheless guard a presence there, yet even now, that distinctive subject is left on my own simply by fact our presence there contributes to the steadiness of the area and is in our national interest. Irac's stability is in our national interest too. perhaps plenty greater so than Germany's ever substitute into. like it or not, we want oil, and that they are sitting on a lake of it. we are in a position to assist them in gaining stability or we are in a position to bypass away and discover different aspects of capability, like perhaps nuclear. i've got faith which you will sell something, and the clicking is particularly solid at it. perhaps if a Democrat have been to win the White domicile, and strengthen the conflict, then it would substitute right into a solid ingredient. A NOBLE reason, one that we as a rustic ought to unite in the back of. If we bypass away, then the clicking might ought to bypass approximately reframing Nuclear capability into something solid, the two way, if a Democrat gets into the White domicile, there will be some backpeddling happening.

Answer 6

People here in the United States were well aware of the casualties involved in WWII. It WAS in the media every day. The difference was that WWII was completely justified, and few people apart from Quakers opposed it. The amount of deaths did not matter, because the alternative was worse. Millions died because of WWII, but millions MORE would have died without it, and everyone knew it. You are making a really bad analogy here.

Answer 7

no, the media would ***** and complain. we don't have near the amount of casualties as any other major war we had and yet people still ***** and complain. but its Europe so with NATO we have a combined pr so it would balance out. people in Europe still blame us to this day for waiting so long to get involved. truth of the matter is the public is fickle "it does not matter what you did for me, what are you doing for me now"?

when i mention casualties I mean the Iraq war not ww2.

Answer 8

Yes, because, we still have the most powerful military in the world, and the media can say whatever they want to to get their ratings, Soldiers will still do great things and will come home with honor and pride for the things they did for this country.

Answer 9

No. The media can't fight their way out of a paper bag. We would've won WWII with today's MILITARY hands down!

Answer 10

You shouldn't blame it on the media. There is nothing wrong with freedom of speech.