Would the USA have won WWII if Liberals and the Liberal Media would have been like they are today?

Question

undermining our troops every move? And more importantly, would they have been allowed to do this in WWII?

Answer 1

Of course the US would have won if the media was like it is today. All of you are forgetting one thing. FDR was the President. The liberal media would have thought he could do no wrong, ergo, they would have been in lockstep support of the war effort.

It would be a different story if President Bush were leading the country. But with THE liberal President Roosevelt, today's press would have been behind him 100%.

Answer 2

No, WW2 was a liberal war. Roosevelt was a liberal. Then as now the media was controled by the liberal press, and because of that, the war was framed as something nobel and necessary. There were really very few other differences.
A strong man commiting atrocities on helpless populations.
One nation taking over others against thier will.
Increased manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.
Religious zealotry.
Agression against the US
These things were all in place during the time before we entered WW2, just as they are now and have been for some time.
When we entered WW2 we were told that it would be a very short war, but it wasn't, and after it was over, our involvement in Europe didn't come to an end. We still maintain a presence there, but even now, that particular issue is left alone because our presence there contributes to the stability of the region and is in our national interest.
Irac's stability is in our national interest too. Perhaps much more so than Germany's ever was. Like it or not, we need oil, and they are sitting on a lake of it. We can support them in gaining stability or we can leave and find other sources of energy, like maybe nuclear.
I believe that you can sell anything, and the press is very good at it. Perhaps if a Democrat were to win the White House, and escalate the war, then it would become a good thing. A NOBLE cause, one that we as a country could unite behind. If we leave, then the press would have to go about reframing Nuclear energy into something good, Either way, if a Democrat gets into the White House, there will be some backpeddling going on.

Answer 3

Liberal Democrats were in charge during WW2, declared after a sneak attack. They imprisoned Japanese Americans, essentially put the nation under martial law regulating everything and then dropped nuclear weapons.

I think that tells us the difference between the way the Republicans and the Democrats handle wars based on sneak attacks.

The Democrats declare martial law, imprison people based on ethnicity and drop atomic bombs.

The Republicans keep the economy moving, imprison only people who are a danger to the United States regardless of ethnicity and stay away from Nukes.

Pretty clear differences.

Oh, and did anyone notice what A great Job Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam! Or how about Truman in Korea! Democrats can only win when they use Nukes!

PS: Roosevelt was elected in '32, took office at the end of January '33 and Pearl Harbor occurred in beginning (7th) of December, 1941 so Roosevelt had been in office 8 years and ten months instituting Liberal policies such as social security, "Public Works" and welfare.

Answer 4

Yes, the U.S. would have been just as effective, regardless of the "liberal media". There is a misconception among primarily far-right "conservatives" that the media actually influences our fighting forces. The media is not undermining every move. That is conservative talk show drivel. The second part of your question is the most interesting though. During WWII, there was a bit more censorship of the media than there is today. Some would call that a good thing, others would say that freedom is better, at whatever the expense.

Answer 5

This is a tired conservative obsession-comparing the current conflict to World War 2. There is absolutely no parallel between Iraq and the Second World War. In that war my grandfather fought an enemy(Nazi Germany) that posed a direct threat to the United States. This is no such war, merely a n imperial occupation for oil and for Israel. The fact is your beloved leaders obviously don't believe in the conflict enough to send their own kids. Franklin D. Roosevelt had six sons serving in the Pacific and in Europe. Why aren't the kids of in Iraq? Oh, right they're running around naked in hotels in South America!
Also, whose undermining the troops? Whose thrown them into a war ill-equipped, inadequately armored, into the middle of a population that hates them because they are occupiers, starting a deadly cycle of American and insurgent atrocities? Whose STARTED the war in the first place?

Answer 6

Lets see, Japan has no national resources to support its Navy and Army. Gradually the Japanese have no fleet or merchant marine and are being starved out as the island hopping campaign of Admiral Nimitz is reducing the Japanese holding. Japan does not have the industrial capability to sustain the losses of ships and aircraft and then the IJN can not replace trained pilots even if it had fuel for its planes. After Midway, it was enevitable that Japan would lose the war.
Let's see: Germany, Occupying much of Europe and fighting in Russia as well. After 1942, the tide begins to turn against the German Uboats, Its industrial capability is
under constant bombing by 1943. Its lost its holdings in Afrika and does not have the means to sustain both the Eastern and Western fronts as it is bled white.
Hitler had at least 8 attempts on his life, the last being July 20th 1944. Slowly losing ground in the East, the Russians alone defeated Von Paulus's 6th Army at Stalingrad and Germany is pushed back accross Russia. Kursk, the losses at the Don and the Vistula combined with Hitler's orders to not retreat one inch have created a disaster for the Whermacht. By the time DDay happened it was a forgone conclusion Germay like Japan was doomed.
Railroads, industrial plants, the attrition of trained pilots,
poor tactics ... I don't see how the Axis could have won.
Maybe a liberal government would not have interned loyal American citizens who just happened to be Japanese.
And maybe would have allowed Japan to surrender without dropping atomic bombs on defenseless civilians.
Answer is yes.

Answer 7

Yes.

Being a liberal does not mean you are anti-war. It means that you believe our country should only go to war under moral circumstances.

I am a Gulf War 1 veteran and a liberal. I came out of inactive status and volunteered to participate in that conflict. I did this because an ally had been invaded and it was he moral thing to do.

Answer 8

Foreign policy failure, Roosevelt had been president for 10 years when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

What did Germany have to do with Pearl Harbor? What's our exit strategy in Germany? When will we bring the troops home?

Troops dying for nothing? Not 4 thousand (as in Iraq), 4 HUNDRED thousand.

Internment camps! Where was the ACLU? Pictures of American dead? None were shown for the first 8 months of the war.

The fact is Roosevelt forced Japan to bomb us, he knew about it, it was to get us out of the depression that Roosevelt's policies caused to go on and on.

What did we gain? We prevented Japan from going into China, which enabled China to become communist. We stopped hitler, while our ally Stalin killed 20 million civilians.

Answer 9

They were like they were today, the reason we didn't get into the war until 1941 was because there were so many demonstrations against the war. Pearl Harbor changed that and the people who realized it was time to fight won out, unlike today where people seem to think you can win a war without actually fighting or killing, or even injuring anybody. It's an insane mindset and will be why we lose.

Answer 10

Running for political office today has become like a football rivalry or worse adolescents trying to prove they are popular at any cost even if it hurts the people trying to protect us like our military... We are more concerned about which party can get the most money and if it raises more then that candidate must be popular and " I must vote for the popular one so I can be in the in crowd" GROW up vote for the person that reflects who you really are and not who you think will get you approval from your peers....

I have more respect for a hunter who votes democrat and I have more respect for the union worker who votes for a republican then I do people who just cast their vote as if they are voting for prom queen...

ANswer to your question NO....did you ever see the movie that shows an abstract of what life would have been like if we did loose world war II....william hurt is in it..it was awesome..

Answer 11

Well, who knows the war has been won. I may have disagree with this was, but WWII was one of the most necessary wars.