WWII and prior -- Attitudes and Media
A topic started by Cartod on Iraq stimulated me to reflect on an issue that I have considered before. War is terrible (more for those intimately involved than for the rest of us). IMHO war is also necessary to deter those whose ideology or goals conflict with our own. This topic is not directly addressed to the situation in Iraq even though that situation bears on the topic. Rather it concerns my perception that the attitude of the US population, in general, may be significantly less inclined toward the acceptance of extended military conflicts than were prior generations. In addition or alternatively, today's media coverage of war is immediate and graphic and could have substantial impact on attitudes.
Thus, my question is: Do you think that the US population would have been as supportive of the efforts in WWII and in prior conflicts if the media coverage would have been as graphic and continuous as it is today? In addition, do you think that there has been a shift in the attitudes and/or values (as it or they would affect their acceptance of sustained military conflicts) of the US citizenry today compared to that of prior generations?
I have my opinions. I am interested in hearing from you. Please feel free to elaborate.
Thus, my question is: Do you think that the US population would have been as supportive of the efforts in WWII and in prior conflicts if the media coverage would have been as graphic and continuous as it is today? In addition, do you think that there has been a shift in the attitudes and/or values (as it or they would affect their acceptance of sustained military conflicts) of the US citizenry today compared to that of prior generations?
I have my opinions. I am interested in hearing from you. Please feel free to elaborate.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by wtroper
A topic started by Cartod on Iraq stimulated me to reflect on an issue that I have considered before. War is terrible (more for those intimately involved than for the rest of us). IMHO war is also necessary to deter those whose ideology or goals conflict with our own. This topic is not directly addressed to the situation in Iraq even though that situation bears on the topic. Rather it concerns my perception that the attitude of the US population, in general, may be significantly less inclined toward the acceptance of extended military conflicts than were prior generations. In addition or alternatively, today's media coverage of war is immediate and graphic and could have substantial impact on attitudes.
Thus, my question is: Do you think that the US population would have been as supportive of the efforts in WWII and in prior conflicts if the media coverage would have been as graphic and continuous as it is today? In addition, do you think that there has been a shift in the attitudes and/or values (as it or they would affect their acceptance of sustained military conflicts) of the US citizenry today compared to that of prior generations?
I have my opinions. I am interested in hearing from you. Please feel free to elaborate.
I think that if in 1946, there was STILL no progress in defeating the enemy, the American people would have been upset and rightfully so.0 -
i believe that the people of yesteryear, were more hardened and tough. that along with a sense of moral and ethical values that have decayed today. the generals ran the war not the politicians, and athough journalist had access to the front lines i dont think they reported all of what they saw. they had more respect for the soldier that had to do what he had to do to win. the hand wringers of today would not have politically correct then as the country would not have stood still and let a soldier be chrged with crimes other than treason. the media of now has moved people to the left as much as possible thus the people becoming sheeple and will just sit while liberal propaganda is being tossed about freely and as long as it does't cost them they dont even care. very sad indeed but if people dont start voicing there opinions this country is on its last leg. money has become all that matters and bankers, lawyers, judges, and politicians are selling our people and country to make an easy buck in my opinion[V][V] 0 -
...Interesting question. I think the government and media have worked hand in hand when molding public support (or non support) of war, until very recently. In the WW2 era, the average American had no concept of who the enemy really was. The Japanese were portrayed as sub-human, ape like people with poor vision. That image was reinforced by the censored media clips that made it to the matinee screen. The average American thought we were throwing our military might against the ruthless scum that sucker-punched us at Pearl, when actually, everyone in charge agreed that it had to be "Europe first."
...I doubt that Americans would have advocated going to bat in Europe, if it were not for Pearl, and Hitler's ensuing declaration of war. Between Pearl and the fact that much of America was of European descent, gave the average citizen every reason to support the war effort.
...Now, let's jump ahead to Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Americans still want to punish those who harm us (or our interests), but we expect results. Early in WW2, Doolittle's raid showed that we could strike at the enemy's heart. The taking of Saddam bolstered support also, but then things went stagnant. No victories. No captures. More dead Americans. No return for our investment. Americans are used to winning. The media turned against Nam, and has turned against the middle east war. Bring me Osama's head on a platter, and I'll show you support for the war, however short lived it may be.
...As a people, we've become accustomed to instant results. In a 30 minute sitcom, all problems are solved. Grenada? Wham, bam, we're outa here. Somalia? We did our thing and beat track. We no longer have the heart for a prolonged conflict....End of ramble.0 -
You cannot put the blame on the media for what is going wrong in Iraq. There is now a notion that we lost (or rather did not win) in Viet Nam because the media slanted the entire war and turned the public against it. When you are sitting at home in your living room like I was and saw the hole that sappers blew into the wall surrounding the US embassy in Saigon, as well as the firefignt going on in what was supposed to be a safe and secure city, you just might begin to suspect that you were not hearing the whole truth about the war from the folks in the Pentagon or see the light at the end of the tunnel! If we had invaded the home islands of Japan as planned in 1946 and taken the 1 million casualties (a figure that many felt was possible) then I think that the public would have taken a closer look at our deamnd for the unconditional surrender of Japan. There is no doubt that we would have prevailed against Japan because we had the manpower and industrial base to crush them...eventually. In the end the Japanese got the one thing that they wanted, the emperor remained, although now just a figurehead and we began (unlike Iraq) a peaceful occupation of Japan. 0 -
Excellent, gentlemen. What I had hope for -- an exchange of ideas. Just posting this to get back to the top of the list for others to see. 0 -
..kristov...Well put. The peaceful occupation of Japan saved millons of lives, but opened the gate to financial occupation of the United States. Now, there is a "war" that we have no heart for. We'll accept instant gratification, no matter the source. 0 -
The First World War, and all the GIs lost in it, was still very fresh in the minds of the American people when the Second World War was brewing. The overwhelming sentiment of the public was very anti war, and very isolationist, being particularlly against involvement in any more European wars. The decision was made to enter the war on the side of the U.K. and their European allies. The American public was very set against this so a "reason" to join the fray was needed. The Japanese, by various sanctions by America, were put in a position of fearing a first strike by America, thus attacked the Fleet at Pearl Harbor. This "Day of Infamy" was the catalyst. FDR declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy, being treaty bound allies of Japan, declared war on the U.S. A massive anti Axis propaganda campaign was put in action consisting of every form of media, even including the entertainment industry. Today the war movies of the 40s are called propaganda films. It worked, the entire nation hated the Axis countries, and was galvanized into a maximum effort. I see a lot of similarities in "The War On Terrorism". This is how to get the population behind a very unpopular course of action. 0 -
Dak - if I understand your post, you are suggesting that the US support of WWII was based upon the media's representation of the situation. I am correct? 0 -
Back then they did what had to be done and it seems we've had to apologise ever since. My dad came home. 
I feel that if you go to war, then war, don't nibble on them like a duck.0 -
Dak To...I'd like your take on media influence in the VN War. Not fishing, Sir, just interested. 0 -
Wtroper, if you mean the support of the U.S. CITIZENS, yes that had a lot to do with it. The attack on Pearl Harbor pizzed the public off to start, and the propaganda machine fanned and kept the fires going until we prevailed. This is not opinion or conjecture on my part, this can easily be researched, and is very interesting. In this case the end probably justified the means. 0 -
In WW 2 WE went in as conquerors of both Germany , Italy and Japan. WE
(the Allies) set up AMG (Allied Military Govt) until things were where they should be in these countries. After this we had over 60 years of peace from these countries so far. We, the U.S. and Allies had about enough of this bit. We went in to conquor. This is just what is not happening. To much damn pusseyfooting around with too few troops and
trying to "make friends". This is not working. Time to take off the "velvet glove" and put on the "mailed fist". Too many pacifiers and too
few fighters. Either go "whole hog" or get to hell out and quit. Seems like since 1945 we sure aint doing much going "whole hog" type of fighting anymore. We are becomming a "Paper Tiger" instead.0 -
Wundudnee - My father's cousin, a person close to our family, was on the "death march." He was a good sized man, close to 200#, 6'. When he was liberated, he weighed 97#. Glad you father was OK.
WWII was no picnic and both sides did things that today would be criminal. I am not suggesting that we even came close to the Japanese in cruelty, but our soldiers were not saints. Not saints, but heroic to me. War is hell.0 -
Dak - interesting position. I do not dispute it. Think about the period, early in the war, when things were not going well for the allies. The old new reels that ran in the movies. No TV then. Did the media correctly portray what was really happening? 0 -
Tapwater, WW2 and Viet Nam are two vastly different situations, WW2 was a conflict of huge proportions, involving much of the Worlds population, and all stops were pulled. In my opinion our effort in Viet Nam was merely a tactical operation in the struggle with Russia known as "The Cold War". The propaganda machine was, as ever, in the picture here also. I was born in 1948 and from my early days in grade school I remember being afraid of the Russians and Communism. The feeling that a nuclear war was not if but when was constantly perpetuated, and may have come close to reality with the Cuban situation. McCarthyism, the Korean War, etc. were fresh in mind. All schools in the city had regular air raid drills. The focus on everything Russian and Communist was hammered as negatively as possible. The decision to enter the situation in Viet Nam was made and the reasoning that was given was that if Viet Nam went to the Communists the other nations in Indo-China would also fall in a "domino effect". The growth of Communism was portrayed as such a danger that if we didn't stop them in Viet Nam we would eventually have to fight them right here in America. Remember the U.S. destroyer that was allegedly attacked by Nort Vietnamese torpedo boats? That was the "Pearl Harbor" of the Viet Nam War. From there the machine put out nothing but pro war effort propaganda. UNTIL. The efforts of the Communists began to intensify. With help from their Communist allies, primarily Russia, Ho Chi Minh and General Giap put up an ever stronger effort in South Viet Nam, causing the U.S. to unexpectedly have to counter escalate. The strategy was to take whatever casualties necessary to keep strong pressure on until the Americans tired of their boys coming back in bags. Now we're in the late sixties, the phenomenon of the "Hippie Generation" was in full swing, and questioning the actions of the Government was no longer taboo. The War had been going some time with no apparent gains and lots of body bags were coming back. The anti war movement became so large you didn't need the media to see it. The media had to report on this. Few really know exactly what was worked out in Paris or behind closed doors in the centers of power, but a decision had been made and a course of action implemented that we, in hindsight, can now see. The media did it's job to even out the public sentiment leading to the final extraction of our forces. It's been said that Walter Cronkite was maybe the single most effective individual in brining about the end. That, in short, is my take on it.
There is a "propaganda machine" and it encompasses the whole of the media. This is a societal control measure to steer the majority opinion in the direction desired by the powers in control, and has been in use, and very effective, for a long, long time world wide. If anyone cares, a very good book on this and other pertinent subjects of our times is "Hegemony Or Survival" by Dr. Noam Chomsky, a professor at MIT. It will get your attention one way or another. The study of Geopolitics is a life work of Chomskys and he gives great insight to this subject. His opinions are either lauded or despised, no middle ground. I take him seriously.0 -
Dal -- well thought through and supported discussion. BTW - I am 1942 model. So I understand clearly some of your points. Thanks for your input. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
In WW 2 WE went in as conquerors of both Germany , Italy and Japan. WE
(the Allies) set up AMG (Allied Military Govt) until things were where they should be in these countries. After this we had over 60 years of peace from these countries so far. We, the U.S. and Allies had about enough of this bit. We went in to conquor. This is just what is not happening. To much damn pusseyfooting around with too few troops and
trying to "make friends". This is not working. Time to take off the "velvet glove" and put on the "mailed fist". Too many pacifiers and too
few fighters. Either go "whole hog" or get to hell out and quit. Seems like since 1945 we sure aint doing much going "whole hog" type of fighting anymore. We are becomming a "Paper Tiger" instead.
I find no fault in your logic, if the powers that be thought the public could be made to swallow your "whole hog" war it would happen. There could still be two "Super Powers" in the World, the U.S. and World public opinion. If you add up all the enemies the U.S. has killed with the "velvet glove" since WW2, that number would hardly be indicative of a "Paper Tiger".[;)]0 -
I'll let a simple no answer suffice for the first question, and sum up the answer to the second one with this response: The money men have always shaped the envronment for people in the past, and they have made it known they want a one world order today. Consequently, there has definitely been a shift in attitudes and values which is ongoing and designed to meet the desires of the rich and powerful, who today want open borders and large, powerful unions. 0 -
I think that WWII and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are radically different circumstances.
WWII was a war against two agressive military powers. The war on terror is against terror groups with no government affiliation (although they get support and shelter from some governments). They do not have defined borders or a uniformed army, unlike the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan.
This is promarily why the "bomb the crap out of everyone until they cry uncle" is perhaps not the best choice now whereas it was perfectly feasible in WWII. The majority of the people of Germany and Japan supported their governments almost until the end, so making nice with them would not help us at all. When most of the civilians of the country are either neutral or for the US, you don't want to terrorize them with carpet bombings: that is a good way to make them side with the badguys.
Some people have mentioned that Germany did not attatck the US (I presume paralleling the argument that Iraq did not attack us).
Germany, however, had overrun Belguim, France, Holland, and Poland by 1941 and almost brought Great Brtain and the USSR to their knees. In my book that is a more legitimate threat than a country with a military which could not overrun a backwoods militia and may have or may not have had WMDs. This fact makes the war in Europe look much more necessary than the war in Iraq.0 -
True, WW2 and Iraq have no similarities. The question here was if the media influenced public support of WW2, and if there has been a shift in public attitude/values since. Of course some things have changed, but It's not a valid comparison. WW2 was seen as a to the death struggle for the Nations existence, thus it was viewed by the public as a very nasty necessity, and carried to it's end. Iraq, on the other hand, is not seen as a mortal threat to the Nations survival, with much of the population split on whether we should even be involved. Hard to draw paralells or make conclusions here. BTW, bomb them until they cry uncle is definitely NOT the strategy in Iraq, we are not at war with the majority of Iraqis, and indiscriminate bombing of the general population, as was done in WW2, would be grossly counter productive. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wtroper
Thus, my question is: Do you think that the US population would have been as supportive of the efforts in WWII and in prior conflicts if the media coverage would have been as graphic and continuous as it is today? In addition, do you think that there has been a shift in the attitudes and/or values (as it or they would affect their acceptance of sustained military conflicts) of the US citizenry today compared to that of prior generations?
I have my opinions. I am interested in hearing from you. Please feel free to elaborate.
World War II - yes.
World War I - no.
Spanish-American War - no.
Civil War - yes.
Mexican American War - yes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
quote:Originally posted by wtroper
Thus, my question is: Do you think that the US population would have been as supportive of the efforts in WWII and in prior conflicts if the media coverage would have been as graphic and continuous as it is today? In addition, do you think that there has been a shift in the attitudes and/or values (as it or they would affect their acceptance of sustained military conflicts) of the US citizenry today compared to that of prior generations?
I have my opinions. I am interested in hearing from you. Please feel free to elaborate.
World War II - yes.
World War I - no.
Spanish-American War - no.
Civil War - yes.
Mexican American War - yes.
The key words here are "as supportive" - Absolutely not! And, most definitely not regarding the War Between The States.0 -
When talking about the media and it's impact on shaping public opinion about war, the Spanish-American War moves front and center! William Randolph Hearst fabricated enough stories of Spanish atrocities in Cuba to give the American public the idea that the island was a chamber of horrors. The explosion of the USS Maine was all it took for McKinley to pull the trigger and before you knew it the United States was on it's way to getting a few colonies. Just like the weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be piled up in Iraq, the atrocities thought to be going on in Cuba proved to be little more than fabrications. Experts (doubtless a bunch of over educated idiots with graduate/post-graduate degrees in useless fields like engineering) are still at odds as to what caused the sinking of the USS Maine, but it seems highly doubtful that Spain had any part in it. 0 -
IMO, the media remains the single biggest threat to this Nation's existence and future. A veritable cancer that has "metastasized" throughout the world and is growing in mass, fully out of control.
Reporting truth - no matter how disappointing, painful or unflattering - is the right, just, moral and ethical thing to do. Creating spin and hype to effect a particular sentiment out of a population and then play that out to the world AND to the enemy so as to justify a job and and salary is reprehensible, treacherous and possibly even treasonous.
The media does both equally well. Unfortunately, no one - not even they themselves - knows where truth ends and fantasy begins. But in the process, they readily give our sworn enemies additional ammunition to use against us. Have you ever noticed how the American media actually lays out all of our plans, thoughts, etc. for the world to see BEFORE we enact them? They see themselves as being above any and all obligation and duty to protecting and preserving this Nation, particularly in wartime. Remember Geraldo and his map gaffe?
To answer the specific question in this thread, it's doubtful - at least to me - that Americans would have been as participative, supportive, willing, patriotic and patient as they were in WWII and earlier conflicts. Suffice to say that our parents would have been somewhat desensitized by listening on the radio to one-on-one studio interviews with the likes of Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin and others, the denouncing and slamming of America for using the A-bomb, the Japanese-American internment camps, etc., etc., etc. It would have had a negative effect upon them and I believe that things would have been very different in the decades since.
Just my 2 cents.0 -
In 1941 America was attacked by Japan.
The next day, Germany declared war on America.
It was clear that our existance as a nation was on the line. We rose to the challenge.
In Iraq, as in Vietnam, we got involved in wars in which our existance as a nation was not threatened. As these wars dragged on, it became clear that our leaders did not understand the nature of the wars, and that our leaders had deceived the American people as they led us into the wars.
It is only logical that the American people would grow weary of wars such as Iraq and Vietnam. It is not a mark or cowardice, or communism, or defeatism to want to end such a war; it is a mark of intelligence.
If our existence as a nation were to be threatened again, the American people would rise to the challenge.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
25 comments