Would We Have Stayed In WW II If Media Coverage Were The Same As It Is Now?
Let's play what if for a few minutes. Let's say the media coverage for WW II was the as it is For Iraqi Freedom or even Vietnam. Would we have stayed in as long as we did? In WW II, before Normandy, Allied Forces invaded Sicily, Italy. The US had 2,237 killed and 6,544 wounded and captured. That was from July 1943 to August 1943. 407,300 in all action in WW II (1939 to 1945). No real out cry for withdrawl In Vietnam; U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - 57,690 (1959 to 1975). Huge Cry for withdrawl (We Cut and Run) Now, in Iraq, U.S. Casualties number 3,135 as of 17 Feb. Another Huge outcry for withdrawl. We also can look at lots of other examples in recent history, but these are the Major points. Now look at Media: In WW II it took atleast a couple of days to reach US public. In Vietnam, about a day (sometimes less). In Iraq, almost instantly. Do you see a link
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The USA suffered 407,000 KIA/570,000 WIA in WW2....
today's press would be calling for FDR's & his entire families head's on a Pole. People like George Clooney & Sean Penn would be urinating on themselves as they would be serving instead of whining.
A List of Absolute F-Ups which caused Numerable US Casualties on FDR's watch;
FDR put 120,000 Americans into concentration camps because of their race(executive order #9066)
Made deals with organized Crime(Operation Underworld)
Put into place Censorship on a grand scale(office of Censorship)
Engaged in Illegal war(USS Greer incident ,Sept. 1941 as example)
Refused shipload of German Jews who were promptly sent to Koncentrations Laagers upon return to the Fatherland
Refused to Bomb the train tracks leading to the death camps
Wiretapped US Citizens including his own wife
Union Busted/Strike Busted
Kept the Armed Forces Segregated
Abandoned our men on Bataan, Wake, Guam, Corregiedor, etc.......
Attempted to be "President for Life"(succeeded in a way)
and finally "it wasnt Italian or Germans in those Torpedo Planes which attacked us on 12/7/41 so why did we go after Germany first?"
- ColonelLv 61 decade ago
I hate what the media is doing, I hate the race for Numbers and stories by the media, all they care about reporting is the US doing badly, getting killed, body counts etc...How can the media say we are "losing" this war in Iraq? It's not like we are keeping score and there is a way to tell.
I think it's funny, the news stories and media reports were not this negative at the beginning of the war. Where were the protesters then? Few if any. I know, WMD right? Funny because there were several people of BOTH parties that thought Iraq had them, including the Clinton's. War on Terror, not war because Iraq attacked America. Bush and nobody EVER claimed Iraq attacked the US, that WAS NEVER SAID. Where this line came from is beyond me (made up of course) Again, War on Terror, meaning terrorist countries...Iraq was a world threat, not specifically a threat to America...but people want to twist words and make them seem fact. If you think I am wrong, I can go off on Clinton all day long and watch the reactions I get!Source(s): Oh, and Joker, you are right..Iraq has lasted longer, and we still lost more Marines in ONE 80+ day fighting (you've heard of Iwo Jima right?) than wer have in ALL the TIME we have spent in Iraq. You have completely missed the question.
- 1 decade ago
Of course not. After the first two battles we would have been out of there. Now adays people complain about 60 or so casualties. Well look at D-Day...over 10,000 just in the first few hours. The media needs to stop working against our government for their ratings. Because if we cant keep our stance as world leader then there might not be a media any more.
- DrBLv 71 decade ago
During WWII, the media was very helpful to the war effort. The enemy had to hire its own propagandists like Tokyo Rose. At that time the media was not a profit center and was public service.
During Vietnam the media became a profit center and the more controversy they created the more money the news departments contributed to the profits. This of course continues during Iraq and has undercut our patriotism for profit and saved the enemies the need for another Tokyo Rose..
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Simple answer,,,the freedom of the press was limited during WW2 as was your right to call the Prez a nut. If you had asked or answered these questions as peple do today,,you would have found yourself in jail as a traitor. Thats a fact. Things have changed. For the better is a good question.
- minorchord2000Lv 61 decade ago
It is very simple. If we had the same verminous media that we have today (which by the way does not serve the American people the way it should), we would be lamp shades or would be worshipping at some shinto shrine.
We would have been forced to pull out and be defeated.
- 1 decade ago
No! We lost hundreds, if not more, in a TRAINING EXERCISE for D-Day. And thousands on D-Day itself.
The Battle of the Bulge would have been reported as a major Allied disaster.
But the press was on OUR side then.
- Cherry_BlossomLv 51 decade ago
Well back in WW2 you would see those real rah rah sessions at the movies stating what a tough battle but the troops were persevering. Now its live and in person. The media has changed our perception of war.
- thejokkerLv 51 decade ago
The war in Iraq has lasted longer than WWII
- 1 decade ago
No, we wouldn't have stayed. But the difference is, the media WANTED us to win WWII. For whatever reason, they don't want us to win in Iraq. They want it to be another Vietnam.