Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if todays media existed at the time of WWII. Do you think the war would have ended differently? Would the medias use of such technologies as satellites, cell phones, computer/email, etc played a major factor in the outcome of the war itself?
Today, its quite obvious that the media plays a major part in shaping peoples perceptions of conflicts worldwide. I cannot help but wonder what would have happend if he had 24hr, real-time news back then. How would people react seeing first hand the carnage at Omaha Beach? How would the country react to seeing hundreds of thousands of US soldiers dead? Were there massive anti-war movements back then? If there were, how different would they have been with 24hr coverage of the war?
Think about it!
(I'm sure we could fill up another thread asking how WWII would have turned out if the military was as technologically advanced (communicationwise) as it is today but lets save that for another time )
I suspect that people would've been demanding FDR's head. So many mistakes were made and so few citizens understand why mistakes are made before, during and after battles.
What if todays media existed at the time of WWII. Do you think the war would have ended differently? Would the medias use of such technologies as satellites, cell phones, computer/email, etc played a major factor in the outcome of the war itself?
Today, its quite obvious that the media plays a major part in shaping peoples perceptions of conflicts worldwide. I cannot help but wonder what would have happend if he had 24hr, real-time news back then. How would people react seeing first hand the carnage at Omaha Beach? How would the country react to seeing hundreds of thousands of US soldiers dead? Were there massive anti-war movements back then? If there were, how different would they have been with 24hr coverage of the war?
Think about it!
(I'm sure we could fill up another thread asking how WWII would have turned out if the military was as technologically advanced (communicationwise) as it is today but lets save that for another time )
What if Bushie told Americans to sacrifice like FDR did while we were fighting a war?
If you want to fight a war without destroying your currency, you have to ration and industrialize your nation. If you want to compare the situation to WWII, do so fairly.
After 9/11 the prez says to take a vacation and buy a new car or house.
What if Bushie told Americans to sacrifice like FDR did while we were fighting a war?
If you want to fight a war without destroying your currency, you have to ration and industrialize your nation. If you want to compare the situation to WWII, do so fairly.
After 9/11 the prez says to take a vacation and buy a new car or house.
The dollar is toast because of this rhetoric.
Different economic situations, different needs, different type of war. No comparison.
In a war the truth is always the 1st victim, even nowadays with all our modern technology this still is true.
So nothing truly different would have happened.
Different economic situations, different needs, different type of war. No comparison.
War bonds...put your money where your mouth is. IF you support a war, invest..even if it's just pennies...in it. If you DON'T, you don't have to pay to support it. Let's see what would happen.
I think the media would have made obvious FDR's manipulation of the American people.
War bonds...put your money where your mouth is. IF you support a war, invest..even if it's just pennies...in it. If you DON'T, you don't have to pay to support it. Let's see what would happen.
I think the media would have made obvious FDR's manipulation of the American people.
You're probably right. In WWII, it was the "conservatives" who were against the war, and the "liberals" who were urging the U.S. to enter into it.
Different economic situations, different needs, different type of war. No comparison.
Different economy
Like how dot coms tried to express to Wall St that "it's different this time"?
Like how subprime mortgages and rampant house flipping tried to say to responsible savers "it's different this time"?
The more things "change", the more they stay the same.
The economy of war NEVER changes, no matter how modern the battlefield is. Humvees, missiles, planes, ships, armor, soldiers on the ground, etc need to be paid for. That's done by rationing consumer goods, industrializing the nation, and creating an investor base for war bonds or a similar instrument to fund the war effort.
Our economy is collapsing in slow-motion because of reckless consumption. It's laughable to think that taxes can be cut and consumption INCREASE during a war. People should've realized that this dynamic never happened in history, and now we're in a housing depression, credit is contracting and consumer spending has seized up we can see why
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
In a war the truth is always the 1st victim, even nowadays with all our modern technology this still is true.
