How did American citizens manage to put up with WWII?

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Saw an exchange between Whoozyerdaddy and Zebo in the Pakistan thread, where Zebo said we're due for another war, to which Whoozyerdaddy replied that Americans have too short an attention span for a protracted war to be feasible.

What was different about WWII?

Was it the fact that so much was at stake, or that it was deadly serious? That seems dubious to me. We'd already been through WWI, which was a mess. On the other hand, since WWII we haven't been in a conflict in which we might ultimately have been fighting for our very lives. I suppose if Hitler had conquered all of Europe, he would've eventually come for us. I read that the Nazi's were researching transatlantic bombers.

Was there less information available, such as daily troop casualties, to cause daily reductions in citizen support? Without the internet and prevalent media access, I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to organize large protests against a war.

It's a sad fact that prosperity breeds complacency, and that only tragedy will shake us from it.

Whatta you guys think.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
What was different about WWII?

Maybe we had a greater sense of Patriotism back then.

Maybe people actually cared about politics, and knew what the results would be if the USA did not take action.

Maybe the people were more educated back then about world affairs?

Looking through my grandfathers school papers from the 1930s, those kids actually learned something, as compared to the garbage schools shovel out today.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Maybe we had a greater sense of Patriotism back then.

Maybe people actually cared about politics, and knew what the results would be if the USA did not take action.

Maybe the people were more educated back then about world affairs?

Looking through my grandfathers school papers from the 1930s, those kids actually learned something, as compared to the garbage school shovel out today.

It's funny you mention newspapers.

Awhile back for a history class I was looking through old micro-fiches of the Times Picayune during WWII, and it led me to believe that people were not far different than we are now. They still bickered over the same baloney as we do now, adjusted for the issues of the time of course.

Perhaps it's because we were still ascendant at the time. The depression kept us from complacency, and we were emerging as a world power, to which WWII represented the summit.

I shy away from the knee-jerk tendency of labeling that time the "good old days when people gave a damn." I maintain that they weren't much different than we are now.
 

Monster_Munch

Senior member
Oct 19, 2010
873
1
0
WW2 lasted 6 years and the US wasn't fully involved from the start.

You've already been in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than that.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
WW2 lasted 6 years and the US wasn't fully involved from the start.

You've already been in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than that.

We were involved for about 3.5 years.

True, but the death toll was horrific compared to either Iraq or Afghanistan.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,544
5,589
146
The enemies in WWII were easily defined clear cut aggressors, invading many other countries. It was not hard to get public support after Pearl Harbor. There was justifiable fear that either Japan or Germany would be at our border if not stopped.
Compare that to Korea, which did not have the universal support WWII did.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
Saw an exchange between Whoozyerdaddy and Zebo in the Pakistan thread, where Zebo said we're due for another war, to which Whoozyerdaddy replied that Americans have too short an attention span for a protracted war to be feasible.

What was different about WWII?


What a crock of shit. Next you'll be using quotes from Hollywood movies to make sweeping generalizations about Americans.

When we had the time and money we chose to create a military equal to the next seven largest in the world combined. It isn't cheap and it certainly doesn't indicate a short attention span. What it indicates is a desire to limit our casualties, get the job done fast, and in general discourage assholes from messing with us. Unfortunately too many of these third world wannabes are too dense and life is too cheap for them to get the message. When we say don't tread on us we mean it and I pity the stupid fuck who thinks we've gotten soft somehow.
 
Last edited:

Axon

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2003
2,541
1
76
Not only was Hitler and the Axis the most serious threat to the world in centuries, we were simply a better country then. Now our politics are alarmingly black and white (if it's your guy, its genius, if its the other guy, he should be arrested), when our entirely system involves razor-thin subtleties of gray.

And yes, prosperity breeds complacency, at least in the United States. That's why we have 33 year olds living and home and making just enough to ensure they can snowboard during the winter. We're still a great nation, and I still love America, but I fear we're putting our heads in the sand on a number of critical social issues. Our young adults just don't care that much. Sure, if you're smart and you hand out with like minded people, you might think otherwise, but for every one of you there's 10 clones of Pauly D. from MTV's Jersey Shore who could f**king care less - as long as he has his night clubs, he's happy.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
What a crock of shit. Next you'll be using quotes from Hollywood movies to make sweeping generalizations about Americans.

When we had the time and money we chose to create a military equal to the next seven largest in the world combined. It isn't cheap and it certainly doesn't indicate a short attention span. What it indicates is a desire to limit our casualties, get the job done fast, and in general discourage assholes from messing with us. Unfortunately too many of these third world wannabes are too dense and life is too cheap for them to get the message. When we say don't tread on us we mean it and I pity the stupid fuck who thinks we've gotten soft somehow.

The Iraq war was a fiasco, indicative that our intent was not to get the job done fast, but cheap. They seemingly failed at both. The war took forever and cost a fortune. Getting the job done fast would've worked, but it would've required a massive mobilization. I would've supported that.

I didn't say the American military is soft. I said that citizens tend not to have the stomach for protracted wars that they did 50 or so years ago.

I don't think that's a sweeping generalization given the response to the Iraq war.
 
Last edited:

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I think it was partially the supremely controlled flow of information to the public with lots of pro-war propaganda and disinformation mixed in.

But I think the real root of it was people grasped that the stakes were much higher than they are nowadays. Today there is no real worry that the West will lose, or that the war will even affect the vast majority of us at all back home. Contrast that to the spectre of a Nazi controlled Europe or Japan controlled Pacific. Entirely different situations. People are actually incredibly good at recognizing when they're being lied to - and the real worry people watching the situation in Europe had telegraphed clearly back then.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,915
1,046
126
The Iraq war was a fiasco, indicative that our intent was not to get the job done fast, but cheap. They seemingly failed at both. The war took forever and cost a fortune. Getting the job done fast would've worked, but it would've required a massive mobilization. I would've supported that.

I didn't say the American military is soft. I said that citizens tend not to have the stomach for protracted wars that they did 50 or so years ago.

I don't think that's a sweeping generalization given the response to the Iraq war.

So you think if tomorrow the Chinese launched a surprise attack on our assets in the Pacific, we would just sit back and let them take SE Asia? Or that we would fight for a year and then settle on a truce? I doubt it. When needs must, I'm sure the people will step up.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,559
8,616
136
How did American citizens manage to put up with WWII?

WW2 was a real war, our involvement followed Germany's conquering of the whole of mainland Europe, Japan's conquering of the whole of the Asian Pacific. The damn planet was at stake.

Modern day nation building efforts are an endless, fruitless task. Our enemy is a terrorist element that blends into the indigenous population. There's no whole sale slaughter of them like we could do to foreign armies in WW2. You're fighting guellia warfare on the other side of the planet, with no chance in hell of ever winning, at great cost to our nation.

If that has become the modern term for 'war', then it's no wonder people don't stomach it.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,559
8,616
136
So you think if tomorrow the Chinese launched a surprise attack on our assets in the Pacific, we would just sit back and let them take SE Asia? Or that we would fight for a year and then settle on a truce? I doubt it. When needs must, I'm sure the people will step up.

If China starts a war, we'd be begging them for supplies.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Not only was Hitler and the Axis the most serious threat to the world in centuries, we were simply a better country then. Now our politics are alarmingly black and white (if it's your guy, its genius, if its the other guy, he should be arrested), when our entirely system involves razor-thin subtleties of gray.

And yes, prosperity breeds complacency, at least in the United States. That's why we have 33 year olds living and home and making just enough to ensure they can snowboard during the winter. We're still a great nation, and I still love America, but I fear we're putting our heads in the sand on a number of critical social issues. Our young adults just don't care that much. Sure, if you're smart and you hand out with like minded people, you might think otherwise, but for every one of you there's 10 clones of Pauly D. from MTV's Jersey Shore who could f**king care less - as long as he has his night clubs, he's happy.

The "Good Old Days" weren't that good, it's just that people tend to reflect nostalgically on the past. There were still criminals and deadbeats and evil corporations. The public was still heavily influenced by propaganda and both sides of the political spectrum hemmed and hawed as much as they do today.

American citizens "put up" with World War II because the government made it clear that this wasn't just another war in a foreign country. They made it clear that it was a life and death, good against evil struggle for future control of the world. Whether or not that's true is up for debate, but the propaganda that was pumped into this country (and others) was incredibly powerful stuff. Secondly, the country was still mostly mired in a deep depression and the war suddenly gave people hope. At its peak, the US military employed nearly 12 million men and women, factories suddenly had jobs, and people who, for nearly a decade simply struggled to survive were suddenly "part of something."

The country made it explicitly clear that it needed everyone and that everyone was important and your contributions were valued. This gave everyone from your average fourth grade student to your forty year-old a job, a purpose, a common enemy.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Lets see...

1. Blatant propaganda taken for fact.
2. Less educated populace.
3. Complient news media, fewer sources
4. Perfectly baked bad guy
5. And eventually, actual agression versus the homeland.


Yep, that will do it.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
The Iraq war was a fiasco, indicative that our intent was not to get the job done fast, but cheap. They seemingly failed at both. The war took forever and cost a fortune. Getting the job done fast would've worked, but it would've required a massive mobilization. I would've supported that.

I didn't say the American military is soft. I said that citizens tend not to have the stomach for protracted wars that they did 50 or so years ago.

I don't think that's a sweeping generalization given the response to the Iraq war.

This "massive mobilization" crap sounds like so much "nuke em and let God sort them out" bullshit. We could have carpet bombed them back into the stone age, sent in the tanks to level anything left standing, and left them to rot in their own filth. We didn't because the people in charge had more sense then that.

Americans didn't want to get involved in WW I, WW II, or the Civil War for that matter. You'd be crazy to want to get involved in something like that and even crazier to do a lot of bitching about the cost and length of the war when your back is to the wall. Iraq was small potatoes and never a real threat to the US so people felt free to bitch all they wanted. When it counts, they have enough sense to keep their mouths shut and do what needs to be done.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Saw an exchange between Whoozyerdaddy and Zebo in the Pakistan thread, where Zebo said we're due for another war, to which Whoozyerdaddy replied that Americans have too short an attention span for a protracted war to be feasible.

What was different about WWII?

Was it the fact that so much was at stake, or that it was deadly serious? That seems dubious to me. We'd already been through WWI, which was a mess. On the other hand, since WWII we haven't been in a conflict in which we might ultimately have been fighting for our very lives. I suppose if Hitler had conquered all of Europe, he would've eventually come for us. I read that the Nazi's were researching transatlantic bombers.

Was there less information available, such as daily troop casualties, to cause daily reductions in citizen support? Without the internet and prevalent media access, I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to organize large protests against a war.

It's a sad fact that prosperity breeds complacency, and that only tragedy will shake us from it.

Whatta you guys think.


Don't need no internet to organize a large protest, just enough people who question the motives of those pushing for war, especially when they can be drafted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdeCxJmcAo
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,531
3,672
126
The Iraq war was a fiasco, indicative that our intent was not to get the job done fast, but cheap. They seemingly failed at both. The war took forever and cost a fortune. Getting the job done fast would've worked, but it would've required a massive mobilization. I would've supported that.

Well, combat operations against a traditionally defined military structure were over very fast. Where we failed was 'Nation Building'. A lot of goodwill among the Iraqi population was lost when we were unable to restore basic services in a decent amount of time (among other issues).
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
This "massive mobilization" crap sounds like so much "nuke em and let God sort them out" bullshit. We could have carpet bombed them back into the stone age, sent in the tanks to level anything left standing, and left them to rot in their own filth. We didn't because the people in charge had more sense then that.

Americans didn't want to get involved in WW I, WW II, or the Civil War for that matter. You'd be crazy to want to get involved in something like that and even crazier to do a lot of bitching about the cost and length of the war when your back is to the wall. Iraq was small potatoes and never a real threat to the US so people felt free to bitch all they wanted. When it counts, they have enough sense to keep their mouths shut and do what needs to be done.

No, I'm not talking about scorched earth. What I mean is that we didn't commit our full strength (barring nuclear weapons and any other means that would indiscriminately inflict civilian casualties) to the effort. The surge that Bush enacted should never have been necessary.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Not only was Hitler and the Axis the most serious threat to the world in centuries, we were simply a better country then. Now our politics are alarmingly black and white (if it's your guy, its genius, if its the other guy, he should be arrested), when our entirely system involves razor-thin subtleties of gray.

And yes, prosperity breeds complacency, at least in the United States. That's why we have 33 year olds living and home and making just enough to ensure they can snowboard during the winter. We're still a great nation, and I still love America, but I fear we're putting our heads in the sand on a number of critical social issues. Our young adults just don't care that much. Sure, if you're smart and you hand out with like minded people, you might think otherwise, but for every one of you there's 10 clones of Pauly D. from MTV's Jersey Shore who could f**king care less - as long as he has his night clubs, he's happy.

Politics have always been black and white and always will be. Jackson accused his opponents of killing his wife because they accused her of being a harlot who married a man while not even divorced from a prior husband. Additionally, they said Jackson was an uneducated hick. Lincoln was accused of being the same. They accused Jefferson of not being Christian. They accused FDR of being a "traitor" to his own class. JFK was an "evil Catholic".

Lindburg ran around with his pacifist agenda and claimed we could never beat Germany's air force.

As far as people being discouraged, people were somewhat discouraged pre-WW2, we were still going through the Great Depression. It was a period where many lost their farms, in fact, huge swaths of the country lost their farms and houses to foreclosure. Bankrupties were commonplace.

I do wonder about the decadence of the country, but there were always periods where things were out of hand.

As somebody else said, people think that we were somehow "better" then than we are now. That's false, there were never any "good ole times" in this country. There were periods when the US states and people were the biggest deadbeat debtors in the world. Our states routinely defaulted on debt to foreign creditors and refused to pay them. Even while on the gold standard we borrowed a lot and had a run on the gold while French creditors exchanged debt for gold, only JP Morgan saved us there.

The wild west was a disgusting place full of disgusting people. It's been made to be romantic by hollywood. However, if you took a shower once a year you were living it up, or, in some cases, people thought it was actually bad. people spent a lot on booze, more than they do now.

I think part of the problem is that our history classes in HS paint such a 20,000' view of our history, only showing highlights, yet utterly ignoring the actual reality of the situation. You need to read many books on the periods, presidents and people to understand what was really going on.

The message was pretty clear in WW2. We were massively pacifistic pre-Pearl Harbor and very aggressive after. Do you really need to wonder why?
 
Last edited: