How did American citizens manage to put up with WWII?

[QuantumPion]

"How did American citizens manage to put up with WWII?"

That anti-nationalist, America-is-evil mentality did not exist until the soviets propogated that ideology into our culture in the 1950's and 60's.

 

[x26]

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.

As a Side Note; They built all those Landing Craft that stormed the Beaches on D-Day
in New Orleans. I think they were "Higgens"??

 

[ShawnD1]

There would have been "peace in our time"...

10 years of peace while they rebuild their armies and prepare for the invasion of America

"How did American citizens manage to put up with WWII?"

That anti-nationalist, America-is-evil mentality did not exist until the soviets propogated that ideology into our culture in the 1950's and 60's.

lulz
It seems like the hippy movement against nation building started right around the time America began widespread nation building. I'm sure the two are not related in any way.

 

[OutHouse]

I disagree. Japan and Germany were no threat to America.

I do not know how to respond to this.

 

[wuliheron]

"How did American citizens manage to put up with WWII?"

That anti-nationalist, America-is-evil mentality did not exist until the soviets propogated that ideology into our culture in the 1950's and 60's.

You might actually want to read a little history. I know, its not fashionable among republicans to actually learn the facts and speak the truth, but learning really can be fun.

 

[DirkGently1]

Something that always impressed me when i studied the history of that period, was the enormous scale-up of American industry to provide the Warships, arnaments and other equipment that allowed the war to be fought. America being a super-power has stemmed from that one thing afaic!

 

[JTsyo]

Something that always impressed me when i studied the history of that period, was the enormous scale-up of American industry to provide the Warships, arnaments and other equipment that allowed the war to be fought. America being a super-power has stemmed from that one thing afaic!

That's an interesting point. American industrial capacity won WW2. I wonder if these days if we would fall behind in long term production. There's a lot of defense production in the US, one of our leading exports after foodstuffs, but I'm not sure how much extra production we could get on top of that.

 

[1prophet]

Well, it certainly makes it easier when you got the internet.

And that's the problem with today's generation, they want things fast and easy as long as someone else is doing the grunt work.

 

[Atreus21]

And that's the problem with today's generation, they want things fast and easy as long as someone else is doing the grunt work.

People have been saying that for decades.

 

[BeauJangles]

I disagree. Japan and Germany were no threat to America.

You also have no idea what the hell you're talking about, but what else is new around here?

 

[Jaskalas]

I disagree. Japan and Germany were no threat to America.

Only in an immediate sense. You are ignoring the possibility of what sort of force they could have mustered down the road after holding 2+ continents worth of men and resources over years, decades, even centuries.

Hell, if we ignored them completely, who'd own the Middle East oil right now?

 

[Jaskalas]

Don't think I agree. I wouldn't call police actions warmongering.

If we want to remain a superpower, I think that means we have to be visible around the world. That means asserting our influence. A good way to regress is to back down from that, and let a less benevolent nation like China pick up the reigns.

I'm not going to argue that it's necessarily moral for us to police the world. But I will argue that it's necessary.

How does us expending our coin and blood in Afghanistan and Iraq prevent Russia and China from being powerful? It seems like some huge logical fallacy to think expending our resources in Muslim countries would strengthen us and have any impact on Russia or China.

Soon as we leave these nations we've occupied they will be our enemy again. That is what their people demand. They are not happy to have had us in there, causing chaos, watching their countrymen die as a result of our actions.

What sort of influence are we extending?! I just do not see this benefit you are claiming.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Did I miss something in this thread? I saw only one or two people discuss THE MEDIA. There wasn't 24/7 coverage of every single solitary aspect of the war going on back then. Now, you can turn on probably 10-20 different channels that talk about the war. When it first started and in the early years, the Iraq War was constant coverage. And then you get people on both sides arguing for or against the war.

The propaganda and media were more controlled back then. Now, it isn't.

I think it is just that simple. Ya, America has become more "pussified" as others have stated. To afraid to do what needs to be done. Can't fire until fired upon first, etc.

 

[wuliheron]

People have been saying that for decades.

People have been saying that since the beginning of time. There's this great cuneiform tablet dated to around a hundred years after the invention of writing. On it the author complains that writing is ruining their youth who no longer bother to memorize everything.

 

[shira]

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.

Pearl Harbor was one huge difference. It galvanized the American public and kept them galvanized - how could Americans grow weary of war when the perpetrators of the Pearl Harbor attack were still out there fighting?

Also, the goals of the war were totally unambiguous: defeat the imperialist Axis powers in a conventional war. Surrender by the Axis powers ended the conflict unambiguously. The enemies during WWII were easy to identify, and the goals of WWII were intellectually easy to understand.

Contrast that with our war against international terrorism: The enemy is not an organized state and the fight is not a conventional war. The goals are ambiguous and the battle will never really end. There can be no "surrender" by our enemy, because the enemy is so amorphous. There's never going to be a huge payoff that signals "it's over." Add that all up and it's easy to understand an American public that's impatient with the war on terror.

 

[Atreus21]

How does us expending our coin and blood in Afghanistan and Iraq prevent Russia and China from being powerful? It seems like some huge logical fallacy to think expending our resources in Muslim countries would strengthen us and have any impact on Russia or China.

Our expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not have an effect on other power-players, but I can conclusively say that Taiwan would be a Chinese province but for the United States Navy, with hegemony over Southeast Asia China's ultimate goal. At least that's my assumption.

My argument is that either we fill the shoes of the world police or someone else does. Given the options, I'd prefer it be us.

 

[Bateluer]

Just curious, how old are the people in this thread? Anyone hit adulthood before 9/11? Seems like most people in this thread are sitting on their high horse, claiming to be more educated than those that came before them, all the while being still in High School and skipping history class.

 

[CanOWorms]

Only in an immediate sense. You are ignoring the possibility of what sort of force they could have mustered down the road after holding 2+ continents worth of men and resources over years, decades, even centuries.

Hell, if we ignored them completely, who'd own the Middle East oil right now?

lol centuries?

Not even the British Empire was able to hold its colonies for much longer after WW2. You think that the Nazis and Japanese would be able to hold out longer? They were weaklings compared to the brutal tactics of the British and even they were defeated.

 

[piasabird]

Germany was sinking our merchant vessels. So either we got into the war or we had to surrender. Not very appealing to surrender to the Nazi's.

 

[piasabird]

After World War I Browning had already developed Liquid cooled machine guns. Some of these guns are still in working order. It took an American Genious inverter/arms manufacturer to see the need to prepare for the next war. It turned the tide of the war. One thing the USA knew about was how to make guns.

Actually the liquid cooled heavy machine gun was tested near the end of world war I. In reality we also used a lot of foreign weapons also. However, Browning was a genious.

 

[BeauJangles]

Only in an immediate sense. You are ignoring the possibility of what sort of force they could have mustered down the road after holding 2+ continents worth of men and resources over years, decades, even centuries.

Hell, if we ignored them completely, who'd own the Middle East oil right now?

I think it's useless to speculate on what would have had happened even a decade after a Nazi or Japanese victory. There are too many variables.

I would disagree about the immediacy of the threat though. At the beginning of the war, both Japan and Germany had credible naval forces. Germany's, granted, was a submarine fleet, but it was highly effective and operated as far as the Gulf of Mexico. Japan had one of the largest fleets in the world, a sizable air force, and significant combat experience by the time the US entered the war.

Those factors alone made both countries a threat to our sovereignty and the safety of our population. As the war progressed and technology advanced, both countries demonstrated what kind of threat they could have morphed into after a victory over the other Allied powers. Germany's rocket technology combined with their U-boat prowess and their fledgling nuclear program would have been a nightmare for this country.

 

[Jaskalas]

Our expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not have an effect on other power-players, but I can conclusively say that Taiwan would be a Chinese province but for the United States Navy, with hegemony over Southeast Asia China's ultimate goal. At least that's my assumption.

My argument is that either we fill the shoes of the world police or someone else does. Given the options, I'd prefer it be us.

So your best example has neither War nor American military occupation.

 

[CitizenKain]

I think it is just that simple. Ya, America has become more "pussified" as others have stated. To afraid to do what needs to be done. Can't fire until fired upon first, etc.

Yes, if only we were more manly and dropped bombs on people more often. Funny how the people claiming this country is becoming more "pussified" are generally gigantic cowards.

 

[ShawnD1]

Yes, if only we were more manly and dropped bombs on people more often. Funny how the people claiming this country is becoming more "pussified" are generally gigantic cowards.

They're usually not talking about war. Pussified is stuff like punishing kids for playing "tag" at school because it singles a person out. Pussified is giving kids a pass or fail rather than a percentage grade because the kid passing with a 60 might feel bad.

 

[werepossum]

As a Side Note; They built all those Landing Craft that stormed the Beaches on D-Day
in New Orleans. I think they were "Higgens"??

Yes, the Higgens boats (LCVPs) were the most important landing craft. Interesting story - they were built from a verbal description of a Japanese landing craft. Andrew Higgens was so scrupulously honest (he even insisted on refunding part of the government's money when his production costs were below projection) and so loathe to lay off his workers that in spite of building tens of thousands of boats for the government he went bankrupt shortly after the war. He is probably one of the persons most responsible for the Allied victory, as he built his landing craft in much less time, and for much less money, than the Navy's traditional boat builders, and we were always pressed for landing craft.