Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

If Iwo Jima was fought today

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by JCalhoun, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    This is a fantastic site. It looks at the Battle of Iwo Jima as if it were covered by the modern press/media.

    http://www.goodolddogs3.com/If-IwoJima- ... d2day.html

    They talk about the President as if he is Bush but do make some remarks that clearly point to FDR. Basically, this is what would happen if FDR were trying to run WW2 today.
     
  2. Tom phpbb3

    Tom phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,733
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    When I hit that island back in 96? 97? Nobody was shooting at us. Thank God.
     
  3. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    maby because they ran out of ammo :lol:
    anyway, nice site. shows that war and press are not a good combination. perfect way to loose the public support for your war. damm it, send the press when the battle is over so that you can only talk about the victory and not the losses that cost it
     
  4. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Great site.
    Thanks for posting the link.
     
  5. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    That was predictable.
     
  6. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not comparable to the war against Japan. Therefore the media would cover it rather differently, and did in fact do so back in the day.
     
  7. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Many members of the news media today consider themselves neutral observers who don't take sides even if their country is under attack, or this is what they say anyway. That wasn't the case in the 1940s.
    With the attitudes of todays journalists it wouldn't matter if it was the US under attack by a foreign power as was the case with Japan.
     
  8. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2

    That is good, IMHO. Biased writings never did much for truth or clarency.
     
  9. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    mayby. but at 9/11, the whole press accused Bin Laden and supported Bush for invading Afghanistan and all you here was how great and good the american troops were doing it on the battlefield. what i want to say is, it is hard to stay neutral when you're county is under attack.
     
  10. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    You can't be certain of that since the US hasn't been under attack by a foreign power lately. The media certainly reacted with vigilant patriotism to the terrorist attacks of 2001, as far as I can remember.

    I agree with Panzerman that an objective stance on events is better than blind propagandist patriotism. I do realize that the media of today is showing neither, but they seem to be doing better than the latter which was what characterized media during WW2.
     
  11. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Look at it this way, if the same media were around in WW2, FDR would have been raked over the coals for going to war in Europe since we were never attacked by Germany or Italy. Can you imagine what would have happened if the modern press would have reported the Lend-Lease agreements?
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Roel - would you rather that The Times in 1944 had the front page story 'Hundreds of Dummy tanks to fool Germans'? :p

    A one-sided media is a good thing for the war effort, as it helps to keep your populace's morale up. Take a look at Vietnam, where the media focussed almost exclusively on the 'why are we here, senslessly wasting American lives in a war we can't win' angle, and whipped up the public so much that the US had to pull out (yes, there were other factors, but that did not help).
    Imagine a WW2-media approach to Vietnam, which would encourage the public to support the war.

    Freedom of the press is a good ideal, but unfortunately 2 things are true.

    1) Sometimes the press will include a bias on its own (sometimes to make a point, sometimes simply to sell papers).

    2) Sometimes there is information that should not be out there.
     
  13. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Germany declared war on the US in December 1941.
     
  14. sovietsniper

    sovietsniper New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I think he means bomed/shoot at. The u-bouts would have thouth.
     
  15. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    That's correct. The only way Germany was a tactical threat to the USA was the U-Boats. The US Navy could have taken charge of that and remained on the Atlantic Coast patrols. Italy had no chance at all of ever making a strike on the US.

    Can you imagine if some woman paraded around ranting "FDR killed my son at Anzio!" with all the major news companies shoving it everyone's faces? That's what we have now.
     
  16. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Off topic, but...

    U-boats? Why not say either submarine or u-boot?

    :lol:
     
  17. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    These are still not comparable. It is true that the Americans didn't really have to send an expeditionary force to Europe in order to be safe, if they didn't mind being untrue to the alliance made with Britain during the ABC talks. However, war was declared on them, by Germany. The war with Iraq was planned, declared and executed by the American government, and therefore Bush can be held responsible for the deaths there.
     
  18. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    You might also look at this way:

    What if in Germany in the 1930's and 40's there had been a free press, questioning the war?
    Had the german people been informed about things that were not going well, or Hitlers's mistakes, I bet there would have been quite another reaction than there historically was....much to Germany's benefit.

    So the press criticising the war surely is not a bad thing, it just about to find the right balance.

    I cannot pretend to know how US press reports about Iraq, as I don't live there, but if it's true that they are so critic about the war, then they obviously turned around 180 degrees.
    Because before the war there was very much some "rally around the flag" mentality in the press, no one really questioned what the administration was telling, no one asked for any proofs for WMD, opponents of the war were called weasels or friends of Saddam....
    Maybe it's because they were not critic enough before, that they are so critic now....?
     
  19. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    The whole press supported Bush? Not what I saw. It's true that the press won't buck strong public opinion such as immediately following the 9/11 attacks but it wasn't long before the political sniping began. That is always the case with politics however the difference lies in the fact that we don't have an unbiased news media. They consistently side with one political party and one side of the political spectrum.
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    France and Britain hadn't been attacked by Germany when they declared war had they? Was the French or British press publicly attacking their leaders and holding them responsible for the deaths that resulted?
     

Share This Page