I often wonder how D-Day would be portrayed by Today's media...

[insein]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/northeastvalleyopinions/articles/0608sr-brashear08.html

This article ponders the question.

This caught my attention last night when i was watching the discovery channel's D-Day special. It said that 12,000 allied troops and 20,000 French civilians were killed on D-Day alone. Compare that to 800 soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died after a Year and we can only imagine the outcry against WW2 if today's media and modern democrats were around during that time.

Just something to ponder as to how much we have changed in 60 years.

 

[Xenimus]

I think it would be about the same, Republicans would cry that we don't need to go, that would be the same. However, the conviction of Bush Sr's dad for treason, probly wouldnt be covered by todays media.

 

[insein]

Can i get an intelligent response? Anyone?

 

[Xenimus]

Sorry for offending you.

I believe the media would portray in much the same way as 'war on terror'. Simply because they make a WHOLE LOTTA MONEY off this stuff.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by insein
Can i get an intelligent response? Anyone?

It 'Could Not Be Found'. Can you post the article?

 

[insein]

Would we be willing to pay the price of D-Day today?

Jun. 8, 2004 12:00 AM


As the Americans observed the 60th anniversary of D-Day on Sunday, they might have wondered, "Could we do that again?"

The question can't be answered with a confident yes by a population so emotionally sensitized by the likes of Oprah Winfrey that any unpleasant experience must consume mind, body and soul until the "healing" or "closure" comes around.

On June 6, 1944, D-Day, Army assault forces in 24 hours suffered 2,499 casualties, about 1,500 killed. Compare those one-day totals with losses in Iraq, where 800 American lives have been lost in more than a year.

Somehow, 60 years after D-Day, the losses in Iraq are considered unbearable by significant numbers of Americans.

Some of that change in attitude may be attributed to political rhetoric spewed from the Democratic Party's far left, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Ted Kennedy, who have accused the president of lying to the American people in a shameless grab for oil profits.

During World War II, that sort of talk would have been regarded as treasonable across the land, even among Republicans who politically opposed Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Political hate-speech, however, is only one reason for the change in public attitude. Unlike the World War II generation that Tom Brokaw described as this nation's greatest, today's Americans don't want to contemplate unpleasant thought, much less endure the hardships or even inconveniences that could spill their way from a war.

The World War II generation saw life differently because of circumstances. Death was more a part of life when parents and children had to cope with the young dying routinely from a long list of diseases now eradicated or easily cured.

With no food stamps or charity food banks, hunger was widespread and one meal a day not uncommon to most families. Many could not count on a roof overhead or lived without indoor plumbing or electricity. Holes worn in shoe soles were repaired by stuffing cardboard inside because there was no money for new soles, much less shoes.

The news media of the time, newspapers and radio, didn't offer extensive personal counseling, hoping to increase circulation or audiences by exploiting emotions. People depended on family and neighbors, not Oprah, not Dr. Phil. Movies offered escape from day-to-day existence, not more troubles and problems. Patriotism was a virtue, not a weakness; even abused Americans - Blacks, Japanese, Indians - volunteered for war.

Obviously, Americans more accustomed to a harsh life didn't have to make as much of an adjustment to war as a generation enjoying prosperity unparalled in history. With a good life potentially at stake, it's understandable that war becomes intolerable if it involves death and destruction and lasts longer than a few episodes of a TV reality show.

Maybe today's Americans would in some calamitous circumstance make good on President John F. Kennedy's eloquent expression of national purpose:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

The signs, however, are not encouraging 60 years after D-Day.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

I doubt we could stomach another DDay. Look at the poll numbers regarding Iraq. GWB said it himself yesterday: "Things take time, you people expect everything instantly." Not his exact words I'm sure but you get the gist of it.

 

[americanexpo]

well, i think the media is all screwed up but...

the US gov't and military has no one to blame but themselves. they created this atmosphere of mistrust and doubt by lying to the american people for years about the real situation in vietnam and then by nixon's reprehensible actions in office.

whether its been a democratic or republican administration, there's just scandal after scandal after scandal. that's not the american people's fault nor the media's.

i would think if we were waging war against nazi germany today, the secret of the concentration camps would have been revealed long before d-day, and it would have impressed even further upon the rest of the world (aside from the arab states) the reasons we're at war and why sacrifice and loss must be accepted and the good fight be fought.

look, d-day was the greatest moment in human history, bar none. on no other day in human history were there more prayers from more people around the world then on this day. the fate of humanity sat on the shoulders of those brave men from many different countries and walks of life. you just don't have that with terrorism, terrorism has always existed and always will, just hopefully not in the mass destruction sense of 9/11. human beings are by nature, quarellsome and cruel at times. i doubt terrorism can be defeated entirely, unlike say facism or communism.

but facism and toliteranism, that should be wiped out, for now and forever.

 

[Annie]

i would think if we were waging war against nazi germany today, the secret of the concentration camps would have been revealed long before d-day, and it would have impressed even further upon the rest of the world (aside from the arab states) the reasons we're at war and why sacrifice and loss must be accepted and the good fight be fought. posted by American Expo

Do I understand this correctly? Today the world would know the atrocities being committed by Germany and act more swiftly?

I see no evidence of THAT, (though perhaps I misunderstood your point). France and the Netherlands are having repeated anti-Semetic attacks going on, some with people critically hurt.

What's going on in Africa is well documented, Sudan and elsewhere. Where is the outrage? It takes BIG PROBLEMS to major players before the world cares. It's wrong, but seems to be the way.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Sorry for offending you.

I believe the media would portray in much the same way as 'war on terror'. Simply because they make a WHOLE LOTTA MONEY off this stuff.

I dont think you offended anyone. you post was just stupid. It made no sense. You dont write very coherantly.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Do I understand this correctly? Today the world would know the atrocities being committed by Germany and act more swiftly?

I see no evidence of THAT, (though perhaps I misunderstood your point). France and the Netherlands are having repeated anti-Semetic attacks going on, some with people critically hurt.

What's going on in Africa is well documented, Sudan and elsewhere. Where is the outrage? It takes BIG PROBLEMS to major players before the world cares. It's wrong, but seems to be the way.

Add to that that we do have the mass graves and torture chambers of Iraq and we are still being told that somehow we arent justified in eliminated a dictator.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I dont think you offended anyone. you post was just stupid. It made no sense. You dont write very coherantly.

That's all true, yet I could take those problems if he would say something, instead of just throwing out random thoughts and rants.

 

[Annie]

Sorry this took so long. I thought I posted this awhile back, but I couldn't find it:

http://victorhanson.com/Articles/Private Papers/Normandy.html

June 7, 2004
Our Look Back at Normandy
What our generation might have said a month later in July, 1944
Victor Davis Hanson
Al Gore: General George Marshall—You, you…. You, go now! You approved of it; you signed off; you gave us the Philippines disaster, the B-17 slaughters, and now this. So go! Go, go, now!

General Eisenhower? You resign now too! General—who else but you ordered our boys into a roaring surf? You—no one else—were told of rough weather at least 24 hours before the landing. What did you know of those weather warnings—and when did you know it? Henry Moorrrrgeeeenthhhhhaaauuuuuuuuu—you leave now! Tell us why you thought our boys would have a cakewalk bringing democracy and freedom to poor Frenchmen!

John Kerry: Let me just say as a veteran—and one with some experience in military affairs—that you don’t just pull up to a beach and expect to trot into Europe. And I will add as well, as I have on previous occasions, that this was the worst planned American operation in our entire history. As is the custom in this hallowed nation, someone now, some person, has to, must, and should be held accountable for this mess. In my capacity as a leader in foreign affairs in the Senate, I have with all candor tried to tell this administration to slow down and get the League of Nations back into the peace process. But as I have repeatedly warned, when you unilaterally go off to invade some continent, this is what you get.

This administration talks grandly of the “Allies;” but as I have demonstrated on numerous occasions, what they are really talking about are just two countries on the beach with us, and as expected I have warned about just what we are seeing now, that those who die will be Americans and those who pay for it all will be us. As a humanitarian, of course, I agree that Hitler was a tyrant and has to go—but there are more subtle and sober ways to do just that than blindly landing on a stormy beach and sending Americans to their slaughter.

Howard Dean: YYYuuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkkkeeeeeeeee!!!!!

Ted Kennedy: This entire disaster was cooked up in Hyde Park. The British didn’t want it. Our commanders in the Pacific were against it. The French people surely didn’t want “freedom” falling as bombs from the air.

Madeline Albright: We had Hitler is his box. In the air and sea we had him cornered. He couldn’t move without us knowing it. But Omaha Beach is what you get when you mix in triumphalism, machismo, testosterone, and unilateralism.

George Soros: Now after this mess maybe we can feel what the inferno of Hamburg was like a year ago. They’re about the same thing after all–only now they’re doing to us what we did to them.

Tim Robbins: See my new play On the Beach opening in London.

Sean Penn: I’m going to Berlin to stop this madness so that my kids won’t have to live in a world of Shermans and Tigers.

General Zinni: Too few troops. No harbors. Inadequate equipment. Hare-brained glider landings. Add that up and you get the disaster we are in now. Count how many tanks made it to the beach. All this fancy new airborne stuff, the floating tanks, the engineers are no substitute for boots on the ground. Ask a Mark Clark or other great generals privately what they think of Marshall and you’ll get an ear full. Some day the American people will learn the real reason why we switched over to landing on the beaches in Europe. Read my book.

General Odom: Get out now. Cut your losses. Leave that pocket. Amphibious landings are bad ideas. Night air-drops are lunatic. No plan to deal with the follow up. Too few troops to break out. No help from the so-called French resistance. Who thought this up? Pull out, regroup and ask who is our real enemy in this war and how we can better attack him. I was under the impression that the Japanese, not the Germans, bombed Pearl Harbor.

Ted Koppel: Tonight I will read the names of the dead of the 101st Airborne, tomorrow the 82nd. Have patience with us. There really are thousands of American casualties—and this was just on the first day of what we know is more to come later this month. And while our leaders don’t wish to deal with it, we at ABC do—and think you do as well.

Bill Clinton: One could argue that there were other ways of invading Europe, but this is not the time to attack each other over the details. As you know, I supported the decision to invade. In fact, I crafted the entire Europe First strategy. So now is not the time for self-flagellation about the too few troops, the poor weather forecasts, the shoddy equipment, the lack of good intelligence, the…

Moveon.org: Maybe now the American people will finally grow up when they see their children slaughtered on a French beach and huddled in hedgerows waiting to die. But what they don’t know is that thousands of poor conscripted Russians and eastern Europeans were innocent targets whom our boys killed on so-called D-Day. And does America want to deal with the five thousand French civilians who died in our secret bombing campaign before the invasion? Let those who said we’d be greeted with roses explain the charred bodies of women and children to the French public.

Noam Chomsky: It is well recognized that there is already a pipeline across the Channel. On good authority we know that petroleum is already flowing to this new captive European market. As leading scholars have pointed out, to understand the barbarism at Normandy one must learn about Standard Oil and British Petroleum—and the Rockefeller-Ford nexus.

Michael Moore: I have secret footage of Prescott Bush with unidentified Nazis! And a secret tape of Eisenhower admitting defeat—never released, but proving he knew it was a failure before he started.

Senator Hollings: Why hit the Third Reich head-on at Normandy in order to go eastward? The answer is obvious. I think you better ask our Jewish friends exactly why they preferred this expenditure of American blood and treasure.

Senator Byrd: And don’t forget the Zionist movement.

Harper’s Magazine, June 1944:

—Our Canadian embedded reporter spends a year with the Waffen SS—why they fight and why we can’t do anything about them!

—The refugee Jews and how their intelligentsia diverted us from Japan—and are crafting a secret plan to turn Germany into a pastoral country.

—The werewolf movement to come!

Paul Krugman: The real story is the French didn’t want us. Most of them were treated a lot better by the Germans than by us who bombed them for three years. Do you blame them? I warned about this in May.



NPR: Today we speak with Pierre Lang, a Normandy dairy farmer and once proud owner of four cows—until the morning of June 6.

Farmer Lang: “The Germans? They never blew up my cows! No—only you did that. Look at the craters, the burned barn, the dead animals. Who are the real Nazis?”

NPR: Perhaps you should ask Mr. Roosevelt that question, Mr. Lang.


The New York Times: The unfortunate slaughter of the last month and the present quagmire in the hedgerows are the unfortunate wages of a certain American arrogance— that we can always simply go where we wish, count on locals to admire us, and see the world in terms of black and white, of “good” Americans and “bad” Germans. As we saw last month, simplistic logic leads to careless planning that in turn results in thousands of dead and wounded Americans on a stormy beach and the survivors huddled a few miles away in a hostile countryside that shows no desire to be “liberated.”

Jacques Chirac: We don’t believe in unilateral solutions. It is our country and we have our own ways of dealing with the Germans, who after all are in our country, not yours. Where, for example, are Frenchmen now dying—in Normandy or Vichy?
All copyrights reserved by Victor Davis Hanson

 

[NightTrain]

LOL

Very nice article, KA!

 

[insein]

sums it up perfectly i feel.

 

[Annie]

Thank you. Wish I could write or think as well as VDH!

 

[americanexpo]

its sad that folks are so cynical nowadays.

i will admit maybe i overreached on the world acting to stop nazi germany nowadays, but that is the fault of all politicians. where was bush's father when saddam gassed the iranians, then the kurds? where was clinton when rwanda happened? why were the right right right wing republicans in congress denouncing Clinton when he finally stood up to Slobodan Milosevic? where was bush I and clinton early on in bosnia, when folks like Madeline Albright on the left, Margeret Thatcher on the right and countless people in the center rightfully said "this is not ethnic rivalries built up over centures, this is one man, one movement who has nationalized his people and is using that nationalism to blame two other ethnic groups for all their problems" the list is endless.

but here is what matters... at some point, GW BUSH said enough is enough, i will not tolerate Saddam oppressing his people any more. enough is enough, Tony Blair said, I will not tolerate this mass murdering, criminal enterprise in Sierra Leonne to continue, enough is enough, Clinton and most of Europe's leaders said, we cannot let Milosevic get away with ethnic cleansing again in Kosovo. Enough is enough the Australians said, we will not tolerate Indonesia destroying and oppressing East Timor again.

There are successes. There are far too many failures. I will never criticize a leader of any nation that is willing to send its troops to liberate, save or stop mass murder somewhere in the world, especially if past inaction and guilt over that is what is driving them to take action. Their plan may be poor, their execution even worse, but I will not doubt them in what they're trying to do.

We must remember that despite our cynicism, deep down, our leaders can make a difference, whether they be from the left, the center or the right. There is courage to be found by anyone willing to wish for it, there is conviction for those in need of it, and there is redemption for those willing to sacrifice for it.

Who would have thought Clinton would have the balls to get involved in Kosovo? Who would have imagined Blair, a left of centre politician, would unilaterally send troops to rescue Sierra Leonne? Who would believe Bush I would admit a mistake, and launch Operation Provide Comfort (the finest operation ever conducted to stop ethnic cleansing or genocide) to save the Kurds?

I believe my grandfather, and his generation, those men who liberated the concentration camps, and from then on, became convinced the US should stop such horrific atrocities. I know they did not always succeed, they did not always act, and sometimes they were ignorant of what was happening. But deep down, I believe that our generation, like theirs, will do the right thing in the end. Maybe we can stop what's happening in Sudan. Maybe we can halt oppression in places like Burma. Nothing is impossible.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by americanexpo
its sad that folks are so cynical nowadays.

i will admit maybe i overreached on the world acting to stop nazi germany nowadays, but that is the fault of all politicians. where was bush's father when saddam gassed the iranians, then the kurds? where was clinton when rwanda happened? why were the right right right wing republicans in congress denouncing Clinton when he finally stood up to Slobodan Milosevic? where was bush I and clinton early on in bosnia, when folks like Madeline Albright on the left, Margeret Thatcher on the right and countless people in the center rightfully said "this is not ethnic rivalries built up over centures, this is one man, one movement who has nationalized his people and is using that nationalism to blame two other ethnic groups for all their problems" the list is endless.

but here is what matters... at some point, GW BUSH said enough is enough, i will not tolerate Saddam oppressing his people any more. enough is enough, Tony Blair said, I will not tolerate this mass murdering, criminal enterprise in Sierra Leonne to continue, enough is enough, Clinton and most of Europe's leaders said, we cannot let Milosevic get away with ethnic cleansing again in Kosovo. Enough is enough the Australians said, we will not tolerate Indonesia destroying and oppressing East Timor again.

There are successes. There are far too many failures. I will never criticize a leader of any nation that is willing to send its troops to liberate, save or stop mass murder somewhere in the world, especially if past inaction and guilt over that is what is driving them to take action. Their plan may be poor, their execution even worse, but I will not doubt them in what they're trying to do.

We must remember that despite our cynicism, deep down, our leaders can make a difference, whether they be from the left, the center or the right. There is courage to be found by anyone willing to wish for it, there is conviction for those in need of it, and there is redemption for those willing to sacrifice for it.

Who would have thought Clinton would have the balls to get involved in Kosovo? Who would have imagined Blair, a left of centre politician, would unilaterally send troops to rescue Sierra Leonne? Who would believe Bush I would admit a mistake, and launch Operation Provide Comfort (the finest operation ever conducted to stop ethnic cleansing or genocide) to save the Kurds?

I believe my grandfather, and his generation, those men who liberated the concentration camps, and from then on, became convinced the US should stop such horrific atrocities. I know they did not always succeed, they did not always act, and sometimes they were ignorant of what was happening. But deep down, I believe that our generation, like theirs, will do the right thing in the end. Maybe we can stop what's happening in Sudan. Maybe we can halt oppression in places like Burma. Nothing is impossible.

That is correct. No country has always done the right things. But we try to. We try damn hard to please everyone. GW is finally cleaning up the messes from previous administrations.

I don't think the generation that was in WW2 are the ones thought that have gone against the wars. It seems to me that its the Vietnam Generation doing all the screaming. That generation of kids has now become the adults and politicians. That is why we hear so much opposition to a war that was clearly laid out for them.

 

[Annie]

I think you are correct, seems that the young in the US, get the serious nature of the conflict, better than their elders:

subscription only:

March 30, 2004
Teens Steady in Support of War


by Heather Mason, Contributing Editor



Much has transpired in the year since the coalition attack on Iraq. Although President George Bush declared victory last spring, American military casualties have continued, and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found has put the Bush administration on the defensive about the rationale for war. Despite the uncertainties surrounding the current situation in Iraq, a majority of American teenagers are still supportive of the war.

Most Teens Feel Situation in Iraq Worth Going to War Over

The most recent Gallup Youth Survey, conducted between Jan. 22 and March 9*, asked teens whether they believe that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of respondents agreed that the situation was worth going to war over, while 37% said it was not. Among U.S. adults, the percentage saying they feel the war was worthwhile has fluctuated somewhat in recent months, from 65% in mid-December to 49% at the end of January to 55% in early March.



The percentage of teens who see the war as "worth it" is close to the number who supported the idea of military action in the weeks leading up to the war. In a Gallup Youth Survey conducted in January and February 2003, shortly before the start of the Iraq war, 58% of teens said they favored "invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Teens' current support for the war varies substantially by race -- 69% of white teens feel the situation was worth going to war over, as do just 49% of nonwhite teens. Not surprisingly, political leanings strongly influence teens' views on the war as well. Eighty-five percent of teens who say they plan to vote Republican when they are old enough believe the situation was worth going to war over, while less than half that percentage of Democratic teens (41%) feel the same. Teens who plan to vote as independents fall directly in the middle, at 62%.

Older teens -- who are probably more aware of political and world events than younger teens are -- are more hesitant to condone the war in Iraq. Sixty-seven percent of 13- to 15-year-olds believe that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, compared with 54% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

Teens Divided on Iraq War's Effect on Terrorism

Although most teens feel that the war in Iraq was worth it, fewer believe that the war has accomplished one of the main objectives that Bush put forth before the attack -- making the United States safer from terrorism. A plurality (37%) of teens said that the United States is safer because of the war, but a substantial number -- 28% -- feel that it has actually made the United States less safe, and a third (33%) of teens think that the war in Iraq has not affected U.S. safety from terrorism either way.



Demographic patterns similar to those on the question of whether the war was worth it emerge on the question of whether the war has made the United States safer. White teens are more likely than nonwhite teens to believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism (45% vs. 23%); younger teens are more likely than older teens to feel the United States is safer (44% vs. 27%); and Republican teens (63%) are significantly more likely than Democratic (24%) or independent (30%) teens to think the United States is safer.

*The Gallup Youth Survey is conducted via an Internet methodology provided by Knowledge Networks, using an online research panel that is designed to be representative of the entire U.S. population. The current questionnaire was completed by 785 respondents, aged 13 to 17, between Jan. 22 and March 9, 2004. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.