Could a modern country rouse it's people to war if needed?

[Lobsang]

This is something I think about sometimes when watching all those WW2 documentaries on the various documentary channels.

They over simplify it I'm sure, but they basically show how 'simpler' people and technology and ideas were back then, so it was fairly easy to rouse people so that they were willing to join up and fight for their country.

These days I think people are too knowledgable and liberal-minded and distrusting of govornment and establishment (especially in Europe) for said govornment to have any hope of rousing them to be willing to participate in compulsory service.

What do you think?

[askeptic]

Just curious, if it is "compulsory" how would the people be able to avoid it?

[beergeek279]

Well, don't underestimate the value that an attack on your homeland would have on rousing the people. Look at just how many people supported isolationism well into 1941 before Pearl Harbor and the near universality of support after that date. Compare that with September 11th and the outswelling of support against terrorists and eventually Afghanistan, almost a de facto attacking country.

It's probably just not as noticable now because we don't have to have fuel rationing stickers, women heading off to the armament factories, "Buy War Bonds" and Sands of Iwo Jima playing at the cinema.

[wonderwench]

This is something I think about sometimes when watching all those WW2 documentaries on the various documentary channels.

They over simplify it I'm sure, but they basically show how 'simpler' people and technology and ideas were back then, so it was fairly easy to rouse people so that they were willing to join up and fight for their country.

These days I think people are too knowledgable and liberal-minded and distrusting of govornment and establishment (especially in Europe) for said govornment to have any hope of rousing them to be willing to participate in compulsory service.

What do you think?


I don't think liberal liberal-minded and distrusting make on knowledgable. Nor do I think that people back then were "simpler".

Unless of course, you view clarity of values and morality as somehow being "simpler".

I don't. Self-indulgent, short-sighted, narrow me-me-me first attiudes are much more simple than seeing the big arc of history and how sometimes, one must take a stand against tyranny.

[Lobsang]

Just curious, if it is "compulsory" how would the people be able to avoid it?

Well even if something is compulsory people can still refuse, and if enough people refuse the job of forcing them becomes impossible.

My point is that so many people might refuse that policing them would be utterly impossible.



On another note, Britain didn't declare war on Germany because of an attack by Germany on Britain. So the 'roused by an attack' theory doesn't stand because a world war does not necesarily stard with an attack on a people's country.

[askeptic]

I think there is generally enough Jingoism to go around. I mean Vietnam was unpopular. Millions of American boys still went, and thousands of them died in a war we still can't figure out. I mean nobody could even say exactly what would constitute a "win" Much like the present situation in Iraq.

I think that Idealism, Jingoism, Economics, and Ignorance will always ensure plenty of able bodies to be sacrificed to the battlefields. Politicians will always spin the necesity of goin to war. The gullible will always buy it. Have you seen any evidence of WMD in Iraq? Plenty of Americans are still willing to send other peoples children to a distant land to kill and die for no apparent reason.

[Lissa]

I don't think liberal liberal-minded and distrusting make on knowledgable. Nor do I think that people back then were "simpler".

Unless of course, you view clarity of values and morality as somehow being "simpler".

Yeah! Segregation, Jim Crow, sexism and xenophobia were awesome!

I don't. Self-indulgent, short-sighted, narrow me-me-me first attiudes are much more simple than seeing the big arc of history and how sometimes, one must take a stand against tyranny.

It's incredible how much people have changed! I was watching this documentary the other night called Leave it to Beaver and the people were all so nice. Nope, no bigger problems than the Beav forgetting his homework. Man, everything back then was so great. Politicians didn't lie, women/minorities knew their place, the lack of birth control kept women's sexuality in check, the weather was better and dogs didn't bite.

What happened? Me, I blame The Liberal Media/Hollywood/plastic lunch boxes/chemicals in our water/rock and roll music.

Sheesh.

I recommend you read The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465090974/qid=1114054363/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-2688596-6553602?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Stephanie Coontz.



As for the OP, I think it's fully possible to whip the American people into a pro-war frenzy. Times may change, but people never do.

The Vietnam war was different from WWII because there was not a direct attack on the American people. Pearl Harbor pissed off the American public-- the creeping threat of Communism didn't tug at those same heartstrings.

Secondly, one should never underestimate the value of audience participation. The scrap drives, war bonds, and ration stamps brought the war home to the public and made them feel like they were valuable contributors.

Thirdly, there was an identifiable enemy and a concrete definition of victory. (In the War on Terror, the enemy is elusive and vague, and victory is impossible.)

Fouth, there may be plenty of information out there, but people don't pay a bit of attention to it. You could shout it from the rooftops, (as was done with a certain recent conflict) and those who support it will pay no heed.

The anti-war protests during the Iraq conflict should not be given more importance than due when considering the American public's perceptions of war. The no-war-for-any-reason crowd is a minority. Many of those protesting the Iraq war would not have had a problem if they saw the reasons for it as clear-cut and definite.

In short, yes, I believe that the American public of today could get behind a WWII-style war, but war itself has changed so much as to make that question almost moot: we do not fight the way we did fifty years ago.

[China Guy]

china has potential to be roused

[LonesomePolecat]

china has potential to be roused
Perhaps, but would that necessarily lead to a huge war lasting for years with set-piece battles such as Stalingrad and Normandy, ending in a crushing defeat for one side? I find it a little hard to envision how a WWII style conflict could even get started these days. What allies would China have? What goals might they hope to achieve by fielding a conventional army? What enemy would they be fighting, and what would they be fighting for? Sure, they've been rattling their sabers about Taiwan for quite some time, and there's a real possibility that they may some day try to take Taiwan by force. But even then, I don't see it leading to a prolonged WWII-style war.

Tell me, if there's going to be a conflict on a 1939-45 scale again, who would the players be, and what would they be after?

[David Simmons]

The Vietnam war was different from WWII because there was not a direct attack on the American people. Pearl Harbor pissed off the American public-- the creeping threat of Communism didn't tug at those same heartstrings.

Secondly, one should never underestimate the value of audience participation. The scrap drives, war bonds, and ration stamps brought the war home to the public and made them feel like they were valuable contributors.

Thirdly, there was an identifiable enemy and a concrete definition of victory. (In the War on Terror, the enemy is elusive and vague, and victory is impossible.)


I agree in general about WWII, Pearl Harbor, identifiable enemy, etc.

However one of the mythologies of WWII is the united behind a common cause myth. In general yes, however the enthusiasm to get into the military and fight the enemy didn't really last much beyond the surrender at Bataan in the Philippines. As time went by Draft Boards had to press harder to fill their quotas as more an more people sought deferments for one reason or another.

In general it was a long, long way from a Three Musketeers, One for All and All for One time. Mainly it was a hard job that had to be done and it didn't get any easier as time went by.

[Steve MB]

seeing the big arc of history and how sometimes, one must take a stand against tyranny
You have it backwards -- taking your government's assertions with a few cellars of salt is taking a stand against tyranny, from the big-arc-of-history point of view.

[Zsofia]

I assure you, were there for whatever reason to be a homeland land invasion, not only would everybody go sign up, but almost everybody else would be taking pot-shots at the invaders from behind buildings and such. It's entirely different when the enemy comes to your house, I think, from even "they bombed our base on our island territory" or even, if it came to that, air attacks (although I'm sure a few bombs dropped on mainland soil would spark a whole lotta' rousing.)

[David Simmons]

I assure you, were there for whatever reason to be a homeland land invasion, not only would everybody go sign up, but almost everybody else would be taking pot-shots at the invaders from behind buildings and such. It's entirely different when the enemy comes to your house, I think, from even "they bombed our base on our island territory" or even, if it came to that, air attacks (although I'm sure a few bombs dropped on mainland soil would spark a whole lotta' rousing.)
Your think so? If so it would be most unusual. It appears to me that it is so rare as to be unheard of that a civilian population arises en masse to oppose an invading army.

A few shells from a submarine actually did land on an oil loading dock in the California town of Goleta (http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/sbattack.htm) near Santa Barbara.

There was no mass uprising to "repel the invader" and in fact it seems a few people sold their homes in the area and moved away.

However, it would seem from events of the last three years that people can easily be convinced to support a war provided it doesn't interfere with their lives and their taxes are cut.

[The Amazing Rando]

However, it would seem from events of the last three years that people can easily be convinced to support a war provided it doesn't interfere with their lives and their taxes are cut.



A large group of people supported the war and it GREATLY interfered with their lives...the soldiers. I don't know if they cared one bit that their friends or relatives were getting a tax break as they were in the middle of a war.

If you are talking about everyone but the soldiers, then you get into the families of the soldiers who may or may not support the war, but is trying to support the decision of their son or daughter to fight and possibly die for their country. Do they care about a tax cut, maybe, but if my son/daughter died...I would rather have my him/her back than all the money in the world.

Sounds very Hallmark, but for most it's true.

[Abbie Carmichael]

I don't. Self-indulgent, short-sighted, narrow me-me-me first attiudes are much more simple than seeing the big arc of history and how sometimes, one must take a stand against tyranny.

Totally.

Take Americans today, build a time machine and stick 'em in WW2 and we'd get our asses kicked. Oh, we'd be all about defeating the bad guys -- until the government told us we could only buy 7 gallons of gas this week and only have 1 cup of coffee per day.

[Lissa]

However one of the mythologies of WWII is the united behind a common cause myth. In general yes, however the enthusiasm to get into the military and fight the enemy didn't really last much beyond the surrender at Bataan in the Philippines. As time went by Draft Boards had to press harder to fill their quotas as more an more people sought deferments for one reason or another.

In general it was a long, long way from a Three Musketeers, One for All and All for One time. Mainly it was a hard job that had to be done and it didn't get any easier as time went by.

Yes, of course. I guess I was referring to support in the general sense that there was little organzed resistance, and people generally spoke positively of the war's mission/purpose.

As with any conflict, eventually even the most ardent supporters grow weary of it. There's probably a good paper in trying to figure out a mathematical formula to explain this phenomenon-- I think one of the main factors would be the number of casualties (obviously) compounded by the length of the conflict, minus the morale factor . . .

(Another difference between WWII versus today's conflict was the absolute saturation one saw in the culture. Hell, just think of all the Bugs Bunny cartoons, alone! Music, movies, magazines, war bond drives, posters, radio programs . . . . sometimes, looking at the sheer volume of it, you could almost get the impression that people ate, drank and slept the war. Today, we have a couple of shitty country music tunes, a television show coming to a cable network, and, well, that's just about it.)

Your think so? If so it would be most unusual. It appears to me that it is so rare as to be unheard of that a civilian population arises en masse to oppose an invading army.

I dunno . . . we Americans are a sassy bunch, full of piss and vinegar. Hell, there are a number of people who have weapons stockpiled, almost hoping for such a thing. Granted, they're weirdos, but they'd be handy in a pinch.

Maybe I'm putting to much confidence in our attitude, but we're a defiant bunch. We're also armed to the teeth, and arguably one of the most violent cultures on the planet. (Has a conquered populace ever been so well armed?)

Our people have been taught to value freedom above all-- it was drilled into us since grade school. Two hundred years of "takin' no shit from no one" would work in our favor-- we've never submitted to an oppressive government. (For many countries, invasion for the populace basically meant trading one dictator for another.)

I can't see Americans submitting meekly to new foreign overlords-- instead I envision a massive convoy of pickup trucks, guerilla warfare and massive sabotage campaigns.

"A few shells" is a far cry from an invading army. If one of those came, I think Americans would rise to the occasion admirably.

[David Simmons]

A large group of people supported the war and it GREATLY interfered with their lives...the soldiers. I don't know if they cared one bit that their friends or relatives were getting a tax break as they were in the middle of a war.
Sure, and for a member of the armed forces to publicly oppose the decisions of the Command is quite hazardous so this support could be real or merely pro forma.

If you are talking about everyone but the soldiers, then you get into the families of the soldiers who may or may not support the war, but is trying to support the decision of their son or daughter to fight and possibly die for their country. Do they care about a tax cut, maybe, but if my son/daughter died...I would rather have my him/her back than all the money in the world.

Sounds very Hallmark, but for most it's true.
The families of soldiers are caught in the same bind with respect to the Iraq war as are the soldiers.

I'm speaking of the millions of people who support the war based on WMD and a link between Sadaam and bin Laden. Despite the many refutations of both there are still many who use those as reasons.

Erect enough bogey men and frighten people enough and you can get all kinds of support for the most foolish of wars.

[RickJay]

Totally.

Take Americans today, build a time machine and stick 'em in WW2 and we'd get our asses kicked. Oh, we'd be all about defeating the bad guys -- until the government told us we could only buy 7 gallons of gas this week and only have 1 cup of coffee per day.
What horseshit. You don't seriously believe this nonsense, do you?

Take Americans today and have China launch a surprise attack on a few American bases, including bombing Pearl Harbor and killing 2300 Americans, and have them ally with Russia after Vladimir Putin invades a dozen other countries and turns into a worse guy than Vlad the Impaler AND torpedoes an American ship or two and bombs London and kills millions. The U.S. populace would be screaming for blood.

I find it simply amazing that people actually believe this "People were so much tougher and more moral in the olden days!" line. How many more centuries are old farts going to continue to believe this?

People have always been pretty much the same, and they always will be.

[David Simmons]

I find it simply amazing that people actually believe this "People were so much tougher and more moral in the olden days!" line. How many more centuries are old farts going to continue to believe this?
Actually I don't think that many old farts believe it either. The phrase "greatest generation" is pretty much a joke to me and many others.

I'm particularly amused at the more moral part. A majority of the soldiers in Europe were married. There were millions, maybe billions, of anti-venereal prophylactic kits manufactured containing a condom and germicidal soap and ointment. Lots and lots and lots of them were used.

[Zsofia]

Your think so? If so it would be most unusual. It appears to me that it is so rare as to be unheard of that a civilian population arises en masse to oppose an invading army.

A few shells from a submarine actually did land on an oil loading dock in the California town of Goleta (http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/sbattack.htm) near Santa Barbara.

There was no mass uprising to "repel the invader" and in fact it seems a few people sold their homes in the area and moved away.

However, it would seem from events of the last three years that people can easily be convinced to support a war provided it doesn't interfere with their lives and their taxes are cut.
Do you honestly think that if our Friendly Neighbors to the North sent an army across the border to occupy and annex our country, ground troops in your backyard, that people would say "well, okay, are they bringing health care?" Yeah, there would be a lot of refugees, and sympathizers and fifth columnists and toadies and people who just want to keep their heads down, but there'd also have to be a draft board just to control the amount of people trying to get into the military, and there'd be a whole bunch of "insurgents" only we'd call them "freedom fighters", in occupied territory.

I mean, even I'd go down to the Wal-Mart and stock up on ammunition if there was an army gonna come to my house. My foremothers did the same thing, for the same reason; no matter what you thought about the Civil War, it's hard to be ambivalent when the soldiers are really here, not there, burning your house and raping your grandmother.

A war on the home front is very, very different from a war overseas.

[David Simmons]

I mean, even I'd go down to the Wal-Mart and stock up on ammunition if there was an army gonna come to my house. My foremothers did the same thing, for the same reason; no matter what you thought about the Civil War, it's hard to be ambivalent when the soldiers are really here, not there, burning your house and raping your grandmother.

A war on the home front is very, very different from a war overseas.
Why of course, how careless of me. Everyone remembers the fierce civilian resistance to Sherman's march from Atlanta to Charleston. (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/shermans-march-to-the-sea.htm)

How could I have forgotten?

[Latro]

A war on the home front is very, very different from a war overseas.

Indeed when the tanks are in your street you realise the futility of buying that extra ammo for the Uzi. You put it in a box in the garden and hope that next week you can go back to work, that there will be pampers at Wallmart.

[gum]

Indeed when the tanks are in your street you realise the futility of buying that extra ammo for the Uzi. You put it in a box in the garden and hope that next week you can go back to work, that there will be pampers at Wallmart.
Well, you might.
Believe it or not, but I'd be perfectly ready to fight for my country.

Yes, I know. Dirty word: 'patriotism'. But if some group was trying to steal my freedom and all the good and decent things I love so dearly, I'd fight.
I don't even need my government to rouse me for that.

[Latro]

Yes, I know. Dirty word: 'patriotism'. But if some group was trying to steal my freedom and all the good and decent things I love so dearly, I'd fight.
I don't even need my government to rouse me for that.

We're talking big war here and would you 'take pot shots' at the enemy.

Could you be roused to join the army for some war?
Would you die for Balkenende in Iran or someplace?

In case of an actual invasion would you do, what exactly? Throw bricks?
Join the resistance?

For the if some group was trying to steal my freedom and all the good and decent things I love so dearly, I'd fight. bit.
Are you fighting now then against the resurgence of religion? Islam or Christian

[Kolak of Twilo]

Well, don't underestimate the value that an attack on your homeland would have on rousing the people. Look at just how many people supported isolationism well into 1941 before Pearl Harbor and the near universality of support after that date. Compare that with September 11th and the outswelling of support against terrorists and eventually Afghanistan, almost a de facto attacking country.

It's probably just not as noticable now because we don't have to have fuel rationing stickers, women heading off to the armament factories, "Buy War Bonds" and Sands of Iwo Jima playing at the cinema.


As fat, sassy and comfortable as most of the reeeeaaaaallly lazy people in this have gotten, if there were an actual invasion or attack on this country, I pity the invader. Ain't nobody gonna take my VCR/DVD player away.

I get what you are sayingbeergeek279, but most folks would be up in arms if the cable TV went out for more than 20 minutes.

[gum]

We're talking big war here and would you 'take pot shots' at the enemy. Why would you think that? I'd shoot at something else than pots.

Could you be roused to join the army for some war?
Would you die for Balkenende in Iran or someplace? Not for Balkenende, no.

In case of an actual invasion would you do, what exactly? Throw bricks?
Join the resistance? Oh yes. I'm not one of those cowardly politicians.

For the if some group was trying to steal my freedom and all the good and decent things I love so dearly, I'd fight. bit.
Are you fighting now then against the resurgence of religion? Islam or Christian In my own way, yes.

[LonesomePolecat]

I think a number of posters here are excessively contemptuous of the American people here.

Sure, there would be the usual Quislings and cowards, and there'd be the opportunists who'd side with whoever looked like they were winning. But I think we could count on fierce guerrilla resistance in the unlikely event a foreign army ever managed to occupy any significant portion of the United States. The Pentagon wargames the unlikeliest kinds of scenarios, and partial or total occupation of the US is one of them. There are indeed plans for organizing behind-the-lines resistance in such an event.

[LonesomePolecat]

Why of course, how careless of me. Everyone remembers the fierce civilian resistance to Sherman's march from Atlanta to Charleston. (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/shermans-march-to-the-sea.htm)

How could I have forgotten?
Apparently you also forgot the last Confederate general to surrender, Stand Watie, a Cherokee who conducted a guerrilla war for quite some time after Lee surrendered. Southerners resisted the Union occupation for years after Appomattox. The original Ku Klux Klan was formed for this purpose. I would even go so far as to say that Southerners successfully conducted an insurgency to restore white supremacy. And of course there were the insurgencies in Kansas and Missouri before Fort Sumter. If there was relatively little resistance by civilians to Sherman's army during the March to the Sea, there were still plenty of civilian resurgencies elsewhere. I think you're cherry picking here.

[Rashak Mani]

Even if americans nowadays care more about themselves than back in WII... I hardly see them as laying back and not bothering about an invading army. Just the amount of guns in the US would make for a tentative insurgency quite easily. The invaders would have to have some kind of "friendly" ideology to certain groups to avoid a lot of resistance... wierd scenario.

Most countries of a certain size would put up some civilian resistance... Americans certainly would... just like Iraqi sunnis and some Shia have.

Now if the OP means sending millions of grunts to a foreign country... that is much harder to envision... but like many mentioned you don't need a lot of grunts nowadays. I doubt the US army would manage getting enough volunteers.

[David Simmons]

Apparently you also forgot the last Confederate general to surrender, Stand Watie, a Cherokee who conducted a guerrilla war for quite some time after Lee surrendered. Southerners resisted the Union occupation for years after Appomattox. The original Ku Klux Klan was formed for this purpose. I would even go so far as to say that Southerners successfully conducted an insurgency to restore white supremacy. And of course there were the insurgencies in Kansas and Missouri before Fort Sumter. If there was relatively little resistance by civilians to Sherman's army during the March to the Sea, there were still plenty of civilian resurgencies elsewhere. I think you're cherry picking here.
Maybe but all of the incidents you speak of were after the large US army of the Civil War had been disbanded and its members had gone back to farming. There was little in the way of civilian resistance during the siege of Vicksburg or in any of the actions in and around the battles around Washington, Richmond or in the Shenandoah Valley.

[LonesomePolecat]

Maybe but all of the incidents you speak of were after the large US army of the Civil War had been disbanded and its members had gone back to farming. There was little in the way of civilian resistance during the siege of Vicksburg or in any of the actions in and around the battles around Washington, Richmond or in the Shenandoah Valley.
Can you come up with any examples at all of civilians spontaneously organizing themselves to confront an invading army en masse? My guess would be that such incidents would be extremely rare, if they've ever happened at all. I'm not aware of any examples, and my reading in history has been broad enough that I'm fairly sure I'd know of some if there were any significant number. Sabotage and hit-and-run guerrilla tactics are best suited for civilian resistance; head-on confrontations with regular troops would be suicidal idiocy. If you aren't going to allow insurgencies to count as civilian resistance to an invasion, what are you going to allow?

(Stand Watie, by the way, was still fighting when "the large US army of the Civil Wat" had not yet been disbanded. Nor was he the only guerrilla leader around in the final years of the war.)

[Evil One]

Barring being "softened up" by massive nuclear strikes, I would venture to say that the United States in the 21st century could possibly be the first country in history where it could be said that a conventional foreign invasion would be impossible to mount and sustain.

Of course if political reality were totally suspended and everyone ganged up on us, it could happen...but I don't see the Canadians and Mexicans coordinating an invasion with the Chinese anytime soon.

An invading army would find a well armed, well educated populace with motivation to spare. You could pick out 1000 people at random and find military and engineering training, people who know explosives and communications, and many other skills that could be employed against an invading force.

[David Simmons]

Can you come up with any examples at all of civilians spontaneously organizing themselves to confront an invading army en masse? My guess would be that such incidents would be extremely rare, if they've ever happened at all. I'm not aware of any examples, and my reading in history has been broad enough that I'm fairly sure I'd know of some if there were any significant number. Sabotage and hit-and-run guerrilla tactics are best suited for civilian resistance; head-on confrontations with regular troops would be suicidal idiocy. If you aren't going to allow insurgencies to count as civilian resistance to an invasion, what are you going to allow?

(Stand Watie, by the way, was still fighting when "the large US army of the Civil Wat" had not yet been disbanded. Nor was he the only guerrilla leader around in the final years of the war.)
Well the claims about civilian resistance in this thread are along the lines of "almost everybody else would be taking pot-shots at the invaders from behind buildings and such (Zsofia); I envision a massive convoy of pickup trucks, guerilla warfare and massive sabotage campaigns(lissa)."

There is a large misunderstanding here of the logistics and discipline required to inflict serious damage on a well run military organizations for an extended period of time. The Iraq resistance is troublesome and damned dangerous to individual soldiers and an occasional supply convoy, but is not in any way a real threat to the US forces in that country.

And Stand Watie and his group were not a bunch of civilians taking up arms but were the continuation of a military group that had organization, discipline and techniques learned from years of combat.

[wonderwench]

Yeah! Segregation, Jim Crow, sexism and xenophobia were awesome!



It's incredible how much people have changed! I was watching this documentary the other night called Leave it to Beaver and the people were all so nice. Nope, no bigger problems than the Beav forgetting his homework. Man, everything back then was so great. Politicians didn't lie, women/minorities knew their place, the lack of birth control kept women's sexuality in check, the weather was better and dogs didn't bite.

What happened? Me, I blame The Liberal Media/Hollywood/plastic lunch boxes/chemicals in our water/rock and roll music.

Sheesh.

I recommend you read The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465090974/qid=1114054363/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-2688596-6553602?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Stephanie Coontz.


And yet you think that from such sordid and unenlightened (yet simple - remember people were simpler back then!) roots - we have somehow evolved into an enlightened, kinder and gentler (yet cynical and distrusting of the government) society?

Sorry, I don't buy it. The sneering elitist attitude towards prior generations (who made sacrifices to ensure that we won WWII, for one example) is the equivalent of the sneering elitist attitude of Blues Staters towards Red Staters. Some people really do value their families and are willing to pay the price to ensure that their kids have a decent future.

[wonderwench]

Barring being "softened up" by massive nuclear strikes, I would venture to say that the United States in the 21st century could possibly be the first country in history where it could be said that a conventional foreign invasion would be impossible to mount and sustain.

Of course if political reality were totally suspended and everyone ganged up on us, it could happen...but I don't see the Canadians and Mexicans coordinating an invasion with the Chinese anytime soon.

An invading army would find a well armed, well educated populace with motivation to spare. You could pick out 1000 people at random and find military and engineering training, people who know explosives and communications, and many other skills that could be employed against an invading force.


Agreed. They would also find people who are armed and supplied, given the high rate of gun ownership throughout the country.

[Steve MB]

Totally.

Take Americans today, build a time machine and stick 'em in WW2 and we'd get our asses kicked. Oh, we'd be all about defeating the bad guys -- until the government told us we could only buy 7 gallons of gas this week and only have 1 cup of coffee per day.
You're buying to romantic mythology, I'm afraid. People at the time weren't some sort of angelic beings -- they groused as much as humans before or since about mundane inconveniences. They would have groused a lot more if they'd known how much of it was mere political theater (www.straightdope.com/columns/020531.html).

[Steve MB]

The sneering elitist attitude towards prior generations
Puh-leeze. If it is "sneering and elitist" to point out that prior generations were wrong, not merely "different", in a plethora of ways, then I wear the labels as a badge of honor.

[bump]

There is a large misunderstanding here of the logistics and discipline required to inflict serious damage on a well run military organizations for an extended period of time.

Wouldn't that be exactly what the Special Forces would be used for in the case of an invasion of the US? Nowadays they're used for training indigenous forces in unconventional warfare in other parts of the world, but in this case, they'd be more or less undercover and training our own people in the same techniques.

[Lissa]

And yet you think that from such sordid and unenlightened (yet simple - remember people were simpler back then!) roots - we have somehow evolved into an enlightened, kinder and gentler (yet cynical and distrusting of the government) society?

I never said people were "simpler" back then. Times may change, but people never do.

Nor do I think we're particularly more "enlightened, kinder or gentler" today. We still have prejudices-- hate and violence still seethes within the human heart. We just have different socially approved directions in which to point it.

Sorry, I don't buy it. The sneering elitist attitude towards prior generations (who made sacrifices to ensure that we won WWII, for one example) is the equivalent of the sneering elitist attitude of Blues Staters towards Red Staters.

Hey, you're the one who made the statement about people back then having greater "clarity of moral values." I just pointed out that this is utter and complete bunk.

Call that "sneering" if you want to, but I think you might want to take a closer look at that arc of history to which you were referring. Anyone who actually had a clear grasp of history would not make such a statement.

I don't think anyone past, present, or future, foreign or domestic, has/had "greater clarity of moral values." That sort of nostalgia or grass-is-greener mentality is completely bogus.

Some people really do value their families and are willing to pay the price to ensure that their kids have a decent future.

What the blue fuck does that have to do with anything?

[David Simmons]

You're buying to romantic mythology, I'm afraid. People at the time weren't some sort of angelic beings -- they groused as much as humans before or since about mundane inconveniences. They would have groused a lot more if they'd known how much of it was mere political theater (www.straightdope.com/columns/020531.html).
After WWII settlede into a steady routine there was plenty of grousing and bickering. I lived in a farming community. Farmers got extra fuel for their vehicles, and plenty of tires and other supplies since agriculture was an essential war industry. Farmers also could get continued deferments from the military draft if their help on the family farm was deemed essential. All of this resulted in a lot of resentment in the towns around the area.

[Sam Stone]

People aren't any different today, but what has changed is the media. I've often wondered how WWII would have been perceived if there had been 24/7 news channels bringing back visceral images from every battle? Back in WWII days, the American media could also be counted on to aide in the propaganda effort. Roosevelt was a cripple, but a nod and a wink kept images of him in his wheelchair out of the press. Reporters in war zones saw their job as being ancillary/support for the troops, helping win the war by sending the 'good news about our boys overseas' back home. Today, journalists don't see themselves as part of the war effort, but as some dispassionate 'overseer', reporting the truth whether it helps the cause or not.

Can you imagine CNN on Iwo Jima, showing thousands upon thousands of U.S. corpses strewn on the ground? Can you imagine the handwringing, the demands for investigations, the second-guessing that would have gone on after every battlefield defeat? Hell, a training exercise in the run-up to D-day killed hundreds of men. How would that play out on CNN today? How long would we be treated to front-page headlines and congressional investigations over that? Hell, when the 3rd infantry stopped in Iraq for a day because it had outrun its supply lines, the media was just about ready to throw in the towel and declare defeat.

And can you imagine the second-guessing that would go in among the chattering classes over U.S. strategic decisions? Japan bombs Pearl, the Germans declare war, and we're fighting in North Africa??? Huh? And what happened to the Philippines? MacArthur should be cashiered!

I imagine it wouldn't take too much hand-wringing and constant news of failures before the people would start saying, "What's so bad about the Japanese anyway? They don't want to destroy us, they just want their own 'sphere of influence'. Isn't that what every country wants? Are we so different? And anyhow, isn't it our fault for choking off their trade? Maybe it's time to start looking at what's wrong with America!"

[Rashak Mani]

Well Sam Stone... imagine if the German press had questioned the invasion of the Sudentenland, Austria and Poland ? Its darn horrible when information is available to citizens... it might not help to make things seems clear cut and heroic for sure though.

[Sam Stone]

Yes, but Germany being a dictatorship, that wasn't going to happen. So perhaps a better question is,

"Can democracies fight and win all-out wars when their media has the effect of sapping the will to fight, while the enemy's media is a propaganda arm of their government?"

[Rashak Mani]

Yes, but Germany being a dictatorship, that wasn't going to happen. So perhaps a better question is,

"Can democracies fight and win all-out wars when their media has the effect of sapping the will to fight, while the enemy's media is a propaganda arm of their government?"
Germany was nominally a democracy when the Nazis came to power...

I agree that the media double guessing everything doesn't help... but then giving politicians a free hand isn't a good option either.

[Unregistered Bull]

Totally.

Take Americans today, build a time machine and stick 'em in WW2 and we'd get our asses kicked. Oh, we'd be all about defeating the bad guys -- until the government told us we could only buy 7 gallons of gas this week and only have 1 cup of coffee per day.

Yes. But that would be with foreign adventures. If the Motherland or Fatherland were in danger, it would be a different story. IMO

[mike1dog]

Perhaps, but would that necessarily lead to a huge war lasting for years with set-piece battles such as Stalingrad and Normandy, ending in a crushing defeat for one side?


I have to question your premise here. I doubt that Japan and Germany expected the war to go the way it did. Japan, for example, hoped that the war would be quick and decisive. They wanted the U.S. to be forced to negotiate with them quickly, and hoped that Pearl Harbor would destroy the Navy. Since the carriers were not in port, however, it was not the total success they hoped for.
Germany also believed they could beat the Soviet Union quickly, and before the Russian winter made combat difficult. They might have actually succeeded if they hadn't made so many mistakes at Stalingrad.

[David Simmons]

People aren't any different today, but what has changed is the media. I've often wondered how WWII would have been perceived if there had been 24/7 news channels bringing back visceral images from every battle? Back in WWII days, the American media could also be counted on to aide in the propaganda effort. Roosevelt was a cripple, but a nod and a wink kept images of him in his wheelchair out of the press. Reporters in war zones saw their job as being ancillary/support for the troops, helping win the war by sending the 'good news about our boys overseas' back home. Today, journalists don't see themselves as part of the war effort, but as some dispassionate 'overseer', reporting the truth whether it helps the cause or not.

So is it your contention that in order for a democratic state to conduct a war the news has to be sugar coated? Is that all such states or just the US? And how does your contention square with the plain fact that the general populace of London and other British cities during WWII were under no illusions whatever as to the true nature of warfare and didn't decide that mayber Germany under Hitler wasn't so bad? After all, all he wanted was space for Germans to live in and to unite all German speaking people under one roof.

The usual claim is that true and acurate news is essential to the proper functioning of self-government. Do you dispute that as a principle in general or just for the US people and media?

[Buran]

In regards to the assertion that modern people are too weak and decadent to fight I remember reading about the infamous occasion when Oxford (?) college in the UK passed the motion, "This House would not fight for King and Country" (or words to that effect) in the mid-1930's. Flashforward a few years and thats exactly what they were doing.

[David Simmons]

In regards to the assertion that modern people are too weak and decadent to fight I remember reading about the infamous occasion when Oxford (?) college in the UK passed the motion, "This House would not fight for King and Country" (or words to that effect) in the mid-1930's. Flashforward a few years and thats exactly what they were doing.
Exactly. All this bluster about how wonderful we were back in the good old days ignores the history. The charge against the British and French of the 1930's is that they were so reluctant to fight that they appeased Hitler. The US stood by while Germany overran France and subjected Britain to punishing air raids, only entering the war after being attacked by Japan and having war declared by Germany. Hardly the actions of a people determined to save humanity from dictators.

People now don't look so bad. That is if your standard is willingness to go to war.

[Sam Stone]

So is it your contention that in order for a democratic state to conduct a war the news has to be sugar coated? Is that all such states or just the US? And how does your contention square with the plain fact that the general populace of London and other British cities during WWII were under no illusions whatever as to the true nature of warfare and didn't decide that mayber Germany under Hitler wasn't so bad? After all, all he wanted was space for Germans to live in and to unite all German speaking people under one roof.

The usual claim is that true and acurate news is essential to the proper functioning of self-government. Do you dispute that as a principle in general or just for the US people and media?

In wartime? NO. True and accurate has to take a backseat to the survival of your country.

If some investigative reporter had discovered that Patton wasn't really preparing an invasion of Europe from Calais, do you think he would be right to print it? Do you think the government would have been wrong to stop him from printing it?

When Doolittle bombed Japan, do you think it would have been right for some journalist to write an expose showing that the military was lying about their strike capabilities, and in fact the mission was a grossly-extended one-off done for propaganda purposes?

WWII was rife with disinformation, often aided and abetted by journalists who agreed to suppress information or even write lies if it would help the war effort.

Is this problematic? Of course. Is it dangerous? Of course. But really, what is the alternative? To make your country an open book for the enemy to read? To telegraph all your military moves? To be forced to operate without the advantage of surprise or deception?

[David Simmons]

In wartime? NO. True and accurate has to take a backseat to the survival of your country.

If some investigative reporter had discovered that Patton wasn't really preparing an invasion of Europe from Calais, do you think he would be right to print it? Do you think the government would have been wrong to stop him from printing it?

When Doolittle bombed Japan, do you think it would have been right for some journalist to write an expose showing that the military was lying about their strike capabilities, and in fact the mission was a grossly-extended one-off done for propaganda purposes?

WWII was rife with disinformation, often aided and abetted by journalists who agreed to suppress information or even write lies if it would help the war effort.

Is this problematic? Of course. Is it dangerous? Of course. But really, what is the alternative? To make your country an open book for the enemy to read? To telegraph all your military moves? To be forced to operate without the advantage of surprise or deception?
Neat change of subject. The post of yours I responded to had nothing to do with the media not divulging details of military operations and deceptions. It was all about Roosevelt being crippled, casualties on Iwo Jima, McAurthur being cashiered because of losses etc. Go back and read it.

And as a matter of fact, as to McAurthur and the Philippines it was widely and correctly reported at the time that thousands of prisoners had been taken in Bataan and that McAurthur had been caught sound asleep like everyone else and had been taken out of Bataan by PT boat without there being public demand for his ouster.

It was also widely reported that Eisenhower and the US command was out to lunch as to German activities before the Ardennes offensive, that US casulaties and losses were high and that the Germans had rolled over an entire US infantry division.

And you neatly ignored the British experience during the Blitz. Your theory of media disinformation on difficulties being required in order to keep the population from losing heart would mean that their media would have had to keep secret from them the things that were happening to them personally.

[Burnt Sugar]

I'm actually doing an assignment that has some relevance to this discussion. Recent research suggests that:

- The media is not, overall, negative with regard to military activities ("But contrary to views widely held among elite military officers, the major daily newspapers do not generally portray the armed forces in a harsh light. Content analyses over a period of six months discovered ratios of positive to negative stories in excess of two to one.")

- Civilians are not averse to casualties (and hence war, I guess), as long as they are confident the US will win.

Interesting, I thought. This is the article discussing the issue:
Feaver, P.D. & Kohn, R.H. (2000). The gap: Soldiers, civilians and their mutual understanding, The National Interest, 61: 29 - 37

If anyone is interested in a copy of the article, email me.

[clairobscur]

I think a number of posters here are excessively contemptuous of the American people here.
.


And I think a number of posters here are excessively confident in the American people. Americans, despite all the bullshit we're served here, are like other people. The main goal of the overwheming majority of the population would be to find a way to protect and feed themselves and their families in a disrupted environment/warzone. Firing a automatic weapon at a tank (and being killed as a result) won't put bread in your children's stomach, and when your whole neighborhood (including your house) will be at at risk of being leveled as the result of insurection actions and you will be considering having to dig up the bodies of your relatives from the ruins, maybe you'll reconsider your strong support for say insurection and pray that they choose some other place to fight the invaders.


I do not doubt that there would be people actually fighting. But the notion that the american people, due to some cultural specificity, would rise like one man and fight for freedom is just an untested myth that I've no reason to assume to be true. As for the argument about some american people stockpiling weapons...well..there are many countries in the world where weapons are widely available and who have a more obvious (and tested) "warrior culture" (say, Afghanistan).


As for people stating that they would take arms/ join the resistance, I just don't take their word for it. People just don't know how they would actually react in exceptionnal and dangerous circumstances. When you'll have actually entered a house in fire to rescue a stranger, then only I'll believe you're able to do so. In time of crisis, armchair warriors turn into cowards (or more simply, as I said, are too busy protecting/feeding/sheltering themselves and their loved one to consider fighting) and cowards into heroes (and both categories are likely to turn into monsters/butchers, as proven so many times...that's the most depresing part) . Until you really proved yourself, I'm going to consider these comments as just words. Meaningless words.

[Sam Stone]

Neat change of subject. The post of yours I responded to had nothing to do with the media not divulging details of military operations and deceptions. It was all about Roosevelt being crippled, casualties on Iwo Jima, McAurthur being cashiered because of losses etc. Go back and read it.

And as a matter of fact, as to McAurthur and the Philippines it was widely and correctly reported at the time that thousands of prisoners had been taken in Bataan and that McAurthur had been caught sound asleep like everyone else and had been taken out of Bataan by PT boat without there being public demand for his ouster.

It was also widely reported that Eisenhower and the US command was out to lunch as to German activities before the Ardennes offensive, that US casulaties and losses were high and that the Germans had rolled over an entire US infantry division.

And you neatly ignored the British experience during the Blitz. Your theory of media disinformation on difficulties being required in order to keep the population from losing heart would mean that their media would have had to keep secret from them the things that were happening to them personally.

I wasn't around at the time, so perhaps you can tell me - did newspapers and reels of the time show American war dead? Were there newspaper editorials criticizing military decisions? Editorials questioning the war effort itself, and suggesting the U.S. couldn't win? Were there editorials demanding to know why the U.S. had inferior aircraft and tanks at the start of the war? Were battlefield failures subject to scrutiny? Did ex-generals write op-eds claiming that the current generals were either incompetent or being ordered to do stupid things by the civilian leadership?

[vl_mungo]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


Still rings true in my books.

[David Simmons]

I wasn't around at the time, so perhaps you can tell me - did newspapers and reels of the time show American war dead?
Yes. Life magazine showed pictures of dead Marines floating in the water at Tarawa. The pictures of the destruction at Pearl Harbor were shown over and over. However, there wasn't as much close up footage of casualties as in the case of Vietnam.

Were there newspaper editorials criticizing military decisions?
There certainly were about Pearl Harbor. MacArthur was criticized by some for what they saw as an abandonment of the troops on Bataan. Stories circulated that he had spent most of his time while he was still in the Philippines in the tunnels on Corregidor Island. In fact he was referred to by some as "Dugout Doug." (http://atlas.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE97/Lutz97.htm) The charges weren't true but they were made.

Editorials questioning the war effort itself, and suggesting the U.S. couldn't win?
No.

Were there editorials demanding to know why the U.S. had inferior aircraft and tanks at the start of the war?
As a matter of fact there was a Senate committee chaired by Harry Truman that examined failures in military equipment and procurement and its finding were reported.

Were battlefield failures subject to scrutiny?
Eisenhower was criticized both in the US and publicly by Montgomery for lapses in judgement that allowed the Germans to surprise us in the Ardennes in late 1944. The defeat of US troops in Kassarine Pass in North Africa was criticized.

Did ex-generals write op-eds claiming that the current generals were either incompetent or being ordered to do stupid things by the civilian leadership?
Not that I know of.

And you still haven't explained why you think that the US populace needed to be protected (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6085256&postcount=41) from bad news during WWII while the British weren't protected from such news and managed to carry on.

[Rashak Mani]

In wartime? NO. True and accurate has to take a backseat to the survival of your country.
I could agree that in a live or die scenario that reporters should avoid damaging war efforts... but who defines if its about survival ? Who defines if its a "real" war ?

This is where we end up having those War on Iraq disagreements. One side thinks its a war for survival and therefore warrants torture and media falling in behind. The other side sees it as primarily political and therefore the media should be scrutinizing even more.

And you still haven't explained why you think that the US populace needed to be protected from bad news during WWII while the British weren't protected from such news and managed to carry on.
Well the British are fighting for survival... Americans were fighting against German domination in a sense. US mainland (now Homeland) wouldn't have been attacked for a decade or more, if ever in fact.

[Steve MB]

People aren't any different today, but what has changed is the media.
Why do you suppose they changed? Because they just woke up one morning with different attitudes, or because they found that their old rah-rah attitudes had been exploited by the people in power?

My answer is the latter, and that points the finger of blame squarely at the political establishment.

[David Simmons]

Well the British are fighting for survival... Americans were fighting against German domination in a sense. US mainland (now Homeland) wouldn't have been attacked for a decade or more, if ever in fact.
Yes, there is some validity to this. However the Pearl Harbor attack left the US Navy in pretty bad shape. The surrender at Bataan pretty much wiped out the US land combat forces in the Pacific. The early Japanese successes took away all of our forward naval and other logistical bases leaving only Pearl Harbor which needed a lot of repair. In addition the source of vital raw materials such as rubber quickly disappeared. For the first six months of the war the news was pretty bad. The only things we had going for us at the time was anger over what was regarded as a cowardly attack accompanied by determination to get back at them and the great distance from our enemies.

I took the time to give the best answer I was able to Sam Stone's questions even though hypotheticals are not all that interesting to me. The question as to what would have happened it things had been different is really impossible to answer because nobody knows and nobody has another comparable situation for reference.

I don't think it is useful to compare WWII and the attitude of the US populace then as compared with Vietnam. At least it isn't useful without a lot of caveats as to differences in the two cases. The situations were not even remotely equivalent.