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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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, 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.