It is hard to imagine Americans today being as dedicated to the war effort as they were in WWII.

[raccoon]

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 01:45 PM - Edit history (2)

America was in the war approximately 3 1/2 years. Not only young men, but older married men with
children were subject to the draft.

There was rationing of gas and other stuff.

I don't know about you, but it boggles my mind to imagine most Americans enduring the same things nowadays, even if the circumstances that brought the country into the war were similar to those of WWII.

What do you think?



edited to bold some of the OP

[liberal N proud]

1. I had a similar thought this morning

For memorial day we should rember those who fought number one, but we should also rember the personal sacrifices all Americans endured with rationing and other inconveniences they endured to support the efforts. All that after a long hard depression.

I don't think Americans today have the fortitude to endure those strains.

They truly were the greatest generation.

[raccoon]

2. "All that after a long hard depression. " --I think you're on to something.

Most people then were used to doing with a lot less, especially after the 1930's.

Now--things have changed.

[KansDem]

11. If I recall correctly...

...during WWII there was a draft to raise troops, gas rationing to conserve fuel, and meatless Tuesdays so the troops could have meat. Can you imagine the outcry if the same sacrifices were asked for today?

The "people" would be decrying Big Government, but then, this is all new territory. I mean, just what sacrifices should we be expected to make when the president's pals and business partners attack us?

[tularetom]

3. I don't think we are capable of the same dedication but that's because

Americans have been lied to in order to get us into useless wars that we've become cynical.

So much so that we doubt the veracity of our leaders when they tell us that it's necessary to attack somebody.

Imagine what would happen to any president who proposed universal conscription even in the event of an attack by a foreign army.

[jwirr]

15. That is truly the difference. We have been lied into both the cold war and the wars since then and

we do not trust them anymore. IMO that is dangerous for the long term but then again their lies are dangerous also.

[Brickbat]

4. This time around? We were never asked, and we could assume that someone else would take care of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Part of it is the message

What were we told after 911? Oh yeah go shopping.

The danger is the creation of the Praetorian Guard...eeeerrrr I mean the military.

When less than 1% faces combat and the rest are told to go shopiping is part of the problem.

[lunatica]

6. Because wars since then have been totally unnecessary

Tell me what war since then has been justified. Not one. And in WWII we were attacked and the world was in real peril.

[gratuitous]

8. Yep, the difference between an existential threat and an imperial foray

When the citizens are engaged in an apparent struggle for their existence, they can be and will be dedicated to the cause. When it's simply an exercise in projecting the power of the empire, fought by an admixture of the duped, the poor, the desperate, mercenaries and a smattering of patriots who think that fighting wars is noble and heroic, the citizens couldn't care less. Especially when the prize being fought for is more wealth for the overrich.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. There are some Korean War vets (my father among them) who might take issue

with 'totally unnecessary.'

But I pretty much take your point, especially with regard to the peril that faced the liberal democracies of the world from the Axis powers during World War II.

[Fumesucker]

7. We aren't facing an existential threat as a nation and haven't for a long time..

At least from conventional warfare, the Russians still have enough nukes to thoroughly toast us but that's a different sort of threat and war.

Germany and Japan were at least semi-plausible existential threats, Germany had overrun much of Europe and Japan was doing the same thing in Asia..

[Posteritatis]

16. Yep. I just don't get why people keep comparing Iraq/Afghanistan to WWII. (nt)

[bighughdiehl]

9. now, now, raccoon...

You see, when you make Americans give up their constitutionally-protected
civil liberties in a way that will not really combat a threat that has been way
hyped up in the first place, this is doubleplusgood for the party. However, if you
ask them to give up a couple aspects of their not-so constitutionally protected
couch potato lifestyle in a way that might actually help combat a real threat,
this is doubleplusUNgood for the party.

Seriously, after the past decade i am just left to marvel at the recent
"perfection" of Orwellian doublespeak, and the rest of the military-industrial-
financial clusterfuck that hold holds all of us in it choking grip.

[brewens]

10. At the start of Iraq when we were short of body armor and armored Humvees, I thought

how can they be letting that happen? Where was the President? During WWII, we had one, or at least he had Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, that made stuff get done! I don't think in that situation, you let the manufacturers handle things at their own pace to maximize their profits. If they can't get it done, you put someone else on it. That's how we ended up with about a million jeeps in WWII.

Rumnuts said that, "you go to war with the Army you have", when explaining the shortcomings. Bullshit! They could have made it happen.

[raouldukelives]

13. Because thankfully we haven't found ourselves

facing the type of threat that actually justifies a full scale military response since WW2. I do believe that if we were ever faced with a threat of that scale this country would unite and fight to it's last breath. Not for capitalism or profits. For the lands where the bodies of their families rest and the still not quite dead belief in liberty and justice.

[msongs]

14. for the past 11 years the US military has been attacking the treasury. no comparison nt

[FarCenter]

17. With a similar attack, and with a similar propaganda campaign before and after the attack,

the dedication to the war effort would be the same.

Remember that WW II was really short, December 7, 1941 to September 2, 1945, less than 4 years. On a similar time frame, the "War on Terror" after 9/11/01 would have been over by June 6, 2005, about 6 years ago.

However, the propaganda campaign to whip up enthusiasm for entering the war had begun shortly after the War in Europe began in September 1939.

The construction of training camps, conversion of industry to war materiel, etc had been ongoing in 1940 and 1941, so the benefits of war were already clear in the resurgence of the economy after the depression.