D-day Invaison And Today's Press

[Proteas]

------------------------

How the WWII 'D-Day Invasion' would be reported by today's liberal press...

Submitted by Tommy Gagnet

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a
makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Green Peace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was
appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

http://www.edwimmer.com/mpa/wwii_dday_invasio n_reporting.html

-----------------

[Der-Ubermensch]

You're comparing apples and oranges. There hasn't been a real epic war since WWII.

[Begoner]

At 1/1/07 02:16 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: You're comparing apples and oranges. There hasn't been a real epic war since WWII.

It's a completely inapt comparison, but hilarious nonetheless.

[Der-Ubermensch]

lol.. I wasn't disputing that either. Got a laugh out of it for certain. :)

[tawc]

Its a good point on how the media are wankers. But you cant compare something like the Iraqi war to world war 2. Its completly different. In WW2 America an Britain killed thousands of german civillians on purpose. And America blew up two japanese cities. It was total war and the fate of the world was at stake an therfore civilian deaths were unfortunatly needed.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 1/1/07 02:27 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I personally would have LOVED to see media coverage for the American Civil War. Fox could cover the South and CNN could cover the north... MSNBC would be all over the underground railroad...But I digress. It is an entertaining read... I however do not feel that it is only liberal media outlets. I think the conservative news programs are just as biased, and I consider myself more conservative than liberal. I switch back and forth between all media sources, try to get all sides of a story....

I'm more inclined to believe (perhaps naively) that a war of that magnitude would bring all sides together, much like 9/11 recent did (though be it temporarily). Death on such a scale, a draft that would shatter families and fill hearts with both passionate sorrow and pain.. could we be so petty?

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 1/1/07 02:35 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 1/1/07 02:31 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote:

could we be so petty?:

I thought Hurricane Katrina would bring our state togther, but all that happened was media distortion and people looking for a scapegoat...I agree that a loss of life should bring people together....but what should happen and what does happen are two different things.

Katrina was a perfect opportunity that the democrats just couldn't pass up. Granted there were deaths and destroyed lives, it was nowhere near the level of carnage of a major armed conflict.

I hope sincerely that we haven't become callous and cynical to such an extent. Innocent lives are the mana of heaven for humanity, and it's saving grace. If we disregard them we aren't fit to grace this earth.

[ReiperX]

There is a huge difference between WWII and the Iraqi war in which this article basically compared it to Proteas.

One war had the American people backing, and it was justified. Hitler was a threat to the US and our allies. Iraq on the other hand was not. They had not been a real threat since Desert Shield/Storm.

[Proteas]

At 1/1/07 02:45 PM, ReiperX wrote: There is a huge difference between WWII and the Iraqi war in which this article basically compared it to Proteas.

Yeah, you're right; way back then we had an interior department in our government that helped censor and edit information that was published in our newspapers about the war. Now? We don't have that anymore, and the press is allowed to do whatever the hell it wants regardless of how damaging such information might be to the government's efforts worldwide.

And yes, I know that one was a full fledged war and that one was a police action, but still, I STAND BY MY POINT.

At 1/1/07 02:27 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I personally would have LOVED to see media coverage for the American Civil War. Fox could cover the South and CNN could cover the north.

Actually since conserveative = republican by todays standards I would assume the reverse.

[stafffighter]

The truth of civilians being shot at, I wouldn't doubt that given how artillery was back then but I won't press the point as fact.

The enviromental damage. People have to live to care how the enviroment is.

The bodies. This has been an issue for years and in all fairness America has been known to want to get its dead back.

[Brownie210]

At 1/1/07 04:18 PM, stafffighter wrote: The bodies. This has been an issue for years and in all fairness America has been known to want to get its dead back.

With exception to tens of thousands of American graves in Europe from the World Wars.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/1/07 06:34 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

At 1/1/07 04:18 PM, stafffighter wrote:

With exception to tens of thousands of American graves in Europe from the World Wars.

It would have been impossible to ship the bodies back after decay and battle and not have them in pieces.

Apparently your were given the choice of cremation or burial at the battle field back then.

[Brownie210]

At 1/1/07 08:15 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:34 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

At 1/1/07 04:18 PM, stafffighter wrote:

With exception to tens of thousands of American graves in Europe from the World Wars.

It would have been impossible to ship the bodies back after decay and battle and not have them in pieces.

Apparently your were given the choice of cremation or burial at the battle field back then.

It was actually based on the situation. Many bodies were returned home under the right circumstances.

However, just because we were unable to send all the of the fallen home, does not mean we should of put the safety of the average French citizen aside. All those bodies floating around in the water was just plain untidy.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/1/07 08:25 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

At 1/1/07 08:15 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:34 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

At 1/1/07 04:18 PM, stafffighter wrote:

However, just because we were unable to send all the of the fallen home, does not mean we should of put the safety of the average French citizen aside. All those bodies floating around in the water was just plain untidy.

We were in a fucking war.

Lets concern ourselves with the sporatic german counterattacks first.

And second, they did try to get the bodies out.

Some, just couldn't be taken out.

[Elfer]

This is an unfair comparison.

While Iraq is an obviously fair and justifiable cause, there was no evidence that Hitler posed any sort of threat to anyone's security.

[Britkid]

We weren't fighting Jihadis in the desert, it was a full scale war for survival. I think it's good that the Press aren't controlled anymore. I wouldn't like to live in a Big Brother society where free speech doesn't exist. Back then the press would have acknowledged the cost of which war must have come. Apart from the Sun, they'd just print something about Jordan.

[Brownie210]

At 1/1/07 08:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/1/07 08:25 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

At 1/1/07 08:15 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:34 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

At 1/1/07 04:18 PM, stafffighter wrote:

We were in a fucking war.

Lets concern ourselves with the sporatic german counterattacks first.

And second, they did try to get the bodies out.

Some, just couldn't be taken out.

A useful scapegoat on logistical failings. The American armed forces should have recognized the importance of controlling the deaths of their troops or at least maintaining a decent body-recovery force.

Look how clean and tidy Juno, Gold, and Sword beaches were. The British and Candian forces didn't cause half the damage to the public health as Americans did, and they had more beaches to invade.

[stafffighter]

At 1/1/07 10:37 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

A useful scapegoat on logistical failings. The American armed forces should have recognized the importance of controlling the deaths of their troops or at least maintaining a decent body-recovery force.

Yeah, I'm gonna think that keeping more people alive, not equitable to having a clean up crew.

Look how clean and tidy Juno, Gold, and Sword beaches were. The British and Candian forces didn't cause half the damage to the public health as Americans did, and they had more beaches to invade.

All war is filthy. While I agree that losses should be minimized when they can logistically once you're there the job has to be done and the last worry is about keeping it clean

[Memorize]

At 1/1/07 08:33 PM, Elfer wrote: This is an unfair comparison.

I like how everyone skipped over this little tid bit of info.

At 1/1/07 03:55 PM, Proteas wrote:

Yeah, you're right; way back then we had an interior department in our government that helped censor and edit information that was published in our newspapers about the war.

[ReiperX]

At 1/2/07 12:56 AM, Techware wrote:

At 1/1/07 08:33 PM, Elfer wrote: This is an unfair comparison.

I like how everyone skipped over this little tid bit of info.

At 1/1/07 03:55 PM, Proteas wrote:

Yeah, you're right; way back then we had an interior department in our government that helped censor and edit information that was published in our newspapers about the war.

So are you trying to say that censoring the news is a good thing?

....and if you say yes, then don't complain about Chavez censoring his own countries.

[Memorize]

At 1/2/07 01:15 AM, ReiperX wrote:

So are you trying to say that censoring the news is a good thing?

Well, FDR is the liberal Hero.
*loves hypocracy*

....and if you say yes, then don't complain about Chavez censoring his own countries.

I have yet to say anything about that.

[Brownie210]

At 1/2/07 12:42 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/1/07 10:37 PM, Brownie210 wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna think that keeping more people alive, not equitable to having a clean up crew.

All war is filthy. While I agree that losses should be minimized when they can logistically once you're there the job has to be done and the last worry is about keeping it clean

Are not the civilians people? Disease is, historically, one of the greatest destroyers of life. This fact is especially true during wars, when foreigners bring in new disease strains. Add in the health factor of thousands of corpses and you have the potential for a breeding pool of horrid diseases. Think of any animals that may try to ingest infected carrion, only to become diseased themselves and spread it further.

Death in war is, almost, inevitable, but preventing its impact through decent planning will, ultimately, save more lives. We should not have been so blind to this.

[stafffighter]

At 1/2/07 01:37 AM, Brownie210 wrote:

Death in war is, almost, inevitable, but preventing its impact through decent planning will, ultimately, save more lives. We should not have been so blind to this.

When you drop something it will, almost, fall to the ground. I've been saying through this whole Iraq deal that decent planning could have kept people from dieing.

[Memorize]

At 1/2/07 01:42 AM, stafffighter wrote:

When you drop something it will, almost, fall to the ground. I've been saying through this whole Iraq deal that decent planning could have kept people from dieing.

Despite it's very low death toll.

I love the logic here. Play it like we could've done better as what we're really going for is another reason to bash Bush.

makes sense.

[Brownie210]

At 1/2/07 01:42 AM, stafffighter wrote: When you drop something it will, almost, fall to the ground. I've been saying through this whole Iraq deal that decent planning could have kept people from dieing.

Let's not get off-topic now.

[Memorize]

At 1/2/07 01:49 AM, SevenSeize wrote:

I support the war in Iraq, have from the beginning and still do, but I certainly feel it was poorly planned. I believed we rushed into it. Loss of life is usually inevitable during a war, but if we could have prevented just one of those losses, wouldn't it have been worth it?

As the democrats say about killing Al Quida's #2 guy's or the hanging of Saddam: It doesn't matter.

Sad reality is, that's what the military is here for. They signed up and should expect anything to happen. What's truely ironic is how the military gives a complete 180 spin how Iraq is turning out.

[stafffighter]

Pople love to view historical issues through modern values, like maybe pioneers had covered wagons because they were too poor to charter a plane.
The fact is that war is a very filthy think where people die in ways. This is why you need a damn good reason to have it. World War 2 did happen for a damn good reason. We're a population now that knows war from news graphics and "experts" who crack a joke or two while selling their book on the daily show. It would be a misnomer to say the innocence is gone but rather the clarity of purpose. With the wars we have now we can't picture how clear that war was, so we look to bring it to our terms. It cannot be done.

[Memorize]

At 1/2/07 01:51 AM, stafffighter wrote:

The fact is that war is a very filthy think where people die in ways. This is why you need a damn good reason to have it. World War 2 did happen for a damn good reason.

It's too bad FDR imprisoned Japanese and Japanese Americans and cencored the media then unlike... Bush.

[stafffighter]

At 1/2/07 01:54 AM, Techware wrote:

It's too bad FDR imprisoned Japanese and Japanese Americans and cencored the media then unlike... Bush.

Bush didn't fuck any slaves either, so that makes him extra good. Nothing was said defending that practice, just that the war itself happened for a purpose much clearer than anything we have today.