Imagine If We Had Social Media During WW2

[TigerBright19]

Curious to learn what these forums would be like if we had online social media during the Roosevelt presidency leading into World War 2.  Would there be heated division on these forums even back then?  Without the benefit of hindsight would you be on the side of peace and neutrality, or campaigning for war and victory whatever the cost, and maybe even a pre-emptive strike with calls for support or impeachment against Roosevelt or Truman and the use of Atomic weapons.  Would the outcome of the war be any different with online social media?

 

 

Europe at War - (imagine Foxnews and CNN's perspective of his address.)

 

 

 

Hitler's response to Roosevelt.

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by TigerBright19

[Peter B]

Interesting question (and alternative history is one of my favourite fiction genres).

I think it's fairly obvious that there would have been a very different approach to the media if something like current social media had existed back then. But the effect would have been widespread - how might it have affected the rise of the Nazis, or their anti-Semitism? (In fact, to refer back to alternative history fiction, Harry Turtledove wrote a short story about this topic back in the noughties, in the context of how the media at the time was critical of George W Bush.)

However, the problem with these sorts of questions is that so many social attitudes and changes are a product of their times; it's therefore pretty likely that the leaders of the time would have changed their own ways of operating to accommodate new technology - historically FDR was a master of radio, and three decades later JFK gained an edge over Nixon through his exploitation of TV. So I can well imagine that both would have been skilled users of Twitter if it had been available in their days.

[quiXilver]

i can picture some of the Proud Boy's Grandfathers going to Germany to enlist.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

3 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

i can picture some of the Proud Boy's Grandfathers going to Germany to enlist.

Since the Proud Boys are mixed race some of them would've went to the gas chambers.

[Orphalesion]

This is somewhat related. Since the wars in Syria and Ukraine started happening I have this morbid curiosity whether WiFi works during air raids, like whether you can sit in your shelter with your tablet playing candy crush as long as the physical equipment is intact or whether something about the bombing would disrupt the wifi signal.
I don't mean that disrespectful, I just have read a lot of accounts from civilians who were caught in situations like that and they usually describe what about their houses was left intact, how long and if electricity or water was out and stuff like that. But the most modern one I've read is "Goodbye Sarajevo"(which I can only recommend) and that was before the internet became mainstream.

So to link this back to the topic, if wifi is not disrupted by air raids, we might have gotten a lot of pictures and status updates from people experiencing them. Just imagine what the people enduring the Siege of Leningrad might have shared with the world, and how scary it would have been for people if a whole city goes "offline".
I wonder if that would have had any effect on how the war was waged.

It also makes me wonder how resistance groups could have used the internet and whether Jewish people forced into Ghettos might have been able to hack into social media and bring information on their horrible living standards and the Holocaust to the Allied countries sooner, perhaps prompting the US to enter the war earlier?

[Dreamer screamer]

This is WW3, and with so much media online, what does it stop?????   Is the media the evil that spreads information because it is all we ever see.  When One corporation controls the media, does this control the world?  The same news is always repeated on every channel almost word for word.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

In an all out war social media would more than likely be highly censored. I'm not going to argue with anyone as to whether they can be censored because of war but they can.

The reason I think this is because of Congressman Andrew J. May a Democrat from Kentucky during WWII made a public statement that the Japanese were not setting their depth charges deep enough and he was correct because the Japanese didn't think our submarines could go as deep as they could.

The result? It is estimated that he alone was responsible for the loss of 10 submarines and 800 sailors.

Oh he was a real piece of work. Typical Democrat.

Unfortunately he wasn't alone in this as it was the media that published what he said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May

[TigerBright19]

Haunting speech from 1940 - American audience cheer the defeat of Britain.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by TigerBright19

[spartan max2]

It would of been pretty censored. The government censored alot during WW2. For "morale" 

[Autochthon1990]

11 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Since the Proud Boys are mixed race some of them would've went to the gas chambers.

Having one black dude who might of been an informant the entire time doesn't make you mixed race. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The “Silver Shirts” would have had a field day. As would Lord Haw-Haw. Q-Anon? Pah. Q Who compared to Haw-Haw.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

1 hour ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Having one black dude who might of been an informant the entire time doesn't make you mixed race. 

Having one black dude as a member probably hints that they're not White Nationalist. But don't compromise your narrative by facts.

[Peter B]

6 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

In an all out war social media would more than likely be highly censored. I'm not going to argue with anyone as to whether they can be censored because of war but they can.

Agreed. I note that the military in Myanmar shut down access to the internet as part of its coup a couple of weeks ago, and other countries have done the same - Russia and Iran among them - as part of measures to stifle dissent.

Quote

The reason I think this is because of Congressman Andrew J. May a Democrat from Kentucky during WWII made a public statement that the Japanese were not setting their depth charges deep enough and he was correct because the Japanese didn't think our submarines could go as deep as they could.

The result? It is estimated that he alone was responsible for the loss of 10 submarines and 800 sailors.

Oh he was a real piece of work. Typical Democrat.

Unfortunately he wasn't alone in this as it was the media that published what he said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May

Thanks for this story. I'd never heard it before. Yes, the politician was stupid to say what he did, and the media likewise for saying so - surely by 1943 everyone must have learned the value of keeping stories like that quiet.

Having said that, firstly I note there's no evidence to support the 10 submarines and 800 lives claim - that was simply an assertion by an admiral.

Secondly, May's breach of security, as egregious as it was, pales in comparison to a couple of fairly appalling mistakes the US Navy managed all by itself - refusing to implement merchant shipping convoys or coastal blackouts along the east coast of the USA for six months after entering the war, deploying available escort warships as hunter-killer groups rather than as convoy escorts, and refusing to investigate reported problems with the Mark 14 torpedo for over a year. The first three problems contributed to what's known as the Second Happy Time - the first six months of 1942, during which time German submarines sank over 600 merchant ships off the American east coast, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives, most of them civilians. Now, had news of these mistakes got to the media...

ETA: I just noticed that the admiral who claimed May's breach of security cost 10 submarines and 800 lives was one of the senior figures in the US Navy who was skeptical of claims the Mark 14 torpedo didn't work properly.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Peter B

[aztek]

it would not matter, people were different back then, their values were different from majority of people today

[+OverSword]

On 2/24/2021 at 4:45 AM, quiXilver said:

i can picture some of the Proud Boy's Grandfathers going to Germany to enlist.

I'll bet their grandfathers were fighting for the USA in Europe and the Pacific.  

[+OverSword]

On 2/24/2021 at 2:43 PM, TigerBright19 said:

Haunting speech from 1940 - American audience cheer the defeat of Britain.

 

Many people today are unaware that the large majority of Americans and our politicians were against participating in foreign wars and wanted to be strictly neutral, including not supplying other countries free resources with which to fight.

[+OverSword]

On 2/24/2021 at 3:07 PM, spartan max2 said:

It would of been pretty censored. The government censored alot during WW2. For "morale" 

Until Vietnam that was the policy.  Only approved stories could be released to the public.  And after witnessing the effect of bringing Vietnam into Americas living rooms each night they reverted back to that policy mostly.  Reporter only allowed out with approval and with escorts to where they will allow them.  Why do you think we've been in Afghanistan for two decades.  If they allowed the battles on the evening news along with footage of things like this

We would have pulled out due to protests against being there by now.  You can't tell in this B&W photo but that little girls skin has been burned off.  here she is now

[acidhead]

If fake News Awards winner CNN existed during the 40's 

 

[odas]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:37 PM, OverSword said:

I'll bet their grandfathers were fighting for the USA in Europe and the Pacific.  

Or maybe not.

 

When Nazis Took Manhattan

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan

 

 

[Hyperionxvii]

We'd all be speaking German now. 

[+OverSword]

16 minutes ago, odas said:

Or maybe not.

 

When Nazis Took Manhattan

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan

 

 

Pre WWII

[odas]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Pre WWII

Yeah. There was a sort of a cancel culture and boycot of the far right during WWII in USA. Dejavue.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, odas said:

Yeah. There was a sort of a cancel culture and boycot of the far right during WWII in USA. Dejavue.

Before they took France and started bombing England people from many countries were really impressed with the results the nazis had with the German economy. Also there was a lot more anti-Semitic bigotry the world over back then. The whole eugenics movement that the nazis loved started in the USA but became a taboo subject after WWII