"Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages." Samuel Johnson - Do you think the above can be applied to WW2, and if so in which cases? We might probably all think of the obvious (and the easiest to condemn) : propaganda work by Goebbels, and we'd probably end up spending a long time just listing his successes in relation to the quote... - But, is it applicable to anything on the Allied side, which 'interests' might have dictated this? - Should we be concerned under these particular circumstances about the love of 'Truth'? - Do you even accept the original assertion, as a calamity of war? Am aware of various quotes on the theme the most cited being"In war, truth is the first casualty" but i thought the one attributed to Johnson lends itself to more scope for discussion. (In case you're thinking it No, it's not homework!) Truth - definition of Truth by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
But, is it applicable to anything on the Allied side, which 'interests' might have dictated this? This is so well documented as to be past the point of debate. With the enactment of the War Measures Act and the appointment of a government Chief Censor it is somewhat self evident that the control of information was a key priority. Protecting military secrets and maintaining public morale would be obvious objectives. Particularly in Canada where the armed forces relied on volunteers. Public confidence was critical to maintaining enlistment levels. That and the reputations of military commanders were likely behind the suppression of the truth behind the disasters at Hong Kong and Dieppe. In the U.S., the myths created around the campaign in Iwo Jima was for many of the same reasons. Over 600 publications were banned in Canada during the war for various reasons. Many regard the performance of the mainstream media in Canada as simply having served as willing cheerleaders. Critical assessment was voluntarily surrendered.
- But, is it applicable to anything on the Allied side, which 'interests' might have dictated this? This is so well documented as to be past the point of debate. But i phrased it in such a way as to allow responders to either agree or disagree, and to ask for examples. You seem to disagree with me posting, not with the question. So, if certain subjects are by now "past the point of debate" in your opinion, why comment on or revisit anything in history. Which would make a great deal of this forum rather pointless. :p Over 600 publications were banned in Canada during the war for various reasons. However thanks for above comment. Ironic considering your assertion ... i learned something new so am grateful for that.
I believe that the Allied efforts to defeat Germany in the Second World War would have been seriously hampered if not completely undermined if they had been exposed to the quality and extent of the graphic television images now seen in reporting news and by programmes of in-depth analysis and debate about strategy and tactics. Joe Brown.
Two items that spring immediately to mind are the loss of the Lancastria in 1940 and the sinking of HMS Curacoa by the Queen Mary in 1942. I think some Lancastria documents are still to be released.
I believe that the Allied efforts to defeat Germany in the Second World War would have been seriously hampered if not completely undermined if they had been exposed to the quality and extent of the graphic television images now seen in reporting news and by programmes of in-depth analysis and debate about strategy and tactics. What effect television would have had on the conduct of the war is anyone's guess, but if you look in a newspaper like the Daily Mirror or the Express from the war years you'll find plenty of analysis and debate about strategy and tactics - indeed, given the lack of hard information that was coming from the battlefront, speculative analysis is often all that 'military correspondents' like Frank Owen and Tom Wintringham could do. The War Office railed against what it saw as the pernicious criticism of the press. There was more than one attempt, ultimately unsuccessful, to suppress supposedly 'defeatist' newspapers like the Mirror. Plus ca change. Best, Alan
Two items that spring immediately to mind are the loss of the Lancastria in 1940 and the sinking of HMS Curacoa by the Queen Mary in 1942. I think some Lancastria documents are still to be released. Never heard of the loss of HMS Curacoa before, makes interesting reading.
This is so well documented as to be past the point of debate. With the enactment of the War Measures Act and the appointment of a government Chief Censor it is somewhat self evident that the control of information was a key priority. Protecting military secrets and maintaining public morale would be obvious objectives. Particularly in Canada where the armed forces relied on volunteers. Public confidence was critical to maintaining enlistment levels. I take it from the context that the War Measures Act was Canadian, but it would have been less confusing if that had been stated explicitly. The relevant act in the UK was the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939, followed by significant amendments in 1940.
Never heard of the loss of HMS Curacoa before, makes interesting reading. A bit about HMS Curacoa here http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/war-sea/3111-hms-curacoa-queen-mary-collision.html Lesley
i think before judging, a thorough research from both sides should be undertaken. not just accept blindly the propaganda put out by both sides. you might find it quite enlightening. gnr ged
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" Winston Churchill Selling Disaster: How the Canadian Public was Informed of Dieppe http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/bitstream/handle/1828/459/balzer_2004.pdf;jsessionid=EFA24E5B613E4FAC3A31DF9 05542F527?sequence=1
