It is used to manipulate information to influence public opinion, through emotional appeals and demise of the enemy, to create hatred between countries. It promoted patriotism and nationalism within a country. Britain did not have a policy of national service; this was standard in countries such as France and Germany. The whole point of propaganda was to get more and more people to sign up for the war, this was important because of all the casualties and the hardship suffered on the home front. The government did this by displaying posters stating ‘your country
The message of the representation is that Americans is losing the war and wants out and it is clearly shown in the poster "I WANR OUT". This shows that it is accurate because I know from my own personal knowledge that the 1971 protest in America were getting bigger, more violent and serious for the government. However, representation 3 is not totally accurate because not all of America were against the war. I know this because there was a huge questionnaire on if people were against or for the war. 40% said they were for the war and 60% said against the war.
The threat of terrorist attacks changed American culture immensely; the devastation wakened the need for protection and a sense of security. Dramatic measures were taken in order to protect this country, so foreign relations were severely affected. Post 9/11 government saw the “link between immigration and security”, and that by changing foreign policy it would “reduce the likelihood of future attacks” (Krikorian 567).The safety measure in airports were countless from metal detectors to full body scans. “The immigration system has being penetrated by the enemy”, the officials realized which led to unfair accusation of innocents (Krikorian 568). “Overzealous officials” grill suspicious foreigners “to the point of near panic” (Khan 559).
In Why Nations Go to War, Dr.John G Stoessinger talks about the role of individuals in starting wars. He is of the view that factors like economics, nationalism, alliance networks and even fate are often put forward as the primary reasons for the outbreak of a war, but the human element, the personalities, the hopes and fears and the particular worldview of the individual leaders of the country are not given nearly as much importance. The writer points out that wars are after all, started by people and to a large extent, the book deals with the lead up to the moment when people finally decide to go to war. The author holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and has taught at Harvard, M.I.T, Columbia and Princeton. He won the Bancroft Prize for his book, The Might of Nations and he has served as acting director for the political affairs division at the United Nations.
This is illustrated from his proclamation that "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means," the concept of "remarkable trinity" and the general uncertainties of war which he termed as ‘friction' (Moran 2007: 91-106). Many scholars have assumed that the concept of trinity is fundamentally linked to states. Thus critics claim that the end of state legitimacy brought about by the international system of nations will lead to only violent, non-Trinitarian and non-political Wars. This argument is supported by the changes of structure of modern conflicts where the confrontation between opposing armies has been replaced by contemporary wars which do not follow a conventional norm and lack rationality. According to Mary Kaldor (2005: 491-498), who is the leading proponent of new war, the primary example of the new type of warfare is the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina whereby the conflict appears to manifest in irrational traits that are guided by other factors other than politics.
However, very little literature addresses the predicament of solders who had to endure the dangers of the battle field with most of them scantily understanding the reason for the bloodshed. The war was particularly fuelled by a battle of supremacy in ideologies and the ambition of certain political leaders to impose their ideologies on certain nations. The situation that had emanated to a full blown world war had begun much earlier characterized by mutual suspicion, regional alliances, conspiracy and espionage. Heller attempts to bring out the sufferings that the soldiers who were forced to shoot each other just because politicians had passed legislations requiring them to do so. In Chapter One of the novel Yossarian outlines how he was forced to love the hospital because it gave him momentary peace away from the harsh conditions of the battle field.
In a CBS special, Cronkite concluded, "To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past, to say we are mired in a bloody stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion" ( Hallin, 1986, p.170) This did not help increase the support for our troops in Vietnam. The overall support for the war was diminished by Cronkite's report. The negative coverage of the war influenced politicians, the public, and the American soldier. Concerned with losing support, politicians started to really get involved. The TeT offensive was a last ditch effort for the communists.
The anti-war movements and protests reflected on the soldiers in Vietnam and led to the defeat of the US armed forces. The media portrayed war in such a negative manner that resentment is still present today. The introduction of televised news coverage of the Vietnam War set a precedent of fear of war within the American culture. The vivid footage and images of combat educated the American people of the true horrors
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” Winston Churchill. Churchill attempts to explain the rigors of war, and how the majority of citizens owe everything they have to the few that fight to protect them. Likewise, Tim O’Brien tries to explain to his readers just what war is like, including all the gruesome details, vulgarity, and obscenity. In “How to Tell a True War Story,” O’Brien tells the reader there are certain rules that must be followed in order to tell a true war story. Without using O’Brien’s methodology, one cannot tell a true war story.
Veterans needed to write in order to give themselves closure of some sort. The veterans expressed how they felt and what happened in the war through the literature. They needed that outlet but the American public was not quite ready for it. Tim O’Brien states, “She’ll explain that as a rule she hates war stories, she can’t understand why people want to wallow in all the blood and gore.” Most literature written was uncensored, the Vietnam veterans didn’t hold back with what actually went on. But the American public wasn’t ready for that type of exposure.