Modern MSM coverage of D-Day

[Proletariat]

The always humorous, tongue-in-cheek look at how today's press would report on the D-Day Invasion.



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 Greenpeace 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."


Boortz (http://boortz.com/)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

:laugh3:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Good old Neal ~D

[Kagemusha]

Maybe juuuuust a little bit sarcastic. ~;)

[Steppe Merc]

It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction.
Do crabs have spine? I thought they just had exoskelotons... ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do crabs have spine? I thought they just had exoskelotons..

You see how tricky the english languge is. He said that the crabs were spineless. The fact that their French is irellevant. He could just as easily said a spineless American crab but it wouldnt be as funny ~:)

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah, but do crabs have spine in the first place? I thought they didn't have interior bones...
But yeah, I know it was a joke about French. ~;)

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Crabs are spineless as far as I know...

I am suprised they didn't mention the town destroyed by American B-17's. The bombadier of the lead plane didn't want to hit the troops so they waited three seconds and wiped out a French town...

[Don Corleone]

Crabs are spineless as far as I know...

I am suprised they didn't mention the town destroyed by American B-17's. The bombadier of the lead plane didn't want to hit the troops so they waited three seconds and wiped out a French town...

That's right Uesugi. The whole reason we launched a bombing raid on Normandy was to wipe out a village of French peasants. My anti-Americanism cup runneth over. It's really sad that about half the members of the org read the first post and said "uh huh, sounds about right to me", not realizing it was a parody.

[Ice]

That is priceless, for the most part because it sounds so accurate. AHAHA.

:happy2: :happy2: :happy2:

[makkyo]

Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany.
A whole two weekends? That a little bit extreme. ~;)

[TheSilverKnight]

A whole two weekends? That a little bit extreme. ~;)

I thought one went over the top, to be honest ~;)

[Spetulhu]

Three hundred dead civilians? What's that compared to the thousands killed in bombing raids during the buildup to the invasion?

[Papewaio]

Remember Vichy French :cheesy: :beatnik2: don't count as they were hardcore collaborators :greedy: :army:.

:smartass2:

[PanzerJaeger]

:laugh4:

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Vichy France was long gone by D Day... And Normandy was always under direct German control all along. Technically, there were no Vichy French Pape...

Otherwise, sarcasm is supposed to be funny. witty... That one is kind of poor. Heavy handed. Too transparent. Can't do any better?

At least, it could be a little more hyperbolic, getting embeded journalist, speaking about Shock and Awe of D Day, and how it wold lead to German collapse in 2 days, how the German Army in Normandy was the 1st in Europe (compared to other German armies in other places), some people talking in 5 min loops, some empty head expert, ads break... Whatever.

Style over substance?

It got no style, and susbtance is as witty as a heavy block of concrete.

Otherwise, glad so many found it funny. Could have been way better though.

Louis,

[Proletariat]

Otherwise, sarcasm is supposed to be funny. witty... That one is kind of poor. Heavy handed. Too transparent. Can't do any better?



I'm glad you realized it was too silly a thing to get really upset about.

[Proletariat]

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/graham200507010819.asp




George W’s Quagmire
Different war, same old complaints.

By Michael Graham

Philadelphia, the American Colonies, July 4, 1776 — Leaders of the self-described “American patriots” movement gathered in this Pennsylvania city today to sign an official declaration of their political intentions, despite widespread criticism of a failing war policy and complaints that their military action was launched under false pretenses.


“Here it is, July of 1776, and George W. and his lackeys are just now getting around to declaring what this war is supposedly all about?” complained Loyalist playwright Michael LeMoore. “Washington and his neo-congressionalists rushed us into war at Lexington and Concord, before anyone had ‘declared’ a single word about independence. Face it: George lied, and people died.”

LeMoore was referring to what patriots call “The shot heard 'round the world,” when colonial forces fired on British soldiers in violation of accepted international rules of military engagement.

Supporters of George Washington and the so-called “war for independence” dispute claims from the antiwar movement that their actions are unlawful, and they point to their formal “Declaration of Independence” as proof.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” reads the Declaration in part, “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The document was reportedly written by Thomas Jefferson, a white, southern slave-owner, and one of the architects of the “patriot” movement.

Critics quickly noted the hypocrisy of Jefferson's reference to “unalienable rights” of liberty and the author's own record of slave-ownership.

“If they really believed in spreading ‘freedom,’ they would free their own slaves instead of killing the British and shelling innocent civilian Loyalist women and children in Boston and New York,” said Howard Deanne, head of the Loyalist National Committee. “And what of the recently uncovered Commonwealth Avenue memos, which would seem to indicate that those closest to Washington were planning for war after the Boston Tea Party back in '73? I'm telling you, the colonists of America have been misled into war!”

Though most colonists agree that King George III is a tyrant, polls consistently show that a minority of colonists support open military action against the British. Many pundits also question whether removing the monarchy will make any fundamental difference in the lives of Americans.

General Washington came to Philadelphia to report to members of the Continental Congress, and anonymous sources report he came under heavy fire over the actions of his army and the costs of the war.

“We lost 140 Americans at Bunker Hill, more than 600 killed or captured in our disastrous attacks on Canada, and there’s no end in sight,” said one congressional staffer who asked not to be identified. “People are asking, ‘When is this war going to end? What is our exit strategy?’ This is George W's war, no doubt about it.”

Indeed, as support for the war among the American colonists wanes, some Quaker antiwar activists are using the other “Q” word in colonial politics: quagmire. Some even suggest that the entire war was manufactured by Gen. Washington to settle a personal score with the British over perceived insults he endured during the French and Indian War.

“Washington was just looking for an excuse to go to war,” said prominent lady activist Rosalind O'Donnell. “Everyone knows little Georgie would be broke if not for his connections to major land speculators pushing out beyond Kentucky. This is just a land grab! No war for Ohio! No war for Ohio!”

Patriot leaders gathered in Philadelphia, however, were determined to ignore the mounting criticism and celebrate their unanimous adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

“I firmly believe that in the future, this day — July 4, 1776 — will be viewed as a great moment for America and for freedom around the world,” John Adams of Massachusetts told a handpicked audience of “patriot” supporters. But neither he nor any of the other speakers said anything new about the costs or justifications of this divisive war policy, returning instead as they often do to the broad themes of freedom and democracy.

The Declaration concludes by stating: “We, therefore…declare that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

“That's the kind of simplistic jingoism one expects to read in Fox's Daily Broadsheet, not in serious political discourse,” said Noah Chommsey, head of the political-science department at King’s College. “But the idea that the American colonists have come up with some superior form of self-government that is inherently more just than, say, monarchy or theocracy, is the height of arrogance.”

Meanwhile, the war effort continues. Loyalist supporters among the American colonists continue to support the British military, particularly in the South, and hopes are fading that a major European power will come to the aid of the Americans. Military analysts suggest that the American “War for Independence” could last another seven years and result in the death of up to one percent of the entire American population.

“Is a free, democratic America really worth such a price?” demanded playwright LeMoore. “I certainly don’t think so. The world shouldn’t look to America for leadership. They should look instead to courageous nations truly endowed with greatness. Like France.”

[Gawain of Orkeny]

~D Thats priceless.

[Laridus Konivaich]

Why are you all applying modern morals to old conflicts!?!? This is a very bad problem because think about it, things were DIFFERENT in 1776 or even 1944!!! Everyone is just being very INSESITIVE and HISTORICAL REVISIONIST!
...
...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Uhhh. Are you serious?

[Proletariat]

Why are you all applying modern morals to old conflicts!?!? This is a very bad problem because think about it, things were DIFFERENT in 1776 or even 1944!!! Everyone is just being very INSESITIVE and HISTORICAL REVISIONIST!
...
...

...wow...

[Brenus]

To be fair, I first thought it was the usual French-bashing jokes, used against the Italian, Germans, Russians or whatever nationalities it suit to insult or ridicule… After a second reading, I find it quiet interesting in the distortion but supposed parallel.

The American did kill a lot of French before, during and after the D-day (see Royan and Lorient –that was a town completely wiped out by the US bombers-). Some did complain but the vast majority understood it was the price to pay… However, the Allies went in France not to expel French Vichy Dictator Petain but the Germans… No French forces opposed the Allies when they landed but helped them by destroying phone line, railways, bridges, delaying German reinforcement to reach the battle field, and even a tiny force of Free French (the Commando Kieffer, around 300 men) took part in the landing. Where is the Iraqis’ equivalent?

I pass on the exoskeletonless French crabs… I think to go against the almighty US power is all but spineless (perhaps arrogance), knowing the retaliations (we will forget Russia, forgive Germany and punish France, Mrs Rice, actually in charge of the US Foreign Policy)… I also wonder why the US is so frustrated about the lack of support from France if the French are so weak, coward, and all others qualifications…

The French were deliberately kept in ignorance of the landing, because the US and the UK feared De Gaulle political appetite (by the way, Roosevelt took a long time to finally abandon the idea to reach an agreement with Petain. Is the parallel still valid? In Algeria (after Torch operation) they installed the admiral Darlan, a Petainist who kept the anti-Semitic laws on the territory without objection from the US General Clarke.
The Iraqis didn’t have troops and were convicted in some country. Difficult to be a hero nowadays, helas poor Yorick…
A question, Saddam is Petain or Hitler? No need to answer.

A simple letter from Einstein wouldn’t have changed US politic. What changed US politic was Pearl Harbour and Hitler’s declaration of war against the US…
The assertion of the atomic research from the Nazis were largely proved after the fall of the Nazi Regime (even before, remember the Norwegian Commando, brave and great men). We are still waiting the equivalent for Iraq, after what, two years of liberation and few years before the invasion of constant bombing of Iraqis positions, in which English, US and (yes) French (until it was stopped by Chirac) planes regularly bombed missiles sites, radar and all other installations…
By the way, the International inspectors stay around 6 years in Iraq…

The “mistreatment” (as you call the extermination), of the Jews was fully proved and Nuremberg Tribunal was held. We are still waiting for Saddam.

For the collect of the corps, your journalist mixed up a little bit. The US soldier’s corps were collected, it was the civilians French/Iraqis one which were left on the ground. Because, as reported, the US and Allies fought against the Germans… Not against the French.

But, at the end, it is a good journalistic report. Mixing fiction and facts, selecting facts and confusing the events, simplifying the events and the goals, perfect, you win a Pulitzer with that. You add a good picture. I suggested a picture of the French Civilians putting down a statue of Hitler. Oh, no statue of Hitler in France: it doesn’t matter, import one from Germany…
And the French resistance and Free French Armies didn’t turn their weapons against the Allies quiet immediately after the liberation… Just kidding, ignore what is against your purpose…

What I want to say is this pathetic (and not sarcastic) message of such text is counter-productive. It just shows the deep ignorance of the author, his confusion and the will to distort reality. I foresee here a great career as future politician or journalist

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What I want to say is this pathetic (and not sarcastic) message of such text is counter-productive. It just shows the deep ignorance of the author, his confusion and the will to distort reality. I foresee here a great career as future politician or journalist

Both examples printed here just show that the problem today is the media. We could not have won either war with press like we have today.