How people back in WWII knew about war crimes committed by the allied forces or axis powers? At the time: it’s not like you can just say “I’m posting this online!”, there was no such thing as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Twitter (X) since they didn’t exist in 1939-45. The internet didn’t exist when Pearl Harbor was attacked, so that was only heard from word of mouth or tabloids (newspapers).

Now, when speaking about war crimes that the Americans, Brits or French committed during that era: people were oblivious about it at first only seeing them as liberators whilst overlooking their flaws (due to the propaganda floating about back then). They did kill German PoW’s, but how would the average joe in 1945 know that without the reliance of computers, search engines or social media feeds.

The thing is, how did normal people during that era manage to call out the Allies or Axis for their war crimes without the reliance of computers, social media or the internet (let alone livestream) during 1939-45? Japan did establish Unit 731, where Chinese and Allied PoW’s were subjected to brutal torture or human experimentation. How would people know its existence (let alone what goes on inside) during the 40s?

  • CovertHammer@feddit.onlineOPEnglish
    0·
    5 days ago

    The reason over people’s distrust towards professional journalism now is due to political influence or lobbying (using the news platform to shove propaganda for their interests to make non critical thinkers believe their agenda is without second thought). In the modern context: you hear stuff that sounds too good to be true.

    For instance: “age verification to keep kids safe” on MSM while they omit government mass surveillance (true motive). You get the point, if you can see through the fog: you’ll uncover things they’re trying to hide. If the news outlet is affiated with a certain political party, it leaves biases on their reporting and narrative.

    It’s the reason why they would prefer a first hand encounter from someone via social media without the narrative being twisted. As in a soldier who managed to capture live footage differs from a war correspondent employed by a news outlet covering the same conflict accompanied with cameramen.

    Back then, how Soviet newspapers reported the war differ from the American Star and Stripes since one is state owned (the USSR has control on how the news is published while Star and Stripes is independent) but the other is private. Anything government subsidized is subjected to control and oversight.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      0·
      5 days ago

      Does any of that make social media any better?

      It’s the reason why they would prefer a first hand encounter from someone via social media without the narrative being twisted.

      This is the lie social media sells.

      Nothing is vetted. There’s no standard of information hygiene on social media. Anything posted could be a misunderstanding, or fabricated, or deliberate clickbait propaganda.

      In fact, that’s exactly what engages the algorithms; its why modern social media is such a cesspool, because clickbait is easier to produce and more engaging than professional journalism, and the algorithm boosts that garbage to everyone.

      But I’m not in this thread to argue this thoroughly.

      Frankly, if you came to Lemmy with the belief that social media (especially corporate social media) is more reliable than news outlets… I don’t know what to tell you.

      • CovertHammer@feddit.onlineOPEnglish
        0·
        5 days ago

        Social media is full of crap due to AI generated content and toxic people. I know that for a fact. I don’t use it as much anymore, only sometimes but not for news (mainly to message family or close friends). Governments trying to ban or restrict SM for “children” won’t solve the issue as that just reinforces surveillance on grown ups by using kids as an excuse. I was cyberbullied back in high school because of that and found a group chat full of gossip bad mouthing others behind their back.

          • CovertHammer@feddit.onlineOPEnglish
            0·
            5 days ago

            I don’t use it a lot anymore unlike when I was a teen, now only sometimes but not for news (mainly to message family or close friends). Also, Governments trying to ban or restrict SM for “children” under a certain age won’t solve the issue as that just reinforces surveillance on grown ups using kids as cover. It should be discretionary of the individual indifferent to age regarding SM (not politicians).

            I was cyberbullied back in high school because of that and found a group chat full of gossip. I’ve heard news equivalent to “banning social media for kids” by reinforcing age verification (submitting ID) just to use SM which that sounds stupid. I know friends of friends who have teenagers as sons or daughters and those kinds of bans don’t do shit, they know that the government has ulterior motives.

            Anyway, I’ve gone on a tangent.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              0·
              5 days ago

              Yes that was a tangent…

              My only point is that social media is toxic period and you cannot blame it on just AI or on just certain people. It brings out the worst in people. If I were benevolent dictator I would ban it entirely but I’m not so I’m not advocating for that since I know it’s not realistic.

              • CovertHammer@feddit.onlineOPEnglish
                0·
                5 days ago

                Back to the main topic of the thread: newspapers were the standard at the time, alongside radios (if they have one in their home) during the war. They would’ve also heard back from letters sent or testimonials from soldiers themselves, resistance groups, escaped prisoners or by some third party. Regardless, those forms of communication or messaging arent instantaneous.