3 ms·

The telegraph already reached nearly everywhere, and telephone connectivity had reached pretty much every capital city by 1939. Communications between country

The telegraph already reached nearly everywhere, and telephone connectivity had reached pretty much every capital city by 1939. Communications between country leaders were fast and reliable, so I don't think 'I didn't get your apology letter so we went to war' was a factor in 1939, nor will it be in 2027.

dpflan 3y ago
Indeed telegram existed. But now we have "telegrams" everywhere, in pockets, with advanced analytics possible on the myriad of types of "telegrams", etc. Video can tell a much more compelling, convincing, and detailed story than a telegram.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  > Video can tell a much more... To judge by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... , the persuasive virtues of video are just as useful for the warmongers as for the peacemongers.
  - dpflan 3y ago
    Of course, video is a medium.
Lex-2008 3y ago
> Communications between country leaders were fast and reliable Maybe they were fast enough by 1939 standards, but it seems that in 1960s communication between Moscow and Washington was considered to be "not fast enough". Quoting Wikipedia article on Moscow–Washington hotline[1]: > During the [1962 Cuban Missile Crisis], official diplomatic messages typically took six hours to deliver; unofficial channels, such as via television network correspondents, had to be used too as they were quicker. The experience of the crisis convinced both sides of the need for better communications. > During the crisis, the United States took nearly twelve hours to receive and decode Nikita Khrushchev's 3,000-word-initial settlement message – a dangerously long time. By the time Washington had drafted a reply, a tougher message from Moscow had been received... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow%E2%80%93Washington_hotline#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow%E2%80%93Washington_hotl...

dpflan 3y ago

Indeed telegram existed. But now we have "telegrams" everywhere, in pockets, with advanced analytics possible on the myriad of types of "telegrams", etc. Video can tell a much more compelling, convincing, and detailed story than a telegram.

bell-cot 3y ago
> Video can tell a much more... To judge by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... , the persuasive virtues of video are just as useful for the warmongers as for the peacemongers.
- dpflan 3y ago
  Of course, video is a medium.

Lex-2008 3y ago

> Communications between country leaders were fast and reliable Maybe they were fast enough by 1939 standards, but it seems that in 1960s communication between Moscow and Washington was considered to be "not fast enough". Quoting Wikipedia article on Moscow–Washington hotline[1]: > During the [1962 Cuban Missile Crisis], official diplomatic messages typically took six hours to deliver; unofficial channels, such as via television network correspondents, had to be used too as they were quicker. The experience of the crisis convinced both sides of the need for better communications. > During the crisis, the United States took nearly twelve hours to receive and decode Nikita Khrushchev's 3,000-word-initial settlement message – a dangerously long time. By the time Washington had drafted a reply, a tougher message from Moscow had been received... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow%E2%80%93Washington_hotline#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow%E2%80%93Washington_hotl...