This is an arguable point, but generally the answer is 'yes'. Governments can be justified in censoring war news if that news might in some way help the enemy or endanger the nation's soldiers and citizens. For example, after the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, the government censored the exact number of casualties and part of the list of ships destroyed. That information might have been used to help Japan decide whether or not another air strike was worthwhile. One of the biggest stories of World War II was continuously censored for two years -- the Manhattan (atomic bomb) Project.
At other times, governments have gone much too far in censoring news. They have tried to keep all war news away from their citizens in an effort to keep people from being anti-war. This was common in World War I. Both sides hid the full death totals at various times.
Chat with our AI personalities
no
At the start of the US involvement in WW II, the US was attacked by the Japanese. When the US declared that a state of war existed between the US and Japan, Germany declared war on the US. Your question should be was Germany justified in declaring war on the US.
The BBC world news service provided short wave radio news during the entire war.
Americans heard news about the war in Fireside Chats from FDR. They also read newspapers and many saw news reels when they went to the movies.
That depends entirely upon your point of view. This will apply to all conflicts, remember there are always two sides to an argument. It was not a war my country, the UK, was involved in, but it was very much in the news. I suppose it was the first conflict which was in the news as it happened. And I'm thinking it was also the first conflict resolved by public opinion, the public in question being that of the US......