Propaganda in the First and Second World Wars - Research Paper Example

? Propaganda in the first and second world wars This paper critically looks into the of propaganda in the first and second World wars. Acts that were considered to be propaganda during this period will be addressed in details. Propaganda is considered to be an extremely powerful weapon in times of war due to its ability to influence peoples' way of thinking. In times of war, governments come with strategies that will enable them win the support of their citizens. Therefore, propaganda is intentionally designed strategies aimed at influencing people’s opinions. Governments manage to design propaganda through lying, telling partial truth or exaggerating issues at hand. Governments use propaganda for various reasons during wars, but the bottom in the use of propaganda is to have a competitive advantage over their enemies and win the support of their citizens. Propaganda in the first and second world wars Introduction In the book, Propaganda and Persuasion, propaganda is defined as "a deliberate and systematic attempt that aims at shaping perceptions, manipulating cognition, as well as directing behavior with the ultimate aim of achieving a response, which portrays the intention of the propagandist" (Jowett & O'Donnell, 2011). The main aim in the use of propaganda is make the respondent to act, agree or get along and assist in adopting certain policies. The use of propaganda in times war can be dated back to 1622 when Pope Gregory XV applied this technique to calm religious wars in Alsace, Bohemia, and Palatinate. Therefore, the use of propaganda appeared as the only solution, which would fight down effects of Protestant reformation (Finch, 2000). After the successful use of propaganda during the reign of Pope Gregory XV, propaganda later gained popularity in wars experienced in the nineteenth century. In the first and second world wars, the main practitioners of propaganda were the American and British governments. An American political scientist (Harold Lasswell) published a book that strongly supported the use of propaganda by American despite America’s denial in the use of this technique. Lasswell and his fellow political scientists gave a clear documentation on propaganda, which was even used by the Germans in the 1930s to acquit themselves with skills on the use of propaganda (Finch, 2000). Lasswell's publication pointed out that the application of propaganda during war times was "neither ominous nor insidious." The publication further pointed out that propaganda had become part and parcel of weapons used during wars, and it would remain as a component of wars forever. Lasswell referred propaganda as an act that encompasses the managing attitudes and opinions by directly altering social suggestion, as opposed to changing other conditions either in the environment or in the organism (Finch, 2000). The Americans and the Britons hesitated in accepting the use of propaganda as a legitimate tool in the first and second world wars. However, a British journalist by the name Beatrice Leeds pointed out that propaganda became acceptable the moment Russia got into war with Germany. The governments allied to Russia accepted that the use of propaganda would serve a fabulous deal in fighting the Germans (Marquis, 2009). One notable thing in democratic nations was the dismantling of departments of information. This was due to the perception that information/mass media played a significant role in the spread of propaganda. However, in America, the case was different due to the introduction of an Act that supported the introduction of a propaganda radio network. This network was the "Voice of America", which was assigned the responsibility of transmitting pro-American, democratic opinions across the world without mentioning propaganda. After the First World War, America, Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union became serious debaters of the impacts of influencing their citizens' opinions through propaganda. In Germany, numerous research laboratories were set to study the psychological impacts of propaganda. The research laboratories were concerned with identifying behavioral and emotional responses to propaganda in order to identify the best way to practice propaganda (Marquis, 2009). The First World War contributed immensely in providing psychologists with the necessary materials to study the human brain, and behavioral responses to information. A German psychologist (Walter Lippmann) spent much of his time writing publications on public opinion theory. In his work, he argued that reality and opinion relate indirectly. The United States began its work in seeking public opinions on propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s; Germany came up with quantitative methods to determine human responses to propaganda and news related to war. Early in the First World War, Americans referred to propaganda as psychological warfare (Psy-war) (Jowett & O'Donnell, 2011). Importance of war propaganda In the first and second world wars, despite the wide spread refusal to accept the use of propaganda, it was evident that propaganda played a vital role in combating common enemies. Since then, propaganda is considered as crucial weapon with a potential to manipulate conclusions, ideas, attitudes, and tolerance of soldiers and civilians during times of war. In the First World War, fighting soldiers dropped approximately twenty six million propaganda leaflets. The dropped leaflets targeted the enemy soldiers of citizens of a given country. By the time the world war was coming to an end, it is estimated that the Royal Air force had released over 6000 million leaflets across Europe. The United States Tactical air force had, in addition, dropped close to 8000 million propaganda leaflets (Finch, 2000). In the First World War, the British government regarded their fighting planes as the most precious weapon at that time. This was due to the plane's ability to disseminate propaganda leaflets with superb efficiency. In the Second World War, two squadrons of air forces were assigned with the responsibility of dropping propaganda leaflets in Europe. In Britain and United States, 4,600 air force personnel were assigned various responsibilities in the department of psychological warfare. The three countries had realized that propaganda leaflets ("paper bullets") had become highly effective weapons of that time (Marquis, 2009). Propaganda targeting rival soldiers aimed at convincing them that they not agree with the philosophy of their war masters or they should quit from the war because their contribution in the war was insignificant. In one instance, leaflets ("I cease resistance") dropped in Japan towards the end of the Second World War had an immense impact on the performance of Japanese soldiers. Over 75% of the fighting soldiers were influenced by the leaflets, causing them to surrender. These leaflets were dropped at a critical time when the Japanese soldiers were facing serious disorganization, food shortage, and insufficient ammunition. Leaflets targeting civilians living in Japan reached at least 50% of these civilians, and nearly all surrenders were influenced by information contained in the leaflets (Wollaeger, 2008). Propaganda targeting enemy civilians was spread most effectively through radio broadcasts. This technique depicted political leaders as untrustworthy and by extension tried to undermine resistance. For example, Japan attempted to undermine the morale of Australian civilians through radio broadcasts. A Tokyo radio broadcaster, Rose, who had a strong local knowledge of Australia played it smooth in influencing the people of Australia. In her broadcasts, she kept on mentioning that small towns within Australia were a prime target for Japan's aerial attacks. She further assured the residents that an air-strip under construction would be bombed once complete (Kingsbury, 2010). In his publications, Lasswell once wrote that propaganda "is the war of ideas on ideas." In his opinion, Lasswell points out that propaganda has become a crucial component of war due to the fact winning the mind of citizens is vital in winning or losing in a war. Majority of civilians were highly interested in knowing the outcomes of a war. Therefore, influencing their mind in such a way that they embrace the as their own may even cause them to make financial contributions towards the war. Bertrand Russell, who was pacifist strongly opposed the World War I and urged interacts to refuse to be into propaganda. However, he noted that as the war got intense, civilians became vulnerable to influences of propaganda. Many civilians were called upon to embrace the world war as their own (Wollaeger, 2008). Russell admitted that succeeding in a war was difficult unless the civilians were ready and willing to suffer and die. Therefore, masters of war must come up with strategies to make their people ready and willing to die for the sake of the nation. Adolf Hitler had much interest in British propaganda during the World War I, and he strongly believed that the Britons managed to win the war due to their well strategized propaganda campaigns. According to Hitler, the British government launched a fantastic campaign to its citizens throughout the war. To Hitler, Germany had failed to spread propaganda to its people when the British government was preaching propaganda to its people (Wollaeger, 2008). A statement ("Backs to the Wall") made by Field Marshall Haig’s in 1918 was a clear indication that British civilians were highly confident that British was winning the war. Other war masters such as Field Marshall Von Hindenburg were in agreement that the British government had performed excellently in spreading propaganda to its people during the summer of 1918. During this time, the German soldiers had no clear agenda on their involvement in the war and focused more on bring the war to an end. Training armies concentrates mainly on instilling discipline that will enable the soldiers to keep on fighting. Propaganda also applies the same principle on civilians. In this case, propaganda (particularly emotive propaganda) was adopted in the first and second world wars to instill discipline in civilians. This would unite civilians and give them strength to join the nation through the war crises (Taylor, 1999). In the first and second world wars, the Germans applied the same propaganda against Americans. During the First World War, Dernburg, who was once a German secretary general of state, visited America on a mission to source funds to finance Germany during the war. America had already warned its people against making financial contributions to Germany or Britain. Dernburg came up with a strategy of issuing capital news to Americans on German's stand in the war. From the assistance of German and American journalists, Dernburg managed to come up with a news bureau. Later, it was realized that the setting up of the bureau aimed at winning support from the black Americans hoping that, should America involve itself, in support of German rivals, the blacks would participate in the war (Taylor, 1999). In the Second World War, a repeat of what happened during the First World War occurred in America. This time round, the German propagandist urged Black American soldiers to walk out of the war due to the poor social conditions back home. The Germans used leaflets and images from news agencies to spread their propaganda. One poster featured a Negro under attack by Native Americans. Another poster displayed images of Detroit race riots. Images of Negroid families in their worst moments were also printed by the Germans. Beneath each poster, there was a slogan asking "Is this what you are fighting for?" Back in Japan, radio broadcasts urged the black soldiers of United States to desist from engaging in the war (Kingsbury, 2010). The black Americans were not ready to give up from the war due to pressure from German and Japan propaganda. The American Negro press made numerous publications on the superb treatment received from the Australians. Propagandists gained much ease with which they would influence the peoples' way of thinking as the war got intense. Leo Margolin, an American military writer during World War 2, noted that each day meant a lot to the success of the military. The support from civilians was paramount in every military operation since working as military had turned into an issue of living or dying (Marquis, 2009). When America was preparing to participate in the Second World War, the ministry of propaganda conducted a thorough study on American population with an aim of identifying American anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism was considered as a key weakness in American society. After the study, the theme of anti-Semitism appeared in many leaflets that targeted American soldiers on all fronts. The realization that anti-Semitism existed within American societies made German propagandist capitalize on this weakness in attempts to demoralize American soldiers (Taylor, 1999). Atrocity (acts of cruelty on civilians) The role of a propagandist in convincing civilians to offer their support during times of war needs more effort than protecting when trying to protect personal properties. In 1914, Germans invasion of Belgium could have had little impact on British citizens. During this period, The Times ran several headlines citing German’s advance into Belgium, which would have German’s morale to gain control of cities such as Antwerp, Flushing, and Dunkirk. Gaining control over these cities would have put Germany in a strategic position to conquer England. Many of British civilians were in support of daily news headlines that advocated for freeing the people of France, Italy, and England, adding that civilians should resist efforts to be drawn into the war (Welch, 2000). The Times once ran a headline that stated that the Germans were the greatest violators of international law at the time. Unfortunately, civilians lacked the knowledge on international law and diplomacy hence the lack of reason in engaging in war. The realization that Germans were getting stronger every day prompted France, British, and United States to run anti-German propaganda campaigns that focused on uniting all civilians to fight forces of barbarism. In 1914-1918, Germans had war propaganda that was considered to be a threat to civilization. German was far much ahead as far as technology, science, and intellectual endeavors were concerned. This enabled Germans to construct highly viable propaganda stories. This was further favored by the large number of working-class population, which had no knowledge on resisting printed propaganda messages, but had experience in following public happenings through reading daily headlines that were full of propaganda (Welch, 2000). Having an understanding of the nature of people who made up the population, propagandist realized that the use of phrases, headlines or slogans could capture the attention of many people. The targeted group was that of the working class because they had experience in following public issues. The coming together of nations to fight Germans through propaganda is believed to have started in 1914. This was the period when the London Evening standard ran a headline suggesting that civilization had become an issue of concern. This headline was later run on French dailies. In America, Roosevelt campaigned heavily in attempts to urge Americans to join hands in the war against the Germans. American newspapers also wrote numerous articles that supported that Germans were a threat to civilization (Kingsbury, 2010). After the decision by Americans to participate in the Second World War, it was now evident that nations had been drawn into the war of propaganda. Each nation saw Germans as barbarians who were a threat to civilization. It is vital for those who strategize war propaganda to be in a position to attach all the blame to the enemy of while they proclaim to have strong moral standings. Therefore, propagandists must claim to be right under any cost. In the First World War, the Germans' invasion of Belgium generated stories, which portrayed Germans as extremely inhumane people. Belgium refugees in England narrated stories of Germans' atrocities against the people of Belgium. Belgians had accounts of rape, bayoneting of babies, chopping off of hands and breasts, and burning of live people (Marquis, 2009). After investigating the Belgians' accounts, it emerged that their claims were largely true. Several leading newspapers in the United States published accounts of the Belgians. Upon reading the articles, Americans became highly influenced to support military allies. This was a case of "propaganda", which utilized truth to influence the minds of Americans. However, Hitler was not moved by what was published by his enemies. Hitler concluded that the war of propaganda by England and America was in right senses. Hitler was further optimistic that the use of propaganda against German soldiers prepared the soldiers to face the war with enormous courage. In addition, propaganda helped Hitler in determining the truth in what propagandists said, which boosted his faith in his government. Hitler's rage and hatred against his enemies became worse due to propaganda (Welch, 2000). Hitler emerged as the first leader who managed to utilize any available technology to dominate German civilians. Technical devices such as radios and loud speakers enabled Hitler to deprive over eighty million people their independent thought. In such circumstances, it became possible to put Germans under the will of one person (Marquis, 2009). Post-war propaganda analysis After the war, countries involved analyzed the effects of propaganda. In Britain, some people were of the opinion that the use of propaganda lengthened the war, preventing peace initiatives to take a course during the time of wars. This failure was as a result of the never ending atrocity stories. On the other hand, other people were of the opinion that proper propaganda helped in saving a whole year of war, which perhaps saved thousands of millions of money and maybe million lives. Propaganda also played a key role in raising certain key figures such as Lord Kitchener who was military personnel. Attacks by the Daily Mail made him emerge as a strong character even before he realized his weakness (Marquis, 2009). German and British propaganda had the most impact in both the first and second world wars. Men in German's authority blamed their defeat to British propaganda. They claimed that propaganda spread by Britons contributed immensely in demoralizing German soldiers. Germans admitted that propaganda from Britain was exceptionally bright and had the potential to reach a wide range of civilians. The Germans lost terribly on their moral initiatives due to their cruel invasion of Belgium, use of poisonous gases, execution of Edith Cavell and the unrestricted use of submarine warfare. Nazis strongly criticized Germany's wartime propaganda strategies. Hitler pointed out that the Nazis had learnt a lot from the tactics of their enemies (Taylor, 1999). Conclusion It is evident that the use of propaganda took center stage during the first and second world wars. The core aim of using propaganda was to win the opinion of the majority from the civilian and at the same time demoralizing the fighting soldiers so that they can withdraw from the battlefield. In early days, many nations denied the existence of propaganda, but after the realization of how powerful it was in fighting the enemy, fighting nations embraced its use as one key weapon in their fighting strategy. The main methods of spreading propaganda were through leaflets, radio broadcasts, and newspaper publications. The use of phrases and slogans on leaflets boosted the efficiency of propaganda. Postwar analyses revealed that Britain was excellent in using propaganda. Germany supported this fact by claiming that its defeat was as a result of propaganda from Britain. From the time of the world wars to date, the use of war propaganda is considered as a vital element of war strategy by nations focusing on winning the battle. References Finch, L. (2000). Psychological Propaganda: The War of Ideas on Ideas During the First Half of the Twentieth Cenntury. Armed Forces & Society, 26 (3), 367-386. Jowett, G. & O'Donnell, V. (2011). Propaganda and Persuasion. London: Sage Publications Kingsbury, C. M. (2010). For Home and Country: World War I Propaganda on the Home Front. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Marquis, A. G. (2009). Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War. Journal of Contemporary History, 13 (3), 467-498. Taylor, P. M. (1999). British Propaganda in the 20th Century: Selling Democracy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Welch, D. (2000). Germany, Propaganda and Total War, 1914-1918: The Sins of Omission. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press. Wollaeger, M. (2008). Modernism, Media, and Propaganda: British Narrative from 1900 to 1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Read More