Propaganda and the Crimean War - Essay Example

?Propaganda and War William Howard Russell’s Account of the Charge of the Light Brigade The Crimean War was fought from 1854 to 1856 and represents one of the biggest battles till that date (before World War I) that involved heavy artillery and included all the major powers in Europe. It was fought by the Russian Empire on one side and the combined forces of the French, English and the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia (called the ‘Allied’ power. The war was largely a conflict of the colonial aspirations of the European elitist powers for the wealth and resources of the Turkish Empire. At the end of the war, Russia withdrew its claims on the territories in the peninsular region and the Ottoman Empire maintained its sovereignty until the next war. However, there were severe casualties on either side: While over 220,000 died on the Russian side, total casualties of the French, English and Ottoman empires amounted to 375,000. It should be noted that the Allied forces began with more manpower than Russia – 1,000,000 as opposed to 720,000. The Crimean war has the distinction for being the first war that was covered exclusively by war correspondents. One among them was William Howard Russell; who wrote for the Times. The English public (the intended audience for the article in question) was kept informed of the day-to-day incidents at the war front. Towards the end of the war, there was widespread antagonism among the English public that culminated in several riots; the “Snowball riot” 1 the most famous among them. War correspondents like Russell, who travelled with the English forces and gave first hand accounts of their activities, were to a large extent responsible for the way the English public felt about the war – this2 was in part due to several tactical errors on the English, the ‘Charge of the light Brigade’ among them. It is a measure of the resentment of the war among the public, that Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister of England during the war, had to resign following questions about its management. Being a war correspondent representing the English, it is but natural that Russell is biased and is affectionate towards soldiers of his own nation. This is very evident in the last paragraph which he phrases eloquently in flowing praise for the English hence: “It was as much as our Heavy Cavalry Brigade could do to cover the retreat of the miserable remnants of that band of heroes as they returned to the place they had so lately quitted in all the pride of life. At thirty-five minutes past eleven not a British soldier, except the dead and dying, was left in front of these bloody Muscovite guns3”. Journalists by trade are expected to give as objective an account of the events as possible, but that this has not been possible since as long as the beginning of war correspondence is evident in these lines. It is however equally questionable whether the author portraits the enemy (the Russians) in any more monstrosity as a correspondent might do today. Further, the author has remained neutral in tone for the larger part of the article. However, it does seem that the author has the traditional English values of valour and courage in a battlefield. The English, being a people that have fought many wars have always been quick to praise and reward bravery in the face of death, particularly in the defence of the nation. At the beginning of the given article (itself a subtext of a more detailed account of the Battle of Balaclava) Russell point to the line of Turkish soldiers who run away at the sight of the enemy and remarks that he and the other soldiers observed this with “disgust”. He is profuse in praise for the generals who are willing to plunge into battle despite knowing that they are facing certain death. The narration is unlike the reports that we read today in newspapers, that tend to be objective and remain as factual as possible. The use of metaphoric language, poetic phrases, overly description of the geography of the land etc is unheard of in modern newspaper articles, especially ones that talk of so disastrous a battle. Russell compares the “shifting trails of men” to “moon-light on the water”4. Perhaps, the standard writing style during the period was to be as descriptive as this. Further, the account of the conversation among Lord Lucan and Captain Nolan is written in the active voice (a complete rarity in modern reporting) and is designed to capture the tension in the mention – which the author himself may have experienced – and relay the events as dramatically as possible. In doing so, the author conveys the uncertainty in the events and the fact that orders were incomprehensible to the men themselves, who just a moment ago had been celebrating a victory. The very fact that the soldiers themselves considered this to be an act of recklessness is conveyed in great detail so that the reading public is not spared of any detail of the events that led to the calamitous decline. Howard Russell’s account of the battle while descriptive is marked by his own values about war and virtue. Though it does not deliberately try to make monsters out of the approaching Russian army, it does influence the readers to decide that an error had been committed in the course of the war. Thus it has to be concluded, that it cannot be considered as a piece of propaganda. The Bryce report The Bryce report, composed by Viscount Bryce, is one of the documents that demonstrate accurately the power of untruthful propaganda to influence and leverage public opinion and political power. This was written in 1915 at the behest of the then Prime Minister (UK), and attested by the Home Secretary and the Attorney General in the September of that year. Following the German invasion of Belgium, there has been egregious accusations of criminal conduct against civilian by the forces of the Reichstag, and this included several rumours of the murder of babies, gang rape of women, slaughter of innocent men and women and even such tales as the amputation of young children so as to disable them from carrying guns; had been heard in the other parts of the continent. These had unsurprisingly been a cause of mass unrest and wide spread concern among the public as well as the political community. Further, at this point of time, though Europe itself had been at the behest of the marching German forces and all the former powers in Europe including the United Kingdom felt threatened by the enemy, the larger world powers including the United States and Russia had yet to awaken to the possibility of armed aggression and war. The United Kingdom in particular, being increasingly isolated in Europe following the fall of the other powers, was keen to swing American opinion against the Germans5, and to influence American involvement in the war. It was thus decided to form an independent committee to judge whether these purported atrocities that were being committed was indeed true and in the light of the above mention facts, the choice of Viscount Bryce is not surprising. Being a world-renowned historian, he had authored several books that were acclaimed for their boldness and accuracy. Further, he had served as the English ambassador to the United States and was almost beloved in America. His account not only guaranteed to be heard across all sections of the international community but also carried significant amounts of credibility6. Needless to say, after it’s publication, the Bryce Report was translated to over thirty languages across the world and was almost accepted verbatim. It proclaimed all the accusations about the German military to be true and added support by the means of first person narratives. The German army was shown as a brute force that acted with criminal instincts and/or under the influence of alcohol that showed no mercy to anyone. The committee based its report on the Belgian refuges who had fled the war zone and sought shelter in the United Kingdom. Further, the committee members themselves did not do any of the interviews but entrusted the task to “certain well respected gentlemen”7. It does state however that each of these gentlemen were trained to be skeptical and as objective about their subjects as possible and each account was subject to great scrutiny and skepticism. The committee also took the rather surprising step of mentioning all the subjects anonymously – in the interest of their own safety as well as the safety of their relatives and friends back in Belgium. This applied to former Belgian soldiers as well. But it remains an open question as to why British soldiers who had been at the war front were also mentioned anonymously. This had the impact of adding a lot of testimony to the report, but made sure that none of them could be verified by a third party as there was no way to trace the source of the comments. It has been reported in later literature that several authors to attempted to verify the interviewees could not do so and several of the leads turned out to be false. Further, the Bryce Committee report does not match the criteria for an unbiased investigation, not only because there are no verifiable sources to its credit. Thus the committee presented an extreme view of the actions of the Germans which was unsurprised welcomed enthusiastically by an angry English audience. On May 27, 1915, Wellington House operatives in America reported to London: "Even in papers hostile to the Allies, there is not the slightest attempt to impugn the correctness of the facts alleged. Lord Bryce's prestige in America put skepticism out of the question." Charles Masterman, the head of Wellington House, told Bryce: "Your report has swept America." On May 27, 1915, Wellington House operatives in America reported to London: "Even in papers hostile to the Allies, there is not the slightest attempt to impugn the correctness of the facts alleged. Lord Bryce's prestige in America put skepticism out of the question." Charles Masterman, the head of Wellington House, told Bryce: "Your report has swept America.8" Thus, the Bryce committee report represents a fine case in history of a war propaganda that building on the credibility of the authors and spurious documentation resulted in adding fire to the fury of a nation. NSC 68 This is an extract From US National Security Council Memorandum 68 [NSC 68] of 1950, a fundamental document of United States’ grand strategy at the outset of the Cold War. After the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the United States of America emerged as the two superpowers in the world. Almost immediately, the two nations that has been allies in a world war, turned into bitter enemies. The United States the ideology of communism and it’s values that Soviet Union represented. Further, the soviets were a threat to US supremacy. The soviet influence continued to gather through the latter decades following the war until a substantial part of Eastern Europe and central Asia came under communist influence. America watched with growing alarm the rise of soviet power in the east and the gathering economic and military might of the bloc. The two nations competed with each other on several different fields – such as space technology, sports, military technology and espionage. The American attempt was largely through diplomacy and extending its clout over the continent, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed which served with the declared intention of resisting soviet military overtures. Echoing the sentiment of the times, Winston Churchill declared that an ‘Iron Wall’ had descended across Eastern Europe – implying that the Soviet Union remained democratically and socially closed9. The United States of America used its influence over the United Nations to influence International Opinion and to get authorization for any military overtures if any; and thus the given document. The nature of its propaganda becomes in the very first paragraph in the use of the term “free world”. The implication is the US represents the democratic world as opposed to the Soviet Union which are ergo under systematic oppression. This is a statement that implies that the United Nations not only has the moral authority to take the steps that it has but also the obligation on behalf of the oppressed peoples of the east. Interestingly, this is a chant that the United States has continued to use even since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. “The probable fission bomb capability and possible thermonuclear bomb capability of the Soviet Union” is pointed out as the major cause of American concern and reason for the current steps. Note that America has no definite proof either the fact that the Soviet Union has any fission bombs or that they have the capability to do so. Combined with this capability, the Soviet Union further has “hostile intentions” and the American propaganda goes to denounce the “evil that is the soviet system”. Point 16 of the document states that “The risk of war with the USSR is sufficient to warrant, in common prudence, timely and adequate preparation by the United States” even though it’s sub point (a) states clearly that “Even though present estimates indicate that the Soviet leaders probably do not intend deliberate armed action involving the United States at this time”. A contradiction with a document that is so visible is the surest indication of propaganda – which is willful manipulation of data so as to modify public opinion. (a) To encourage and promote the gradual retraction of undue Russian power and influence from the present perimeter areas around traditional Russian boundaries and the emergence of the satellite countries as entities independent of the USSR. (b) To encourage the development among the Russian peoples of attitudes which may help to modify current Soviet behaviour and permit a revival of the national life of groups evidencing the ability and determination to achieve and maintain national independence. (c) To eradicate the myth by which people remote from Soviet military influence are held in a position of subservience to Moscow and to cause the world at to see and understand the true nature of the USSR and the Soviet-directed world communist party, and to adopt a logical and realistic attitude toward them. (d) To create situations which will compel the Soviet Government to recognize the practical undesirability of acting on the basis of its present concepts and the necessity of behaving in accordance with precepts of international conduct, as set forth in the purposes and principles of the UN Charter10 . It can be substantially argued that the Soviet Union itself worked on and was built on a large propaganda machine. However, this does not warrant American interference, as this by definition is undemocratic and hence contrary to the stated intention of that nation. Bibliography Bryce, V. (1915). The Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages . Knightley, P. (2003). The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth Maker. London. Lashmar, P., & Oliver, J. (1998). Britain’s Secret Propaganda War 1948-1997 . Marx, K. he Aims of the Negotiations--Polemic Against Prussia--A Snowball Riot. In K. Marx, & F. Engels, Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Volume 13 (p. 599). National Security Organization, U. (1954). National Security Council Memorandum 68. Ponsonby, A. (1928). Falsehood in War-Time. London. Russel, W. H. (1854 йил 14-November). Account of the Charge of the Light Brigade. The Times . University, G. M. (2005 йил 8-August ). The Historian who sold out. Retrieved 2011 йил December from The History News Network: http://www.history.com/shows/classroom Read More