Annotated Bibliography
Auswärtiges
Amt. The German Army in Belgium.
Online. Translated by Ernest Nathaniel Bennett. London: Swarthmore Press, 1921.
This book was originally penned and released by the Foreign Office of the German government in 1915 and then translated and analyzed by Bennett in 1921. The Foreign Office is qualified to make its claims and defend claims made against Germany by others. The White Book asserts that Germany has a right to violate the rules of warfare because the Belgians did it first. Germany's tactics are no worse than those of the enemy. If a tactic is acceptable enough for the enemy, then it is acceptable enough for Germany. There are no double standards. This piece is a significant example of German propaganda. While Germany had a right to defend herself both on the battlefield and in the arena of public opinion, it is important to understand that her claims are just as biased as those made against her. The intended audience of this work was originally the German people. It was not translated into English until 1921. Due to the age of the text and the formality of the language used, this book may be difficult for some readers. This book demonstrates that the Germans were aware of their reputation as "barbarians" and it shows that they were willing to defend their actions. However, it is propaganda because it is one-sided.
Bryce,
James, et al. "Primary Documents: Bryce Report into German Atrocities in
Belgium, 12 May 1915." FirstWorldWar.com.
May 12, 1915. http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/brycereport.htm#OffencesAgainst Combatants (accessed July 1, 2013).
James Bryce was educated at Glasgow University and Oxford, where he once taught as a law professor. He was also a noted historian. Bryce was the British Ambassador to the United States before Prime Minister Asquith appointed him to head the commission that would bear his name. He is qualified to make the claims he does. Germany's conduct of the war was barbaric. Germany committed atrocities in Belgium against both soldiers and civilians. German war tactics violated established rules of warfare; and the German Army sanctioned all of it. Like the German White Book, it is important to realize that the Bryce Report is propaganda. The Bryce Report demonizes the Germans and criticizes their conduct of the war in Belgium. It paints the Germans in the worst possible light and paints the Allies and civilians in the best possible light, while ignoring reality. The intended audience of the Bryce Report is the British and American governments and the public. Its inflammatory language would appeal to both government officials and the public. Due to the age of the text and the formality of the language used, this source may be difficult for some readers. The Bryce report is an excellent example of propaganda written with the color of authority. It was considered a trustworthy source of information in its time because it was sponsored and published by the government.
Howard,
Michael. The First World War: A Very
Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Sir Michael Howard is Professor Emeritus of Modern History at both Oxford and Yale Universities. He has written numerous books on war and European history. He is qualified to make the claims that he does. Howard’s book is an overview of World War I, its causes, and its events. It describes how the combination of technology and culture made World War I so appalling and tragic. Most sources focus on the Western Front, while Howard devotes significant attention to the Eastern Front as well. Howard uses loaded language and pro-British bias, especially when discussing other countries – whether friend or foe. The intended audience of this book is students and others who may have limited background knowledge of World War I. The prose is uncomplicated and reads like a story. Howard’s book serves as a good starting point for those who need background information on World War I.
Marquis, Alice Goldfarb. "Words as
Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War." Journal
of Contemporary History 13, no. 3 (July 1978): 467-498.
Alice Goldfarb Marquis received her Ph. D. from University of California at San Diego in 1978. Her focus is studying the twentieth century. She is qualified to make the claims that she does. The nature of mass communications changed during World War I. The text documents the role of the press in shaping public opinion during World War I. Dr. Marquis tends to use the very same loaded vocabulary that she attributes to propaganda writers and “yellow” journalists. The intended audience of this essay is scholars and historians. The language is loaded but easily understood. Despite the emotionally charged vocabulary, this article does have information in it that makes it a viable source for research.
Messinger, Gary S. "An Inheritance
Worth Remembering: The British Approach to Official Propaganda During the First
World War." Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television 13,
no. 2 (June 1993): 117-128.
Dr. Gary Messinger is Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations at Boston College and earned his Doctorate in History from Harvard University. He has written two books on British history, one of which was about British propaganda. Dr. Messinger is qualified to raise his points. Before 1914, most propaganda was produced by organizations outside of governments. While the British developed an effective Propaganda apparatus, they did not fully exploit its potential both during and after the war. This source is not overtly biased. The author does not over emphasize the contributions and success of the British propaganda campaign during World War I. The intended audience of this essay is scholars and historians. The language is straightforward and easily understood by most readers. This article provides a detailed overview of who was involved in the evolution of British propaganda during World War I.
Walton, Douglas. "What is Propaganda,
and What Exactly is Wrong with it?" Public Affairs Quarterly 11
(1997): 383-413.
Dr. Douglas Walton has written many books and articles on argumentation, logical fallacies, and informal logic. According to the biography on his website (http://www.dougwalton.ca), he is currently the Assumption Chair in Argumentation Studies and is Distinguished Research Fellow of the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric at the University of Windsor, Canada. Dr. Walton’s expertise qualifies him to make his claims. While this article is not focused solely on World War I, it provides relevant information on the history of propaganda and the elements of propaganda. There is no discernable bias in the article itself, however the article does discuss bias and its use in propaganda. The language is straightforward and easily understood by most readers. The points made in this article would make a good checklist to use when discerning whether or not a source is propaganda.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Augustus William Harry. Falsehood in War-Time: Propaganda Lies of the First
World War. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1928.
Baron Arthur Augustus William Henry Ponsonby was a British politician, writer, and social activist who was a Minister of Parliament (MP) during the Great War. During the war, he formed the Union of Democratic Control with other anti-war MPs. This book was written about a decade after the war and it details the use of propaganda and falsehood during World War I. It helps dispel some common myths and misconceptions about the causes and events of the war. After the war there were many books written by those who experienced it. Most of these books were colored by the propaganda of the war. Ponsonby’s book tries to set the record straight. Ponsonby’s attempt at revealing the lies of the First World War Is sometimes written using the very same language that he rails against. His language suffers from the same weaknesses as Marquis’s "Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War." This book was written for scholars, historians, and laypeople. The language is loaded but easily understood. However, like most British authors, Ponsonby refers to most people by their last names and assumes that the reader knows to whom he is referring. While Ponsonby does an admirable job of staying neutral and exposing lies, his language is a reminder that the perceptions of those who experienced the war first hand were colored by the tremendous amounts propaganda produced, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Demm, Eberhard. "Propaganda and
Caricature in the First World War." Journal of Contemporary History
28, no. 1 (January 1993): 163-192.
Dr. Eberhard Demm is a Professor at the University of Lyon, France. He has written books about political cartoons and World War I. This article gives a detailed analysis of both Allied and German propaganda, but focuses mainly on German and British propaganda. Most of the articles out there focus on British and American propaganda, but either ignore or only casually mention German propaganda. Dr. Demm is German, but he is unbiased in his assessments of both Allied and German propaganda. The language is straightforward and easily understood by most readers; however some German phrases that Demm uses are not translated for the reader. This is a wealth of information about how German propaganda depicted the Allies, especially the British.
