The Battle of Words: Propaganda in World War I

What is Propaganda? Propaganda is any statement, whether true or false, used to promulgate one’s ideas or beliefs with the intent of denigrating the ideas or beliefs of another. World War I propaganda contained a kernel of truth mixed in with half-truths, exaggerations, distortions, and/or outright lies and misinformation. Both sides used propaganda as a “psychological warfare” weapon.[i] World War I was a pivot in the history of propaganda as production transitioned from civilian to government. This transition was a result of the German and British governments' recognition of the power of propaganda to defame their enemies and that the public relations war was just as critical of a conflict as the Western Front.

While propaganda has always existed, it gained its modern usage and connotation during World War I. The term “propaganda” was coined by the Catholic Church in 1572, when Pope Gregory XIII convened the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith) to combat the Reformation. From the beginning, “propaganda” referred to imposing one’s beliefs and agenda upon another.[ii] Prior to World War I, propaganda was the domain of publishers, civilian societies (the turn-of-the-century equivalent of Non-Governmental Organizations [NGOs]), churches, and civic organizations (e.g. the Lion’s Club or Rotary Club), businesses, and political parties. Governments shied away from directly influencing the beliefs and behavior of the people.[iii] That all changed after the onset of world war.

Each of the Entente and Central Powers produced propaganda. Governments quickly seized upon the opportunity to harness the power of mass communications. In Britain, the government enlisted the publishers to produce books, pamphlets, and newspaper articles. In Germany, the military had seized control of the press and controlled the messages the people read. [iv] Both the British and the Germans produced propaganda meant to sway their own people, the enemy, and the neutrals --  particularly the United States.[v]

Propaganda was not limited to the printed word, although print materials composed the majority of the propaganda produced. There were two main categories of propaganda: direct and indirect. Direct propaganda consisted of printed materials (posters, pamphlets, articles, books, cartoons, drawings, poems, and songs), but also speeches and films (more so in the United States, as the European film industry was inactive due to the war).[vi] At this time radio was in its infancy and not yet available to consumers, and therefore did not have the impact that it would twenty years later.[vii] Additionally, songs and poems were performed live as well as available in printed form. Indirect propaganda was much more subtle and included censorship, news management, and social engineering.[viii]

Marquis (1978) identifies eight types of propaganda that were used by the in World War I:

(1) stereotypes (bull-necked Prussian officers), (2) pejorative names (Huns, Boches), (3) selection and omission of facts (evacuations called 'rectifications of the line' and retreats unmentioned), (4) atrocity stories (Belgian nuns raped, hands of babies severed), (5) slogans ('war to end wars'), (6) one-sided assertions (small victories inflated, large defeats censored), (7) pinpointing the enemy ('German militarists'), and (8) the 'bandwagon effect' ('all patriotic people join the Army')[ix]

Both sides omitted defeats from war reporting.[x] Ponsonby also details the circumstances surrounding the infamous German “atrocity” story of babies mutilated.[xi] While some may argue that the term “militaristic” had negative connotations, it was an apt description of Prussian society.[xii] The fallacy may lie in describing all of German society with the same terms as Prussia.

          World War I was a war between Kultur versus Zivilisation (Culture vs. Civilization).[xiii] Both sides felt that their own culture was superior to the culture of the enemy. They were willing to kill one another and die themselves for this “cause.” This is how the war of words transformed into war on the battlefield.

           German culture was mocked and considered inferior to British culture. As previously mentioned, the British had many stereotypes for the Germans. They depicted Germans as barbaric Huns. Prussian officers were often depicted as lazy and overweight.[xiv] In the Civilization vs. Culture model, the British considered Civilization paramount to Culture.[xv] Civilization meant transitioning from brute savage to refined human. To support their idea that the Germans were fearsome barbarians, the British described German war tactics as underhanded (submarines) or “uncivilized” (gas warfare), even if  Britain or her Allies employed the same tactics (gas warfare). Any death at the hands of a German was an “atrocity.”[xvi]

          Conversely, the Germans viewed themselves as superior to the British, especially after their initial victories.[xvii] They viewed England as “old and sick”[xviii] and Western democracy as calumnious and decadent.[xix] In the Culture vs. Civilization paradigm, the Germans viewed culture as superior. Civilization is sterile and mechanical progress, while Culture is aesthetic progress (it is useful and it is beautiful).[xx] German Propaganda was defensive as well as offensive in nature. To counter the West’s depiction of Germans as barbarians, the Germans depicted their soldiers as humanitarians.[xxi] They also wrote the so-called “White Book” to answer the charges made by the Bryce Report.[xxii]

          Propaganda was used during World War I for many reasons, but the main reason was to influence actions. Persuasion was secondary to action.[xxiii] Both Britain and Germany produced propaganda to boost their own morale and to break the morale of the enemy. They also launched extensive propaganda campaigns to convince potential Allies, especially the United States, to join their particular side. Germany employed intense social engineering and news management to keep the public “in line” and to control the message.[xxiv] After the release of the Bryce report, Germany released her own “White Book” to refute Bryce’s claims. This practice of counter-propaganda continued throughout the war.[xxv]

          Attempting to prove the effect of all of this propaganda is difficult to do.[xxvi] Propaganda's effects can be difficult to ascertain because exposure to it is a subjective experience; the effects are both conscious and unconscious. The person exposed to propaganda may not be aware that what they are reading, viewing, or listening to is propaganda. Likewise, in Britain, most of their propaganda was created by reputable sources specifically to give it credibility.[xxvii] This color of authority is what made the Bryce Report so influential. As mentioned previously, atrocity stories from all sources reinforced the perception of the Germans as barbarians.

          World War I represented a transition from civilian to government production of propaganda. Looking at the propaganda of both the British and Germans gives insight into how each side viewed the other. Instead of focusing on proving the effects of propaganda, a better question to ask is was all of this propaganda necessary?

Bibliography

American Historical Association. "What is Propaganda?" Constructing A Post-War World: The GI Roundtable Series in Context. July 4, 1944. http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda.pdf (accessed March 15, 2012).

Auswärtiges Amt. The German Army in Belgium. Online. Translated by Ernest Nathaniel Bennett. London: Swarthmore Press, 1921.

Bairnsfather, Bruce. The Bystander's Fragments from France. London: The Bystander, Tallis House, 1916.

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#Offences Against Combatants (accessed July 1, 2013).

Cook, David A., and Robert Sklar. "History of the Motion Picture." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion-picture. (accessed August 1, 2013).

Demm, Eberhard. "Propaganda and Caricature in the First World War." Journal of Contemporary History 28, no. 1 (January 1993): 163-192.

Howard, Michael. The First World War: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). "Radio." IEEE Global History Network. 2012. http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Radio (accessed August 1, 2013).

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.

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.

Ponsonby, Arthur Augustus William Harry. Falsehood in War-Time: Propaganda Lies of the First World War. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1928.

Trumpener, Ulrich. "The road to Ypres: The beginnings of gas warfare in World War I." The Journal of Modern History 47, no. 3 (1975): 460-480.

Walton, Douglas. "What is Propaganda, and What Exactly is Wrong with it?" Public Affairs Quarterly 11 (1997): 383-413.

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

---

---

[i] American Historical Association. "What is Propaganda?" Constructing A Post-War World: The GI Roundtable Series in Context. July 4, 1944. <http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda.pdf> (accessed March 15, 2012). 1.

[ii] Walton, Douglas. "What is Propaganda, and What Exactly is Wrong with it?" Public Affairs Quarterly 11 (1997): 383

[iii] 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) Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 8, 2013).

[iv] Demm, Eberhard. "Propaganda and Caricature in the First World War." Journal of Contemporary History 28, no. 1 (January 1993): 163-4.

[v] Messinger’s entire article “An Inheritance Worth Remembering: The British Approach to Official Propaganda During the First World War” discusses how British and German propaganda was designed to persuade the United States to enter the war on their particular side. Each side capitalized on its cultural heritage in America.

[vi] Cook, David A., and Robert Sklar. "History of the Motion Picture." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion-picture>. (accessed August 1, 2013).

[vii] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). "Radio." IEEE Global History Network. 2012. <http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Radio> (accessed August 1, 2013).

[viii] Demm, “Propaganda,” 165. 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): 486.

[ix] Ibid., 486.

[x] Ponsonby, Arthur Augustus William Harry. Falsehood in War-Time: Propaganda Lies of the First World War. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1928. Ponsonby mentions lies and omissions throughout Falsehood. Marquis, “Words as Weapons,” 486, 492. Demm, 163. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins, 2009: 461-2.

[xi] Ponsonby, Falsehood, Chapter VIII.

[xii] Demm, Eberhard. "Propaganda and Caricature in the First World War." Journal of Contemporary History 28, no. 1 (January 1993): 164.

[xiii] Demm, “Propaganda,” 176. Howard, Michael. The First World War: A Very Short Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 1.

[xiv] Howard, First World War, 31, 39, 52, 81. Bairnsfather, Bruce. The Bystander's Fragments from France. (London: The Bystander, Tallis House, 1916). 8, 13, 34.

[xv] Demm, 176.

[xvi] Trumpener, Ulrich. "The Road to Ypres: The Beginnings of Gas Warfare in World War I." The Journal of Modern History 47, no. 3 (1975): 461-3. 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#Offences AgainstCombatants> (accessed July 1, 2013). Despite being a British propaganda piece written under the guise of authority, the Bryce Report shows the British attitude toward Germany. Ponsonby, Falsehood. The entire work discusses how atrocity stories were either exaggerated or completely fabricated.

[xvii] Demm, 175. Howard, 9.

[xviii] Demm, 176.

[xix] Demm, 175. Howard, 9.

[xx] Demm, 170.

[xxi] Ibid., 176.

[xxii] Auswärtiges Amt. The German Army in Belgium. Online. Translated by Ernest Nathaniel Bennett. (London: Swarthmore Press, 1921). According to Marquis (1978, p. 489), this action violated the number one rule of propaganda: Never directly answer the attacks of the enemy.

[xxiii] Walton, “What is Propaganda?” 394.

[xxiv] Marquis, “Words as Weapons,” 476.

[xxv] Ibid., 489.

[xxvi] Demm, 166.

[xxvii] Messinger, “Propaganda.”