Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:I applaud everyone posting on this thread in trying to understand WW1 propaganda as related to WWII and the holocaust (myth) but I did a keyword search for Bryce, and don't think anyone has mentioned him. James Bryce, who he was, his star fading but with credibility, then selected to be the stooge, is probably the first thing that should be brought up on this subject. Resurrecting a 77 year old man for a publicity purpose.
Articles in various midsize papers are important, but I've seen it on microfilm: Bryce Report. Front page of New York Times, and inside section A, 2 or 3 full pages.
The Bryce 'report' can be found here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brycere.aspThe Bryce 'report' was produced because Britain needed to credit her fallacious excuse for taking part in WW1. The real motive for British involvement in WW1 was the lasting obliteration of her growing German rival, not the defense of "Brave Little Belgium" as alleged. The neutrality of Belgium had not been violated by Germany as British propagandists claimed. The Belgian Neutrality Pact stated that the occupation of Belgium "
by a large power other than France" was allowed. The famous Belgian jurist Ernest Nys, a member of the International Court of Arbitration in the Hague, debunked the future British excuse for war on Germany in 1912 in his monumental work "Le droit international, les principes, les théories, les faits". He wrote: "
In reality Belgium obtained the guarantees of neutrality, but the Five Powers didn't give her a guarantee of the integrity and inviolability of her territory... This is a situation quite different of that of Switzerland." When you spill your citizens' blood with such shameless lies, you need to make them believe they are fighting the devil himself, so you also need appalling atrocity propaganda. That's what the Bryce 'report' provided. And nothing compelled that time's Belgian leaders to spill their citizens' blood for British and French interests. They could have opted for a really neutral position and just let the German troops cross Belgium's territory without a single gunshot. The Belgian non-neutral position was so unnatural that the Belgian city of Liège was immediately awarded the "Légion d'Honneur" by the French Republic for having slowed the advance of the German army with Belgian blood, tears and sweat.
The Bryce 'report' is an illustrative example of typical British propaganda. Every time Britain wants to demonize a foreign regime, British propagandists produce an atrocity propaganda 'report' which is always a mere compilation of "witness testimonies" without any probative value. When Britain wanted to seize the rich Congolese area of Katanga, British propagandists produced the Casement 'report' (1904) in order to 'prove' that King Leopold II of Belgium was a brute unable to administer colonies in a proper and "humane" way. 14 years later, during WW1, when Britain wanted to prevent the return of Germany’s African and Pacific colonies at the conclusion of WW1, British propagandists produced the "Blue Book" or "Report on the Natives of South West Africa and Their Treatment by Germany" (1918) supposed to prove that the Germans were brutal colonizers unable to administer negro people in a proper and "humane" way, what is today known as the alleged "Herero genocide"
(more about the Herero Holohoax here: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t963256/). The "Blue Book" was so mendacious that the British Foreign Office responded that "
the report should not be used for publicity purposes" because "
it was composed in the heat of the last war,[...]
and it is historically somewhat suspect"
(Request for copy of “Report on the Natives of South West Africa and their treatment by Germany” - National Archives, Kew. FO371/26574 ) when the British Minstry of Information requested the revival of that 'report' for anti-German propaganda purposes during WW2.
During WW2, Goebbels referred to "
Churchill's [so British]
Lie Factory" (
Churchills Lügenfabrik), accurately noting "
The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it [...]
even at the risk of looking ridiculous", but he underestimated it and naively believed that the Zionist Soviet-Allied Holohoax lies would be exposed after the end of WW2 the same way the most outrageous lies of British atrocity propaganda had been after WW1. Big mistake as we all know...
