hermod wrote:....
That's more a damage control strategy when denial is no longer possible if I'm asked. But as long as denial is still possible, most people nowadays just label their political/ideological enemies as liars and their political/ideological friends as truth-tellers. Both sides don't listen to each other but flee cognitive dissonance with the illusion that their worldviews are based on nothing but undeniable & established truths. In other words, I wouldn't say that most people believe there are good liars and bad liars. I'd rather say that most people now label all the people on the other side as [morally] bad and liars and all the people on their own side as [morally] good and not liars.
It's mostly done "defensively". If there is e.g. party X and party Y. The supporters of party X will say that the representatives of Party Y are liars. Naturally because they say stuff that contradicts statements of representatives Party X. (sure there is media, academics, pundits, etc. involved). Supporters of Party Y do the opposite then. And in debates it can get rather complex.... The whole arsenal of debate tactics gets pulled. One accusation will e.g. be quote mining, another one word mincing. The whole mumbo, jumbo will be used. There are of course unintentional errors being made by people that are less articulate.. But there is also strategic lying occurring and that's when a proponent is actually very keen of sounding as accurate as possible with all he says, just to let a falsehood slip through. Fallacious reasoning of people is that if someone was right on ten matters, he probably was right on matter eleven, too. And that weakness in thinking gets exploited.
There were surveys done on the Allied side on how believable their propaganda was (and I think that was actually on atrocity propaganda). There were those believing it, the undecided and those that simply didn't believe it or assumed it was just blown out of proportion. The later group was investigated further. And among those were such that just trust anything the government said, such that recalled previous lying by gov. those that found the assertions not believable and a group that didn't believe it, but thought it would be necessary for the war effort. Must see, if I can get articles on this again. Not Axis side ever assessed their own propaganda with such scrutiny. But as far as the Germans were concerned they were low on atrocity propaganda... It seems that the emphasis was on maintaining confidence in victory and not that much of demonizing the enemy. Although there were reports on bombing, international Jews instigating the war and some Polish and Bolshevik atrocities. But those were once offs. The perpetual accusations displayed especially with the later stage of the war was unknown from NS-propaganda outlets. I'm sure lots of folks in Allied countries were skeptical as well. Especially when they had some memories of previous propaganda campaigns. But those were mostly the upper echelons of society in terms of educations and possibly also with first hand knowledge on Germany or other Axis countries. Most people didn't have any of this. What they knew was from books, newspapers, perhaps some radio programs. So I guess they'd be prone to believe it...Especially if it came via seemingly independent channels. What may however have made some in the lower echelons suspicious, was the shear arrogance and pushiness of atrocity propaganda relating to concentration camps. Those had no sympathies for Germans, NS, Axis or whatever. They simply noticed that there is something fishy with this, due to the presentation. But they won't be able to put the finger on this, hence had no way of convincing others. At the dinner table conversation they'd mostly be silent, although they may come up that with "this sounds over the top". Typically they'd be older. My guess is that most of those between 18 and 25 did probably believe it, just because the news says so and all those authorities can't be wrong isn't it. With some people there is overwhelming trust in institutions and 'the reputable'.
So there is a tendency to excuse lies and mischief on ones own side, while immediately accusing the other side of it. In my opinion that was however less developed on the German side. They won't be as forgiving, if one of their representatives did lie or did engage in mischief. With Americans and British this seems to be different. I should add that my experience with English people is with RSA-residents and there are quite some that are still pro-British-Empire, with their kids more self-indulged and indifferent on the matter. But during the past twenty years "The Holocaust" was also made part of the curriculum here including frequent articles in the media. The "Deniers" here were mostly non-English, although I know quite some that don't believe it. I had one that noticed the similarity with anti-RSA propaganda during the 70s and 80s, but he was actually 'converted' again by a WW2 veteran that "saw it with his own eyes"... meaning he was channeled through one or more of the concentration camps 'after liberation'. That was of course a 'make belief' project, but I don't think most people realized it then. Meanwhile the psy-op character of this is more than clear from the documentary evidence available. The articles bear it. And there is no dispute that 'psychological warfare' experts arranged it for viewing and for publications. Once people have been conditioned to believe it, they don't want to accept that they are/were being lied to... Just like in a cult.
