Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans

[hannef]

Hitler's chapter 6 in Mein Kampf ("War Propaganda") is worth a read regarding the Allied WW1 propaganda and what he learned from its effectiveness.

[Hektor]

Hitler's chapter 6 in Mein Kampf ("War Propaganda") is worth a read regarding the Allied WW1 propaganda and what he learned from its effectiveness.

Feel free to post some quotation on the subject of atrocity Propaganda in "Mein Kampf". At that stage there was only experience with the more crude examples of atrocity propaganda during World War One of course. It precedes employing sociologists and a bureaucracy in this endeavor.

[hermod]

Hitler's chapter 6 in Mein Kampf ("War Propaganda") is worth a read regarding the Allied WW1 propaganda and what he learned from its effectiveness.

Feel free to post some quotation on the subject of atrocity Propaganda in "Mein Kampf". At that stage there was only experience with the more crude examples of atrocity propaganda during World War One of course. It precedes employing sociologists and a bureaucracy in this endeavor.

What makes you believe that atrocity propaganda was crude during WWI? All the atrocity stories now called "The Holocaust" were invented or reused during WWI. And making almost everybody fall for atrocity stories without using falsely captioned shocking pics of a big health disaster is far from crude. IMO, WWII atrocity propaganda was more crude than WWI atrocity propaganda. I'd say that WWI atrocity propaganda was like an erotic novel and WWII atrocity propaganda was like a pornographic movie. WWII atrocity propaganda was more efficient but more crude if I'm asked. Anybody, even the less talented propagandist in the world, could easily "prove" a fictitious mass murder policy with Belsen porn pics and Soviet show trials "confessions." Wellington House had the finest British storytellers and opinion-makers of that era in its team during WWI.

When the corpse-factory hoax was finally admitted by the British government, a furious editorialist wrote that the propaganda of the next war would have to be more subtle and more clever than the best propaganda produced during WWI. I disagree with him on that and I'd rather that the propaganda of WWII needed to be less subtle and clever than the propaganda of WWI because subtlety tends to decrease the efficiency of propaganda. The crude, the better, as vastly demonstrated by Holohoax porn propaganda.

https://postimg.cc/3dqKfxzM

https://postimg.cc/9wF3CRkr

https://postimg.cc/xNHQM0tB

https://postimg.cc/ZBwQD2dZ

https://postimg.cc/0K2p41KH

https://postimg.cc/w345hkLr

[hannef]

Hitler's chapter 6 in Mein Kampf ("War Propaganda") is worth a read regarding the Allied WW1 propaganda and what he learned from its effectiveness.

Feel free to post some quotation on the subject of atrocity Propaganda in "Mein Kampf". At that stage there was only experience with the more crude examples of atrocity propaganda during World War One of course. It precedes employing sociologists and a bureaucracy in this endeavor.

Here https://der-fuehrer.org/meinkampf/engli ... ranslation).pdf

Hitler remarks on the failed German propaganda efforts many times in chapters 6 and 7 while showing how the organised and directed British propaganda was so effective even the German troops started to believe it

For instance, it was a fundamental error to make the enemy look ridiculous as was done in Austrian and German comic book propaganda. It was a fundamental error because when soldiers came face to face with the enemy, he saw something different. The result was terrible because now under the direct pressure of his enemy’s resistance, the German soldier felt like he had been deceived by the ones who were supposed to have enlightened him.

Instead of his war spirit or his commitment being strengthened, the opposite happened. The soldier lost his will to fight.

The war propaganda of the British and Americans, on the other hand, was psychologically on target. By portraying the Germans to their people as brutal and destructive barbarians, they prepared the individual soldier for the horrors of war and helped protect him from illusions. Even the most terrible weapons used against him only confirmed what he had already learned. This strengthened his belief in the truthfulness of his own government and stirred up his anger and hatred against the evil enemy. The effect of the enemy weapons, which he now discovered through first-hand experience, gradually proved the barbaric and already familiar brutality of the “Huns” was real. He was never led to believe that his own weapons might be more dreaded.

Consequently, the English soldier never felt he was being lied to at home.

This was not the case with the German soldier. Eventually, German soldiers refused any information from home because they saw it as deceitful and a fraud. This happened because officials thought they could assign any convenient jackass to propaganda duty. They failed to understand that propaganda demands the most skilled minds that can be found. German war propaganda was a unique research project whose desired effects were reversed because of a complete lack of any understanding of psychology.

The enemy, however, had a tremendous lesson to teach anyone who was willing to open their eyes and learn. There was plenty of opportunity when we sat through a four-and-a-half year tidal wave of enemy propaganda.

What the people never understood was the first requirement for any propaganda activity: an intentionally biased and one-sided attitude toward every question discussed. The failure in this area, from the very beginning of the war, and from the top down, was so bad that it made me question whether this much failure could all be credited to pure stupidity. For instance, what would people say about a poster which advertised a new brand of soap, but which at length described the good qualities of other soap brands? The viewer would simply shake their heads in disbelief.

[Hektor]

Well, while the propaganda may have had some effect. I think Germans were more loosing trust on news after the war, because the Kaiser's government had collapsed and there was lots of quarrelling in the aftermath. Also, large numbers of people were impoverished, which is an atmosphere where they get angry at 'the world'. That's then easily directed at government, church, established media, authorities, etc.
After all, didn't people believe to trust them was your guide to 'happiness'?

There was def. a credibility crisis and hence drifting culture in the Weimar period. Governmental and commercial practices changed and indeed people were not too happy there. 'Changing commercial practices' is actually a nice way to talk about fraud. And fraud it was, but it was often borderline fraud, more of an abuse of trust and also economic power somebody may have over others.

[hermod]

Here https://der-fuehrer.org/meinkampf/engli ... ranslation).pdf

Hitler remarks on the failed German propaganda efforts many times in chapters 6 and 7 while showing how the organised and directed British propaganda was so effective even the German troops started to believe it

For instance, it was a fundamental error to make the enemy look ridiculous as was done in Austrian and German comic book propaganda. It was a fundamental error because when soldiers came face to face with the enemy, he saw something different. The result was terrible because now under the direct pressure of his enemy’s resistance, the German soldier felt like he had been deceived by the ones who were supposed to have enlightened him.

Instead of his war spirit or his commitment being strengthened, the opposite happened. The soldier lost his will to fight.

The war propaganda of the British and Americans, on the other hand, was psychologically on target. By portraying the Germans to their people as brutal and destructive barbarians, they prepared the individual soldier for the horrors of war and helped protect him from illusions. Even the most terrible weapons used against him only confirmed what he had already learned. This strengthened his belief in the truthfulness of his own government and stirred up his anger and hatred against the evil enemy. The effect of the enemy weapons, which he now discovered through first-hand experience, gradually proved the barbaric and already familiar brutality of the “Huns” was real. He was never led to believe that his own weapons might be more dreaded.

Consequently, the English soldier never felt he was being lied to at home.

This was not the case with the German soldier. Eventually, German soldiers refused any information from home because they saw it as deceitful and a fraud. This happened because officials thought they could assign any convenient jackass to propaganda duty. They failed to understand that propaganda demands the most skilled minds that can be found. German war propaganda was a unique research project whose desired effects were reversed because of a complete lack of any understanding of psychology.

The enemy, however, had a tremendous lesson to teach anyone who was willing to open their eyes and learn. There was plenty of opportunity when we sat through a four-and-a-half year tidal wave of enemy propaganda.

What the people never understood was the first requirement for any propaganda activity: an intentionally biased and one-sided attitude toward every question discussed. The failure in this area, from the very beginning of the war, and from the top down, was so bad that it made me question whether this much failure could all be credited to pure stupidity. For instance, what would people say about a poster which advertised a new brand of soap, but which at length described the good qualities of other soap brands? The viewer would simply shake their heads in disbelief.

Hitler was right. During WWI, German propagandists had treated the German public as a rational adult and Allied propagandists had treated the Anglo-American public as a petulant child, but the respective efficiencies of both ways finally proved that the Allied view was the correct one. Crowds are not reasonable entities. They are excitable beasts. During WWI, German propagandists lost the battle for public mind as soon as they portrayed WWI as a terrible disaster of which each partaker was guilty to some extent, and Allied propagandists won the battle for public mind as soon as they portrayed WWI as a forced holy crusade against ultra-evil bloodthirsty monsters who had plotted and started a large-scale military assault to enslave the world and torture the weak. The peoples at war (and also at peace to a smaller extent) need a comic book with superheroes, supervillains & supermartyrs, not a 1000-page academic book on geopolitics and philosophy. When propaganda is too intellectual and balanced, it's inefficient and even counterproductive (because confusing for simple minds).

[Hektor]

Now I don't consider comic versions of enemies adult level of communication.

But the German side mostly refrained from atrocity propaganda. Instead they tried to give hope to the soldiers and civilians as well as trying to create a positive attitude among Germans towards their army.

It appears as if WWI was mainly a war against (traditional) Monarchies. The German Monarchy was destroyed, so was the Austrian one. And well, so was Czarist Russia. What followed were merely progressive regimes in Russia of course (the most progressive) in Germany, in the Austro-Hungarian left-overs as well as in the Ottoman empire, which resulted in Turkey (progressive Nationalist) and a myriad of 'mandated territories. Lots of it turned out to be rather instable in the aftermath.

The atrocity propaganda played a role in WW1, but it wasn't too decisive. It offended Germans, but didn't break them. It was widely disbelieved after WW1 also in Allied countries. It was all too obvious that it was smear tactics and false, then. The Allies improved on this during WW2. In fact there was a smear campaign preceding World War Two. And to get their version established, they had the IMT in Nuremberg, which in verdict affirmed the accusation. But when one reads the trial records and looks at what is presented as evidence one has to shake ones head about it. The charges were trumped up and the vanquished got framed with rather hollow evidences. It was essentially the propaganda material around it that did the trick to make people believe in the 'victor's version' of events. The accused actually provide a better explanation on what went on. Despite of not having sufficient access to records and not having means to counter-investigate the allegations. The 'investigative teams' of the Allies obviously had some dogs in the fight, but the legal teams seem rather mixed on this. The fact that some of the prosecutors may have thought they are 'serving justice' does give the affair the appearance of legitimacy and that is what was probably intended by including them.

It is always easy to spread rumors and make assertions about other people. It is far more difficult to cut to the (small t) truth of a matter. Because it requires finding evidence, evaluating evidence and use reason to come to a plausible portrayal of something.

[hermod]

Now I don't consider comic versions of enemies adult level of communication.

So you're probably a terrible communicator (no offense intended).

But the German side mostly refrained from atrocity propaganda. Instead they tried to give hope to the soldiers and civilians as well as trying to create a positive attitude among Germans towards their army.

And they ended surrendering without a single bullet shot on German soil. Their war propaganda sucked. Peoples just need to be fooled and treated like children.

It appears as if WWI was mainly a war against (traditional) Monarchies. The German Monarchy was destroyed, so was the Austrian one. And well, so was Czarist Russia. What followed were merely progressive regimes in Russia of course (the most progressive) in Germany, in the Austro-Hungarian left-overs as well as in the Ottoman empire, which resulted in Turkey (progressive Nationalist) and a myriad of 'mandated territories. Lots of it turned out to be rather instable in the aftermath.

I'd rather say that WWI was mainly a war against the Ottoman Empire (solution of the Eastern question) and its anti-Zionist firm stand. WWI was followed by the establishment of Mandatory Palestine for the Jewish colonization of Palestine and the establishment of the League of Nations (proto one-world government), 2 main goals of the Globalist scheme. The destruction of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires was mostly a sideshow if I'm asked.

The atrocity propaganda played a role in WW1, but it wasn't too decisive. It offended Germans, but didn't break them. It was widely disbelieved after WW1 also in Allied countries. It was all too obvious that it was smear tactics and false, then. The Allies improved on this during WW2. In fact there was a smear campaign preceding World War Two. And to get their version established, they had the IMT in Nuremberg, which in verdict affirmed the accusation. But when one reads the trial records and looks at what is presented as evidence one has to shake ones head about it. The charges were trumped up and the vanquished got framed with rather hollow evidences. It was essentially the propaganda material around it that did the trick to make people believe in the 'victor's version' of events. The accused actually provide a better explanation on what went on. Despite of not having sufficient access to records and not having means to counter-investigate the allegations. The 'investigative teams' of the Allies obviously had some dogs in the fight, but the legal teams seem rather mixed on this. The fact that some of the prosecutors may have thought they are 'serving justice' does give the affair the appearance of legitimacy and that is what was probably intended by including them.

It is always easy to spread rumors and make assertions about other people. It is far more difficult to cut to the (small t) truth of a matter. Because it requires finding evidence, evaluating evidence and use reason to come to a plausible portrayal of something.

The WWI campaign of atrocity propaganda was decisive, but it didn't break the Germans (what it never aimed to achieve because it aimed above all to drag the isolationist United States in the war on the Entente side) and was widely disbelieved after the war because the propaganda effort was dropped after the end of the war, not because it was too obvious and less sophisticated than the WWII campaign of atrocity propaganda. The victors of WWII had learned from the postwar mistakes made by their predecessors and they intensified their campaign of atrocity propaganda after their military victory and didn't reveal their wartime lies after the war.

https://postimg.cc/H83YC1SW

https://postimg.cc/GBK7nwHd

https://postimg.cc/jWVwPSB9

https://postimg.cc/62Jmkng0