Hello, I am looking for infographics relating to the Holocaust. While I am looking for infographics generally, I am particularly interested in two topics:
1. Infographics which compare the atrocity propaganda used against Germany during World War One and similar atrocity propaganda used in relation to the Holocaust. What I am talking about is the "6 million" Jews of WWI, soap from bodies, grotesquely killing infants, etc.
2. Infographics which cover the large number of Germans killed after the World War Two.
While I would prefer higher quality images, I am fine with lower quality images relating to these topics (even just pictures of article headlines or links to such).
Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Welcome to this forum, Ross.
About topic #1:
Corpse-factory story
Gas chambers
Both world wars' atrocity propaganda
Six million Jews
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Just to be clear there. The WW1 gassing accusation wasn't hurled against the Kaiserreich, but against the Austro-Hungarians and I think the Bulgarians as well.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... 0holocaust
The babykiller allegation was however against the Kaiserreich. Although that 'bayonetting' was also charged against the Austro-Hungarians.
After WW1 there were apparently retractions from the British about the atrocity propaganda. But I'd have to find the sources for this again.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... 0holocaust
The babykiller allegation was however against the Kaiserreich. Although that 'bayonetting' was also charged against the Austro-Hungarians.
After WW1 there were apparently retractions from the British about the atrocity propaganda. But I'd have to find the sources for this again.
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Hektor wrote:Just to be clear there. The WW1 gassing accusation wasn't hurled against the Kaiserreich, but against the Austro-Hungarians and I think the Bulgarians as well.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... 0holocaust
The babykiller allegation was however against the Kaiserreich. Although that 'bayonetting' was also charged against the Austro-Hungarians.
After WW1 there were apparently retractions from the British about the atrocity propaganda. But I'd have to find the sources for this again.
Thanks for the info.
hermod wrote:Welcome to this forum, Ross.
Thank you, and thank you for all the images.
One thing worth noting is that all the images are saved in JPG format. This uses a form of lossy compression, which results in degraded quality (especially if the image is altered and then saved again). PNG, another format, is lossless, meaning the quality is not degraded by its compression nor by alterations, however, the files are often larger (although there are ways to ensure a small filesize). I am a proponent of using PNG images where possible. 8 bit (i.e. 256 color) PNGs can be good for simpler images, and achieve far lower file sizes compared to 24 bit PNGs and even (relatively similar quality) JPGs.
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Hektor wrote:Just to be clear there. The WW1 gassing accusation wasn't hurled against the Kaiserreich, but against the Austro-Hungarians and I think the Bulgarians as well.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... 0holocaust
.
It was indeed claimed that that policy was being implemented by Austrian and Bulgarian troops in Serbia. But it was also claimed that some Germans and Austrians had been seen (Testimonial BS, as always
) instructing the Bulgarians how to use "these instruments to exterminate the Serbian population." That was clearly an atrocity story fabricated to demonize the Central Powers in general."[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Of course. And targeted at citizens of Western powers. If they'd have claimed that for France and accused the Germans directly, it was probably dismissed easily by the Germans and given that there were other channels of information from Belgium/France people may have picked up on it. Serbia and the Balkans are more secluded... So its easier to make it sound believable.
Pointing this story to Holocaust Believers and the Undecided used to make many think a bit. In fact it may become a reason to make people investigate the matter a bit more. Nowadays I'm not sure about this. People are insane enough to 'conclude' that there must have been gas chambers during World War One as well. The problem is that most people lack intelligence and energy to investigate a matter like this deeper. The vast majority simply accepts what they've been presented on TV or at school and those mediocre intelligent will perhaps read a book that appeals to their confirmation bias. Those in the top 10% of intelligence sometimes even design whole lines of arguments why the Holocaust Narrative still is true and leave no folly unturned on this. That's what e.g. some of the "Holocaust Historians" try to do. The arguments are meager of course, but they try to make them. The morgues are then still homicidal gas chambers, even if the evidence isn't there and plenty of contrary evidence exists. No corpses? No problem, proves the Nazis managed to make them all vanish. And always the question begging :"Where did they go, if they weren't gassed". Simply assume that the gassing tale is true and that there are no other valid explanations for people not being able to provide you with a list of six million Jews and their post 1945 residential addresses.
To the laymen this all sounds 'logical' and 'clever' even convincing. And one has to admit. If I suspect someone being a thieve (because I'm perpetually told this) once my purse did vanish, the first thing coming to mind will be that it has been stolen by the suspect. That one may have lost it or forget that one put it elsewhere is only a thought one will have a while later.
Nevertheless, it's obviously odd that the same newspaper spreading unsubstantiated atrocity propaganda in 1916 did the same in 1942. It should make people more suspicious and raise alarms with people that are open minded and reflective. The thing is most people don't realize that there were several atrocity propaganda campaigns against Germany during WW1, but turning down afterwards, before and during WW2 and perpetuated ever after. I think it may have been lower during the 1950s though as people had other worries and aspirations during that era, but since the Eichmann trial it definitely go up again. The real kicker seems to have been the "Holocaust" soap opera, which also popularized the brand name. Not sure what it has been called in the 50s and 60s though. Or when it was first called "Holocaust" in FRG court. Me thinks the only trials that this was used in were the trials against 'Holocaust Deniers'. And that's a phenomenon of the 1980s.
Pointing this story to Holocaust Believers and the Undecided used to make many think a bit. In fact it may become a reason to make people investigate the matter a bit more. Nowadays I'm not sure about this. People are insane enough to 'conclude' that there must have been gas chambers during World War One as well. The problem is that most people lack intelligence and energy to investigate a matter like this deeper. The vast majority simply accepts what they've been presented on TV or at school and those mediocre intelligent will perhaps read a book that appeals to their confirmation bias. Those in the top 10% of intelligence sometimes even design whole lines of arguments why the Holocaust Narrative still is true and leave no folly unturned on this. That's what e.g. some of the "Holocaust Historians" try to do. The arguments are meager of course, but they try to make them. The morgues are then still homicidal gas chambers, even if the evidence isn't there and plenty of contrary evidence exists. No corpses? No problem, proves the Nazis managed to make them all vanish. And always the question begging :"Where did they go, if they weren't gassed". Simply assume that the gassing tale is true and that there are no other valid explanations for people not being able to provide you with a list of six million Jews and their post 1945 residential addresses.
To the laymen this all sounds 'logical' and 'clever' even convincing. And one has to admit. If I suspect someone being a thieve (because I'm perpetually told this) once my purse did vanish, the first thing coming to mind will be that it has been stolen by the suspect. That one may have lost it or forget that one put it elsewhere is only a thought one will have a while later.
Nevertheless, it's obviously odd that the same newspaper spreading unsubstantiated atrocity propaganda in 1916 did the same in 1942. It should make people more suspicious and raise alarms with people that are open minded and reflective. The thing is most people don't realize that there were several atrocity propaganda campaigns against Germany during WW1, but turning down afterwards, before and during WW2 and perpetuated ever after. I think it may have been lower during the 1950s though as people had other worries and aspirations during that era, but since the Eichmann trial it definitely go up again. The real kicker seems to have been the "Holocaust" soap opera, which also popularized the brand name. Not sure what it has been called in the 50s and 60s though. Or when it was first called "Holocaust" in FRG court. Me thinks the only trials that this was used in were the trials against 'Holocaust Deniers'. And that's a phenomenon of the 1980s.
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Hektor wrote:Of course. And targeted at citizens of Western powers. If they'd have claimed that for France and accused the Germans directly, it was probably dismissed easily by the Germans and given that there were other channels of information from Belgium/France people may have picked up on it. Serbia and the Balkans are more secluded... So its easier to make it sound believable.
Plausible but unlikely. The German corpse factories were allegedly located in Germany (the most famous near Gerolstein), France (notably in Evergnicourt, Aisne department) and Belgium (around 10 German Kadaververwertungsanstalten all over Belgian territory). But no German official denial could stop the defamation. German denials were derided or promptly dismissed and additional reports confirming the story came from Belgium, France, America (U.S. consuls who had left Germany), China (a German diplomat who had bragged about it to the Chinese Premier, it was claimed) and even the neutral Netherlands to strengthen the case.
You're right about the secluded thing. Atrocity stories are like conspiracy theories. They love secluded place. During WWI, Allied propagandists claimed that the Gerolstein corpse factory was located "in the lonely, little frequented Eifel district" and it was added that "the factory is invisible from the railway [and] placed deep in forest country, with a specially thick growth of trees about it." And the workers were said to be German soldiers "guarded as prisoners at their appalling work."
Hektor wrote:Pointing this story to Holocaust Believers and the Undecided used to make many think a bit. In fact it may become a reason to make people investigate the matter a bit more. Nowadays I'm not sure about this. People are insane enough to 'conclude' that there must have been gas chambers during World War One as well. The problem is that most people lack intelligence and energy to investigate a matter like this deeper. The vast majority simply accepts what they've been presented on TV or at school and those mediocre intelligent will perhaps read a book that appeals to their confirmation bias. Those in the top 10% of intelligence sometimes even design whole lines of arguments why the Holocaust Narrative still is true and leave no folly unturned on this. That's what e.g. some of the "Holocaust Historians" try to do. The arguments are meager of course, but they try to make them. The morgues are then still homicidal gas chambers, even if the evidence isn't there and plenty of contrary evidence exists. No corpses? No problem, proves the Nazis managed to make them all vanish. And always the question begging :"Where did they go, if they weren't gassed". Simply assume that the gassing tale is true and that there are no other valid explanations for people not being able to provide you with a list of six million Jews and their post 1945 residential addresses.
To the laymen this all sounds 'logical' and 'clever' even convincing. And one has to admit. If I suspect someone being a thieve (because I'm perpetually told this) once my purse did vanish, the first thing coming to mind will be that it has been stolen by the suspect. That one may have lost it or forget that one put it elsewhere is only a thought one will have a while later.
The same people can't provide you with the post-1945 residential addresses of the 12-15 million ethnic Germans displaced from Eastern Europe during WWII, but nevertheless they don't conclude that it proves most or many of those displaced Germans died during WWII. And they will even call you a hater or a Nazi if you say that six million (Adenauer's figure) or two million (West Germany's official figure) of them died in the process. Double evidentiary standards and double moral standards...
Hektor wrote:Nevertheless, it's obviously odd that the same newspaper spreading unsubstantiated atrocity propaganda in 1916 did the same in 1942. It should make people more suspicious and raise alarms with people that are open minded and reflective.
Yes, it should make people more suspicious because the orthodox narrative --- i.e. the theory that Hitler was a big fan of British newspapers from the First World War and picked up all his ideas of atrocities in those newspapers --- is undeniably more absurd and laughable than the revisionist narrative --- i.e. the theory that the victors of WWII needed to fuel their own war effort by demonizing their enemies just as much as their predecessors had during the previous world war. Occam's razor should help them choose the correct explanation.
A few years, The Telegraph boasted that it had revealed the existence of Nazi gas chambers 3 years before the Soviet capture of Auschwitz. But The Telegraph promptly removed that article from its website when its administrators realized Holocaust revisionists knew that The Telegraph had "revealed" the existence of Nazi gas chambers 29 years before Auschwitz was captured by the Red Army.
Hektor wrote:The thing is most people don't realize that there were several atrocity propaganda campaigns against Germany during WW1, but turning down afterwards, before and during WW2 and perpetuated ever after.
The victors of WWII had learned from the mistakes made by the victors of WWI. The latter didn't let any public refutation of their propaganda lies (and so of their manufactured moral high ground) take place after their military victory. The insiders of Allied black propaganda were instructed to shut up, revisionist historians ("apologists for defeated nations," as British prosecutor Shawcross put it in Nuremberg) were ridiculed, demonized and silenced from day one, and the victors' propaganda stories selected for posterity were turned into "proven facts" with postwar show trials.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
hermod wrote:....Hektor wrote:The thing is most people don't realize that there were several atrocity propaganda campaigns against Germany during WW1, but turning down afterwards, before and during WW2 and perpetuated ever after.
The victors of WWII had learned from the mistakes made by the victors of WWI. The latter didn't let any public refutation of their propaganda lies (and so of their manufactured moral high ground) take place after their military victory. The insiders of Allied black propaganda were instructed to shut up, revisionist historians ("apologists for defeated nations," as British prosecutor Shawcross put it in Nuremberg) were ridiculed, demonized and silenced from day one, and the victors' propaganda stories selected for posterity were turned into "proven facts" with postwar show trials.
"Not repeat the mistake after World War One."
This Shawcross is gold. Probably unintentionally, but still gold.
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS (Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, on an occasion to which reference has and will be made, Hitler, the leader of the Nazi conspirators who are now on trial before you, is reported as having said, in reference to their warlike plans:
"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be true or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory -the strongest has the right."
The British Empire with its Allies has twice, within the space of 25 years, been victorious in wars which have been forced upon it, but it is precisely because we realize that victory is not enough, that might is not necessarily right, that lasting peace and the rule of international law is not to be secured by the strong arm alone, that the British nation is taking part in this Trial. There are those who would perhaps say that these wretched men should have been dealt with summarily without trial by "executive action"; that their power for evil broken, they should have been swept aside into oblivion without this elaborate and careful investigation into the part which they played in bringing this war about: Vae Victis! Let them pay the penalty of defeat. But that was not the view of the British Government. Not so would the rule of law be raised and strengthened on the international as well as upon the municipal plane; not so would future generations realize that right is not always on the side of the big battalions; not so would the world be made aware that the waging of aggressive war is not only a dangerous venture but a criminal one.
Human memory is very short. Apologists for defeated nations are sometimes able to play upon the sympathy and magnanimity of their victors, so that the true facts, never authoritatively recorded, become obscured and forgotten. One has only to recall the circumstances following upon the last World War to see the dangers to which, in the absence of any authoritative judicial pronouncement, a tolerant or a credulous people is exposed. With the passage of time the former tend to discount, perhaps because of their very horror, the stories of aggression and atrocity that may be handed down; and the latter, the credulous, misled by perhaps fanatical and perhaps dishonest propagandists, come to believe that it was not they but their opponents who were guilty of that which they would themselves condemn. And so we believe that this Tribunal, acting, as we know it will act notwithstanding its appointment by the victorious powers, with complete and judicial objectivity, will provide a contemporary touchstone and an authoritative and impartial record to which future historians may turn for truth, and future politicians for warning. From this record shall future generations know not only what our generation suffered, but also that our suffering was the result of crimes, crimes against the laws of peoples which the peoples of the world upheld and will continue in the future to uphold-to uphold by international co-operation, not based merely on military alliances, but grounded, and firmly grounded, in the rule of law.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-04-45.asp
Hitler "s reported as having said"... In other words there is no actual proof for this, but some hearsay.
From the Allied perspective that quote would be "to good to be true" as well.
In fact the following sounds merely like projection:
"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be true or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory -the strongest has the right."
* They manufactured a propagandistic cause (getting Poland into conflict with Germany as to make war inevitable)
* They as 'victors' aren't asked whether they told the truth. As in their allegations made by their propaganda and via that trial.
They indeed must have remembered that propaganda can backfire, when it is false and up to scrutiny. Simply claim more and repeat your claims, so it will be believed. And make scrutiny unfeasible.
Britain got wars going that way. Their War against the Boer Republics being an example. They got the Boer Republics so far as to having them make the first move and then make this their "propagandist cause", claiming that the other side where the aggressors.
What Shawcross said can be listened to here.
What did they give as evidence for the Hitler quote.
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Hektor wrote:What did they give as evidence for the Hitler quote.
If memory serves me right, the "quote" is from the Hitler's Obersalzberg speech (the "quote" exists also with the words "whether it be plausible or not"). So their "evidence" was probably the forgery known as "Document L-3." But "Document L-3" was so patently fake it was not admitted as evidence at the Nuremberg show trial. Perhaps Shawcross didn't know that Document L-3 would be dismissed when said those words in his opening speech.
viewtopic.php?p=97156#p97156
The "quote" was nonsensical in a German perspective anyway. The word "propagandist" of course didn't mean "deceitful" in a country with a Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. The word "propaganda" had become synonymous with lies and deception only in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where the propaganda stories of WWI had been vastly exposed as big lies during the interwar era. Angus Fletcher, Director of the British Library of Information at New York, noted in 1928 that the word "propaganda" had become "a good word gone wrong - debauched by the late Lord Northcliffe" and he appealed for its complete removal from the British diplomatic vocabulary (especially in the United States, where the word "propaganda" was being regarded with much suspicion at that time). In the other countries, including Germany, the word "propaganda" still had its pre-WWI neutral meaning.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
hermod wrote:Hektor wrote:What did they give as evidence for the Hitler quote.
If memory serves me right, the "quote" is from the Hitler's Obersalzberg speech (the "quote" exists also with the words "whether it be plausible or not"). So their "evidence" was probably the forgery known as "Document L-3." But "Document L-3" was so patently fake it was not admitted as evidence at the Nuremberg show trial. Perhaps Shawcross didn't know that Document L-3 would be dismissed when said those words in his opening speech.
viewtopic.php?p=97156#p97156
The "quote" was nonsensical in a German perspective anyway. The word "propagandist" of course didn't mean "deceitful" in a country with a Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. The word "propaganda" had become synonymous with lies and deception only in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where the propaganda stories of WWI had been vastly exposed as big lies during the interwar era. Angus Fletcher, Director of the British Library of Information at New York, noted in 1928 that the word "propaganda" had become "a good word gone wrong - debauched by the late Lord Northcliffe" and he appealed for its complete removal from the British diplomatic vocabulary (especially in the United States, where the word "propaganda" was being regarded with much suspicion at that time). In the other countries, including Germany, the word "propaganda" still had its pre-WWI neutral meaning.
Propaganda used to mean public relations or advertising. I think it came from the book "Propaganda" of Edward Bernays who was a nephew of Sigmund Freud. And that was what the ministry of Goebbels was doing: Promotion of National Socialism and governmental policies. That Goebbels also threw some inflammatory speeches is where the focus is on usually. But the job and what was mostly performed was promotional activities, organizing meetings and publishing. They also had lots of liaison with their press and media. As if that is not done in democracies as well. Although there the issue is solved with media concentration and shrinking the overton window of what is 'sayable'.
I wonder what the presented at Nuremberg as document that was so bad they felt compelled to dismiss it.
Propaganda wasn't deceptive btw, since it lay open that someone with intentions to persuade it promoted something.
That's different from "Holocaust Education", which is posing as transmission of knowledge and facts, while it indeed follows an agenda. And that is highly deceptive.
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Hektor wrote:Propaganda used to mean public relations or advertising. I think it came from the book "Propaganda" of Edward Bernays who was a nephew of Sigmund Freud. And that was what the ministry of Goebbels was doing: Promotion of National Socialism and governmental policies. That Goebbels also threw some inflammatory speeches is where the focus is on usually. But the job and what was mostly performed was promotional activities, organizing meetings and publishing. They also had lots of liaison with their press and media. As if that is not done in democracies as well. Although there the issue is solved with media concentration and shrinking the overton window of what is 'sayable'.
I wonder what the presented at Nuremberg as document that was so bad they felt compelled to dismiss it.
Propaganda wasn't deceptive btw, since it lay open that someone with intentions to persuade it promoted something.
That's different from "Holocaust Education", which is posing as transmission of knowledge and facts, while it indeed follows an agenda. And that is highly deceptive.
Bernays didn't coin the word "propaganda." It was coined by the Catholic Church several centuries ago as a name for its activities of promotion of the Catholic faith in Protestant countries. Bernays was a member of the Creel Committee during WWI. In other words, he was one of those who gave the word "propaganda" a bad reputation and pejorative meaning in Anglo-Saxon countries after the First World War.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
hermod wrote:Hektor wrote:Propaganda used to mean public relations or advertising. I think it came from the book "Propaganda" of Edward Bernays who was a nephew of Sigmund Freud. And that was what the ministry of Goebbels was doing: Promotion of National Socialism and governmental policies. That Goebbels also threw some inflammatory speeches is where the focus is on usually. But the job and what was mostly performed was promotional activities, organizing meetings and publishing. They also had lots of liaison with their press and media. As if that is not done in democracies as well. Although there the issue is solved with media concentration and shrinking the overton window of what is 'sayable'.
I wonder what the presented at Nuremberg as document that was so bad they felt compelled to dismiss it.
Propaganda wasn't deceptive btw, since it lay open that someone with intentions to persuade it promoted something.
That's different from "Holocaust Education", which is posing as transmission of knowledge and facts, while it indeed follows an agenda. And that is highly deceptive.
Bernays didn't coin the word "propaganda." It was coined by the Catholic Church several centuries ago as a name for its activities of promotion of the Catholic faith in Protestant countries. Bernays was a member of the Creel Committee during WWI. In other words, he was one of those who gave the word "propaganda" a bad reputation and pejorative meaning in Anglo-Saxon countries after the First World War.
Yes, the word for sure is older. And the link to the Catholic activities in Protestant countries is interesting to say the least.
Bernays put Propaganda into a book title. And it was a well read book. Including Dr. Goebbels knew of it. At that stage this was a modern use of the means of propaganda that the NS practiced. Essentially that's the way they outcompeted the other parties, who did actually suppress National Socialists by means of violence, illegal and legal action as well as ruining their job opportunities. It was a risk in the 1920s to be a NS. And that people still professed to be members of the NSDAP actually must have earned them respect.
The background on Bernays with the Creel Committee is perhaps also worthwhile investigating further. Also how the term propaganda changed within public perception. I recall it being used at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. But it was neutral it was reference to one witness being an advertiser and agent for IG Farben.
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
Hektor wrote:Yes, the word for sure is older. And the link to the Catholic activities in Protestant countries is interesting to say the least.
Bernays put Propaganda into a book title. And it was a well read book. Including Dr. Goebbels knew of it. At that stage this was a modern use of the means of propaganda that the NS practiced. Essentially that's the way they outcompeted the other parties, who did actually suppress National Socialists by means of violence, illegal and legal action as well as ruining their job opportunities. It was a risk in the 1920s to be a NS. And that people still professed to be members of the NSDAP actually must have earned them respect.
The background on Bernays with the Creel Committee is perhaps also worthwhile investigating further. Also how the term propaganda changed within public perception. I recall it being used at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. But it was neutral it was reference to one witness being an advertiser and agent for IG Farben.
So far I've seen no proof that Goebbels had indeed taken inspiration from Bernays' book or that he had even read it. The only thing I've seen is Bernays claiming without a proof that Goebbels had used his book as a manual and that he (Bernays) was dismayed by that "fact." But I know enough of Goebbels' works to see that Goebbels was not a student of the notorious democratic "manufacturer of consent" who wrote that book (itself vastly inspired by Gustave Le Bon's works on crowd psychology). Le Bon and Bernays regarded crowds as insect swarms, as groups of irrational children in the hands of some hypnotizers. Goebbels rather regarded crowds as assemblies of thinking individuals temporarily fooled by Jewish deceivers but possibly liberated by the truth about the latter.
Hektor wrote:Yes, the word for sure is older. And the link to the Catholic activities in Protestant countries is interesting to say the least.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Infographics contrasting the atrocity propaganda of WWII and WWI, and looking at the genocide of Germans
So far I've seen no proof that Goebbels had indeed taken inspiration from Bernays' book or that he had even read it. The only thing I've seen is Bernays claiming without a proof that Goebbels had used his book as a manual and that he (Bernays) was dismayed by that "fact." But I know enough of Goebbels' works to see that Goebbels was not a student of the notorious democratic "manufacturer of consent" who wrote that book (itself vastly inspired by Gustave Le Bon's works on crowd psychology). Le Bon and Bernays regarded crowds as insect swarms, as groups of irrational children in the hands of some hypnotizers. Goebbels rather regarded crowds as assemblies of thinking individuals temporarily fooled by Jewish deceivers but possibly liberated by the truth about the latter.
I consider the Bernays remark on this as self serving. Basically using the fact that Goebbels was a well known name to advance his own name. The narrative there is 'the abused inventor'.
That one I'd take a bit more seriously (if it could be tested and affirmed).
Karl von Wiegand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Wiegand his propaganda library, the best Wiegand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Wiegand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me. ...Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was no emotional outburst of the Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.
And it can be assumed that Goebbels & team did actually do some homework on 'public relations'. As if other parties don't do it that this way. All political parties with some weight are in league with media, pr-agencies, publishers, academics etc. If they didn't they wouldn't make it on the election battlefield for long. There is quite some idiots starting parties who have to learn that lesson the hard way.
There are of course also some problems with the Wiegand statement.
https://theconversation.com/the-manipul ... ions-44393
https://observer.com/2014/12/hitlers-na ... pr-agency/
So the question here is still: Self serving hearsay or some real basis in reality. Not sure, if the Goebbels library was still available. I could imaging that it was looted afterwards.
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
