Since there has been war, there has been
war propaganda, for war must be justified by those who choose to fight. Justifying
war has especially become important, when wars were no longer fought by
professional soldiers and mercenaries but by armies of conscripts, and since
the rise of the mass media. The introduction of the conscript army by Napoleon
made that basically the whole male population of a country could be called up
for military service. The rise of mass media made that now everybody could know
what was going on in the world and what their soldiers had to fight for and to
die for. This made that in order to start and continue a war the consent of the
public opinion was required.
The first major war in which mass media were used for war propaganda was the
First World War (WW1; 1914-1918). Propaganda became part of the war policy of
all fighting countries. It was especially important in the United Kingdom. Not
only was not everybody there convinced of the necessity of the war, but
moreover, when WW1 began, the country had not yet a conscript army (this was
introduced only in 1916), so in order to get enough soldiers, young men had to
be convinced that it was their patriotic duty to enlist.
It was no surprise then that, once WW1 had ended, just a British war critic,
Arthur Ponsonby, wrote a book in which he analysed war propaganda and unravelled
the lies conceived and spread to convince people of the necessity of the war,
not only in the UK but in all major warring countries then. This book, Falsehood in Wartime,
inspired the Belgian political scientist Anne Morelli to summarise the
mechanism of war propaganda described by Ponsonby in ten basic principles in
her book Principes
élémentaires de propagande de guerre (Elementary principles of war
propaganda). For propaganda was not only a major characteristic of WW1, but
since then its use has spread more and more; during the Second World War, the
Vietnam War, the war in former Yugoslavia, the Gulf Wars, till the present wars
between Russia and Ukraine and in Gaza. Therefore, it is still worth taking
note of the basics of war propaganda, since they are still applied, when
political leaders try to convince us of the need to start a war or to
participate in it.
What then are the principles of war propaganda?
- We do not want war but “they” want it. A reason to go to war that accuses the enemy is often
invented, or relevant facts for the war are omitted.
- Our adversary is solely responsible for the war. It is our adversary who harms our rights, values, territory,
etc.; ignoring, for instance, that we, too were already preparing for war.
- The enemy’s leader is evil and resembles the devil. You cannot hate a whole group or country, so it’s better to
direct the hatred to the leader of the enemy country.
- We are defending a noble cause and not our personal interests. We have higher values than our enemy and must defend them,
for example. Or, we defend human rights, not the access to the oil in the
enemy country.
- The enemy deliberately commits atrocities; our mistakes, are
not intentional. Not only is it so that the
enemy is said to commit atrocities; even if civilian victims are the
consequence of mistakes, they are still seen as deliberate atrocities,
while if we commit them, we call them “collateral damage”.
- The enemy uses illegal weapons, like
weapons that are “unnecessarily” cruel or forbidden by international law.
If we use them, it’s only because they use them.
- We suffer very few losses; the enemy’s losses are enormous. If our losses are bigger than those of the enemy, it is
better not to say so and to hide our real losses, because telling the
truth is not good for our morals.
- Artists and intellectuals support our cause. If such smart people do, why not you?
- Our cause is sacred. We fight for
God, for higher values, for humanity...
- Everyone who questions our propaganda is a traitor and helps
the enemy. There are good guys and there are
bad guys. Who isn’t for us is against us. People who ask critical
questions – even if they are clearly “on our side” – are considered to
undermine “our cause”, also when their questions are justified and should
be asked. Criticism is not allowed and it is punished, also in democratic
societies.
The aim of war propaganda actually is, so Morelli, “creating a state of shared
hypnosis, where we are all in the virtuous camp of the deeply offended ‘Good’ ”,
and this apparently is a pathological need. Moreover, it is also possible that
the war makers themselves construct this propaganda not purposefully but really
believe it. However, this doesn’t make it true. Nevertheless, it is possible
that some or even all of the propagandistic statements are true. For instance, maybe
our adversary really is solely responsible for the war. As Morelli writes, “It
is possible that only one of the two camps is lying and that only one of the
two camps has really been attacked, without really wanting a war. In short, the
question of who the aggressor is and who is the victim remains particularly
delicate.”
Since what is pure propaganda and what is true often is difficult to say and
often becomes clear only afterwards, the only thing one can do is being
critical. Is it true what the political leaders say, when they want to start a
war? Do they hide facts? Are the “facts” invented in order to have a cause of
war? Such questions are important, but they are not without risk. Finding the
truth can take time, and a being hypercritical and extremely cautious can paralyse
any action, even when action is urgent. Nonetheless, systematic doubt is the
only thing we can do to avoid falling in the propaganda trap; not only in case
of a war or a threatening war. As Morelli writes: “It seems to me that
systematic doubt is a good antidote to the daily attempts of the media to
persuade us during international wars, ideological conflicts and social
conflicts.” Not only then, I think.
Sources: The links in the text plus Wikipedia.
4 comments:
I don't know about the animosities between Israel and Iran. I do know (1) Iran is Islamist, while Israel is Jewish. That is a problem, a priori. (2) Traditionally, Israeli leaders have been ready and willing to take up arms against any and all enemies, real or perceived. This has been going on since before I was born. (3) The current conflict has been brewing since the problems with Hamas and Gaza. That must have been critical to the current state of war.(4) Pride is important to all people. Neither side a will abide weakness or compromise.(5) I don't know who fired the first shot(s), or if, in this matter, it does not matter.
It is complicated, and at this time, there appears to be no solution. The United States manages to get involved in unwinnable situations. Recent, and not-so-recent history has shown this.
The real problem is, of course, that the state of Israel was founded on a territory already occupied by another people without asking what those others thought of it and without respecting their rights. So the first thing that happened was war, and actually this war never ended. But the past cannot be undone. Added do this religious and cultural differences and this makes that a solution is almost impossible or you must be a Gandhi. But the situation must be taken as it is now and as long as not the one acknowledges the right of the other to live there in peace and is entitled to live there, no solution will be found. It's how I see it.
But the meaning of my blog is wider, I think. For example, must we believe that Iran is making nuclear arms? Didn't they say that Saddam Hussein was making chemical weapons and wasn't it a lie? Reasons for war or military actions are often confabulated afterwards, or rather what is told to the people has often nohing to do with the real reasons.
Thanks for the clarity. There is just not much I am familiar with when it comes to the long history of this/these conflicts. What you wrote makes Israel sound more culpable than I realized.
The problem began already with the Balfour Declaration by the UK in 1917, when the British minister of foreign affairs Balfour declared that he supported the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestina, when he was seeking political support of the Zionist movement during the First World War. The First World War and its aftermath is the source of many political problems in the present world: Middle East, Eastern Europe, Ukraine...
Post a Comment