Controlling Thought:
War Propaganda in Nazi
Germany and Contemporary America
(For grading purposes: I am a SENIOR.)
Sierra Martinez
Professor Bruce Lusignan
June 6, 2003
EDGE Final Paper
The
parallels between the propaganda tactics of contemporary America and Nazi
Germany are too obvious to go undocumented.
For the purposes of this paper, “propaganda” will be understood as any
attempt of a government to control and/or change the attitudes of its citizens. From this liberal definition, I will analyze
the relationship between Nazi Germany and contemporary America with respect to
various methods of propagating government interests. As suggested by Hermann Goering, Minister of Economics and
Commander-in-chief of the air force of Nazi Germany, the successful propaganda
techniques will be compared with respect to denunciation of the peacemakers,
glorification of patriotism, and instillation of fear. Also, deemphasizing the significance of the
international community, glorifying military might, creating detention centers
for the blamed, and devaluing the loss of life will be explained through the
lens of propaganda. All of these
methods were successful in gaining wide-spread public support for aggressive
military action in Nazi Germany and are successful also in contemporary
America. There is a formula for
effective war propaganda. Both the Nazi
party and the Bush administration used and do use the same, successful, war propaganda
techniques.
Hitler
did not start out as a successful propagandist. He admits to his early failures of effectively publicizing Nazi
ideals in a favorable light. However,
he did notice the advantages of successful propaganda early on. “Ever since I have been scrutinizing
political events, I have taken a tremendous interest in propagandist activity.”[1] After learning about political influence, he
could not help but realize the power of propaganda. “[I]t was not until the War that it became evident what immense
results could be obtained by a correct application of propaganda.”[2] The efficacy of propaganda in garnering
support for war was such a founding principle in Hitler’s philosophy that he
dedicated an entire chapter to it, entitled “War Propaganda”. Nazi Germany, under the instruction of
Hitler, refined and strengthened its war propaganda.
While
war propaganda has the potential to be successful, it requires the appropriate
conditions. Under stable conditions, or
when a country is happy, war propaganda is ineffective. The operative word is “correct” in Hitler’s
quoted phrase, “the correct application of propaganda”. Propaganda is not inherently successful but
can be if applied “correctly”. Of what
exactly this correct application consists is answered in by Hermann Goering in
conversation with his psychologist, Gustave Gilbert.
[GG] We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
[HG]"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
[GG] "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
[HG] "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."[3]
In this critical passage, Goering outlines the
necessary elements for amassing support for war from the citizens of a
country. While only two requirements
are explicitly stated, there are three implied in the quote. First, the public must be convinced that
they are being attacked. Second, the
pacifists must be denounced. And third,
patriotism must be proposed as the only security measure. I borrow these first three criteria for
successful dissemination of propaganda from Goering. We can see that all three of these criteria were met in both Nazi
Germany and contemporary America. In
addition, and in relation to these three requirements, I propose that there are
four more elements that make for successful war propaganda.
In
addition to the “Goering Three”, deemphasizing the significance of the
international community, glorifying military might, creating detention centers
for the blamed, and devaluing the loss of life are all key ingredients in the
recipe for domestic war support. Let it
be noted that these are not necessary conditions, but sufficient. At least, some subset of the given
conditions is sufficient for successful war propaganda. War support can be garnered without
contrived propaganda, and without satisfying all of these conditions. For example, America joined the WWII with
international support, thus failing to satisfy the above criteria of
disregarding the will of the international community. However, the point is that these criteria, or some subset
thereof, are sufficient conditions for successful war propaganda. Let us analyze the these seven criteria in
both Nazi Germany and contemporary America.
In
assessing the role of the first condition, telling the public that they are
being attacked, we should be aware that Goering did not say “the country must
be attacked”. Goering explicitly
ordered that the public be told that
they are being attacked. Furthermore,
we can note that Goering did not use the past tense of “attack“. It is not enough to inform the public that
they were attacked. The propagandist needs to convince the
people that they are being attacked. With those considerations in mind, let us
observe the Bush administration’s response to having been attacked almost two
years ago.
The Homeland Security Advisory System
(HSAS) consists of multiple color coded states of terrorist risk. There are five states ranging from severe
(red), high (orange), elevated (yellow), guarded (blue) to low (green). The purpose of the HSAS, according to the
White House homepage, is “to provide a comprehensive and effective means to
disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State,
and local authorities and to the American people”[4]. Thus, we have a system that informs citizens
of the current terror threat level.
Unfortunately,
the color-coded system offers no indication as to which general region of the
country is being placed under heightened or lowered terrorist risk. This system also fails to provide
information about general industries that are being targeted. Furthermore, the level of terrorist threat
does not provide recommendations for specific actions to be taken or
avoided. Devoid of any specific
information, one cannot help but wonder what the purpose of this advisory
system is. If the purpose of the
color-coded levels is to avoid terrorism, then we are entitled to a few
questions.
First,
what kind of terrorist act would be stopped by ordinary citizens? If the supposed attacker were a suicide
terrorist, an ordinary citizen probably would not be able to stop such a
terrorist. If the terrorist intended to
hijack a plane, an ordinary citizen could try to intervene, but most likely,
(and as seen from the results of 9/11), would not be able to prevent the terrorist
act. These are a couple scenarios in
which commonly-used terrorist techniques would not be stoppable by the common
American. The fact that an ordinary
person probably could not stop a terrorist warrants an inquiry into the
motivation behind instantiating the Homeland Security Advisory System.
Second,
it is the job of our Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counter Intelligence
Agency, and other security agencies to prevent terrorist attacks. There are specialized organizations built
into our government whose purposes are to protect this country. It does not seem appropriate to delegate the
work, normally accomplished by officers and professionals, to normal
citizen. Ordinary people have their own
jobs to attend and fulfill. In fact,
this country and its economy depend on normal Americans doing their respective
jobs. Asking common people to adopt the
responsibilities for which they have no training is not only naïve, but
inefficient and possibly detrimental to the productivity of important industries.
Third,
even if an ordinary citizen could stop the supposed terrorist act, what new
information does the Homeland Security Advisory System provide? There does not seem to be any reason that
elevating the terrorist threat level will give ordinary people the information
they need to prevent terrorist acts. We
should not be blind to the impracticality of the logic behind this system. If I am walking down the street and I see a
stranger, does knowing that the current terrorist threat is orange instead of
yellow help me identify that person as a terrorist? Either I have evidence that the unknown person is a terrorist or
I do not. If I have evidence that the
stranger is a terrorist, (like a protruding bomb, gun, or terrorist I.D. card),
then I have reason to suspect that the person is a terrorist. If I do not have evidence that the stranger
is a terrorist, then I do not have reason to suspect s/he is a terrorist. Whether or not it is a “yellow” day, or an
“orange” day is irrelevant. What
matters in identifying a terrorist is terrorist evidence, not the color of the
day. The dilemma with respect to
terrorist evidence is exhaustive and leaves no room for color-coded schemes to
be a source of information.
Because
the Homeland Security Advisory System provides no specific information about
terrorism, its purpose cannot be to prevent terrorist attacks. It is impractical and naive to suggest that
ordinary Americans adopt the responsibilities of a CIA or FBI agent. The ordinary person would most likely not be
able to prevent common acts of terrorism.
Furthermore, the ordinary person is not aided by the information, or
lack thereof, provided by the HSAS. So,
we have reason to doubt the purported purpose of this system. Because the Homeland Security Advisory
System does not help prevent terrorism, I suggest that its function is to
propagate the desires of the current administration.
If
the Homeland Security Advisory System provides anything to the citizens of this
country, it is fear. We are a
vulnerable country, still dealing with the effects of 9/11. It is easy to keep a group of people in fear
by reminding them of the atrocities that caused them their suffering. The only thing the HSAS communicates is a
broad reminder of 9/11. Americans have
a reason to be afraid of terrorism because they have experienced the drastic
consequences thereof. The only result
of implementing the Homeland Security Advisory System is that it keeps
Americans in fear.
The
easiest way to control a person’s thoughts is when s/he is afraid. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was well-aware of
this fact when he cautioned Americans, “The only thing to fear is fear
itself”. We have seen the awful
repercussions of the Red Scare here in America. However, the most severe evidence of thought control through fear
tactics comes from Nazi Germany.
Hitler
soon learned to master the art of propaganda.
While there was not an official Homeland Security department, Hitler had
his own methods of contriving threats to the German public. Instead of terrorists, the Nazi party
identified and targeted Jews. (Granted,
there is incomparable justification for identifying and arresting these
different groups.) The Nazi party
actively sought means to locate and identify Jews. The SS, a division of the Nazi government that functioned as a
secret police, resulted in the terrorization of many Germans. Germans were extremely fearful of the
Gestapo, and consequently, were eager to obey the orders of the Nazi
government. By keeping his citizens in
a state of fear and vulnerability, Hitler was able to control the wishes of the
public. They would not voice any
dissenting opinions because they were in a state of constant fear. Even Hermann Goering, who was one of the
most powerful men in the Nazi party, (second to Hitler, arguably), admitted to
giving up control of his own mind. “‘I
have no conscience,’ declared Goering, ‘Adolph Hitler is my conscience.’”[5] This admission is from later in his life,
during the time period of the Nuremburg trials. The ability to keep a country in fear is intimately related to
the ability to impose the government’s desires onto its citizens.
We
can also see the glorification of military might and its relation to patriotism
in Nazi Germany. Hitler wed the ideas
of loyalty to one’s country with loyalty to ones military through the use of
propaganda. By referring to key
concepts such as freedom and security, he was able to convince the people to
support his war agenda.
The aim for which we
were fighting the War was the loftiest, the most overpowering, that man can
conceive: it was the freedom and independence of our nation, the security of
our future food supply, and our national honor; a thing which, despite all
contrary opinions prevailing today, nevertheless exists, or rather should
exist, since peoples without honor have sooner or later lost their freedom and
independence, which in turn is only the result of a higher justice, since
generations of rabble without honor deserve no freedom.[6]
Although his speech is only patriotism his actions
were militaristic. By artificially, yet
subtly wedding the concepts of support for one’s country and support for
military action, Hitler was able to attain public approval for military action.
In
order to glorify its military might, Nazi Germany introduced the term,
“Blitzkrieg”. This referred to the
quick and awesome strikes that devastated many European cities. In a blitzkrieg attack, either German
soldiers or bombs would swiftly demolish an entire city. For example, Krystallnacht was the
disastrous night in Poland, when Nazi troops killed, wounded and arrested
thousands of Jews. “By the close of
Krystallnacht, ninety-one Jews lay dead, some 26,000 Jewish men were carted off
to concentration camps, and thousands more were detained by authorities.”[7] However, a blitzkrieg attack could also
refer to the awesome destruction accomplished by air raids. On April 26, 1937, the German Luftwaffe (air
force) used the Spanish city of Guernica to test their modern equipment. The complete obliteration Guernica was the
first demonstration of such modern bombing techniques, which shocked the
world. By introducing specialized terms
that blended mass destruction and sensationalism, Nazi Germany was able to glorify
its military might.
Similarly, America introduced a term that gained much
popularity during the War on Iraq. The
American version of a blitzkrieg attack was “shock and awe”. This term was developed by Harlan Ullman and
James Wade, in their book: Shock and Awe:
Achieving Rapid Dominance. In the
beginning stages of the War on Iraq, the phrase, “shock and awe” became
standard vocabulary of news reporters.
We intended to surprise Iraq with our swift and powerful military
capabilities. Using precision-guided
missiles, America was able to bomb the city of Baghdad with extremely
destructive consequences while distracting the American public with
sensationalism. Learning the lesson
from the Third Reich, the Bush Administration glorified our military might in
order to amass public approval for the war.
The unification of patriotism and military might was the
result of Hitler’s underlying philosophy about the nature of man - that he is
violent. Hitler’s view of the world was
that violence was required for survival, a naively simplistic understanding of
human survival. Neanderthals were
subject to the laws of physical supremacy and dominance. However, with the introduction of complex language
and civilization, humans, as a collective being, undertook a new philosophy of
survival, that intelligence and morality were superior to brute force. It is obvious that Hitler was of
Neanderthalic philosophy of man. In The Gathering Storm, Winston Churchill
comments on this central tenet in
Hitler’s plan for the German man.
“The main thesis of Mein Kampf is simple. Man is a fighting animal; therefore the nation, being a community
of fighters, is a fighting unit. Any
living organism which ceases to fight for its existence is doomed to
extinction. A country or race which
ceases to fight is equally doomed.”[8] Thus, the inflation of patriotism and the
glorification of military might came naturally to Hitler. These two conditions for successful war
propaganda were easily satisfied because they were built into Hitler’s view of
the world.
The
commonalities between the Bush administration’s and Nazi Germany’s disregard
for the international community are painstakingly obvious. Unlike the Persian Gulf War, the current War
on Iraq did not receive United Nations approval. Going into the Persian Gulf War, America was looking at 69%
approval ratings for military action, for the invasion of Afghanistan, the
American public backed our actions with 75% approval, but before the War on
Iraq, the Bush administration was faced with only 59% support for the war.[9] This difference in approval rating is partly
attributable to the presence and absence of U.N. support. Whereas the United States did not have
problems gaining international support for its military actions from the
previous two wars, the U.S. had severe problems convincing the international
community that a military attack on Iraq was justified. Consequently, and as suggested by the
actions of Adolph Hitler, the Bush administration took a stance of belligerence
towards the international community.
The
Bush administration told the public that America would “go it alone” if
necessary, and that the U.N. would run the risk of becoming irrelevant if it
did not comply with U.S. foreign policy.
This attitude of international defiance turned into contempt for those
countries that opposed United States aggression. The renaming of french fries to “freedom” fries, was the silliest
of reactions. Included in being
dismissed by the Bush administration is the government of Iraq itself. Instead of being referred to as a
government, it was referred to as a “regime”.
Despite the fact that Iraq was a sovereign country with its own
electoral process (corrupt as it may have been), we chose to regard Iraq’s
government as a “regime” instead of the government that it was. This control of the language that the public
uses is directly related to control of the way the public thinks. Through a variety of tactics, the American
government convinced its citizens that the international community was
irrelevant and could be dismissed without cost.
Hitler
also faced opposition from the international community for its planned acts of
aggression. While the United Nations
did not exist during the times of Nazi Germany, the League of Nations did. Because of the restraints imposed on Germany
by the international community, Hitler needed to deemphasize the significance
of that community. So, on Oct. 14,
1933, Hitler withdrew from the League of Nations and the Geneva conference
restrictions. This act of international
defiance satisfied another condition of successful war propaganda - the de-emphasis of the international
community.
The
sixth condition for successful disbursement of the government’s desires into
the minds of its citizens is to create detention centers for the blamed. In Nazi Germany, the notorious concentration
camps were the areas where the government detained the arrested Jews. While the absolutely horrid atrocities that
were committed within these concentration camps is subject material for
infinite research papers, for the purposes of this paper, I will focus on the
societal impression that these camps were construed to present. The Nazis isolated the Jews in order to
present to the public that the government was taking every measure to protect
German citizens. Aside from the
scientific functions of these concentration camps, the Nazis used concentration
camps to convince the people that the those who posed a threat to German
citizens in general, were being detained.
Concentration camps functioned as an effort of the government to provide
safety to its citizens. By detaining
the blamed, the government could more successfully administer its citizens with
higher doses of propaganda.
From
the examples of the Nazi government, the Bush administration has emulated how
to successfully propagate its desire for war.
Instead of creating concentration camps, the Justice Department used
mostly standard jails. While the
Justice Department did nothing even close to comparable to what the Nazis did,
the broad parallel is that the detention centers in America were unjust, and
served the function of deluding the public.
The Justice Department rounded up hundreds of immigrants in the U.S. and
forced them into jail, regardless of terrorist activity. This blatant injustice eventually seeped
into the mainstream press, after an internal report was discovered. The Justice Department’s inspector
concluded that many F.B.I. agents made “made little attempt to distinguish
between immigrants who had possible ties to terrorism and those swept up by
chance in the investigation”[10]. Furthermore, it was reported that some of
the detained were physically or verbally abused. We can see the function of these detention centers by analyzing
the response to these reports by the Justice Department officials. Barbara Comstock, spokeswoman for the
department, remarked, “We make no apologies for finding every legal way
possible to protect the American public from further terrorist attacks”[11]. John Ashcroft subsequently affirmed this
statement. (In fact, he asked for more
power to make more illegitimate arrests.)
While trying to sidestep the injustice issue, the Justice Department
proposes that its function is to protect the American public.
We
can see that the claim to protecting the public is the same in both Nazi
Germany and contemporary America. The
claim appears to be merely a façade for the underlying intentions of the Bush
administration. If the function of the
detention centers was to protect the public, then why were non-terrorist
arrested? It was not due to mere error
in the rounding up process. The report
revealed that selecting terrorist was not a high priority of the F.B.I.
agents. Why did the department make
little attempt to distinguish between terrorists and non-terrorist? The act of creating detention centers for
the immigrants is quite arbitrary, if we look at the most recent terrorist
attacks on America. In 1996, Eric
Rudolph committed the terrorist attack on the Olympic games in Atlanta. He subsequently bombed an abortion clinic
and a gay night club. Why didn’t the
Justice Department round up people that were similar to Eric Rudolph? There were no mass arrests of white, young
men who had a right wing ideology. And
on April 19, 1995, when Timothy McVeigh committed the terrorist attack on
Oklahoma City, the Justice Department did not have any mass arrest
response. I believe this to be evidence
that the motivational function of the detention centers was not for protection
of American citizens, but mere propaganda.
Like
the Nazi Government, the Bush administration knows what makes for successful
war propaganda, and detention of those blamed is one of those conditions. The actions of John Ashcroft’s department
serve to protect the American public as much as concentration camps did for
Nazi Germany. The primary function of
the detention centers is to facilitate the disbursement of war propaganda.
Last,
the devaluation of human life is an important condition when convincing a
country to go to war. This point is
more observational than factual. When
the loss of human life in 9/11 was reported, it was reported as the loss of
civilian life. When the loss of human
life in Afghanistan was reported, it was reported as “collateral damage”. The American military killed more innocent Afghani
civilians than the number of American lives lost in 9/11. When the loss of human life in Iraq was
reported, if it was reported, was also referred to as “collateral damage”. We can even look at how language was
manipulated to devalue the loss of American soldiers’ lives. The media referred to the soldiers as
“troops”, which objectifies the soldiers’ lives. The correlating philosophy of lost human life to Nazi Germany
hardly requires explanation. The Nazis
exterminated over six million Jews. The
significance of Jewish life lost was obviously distorted by the Nazi
government.
Propaganda
is a means of convincing the public to adopt the beliefs and desires of a
government. All governments partake in
this practice. However, war propaganda is particularly noticeable. Understandably, it is hardest to convince
the citizens of a country that there is justified reason to sacrifice their
lives. Hermann Goering makes this
empirical observation, and proposes that there is a formula to weakening the
resistance of the public to accept a plan for war. There are seven sufficient conditions that make for successful
war propaganda. They are: denouncing
the peacemakers, requiring patriotism for safety, instilling fear,
deemphasizing the significance of the international community, glorifying
military might, creating detention centers for the blamed, and devaluing the
loss of human life. Both the Nazi
German government and the American Bush administration successfully implemented
this model of war propaganda. Any
denial of the claim that our methods of justification for war propaganda are
fearfully similar to that of Hitler’s, is just a wishful delusion.
Bibliography
Churchill, Winston S. The Gathering Storm. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1948.
Gilbert, G. M.
The Nuremberg Diary. Farrar Strauss, New York, 1947.
Goodstein, Lourie.
“Seeing Islam as “Evil” Faith, Evangelicals Seek Converts”, The New
York Times, May 27, 2003.
Hitler, Adolph.
Mein Kampf. http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
Langer, Gary. “Steady Support for War” ABCNews.com. March 10, 2003.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq030310_poll.html
Lichtblau, Eric.
“U.S. Report Faults the Roundup of Illegal Immigrants After 9/11” New York
Times, June 6, 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/politics/03DETA.html
Mosley, Lenoard.
The Reich Marshal, A Biography of
Hermann Goering. Doubleday & Company
Inc., New York, 1974.
Over, R.J. Goering The Iron Man. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1984.
Office of the Press Secretary. “Homeland Security Presidential Directive -
3” The
White House homepage. March 12, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020312-5.html
Shore, Zachary.
What Hitler Knew. Oxford
University Press, New York, 2003.