Critical Dissertation 2

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree Programme of BA
(Hons) in English, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science,
Manchester Metropolitan University
30/3/2015
“Keep Calm and Carry On:A Study of the Use of Propaganda in Britain Throughout World War I & II”
By Thomas Morris
12076483
Word Count: 8,332

“Was the Use of Propaganda in Britain During WWI & WWII an Effective Form of
Censorship”
Introduction
Wartime Britain saw conflict unlike any other fought in history, whilst war on the battlefield
was undoubtedly important in the outcome, the situation at home was also cause for concern.
The general populace would be oblivious to that of the fighting on foreign shores, and fearful
of the enemy should they find themselves on the wrong end of an invading force. To avoid
mass panic, the British government would need to assure their people that Britain remained
strong, both in battle and at home. Propaganda was not a new tactic and its use as a
psychological tool proved impactful throughout both World Wars, with all sides relying on
information, actual or fabricated, to convince their people that victory was within their grasp.
This Dissertation will look into the methods of which the British government employed in
order to maintain order on home territory and, to an extent, conjure fear amongst their
enemies. The moral debate of censorship will be addressed, as will its primary aims featured
in its content. I will then attempt to show a correlation between that of the progress of both
WWI and WWII, in order to ultimately answer the titular question; “Was the Use of
Propaganda in Britain during WWI & WWII and Effective Form of Censorship?” By this, I
intend to contribute to the argument concerning the use of censorship, attempting to find
possible justified reason (if any) for its use in society, and therefore conclude on its overall
impact in both wars. To do this, a wide manner of factors must be taken into account and then
analysed for evidence that both supports and counter acts this thesis. An overview of

censorship will be detailed before investigating the methods of its use and the factors of
which can be used to determine its effectiveness (i.e. Social, Economic and Political impact
e.tc.) Primary and secondary sources, taken from a manner of formats, will be used to
structure the work. This work derives from the ongoing argument regarding censorship,
taking into account multiple controversies surrounding its use continuing to the modern day,
and applying it to its wide use in the early to mid-20th Century. When concluding, I aim to
provide a reasonable summary of censorship’s role in the war and whether its effectiveness is
paramount in justifying its presence.
Chapter One
The Morality of Censorship
As propaganda employs censorship as a basic tool in which to generate public concern and, in
turn, win over their support, the basic moral issues it carries need addressing. In doing so, we
might better formulate an argument as to whether it is necessary. By this, I intend to show the
most common moral approach to said topic, and explain precisely why the matter is cause for
concern in something as publicly accessible as propaganda.
Firstly, in order to truly understand Censorship we must take the literal definition as a neutral
starting point. Using a definition from the ‘Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences’; it is
roughly defines as; “The policy of restricting the public expression of ideas…which have or
are believed to have the capacity to undermine the governing authority”1. In this case, we will
look at censorship used by the government, in the period of 1914-1945. With the passing of
the ‘Defence of the Realm Act’ in 1914, the government was given powers of censorship in
1 Laswell, Harold D. ‘Censorship’, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, (New York, 1930)

wartime. As the government works to serve and maintain the balance in their respective
country, the use of censorship is one with controversy, namely quelling the ideals of freedom
in order to achieve these aims2. When applying this to wartime propaganda, it is clear to see
that facts regarding the true nature of war are often omitted to conserve a steady ‘peace of
mind’ throughout the country. The most likely reasoning for its use was to avoid unease
amongst the people when recruiting for the armed forces. If such a time arose where the true
nature of trench warfare was openly accessible to the public, the numbers of willing
volunteers for the army would dwindle as a result, to which the government omitted much of
the incoming post from their soldiers. Families of the men at war would be unaware of the
horrors their loved ones faced due to a surveillance of incoming mail by the British Army,
which was often crudely applied, cutting out fragments of letters or running a thick black line
across any ‘unwanted’ pieces of information. This would include; “Pictorial illustrations and
photographs of all kinds, whether on postcards addressed to neutral or enemy countries.3”
Regardless of the consistent troop supply, the public was kept in the dark, lied to by the men
they trusted in parliament. From a moral stance, this enforces the argument against the use of
censorship, as it employs trickery and falsification in order to keep numbers up, so to speak4.
World War Two suffers the same problem. Having already fought a war on such a grand
scale, returning troops would be fully aware of the truth, which the government could do little
to control once they arrived home. Despite this, the same tactics would be repeated
throughout, aimed at younger generations, a ‘fresh batch’ of potential soldiers, which would
know little to nothing about what lay in wait.
2 Donald, Thomas, ‘A Long Time Burning:The History of Literary Censorship in England.’ National Council of
Teachers of English, (1969)
3 Returned Correspondence Slip from Postal Censorship – London, (1916) Taken from-
Richards, Maurice and Moody, Michael, ‘The First World War: Euphemera, Mementos and Documents’, Jupiter
Books, London (1975)
4 Hinsley, Francis Harry, C. Anthony G. Simkins. ‘British Intelligence in the Second World War: Security and
Counter-intelligence’,Cambridge University Press, Vol. 4 (1990)

With this in mind, the argument against censorship is clearly backed by its immoral
connotations, most commonly described as a form of lying, therefore dismantling the trust in
place between the government and their people. However, does this not mean then that the
government is fulfilling its obligation to the people? As an act of ‘protecting’ them from
harmful information, are they justified to their ends by employing such an immoral tactic in
order to sway mass opinion? Bearing these questions in mind, Britain remains a Democracy;
causing debate as to whether censorship undermines the ideals of such politics.
Professor Vernon J. Burke addresses this in his journalistic article; “Moral Problems Related
to Censoring the Media of Mass Communications” wherein he debates the use of censorship
in conjunction with a structure of basic, accepted, standards of morality in society to which
every man possesses (from an expression perspective)5. Using Burke’s work as a point of
reference, the claim that “Each human person is the equal of every other person in his basic
rights’ strongly opposes the notion of a hierarchy that supposedly ‘dictates’ what information
the population will be subjected to. Applying this to both WWI and WWII, the government
has taken liberty to determine what is freely accessible to its subjects, a largely immoral
approach when considering Bourke’s theory. Bourke also states; “Governmental authority is
exercised primarily for the common good of all persons subject to such authority, and
secondarily for the private good of individual persons within the same group.6” If this is to be
taken as a casual guideline in politics, there is seemingly no justification for the restriction of
information by a governing body, without factual evidence to support that information
regarding the war was harmful to its subjects. Returning to the question at hand, however,
with regards to the ‘effectiveness’ of censorship and its role within propaganda, there is
5 Bourke, J. Vernon, ‘Moral Problems Related to Censoring the Media of Mass Communications’ Marquette
Law Review, Vol. 6 (1956) Pg. 61
6 Bourke, J. Vernon, ‘Moral Problems Related to Censoring the Media of Mass Communications’ Marquette
Law Review, Vol. 6 (1956) Pg. 62

reason to believe that it may have been a necessary act, deemed appropriate by the powers
that be. By this, the restriction of information, though largely regarded as immoral from a
social stance, may well have been justified by the need to protect the people7.
Effectively, there is some evidence to suggest that censorship, in conjunction with
propaganda, succeeded in keeping public attitude towards the war at a positive level, with
WWI recruitment figures (before conscription in 1917) maintaining an average of 76,000
soldiers in consistent application8. However, this is one of many considerable factors and
cannot solely be relied on for determining neither the overall effectiveness of propaganda nor
the justification of censorship. What can be summarised, however, is the moral approach to
censorship is reliant on the situation, being an act deemed only necessary if the true facts are
in fact damaging to the overall wellbeing of the greater population, rather than to protect the
credibility or image of the party responsible.
Chapter Two
The Political Game
While the politicians worked to censor their defeats and exaggerate their victories for the sake
of the public, much of their actions aimed to harm the enemy government. It is clear that
propaganda plays a role in both World Wars, that there is no question as to its presence, but
rather its justifiability or, in the case of this thesis, its effectiveness. Having discussed its
moral nature, propaganda in politics falls under the similar standard, however, rather than
continue to discuss the proposed rights and obligations in ethics, I will consider the term
7 Taylor, Philip M. ‘British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century’, (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press,
1999)
8 UK Parliamentary Papers, 1921 General annual reports on the British Army (including the Territorial Force)
for the period from 1st October, 1913, to 30th September, 1919.

‘just’ in a political sense, in order to perhaps understand if there is such a need for censorship
in politics.
To be ‘just’ in a political manner, regarding the ethical definition also, is to “respond to an
action with a fair and reasonable proposal9”. It does not denote any such actions under ‘eye
for an eye’, but rather encourages the ‘right’ thing. Parliament could not entirely control the
newspapers, however, due to their use as a primary means of communication, preventing
‘leaks’ was a matter of importance. An extract from a government report on censorship in
1915, discusses the problems associated with interference from censorship in the media,
stating; “There is no proper concentration of authority.10” The writer continues to explain
this, noting; “The Home Secretary is constitutionally responsible to Parliament for the Press
Bureau; but neither he nor the Directors of the Bureau have the appointment of the majority
of the staff working there.” This means the government could not essentially control a large
number of individual reporters, an argument for free speech that does provoke some
damaging thoughts. In this instance, the population would be given both examples of
censored and uncensored information, discrediting the government or the press and
furthermore affecting the government’s main aims of censorship. The source explains that
there were no official rules to ‘force’ a paper to submit its work for censor, implying that the
government could not officially control their press without legal cause, the offence being
something that; “can be proved in a criminal trial to offend against the Defence of the Realm
Acts.”
9 Farlex inc – The Free Legal Dictionary- ‘Just Cause’, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/just+cause
[Accessed 9/2/2015]
10 (Source 2A) Government Report on Censorship
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/britain1906to1918/pdf/complete_G6.pdf [Accessed 17/2/2015]
pg. 5

Using a published excerpt of the Government spending on Propaganda from 1914, the
economic contribution towards propaganda shows high expenses for the production of
pamphlets. A demand for 5000 copies of the Prime Minister’s Speeches is shown to have cost
£510 (£52,556.01 as of 2014) with 3850 total orders for Oxford University Press pamphlets
in multiple languages priced at a total of £246 (£23,350.54 as of 2014.11) Alongside the
production of literary works and cost of distribution, the total cost seen in the aforementioned
source comes to £1444 (£148,805.63 as of 2014.) Taking into account the modern day cost,
and the volume of published works, the source details the government’s high enthusiasm into
the matter. The reliability of the information is not visible, but to assume there is a level of
censorship involved in all propaganda, it is clear the government cares greatly about
maintaining peace of mind in their citizens, to such lengths where expenditures are of large
proportions12.
Through Postal censorship, the government was able to monitor the ingoing/outgoing mail in
the country, and supposedly ‘protect’ the public from harmful information. A wartime report
on Postal Censorship includes photographs capturing the process wherein hundreds of
workers make their way through each envelope. The report’s exact source is questionable,
perhaps being a form of propaganda on its own as it details the supposed cost to Germany;
“financial documents worth many millions of pounds to Germany have thus been
intercepted.13” Interestingly, the large numbers of workers required, and seemingly large
scale of the operation would have been of high cost to the British government also.
11 (Source 1) Government Expendituresfor Propaganda 1914,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/britain1906to1918/pdf/complete_G6.pdf , [Accessed 17/2/2015]
pg. 3
12 All numerical figures are calculated using software as recent as 2014. Inflation Calculator provided by
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/ [Accessed 17/2/2015]
13 (Source 6A) Report on Censorship of the Post
Pg. 7

Censorship on the front lines was monitored by a third party, but allowed optional green
envelope letters declaring the inside information as “Nothing but private and family
matters14.” While these were not immune to the censor committee, it encouraged for more
personal letters between soldiers and their contacts, despite inevitable attempts to abuse the
system and send home information deemed ‘harmful’ by the government.
The government’s censorship of the press was met with criticism, in an article from ‘The
Saturday Review’ in 1918; Lloyd George is slandered for his attitude towards paper ‘The
Morning Post’ for alleged acts of criminality15. The article names George and his ministry a
“Press Gang” stating; “The abortive prosecution of the Morning Post and Colonel Repington
is an ugly check to the Press Gang.” George’s decision to fine the editor and contributor £100
(£6,196.47 as of 2014) was originally due to the charge of supplying information to the
enemy, a charge which “ludicrously” broke down to a matter of disagreeing with the Prime
Minister’s opinion16. This example of government punishment in practice, demonstrates a
fascist act of censorship, ridding the information by heavy penalty. The article goes on to
question the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, mocking its consistently changing nature to suit
the needs of parliament where necessary; “The Press Gang can go on adding new regulations
to the Act, without any notice to the public or sanction of Parliament.” Of course, it’s
interesting to note that the source’s publication implies that overall; government press
suppression was not a glimmering success but rather a tool for the argument against
censorship.
14 Richards, Antony, ‘Letter Censorship on the Front Line’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-
one/inside-first-world-war/part-ten [Accessed 21/2/2015]
15 (Source 9) The Saturday Review, National Archives
Pg. 15
16 Inflation Calculator provided by http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/ [Accessed 17/2/2015]

To ‘justify’ censorship, the government was often hasty to mould the political terms of the
Defence of the Realm Act to suit its requirements. Essentially, enforcing censorship with
crude political moves that attracted quick criticism from the media, with opposition under
pressure of heavy fines or imprisonment, without any real obligation to conform. Though
censorship does combat the danger of enemy spies in the mail, it violates privacy, with
censorship in the press affecting the act of free speech. No doubt, the government aimed for
political justification, but the ethical matters discussed in Chapter One, continue to apply.
Chapter Three
The Methods and Enforcement of Propaganda
As a developed nation, Britain was not new to the idea of mass advertisement, making the
distribution of propaganda a relatively widespread opportunity. Propaganda agencies, having
been organised to match excessive German publications, were established. These were
mostly controlled by the Ministry of Information17. As the First World War was the first to
employ such a large focus on propaganda to the public, all denominations of available media
were compelled to justify cause for the people to join the fight, whether on the battlefield or
at home, continuing production in WWII.
During the early years of WWI, literary publications such as pamphlets or journals were the
primary means of communicating propaganda, particularly to foreign countries. Rather than
address a mass audience, targeted individuals included politicians or military officials as a
method of garnering allies in the war effort. By the summer of 1915, an estimated 2.5 million
works of propagandistic literary pieces had been distributed by Wellington House, rising to 7
17 Richards, Maurice and Moody,Michael, ‘The First World War: Euphemera, Mementos and Documents’,
Jupiter Books, London (1975)

million just 8 months later18. The Ministry of Information reduced this number drastically by
90% as part of changing ideals and an attempt to minimalise paper costs19.
British newspapers designed for the sole purpose of providing propaganda aimed towards
foreign countries were established, translating into various languages for a wider appeal20.
Film based propaganda was a slower process in WWI, though interest in the idea had
circulated soon after the outbreak of war in 1914, it was only 1915 that Wellington House
permitted its use. Implementing the strategy of film based propaganda was then proceeded by
a Cinema Committee21. This led to the creation of British propaganda films such as; ‘Brtain
Prepared’ in December 1915. A worldwide release saw the use of military footage in order to
promote the strength and determination of Britain during the war22. Interestingly, the film
was praised for its ‘honest’ approach, disregarding the practice of staged war scenes. One
year later, Wellington House produced ‘The Battle of the Somme’, a silent film, favourably
remembered as one the greatest depictions of trench warfare23. However, the level of editing
required the removal of a great amount of footage. This was done to avoid depictions of
Britain in struggle, merely presenting the recovery of wounded soldiers and not the many
losses suffered. Footage of devastation, including the final shots of the village of Mametz, is
shown to depict the enemy as a destructive force, passing over the true nature behind the lens.
18 Haste, Cate, ‘Keep the Home Fires Burning: Propaganda in the First World War’, Penguin Books, London
(1977) pg. 32
19 Haste, Cate, ‘Keep the Home Fires Burning: Propaganda in the First World War’, Penguin Books, London
(1977) pg. 35
20 Taylor, Philip M. ‘British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century’, (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press,
1999)
21 Winter, Jay, ‘The Cambridge History of: The First World War’, Cambridge University Press, New York,
(2014) Vol. III Pg. 383
22 Britain Prepared, (Cinema Committee 1915) [On Film Reel]
23 The Battle of the Somme, dir. by Geoffrey Malins and John McDowell (British Topical Committee for War
Films) [On Film Reel]

Lastly, recruitment posters featured prominently on the streets of Britain, most famous of
which portray ‘Lord Kitchener’ pointing outward to the viewer, bearing the words; “Join
Your Country’s Army.24” This was one amongst many in the campaign for the public to do
their ‘fair share’ in the war effort. As a result, a stigma arose against those unwilling to fight,
creating further propaganda amongst the people as an unprecedented side effect. The
resulting impact of said poster has led to multiple parodies in several countries (The USA
replicating an almost exact copy bearing ‘Uncle Sam’ for one25.)
World War II expanded on the already established propaganda production with wider access
to the public through entertainment such as radio and cinema. As seen above, the introduction
of film based propaganda was a successful entry into the field, a feat that continued to
flourish in WWII under the Ministry of Information’s film department, maintaining close
contact with film producers to construct story’s detailing the epic fight between Britain and
the Axis26. Kenneth Clarke, head of the Ministry’s Film Division said of the objective;
“We should emphasise wherever possible the wickedness and evil perpetrated in the occupied
countries27”
In conjunction with that discussed in the previous chapter, Clarke demonstrates the use of
censorship as a tool with which to depict a monstrous enemy on foreign shores. Evidently
showing the possibilities of fallout, should the truth of war reach Britain and create mass
hysteria.
24 Lord KitchenerWants You – Recruitment Poster(1914) Alfred Leete [Watercolour]
25 Uncle Sam – Recruitment Poster (1917) J. M. Flagg
26 Aldgate, Anthony and Richards, Jeffrey, ‘Britain Can Take It: The British Cinema in the Second World War’,
Edinburgh University Press, (1994) pg. 4
27 Rhodes, Anthony,‘Propaganda:The Art of Persuasion: World War II’, Chelsea House Publishers, New York
(1976) pg.158

The fear of invasion grew significantly as Europe fell to the German war machine, inspiring
newsreel images of London in ruins, foregrounding the great dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral
across the skyline. Eventually this particular fear began to dwindle in Britain (After the
success of the Battle of Britain in 1940), leading filmmakers to look at occupied countries for
inspiration, producing numerous tales of heroics concerning resistance forces in the likes of
Belgium, France and Norway. Prominent examples include ‘The Day Will Dawn’ - a story of
resistance in Norway28. Another being ‘Tomorrow We Live’ – a picture concerning the
resistance amongst ordinary French citizens29.
With the use of propaganda in film, there would always be opportunity for censorship. Real
footage on the battlefield was difficult to come by, let alone safely capture, even then it was
no simple task to film examples of victory as they happened. As a result, filmmakers would
occasionally film propaganda footage, on location in Great Britain. Soldiers or actors could
demonstrate Britain’s prowess by pretending to capture enemy troops or storm bases, all of
which were purposely set up for propaganda30.
The use of radio was just as important as that of cinematography, with broadcasts in 23
languages across foreign countries, including most of occupied Europe, caused generation of
sympathy to the war effort. American listeners found the shows of Edward R. Murrow
particularly enlightening due to his calmly manner and honest, informative perspective31.
Murrow’s insight extended beyond that of ordinary revealed information, having personal
access to much of the data, some of which gained directly through Churchill. Broadcasters in
28 The Day Will Dawn, Dir. by Harold French (General Film Distributors 1942)
29 Tomorrow We Live, Dir. by George King (1943)
30 Chapman, James, ‘The British At War: Cinema, State and Propaganda,1939-1945’I.B Tauris, London,
(2000) Pg. 53
31J.C.Kaelin Jr,Webmaster/Digitiser/Owner,www.Earthstation1.com/transcripts-Edward-R-Marrow [Accessed –
12/2/2015]

the UK would occasionally operate under the guise of speaking from Germany, fabricating
reports designed to inform whilst implementing lies for both reason of censored propaganda
and to misinform enemy listeners32.
Pamphlets, akin to those used in WWI, continued to play a vital role in propagandizing
enemy countries mostly through the method of air drops, delivering thousands of pamphlets
that dismantled Hitler’s lies33. The allies continued to land books in Normandy, targeted for
distribution by French booksellers, combatting the mass censorship Hitler placed upon
several texts. Lastly, posters, both recruitment and motivational, were mass produced in
Britain once more. Much of the same material (Incl. Lord Kitchener) was reproduced, but
featured heavy devotion to the ‘War at Home’ targeting the women, children and remaining
population that maintained the country’s spirit in contribution to the war34.
Considering the above information, British propaganda was largely competitive with the
enemy, a shouting match of a boastful nature designed to discourage one another. In response
to our thesis, we see an emerging pattern of censorship and its prominence, despite efforts to
factually inform the population. However, considering the motivational ploy behind much of
the operations, it is apparent that Britain relied on good news to further cement themselves as
heroic, fighting a war of ‘good vs evil’. In order to reinforce this; certain information has to
be omitted. This meets Clarke’s aims in the aforementioned quotation on page 9.
Chapter Four
Atrocity Propaganda
(1976) pg.149
(1976) pg.150
34 Richards, Maurice and Moody,Michael, ‘The First World War: Euphemera, Mementos and Documents’,
Jupiter Books, London (1975) pg.115

Now, having established the methods of which Britain distributed its propaganda, we must
look towards the content and factors the British employed to deliver their message. This
ranges from the literary message format of the pamphlets, to the ‘hard hitting’ depiction of
savagery in their enemies. In doing so, visible objectives can be drawn from their work and
allow for a better understanding of their overall effectiveness.
Atrocity Propaganda, the practice of condemning the enemy though graphic depictions of
their actions at war coincided well with several high profile events that could be twisted in
favour of the Allied forces.
The first example of this is the case of Edith Cavell, a British nurse working in occupied
Belgium who indiscriminately aided the wounded on both sides. Having been caught helping
allied soldiers escape Belgium to the neutral Netherlands, German officials trialled her for
violating German Military Law and executed her for treason in 1915. The British could do
little to help her, Sir Horace Rowland of the foreign office was quoted as saying; “I am afraid
we are powerless” as the German’s stood by their decision to ‘rightfully’ execute her. With
Cavell now a martyr, Germany had inadvertently created enormous stigma against the
German people, with British posters bearing headings such as; “Once a German, always a
German,” calling for a boycott of German products, workers and businesses35.
Another such an example of Atrocity Propaganda is the Lusitania incident in 1915, wherein a
German U-Boat torpedoed the non-military vessel, sinking her in just 18 minutes. Despite
warnings not to sail into the war zone, and numerous controversies as to the nature of the
35 Pickles Katie, ‘Transnational Outrage:the Death and Commemoration of Edith Cavell’. Palgrave Macmillan
(2007) pg. 86

sinking, the high number of innocent casualties (many of which were American) paved way
for political slander against the Kaiser and German people36. It is considered a key
development in America’s involvement in WWI as a result. Interestingly, there has since
been much debate as to Britain’s possible role in a planned attack, in order to gain sympathy
from America (who had remained neutral up to this point.37) With regards to censorship, the
resulting atrocity propaganda played upon the Lusitania’s sinking, regardless of the true facts
that the British Government fought to keep secret38.
The 1915 German invasion of Belgium, also contributed massively to the themes Atrocity
Propaganda, an opportunity for displaying the supposed brutalities the German forces
committed. It was not until recent study, however, which proved correct, much of the British
propaganda regarding the invasion, with reports of war crimes escalating greatly with new
discoveries. At the time, Britain took to its media to highlight the invasion, damning the
German’s for violation of the ‘Treaty of London’ (which declared Belgium’s neutrality)
naming them ‘Huns’ and ‘Monsters.’ The astonishing figures showed destruction of 25.000
homes, the death of over 6,000 civilians and most of Belgium in ruins. This prompted the
slander campaign; ‘Remember Belgium’ with, perhaps most prominently, a poster bearing a
silhouetted German soldier (recognisable by the iconic ‘Pickelhaube’ helmet) leading a
woman by the arm affront a burning skyline39. This poster was shown across America as
continuing effort to promote retaliation against Germany. Others included similar themes,
mostly featuring blazing ruins with innocents (often women and children) fleeing for safety.
The campaign was mostly successful, while regarded as “jumped up propaganda” during the
36 Preston, Diana, ‘Wilful Murder: The Sinking ofthe Lusitania’, Random House Press (2003) pg.39
37 Ballard, Robert D. and Dunmore, Spencer, ‘Exploring the Lusitania:Probing the Mysteries of the Sinking that
Changed History’, Warner Books, New York (1995) p.45
38 Ballard, Robert D. and Dunmore, Spencer, ‘Exploring the Lusitania:Probing the Mysteries of the Sinking that
Changed History’, Warner Books, New York (1995) p.47
39 Remember Belgium, Recruitment Poster (1918) [Watercolour]

1920’s, recent discoveries have unearthed truths which dismantle the censorship based
stigma, often associated with the message.
Despite the truth behind much of the German’s invasion of Belgium, there were of course
highly fanatical fabrications, wherein atrocity propaganda would over exaggerate the
conquest by targeting the most likely targets that would engender sympathy; such as the
young or the women. Reports of German soldiers ‘mutilating’ new-borns to the extent where
they cut off their hands or, in some cases, were claimed to have eaten them, were soon
debunked by leading researchers40. This is, however, useful as it shows the lengths the British
government were willing to reach in order to dehumanise their enemy to the rest of the world.
Ultimately, Atrocity Propaganda in WWI was a cruel tactic; it may have turned heads to the
war, and indeed helped the cause by attracting sympathy from other countries, but falls under
the previous argument of morality. As it created rumours as a means of ostracising the
German people, it fails to uphold much of the justifiable reasons for its use.
By WWII, however, Atrocity Propaganda had been ‘toned down’ somewhat, being mostly
discredited due to lurid accusations in the First World War. As a result, the British
Government still continued to slander their enemy, but seemingly disregarded most tactics to
associate the German people with such monstrous acts. This is ironic regarding the Nazi’s
genocidal campaign. There are exceptions, including films such as ‘Hitler’s Children’ or
‘Women in Bondage’, yet these continued to falsify information about the German people,
mostly exploitation films that showed staged acts in which German people abused the
40 Zuckerman, Larry, ‘The Rape of Belgium: The Untold Story of World War I’, New York University Press,
New York (2004)

innocent in several ways41. The film, ‘49th Parallel’ aimed to increase a national hatred to this
Nazis, showing the differences between them and the ‘peace loving democrats’, not an
uncommon ploy in film propaganda42.
Chapter Five
Post WWI Propaganda -WWII
WWII propaganda in Britain mainly focused on themes such as; Evacuation, War at Home
and Supporting the Troops. Prime Minister Winston Churchill wanted to emphasise the role
every citizen had to play, whilst creating publicity for those fighting the war and building
national patriotism in light of the acts of bravery by the armed forces. After the Battle of
Britain, Churchill realised the gravity of the victory, broadcasting to Germany in order to
undermine their morale. His comments on the RAF were of appraisal, saying the famous line;
“Never was so much owed by so many, to so few.” Referring to the air forces’ impact that
arguably changed the outcome of the war and disheartening the German people after
numerous victories across Europe43. Consequently, Churchill himself became a figurehead of
the propaganda in Britain, not unlike Lord Kitchener; his face was plastered across posters,
inspiring a hardening of public opinion. As a result, the determination of the people increased
numbers in the Home Guard and raised morale at home. The willingness of the soldiers was
similar to that of the Japanese determination, using, on occasion, the phrase; “You can always
41 Hitler’s Children, Dir. by Edward Dmytryk (RKO Radio Pictures 1943)
Women in Bondage, Dir. by Steve Sekely (Monogram Pictures 1943)
42 49th
Parallel,Dir. by Michael Powell (1941)
43 Aldgate, Anthony and Richards, Jeffrey, ‘Britain Can Take It: The British Cinema in the Second World War’,
Edinburgh University Press, (1994) pg. 6

take one with you”, urging soldiers to die fighting rather than surrender44. Churchill’s words
contribute to the common association of the war being that of ‘Good vs Evil’, stating in 1941;
“If Hitler invaded hell I would make a least favourable reference to him in the House of
Commons.45” A somewhat controversial remark, yet references Clarke’s words in Chapter 1,
wherein Britain wanted to emphasise the evil of the enemy, seen through Churchill’s
preference to an alliance with the devil over Hitler.
This allusion to a war of ‘Good vs Evil’ continued to appear in religious themed propaganda,
particularly during the blitz, as enemy bombs rained upon England, powerful messages of
hope played upon the mostly “god fearing”, Christian properties in British society. A 1940
photo; ‘St. Paul’s Survives’ depicted the St. Paul’s Cathedral standing tall amongst ruined
buildings in London, basking in a beam of light that broke through the clouds of smoke46.
Churchill has desperately urged firefighters to protect the cathedral, aware that if such an
iconic religious building would remain unharmed it further conveyed the message that the
allies fought on the side of God and therefore ‘good’, as opposed to the ‘evil’ in their
enemies. It is remembered as a key symbol in the messages of resilience and courage that
empowered London during its darkest times.
Writer, Garth Jowett, proposes in his book; ‘Propaganda and Persuasion’ that propaganda
differs from a matter of ‘persuasion’, as it most commonly employs fear mongering and scare
tactics in order to pass its message. Namely, it plays on existing ideas but twists their
meanings or facts, so that the public is instead effectively brainwashed, as opposed to given
44 Chapman, James, ‘The British at War: Cinema, State and Propaganda,1939-1945’,I.B Tauris Publishers,
London, New York (2000)
45 National Churchill Museum, Captiva Marketing,www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org [Accessed 19/03/2015]
46 Daily Mail (December 31, 1940) ‘War’s Greatest Picture: St Paul’s Stands Unharmed in the Midst of the
Burning City’, Daily Mail, Herbert Mason (London: Daily Mail and General Trust) Front Page

an optional choice in the matter. Religious Propaganda relies heavily on this, and uses the
presence of indoctrination to remove any matter of choice or counter argument, winning over
a mass religious audience that already submit to supposedly ‘non-factual’ arguments47.
Though the base practice of Atrocity Propaganda had dwindled, the act of discouraging the
enemy and creating a stigma continued. The German, Japanese and Italian population were
slandered across the media, though common practice on both sides, the methods of which
continued to display themes of immorality and fabrication. Germans were the main ‘target’ of
such work, as previously stated, they were depicted as ‘evil’ for the primary use of hate
mongering not unlike that of WWI methods, including the focus on naval warfare, such as the
sinking of the SS Athenia48. Japan, being across the globe, was regarded as a secondary threat
by the British, despite attempts from the government to craft a similar public opinion of them
to that of the Germans. Churchill was in fact embarrassed by the losses in the pacific, which
shows an interesting correlation with that of the covert operations by British military in
locations such as Singapore and Burma. Churchill claimed these were strategic actions to
reclaim their ‘colonial possessions.’ In light of this, it is clear that Churchill wanted an excuse
of sorts, in order to justify means for attacks in the Pacific without assistance from the
Americans. Though the Japanese did not reach the war in Europe, stories of their victories in
the East threatened to dishearten the Allied war effort, as a response, British propaganda
employed pamphlets dismantling the image of the supposedly unbeatable Japanese war
machine49. The Italians, whilst mostly under the same scrutiny, were subjected to mockery
47 Jowett. S. Garth, ‘Propaganda & Persuasion’ SAGE Publications, (2014) Pg. 212
48 Overy, Richard, ‘Why the Allies Won’. W.W.Norton (1997) pg. 288
49 Hastings, Max, ‘Retribution the Battle for Japan 1944-45’(2009) pg.73

from the Allied forces for their late participation in the war, under the belief they had
achieved certain victory50.
As soldiers were mostly conscripted, propaganda shifted from recruitment in the army, to that
of the home effort, urging women to work in the factories and for any men unfit for the
service, to join the Home Guard. Mothers in London were implored to send their children
away to the countryside for fear of the Blitz, a move heavily enforced by propaganda, with
posters showing Hitler attempting to persuade mothers to bring their children home51.
Considering this, it is reasonable to suggest that Churchill’s messages of inspiration and
patriotism are simply a method of masking the nature of the war to give hope to the people, a
clear example of censorship. Based on the effects, however, it seems the gradual movement
away from ‘Atrocity Propaganda’ is more justifiable in practice, arguably supporting the use
of censorship in wartime. Meanwhile the scare tactics practices in Atrocity Propaganda are
still mostly present delivering a message to its audience through “frightening and
manipulated” facts, keeping an unaware public in line52.
Chapter Six
Morale in Britain
As has been established, propaganda, among other uses, primarily serves to maintain peace of
mind and raise positive mentality amongst its audience. The British public were subjected to
multiple forms of such media, taking in the government messages of inspiration on a regular
50 Briggs, Susan,‘The Home Front: War Years in Britain 1939-1945’:American Heritage Publishing Company
(New York, 1975)
51 Chapman, James, ‘The British at War: Cinema, State and Propaganda,1939-1945’,I.B Tauris Publishers,
London, New York (2000)
52 Jowett. S. Garth, ‘Propaganda & Persuasion’ SAGE Publications, (2014) Pg. 183

basis. Considering the question proposed, and taking into account the practice of censorship,
an understanding of propaganda’s effectiveness can be seen in the morale of Britain’s
populous.
Never having seen a war of this scale, civilian attitude to WWI was varied, many a patriot
was quick to rally in support of the war, ostracising the sceptical population. Initially, the
recruitment process was met with pessimistic attitudes; a call for 100,000 volunteers seemed
unlikely, quickly surpassing parliament’s predictions after enlisting an approximate 500,000
volunteers after 2 months alone53. The figures suggest merely an ‘early days’ attitude to the
war, as numbers fell quickly before the introduction of conscription (disregarding the
inevitable decline due to a decrease in available candidates.) The methods of propaganda
employed were highly successful in the recruitment process, censoring the dark nature of war
from the young volunteers allowed for continued faith in the military and British war effort. It
would appear that, while effectively boosting public morale and voluntary recruitment rates,
propaganda demonstrates the danger of censorship, masking the horrific reality in a guise of
glory and patriotism54. A form of propaganda perhaps even more influential than any of that
produced from the government, stems from the public attitude as a result of patriotism. Men
at home, unable or unwilling to fight were met with harassment from their peers, with some
members of the Women’s Suffrage having been known to distribute white feathers to the
‘stay-behinds.55’ The theme remains similar in WWII, despite the operation of conscription,
much public attitude demonstrated in the First World War re-emerged, in the likes of
patriotism and too great extent, jingoism.
53 Great Britain, the War Office, ‘Statistical Abstract of Information Regarding the British Armies at Home and
Abroad 1914-1920.’London (1920)
54 Winter. J. M, ‘The Experience of World War I’, Grange Books, London (1994) Pg. 152
55 Winter. J. M, ‘The Experience of World War I’, Grange Books, London (1994) Pg. 164

At home, whilst combat raged on foreign shores, the war at home was fought not with
weapons, but with acts of labour and devotion to the stabilisation of the country’s needs. The
men were primarily encouraged to enlist in the armed forces, leaving behind the women and,
to a lesser extent, children to contribute to the war effort. The popular emphasis on women’s
encouragement such as the 1915; “Women of Britain Say Go!” slogan, emblazoned on
propaganda material during the war, was key in the sustainable movement56. Symbolically,
women represented the home life that awaited soldiers upon their return, images of peace and
safety that the Germans would destroy should the men not take arms. In spite of this, women
were merely encouraged, not required to work. For many, the war was an opportunity, to gain
rights not previously granted to them, furthermore the working environment allowed for
useful income, especially amongst the impoverished. Yet, not all stood behind the movement
or the supposed ‘glory’ of war. Pacifism was at the heart of many, as those who saw the war
for what it was were unwilling to contribute further to its terrors. The poorer of said pacifists
showed disdain for their actions, yet did so out of necessity, with one such volunteer quoted
as saying;
“Only the fact that I am using my life’s energy to destroy human souls…I am doing what I
can to bring this horrible affair to an end.57”
Evidently, not all believed their country’s lies, nor did they intend to be part of it, but
however fought for their people and their lives, regardless of their country’s propaganda.
WWII once again, reignited the need for women in the workplace, with a primary focus on
the munitions factories and the agricultural industry. “Lend a Hand on the Land” became a
popular message in circulated propaganda material, depicting non-military workers taking to
56 ‘Women of Britian Say Go!’ Propaganda Poster (1915) E J Kealey [Poster]
57 Winter, J. M, ‘The Experience of World War I’, Grange Books, London (1994) Pg. 176

the farms58. In turn, this encouraged civilian self-sustain, with the development of the
Women’s Land Army, suitable farm land increased from 12,000,000 to 18,000,000 and the
farm labour force expanded by a fifth59. The government, in attempts to increase productivity,
played upon the factor of rivalry between themselves and the enemy. As a result, the
propaganda campaign; “In Germany…” was created to spur further patriotism and break the
illusion of Germany’s workforce. Such an example is the phrase “In Germany…Someone is
doing the same job as you. Beat them!” a clever ploy to insinuate competition based on
stigma60.
Due to the nature of the war, high demand for food and materials meant excessive emphasis
on rationing. In both WWI and WWII, the government was keen to enforce rationing as a
public responsibility, with punishments in place for those unable to comply. Fines were
enforced beginning in 1916 for wasting food, such as feeding pigeons or eating more than
two courses in a public place61. After the scourge of the German U-Boats in 1917, food
became increasingly scarce, with stories stating the Royal Family were supposedly endorsing
rationing too62. This, however, is debatably propaganda to inspire the people to follow by
example. Rationing was controlled by the distribution of Ration Stamps, which inevitably led
to theft of said stamps and unfair control over rations.
It appears that Britain remained strong throughout the period of both wars. Public opinion
was largely based on the successes they had in battle, which in turn led to mass propaganda
regarding the armed forces. Posters and media attention surrounding the home effort was a
58 Waller, Jane & Vaughn-Rees, Michael, ‘BLITZ: The Civilian War 1940-45’Optima (1990) Pg. 256
59Winter, J. M, ‘The Experience of World War I’, Grange Books, London (1994) Pg. 141
60 ‘In Germany’ Propaganda Poster (1942) Roy Nockolds [Poster]
61www.ImperialWarMuseum.co.uk, ‘Home Front Handbook’ (Ministry of Information) 2005 [Accessed
5/3/2015]

success in that it inspired much of the population to ‘do their bit,’ displaying signs that
propaganda was used to great effect. Censorship applies greatly to the military effort of
course, which, despite success in improving recruitment rates, indeed bears moral difficulties
not unlike those discussed by Burke in Chapter One.
Chapter Seven
Impacts and Outcomes
Having established the methods of propaganda enforcement, their aims, results and
controversies; the long term effects of their involvement in the wars will form this final
chapter, taking into consideration the years after each war, and ultimately the impact of
propaganda’s use throughout.
Firstly, propaganda’s mass employment in both wars led to its evolution in further use. Much
of the controversy surrounding censorship and unreliability was bought into question in
historic and contemporary sources, which allowed for change in the programme. The clearest
example of this evolution is perhaps the decline and ultimate disappearance of ‘Atrocity
Propaganda’. Based on the level of ‘inaccuracies’ and blatant slander used in said works, it is
no surprise that reform led to its removal from governmental tactics in Britain63. From this, I
suggest that propaganda evolved through its own use, after intense exposure, it was down to
public and political opinion that allowed for change, yet this does not give cause for
censorship. Instead, the use of censorship in Atrocity Propaganda merely made way for its
own criticism, and eventual downfall64. This applies also to the government’s attempted
63 Connelly, Mark, & Welch, David, ‘War and the Media: Reportage and Propaganda,1900-2003’ IB Tauris,
(2005) Pg. 86
64 Connelly, Mark, & Welch, David, ‘War and the Media: Reportage and Propaganda,1900-2003’ IB Tauris,
(2005) Pg. 87

control in the media, once more attracting controversy to the matter and impacting the
situation in future affairs.
Undoubtedly, Propaganda helped improve the morale and work ethic in Britain. Whilst war
will always prove damaging to a country, Britain’s strong sense of patriotism helped maintain
as normal a life as possible for the civilian population65. As the government doled out
propaganda in waves, the British public reacted accordingly. A great success, propaganda
highlighted the importance of the war at home, showing the need for high spirits in times of
crisis. Censorship in workplace propaganda was more subtle, playing on the existing fear of
invasion and enemy victory, twisting this to encourage the British people to work harder.
An insurgence of women into the workplace and farming industry had positive effects in
gender equality, particularly in the Suffrage movement in the early 20th century. There were
difficulties after the end of WWII, yet the attempt to usher women out of work became a
struggle for the government thanks to growing concern for women’s rights and a rightful
quest for equality66. Propaganda had helped to turn heads towards women’s rights, depicting
them as the driving force behind the war at home, and giving them much more freedom both
in work and in general. Censorship plays a different role regarding the depiction of women in
propaganda, moving away from the themes of innocence and femininity, rather incorporating
an equal stance to that of male depiction, showing them hard at work and assigning heroine
models such as ‘Ruby Loftus’ or the American, ‘Rosie the Riveter.67’ In short, women were
given far more appreciation and equality, a small step forward in the overall fight for gender
quality.
66 Marcus, J, ‘Suffrage and the Pankhursts’ (1987)
67 Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring Propaganda Poster, Laura Knight (1943) [Oil Canvas Painting]

Most important of all, since the true nature of the war had been hidden as much as possible
by the government, it led to the natural conclusion in which the public would never again
make the mistake of blindly following their leaders words into war. The devastating
aftermath of both wars left Britain reluctant to fight on such a scale once again. Though huge
reliance on censorship to keep the public in the dark was indeed key when increasing
recruitment rates during the First World War, the justification for which was greatly varied.
While conscription kept troop recruitment steady in WWII, the focus on glory and bravery
associated with war was steadily decreased after V-day in 1945. Millions of soldiers’
possessions from the front line were bought home to display examples of poetry, artwork and
diaries, a treasure trove for historians in Britain, whilst magnifying the nature of war that
British parliament had fought so hard to keep secret68.
Propaganda kept the country both informed and misinformed whilst driving hard messages of
inspiration to the people. It worked to discourage the enemy and glamorise the military as a
strong, glorious fighting force, yet it employed much censorship to filter the truth to the
public. In spite of its use, British attitude during the war had a lasting effect on the nation, it
seems that much of the inspirational messages of hope the government wanted to convey, had
stuck firmly in the hearts and minds of the public.
Conclusion
Conclusively, looking at the array of facts discussed throughout the structure of this piece, I
have come to determine an answer to my proposed question; “Was British propaganda in
WWI and WWII an effective form of censorship?” Much of the impact both during and after
68 Chapman, James, ‘The British At War: Cinema, State and Propaganda,1939-1945’I.B Tauris, London,
(2000) Pg. 91

each war has proven to be beneficial for Britain, especially surrounding the attitudes to
women in a work environment. Despite discussion regarding the immorality of censorship, it
is reasonable to suggest that justification can over turn any such discrepancies associated with
it, not unlike ‘white lying.’ But was this the case in WWI and WWII? There was certainly
need for maintaining positive morale if the war effort was to remain strong and the censoring
of ‘harmful’ information did effectively prevent widespread panic to such an extent it may
have damaged the country. Propaganda did not always use censorship either, as messages of
hope did not need to use facts from the front to convey their message. To summarise, the
British government saw fit to ‘meddle’ with the truth as a means of protecting their people, a
just cause if any, yet an unjust practice. If we are to look to our leaders for guidance in times
of struggle, how can trust be placed when they omit the truth from ourselves? Propaganda
was indeed an effective form of censorship, but a justifiable one it was not.

Critical Dissertation 2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Critical Dissertation 2

Similar to Critical Dissertation 2 (20)

Critical Dissertation 2