• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Parallels of War Propaganda

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I am or at least used to be quite a WW2 fan. I read countless books on the subject, one of the very few wars that our side was not in for not any gain(wealth, land, control).

I am disturbed by the parallel of pre-war Nazi Germany and now-a-days United States, especially in war propaganda. Before you scoff at my remarks, call me crazy and threaten to stab me with a rusty nail :shock: lol. I want you to read this term paper from a Stanford University student, who unlike quite alot of the opinionists of the internet approachs this in an intelligent way. PLEASE READ!

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana

http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/War Propaganda in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America.wps.htm
 
Last edited:

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
With out a doubt there is similarities, but America isn't the only country to use Hermann propaganda, he was a genius and created what is known as "modern propaganda".

America would not become the next Nazis, we've got too many criticizers home and abroad that would not let this happen. Believe me, many countries are ready to tear us to shreds, I mean look at the citizens of Afghanistan, they rioted when ONE stupid newspaper published something...

The only way, I could see, as America becoming the next Nazi is if George Dubya Bush makes himself dictator.. then we'd have a problem.. but that isn't really probable.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I never said America would turn out like Nazi Germany, and your right America is too split for it to be a Nazi Germany. Hitler was a brilliant inspirer and speech artist (however evil his words were), the German people wept and flamed with passion when he talked and united behind him. Thankfully America doesn't have someone like that, Bush divides his people not unites them, so I sincerly doubt that America will be a dictatorship.

I just get twitchy when the most powerful nation in the world uses the tactics of my worst political enemy.
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GarzaUK said:
I read countless books on the subject, one of the very few wars that our side was not in for not any gain(wealth, land, control).
Just curious why do you think that?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry, GarzaUK, that was a horrible paper. It makes me wish I would've applied to get into Stanford if the bar is set that low (and that paper was from a senior too!)

First off, the writer Sierra Martinez, begins talking about propaganda in a broad definition and then decides to apply it to war time without any footing.

Then, this statement: "There is a formula for effective war propaganda." Really? Does it work everytime without fail? Has the war propaganda for Iraq snowed the US citizens? Answers: NO

Hitler did not start out as a successful propagandist. Bush did. There's a problem there by the fact that they're not similar.

Propaganda is not inherently successful but can be if applied “correctly”. That's like saying "X works if you know how to use it". Duh.

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. We can see that all three of these criteria were met in both Nazi Germany and contemporary America. What a paper, she just says that all three were met in contemporary "America" and doesn't provide documentation, back-up, or any arguments to support her claim.

Then she says:
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. W-w-w-wait. That contradicts what she says here: Propaganda is not inherently successful but can be if applied “correctly”. Of what exactly this correct application consists (of the three points listed).

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.
Where did she pull these from? Without a cite, she's just making up stuff that suits her argument.

She then goes on to talk about the Homeland Security Advisory System.
If the purpose of the color-coded levels is to avoid terrorism, then we are entitled to a few questions. I'm sure her sense of entitlement is high (sorry, I felt I needed to do a personal slam here). First, what kind of terrorist act would be stopped by ordinary citizens? 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. Yeah, like that plane that flew into the US Capitol building. Oh wait, that was stopped. The end result, some lives were lost but more lives were saved. 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. Fact? How about "baseless assumption"?

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. :roll: Yes. The citizenry have other things to do and if they see something suspicious, we should just realize that the citizen has classes to attend, a TiVo to program, and a myriad of other things. It's not delegation to the citizens any more than a neighborhood crime watch to prevent car or house theft is the police eschewing responsibility.

Third, even if an ordinary citizen could stop the supposed terrorist act, what new information does the Homeland Security Advisory System provide? Because the Homeland Security Advisory System provides no specific information about terrorism, its purpose cannot be to prevent terrorist attacks. She's right, the HSAS does not provide specific information but just a color. Of course, specific information has come out in conjunction with the color notifications so it behooves the citizenry to know what's going on and a hightened alert might prompt them to learn more.

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. Umm, what? How is the HSAS similar to Hitler targeting Jewish people?

The American version of a blitzkrieg attack was “shock and awe”. Snerk. Apparently someone wasn't watching when the "shock and awe" actually happened. It was quite the let down.

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.Regime:a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government <a socialist regime> c : a government in power <predicted that the new regime would fall> d : a period of rule That sure seems to fit the definition.

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. Ahh ,G-Bay. Although I disagree with G-Bay, I do have to assert that we're not bringing people there to work until they die or just gassing them to death, or performing medical experiments on them.

Like the Nazi Government, the Bush administration knows what makes for successful war propaganda, and detention of those blamed is one of those conditions. Of course, G-Bay as successful propaganda? Not so much. She offers no proof that this has been successful either.

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. Almost all of her points have been mono-objective, far from factual and subjective.

The correlating philosophy of lost human life to Nazi Germany hardly requires explanation. It does? I'm glad she can make inferrence and stand back smugly. I, on the other hand, require a bit more.

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. She hasn't defined what "successful" is, so she would probably define her paper as "successful" and then call anyone who disagrees "deluded".

All in all, it was a bad read. I give this paper a big red F
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I think that what the writer fails to understand is that what makes it propaganda is its methods of media manipulation, loaded vocabulary, staged events, and fallacious demagoguery, all of which can be justified/rationalized by a 'good' cause, whether patriotic or idealistic.


Under stable conditions, or when a country is happy, war propaganda is ineffective.
I don't see the connection there. When exactly is a country happy anyway? The only way propaganda is ineffective is when people are informed.

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.
I think that investigative journalist, Phillip Knightley, does a better job at pointing out the 4 stages in preparing a nation for war:

1. The crisis
The reporting of a crisis which negotiations appear unable to resolve. Politicians, while calling for diplomacy, warn of military retaliation. The media reports this as “We're on the brink of war”, or “War is inevitable”, etc.

2. The demonisation of the enemy's leader
Comparing the leader with Hitler is a good start because of the instant images that Hitler's name provokes.

3. The demonisation of the enemy as individuals
For example, to suggest the enemy is insane.

4. Atrocities
Even making up stories to whip up and strengthen emotional reactions.


Anyway, a lot more on propaganda here:
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Military.asp
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
Sorry, GarzaUK, that was a horrible paper. It makes me wish I would've applied to get into Stanford if the bar is set that low (and that paper was from a senior too!)

First off, the writer Sierra Martinez, begins talking about propaganda in a broad definition and then decides to apply it to war time without any footing.

Then, this statement: "There is a formula for effective war propaganda." Really? Does it work everytime without fail? Has the war propaganda for Iraq snowed the US citizens? Answers: NO

Hitler did not start out as a successful propagandist. Bush did. There's a problem there by the fact that they're not similar.

Propaganda is not inherently successful but can be if applied “correctly”. That's like saying "X works if you know how to use it". Duh.

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. We can see that all three of these criteria were met in both Nazi Germany and contemporary America. What a paper, she just says that all three were met in contemporary "America" and doesn't provide documentation, back-up, or any arguments to support her claim.

Then she says:
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. W-w-w-wait. That contradicts what she says here: Propaganda is not inherently successful but can be if applied “correctly”. Of what exactly this correct application consists (of the three points listed).

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.
Where did she pull these from? Without a cite, she's just making up stuff that suits her argument.

She then goes on to talk about the Homeland Security Advisory System.
If the purpose of the color-coded levels is to avoid terrorism, then we are entitled to a few questions. I'm sure her sense of entitlement is high (sorry, I felt I needed to do a personal slam here). First, what kind of terrorist act would be stopped by ordinary citizens? 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. Yeah, like that plane that flew into the US Capitol building. Oh wait, that was stopped. The end result, some lives were lost but more lives were saved. 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. Fact? How about "baseless assumption"?

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. :roll: Yes. The citizenry have other things to do and if they see something suspicious, we should just realize that the citizen has classes to attend, a TiVo to program, and a myriad of other things. It's not delegation to the citizens any more than a neighborhood crime watch to prevent car or house theft is the police eschewing responsibility.

Third, even if an ordinary citizen could stop the supposed terrorist act, what new information does the Homeland Security Advisory System provide? Because the Homeland Security Advisory System provides no specific information about terrorism, its purpose cannot be to prevent terrorist attacks. She's right, the HSAS does not provide specific information but just a color. Of course, specific information has come out in conjunction with the color notifications so it behooves the citizenry to know what's going on and a hightened alert might prompt them to learn more.

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. Umm, what? How is the HSAS similar to Hitler targeting Jewish people?

The American version of a blitzkrieg attack was “shock and awe”. Snerk. Apparently someone wasn't watching when the "shock and awe" actually happened. It was quite the let down.

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.Regime:a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government <a socialist regime> c : a government in power <predicted that the new regime would fall> d : a period of rule That sure seems to fit the definition.

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. Ahh ,G-Bay. Although I disagree with G-Bay, I do have to assert that we're not bringing people there to work until they die or just gassing them to death, or performing medical experiments on them.

Like the Nazi Government, the Bush administration knows what makes for successful war propaganda, and detention of those blamed is one of those conditions. Of course, G-Bay as successful propaganda? Not so much. She offers no proof that this has been successful either.

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. Almost all of her points have been mono-objective, far from factual and subjective.

The correlating philosophy of lost human life to Nazi Germany hardly requires explanation. It does? I'm glad she can make inferrence and stand back smugly. I, on the other hand, require a bit more.

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. She hasn't defined what "successful" is, so she would probably define her paper as "successful" and then call anyone who disagrees "deluded".

All in all, it was a bad read. I give this paper a big red F

Well said.

Papers that are written under the assumption that all of your readers will have the same pre-conceived notions as yourself are inherently flawed.

This one was no better.
 
Top Bottom