Abstract
The assumption of complete control by the Foreign Office over all matters relating to propaganda abroad in January 1916 did little to mitigate more fundamental criticism concerning its methods, content and, above all, its organisation. Despite the improvements made in all these areas following the rationalisation of early 1916, there remained considerable dissatisfaction with the system as a whole. The War Office emerged as the principal critic of the new arrangements. In its view, Cecil’s reforms had made ‘no serious attempt to provide what is required’ and fell ‘far short of the essential minimum’.1 The War Office argued that the new arrangements were merely a continuation of the old, but on a grander scale with all the inherent deficiencies remaining. Grave doubts were expressed about the Foreign Office’s ‘very limited conception of the realities of the case’ stemming chiefly from what was considered to be an undue emphasis upon press propaganda:
Until the idea is grasped of combating enemy propaganda not merely by news, which it is impolitic to fabricate, but also and even mainly by views, which it is quite possible to propagate, it seems hopeless to expect that any progress will be made towards designing an organisation suited to the necessities of the case.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Brigadier-General John Charteris, At GHQ (London, 1931) diary entry for 22 July 1916.
Memorandum by ppp. Buchan, ‘Propaganda—a department of information’, 3 February 1917, CAB 24/3, GT 128.
M. L. Sanders, ‘Official British Propaganda in Allied and Neutral Countries during the First World War, with special reference to organisation and methods’ (University of London M.Phil. thesis, 1972).
J. A. Smith, John Buchan (London, 1965) cited p. 209.
Lord Beaverbrook, Men and Power (London, 1956) p. 266.
Robert Donald, ‘Inquiry into the extent and efficiency of propaganda: reports on various branches of propaganda, and recommendations’, 4 December 1917, INF 4/4B.
Robert Donald, ‘Inquiry into the extent and efficiency of propaganda’, 4 December 1917, INF 4/4B.
Arthur Spurgeon, ‘Report on the operations at Wellington House: reports on various branches of propaganda, and recommendations’, 14 November 1917, INF 4/4B.
J. M. McEwen, ‘The Press and the fall of Asquith’, Historical Journal, 21, 4 (1978) 863–83.
A. J. P. Taylor, Beaverbrook (London, 1972) p. 137.
ppp. Hugh and Christopher Seton-Watson, The Making of a New Europe: R. W. Seton-Watson and the last years of Austria-Hungary (London, 1981) pp. 252–4.
K. J. Calder, Britain and the Origins of the New Europe, 1914–18 (Cambridge, 1976).
Roberta Warman, ‘The erosion of Foreign Office influence in the making of foreign policy, 1916–18’, Historical Journal, 15, 1 (1972) 113–59.
H. Wickham Steed, The Fifth Arm (London, 1940) p. 14;
ppp. Steed, Through Thirty Years (2 vols, London 1924) 11, pp. 185–6.
K. O. Morgan, Consensus and Disunity (Oxford 1979).
Sir Campbell Stuart, Secrets of Crewe House (London 1920).
Reginald Pound, Arnold Bennett (London, 1952) cited p. 270.
T. Wilson (ed.), The Political Diaries of C. P. Scott, 1911–28 (London, 1970) entry for 4 March 1918.
Stephen Roskill, Hankey: Man of Secrets (London, 1970) 1, p. 390.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1982 M. L. Sanders and Philip M. Taylor
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sanders, M.L., Taylor, P.M. (1982). The Organisation of Official British Propaganda, 1916–18. In: British Propaganda during the First World War, 1914–18. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05544-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05544-9_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-29275-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-05544-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)