Abstract
Images of the bloated ‘Prussian Ogre’ proudly sporting his pickelhauber, the ‘Beastly Hun’ with his sabre-belt barely encompassing his enormous girth, busily crucifying soldiers, violating women, mutilating babies, desecrating and looting churches, are firmly implanted in the consciousness of the twentieth century. Evoked repeatedly by Allied propagandists during the First World War, the British stereotype of the ‘Hun’ or the French stereotype of the ‘Boche’ came to personify a particular perception of the quintessential immorality of ‘Prussian militarism’ for causing the war and for its more inhumane excesses. ‘Prussian militarism’ provided Allied propagandists with the essential focus they required to launch their moral offensive against the enemy at home and abroad, and amongst their own troops. They personified and pictorialised a German society based upon militarist principles in order to bring home the terrifying consequences of defeat and thereby to sustain the will to continue the struggle until victory was secured. Neutral countries would be left in no doubt as to where their sympathies should rest. During the early stage of the war, it was important for British propagandists to apportion blame to the enemy for having caused the conflict and to prove that he had deliberately let loose the dogs of war upon peace-loving nations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Lucy Masterman, C. F. G. Masterman: A Biography (London, 1939) p. 274.
James Morgan Read, Atrocity Propaganda, 1914–19 (New York, 1972) pp. 201–8.
Trevor Wilson, ‘Lord Bryce’s Investigation into Alleged German Atrocities in Belgium, 1914–15’, Journal of Contemporary History, 14 (1979) 369–81.
Hansard, 5th series, vol. 188, 24 November 1925; see also Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime (London, 1928) pp. 102–20; ‘Kadaver’ The Nation, 38 (1925) 171–2.
Marvin Swartz, The Union of Democratic Control in British Politics during the First World War (Oxford, 1971);
M. Ceadel, Pacifism in Britain. 1914–45 (Oxford, 1981);
K. Robbins, The Abolition of War (Cardiff, 1976).
See Harry F. Young, Prince Lichnowsky and the Great War (Athens, 1970).
Sir Robert Borden and Lt Col. J. C. Smuts, The Voice of the Dominions (London, 1917)
and Sir Robert Borden, The War and the Future (London, 1917).
R. Graves, Goodbye to Ail That (New York, 1957) p. 182ff.
Ibid., p. 228ff; see also Erich Maria Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front (New York, 1928) pp. 102ff.
Claud Colleer Abbott & Anthony Bertram, Poet and Painter- Correspondence between Gordon Bottomley and Paul Nash (London, 1955) p. 98. However, Orpen, for example, did experience problems with the censor. For further details see Bruce Arnold, Orpen: Mirror of an Age, p. 313ff.
Christian Brinton in his introduction to War Paintings and Drawings by British artists exhibited under the auspices of the Ministry of Information (1919) HIWRP.
A. Marwick, The Deluge (London, 1965) p. 230.
See I. McLaine, Ministry of Morale (London, 1978) p. 168; W. Laqueur, ‘Hitler’s Holocaust. Who Knew What, When and How?’, Encounter, 60 (981) 1, 6–25.
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 Content of British Propaganda. In: British Propaganda during the First World War, 1914–18. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05544-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05544-9_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-29275-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-05544-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)