The resolution of the Potsdam Conference on Königsberg status could be reviewed by the parties involved in that conference, such as Great Britain and USA
Maria Orsitsch, also known as Maria Orsic, was a famous medium who later became the leader of the Vril Society. She was born on 31. October 1895 in Zagreb. Extraterrestrial, People, Rare Photos, UFO, Unexplained https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IMG_20210324_180529_compress8.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altstadt_(Frankfurt_am_Main)
ww2 ww1 The function of Female representation in British World War Two propaganda Chapter One The Purpose of Propaganda The concept of Propaganda Aulich describes war propaganda “as instruments for promoting and disseminating war aims, social cohesion, ideological purpose and various forms of citizenship” (Aulich, J, 2007:2 War Posters: weapons of mass communication, London, Thames & Hudson). British World War One and Two propaganda was a form of mass communication that aimed to effectively communicate to an individual. It was a strong tool used as influential material, it encouraged men and women’s involvement in the war, in terms of the War’s productivity and often categorised roles for both men and women. This ability to convey messages to the general public was simple enough, it was the communicating to each one as an individual where lay the success of War propaganda. War propaganda has been described as ‘Weapons of War’ as it played such a large role regarding war recruitment. During both World War One and Two, The Government hired advertising agencies to help produce campaigns that swayed opinions, encouraging the public to join the War forces. Propaganda campaigns throughout World War One began to grow negative connotations, due to issues of its relevance and truth behind the messages, being raised. “The study of propaganda in the twentieth century came to the fore in the aftermath of the First World War. The widespread employment of methods to alter public opinion stimulated both interest in its usefulness and fears about its power to manipulate the public. During the conflict, rumours had abounded on both sides pertaining to the atrocities carried out by the other. In an effort to understand these issues, writers have sought to dissect the incidences of propaganda and formulate definitions based upon the reasons and the results of these attempts at manipulation.” (Wilcox, D, 2005:9 Propaganda, the Press and Conflict, New York, Routledge) Although such responses and analysis of the power of propaganda could cause it’s usage to be questioned and possibly deteriorate, propaganda continued to exist throughout World War Two through advertising agencies such as, The British Political Warfare Executive. It’s powerful manipulation of public opinion, perhaps feared, was very effective when regarding the recruitment for World War One and Two. The “interest in it’s usefulness” clearly overcame the “fear about it’s power to manipulate the public”. What was more constructive towards War recruitment was the achievement that gained more importance. Authorities such as The British Political Warfare Executive had the power and ideological state to overlook the questions and fears arising from propaganda, it’s “power to manipulate public opinion” was so much more interesting and useful to those in the position free from that very affect. Especially throughout the Second World War, it also played a part in communicating proper behaviour amongst War zones. It expressed simple instructions that aimed to deal with blackouts, lack of food, savouring food etc… Although, it still portrayed that motivation, aiming to encourage and hopefully enlist everyone able. War Aims What were the aims behind the production of War propaganda? It claimed to have the ability to construct ‘social cohesion’, why is this idea of ‘social cohesion’ necessary? “There are two main reasons for people wishing to join themselves into a group; to achieve a shared goal or oppose a common threat and to feel a sense of belonging and security” (Buton, G 1998:102, More Than Words, an introduction into communication, USA, Routledge). The reason to achieve a shared goal could be more likely to stem from the producers of the propaganda. Taking part in and there being a chance of success within the Wars would mean having a bigger, stronger army. By 1937 200, 000 soldiers had joined the armed forces, however the Government knew this wasn’t enough When the Second World War broke out in 1939, 875,000 had joined the British Army, which still seemed too little. By October 1939, it was a requirement that any men aged between 20 and 23 had to enlist, and any men between the ages 18 and 65 would be encouraged to do so as well. Therefore promoting through propaganda and encouraging ‘social cohesion’ would encourage men and women to commit towards the war and therefore greaten their chance of being successful whilst fighting in both World War One and Two. Propaganda is persuasion, if you can “persuade others to join you, then the influence of the group can be greater than the separate efforts of lots of individuals” (Buton, G 1998:102, More Than Words, an introduction into communication, USA, Routledge). A group being more influential the more that are in it, is much what propaganda aimed to communicate. This idea that “the influence of the group can be greater than the separate efforts of lots of individuals” (Buton, G 1998:102, More Than Words, an introduction into communication, USA, Routledge), links into justifying another reason for joining a group, “to have a sense of belonging and security” (Buton, G 1998:102, More Than Words, an introduction into communication, USA, Routledge). Viewers of propaganda were often persuaded into joining the army, due to fear of not being involved. Studying the World War 1 propaganda poster, there is an obvious group being portrayed. A line of soldiers who almost seem repeated, all looking alike and wearing the same uniform. The question, ‘Will you fit it?’ not only persuades the reader to feel they can fit the position; it also creates a situation where the reader is clearly not involved in. These method not only makes the reader feel left out, it also makes the group the reader is currently in, seem not the one he should be in. Similarly we have the same style image from a British World War Two poster. The image shows a group of soldiers in the background, a lot like the ones in the World War One poster. Guilt is an another idea expressed through this, ‘Who’s Absent?”, communicating again this idea of non involvement in a group. Using the word ‘Absent’ gives the reader an idea that he should be there, he is isolated from the group featured in the image, he feels like an outsider, observing and reading from the outside. This strong sense of withdrawal gained from viewing both examples of propaganda can easily fit into the category of ‘manipulation of public opinion’, this idea of highlighting a group as a way of luring in those who weren’t currently involved in it. (WW1) (WW2) Approached through guilt, the feeling of not being part of a group could be persuasive enough for any individual. So the aims of the producers of the propaganda drove the production of it, whilst the longing to be part of the ‘group’ is what made propaganda successful. Two different aims and beliefs are what enabled propaganda to be an effective communicative tool, producing it through ideological states of mind. There exists “a thoroughly negative meaning in western countries, representing the intentional dissemination of often false, but certainly ‘compelling’ claims to support or justify political actions or ideologies” (Avant-Garde Magazine (AGm), 30th January 2011, Propaganda ‘http://avant-gardes.com/2011/01/propaganda/’ ). Propaganda was approached and received differently by different people. An audience holds a variety of beliefs, opinions and roles within society, which become the structure behind Ideology. When propaganda is communicated to an audience, considerations into these different backgrounds can clearly be seen. The producers of propaganda would have different views and beliefs to those receiving it, the material used to produce propaganda would be a “body of ideas articulated by a particular group of people” (Storey, J 1997:3 An Introduction into Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, UK, MPG Books Ltd). One of propaganda’s purposes was to recruit, so automatically the status of those behind the material are seemed as more authoritative, in their case, their ‘particular group’ is that of a higher status. Those with this higher status do not wish to recruit themselves, they have no reason to communicate to each other. Their position in society is to rule over those with less authority, enabling them to produce material that makes this possible. Their approach to War appears different to the audience they are communicating to. This ‘particular group’s’ success would lye in their understanding and ability to connect with the other ‘particular group’. The group that appear to have a higher status (the producers of propaganda), are able to create and “present distorted images of reality” (Storey, J 1997:3 An Introduction into Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, UK, MPG Books Ltd) through propaganda. The ideological approach presents them with images that connote messages only they have the ability to conjure. Therefore, for viewers other than themselves, the images and messages shown through propaganda could be seen as distorted. They are rendered and manipulated so able to work effectively and appropriately. When regarding ideological approaches, we can never be sure which images are truthful, as each derives from varied opinions/beliefs. However, could propaganda work within the “interests of the powerful against the interest of the powerless” (Storey, J 1997:3 An Introduction into Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, UK, MPG Books Ltd). Does the higher status of those producing the propaganda enable them to conceal their hidden goals and aims, through communicating these ‘distorted images’ to those less powerful? The viewers of the propaganda, the less powerful ‘group’s beliefs of what is being portrayed through the propaganda could relate to what they want to achieve, that being, ‘social cohesion. “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister during World War II” (http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media) Metaphorically taking the ‘bodyguard of lies’ and transforming that into a representation of propaganda, the hidden connotations behind propaganda itself could be explored. In war time defining an ideological state could be the “usage intended to draw attention to the way in which texts (fiction, novels, radio, art etc…) always present a particular image to the world (Storey, J 1997:5 An Introduction into Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, UK, MPG Books Ltd). The idea of protecting the truth by surrounding it with lies could potentially be the purpose of propaganda. The result of successful propaganda being that, that presents a ‘particular image’ to the world. Simplifying ideological groups into two participating groups (the producers and the receivers), the methods behind propaganda become clearer. With status, comes knowledge, regarding Churchill and his quote, it’s clear he, like other authorities, knew the truth but chose to parade it hidden amongst lies. Whether it relates directly to the usage of propaganda or not, it’s relevance to World War One and Two, in general, is apparent. Is it knowledge of the truth that actually enabled those with more status to lie? Therefore, the producers of had power over those viewing it. Conversely, does surrounding the truth with lies, producing propaganda through specific, one-sided beliefs glue a society together? Is creating social cohesion a necessity that allows such manipulation to take place. “Marx argues that each significant period in history is constructed around a particular ‘mode of production’; that is, the way in which a society is organised (i.e slave, feudal, capitalist) to produce the necessaries of life” (Storey, J 1997:101 An Introduction into Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, UK, MPG Books Ltd). Considering World War One and Two as significant periods in history, would the purpose of propaganda, and the methods behind it’s production also fall into producing “the necessaries of life”. To create social cohesion, an idea of a ‘group’ needs to be made accessible. However, without the ‘producers’, then this idea of what is needed to contribute to the ‘mode of production’ would never be delivered to those who need to view it. Propaganda’s role could be seen as simply the messenger, between two social groups. The authorities conjure the appropriate message, perhaps disregarding everything or almost everything truthful. Sieving out what is necessary and ‘surrounding it with lies’ to ensure success, fulfilling ‘the necessaries of life’ and communicating an effective message. Whilst the propaganda obtains this information, this persuasion, the other social group (the viewers) respond to this. Through guilt and desire to be part of a ‘group’, they react, joining the army, responsibly producing ‘the necessaries of life’, contributing to the War.
