This week’s topic is about Politics and Propaganda, a fascinating subject about how something like the media can change the way people fundamentally feel about their country and politicians in favor of one party. Propaganda has both a broad definition “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” (Webster’s Dictionary) and also a negative one. George Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind as a great literary example of how propaganda is used to brainwash people into the same mindset. Propaganda also seems to have a negative connotation of being used as a means of persuading people to do something they would otherwise not do, especially something important such as enlisting in war or following a dictator.

Although everyone knows the general gist of World War II and about the atrocities of Hitler and the German Nazis, sometimes we forget that the German people were not instinctively evil or inclined to commit these crimes. There have been many studies about how the power of an authority affects the submission of a person and how certain forms of media can be useful means of propaganda to convince the public. The public received bombardment of propaganda to inspire nationalism compounded with Hitler’s power as an excellent orator. The director of “Triumph of Will” was Leni Riefenstahl, a female director popular who was impressed and inspired by Hitler that made an account of the 1934 Nuremberg rally. The other clip by Frank Capra, is a series of informational video targeted towards informing American troops about the advance of Germany through Europe and the destruction in its wake.

Although the American clip is considered to be a call to arms, it is still a prominent form of propaganda, because it is trying not only to inform but persuade one of the evils of the opposing side (Germany). It portrays the Third Reich as an evil world power that is trying to take over the world. Retrospectively, we know this to be true, so we can sympathize with video, unlike the other video about Germany, however it is still an excellent piece of propaganda. The spread of destruction and treachery by Germany is highlighted in this video, especially in their false promises to Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Luxembourg.

Riefenstahl’s video, on the contrary, is a prominent display of patriotism and nationalism starting with a slow pan of the Germany country from a plane. To a German citizen, this targets the sense of national pride for one’s own country. This pan is shifted to Hitler’s landing in an airport, where he is welcomed by the large mass of people who are not only present at the airport, but the entire route to his destination. There is a clever focus on not just Hitler but the faces of people who are happy and inspired by their fuhrer, especially on children and elderly. This invokes a sense of compassion, sympathy, and agreement. Further in the film, there is an extensive scene where prominent Nazi officers speak about Hitler, which is interesting choice. By not just focusing on Hitler but what other people say about him, it gives a sense of public unity and pride for their leader. An example is where an officer says, “Hitler is our leader, whatever he judges, we judge…You are Germany. When you act, the nation acts.” The officers tackle various aspects of German politics, but the general sense they give off is that “Hitler is our leader, we will follow him anywhere, and if you are a German, you should too.” All the rallies in the rest of the German video focus on the rallies and gives a sense of how strong the German Army is and how great Hitler is. Whenever Hitler enters the scene, the camera shifts to smiling boys and the massive number of people who are raising their hands to hail their fuhrer.

This in itself is a power motivator to follow a leader into war, especially if one does not know the true motives and aims to follow the leader blindly.

In the reading, Marlin discusses the beginnings of propaganda by the British in World War I, which was possibly a similar model to that used by Hitler and Goebbels in World War II for Nazi influence in Germany. Marlin discusses the difficulties of categorizing and classifying propaganda and says it is difficult to distinguish propaganda from other forms of social and political expression. Marlin quotes the BP report that claims of there being 3 types of propaganda: written word, picture, and personal. Additionally, this excerpt claims that personal is the most powerful but limited to a person. However, if persuasion is used on someone powerful in media, such as an editor, this can be a powerful way of reaching thousands of people. This is interesting, because it is a concise categorization of propaganda and provides a basis for evaluating different types.

Later in the conclusion of the historical overview, Marlin claims “In what we have treated, we see over and over again how successful propaganda relies on surreptitious presentation of its message.” This means that the success of propaganda relies on the fact that the public does not realize what they are seeing is a means of propaganda. If the people are able to believe that the message is genuine and not necessarily see the political motivations behind such a message, this is when the propaganda is most effective. Additionally, we have to understand the target audience and understand who and how target the message. The propaganda can be tailored to a specific group to make it that much more effective, or it can be broadened so that it is something everyone sympathizes with (such as nationalism and patriotism).

In Conclusion, propaganda is a subtle art that combines persuasion and media to drive a message, the true meaning or purpose of which, may not be apparent to the target audience.

So do we think that propaganda is necessary? Or is it an evil force that deceives the public?

Some questions to think about: Is there a way to motivate people to join a side, without using what we have seen as “propaganda” in the clips and reading? Do you think that the German people were deceived by the propaganda into joining Hitler, or should they have known better? How would you distinguish between good propaganda and bad propaganda, in the context of morality?

Blog written by: Manutej Mulaveesala, Vivian Chan, Casey Bodden, Shengrong Tang, Gilbert Chan, Josh May