The principles of war propaganda
Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre (German: The principles of war propaganda) is the title of a media-sociological book by the historian Anne Morelli . The book was published in 2001, the German translation in 2004.
Morelli worked out the ten "commandments" of propaganda in the work . They are primarily intended as an analysis grid for educational and media-critical purposes and should remain neutral. Morelli wants to show the regularity of propaganda principles in the field of the media and society:
- “I am not going to examine the purity of one or the other's intentions. I'm not trying to find out who is lying and who is telling the truth, who believes what they are saying and who doesn't. My only intention is to illustrate the principles of propaganda that are being used and to describe how they work. ”(P. 6)
Nevertheless, it seems to the author indisputable that after the wars that characterize our epoch ( Kosovo , Second Gulf War , Afghanistan War , Iraq War ), the Western democracies and their media landscape must be addressed. Anne Morelli updates the ideal-typical forms of a wide variety of propaganda content. It takes up Arthur Ponsonby's findings on propaganda in the First World War and systematizes them in the form of its “ten principles”.
content
We don't want a war!
Statesmen of all countries always solemnly affirm that they do not want war. Wars are always undesirable; the population only seldom sees a war positively. With the emergence of democracy, the consent of the population becomes indispensable, so the war must be rejected and one has to be a pacifist at heart, in contrast to the Middle Ages, when the opinion of the population was of little importance. “This is how the French government mobilizes the army and at the same time proclaims that mobilization is not a war but, on the contrary, the best means of securing peace.” “If all leaders are inspired by the same will for peace, one wonders why wars at all break out. ”The second principle answers this question.
The enemy is solely responsible for the war!
This principle follows from the fact that each party assures that it is forced to declare war in order to prevent the opponent from destroying "our values", endangering our freedoms or completely destroying ourselves. It is the aporia of a war waged to prevent wars. One almost arrives at George Orwell's mythical phrase : "War is peace." The US was forced to wage war against Iraq because Iraq had left it no other choice. So you only react, defend yourself against provocations from the enemy, who is fully responsible for the outbreak of the war. “ In his' Appeal to the Nation 'on September 3, 1939, Daladier affirmed - passing on France's responsibility for the consequences of the Versailles Treaty -:' Germany has already refused to answer the people with a good heart who were at this time raised their voices for peace in the world. […] We wage war because it is being forced upon us. '” Ribbentrop justified the war against Poland with the words:“ The Führer does not want war. With a heavy heart he decides to do so. But the decision to go to war and peace does not depend on him. She depends on Poland. Poland has to give in on certain vital issues for the Reich and meet demands that we cannot do without. If it refuses, the responsibility for a conflict lies with Poland and not with Germany. ”(P. 16 in the French original) In the same sense one could read about the Gulf War on January 9, 1991 in Le Soir :“ The peace that the the whole world longed for more than anything cannot be built on simple concessions to an act of piracy. ”The same applies to the Iraq war, because before the war broke out, Le Parisien dubbed on September 12, 2002: How Saddam is preparing for war .
The leader of the enemy camp is demonized
“You cannot hate a group of people as a whole, not even as enemies. It is therefore more effective to direct hatred on the enemy leader. The opponent gets such a face and this face will of course become the object of hatred. "
"The victor will always portray himself as a pacifist who loves understanding, but is pushed to war by the opposing camp, like Bush or Blair did." "The opposing camp is definitely run by a madman, a monster ( Milosevic , Bin Laden , Saddam Hussein ), (...) that challenges us and from which mankind must be liberated. "
The first step in the demonization process is to reduce an entire country to a single person, as if no one lived in Iraq except Saddam Hussein with his "terrifying" Republican Guard and his "terrible" weapons of mass destruction.
The personalization of conflicts is typical for a certain view of history, according to which the story of heroes, of "great people" is made. Anne Morelli rejects this view of history and writes tirelessly about what the official historiography keeps silent. This official representation of history is idealistic and metaphysical in that it assumes that history is the result of ideas and their great people. She opposes this view with a dialectical and materialistic one, in which history is explained through the relationships between people and social movements.
The opponent is characterized by all imaginable evils. They range from the physical to the sex life. In L'Express on April 8, 1999 , Le Vif depicts the “terrible Milosevic”; she does not quote any utterance or writing by the “Ruler of Belgrade”, but emphasizes his abnormal mood swings, his pathological and brutal outbursts of anger: “When he is in When he gets angry, his face contorts. In a moment he suddenly regains his composure. ”Of course, like other techniques, this demonization is used only for war propaganda. Pierre Bourdieu reports that many university teachers in the United States who disliked Michel Foucault's popularity in their high schools wrote books on Foucault's intimate life. For example, the “masochistic and crazy homosexual” practiced “unnatural, scandalous and unacceptable sexual practices”. In this way one could save oneself dealing with the thinking of the author or the discourses of a political person and “refute” him on the basis of moral judgments.
We defend a noble goal and no special interests!
The economic and geopolitical goals of the war must be masked by an ideal, moral and legitimate values. Sun announced George HW Bush : "There are people who are the never understand. The fight is not about oil, the fight is about brutal aggression ”or Le Monde on January 22, 1991:“ The goals of the war are first and foremost the goals of the UN Security Council. We participate because of the reasons for the decisions of the Security Council and the main goal is the liberation of Kuwait . ”“ In our modern societies, unlike Louis XIV, a war can only be started with a certain approval of the population. Gramsci has shown the extent to which cultural domination and consent are necessary for domination. This approval is easy to win if the population believes that their freedom, their lives and their honor depend on this war. ”The aims of the First World War can be summarized in three points:“ - to destroy militarism, - the small ones To defend states - to prepare the world for democracy. Since then, these very honorable goals have been repeated almost verbatim on the eve of every conflict, even if they fit little or not at all with the real goals. "" One has to persuade public opinion that we, in contrast to our enemies, are going to war lead infinitely honorable motives. ”“ For the Yugoslav war there is the same deviation of the official goals from the unacknowledged goals of the conflict. Officially, NATO intervenes to preserve the multi-ethnic character of Kosovo, to prevent minorities from being mistreated, to introduce democracy and thus end the rule of a dictator. It is the defense of the sacred cause of human rights. It was not only at the end of the war that you could tell that none of these goals were achieved, you are noticeably far removed from a multiethnic society and violence against minorities, this time Serbs and Roma, is part of everyday life, but you become aware that the economic and geopolitical goals that have never been discussed have been achieved. ”“ The principle also implies that the enemy is a bloodthirsty monster who represents a barbaric society. ”
The enemy will knowingly commit atrocities, and if we make mistakes it is unintentional
The stories of atrocities committed by the enemy represent an essential element of propaganda. Atrocities are part of all wars. But the representation that only the enemy commits atrocities and that the people love their own “humanitarian” army makes them part of the propaganda. The war propaganda is not satisfied with the actual incidents, it has to invent inhumane atrocities in order to make the enemy appear as Hitler's alter ego.
You can hardly find any great differences in the representation of different wars. For the time of the First World War, Ponsonby describes the portrayals of gang rape, murder, mistreatment and mutilation of children by German soldiers. Morelli points out how similar reports from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Kosovo war are.
The enemy uses illicit weapons
This principle complements the previous one. "We do not commit atrocities, but on the contrary wage war in a chivalrous manner, by respecting the rules, of course, hard and manly rules, as in a game." During World War I there were furious protests against the use of poison gas. Each war party accused the other of having started it. Although both had used gas and had done research in the field, it was the symbolic expression of inhumane warfare. Therefore, it was attributed to the enemy as an indecent and insidious weapon.
We suffer little losses; the enemy's losses are considerable
“With rare exceptions, people are more likely to join the victorious cause. In the case of war, the preference of public opinion depends very much on the apparent results of the conflict. If the results are not good, the propaganda must cover up our losses and exaggerate those of the enemy. "
Already in the First World War the casualties piled up within the first month and rose to 313,000 dead. But the Supreme Command never even reported the loss of a horse and did not publish a list of those killed.
The Iraq war provides another example in the prohibition on the publication of photos of the coffins of American soldiers. The enemy's losses, on the other hand, were gigantic, and their army offered no resistance. "This kind of information increases the morale in both camps and leads public opinion to the conviction of the effectiveness of the conflict."
Recognized cultural institutions and scientists support our cause
Since the First World War, intellectuals have mostly given their own camp massive support. Every war party could count on the support of artists, writers and musicians who supported the cause of their countries through initiatives in their fields of activity.
Caricaturists are used to justify the war and portray the "butcher" and his atrocities, while others produce camera-in-hand moving documents about Albanian refugees, carefully selecting those most similar to the audience, such as this pretty blond Albanian child with homesick eyes to remind of the Albanian victims.
"Manifestos" are being published everywhere. The Manifesto of the Hundred , aiming to support France in World War I, was signed by André Gide , Claude Monet , Claude Debussy and Paul Claudel . Closer to the present is the manifesto of the 12 against the “new totalitarianism” of Islamism. These groups of intellectuals, artists and respected personalities justify the actions of the respective state power.
There is something sacred to our concern
This criterion can be understood in two ways: In the literal sense, the war presents itself as a crusade, behind which there is a divine mission. One must not withdraw oneself from God's will, one must fulfill it. This view has gained new significance since George W. Bush came to power . The Iraq war appeared as a crusade against the " axis of evil ", as a "struggle of good against evil". It was our duty to bring democracy to Iraq, a good that sprang directly from God's will. Waging war was thus the realization of the divine will. Political decisions take on a biblical character that eliminates all social and economic issues. The reference to God is established in a variety of ways ( In God We Trust , God Save the Queen , God with Us , ...) and serves to justify the actions of the sovereign without the possibility of contradiction.
Anyone who doubts our propaganda is working for the enemy and is thus a traitor
This last principle complements all others. Whoever questions any of the principles is necessarily a collaborator. There are only two realms, good and bad. One can only be for or against evil. The opponents of the Kosovo war are thus accomplices of Milošević. Whole groups are classified as anti-American, Pierre Bourdieu , Régis Debray , Serge Halimi , Noam Chomsky or Harold Pinter . The “family of pacifists” includes Gisèle Halimi , Renaud , l ' abbé Pierre … and their press organs, ie le Monde diplomatique and the PCF .
It is thus made impossible to give rise to a dissenting opinion without "lynching the media". The pluralism of opinions no longer exists, all opposition is condemned to silence and is discredited by pseudo-arguments.
This approach was used again in the Iraq war, although the world public was far more divided than in the Kosovo conflict. To be against the war meant to stand up for Saddam Hussein. The same scheme was used in a completely different context, namely when voting on the European Constitution. To be against the Constitution meant to be against Europe.
Reviews and reception in the German-speaking area
In his review, Rudolf Walther praises Plain Black and White Mythology: How Propaganda Works in Times of War in ZEIT of November 18, 2004, Morelli's monograph as an “intellectual toolkit” for every newspaper reader or TV viewer to critically examine “propaganda reinforced by the media ". With much evidence from all major conflicts since World War I, Morelli has examined the mechanisms of the warring parties by which they make their point of view appear as a just cause. Morelli formulated the basics of her book with Ponsonby and Georges Demartial succinctly.
Jochen Stöckmann is rather critical of Morelli's investigation in Deutschlandfunk on December 6, 2004, insofar as it puzzles him, “that Morelli does not describe how the gears of the media now mesh, does not research the mechanisms and details, but argues exclusively with quotations , based their criticism on the products of propaganda. ”This type of superficial media criticism has long since become an integral part of the infotainment machinery. For the contemporaries who are “enlightened” in this way, but actually rather hardened, any war reporting that is not explicitly pacifist-based is considered to be propaganda. Morelli should have cleared up the confusing situation, instead she recommends the readers only “all too sweeping the 'systematic doubt' as an 'antidote'”: “Its effectiveness should soon be exhausted, as the historian sees almost every piece of news contaminated by the 'poison of the daily Products of sentiment '. "
Lars Klein from the University of Göttingen wrote in his review for H-Soz-Kult on June 29, 2005, in addition to his praise for the topicality of the topic and for the usefulness of its analyzes, Morelli unfortunately does not clarify whether "the media" are themselves actors whether they are pursuing political or commercial interests and consciously or unreflectively abusing the citizens' “good faith”. "Precisely because she devotes the entire tenth chapter [...] to showing how important media keep themselves in line with their 'own side', further and clearer explanations would have been desirable here."
swell
Anne Morelli: The Principles of War Propaganda . To Klampen, Springe 2004, ISBN 978-3-934920-43-9 .
Remarks
- ↑ Ibid, p. 14.
- ↑ Michel Collon: “attention médias! » , Bruxelles, éditions EPO, 1992, p. 34.
- ^ Anne Morelli: "L'histoire selon les vainqueurs, l'histoire selon les vaincus. »December 8, 2003 in: http://www.brusselstribunal.org/8dec_fulltexts.htm .
- ^ Anne Morelli, op.cit., P. 25.
- ↑ a b Collon, Michel, op. Cit., P. 32.
- ↑ Anne Morelli, op.cit., P. 27.
- ↑ a b Ibid, p. 28.
- ↑ Ibid, p. 34.
- ↑ L'enfant aux mains coupées
- ↑ Ibid, p. 48.
- ↑ Ibid, p. 49.
- ↑ a b Ibid, p. 54.
- ↑ Ibid, p. 56.
- ^ Anne Morelli: "les 10 commandements de Ponsonby", sur le site de Zaléa TV : archive link ( memento of the original from July 15, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: the archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .
- ↑ Rudolf Walther: Simple black and white mythology: How propaganda works in times of war. In: zeit.de. November 18, 2004, accessed December 5, 2015 .
- ↑ Jochen Stöckmann: Anne Morelli: The principles of war propaganda. Deutschlandfunk, December 6, 2004, accessed on December 5, 2015 .
- ^ Lars Klein: A. Morelli: The principles of war propaganda. In: H-Soz-Kult. June 29, 2005, accessed December 5, 2015 .
