Prescientific

Paper

British Atrocity Propaganda of

the First World War: Methods and
Consequences

submitted by

Nicolas Hanslik 6th A 2022/23

Supervisor: Dr. Mathias Sajovitz

Prague, April 2023

Abstract

The First World War was not merely a military conflict. Often dubbed as the ‘first mod-
ern war’, it was a war of information as much as a war of arms. Influencing the public
with the goal of boosting enlistment, receiving financial aid in the form of war bonds,
or encouraging neutral countries to either stay neutral or become allies was just as
crucial as the war on the ground. There were various means of achieving this, atrocity
propaganda being one of them.

Distributed in a variety of ways, such as by public speakers at mass rallies, by posters,

pamphlets, leaflets, or newspaper articles, British atrocity propaganda of the First
World War contributed to the widespread support of the war, large-scale enlistment
and ethnic violence, but also a hatred of propagandists and the distrust thereof.

This propaganda has cast a long shadow over post-WW1 societies, serving as a blue-
print for later propagandists, changing the connotation of the word ‘propaganda’ in the
eyes of the public, and ultimately serving as a talking point for holocaust-deniers.

The goal of this paper was to explore the ways British propagandists depicted the
enemy, the short- and long-term consequences of their work, the distribution of atrocity
propaganda and the British media’s involvement in this distribution. I have concluded
that British WW1 atrocity propaganda was not only influential in the ways it was sup-
posed to be, but also in the various unforeseen ways mentioned above, significantly
impacting the world we live in today.

Nicolas Hanslik 2
Abstract

Der Erste Weltkrieg war nicht nur eine militärische Auseinandersetzung. Der oft als
„erster moderner Krieg“ bezeichnete Konflikt war ebenso ein Informations- wie ein
Waffenkrieg. Die Beeinflussung der Öffentlichkeit mit dem Ziel, die Rekrutierung zu
fördern, finanzielle Unterstützung in Form von Kriegsanleihen zu erhalten oder neut-
rale Länder zur Neutralität oder Verbündung zu ermutigen, war ebenso entscheidend
wie der Bodenkrieg. Diese Manipulation erfolgte auf unterschiedliche Arten wie etwa
mittels der Gräuelpropaganda.

Die durch öffentliche Redner bei Massenkundgebungen, mittels Plakaten, Broschü-

ren, Flugblättern oder Zeitungsartikeln verbreitete Gräuelpropaganda trug zur breiten
Unterstützung des Krieges genauso wie auch zur Rekrutierung, ethnischer Gewalt,
aber auch Hass und Misstrauen gegenüber Propagandisten bei.

Diese Propaganda warf einen langen Schatten auf die Nachkriegsgesellschaften und
diente als Vorbild für spätere Propagandisten, veränderte die Konnotation des Wor-
tes „Propaganda“ in den Augen der Öffentlichkeit und diente schließlich als Ge-
sprächsstoff für Holocaustleugner.

Das Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, das von britischen Propagandisten hergestellte Feind-
bild zu analysieren, die kurz- und langfristigen Konsequenzen ihres Werkes auszu-
werten, und die Verbreitung der Gräuelpropaganda und die Beteiligung der briti-
schen Medien an dieser Verbreitung zu untersuchen. Ich bin zu dem Schluss ge-
kommen, dass die britische Gräuelpropaganda des Ersten Weltkriegs nicht nur auf
die Art und Weise einflussreich war, wie es von ihr erwartet wurde, sondern auch auf
verschiedene unvorhergesehene Arten, die sich erheblich auf die Welt auswirken, in
der wir heute leben.

Nicolas Hanslik 3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. 2

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. 3

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 6
1.1 Description of Research Methods ........................................................................................ 7

2 ATROCITY PROPAGANDA .............................................................................. 8

2.1 What is atrocity propaganda? ............................................................................................... 8

2.2 Methods of distribution ......................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Portrayal of Germans and Germany................................................................................... 11

3 SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES ................................................................. 18

3.1 Approval of war ................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Anti-German attitudes and violence ................................................................................... 19

3.3 Limitations of atrocity propaganda...................................................................................... 22

3.4 German reaction to British atrocity propaganda ................................................................. 22

4 LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ................................................................... 27

4.1 All reports of atrocities seen as lies .................................................................................... 27

4.2 Change in the connotation of ‘propaganda’ ........................................................................ 28

4.3 Blueprint for later propagandists......................................................................................... 28

4.4 Argumentation basis for Holocaust deniers ........................................................................ 29

5 CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 30

Nicolas Hanslik 4
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 32

6.1 Secondary Literature .......................................................................................................... 32

6.2 Journal Articles ................................................................................................................... 33

6.3 Lexica ................................................................................................................................. 34

6.4 Newspaper and Magazine Articles ..................................................................................... 34

6.5 Online sources.................................................................................................................... 34

6.6 Fiction ................................................................................................................................. 36

6.7 Images ................................................................................................................................ 36

EIDESSTATTLICHE ERKLÄRUNG ...................................................................... 37

Nicolas Hanslik 5
 1 Introduction

Apart from long, zig-zag shaped trenches cutting through a devastated landscape,
primitive tanks left to burn in no man’s land or bombed cities turned to rubble, propa-
ganda is one of the most striking images of the Great War. Modern warfare was waged
on three fronts, ‘the military front, the economic front, and the propaganda front.’1 And
it was Great Britain which infamously excelled particularly on the propaganda front.
British propaganda, especially British atrocity propaganda, was seen as setting stand-
ards and has far reaching consequences to this day.

I concerned myself with four questions:

1. How did British WW1 atrocity propaganda depict the Germans?
2. What were the short-term consequences of this atrocity propaganda?
3. What were the long-term consequences of this atrocity propaganda?
4. How was this propaganda distributed, did British media voluntarily distribute
atrocity propaganda and what was their motivation to do so?

I divided this paper into three sections. The first section deals with British WW1 atrocity
propaganda in general. The second two describe this propaganda’s consequences in
the short-term and long-term respectively.

For the sake of narrowing down the scope of this paper, I will be specifically focusing
on atrocity propaganda which targeted the Germans. This by no means indicates that
other warring nations were not targeted by British atrocity propaganda.

1
(Bruendel, Steffen (2017): ‘Othering/Atrocity Propaganda’. International Encyclopedia of the First
World War. URL: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/pdf/1914-1918-Online-otheringatroc-
ity_propaganda-2014-10-08.pdf [last accessed: 04.01.2023], p. 2)

Nicolas Hanslik 6
1.1 Description of Research Methods
This paper draws from various sources, mainly academic literature on the topic of Brit-
ish WW1 propaganda or World War 1 in general, but also contemporary pieces of
propaganda. The research is qualitative. Drawing from various sources, I attempted
to understand period attitudes and sentiments and how they related to British atrocity
propaganda of WW1. The evidence provided is mostly empirical, but also theoretical.

Nicolas Hanslik 7
 2 Atrocity propaganda

2.1 What is atrocity propaganda?

Law of war, regulating the conduct of belligerents, had been codified already in several
treaties before the First World War.2 These treaties, such as those in the Hague Con-
ventions of 1899 and 1907, restricted the use of 'inhumane' weapons, such as poison
gas or expanding bullets. They also demanded the protection of civilians and their
property in occupied territory or undefended towns.3 4

Both actual and alleged cases of the violation of the rules of war can be used to influ-
ence public opinion on an armed conflict and its belligerents. This is commonly re-
ferred to as 'atrocity propaganda’.5

Atrocity propaganda was used by all warring nations in the First World War. The most
infamous example and the focus of this paper is the atrocity propaganda created and
distributed by the British government and the British press.6

2.2 Methods of distribution

There were various ways that atrocity propaganda was distributed by the British gov-
ernment. A proven method would be the mass rally. There, among processions of
motorised military equipment and performances of military bands, pundits would give

2
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 2)
3
(cf. Lilian Goldman Law Library (2008): ‘Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II);
July 29, 1899’. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. URL: https://ava-
lon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp [last accessed 08.01.2023])
4
(cf. Lilian Goldman Law Library (2008): ‘Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague
IV); October 18, 1907’. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. URL:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp [last accessed 08.01.2023])
5
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 2)
6
(cf. Cull, Nicholas J., Culbert, David H., Welch, David (2003): Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A
Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, p. 25)

Nicolas Hanslik 8
fiery speeches meant to stoke anger and a sense of patriotic duty in their audience,
often describing atrocities committed by Germans in Belgium, or, after the sinking of
the Lusitania, at sea. Caught up in the heat of the moment, large numbers of specta-
tors would, in turn, be received by medical officers and local magistrates as new re-
cruits.7

While mass rallies could be very impactful, they could not achieve constant influence
on their target audience. For that, visual methods were heavily relied on. The most
popular and arguably most famous method was the poster. Posters, often combining
visual imagery with written messages, and often portraying heroic soldiers of the Em-
pire, damsels in distress or violent and barbaric Germans, would be put up in public
areas that a lot of people frequented, such as public libraries, political clubs, banks but
also in public transport. Posters were produced in large numbers until July 1915, when
their production was temporarily halted. After that, it was believed by the head of re-
cruitment, Lord Derby, that the poster had lost its initial impact. Emphasis would thus
be put on other means of reaching the public, such as pamphlets and leaflets, but also
postcards or postage stamps. These would be distributed in relatively small numbers
as to avoid overwhelming the public and causing resistance, a tactic which the Ger-
mans did not adopt, instead flooding their target audiences with their messages. Some
propaganda pamphlets were published by private publishing houses and sold for a
small price. This would lend credibility to these pamphlets, since people wouldn’t like
to think they would buy propaganda. Moreover, official publications, speeches, or mes-
sages from the King would be used to reach the populace. These methods were used
not only to influence public opinion in Great Britain, but also in allied and neutral coun-
tries.8

7
(cf. Sanders, Michael L., Taylor, Philip M. (1982): British Propaganda during the First World War,
1914-18. London: Macmillan Press, p. 103)
8
(cf. Sanders, Taylor, 1982, p. 104)

Nicolas Hanslik 9
Another source of atrocity propaganda would have been the press. Government mes-
sages would often be published in the press9 though newspapers were eager to pub-
lish atrocity propaganda stories, be it real or fabricated, on their own initiative, often
being motivated by profit.10 Impulses, such as hate or violence, which can be easily
exploited for boosting sales and thus advertisement revenue but are usually sup-
pressed in ‘polite society’ during times of peace, can be freely indulged in wartime.
This is one of the reasons why journalists and intellectuals often support government
propaganda campaigns.11

9
(cf. Sanders, Taylor, 1982, p. 106)
10
(cf. Uzuegbunam, Chikezie E. (2013). Social responsibility theory: a contemporary review. A post-
graduate Seminar paper presented to the Department of Mass Communication, Faculty of Social Sci-
ences, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Nigeria. URL: https://www.academia.edu/11187397/The_social_re-
sponsibility_theory_A_contemporary_review. [accessed 13.04.2022], p. 7)
11
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 3)

Nicolas Hanslik 10
 Figure 1 – The ‘Red Cross or Iron Cross?’ poster12

2.3 Portrayal of Germans and Germany

British anti-German atrocity propaganda of the time was deeply xenophobic in nature.
It leaned heavily into not only the barbarity of the German army, but also of Germans
themselves. An example of this can be seen in the ‘Red Cross or Iron Cross?’ poster
pictured above, where the moral inferiority of German women compared to British
women is communicated. Germans were commonly referred to as ‘Huns’, a term likely
based on Kaiser Wilhelm’s speech to his soldiers leaving to suppress the Boxer Re-

12
(Cwmtawe Comprehensive School: History Department (2001): Red Cross or Iron Cross?. URL:
https://digitaldesk.org/projects/secondary/propaganda/images/redcross.jpg [retrieved 10.03.2022])

Nicolas Hanslik 11
bellion in 1900, where he compared them to the Huns while encouraging brutality to-
wards their enemies.13 British propagandists quickly latched onto this term as it fit how
they wanted to depict the Germans. They, just like the Huns from a millennium and a
half before, would be portrayed as barbaric and violent brutes with no respect for what
was perceived as European culture.14

German soldiers were regularly characterised by the caricature of the bloated ‘Prus-
sian Ogre’ in Allied propaganda in general, not only in that of the Brits. Depicted sport-
ing a ‘Pickelhaube’, swinging around sabres and clubs, with hands covered in blood
and dead children or suffering damsels in distress almost always nearby, the omni-
present figure of the ‘Prussian Ogre’ served to remind citizens of Allied nations, what
the consequences of a defeat at the hands of Germany could look like.15

13
(cf. Görtemaker, Manfred (1996): Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert. Entwicklungslinien Vol. 274. Op-
laden: Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, p. 357)
14
(cf. Gullace, Nicoletta (2009): Picture This: World War I Posters and Visual Culture. Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press, ‘Barbaric Anti-Modernism: Representations of the "Hun" in Britain, North
America, Australia and Beyond’)
15
(cf. Sanders, Taylor, 1982, p. 137)

Nicolas Hanslik 12
 Figure 2, 3, 4 – An Australian16 poster and two American posters17 18

16
(Lovasoa (2020): ? (Question Mark) Australian WWI Poster – Norman Lindsay. URL:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/%3F_%28Question_Mark%29_Austra-
lian_WWI_Poster_-_Norman_Lindsay.jpg [retrieved 04.01.2023])
17
(Sus scrofa (2006): 'Destroy this mad brute' WWI propaganda poster (US version). URL:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/%27Destroy_this_mad_brute%27_WWI_propa-
ganda_poster_%28US_version%29.jpg [retrieved 04.01.2023])
18
(Cuerden, Adam (2010): William Allen Rogers - Only the Navy Can Stop This (WWI U.S. Navy
recruitment poster). URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/William_Allen_Ro-
gers_-_Only_the_Navy_Can_Stop_This_%28WWI_U.S._Navy_recruitment_poster%29.jpg [retrieved
04.01.2023])

Nicolas Hanslik 13
 Figure 5 – The ‘Once a German – Always a German’ poster19

The anti-German sentiment can be illustrated by the ‘Once a German – Always a Ger-
man’ poster of the British Empire Union. Originally named ‘Anti-German Union’, the
BEU was a nationalist anti-socialist union.20 This post-WW1 poster contains many of
the accusations levied against German forces and references to atrocities committed
by them, such as the murder of women and children, the execution of prisoners of war,
the exploitation of civilians, the destruction of cities, the sinking of the RMS Lusitania
or the execution of the British nurse Edith Cavell. Its thesis lies in the claim, that such
atrocities are inherent to Germans, and that all Germans bear responsibility for the

19
(Buidhe (2020): British Empire Union WWI poster. URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe-
dia/commons/c/ca/British_Empire_Union_WWI_poster.jpg [retrieved 04.01.2023])
20
(cf. Brown, Kenneth D. (1974): Essays in Anti-Labour History. London: Macmillan Press, ‘The Anti-
Socialist Union’)

Nicolas Hanslik 14
actions of their military. For that reason, British workers and British products should
be preferred.

While Britain went into great lengths to paint German soldiers as violent, brutish bar-
barians, German military doctrine would not end up making them look any better, ei-
ther. The protection of the lives and property of non-combatants was never a priority.21
The paranoid fear of supposedly omnipresent francs-tireurs and saboteurs lead to par-
ticularly drastic measures being taken against the civilian population.22 This can be
illustrated by a diary entry of General Karl von Einem, claiming he had ordered “all the
houses burned and the inhabitants shot” for supposed Belgian resistance. Such ac-
tions were defended by the Kaiser himself in a telegram to Woodrow Wilson, claiming
Germans had been forced to “take the most drastic measures in order to punish the
guilty and to frighten the blood-thirsty population from continuing their work of vile mur-
der and horror”.23 This, of course, gave Britain ample ammo to use against Germany
in the war of propaganda.

The story of the German Corpse Factory, or ‘Kadaververwertungsanstalt’, is one of

the most notorious fabricated pieces of atrocity propaganda of the First World War.
The claim was, that, being motivated by a scarcity of raw materials due to the British
naval blockade, the German-operated ‘Kadaververwertungsanstalt’ would process the
fat from fallen soldiers into soap.24 It likely originated from misidentifying the raw ma-
terials, which appeared to be human corpses, used in a factory for war commodities.
The ‘Lokal-Anzeiger’ of Berlin described the factory in a story, which lead The Times
to accuse Germany of boiling human corpses down into soap. This accusation was
substantiated by various other reports of German activity, such as sightings of trains

21
(cf. Robertson, Emily (2014): Propaganda and ‘manufactured hatred’: A reappraisal of the ethics of
First World War British and Australian
atrocity propaganda. Public Relations Inquiry 2014, Vol 3 (2), p. 258)
22
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 7)
23
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 258-259)
24
(cf. Sanders, Taylor, 1982, p. 146)

Nicolas Hanslik 15
allegedly filled with dead soldiers or occasional absence of German war graves. The
story was initially met with scepticism and occasional ridicule by the British propa-
ganda apparatus, however, ultimately, it was decided, that a pamphlet about it was to
be published.25

Another notorious piece of atrocity propaganda, albeit not completely fabricated, the
‘Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages’, also known as the ‘Bryce
report’, after the Committee’s chair, described the atrocities to have supposedly hap-
pened in occupied Belgium. It included, apart from reports of common war crimes,
fabricated accounts of a child being found nailed by its hands and feet to a farmhouse
door, of women getting their breasts cut off or of a two-year-old child getting stabbed
and then carried away on a singing German soldier’s bayonet:26

"One day when the Germans were not actually bombarding the town I left my house to go to my moth-
er's house in High Street. My husband was with me. I saw eight German soldiers, and they were
drunk. They were singing and making a lot of noise and dancing about. As the German soldiers came
along the street I saw a small child, whether boy or girl I could not see, come out of a house. The child
was about two years of age. The child came into the middle of the street so as to be in the way of the
soldiers. The soldiers were walking in twos. The first line of two passed the child; one of the second
line, the man on the left, stepped aside and drove his bayonet with both hands into the child's stom-
ach lifting the child into the air on his bayonet and carrying it away on his bayonet, he and his com-
rades still singing. The child screamed when the soldier struck it with his bayonet, but not afterwards."

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the reports were not, despite popular
consensus after the war, entirely unfounded in fact. While the outrageous claims de-
scribed above were likely fabricated, allegations of using Belgian civilians as shields,
indiscriminately destroying buildings, mass rape and mass executions of civilians were

25
(cf. Sanders, Taylor, 1982, p. 146-147)
26
(Duffy, Michael (2009): ‘Primary Documents - Bryce Report into German Atrocities in Belgium, 12
May 1915’. Firstworldwar.com. URL: https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/brycereport.htm [last ac-
cessed 08.01.2022])

Nicolas Hanslik 16
not.27 This blend of factual reporting and of almost cartoonish exaggerations is a com-
mon theme in British atrocity propaganda of the time and would ultimately end up
being its downfall.

27
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 254)

Nicolas Hanslik 17
 3 Short-term consequences

3.1 Approval of war

The First World War was widely supported across the political spectrum, to a large
extent even by parties which had identified as internationalist before the war, such as
the Labour Party in Great Britain.28 It is important to keep in mind, however, that some
leftist political parties elected to support the war out of pragmatism, hoping, that show-
ing loyalty to the government would result in a reformist breakthrough, famously the
SPD, the German social democratic party, was such a case.29 Vocal disapproval for
war was scarce and largely found within the fringe left, notably anarchist30 and syndi-
calist31 political groups, but also some socialist parties, such as the ‘Spartakusbund’,
which formed in opposition to the pro-war SPD32, or its British counterparts, the Inde-
pendent Labour Party and the British Socialist Party33. Christian pacifists and some
women’s groups also openly protested the war, though they were often split on the
issue.34

28
(cf. Swift, David (2017): For Class and Country, the Patriotic Left and the First World War. Liver-
pool: Liverpool University Press, ‘I‘d sooner blackleg my union than blackleg my country‘ – Labour Pa-
triotism, 1914-18)
29
(cf. Eley, Geoff (2002): Forging Democracy: The history of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000. New
York: Oxford University Press, p. 126)
30
(cf. Guérin, Daniel (2005): No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism. Oakland: AK Press,
Vol. 3, p. 387-389)
31
(cf. Darlington, Ralph R. (2006): Revolutionary syndicalist opposition to the First World War: An
international comparative reassessment. URL: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/10093/, p. 2)
32
(cf. Mühldorfer, Friedbert (2007): ‘Spartakusbund, 1915-1919‘. Historisches Lexikon Bayerns. URL:
http://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Spartakusbund,_1915-1919 [accessed
02.07.2022])
33
(cf. Swift, 2017, p. 77)
34
(cf. Wiltsher, Anne (1985): Most dangerous women: feminist peace campaigners of the Great War.
London: Pandora Press, p. 2)

Nicolas Hanslik 18
While the support for the war should not be fully credited to atrocity propaganda, as it
did not have one cause, but rather was the result of the entire culture of the time, it
certainly played a part, with either atrocities perpetrated in Belgium or at sea, or Prus-
sian militarism and regressiveness often being quoted as a justification for the con-
flict.35 36 This can be illustrated by a line from the Manifesto of the Sixteen, a document
signed by sixteen anarchists including influential philosopher and revolutionary Peter
Kropotkin, calling for their comrades to support the war effort on the side of the Allies:
„We have been deeply conscience that German aggression was a threat - a threat
now carried out - not only against our hopes for emancipation, but against all human
evolution.“37

3.2 Anti-German attitudes and violence

While negative attitudes towards Germans and Germany were increasingly common
since the souring of Anglo-German diplomatic relations in the Edwardian era, German-
ophobia and the violence connected with it and spiked dramatically with the outbreak
of the Great War. Apart from street name changes and other rather inconsequential
acts, spontaneous anti-German riots took place in London every year of the war except
for 1918. These riots were motivated both by ethnic hatred but also a fear of German
spies and saboteurs, working to destroy the country from within. Both sentiments were
already common in Britain before the war and were encouraged by media. An example
of this can be illustrated by the conspiracy theory created by Leonard Maxse, a radical
Unionist journalist. He believed that wealthy German immigrants moved to Britain to
take the country over for Germany. This fear of German saboteurs and spies trans-
formed during World War I into a theory of a ‘hidden hand’ of German influence which

35
(cf. Wilbur, Shawn P. (2012): ‘The Manifesto of the Sixteen’. Revolt Library. URL: http://www.revolt-
lib.com/anarchism/manifesto-of-the-sixteen-conditions-kropotkin-peter-1916/ [last accessed
08.01.2023])
36
(cf. Swift, 2017, ‘I‘d sooner blackleg my union than blackleg my country‘ – Labour Patriotism, 1914-
18)
37
(Wilbur, 2012, ‘Manifesto of the Sixteen’)

Nicolas Hanslik 19
controlled and sabotaged Britain,38 with similar conspiracy theories, albeit usually con-
cerned with Jews or socialists, as opposed to Germans, becoming very common after
the war. Examples of this can be seen in the anti-communist rhetoric of the Red Scare
in the United States or of various European fascist leaders, such as Hitler, Mussolini,
or Gajda in Czechoslovakia.

During these anti-German riots, Russian Jews had also often been harmed since they
were seen as draft-dodgers and pacifists. Open and frequently violent antisemitism
was very common in Europe at that time. Hatred of Russian Jews in particular was
already widespread in pre-war Britain, with accusations of ‘stealing jobs from Britons’
commonly held against them. They were the largest immigrant group in Britain and as
such faced the prejudice which is typical for an ethnic group in their position.39
Britons were frequently also the victims of these riots, usually those with German or
German-sounding names.40 A contemporary wrote:

“In the opinion of the British in the East End, it is better that a Scotsman with a German-looking name,
or an Irishman with a German-sounding accent, should suffer than a genuine German should es-
cape.”41

The dehumanization of Germans can be exemplified in the call for the extermination
of all Germans in Britain in the Sunday Pictorial in May 191542, a period of exception-
ally widespread violence against Germans.

38
(cf. Panayi, Panikos (1989): ‘Anti-German Riots in London during the First World War’, German His-
tory Vol. 7 No. 2, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/gh/7.2.184 [accessed 30.03.2022], p. 185)
39
(cf. Panayi, 1989, p. 203)
40
(cf. Panayi, 1989, p. 193)
41
(Panayi, 1989, p. 193)
42
(cf. Hyman, Alan (1972): The Rise and Fall of Horatio Bottomley. Littlehampton: Cassell & Co, p.
164)

Nicolas Hanslik 20
“And now comes the news of the Lusitania massacre. I want every German now in Britain to get away
sharp – never mind how long he has been ‘naturalized’. You cannot naturalize an unnatural freak – a
human freak. But you can exterminate it.”43

The author Horatio Bottomley, a journalist, Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party
and founder of the popular right-wing tabloid John Bull44, labelling Germans as ‘unnat-
ural freaks’, justified his stance by pointing to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania by a
German submarine,45 an event which led to the death of more than a thousand civil-
ians and ultimately turned international opinion against Germany and contributed to
the American entry into the war.46 Bottomley was a particularly active agitator during
the First World War and spoke at various rallies on behalf of the war effort. The danger
of the ‘enemy within’ was a prominent theme in his work.47 Bottomley’s genocidal rhet-
oric was not reserved only for Germans, however. After the assassination of Franz
Ferdinand, Serbia got the same treatment as Germany would immediately after. De-
scribed as a ‘nation of assassins’, Bottomley called for its complete destruction.48

Similarities between anti-German riots and atrocities committed by the German mili-
tary in Belgium can be observed. Both were largely motivated by the fear of saboteurs
and ‘enemies within’. Both focused largely on retaliating against imaginary transgres-
sions by the target group and neither was particularly concerned with ensuring the
safety of innocents.49 50

43
(Hyman, 1972, p. 164)
44
(cf. Hyman, 1972, p. 85)
45
(cf. Hyman, 1972, p. 164)
46
(cf. Preston, Diana (2003): Wilful Murder. The Sinking of the Lusitania. London: Black Swan, ‘NO
LONGER NEUTRAL SPECTATORS’)
47
(cf. Searle, Geoffrey R. (2004): A New England? Peace and War 1886–1918. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, p. 723)
48
(cf. Hyman, 1972, p. 145)
49
(cf. Panayi, 1989, p. 193)
50
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 258)

Nicolas Hanslik 21
3.3 Limitations of atrocity propaganda
However, it is important to keep in mind that atrocity propaganda did not always
achieve its aims. Famously, ceasefires and other acts of comradery and fraternisation
between German and British troops took place on Christmas 1914.51 With trench war-
fare, especially in trenches which were situated relatively near each other, came the
advent of the ‘live-and-let-live system’, i.e. a sometimes negotiated, sometimes un-
spoken agreement between supposedly antagonistic parties to refrain from engaging
in violence as long as the other would do the same.52 And while there was a large
wave of volunteers in the opening stages of the war, Britain soon had to resort to
conscription.53 Large-scale mutinies and strikes took place late-war, these were often
organised by syndicalist and other leftist agitators.54 Overall, there was a rise in scep-
ticism and animosity towards those in charge, especially upper brass of militaries, but
also the political establishment, culminating in the revolutions of 1917-1923.

The aforementioned combination of factual reporting with complete lies, while it helped
rile up the British public during the war, would hold grave consequences for British
propagandists down the line, as it would ultimately destroy the reputation of all British
propaganda and lead to denial of all atrocities committed by the German military.55

3.4 German reaction to British atrocity propaganda

Accusations of atrocities committed by the German armed forces were either denied
or blamed on Belgian francs-tireurs, claiming such acts were cases of self-defence.
Allegations of partisan attacks worked to justify any brutality committed by the German
military and to shift the blame onto the Belgian population. Subsequent scholarship

51
(cf. Ashworth, Tony (2000): Trench Warfare 1914-1918: The Live-and-Let-Live System. London:
Pan Books, p. 24)
52
(cf. Ashworth, 2000, p. 18)
53
(cf. Sanders, Taylor, 1982, p. 11)
54
(cf. Darlington, 2006, p. 17-18)
55
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p.)

Nicolas Hanslik 22
has since shown that these francs-tireurs did not exist.56 It was this panic, caused by
reports of said imaginary francs-tireurs, which lead German soldiers to commit many
atrocities on Belgian civilians, retrospectively justifying these in the process.57 The
paranoia concerning Belgian partisans was based on the experience of the German
military fighting in the Franco-Prussian war, where after an initially quick victory over
the French forces, Germans faced fierce resistance from the civilian population. Ex-
pecting to encounter something similar in Belgium, they treated the populace accord-
ingly. In a telegram to Woodrow Wilson, Kaiser Wilhelm II writes:

„Not only have they employed these atrocious weapons, but the Belgian Government has openly
encouraged and, since long, carefully prepared the participation of the Belgian civil population in the
fighting.
The atrocities committed even by women and priests in this guerrilla warfare, also on wounded
soldiers, medical staff and nurses, doctors killed, hospitals attacked by rifle fire, were such that my
generals finally were compelled to take the most drastic measures in order to punish the guilty and to
frighten the bloodthirsty population from continuing their work of vile murder and horror.
Some villages and even the old town of Loewen [sic], excepting the fine hotel de ville [sic], had to be
destroyed in self-defence and for the protection of my troops. My heart bleeds when I see that such
measures have become unavoidable and when I think of the numerous innocent people who lose
their home and property as a consequence of the barbarous behaviour of those criminals.“58

Wilhelm II mentions the destruction of Loewen in his telegram. Between August and
September 1914, a third of the city was turned to rubble, including various local his-
torical landmarks. 248 civilians were killed, most of the surviving residents were forced
to leave the city.59

56
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 259)
57
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 6-7)
58
(Duffy, Michael (2009): ‘Primary Documents – Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Letter to President Wilson Re-
garding Belgian Use of Dum-Dum Bullets, 7 September 1914’. Firstworldwar.com. URL:
https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/kaiserdumdumbullets.htm [last accessed 30.01.2022])
59
(Williams, John P. (2018): ‘The Flames of Louvain: Total War and the Destruction of European High
Culture in Belgium by German Occupying Forces in August 1914’. The Great War in Belgium and the
Netherlands, p. 38)

Nicolas Hanslik 23
According to the ‘Manifesto of the Ninety-Three’, a document endorsed by 93 scien-
tists, artists and intellectuals which endorsed actions of the German military during the
early period of the war, all reports of unprovoked violence against civilians were fabri-
cated. The document claims:

“It is not true that the life and property of a single Belgian citizen was injured by our soldiers without
the bitterest self-defense having made it necessary; for again and again, notwithstanding repeated
threats, the citizens lay in ambush, shooting at the troops out of the houses, mutilating the wounded,
and murdering in cold blood the medical men while they were doing their Samaritan work. There can
be no baser abuse than the suppression of these crimes with the view of letting the Germans appear
to be criminals, only for having justly punished these assassins for their wicked deeds.”60

Like before, the blame is shifted away from the German military and onto the Belgian
civilian population. The document provides no evidence for its claims, relying rather
on nationalism, a pre-existing faith in established institutions and the prestige of those
associated with it. This is even more apparent in the following paragraph:

„We cannot wrest the poisonous weapon—the lie—out of the hands of our enemies. All we can do is
to proclaim to all the world that our enemies are giving false witness against us. You, who know us,
who with us have protected the most holy possessions of man, we call to you:
Have faith in us! Believe, that we shall carry on this war to the end as a civilized nation, to whom the
legacy of a Goethe, a Beethoven, and a Kant is just as sacred as its own hearths and homes.
For this we pledge you our names and our honor:“61

Another common tactic was to focus on transgressions allegedly committed by Allied

troops. These would often consist of accusations of using dumdum bullets. Dumdum
bullets are a type of bullet designed to expand upon impact, thus producing larger

60
(Professors of Germany (1919): ‘To the Civilized World’. The North American Review, Aug., 1919,
Vol. 210, No. 765. p. 284-287. Availible at JSTOR. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25122278 [last
accessed 08.01.2023])
61
(Professors of Germany, 1919)

Nicolas Hanslik 24
wounds. For this reason, they have been banned from war in the 1899 Hague Con-
vention62, though they continue to be used for civilian purposes. The ‘Manifesto of the
Ninety-Three’ engages in this kind of rhetoric:

“It is not true that our warfare pays no respect to international laws. It knows no indisciplined cruelty.
But in the east the earth is saturated with the blood of women and children unmercifully butchered by
the wild Russian troops, and in the west dumdum bullets mutilate the breasts of our soldiers. Those
who have allied themselves with Russians and Serbians, and present such a shameful scene to the
world as that of inciting Mongolians and negroes against the white race, have no right whatever to call
themselves upholders of civilization.”63

Racism and ethnic hatred are a common theme when it comes to the propaganda of
the time. It is important to keep in mind, that the British were not the only ones who
exploited ethnic hatred for propaganda purposes.

An example of how atrocity propaganda was viewed by the average German soldier
can be seen in the novel ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ by Erich Maria Remarque.
The book is a work of fiction, however, it is based on Remarque’s time as an infantry-
man.64 For this reason, it can serve as an authentic account of the war. While discuss-
ing who is to be held at fault for the war, Paul Bäumer, the POV-character, states:

“They tell more lies on the other side than our lot do, though,’ I put in. ‘What about those leaflets the
POWs had on them, where they said that we eat Belgian babies? People who write things like that
ought to be strung up. They’re the real villains.“65

62
(cf. Lilian Goldman Law Library (2008): ‘Laws of War: Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Ex-
pand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899’. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law,
History and Diplomacy. URL: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp [last accessed
08.01.2023])
63
(Professors of Germany, 1919)
64
(cf. History (2009): WWI novel “All Quiet on the Western Front” is published. History. URL:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/remarque-publishes-all-quiet-on-the-western-front [last ac-
cessed: 24.10.2022])
65
(Remarque, Erich M. (2011): All Quiet on the Western Front. Leicester: W F Howes Ltd, p. 192)

Nicolas Hanslik 25
Bäumer expresses distain for these propagandists not necessarily because of the
slander of Germans, but rather for perpetuating the war by lying to their soldiers and
thus motivating them to fight. This view on atrocity propaganda, seeing it as a tool to
manipulate the masses into participating in pointless wars they wouldn’t, under normal
circumstances, want to participate in, became particularly widespread after the war,
even in Britain.

Nicolas Hanslik 26
 4 Long-term consequences

4.1 All reports of atrocities seen as lies

In 1925 a discussion in the House of Commons revealed, that the story of the ‘Ka-
daververwaltungsanstalt’ was in fact fabricated.66 This added to the already popular
notion, that all reports of atrocities perpetrated by German soldiers were false. In a
move to correct the falsehoods spread by British propagandists, all reports of such
atrocities were seen as fabrications also by historians well into the 20th century, the
base of these claims often being the work of Arthur Ponsonby, a British politician and
writer. In his 1928 book ‘Falsehood in War-Time: Containing an Assortment of Lies
Circulated Throughout the Nations During the Great War’, he claimed that reports of
atrocities were all fabricated and subsequently fed to a credulous and naïve popu-
lace.67 This denial of atrocities committed by German armed forces is just as incorrect
as the myth it sought to correct.68 Nonetheless, it remained the dominant narrative
after the war.69

This popular albeit false narrative consequently reinforced the stab-in-the-back myth
in the eyes of the German public70, a myth which would end up being a vital tool of the
Nazis in gaining public support and ultimately seizing power. This myth was propa-
gated by various former political and military leaders of the German empire, as a be-
trayal by the demoralized homeland could be used to deflect from their own failings.71

66
(cf. Sanders, Taylor, 1982, p. 147)
67
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 253)
68
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 255)
69
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 252)
70
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 1)
71
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 14-15)

Nicolas Hanslik 27
4.2 Change in the connotation of ‘propaganda’
Before 1914, propaganda wasn’t seen as anything seditious. It was merely a way to
influence the public, to initiate the uninitiated. After WW1 however, propaganda began
to be seen as a synonym for manipulation via misinformation. Two books were partic-
ularly influential in this development, namely ‘Propaganda Technique in World War
One’ (originally ‘Propaganda Technique in the World War’) by Harold D. Lasswell,
published in 1927, and the aforementioned ‘Falsehood in War-Time: Containing an
Assortment of Lies Circulated Throughout the Nations During the Great War by Arthur
Ponsonby, published in 1928. Lasswell described atrocity propaganda as a tool for
rousing hate. Ponsonby claimed that British WW1 atrocity propaganda consisted only
of lies.72

4.3 Blueprint for later propagandists

British propaganda of the First World War was seen as one of the most effective prop-
agandist doctrines of the time. Whereas for instance German propagandists didn’t
bother making their claims seem particularly credible, as they believed the masses
couldn’t discern fact from fiction, British propagandists used the authority of famous
authors and targeted specific feelings, fears and desires of their audience. Their prop-
aganda ended up much more pervasive than that of their opponents or even allies,
setting standards for how a propaganda campaign is to be run.73

After the war, propagandists of various nations and regimes studied the techniques of
the British and used their propaganda as a blueprint for their work. An example of this
can be seen in the strong resemblance between the racist depiction of French colonial
troops and the accusations levied against them in German posters denouncing the
occupation of the Rhineland in the 1920s to the depiction of German soldiers just a
few years earlier.74

72
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 252-253)
73
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 2)
74
(cf. Bruendel, 2017, p. 13)

Nicolas Hanslik 28
4.4 Argumentation basis for Holocaust deniers
During the Second World War, large segments of the British and American public were
initially sceptical towards the reports of extermination camps in Nazi Germany.75 While
this sentiment largely disappeared from wider society, it was not eliminated com-
pletely.

The often exaggerated or false nature of WW1 British atrocity propaganda and the
following labelling of all such propaganda and reporting on atrocities as false is used
by many Holocaust deniers to this day to justify their position.76 Basing their view of
history on an already disproven77 notion of a universal untruthfulness of British report-
ing on atrocities, they extend this thesis onto the coverage of such topics by all allied
parties in the Second World War, conveniently ignoring not only this but also all other
evidence of the Holocaust, including that left by the Third Reich itself.

The poor quality of such ‘historical revisionist analysis’, if it even deserves such a label,
tends to be disregarded by Holocaust deniers as it suits their narrative, a fact which is
not particularly surprising as Holocaust deniers are not exactly known for their aca-
demic prowess. It is important to keep in mind that just like a hundred years ago,
propaganda today does not necessarily need to reflect reality to be influential.

75
(cf. Cull et al, 2003, p. 25)
76
(cf. BBC (2017): The corpse factory and the birth of fake news. BBC. URL:
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38995205 [accessed 29.03.2022])
77
(cf. Robertson, 2014, p. 255)

Nicolas Hanslik 29
 5 Conclusion

British propaganda of the First World War was one of, if not the most effective propa-
ganda doctrines of its time. The British took great care in organising the distribution of
government propaganda. They utilised various psychological methods, from stoking
anger and encouraging mob mentality to get people to enlist to exploiting cognitive
dissonance of those, who chose to buy their pamphlets. They also made sure not to
overwhelm their target audience with their propaganda, something which their German
counterparts neglected to do. Not all distribution of anti-German atrocity propaganda
in Britain was organised by the government, however. The commercial press was
heavily involved, publishing infuriating stories, both real and fabricated, motivated at
least partially by profit.

Atrocity propaganda was particularly effective. It portrayed the German military as a

horrifically cruel force of destruction with no respect for human dignity. Accurate de-
scriptions of actual atrocities, such as mass murder and rape, alongside fabricated
stories of outlandishly cruel acts of violence against women and children formed its
bread and butter.

The pervasive image of the brutish, barbaric German soldier joyfully terrorising inno-
cent Belgian civilians no doubt contributed greatly to enlistment into the war as it did
help sell many newspapers and pamphlets. However, it also contributed to Germano-
phobia and large-scale ethnic violence against not only Germans, but also Russian
Jews and many Britons.

After WW1, a new narrative about British wartime atrocity propaganda, namely that it
was all false, became increasingly popular. This contributed not only to a distrust of
propaganda in general, but also the ‘stab in the back’ myth in Germany, which would
go on to facilitate the rise of Nazism in that country.

Nicolas Hanslik 30
In the Second World War, the poor reputation of British WW1 atrocity propaganda
caused distrust of reports of extermination camps. After the war, it would serve as a
basis for the beliefs of various holocaust deniers.

Nicolas Hanslik 31
 6 Bibliography

6.1 Secondary Literature

Ashworth, Tony (2000): Trench Warfare 1914-1918: The Live-and-Let-Live System.
London: Pan Books

Brown, Kenneth D. (1974): Essays in Anti-Labour History. London: Macmillan Press

Cull, Nicholas J., Culbert, David H., Welch, David (2003): Propaganda and Mass Per-
suasion: A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO

Eley, Geoff (2002): Forging Democracy: The history of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000.
New York: Oxford University Press

Görtemaker, Manfred (1996): Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert. Entwicklungslinien

Vol. 274. Opladen: Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung

Guérin, Daniel (2005): No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism. Oak-

land: AK Press, Vol. 3

Gullace, Nicoletta (2009): Picture This: World War I Posters and Visual Culture.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press

Hyman, Alan (1972): The Rise and Fall of Horatio Bottomley. Littlehampton: Cassell
& Co.

Preston, Diana (2003): Wilful Murder. The Sinking of the Lusitania. London: Black
Swan

Nicolas Hanslik 32
Sanders, Michael L., Taylor, Philip M. (1982): British Propaganda during the First
World War, 1914-18. London: Macmillan Press

Searle, Geoffrey R. (2004): A New England? Peace and War 1886–1918. Oxford:
Clarendon Press

Swift, David (2017): For Class and Country, the Patriotic Left and the First World War.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press

Wiltsher, Anne (1985): Most dangerous women: feminist peace campaigners of the
Great War. London: Pandora Press

6.2 Journal Articles

Darlington, Ralph R. (2006): Revolutionary syndicalist opposition to the First World
War: An international comparative reassessment. URL: http://usir.sal-
ford.ac.uk/id/eprint/10093/

Robertson, Emily (2014): Propaganda and ‘manufactured hatred’: A reappraisal of the

ethics of First World War British and Australian
atrocity propaganda. Public Relations Inquiry 2014, Vol 3 (2), p. 245-266

Uzuegbunam, Chikezie E. (2013). Social responsibility theory: a contemporary review.

A postgraduate Seminar paper presented to the Department of Mass Communication,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Nigeria. URL: https://www.ac-
ademia.edu/11187397/The_social_responsibility_theory_A_contemporary_review.
[accessed 13.04.2022]

Panayi, Panikos (1989): ‘Anti-German Riots in London during the First World War’,
German History Vol. 7 No. 2 p. 184-203. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/gh/7.2.184 [ac-
cessed 30.03.2022]

Nicolas Hanslik 33
Professors of Germany (1919): ‘To the Civilized World’. The North American Review,
Aug., 1919, Vol. 210, No. 765. p. 284-287. Availible at JSTOR. URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25122278 [last accessed 08.01.2023]

Williams, John P. (2018): ‘The Flames of Louvain: Total War and the Destruction of
European High Culture in Belgium by German Occupying Forces in August 1914’. The
Great War in Belgium and the Netherlands. p. 35-47

6.3 Lexica
Mühldorfer, Friedbert (2007): ‘Spartakusbund, 1915-1919‘. Historisches Lexikon
Bayerns. URL: http://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Spartakus-
bund,_1915-1919 [accessed 02.07.2022]

6.4 Newspaper and Magazine Articles

BBC (2017): The corpse factory and the birth of fake news. BBC. URL:
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38995205 [accessed 29.03.2022]

6.5 Online sources

Bruendel, Steffen (2017): ‘Othering/Atrocity Propaganda’. International Encyclopedia
of the First World War. URL: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/pdf/1914-
1918-Online-otheringatrocity_propaganda-2014-10-08.pdf [last accessed:
04.01.2023]

Duffy, Michael (2009): ‘Primary Documents - Bryce Report into German Atrocities in
Belgium, 12 May 1915’. Firstworldwar.com. URL: https://www.first-
worldwar.com/source/brycereport.htm [last accessed 08.01.2022]

Nicolas Hanslik 34
Duffy, Michael (2009): ‘Primary Documents – Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Letter to President
Wilson Regarding Belgian Use of Dum-Dum Bullets, 7 September 1914’. First-
worldwar.com. URL: https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/kaiserdumdumbullets.htm
[last accessed 30.01.2022]

History (2009): WWI novel “All Quiet on the Western Front” is published. History.
URL: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/remarque-publishes-all-quiet-on-
the-western-front [last accessed: 24.10.2022]

Lilian Goldman Law Library (2008): ‘Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on
Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899’. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and
Diplomacy. URL: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp [last ac-
cessed 08.01.2023]

Lilian Goldman Law Library (2008): ‘Laws of War: Declaration on the Use of Bullets
Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899’. The Avalon Pro-
ject: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. URL: https://ava-
lon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp [last accessed 08.01.2023]

Lilian Goldman Law Library (2008): ‘Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on
Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907’. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History
and Diplomacy. URL: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp [last ac-
cessed 08.01.2023]

Wilbur, Shawn P. (2012): ‘The Manifesto of the Sixteen’. Revolt Library. URL:
http://www.revoltlib.com/anarchism/manifesto-of-the-sixteen-conditions-kropotkin-pe-
ter-1916/ [last accessed 08.01.2023]

Nicolas Hanslik 35
6.6 Fiction
Remarque, Erich M. (2011): All Quiet on the Western Front. Leicester: W F Howes Ltd

6.7 Images
Cwmtawe Comprehensive School: History Department (2001): Red Cross or Iron
Cross?. URL: https://digitaldesk.org/projects/secondary/propaganda/images/red-
cross.jpg [retrieved 10.03.2022]

Lovasoa (2020): ? (Question Mark) Australian WWI Poster – Norman Lindsay. URL:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/%3F_%28Ques-
tion_Mark%29_Australian_WWI_Poster_-_Norman_Lindsay.jpg [retrieved
04.01.2023]

Sus scrofa (2006): 'Destroy this mad brute' WWI propaganda poster (US version).
URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/%27De-
stroy_this_mad_brute%27_WWI_propaganda_poster_%28US_version%29.jpg [re-
trieved 04.01.2023]

Cuerden, Adam (2010): William Allen Rogers - Only the Navy Can Stop This (WWI
U.S. Navy recruitment poster). URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe-
dia/commons/5/54/William_Allen_Rogers_-
_Only_the_Navy_Can_Stop_This_%28WWI_U.S._Navy_recruitment_poster%29.jpg
[retrieved 04.01.2023]

Buidhe (2020): British Empire Union WWI poster. URL: https://upload.wikime-

dia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/British_Empire_Union_WWI_poster.jpg [retrieved
04.01.2023]

Nicolas Hanslik 36
Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Ich erkläre, dass ich die vorwissenschaftliche Arbeit eigenständig angefertigt und nur
die im Literaturverzeichnis angeführten Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe.
Prag, am 5. Februar 2023

___________________
Unterschrift

Nicolas Hanslik 37