For Home and Country: World War I Propaganda on the Home Front

Notes

Introduction 1. Dylan, “It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding).” 2. Armstrong, “American Idiot.” 3. Ponsonby, Falsehood in War-Time, 128. Most contemporary examinations of the Bryce report concur with Ponsonby. Peter Buitenhaus in The Great War of Words argues that the Bryce report was “largely a tissue of invention, unsubstantiated observations by unnamed witnesses , and second-hand eyewitness reports, depending far more on imagination than any other factor. The witnesses were not put on oath, nor were they cross-examined” (27). More recent than Buitenhaus’s study, Horne and Kramer’s German Atrocities, 1914 examines atrocity stories from all perspectives, both Allied and German, “adopt[ing] the approach of a transnational cultural history” (5). In other words, Horne and Kramer actually attempt to sort out the truth, to determine what really happened during those early days of the war, an undertaking both difficult and admirable. 4. For an important essay on Smith’s novel, see Jane Marcus’s “Corpus/Corps/Corpse,” 124–67. Marcus’s essay also serves as the afterword to Feminist Press’s 1988 reprint of Price’s novel. My own essay “Propaganda, Militarism, and the Home Front” examines the cultural contexts of the home front as the novel sees them. 5. Goldman, Women Writers and the Great War, 77; and Cardinal et al., eds., Women’s Writing on the First World War. 6. Haytock, At Home, at War, 8. 7. Haytock, At Home, at War, 118. 8. Haytock, At Home, at War, 119. 9. Banta, Imaging American Women, 590. NOTES 272 | Notes to pages 10–17 10. For a thorough historical examination of World War I propaganda in the United States, including a lengthy discussion of George Creel and the Committee on Public Information, see Stewart Halsey Ross’s Propaganda for War. 11. Fraser, Propaganda, 1. 12. Fraser, Propaganda, 2 (my emphasis). 13. Fraser, Propaganda, 8. 14. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 195–200. 15. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 200. 16. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 205. 17. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 205. 18. Taylor, Munitions of the Mind, 8. 19. Taylor, Munitions of the Mind, 8. 20. Pratkanis and Aronson, Age of Propaganda, 24–26. 21. Pratkanis and Aronson, Age of Propaganda, 25. 22. Fraser, Propaganda, 2. 23. Huxley, Brave New World, 13. 24. Huxley, Brave New World, 28. 25. Huxley, Brave New World, 27. 26. Huxley, Brave New World, 47. 27. Huxley, Brave New World, 22. 28. Huxley, Brave New World, 42. 29. Pratkanis and Aronson, Age of Propaganda, 25. 30. Packard, The Hidden Persuaders, 1. 31. Packard, The Hidden Persuaders, 4. 32. Packard, The Hidden Persuaders, 2. 33. Louis Rose, in a 2003 essay, examines the work of art historian Ernst Kris, who applied the studies of Aby Warburg involving classic drama as well as the works of Freud to examine caricature art and ultimately to apply his theories to Nazi propaganda. According to Rose, Kris believed “caricature portraits possessed regressive traits—fusions, distortions, exaggerations, and schematized expressions—similar to those found in psychotic creations.” In a convoluted process of ego adaptation to the perceived aggression of the caricature, according to Kris’s theories, “caricature drawings demonstrated the psychological essence of art in the ability of the ego to confront visual images at different mental and emotional levels, and to respond to them from Notes to pages 17–20 | 273 shifting distances” (Rose, “Interpreting Propaganda,” 124). Certainly Kris’s views of Nazi propaganda, at least those involving caricature, can in Freudian terms be extended to World War I propaganda, much of which involves the use of caricature or of stereotype. 34. Gay, Freud, 368. Although Freud was Austrian and supported the German war effort in the beginning, he eventually tired of the war, and according to Gay, “by 1917, he mainly longed for the slaughter to end” (370). 35. Gay, Freud, 355. 36. Fraser, Propaganda, 32 (parentheses in original). 37. Keen, Faces of the Enemy, 1. 38. Keen, Faces of the Enemy, 19. 39. Keen, Faces of the Enemy, 8. 40. Keen, Faces of the Enemy, 12. 41. Jung is very clear in his definition of archetypes that their source is not social. In the opening essay of Man and His Symbols, Jung declares: “What we properly call instincts are physiological urges, and are perceived by the senses. But at the same time, they also manifest themselves in fantasies and often reveal their presence only by symbolic images. These manifestations...