Mind-Munitions

268
Propaganda in the Age of Total War and Cold War
Shortly after Kennedy’s death, the World Rule of Law Centre
commissioned a study in 1964 by John Whitton and Arthur Larson
who stated unequivocally that ‘propaganda helps to cause war’.
They continued: ‘that propaganda in itself increases the danger of war
is no mere theory or rhetorical flourish. There is convincing historical
evidence of the actual hastening of war by deliberate propaganda
techniques’. They then went on to cite numerous examples
of where this had occurred in an attempt to advocate ‘disarmament
in the war of words’. As we have seen, the escalation of propaganda
since 1945 undoubtedly contributed to significant international
friction. But, in a sense, Whitton and Larson missed the point. Wars are
not caused solely, or even mainly, by propaganda. They are caused
by people in power who have to balance possible risks against
potential gains in order to achieve their aims by means other than
peaceful ones. Once they have balanced the risks, then the propaganda
comes into play. Propaganda can escalate a conflict but it usually
comes after the policy has been decided. The Cold War, once it was
under way, demanded that policy and propaganda be conducted
hand-in-hand. Many propagandists working in various western
information agencies argued that the Soviets always held the initiative
because their propaganda was so interwoven with their policy.
The western democracies had to learn that, in order to survive an
ideological confrontation, they would need to fight fire with fire.
Moreover, the increasing intrusiveness of the mass media into
political life required greater attention to presentational skills on
the domestic front, giving rise to the recent age of media politics.
Propaganda could no longer operate in a vacuum divorced from
social or political realities. But if the policy arrived at was one of
peace, the propaganda which would follow from it had the potential
to reinforce it. It was Clausewitz who argued that war was the
continuation of politics by other means but, in the Cold War,
propaganda became the continuation of politics by other means. In
terms of a possible nuclear confrontation, propaganda became the
essential means by which the superpowers could fight each other
verbally rather than physically. But in a confrontation between a
nuclear and a non-nuclear power, as in Vietnam, the former dared
not use the bomb for fear of being branded an irresponsible nuclear
thug and the enemy of civilization whereas the latter had to use
every weapon that it could muster. With the arrival of television, a
significant new weapon had been found.