Estimate of the Situation
In physical warfare, the inherent instability of every situation is
concealed by the apparent definiteness of the operation. Panic, revolt
or dissolution of regiments is not normally figured into the situation.
The assumption is made--and for professional military purposes must be
made--that all identical units are of equal quality unless proved
otherwise, that all men in a unit will respond with psychological
uniformity unless they are reported out physically by medical reports,
that the unit will be capable of doing tomorrow what it did yesterday.
The terrain comes in as a constant factor and even such variables as
weather can be calculated in terms of a predictable risk. Nevertheless,
every experienced soldier knows that things do not always work out the
way they should, that unexplained or unforeseen factors sooner or later
complicate or frustrate the best plans, and that warfare is a huge
gamble with a superficial but very necessary coating of exactitude.
In psychological warfare, these considerations apply even more sharply.
Combat at least has terrain, order of battle, logistics, estimated
capabilities and other concrete factors with which to figure. There is a
known degree of difference between one enemy division and five enemy
divisions. There is the possibility of computing the time which the
enemy will need to fulfill this capability or that, and the equally good
possibility of computing time on our side for countermeasures. Even in
such very long-range operations as strategic bombing, economic factors
can be figured out to give the operation at least the coloration of
precision. With propaganda, none of this is possible.
The propagandist never knows the terrain, because his terrain is the
enemy mind in its entirety--a factor beyond the understanding of any
man. The enemy can have strongholds of faith to be shaken but the
propagandist can never say, "This factor is finished. Therefore we
proceed to the next." There is neither victory nor defeat, only the
endless seesaw of probable accomplishments or probable blunders. The
honest psychological warfare operative will admit that he does not know
where he is at any given moment, how far from his start, how near to his
goal. Even with surrender of the enemy, propaganda cannot be judged to
have met with complete failure or complete success, because propaganda
is an interminable stream going on into international affairs and
carrying over to the next war. Psychological warfare can be given
apparent certainty only by the creation of assumptions on the part of
the planner. The assumptions will not stand up if questioned by a clever
philosopher, any more than did the basic assumptions of the German
General Staff when questioned by the sardonic Trotzky at Brest-Litovsk.
Nevertheless, the assumptions can work for planning purposes.
=Definiteness of the Goal.= The first assumption to make is this: goals
can be sought with some hope of success. The propaganda planner uses the
intelligence available to him. He consults with knowledgeable persons.
He defines (1) specific kinds of demoralization and discord he wishes to
create, (2) the particular enemy audiences in which he wishes to create
them, (3) the types of argument he proposes to use, and (4) the media
through which he intends to project his propaganda. He assumes that the
kind of discord, depression or surrender which he seeks will hasten the
end of the war. In so doing, he is on ground only a little less sure
than that of the strategic bombing planner, who also seeks results
indirectly.
For field operations, the goal of the propagandist is to sap the
resistance of enemy troops. If the troops are moving forward and are not
likely to be in a mood to surrender, then other goals, such as conflict
between officers and men, encouraging desertion, informing enemy troops
of bad news elsewhere in the war, or morale-depression may be sought. In
each case, the propaganda must be aimed at a goal, and a goal is as
essential to the operation of psychological warfare as is definition of
a target for artillery or bombing. No one ever accomplishes anything
shooting "somewhere or other"; no one propagandizes successfully unless
he seeks the attainment of a state of mind or series of actions which
may actually happen. Most times, it is thus impossible to aim at the
total surrender of the enemy armies or state. One can aim for concrete
operational purposes only at specific enemy troubles or effects. For the
field, troop surrenders; for the home front, interference with the enemy
war effort--these are about as general as goals can be made.
They can be made very specific indeed. A situation reported by
intelligence may provide an almost perfect opening for psychological
warfare. If the enemy press reports that twenty-three embezzlers have
been detected in food supply and have been shot, it is a perfect opening
for the black propaganda goal, "to conduce to enemy mistrust of food
control, to increase food spoilage, to lower efficiency of enemy food
consumption through enhancing misuse of food supply." Some of the means
might be these. An alleged enemy leaflet could be prepared warning
quartermasters to destroy canned foods that have lost labels; another
leaflet describing diseases that come from partly spoiled food; an
"enemy" allegation (from your side or, better, from neutral territory)
that the political chiefs of the enemy country are the biggest food
embezzlers of all; getting a black-radio and rumor campaign under way
describing the seven hundred and eighty-three people who died last
month as a result of eating musty food (even though your own doctors say
the mustiness may not interfere with the wholesomeness of that
particular food); describing common diseases that actually occur in the
enemy country, such as arthritis, stomach ulcers, sinus headaches or
infectious jaundice, and blaming them all on the foods the enemy
government distributes to the enemy people. On white radio, features
could be put on describing the unhappy plight of your own side, where
people may get their rashers of bacon for breakfast only every other
day, and where nobody can have more than three eggs at a time; point out
that the government is worried that food prices have risen 5.3%, without
mentioning at that time the fact that enemy prices have gone up 45% or
more. The definite goal gives the propaganda boys something to work on.
Propaganda to the allies or satellites of the enemy can point out that
the enemy government is apt to dump the spoiled food onto the foreign
market, that food spoiling in territory of the big enemy will make him
requisition more food from his little allies, et cetera.
When the topic has been worked for a while, stop; keep it up only if
actual news from the enemy country shows that they are having enough
real trouble with food to make your _improvements_ on the fact
thoroughly credible.
Propaganda cannot function in a vacuum framed by moral generalities. The
goal must be defined in the light of authentic news or intelligence. The
operation can be sustained only if there is enough factual reality
behind it to make the propaganda fit the case known or credited by the
majority of the listeners, counted one by one.
Since no trouble-free, wartime country has been known to exist, the
goals should be tailored to the troubles of the particular enemy, and
should aim at increasing real difficulties, building up pre-existing
doubts, stimulating genuine internal hostilities. Propaganda which
invents pure novelty gets nowhere. The Russians did not hesitate to
appeal to Bismarck in order to show the professional German soldiers
what a rotter Hitler was, and how stupid the Nazi strategy. But if
Bismarck had actually said nothing on the subject of the army in general
or an Eastern war in particular, they would have been wise to leave him
alone. If the Japanese had tried to make the ex-Confederate States
secede all over again, they would not have gotten anywhere because they
would not have started with a real grievance. But if they had alleged
that the Negro units were used for stevedoring because Whites regarded
Negroes as unworthy of carrying weapons, they might have hit on a real
grievance. The goal must be deeply bedded in reality.
=The Propaganda Man.= It has been pointed out that the true terrain of
psychological warfare--the private thoughts of the enemy people, one by
one--is known only to God. There is, however, a way of finding
approximate terrain. That consists of setting up a hypothetical enemy
listener or reader, and then trying to figure things out from _his_
angle.
The first thing to do with the hypothetical man is to make him fit the
kind of person who does get propaganda. In dealing with China, for
example, it would be no use to take a statistically true Chinese, who
lived on a farm 1.3 acres in size, went to town 5.8 times a year, had
3.6 children, and never read newspapers. The man to be set up would be
the _reachable_ man, the city, town or village dweller who had an income
2.1 times greater than that of the average in his county, who owned 1.7
long coats, and who shared one newspaper with 6.8 neighbors. Take this
lowest-common-denominator of a man who can be reached by enemy
propaganda and by yours. Name him the Propaganda Man. (Realistically
speaking, modal and not arithmetical classes should be set up.)
Make up the prewar life of the Propaganda Man. Use your regional experts
as informants. What kinds of things did he like? What prejudices was he
apt to have? What kind of gossip did he receive and pass along? What
kind of words disgusted him? What kind of patriotic appeal made him do
things? What did he think of your country before the war? What things
did he dislike you and your people for? What myths did he believe about
America--that all Americans drove sports convertibles while drinking
liquor? that all had blonde sweethearts? that all exchanged gunfire
periodically? Of what American things did he think well--food, shoes,
autos, personal freedom, others? What is he apt to be thinking now?
To this add what the enemy propaganda is trying to do to its Propaganda
Man. That is, size up the domestic propaganda of the enemy in terms of
the concrete individuals at whom it is aimed. This may reveal the
enemy's vital necessities and his concealed weaknesses. What _are_ the
leaders trying to do? Are they trying to make the Propaganda Man get to
work on time? Are they trying to make him give up holidays willingly?
Are they trying to make him think that your side will kill him if you
win? Are they trying to keep him from being worried about his city going
up in an incandescent haze? Are they trying to make him believe that the
concrete shelters are good? Why are they harping so on the safety of the
shelters? Has the Propaganda Man been muttering back about the
flimsiness of the shelters? Does he want to be evacuated from target
cities? Are the police being praised for their fairness and speed in
issuing leave-the-city permits? Are illegal évacués being treated as
scum and traitors and cowards?
Then go after the Propaganda Man yourself. He is your friend. You are
his friend. The only enemy is the enemy Leader (or generals, or emperor,
or capitalists, or "They"). How is the Propaganda Man going to hear from
you? Leaflets? Short-wave--and if so, why is he listening to the enemy
in the first place? Standard-wave? Speaker planes? Rumors? Get things to
him that you know he will repeat, things which will interest him. Make
up a list of the things he worries about each month, a list of the
things which the enemy propaganda is trying to do to him currently, a
list of the things your propaganda is trying to do. Do the three lists
fit? Would they work on an actual living breathing thinking human being,
with the prejudices, frailty, nobility, greed, lubricity, and other
motives of the ordinary human being? If your list fits his real life, if
your list spoils the enemy propaganda list, if your list builds up a
psychological effect of confusion, gloom, willingness-to-surrender which
accumulates month after month, the terrain is favorable. It is in your
Propaganda Man's head.
There are no maps of the human mind, but in certain special cases
sociology and psychology can provide leads which even the most acute
untrained observation would otherwise overlook. During World War II, for
example, Mr. Geoffrey Gorer, a British anthropologist, was able to
provide character analyses of the Japanese that stood up under the
rigorous analysis of experts long resident in Japan. Gorer took as base
data the experience of the Japanese infant in the first forty-odd months
of life. How was the baby given toilet training? how was it weaned? how
was it disciplined into the family life? how did the small child learn
what it was? Gorer found that Japanese domestic life started the child
out with a mixture of uncertainty and defiance--that the infant soon
learned he was in a definite position in the human queue, where all
above him had to be respected on the threat of immediate and condign
reprisal, while all below him could be mistreated almost with
impunity--that the Japanese had sad dirty little private thoughts about
himself to a degree unknown to ourselves or the Chinese--that the
Japanese was in adult life the inevitable fulfillment of what he had
been made in infancy: arrogant, timid, insanely brave, deferential,
fearful of foreigners and overtly cruel to them.
Furthermore, the Japanese identified persons, nations, or institutions
as Female (peaceful, possessing enjoyments, subject to bullying) or as
Male (fierce, counteraggressive, superordinate). The U.S.A. of Admiral
Perry seemed Male; that of Cordell Hull, Female. These findings, applied
to propaganda, gave British-American operations an audience unlike the
Japanese whom missionaries, soldiers, diplomats, businessmen, and
journalists had portrayed in such varied and inconsistent terms. This
Japanese Propaganda Man (analyzed at a distance, since Gorer had never
been nearer Japan than Indo-China) became a believable person. It was
uncanny to see Japanese propaganda movies after reading the Gorer
analyses, and to find the Japanese government propagandists, by hunch
and instinct, appealing to the same Propaganda Man whom Gorer, by bold
but permissible extrapolations, had revealed to Allied propaganda
planners.
=The Attribution of Motive.= One of the least factual elements in human
life is motive. Motive is hard to discern, even in one's own life, and
it is difficult if not impossible to prove. It must frequently be
attributed. Motive is therefore easily interpreted; "falsification" is
almost impossible because no matter how much probable motive is twisted,
it still might fit the case. Motive is therefore excellent material for
psychological warfare. (Those propaganda veterans, the Communists, have
a formula for showing that the motive of every person opposed to them is
unprogressive, illiberal, and greedy, even if the person himself does
not know it. Their own motives are always pure because they are
"objectively" and "historically correct" according to _science_, that
is, according to the historical rigmaroles of Karl Marx. The formula is
a poor science, but a superb propaganda weapon.)
War eases the motive-switching operation because the leaders and people
on each side derive moral exhilaration from the common effort.
Ostensibly, politicians become statesmen; all higher-ranking officers
become strategists; ordinary men become heroes, martyrs, adventurers.
The lofty process of war is one which psychologists will not explain in
our time; it transposes ordinary persons and events to a frame of
reference in which individuals are less self-conscious and also less
critical. Among European and American peoples, particularly, there
arises the assumption that because of war men should be brave and
unselfish, women kind and chaste, yet alluring, officials
self-sacrificing, and so on, even though the facts of the case in the
particular country involved may be very much to the contrary. The cruel
futility inherent in war is so plain to all civilized men that when war
does come men overcompensate for it. They set up illusions.
This need not be taken as a criticism of war or of mankind. The world
would be a more inspiring place in which to dwell if people generally
lived up to the wartime standards they impose on themselves. That these
standards are felt to be real is attested by the distinct drop of the
suicide rate in wartime, and the increase in suicide, murder, and crimes
of delinquency after every war; that the change of role is largely
illusory is attested by the fact that no nation appears to have
undergone permanent sociological change as a result of improvement
during war. Many wartime changes carry on, of course; but they rarely
comprise, by the standards of the people concerned, improvements. The
upswing is genuine, when it occurs, but it is rarely permanent, and it
seldom affects all levels of the entire population with the same degree
of exhilaration.
The propagandist thus has an ideal situation. In the enemy country
everyone is trying to be more noble, more unselfish, more hard-working.
Everyone applies a higher standard of ethics and performance than in
peacetime. Businessmen are not supposed to make too much money,
politicians are supposed to work around the clock, officials are
supposed to cooperate, housewives to save, children to scavenge, and so
on. Yet a certain percentage of the enemy population is not taken into
this. Sometimes minorities feel themselves emotionally excluded; at
other times private temperamental differences make some persons skeptic
while others remain believers. The ground is ready for rumor, for
tearing down inflated personages, for breaking the illusion by the
simple process of attributing normally selfish motives in wartime.
It is easier to attribute bad motives to civilian leaders than to
military. The ceremonialized discipline of modern warfare makes the
military figure a little mysterious; his normal peacetime obscurity
shielded him and his family from exposure, cheap publicity, gossip. The
civilian leader does not have this protection. The very process of
becoming prominent has involved his seeking publicity, for the one part,
and his pretense of avoiding it, for the other. Furthermore, the man who
serves his nation serves himself. It is not possible for a man to lead a
large country without benefiting himself, since the act of leadership is
itself intensely pleasurable. Also, prominence possesses a
characteristic of vice; even when it loses its value for positive
enjoyment it retains withdrawal pains. The once-prominent individual
hates to leave prominence though he may be genuinely weary of it. He is
willing to be tired of the country, but not willing for the country to
be tired of him. In wartime old leaders remain and new ones come in.
Fame and obscurity shift with even greater rapidity than before. The
personality-politics condition of the country is highly mobile.
Personalities are tense with interpersonal conflict.
Then comes the propagandist.
First, he attributes normal human motives to the leaders who so
obviously possess them. In this job, he is doing what the famous little
boy in the Hans Christian Andersen story did when he said of the
Emperor, "Mamma, he hasn't any clothes on!" The propagandist need only
say what everyone knows: that this man is notoriously fond of money;
that another one has been a poor sportsman; that a third has betrayed
some old friends; that a fourth has sought power in a selfish,
vindictive way. The response which the propagandist seeks is a simple
"That's so."
The next step in propaganda is to show that these persons do not measure
up to the tragic, heroic, historic roles war has imposed on them. That
too is not difficult, especially if the war is not going decisively one
way or the other. Defeat or victory serves equally well to make leaders
into heroes; Churchill and MacArthur were never more splendid than when
they were whipped, the one after Dunkirk, the other after Bataan.
The final approach is the total discrediting of leaders. If the internal
politics of the country have been bitter enough, some of the leaders may
even come over voluntarily to the enemy. Quisling in Norway; Wang in
China; Doriot and Laval in France; Vlassov in the U.S.S.R.; Laurel from
the Philippines--such men all possessed a certain amount of standing in
their own countries but through capture, impatience, or seduction
decided to continue their careers with enemy backing. The propagandist
can now pretend to be tolerant. It is he who believes in peace, in
reconciliation, in easygoing live-and-let-live attitudes. He describes
his protegés, the quislings, in warm complimentary terms; he lightens
the tenor of his attack on the non-quisling enemy leaders. He takes the
attitude that war continues because of private stupidity, vengefulness,
greed, unreasonableness on the other. For his part, he is willing to let
the politicians, both quisling and patriot, "settle it between
themselves." Let them form a coalition government.
Personal smearing is effective. If the war situation runs in the enemy's
favor, the easing of the enemy position permits the population the
privilege of backbiting, and even within the leader-group some leaders
may feel more free to destroy the positions or reputations of the
others. The impossible and foolishly heroic stances which the leaders
have taken in time of strain now make most of them look a little silly.
Conversely, in a downgrade situation, the leaders may gain stature in
the first tragic weeks of defeat, but soon the ignobility of defeat
sweeps over them all. The propagandist need only be a good reporter, and
the leaders of the defeated country will provide him with good
propaganda material.
In estimating the propaganda situation, the vulnerability of the leaders
to personal attack is one of the major elements. Properly handled, it
can be of real value. In the American Revolution, the personal character
of George Washington was a very substantial asset. A. very rich man, he
could scarcely be accused of a gutter revolution. A slave owner, he
could not be accused of wanting the overthrow of the social order. An
experienced soldier, he could not be attacked as a military amateur. A
man of patience, correct manners, and genuine modesty, he was not easily
described as a bloody empire-builder, an immoral sycophant, or a
power-drunk madman. British propaganda accordingly went after the
Continental Congress, of which there was a great deal to be said. On the
other side, the Americans had duck soup when it came to George III and
most of his Cabinet--personalities which included boors, fuddy-duddies,
too-little-and-too-laters, and conspicuous nincompoops.
=A Written Estimate of the Situation.= If, as indicated above, the
terrain of Psychological Warfare consists of the private thoughts and
feelings of each member of the audience reached; if the mission of
Psychological Warfare is the accomplishment of anything from entirely
unknowable results (such as an imperceptible change of mood) all the way
through to complete success (such as organized mass surrender); if the
capabilities of the enemy have virtually nothing to do with one's own
Psychological Warfare commitments; and if the decision consists of
choices of means and theme--if these peculiarities all apply, the usual
"estimate of the situation" has almost nothing to do with military
propaganda.
Roughly speaking, this is the case. An attempt to apply the outline
given in FM 101-5, Appendix I, would produce only a lamentable parody of
a military document.
The _situation_ of the military unit possessing Psychological Warfare
facilities has relatively little to do with the _capabilities_ of the
Psychological Warfare unit. The morale of one's own men should have no
effect whatever on the output of the radio script writers and the
leaflet writers.
In combat operations, military forces _meet_. In Psychological Warfare,
they do not. In combat operations, it is impossible for two hostile
units to occupy the _same_ territory for any length of time without both
of them degenerating into a chaos of armed mobs. In Psychological
Warfare operations, both sets of operations can be conducted in the same
media, can address themselves to the same basic human appeals, can use
the same music, the same general kind of news account, and so on.
Furthermore, no modern army ever went into operation with certain units
designated as wholly and exclusively defensive, and certain others as
wholly and exclusively offensive. (The Great Wall of China is the
world's most celebrated example of purely defensive planning, yet it
protected Chinese offensive bases for twenty-one hundred years.) But in
Psychological Warfare, the Japanese-language short-wave broadcasts from
San Francisco had no imaginable effect on the American forces in the
Pacific. The only people who could understand them were the
Japanese-language officers in G-2 and ONI offices; their personal
vexation did not matter.
The offensive operations of combat troops are predicated upon finding
the enemy, effecting contact, and either destroying the enemy or making
him yield terrain. The defensive operations of combat troops,
contrariwise, are planned with a view to resisting an enemy who has been
met.
In Psychological Warfare, operators and enemy do not effect contact. The
audience cannot strike back through a radio set; the enemy reader cannot
throw a leaflet back at the bomber which has dropped it on him. When
American planes bombed German radio stations, they did not do so because
the flight commander was trying to get German propaganda off the air;
they did so because the Americans were trying to break up the entire
German communications network. It is almost impossible to pinpoint radio
transmitters and printing presses with such accuracy as to deny the
enemy all chance of talking back. In a purely physical sense, there are
only two sets of measures whereby an actual defense can be set up
against Psychological Warfare. Each is a measure of desperation; neither
is considered effective; the Americans did not bother with either in
World War II.
The first physical defense consists of radio jamming and of the planned
interception of enemy leaflet raids. Radio jamming is ineffectual except
in the case of an enemy possessing hopelessly inferior signal equipment.
(The Japanese tried to jam our radio at Saipan, just as the Germans
tried to jam BBC. They impeded reception, but they never succeeded in
blocking it out altogether.)
The second physical defense consists of destroying reception facilities.
It is possible to sweep an occupied territory and to sequester _almost_
all the radio sets in use. It is possible to issue a military order that
any soldier or civilian found in possession of enemy printed matter will
be court-martialed and punished. These measures are useful to dictators
having secret police, and among armies having the Prussian level of
discipline, with the enlisted men regarded as robots. It is not to be
expected that they would work against Americans.
Therefore, propaganda does not meet propaganda. Combat forces _meet_;
Psychological Warfare forces pass one another in opposite directions.
In American practice, the forces which countered enemy propaganda were
those pertaining to troop information and education--morale or special
services. These did not concern themselves with propaganda to the
Germans and Japanese. In the German and Russian armies of World War II,
but not in the American, British, French or Japanese, there were
_political officers_ attached to the units under a variety of titles;
these often took charge of propaganda to the enemy (offensive) as well
as indoctrination of their own troops (defensive), but the unrelatedness
of these two functions let them split apart.
Even here, the parallel between combat operations and propaganda
operations breaks down. Rarely does it occur that there is a simple
juxtaposition of forces, thus:
_Enemy Propagandist_ ----> _Audience_ <---- _Own Propagandist_
(_Troops_)
The issue is more commonly one in which the propagandist on each side
attacks those troops which are retreating, cut off, suffering heavy
losses, politically disaffected, or otherwise psychologically promising
material for him. Of the factors which can affect troop or enemy morale,
the presence of friendly propaganda is a minor one. The result then
becomes complicated:
_Enemy Propagandist_ ----> _Exposed or Demoralized Units_
_Well Supplied and Well Informed Units_ <---- _Own Propagandist_
Troops who are starving or are subjected to inordinate losses will not
have their propaganda-resistance heightened by pep talks. A chopped-up
unit has no means of enjoying USO facilities.
Propaganda vulnerability depends most commonly on the objective
situation of the audience. If the objective situation is good or
neutral, one's own propaganda can supplement the good morale conditions,
but even here, it does not and should not meet enemy propaganda
frontally.
In so far as it can be tabulated, the visualizable propaganda situation
at any given time would be something like this.
----------------------
Own Propaganda | _Own Audience_ |<---- Friendly
To Enemy Audience | Actual Surroundings| Propaganda
\ ----------------------_ To Home Audience
\ |\
\ \
_\| \
---------------------
Enemy Propaganda ----> | _Enemy Audience_ | Enemy
To Enemy Audience |Actual Surroundings| Propaganda To
--------------------- One's Own Side
In each of these instances, the propaganda operators are themselves
members of an audience. Furthermore, propaganda leaks, as it were, out
of the channels into which it is directed. Additionally, propaganda in
all countries has to compete with the normal day-to-day preoccupations
of the listener--his food, his health, his hour-by-hour activities, his
tangible interpersonal relationships. Save for rare moments of intense
crisis, propaganda can expect to occupy only a small fraction of the
audience's attention. In dictatorships, the range of propaganda can be
widened by polluting all news, all theater presentations, all churches,
etc., with the "Party line," but visitors to totalitarian capitals--of
both the Fascist and Communist varieties--report that most of the common
people have become calloused with apathy, over-all disbelief, or
skepticism as a result of overexposure to official indoctrination.
Hence a written estimate of the situation follows _not_ from some
special Psychological Warfare situation, but from the practical measures
available. If desired, it can summarize the following points:
1. DEFINITION OF THE AUDIENCE
_a._ Medium through which reached
_b._ Anticipated attention (including means of getting attention)
_c._ Pertinent characteristics (from propaganda intelligence report)
2. PSYCHOLOGICAL GOALS TO BE SOUGHT
_a._ Attention of the enemy
_b._ Present-goal (if strategic, opinion or sentiment; if tactical,
action)
_c._ Ultimate goal (applicable to strategic only)
3. LIMITATIONS OF POLICY
_a._ National political limitations
_b._ Limitation by adverse factual situation
_c._ Limitations arising from one's own security
4. MEDIA AVAILABLE
_a._ Kind and quality of media to be used
5. THE PROPAGANDA MAN
_a._ Descriptive appreciation of a typical audience member
6. COMPETITIVE FACTORS
_a._ Listener's non-propaganda preoccupations
_b._ Continuation of adverse indoctrination
_c._ Effect of news available both to one's self and to listener
_d._ Competitive effect of hostile propaganda
7. RELATION TO GENERAL (MILITARY) ESTIMATE OF THE SITUATION
_a._ Timing relationships
_1._ Contingency plans
_2._ Contingency prohibitions
_b._ Contribution of Psychological Warfare to operations planning
_1._ Combat operations psychologically advisable
_2._ Combat operations subject to propaganda exploitation
_3._ Operations providing adverse propaganda with opportunity
_c._ Correlation of Psychological Warfare with
_1._ Public relations programming
_2._ Information and education plans
_3._ Medical plans and reporting
_4._ Countersubversive functions
Such papers might be of use, gathering together in a single document all
pertinent facts. In most tactical situations, the situation would have
obsolesced before the author of the estimate had finished his document.
In strategic situations, it could not normally be made specific enough
to be practical--at the operational level--without becoming hopelessly
unwieldy. Each skill represented in the estimate does prepare other
reports, and the practice of most modern armies indicates that it is
better to conduct routine propaganda planning, supervision, and
appreciation through liaison than to prepare elaborate documents
gathering together the multifarious factors which actually affect
Psychological Warfare.
In most American Psychological Warfare facilities--especially in the
theaters--the estimate of the situation consisted of a brief résumé of
home propaganda by the enemy (taken directly from propaganda analysis),
comment on the audience by appropriate representatives from the State
Department or other Federal agencies, and discussion of the audience by
some kind of Psychological Warfare operations-planning and intelligence
board. Some of the most valuable suggestions came from persons not
concerned with propaganda--such as target-intelligence people who could
anticipate enemy civilian or military shortages, or economic-warfare
people who suggested vexations which the enemy listener was probably
experiencing.
=The Question of Choice.= An estimate of a combat situation is something
like a diagnosis and prognosis in medicine. The estimate sets forth the
situation, presenting the difficulties to be faced and the general range
of pertinent fact, all in orderly array, like a systematic diagnosis.
The plans are then drawn up in the light of the estimate; they are
limited by the harsh, immediate facts of the situation; they resemble a
doctor's prognosis, which may have room for several choices, but which
does not open the way to speculative, creative action. Psychological
Warfare situations are usually fluid, save at times of specific tactical
emergency (the appeal to an enemy unit, when it is surrounded, to
surrender; pre-invasion propaganda for specific points).
Therefore the psychological estimate should not be presented as a
propaganda-_versus_-propaganda analysis; if it does, it will end as an
unproductive and meaningless duel between the propagandists on the two
sides. Nor should the estimate pretend to present choices with the
pretense that these choices are definitely prescribed by the situation
itself. In any field, an expert can hoax or befuddle a layman. A
Psychological Warfare officer should present choices for what they
really are--options open to him and his staff as creative writers.
Policy issues, in specific cases, can be answered _yes_ or _no_. This is
not true of propaganda as a whole. The task of the propagandist is to
create something which will arouse attention, will induce attitudes, and
will eventually lead to action. It is a task of permanent offense. Its
variations are as infinitely diverse as the imaginations of mankind can
make them.
Choice is perpetually before the Psychological Warfare propagandist. But
it is the wide choice of what he can think up, not the narrow choice
dictated by fixed terrain, by specific enemy capabilities, by concrete
physical necessities. Adolf Hitler himself, in the near-delirium of his
last days of life, recognized this. He told his followers to hold out;
German propaganda might still provoke the "inevitable" American-Soviet
clash which would save Germany. He said he would choose one side or the
other--he didn't much care which. Thus, at the end, the range of
propaganda possibilities deceived even the arch propagandist, despite
the bold shrewdness he had shown in the past. He knew, as his generals
did not, that in the realm of the psychological, the "factor of the
unexpected" is always a large one, and hoped to the last to turn it to
his ends. His premises were right, even though his conclusion was fatal
for him.
=Allied Operations.= Estimates become more complex when several nations
fight on the same side.
In a particular type of instance, estimates of the antagonist's
propaganda capacity form a part of normal military operations. This
occurs in the instance of allied operation: when the outside ally fears
that the local ally may be subverted. Such was the state of France in
relation to Britain in 1940, of Central China in relation to the
Americans in 1944, of the Balkan states in relation to the Third Reich
in 1945. In such instances, estimate of the enemy propaganda becomes a
vital part of the total military estimate. The principles stated below
can be applied by changing the direction of their application.
Propaganda analysis can, in situations like this, provide cues for
effective action and correct timing. In this type of situation, the
outside ally cannot afford to sit by and hope for the best. By black
operations he too must prepare to re-subvert the local ally if the local
ally goes over to the enemy. In Rumania, Bulgaria and puppet Serbia the
Germans were not successful; in Italy they created the Fascist Italian
Social Republic and brought a large part of Northern Italy back into the
war. In China, Allied pro-Communist sympathizers hoped that the
Japanese would subvert the Generalissimo so badly that America would
build up Yenan as a precautionary measure; but the Generalissimo stood
firm, and the Yenan maneuver lingered on as an unpleasant memory between
certain Americans and certain Nationalist Chinese. This type of
situation mixes politics, economics, propaganda and warfare to such a
degree that no sound estimate can appraise one factor without including
the others.
=Estimate of One's Own Capacity.= In preparing a routine estimate of
one's own capacity, militarily speaking, the measurable factors of space
and time provide guides for projecting plans into the future. It is
possible to plan, "At 1830 hours, D day plus 8, the Smithforce will have
arrived at Tenallytown," meaning that 8 days after the start, this
result can be expected. Psychological warfare can be estimated in a
loosely comparable way, provided the terms of reference are different.
Naturally, no sane Theater commander would rely on psychological warfare
alone for the accomplishment of a military result. It is possible,
nevertheless, to allow for planned good luck--good luck which one has
created with many months of hard work. When psychological warfare is
used in conjunction with invasion, its planned use (to judge by the
results found in World War II) might often justify commanders in using
minimum rather than maximum allocations of troops for the protection of
lines of communications against guerrilla or civilian attack. If the
Nazis had chased the Soviet peasants through the woods with soup
kitchens, free movies, and mittens for the babies, they would not have
had so many furious partisans sniping at them.
Psychological warfare can be relied upon to a considerable degree to
step up enemy panic in the application of a rapid forward movement. The
Japanese in China panicked whole regiments of local volunteers plumb out
of existence by the use of fast-marching Chinese-speaking plainclothes
troops, some of whom may have been air-dropped. In the Nazi
establishment of the first salient through to Abbeville, the
psychological aspects of the blitzkrieg helped prevent the British and
French from re-forming a continuous line and led eventually to the
pocketing of the British at Dunkirk.
Psychological warfare can also be counted on, tactically, to speed up
the reduction of isolated enemy positions when these positions are
clearly beyond hope of rescue. All the psychological warfare people need
to do is to go in with map leaflets, surrender leaflets, loudspeakers
and a near-by radio. The unit may not give in instantly, but the unit
would be superhuman if it fought as well in the face of persuasion as it
would have fought without psychological attack. In the mopping-up of
Japanese in the Pacific island fighting, psychological warfare teams and
techniques undoubtedly eased and speeded the process.
These references are to tactical estimates. Strategic propaganda is
beyond estimate. All it can do is to weight the probabilities a little
more favorably than would be the case without it. If the United States
had not dropped the Japanese surrender proposal in Japanese all over
Japan, the Japanese government leaders might have been more inclined to
resist surrendering. If the Germans had not softened up the French
before the Great Western Blitz of 1940, they might have needed more
time, days or weeks more to reduce France, and thus might have faced a
united French overseas Empire even after France-in-Europe fell. The
success of a strategic propaganda operation cannot be guaranteed in any
plan. It would be foolhardy optimism to think that psychology can assume
a major portion of responsibility for direct military results. It would
appear that the Soviet Red Army, despite its propaganda-conscious
Communist background, never passed the whole buck to psychological
warfare. The Russians never appeared to leave the artillery at home in
order to take the loudspeakers or leaflet mortars along. They made
brilliant, almost terrifying use of pre-belligerent propaganda; they
used propaganda tactically with immense success in the taking of
prisoners; they used psychological warfare, with a heavy infusion of
political warfare, more drastically for consolidation and occupation
purposes than did any of the other United Nations. But like everyone
else, they seem to have used strategic propaganda for whatever it might
bring in--immediate generalized effect, and the ultimate production of
windfalls.
Tactical psychological warfare can be estimated, though to a limited
extent, as part of a tactical potential of either the enemy or one's own
side. Strategic propaganda can be planned and evaluated only in terms of
the diffuse general situation, with the reasonable and fair expectation
that if properly employed it will better the position of the user. It
sometimes achieves results which astound even the originators, but these
results cannot be calculated (except by hunch) in advance. Nevertheless,
the operation is well worth trying since it has incalculable
possibilities and is quite inexpensive in relation to the gross cost of
war.
PART THREE
PLANNING AND OPERATIONS