I’m sure many here are familiar with some of the actors of radio propaganda. Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally and Hanoi Hannah are the ones that immediately come to mind although there have likely been others.
My question is if this has ever been consider useful? Obviously countires engage in its use including the US. However, I have always had the sense that these broadcasts were far from useful. Indeed…I thought American servicemen were generally entertained by it and even in a perverse way found the broadcasts humorous.
That said I admit I really have no clue about this (hence the question). Were American servicemen found who were ‘undermined’ (take that however you like) by these broadcasts? Did the military as a whole suffer a decrease in morale because of this? Was even listening to the broadcasts officially frowned on by our military (i.e. what would they do if they caught American servicemen tuning in)?
On the flip-side can one make the case that American propaganda is more useful than the propaganda directed at US soldiers? Essentially my thinking is usually the foreign powers the US engages tightly control their media. As such the US might broadcast news the foreign populace might not otherwise have and they might coem to doubt their government and maybe their cause. This isn’t to say the US doesn’t control the media in a war but it isn’t to the same degree.
Certainly countries engage in propaganda directed at their enemies but I (personally) have yet to hear of a case where it has paid off.
It’s been amusing recently, with the Iraqi defense guy saying that the Americans were being beaten even as we were assuming control of Baghdad. That doesn’t mean that that will always be the case, though.
Yes, it works. 70,000 surrenders were attributed to my wing after Desert Storm, and all for simply broadcasting radio and television signals to the Iraqis. The Iraqis said they saw our broadcasts and that convinced them to quit.
You may dispute the numbers, but there’s ample evidence that it works.
This had nothing to do with having bombs dropped on them for awhile first? In any event Desert Storm was unique…can anyone think of another war where soldiers surrendered en-mass with barely any fight whatsoever? I’d wager Saddam was more responsible for the surrenders than any broadcasts by the allies. Once the broadcasts came showing the soldiers an alternative they jumped at it. Certainly the broadcasts were worthwhile in showing the opposing military a way out without fighting but I question this case as more of an aberration than the norm.
Still, I mentioned that I suspected that propaganda might be more useful against a regime with a tightly controlled media. Once again though does anyone know how the Nazi and Japanese propaganda machines faired versus the US? IIRC Tokyo Rose was arrested after WWII for her broadcasts and stayed in jail till pardoned by President Ford. From that it would seem she ticked some people off.
BTW…I didn’t see anything on the linked page regarding surrendering soldiers.
In Germany during World War II hearing radio stations from enemy countries was illegal (designated Rundfunkverbrechen - radio crime). Punishment was severe - prison time for a first offence up to execution for retelling facts detrimental to morale to others.
Which indicates that the Nazi leadership, arguably among the world’s experts on propaganda at the time, were convinced that radio propaganda did work.
From what my father and older relations told me, during the later part of the war the German-language program of the BBC was eagerly heard because it had become obvious that the front wasn’t where German radio said it was. What was a bit awkward was the BBC’s transmissions being preceded by a loud signature tune - a kind of drumbeat. Apparently the British broadcasters, being free to listen to German propaganda themselves, did not fully appreciate that this endangered the listeners.
I’m still unclear when these people actually surrendered. I don’t recall much in the way of people surrendering till the bombs started flying.
Obviously the psyops in this case allowed for mass surrenders but I maintain that Saddam caused that more than propaganda did. Don’t feed your soldiers, provide decent medical care and hang them out as target dummies for the opposing military and I think you’d find most people in those circumstances would surrender.
You mentioned Iraqi propaganda but I don’t know of a single US soldier that surrendered because of it. Either Iraqi propaganda sucks or the US treats it soldiers far better and shows concern for their welfare.
So is it your contention that despite my cites (which I can throw at you all day long) psychological operations (aka propaganda) accomplishes absolutely nothing, or at best has minimal effectiveness?
Here is another cite. Read away. If you don’t believe that psy-ops is useful after reading that stuff there’s nothing at all I can do to convince you.
I am specifically asking about the likes of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally and Hanoi Hannah. Misdirecting an enemy into believing something that gives you an advantage is not what I am speaking of here and I have no doubt there are many instances where that was useful.
As to Iraqi soldiers I still maintain their mass surrender was more based upon how Saddam treated his own troops then any psyops the US engaged in. I would be thrilled to think the US could capture tens of thousands of soldiers as a matter of course with nothing more than a radio broadcast but I suspect that will not be the case in most instances.
Well, Radio Marti and the Voice of America are often the only news source available in Cuba. This is probably true in most totalitarian regimes, where the government has absolute control of news sources. So yes, there’s a value in propaganda broadcasts.