From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!kubds1.kub.nl!paai Sat Sep 25 17:14:57 PDT 1993 Article: 19986 of alt.conspiracy Xref: oneb alt.conspiracy:19986 soc.history:16932 alt.censorship:13325 alt.revisionism:4084 talk.politics.misc:94847 Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,talk.politics.misc Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!kubds1.kub.nl!paai From: paai@kub.nl (J.J. Paijmans) Subject: World war I soap propaganda. Message-ID: <1993Sep24.111613.23641@kub.nl> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 93 11:16:13 GMT Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands Nntp-Posting-Host: kubix References: <1993Sep23.040433.2129@loose.apana.org.au><1993Sep24.104957.20634@kub.nl> Lines: 164 Below is an OCR of Philip Knightley's "The first casualty". It describes how the soap story came into being in WWI and how it lasted until 1925 until it was revoked by the english. Knightly, as far as I know, has absolutely nothing to do with the IHS or Gannon. Please note also that the story was 'proved' by photographies so that according to the other side, it therefore must be true. Also note that a ficticious Nuremberg trial in 1924 could have condemned somebody to death on this evidence. The point I want to make is this: Every student of propaganda will agree with me that there exists a stock of favorite propaganda stories that in one form or another seem to come back in every war. The soap story is one, the buckets filled with weddingrings, molars or eyeballs are another and medical experiments on prisoners are also reported in many conflicts, to name but a few. Indeed I feel a wry amusement observing such stories when looking at the reports of e.g. the Gulf war or the Balkan conflict. Sometimes they are just rumours, but sometimes they are given added credibility by supplying photographs or other materials. It is generally accepted that the english were past masters of this form of propaganda. The purpose of such actions should be clear. Nobody sends out his soldiers saying "we have a slight misunderstanding with those other guys concerning this treaty or that" If you conduct a war, it is a necessity to de-humanize your opponent, depicting him as a monster not fit to live on the face of the earth. The allies had an easy task with the germans of WWII because the rabid pre-war racism was plain for everybody to see. This, however, does not mean that they did not add some propaganda of themselves, just to make sure. It is my honest conviction that this 'added' horror should be separated from the real facts. McVay and Keren seem to hold that everything that is not proved false, necessarily must be considered as true. I object strongly against that attitude, because good propaganda is issued in such a way as to convince people of the reality of what in truth is a lie. Adhering to e.g. the soap story because there exist photographs of soap bars, in my view is a travesty of the science of history. You don't have to discount the possibility that such things, indeed happened, but any honest researcher should point out the high probability that in fact plain propaganda stories crept in here. Now what is so horrible in thinking like I do? I really am appalled by the idea that therefore I belong to the IHS-crowd or whatever. Or is it that many readers of my postings try to shout down the creeping realization in themselves that some things they have learned may well be false? --------------------- cut here -------------------- Even the most popular atrocity story of all-the German corpse factory-turned out to be another war correspondents' invention. This particular story had a long and highly successful run. It had several variations, but basically it was that close behind their front line the Germans had established factories for boiling down the corpses of their soldiers, from which to distill glycerine for munitions. The Times initiated the story, on April i6, 19I7, with a suspiciously vague paragraph that said baldly: "One of the United States consuls, on leaving Germany in February, stated in Switzerland that the Germans were distilling glycerine from the bodies of their dead." The account quickly blossomed. The Times expanded the original report by reproducing a dispatch by a German correspondent, Karl Rosner, in which he referred to the German army's Kadaververwertungsanstalt, which The Times translated as "Corpse Exploitation Establishment." Foreign newspapers picked up the story. It appeared in LInde'pendance and La Belge, two Belgian newspapers published in France and Holland. French correspondents were instructed by their army authorities to send dispatches to their newspapers over their own signatures detailing what was known about the corpse factories. The matter came up in the House of Commons on April 30, when the Prime Minister was asked if he would make the story known as widely as possible in Egypt, India, and the East generally. A corpse-factory cartoon appeared iii Punch, and in general the affair had world-wide circulation and considerable propaganda value. The Germans protested in vain that the report was "loathsome and ridiculous" and that The Times had mistranslated Rosner's report, the word Kadaver not being used for a human body. In vain a British MP tried to get the government to clarify the matter. He said it was perfectly clear, from accounts published in the Frankfurter Zeitung and other leading German papers, that the factories were for boiling down the corpses of horses and other animals from the battlefield. Would the government therefore try to find out whether the story published in Britain was true or absolutely false? The government, of course, had no such intention. Lord Robert Cecil, Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, replied that the government knew no more than had been published, but "in view of other actions by German military authorities there is nothing incredible in the present charge against them"-a typical case of appearing to lend substance to the report without the responsibility of actually doing so. Germany had to live with the accusation until I925, when, according to an American newspaper report, Brigadier-General Charteris, who had been in charge of British military intelligence, first admitted that he had been responsible for starting the canard. Two photographs captured from German sources had turned up on his desk. One showed German corpses being hauled away for burial behind the lines; the other showed dead horses on their way to a soap factory. Charteris, so the report said, told the guests at a private dinner party in New York that he had simply interchanged the captions and then, knowing the reverence of the Chinese for ancestors and the uncertainty of Chinese opinion towards the Germans, had sent the photographs to Shanghai for release, hoping the story would @e "played back" to Europe. To support the story, what purported to be the diary of a German soldier had been forged, and it was planned to feed this to a British war correspondent with a passion for German diaries. The plan, General Charteris said, was never carried out, and the diary was now in the Imperial War Museum in London.* On his return to England, Charteris denied his confession, which had been reported in the New York Times, and said he had not altered the captions on any photographs and had not been responsible for the fictitious diary. In fact, he said, when the diary had been submitted to GHQ in France it had been discovered to be fictitious and had been rejected. "I should be as interested as the general public to know what was the true origin of the Kadaver story."31, That the story was untrue was finally admitted officially on December 2, I925. A statement in the House of Commons made it clear that there had never been any foundation for the story, and Germany was vindicated. Not that she was entirely innocent in such propaganda techniques herself. T'he German press abounded with stories of hospitals filled with German soldiers who had had their eyes gouged out. The Weser Zeitung reported that a ten-year-old boy had seen "a whole bucketful of soldiers' eyes," an atrocity story as old as the Crusades. Die Zeit in Bild ran an account of a French priest who wore around his neck a chain of rings taken from fingers he had cut off. The Hamburger Fremdenblatt said that Belgians gave German troops cigars filled with gunpowder. But these all appear to have been government-inspired propaganda stories, rather than, like the Courbeck Loo atrocity, deliberate pieces of invention by war correspondents. The correspondent in question was Captain F. W. Wilson of the Daily Mail, who was in Brussels when war broke out. The first message from his office asked for an article on atrocities. Wilson said that he could find no evidence of atrocities, whereupon his office replied that a piece on refugees would do. As Wilson said later: Philip Knightley: "The first casualty". Harvest books 1976
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.