The Influence of Popular Media on the American Public: Examining the Portrayals and Perceptions of Germans in the Post-War

Period, 1945 1950

Senior Honors Thesis University of Washington Department of History Submitted by Tarra Theisen March 2014 Professor S. Joshel Professor R. Jonas

ABSTRACT Leading newsjournals and media outlets continually influence public opinion through the creation of knowledge and the propagation of particular narratives and understandings. As such, public opinion plays a key role in shaping support or resistance for key projects in foreign affairs. This project therefore seeks to analyze how the media affects public opinion, specifically in the postwar period from 1945-1950. Focusing on popular print media, this analysis is theoretically based in the role of spectacle in selling papers and the power in creating knowledge as a form of propaganda. Building on wartime public opinion efforts, specific discourses were propagated during the post-war period to create an image and understanding of German populations. Taken altogether, theoretical approaches to media manipulation of public opinion serve in partnership with cultural stigmas and governmental propaganda to accomplish goals in the name of a given national interest.

Whether Americans will develop a philosophy for the responsible use of U.S. power is for history to say. But history has a way of being shaped by myth, which is to say that it is shaped by human hungers expressed in parables of desire Percy Knauth1 Writing at the conclusion of World War II, Percy Knauth of LIFE Magazine expresses a poignant, if not foreboding, point regarding the role of Americans in drafting the terms of a new post-war era. With the end of the war came a moment of transition and opportunity for the Allied powers, notably within Germany as the collapse of Hitlers Third Reich opened space for foreign intervention. In this period of transition, the United States played a key role in determining Germanys future. To support these aims, the American media worked to craft a myth that would historically stand as testament to the key role of developing Germany in the new world order of the second half of the 20th century. World War II itself was a period of experimentation and transition, especially in terms of media and the dissemination of knowledge. As battles were fought on the European mainland, Americans fought battles on their own front: against the Japanese in the Pacific theatre, and at home in convincing the American public to morally support the war. Winning the war at home through media, propaganda, and nationalist fervor played a key role in securing a winning attitude abroad. Such use of the media to embrace particular narratives in the name of given interests continued into the years following the war. What is interesting is how quickly narratives evolved in the five years spanning 1945-1950: Germany went from being an enemy to being an ally. Most analysis of American public opinion and propaganda focuses temporally on the wartime years. Adam J. Berinsky has contributed much by way of statistical analysis of public polling data of the time. He comments on the continued narrative of othering and racialization, and suggests that propaganda is not only supported by but is created and sustained by entities in power.

Percy Knauth, The German People, LIFE, May 7, 1945, 72.

This propaganda works to affect public understandings, which in turn hold tremendous power in balancing the scales of domestic and foreign affairs. A look into the content of wartime public opinion reveals a focus on propaganda taken against the Japanese during the war. Many secondary sources focus on the treatment of the Japanese by the Americans during the war. Almost every source will cite news clippings and propaganda articles that debase the Japanese and Japanese-American, portraying them as the enemy other with no place in the American realm of influence. This intense focus on the Japanese, though tremendously important, reflects a relative lack of focus (or purposeful overlooking) of relations and perceptions of Germany during and after the war. We can use presentations of the Japanese in the post-war period to comparatively understand how Germans were understood in terms of similarities and differences. These works contribute to a historiography that is encapsulated in Steven Caseys 2005 article entitled, The Campaign to Sell a Harsh Peace. Caseys work hones in specifically on the post-war treatment of Germans by Americans at home, and ultimately portrays public opinion as a balancing act between public, private, and media alliances. By highlighting what he calls a transmission process, he suggests that there is in fact a logic and reasoning behind the methods used to cultivate or manipulate public opinion. Casey argues that this process is one by which arguments, ideas and images are placed on the public agenda, as existed in the case of an antiGerman campaign that was transformed into an anti-Communist campaign throughout the decade of the 1950s. I seek to contribute to this analysis through a questioning of the lasting memory of this campaign especially in comparison to those efforts sustained against the Japanese during the same time period. This paper therefore seeks to analyze how the American media presented the Germans to the population at large during the postwar period. What methods did print sources use to create

particular narratives surrounding the German people, and what goals did such presentations aim to achieve? How is knowledge (here, taken to mean popular understandings of a given topic) created and transformed to meet new aims and goals? I specifically utilize articles and photographs from LIFE Magazine and The New York Times, as well as published letters to the editor to gauge how narratives were created and understood. Ultimately, I argue that the American media portrayed Germans in a way that facilitated rehabilitation and laid the foundation for a sustainable, democratic partnership with the United States. First, I examine the representation of Germans immediately following the war and the attempts to rehabilitate and re-educate German populations. Then, I utilize a framework of comparison to understand what distinctions were drawn during the postwar period by the press. Finally, I suggest that these presentations supported continuous American intervention within Germany as the state was molded into a hub for democratic ideals against the threat of Soviet communism. I. REHABILITATION & REFORMATION The transitory period of the 1940s was a time of fear, national resilience, and of recovery and reform following the conclusion of the war. As the decade evolved, American expectations and understandings shifted especially in terms of understanding Germany as not only an enemy but as a future ally. This section analyzes the transition from wartime to post-war presentations of the German people. I suggest that American popular media thematically emphasized narratives of suffering and loss to portray the recently defeated Germans as a state in need of rehabilitation and reformation. Rehabilitation through reeducation and denazification programs served as the first stepping stone to crafting Germany as a salvageable ally within the public eye. Such a presentation of the German people immediately following the conclusion of the war allowed the American press (and state) to assume control, jurisdiction, and responsibility over foreign affairs.

Portrayal of Germany as a Defeated State, 1945-1946

Following the conclusion of the war in May 1945, the popular press sought to understand and explain the war in terms that their readership would understand. Horrific imagery of war victims and articles on the desperate conditions within German cities painted a particular picture for American readers that justified American intervention by highlighting pain and suffering. One effort that made Germany accessible as a country that warranted action by the United States was the effort of the media to portray post-war Germany as a frail and stricken state in chaos, in dire need of American support and guidance. The initial toll of the war galvanized citizens and cities, and the worsening conditions across Europe were portrayed as terrible atrocities committed by Nazi leadership. Drawing an initial distinction between the Nazi Party and the German people allowed popular media to justify American action. As an entity, the United States was not acting in retribution but through a sense of duty, saving Germans from the dramatic fallout of Nazi propaganda and ideology. Initial media response in the days and weeks following the conclusion of the war focused on highlighting pain and suffering. First, editorials highlighted the pain and suffering experienced as chaos instigated by the Nazi regime. Then, in the weeks and months thereafter, focus shifted to the pain and suffering of the German people. While I do not mean to suggest that any outlet sought to equate the suffering inflicted by the Nazi regime to the suffering of civilian populations after the war, I do believe there is value in highlighting how the portrayal of pain and suffering by popular media during this time allows a reader to both engage with a topic and to justify it in whatever terms are presented. The May 7, 1945 issue of LIFE presents one example of how Germany was portrayed as a defeated state following the conclusion of the war. The cover photo of this issue, entitled The German People, presents three men on a spectrum of ages looking into the camera (see Fig. 1).

They are set against an empty background of varying shades of grey, black, and white. The man in the forefront sports a makeshift sling for his arm, while the two men behind him look past the camera with fallen faces. The emotions of pain, suffering, loss, and helplessness as expressed by the subjects of this photograph are representative of the popular portrayal of the German people during this initial postwar phase. Headlines always eager to catch the attention of readers nationwide focused on the damage wrought by war and affecting civilian populations. One line calls for a, Defeated land: Germanys cities are crushed, her people are frightened and servile.2 Other articles utilize description and photographic evidence to portray a dissolution of a nation in smoke and flame where an entire social order disappeared in chaos.3 Initial American visitors to affected areas of Germany were greeted with grimmer things the sight of a ruined country and the curious, often resentful looks of impoverished German people.4

Fig. 1. The German People were selected for the cover of this issue of LIFE.

Sidney Olson, Defeated Land, LIFE, May 14, 1945, 39. Editorial, The End of the War in Europe, LIFE, May 7, 1945, 30. 4 Wives in Germany, LIFE, May 27, 1946, 55.
2 3

To make the point evermore poignant, one journalist notes that even the Germans have a word for it Dreck junk, dirt, debris, rubble that is what the country of the Thousand-Year Hitler Reich is today.5 Images of chaos and disorder, reducing a great nation to a pile of slag, portray Germany as no longer a state but a broken community.6 The American role in creating such disorder through military force that helped turn Germanys cities into fire-blackened skeletons was not questioned as the media began to develop understandings of the wars brutality and violence for popular consumption.7 This representation would continue into the following months, headlining items with the Battered Face of Germany and one article on Berliners with dull eyes, unkempt clothes, and continual worry about where to find the next meal.8 This portrayal of Germans in pain and suffering served to acknowledge war atrocities while opening a space for American intervention.

Understanding German Society as Troubled and Corrupt

With American intervention initially secured with the portrayal of a humanitarian crisis, more news outlets began to open the floor for criticism and debate. Journalists were quick to incite Nazi atrocities committed during the war, but commentary did not stop there. In the months following the conclusion of the war, many popular news sources found space to highlight and discuss what they saw as trouble and corruption within the German territory and people. The state of the German mindset as a whole was consciously questioned. Naturally, this discussion came at a time where lingering hints of Nazism portrayed a threat to American intervention and influence. One interesting point of complication in this discussion is the portrayal of women during this time period, especially of German women and their relationship to the rehabilitation of the German state. Though Germans were portrayed in varying ways, some journalists sought to utilize

Fillmore Calhoun, The Russians, LIFE, May 7, 1945, 40. Ibid. 7 Now Japan, The New York Times, May 13, 1945. 8 The Battered Face of Germany, LIFE, June 4, 1945, 19.
5 6

the entity of the woman and notions of femininity to draw conclusions regarding the troubles of the German territory. Women in particular were utilized to criticize Germany and to depict/embody Germanys problems as Americans and the popular press sought to understand them. One example of criticism was targeted at German women through the issue of morality and American cultural expectations. One New York Times article published in September 1945 highlighted the dangerous influence of Germans on American actions and ideals. Journalist Hanson Baldwin writes, We are steadily being influenced by the German men and women. Many officials are associating with the German women on very intimate terms. Morals of women here well, there is no such thing. The German people have no repentance for this war and have little feeling of guilt.9 In this portrayal, both German men and women are called out for expressing insufficient guilt for actions committed under the Nazi regime. Though Baldwin incites an aggregate German people for having no repentance and little feeling of guilt, it is interesting that only German women are criticized for acting immorally in the eyes of the American press. The relationships of very intimate terms though also involving American soldiers and representatives are highlighted and are placed entirely to blame on German women. Such common violations of the non-fraternization policy (originally enacted by the U.S. Government to preserve the ideals and sanctity of both American men and German women) were wholly blamed on the actions of German women, portrayed to be alluring and enticing to men in uniform. Another LIFE article from the summer of 1945 takes a play on this fraternization policy in noting that, The word [fraternization] takes on a brand-new meaning in Germany, highlighting the consistent violation of the policy by Germans and Americans alike.10 One commenting soldier suggests that such a lax policy went against

10

Hanson Baldwin, Re-education of Foes, The New York Times, September 23, 1945. Percy Knauth, Fraternization, LIFE, July 2, 1945, 26.

10

showing them whos the boss and jeopardized the American mission to democratize Germany.11 In this way, popular media utilized American cultural expectations and understandings of women to portray Germans in a particular light. Highlighting the immorality of German women in such a manner justified continued American intervention within Germany beyond the initial need for aid following the conclusion of the war. In addition to being questioned morally, German women were sometimes portrayed as harbingers of Nazism as well. Another New York Times article headline from late 1945 suggested that Reich girls want return of Nazism and that this desire threatened American interests in Germany.12 The correspondent cites German girls and young women as the most fanatic Nazis among the civilian population and utilizes elusive survey data to suggest that girls and women yearned for a strong new Fuehrer, opposed denazification and were ready to excuse Hitler as a good man with bad advisers.13 For this journalist, the concern lay with this reactionary, nationalistic and Nazi-like attitude toward the reconstruction of Germany and the future, but also with the influence of such ideology on American troops.14 The article again references the laxity of morals in Nazi Germany as a root cause of such extremism, and calls into question the capability of Allied forces to reform girls of 16 and 17 [who turn] into prostitutes for a few bars of chocolate or cakes of soap.15 The demeaning tone and diction of this article aligns girls lacking morality with an idyllic reminiscence of a fascist Nazi state, and is yet another example of how women were portrayed within the American press. Such concerns of resurgent Nazism and immorality amongst

Ibid. Drew Middleton, Reich Girls Want Return of Nazism, The New York Times, Oct. 21, 1945. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. The cited polling provides further comment on how Germans envisioned their recovery and rehabilitation. When young women in Darmstadt were asked, Do you think that Germany needs a strong leader [fuehrer] to recover from her downfall and destruction? more than 75% of respondents said yes. 55% of women said yes, while only 38% of men answered in the affirmative.
11 12

11

the German people provided continued justification for American intervention, reformation, and rehabilitation in the German state.

Bringing Rehabilitation & Reform: Justifying Initial American Intervention

The portrayal of Germans by American news outlets following the war justified not only intervention in the eyes of American citizens but also urged steps toward reform. This reform was assumed by the American state as a measure to instill democracy within occupied Germany both to benefit American interests and to prevent the sprouting of Russian communism. As such, efforts of reeducation and denazification were emphasized in the initial months after peace was declared. The efforts of reeducation and denazification on the part of American interventionists were largely understood to mean the instilling of democratic ideals in place of the propagandic Nazi ideology of Hitlers Reich. While the media portrayed continued Allied military policy as a shared responsibility of French, British, American, and Russian troops, the responsibility of crafting a democratic future largely fell on (or was assumed by) American policymakers.16 One New York Times article explaining the Re-education of Foes policy notes the strategy inherent in demilitarizing enemies not only physically but psychologically, and suggests that the denazification program was one that would span generations within Germany.17 The German re-education program was presented as a program of ideological disarmament that physically stripped Germans of their means of resistance while psychologically instilling a mindset favorable to American interests. One American veteran is cited in this article suggesting that, Germany is being rebuilt faster and better than the countries she so ruthlessly overran.18 That the American mission of rebuilding Germany was faster and better suggests that it was a priority to rehabilitate the Germans as quickly as possible.
The End of the War in Europe, LIFE, May 7, 1945, 30. Baldwin, Re-education. 18 Ibid.
16 17

12

The American media also played a key role in the rehabilitation of the Germans in the mindset of the American population. The job of unlearning undertaken by American troops abroad was portrayed by media outlets at home as no easy feat.19 One author quips that the Germans are so solidly, thoroughly indoctrinated with so much of the Nazi ideology that the facts merely bounce off their numbed skulls.20 Such a portrayal of Germans as indoctrinated and numbed followers of Nazi propaganda necessitated, as suggested by the popular press, American intervention and assistance. Re-education programs enacted by the U.S. therefore sought to educate civilian and military populations, including the Hitler youth who were taught democracy by the Americans.21 These re-education programs varied in scope and application, but most frequently targeted German youth in an effort to develop a new generation of democratic ideals. The press embraced these programs and were keen to demonstrate their successes. Follow-up surveys suggested that after four months of re-education, German boys are dubious about Hitler, a fact capitalized on by news outlets at the time. One LIFE journalist even situated the re-education programs in terms of new beginnings and opportunities, suggesting that, They [German boys] have been invited to the window of the whole wide world, where all are equal in freedom to look for the truth.22 That the Germans are invited to a sense of clarity and dignity before the window of the world illustrates the power of American reeducation efforts to assume control over German understandings. The encouragement of the Germans to seek truth through freedom in democracy portrayed American intervention not as meddling but as revelationary. As the media would

Olson, Defeated Land, 110. Ibid. 21 Educating Hitler Youth, LIFE, October 8, 1945, 75. The article also notes how American history was the most important subject taught to young Germans in re-education programs. 22 Hitler Youth, 77.
19 20

13

conclude, Democracy has already paid off in some waysthey voted Hitler the greatest tyrant in history.23 Though the long-term effectiveness of re-education programs would later come into question, their purpose as vehicles for democratization served to bridge the gap between Americans and the German enemies of the past. One American soldier is quoted in an article lamenting that, Day by day we are careless, more forgetting, more tolerant toward the Germans.24 In this way, reeducation of the Germans meant not only denazification (as a separation from Nazi ideals) but also a willingness on the part of Americans to forget and overcome the atrocities committed under Nazi rule. Fraternization between American soldiers and German civilians, which was propagated by the media as a policy lead[ing] to the democratization of the Germans, was insufficient in and of itself to create a clean slate. Criticisms of the blatant propagandic nature of Nazi leadership were common in efforts to educate Germans of the truer ideals of American democracy. The irony of these re-education efforts as a form of American propaganda in and of themselves was overlooked by media presentations of action abroad.25 As popular media outlets within the U.S. generally overlooked the irony inherent in reeducation efforts abroad, interventionist efforts were often portrayed as responses to the sickness of totalitarian policies. In such an understanding, the U.S. benefits only so much as to rectify the ideological wrongs imposed on a population. One journalist takes care to note that, The U.S. as a whole stands to gain much from helping the Europeans to get on their feet in the near future, even though we receive no tangible goods in exchange. The disease and social unrest that come in the wake of starvation do not respect geographical boundaries, and it is to our advantage to halt them before they develop and leap into the oceanWe

Ibid. Ibid. 25 See the story of a German, Dr. Holbach, whose newspaper was reestablished by the Americans after occupation. The paper is described as an Allied propaganda weapon, but its propaganda consists of factual news reporting, something that has been absent from Germany for 12 years.
23 24

14

must plan our rehabilitation measures quickly if only to save Europe and the world for a development of high-level policy a year of a decade hence. 26 This analysis, taken from the point of view of what Americans stand to gain from intervention in Germany, outlines a crafted understanding of Americas role in rebuilding Europe through the German people. Though this representation absolves the U.S. of any beneficial responsibility by noting that no tangible goods are received in exchange for aid, it does note the urgent need to quell disease and social unrest. The characterization of social unrest demonstrates the understood danger of anarchy following a failed state, and provided an entry point for American intervention. Further, the fear of physical disease on the ground was combined with a narrative of disease and virility within the minds of the German people. One soldier deployed in the initial American response effort suggests that the carriers of the virus of Nazism are still fully around and that the chronic ailment of certain preconceived ideas cannot be healed in a short time.27 The understanding of Nazi ideology as an infection or virus allowed American action in the postwar period to be understood as a necessary remedy or cure. These measures were propagated as the efficient solution to save Europe from its problems, with a keen eye to the development of foreign policy in line with American ideals for the future. Denazification and reeducation efforts would continue as part of an American plan of action to the end of the decade. One New York Times article from early 1947 reflects on the denazification proceedings and tribunals and remarks that they throw a glaring light on the German mentality as a whole, with no doubt that the process of re-education has a long and bitter way to go before a democratic spirit can be achieved. These re-education efforts of Germans abroad worked hand-inhand with a type of re-education narrative at home, as the American media re-crafted Germans in the minds of its readers.

26 27

End of the War. Baldwin, Re-education.

15

II.

DISTINCTION & DIFFERENCE As initial media representations of Germans focused on the need for reformation and

rehabilitation, other narratives based in difference began to evolve. As media coverage progressed from the initial months following the conclusion of the war, outlets including LIFE and The New York Times situated portrayals of Germans within comparisons to other groups. These comparisons of Germans served to highlight distinctions and differences in a way that served the American democratic mission in occupied Germany. First, media outlets increasingly sought to distinguish between Nazis and the German people. Second, outlets drew distinctions between the enemy of Japan and the ally of Germany. Through these mediums, outlets emphasized themes of commonality like that of Christianity to justify continued intervention on the part of American society.

German Nazis and the German People

The medias distinction between Nazis and Germans began almost immediately following the war and continued throughout the following years. Initially, this distinction came in the form of painting the German people as indoctrinated by Nazi ideology, led astray by fanaticism and hypernationalism that served to strip Germans of their agency. One article describing life in an American work camp following the war paints such a picture through a depiction of legal proceedings amongst German inmates. When presenting his case, one German man asked for clemency on the grounds of Nazi moral degeneration and home upbringing.28 This man suggests that the role of Nazi ideology was to indoctrinate citizens with ideals of moral degeneration and to instill these values within family structures to carry on to the next generation. Another article highlighting German citizens sympathetic to the American cause suggests that some German nationals were willing to take the risk [of supporting American intervention] because they[felt] a definite sense of responsibility for the catastrophe which the Nazis have brought on Germany and
28

Hitler Youth, 79.

16

the world.29 In this representation, not only are German citizens and Nazis separated in the minds of readers, but the chaos instilled by the Nazi regime is extrapolated as posing a threat to the entire world order. From the American point of view, democratic intervention was then not only useful but also required to maintain world order in an increasingly polarized society. In the months and years that would follow, the continued narrative of distinction within the German population itself was something that the American media utilized to propagate the democratic mission that was envisioned for occupied Germany. A New York Times article from January 1947 indicted a Nazi plot found growing in Europe with lingering Nazi strongholds spreading their hold over the German people.30 Such a presentation by the American media portrays the German people not as subjects but as objects of Nazi action a portrayal that continued the narrative of Germans stripped of agency, needing American assistance. This article continues to suggest that such Nazi organizations continued to support a campaign of passive resistance against the occupying powers and were deliberately preventing any efforts to democratize defeated Germany.31 The continued representation of Nazis not only as tyrants but as obstacles to the infusion of democracy is yet another example of how and why the Nazi/German distinction was made in the American press. That the German and the Nazi were not synonymous, even a mere month or two following the war, was a crucial construction of the American popular media in its mission to support a future democratic world.

Portraying Enemies: Understanding Germany Through Japan

Similar to the distinctions drawn by American media outlets between Nazis and the German people throughout the end of the decade, highlighted differences between the Japanese and the Germans provide another point of analysis. Though the U.S. declared war against both states during
German People, 72. C.L. Sulzberger, Nazi plot is found growing in Europe, The New York Times, January 14, 1947. 31 Ibid.
29 30

17

the war, the press coverage of the two relationships at home quickly diverged. In particular, the discourse perpetrated against the Japanese in the 1945-1950 time period by the American media disproportionately utilized a racialized framework when compared to coverage and presentation of the Germans (Nazi and otherwise). This comparative discourse quickly transitioned into an understanding of Germans as a potential ally for the U.S. in establishing a new world order. Taken to be war enemies, both Germany and Japan were initially indicted and critiqued in the American media. Press coverage during the war provided comparable insight into the actions of troops abroad, and both narratives suggested a sense of American protectionism (against the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, and against Nazi aggression on the European subcontinent). Arguably, Americans were harder hit by the direct attack on U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii and thereby sought to portray the Japanese as direct aggressors against American interests. In the postwar period, however, coverage to atrocities committed by both the Japanese and the Germans did not attempt to dull the impact of enemy actions. One letter to the editor of LIFE magazine comments on the coverage and presentation of enemy actions: Your pictures on German atrocities are excellent for their stark realism and also very timely, for I am afraid that too many Americans are inclined to be skeptical about reports of both German and Japanese brutality. Having been born and raised in China I was able to witness part of the Japanese atrocities, or rather the results of Japanese atrocitiesI for one do not want to see races able to commit such horrible deeds go without their just reward, and so I take my hat off to LIFE for bringing the cold truth to the American public regardless of how nauseating it may seem. I hope that in the future LIFE will continue to print such revealing articles that will make the US realize that seeing is believing.32 This letter highlights a few key issues: first, this author as a consumer of popular media commends the use of pictures by LIFE to capture the stark realism of German atrocities and Japanese brutality. Second, this reader refers to a narrative of race in contextualizing the actions committed by the Germans and Japanese. For this particular reader, the impact of imagery and photography allowed him to engage with the news media in a way that made comprehension of news events more
32

Letter to the Editor, LIFE, May 28, 1945.

18

relatable and tangible. The suggestion that seeing is believing suggests that photographs played a tremendous role in connecting with readership audiences across America. Through this narrative of imagery, LIFE continued to publish photographic evidence of war violence throughout the late 1940s. One photograph from the magazine illustrates the presented execution of an Allied prisoner of war (see Fig. 2). The caption reads: A Japanese war atrocity is appallingly documented by this Japanese snapshot of an officer preparing to behead an Allied flier with his samurai sword. In the background other Japanese look on impassively. The Japanese are strangely sentimental and moral about this form of murder, finding it in accordance with the compassionate mercy of Bushido.33 In this portrayal of the Japanese, the place of judgment words is key in understanding how the author sought to propagate a crafted image of the Japanese enemy. The authors note of how this image was appallingly documented before an impassive Japanese audience contains in itself a sense of authorial judgment and bias The choice to distance the Japanese, with their strangely sentimental and moral understanding of murder, inherently presents a different tone. Comparatively, another image below captures a pile of bodies left to burn outside of a warehouse occupied by Nazi forces in the concluding days of the war (see Fig. 3). While the caption here reads of smoldering piles and charred bodies certainly descriptive diction of violence and brutality the explanation is descriptive rather than judgmental. This journalists choice of words to present an understanding of the photograph serves to provide contextualization and a sense of hyperbolic emotion. Therefore, the terms used to describe both photographic events play into differing narratives of war, brutality, and violence. The depiction of Japanese aggression differs from the description and understanding of German action.34

Pacific War, LIFE, May 14, 1945, 97. Also note that in these particular photographs, the staging of actors contributes to different understandings of war aggression. While there are no agents of violence physically present in the German example (serving to distance the perpetrators from their actions), the Japanese event includes a perpetrator, victim, and bystanders (this indicts not only the soldier but the Japanese population as well).
33 34

19

Fig 2. Japanese execution.

Fig 3. Bodies found at a Nazi warehouse.

Though differences in description rightly vary according to stylistic license on the part of journalists and photographers, the examples given here demonstrate how popular media pieces affected narratives surrounding national enemies. That both Japan and Germany were criticized but criticized in different ways by the press is illuminating, as it draws a distinction between how the two war enemies were portrayed in the American media. Though such a presentation presents one portrayal of the Japanese by American media, how readers interpreted such information was not as easily projected. Letters to the editor published within circulations provide some insight as to how readers understood depictions of the Japanese and the Germans. One such letter send to LIFE in June 1945 reads: LIFE of May 14 shows an Allied flier about to be beheaded by the Japanese. In contrast I note the May 13 issue of the New York Times which runs an Associated Press picture

20

describing how our soldiers are so nobly treating the Japs. What in Gods world can possess us to treat those beasts like human beings?35 This letter presents one understanding of the representations put forth by the media. The discourse of the Japanese as beasts falls in line with the narrative of extreme brutality, and the importance of photographic evidence is also noted by the reader. However, another letter to the editor invokes a more critical analysis and draws questions of the narratives produced by the media. In reference to the photograph of the Japanese beheading, one letter reads: If this is an authentic photograph, it is of greater historic importance than Joe Rosenthals picture. There is too much evidence, however, that it is not authentic but is posed and intended for a purpose. I believe the American public is entitled to know the source of the photograph, how it fell into American hands (if it did) and whether or not it is authentic.36 This readers note suggests that not all consumers of public media understood narratives as they were told. Here, the reader acknowledges that such evidence can easily be manipulated into portraying a particular idea. Unfortunately, LIFEs response to this article merely comments that, LIFE got the photograph from a highly trustworthy source which, because of censorship, it cannot reveal.37 Nonetheless, this discussion demonstrates the pliability of American news media to both proctor particular understandings and to encourage a forum of discussion and debate. Ultimately, the treatment of the Japanese in the American press provided insight into U.S. foreign policy that similarly affected Germans.38 Drawing a distinction between how the Japanese and the Germans were represented in the American press, it is easy to see how and why Germans were rehabilitated in a particular way. Such an approach provided for and justified American intervention in foreign affairs to instill democratic ideals and benefit U.S. interests.
Letter to the Editor, LIFE, June 4, 1945. Letter to the Editor, LIFE, June 11, 1945. 37 Editorial, LIFE, June 18, 1945. 38 As the U.S. assumed jurisdiction over the rehabilitation of Germany, it similarly (though with less nuance) assumed control over Japans future: What, then, does America propose to do with its enemy, Japan? There are, without quibbling, only three main lines of policy. There is, first, the policy of exterminationRuling out this simple though arduous and bloody possibility, there remain only two alternatives: 1) To undertake to rule Japan, 2) To let Japan continue as an independent nation, gradually adjusting herself to whatever kind of world we and our allies make in the next round of history.
35 36

21

Unity Through Religion: A Bridge that Overcomes the Gulf

The American media, drawing distinctions between Germans, Nazis, and Japanese alike, ultimately found a commonality in the realm of religion. The notion of a Christian brotherhood was popular in the postwar period, especially as a link between American and German interests. Such a relationship while excluding the Japanese and their strange forms of worship served to justify continued American intervention within Germany on moral terms. Unity through common beliefs was one aspect of reeducation and denazification programs that was highlighted in American editorials. One journalist from LIFE magazine commenting on the role of Christianity in U.S. policy suggested that, Their goal is unquestionably to lead to the German people back to the paths of Christian moralityIt would be a long step forward, particularly with regard to German youth, but it would still be a long way from educating the Germans to political intelligence.39 That Christian ideals were seen as a foundation by which reeducation could take place allowed for Americans to justify intervention not only in political but in social terms. Within occupied Germany itself, new political parties aligned with Christian ideology worked in partnership with American forces to rebuild a morally sound society as a sense of Christian brotherhood resounded firmly in the American press. The clearest embodiment of the Christian Brotherhood was Pastor Martin Niemoeller of Germany, a man who spent eight years in Nazi concentration camps for adhering to his beliefs under the Third Reich. Speaking after liberation at a meeting of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, Pastor Niemoeller gave power to the ties of Christianity around the world. Press coverage of his speech emphasizes his anecdotal affirmation that Christianity is a bridge that overcomes the gulf by which our nation is separated from the rest of the human world.40 He continues to note that, Hitler never was strong enough to overcome the dwindling troops of a few
39 40

German People, 74. Niemoller tells of Christian fight, The New York Times, Dec. 4, 1946.

22

thousand ministers and congregations who stood by their faith as other social parties were absorbed into the Nazi structure. For Pastor Niemoeller, the most important lesson learned from the atrocities committed by Nazis was that all believers, despite their denominational differences, are one. American news outlets, including the one behind this article, applauded such an affirmation of Christian unity and utilized it as a foundation for future ties. This article concludes that, We shall have to learn this lesson of ecumenical brotherhood for many years to come. Such brotherhood, portrayed as a bridge that spanned national and geographic boundaries, provided a crucial stepping stone in the rebuilding of Germany from the American point of view. Less and less were the German people seen as enemies, and more as Christian brothers no longer threats to U.S. security.

III.

BUILDING A NEW NARRATIVE: DEMOCRACY, COMMUNISM, AND THE GERMAN ALLY The American medias portrayal of Germans throughout the postwar period demonstrated a

need for reform and rehabilitation through American intervention and democratic ideals. Throughout the war, and especially throughout the years immediately thereafter, relationships between the U.S. and nations abroad were crucially formative in establishing a new world order. The relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in particular evolved throughout WWII, and the postwar struggle for power brought tensions to a new height. As WWII transitioned into a pre-Cold War era, America sought to reinvent Germany as an ally in the fight for democracy against communism. The American media captures this transition in the evolving portrayal of Germans from an enemy to a crafted ally. In a way, the media both followed and represented the transition into new goals and aims: from the salvation, denazification, and rehabilitation of the German people to the

23

portrayal of Germans as allies in the fight against communism. The evolution of anti-Red and antiSoviet discourse paralleled the evolution of Germans as a reinvented entity.

Early Portrayals of the Soviets

Early portrayals of Soviets in the American press varied in scope and situation, but almost always involved a cursory acknowledgement of the communist backbone of Soviet Russia. More frequently portrayed as an ally by necessity rather than choice, Soviets were portrayed as the less civilized liberators of the war when compared to American troops. An image taken in May 1945 demonstrates the portrayal of initial Allied cooperation at the beginning of peacetime (see Fig. 4). Here, East Meets West as soldiers from both the American and Soviet lines meet to exchange civilities on top of a platform displaying the Nazi Swastika. The staging of this photograph demonstrates the tangible and ideological overtaking of Nazi fascism by American democracy and Soviet communism initially as a team but quickly thereafter as competing factions for power.

Fig. 4. American and Soviet troops interact.

24

Other reports of Soviet-American interaction in the postwar period presented a relationship of economy. One LIFE article from May 1945 portrayed the lucrative loot and pawning schemes of soldiers as an opportunity to promote capitalist ideals. When one GI tried to buy a Russian officers cap insignia, for example, he got instead a thundering tirade against capitalism.41 Another article commenting on illicit trade notes, Black markets boom in Berlin: Red army men are biggest buyers.42 The medias portrayal of Soviet soldiers as thundering socialists supposedly buying into the black markets of postwar period capitalize on the irony of the situation. Such distinctions between Americans and the Soviets were present during the war and only heightened in the postwar period. The first postwar issue of LIFE ran an article documenting the Russian-American relationship, chronologically dating back hundreds of years. The author suggests that, Rifts in Russian-American [relations] began to appear as the 20th century opened, with a major factor of contention being Americas growing dislike of autocracy and general fear of Russia in the Far East.43 This understanding of the Soviet Union as an ideological opponent (only brought together by a sense of necessity during the war) served to distance Soviet interests from those of the U.S., as a Russian-American collision of values coincided with a conflict over empire.44 Essentially, the American media portrayed the U.S. and the Soviet Union as no more than hesitant allies from the wartime years. With the war against fascism won, tensions between the two countries were escalated within the popular press. The embodiment of democratic ideals against any kind of totalitarianism effectually turned fascists into communists as Nazis and Bolsheviks alike were lumped into a category of anti-U.S. sentiment. Early portrayals of the Soviets evolved as Cold War tensions heightened over influence and dominance in the postwar world order.
Update on Berlin, LIFE, May 21, 1945, 28. Berlin, 51. 43 Understanding the Soviets, LIFE, May 7, 1945, 97. 44 Ibid.
41 42

25

Crafting a New Ally in Germany

The media served a crucial role in propagating particular narratives surrounding the German people following the conclusion of the war. Such propagated understandings justified American intervention while fueling the instillation of democracy within Germany. As Cold War tensions began to rise in the late 1940s, the U.S. utilized occupied Germany as a tool and ally against the Soviet communists. This tension was felt nowhere greater than within Berlin, standing as a community divided between democracy and communism. The American media presented Berlin as a city at war with itself, as a proving ground between the East and West, between liberty and dictatorship.45 West Berlin was itself acknowledged as the defender of democracy (and thereby, of American interests) against the encroaching Soviet-backed German Communist Party. As part of the anti-Soviet narrative embraced by news outlets throughout the postwar period, the disdain for East Germany was exemplified through the medias attempt to portray the zone as powerless and lost. Several references to the German Communists within New York Times articles portray the party as the Soviet Unions ally or as a puppet to their Russian masters.46 One journalist even goes so far as to say that the German Communists merely followed guidelines laid down in Moscow directives and continually plotted to overtake the west. An article from January 1949 notes how Eastern Germans were planning a purge and taking steps to ruin [the] western state while accusing the West of perpetuating the occupation of Berlin for democratic interests.47 This tension within Berlin between American and Soviet interests played out in the American press as the German allies fight for democracy and freedom.

Jack Raymond, Germans decline to discuss Berlin, The New York Times, April 2, 1948. Drew Middleton, German communists plan purge and steps to ruin western state, The New York Times, January 23, 1949. 47 Ibid.
45 46

26

West Berlin itself was highlighted as the defender of democracy and freedom within this discussion. One New York Times article commends West Berliners resistance to communism, which prevented the complete communization of Berlin and gave the West a unique opportunity to spread the doctrine of freedom behind the Iron Curtain.48 With an ally secure in West Berlin, American influence sought to extend beyond the city as the context of the Cold War expanded. Within the American press, the success of this venture led by the West Berliners accorded success to the American mission of democratization in general and contributed to a narrative of eventual reunification under a democratic regime.49 Ultimately, West Germany stood against the threat of Soviet communism as an ally of the United States. The representation of this struggle for power in the postwar period by the American media built upon the continued narrative of rehabilitation and revival within Germany. This nuanced approach to foreign policy and public opinion justified initial American intervention within Germany while providing for an opportunity of sustainable influence.

Drawing Conclusions: How the American Public Understood the Germans, 1945-1950
The period from 1945-1950 was one of transition and reform as a new world order began to emerge within the context of the Cold War. Within this transition, the role of the Germans as an American ally of democracy was crucial in establishing a narrative of reform within the popular press. These reforms occurred as part of a transition into new goals and aims, from the rehabilitation and re-education of Germany to an anti-communist discourse perpetrated against the Soviet Union. Within the first two years following the conclusion of the war, the media was in effect justifying national aims and actions. Though many undoubtedly supported some kind of
Drew Middleton, United-Germany drive will test the Allies, The New York Times, February 11, 1950. Middleton further comments on the benefits of democracy by noting that, As the independence and economic strength of the Western State increased, so would the desire to see their country reunited on the part of patriotic Germans.
48 49

27

intervention in postwar Germany, the media made a deliberate choice in choosing to present the situation as an opportunity for American intervention and expansion. Representations of the German people as in pain and suffering justified initial American intervention that led to rehabilitation and denazification programs. These efforts, in partnership with distinguishing between Nazis/Germans and Germans/Japanese, served to solidify the relationship between the U.S. and the German people. A sense of responsibility and duty to bring democracy abroad also grew into a narrative of protectionism against totalitarian regimes. Toward the conclusion of the decade, we can most clearly see how the media chose to utilize the situation within Berlin to posit democracy against communism. The depiction of U.S.-backed West Germany as a force battling the imposition of Soviet aims within the Eastern sector solidified the transformation of Germans from enemy to ally within the public eye. This transformative process is important because it justified not only immediate U.S. intervention within a postwar state, but it also laid the foundation for future American involvement in Europe. Ultimately, the American medias portrayal of Germans in the postwar period demonstrates the pliability and ease with which knowledge is created and shared. Within a five-year window, American perceptions of Germans effectually transformed from an understanding of a war enemy to an embracing reality of a democratic ally. In reality, such use of the media is common statemaking at its best but we should choose to understand how we as citizens play into such a narrative over time. After all, it is history that determines what myths are expressed and what parables of desire are recorded for the generations to come.

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, William C. Opinion and Foreign Policy, Foreign Service Journal (May 1984). Allen, William Sheridan. The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1930-1935 (Quadrangle Books: Chicago, 1965). Berinsky, Adam J. In time of war: understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq (University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 2009). Cantril, Hadley. Opinion Trends in World War II: Some Guides to Interpretation, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 1948, pp. 30 44. de Zayas, Alfred-Maurice. A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 1986). Dorfman, Ariel. The Empires Old Clothes (Pantheon Books: New York, 1983). Douglas, R.M. Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans After the Second World War (Yale University Press: New Haven, CN, 2012). Hall, Stuart. Culture, Media, Language (Hutchinson & Co.: London, 1980). Naimark, Norman. Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2002). Pierce, David. America in the Post War Period, Student Pulse (2009), http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/2/america-in-the-post-war-period. Prauser, Steffen and Arfon Rees. The Expulsion of the German Communities from Eastern Europe at the End of the Second World War. EUI Working Paper (2004). Roberts, Andrew. World War IIs Strangest Battle: When Americans and Germans Fought Together, The Daily Beast (12 May 2013). Rutowska, Maria, Zbignlew Mazur and Hubert Ortowski. History and Memory: mass expulsions and transfers 1939 1949, Biuletyn Instytutu Zachodniego (2009).

29

Schroeder, Gregory Frederick. The long road home: German evacuees of the Second World War, postwar victim identities, and social policy in the Federal Republic. Indiana University Department of History (June 1997). Schwoch, James. Media Knowledge: Readings in Popular Culture, Pedagogy, and Critical Citizenship (SUNY Press: Albany, NY, 1992).