Page 89 [89]
OCR
War Propaganda and Humour: World War II German, British, and Soviet Cartoons accept the humorous message only because we find it funny, and we reject it only because we do not find it funny. In the situation of war, humour appears whenever the immediate task of propaganda is temporary relaxation rather than mobilisation. Ihis can be achieved by employing at least one of the following options: (1) The enemy can be pictured as weak, absurd, or helpless if still vicious. In Arthur Johnson’s cartoon (Fig. 34), the anti-Nazi coalition leaders are but three clowns jostling each other in a futile circular motion around Europe. The futility of the enemies’ actions is carried to the extreme in Ernest H. Shepard’s cartoon, which strongly resembles John Tenniel’s illustrations to Lewis Carroll’s Alice books (Fig. 35) and features Hitler and Goering performing a suicidal acrobatic stunt called The Spring Offensive. This is a typical example of pure English nonsense because in addition to the utter idiocy of the scene, rendered in a realistic and laidback Victorian manner, it is based on an equally silly pun. No less absurd is the Munchausen-type scene depicted by Boris Efimov. Here, Hitler’s idea of total mobilisation is allegorised by a dying horse ridden by the Reich leaders and supported by the monkey-like Goebbels,’ who is trying to lift the animal out of the quagmire (Fig. 36). Because the principal aim of such cartoons is to banish fear of the enemy and to boost morale, their principal message can be read as ‘the enemy does not deserve to be treated too seriously’. This agrees with Freud’s theory of humour: the super-ego rejects the claims of reality and puts through the pleasure principle: “Look! Here is the world which seems so dangerous! It is nothing but a game for children—just worth making a jest about” (Freud 1928: 6). Herein lies the semantic difference between invective and humour. Even when invective appears to distort reality, it still refers to reality; even when humour appears to be realistic, it still seeks to replace reality with a “game for children”. While the ostensible message of wartime humour is that the enemy should not be treated seriously, its meta-message is that the message itself should not be treated seriously either. As a result, in keeping with Kant, we are left with “nothing’—a salubrious alternative to tension and fear. > Christie Davies believes that “the monkey is ridiculous and inferior but not altogether alien or malign” (Davies 2014: 24). Indeed, the presumed animal was different—the mouse; not an actual mouse, though, but Walt Disney’s image of it. Hitler adored Disney's films, and Ernst Röhm had nicknamed Goebbels “Wotan’s Mickey Mouse”—an idea that Efimov seized. However, because Disney’s charming hero is quite unlike the hideous Goebbels, and because the mouse is a very unusual metaphor in caricature, many perceived Efimov’s character as a monkey. Low, who admired Efimoy, regarded his Goebbels as a rat (see his foreword to Efimov in Low 1944; see also Norris 2010). 87
