Page 111 [111]
The Faces of the Enemy in the Two World Wars
applied propaganda; however, we know today that the human mind processes in¬
formation in a more limited manner than was then assumed. Therefore—based
on new knowledge acquired in the field of psychology since 1920s—one can say
that different people’s brains do not convert the messages of the outside world
identically, and that interpretations instead depend on a person’s prior knowledge.
This in turn implies that different people interpret propaganda differently (Sipos
2011: 43-58). People from what might be called the WWI generation (for instance
Wilhelm Schuster, Ernst Schulz-Besser, Eduard Fuchs) as well as scholars study¬
ing propaganda after both world wars (for example Eberhard Demm) have tried
to explain why caricatures were important tools of propaganda and why they can
communicate a message more effectively than any other kind of text, especially
in the time of war. Schuster states that “the caricature has first rate power. Draw¬
ings speak more clearly than words” (1915: 5). Schulz-Besser argues in a similar
way that, “The caricature is superpower. A well-drawn picture is imprinted much
deeper into the memory than the best lead article... But humour offers much more:
it helps to win the fight” (1918: 4). He adds that it was a good feeling for German
soldiers to read Kladderadatsch on the battlefields and enjoy its well-known hu¬
mour (Ibid.: 4). Fuchs accentuates another aspect, specifically that “the caricatures
are the most reliable form of expression of the mass psyche, always and everywhere”
(1916: VI). I can agree with Fuchs to some extent, because a caricature can achieve
its goal if the viewer knows its elements and can decode them, therefore, caricatures
provide future generations with an insight into some parts of collective conscious¬
ness and memory. It is safe to assume, then, that the contemporaries of WWII
strongly believed in the power of the press and propaganda, although scholars of
later generations also emphasise the important effect of caricatures not only on
the battlefield but also in the hinterland. Demm accentuates the importance of
humour in the caricatures, as does Schulz-Besser, who says: “With humour one can
improve the morality and strengthen the feeling of togetherness (...) and humour
can redirect discontent towards the enemy or scapegoats” (1918: 11). We will see
that in the analysed caricatures that mockery is directed only against the external
enemy, whereas internal political conflicts are rarely depicted. During WWII the
depiction of scapegoats is unambiguous: Jews became reprehensible for everything
and anything both in pictures and reality.
Wartime caricatures (like all other political caricatures) reflected on political
and military events very quickly, although they were limited by propaganda aims
and censorship. However, I will not discuss the analysed caricatures chronologi¬
cally, because my aim is to give an overview of the array of the general strategies
used in mocking the enemy during the two World Wars rather than to illustrate
the well-known events of the wars by describing the relevant caricatures. I will ac¬
centuate the similarities and differences between the various means of mocking ‘the
enemy’: the use of new vs. old symbols; the differences between the self-stereotypes
(stereotypical depictions of the in-group and its allies) and the stereotypes of the
109