Page 111 [111]
OCR
The Faces of the Enemy in the Two World Wars applied propaganda; however, we know today that the human mind processes information 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 studying 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. Drawings 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 humour (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 consciousness 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 chronologically, 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 accentuate 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
