Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Nazi media attempted to distort the progress of the war as much as possible. Antony Beevor in his book Berlin states that by January 1945 (by which the Soviets were advancing in to Germany), Goebbels was trying to make out that the front was still as far in front as Warsaw. Hitler also prematurely declared victory at Stalingrad; a few months later in late January 1943 once the situation had become hopeless, the Nazis switched their tune by declaring that "[...] the gigantic struggle to the 'fortress' of Stalingrad where the Russians were making a last, desperate effort despite the fact that they were at the end of their tether.The enemy had been forced to send their last hope of half-grown children and tired old men into the front line formations. This undernourised, freezing human material needed to be cowed by whip and gun and driven to death by the machine-guns of the commissars. Against the savagery of the Bolshevik hordes, the most heroic battle in German history was being fought on the Volga from generals down to the lowest man" (Joachim Wieder's memoirs in his book Stalingrad, the speech has been paraphrased).timmy872 wrote:what i meant was more the course of the war... each side would play their part up or down depending on what sounds the best but did the germans accuratly report the overall events? i heard that the japanese kept Midway and the loss of 3 carriers quiet (dont know if never mentioned it or just "drip fed" the news) anything like that?
the stalingrad radio message was mentioned (good properganda for christmas) but i assume the fall of stalingrad was infact told to the public at or around the time it fell... or was it???
armies being wiped out in russia etc, was this made public or individual deaths notified without a link to the big picture.
basically if the germans lost did they say they lost?
I'd give that a qualified Yes. Remember that propaganda doesn't mean false it means information disseminated for political purpose. Thus accurate reporting can be very effective porpaganda. My impression is that in many cases allied reporting was honest in that there were few intentional fallacies propagated. However security concerns lead to incomplete reporting in many cases and of course claims were accepted at face value in other cases. The counter point of this would be cases like the British effort to steer the V-1s off target by very careful publication of "strikes".Jan-Hendrik wrote:Was any "reporting" done in WW2 'honest'...or was it part of the war propaganda of each nation?