This article was originally written as a final coursework piece for HIST4015 “The theory and practice of history” at the University of Hong Kong

Works of propaganda can be a useful source to historians in providing them with information on the general political climate and cultural atmosphere of states in certain time periods, as well as more specific policy goals of the governments of such states. However, at the same time, historians must be very careful when using propaganda as a source, and certainly should not take the information from works of propaganda at face value. Furthermore, when studying propaganda itself, there are many serious issues to consider both practically and from a theoretical standpoint. As such, this essay shall seek to analyse the principal theoretical and methodological problems which historians writing about propaganda face, both from a general perspective and also looking at specific examples, including some from the author’s own particular field of study, namely the history of propaganda and cultural products in the German Democratic Republic, as well as how these challenges can be overcome.

The problems of looking at propaganda as historical sources is by no means limited to the historian of modern history, and in fact can be argued to be even more pertinent to the medieval or ancient historian. Take for instance the example of the Heimskringla, a saga of the Norwegian kings written by the Icelandic resident Snorri Sturluson, who lived from 1178/9 to 1241,[1] a text which in her 1991 book Heimskringla: An Introduction, Diana Whaley described as such that “once the relatively few discrepancies and unlikelihoods in Heimskringla are set aside, the narrative makes fairly convincing reading”,[2] and whilst she does admit that “in terms of factual accuracy, a work can be no better than its sources, and Snorri is limited to sources which are by modern standards hopelessly inadequate”,[3] her general conclusion is that “Heimskringla’s margin of error is a reasonable one, its author’s use of sources intelligent and discerning, and the distortion caused by his standpoint in time and space only moderate […] it therefore seems justified to treat it first and foremost as a piece of historical writing”.[4] Considering that as early as in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries other authors were making reference to Snorri Sturluson’s work (including the Heimskringla),[5] it should be quite disturbing for modern historians to note that it was only in 2013 that Magnús Fjalldal became the first to go beyond merely challenging the idea that the Heimskringla may not be wholly objective and instead assert that the work is in fact a piece of propaganda.[6] As hinted in the title of his essay “Beware of Norwegian Kings: Heimskringla as Propaganda”, the germ of Fjalldal’s argument is that Heimskringla’s purpose is to act as a piece warning the Icelandic people of the danger of the Norwegian kings through the use of selective presentation of information,[7] and that whilst Snorri may have admired the Norwegian royal court for its grandeur, he was deeply opposed to the tyrannical style of rule exhibited by the Norwegian kings.[8] Fjalldal’s argument is quite convincing, with Fjalldal asserting in one section that “although King Ingi and King Sigurðr are not present at Sigurðr slembidjákn’s execution, it is still carried out in their name. This “execution” is, of course, nothing but torture for torture’s sake, and, as far as I know, Snorri’s description of Sigurðr’s death is unparalleled in European medieval literature.”[9] But if the signs that the Heimskringla is quite biased are so clear, why would historians of the Viking Age simply assume that it is a valid historical source?

Part of this may be due to the fact that in the case of scholars of ancient and medieval history, a serious problem that historians may face is the lack of contemporary sources aside from propaganda pieces that have been discovered from the time, and the Heimskringla is an ideal example of this. Alison Finlay noted in the first volume of his translation of the Heimskringla with Anthony Faulkes that many of the sources Snorri Sturluson may have used have either not survived in full or have been lost entirely, although also mentioning that there exists a body of historical texts from Iceland written after the Heimskringla.[10] As such, it should be clear to see that historians should not be so quick to assume the reliability of a contemporary text simply because it is one of the few extant examples, since if one simply refuses to at all entertain the idea that such a text may in fact be propaganda, one falls into the danger of basing their own work on flawed information.

A similar, more modern example is the case of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Protocols are in fact a forgery made by the Russian Okhrana secret police which was first seen in 1903.[11] However, despite the fact that the Protocol’s fabrication is practically universally accepted in the modern day, it continues to hold sway with certain anti-Semitic groups to this day.[12] Whilst the number of people who continue to believe in the Protocols and treat it as a serious factual piece of historical evidence is mercifully few and excluded from serious academics (Banner derisively refers to such people as “neo-Nazis like David Irving and Fred Leuchter, tendentious authors like Ernst Nolte and Robert Faurisson, or ‘revisionist’ journals like the Historical Review”),[13] its continued relevance brings up an important point to consider, namely that the days of blindly accepting propaganda as historical fact are by no means over, and historians must continue to be vigilant in their choices in sources. In the author’s own field of study, the history of the GDR, this is not such a serious problem, as one would be hard pressed to find a historian who could be considered overly sympathetic to the East German party-state. In addition, the serious reconsideration of the validity of totalitarian theory as a method to consider East German history (in fact, in 2006 one historian bluntly laid out her plan as “to use diverse books gathered here for review in part to critique what is (or should be) by now a fairly dead horse, the totalitarianism model”)[14] has meant that the field has also been inoculated to a certain extent against overly critical assessments of the GDR. Nevertheless, the point made above still stands.

Another serious methodological problem can be found in the fact that the cultural milieu in which the works of propaganda a historian may be studying may simply not exist anymore. The problem is amplified when one considers the fact that the level to which we can or should attempt to reconstruct the past is by no means a question which has a clear answer, and some historians will argue in a most bellicose manner against any such endeavour. On this subject Arthur Marwick made the following comments which are worth quoting in length: “History is a specialist discipline, with methods of its own. It is not simply based on common sense, and it is not a branch of literature. It is not a craft, and historians do not attempt to reconstruct the past […] An understanding of the way in which historians have long been concerned with the unwitting testimony of primary sources, for codes, values, customs, unspoken assumptions, obviates any need to resort to cultural anthropology”.[15] There are, however, other tools which historians may use to place works of propaganda back into a cultural context which the historian may have not personally experience, for instance through the use of interviews, though it should also be noted that the use of oral histories has its own dangers, with memory being the fickle thing that it is. In his studies of East German propaganda, the author has made use of interviews of people who lived during the era of the GDR to try to assess the impact of propaganda on them, as well as how they viewed the works of propaganda they came across. The large number of oral histories collected in books such as The Lost World of Communism and Born in the GDR have certainly made such oral histories far easier to access, although there is the inherent danger that those compiling and publishing these interviews may select certain ones to be published or edit them so as to push forward their own view of East German society. In summary, one can work around this practical issue through the use of available sources such as interviews, with the caveat that if one is not conducting the interviews themselves they must be wary of the choices behind which interviews are published, and even if one were to conduct their own interviews, one must always be aware that their interviewees’ memories may not be completely accurate.

It is not only the socio-political environment in which certain pieces of propaganda may have existed which may possibly no longer be extant, but many propaganda materials suffer from being ephemeral in nature, and this poses yet another significant methodological challenge for a historian writing about propaganda. As we have seen earlier with the case of the sources used by Snorri Sturluson for the Heimskringla, this is very much true of ancient and medieval sources, although it should be noted that it is by no means limited to these areas of history. Thankfully, this is not such a serious issue in regards to the history of East German propaganda. Art books such as DDR Posters give historians an affordable way of accessing East German propaganda and also give an introduction into the subject, whilst copies of publications such as Das Magazin and Sibylle are readily available on online vendors. One can also find pamphlets or books of collected speeches such as Ideologische Arbeit-Herzstück der Parteiarbeit (“Ideological Work-Heart of Party Work”, which collects the works and speeches of Werner Lamberz) can be found in flea markets and antiquarian bookstores. Additionally, some East German propaganda films and TV have been re-mastered as commercially available DVDs, as is the case with Der schwarze Kanal. On the more academic and professionally preserved side of the spectrum, the Bundesarchiv has a wealth of documents related to the production of propaganda in the GDR, which the author was kindly granted access to. Hence, at least when looking at East German propaganda, there are few problems in this realm as there are many opportunities to access such works of propaganda and they are readily available.

However, there are also various issues to note. Firstly, different archives have different rules on accessing their materials. For instance, the Stasi Archive, which the author has also visited, chooses materials for the researcher to view, hence historians may not always be able to gain access to the exact materials they are looking for. Additionally, whilst there are many commercially available pieces of historical propaganda, the historian then runs into a problem that is arguably the scourge of the academic world, budgeting. This is in fact one of the methodological problems T.R. Vallance lists in his article “Methodology in Propaganda Research”, stating that “one occasionally finds reference in propaganda experiments to the fact that the cost of certain procedures would be prohibitive.”[16] Finally, propaganda pieces from other eras may simply have disappeared, destroyed by disasters natural or manmade, or simply through negligence. Unfortunately, there are few solutions to the above problems, aside from hoping that archives accept requests for specific items, attaining more funding, and hoping that more materials are found or that records have been made of these pieces.

Another issue to consider is the training required to interpret pieces of propaganda. Works of propaganda include media as varied as paintings, sculptures, literature, movies, and many others. As such, a historian looking to study propaganda faces the manifestly overwhelming task of familiarising themselves with the theories and methodologies of the study of each of these different forms of media (and the same can be said in regards to the field of propaganda studies), and in here faces the practical issue that the historian is ultimately merely human. With our limited lifespans there are only so many disciplines the individual historian can educate himself or herself in, and the author will readily admit that he sometimes confuses his minimalism with his modernism, never having studied art history or art at a level beyond that of a secondary education. He is, however, lucky enough to know people specialising in such disciplines and is able to call upon their expertise to help him identify the style of a piece of East German pottery. Hence, perhaps the only realistic approach to dealing with this particular challenge is for the historian to cultivate links with those in other disciplines, as there will always be something beyond the individual historian’s field of knowledge.

Finally, one should consider the problem of historians’ own roles as propagandists themselves. In his collection Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Louis Althusser put forward the concept of the Ideological State Apparatuses, which included the educational ISA which he described as “the system of the different public and private ‘Schools’”.[17] In their roles as writers, professors, teachers, and others, it is certainly no stretch of the mind to place historians as belonging within the realm of the educational ISA, and there are clear examples of this having happened. In her work looking at how the Nationale Volksarmee (NVA, or “National People’s Army”) has slowly been omitted from histories of Germany, Nina Leonhard argues that the Bundeswehr (the armed forces of the Federal Republic) has pushed forward a narrative of itself serving as the Armee der Einheit (“army of unity”) which establishes the Bundeswehr as the only legitimate German military force after the Second World War and neglects to look at the fate of the numerous NVA soldiers laid off after German reunification or the discriminatory practices they had to face when entering the Bundeswehr.[18] In the realm of propaganda studies, Peter Grothe’s book To Win the Minds of Men on propaganda in the GDR was criticised by his contemporary Helen Lidell for suggesting that the system of governance in the West was perfect,[19] and the more recent book Bending Spines by Randall Bytwerk on Nazi and East German propaganda is none too objective either, including the rather shockingly partisan quote “But worse than one-sided newspapers, economic failure, and corroded personalities, the propagandas of both systems called evil good and good evil”.[20] For an institution to push forward one specific narrative of history whilst covering up all others could certainly be called an act of propaganda in and of itself, yet attempts by academics to do the same is not only that but also exceedingly unprofessional. To further add moral judgements to such an analysis, taking into account that whether or not it is a historian’s job to make such moral judgements is up for debate, is even more reprehensible, especially when said assessments have no bearing on the actual subject at hand. Thus, it should be exceedingly clear that historians must be very careful not to let their own political beliefs cloud their analysis, lest they stray from professional academic analysis to partisan moralising instead.

In conclusion, historians of propaganda face numerous methodological and theoretical challenges. Historians must always be careful when using propaganda as a historical source and not take the information from works of propaganda as unbiased truth, something which should be obvious but as seen in the examples given above a fact that cannot be overstated. Whilst the cultural context in which pieces of propaganda existed in may have disappeared, we can attempt to work around this through the use of other sources such as oral histories, although this carries its own set of problems, especially when using interviews conducted by others. The problem of access to works of propaganda can vary widely depending on the time period and region being studied, and when propaganda pieces have been lost one can only hope that they have either been recorded in some form or new pieces are discovered, and even when they do exist there are issues regarding access to archives and cost. Historians may also not be trained to interpret certain types of propaganda such as art or literature, and in this area contacts in other disciplines are a more practical approach than attempting to specialise in every discipline. Finally, historians of propaganda need to make sure that they do not fall into the trap of becoming propagandists themselves and applying their own moral and political judgements onto works of propaganda, as this can result in unhelpful, subjective, unprofessional appraisals of said propaganda.

Bibliography

Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971.

Banner, Stephen Eric. A Rumor about the Jews: Conspiracy, Anti-Semitism, and the Protocols of Zion. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Bruce, Gary. The Firm: The Inside Story of the Stasi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Bytwerk, Randall L. Bending Spines: The Propagandas of Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2004.

Der schwarze Kanal. Directed by Karl-Eduard von Schnitzler. 1960-1989. Berlin: rbb media GmbH, Home Video, 2016. VHS.

Fjalldal, Magnús. “Beware of Norwegian Kings: Heimskringla as Propaganda.” Scandinavian Studies 85, 4 (2013): 455-468.

Heather, David. DDR Posters: The Art of East German Propaganda. Munich: Prestel, 2014.

Lamberz, Werner. Ideologische Arbeit-Herzstück der Parteiarbeit: Ausgewählte Reden und Aufsätze. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1979.

Leonhard, Nina. “The National People’s Army as an Object of (Non) Remembrance: The Place of East Germany’s Military Heritage in Unified Germany.” German Politics and Society 26, 4 (2008): 150-169.

Lidell, Helen. Review of To Win the Minds of Men: The Story of the Communist Propaganda War in East Germany, by Peter Grothe. International Affairs 35, 4 (October 1959): 479.

Marwick, Arthur. The New Nature of History: Knowledge, Evidence, Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.

Molloy, Peter. The Lost World of Communism: An Oral History of Daily Life Behind the Iron Curtain. London: BBC Books, 2016.

Sturlusson, Snorri. Heimskringla. Translated by Alison Finlay and Anthony Faukes. 3 vols. London: Viking Society for Northern Research University College London, 2016.

Vaizey, Hester. Born in the GDR: Living in the Shadow of the Wall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Vallance, T.R. “Methodology in Propaganda Research.” Psychological Bulletin 48, 1 (1951): 32-61.

Whaley, Diana. Heimskringla: An Introduction. London: Viking Society for Northern Research University College London, 1991.

---

[1] Diana Whaley, Heimskringla: An Introduction (London: Viking Society for Northern Research University College London, 1991), 9.

[2] Ibid, 116.

[3] Ibid, 119.

[4] Ibid, 126.

[5] Ibid, 13.

[6] Magnús Fjalldal, “Beware of Norwegian Kings: Heimskringla as Propaganda,” Scandinavian Studies 85 (2013): 455.

[7] Ibid, 457.

[8] Ibid, 468.

[9] Ibid, 464.

[10] Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, trans. Alison Finlay and Anthony Faukes (London: Viking Society for Northern Research University College London, 2016), 1:X.

[11] Stephen Eric Banner, A Rumor about the Jews: Conspiracy, Anti-Semitism, and the Protocols of Zion, 2nd ed. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 1.

[12] Ibid, 2-3.

[13] Ibid, 127.

[14] Gary Bruce, The Firm: The Inside Story of the Stasi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 8-9.

[15] Arthur Marwick, The New Nature of History: Knowledge, Evidence, Language (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 271-272.

[16] T.R. Vallance, “Methodology in Propaganda Research,” Psychological Bulletin, 48 (1951): 58.

[17] Louis Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. Ben Brewster (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971), 143.

[18] Nina Leonhard, “The National People’s Army as an Object of (Non) Remembrance: The Place of East Germany’s Military Heritage in Unified Germany,” German Politics and Society 26 (2008): 153-154.

[19] Helen Lidell, review of To Win the Minds of Men: The Story of the Communist Propaganda War in East Germany, by Peter Grothe, International Affairs 35, 4 (October 1959): 479.

[20] Randall L. Bytwerk, Bending Spines: The Propagandas of Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2004), 168.