Censorship
Table of contentsX
There is an updated version available for this article.
  • Version 1.0
  • |
  • Last updated 10th September 2015

Censorship

By Eberhard Demm
Censorship was an indispensable war weapon: its task was to keep the people in an atmosphere of utter ignorance and unshaken confidence in the authorities, and to allow their boundless indoctrination so that they would, despite terrible losses and privations, accept holding on until the bitter end and the complete “knock out” (Lloyd George) of the enemy. This article compares the organization of censorship and its limitations in the combatant countries, analyses its methods, and cites the principal topics which were usually suppressed, not only in the media, but also in novels, entertainment, and in private correspondence. It also investigates the different reactions to censorship: self-censorship, accommodation, criticism, manoeuvres to outwit and circumvent it, and, last but not least, the way in which censorship was manipulated in order to discredit or even ruin political enemies.
Table of contents

“If people really knew, the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don’t know and can’t know. The correspondents don’t write and the censorship would not pass the truth.”1 David Lloyd George (1863-1945)

Introduction

Propaganda only has a chance if divergent sources of information can be suppressed as much as possible. Therefore the indispensable prerequisite of successful propaganda is censorship. Thus, in all warring countries censorship was established immediately at the outbreak of hostilities.2 The primary aim of censorship was to protect military secrets and movements. However, it was rapidly extended to political matters as well. Everything which might criticize the government, distress and trouble the population, or weaken its morale was to be withheld or at least toned down and justified.3

How was censorship organized?

Whereas, on the continent censorship was introduced and justified by the proclamation of the state of siege, in Britain and later in the United States the parliamentary bodies had to be consulted.4 Censorship was thus authorized in Britain by the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) and later in the USA by the Espionage and Sedition Acts.5 All countries with the exception of Italy – where censorship outside the army was not introduced before 19176 – rapidly organized central censorship offices: in February 1915 the Oberzensurstelle (Chief Censorship Department) in Berlin, subordinated to the Supreme High Command (OHL); the Bureau de la Presse (Press Bureau) in Paris under the direction of the Ministry of War; the Official Press Bureau in London; and in April 1917 the Central Censorship Board and the Committee on Public Information in the United States.7 In Austria, censorship and propaganda were from the very beginning united in the Kriegspressequartier (War Press Office) under the direction of the Ministry of War with two separate surveillance commissions: for Austria and for Hungary. However, it was only responsible for censorship in the war areas whereas two other authorities, the Kriegsüberwachungsamt (War Surveillance Office) in Vienna, and the Kriegsüberwachungskommission (War Surveillance Commission) in Budapest, took care of the Austrian and the Hungarian hinterland respectively.8

The organization of censorship was somewhat modified during the course of the war. In Germany and France, the censorship authorities lost their autonomy in October 1915 and January 1916, respectively, when they were united with the offices of propaganda: the Kriegspresseamt (War Press Office) and the Maison de la presse (Press House).9 In Austria, in October 1917 the Kriegsüberwachungsamt was replaced by a commission in the Ministry of War; and in Britain, in 1916 the Press Bureau was replaced with a special Press Censorship Office. At the same time the British War Office founded MI7, a propaganda department of its own, which included a section of censorship of military matters.10

The censors – in Prussia, Russia and Austria mostly career officers and in Britain and France mostly civilians – received their instructions from the service departments of the military authorities, and from various ministries (in Germany sometimes even directly from the chancellor),11 and passed them to the press, either directly or through regular press conferences.12

Rather belatedly, after the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Caporetto between 24 and 27 October 1917, the Italians introduced press censorship under the minister of propaganda, Ubaldo Comandini (1869-1925), a former leader of the Teachers’ Union.13

In France, local authorities had an important, and in Germany a decisive, influence: the French Press Bureau was not only subordinated to the Ministry of War, but also to the prefects of the fifty-five departments and the commanders of the twenty-one military regions, and its work was duplicated by 300 provincial control commissions.14 Altogether 5,000 censors were on duty throughout the war.15

Germany had been placed under more than sixty military commanders who considered the Instructions for the Press of the War Press Office in Berlin mere guidelines and took the final decisions in their districts themselves. The Bavarian War Press Office especially, usually supported by the Bavarian Minister of War, insisted on its independence, and provoked numerous quarrels not only with the Berlin censors but even with the OHL.16 The complicated organization in Germany and France lead to curious results: articles suppressed in one district or in one newspaper, were passed in another; the same happened in Austria and Russia despite their more centralized systems.17

In Britain, the Official Press Bureau issued notices with letters prefixed according to their importance. Although they had no binding force, offenders could be prosecuted under various DORA regulations especially those with the letter “D” (Defence). In the event of infringement, the paper or the leaflet would be seized and court proceedings opened against the author and the printer. From 1915 on, numerous opponents to the war were thus put in prison – a “witch-hunt” that was reinforced in 1917 and reached its climax in the “epidemic of prosecution” of February 1918.18

In Russia on 22 July 1914, rather lax civilian censorship regulations were replaced by military censorship under the Temporary Decree on War Censorship and a supplementary list of military secrets.19 Preventive censorship was imposed in Petrograd and in the areas of military operations; elsewhere, censors were expected to suppress only publications harmful to military interests. This allowed the press to publish highly critical articles on political matters, and when the Council of Ministers complained, the Minister of War Alexei Polivanov (1855-1920) pointed out that his military censors were “not particularly skilled in political nuances” and could only conform to the decree and the list. Finally, from February 1916, censorship was extended to political articles and later even to speeches in the Duma, but by the end of the year censors could not or would not stem the tide of mounting criticism any more.20

In all armies, sooner or later postal control was introduced. Its aim was to look for disclosure of military secrets, to test the morale of the soldiers, and to find out about “subversive ideas”; but, at least in the British and the Austrian army, also to remedy the problems.21 In Russia it had already been introduced in July 1914 through the above-mentioned decrees. It was comprehensive and in some districts was also concerned with civilian correspondence. In Italy only the correspondence between the soldiers and their families in the so-called “war zones”, that is, border zones and areas with strong socialist influence, was centrally controlled, but by the end of 1917 it was extended to civilian letters as well.22 In the French army central postal control started in January 1915, and from July each army corps had a commission of twenty members who opened the letters. “Subversive” paragraphs in letters were “caviardés” by the censors – deleted with ink and aniline pencil – and a significant number not transmitted at all.23 It seems that there was no postal control in the American army but the French censors took care of its soldiers as well, destroying their postcards and censoring their letters.24 The quantity of controlled letters is estimated for the French army at 180,000 out of 5 to 7 million letters per week.25 Nevertheless, Rosie Kennedy’s remark about central postal control in Britain characterizes well the situation in the other countries except Russia: “The vast bulk of correspondence meant that censorship was at best patchy.”26 In the German and British armies censorship of the soldiers’ correspondence was at first handled by their own officers. Even when central censorship was introduced the secrecy of correspondence was still violated, at least in the German army: “[…] even intimate family letters are divulged and turned into a laughing stock”.27 In Italy, France, Germany, and Austria soldiers could be punished and even court-martialled for letters containing supposedly “exaggerated and false information”.28 In Italy, some servicemen were even executed on the spot under the draconian regime of General Luigi Cadorna (1850-1928).29 In order to escape control, soldiers in all armies sometimes asked comrades on leave to post their letters at home, but in the German army such voluntary “postmen” were sometimes controlled on the trains and severely punished.30 In Britain, civilian correspondence was also censored and in 1918 between 4,000 and 5,000 persons were busy with it. Their most important prey was war opponents such as Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and Edmund Dene Morel (1873-1924), who tried to place articles abroad and were thus jailed for “evasion of censorship”.31 In Austria, civilian letters to the soldiers mentioning food shortage and hunger were confiscated so as not to “endanger the discipline of front troops and negatively affect their spirits”. In France, the correspondence of “suspect” civilians was controlled by police after September 1915 but not intercepted.32

The censors also invited themselves to numerous entertainments. Theatre plays, films, chansons, cabarets, and circus performances in Britain, Germany, and Austria had already been censored before the war, whereas in France censorship had been abolished in 1906 and was now reintroduced immediately.33 For this task special services stepped in: in Germany and Austria the police; in Berlin the Theaterpolizei (Police of the theatres); in Paris the Commission Spéciale at the Préfecture de Police (Paris police headquarters), which censored films, 4,583 stage plays, and more than 50,000 chansons; and in Britain, five private censorship bodies – for theatre plays, music halls, films, novels, and posters.34

In Germany, film scripts had to be submitted to preventive censorship, but even if they passed, it could happen that a film could later be refused and had to be destroyed.35 In France, the manuscript of a stage-play had to be submitted a fortnight before the first performance. On average, 17 percent of these plays were forbidden.36 As far as films are concerned, in 1916, 145 of them were forbidden, and in 1917, 198 forbidden or curtailed.37

How was censorship handled?

All information transmitted by cables and news agencies (Reuters, Havas, Wolff) was censored beforehand, which means that it was completely suppressed, modified, or at least delayed.38 The addressees were not even aware of it unless they received a copy by normal letter.39 In Britain, a daily average of around 1,000 cables was being censored in this way. Furthermore, the press received numerous censorship instructions, some of them permanent, others temporary (“until further notice”); in France, altogether 1,100 general and thousands of particular instructions; in Germany at the end of 1916, there were already 2,000.40 In order to permit journalists and censors alike a clear overview of all these regulations the German War Press Office from the end of 1915 to 1917 compiled special censorship books which were, of course, top secret.41 The censors in France, Britain, and Germany were entitled to send the police to search the houses of suspects and to confiscate dangerous material. This happened, for instance, to the French writer Henri Barbusse (1873-1935); to the offices of the Independent Labour Party and the Non Conscription Fellowship in Britain; and to the German pacifistBund Neues Vaterland (Association New Fatherland).42

The most restrictive and arbitrary censorship was practiced in France and Austria. Each newspaper (and in France all other publications as well), had to be submitted beforehand, the censor marked doubtful lines, often whole passages, and then the printer had to “échopper”, that is, remove from the clichés of the printing machines the censored passages which would appear as blank spaces in print.43 Sometimes articles and also illustrations were so much censored that nothing remained except maybe the title or the name of the author.44 In France information from foreign newspapers, even of allied countries, was mostly suppressed.45 In doubtful cases French censors could change opinion, suppress information temporarily “until new instructions” or consult the Ministry.46 They also cooperated with British and American censors.47

Some Austrian newspapers would, as a sign of protest, fill in the word “Zensur” in the blank spaces.48 In Germany outside of Bavaria blank spaces were strictly forbidden because the ordinary people should not be aware that all information was censored.49

Preventive censorship also existed in other warring countries, but was limited to special cases only. German censors also gave recommendations like “undesirable”, “to be avoided”, “publish with prudence” or even “desirable”.50 In Britain, at the outset, no preventive censorship existed, but on 15 November 1917, because of pressing public demand for a negotiated peace with Germany, publications about war and the making of peace were submitted to preventive censorship.51 As the censors also controlled publications afterwards,52 it was always safer, at least in delicate matters, to submit an article beforehand. Otherwise, one might face sanctions in varying degrees: a newspaper could be suspended; in France for up to six months, in Britain and Germany usually for a few days only.53 In the event of repeated offences “observations” or “severe warnings” could be issued, the editors summoned to the censor’s office, or preventive censorship could be imposed regularly. As a last resort, the paper could be seized and suspended indefinitely, and journalists could be forbidden to write or were even prosecuted.54 Worse was the fate of the French newspaperLe Bonnet rouge: partially financed by the Germans, it was completely suspended on 12 July 1917. Its editor Miguel Almereyda (1883-1917) died a month later in prison, “strangled, it seems, by the police for having threatened to spill the beans”. His collaborator Emile Joseph Duval (1864-1918) was executed in July 1918.55 In Germany, offenders got away more lightly and in the worst case had to emigrate, like for instance, pastor Johannes Lepsius (1858-1926), over his forbidden report about the Turkish atrocities against Armenians.56

The most severe sanctions were introduced in the United States when they declared war on Germany in April 1917. After Congress had voted conscription with the Selective Service Act on 18 May 1917, it passed, in view of widespread opposition in the country, the Espionage Act on 15 June 1917 which permitted the imprisonment of critics of this new measure for up to twenty years. Although an amendment authorizing formal press censorship was repudiated, the espionage bill permitted the prosecution of persons who would spread “false reports” or “false statements”, and attempt to “interfere with the operation or success” of the U.S. military or to “promote the success of its enemies” – vague expressions which permitted the prosecution of 2,000 people until the end of the war.57 Besides, George Creel (1876-1953), who started to organize the Committee on Public Information on 14 April 1917, one week later issued a list of eighteen paragraphs with the title “What the Government asks of the Press”, summing up his regulations for “voluntary censorship”. It is true that his list concerned only military matters but as he spread information about all issues relating to the war and, as a member of the formal Censorship Board also participated in censoring all messages between the United States and foreign countries, his committee had practically a monopoly on steering public opinion in the United States.58 Under the Sedition Act of May 1918 the above mentioned sanctions were imposed even for criticism of the government or the army, or of the sale of war bonds. One of the few opponents of this law had remarked: “It is not necessary to Prussianize ourselves in order to destroy Prussianism in Europe”.59

What was censored?

The following categories concern delicate topics which were in all countries usually suppressed either explicitly or after preventive censorship.

1) Criticisms of the army and unauthorized publications about military operations, especially about military failures or mutinies. This sometimes led to strange results. When in the Battle of Verdun the Germans conquered Fort Douaumont, French censorship suppressed this information. When the French took it back, this success was proudly announced by the official communiqué, but the population was quite surprised to learn that it had been in German hands.60 The same procedures were applied by the British and the Russians who did not even mention the German advance when the inhabitants of Warsaw could hear the thundering of the German artillery.61 Likewise when the German invasion of France was stopped at the Marne on 8 September 1914 and the army had to retreat hastily leaving 50,000 prisoners and thirty cannons behind, the German war communiqué spoke of a strategic reshuffle on the right wing, the capture of fifty cannons and of several thousand French prisoners.62 Even the most brilliant victories of the enemy like the famous battle of Tannenberg were either not passed, or toned down as “a simple local setback”.63

2) The terrible number of casualties at the front – on the German side alone an average of 1,158 soldiers fell per day.64 Short casualty lists could be published with “reserve and moderation”: for instance, those concerning smaller districts or “Rolls of Honour” about selected fallen officers.65

3) Unauthorized letters of soldiers.66

4) Information about espionage and counter-espionage.67

5) Pacifist publications and activities.68

There were many other thorny subjects as well but censorship was not handled equally in all belligerent countries and the instructions could vary from time to time. As a general rule all events which could alarm the population were usually forbidden or put under preventive censorship: for instance strikes, demonstrations, confiscations of newspapers and other publications, doubts about victory, peace efforts, and food riots.69

Press coverage of strikes and other labour disturbances was completely forbidden in France and rigorously regulated by numerous D-notices in Britain. Strikes were not mentioned in the German censorship book but journalists were told to condemn them.70

The terrible food shortages in Austria and Germany culminating in the “turnip winter” of 1916/1917, could not really be passed over in silence but had to be excused and minimized. However, the censors intervened with caution. In November 1916, the German War Press Office issued five instructions to the press about the food situation: journalists were asked to avoid sensational presentations of high food prices, attacks on traders and shopkeepers, reports about food riots, disturbances in front of shops, and even jokes about food shortages.71 The censorship book of 1917 permitted information about food problems only on a local level, and forbidden from instigating reports about food riots and about the conflicts between rural and urban populations.72 Even advertisements were controlled, and a newspaper was blamed for an advertisement with the revealing title: “Fat dogs wanted.”73

Jokes about the infidelity of wives was another thorny problem because many soldiers, absent from home for a long time, did not trust their spouses. Classical comedies by Eugène Labiche (1815-1888) and Georges Feydeau (1862-1921), and frivolous medieval chansons by François Villon (1431-1463) were therefore either suppressed or modified. Nevertheless some jokes and cartoons could slip through.74

Another trick popular with the censors was to delay information. When the Bolshevik government announced that it would not honour tsarist bonds, this information was delayed for ten days so that well-informed VIPs could dispose of their assets. Some news was not disclosed before the end of the war, like the sinking of the dreadnought HMS Audacious in October 1914. A more famous case is that of the Lusitania. Sunk on 7 May 1915 by a German submarine, it was not only a passenger ship but functioned as well as a military cargo and a troop transport. Besides approximately 1,200 passengers, it also had ammunitions and sixty-seven Canadian soldiers aboard, which was even confirmed by the US custom service. However, this fact was never admitted by the authorities in order to accuse the Germans of an atrocity and to protest vigorously to their government. Since the 1980s, several diving expeditions have discovered the remains of war materials.75

Each country had special restrictions: in France, articles about peace (even the word itself was for a long time forbidden), about the possible devaluation of the French franc, even too detailed descriptions of enemy’s atrocities which might demoralize the population or spread panic, were banned; in the Baltic provinces of Russia with their numerous Baltic-Germans, all German words or phrases had to be removed from publications.76 In Germany, speculation about the future constitution of Alsace–Lorraine; news about deportations from occupied territories; articles about the Kaiser; Turkish atrocities; and all illustrations had to be submitted to preventive censorship.77

What were the censorship instructions for the artistic scene? Recent films and stage-plays by contemporary authors of the enemy nations were forbidden.78 It goes without saying that even discreet criticism of the war was not permitted. A good example of such an intervention of film censorship is the German movie The Iron Cross which has the following storyline: a German and a Belgian family were friends before the war and now their sons had to fight against each other. The film concludes with the commentary: where will all this suffering end? The film was banned, and all copies were seized and destroyed.79 In France, the soldier until 1916 was the hero of the stage but could not be presented as a traitor, as discouraged, or as doubting the victory.80 Similarly, policemen could not be shown in an adverse or ridiculous light.81 Most interventions, however, in theatres, music-halls, and cinemas alike, concerned moral questions such as vulgar language and immoral scenes or allusions to sex: even a chamber-pot or a bed had to be suppressed; no violent scenes, not even German atrocities were allowed; and criminals and prostitutes were completely banned from the scenes.82 Similar instructions were issued by the Prussian Ministry of War in its fight against scripts based on trashy novels.83

A good example of the censorship of belles-lettres is the novel Sous Verdun by Maurice Genevoix (1890-1980).84 The blank spaces in the edition of 1916 compared with the complete edition of 1925 show which topics censors did not like: references to, for instance, poilus (infantry soldiers) so badly fed that they had to steal in order to eat; criticisms of the military leaders for giving senseless orders and treating them like slaves; and a dying poilu saying: “What have I done, that I must get killed in the war?” In a comparison between the censored lines in this novel and those in the German war novel Der Hauptman by Friedrich Loofs (1858-1928), Nicolas Beaupré found that similar scenes and topics were cut out but that on the whole French censorship was far more severe and unjust, even deleting expressions of patriotism and approval of war.85

Censorship had and still has a very bad reputation. In France it was personified by “Anastasia”, an ugly old woman with spectacles and enormous scissors (see image).86 However, censors were not all the same. Some were surprisingly lenient; others demanded stupid and useless suppressions.87 One must also not forget that they too were under permanent surveillance. If they passed a dangerous article they could be fired and even sent to the front.88 In some cases censors would cautiously examine the pros and cons of an intervention. In a chanson submitted to the censor a mother tries to prevent her son from going to the front, but he replies:

“I can only live as a poilu.

If I die here I die without glory.

My country first! – My dear child! –

You are only mamma. My mother is France!”

The censor hesitated and preferred to consult the prefect. And then despite its heroic ending the chanson was suppressed with the remark, “Unbearable appreciation of a mother’s feelings.”89

Censors in all countries also stopped exaggerated propaganda such as the denigrating of the enemy and of foreign politicians, the praising of atrocities, and appeals to the worst instincts because they were worried about the emotional effects on the population.90 Thus German censors suppressed postcards with aggressive slogans like “Jeder Stoß ein Franzos” (“Every hit a Frenchman”),91 a sketch in a circus about Belgian francs-tireurs and German reprisals, and the shameful stripping of a French governess in a stage play. The British censors cut the execution of women in a film and obliged a newspaper to revoke false information.92 In Germany and Russia, but not in France and Britain, vilifying and ridiculing crowned heads in entertainment was finally forbidden.93

What was the role of self-censorship?

Self-censorship either for patriotic reasons or for fear of sanctions was widespread. It was facilitated by the patriotic attitude of most journalists who would willingly cooperate in order to support the homeland in danger. In Germany, even publications such as the caricature magazines Simplicissimus or Der wahre Jakob, that before the war had severely criticized the authoritarian structures in the government, in the army and in society as a whole, would now refrain from criticism, explicitly join the propaganda war, and enlist in an “intellectual military service” as Thomas Mann (1875-1955) put it.94

In France, journalists and authors avoided thorny subjects in order to secure publication or performance. For instance, the socialist newspaper L’Humanité did not dare to publish the reports of either the assembly of the Socialist Party of July 1915 or the congress of the primary school teachers’ union of August 1915 because in both cases resolutions against the war had been passed.95

All war correspondents were always “embedded” by officers, obliged to travel and to write their reports from the front, pooling activities with colleagues, and, because of severe censoring, had to resign themselves to group auto-censorship.96 The United States applied an even more stringent measure: all journalists accompanying the American Forces to Europe had to swear not to publish any information helpful to the enemy, and their newspapers had to deposit a $10,000 bond as a guarantee, which was retained in cases of infringement.97

Soldiers were afraid of being punished for letters containing criticisms, and would not dare to mention grievances and abuses unless the letters could be carried home by comrades on leave.98

How was censorship criticized?

As censorship was harsh and arbitrary, it was frequently criticized. Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Repington (1858-1925), military correspondent of The Times, considered censorship “as a cloak to cover all political, naval and military mistakes”.99 British newspapers repeatedly demanded, “Abolish the Press Bureau” and “Tell the Truth.”100 When in November 1917 through DORA regulation 27 C, preventive censorship on leaflets and articles on war and the making of peace was introduced, this was considered as the “assassination of opinion” (The Nation).101

The harshest critic of censorship in France was Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929) – before he became prime minister! When his newspaper L’homme libre (The Free Man) was suspended after severe criticism about the lack of hygiene in a military train he replaced it by L’homme enchainé (Man In Chains) only to see it immediately suspended as well. On 24 September 1914, he said, “everybody with common sense will understand that censorship can only be applied to military matters. Otherwise it is nothing but an abuse of power.”102 Already in 1916 during the battle of Verdun he softened his attitude,103 but when he became prime minister in November 1917, he changed his mind completely: “To suppress censorship – never! I am not a complete idiot. You [the censors] are my best policemen.”104

In Germany, press and Reichstag alike bitterly attacked the military control of public opinion. However, the military insisted on their censoring activities with the argument that journalists could not distinguish between suspicious and harmless news.105

How was censorship outwitted?

Especially in France censorship was quite successfully circumvented. A relatively mild method was to blackmail the censors by threatening either to complain to the prime minister about the “échoppages” or to read the article in parliament. In such cases censors would sometimes either reduce their orders substantially or agree to postpone their decision.106 Another method was used by Clemenceau. He systematically posted his articles to political personalities and other VIPs before they were censored. Other newspapers would send their subscribers special editions containing all censored articles of the previous weeks or months.107 Very courageous papers would ignore censorship instructions, not submit articles or photos to the censorship office, or simply keep censored articles.108 It was also possible to publish two versions of the newspaper: one censored with the white spaces, forwarded to the censors, and another comprehensive version destined for sale.109 For this reason the suspicious censors sometimes bought three copies of a newspaper at a stand in order to verify if their order had been executed.110 The French Press Bureau complained that from July 1916 to July 1917, of 1,076 censored articles, 319 were published nevertheless.111 On the other hand the Office of the Prime Minister frequently complained to the Ministry of War that the censors failed to suppress dangerous articles.112 As far as film censorship was concerned it could be outwitted by replacing on the permission card the title of the authorized film with a film without visa.113

Personal relations also proved helpful. At a time when even the use of the word “peace” was strictly forbidden, a book by a certain A. Schwann, The Bases of a Durable Peace, was passed by the censor, his close friend, with the argument that it was simply a philosophical construction.114 The book Under Fireby Henri Barbusse is another example.115 The censor Paul Gsell (1870-1947), himself a writer, succeeded in placating the serious doubts of his colleagues and only two chapters were cut out when it appeared in the newspaper L’Oeuvre. When it was published as a book, Barbusse boldly reinserted the suppressed chapters, got away with it, and was even awarded the coveted Goncourt prize. Later the French secret service bitterly complained that it was used for propaganda by the Germans, and tried to prevent its exportation.

In Germany, editors were asked to present a copy of all publications to the local police, and they usually complied with the orders.116 In cases of litigation they could usually come to an arrangement. When a German caricature of the pope’s peace proposal was not accepted, the cartoonist presented it again but without the pontiff, and obtained approval.117 But censors’ protection existed as well.118 The Armenian massacres committed by Germany’s ally, the Ottoman Empire, since April 1915 were put under preventive censorship and all articles were completely suppressed. Whereas Lepsius could not place his report on this question in a single newspaper, a less important journalist, Max Roloff, succeeded in publishing a highly provocative article in Die Hilfe, the influential periodical of the liberal politician Friedrich Naumann (1860-1919). It seems that Ernst Jäckh (1875-1959), collaborator with Die Hilfe and a renowned expert on Turkey, who at that time worked in the censorship office, let the article pass.

Another trick was to say things indirectly. Hellmut von Gerlach (1866-1935), editor of the left-liberal weekly Welt am Montag was a specialist in this method. As he could not criticize the war heroes Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934) and Erich Ludendorff (1865-1937), or the submarine war, he completely passed them over in silence.119 As he was not allowed to praise German socialists for refusing the war credits he did honour to the Italian socialists for the same action and his readers knew whom he meant. Since he could not criticize the vast annexation programme of the military and right-wing circles he resorted to historical articles: condemning Napoleon I, Emperor of the French (1769-1821), who had annexed half of Europe and was finally exiled to St. Helena, and praising Bismarck who, after the Prussian victory of 1866, renounced all annexations of Austrian territory. Censors were furious but could do nothing about it.120

There were also official exceptions to censorship. In Britain censorship was, so to speak, “geographically” limited: it suppressed a few left-wing newspapers such as Forward and Worker, but otherwise concentrated on the London press and left the provincial papers alone.121 In France, newspapers from neutral countries were not forbidden, only confiscated at the border if they contained articles which did not please the censors. For the control of newspapers of enemy countries a special authorization was necessary.122 In Germany, censorship was even less complete. Except those of an inflammatory character, newspapers from abroad including enemy countries could be bought,123 enemy army communiqués could be printed, and reports on stormy Reichstag and Bavarian Landtag sessions were not censored. Despite close surveillance of pacifist activities, some pacifists, such as Ludwig Quidde (1858-1941) and Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster (1869-1966), could secretly or openly distribute their propaganda. In Austria, censorship became more relaxed under Charles I, Emperor of Austria (1887-1922) because he reconvened the Austrian parliament, the Reichsrat, with the effect that highly critical statements and speeches given on behalf of the various Slavic nationalities appeared in the newspapers, and could not be suppressed.124

As newspapers, because of censorship and self-censorship, became less and less credible, an alternative public information system was established through rumours, gossip, jokes, criticisms of the war, and information about strikes and riots, transmitted orally and through flyers, billboards, broadsheets, and graffiti.125

How was Censorship used for Political Manoeuvres?

Normally censors protected leading statesmen from critics and suppressed any information which could harm them. When for instance 2,000 kilos of coal were delivered to the French minister of supply during a terrible shortage in frozen Paris the government asked the censors “not to let this pass under any circumstances”.126 However, in the event of dissensions amongst the political and military elites censors suppressed articles by politicians and favourable to them or, worse, passed defamatory articles against them. Most victims were supporters of a negotiated peace.

In France, speeches and communiqués by opposition groups at the French National Assembly were often suppressed.127 The Minister of the Interior Louis Malvy (1875-1949) was exposed to a calumnious campaign by Léon Daudet (1867-1942), editor of the right-wing daily, Action française, which was not censored. He finally had to resign, was tried for alleged treason, and was sentenced to five years in exile.128 When in November 1917 Georges Clemenceau was appointed prime minister of France, he put one of his closest collaborators, Georges Rothschild-Mandel (1885-1944), in charge of censorship and used it ruthlessly against his political enemies such as Aristide Briand and Joseph Caillaux (1863-1944) who sought peace through understanding with Germany.129

In Britain, in 1917 the government unleashed a huge propaganda campaign against widespread demand for a negotiated peace with Germany.130 When Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, Marquess of Lansdowne (1845-1927), the leader of the conservative opposition in parliament, offered an article of support to The Times in November the newspaper did not dare to publish it. It finally appeared in the Daily Telegraph but a further edition as a leaflet was forbidden by censorship.131

In Germany, the chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg (1856-1921) was in favour of a compromise peace and finally in 1916 with the support of the liberal and social-democratic parties made a peace offer to the Allies. The military, bent on a victorious peace with huge conquests, were opposed to this and intrigued against him to bring about his dismissal. Unfortunately the chancellor had not succeeded in controlling public opinion and the military were in complete control of censorship. Thus this ferocious dog was kept on a leash and did not hinder a hate-filled, denigrating campaign that culminated in the demand “Fort mit diesem Kanzler” (“Away with this chancellor”) which finally led to his downfall.132

In Russia, at the end of 1916, the censors did not suppress huge reproaches by the leading Kadet-Party politician Pavel Miliukov (1859-1943), who in the Duma asked if the regime’s failure was due to “stupidity or treason”. Images ridiculing the Tsar’s family; accusations about the alleged treason of the German-born Tsarina; and semi-pornographic caricatures about her alleged liaison with the sinister monk Grigorii Rasputin (1872-1916) circulated freely all over the country.133 In this case the censors even helped to prepare for the revolution.

Eberhard Demm, University Stendhal-Grenoble III

Section Editor: David Welch

Notes

  1. Remark on 28 December 1917 to Charles P. Scott, in: Knightley, Philippe: The First Casualty. The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Kosovo, Baltimore et al. 2002 [1975], pp. 116f.↑
  2. Only in Bavaria could freedom of press not be abolished for constitutional reasons, but in practice censorship was applied. See: Schmidt, Anne: Belehrung – Propaganda – Vertrauensarbeit. Zum Wandel amtlicher Kommunikationspolitik in Deutschland 1914-1918, Essen 2006, p. 33; Fischer, Doris: Die Münchener Zensurstelle während des Ersten Weltkrieges. Alfons Falkner von Sonnenburg als Pressereferent im Bayerischen Kriegsministerium in den Jahren 1914-1918/19, Diss. Phil., Munich 1973, p. 10.↑
  3. Berger, Marcel/Allard, Paul: Les secrets de la censure pendant la guerre, Paris 1932, pp. 20ff; Forcade, Olivier: Zensur und öffentliche Meinung in Frankreich zwischen 1914 und 1918, in: Pyta, Wolfram/Kretschmann, Karsten (eds.): Burgfrieden und Union sacrée. Literarische Deutungen und politische Ordnungsvorstellungen in Deutschland und Frankreich 1914-1933, Munich 2011, p. 78; Ridel, Charles: Propaganda at Home (France), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10359. Translated by: Emanuel, Susan; Schwendinger, Christian: Kriegspropaganda in der Habsburger Monarchie zur Zeit des Ersten Weltkriegs, Hamburg 2011, pp. 55ff.↑
  4. This chapter is based on the national studies by Rajsfus, Maurice: La censure militaire et policière 1914-1918, Paris 1999; Montant, Jean-Claude: L’organisation centrale des services d’information et de propagande du Quai d’Orsay pendant la Grande Guerre, in: Audoin-Rouzeau, Stéphane/Becker, Jean-Jacques (eds.): Les sociétés européennes et la guerre, Paris 1990, pp. 135-143; Forcade, Olivier: Dans l’œil de la censure: voir ou ne pas voir la guerre, in: Prochasson, Christophe/Rasmussen, Anne (eds.): Vrai et faux dans la Grande Guerre, Paris 2004, pp. 35-54; Cabanes, Bruno: Ce que dit le contrôle postal, in: ibid., pp. 55-75; Rose, Tania: Aspects of Political Censorship 1914-1918, Hull 1995; eadem: World War I: Britain, in: Jones, Derek (ed.): Censorship: a World Encyclopedia, Chicago et al. 2001, volume 4, pp. 2647-2649; Demm, Eberhard: World War I: Germany and France, in: ibid., pp. 2644-2647; Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932; Flood, Patrick J.: France 1914-18. Public Opinion and the War Effort, Basingstoke 1990; Deist, Wilhelm: Censorship and Propaganda in Germany during the First World War, in: Audoin-Rouzeau/Becker, Les sociétés 1990, pp. 199-211; Demm, Eberhard: Der Erste Weltkrieg in der internationalen Karikatur, Hanover 1988; Demm, Eberhard: L’image de l’ennemi dans la propagande allemande et alliée pendant la première guerre mondiale, in: Alexandre, Philippe/Schillinger, Jean (eds.): Le barbare. Images phobiques et réflexions sur l’altérité dans la culture européenne, Bern et al. 2007, pp. 249-265; Creutz, Martin: Die Pressepolitik der kaiserlichen Regierung während des Ersten Weltkrieges, Frankfurt 1996; Welch, David: Germany, Propaganda and Total War, 1914-1918. The Sins of Omission, New Brunswick et al. 2000; Fischer, Zensurstelle 1973; Rose, Britain 2001; Schmidt, Belehrung 2006; Schwendinger, Kriegspropaganda 2011; Marquis, Alice G.: Words as Weapons. Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War, in: Journal of Contemporary History 13 (1978), pp. 476ff; Navet, Françoise: Des journaux sanctionnés pour des dessins non échoppés (1914-1919), in: Guerres Mondiales et Conflits Contemporains 44/173 (1994), pp. 35-51; Englander, David: Military Intelligence and the Defence of the Realm: the Surveillance of Soldiers and Civilians in Britain during the First World War, in: Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History 52 (1987), pp. 24-32; Englander, David: Discipline and Morale in the British Army, 1916-1918, in: Horne, John (ed.): State, Society and Mobilization in Europe during the First World War, Cambridge 1997, pp. 125-143.↑
  5. Rose, Britain 2001, p. 2647; Wüstenbecker, Katia: Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika: widerwillige Teilnahme am Ersten Weltkrieg, in: Bauerkämper, Arnd/Julien, Elise (eds.): Durchhalten! Krieg und Gesellschaft im Vergleich 1914-1918, Göttingen 2010, p. 227; Axelrod, Alan: Selling the Great War. The Making of American Propaganda, New York 2009, p. 70; Schwendinger, Kriegspropaganda 2011, pp. 55ff; Wells, Robert A.: Propaganda at Home (USA), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10360.↑
  6. Corner, Paul / Procacci, Giovana: The Italian Experience of ‘Total’ Mobilization, 1915-1920, in: Horne, State 1997, p. 227; Pisa, Beatrice: Propaganda at Home (Italy), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2015-03-04. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10568. Translated by: Mazhar, Noor Giovanni.↑
  7. Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 30ff; Montant, Organisation 1990, pp. 136f; Deist, Censorship 1990, pp. 200f; Axelrod, Selling 2009, p. 72; Sanders, Michael L./Taylor, Philip M.: British Propaganda during the First World War 1914-1918, London 1982, pp. 18ff.↑
  8. Schwendinger, Kriegspropaganda 2011, pp. 62ff; Rauchensteiner, Manfred: Der Tod des Doppeladlers. Österreich-Ungarn und der Erste Weltkrieg, Graz et al.1993, pp. 108ff; Oberzensurstelle (1973 [1917]): Kommunikationsüberwachende Vorschriften des Jahres 1917, in: Fischer, Heinz-Dietrich (ed.): Pressekonzentration und Zensurpraxis im Ersten Weltkrieg, Berlin 1973, p. 251.↑
  9. Creutz, Pressepolitik 1996, p. 110; Welch, Germany 2000, pp. 35f.↑
  10. Monger, David: Press/Journalism (Great Britain and Ireland), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10280; Sanders/Taylor, British Propaganda 1982, pp. 51ff.↑
  11. Ibid., p. 31; Deist, Censorship 1990, p. 201.↑
  12. Schwendinger, Kriegspropaganda 2011, pp. 62ff; Creutz, Pressepolitik 1996, pp. 52f, 61ff; idem: Les journalistes et la censure dans l’Empire allemand pendant la Grande Guerre, in: Becker, Jean-Jacques (ed.): Guerre et Cultures 1914-1918, Paris 1994, pp. 221ff; Deist, Censorship 1990, p. 201; Welch, Germany 2000, p. 31; Schramm, Martin: Das Deutschlandbild in der britischen Presse 1912-1919, Berlin 2007, p. 318; Forcade, Zensur 2011, p. 74.↑
  13. Corner/Procacci, Italian Experience 1997, p. 227; Pisa, Propaganda at Home (Italy), in: 1914-1918-online, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10360.↑
  14. Forcade, Dans l’oeil 2004, p. 43; Forcade, Zensur 2011, p. 73; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 51.↑
  15. Forcade, Olivier: Information, censure et propagande, in: Audoin-Rouzeau, Stéphane/Becker, Jean-Jacques (eds.): Encyclopédie de la Grande Guerre, Paris 2004, p. 454.↑
  16. Fischer, Zensurstelle 1973, pp. 223ff, 237ff, 245ff.↑
  17. Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932, pp. 95, 120, 197; Healy, Maureen: Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire. Total War and Everyday Life in World War I, Cambridge 2004, p. 133; Deist, Censorship 1990, p. 201; Welch, Germany 2000, p. 33; Smith, John T.: Russian Military Censorship during the First World War, in: Revolutionary Russia 14 (2001), p. 86.↑
  18. Rose, Aspects 1995, pp. 42, 54; Rose, Britain 2001, p. 2647; Millman, Brock: Managing Domestic Dissent in First World War Britain, London et al. 2000, pp. 11f, 77, 82, 181, 188ff, and 256 (quote).↑
  19. Smith, Censorship 2001, pp. 75f, p. 84 (quote).↑
  20. Ibid., pp. 76f, 79ff, 83ff and 90ff.↑
  21. Cabanes, Contrôle postal 2004, pp. 55ff, quote p. 58; Cochet, Annick: L’opinion et le moral des soldats en 1916 d’après les Archives du Contrôle Postal, doctoral dissertation, Nanterre 1986; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 133ff; Corner/Procacci, Italian Experience 1997, p. 227; Davidian, Irina: The Russian Soldier’s Morale from the Evidence of Tsarist Military Censorship, in: Cecil, Hugh/Liddell, Peter H. (eds.): Facing Armageddon. The First World War Experienced, London 1996, pp. 425-433; Gatrell, Peter: Russia’s First World War. A Social and Economic History, London 2005, p. 89; Englander, Discipline 1997, p. 138; Healy, Vienna 2004, pp. 124f and 136.↑
  22. Corner/Procacci, Italian Experience 1997, p. 227; Pisa, Propaganda at Home (Italy), in 1914-1918-online, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10360.↑
  23. Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 138f and 143ff.↑
  24. Ibid, p. 150.↑
  25. Forcade, Dans l’oeil 2004, p. 44; Forcade, Information, p. 457.↑
  26. Kennedy, Rosie: The Children’s War. Britain, 1914-1918, New York 2014, p. 26.↑
  27. Ulrich, Bernd/Ziemann, Benjamin (eds.): German Soldiers in the Great War. Letters and Eyewitness Accounts, Barnsley 2010, p. 124 (quote); Graves, Robert: Good-bye To All That. An Autobiography, London 1929, pp. 154 and 167.↑
  28. Ulrich, Bernd: Die Augenzeugen. Deutsche Feldpostbriefe in Kriegs- und Nachkriegszeit. 1914-1933, Essen 1997, p. 103; Rollet, Catherine/Gregory, Alan/Demm, Eberhard: The Home and Family Life, in: Winter, Jay/Robert, Jean-Louis (eds.): Capital Cities at War: Paris, London, Berlin 1914-1919, volume 2, New Haven 2007, pp. 315-353, quote p. 329; Brocks, Christine/Ziemann, Benjamin: “Vom Soldatenleben hätte ich grade genug”. Der Erste Weltkrieg in der Feldpost von Soldaten, in: Rother, Rainer (ed.): Die letzten Tage der Menschheit. Bilder des Ersten Weltkrieges, Berlin 1994, p. 113; Lein, Richard: Between Acceptance and Refusal – Soldiers’ Attitudes Towards War (Austria-Hungary), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10003.↑
  29. Watson, Alexander: Morale, in: Winter, Jay (ed.): The Cambridge History of the First World War, Cambridge 2014, volume 2, pp. 180f.↑
  30. Kennedy, Children’s War 2014, p. 26; Ulrich, Augenzeugen 1997, p. 103; Ulrich/Ziemann, German Soldiers 2010, p. 126.↑
  31. Millman, Dissent 2000, pp. 183 and 188f; the figure of 87,000 for postal censors indicated by Peterson, Horace C.: Propaganda for War. The Campaign against American Neutrality, 1914-1917, Port Washington 1968 [1939], p. 14, is absolutely incredible.↑
  32. Healy, Vienna 2004, p. 85; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 161ff.↑
  33. Krakowitch, Odile: La censure des théâtres durant la grande guerre, in: Théâtres et spectacles hier et aujourd’hui. Epoque moderne et contemporaine. Actes du 115e congrès national des sociétés savantes, Paris 1991, pp. 332ff; Healy, Vienna 2004, p. 99.↑
  34. Baumeister, Martin: Kriegstheater. Großstadt, Front und Massenkultur 1914-1918, Essen 2005, pp. 33ff, 143ff, 178ff, 183ff; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 186ff; Forcade, Zensur 2011, p. 72; Demm, Eberhard: La chanson française de la Première Guerre mondiale, in: Genton, François (ed.): La guerre en chansons, Chroniques allemandes 10 (2003-2004), p. 110; Joseph, Mathilde: Le poilu du music-hall. L’image du poilu dans les music-halls parisiens pendant la Grande Guerre, in: Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains 50/197 (2000), p. 29; Hiley, Nicholas: The News Media and British Propaganda, 1914-1918, in: Audoin-Rouzeau/Becker, Les sociétés 1990, p. 178; Krakowitch, Théâtres 1991, pp. 334ff; Healy, Vienna 2004, p. 99.↑
  35. Bub, Gertraude: Der deutsche Film im Weltkrieg und sein publizistischer Einsatz, Diss. Phil., Berlin 1938, pp. 110f.↑
  36. Krakowitch, Théâtres 1991, p. 340.↑
  37. Jeancolas, Jean Pierre: Der französische Film 1914-1918, in: Rother, Menschheit 1994, p. 229; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 202 and 211.↑
  38. This chapter is based on the national studies by Sanders /Taylor, British Propaganda 1982; Rose, Britain 2001; Rajsfus, Censure 1999; Forcade, Dans l’oeil 2004; Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932; Demm, Germany and France 2001; Demm L‘image 2007; Demm, Friedrich Naumann, “Die Hilfe” und die orientalische Frage, in: Alexandre, Philippe / Marcowitz, Reiner (eds.): Die Zeitschrift “Die Hilfe”, 1894-1944. Ein Ideenlabor in Deutschland, Bern et al. 2011, pp. 135-157; Koszyk, Kurt: Entwicklung der Kommunikationskontrolle zwischen 1914 und 1918, in: Fischer, Heinz-Dietrich (ed.): Pressekonzentration und Zensurpraxis im Ersten Weltkrieg, Berlin 1973, pp. 152-193; Welch, Germany 2000; Schwendinger, Kriegspropaganda 2011; Fischer, Zensurstelle 1973; Wüstenbecker, Vereinigten Staaten 2010; Rollet/Gregory/Demm, Home Life 2005.↑
  39. Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932, pp. 9, 15; Rose, Britain 2001, p. 2647; Demm, Germany and France 2001, p. 2645.↑
  40. Forcade, Dans l’oeil 2004, pp. 40ff; idem, Information, p. 454.↑
  41. Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917].↑
  42. Demm, Eberhard: Barbusse et son Feu – La dernière cartouche de la propagande de guerre française, in: Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains 50/197 (2000), p. 49; Rose, Aspects 1995, p. 49; Rose, Britain 2001, p. 2647; Millmann, Dissent 2000, p. 80; Lipp, Karlheinz: Pazifismus im Ersten Weltkrieg. Der Bund Neues Vaterland, in: Wissenschaft und Frieden (2004), online: http://www.wissenschaft-und-frieden.de/seite.php?artikelID=0328 http://www.wissenschaft-und-frieden.de/seite.php?artikelID=0328 (retrieved 7 September 2015).↑
  43. Illustration no. 1: L’Action française, 15 March 1917, online: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k759376q.r=L’Action%20française.langDE http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k759376q.r=L’Action%20fran%C3%A7aise.langDE (retrieved 7 September 2015)↑
  44. Illustration no. 2: Le Ruy Blas, 9 April 1916, with the text “Dessin et légende supprimés par la censure”. See Demm, Karikatur 1988, no. 317; Illustration no. 3: Arbeiterwille 9 August 1918, online: http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=awi&datum=19180809&seite=1&zoom=33 (retrieved 7 September 2015).↑
  45. BDIC (Bibliothèque de documentation internationale contemporaine) Nanterre, collection “France Censure 1914-1918”, F 270 Rés C, 15./16.9.1917; 29.3.1917.↑
  46. Ibid., 23.3.1915, 12.9., 6.10.1917; 17.9.1917; 4.10.1917.↑
  47. Ibid., 2.10., 23.9.1917.↑
  48. Illustration no. 4: Vorarlberger Wacht, 9 August 1918, online: http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?datum=19180809&zoom=33 http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?datum=19180809&zoom=33 (retrieved 7 September 2015); the Arbeiterinnen-Zeitung once commented on the blank space with: “Here half a page was confiscated”, but did not dare to repeat this criticism, cf. Healy, Vienna 2004, pp. 130f and 134; Musner, Lutz: Dem Krieg eine gefällige Form geben. Alice Schalek an der Isonzofront, in: Pfoser, Alfred / Weigl, Andreas (eds.): Im Epizentrum des Zusammenbruchs. Wien im Ersten Weltkrieg, Vienna 2013, pp. 522ff; Buchner, Ernst (ed.): 1914-1918. Wie es damals daheim war. Das Kriegstagebuch eines Knaben, Leipzig 1930, 21.10.15, p. 95; 16.1.1916, p. 113; 8.1.1917, p. 158.↑
  49. Gerlach, Hellmut von: Die große Zeit der Lüge. Der Erste Weltkrieg und die deutsche Mentalität (1871-1921), Bremen 1994 [1922], p. 59.↑
  50. Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], for instance pp. 204f, 208, 218, 222, 251 and 262.↑
  51. Rose, Aspects 1995, pp. 53f.↑
  52. Gerlach, Lüge 1994, p. 58.↑
  53. Altenhöner, Florian: Kommunikation und Kontrolle. Gerüchte und städtische Öffentlichkeit in Berlin und London 1914/1918, Munich 2008, p. 84.↑
  54. Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 59; Fischer, Pressekonzentration 1973, p. 81; Koszyk, Kommunikationskontrolle 1973, p. 167; Rose, Aspects 1995, p. 54; Beurier, Joelle: Information, Censorship or Propaganda? The Illustrated French Press in the First World War, in: Jones, Heather et al. (eds.): Untold War. New Perspectives in First World War Studies, Leiden et al. 2008, pp. 315f.↑
  55. Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 66 (quote).↑
  56. Demm, Naumann 2011, pp. 149f.↑
  57. Axelrod, Selling 2009, p. 71 (quotes).↑
  58. Ibid., p. 72.↑
  59. Wüstenbecker, Vereinigten Staaten 2010, p. 227 (quote); Axelrod, Selling 2009, pp. 72f.; Wells, Propaganda at Home (USA), in 1914-1918-online, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10360.↑
  60. Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932, p. 57.↑
  61. Schramm, Deutschlandbild 2007, p. 322; Graham, Stephen: Russia and the World: A Study of the War and a Statement of the World-problems that now confront Russia and Great Britain, London 1917, pp. 76-78.↑
  62. Tyng, Sewell: The Campaign of the Marne 1914, New York 2007 [1935], p. 336.↑
  63. Le Temps no. 19.418 and 19.419 of 5 and 6 September 1914.↑
  64. Demm, Eberhard: Else Jaffé-von Richthofen. Erfülltes Leben zwischen Max und Alfred Weber. Schriften des Bundesarchivs, volume 74, Dusseldorf 2014, p. 123.↑
  65. Rose, Britain 2001, p. 2648 (quote); The Graphic, every fortnight, e.g. 7.8 and 21.8. 1915, pp. 183, 247; Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], Verlustlisten, pp. 269f; Healy, Vienna 2004, p. 131; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 34, 44.↑
  66. Rose, Britain 2001, p. 2648; Ulrich, Augenzeugen 1997, p. 145; Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], Briefe, p. 208; Gerlach, Lüge 1994, p. 58.↑
  67. Préfecture de Police, Paris, Archives/Musée, l’annexe du 31 mai 1916 à l’instruction n° 1.000 du 30.9.1915, série BA, carton 1712; Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], p. 262 (“undesirable”); Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 44.↑
  68. Rose, Aspects 1995, pp. 43ff; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 94ff.↑
  69. Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], pp. 242, 270; Welch, Germany 2000, p. 128; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 43f, 69-72; Becker, Jean-Jacques: The Great War and the French People, New York 1986, p. 45; Healy, Vienna 2004, p. 131; Zweig, Stefan: Die Welt von gestern. Erinnerungen eines Europäers, Frankfurt 1994 [1944], p. 277; Verhey, Jeffrey: Der “Geist von 1914” und die Erfindung der Volksgemeinschaft, Hamburg 2000, p. 327.↑
  70. Rose, Aspects 1995, pp. 42f; Forcade, Zensur 2011, p. 81; Koszyk, Kurt: Deutsche Pressepolitik im Ersten Weltkrieg, Düsseldorf 1968, p. 211.↑
  71. Welch, Germany 2000, p. 128.↑
  72. Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], pp. 242f.↑
  73. Koszyk, Kommunikationskontrolle 1973, p. 171.↑
  74. Hirschfeld, Magnus/Gaspar, Andreas: Sittengeschichte des Ersten Weltkrieges, Hanau 1982 [1929], pp. 97ff, 104, 116f, illustrations p. 112 above and p. 318 above; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 186ff, 197, 241; Demm, Chanson 2003/2004, pp. 117f.↑
  75. Illustration no. 5 “Passed by the censor” by Alfred Leete (1882-1933), shows an English gentlemen shocked by the delayed information “Battle of Hastings A.D. 1066”, London Opinion, 24 July 1915. See Demm, Karikatur 1988, no. 316; Schramm, Deutschlandbild 2007, pp. 319ff, 385; Axelrod, Selling 2009, p. 57; Greenhill, Sam: Secret of the Lusitania, in: Daily Mail 20 September 2008.↑
  76. BDIC, F 270 Rés C, 9.10.1917; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 39; Becker, Great War 1986, p. 46; information by Prof. Eero Medijainen at the World War conference in Tallin on 15 April 2014.↑
  77. Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], pp. 195, 214, 219, 230, 254, 264; Schmidt, Klaus Werner: Überwachungs-Reglementierungen im Ersten Weltkrieg (1914-1918), in: Fischer, Heinz-Dietrich (ed.): Deutsche Kommunikationskontrolle des 15. bis 20. Jahrhunderts, Munich 1982, p. 190.↑
  78. Jüllig, Carola: “Ja, Frankreichs Geist, Du bist verbannt für ewig … ” die Erste Kriegsspielzeit der Berliner Theater, in: Rother, Menschheit 1994, p. 124.↑
  79. Welch, Germany 2000, p. 147.↑
  80. Krakowitch, Théâtres 1991, p. 345.↑
  81. Ibid, p. 348; Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 191.↑
  82. Ibid., pp. 187, 192ff, 206; Krakowitch, Théâtres 1991, pp. 347ff; Krivanec, Eva: Kriegsbühnen. Theater im Ersten Weltkrieg, Berlin et al. 2012, p. 247.↑
  83. Bub, Film 1938, p. 109.↑
  84. Genevoix, Maurice: Sous Verdun, Paris, first censured edition Paris 1916, second edition Paris 1925, see for the following Demm, Barbusse 2000, pp. 56ff.↑
  85. Beaupré, Nicolas: Ecrire en guerre, écrire la guerre. France, Allemagne 1914-1920, Paris 2006, pp. 82ff.↑
  86. Illustration no. 6: Madame Anastasie, online: http://www.caricaturesetcaricature.com/article-les-caricaturistes-face-a-la-censure-exposition-78016989.html (retrieved 7 September 2015).↑
  87. See the complete list of suppressions of 9 May 1915 in Rajsfus, Censure 1999, pp. 69ff.↑
  88. Ibid., p. 39.↑
  89. Demm, Chanson 2003/2004, pp. 121f.↑
  90. Becker, Great War 1986, p. 45; Baumeister, Kriegstheater 2005, p. 179; Schmidt, Belehrung 2006, p. 83; Jüllig, Kriegsspielzeit 1994, pp. 125f; Hiley, Nicholas: Der Erste Weltkrieg im britischen Film, in: Rother, Menschheit 1994, p. 213; Joseph, Poilu 2000, pp. 33f; Krakowitch, Théâtres 1991, p. 344; in France an atrocity series was forbidden in Paris, but allowed in the provinces, cf. Read, James M.: Atrocity Propaganda 1914-1919, New Haven 1941, pp. 14f.↑
  91. Brocks, Christine: Die bunte Welt des Krieges. Bildpostkarten des Ersten Weltkriegs 1914-1918, Essen 2008, pp. 30f; Mettken, Siegfried: “Ich habe diese Karte im Schützengraben geschrieben …” Bildpostkarten im Ersten Weltkrieg, in: Rother, Menschheit 1994, p. 138.↑
  92. Baumeister, Kriegstheater 2005, pp. 183ff; Jüllig, Kriegsspielzeit 1994, p. 126; Hiley, Britischen Film 1994, p. 213; Altenhöner, Kommunikation 2008, p. 200; Krivanec, Kriegsbühnen 2012, p. 258.↑
  93. Bub, Film 1938, p. 88; Jahn, Hubertus F.: Patriotic Culture in Russia during WWI, Ithaca, New York, et al. 1995, p. 158.↑
  94. Demm, Eberhard: Propaganda and Caricature in the First World War, in: idem: Ostpolitik und Propaganda im Ersten Weltkrieg, Frankfurt 2002, p. 31.↑
  95. Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 19.↑
  96. Knightley, Casualty 2002 [1975], pp. 101ff.↑
  97. Knightley, Casualty 2002, p. 133; Knightley, Philippe: World War I – United States, in: Jones, Censorship 2001, volume 4, p. 2649; Wells, Propaganda at Home (USA), in 1914-1918-online, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10360.↑
  98. Nelson, Robert L.: Soldier Newspapers, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10170; Stiaccini, Carlo: War Letters (Italy), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2015-05-19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1546333/ie1418.10643. Translated by: Mazhar, Noor Giovanni.↑
  99. Sanders/Taylor, British Propaganda 1982, p. 24.↑
  100. Schramm, Deutschlandbild 2007, pp. 318f.↑
  101. Rose, Aspects 1995, pp. 53f.↑
  102. Quoted in Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 66.↑
  103. Forcade, Dans l’œil 2004, p. 41.↑
  104. Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 66.↑
  105. Koszyk, Kommunikationskontrolle 1973, pp. 178ff, 160.↑
  106. BDIC, F 270 Rés. C, 21/22.9 and 23.9.1917.↑
  107. A.S.H.A.T. (Archives du service historique de l’armée de terre), Vincennes, series 5 N 341, Ministry of War to Prime Minister. 25.7.1916.↑
  108. Beurier, Information 2008, p. 315.↑
  109. Navet, Des journaux 1994, p. 50; Rajsfus, censure 1999, p. 41.↑
  110. BDIC, F 270 Rés C, 12.9.1917.↑
  111. Ibid., 19.9.1917.↑
  112. A.S.H.A.T., series 5 N 341, 22.12.1916; 8.1.1917.↑
  113. Rajsfus, Censure 1999, p. 207.↑
  114. Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932, p. 114.↑
  115. For the following see Demm, Barbusse 2000, pp. 49ff.↑
  116. Eisermann, Thilo: Pressephotographie und Informationskontrolle im Ersten Weltkrieg, Hamburg 2000, pp. 172f.↑
  117. Demm, Caricature 2002, p. 30.↑
  118. See for the following Demm, Naumann 2011, pp. 150ff.↑
  119. Gerlach, Lüge 1994, p. 69.↑
  120. Ibid., p. 70.↑
  121. Hiley, News Media 1990, p. 179; Millman, Dissent 2000, p. 11.↑
  122. Becker, Great War 1986, p. 62.↑
  123. Oberzensurstelle 1973 [1917], Ausländische Zeitungen, p. 202.↑
  124. Healy, Vienna 2004, p. 140.↑
  125. Altenhöner, Kommunikation 2008, p. 217; Materna, Ingo/Schreckenbach, Hans Joachim (eds.): Berichte des Berliner Polizeipräsidenten zur Stimmung und Lage der Bevölkerung in Berlin 1914-1918. Dokumente aus geheimen Archiven, volume 4, Weimar 1987, p. 179; Healy, Vienna 2004, pp. 126, 144; Welch, Germany 2000, p. 176; Kriegel, Annie: Aux origines du communisme français 1914-1920, volume 1, Paris and La Haye 1964, pp. 213f.; Schulte-Strathaus, Ludwig: Das Bild als Waffe. Die französische Bildpropaganda im Weltkrieg. Würzburg 1938 p. 113; Millman, Dissent 2000, pp. 70ff, 183ff; Gatrell, Russia 2005, p. 102.↑
  126. Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932, pp. 172.↑
  127. Ibid., pp. 148, 184, 227.↑
  128. Bavendamm, Gundula: Spionage und Verrat. Konspirative Kriegserzählungen und französische Innenpolitik 1914-1917, Essen 2004, pp. 94f, 108ff, 150, 176ff, 186ff, 199ff, 203ff and 328ff.↑
  129. Berger/Allard, Secrets 1932, pp. 237ff, 256.↑
  130. Millman, Dissent 2000, pp. 229ff.↑
  131. Demm, Eberhard: Une initiative de paix avortée. Lord Lansdowne et le Prince Max de Bade, in: Demm, Propaganda 2000, pp. 365f; Newton, Douglas: The Lansdowne “Peace Letter” of 1917 and the Prospect of Peace by Negotiation with Germany, in: Australian Journal of Politics and History 48 (2002), pp. 16ff.↑
  132. Gutsche, Willibald: Aufstieg und Fall eines kaiserlichen Reichskanzlers. Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg (1856-1921). Ein politisches Lebensbild, Berlin 1973, p. 202 (quote); Mommsen, Wolfgang J.: Der autoritäre Nationalstaat, Frankfurt 1990, pp. 422ff; Gerlach, Lüge 1994, pp. 137ff.↑
  133. Gatrell, Russia 2005, p. 102.↑

Selected Bibliography

Citation

Eberhard Demm: Censorship, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer D. Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2015-09-10. DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.10725

License

This text is licensed under: CC by-NC-ND 3.0 Germany - Attribution, Non-commercial, No Derivative Works.

Note

Images9

„Arbeiterwille“, censored title page The Austrian newspaper “Arbeiterwille” printed a...

„Arbeiterwille“, censored title page
The Austrian newspaper “Arbeiterwille” printed a blank title page on 9 August 1918.
Arbeiterwille, title page, 9 August 1918; source: ANNO, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=awi&datum=19180809&seite=1&
Courtesy of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

“L’Action française”, censored title page In France, censorship was particularly strict...

“L’Action française”, censored title page
In France, censorship was particularly strict. Every newspaper had to be submitted before being printed. Passages would be chopped and appear as blank spaces on the page.
L’Action française, title page, 15 March 1917; source: Gallica, Bibliothèque nationale de France, GR FOL-LC2-6354, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k759376q.
This image has been identified as public domain.

“Arbeiterinnen Zeitung”, censored title page On 27 July 1915 the “Arbeiterinnen Zeitung”...

“Arbeiterinnen Zeitung”, censored title page
On 27 July 1915 the “Arbeiterinnen Zeitung” pointed out to its readers: “Hier wurde eine halbe Seite konfisziert” („Here half a page was confiscated“). This audacity was never repeated.
Arbeiterinnen Zeitung, title page, 27 July 1915; source: ANNO, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=aiz&datum=19150727&seite=1&.
Courtesy of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

“Vorarlberger Wacht”, censored title page Austrian newspapers, such as the “Vorarlberger...

“Vorarlberger Wacht”, censored title page
Austrian newspapers, such as the “Vorarlberger Wacht”, protested censorship by writing “Zensur” in censored blank spaces.
Vorarlberger Wacht, title page, 9 August 1918; source: ANNO, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=vwa&datum=19180809&seite=1&.
Courtesy of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

“Anastasia cuts”, caricature In France, censorship was personified by “Anastasia”, a...

“Anastasia cuts”, caricature
In France, censorship was personified by “Anastasia”, a frightening old woman with spectacles and enormous scissors. She was caricatured for the first time in 1874 by André Gill (1840-1885).
Gill, André: Madame Anastasie, in: L’Éclipse, title page, 19 Juli 1874; source: Gallica, Bibliothèque nationale de France, FOL-LC13-114, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1068692m.
This image has been identified as public domain.

Postcard from Guido Ciprian (1878-1950) This postcard was written by Guido Ciprian (1878-1950)...

Postcard from Guido Ciprian (1878-1950)
This postcard was written by Guido Ciprian (1878-1950), who was a sergeant major in the Italian army from 1915 to 1918. The stamp says “verificato par censura” to indicate that the postcard has been approved by the censor.
Ciprian, Guido: “Per amor di Patria”, item 14, postcard, n.p., n.d.; source: Europeana, http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/2020601/attachments_62077_5653_62077_original_62077_jpg.html.
This file is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.

“Bonnet rouge” trial The French newspaper “Le Bonnet rouge” was financed partially by...

“Bonnet rouge” trial
The French newspaper “Le Bonnet rouge” was financed partially by the Germans. On 12 July 1917, after being discovered, the newspaper was suspended and the collaborators convicted. Editor Miguel Almereyda died in prison, and Emile Joseph Duval was executed in July 1918.
Agence Meurisse: Le procès du “Bonnet Rouge”: les inculpés et Leymarie, black-and-white photograph, Paris, 1918; source: Gallica, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Meurisse, 66855, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90308924.
This image has been identified as public domain.

“London Opinion” title page, 24 July 1915 British graphic artist Alfred Leete drew this...

“London Opinion” title page, 24 July 1915
British graphic artist Alfred Leete drew this London Opinion title page caricature, in which a modern English reader is shocked by the excessively delayed information on the “Battle of Hastings A.D. 1066”.
Leete, Alfred: Battle of Hasting A.D. 1066 – Passed by the Censor, caricature, in: London Opinion, 24 July 1915, title page; source: Demm, Eberhard: Der Erste Weltkrieg in der internationalen Karikatur, Hanover 1988: Fackelträger, no. 316.
Contributed by Eberhard Demm.

“Ruy Blas”, censored title page, 9 April 1916 The French magazine Ruy Blas printed a clear...

“Ruy Blas”, censored title page, 9 April 1916
The French magazine Ruy Blas printed a clear title page on 9 April 1916 with nothing but the text “Après le «Sussex»: Dessin et légende supprimés par la censure” (“After the ‘Sussex’: Drawing and legend deleted by the censor”), referring to the cross-English Channel passenger ferry “Sussex”, which had been torpedoed and severely damaged by a German U-boat on 24 March 1916, resulting in at least 50 fatalities.
Unknown author: Après le «Sussex»: Dessin et texte supprimés par la Censure, in: Ruy Blas, 9 April 1916, title page; source: Demm, Eberhard: Der Erste Weltkrieg in der internationalen Karikatur, Hanover 1988: Fackelträger, no. 317.
Contributed by Eberhard Demm.

Metadata

Subjects
Author Keywords
censorship; self-censorship; propaganda; postal control; political manoeuvres
GND Subject Headings
Zensur ; Weltkrieg [1914-1918] WorldCat
LC Subject Headings
Censorship ; World War, 1914-1918 WorldCat
Rameau Subject Headings
Censure ; Guerre mondiale (1914-1918) WorldCat
Key Person(s)
Caillaux, Joseph; Daudet, Léon; Napoleon I, Emperor of the French; Polivanov, Alexei; Almereyda, Miguel; Duval, Emile Joseph; Lepsius, Johannes; Labiche, Eugène; Feydeau, Georges; Villon, François; Quidde, Ludwig; Foerster, Friedrich Wilhelm; Loofs, Friedrich; Repington, Charles; Gsell, Paul; Jäckh, Ernst; Gerlach, Hellmut von; Rothschild-Mandel, Georges; Henry Charles Keith Petty-Fitzmaurice, Marquess of Lansdowne; Comandini, Ubaldo; Clemenceau, Georges; Mili︠u︡kov, Pavel Nikolaevich; Lloyd George, David; Rasputin, Grigoriĭ Efimovich; Barbusse, Henri; Bethmann Hollweg, Theobald von; Creel, George; Ludendorff, Erich; Cadorna, Luigi; Hindenburg, Paul von; Naumann, Friedrich; Charles I, Emperor of Austria; Mann, Thomas; Morel, Edmund Dene; Briand, Aristide; Malvy, Louis-Jean; Genevoix, Maurice; Russell, Bertrand
Regional Section(s)
Thematic Section(s)
Title
Censorship
Author(s)
Eberhard Demm
Articles That Link Here
War Aims and War Aims Discussions; Sweden; Clemenceau, Georges; Feminist Pacifism; Warfare 1914-1918 (Canada); The Netherlands; Press/Journalism (Belgium); Historiography 1918-Today (France); Great Britain; Great Britain; Film/Cinema (Belgium); War Aims and War Aims Discussions; Indochina; Labour, Labour Movements and Strikes (Ottoman Empire/ Middle East); Governments, Parliaments and Parties (USA); Australia; Switzerland; Making Sense of the War (Sweden); Non-European Soldiers; Making Sense of the War (Ottoman Empire/Middle East); Newfoundland; Propaganda: Media in War Politics; Germany; Literature; Germany; Social Costs of War; Propaganda at Home (Great Britain and Ireland); Greece; Film/Cinema (Germany); Historiography 1918-Today (India); Making Sense of the War (Australia); Ḥusayn Kāmil, Sultan of Egypt; Espionage; Drugs; Propaganda at Home (Austria-Hungary); Voices in the Storm (journal); Memory of the War: Popular Memory 1918-1945, 1945 to the Present; Film/Cinema (Spain); Literature; Labour Movements, Trade Unions and Strikes (Canada); Governments, Parliaments and Parties (Austria); Memory of the War: Popular Memory 1918-1945, 1945 to the Present; Canada; The Churches; Literature (Ottoman Empire); Minorities in Germany (Denmark); Literature (Russian Empire); Graphic Arts and Advertising as War Propaganda; Propaganda at Home (Australia); Burgfrieden/Union sacrée; Propaganda at Home (Ottoman Empire); Germany; Press/Journalism (Ottoman Empire); Civilian and Military Power (Ottoman Empire); Life and Death of Soldiers; Press/Journalism; Making Sense of the War (Germany); Making Sense of the War (Great Britain and Ireland); Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War (New Zealand); Defence of the Realm Act (DORA); Religion (Australia); Ottoman Empire/Middle East; Centenary (Czech Republic); Press/Journalism (Australia); Propaganda at Home and Abroad; Civilian and Military Power (Germany); Civilian and Military Power (Austria-Hungary); Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Australia); Pan-German League; Women's Mobilization for War (India); Food and Nutrition (Ottoman Empire/Middle East); Nationalities (Austria-Hungary); Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Austria-Hungary); Press/Journalism (Austria-Hungary); Media Discourse after the War; Propaganda at home and abroad; Music (Portugal); Influenza Pandemic; African Labour in Europe (Africa); Film/Cinema (The Netherlands); Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War (Indochina); Othering/Atrocity Propaganda; Making Sense of the War (France); Exile and Migration (Switzerland); War Letters: Communication between Front and Home Front; Propaganda in the Colonies (Africa); Film/Cinema (Sweden); Humanitarianism (The Netherlands); Literature: Serbia (South East Europe); Film/Cinema (Australia); Censorship; Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL); Internment (Canada); Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War; Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War (Indochina); Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War (Austria-Hungary); Hong Kong; Northern Africa; Historiography 1918-Today (Italy); Antisemitism; Propaganda at Home (USA); Yugoslavia; Press (Latin America); War Correspondents; Nolan, Dennis E.; Portuguese Macau; Propaganda (China); Portuguese India; Propaganda (China); Science and Technology (Ottoman Empire/Middle East); Apollinaire, Guillaume; Warfare 1914-1918 (South East Europe); Film/Cinema (Portugal); Photography; Indian Expeditionary Force; Civilian and Military Power (France); Soldier Newspapers; Religious Mobilization and Popular Belief (Italy); Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War (Belgium); Art; Visualization of Violence; Film/Cinema; Civil-Military Relations during World War I (Russian Empire); Military and Strategy (The Netherlands); Press/Journalism (Germany); Monash, John; Governments, Parliaments and Parties (Russian Empire); Art (Portugal); Controversy: War Culture; Borms, August; Howell, Evelyn Berkeley, Sir; Millerand, Alexandre; Press/Journalism (Italy); Wolff Telegraph Bureau; Making Sense of the War (India); Women War Reporters; Literature (Great Britain and Ireland); Burián von Rajecz, István, Graf; Discipline and Military Justice (Italy); War Memory, Commemoration (Ottoman Empire/ Middle East); Literature (Italy); Propaganda at Home (Germany); The Home Front (Newfoundland); Literature (Germany); Governments, Parliaments and Parties, Labour, Labour Movements and Strikes (Union of South Africa); Propaganda at Home (Italy); Press/Journalism (Russian Empire); Civilian and Military Power (Italy); Film/Cinema (Ottoman Empire); Making Sense of the War (Norway); Militarism; Civilian Morale; Governments, Parliaments and Parties (Ottoman Empire/Middle East); Austria-Hungary; Sepoy Letters (India); Murdoch, Keith Arthur, Sir; Staging War. Theatre 1914-1918; Press/Journalism (Middle East); Conscription (Australia); Northcliffe, Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, Viscount; Prisoners of War (India); Press/Journalism (New Zealand); Foreign Policy (Sweden); Propaganda at Home (Portugal); Schwarze Schmach; Governments, Parliaments and Parties (Portugal); The Spirit of ‘76; War Letters (Italy); Labour Movements, Trade Unions and Strikes (Belgium); Bild- und Filmamt (BUFA); Belgian Soldiers; Intelligence and Espionage (Sweden); Press/Journalism (Great Britain and Ireland); Press Censorship (Portugal); Daniels, Josephus; Film/Cinema (France); Disease and Public Health (Portugal); Abteilung III b; Press/Journalism (USA); Occupation of Luxembourg; Influenza Pandemic (Switzerland); Intelligence and Espionage (The Netherlands); Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Great Britain and Ireland); War Aims and War Aims Discussions (Germany); Martial Law; Nevinson, C. R. W. (Christopher Richard Wynne); Dorgelès, Roland; Film/Cinema (Russian Empire); Film/Cinema (Russian Empire); Press/Journalism (USA); Centenary (Russia); Literature (France); Women's Mobilization for War (France); Commemoration, Cult of the Fallen (Indochina); Le Feu (novel); Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Indochina); Caricatures; Literature (Switzerland); Art (Italy); Gibbs, Philip; Garcez, Arnaldo; Soldiers on Leave; Trotsky, Leon; Unruh, Fritz von; Press/Journalism (France); Fear; Film/Cinema (Great Britain); Propaganda at Home (France); Le Feu (novel); Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War (Russian Empire); Press/Journalism (East Central Europe); Between Acceptance and Refusal - Soldiers' Attitudes Towards War (Russian Empire); Women's Mobilization for War (Russian Empire); Zimmerwald Conference; Markl Internment Camp; Film/Cinema (USA); Red Scare; Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Portugal); Brussels; Stars and Stripes (newspaper); Haase, Hugo; Literature (Portugal); Stellvertretendes Generalkommando; War Surveillance Office (Austria-Hungary); War Press Office (Austria-Hungary); Film/Cinema (Italy); Creel, George; Making Sense of the War (Belgium); Stürgkh, Karl Graf; All Quiet on the Western Front (novel); War Surveillance Office (Austria-Hungary); The Song of Craonne; Albertini, Luigi; Cru, Jean Norton and Patriotic Distance
Images
External Links Metadata