A Study on the Role of the Media and Its Effect on the Identity of Muslims (Part 24)
History of Psychological Warfare
The countries involved in the First World War were not familiar with the term “psychological warfare.” Its prevalence is attributed to various factors, including the rapid development of activities by psychologists and other humanities scholars in Germany, America, and other western countries, as they sought to demonstrate their skills in national defense.
In the following sections, we will discuss the use of psychological warfare in three countries: Germany, England, and United States of America.
Germany
Aware of the dangers and consequences of prolonged warfare, Goebbels utilized the propaganda machine of the Third Reich to support Hitler’s war leadership in both domestic and foreign matters. Domestically, listening to programs from foreign broadcasters was prohibited, and violations were punishable with fines. To fill the void caused by the suppression of news and information, Goebbels ordered a steady stream of socialist propaganda disguised as reportage, commentary, and news. The total orientation of these propaganda efforts was aimed against military leaders and powerful enemy nations.
In terms of foreign strategy, the plan was to prepare the minds of people in occupied territories for their impending subjugation through American radio transmissions. Initially, this involved portraying Germany as a good neighbor and strengthening friendly relations. Next, while respecting the notion of lasting friendship, increasing criticism of the local regime would be introduced. Ultimately, in the final stage, the threat of military occupation was made explicit, detailing the severe consequences of disobedience and emphasizing that if a righteous nation does not rise to overthrow an unjust government, the German army would take action. Instead of using traditional military might, German battalions entered with music and flowers. In the last stage, every opposing voice had to be silenced. Subsequently, the radio and other vital resources, including government organizations, were seized to establish order and peace.
Great Britain (England)
British psychological warfare against the German opposition front was executed through three primary methods: First, the Political Warfare Executive Committee, a secret organization for propaganda in enemy-occupied territories. Second, the Ministry of Information, which engaged with the British public, its allies, and neutral countries. Third, the BBC’s section, which disseminated news to all nations based on guidance from the previous two entities. For the British, psychological warfare was recognized and accepted as a military tool, sharing equal prestige, power, and responsibilities with military, economic, and diplomatic efforts in modern warfare.
United States of America
The United States played a pivotal role in the development of modern psychological warfare. During World War II, it engaged in an extensive psychological warfare program, largely through the Office of War Intelligence and the Psychological Warfare Department of the Supreme Headquarters and Allied Missions. With the onset of the Cold War and the growing threat of communism, particularly from the Soviet Union, a proposal for $121 million was made to President Truman to conduct a “struggle for truth” against communism.
Psychological warfare in America was rebranded as “psychological operations” or “PSYOP.” These operations included the design and implementation of political, economic, and ideological actions against hostile, neutral, and even friendly nations.
In June 1951, the Council on Psychological Strategy was established with the mission of devising long-term psychological solutions to address various issues and to help influence public ideas, attitudes, and behaviors abroad in support of national goals.
In 1953, at President Eisenhower’s request, a committee led by Jackson determined that the existing Psychological Strategy Council was inadequate and should be dissolved. This led to the formation of the United States Information Agency (USIA), tasked with the mission of communicating that the goals and policies of the United States aligned with the legitimate desires of other nations, encompassing ideals of freedom, progress, and peace.
Simultaneously, the Psychological Council was dissolved and replaced by the Operation Coordination Board (OCB), responsible for coordinating American foreign policy across all political and economic dimensions while considering psychological factors.
The American understanding of psychological warfare contributed to the acceptance of the term in allied nations.
Conclusion
In summary, several characteristics distinguish modern psychological warfare from historical propaganda practices:
1. Technological Advances: Modern psychological warfare greatly increases the reach of propaganda activities, targeting vast populations.
2. Systematic Process: It is a planned and methodical process.
3. Public Opinion Polling: The rapid development of polling techniques allows advertisers a deeper understanding of their target audience.
4. Factor of Power: Psychological warfare is recognized as a key component of power alongside military, political, and economic factors, providing governments with leverage in international competition.
Psychological Warfare in International Politics
The importance of psychological warfare and propaganda in international politics lies in the unprecedented role of public opinion in shaping domestic and foreign policies. Louis XIV once claimed, “I am the government.” However, due to the specialization and complexity of modern society, combined with the rise of powerful social strata and the rapid advancement of mass communication tools, few countries can pursue political goals without considering domestic and international public opinion.
To better understand the intricate and effective nature of psychological warfare on the international stage, we can reference the model presented by Halesti in his book *International Politics*:
“Despite all the efforts to reduce the role of humans and enhance the role of machines in warfare, it is still humans who play the central role in victory or defeat. To compel a military unit to surrender, human forces must convince or coerce it into surrender. A unit equipped with advanced weaponry, but lacking morale is not very effective.”
By admin2
