Wish I had half the energy of old Admiral Barnacle. Somebody brought him in here yesterday, and he pooped off a broadside of I-told-you-so's that carried away all our defences and even put Wetheridge's guns out of action. (Wetheridge is getting very cranky - temper worse and worse - sits growling in the corner with a neutral zone all round him, and nobody but the new members ever ventures within range. Worst of it is, he completely monopolises one fireplace and I'm afraid he'll end by driving all the members out of the Club.) The Admiral had always said the next war would be fought at sea (and by gad! Sir, wasn't he right?) and the only way to keep the pace in Europe was to have the British Navy so big that nobody would dare challenge it, and so keep the whole adjectival lot quiet. He got so excited that Culyer and a couple of other fellows had to sacrifice themselves, and give him a game of bridge, and we heard him roaring away in the little card-room, and holding a court-martial - court-naval, rather - on every hand, till his friends convoyed him away to bed. Time too; he must be well over eighty.
But I'm beginning to think seriously, Peter, that there's something in what he says. So far, all the advantage in this war has been with the defence, and I think we might argue that if every country would provide itself with a Maginot Line so strong that an attack isn't worth the candle, we might reduce land warfare to a sort of perpetual check and fight everything out by air and sea. That would mean much less expenditure in lives, because there's a limit to the number of mean you can put in a ship or an aeroplane. Of course, it would mean a really efficient scheme of air-defence for every town, but that's not impossible either. They say the Helsinki shelters were solidly out in hand twelve years ago, and that's why the Russian raids haven't produced anything like the casualties you might expect. You may think this is a queer line for an old army man to take, but, speaking as a professional soldier, I don't like this business of whole nations in arms, and the wiping out of millions of decent youngsters. I say, strengthen your defences and don't waste men, and for us that does mean a strong Navy and Air arm, and personally I'm all for it. I never want to see anything like the 1914-1918 casualty lists again, and if you ask me the people who keep bawling to the Army to get a move on are a bunch of bloody-minded murderers. Of course, if the Boche gets to work on Holland, or Belgium, or Luxemburg, we may look for trouble.
Talking of the Navy, I thought that was a dashed handsome touch in Daladier's speech the other day. Saying that "the English, who were connoisseurs," had praised the work of the French Navy, and that he looked upon it as a good compliment. Upon my word, I called that a confoundedly graceful way of putting it. None of our newspapers seemed to appreciate it half enough. Very pretty turn, those Frenchmen have, in public speeches. Wish our lot would follow their example. We mean well, but we're so damned clumsy. Anyhow, there's my little tribute, for what it's worth, and I wish somebody could tell Daladier that one old fellow, at any rate, had the grace to feel gratified.
You ought to have heard the row there was this week when Winston hopped in ahead of the newspapers and told the country about the Canadians being landed here. I wonder the whole Censor's office didn't go up in smoke. Naughty of Winston, of course, but mind you, the public loved it. It pleased them no end to hear a tit-bit of piping-hot news direct from the First Lord of the Admiralty. If you ask me, the powers that be out to arrange to give us that kind of thing more often. I don't mean they ought to take the papers by surprise - that's not fair, and besides, it takes the gilt off the gingerbread when you've been given your little treate one day, and the next have to read a lot of cursing and blinding about muddles in Ministries. It shakes public confidence. But I do say that, every now and again, when something damned good has happened, our Government ought to say deliberately: that's something the Prime Minister, or the First Lord, or somebody, ought to say himself, with his own lips, to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country personally. The people wold appreciate that, and it would be damn well worth it. The don't care two hoots about newspapers and Ministries, but they do love to be told the news, and the more personal touch about it the better, and curse the red tape.
Not much good, I'm afraid, writing all this to you, because you aren't in a position to do anything about it, but an old fellow like me gets hsi head full of ideas, sitting about with nothing much to do except think. Last war we were too busy to think much, and since then I'm afraid we've left the thinking to the youngsters, and they think like mad, but they haven't got the experience. What's that French thing - if youth but knew, if age were only able? Age ought to be able to think a bit, anyhow. My wife says I've done my bit, and ought to sit quiet and stop fretting, but I find that rather hard work.
There's not much news, I'm afraid. All quiet on the Home Front so far. Rationing looms ahead - that's a new one on me. My wife and daughters laugh at me when I grumble about this butter business, and ask, how about my breakfast bacon? They say I ought to have been through the last war, and this one's a picnic to it. That's damn funny, when you come to think of it. D'you know, honestly, I hadn't realised that in 1918 they couldn't get matches, and sat about like the fox in the fable, hoping luck would send them a bit of cheese. When you think of all the cheese there was knocking about the lines! Still, I suppose it's never too late to learn, and now it's my turn to learn the civilian end of the business. I tell my wife she's getting a regular old soldier, always bragging about what she did in her last campaign.
Well, good luck to you, my boy, and a successfull New Year. If you meet any of Little Adolf's friends, give them a kick in the pants from
Yours ever,
GEO. MARCHBANKS
Letters to the Ministry of Instruction and Morale (various dates).
Dept. Public Opinion (Home); Sub-Dept. Propaganda (Enemy); Section Radio; Sub-Section Hamburg.
File Ref. MIM/QXJ945/ak/722683; Cross-Ref.BBC/OL3/xp/999334 (Copies to BBC).
Room 569 (2) Duchess of Denver.
Passed to you for information and comment please. (Sgd.) BEETLE OF OAKWOD.
Dear Sirs, - I welcome the suggestion to reply to the German propaganda from Hamburg. Anything for a change from the everlasting drone of cinema organs.
Incidentally, why is the news-bulletin broadcast to the Empire on the short wave at 11.30 a.m. always so much fuller of interesting and detailed information than those on the Home Service? Are we considered mentally inferior to our cousins overseas? Or is this a class distinction in favour of plutocrats who can afford expensive wireless sets? - Yours faithfully, J. WETHERIDGE (Maj. Retd.), Bellona Club, W.
Dear Lord Beetle, - Do try and stop this suggestion that the B.B.C. should broadcast an answer to Haw-Haw. It would merely encourage my husband to turn the man on, and the creature's voice gets on my nerves, so monotonous and genteel, like a shop-walker. We need not, surely, add to the horrors of war! - Yours ver sincerely, AMELIA TRUMPE-HARTE, Bridge House, Mayfair.
Dear Sirs, - I see that Mr. Harold Nicolson is rousing up the House of Commons to make a good debating reply to the German propagandist they call Haw-Haw. I am a member of the Primrose League and do not agree with Mr. Nicolson's political views, but I think this is an excellent idea and hope you will see that it is carried out. I have written to my M.P. and told him he is to support it or lose my vote. Is there anything further I can do in the matter? I am a church-warden, and run the Boy Scouts in this neighbourhood. - Yes. &c., J. SMITH, Gt. Pagford.
Dear Sirs, - I read in my paper that the B.B.C have decided not to broadcast any reply to "Lord Hee-Haw" for fear of making the man too important. I say, if he's important enough to have headlines in the papers he's important enough to be answered, and either the B.B.C. or the papers ought to have more sense. Why can't you make up your minds one way or the other and get the whole thing straightened out? I enclose my card and remain, - Yours faithfully, PLAIN CITIZEN, East Croydon.
Dear Sirs, - I see Mr. Harold Nicolson wants to run a series of replies to Haw-Haw. This is all very well and a fine idea, but for pity's sake don't make it one of yo
ur College Professors but someone as understands what is a good debating speech. There is nothing like a controversy for Entertainment but it must be good Lively stuff. I am a working man myself and wireless is my hobby I have a set gets all the foreign stations. I think Haw-Haw is very dangerous for ignorant people and there's plenty with posh wireless sets more ignorant than the working class by a long chalk. If anybody was to make a good fighting speech in answer I would be pleased to listen into same but see it is a good one. We have speakers in our W.E.A. Debating Circle could give these Professors and Govt. speakers five yards and a beating. - Yours faithfully, A. Carpenter, Walbeak, Norfolk.
Dear Sirs, - I am a social worker, and I find that a great many of the people I come inc ontact with take the line that much of the German propaganda about social conditions here is true, and they point out that he gets it all out of the English papers. I always tell them that that is the great difference between us and Germany - their papers are not allowed to say how bad their social conditions are, and so cannot be quoted against them. I find they are impressed by this, and also by the revelations of the miserable conditions in the Russian Army as compared with the glowing account of the "Workers' Paradise" in the Soviet controlled Press. I think that any reply to German propaganda would be most effective if done along these lines. - Yours faithfully, SYLVIA STANNIFORTH, Sheffield.
My dear Lord Beetle, - With regard to the suggested broadcast in reply to "Lord Haw-Haw," I have noticed in the course of my researches that a great many people, while listening-in to his remarks are instinctively moved to utter derisive ejaculations, such as: "You don't say!" "What about Old Gobbles?" "Have a nice cup of bramble-tea!" "What's become of the 'Deutschland'?" and so on, according to the subject he is discussing. This makes me think that it would be amusing, and afford relief to irritated feelings if a running commentary could be broadcast SIMULTANEOUSLY with his on the same wave-length, so as to give the effect of a speaker being HECKLED at a public meeting! The listeners could JOIN IN with shouts and cheers and a GOOD TIME would be had by all. This would be immediately followed, of course, by a reasoned reply, in which the Germans could heckle too! This would, I am sure, appeal greatly to the SPORTING INSTINCTS of our people! But perhaps there is some technical difficulty! - Yours sincerely, ALEXANDRA KATHERINE CLIMPSON, Oxford Street, W.
Dear Beetle, - What's the good of complaining about the publicity given to Haw-Haw? Do you imagine anything is going to stop the British Public from taking cock-shies at an enemy alien? Last war the Stage and Press were full of Little Willie and the Kaiser's moustache, and in the Boer War it was Oom Paul's beard. Now that Hitler seems to have taken a back seat, they've got to make an Aunt Sally of some one. By all means answer the fello and give the nation its money's worth. Undignified be damned! - Yours ever, DENVER, Bredon Hall, Norfolk.
Dear Lord Beetle, - Since our conversation during your visit to Oxford last term, I have given some thought to the question fo Propaganda, and the current controversy about the advisability, or otherwise, of issuing a public reply to the statements broadcast from Reichssender Hamburg affords a convenient occasion for putting my (very tentative) conclusions on paper.
Generally speaking, I am inclined to think that propaganda defeats its own object, by arousing a spirit of opposition in the hearer, and thus suggesting to him counter-arguments to the propositions advanced. (I remember a very entertaining essay on this thesis written a good many years ago by Miss Rose Macaulay.) Thus, I always recommend the President of any Religious Society among my own students to encourage her members to read The Freethinker - an organ whose quaintly old-fashioned Victorian atmosphere I personally find most refreshing.
This leads me to suppose that the most effective form of propaganda might very well be a reasoned reply to propaganda by an enemy speaker - the audience being caught in a receptive frame of mind occasioned by a recoil from the position suggested by his arguments. The reply should not be too lengthy (for fear of provoking a counter-recoil), and the tone should be brisk and humourous. Under these conditions, I can imagine that a broadcast on the lines sketched out by Mr. Nicolson might be very effective. - Believe me, yours sincerely, M. BARING (Warden), Shrewsbury College, Oxford.
Dear Sirs, - Since the identity of the German broadcaster known as "Haw-Haw" seems to be arousing some public interest, may I offer a suggestion? His accent seems to me to resemble very closely (particularly in the vowel-sounds) that used by (a) an actor of insufficient breeding and experience when impersonating an English aristocrat or (b) (more subtly) an experienced actor of good social standing impersonating a man of inferior breeding apeing the speech of the English aristocracy. It is, in fact, very like the accent I used myself in the character of the self-made "Stanton" in Dangerous Corner, which I have played with marked success in the West-End and in the Provinces (photograph and press-cuttings enclosed, with stamped addressed envelope for return). If it is decided to broadcast a reply to this propaganda, would you consider me for the part? By exaggerating the accent and thus showing up the German speaker in a ridiculous light a very good comedy entertainment might be provided. I should add that I have had several broadcasting engagements and can be trusted to give a good performance from a script at first reading. - Yours truly, ALAN FLOAT, Ground-Row Club, Soho.
Covering Note to the Above File - HD/191-4/1/40
Ref.MIM/QXJ945/ak/722683.
Spirit of the nation as shown by these letters seems quite excellent. Cannot see that there is any general demand for reply to German propaganda. Advise no action. (Sgd.) H. DENVER (Return to Ld. Beetle, Room 6).
Mr. Ingleby, Copy-writer in Pym's Publicity, Ltd., to Mr. Hankin, Head of the Copy Department in that establishment.
13, PEMMICAN ROAD, WIMBLEDON.
13.1.40.
Dear Mr. Hankin,
I greatly appreciate the kindness of your letter, but I'm afraid I can't change my mind. The fact is, I have developed a conscience of a sort. After all these years in advertising, I'm pretty hard-boiled, but to my own surprise I find there's still a vulnerable spot in me.
I'm quite well aware that business has to be carried on, and that it can't be carried on without advertisement. As a matter of fact, I don't much mind - never have minded - the sort of direct lying we put out. It's labelled "advertisement," and if the public believe everythijng we tell them, they have been warned. And they have got some sort of check on it. If we say somebody's soap is made only of the purest ingredients, and neglect to add that one of the ingredients is the purest pumice, the "discerning housewife" has a chance to discover the facts and has only herself to thank if she goes on buying the stuff after the first spoilt pair of sheets.
What I can't stomach is the indirect lying in the daily Press. It's always a pretty bad joke, but in war-time it gets beyond a joke. All this righteous indignation poured out in the name of the Gallant Troops or the Great British People whenever there's a hint of Government interference with the sacred rights of Branded Goods! I daresay the public ought to keep their eyes skinned. Anybody confronted with a leaderful of wrath about the pooling of This and That has only to turn over the pages of his favourite organ and see how many thousand pounds' worth of advertising it carries for Branded This and Proprietary That, and discount the righteous wrath accordingly. But I don't think it's scruple so much as sheer damned irritation.
It's not that I don't believe in a free Press. It would be a bad thing if even that kind of criticism were censored away. I shouldn't mind if I were equally free to say to the umpteen millions of readers all over the country, "That's all right, but do remember that papers have to please their advertisers." But no paper is going to make its columns free to letters of that sort, and I hate being made to feel helpless.
If only one could get a platform, one could say to these poor goops, "Do realise that, in the end, you can be the masters! Policy depends on advertising, but advertising depends in the long run on circulation. If enough of you stop taking a paper, its advertising revenue wil
l fall off and its space-rates drop. A consumers' strike will bring any commercial body to heel." But they wouldn't do it, because they want the football news or the racing news or the fashions, so they swallow the pill of policy with the sugar. The public is fair game, very likely - but, nevertheless -
This is a queer line for me to take, isn't it? "Ingleby's always so cynical." That's why I write what you are good enough to call "convincing copy." But I've suddenly got a distaste for the game. I'm a coward, too. I don't propose - you needn't imagine it for the moment - to give up my time and energies to enlightening the public mind. I've managed to wangle an Army job, and I'm clearing out, washing my hands, behaving exactly like Pontius Pilate and all the other respectable people who let crimes go on because it's too much trouble to try and stop them. So my cynicism holds good, you see.