All this movie was meant to do was to sway Americans into getting into WW2 early on the side of Britain.
The last scene makes this extremely clear!
For shame, Hitchcock!
[deleted]
I agree with you sonysunu.
This is a great film on many levels.
Propaganda...pull the other one.
How exactly and which part? Are you talking about the accurate portrayal of what was happening in Britain? Or are you talking about the accurate portrayal of British attitude during the war? How exactly is accuracy - as opposed to media lies - propaganda?
The Nazis DID bomb Great Britain and they were NOT targeting government/military buildings as both British and Americans so heroically do during war. The Nazis were targeting civilians.
The film only used facts. Obviously you need to brush up on your history.
I think the OP may mean that at the time, Congress was very much against not only joining the war, but even arming the UK. Roosevelt did everything he could to get around this with his lend-lease policy.
So yes, minds needed to be changed about Europe. And Hitch probably wanted to do his part.
"He sent the rain."
"Who sent the fire?"
I'm not sure I agree with you on what the OP may mean. Yes, Congress was against the war, but I'm not convinced that
"All this movie was meant to do was to sway Americans into getting into WW2..."It sounds pretty clear to me that the OP means that Hitchcock was talking politics in the film, or making "propaganda" as the thread title says.
The war had begun in September 1939. The RAF Bomber Command had been striking strategic targets in Germany since May 1940. This is very much a propaganda film. I just disagree with the OP that it's anything for Hitchcock to be ashamed of.
shareYes, then later FDR KNEW about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in advance yet allowed it to happen anyway! There is a TON of evidence to support this, including newspapers printing the story on their front page!!!
share"The Nazis DID bomb Great Britain and they were NOT targeting government/military buildings as both British and Americans so heroically do during war. The Nazis were targeting civilians. The film only used facts. Obviously you need to brush up on your history."
It's stunning that you feel your grasp of history permits you to tell someone else to brush up on their history. Of course both sides targeted civilians. Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg? Tokyo? No? How about Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Ring a bell?
Did you listen to the last speech Jones made to America about how America was the last undarkened place, and that it needs to guard its lights? Of course it was propaganda.
share
Perhaps a total of five minutes of the film was propaganda, the rest was simply a great movie.
The pros and cons of propaganda will always be an individual point of view anyway.
This was simply the right thing to do (my point of view).
Now that we know in retrospect what Hitler and the Nazis were up to, I'm not sure how anyone could view this as a negative intent.
.
Advocating "the right thing to do" is still propaganda.
share
Of course it is. And this form of tender manipulation is found in most movies, wartime or otherwise. It is also found in many other areas of our lives.
My point was that this movie would be an unsuitable target for the OP. It is 95% a solid Hitchcock film which, in my opinion, is at odds with the statement: "Nothing more than propaganda."
.
But it was "a masterpiece of propaganda" according to Reichsleiter Goebbels.
@RainmanCT.
What was the biggest holocaust of WWII?
A. Auschwitz
B. London
C. Hiroshima
D. Dresden
Answer: Dresden
Current estimates of the Dresden death toll range from 18,000-15,000 (1). Half a million died from strategic bombing nationwide (2), Japan's total civilian deaths were about the same (6). Auschwitz's range from 1.1 to 1.5 million (3), perhaps more, with 65,000 or so survivors. 100,000 persons were killed during the Blitz and the V1 and V2 campaigns nationwide (with 90,000 admitted to hospital) (4). Hiroshima and Nagasaki saw 104,000 killed instantly and 94,000 injured, some of whom would die of radiation poisoning (5).
1. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/death-toll-debate-how-many -died-in-the-bombing-of-dresden-a-581992.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II
3. http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-09.html
4. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110409172238AACyis9
5. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_c ountry
So I would rank them as Auschwitz (and note I am only including the one camp while the Blitz and the atomic bombings were combined) highest/worst, the Allied strategic bombing against Germany/Japan combined (~ 1 million) second, and the Blitz/rocket attack third. But total deaths in the concentration camps (including Soviet prisoners and non-Jewish civilians were around 10 million, and civilian deaths from German and Japanese actions can be summed from the wikipedia table if one wishes.
The 1.1 million German deaths in the wiki table includes those killed by the Soviets (the 7-12 million for the Soviet Union might also, for all I know). Chinese civilian deaths ranged from 7-11 million. All these numbers exclude those from famine and disease.
@zaraath.
Yes, I'm aware that the Dresden Holocaust numbers were revised several times. Originally, it was 480,000 and even as high as 600,000. You've done some very good research but I would still like to point out the following:
1. Do the new totals in Dresden include only recognizable corpses? How do you count the number of bodies in a liquefied mess?
2. History is written by the victors. Who has done the revising?
3. Your estimate on Auschwitz seems correct - 1.1 to 1.5 million. I believe that Dr. Piper himself (the Jewish directory of the Holocaust museum in Aushwitz) said 1.1 million. But this would be over a period of four or five years. I was thinking of one event.
4. I was not aware that there were so many (65,000) survivors in Auschwitz. If David Irving knew that, he would probably ask: Isn't that a little contradictory?
Thanks for your well analyzed response. I really didn't do much research when I asked the question. I was just trying to point out that not all of the atrocities were committed by Germans.
You're welcome. You made some good rebuttals in 1. and 2.
I can't believe I spent that much time (an hour?) composing an IMDB post!
What was the biggest holocaust of WWII?
A. Auschwitz
B. London
C. Hiroshima
D. Dresden
Answer: Dresden - marhefka
@darryl.
Your post makes a lot of sense. Ironically, at Nuremberg, the bombing of Calgary was called a war crime. David Irving talks (writes) about that at length in his book on Churchill using original papers from Churchill's chauffeur. There's an hilarious anecdote on how Winston would always know where the Germans would bomb next and would retire to a safe estate 150 miles away.
I was not aware of the March 9, 1945 bombing of Tokyo. Wow, the single most destructive bombing raid! I must read up on this.
More trivia on Hiroshima. The reason for using the atomic bomb was that the Japanese would NEVER surrender and an invasion of Japan would cost several hundred thousand U.S. lives. But, a letter exists from the Japanese Emperor to Stalin that talks about peace surrender options. It's not so cut and dried that the Japanese would never surrender.
Ironically, at Nuremberg, the bombing of Calgary was called a war crime. - marhefka
There's an hilarious anecdote on how Winston would always know where the Germans would bomb next and would retire to a safe estate 150 miles away.
I was not aware of the March 9, 1945 bombing of Tokyo. Wow, the single most destructive bombing raid! I must read up on this.
More trivia on Hiroshima. The reason for using the atomic bomb was that the Japanese would NEVER surrender and an invasion of Japan would cost several hundred thousand U.S. lives. But, a letter exists from the Japanese Emperor to Stalin that talks about peace surrender options. It's not so cut and dried that the Japanese would never surrender.
@darryl.
I'm embarrassed. Of course, I meant Coventry and not Calgary.
Thanks for your elaboration on the atomic bomb and Japan's surrender. In reading the book, "Killing Patton," I was under the impression that everybody considered Patton as dangerous. All he said was: "We beat the wrong enemy."
In reading the book, "Killing Patton," I was under the impression that everybody considered Patton as dangerous. All he said was: "We beat the wrong enemy." - marhefka
You are clueless, Britain and America did target German civilians with their bombing campaigns, it was meant to destroy German morale. The British openly admit to it. RAF commander Sir Arthur Harris whose nickname became Bomber Harris was legendary in his advocacy of "Area Bombing" which made German civilians a direct target for bombs. You need to brush up on your history. Read the 1979 book by the historian Max Hastings called Bomber Command.
shareI posted this over three years ago. I must've been in a trollish mood after reading a lot of the crap posted by some IMDB psychos. I figured I'd post this and just see what would shake out.
Interestingly, most people took the obvious viewpoint, the one I DO agree with.
Btw, Foreign Correspondent is one of my favorite Hitch movies.
[deleted]
Britain wanted the United States to come save them after Britain had declared war on Germany and were getting the hell bombed out of them.
If you decide to declare war, it would be best to be ready to fight it beforehand, unless there was no other choice. Best to get allies like the United States ready to fight with you first, instead of after.
Regardless of the merits of the film as a creative work, it was clearly designed to get Americans to want to go to war.
"I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP!" - Daniel Plainview - "There Will Be Blood"
[deleted]
Major trolling! Of course the closing scene was politically driven. But this was not propaganda (look up the definition......this film did not make false or exaggerated claims). Many in the US were isolationist at this time and this film, along with others, were attempts to awaken people to the real danger. And you think Hitchcock should be ashamed? You should be ashamed, unless you empathise with fascists. Otherwise you should be glad the the Allies won WW2 so that you have the freedom to make such asinine statements.
shareOne of those 'allies' was the Soviet Union. That the side you're on? Red your favorite color, too?
shareWow! 7 years later and you respond within 13 minutes! My hat is off to you! That's dedication. Troll-worthy. Yep, Russia was our ally in that conflict. Damned good thing because they took a huge portion of the Nazi brunt until the US entered the war.
Your original post said that Hitchcock's film was propaganda. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word. Propaganda, by definition, utilizes false or exaggerated claims .....please tell us what Hitchcock stated in this film that was false or exaggerated.
And you said that Hitchcock should be ashamed. Ashamed of what?.....being anti-Nazi? Are we to infer that you are pro-Nazi. Is that it?
And further, you infer from my response that, because I used the word "allies" that I am a communist? That is not only incorrect but a trollish stretch. Do you think that the British, Australian, Canadian, French, Dutch, Belgian, East Indians and other "allies" were communist too?
No, you have nothing reasoned or intelligent to say and are just trolling.
"But this was not propaganda (look up the definition......this film did not make false or exaggerated claims)"
prop·a·gan·da (prŏp′ə-găn′də)
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/propaganda
This movie was definitely propaganda, because it was meant to get Americans into a state of mind to join World War II.
It's actually really annoying how people like you always misuse the definition of the word propaganda. It doesn't have to be false or exaggerated to be propaganda. All it has to do is promote a cause, which this movie was absolutely doing.
It's also annoying how people like you give the word an automatic negative connotation. Like it's propaganda so that means it's a bad thing or poor quality. So, if you don't think it's a bad thing or poor quality, it's not propaganda. I.e., it's only propaganda if you disagree with it. This is a misuse of the word. Whether propaganda is good or bad comes not from being propaganda, but who is using it and to what purpose. Fascist propaganda is bad, anti-fascist propaganda is good.