“Britain must prepare for war. America won’t save us this time,” declared the headline of a Daily Telegraph column on January 19. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail claimed on January 18 that NATO is “prepared for an all-out war with Russia in the next 20 years.” years.” He cited advice from a NATO official that civilians should “prepare for catastrophic conflicts and the chilling prospect of being drafted.”
The Sun has warned its readers about the prospect of “wars in Russia, China, Iran and North Korea within five years”. In the Spectator, a recent column highlighted Defense Secretary Grant Shapps’ claim that the UK is “moving from a post-war world to a pre-war world” and suggested that “the West must stop playing Mr Nice Guy”.
Another New Statesman column similarly warned that a “global bipolar military conflict” will be “the organizing principle of geopolitics for years to come.” Shapps quoted the following words: “Old enemies are revived. New enemies are taking shape. “The battle lines are being redefined.”
As fears of a new war emerge, I have delved into newspapers’ print archives to explore how journalists reported on the risk of conflict in the years leading up to the world wars of the 20th century.
Press coverage in the years preceding World War II served a generation of readers tormented by the horrific death toll caused by mechanized trench warfare between 1914 and 1918. Public concern was reinforced by fear to the bombings, which newspapers and newsreels described in searing images of the civil war in Spain between 1936 and 1939 and the Japanese bombing of China in 1931.
Despite the nature of Hitler’s regime in Germany, the Conservative Prime Minister of the time, Neville Chamberlain, was determined to have British newspapers promote appeasement. Managing the press became a political priority for Chamberlain.
To achieve this, two key lieutenants assisted him. Downing Street press secretary George Steward and Sir Joseph Ball, chairman of the Conservative Research Department, worked closely with the prime minister to persuade British newspapers that appeasement was in the national interest. Chamberlain insisted that hostility to his approach would weaken British influence abroad.
Read more: How Neville Chamberlain’s adviser took the spin for the PM to dangerous new levels
Munich Agreement
When Chamberlain negotiated the famous Munich agreement with Hitler in September 1938, The Times did not oppose the transfer of the Sudetenland to Germany without Czech consent. Instead, the British establishment’s most prestigious newspaper declared that: “The volume of applause for Mr. Chamberlain, which continues to grow around the world, registers a popular judgment that neither politicians nor historians are likely to reverse.”
He predicted that Chamberlain’s diplomacy would end in “an era in which the arms race will be seen as madness and will be abandoned because it has even ceased to be profitable.”
The conservative Daily Mail newspaper scolded Labor’s Clement Attlee for complaining about the “blatant betrayal” of the Czechs and accused Attlee of issuing “frothy tirades.” He promoted conservative optimism that the agreement would guarantee peace.
The liberal Manchester Guardian newspaper detested Hitler and had serious doubts about appeasement, but saw no practical alternative. In a leading column dated October 3, 1938, he warned:
Now that the first wave of excitement has passed, it is the duty of all of us to see where “peace with honor” has taken us. The Prime Minister claims that he has brought us “peace for our time.” It is an inspiring statement and, if it proves fair, it will have earned its place in history.
The next day’s edition of the popular left-wing newspaper Daily Mirror was also unconvinced. She feared “a further strengthening into invincible Nazi domination in Europe.” The Mirror believed that peace could only be guaranteed by military force brought about by rapid rearmament, but was unable to identify any alternative to engagement and deterrence. He feared a “world so armed and so explosive that it would be blown to pieces.”
In a subsequent article on 7 October 1938, The Guardian hoped that new weapons and additional recruitment to the armed forces could strengthen British diplomatic influence. However, he warned that if British foreign policy did not change substantially, “ordinary men and women” would not be persuaded that “the diplomacy our armaments must serve” would work.
Doomed to repeat mistakes?
The failures of journalism between 1936 and 1939 were less appalling than the jingoistic press campaigns that preceded the First World War and continued throughout it.
Between 1914 and 1918, newspapers downplayed misery and praised victory. The soldiers found it difficult to forgive his behavior. These reports promoted the belief that newspapers could not be trusted to tell the truth. He earned the newspapers a reputation as the main sponsor, and perhaps even instigator, of the conflict.
Later, their failures during the era of appeasement meant that British newspapers were not fully trusted by their readers when the Second World War was declared in September 1939. They were widely read but little loved.
By highlighting the risks facing the world as Ukraine resists Russian aggression and fighting intensifies in Gaza, the newspapers suggest they have learned from past conflicts. They do not encourage war or disguise the possibility that NATO will be asked to defend borders and democracy.
Britain has better newspapers than it had in 1914 or 1939. Would its editorial strengths survive the outbreak of war? I fear that now – as happened in the past – the truth may continue to be the first victim.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Tim Luckhurst has received research funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a Fellow of the Society of Editors and the Free Speech Union.
