Analyzing National War Propaganda Through Comparison of Diverse Case Studies

In the build-up to war, national governments utilize propaganda to gather public support for the war effort. In some instances, propaganda campaigns are conducted but war does not occur. This begs the question as to why war follows propaganda campaigns in some cases, but not in others. I argue that propaganda efforts that lead to war can be generally characterized through three major strategies based on a patriotic participatory social structure, a claim to moral authority, and the blending of individual concepts of the state, government and nation. In this study, I analyze the major historical case studies of the Spanish-American war, Imperial Japan, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S-Soviet Union Cold War confrontation, and the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan to study the relationship between propaganda and war. I use a qualitative content analysis methodology to analyze pro-war statements from politicians, military officials and media leaders to determine the similarities and differences in the language, ideology and framing strategies used in various cases of international conflict. In cases where propaganda campaigns lead to war, I find that appeals based on moral authority, citizen-state participation and the merging of independent notions of statehood, cultural heritage and shared national history are employed by national governments and reiterated by mainstream media. In cases where war did not occur, such as the Cold War and the Kashmir dispute between Indian and Pakistan, the introduction of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction influenced propaganda messaging in a particular manner that discouraged direct intense hostilities in favor of promoting lower intensity conflicts. The findings from this study show that propaganda campaigns continue to have relevance in shaping global conflicts.