How people back in WWII knew about war crimes committed by the allied forces or axis powers? At the time: it’s not like you can just say “I’m posting this online!”, there was no such thing as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Twitter (X) since they didn’t exist in 1939-45. The internet didn’t exist when Pearl Harbor was attacked, so that was only heard from word of mouth or tabloids (newspapers).
Now, when speaking about war crimes that the Americans, Brits or French committed during that era: people were oblivious about it at first only seeing them as liberators whilst overlooking their flaws (due to the propaganda floating about back then). They did kill German PoW’s, but how would the average joe in 1945 know that without the reliance of computers, search engines or social media feeds.
The thing is, how did normal people during that era manage to call out the Allies or Axis for their war crimes without the reliance of computers, social media or the internet (let alone livestream) during 1939-45? Japan did establish Unit 731, where Chinese and Allied PoW’s were subjected to brutal torture or human experimentation. How would people know its existence (let alone what goes on inside) during the 40s?
Will they had cameras and no real way to easily fake the photographs. It also didn’t help the Nazis that they took meticulous records of their cruelty, that was probably a bad idea.
Faking photographs had been a thing for nearly 100 years by that point.
Can you provide examples because as far as I’m where photographic proof was pretty much capturing reality that point and no one thought different.
https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/art/collections/objects/18132
This is one of the first examples from 1857.
Here’s an article about the progression of it:
https://www.discoveryuk.com/features/fake-views-how-photo-editing-changed-through-the-ages/
… that was only heard from word of mouth or tabloids (newspapers).
I think your question is one of perception.
People trusted “tabloids” (newspapers) back then. They were respected institutions, generally. Public payed attention to investigative journalists, and that’s how stuff got out.
They read news. From newspapers. This was normal.
Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Twitter (X)
…And these kind of took over from sheer engagement, not necessarily reliability.
TBH, if someone on X told me the sky is blue, I’d still be skeptical. Hence I’m the opposite of you, I suppose: I find it wild that these artificial spaces have become the world’s de-facto news feed over professional journalism.
The reason over people’s distrust towards professional journalism now is due to political influence or lobbying (using the news platform to shove propaganda for their interests to make non critical thinkers believe their agenda is without second thought). In the modern context: you hear stuff that sounds too good to be true.
For instance: “age verification to keep kids safe” on MSM while they omit government mass surveillance (true motive). You get the point, if you can see through the fog: you’ll uncover things they’re trying to hide. If the news outlet is affiated with a certain political party, it leaves biases on their reporting and narrative.
It’s the reason why they would prefer a first hand encounter from someone via social media without the narrative being twisted. As in a soldier who managed to capture live footage differs from a war correspondent employed by a news outlet covering the same conflict accompanied with cameramen.
Back then, how Soviet newspapers reported the war differ from the American Star and Stripes since one is state owned (the USSR has control on how the news is published while Star and Stripes is independent) but the other is private. Anything government subsidized is subjected to control and oversight.
Does any of that make social media any better?
It’s the reason why they would prefer a first hand encounter from someone via social media without the narrative being twisted.
This is the lie social media sells.
Nothing is vetted. There’s no standard of information hygiene on social media. Anything posted could be a misunderstanding, or fabricated, or deliberate clickbait propaganda.
In fact, that’s exactly what engages the algorithms; its why modern social media is such a cesspool, because clickbait is easier to produce and more engaging than professional journalism, and the algorithm boosts that garbage to everyone.
But I’m not in this thread to argue this thoroughly.
Frankly, if you came to Lemmy with the belief that social media (especially corporate social media) is more reliable than news outlets… I don’t know what to tell you.
Social media is full of crap due to AI generated content and toxic people. I know that for a fact. I don’t use it as much anymore, only sometimes but not for news (mainly to message family or close friends). Governments trying to ban or restrict SM for “children” won’t solve the issue as that just reinforces surveillance on grown ups by using kids as an excuse. I was cyberbullied back in high school because of that and found a group chat full of gossip bad mouthing others behind their back.
Social media is full of crap due to
AI generated content and toxicpeopleFTFY
I don’t use it a lot anymore unlike when I was a teen, now only sometimes but not for news (mainly to message family or close friends). Also, Governments trying to ban or restrict SM for “children” under a certain age won’t solve the issue as that just reinforces surveillance on grown ups using kids as cover. It should be discretionary of the individual indifferent to age regarding SM (not politicians).
I was cyberbullied back in high school because of that and found a group chat full of gossip. I’ve heard news equivalent to “banning social media for kids” by reinforcing age verification (submitting ID) just to use SM which that sounds stupid. I know friends of friends who have teenagers as sons or daughters and those kinds of bans don’t do shit, they know that the government has ulterior motives.
Anyway, I’ve gone on a tangent.
Yes that was a tangent…
My only point is that social media is toxic period and you cannot blame it on just AI or on just certain people. It brings out the worst in people. If I were benevolent dictator I would ban it entirely but I’m not so I’m not advocating for that since I know it’s not realistic.
Back to the main topic of the thread: newspapers were the standard at the time, alongside radios (if they have one in their home) during the war. They would’ve also heard back from letters sent or testimonials from soldiers themselves, resistance groups, escaped prisoners or by some third party. Regardless, those forms of communication or messaging arent instantaneous.
You know newspapers, letters, the radio, and movies existed back then, right? The press was around?
manage*
There’s multiple sources mentioned, but the very brave Witold Pilecki actually infiltrated Auschwitz to get information out to the Polish resistance.
wow. just wow. I mean even though they did not know what was going on there they had to know it was going to be bad. to volunteer for that. and then how it goes on for him after the war. thank you for that read.
Two or three components, the military had press with them.
Also, exploiting war crimes by the enemy for propaganda reasons was very important for morale, so it was a high priority thing to have writers and camera people available to document things.
Regarding distribution, specifically the Germans put the info into weekly cinema productions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Deutsche_Wochenschau But there was also radio and newspapers.
Ultimately it depended on either the military or reporters uncovering it and then reporting it.
Japan did establish Unit 731
Not sure how that was in that case.
or people with stories and maybe pictures sought out reporters/newspapers
I don’t know about specific programs like Unit 731. But in general: People wrote letters. People came home and talked to their spouses. Concerning the Germans: A lot of people were involved. The Einsatzgruppen were staffed by ordinary police. The Waffen SS fought alongside the ordinary Wehrmacht which had their ugly share of atrocities. All these people wrote and came home and talked. And the concentration camps on German home soil were not isolated. People saw what happened there. People worked there as civilians. People who say the general public didn’t know are lying.
And adding to that: People saw what happened to their Jewish/Romani/Disabled/Communist/Queer neighbors. They worked in the clinics where disabled children were selected and sterilized or (sent off to be) killed, knew the police men who rounded up homeless people etc. And people came back from concentration camps as well. Some people did time there for ordinary crimes. German citizens incarcerated in concentration camps even had to pay for social security while incarcerated, so that their insurance history wasn’t broken afterwards.
Unit 731 had vivisections (dissecting a person alive) in which scientists conducted experiments by testing people’s pain tolerance via torture or inject them with diseases or toxic chemicals using prisoners (civilian or allied forces who are captured, but the majority of prisoners are Chinese). Japan today knows it happened but still remain in denial about the topic.
Sadly I know about that. (As another comment: Sometimes you hear that these unethical experiments gave humanity insights that have been valuable. But at least in general that is not true, not lastly because it was shit science by shit scientists to begin with. )
I just don’t know the extent of these things being known in WWII Japan. I would assume it was similar to Germany but for Germany I have read enough to know it for sure that it has been known at the time and not just for a chosen few.
Shirō Ishii (specialist and microbiologist in Unit 731 who is also in the Japanese army) was granted immunity by the allies in exchange for extensive data, research reports, and details regarding their human experiments and biological weapons programs towards the Americans. US military intelligence officials wanted exclusive access to the biological warfare data desiring to keep it out of the hands of the Soviets. He literally got away with endorsing torture towards people.
The press would do that.
Think about when the world woke up to the concentration camps. It wasn’t until the war was over.
That would be up to the audience whether they trusted media outlets at the time, depending on where they live: as German people wouldn’t know about concentration camps (unless they worked in one as contractors or prison guards) since the Nazis censored that from the press, nor did Japanese people know about Nanking or Unit 731 during that era since their own press omits that as the government polices on what information they’re allowed to disclose.
A lot more Germans knew about the concentration camps than just the ones directly involved in it. People didn’t want to know and kept looking away or didn’t care for the people they believed were scum.
It’s conditioned by the Nazis via indoctrinating Germans to hate minorities (even kids were made to join the Hitler Youth) at that time, or true apathy. Unless they were the ones who are being treated the same way by someone else. Like when the Soviets managed to arrive during the latter years of the war, they did mistreat those people (even after the war).
Don’t forget that all of Europe had a very strong antisemitism context. The Nazis didn’t start from zero on their hate of the Jews, and help from the rest of Europe (and America) was scarce because of that
And that is different from Social Media of today in what way?
I trust the AP a hell of a lot more than anything I see on Youtube or Facebook. Fuck, when it comes down to it I trust Fox News more than any social media outlet, mostly because I know Fox News is propaganda.
And that is different from Social Media of today in what way?
In so many ways you can’t even imagine.
Most of it comes down to: things on today’s social media are 99.9% lies, and 1000 different ways of lying are involved all the time. That just wasn’t there. If there were lies in the official media, then it was the exception, not the normal, and the audience often recognized it, because they knew in advance what these “critical” topics were.
But there was also the time dimension. Nobody knew at that time what had happened somewhere else in the same hour. Rarely in the same week. Outcries about war crimes often happened only years later. And that was NOT regarded as a problem but as the normal thing, things were just as they were.
That comment is about people deciding to trust social media.
I will “bite” on your ramblings.
Do you really believe that the press of 1940s Germany and Japan was not 99.9% lies and 1000 different way of lying?
Let’s roll it back even before 1940s. Don’t you think it is strange that it is called Spanish Flu, even though the first case was in Kansas, USA?
How old are you?
Can you believe that times are different at all?
Social media is much more likely to be full of information that is NOT true than to be compltely devoid of information that IS true.
But to your point: that is why Israel now controls TikTok in the United States.
yeah. I do find they don’t put much into misinformation. I think its because all they need is the headline since most people do not read much more.
I think its because all they need is the headline since most people do not read much more.
Tell me about it. I currently made a post and am getting hammered by morons who clearly only read the title, and not even very thoughfully at that.
did you post more than a title and link?
yes, and i regret it.
His point was “it is up to the audience whether or not they trust the press.”
And that is 100% the case when it comes to social media.
Social Media is much more like to be full of information that is not true that to be completely devoid of information of is true.
That is a totally different topic and completely wrong.
They didn’t have modern technology at their fingertips: only radio, newspapers, press and word of mouth. It really depends on what country you lived in during that era (US, UK, Japan, Germany, Russia, France, etc). have their own perspectives regarding the war.
They have their own takes on it, if you grew up in Japan during the 40s: you’ll be brainwashed to believe that Americans are the bad guys (or that’s how the government puts it) while another person from the UK during the same time knows what Japan is really up to.
All of that is correct and completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
