“The POW Will Safely Return!”: Second World War Allied and German Propoganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Second World War, both the Allied and Axis governments expended significant resources in the production and dissemination of propoganda. Directed at their own people, the propoganda of these governments fostered correct thinking, feelings, attitudes, and behaviours. Directed at military personnel of enemy nations as part of psychological warfare operations, this propoganda was far more subversive. Its goal was to undermine the efficiency and coherence of enemy forces and, ultimately, to weaken their will to fight. Among the different media harnessed to achieve this end, aerial leaflets hold a unique place in the history of psychological warfare operations. Their efficacy was debated during and after the war yet these leaflets were disseminated in the millions and collected by soldiers of both sides. It is for this reason, among others, that although inherently ephemeral, Second World War leaflets have been preserved in archival collections, including the Goerge Metcalf rchives of the Canadian War Museum. In the following pages, we will highlight 12 leaflets from this collection, six produced by the Psychological Warfare Division, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditioanry Force (PWD) and six by the SS Standarte Kurt Eggers of the German Waffen SS (SKE), all of which encourage enemy combatants to surrender. But what arguments did the psychological warriors of the opposing sides think would convince their target audiences to take this step? What inducements did they offer? What justifications did they provide? And in what ways were the leaflets produced by the opposing sides different or the same?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".