A battle is raging such as the world has never yet seen.
- The Times, Aug 29, 1914

The English language and culture know plenty of disparaging monikers for us Germans..

..be they "Fritz", the "Krauts", or the classic "Hun". But wait a minute – isn't it common knowledge that the Germans descended from the Germanic peoples (the same can, arguably, be said for the English as well)? Why would one invoke the memory of the Huns, a people that partly displaced the Germanic tribes during the Migration period, and has historically been located to the east of modern day Germany, in the steppe? Why, when talking about Germans, would you implicitly remind your listeners of Attila instead of Arminius? Let's take a look.

After the outbreak of the war, Britain quickly examined its options and found that it was in dire need of reinforcing its alliance with France, preferably by adding both Italy (which then could threaten Austria in the south) and, even more importantly, the USA (with its unprecedented industrial might) to it. After ensuring that the British populace stood behind the war, the British government therefore quickly turned its attention towards the propaganda effort abroad. They were helped by this immensely by none other than Wilhelm II. - the German Kaiser himself.

Kaiser Wilhelm II., never a great man, much less a great political leader, had given a speech to his troops on June 27, 1900, 14 years before the outbreak of the First World War, in preparation of a military intervention against the so-called "Boxer Uprising" in China. This requires a little elaboration:

The "Boxer Uprising"

During the 1890s' China, a highly volatile mixture of disastrous economic and social issues (largely stemming from the aggressive pursuit of colonial interests by European powers and Japan) combined with religious beliefs and xenophobia, finally culminated in attacks on any foreigners by the militant "Yihetuan"-organisation (sometimes given as "Yihequan"), backed by the Chinese Government[1]. By June 11, Beijing was swarming with insurgents and the missions of foreign powers as well as Christian churches and European residential buildings fell under attack. On June 20, the German envoy was ambushed and killed; later, the rebels attempted to storm the embassy district, and, on June 21, the Chinese government officially declared war on the foreign powers inside its borders.

The European powers responded by forming a multi-national punitive expedition, of which the troops Kaiser Wilhelm II. spoke to were part of. When the European troop contingents finally appeared on the scene, Japanese and Russian intervention had already mostly put down the uprising on August 4. Only smaller 'pacification'-operations were undertaken by the Germans. Afterwards, the foreign powers dictated the so-called Boxer-protocol, in effect a dictate which compelled the Chinese government to grant the colonial powers sweeping benefits[2].

The "Hun Speech"

The speech given by Kaiser Wilhelm II. (in German historiography known as "Hunnenrede", "Hun speech") is often reduced to the central passage, which seems to call upon the German soldiers to fight recklessly and mercilessly, giving no quarter to the enemy:

Eine große Aufgabe harrt eurer: ihr sollt das schwere Unrecht, das geschehen ist, sühnen. Die Chinesen haben das Völkerrecht umgeworfen, sie haben in einer in der Weltgeschichte nicht erhörten Weise der Heiligkeit des Gesandten, den Pflichten des Gastrechts Hohn gesprochen. Es ist das um so empörender, als dies Verbrechen begangen worden ist von einer Nation, die auf ihre alte Kultur stolz ist. Bewährt die alte preußischen Tüchtigkeit, zeigt euch als Christen im freudigen Ertragen von Leiden, mögen Ehre und Ruhm euren Fahnen und Waffen folgen, gebt an Manneszucht und Disziplin aller Welt ein Beispiel [...]
Ihr sollt fechten gegen eine gut bewaffnete Macht, aber Ihr sollt auch rächen, nicht nur den Tod des Gesandten, sondern auch vieler Deutscher und Europäer. Kommt Ihr vor den Feind, so wird er geschlagen, Pardon wird nicht gegeben; Gefangene nicht gemacht. Wer euch in die Hände fällt, sei in Eurer Hand. Wie vor tausend Jahren die Hunnen unter ihrem König Etzel sich einen Namen gemacht, der sie noch jetzt in der Überlieferung gewaltig erscheinen läßt, so möge der Name Deutschland in China in einer solchen Weise bestätigt werden, daß niemals wieder ein Chinese es wagt, etwa einen Deutschen auch nur scheel anzusehen.

An enormous task awaits you: You shall avenge the cruel injustice. The Chinese have overturned the law of nations, they ridiculed, in a manner never seen before in the history of the world, the sanctity of the envoy and the duties of the right to hospitality. This is all the more outrageous, since this crime has been committed by a nation proud of its own culture. Retain the old Prussian efficiency, present yourselves as Christians by cheerfully enduring distress, may honor and glory follow your standards and arms, set an example of cultivated manhood and discipline for the whole world [...]
You will fence against a well armed power, but you shall avenge as well, not only the death of the envoy, but of many Germans and Europeans: If you encounter the enemy, he will be beaten, no quarter will be given; no prisoners will be taken. Whoever falls into your hands, shall be in your grip. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Etzel [Attila] made a name for themselves that lets them appear formidable even in today's lore, so shall the name of Germany be affirmed in China in such a way that never again a Chinese will so much as dare to give a German a cock-eyed look.

Even though the Kaiser seems to explicitly forbid the soldiers to give quarters, something that was declared to be illegal by the Hague Convention just one year earlier, in reality it was meant only to warn the German soldiers that the Chinese rebels would give no quarter to them ("Pardon wird [euch] nicht gegeben" - "no quarter will be given [to you]"). This is evidenced by the accentuation placed on good order and discipline ("gebt an Manneszucht und Disziplin aller Welt ein Beispiel" - "set an example of cultivated manhood and discipline for the whole world") and by explicitly justifying the expedition by the Chinese ignorance of international law - but whether the soldiers themselves understood it as intended is doubtful, too.

The press, especially the German social-democratic newspapers, protested against the speech (and the German intervention in general), especially after reports of needless brutalities and other outrages emerged. The English press, in contrast, at least initially maintained that the language used by the Kaiser would be the only one the "uncivilised" Chinese would understand and acknowledge[3].

The "Hun Speech" in Propaganda

But this benevolent view disappeared with the start of the First World War, especially after reports of German war crimes were distributed. In The Times, an opinion piece, headed "The March of the Huns", was printed after "destruction of Louvain (Leuven) (more on that in a later post):

The Germans have committed an atrocious act which will turn the hands of every civilized nation in the world against them. They have utterly destroyed the peaceful and historic old city of Louvain, the Oxford of Belgium. The beautiful Hôtel de Ville – a wonderful example of pointed Gothic – the stately church of St. Pierre, the famous University, all are gone. Even the library of 70,000 volumes and priceless manuscripts was committed to the flames by the ruthless barbarians who have set forth to spread ´'German culture' throughout the globe. Louvain, the most celebrated seat of learning in the Low Countries, is to-day 'nothing more than a heap of ashes.' - The Times, Aug 29, 1914

This passage is not much more than the repetition of the (mostly true) allegation published by the authorities, but enlarges on the destruction of property, and, especially, cultural treasures (more on this in a later post). It is also used to commence a diatribe against the Germans in general, and Kaiser Wilhelm II. in particular, by referring to the infamous "Hun speech" he gave 14 years earlier. In between, the burning of Louvain is classified as only one occurrence in a long line of similar acts of "savagery":

Until now we have maintained an attitude of deliberate reserve upon the innumerable stories of German atrocities which have reached us. We published without comment the unanswerable list of shocking excesses committed by the German troops, which was sent to England by the Belgian authorities. When a German Zeppelin cast bombs upon ill-fated women asleep in their beds at Antwerp, we did no more than explain the bearings of international law upon conduct which has met universal reprobation in Europe and America. But now the real object of German savagery is self-revealed, not only by the effacement of Louvain, but by the shameful admission sent forth from the wireless station at Berlin. On Thursday night the following official notification regarding Belgium came vibrating through the air:__
'The only means of preventing surprise attacks from the civil population has been to interfere with unrelenting severity and to create examples which by their frightfulness would be a warning to the whole country.'
"Such is the cynical nature of the German apologia for the destruction of Louvain. - The Times, Aug 29, 1914

The article "The March of the Huns" is a single, scathing indictment of Germany and the Germans, based on the two pillars of the actual war crime committed in Louvain/Leuven, and the "Hun speech" by Kaiser Wilhelm II. Especially the equation made in 1900 of the German soldiers with the Huns and, in extension, of the German Emperor with Attila, is scathingly criticised[4]:

The Germans have committed an atrocious act which will turn the hands of every civilized nation in the world against them. [...] Louvain, the most celebrated seat of learning in the Low Countries, is to-day 'nothing more than a heap of ashes.' Fourteen years ago Kaiser William enjoined upon his troops:-- 'Let all who fall into your hands be at your mercy. Gain a reputation like the Huns under Attila.' The lesson has been learned all too well, and the reputation has been thrice gained, but deep and deadly must be the vengeance which the defenders of civilization will exact from these new apostles of brutality. - The Times, Aug 29, 1914

As one can see, the possible subtler meaning is completely lost in this 'translation' of the speech. The Germans are identified with the Huns, and, therefore depicted not only as uncivilised, but as a danger to all of civilisation, as the "new apostles of brutality". Likewise, the English soldiers and their allies are the "defenders of civilisation" - implicitly, this is a call to arms for "every civilised nation in the world" to join arms with Britain against Germany.

The Barbarian Hordes are Coming

Calling a nation as culturally advanced as Germany "uncivilised" (and getting away with it) required some effort by the propagandists: The past achievements of Germans like Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were declared to have nothing to do with the current German nation of barbarian Huns[5]. But not only does The Times equate the Germans with the Huns, the Germans are actually said to be one level below the Huns:

Even Attila had his better side. He spared Milan. It has been said of him that, though he destroyed cities without remorse, he respected the laws of nations as they were understood in his day. The modern Attila respects neither the laws of nations nor the laws of God. His evil deeds cry aloud to Heaven and to the horror-struck watching nations. The infamous crime of the destruction of Louvain is without a parallel even in the Dark Ages. The harmless civil population had been disarmed a week ago. The German garrison at the gates of the town fired upon another force of their own countrymen. To conceal their blunder, they laid the blame upon the helpless townspeople. No denials were listened to. Some of the men of Louvain were shot, the rest were made prisoners, the women and children were flung into trains and carried off to an unknown destination, and the city was razed to the ground. A town of 45,000 inhabitants, bigger than Crewe or Dover or Colchester or Keighley, has been completely wiped out. The wickedness of this abominable act shall be expiated to the uttermost when the day of reckoning comes. - The Times, Aug 29, 1914

This harsh characterisation of Kaiser Wilhelm II. first and foremost suggests a direct link between him and the burning of Louvain. Furthermore, it is combined with the accusation that neither he nor his troops respect any kind of law, be it the international laws or the laws of God. By drawing a parallel with the Middle Ages and, in this instance, calling them the "Dark Ages", another link to barbarians is established. Also, the phrase "day of reckoning" has an nice biblical ring to it, lending a religious aspect to the fight between 'good' (= Allied) and 'bad' (= German) forces, a technique Anna Morelli calls the propaganda principle of a "sacred mission"[6], and that can also be found in contemporary literature[7].

Wilhelm II., Evil Incarnate

Then, the noted direct responsibility of the German Emperor for the (overstated) misdeeds of his troops is further written out and a comparison with the character of British warfare is drawn:

Such is the character of the warfare of the modern Huns. They seek to strike terror into the hearts of their foes by methods which belong to the days of the old barbaric hosts, who were thought to have vanished from the world for ever. There must be no mistake about the apportionment of blame for this and numberless other crimes. We have listened too long to the bleatings [sic!] of professors bemused by the false glamour of a philosophy which the Germans themselves have thrust aside. The Kaiser and his people are alike responsible for the acts of their Government and their troops, and there can be no differentiation when the day of reckoning comes. The Kaiser could stop these things with a word. Instead, he pronounces impious benedictions upon them. Daily he appeals for the blessing of God upon the dreadful deeds which are staining the face of Western Europe – the ravaged villages, the hapless non-combatants hanged or shot, the women and children torn from their beds by cowards and made to walk before them under fire, all the infamies which have eternally disgraced German 'valour.' We are no longer dependent upon hearsay for these stories. Our own men are bringing them back from the front. We get evidence of the German purpose in our country. What of the nightly shooting at sentries and trains and policemen under the cover of darkness? Are there any parallels for these dastardly acts in Germany to-day? Not thus do Englishmen go to war in the land which has given them shelter and sustenance. We trust that the Government will henceforth deal more severely with all such criminals caught red-handed. - The Times, Aug 29, 1914

Not only is the Kaiser made answerable for this particular war crime, but also for every other atrocity that occurred, since it was in his power alone to "stop these things with a word". Numerous allusions to other alleged German misdeeds, including allegations of guerilla warfare inside Britain[8], are compared with the way "Englishmen go to war" - this implicates an honourable, 'clean' and, above all, civilised and respectable kind of warfare. The article ends by applying these findings to the current situation on the battlefields of Flanders:

Attila came at last to Chalons and to his own undoing, and his dominion was swiftly shattered. Such too must be the fate which the God of Justice will mete out to the Monarch who unblushingly aspires to be regarded as Attila's successor. The German legions are now striking fiercely, but thus far in vain, against the indomitable soldiery of Great Britain. They have hurled against our Army their most redoubtable troops – the Guard, the Iron Corps of Brandenburg, all the picked regiments of their enormous forces. Our Military Correspondent estimates that over 300,000 men have been led against our two Army Corps in fruitless endeavours to envelop and overwhelm them. Against odds of three to one our men still stand firm and unshaken. Their losses are heavy, but those of the enemy are far heavier. The line of the Allies is not yet broken, and their position had improved when the latest intelligence was dispatched. Our own troops, so sorely tried, no longer have to bear the whole brunt of fighting on the flank. Powerful French reinforcements have been hurried up to their left. The line of battle rolls nearer to the sea, but still the Germans cannot burst their way through. A battle is raging such as the world has never yet seen. Its issue remains undecided, and there is ample ground for hoping that the waves of the German attack may spend themselves against the impregnable line of the British and their brave Allies. Whatever the upshot, the foe will learn from Lord Kitchener's words yesterday that England is ready to put forward all her strength, and that hundreds of thousands of men from these islands and from overseas are eager to take their place in the fray and to strike home in this most righteous cause. Would that our nation could have been adequately told of the mighty deeds now being wrought in France! - The Times, Aug 29, 1914

Great Britain and her allies, fielding "indomitable soldiery", the troops standing "firm and unshaken" in an "impregnable line" against "waves of the Germans", are clearly superior to even the best of Germany's soldiers, thereby proving that the 'gentleman's warfare', and, in extension, the English nation, is superior to the uncivilised, barbaric hordes of Germany. This, of course, was hardly representative of the real, much less noble and heroic events unfolding on the fields of Flanders[9] in what would later be called The Great Retreat[10], but it is representative of the mood and sentiments in Britain at the time. There was no doubt that the Germans, being the uncivilised barbarians they even called themselves, would be swiftly fended off and put down.

Personification in Propaganda

But what is the purpose of the personification of the enemy, that is effected by equating Kaiser Wilhelm II. with Attila? The identification of one clear enemy instead of a more differentiated, complex view of a whole society prevents the own populace from finding their equivalents or counterparts inside of the enemy populace, an act that especially for the working class people, who already had a more international outlook, was a strong possibility. By ascribing all of the responsibility directly to the Kaiser, this is forestalled, and, at the same time, a clearer goal of the war is established: To bring the top war criminal and his myrmidons to justice. Morelli calls this technique "the enemy has demonic traits", or the "devil of the day"[11].

Other contemporary newspaper articles – not only opinion pieces, but also seemingly factual reports – characterised the Kaiser in the same vein: as lunatic, madman, monster, or worse. He was accused of unspeakable crimes against humanity, including personally ordering the torture of a three-year-old boy, ordering the death of King Albert's children, and paying extra bounties to submarine crews for the sinking of ships carrying women and children[12].

Michael Kunczik also cites the build-up of a concept of the enemy (here: "the Hun") as one of the most important techniques in making the case for war vis-à-vis an unwilling public. The feeling of peril and threat associated with the dangerous enemy creates a want for strong leadership and an acceptance of authoritarian guidance[13].

Another upshot of this construction of an enemy is the resulting black-white-pattern with which to judge any and all actions of the enemy and the own nation. This pattern includes a stereotypical construct of reality and therefore leads to a stereotypical, negative image of the other. Negative characteristics of the constructing nation (i.e. aggression, revengefulness) are projected onto the enemy. Social distinctions give way to a broad solidarity and are subordinated to the conduct of the war: The mass media, the whole public discourse is aligned along the desired lines[14].

To apply these findings to a current war or war-like scenario is left as an exercise to the reader.

=====

Footnotes

[1] cf. John Philip Ness: Art. 'Yihetuan', in: Ainslie Thomas Embree (ed.): Encyclopedia of Asian History, Vol. 4., 1988, p. 271.
[2] cf. Gerd Fesser: „Pardon wird nicht gegeben!”. Die „Hunnenrede“ Kaiser Wilhelms II. am 27. Juli 1900 eröffnete einen blutigen Rachefeldzug des deutschen Militärs in China, in: Zeit online, 2000 (http://zeus.zeit.de/text/archiv/2000/31/200031.hunnen_.xml) (German).
[3] cf. Gerd Fesser: „Pardon wird nicht gegeben!”. Die „Hunnenrede“ Kaiser Wilhelms II. am 27. Juli 1900 eröffnete einen blutigen Rachefeldzug des deutschen Militärs in China, in: Zeit online, 2000 (http://zeus.zeit.de/text/archiv/2000/31/200031.hunnen_.xml) (German).
[4] Kaiser Wilhelm II. probably evoked the image of the Huns because the historic Huns had been the scourge of China in earlier times – the Great Wall of China had been built to protect the country against their riders (cf. John Keegan: A History of Warfare, 1993, pp. 182 – 184.
[5] cf. John Ramsden: Don't Mention the War. The British and the Germans since 1890, 2006, p99f.
[6] cf. Anna Morelli: Die Prinzipien der Kriegspropaganda, 2004 (German), pp. 113 – 119.
[7] cf. John Ramsden: Don't Mention the War. The British and the Germans since 1890, 2006, p. 110.
[8] These allegations were widespread and on more than one occasion accompanied by anti-German riots. cf. John Ramsden: Don't Mention the War. The British and the Germans since 1890, 2006, pp. 95 – 97.
[9] cf. John Keegan: The First World War, 1999, pp. 71 – 112.
[10] cf. John Keegan: The First World War, 1999, p. 100.
[11] cf. Anne Morelli: Die Prinzipien der Kriegspropaganda, 2004 (German), pp. 35 – 44, and John Ramsden: Don't Mention the War. The British and the Germans since 1890, 2006, pp. 119 – 122.
[12] cf. Phillip Knightley: The First Casualty. The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq, 2003, pp. 86f.
[13] cf. Michael Kunczik: Die Privatisierung der Kriegspropaganda. Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in Kriegszeiten von der Revolution 1776 bis zum Irak-Krieg 2003, in: Martin Löffelholz (ed.): Krisenkommunikation im 21. Jahrhundert (Krieg als Medienereignis II), 2004 (German), pp. 84f.
[14] cf. Jan Staiger: Selbstorganisation, Nicht-Linearität, Viabilität. Eine konstruktivistisch-sozialsystemische Perspektive auf Kriegsberichterstattung, in: Martin Löffelholz (ed.): Krisenkommunikation im 21. Jahrhundert (Krieg als Medienereignis II). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2004 (German), p. 165.