Documentary News Letter (1942-1943)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER FEBRUARY 1942 UNITED PROPAGANDA the setting up of Pacific Councils, the exchanges of information between leaders, the laying down of charters, demonstrates the unity of purpose and interest among the United Nations. It demonstrates a desire to march forward together on common ground. But all these committees and charters are hardly likely to function without a better understanding between the nations concerned. Our relations with America will not be cemented because of a personal understanding between Roosevelt and Churchill. Russia and Britain will not march forward successfully together because of an understanding between (ripps and Stalin. There must be an understanding between the peoples. We in this country must know, for instance, more of the Chinese way of life; the Americans must have a better understanding of ours. The war is a matter of individual concern to every man in every country fighting Fascism. If we are to fight and work together for a common good, it is essential for the peoples of every land to know and appreciate one another's way of life. In this country the prejudicial teaching of most of our educational system, the lack of any special responsibility in the newspapers, and the symbols of the caricaturists, leave an extraordinary picture in the average Briton*s mind of the peoples who are fighting with us. How can we appreciate the effort China is making for our common good if we conceive the Chinese as men with pigtails, smoking opium and talking pidgin English — a very popular conception? Can the British really obtain an accurate understanding of the American way of life from their fiction films which flood our cinemas? The thinking of the average citizen is coloured by the nationalist policies of his ruling class. He is encouraged to believe that, say, one Englishman is worth four Frenchmen. This was one of the earliest forms of encouraging local patriotism. It is right to have pride in one's own country, its associations, its sceneries and its achievements; but it is wrong to encourage these natural emotions to a point at which they become jingoist. All men know in their hearts that symbols and shibboleths cannot represent the people of foreign lands; but because they lack information about the people of foreign lands they have accepted symbols instead of truths. Incidentally, it is worth noting that many of these symbols imply criticism of the foreigner's way of life. It is noteworthy that where great ideals have sprung from a nation or are the motivating forces of that nation, common people all the world over have felt the effect of that idealism and perhaps subscribed to it. Witness the overwhelming body of sympathy for Russia in this country at the moment. when for so long we have been encouraged as a nation to believe that Russia was an evil place because Communism was an evil thing. There is, too, the example of the early working class movement in this country which looked to the Americans, in their early days of the shaping of America, for inspiration in the British fight against class oppression. We have constantly campaigned for greater dissemination of information within our own country about the conduct of the war, but there is to-day an even greater need for exchange of information among the peoples comprising the United Nations. The Russians are still suspicious of our objectives, while most of us here have little understanding of the ideas coming from Chungking. Yet all the United Nations, in their different ways, are trying to beat Fascism and shape the way to the good life. But in no two countries are the methods the same. Since the widening of the war, there have been many instances of lack of understanding; this, for example, appears in the out-spoken criticism by Australia of our conduct of the war in the Pacific. There has been China's dissatisfaction at its exclusion from General Wavell's Pacific command. There has been the Dutch dissatisfaction at our tactics in the Far East. There has been the Russian dissatisfaction with the war effort in our factories. There has been our own dissatisfaction with rate of production in the United States. Obviously, quick dissemination of information among the United Nations would go a long way towards removing distrust and suspicion. The cause of internationalism was largely lost through mutual suspicion and distrust among the peoples represented at the League of Nations. Had there been a better understanding of one another's problems, a greater knowledge of one another's countries, many of the difficulties that wrecked many an international conference need never have arisen. (It is interesting to note here that only since America has become a fullyfledged ally, has any teaching of American history been introduced into our schools.) There have been signs in this country that our Government is aware of this need. Churchill has spoken of the necessity for setting up little Whitehall in each of the Allied countries. There have been questions in the House about the possibility of setting up a British film unit in Moscow. In this country we have observed the efforts made by the Russians to make us understand their country and the part they are playing. For example, the Soviet Embassy publishes at regular intervals a newspaper giving great detail about Russia and the war it is fighting on the Eastern Front. The Russians have set up a film agency which turns Russian films into English and distributes them. They have made arrangements with commercial concerns to distribute their feature films in the ordinal") cinemas. They have sent us delegations to meet our workers and investigate our war factory conditions. In a multitude of ways they are opening up the eyes of this country to the Russian way of life and the Russian war effort. But this must not be a one-way traffic. We must do the same in Russia itself. We must do the same in America; we musf do the same in China, in the Dutch East Indies, and in all the Dominions. But the conception of setting up little Whitehalls will probably only lead to trouble. We have our own experience of Whitehall and its thinking. What is needed is a complete British information agency in each of the various capitals. It is not sufficient that we send publications, radio talks and films to the Allied countries, we must have organisations on the spot to direct their use. Organisations in Moscow, Washington, Chungking, Sourabaya and each of the Dominion capitals, in touch with affairs on the spot, and able to adapt and edit material and with sufficient experience of the situation on the spot to see that this material is properly used. It is not sufficient that press attaches at the Embassies should undertake this work. They are the preachers of diplomacy and illadapted to the dissemination of information. Their previous history has not been conspicuously successful. No, there must be complete units, each designed to present information about its country in films, periodicals and radio. But this again must not be a one way traffic. Our Allies must arrange that they themselves have similar organisations set up in each of their Allies' capitals. The result should be a complete net-work of informational services which work from one capital to another. The obvious co-ordinating committee in each country would consist of the chiefs of the United Nations information agencies under the chairmanship of the Information Minister in that particular country. This organisation will lake no time at all to set up. It means the appointment in each foreign capital of a representative to see that proper information is disseminated about his own country. If these information agencies were set up there would be a more harmonious working between the Allied countries. From this would come a common understanding between the peoples of a great part of the world and, in the end, not only a greater efficiency in concluding this war, but also a true basis for any international federation that may arise afterwards.