Atrocity propaganda
Atrocity propaganda consists of widely circulated reports of cruel or shocking acts attributed to an enemy, crafted to provoke an emotional response disproportionate to the evidence, often aiming to incite martial fervor or justify escalation.[1][2] This tactic relies on dehumanizing the adversary through vivid depictions of barbarity, prioritizing psychological impact over factual verification to consolidate public support for conflict.[3] Historically, atrocity propaganda has surfaced in numerous wars as a tool for governments to override rational deliberation with outrage, exemplified by Allied efforts in World War I to portray German forces as systematically raping civilians, mutilating children, and committing mass executions in Belgium.[4] The British Bryce Report of 1915 amplified refugee testimonies alleging such horrors, including bayoneting babies and crucifying villagers, to sway neutral opinion, particularly in the United States.[5] Postwar scrutiny, however, revealed many accounts as unreliable or invented, reliant on unverified depositions without cross-examination, undermining the report's credibility and highlighting propaganda's vulnerability to exposure. Similar patterns recurred in the Ottoman Empire's mobilization during the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), where state-orchestrated narratives of Christian atrocities against Muslims fueled nationalistic recruitment and ethnic animosities.[6] While occasionally amplifying genuine wartime excesses, atrocity propaganda's defining characteristic lies in its causal mechanism: fabricating moral panic to bypass evidentiary standards, thereby enabling policies that might otherwise face resistance.[7] Its controversies stem from recurrent debunkings, which erode trust in legitimate atrocity reports and illustrate how short-term mobilization gains yield long-term skepticism toward official narratives.[3] Empirical analyses underscore its persistence due to human cognitive biases favoring emotionally charged stories over dispassionate inquiry, rendering it a recurrent feature in conflicts where truth yields to expediency.[1]