This begs the question, how effective is atrocity propaganda?
Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia, about World War 1 propaganda…
“British propaganda is regarded as having made the most extensive use of fictitious atrocities to promote the war effort. One such story was that German soldiers were deliberately mutilating Belgian babies by cutting off their hands, (not tongues) in some versions even eating them. Another atrocity story involved a Canadian soldier, who had supposedly been CRUCIFIED with bayonets by the Germans.”
So how effective was this campaign of ridiculous crucifixion stories and absurd child mutilations? Hard to say. But when it came time to fight these baby-mutilating, soldier-crucifying Germans, Americans eagerly crossed an ocean with the enthusiastic approval of the public.
Of course, this was great news to Wall Street war financiers like JP Morgan & Co. who’d been loaning money to the allied war effort long before the US entered the war. The British owed more than $400 million to JP Morgan and Co. and if the allies lost the war--it was still very much in doubt--JPM might've lost all of that money. ($400 million in 1917 = $10 billion in 2019)
But inspired by stories of fictional atrocities, and the sinking of a British ship, Americans joined the war, the allies won, and JPM and the other war financiers collected all of the interest on their loans. In the US alone, more than 21,000 new ‘war millionaires’ were created after WW1, according to Smedley D. Butler, the most decorated marine in history at the time of his death, and author of ‘War is a Racket’.
History has proven that propaganda is effective and can be very, very profitable. Which I suppose, is why we still see it today, migrating from Life magazine cartoons to Netflix.