Chapter 19 Exercises: World War I and the Birth of Modern Propaganda

Part 4: Historical Cases | Chapter 19 of 40

These exercises are designed to be completed individually or in seminar groups after reading the chapter. They build on the analytical frameworks developed in Parts 2 and 3 and apply them to WWI primary sources and historical comparisons. Exercises 1–5 range from close textual analysis to structured debate; all are suitable for written responses or discussion formats.

Exercise 1: Three Posters, Full Taxonomy

Estimated time: 45–60 minutes Format: Individual written analysis (800–1,000 words total)

Apply the complete Part 2 propaganda technique taxonomy to three WWI-era posters. For each poster, identify every technique present and explain how it operates in the specific visual context.

The Three Posters

Poster A: "Destroy This Mad Brute" (Harry Hopps, 1917) A giant gorilla in a German military spiked helmet wades ashore to the U.S. coastline, carrying a club labeled "KULTUR" and a limp woman. Text: DESTROY THIS MAD BRUTE. ENLIST. U.S. ARMY.

Poster B: "I Want YOU for U.S. Army" (James Montgomery Flagg, 1917) The Uncle Sam figure, in red, white, and blue formal attire with a tall hat, points directly at the viewer, eyes making direct contact. Text: I WANT YOU FOR U.S. ARMY. NEAREST RECRUITING STATION.

Poster C: "Women of Britain Say — 'GO!'" (E.J. Kealey, 1915) A British woman stands at a window with two children, watching men march by in the street below. Her expression is composed, determined. No text beyond the title.

Analysis Requirements for Each Poster

For each of the three posters, address all of the following:

1. Fear appeal: Is a fear present? What fear? How is it constructed visually and/or textually?
2. Emotional appeal: What emotion beyond fear is being triggered? How is the visual composition designed to produce that emotion?
3. Authority appeal: Is an authority figure present or implied? Who is the authority and how is their status signaled?
4. Bandwagon: Is social conformity being invoked? Is the viewer being positioned as potentially deviant if they don't act?
5. Enemy image: Is an enemy constructed? How is the enemy characterized? Is dehumanization present?
6. Identity targeting: Who is the implicit audience? What identity is being addressed (gender, nationality, class, role)?
7. Strategic omission: What information would change the viewer's assessment if they had access to it?
8. Symbolic content: Identify every symbol used. What associations does each symbol invoke?

Comparative Question

After analyzing all three posters individually, write a 200-word comparison: Which poster uses the most sophisticated combination of techniques? Which is most likely to be effective with the least critical resistance, and why?

Exercise 2: Wellington House and the Internet Research Agency — A Structural Comparison

Estimated time: 50–70 minutes Format: Comparative analysis (1,000–1,200 words) or structured seminar discussion

Wellington House (1914–1918) and the Internet Research Agency (IRA, operating 2014–2018 and beyond) are separated by a century of technological change. The central claim of this exercise is that they are structurally more similar than dissimilar. Your task is to test this claim rigorously — not to assume it, but to examine the evidence for and against it.

Background on the IRA

The Internet Research Agency was a Russian government-linked organization operating from St. Petersburg that conducted influence operations targeting American social media users during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign and afterward. It created thousands of fake social media accounts posing as American citizens, produced content targeting politically polarizing issues (racial justice, immigration, gun rights, evangelical Christianity), purchased advertising on Facebook and Twitter, and organized real-world events that American users attended without knowing they had been organized by a foreign government operation. The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2019 report documented its operations in detail.

Comparison Framework

Address each of the following five dimensions with specific evidence from both operations:

1. Concealment of origin: How did each operation hide its government affiliation? What techniques did it use to appear as independent, organic communication?

2. Use of unwitting assets: Did each operation recruit or cultivate people who amplified its messages without knowing they were doing so? How did this work in each case?

3. Target audience segmentation: Did each operation target specific demographic or community groups with tailored messages? What communities were targeted, and why?

4. Content strategy — exploiting existing divisions vs. manufacturing new ones: Did each operation primarily exploit existing social and political divisions, or did it attempt to create new ones? What does your answer reveal about the operation's theory of change?

5. Measurable effect: What evidence exists about the effectiveness of each operation? What were the limitations of each?

Critical Question

After completing the comparison, address: What does the structural similarity between these two operations, separated by a century, tell us about the nature of covert influence operations? Is this similarity evidence that effective influence operations have stable structural requirements, or is it coincidental?

Exercise 3: The German-American Community, 1917–1919 — A Research Exercise

Estimated time: Variable (research component); 45 minutes for written response Format: Research-informed essay (600–800 words)

This exercise asks you to move beyond the chapter's account to research the specific experience of German-Americans during the WWI period and write an analysis that applies Chapter 8's enemy image framework and Chapter 19's account of domestic propaganda.

Research Questions to Investigate

Using library databases, historical archives, and academic sources (suggestions in the Further Reading file), research and document:

1. Population and integration (pre-war): How large was the German-American community in 1917? In what sectors of American civic life were German-Americans most prominent? What institutions (newspapers, churches, social organizations, schools) constituted the German-American cultural infrastructure?

2. The propaganda campaign against the community: What specific actions did the CPI, the American Protective League, state governments, and local civic organizations take that targeted German-Americans? What was the rhetoric used, and what techniques (from the Chapter 19 taxonomy) were deployed?

3. Documented consequences: What happened to German-language newspapers, schools, and churches? What legal prosecutions targeted German-Americans? What documented violence or intimidation occurred? Use specific cases and statistics where available.

4. Community response: How did German-American organizations and leaders respond? Did they attempt to demonstrate loyalty? Did any mount resistance? What strategies did they adopt, and how effective were they?

Written Analysis

In your essay, apply the following frameworks from the course:

• Chapter 8 (Enemy Image Construction): Analyze the German-American experience as a case of the enemy image applied to a domestic minority community. What specific elements of enemy image construction are present?
• Chapter 19 (The CPI's domestic operation): Evaluate the claim that the CPI's treatment of German-Americans represents one of the most significant civil liberties violations in American history. What is the strongest case for this claim? What complications does it face?
• Contemporary parallel: Identify one contemporary community that has experienced analogous treatment (being associated with a foreign enemy state and subjected to cultural pressure and surveillance). Analyze the structural similarity in 100 words.

Exercise 4: Debate — The Espionage Act Prosecutions: Justified or Democratic Harm?

Estimated time: 50–60 minutes (preparation + debate) Format: Structured seminar debate

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were used to prosecute hundreds of Americans for political speech opposing the war, including Eugene Debs (sentenced to ten years), Kate O'Hare (five years), and numerous labor organizers, journalists, and activists. The prosecutions were upheld by the Supreme Court in cases including Schenck v. United States (1919), in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes introduced the "clear and present danger" test.

Preparation (individual)

Read Justice Holmes's majority opinion in Schenck v. United States (the full text is approximately 1,200 words and is publicly available). Note: - Holmes's "crowded theater" analogy and its logic - The criteria the Court established for limiting protected speech - Holmes's subsequent partial dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919), in which he moved toward a "marketplace of ideas" position

Debate Structure

Divide the seminar into three groups:

Group A — The Prosecutions Were Justified: Argue that in wartime, with genuine national security stakes, the state has legitimate authority to limit speech that materially interferes with military recruitment and operations. Debs's speeches actively discouraged enlistment at a moment when the military was seeking to build a fighting force. Holmes's "clear and present danger" standard was a reasonable limit. The prosecutions were proportionate to the threat.

Group B — The Prosecutions Were Democratic Harm: Argue that the prosecutions criminalized political dissent, not operational interference with military activity. Debs's speech expressed political opposition to the war — a position protected under any robust understanding of the First Amendment. The prosecutions' primary effect was to silence a left-wing political movement (the Socialist Party). A democracy that prosecutes its political opposition for speaking has violated something fundamental about itself.

Group C — The Contextual Limits Position: Argue that the debate between Groups A and B sets up a false binary. The real question is not whether speech can ever be limited in wartime but whether these specific prosecutions were within any reasonable limit. Develop criteria for what that limit should be, and evaluate the Espionage Act prosecutions against your criteria.

Reflection Question (individual, post-debate)

After the debate, write a 200-word individual reflection: Did the debate change your position? If so, what argument moved you? If not, what argument did you find most challenging to answer?

Exercise 5: Four Minute Men and Contemporary Influencer Marketing — A Historical Comparison

Estimated time: 45–55 minutes Format: Comparative analysis (600–800 words) or discussion

The Four Minute Men program — 75,000 volunteer speakers delivering centrally scripted, locally delivered pro-war messages — has structural similarities to contemporary influencer marketing. This exercise asks you to analyze that structural similarity rigorously and then evaluate its normative implications.

Description of Contemporary Influencer Marketing

Influencer marketing involves brands partnering with individuals who have established social media audiences (influencers) to deliver brand-aligned messages to those audiences. Influencers receive payment (monetary or product-based) in exchange for content that presents the brand favorably. Under current Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines, influencers are required to disclose paid partnerships. In practice, disclosure compliance is inconsistent. At its most sophisticated, influencer marketing uses micro-influencers (10,000–100,000 followers) in specific communities whose audiences are highly targeted by demographic and interest profile — analogous to the CPI's deployment of Four Minute Men to specific communities (labor halls, churches, ethnic organizations).

Comparison Framework

Address the following for both programs:

1. Organizational structure: Who controls the message? Who delivers it? What is the relationship between the message-controlling organization and the message deliverer?

2. Audience relationship: What is the deliverer's relationship to their audience? Why does the audience trust them? What would the audience's response be if they knew the full organizational context?

3. Disclosure: Is the organizational relationship disclosed to the audience? What are the norms and rules around disclosure in each case?

4. Sincerity: Are the message deliverers sincere believers in the message, paid promoters, or some combination? Does sincerity affect the analysis?

5. Scale and targeting: How is each program scaled? How is targeting accomplished?

Normative Question

After completing the structural comparison, address the following normative question directly: Is there a morally relevant difference between the Four Minute Men program and contemporary influencer marketing? The following considerations are relevant: - Context (wartime vs. commercial) - Disclosure (the CPI did not claim the Four Minute Men were independent; they were openly government-organized — but this was not always clear to audiences) - Stakes (Liberty Bonds vs. consumer products) - Democratic harm (the Four Minute Men operated alongside the APL and Espionage Act; influencer marketing operates in a marketplace context)

Write a clear position and defend it with reference to the analytical frameworks developed in Parts 2 and 3.

Chapter 19 of 40 | Part 4: Historical Cases