Britain had no propaganda machinery in place at the war's outbreak, resulting in what Sanders and Taylor have termed "an impressive exercise in improvisation".^[1]

The initial establishment of a propaganda agency was a response to the extensive propaganda activities of Germany.Charles Masterman was chosen to head the new organisation, which was to be based at Wellington House, the London headquarters of the National Insurance Commission. After two conferences in September, the war propaganda agency began its work, which was largely conducted in secret, unknown by parliament.^[2]

Until 1916, Wellington House was the main British propaganda organisation, with work focused on propaganda to the United States, although divisions also existed for other countries. Wellington House had expanded significantly by the time of its second report in February 1916, with new departments and an increase in staff.^[3]

Alongside Wellington House, two other organisations were established by the government to deal with propaganda. The first was theNeutral Press Committee, which was given the task of supplying the press of neutral countries with information relating to the war and was headed byG. H. Mair, former assistant editor of theDaily Chronicle. The second was the Foreign Office New Department, which served as the source for the foreign press of all official statements concerning British foreign policy. During the early phase of the war, many voluntary amateur organisations and individuals also engaged in their own propaganda efforts, which occasionally resulted in tensions with Wellington House.^[4]

A lack of coordination between these various organisations led to propaganda activities being centralised under the Foreign Office following a conference in 1916. The Neutral Press Committee was absorbed into the News Department, and Wellington House was placed under the control of the Foreign Office.

Only Masterman was resistant to this reorganisation, fearing the loss of independence that it implied.^[5] However, later criticism of the Foreign Office's control of propaganda emerged during the year, particularly from the War Office. AfterDavid Lloyd George, who had been instrumental in the establishment of Wellington House, became prime minister, the propaganda machinery was once more reorganised.

In January 1917, Lloyd George askedRobert Donald, editor of theDaily Chronicle, to produce a report on current propaganda arrangements. Donald's report was critical regarding the continued lack of coordination, asserting that "the condition into which publicity and propaganda work has drifted at the present time is due to the casual way in which it originated and to the promiscuous way it has expanded."^[6] Nevertheless, Wellington House's activities in America were praised.^[7]

Immediately after the production of this report, the cabinet immediately decided to implement its plan to establish a separate Department of State to be responsible for propaganda. Although not Donald's first choice,John Buchan was appointed head of this new organisation in February 1917.^[8] The department was housed at the Foreign Office, with the title of the Department of Information. However, this organisation was also criticised, and Robert Donald argued for further reorganisation, an idea supported by other members of the advisory committee, such as LordsNorthcliffe andBurnham. Buchan was temporarily placed under the command ofSir Edward Carson, until another report was produced by Robert Donald later that year.

This second report again highlighted a persistent lack of unity and coordination, although this time even Wellington House was rebuked for its inefficiency and haphazard nature of distribution.^[9] Both Masterman and Buchan answered the criticisms in this report by suggesting the investigation behind it was limited in scope.^[10] Nevertheless, criticisms against the current propaganda system increased and, following the resignation of Carson from the War Cabinet in 1918, it was decided that a new ministry should be created.

In February 1918, Lloyd George entrustedLord Beaverbrook with the responsibility of establishing the new Ministry of Information. FromMarch 41918, this ministry took over control of all propaganda activities, being split into three departments to oversee domestic, foreign and military propaganda. The foreign propaganda division was under the headship of John Buchan and consisted of four branches; propaganda in military zones was the responsibility of the Foreign Office departmentMI7; domestic propaganda was controlled by the National War Aims Committee. A further organisation was set up under Lord Northcliffe to deal with propaganda to enemy countries, and was responsible to the War Cabinet rather than the Minister of Information.^[11]

This ministry was a fulfilment of the recommendations regarding centralisation laid out in the second report of Donald, acting as an independent body outside of the remit of the Foreign Office.

Nevertheless, there were still problems and criticisms related to the new ministry. Tensions existed between the new Ministry of Information and older ministries such as the Foreign Office and the War Office, and many in government were concerned about the growing power of the press as symbolised by the journalistic control of the new propaganda ministry.^[12]

In October, Lord Beaverbrook became seriously ill and his deputy, Arnold Bennett, assumed his position for the final weeks of the war. After peace was declared, the propaganda machinery was essentially dissolved and control of propaganda returned to the Foreign Office.

British propaganda to foreign countries was targeted at influential individuals, such as journalists and politicians, rather than a mass audience. Campaigns were also subtle, with material distributed through unofficial channels and presented as though written by private individuals. The style of this output was mostly of facts, written in an academic tone, with a subtle argument.^[13] Masterman always placed emphasis on the need for credibility.^[14]

Various written forms of propaganda were distributed by British agencies during the war. These could be books, pamphlets, official publications, ministerial speeches or royal messages.

Pamphlets were the main form of propaganda in the first years of the war, and were distributed to various foreign countries. These pamphlets were academic in tone and factual in nature. By June 1915, 2.5 million copies of propagandistic documents had been circulated by Wellington House in various languages; eight months later, the figure was 7 million.^[15]

Pamphlet production was greatly reduced under theMinistry of Information, to approximately a tenth of previous production.Sanders 1975, p. 142 This was both a result in changing ideas of the most efficient methods of propaganda and a response to paper shortage.

British propagandists also sought to influence the foreign press, by providing them with information through the Neutral Press Committee and the Foreign Office. Special telegraph agencies were established in various European cities, includingBucharest,Bilbao andAmsterdam, in order to receive this information easily.

To supplement this activity, Wellington House produced illustrated newspapers, similar to theIllustrated London News, and influenced by the German use of pictorial propaganda. Various language editions were distributed, includingAmerica Latina in Spanish,O Espelho in Portuguese,Hesperia in Greek andCheng Pao in Chinese.^[16]

British propagandists were slow in exploiting cinema as a form of propaganda. Wellington House had suggested its use soon after the war's outbreak, but their suggestion was overruled by the War Office.^[17] It was only in 1915 that they were permitted to implement their plans for film propaganda. A Cinema Committee was formed, producing and distributing films to allied and neutral countries.

The first notable film wasBritain Prepared (December 1915), which was distributed worldwide. The film used military footage to promote ideas of British strength and determination in the war effort.

• Sinking of the Lusitania:RMS Lusitania#British propaganda

Recruitment was a central theme of propaganda until the introduction of conscription in January 1916. The most common theme for recruitment posters was patriotism, which evolved into appeals for people to do their 'fair share'.

The fear of invasion was also used.

Occasionally, recruitment posters referred toatrocity stories.

Propaganda to America was the responsibility of Wellington House.

Much propaganda in neutral countries also made repeated use of the German violation of Belgian neutrality, through the use of various forms ofatrocity propaganda.

Atrocity propaganda was first used on a significant scale in World War I, as it was the first 'total war' in which civilians needed to be mobilised alongside the military in hatred of the enemy and conviction that the war was a just cause. All the belligerents employed atrocity propaganda in some form, with various stereotypes being developed.

Britain was the country which produced the largest quantity of atrocity propaganda. The Kaiser was the focus of many propaganda attacks. OneDaily Mail article, for example, descibed him successively as a 'lunatic', a 'madman', a 'monster', a 'modern Judas' and a 'criminal monarch'.^[18] The German people were presented as sharing traits with their leader.

Atrocity propaganda in Britain was at its peak in 1915, due to the wartime context.^[19] Most of Britain's atrocity propaganda was related to Germany's invasion of Belgium. TheParliamentary Recruiting Committee also occasionally used atrocity stories on recruiting posters, using slogans such as "You have read what the Germans have done in Belgium. Have you thought what they would do if they invaded this Country?".^[20]

Bryce Report

Two of the most effective uses of atrocity propaganda were the publication of the

Edith Cavell was a nurse in Brussels who was involved in a network helping allied prisoners to escape. This was in violation of war conventions, and as a result she was executed. The story was reported, however, in a way that presented the event as the execution of an innocent houser of refugees.^[21]

Corpse-Conversion factory story, which was essentially a confusion over the meaning of the word 'Kadaver'. The story appeared inThe Times, despite a lack of evidence, and Masterman published a four-page pamphlet about the incident.^[22]

Other events that made Germany seem barbaric were their use ofpoison gas,Zeppelin raids and thesinking of the Lusitania.

Themes of sexual violation were also strongly represented in British atrocity propaganda.

Atrocity stories were frequently cited in the press in Britain, even in local papers. TheBirmingham Daily Mail, for example, had a regular feature in which it printed atrocity stories.^[23]