| How do populations react to fear? How is that fear manifested? These questions are relevant in the present world of terrorism and international strife. Governments today, and in the past, make decisions based upon how their respective populations react when under duress. This thesis presents a historical case study in order to analyze said reactions to traumatic events. From January 19, 1915 until May 19, 1918, Germany regularly sent airships and aeroplanes over England in the world's first strategic bombing campaign against civilians. Though minute when compared to the attrition on the Western Front, the 5,000 casualties and £3,000,000 fiscal damage was not a trivial matter to those actually threatened. In order to analyze the perceptions of fear in London during the Great War, eight publications from the print media are utilized. The 115 air raids are then reduced and split into thirteen evenly distributed one week time periods. When looking at the trends within the media during the war, two distinct narratives appear. The first narrative declares uniformly and perpetually throughout the war that there is no fear, no panic, that Londoners are cool and calm during the air raids. The second narrative slowly became apparent as the raids intensified. There were many people who were afraid, there were riots and there were panicked stampedes. The second narrative was never given credence in the press; it was hinted at and occasionally alluded to. When it did become unavoidable, the blame was xenophobically shifted away from the brave English men and women. The government publically espoused the first narrative while privately being concerned with the second, creating a paradox in their decision making processes. Though there certainly were many Londoners who were not afraid at all, how does one justify decisions based upon an actuality of fear when one publically decries there is none? In the same vein as London during the Great War, present day governments must address what narrative they are basing their polices upon: the constructed or the actuality?... |
