For two decades after the civil war the Franco regime applied systematic historical propaganda and imposed relentless repression of history professionals. In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the balance shifted from all-pervading propaganda to structural but flexible censorship. Gradually and reluctantly, the regime had to give back the initiative for explaining the recent past to where it belonged: to the professional historians, but not without oversee and livelihood threat. In its efforts to keep control, the regime could count on historians who were willing to censor their more adventurous colleagues. But the outcome of this process was biased and uncertain. The main issue was always whether an author could be considered a friend of the regime. Personal interventions by Franco himself regularly played a decisive role. Historians fully loyal to the regime and its aims were published without difficulty; others took a reformist path, albeit without endangering the dominant interpretation that favoured the tropes of inevitability and positive consequences of Francos rebellion. Reformist historians avoided criticism of the personal integrity of the dictator and the army, and did not address the issue of systematically planned terror in Francos National Zone during the Civil War. Historians who dared to embrace these topics were condemned to write from abroad. Historical works dealing with the Spanish Civil War (19361939) have been regularly studied in-depth. Dutch historian Jan van Muilekom provides a wider perspective by viewing the Franco historiography from the time of the preceding Second Republic (1931-1936). His analysis recognizes the crucial 1939-1952 period where Franco consolidated his seizure of power. The research is based on a wealth of published censored books, unpublished manuscripts, censorship archives and historical propaganda material. The book is an important complement to earlier studies that mainly dealt with the regimes dealing with the press, the film industry and literature. Over a span of four decades, Franco never lost his grip on how recent Spanish history should be read. Exploring the historiography of the regime provides multiple insights into the links between authoritarianism and censorship.

The British government has taken steps to halt the prosecution of soldiers responsible for the deaths of civilians in Northern Ireland, most of whom had no connection to paramilitary activities. These killings were part of a ruthless dirty war that commenced in 1970 when Brigadier Frank Kitson, a counter-insurgency specialist, was sent to Northern Ireland. Kitson had spent decades in Britain's colonies refining old, and developing new, techniques which he applied in Northern Ireland. He became the architect of a clandestine war, waged against Nationalists while ignoring Loyalist atrocities. Kitson and his colleagues were responsible for: * The establishment of the clandestine Military Reaction Force (MRF) which carried out assassinations on the streets of Belfast of suspected IRA members; * They unleashed the most violent elements of the Parachute Regiment [1 Para] to terrorise Nationalist communities which, they adjudged, were providing support for the Official and Provisional IRA; * Spreading black propaganda designed to undermine Republican but not Loyalist paramilitary groups; * Deployed psychological warfare techniques, involving the torture of internees; * Sent Kitson's 'Private Army' - Support Company of 1 Para - to Derry where they perpetrated the Bloody Sunday massacre. The British Widgery and Saville inquiries did not hold Kitson and his elite troops accountable for Bloody Sunday. Kitson's Irish War lays bare the evidence they discounted: Kitson's role in the events leading up to and surrounding that massacre; evidence from a deserter from 1 Para who joined the IRA; a deceitful MI5 agent; a courageous whistle blower whom the British state tried to discredit, and much more, all of which points to a motive for the attack on the Bogside. This book unlocks the some of the key secrets of the Dirty War that the British government is still determined to cover-up.

The complete guide to debunking right-wing misinterpretations of the Bible-from economics and immigration to gender and sexuality. Jesus loves borders, guns, unborn babies, and economic prosperity and hates homosexuality, taxes, welfare, and universal healthcare-or so say many Republican politicians, pundits, and preachers. Through outrageous misreadings of the New Testament gospels that started almost a century ago, conservative influencers have conjured a version of Jesus that speaks to their fears, desires, and resentments. In Republican Jesus, Tony Keddie explains not only where this right-wing Christ came from and what he stands for but also why this version of Jesus is a fraud. By restoring Republicans' cherry-picked gospel texts to their original literary and historical contexts, Keddie dismantles the biblical basis for Republican positions on hot-button issues like Big Government, taxation, abortion, immigration, and climate change. At the same time, he introduces readers to an ancient Jesus whose life experiences and ethics were totally unlike those of modern Americans, conservatives and liberals alike.

The German Corpse Factory is one of the most famous and scandalous propaganda stories of the First World War. It has been repeated many times down to the present day as the prime example of the falsehood of British wartime propaganda. But despite all the attention paid to it, the full story has never been properly told. In Spring 1917, parts of the British press claimed that Germany was so short of essential fats and glycerine that the German Army was being forced to boil down the bodies of its own dead soldiers, causing a brief scandal of accusation and counter-accusation, including the claim that the story was the invention of the British official propaganda organisations. Behind the scenes, British propaganda experts opposed exploiting the story as it was obviously false, and contrary to their basic principles of never telling an obvious lie in an official statement. But at the time, the British government refused to deny that the 'German Corpse Factory' might really exist. In 1925 the scandal re-erupted in New York, when the former head of British military intelligence on the Western Front, in the United States on a speaking tour, was quoted in newspapers as having confessed to making the whole German Corpse Factory story up, a claim that he immediately denied. As a gesture of friendship on the occasion of the Locarno treaties, the British government now accepted the German government position that the story was a lie, but in fact neither government knew what had really happened in 1917. This book provides the answers to these questions according to the best historical evidence available. It uses the scandal of the 'German Corpse Factory' as a case-study to explore the true nature of British official propaganda and its organisations in the First World War, including the events of 1917 and who might really have been responsible for the story. It also shows how this brief episode was taken up by the German government after 1918, and by interest groups in Britain and the United States after 1925, to paint a false picture of British propaganda, with far-reaching consequences for the peace of Europe, and for our subsequent understanding of the First World War.

This book demonstrates how people were kept ignorant by censorship and indoctrinated by propaganda. Censorship suppressed all information that criticized the army and government, that might trouble the population or weaken its morale. Propaganda at home emphasized the superiority of the fatherland, explained setbacks by blaming scapegoats, vilified and ridiculed the enemy, warned of the disastrous consequences of defeat and extolled duty and sacrifice. The propaganda message also infiltrated entertainment and the visual arts. Abroad it aimed to demoralize enemy troops and stir up unrest among national minorities and other marginalized groups. The many illustrations and organograms provide a clear visual demonstration of Demm's argument.