This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 19 October 2014, At: 04:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Media HistoryPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmeh20

HAROLD D. LASSWELL'S ANALYSIS OFHITLER'S SPEECHESYaniv LevyatanPublished online: 19 Feb 2009.

To cite this article: Yaniv Levyatan (2009) HAROLD D. LASSWELL'S ANALYSIS OF HITLER'S SPEECHES,Media History, 15:1, 55-69, DOI: 10.1080/13688800802583299

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13688800802583299

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF

HITLER’S SPEECHES

Yaniv Levyatan

The War-Time Communications Project (WTCP), conducted during the Second World War, was a

major event in the evolution of communication science. A prominent place in it was occupied by

Professor Harold D. Lasswell’s study on Hitler’s speeches, in which the ‘speech model’ was

examined in reference to its vocal components and non-verbal communication elements � in

terms of ‘how spoken’, rather than of ‘what said’, with an emphasis on audience feedback. This

approach formed part of Lasswell’s innovative idea: quantification of the word domain. The study

was of one of a series of content analysis research works undertaken at the Library of Congress at

that time, part of an attempt at ‘keeping an eye’ on world peace. The present article, the first

exposition of Lasswell’s opus, highlights one of his central concepts � linguistic transformation.

KEYWORDS Harold D. Lasswell; Hitler speeches; non-verbal communication;

propaganda

During the Second World War, Professor Harold D. Lasswell (1902�78) initiated an

innovative study in which Hitler’s speeches were the object of specialized scrutiny. Latent

ingredients were examined through painstaking tracking of the speaker’s vocal

characteristics and his non-verbal performance as a major source of information on the

speaker’s personality, the content of his words and his interaction with the audience (see

Aronson, Wilson and Akert 102; Archer and Akert). The study formed part of the large-scale

‘War-Time Communications Project’ (WTCP) at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC,

between 1940 and 1945, financed mainly by the Rockefeller Foundation (Rogers 224). This

major propaganda analysis programme was a cornerstone in the establishment of

American psychological warfare capability.

The WTCP team was headed by Professor Harold D. Lasswell, a pioneer researcher,

one of the founders of communication science and a leading figure in twentieth-century

Social Sciences.1 His colleagues at WTCP were also leading academics: Morris Janowitz,

Nathan Leites, Edward Shils, Ithiel de Sola Pool and others. Lasswell was no ordinary

researcher, ensconced in an ivory tower and grinding out theories. In the years before the

Second World War, he managed to rock the academic establishment time after time.

Specializing in propaganda and the human mind, he sought to link the world of diseases

of the mind with political science and studies of leaders. His 1930 opus, Psychopathology

and Politics, was a landmark by virtue of its interdisciplinary approach and of the

fearlessness it exhibited. He was both a man of ideas and of action: the desire to verify

theories in the field was one of his outstanding traits. Thus, he relinquished the security of

the conventional academic routine in favour of pioneering adventure. This ‘brinkmanship’

cost him heavily in the form of denial of tenure again and again, and repeated criticism; he

ended his career as a professor in the Law School of Yale University (Robin 65). Due

recognition came late in life: presidency of the American Political Science Association in

1956, honorary presidency of the International Society of Political Psychology in 1978.

Media History, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2009ISSN 1368-8804 print/1469-9729 online/09/010055�15

# 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13688800802583299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

One of the WTCP studies, the ‘World Attention Survey’ (WAS) processed media

outlets throughout the world with a view to bringing out significant references to world

peace. The tool used for this purpose was content analysis � a technique that classifies the

ingredients of printed, recorded and photographic material and identifies the intended

targets, to ensure proper interpretation.2 Its advantage is superior sensitivity in compiling

the data, hence a higher power of resolution than that achieved with routine perusal.

Lasswell is known among communication scholars as the founder of content analysis

and as the scholar responsible for its assimilation within the field of communication.3

During the WTCP, Lasswell and his colleagues tried to perfect content analysis as a

scientific tool (Janis, Fadner and Janowitz 293�96). Their primary aim was to convince the

evolving intelligence community of the tool’s capabilities (Pool ‘Content Analysis’, in

Rogow 200�207). In the process of studying the tool, major insights were developed.4

WTCP content analysis coders were given strict orders on how to analyse written content.

During the analysis process, words changed in substance from quality to quantity.

Lasswell’s researchers transformed words into numbers and graphs.

A major characteristic in the WTCP studies was Lasswell’s concept of ‘linguistic

transformation’: the quantification of the qualitative content of words in the form of

numbers and symbols (Levyatan 4). This ‘linguistic transformation’ was one of Lasswell’s

novel ideas, based on the multidisciplinary approach practiced in the WTCP. Lasswell tried

to deconstruct the communication process into its quantitative components. The removal

of the qualitative component revealed serious conclusions about the sender and the way

he tried to influence the recipient.

Lasswell’s quantitative approach, the aspiration to count and measure everything,

was a part of the Zeitgeist of the early twentieth century. The quantitative perception owes

its success to the major progress in the exact sciences at that time. The exact sciences

elevated the value of the mathematical language, the language of the cosmos. Using

quantitative tools, research produced accurate, empirical, universal data. The power and

magic of mathematics lies in its meaning; which is always identical, in contrast to words.5

Reliance on numbers reduces the need for human interference. Quantitative knowledge

dismisses the borders and locality of its creator. However, while the quantitative approach

was suitable for research in the sciences � measuring the speed of falling objects,

calculating exact times and distances in physics, etc., this may not be the case when

dealing with the human psyche. Human behaviour is much more complicated than forces

pulling at one another or a body flying in a fixed orbit around the sun. Thus, Lasswell’s

endeavour was bound to face severe difficulties.

From the beginning, there were problems regarding the reliability of content

analysis research.6 WTCP researchers were occupied with questions such as: can the same

coder get the same results from the same text, try after try? Will two different coders arrive

at exactly the same conclusion from the same text? Each coder had a subjective point of

view which affected analysis of the contents. One of the grave problems of content

analysis is ‘weak’ categories. Content analysis research demands deep acquaintance with

the subject. Lack of acquaintance leads to poor categories which will result in a weak

outcome. Another problem is the abundance of coding categories, which makes coding a

complicated task. WTCP researchers also tried to find a tool that would provide ‘checks

56 YANIV LEVYATAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and balances’, a management procedure that would ensure accurate coding by providing

for inspection: text shifting between coding teams and double examinations.7

In his book, Trust in Numbers, Theodore Porter holds that quantitative data is

independent of the man creating it. The aspiration for a transformation to a quantitative

world comes from factors like objectivity, the universality of mathematics, abolishing the

‘human touch’, and the abolition of localism and borders (Porter 3�9). Porter’s book raises

some of the problems regarding the transformation to quantitative approach. He argues

that relying on numbers leads to constant doubts and fear of inaccuracy and is not actually

reinforcement for scholars. Furthermore, it seems that the linkage between quantitative

approach and objectivity is not derived from a pure scientific ideal, but from the insecurity

of bureaucrats (Weintraub 391). Indeed, because quantitative analysis was the trademark of

the exact sciences, it became a model for social sciences such as psychology, sociology and

political science. The quantitative approach made it easier for decision-makers to reach

hard decisions (which may explain why game theory flourished during the Cold War).

WTCP was a field test for the content analysis technique, in which researchers were

trained to think like machines, and present their outputs in machine language. Lasswell’s

‘thinking protocol’ was a reflection of his ‘man�machine symbiosis’ vision (Lasswell World

Politics 193). His ambition to develop quantitative thinking was due to his desire to create

a new approach to estimating human behaviour. The speech analysis research showed

Lasswell’s ability to perform progressive studies in the 1940s. This research is still

impressive even today, when computers and voice recognition software are available.

Among other studies conducted by the WTCP, Lasswell turned his attention to

speeches by leaders, speeches that are a central element in the structure of political

contact between rulers and the ruled. This was especially true of Hitler’s Germany, where

they were the principal tool in the Fuhrer’s ‘personality cult’ strategy; his status as a

‘demigod’ vis-a-vis the masses derived from the charismatic character of his appearances.

Thus, content analysis was recruited in the analysis of Hitler’s speeches. The Hitler speech

analysis study is an early example of assessing psychological characteristics ‘at a distance’

(Walker; Winter et al.). These studies are based on qualitative or quantitative approaches,

each with its advantages and disadvantages. When using the quantitative approach, basic

elements such as family life, emotions, inter-personal relations, etc. may be neglected. On

the other hand, qualitative studies are prone to be problematic as a result of the subjective

point of view of the researcher.

The evolution of Hitler’s public image is fascinating.8 His physical personality was far

from perfect by Aryan standards, yet he succeeded in captivating and influencing his

audiences by the sheer force of his speeches. It is common knowledge that he used to

rehearse his major addresses; his posturing was in no way spontaneous, but meticulously

planned (Domarus vol. 1, 64).

A votary of the tenet that numbers � the language of science � are more objective

than words, Lasswell sought to devise a precise and reliable tool for the prediction of

political dilemmas (‘prevention politics’).9 Through this, he expected to remedy the current

world situation, in which crises could be managed only after their eruption, using the

combined resources of psychology, psychiatry and other social sciences.

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF HITLER’S SPEECHES 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preparatory Stage

Within the framework of the WTCP, speeches by the leaders of all belligerent

countries were collected.10 Eventually, attention was concentrated on those of Hitler, due

to their unique character. Through them, Lasswell and his collaborators strove to gain

insight into the Fuhrer’s way of ‘programming’ the German masses to his ends. Other

aspects examined were his manipulation of propaganda without arousing suspicion in his

audiences, signs of depression in his voice following a setback at the front, etc.11

The first hint of Lasswell’s activity along these lines can be found in a letter to his

parents from Europe, dated 9 August 1923. In it, he describes his impressions at a League

of Nations committee:

I am experimenting with certain modes of measuring behavior and so I can give you

some exceedingly precise facts about this session in its bare externals. It lasted 72

minutes (11:10�12:22) and there were 42 breaks in the one who had the floor, that is, the

chairman spoke 18 times, another man spoke 6 times, another man 4, another 3, another

2, and 5 spoke one. The longest interval was 11 minutes, and there was one nine-minute

speech, one eight-minute, three four-minute, five three-minute and seven two-minute

speeches. The other 24 intervals were less than two minutes. The average interval was

1.7, and we won’t bother about the median and the mode for the present.12

The salient features of this report included a novel approach to behaviour

measurement and quantitative, rather than qualitative, information. The parameters he

observed were (1) total duration of session; (2) the number of ‘breaks’; (3) the number of

appearances of speakers; (4) the duration of the speeches; and (5) the average speech

interval.

This letter gives us a glimpse into Lasswell’s early concept of ‘linguistic transforma-

tion’. Instead of sharing with his parents the ideas and themes of the committee, he gave

them numerical data. This letter is the starting point of his new methodical, quantitative

approach. Lasswell began to analyse and investigate human behaviour through the use of

statistical tools. His approach combined tools from the exact sciences and human culture.

One of Lasswell’s main contributions to the social sciences and to communication in

particular is the application of statistical analysis, which is directly linked to his training at

the University of Chicago in the 1920s, and to his mentor, Charles E. Merriam.13 This

procedure, which epitomizes Lasswell’s ‘mechanistic conception’ of man as a ‘thinking

machine’, eventually became the cornerstone of his ‘Hitler speech analysis’ study. In the

study, the outer shell of the speech was stripped away, leaving the technical elements.

Words and sentences were classified by their acoustic features: dialect, speed, tone, lapses.

Each sentence was numbered and the speech in its entirety was broken down into 10

segments, assumed to have specific functions: for example, segments 1�3, to anaesthetize

the audience; 7�9, for swamping it with propaganda. The opening segments were

delivered slowly in northern dialects; the concluding ones, more rapidly, in southern

dialects.

The structure of the speech as treated here can be compared to the structure of the

first movement of the classical sonata. It is based on two themes; the composer first

introduces theme 1 in the definitive key of the movement, followed by theme 2 in a

different key. Next comes a ‘development’ of increasing intensity with variations on both

58 YANIV LEVYATAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

themes in alternating keys. This is followed by a ‘recapitulation’ in which the score reverts

to theme 1 in its original key and theme 2 also in that key, with the tension gradually

relieved. The movement concludes with a ‘coda’. Similarly, Hitler’s speeches were in two

central ‘keys’ � German dialects � opening in the northern, proceeding with variations of

tempo and intensity, and concluding in the southern.

The underlying ideas of the ‘linguistic transformation’ were examined in two

directions:

(1) The process of transition from the written or printed word to the spoken word, in which the

latter acquired a character; sometimes its mode of delivery was more significant than its

content.

(2) The quantification of the content of the word as a sound unit.

The basic premises were:

(1) A political speech must be evaluated in terms of how it was delivered, not (as was the case

hitherto) in terms of how it can be read.

(2) Given the active participation of the audience, the speech should be considered as a

dramatic speaker�audience event, not as a monologue.

(3) Vocal characteristics (style, technique) can reveal information on the speaker’s personality

not discernible in a printed text.14 Moreover, a public speaker, however professional, does

not have total control of his voice, and the patterns and nuances can provide indications on

concealed motives, etc.

(4) Speech, like facial expressions, is a kind of motor action realized in individual patterns.

(5) Writing and speech as means of communication are basically dissimilar. The former is

mostly unilateral. The latter is bi- or multilateral and is a major factor in social interaction,

supplemented by visual media.

(6) A public speech is a special form of communication with, at best, partial reciprocity: the

audience is restricted in its responses, except for laughter, applause, stomping, etc.15

Hitler was chosen as a subject of the study over the allied leaders for several reasons:

(1) Examination of his vocal personality could prove useful in the conduct of the war. Cracked,

his ‘speech code’ would yield information on attempts at diversion, lies, etc.

(2) The make-up and content of his speeches bore a unique individual stamp, and his voice

carried a stronger challenge than those of the Western leaders. These facts are important in

the context of the ‘Fuhrer’ cult in modern dictatorships, a topic that Lasswell dealt with

intensively.

(3) Hitler’s appearances almost always involved vast audiences, whose behaviour had to be

monitored closely for responses as well as for lack of them, in an environment which

obviated opposition.

(4) Frequent digression from the prepared text and extemporizations were a common feature.

While the texts were written in the literary northern language, the extemporizations were in

the southern dialect and contained lapses.

(5) His ‘vocal signature’ could be used in the future to verify whether he had survived the war

or if an impersonator was at large (cf. present-day DNA evidence).

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF HITLER’S SPEECHES 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

To sum up, the objectives of the study were (1) evolution of the characteristics of

Hitler’s public appearances; (2) identification of their major variables; (3) identification of

changes in vocal characteristics, through long-term tracking; (4) identification of particular

characteristics in speech coinciding in time with outstanding events.

In order to perform this research, and because of the absence of recording

equipment in the Library of Congress, Lasswell needed the assistance of an expert in

acoustics. Thus, Lasswell recruited Professor George Herzog, an acoustics expert from

Colombia University, in the beginning of 1942.

The Role of the Audience

In the period following the Weimar Republic, German society went through major

changes, including democratization and the addition of 21 million women voters. The

German public was driven by mass rallies.16 Propaganda was integrated into Germany’s

modern society through the proliferation of mass communication, especially radio, which

removed the limit between public and private sphere.17

Nazi propaganda was created by the sheer magnitude of the audiences and by the

leader. The power of National Socialism derived mostly from its appearance (Kershaw 155�97). Thus, propaganda, and not necessarily its content, was the dominant component for

leading the masses.18 From the start, Nazi propaganda was directed at the uneducated

masses rather than at sceptical intellectuals.

Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda in the Nazi regime, argued in 1932 that

the twentieth century was the ‘century of the masses’. He believed that politics should

drive the masses and shape its form and substance. For Goebbels, the politician was an

artist shaping the masses from raw material into a nation (Goebbels).

Hitler’s speeches served as a major part of Nazi propaganda, a weapon in the ‘total

war’. Speeches were one of the most successful tools for mobilizing German society.

Between 1928 and 1933, the Nazi party trained a special group of around 6,000

propaganda speakers. These speakers were trained by Fritz Reinhardt, a local Bavarian

Nazi leader. In the course of their training, the speakers were taught to dissect their speech

into segments (Neumann 151).

In earlier times, leaders’ pronouncements were intended for the combatant body;

now they were aimed at the entire nation. The citizens in the Nazi regime, deprived of the

right of free political activity (Kris and Speier 6�7), were assigned a new role. The speeches

were delivered in impressive settings; in a word, they were ‘multimedia’ events. All this

formed part of a process of ‘reprogramming’, to which the German masses were subjected

with a view to their robotization. In it, the role of the word was transformed: instead of

representing some qualitative value, it became a means of spell-casting and hypnotization

(Klemperer 19).

Radio was one of the best propaganda-distributing vehicles in the Nazi regime.

Radio was the domain of the spoken word, where its vitality sometimes lay on sound more

than on content. Hitler’s voice cast a spell on German listeners. His speeches, which were

broadcast live, strengthened German community.

From the outset, Lasswell emphasized the function of the audience in providing

feedback for the speaker on the one hand, and being imparted a sense of common fate

60 YANIV LEVYATAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and solidarity on the other. He had learned to know the German citizens during his sojourn

there before the war, and in an article published in 1933, described it as a ‘body suffering

from a mental disease’ (Lasswell ‘Psychology’ 380). It was an ideal ‘subject’ for the Nazi

brainwashing treatment.19

At this junction, mention should be made of the metamorphosis that the German

language was undergoing at that time. As is known, it is spoken in regions outside of

Germany proper: Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Alsace-Lorraine, and there were a

variety of dialects within Germany itself. Born in Austria, Hitler’s native dialect was the

south-eastern, ‘Bavarian’ dialect. After the First World War, in the course of his wanderings

around the country, he acquired the northern dialect, the Hochdeutsch (High German),

used in the schools, in speeches and on the stage. German, once the language of the

Romantic poets, became impoverished under the Nazi regime. The regime hitched the

language to its own goals. In Hitler’s ideology, cerebral activity took second place to

physical fitness.

The Pied Piper of Nuremberg

In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that a speaker addressing an audience has a vast

advantage over a writer (inter alia, because of the ‘target’s’ natural laziness!) and that

major historical events became possible thanks to gifted orators, such as those of the

French Revolution (Hitler vol. 1, xxvii). A speaker can deduce from the facial expressions of

his audiences whether his words have achieved the sought-after effect. For the message to

come through, it should be clear, repetitive and delivered slowly. It should appeal to the

senses rather than to the mind, hence the need for constant repetitions of central themes

(ibid. 198). Hitler regarded his audiences as children in need of reassurance, rather than as

adults capable of thinking for themselves. Moreover, he considered the speaker�audience

interaction as a wrestling match, with the audience ‘subjugated’ in a process of attrition.

Hitler’s pathological personality flowered in front of an audience, from the Munich

beer cellars to the mass meetings of the party. His emotions were faithfully reflected in his

intonations, running the gamut from rage to frustration.

Max Domarus sought to refute the notion that the Fuhrer’s German was garbled

(vol. 1). In his opinion, this view was advanced by north Germans to whose ears the

southern dialect was foreign and harsh. Domarus also refers to environmental factors such

as time, venue and hall temperature. Hitler preferred afternoons and evenings for getting

messages across. His natural voice was high-pitched, thus he had to ‘depress’ it to sound

manly. He varied his ‘tool’ according to the environment: with an educated audience, he

used abstract terms, interspersed with Greek and Latin words.

The duration of a typical speech was 90�120 minutes. The first part was a slow

recitation of historical and quasi-philosophical items, boring and dry, part of the attrition

process. Next, the ‘conditioned’ audience was subjected to a flood of demagogic slogans,

delivered at a much higher speed and tone. Hitler was at his best on occasions of ‘good’

news; on difficult occasions, he preferred written announcements.

Hitler sought to create a robot-like following, which would remain loyal to him. To

achieve such a high level of subservience and obedience, the Nazis undertook to eliminate

the rational elements in society. The public was flooded with advance notification of each

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF HITLER’S SPEECHES 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

speech, creating suitable suspense. The speeches were relayed over all German radio

stations and through loudspeakers in the streets, at workplaces and wherever people were

likely to congregate, so that hardly anyone was able to escape their impact. The speeches

were prefaced with a description of the ‘pomp and circumstance’ of the assembly, with

martial music, the sound of stomping boots and the chorus of ‘Sieg Heils’ (Kris and Speier

126), in short, they were events in their own right, with two audiences, one ‘immediate’

and one ‘remote’. The ‘immediate’ audience, present at the ceremony, took part in the

event, applauding and screaming as required. For the ‘remote’ audience, listeners to

the broadcast, the speech formed part of a ‘selbskollektiv’ cult in which Hitler was the

embodiment of Germany, representing every single member of the nation. His

propaganda experts created an environment in which both the individual and the group

lost their identities and were fused into a homogeneous mass.

The anniversary of Hitler’s assumption of power was 30 January. In 1940 and 1941,

this date was marked by his most central speeches. The speech of 30 January 1942

coincided with the capitulation at Stalingrad and therefore was less triumphant. In 1943,

the speech was delivered by Goebbels, an unusual circumstance considering that the

speech was supposed to be exceptionally festive, as befitted the tenth anniversary.

Research Procedure

Between the inception of the WTCP project and 1945, at least nine speeches were

processed.20 The speeches were deconstructed into categories, which included: speaker�audience interaction, non-verbal activity, vocal mishaps (mumbling, sighing, voice

breaking, poor fluency), lapses, dialect, speed (words per second), tone, expression,

register, sound intensity, word output index (net speaking time) and total time index

(gross speech duration, including pauses and audience responses).

The diachronic tracking of the above variables was supposed to provide a detailed

picture of Hitler’s personality. Variations in the ‘vocal mishap’ values, the registers used,

wrong speeds, unsatisfactory interaction with the audience � all these could indicate a

change in the speaker’s confidence. This was part of Lasswell’s ‘prevention politics’ idea �an attempt to foresee problems before they occurred. The notion of psychological study

of a person through quantitative analysis of his voice was in keeping with Lasswell’s avant-

garde philosophy; he and Herzog devised a ‘mechanical lie detector’ before the advent of

voice-processing software.21

On the other hand, these variables were part of the problem that characterized this

project. The need to analyse the speech according to non-verbal categories proved to be

complicated.

In addition to characterizing the speeches according to non-verbal clues, Lasswell

used the ‘decimal system’: the division of the speech into 10 segments (another scholar

might have chosen to divide the speech into five, seven or any other number of

segments). The use of the decimal system made the speeches easier to relate to.

Thus, each speech was broken down into 10 ‘segments’, in each of which the

sentences were numbered with a view to bringing out the dynamics of the text: building

up to the climax or maintaining tension. (For example, was the 121�140 group spoken

faster than 31�40? Was the response to the 201�220 group stronger than to the 121�140?,

62 YANIV LEVYATAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

etc.) The assumption was that the layout and length of a sentence served the speaker’s

purpose, as did the cadence and sound pattern. With the speech reduced to a numerical

scheme, it could be analysed irrespective of its qualitative merits.

The WTCP adopted Hitler’s 10 October 1939 speech as the prototype of a successful

event (perfect speaker�audience interaction); it served as a benchmark.22 On that

occasion, a month after the occupation of Poland, Hitler was full of confidence and urged

the Western Allies to accept his peace proposal and avoid complete destruction (Domarus

vol. 3, 1857). George Herzog focused on this speech as one of Hitler’s peaks. It had

the ‘classic’ structure: a slow introduction, predominantly in the northern dialect, a

‘development’ at increasing speed towards the middle; a fast ‘coda’ in the southern

dialect, with judicious use of tone. The ‘southern’ sentences were longer than their

‘northern’ counterparts.

Regarding the speed of different segments of the 1939 speech, the first segment

was 1.336 words per second; the second segment was 1.509 words per second; the eighth

and ninth segments peaked at 2.012 and 2.188 words per second; and the tenth segment

slowed to 1.773 words per second. These findings confirmed the notion of the ‘speech

model’: an ‘anaesthetizing’ introduction and a ‘speed-casting’ conclusion.23

To determine the time pattern, Herzog examined the following variables:

uninterrupted vocal intervals, duration of each sentence, points of pause for audience

response, pre-response pauses, net response times (with the sentence they followed),

post-response pauses prior to resumption of speech.24 These variables characterized the

speaker�audience relationship. In the ‘successful’ event in question, the audience

responded when expected for a ‘correct’ interval; the speaker resumed at a ‘correct’

moment, etc. When speaker�audience coordination faltered, this would be reflected in the

data: ‘abnormal’ pre-response pauses.

An examination of the speech of 10 March 1941 yielded similar conclusions. The

initial segments were slower, and the responses more lively toward the conclusion. The

‘north�south’ transition was also similar. In examining this speech, emphasis was on time

data versus vocal data.

As the war continued, the speeches began to exhibit changes,25 which became

marked after the Allied landings in North Africa (November 1942): increased speeds and

frequently lower registers. The 11 November speech was very ‘weak’ from Hitler’s

viewpoint (Domarus vol. 4, 2695); less than a year earlier he had declared war on the USA

and now Germany’s strategic assets were under attack. The speech analysis indicates lack

of coordination with the audience: applause did not coincide with the pauses, apparently

because of the distracted mood of the audience.26

The 22 March 1943 speech, given in Berlin on the occasion of the Heroes Anniversary

before a small audience, conformed to the ‘speech model’: the ‘north�south’ transition

and increased speed at the proper moments. There were numerous lapses in the initial

parts, possibly as a reaction to the enthusiastic audience.27

A new factor arose when Hitler was obliged to resort to studio appearances, as

exemplified by the 7 May 1943 speech on the occasion of the death of SA commander

Viktor Lutze. The speech was short, and departed from the ‘model’ in other ways besides

the absence of audience pauses: the first segment was too fast, the fifth (middle) segment

contained numerous lapses (for example, the word Deutschland was mispronounced three

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF HITLER’S SPEECHES 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

times out of seven). As a demagogue, at his best in front of an audience, Hitler felt ill at

ease in a studio, but still maintained control of his words and emotions. The studio

appearances of 9 September took place under the impact of Mussolini’s fall. The slow

speed and scarcity of lapses were attributed by Herzog to the lack of need for planned

interaction with the audience. A climax is difficult to pinpoint. According to Herzog,

While the general trend of the speech falls in line with that of the speeches beginning

with November 11, 1942 (which already shows restriction, low register, and to some

extent, high speed), it is difficult to tell how much in the present speech is due to the way

Hitler feels these days, and how much to his lack of interest in a performance which lacks

an audience. However, he certainly does not give an impression of a man who is on the

verge of falling apart, or who is under unusually severe strain.28

In general, it can be assumed that in his studio appearances, Hitler tended less to

improvise and adhered to the original text, which he possibly read from a script.

Towards the end of the war, Lasswell and Herzog submitted their findings to the

Viking Fund, with a request for financing over the next two years and for an increased

research team.29 Herzog sought to disclose the findings to the scientific community in the

form of a book,30 in which the nine analysed speeches would be presented with an

emphasis on deviations from the prepared scripts. However, the request for financing was

denied, and an application to the Library of Congress in 1947 was rejected by Luther

Evans, the Chief Librarian, who found the findings ‘extremely interesting’, but shied away

from involvement in such a daring venture.31 Thus, the study came to naught, and this

marked the end of Lasswell’s activity in the project.

Summary

The Hitler speech analysis study was part of a ‘trial and error’ process that is part of

any scientific process. In the case of WTCP, this trial was part of the American learning

process during its Second World War propaganda and psychological warfare campaign.

Lasswell’s perception of this project was part of his global perspective on propaganda,

leaders, elites and the social sciences.

There are several reasons for the failure of this project: problematic methodology, a

shortage of scholars able to perform this type of research, insufficient criticism, the human

factor, validity, limited outcome.

As content analysis, the methodology of the Hitler speech analysis study was

problematic. Vocal content analysis is far more challenging than traditional content

analysis. The categories for this project were difficult to analyse and later, to explain before

decision-makers. Professor Herzog, the only acoustics specialist, was overworked on this

project. The shortage of professional counterparts probably had an impact on the research

process and the ability to develop crucial criticism. Regarding the human factor, this

project faced a dual problem. As a research subject, Adolf Hitler was a far more

complicated object to analyse than a newspaper headline. The aspiration to content

analyse the voice of a human being does not guarantee a reasonable outcome. A human

being is a complicated object to explore. The quantitative approach can be used as one

method in the process, but it must be accompanied by a much wider perspective through

qualitative insights. Furthermore, the coders in the Hitler speech analysis study were

64 YANIV LEVYATAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

required to perform as thinking machines and translate words and sounds into numbers.

As to validation, the Hitler speech analysis study could have reached a more successful

conclusion had it been part of a global intelligence project. If the outcome of this project

had been a factor in the American intelligence community’s wider picture, it might have

achieved its goal. However, the WTCP was viewed only as a minor propaganda analysis

project in the emerging psychological warfare offices of the time.

This quantitative project is thus an example of the limits of the quantitative

approach. The Hitler speech analysis study did not provide a consolidated view of the

subject. Its outcome was only a fragment of the big picture of the leader. Scholars needed

a much more global point of view of the subject that included qualitative elements such as

family life, emotions and inter-personal relations. Leader behaviour is influenced by many

elements, some of which, like external conditions, are irrelevant to the leader’s personality.

Thus, the project did not prove to be a prediction tool for the intelligence community, as

Lasswell expected it to be.

Though the project did not achieve its goal, it makes a valuable contribution to the

fields of communication research, leader analysis ‘at a distance’ and intelligence projects. It

also contributes to our understanding of Hitler. It exposed Hitler’s speech model, perhaps

indicating a change in his confidence, through the use of segments, speed, dialect, tone,

sound intensity and speaker�audience relations. This is the legacy of the project.

Lasswell’s investigation of Hitler’s speeches inaugurated a new trend in the field of

wartime communication and leader research, mainly in terms of reliance on non-

qualitative data (non-verbal interaction, speaker�audience interrelationships). It was also

an opportunity to create a state-of-the-art tool for analysis of speeches, as a technique for

propaganda analysis. Correct interpretations and effective scrutiny of leaders’ pronounce-

ments can provide valuable insights for intelligence services and decision-makers.

Lasswell’s work brought out the significance of such parameters as audience response

and non-verbal speech features; tracking the empirical parameters examined in the study

� speed, time, dialect, pauses, lapses, etc. � provides an evaluation mechanism that

complements an intuitive interpretation.

Research that combines quantitative thinking and the human psyche positions

Lasswell among scientists such as Alan Turing, John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener,

forefathers of the ‘thinking machine’. Lasswell’s contribution was his effort to convert the

basic values of human culture into general laws. By doing so, he entered the realms of

artificial intelligence, philosophy of language and cybernetics.

This paper, the first exposition of a central WTCP study, shows the unique features of

Lasswell’s philosophy and personality: revolutionary thinking with an emphasis on

quantification, combined with creativity, implementation skills and sound PR instincts.

Lasswell’s concept of ‘linguistic transformation’, his ‘mechanistic’ approach to

human behaviour and the idea of ‘prevention politics’ are more relevant than ever in

the chaotic reality of present-day communications. Leader speeches continue to be a

dominant factor in global politics and propaganda. They have become more directed to

the masses than ever before, especially after the first Gulf War. Modern mass

communication mediums such as satellite TV, cable TV news and the Internet bring

today’s leaders into every home around the globe. With this comes the need to

understand and analyse these speeches. The speech analysis technique developed by

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF HITLER’S SPEECHES 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lasswell and his colleagues may be the starting point for a new and improved speech

analysis technique.

Notes

1. On Harold D. Lasswell, see Muth, Finley and Muth 1�13; B.L. Smith 41�105; McDougall;

Rogers 204�209; Klemperer 19.

2. On content analysis, see Krippendorff; Carney; Bittner 443.

3. On Lasswell as the founder of content analysis, see Franzosi 33; Carney 28; Pool Trends 2�3;

Rogers 210; George; Krippendorff 16�18.

4. Lasswell, ‘Public Opinion and the Emergency’, 1 Dec. 1939, 11. This memorandum and

correspondence between Lasswell and his collaborators can be found in the Harold D.

Lasswell Archive at the Yale University Sterling Memorial Library, Manuscripts and Archives.

Manuscript group 1043, Harold Dwight Lasswell Papers: General files, 1920�78; Topical

files, 1930�70.

5. On current trends in content analysis, see Roberts; Franzosi; Neuendorf.

6. Joseph Goldsen to Paul Lewis, ‘Some Observations and Recommendations Based on

Reliability, Consistency, and Sampling Test’, 24 Oct. 1941; Harris to Harold D. Lasswell, ‘The

Code Procedure in Case Studies’, 27 Oct. 1941; Abraham Kaplan, ‘Provisional Glossary of

Some Terms in the Theory of Signs Relevant to Content Analysis’, 3 July 1942; Janis, Fadner

and Janowitz.

7. Harold D. Lasswell, ‘Content Analysis’, 23 Feb. 1942; Joseph Goldsen to Paul Lewis, ‘Some

Observations and Recommendations Based on Reliability, Consistency, and Sampling Test’,

24 Oct. 1941.

8. On Hitler’s public image, see Kershaw; Welch Nazi Propaganda; Carr; Stern; Zeman.

9. This point of view linked Lasswell to the forefathers of computer science: Alan Turing,

inventor of the Universal Machine, Norbert Wiener, creator of cybernetics, and John von

Neumann, creator of game theory.

10. Lasswell to David H. Stevens and John Marshall, ‘Research on Hitler’s Speeches’, 9 Feb.

1942.

11. Lasswell to David H. Stevens and John Marshall, ‘Research on Hitler’s Speeches’, 9 Feb.

1942.

12. Lasswell to his parents, 9 Aug. 1923.

13. On the University of Chicago and its effect on Lasswell, see B.L. Smith 42; Muth, Finley and

Muth 1�13; Rogers 137�209; Rosten 6; McDougall 6; Rogow 125; D. Smith 14�30; Bulmer

8�15.

14. George Herzog to Lasswell, 29 July 1945.

15. Herzog to Lasswell, ‘Report on Voice Patterns and Performance in A. Hitler’s Political

Speeches’, 29 July 1945.

16. On the characteristics of the German masses, see Colm; Lederer 123.

17. Neumann 131. On propaganda and political applications in post-First World War Germany,

see Sultan.

66 YANIV LEVYATAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

18. On Nazi propaganda, see Welch Nazi Propaganda; Baird; Taylor 208�49; Rotter 156�68;

Balfour 103�24; Zeman.

19. Lasswell to Local Board No. 35, ‘Selective Service System, Professor George Herzog’, 28 Jan.

1942.

20. George Herzog, ‘Report on Voice Patterns and Performance in A. Hitler’s Political Speeches’,

July 1945, 7.

21. Neil Postman described a device called ‘Hagoth’ which measured tension in the human

voice. He doubted its practicality, as its verdicts were unequivocal ‘truth’ or ‘falsehood’,

while human nature was too complex for strict mathematical evaluation. In WTCP, a more

realistic attitude was adopted; the conclusions from the tables were relegated to a ‘flesh-

and-blood’ analyst. In any case, quantification of the world of human feelings is bound to

remain problematic. See Postman 94.

22. Herzog to Lasswell, 25 Aug. 1942.

23. Herzog to Lasswell, 25 Aug. 1942.

24. Herzog to Lasswell, 30 Aug. 1942.

25. Herzog to Lasswell, 16 Sept. 1943.

26. Herzog to Lasswell, 16 Sept. 1943.

27. Herzog to Joseph Goldsen, 27 Jan. 1944.

28. Herzog to Lasswell, 16 Sept. 1943.

29. Herzog to Lasswell, 29 July 1945.

30. Herzog, ‘Plan for a Book on Voice Patterns and Performance in Hitler’s Political Speeches’,

29 July 1945.

31. Lasswell to Luther Evans, 21 May 1947; Evans to Lasswell, 7 Aug. 1947.

References

ARCHER, DANE and ROBIN AKERT. The Interpretation of Behavior: Verbal and Nonverbal Factors in

Person Perception (New York: Cambridge UP, 1998).

ARONSON, ELLIOT, TIMOTHY D. WILSON and ROBIN AKERT. Social Psychology (Garden City, NJ:

Pearson Educational International, 2005).

BAIRD, JAY W. The Mythical World of Nazi War Propaganda, 1939�1945 (Minneapolis: U of

Minnesota P, 1974).

BALFOUR, MICHAEL. Propaganda in War, 1939�1945 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979).

BITTNER, JOHN R. Mass Communication (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996).

BULMER, MARTIN. The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity and the Rise of

Sociological Research (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986).

CARNEY, THOMAS F. Content Analysis: A Technique for Systematic Inference from Communica-

tions (London: Batsford, 1972).

CARR, WILLIAM. Hitler: A Study in Personality and Politics (London: E. Arnold, 1978).

COLM, GERHARD. ‘Die Masse: Ein Beitrag zur Systematik der Gruppen.’ Archiv fur Sozialwis-

senschaft und Sozialpolitik, 52 (1924): 680�94.

DOMARUS, MAX, ed. Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932�1945 (London: I.B. Tauris, 1990).

FRANZOSI, ROBERTO. From Words to Numbers: Narrative, Data, and Social Science (New York:

Cambridge UP), 2003).

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF HITLER’S SPEECHES 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

GEORGE, ALEXANDER L. Propaganda Analysis: A Study of Inferences Made from Nazi Propaganda

in World War II (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Co., 1959).

GOEBBELS, JOSEPH. ‘Der Nationalcharakter als Grundlage der Nationalkultur, Rundfunkan-

sprache (18 July 1932).’ In HELMUT HEIBER, ed., Goebbels Reden. Vol. 1 (Munich: Wilhelm

Heyne Verlag, 1971), 1932�39.

HITLER, ADOLF. Mein Kampf (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1939).

JANIS, IRVING L., RAYMOND H. FADNER and MORRIS JANOWITZ. ‘The Reliability of a Content

Analysis Technique.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 7.2 (1943): 293�96.

KERSHAW, IAN. Hitler,1889 �1936: Hubris (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999).

KLEMPERER, VICTOR. The Language of the Third Reich LTI � Lingua Tertii Imperii, a Philologist’s

Notebook (London: Athlone P, 2000).

KRIPPENDORFF, KLAUS. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage, 1980).

KRIS, ERNST and HANS SPEIER. German Radio Propaganda: Report on Home Broadcasts During

the War (London: Oxford UP, 1944).

LASSWELL, HAROLD D. Psychopathology and Politics (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1930).

*****. ‘The Psychology of Hitlerism.’ Political Quarterly 4.3 (1933): 373�84.

*****. World Politics and Personal Insecurity (New York: Free P, 1965).

LEDERER, EMIL. ‘Zum sozialpsychischen Habitus der Gegenwart.’ Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft

und Sozialpolitik, 46 (1918/19): 114�39.

LEVYATAN, YANIV. ‘From Words to Numbers: Harold D. Lasswell and the War Time

Communication Project.’ Haifa, 2006 (in Hebrew).

MCDOUGALL, DEREK. Harold D. Lasswell and the Study of International Relations (Lanham, MD:

UP of America, 1984).

MUTH, RODNEY, MARY M. FINLEY and MARCIA F. MUTH. Harold D. Lasswell: An Annotated

Bibliography (New Haven, CT: New Haven P, 1990).

NEUENDORF, KIMBERLY A. The Content Analysis Guidebook (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002).

NEUMANN, BOAZ. Being in the Weimar Republic (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2007) (in Hebrew).

POOL, ITHIEL DE SOLA. Trends in Content Analysis (Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1959).

*****. ‘Content Analysis and the Intelligence Function.’ In ARNOLD A. ROGOW, ed., Politics,

Personality and Social Science in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Harold D.

Lasswell (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1969), 197�224.

PORTER, THEODORE M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1995).

POSTMAN, NEIL. Technopoly (New York: Vintage Books, 1993).

ROBERTS, CARL W., ed. Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical

Inferences from Texts and Transcripts (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997).

ROBIN, RON. The Making of the Cold War: Enemy Culture and Politics in the Military-Intellectual

Complex (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001).

ROGERS, EVERETT M. A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach (New York:

Free P, 1994).

ROGOW, ARNOLD A. ‘Toward a Psychiatry of Politics.’ In ARNOLD A. ROGOW, ed., Politics,

Personality and Social Science in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Harold D.

Lasswell (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1969), 123�46.

68 YANIV LEVYATAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

ROSTEN, LEO. ‘Harold Lasswell: A Memoir.’ In ARNOLD A. ROGOW, ed., Politics, Personality and

Social Science in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Harold D. Lasswell (Chicago: U of

Chicago P, 1969), 1�14.

ROTTER, CHARLES. The Art of Psychological Warfare (New York: Stein and Day, 1974).

SMITH, BRUCE LANNES. ‘The Mystifying Intellectual History of Harold D. Lasswell.’ In ARNOLD A.

ROGOW, ed., Politics, Personality and Social Science in the Twentieth Century: Essays in

Honor of Harold D. Lasswell (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1969), 41�105.

SMITH, DENNIS. The Chicago School: A Liberal Critique of Capitalism (London: Macmillan

Education, 1988).

STERN, JOSEPH PETER. Hitler: The Fuhrer and the People (Berkeley: U of California P, 1975).

SULTAN, HERBERT. ‘Zur Soziologie des modrenen Parteiensystems.’ Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft

und Sozialpolitik 55 (1926): 131�32.

TAYLOR, PHILIP M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from Ancient World to the

Present Day (Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 1995).

WALKER, STEPHEN G. ‘Assessing Psychological Characteristics at a Distance: Symposium Lessons

and Future Research Directions.’ Political Psychology 21.3 (2000): 597�602.

WEINTRAUB, E. ROY. ‘Review of Trust in Numbers by Theodore Porter’. American Scientist 84

(1996): 391�93.

WELCH, DAVID, ed. Nazi Propaganda: The Power and the Limitations (London: Croom Helm,

1983).

*****. Hitler (London: UCL P, 1998).

WINTER, DAVID G., MARGARET G. HERMANN, WALTER WEINTRAUB and STEPHEN G. WALKER.

‘The Personalities of Bush and Gorbachev at a Distance: Follow-up on Predictions.’

Political Psychology 12.3 (1991): 457�64.

ZEMAN, ZBYNEK A. B. Nazi Propaganda (New York: Oxford UP, 1973).

Yaniv Levyatan, Department of Multidisciplinary Studies, Haifa University, Yearot 29 St.,

Haifa 34788, Israel. E-mail: yaniveve@gmail.com

HAROLD D. LASSWELL’S ANALYSIS OF HITLER’S SPEECHES 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

04:

23 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014