22 Creating Misgivings: "where there's smoke there's fire"

The lingering suspicion which follows on unfounded charges of immorality, corruption, or disloyalty is notoriously hard to clear away. Character assassination is probably the most powerful use made of this fallacy. Those close to a man who has lived down such a charge may be able, through their knowledge of the facts, to hold that man in undiminished regard. Others, long after they have forgotten the nature of the charge, to say nothing of whether or not it was substantiated, tend to retain lingering suspicions. Maybe they had better not rely on Paul because of that funny business back in -- was it the election year? Yet what they ought to be remembering is the fellow Peter, who made the damaging allegations against Paul without impressive proof.

It is a paradoxical thing that the more wild and damaging the charges, the more likely they are to be believed. People seem to reason that nobody would say such a terrible thing unless it were true, partially at least. Hitler made a famous analysis of this phenomenon when he wrote,

... in the size of the lie there is a certain factor of credibility, since the broad mass of the people will be more easily corrupted in the depths of their hearts than they will be consciously and intentionally evil. Consequently, with the primitive simplicity of their feeling they fall victim more easily to a big lie than to a small one, since they themselves occasionally lie in small matters but they would be ashamed to tell great lies. Such a falsehood will not enter their minds, and they will also not be able to imagine others asserting the great boldness of the most infamous misrepresentation. And even with the explanation of the matter, they long hesitate and vacillate and accept at least some ground as true; consequently, from the most bold lie something will remain. . . .

Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler's "big lie" technique finds illustrations in the history of every nation. Instances from our own history are the fabrications, for example, by Allied propagandists, about Germans cutting off the hands of Belgian babies during World War I, by the Communists in making the "germ warfare" charges during the Korean War, and by those who labeled the Democratic Party as the "Party of Treason" during the heyday of McCarthyism. One extremely significant instance of the "big lie" in German history was the creation of the "stab in the back" myth to explain Germany's defeat in World War I. Actually, before the German home front crumbled the German army had failed in its last great offensive and there was no longer hope for military victory over the rapidly increasing Allied power. Yet misrepresentation of the facts, constantly reiterated, persuaded many Germans that their army had been undefeated. The creation of this historical myth during the post-war period was designed to restore the prestige of German military might and to provide a popular scapegoat by attributing defeat to demon groups -- radicals, pacifists, defeatists.

The ultimate effect of lying makes interesting speculation. Hitler may well be right in arguing that the very boldness of the "big lie" gives it credibility, initially at least. But perhaps his own career fairly illustrates the shortsightedness of this sort of Machiavellianism. At least his repeatedly making promises which turned out to be "big lies" (For example, the Munich Pact and Hitler's assurance, "This is my last territorial demand in Europe.") finally convinced millions of people -- statesmen and householders alike -- that it was pointless to make agreements with Hitler. In other words, confidence in communication broke down, and the conviction grew that further appeasement would lead only to further aggressions. It was this conviction that turned Hitler's demand for Danzig into a world war instead of another diplomatic con-cession. The crude unscrupulousness of the "big lie" is apt to operate like a boomerang. Talleyrand might have dismissed the device with his dictum, "It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake!"

EXAMPLE COMMENT
A pastor is named in a paternity suit claiming support for an illegitimate child. Evidence shows that the woman and the pastor both were guests at three social gatherings. Tests, however, establish that the accuser was blood type "O," the pastor has type "A" and the child has type "B." Suit is dismissed after uncontradicted testimony by an authority on eugenics that a child of blood type "B" cannot be the offspring of parents with types "O" and "A." In spite of being cleared of the paternity charge, the pastor decides to seek a new congregation. He finds one only after great difficulty. The evidence clearing the pastor is as certain as any that human beings can obtain. His accuser has patently indulged in promiscuity and has wrongly -- probably with intentional falsehood -- ascribed the paternity of her child. Yet a moral suspicion still lingers even, perhaps, in the minds of those who know all details of the case, We have indicated this by italicizing "probably" above. What were the relations between the pastor and the woman? Of course, he didn't happen to be the father, but. . . .
"They are saying around the City Hall that Mayor Paul's cronies bought up a lot of land over there when they got the tip that the freeway was going through." So confides gossiper Peter to his neighbor. If Peter's neighbor repeats this unsubstantiated charge, he will be as guilty as Peter of rumor-mongering.