In a book review in the 2005 issue of "Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies," Robert Frye discusses the importance of parody as a viable propaganda format.  The subject of his review is "Doing Their Bit: Wartime American Animated Short Films, 1939-1945" by Michael S. Shull and David E. Wilt. (McFarland, 2004. 246 pages), a study of Hollywood films during World War II.  Frye writes how the book provides additional information about America's attitudes toward World War II and the responses from Hollywood to such feelings, especially how these changing attitudes shaped production of animated films during World War II.  An example he points out is how advancements made by Allied Forces on Germany and in the Pacific Theater against Japan were coupled by a decline in the number of cartoons produced.  The authors conclude that the sense of impatience for a prolonged war and optimism for a better life post war contributed to the decline of the animated short.

Just as propaganda films such as the “Private Snafu” series were born of wartime sentiments, their ending was also correlated with war time events in real time.  As people yearned for more positivism as the War dragged on, there was less of a demand for propaganda film that centered around the war effort.  Indeed, film often represents a cultural and societal dialogue not just between the studios of the film industry with the government but also with the people who serve as audience and consumers of the film product.  In this way, control of films is restored in part to the people from the government’s film office.

This article goes into the history of the cartoon and how it was developed. The author argues that cartoons can be used to show historians the attitudes of the societies that produced them and he explains that there are two types of cartoons: joke cartoons and cartoons of opinion. He chooses to focus on cartoons of opinion, which are defined to be “visual means of communicating opinions and attitudes or of ‘summing up’ situations.” They deal with “domestic politics, social themes, and foreign affairs.” Kemnitz does discuss a few joke cartoons however, “such as William Mauldin’s great World War II cartoon.” Regardless of type, the author claims that cartoons are more effective than other mediums in communicating because they convey messages “quickly and pungently.” He also acknowledges that the “cartoon too frequently has been employed as a propaganda tool.” He believes that cartoons were used in the First World War “to whip up hatred and thereby sustain the civilian enthusiasm which made the sacrifices of total war tolerable.”
    This article is important because it defines cartoons, which my thesis discusses. It also explains how propaganda was first used in cartoons, which is important because it is likely that cartoonists at the Disney Company watched these cartoons and used them as a reference when making cartoons for the Second World War. Additionally, it says that cartoons are the most effective form of propaganda, so the second part of my thesis is addressed. According to Nelson, it is probable that Disney cartoons had a significant impact on public opinion in America during World War II.