If it's not possible to whip people up into a frenzy of support for a war, it may be enough for the government to so denigrate anti-war positions that people will be pro-war by default. If anti-war beliefs are valid, then they might attract greater support; if they are perceived as invalid or perhaps treasonous, then people will avoid any association with them out of fear at the very least.

Ian Kershaw writes in The ‘Hitler Myth’: Image and Reality in the Third Reich:

[I]t seems clear that although Nazi propaganda had not succeeded — outside fanaticized youth and sections of the faithful in the Party and its affiliations — in evoking outright enthusiasm for a war, it had proved far more successful in denigrating anti-war sentiments as unpatriotic and defeatist and effectively banning them from public discourse. And though there was a fear of war, there was a general readiness to fight, as had been the case in 1938, if it came to the worst. This readiness was bolstered by the success of propaganda in spreading the conviction that the war against Poland was justified and necessary in a conflict which had been forced upon Germany....

And once war had broken out, there was, as in all countries, some closing of ranks and rallying round the government, and basic feelings of loyalty strengthened the bonds with the Führer. Opposition during the war was now tantamount to treason. Hitler’s war was Germany’s war, and even ideological opponents of National Socialism were prepared, for patriotic reasons and ‘duty to the Fatherland’ — which was now difficult to distinguish from duty to the Führer — to follow Hitler to war, however unwanted the war itself had been.

So, we have a national leader who was determined to launch of aggression against another nation which was not a genuine threat. There was little enthusiasm and support for this war in the population, but it was possible for the ruling part to create an atmosphere where expressing anti-war beliefs simply wasn't an option. Those who openly and vocally opposed the war were painted in the harshest light possible, thus leading to widespread self-censorship and an emptying of the public discourse of any options to what the government was doing.

After war was fully engaged, even those who were generally opposed to the ruling party were willing to close ranks with them and support the war in order to uphold the good of the nation. They didn't perceive that duty to the nation was being replaced with duty to a single leader who had been assuming a dictatorial position. Of course, the ruling party would later turn against these same people once they stopped serving their purpose — there was no gratitude for their supporting the war, just contempt for their being weak and not standing for anything positive.

Then there was Nazi German under Hitler, which experienced something very similar...

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.