After accumulating several years of material on which to base a comparison, I believe the Japanese wartime statements are more dishonest than the Germans'. The Germans' reporting has had its share of defeats being characterized as "shortening of lines," but the Japanese consistently appear to overstate U.S. plane and ship losses, as well as putting lipstick on broader battlefield pigs, in a way that the Germans don't. And when the Germans lose, sometimes it is straightforwardly characterized that way. I don't know if anyone else has a similar impression, which is surprising given the general importance attached to propaganda by the Nazi regime.
The Times' reporting then was frequently more optimistic than the reality, which raises an opportunity for an interesting study of diachronic journalism.
I’ve been astonished, and said so, at the Germans’ candor, as frequently cited by the NYTimes. Haven’t paid much attention to the Japanese, but I suppose that will change after VE Day.
And when the Germans lose, sometimes it is straightforwardly characterized that way. I don't know if anyone else has a similar impression, which is surprising given the general importance attached to propaganda by the Nazi regime.Good propaganda has to be sounded in credibility.
Also remember that our view of the Nazis is filtered through 70 years of biased history. If all you hear about is the death of 5 or 6 million people, you are missing most of the story. (Starting with the story of the other 5 to 6 million exterminated).