How Hitler Used Hollywood to Mask His Evil, Hitler, Propaganda and Classic Films, Body Language Expert on Hitler.

Think of a Classic films around the time of World War II and your visual American patriotism, brave soldiers fighting Nativism, and Hitler's evil. But films were not like that until 1940 because Hitler, obsessed about his image, and the propaganda properties of the film, controlled Hollywood.
Yes, Hitler knew that he who controls media controls the minds of the public so, working with Goering he threatened to exclude Hollywood from their second-largest market, Germany. Powerful studio heads caved and for years Nazi censors/consultants working at Hollywood studios controlled what the American and wider world movie-going public thought about Hitler, Germany the treatment of Jews. Nazi censors nixed movie projects, rewrote scripts, removed Jews from movie credits, and even forced one MGM movie executive to divorce his Jewish wife.
It seems unbelievable that Nazis working in America with our help control the public’s perception of Hitler as he rose in power and invaded countries and abused and killed the Jews, physically disabled children, homosexuals, the Roma, and more. They masked his evil. As a child watching classic films, I watched the movies before and after Nazi censorship and was fascinated by the portrayal of Hitler, his body language, and the wild fervor of about war and patriotism. As my faith in God grew, I wanted to understand how you could hide evil and persuade others to evil or good actions. I studied the body language of charachters in Classic films on my journey to become a body language expert. Here are more insights into how Hitler controlled Hollywood.
The Nazis threatened to exclude American movies -- more than 250 played in Germany after Hitler took power in 1933 -- unless the studios cooperated. Before World War I, the German market had been the world's second largest, and even though it had shrunk during the Great Depression, the studios believed it would bounce back and worried that if they left, they would never be able to return.
The Nazis threatened to exclude American movies -- more than 250 played in Germany after Hitler took power in 1933 -- unless the studios cooperated. Before World War I, the German market had been the world's second-largest, and even though it had shrunk during the Great Depression, the studios believed it would bounce back and worried that if they left, they would never be able to return. market, Germany. Nazi censored scripts, removed movie credits from Jews, got movies stopped, and even forced one MGM executive to divorce his Jewish wife. As an avid classic movie fan since I was a child, I saw this odd propaganda in films, and it's one of the reasons I started studying Hitler's body language and the effects of propaganda all these years.
Beginning with wholesale changes made to Universal's 1930 release All Quiet on the Western Front, Hollywood regularly ran scripts and finished movies by German officials for approval. When they objected to scenes or dialogue they thought made Germany look bad, criticized the Nazis or dwelled on the mistreatment of Jews, the studios would accommodate them -- and make cuts in the American versions as well as those shown elsewhere in the world.
It was not only scenes: Nazi pressure managed to kill whole projects critical of the rise of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, Hollywood would not make an important anti-Nazi film until 1940. Hitler was obsessed with the propaganda power of film, and the Nazis actively promoted American movies like 1937's Captains Courageous that they thought showcased Aryan values.
Historians have long known about American companies such as IBM and General Motors that did business in Germany into the late 1930s, but the cultural power of movies -- their ability to shape what people think -- makes Hollywood's cooperation with the Nazis a particularly important and chilling moment in history. --Victory Is Ours'
On Friday, Dec. 5, 1930, a crowd of Nazis in Berlin seized on an unusual target: the Hollywood movie All Quiet on the Western Front. Recognized in most countries as a document of the horrors of the First World War, in Germany it was seen as a painful and offensive reenactment of the German defeat.
The Nazis, who had recently increased their representation in the Reichstag from 12 to 107 seats, took advantage of the national indignation toward All Quiet on the Western Front. They purchased about 300 tickets for the first public screening, and as they watched the German troops retreat from the French, they shouted: "German soldiers had courage. It's a disgrace that such an insulting film was made in America!" Because of the disruptions, the projectionist was forced to switch off the film. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels gave a speech from the front row of the balcony in which he claimed that the film was an attempt to destroy Germany's image. His comrades threw stink bombs and released mice into the crowd. Everyone rushed for the exits, and the theater was placed under guard.
The Nazis' actions met with significant popular approval. The situation came to a climax Dec. 11, when the highest censorship board in Germany convened to determine the fate of the film. After a long discussion, the chairman of the board issued a ban: Whereas the French soldiers went to their deaths quietly and bravely, the German soldiers howled and shrieked with fear. The film was not an honest representation of German defeat -- of course the public had reacted disapprovingly. Regardless of one's political affiliation, the picture offended a whole generation of Germans who had suffered through the War.
And so, six days after the protests in Berlin, All Quiet on the Western Front was removed from screens in Germany. "Victory is ours!" Goebbels' newspaper proclaimed. "We have forced them to their knees!"
'STORY: How Jack Warner Tried to Crush the Postwar German Film Industry (Book Excerpt)
In Hollywood, the president of Universal Pictures, Carl Laemmle, was troubled by the controversy surrounding his picture. He was born in Germany, and he wanted All Quiet on the Western Front to be shown there. According to one representative, his company had "lost a fine potential business, for the film would have been a tremendous financial success in Germany if it could have run undisturbed."
In August 1931, Laemmle came up with a heavily edited version of the movie that he was convinced would not offend the German Foreign Office. He made a trip to Europe to promote the new version. The Foreign Office soon agreed to support All Quiet on the Western Front for general screening in Germany, under one condition: Laemmle would have to tell Universal's branches in the rest of the world to make the same cuts to all copies of the film. Late in the summer, Laemmle agreed to cooperate with the request.
As months passed, however, Laemmle, who was Jewish, grew worried about something much more important than the fate of his film. "I am almost certain," he wrote in early 1932, "that [Adolf] Hitler's rise to power … would be the signal for a general physical onslaught on many thousands of defenseless Jewish men, women and children." He convinced American officials that he could provide for individual Jews, and by the time of his death in 1939, he had helped get at least 300 people out of Germany.
And yet at precisely the moment he was embarking on this crusade, his employees at Universal were following the orders of the German government. In the first few months of 1932, the Foreign Office discovered unedited versions of All Quiet on the Western Front playing in El Salvador and Spain. The company apologized. Afterward, there were no more complaints; Universal had made the requested cuts all around the world.
The following year, Laemmle made another concession to the Foreign Office: He postponed The Road Back, the sequel to All Quiet on the Western Front. His son, Carl Laemmle Jr., also agreed to change many pictures in Germany's favor. "Naturally," the Foreign Office noted, "Universal's interest in collaboration [Zusammenarbeit] is not platonic but is motivated by the company's concern for the well-being of its Berlin branch and for the German market."
PHOTOS: Hitler's Hollywood: The Films Nazis Loved and Hated
Throughout the 1930s, the term "collaboration" was used repeatedly to describe dealings that took place in Hollywood. Even studio heads adopted the term. An executive at RKO promised that whenever he made a film involving Germany, he would work "in close collaboration" with the local consul general. A Fox executive said the same. Even United Artists offered "the closest collaboration" if the German government did not punish the studio for the controversial 1930 air combat movie Hell's Angels. According to the Foreign Office, "Every time that this collaboration was achieved, the parties involved found it to be both helpful and pleasant."
All this was a result of the Nazis' actions against All Quiet on the Western Front. Soon every studio started making deep concessions to the German government, and when Hitler came to power in January 1933, they dealt with his representatives directly.
The most important German representative in the whole arrangement was a diplomat named Georg Gyssling, who had been a Nazi since 1931. He became the German consul in Los Angeles in 1933, and he consciously set out to police the American film industry. His main strategy was to threaten the American studios with a section of the German film regulations known as "Article 15." According to this law, if a company distributed an anti-German picture anywhere in the world, then all its movies could be banned in Germany. Article 15 proved to be a very effective way of regulating the American film industry as the Foreign Office, with its vast network of consulates and embassies, could easily detect whether an offensive picture was in circulation anywhere around the world.
The Mad Dog of Europe
In May 1933, a Hollywood screenwriter named Herman J. Mankiewicz‚ the man who would later write Citizen Kane, had a promising idea. He was aware of the treatment of the Jews in Germany and he thought, "Why not put it on the screen?" Very quickly, he penned a play entitled The Mad Dog of Europe, which he sent to his friend Sam Jaffe, a producer at RKO. Jaffe was so taken with the idea that he bought the rights and quit his job. Jaffe, who, like Mankiewicz, was Jewish, planned to assemble a great Hollywood cast and devote all his energies to a picture that would shake the entire world.
Of course, various forces had been put in place to prevent a picture like this from ever being made. First and foremost was Gyssling. Up to this point, he had only invoked Article 15 against pictures that disparaged the German army during the World War. The Mad Dog of Europe was infinitely more threatening: It attacked the present German regime.
Gyssling was unable to use Article 15 against The Mad Dog of Europe for the simple reason that the independent company producing the picture did not do business in Germany. He was left with only one option: Inform the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association of America (popularly known as the Hays Office), which regulated movie sex and violence for Hollywood, that if the movie were made then the Nazis might ban all American movies in Germany.
The Hays Office reacted quickly. Will Hays, the organization's president, met with Jaffe and Mankiewicz. He accused them of selecting a "scarehead" situation for the picture, which, if made, might return them a tremendous profit while creating heavy losses for the industry. Jaffe and Mankiewicz said they would proceed despite any ban that Hays might attempt.
STORY: Competing Scholar Challenges Ben Urwand's 'The Collaboration'
Hays needed to adopt a different approach. He asked his representative, Joseph Breen, to reach out to the advisory council for the Anti-Defamation League in Los Angeles. The advisory council read the script and felt that the direct references to Hitler and Nazi Germany might provoke an anti-Semitic reaction in the United States. But "if modified so as to apparently have reference to a fictitious country, and if the propaganda elements … were made more subtle … the film would be a most effective means of arousing the general public to the major implications of Hitlerism."
Even if the script were toned down, the Anti-Defamation League suspected that the Hays Office would object to the film because the major Hollywood studios were still doing business in Germany. Nobody in the ADL group knew exactly how much business was being done. Some imagined that Germany was banning films starring Jewish actors; others thought that Germany was banning entire "companies supposed to be controlled by Jews." Nobody had the slightest idea that the Nazis were actually facilitating the distribution of American movies in Germany.
The Anti-Defamation League decided to carry out a test: It asked a well-known screenwriter to prepare an outline of The Mad Dog of Europe that contained none of the obvious objections. This scriptwriter then submitted the outline to three different agents, and without any hesitation, they all told him the same thing: "It was no use submitting any story along this line as the major studios had put 'thumbs down' on any films of this kind."
Eventually, Jaffe gave up his plans and sold the rights to The Mad Dog of Europe to well-known agent Al Rosen. And when the Hays Office urged Rosen to abandon the picture, Rosen accused the Hays Office of malicious interference and issued a remarkable statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency claiming "on good authority" that Nazi officials were trying to stop the picture. He scoffed at the idea that the picture would provoke further anti-Semitism.
Over the next seven months -- from November 1933 to June 1934 -- Rosen continued to work on the film, but he failed to convince Hollywood executives to pour money into the project. Louis B. Mayer told him that no picture would be made: "We have interests in Germany; I represent the picture industry here in Hollywood; we have exchanges there; we have terrific income in Germany and, as far as I am concerned, this picture will never be made."
And so The Mad Dog of Europe was never turned into a motion picture. The episode turned out to be the most important moment in all of Hollywood's dealings with Nazi Germany. It occurred in the first year of Hitler's rise to power, and it defined the limits of American movies for the remainder of the decade.
PHOTOS: The Top Celebrity Political Twitter Commentators
In 1936, the studios started to encounter major censorship difficulties in Germany. Nazi censors rejected dozens of American films, sometimes giving vague reasons, sometimes giving no reasons at all. The smaller companies had all left Germany by this point, and only the three largest companies -- MGM, Paramount and 20th Century Fox -- remained. By the middle of the year, these three companies had managed to have a combined total of only eight pictures accepted by the censors, when they really needed 10 or 12 each just to break even.
The studios were faced with a difficult decision: continue doing business in Germany under unfavorable conditions or leave Germany and turn the Nazis into the greatest screen villains of all time. On July 22, MGM announced that it would bow out of Germany if the other two remaining companies, Paramount and 20th Century Fox, would do the same.
Paramount and Fox said no. Even though they were not making any money in Germany (Paramount announced a net loss of $580 for 1936), they still considered the German market to be a valuable investment. They had been there for years. Despite the difficult business conditions, their movies were still extremely popular. If they remained in Germany a while longer, their investment might once again yield excellent profits. If they left they might never be permitted to return.
Over the next few years, the studios actively cultivated personal contacts with prominent Nazis. In 1937, Paramount chose a new manager for its German branch: Paul Thiefes, a member of the Nazi Party. The head of MGM in Germany, Frits Strengholt, divorced his Jewish wife at the request of the Propaganda Ministry. She ended up in a concentration camp.
The studios also adopted new tactics. When Give Us This Night and The General Died at Dawn were banned, Paramount wrote to the Propaganda Ministry and speculated on what was objectionable in each case. Give Us This Night was scored by a Jewish composer, so the studio offered to dub in music by a German composer instead. The General Died at Dawn had been directed by Lewis Milestone, who had also directed All Quiet on the Western Front, so the studio offered to slash his name from the credits.
In January 1938, the Berlin branch of 20th Century Fox sent a letter directly to Hitler's office: "We would be very grateful if you could provide us with a note from the Führer in which he expresses his opinion of the value and effect of American films in Germany. We ask you for your kind support in this matter, and we would be grateful if you could just send us a brief notification of whether our request will be granted by the Führer. Heil Hitler!" Four days later, 20th Century Fox received a reply: "The Führer has heretofore refused in principle to provide these kinds of judgments."
The Final Cut
In April 1936, Laemmle lost control of Universal Pictures to the American financier and sportsman John Cheever Cowdin, who revived All Quiet on the Western Front sequel The Road Back. "When this story originally came in four or five years ago," a Universal employee explained to the Hays Office, "we were loath to produce … solely due to the jeopardy in which its production would have placed our German business. … [S]ince then the situation with regard to the American Film Industry has completely changed and we are now ready and anxious to produce this story."
Despite this proclamation, Universal had not lost interest in Germany. In February 1937, Cowdin traveled to Berlin, and according to U.S. ambassador William E. Dodd, he made an "unusual offer" to the Nazis. "The company in question was previously controlled by Jewish interests but after recent reorganization, it is understood that it is now non-Jewish," wrote Dodd, "[and after] discussions with government officials … a plan was considered whereby, probably in collaboration with German interests, his company might re-enter the German market."
On April 1, 1937, Gyssling made his boldest move yet. He sent letters to about 60 people involved in The Road Back -- the director, the cast, even the wardrobe man -- and he warned them that any films in which they participated in the future might be banned in Germany. The move created an uproar. Gyssling had directly threatened American film workers for their activities on home soil. He had used the U.S. Postal Service to frighten and intimidate individuals. Universal told everyone to keep the matter a secret, but the news leaked out. Several actors sought out legal advice; complaints were lodged with the State Department. One member of the Hays Office hoped that Gyssling would finally be expelled "on account of his viciousness."
STORY: The Berlin Hotel Where Hollywood Sleeps -- and Hitler Did Too
The matter was considered at the highest level. A representative of the secretary of state met with the counselor of the German embassy and pointed out that such actions did not fall within the proper functions of a consular officer. He did not want to lodge an official complaint; he simply asked the counselor to bring the matter up with the German government.
In the meantime, Universal Pictures made 21 cuts to The Road Back. By this stage, there was hardly anything in the film to which the ambassador could object. So many scenes had been cut out that the plot barely made any sense. The ending, which had criticized the rise of militarism in Germany, now criticized the rise of militarism all around the world. But the Nazis would not allow the company back into Germany.
For Gyssling, the news was less bleak. The German Foreign Office sent a brief, unapologetic letter to the State Department to explain that the consul in Los Angeles had been instructed not to issue future warnings to American citizens. As a result, the State Department considered the matter closed.
In all of these dealings with the Hollywood studios, Gyssling was doing something very strategic. He was objecting to a series of films about the World War when his real target lay elsewhere. Ever since he had heard about The Mad Dog of Europe, he had understood that Hollywood was capable of producing a much more damaging type of film from his perspective: a film that attacked Nazi Germany. His reaction to The Road Back was carefully calculated. He was focusing his energies on the films set in the past in an attempt to prevent the studios from moving into the present.
In April 1937, the final volume of Erich Maria Remarque's trilogy, Three Comrades, which was prime Hollywood material, was published in the United States. Whereas All Quiet on the Western Front had been about the World War and The Road Back had been about its aftermath, Three Comrades was set in the late 1920s, when the Nazis were emerging as a significant political force. The MGM producer Joseph L. Mankiewicz (brother of Herman) hired none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald, who wrote a script that mounted a powerful attack on the rise of Nazism in Germany.
When the Hays Office's Breen read the new script, he panicked. He had just received a fourth warning from Gyssling about Three Comrades, and he knew exactly what the German consul was capable of. He wrote to Mayer in the strongest possible terms: "This screen adaptation suggests to us enormous difficulty from the standpoint of your company's distribution business in Germany. … [and] may result in considerable difficulty in Europe for other American producing organizations."
The Nazis threatened to exclude American movies -- more than 250 played in Germany after Hitler took power in 1933 -- unless the studios cooperated. Before World War I, the German market had been the world's second-largest, and even though it had shrunk during the Great Depression, the studios believed it would bounce back and worried that if they left, they would never be able to return. individual Jews, and by the time of his death in 1939, he had helped get at least 300 people out of Germany.e film. It is very unlikely that Breen came up with the list himself, for he had his own separate set of suggestions (relating to sex, foul language, etc.). In all likelihood, this secret document, which contained 10 unusual changes, was the list that Mayer compiled with Gyssling at the end of their screening of Three Comrades.
STORY: Showtime's 'The Vatican' Casts Its Pope: 'Downfall's' Hitler
Breen went through the list in a meeting with several MGM executives. The film needed to be set somewhat earlier, in the two-year period immediately following the end of the World War. "Thus, we will get away from any possible suggestion that we are dealing with Nazi violence or terrorism." He read out the scenes that needed to be cut, and he pointed out that these cuts could be made without interfering with the romantic plot at the center of the picture. The MGM executives agreed. After all the changes had been made, Three Comrades neither attacked the Nazis nor mentioned the Jews. The picture had been completely sanitized.
From Gyssling's perspective, the removal of all the offensive elements of Three Comrades was the true benefit of his behavior from the previous year. He had reacted so dramatically to the second film in the trilogy that he had now managed to get his way on the third. And this was no small feat, for Three Comrades would have been the first explicitly anti-Nazi film by an American studio. At this critical historical moment, when a major Hollywood production could have alerted the world to what was going on in Germany, the director did not have the final cut; the Nazis did.
'Throw Us Out'
The collaboration between Hollywood and the Nazis lasted well into 1940. Though Warner Bros. released Confessions of a Nazi Spy in 1939, this B-picture had no effect on the studios still operating in Germany. MGM, Paramount and 20th Century Fox kept doing business with the Nazis, and MGM even donated 11 of its films to help with the German war relief effort after the Nazis invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.
As the war continued, the studios found it virtually impossible to distribute their pictures in England and France, two of their largest sources of foreign revenue. In this context, they were less concerned with the relatively minor German market. MGM soon embarked on its first anti-Nazi picture The Mortal Storm, and 20th Century Fox began work on Four Sons. The Nazis responded by invoking Article 15 and by September 1940, both had been expelled from German-occupied territory.
In the year that followed, the studios released only a handful of anti-Nazi movies because of another, very different political force: the American isolationists. The isolationists accused Hollywood of making propaganda designed to draw the United States into the European war, and in the fall of 1941, Congress investigated this charge in a series of hearings. The most dramatic moment came when the head of 20th Century Fox, Darryl F. Zanuck, gave a rousing defense of Hollywood: "I look back and recall pictures so strong and powerful that they sold the American way of life, not only to America but to the entire world. They sold it so strongly that when dictators took over Italy and Germany, what did Hitler and his flunky, Mussolini, do? The first thing they did was to ban our pictures, throw us out. They wanted no part of the American way of life."
In the thunderous applause that followed, no one pointed out that Zanuck's own studio had been doing business with the Nazis just the previous year.
The Nazis threatened to exclude American movies -- more than 250 played in Germany after Hitler took power in 1933 -- unless the studios cooperated. Before World War I, the German market had been the world's second-largest, and even though it had shrunk during the Great Depression, the studios believed it would bounce back and worried that if they left, they would never be able to return.

Bpdy Language Expert Patti Wood, MA. Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at

Zoom Meeting Etiquette

By Patti Wood, Author of SNAP Making the Most of First Impressions Body Language and Charisma
1)     Host should send a zoom meeting link.
2)     Ideally, the link should include the agenda and the first and last names of everyone on the call.
3)     If the meeting is all new people or there are new people, it is proper etiquette to introduce each new person to the group. I will give proper in zoom person introductions later, but because often you have a limited meeting time and or to many people to give time to full introductions I suggest a new zoom etiquette of sending each person's name ahead of time plus their job title or something about them and if you can a photo of them along with it. Your goal in etiquette is to make people feel comfortable, recognize the status and unique qualities of and commonalities between members.
4)     The host should make sure each person knows how to use zoom before the call. They can send a how-to video and or do a dry run with the new member of the meeting and or assign someone else the task for making sure new members are comfortable with the technology.
5)     Host ideally makes sure each member knows how to dress and has the appropriate “background” for the call, follows security measures.
6)     Host should know how to follow security measures, allow guests in and know how to mute or deal with video issues.
7)     The host should be first on and last of the zoom meeting. If for any reason they need to arrive late or leave early they should arrange ahead to give the host/meeting leader responsibilities to someone else. Think of being there as people get on as being at the door to take everyone’s coats and offering refreshments, instead of people standing out in the rain and ringing the doorbell and not being able to get in.
8)     Host should be there early on the call so they can make people feel welcome and overcome that awkward silence that otherwise meeting members may feel when they are not sure they are in the correct meeting or that their technology is working.
9)   May I introduce? The proper etiquette, rules, tips, and guidelines for making introductions.

Using the proper introductions help to establish rapport when meeting people. Yes, they are not always easy, but they are important. And knowing how to introduce people to one another can make you not only more comfortable it can make other people feel more comfortable and make you look more confident!

In a very formal setting, you would say, “I would like to present to you....” Otherwise, it is fine to say, “I would like to introduce you to...” or less formally, Mrs.Garmen, Mrs. Tolbight,”
or more informally say Mrs. Jones, you know Mrs. Robinson, don’t you?” Or Sarah have you met Molly. Or Julie do you know my Mother?

In business at formal business, zoom meetings introduce individuals to each other using both first and last names. If you are in a casual zoom meeting it is fine to use first names. "Jim, I'd like you to meet my neighbor, Sarah." Or, very casually, "Sarah, Jim.", "Jim, Sarah".

Whose name do you say first? Though even Miss Manner and Emily Post disagree on whose name comes first I believe you should honor the highest person by saying their name first. So think authority defines whose name is said first. Say the name of the most important person first and then the name of the person being introduced.

Introduce people in the following order:
· Younger to older, “Mrs. Hopkins I would like you to meet my little sister Mary Jones.”
· non-official to the official,” Mr. President I would like you to present to you Mr. John Brown.”
· junior executive to senior executive, ”Mr. Iacocca I would like you to present you to our new junior executive Mr. Sam Horn”
· Colleague to a customer, “Mrs. Hawthorne (The customer) I would like to introduce you to my college, Mr. Mike Frank.”
· 2 year employee to ten-year employee. Sam Coke I would like you to meet John Hordin.
 A customer Mr. Camp visiting a zoom meeting. Mr. Smith is the CEO. Mr.Camp I would like you to meet our CEO Mr. Mike Smith. There are also choices to make. Let’s say that you are introducing people to a speaker that’s formally presenting a speech on the zoom call and not everyone knows the name of the speaker. You could either say. MS Patti Wood I like you to meet my teammate Mr. Mike Stewart. Mr. Stewart (or just plain Mike) I would like you to meet our speaker today Patti Wood or you could say the lower status person’s name first Frank Smith I would like to introduce you to our speaker Dr. James Nelson. Dr. Nelson this is Frank Smith he has been at the Atlanta Training office of UKS for two years. He works with Jennie Waddington. It is OK if you mess up the order. No small children were harmed, just keep going.

If you're in a formal zoom meeting introduce someone who has a title’s doctor, for example,’ include the title as well as the first and last names in the introduction. Use proper titles. Don't introduce your parents as 'Mom' or 'Dad' unless that is how they would like to be addressed. You can say, “I would like you to meet my mother, Ms. Jones.

If the person you are introducing has a specific relationship to you, make the relationship clear by adding a phrase such as 'my boss,' 'my wife' or 'my uncle.' In the case of unmarried couples who are living together, 'companion' and 'partner' are good choices.

Use your spouse's first and last name if he or she has a different last name than you. Include the phrase 'my wife' or 'my husband.' Mr. Jones I would like you to meet my husband Eric Mann.
Introduce an individual to the group first, then the group to the individual. For example: 'Dr. Noble, I'd like you to meet my friends Hassan Jubar, Kim Nordeck and Michael Smith. Everyone, this is Dr. Mark Noble.'

Give them something to talk about once you have introduced them, preferably something they have in common. For example:” Sara this is Paul." “Paul, Sara is the biggest Baseball fan I have ever met" Now you have them a conversation starter. If you need to go, once they get a bit of a conversation going you can excuse yourself politely

Introducing people by recognizing talent and giving praise is an important part of being a good leader, team member, and friend. And showing great respect In my book, "People Savvy Leadership," I give the following tips:

When you focus on other’s accomplishments and notice what is worthy of praise, your energy is lifted, and you build successful interactions.
A simple way to give praise is with an introduction. For example, when you introduce your friends, coworkers and business associates to someone new, share their name and an accomplishment. "Jim, this is Sara Beckman, she just headed up the committee for our new quarter sales meeting and it was fantastic." "Tom, this is Morgan Tyler, she just spearheaded the new marketing project." "Karl, this is Veronica Mann, she works with our top client Prudential." Or “Pam, this is my dear friend Karla, we have known each other since we were kids and she has the best sense of humor” “Karla this is my co-worker Pam, she has designed our new social media platform to rave reviews from the team or “Mark this is my colleague Jim, Jim he is our go-to expert on customer loyalty, he really knows his stuff.” Jim, this is my friend Mark, Mark and I met at Top Golf benefit he was in charge of last year and it was a huge success and did us proud.” 

If you're introduced to someone respond. You don’t have to say, “Nice to meet you.” It is a polite response, but you may not be sure yet if it will be nice. You don’t have to say, “It is a pleasure to meet you unless it is a pleasure. You do have to say something. You should repeat the person's name back; In a formal setting saying "Hi" or " Hello" is not enough. Instead, say, “Hello” "Do you prefer being called David or should I call you Dave?"


The host should state the agenda, that they sent ahead of time and set ground rules/etiquette guidelines for the meeting both in an email before the meeting and at the start of the meeting. For example, “Here are the guidelines for private messaging members of the meeting while we are on the call.” And or “We want to make sure everyone has time to talk and everyone feels heard and understood. Make sure your zoom box is not coming up and filling the screen more than other members of the meeting unless you are presenting. I may hop in and suggest that other people contribute. The host should guide the meeting making sure no one dominates the zoom call and that if someone hasn’t spoken you call on them and or send them a private message asking if they would like to contribute.

11.)  The host should give a final thought, goal, motivational statement, story, or a bit of humor to formally end the zoom call and thank people for attending, give special individual thanks for important contributions to the call. Tell the group you will stay after for further questions and visiting time and will be the last to leave the call and ideally, if you can say goodbye to each individual on the call so there is not a haphazard clicking off at the end and people don’t know when to say goodbye. 

Patti Wood, MA - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at

How to Apologize for Missing a Meeting How to Apologize for Missing a Meeting

How to Apologize for Missing a Meeting
By Body Langauge and Human Behavior Expert 
Patti Wood
Step One - Communicate your apology as soon as possible. Waiting to let some time pass is a great strategy when you’re a gardener waiting for your seeds to grow, but delay allows weeds to grow larger in a garden and a bad situation to grow worse in our relationships. Dissonance makes people uncomfortable, so your colleague who is upset with you for missing the meeting and that they taking will not remember the good behavior in other situations they will emphasize the bad and research shows it will actually grow in severity in their minds.

Step Two - apologize. – You can say, “I apologize,” or “I am sorry.” Or my personal favorite, “I am sorry, I messed up.”

Step Three - Keep the message clear of “buts” and excuses. In order to sound professional, you must keep your message clear and free of the “buts” So don’t say, “I’m sorry, but I had to take that phone call it was really important.”  Stay clear of the blame game. “I am sorry, but it’s not really my fault, my boss…”  You might think, “But sometimes it’s not my fault.”  It doesn’t matter who’s to blame; apologize anyway without giving an excuse. If you’re apologizing to a customer, you know you are a representative of your company and therefore you have a responsibility to see that things go well. In all your relationships your willingness to be accountable will ensure that you are seen as a responsible, mature individual.  If you start making excuses, you may start an argument. If you choose to be agreeable an argument is not possible.

Step Four - If there is an excuse use this magic phrasing. “I am sorry, I messed up, there is a reason but the most important thing for you to know now is that I am sorry.”   If you absolutely must make an excuse right now for goodness sakes make the excuse briefer than your apology and whether writing an excuse or giving it face-to-face, follow it with another statement of apology.

Step Five - Sympathize. Empathize.  Let the person know that you can identify with his feelings.  For example, “I understand that you were worried and frustrated because I missed the call. would be frustrated to.”  Their feelings have been validated. You can also assure them that you did not mean them harm. For example, “I did not mean to upset you.”

Step Six Accept responsibility for the situation. You’re an adult. You cannot blame mommy. Be accountable. If you’re not going to be accountable do not apologize just to say you did.  If you are willing let the person know that you intend to do whatever it takes to make things right. You can’t help what has already happened, but you will come up with a solution to the problem.

Step Seven - Show your regret. Just as I said people will complain till they see you get there pain, some people will not fully accept an apology unless they know you have suffered too. I don’t mean that meanly, just know that pain for pain can make a conflict disappear. Come right out and say you are sorry or ashamed. “I feel really bad for forgetting”.

Step Eight - Repair the damage. To be complete, an apology must correct the injury. If you damaged someone's property, offer to fix it. If the damage isn't so obvious, ask “What can I do to make it up to you? There may be nothing concrete you can do, but the offer must be sincere. “I'll will be there on the call on time next time. Meantime I want to send you a Starbucks card to say I am sorry.”

Patti Wood, MA - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at

How to Tell If Your Phone Interview Went Well

1.      One of the indications that an interview has gone well is if the interviewer has gone deep on particular questions when you are giving a positive answer.
2.      If they are looking for more information about something you have done well it indicates                are seeing you as a positive candidate.
3.      Spontaneity in their questions and responses during the interview indicates they are going off-script to be present with you as an individual rather than doing a rote interview.        
4.      They laugh!  Interviewers who laugh show not only that they think they have had fun with  you in the moment, and that they may find you funny, but they are comfortable enough with      you to be personable and step out of the “interviewer” roll.
 5.     Time is a strong communicator. If they are giving you more time. If they are thinking seriously as a candidate, they will give you more time to answer questions, won’t interrupt or cut you off or speed through the process. One of the best indicators is if they slow down and or linger at the formal close of the interview. 

Patti Wood, MA - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at

How do we find out the real number of Covid 19 cases and how many people have recovered?

In college at Florida State, I had a great part-time job. I was that delightful person who called your home between 6 and 10 in the evening to do a short survey, 45 minutes to an hour and a half, about fun topics such as how many refrigerators you had in your home and if you owned a trailer. (I always wanted to ask if they had a pink flamingo in their yard, but It would have skewed the survey.)  I worked for the policy science program and most of the survey research was done for the governor’s office for the State of Florida and used to determine policy and budgeting. After getting my Master's degree and  I came back to Florida to work on my Doctorate in Communication with an Emphasis in Body Language and end up getting promoted to my former boss's job and I was the manager of the Policy Science Program, helping design the surveys, hiring and managing the staff and keeping track of all the research and creating reports for the governor’s office. 

Oh, by the way, I was 22. I had taken several semesters of graduate-level statistics and a survey research course in grad school where I designed and conducted a survey research study, and I had been trained briefly by my boss, but that’s it. Later, as National Spokesperson for Wrigley’s gum, Benadryl, Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion, The Natural Dentist and Latisse eye drops and other products. I designed and conducted and or consulted on the design of national surveys. I also designed a three-year survey research study on handshake and greeting rituals and a five-year study of first impressions. 

Here is why this is important to know. 

If you are asking, "What are the real numbers for COVID 19 in your state or in the US? I think we could very easily design and implement a brief survey research design to call every house and or a sample large enough to study in our state and gather data on who has or has had each symptom of COVID 19, how long they were ill and their recovery, who has passed in a household and who may have developed antibodies?

It’s not hard to do and not that expensive. If we couldn't poll everyone and wanted to do a representative sample for research, for example, a staff of 12 surveyors working from 6:00 till 10 each did surveys, up to 7 pages long for an entire state in two to three weeks. National Surveys I worked on hired US companies to do the phone research for less than 1,000 dollars questions an again did the pilot tests and surveys in a few weeks.

We could also design a simple survey and have it online and we could work in conjunction with or compare research that could be done by every insurance and health care provider could have it online and do the same phone survey with their customers/patients. Surveys could be on websites, they could be emailed, and there could be follow up emails and make phone calls to check in on health and recovery. We could figure out the privacy rules. Dang, Kaiser already has a number for the nurse to call if you have symptoms that the nurse could ask for permission to use the patient's demographic details, keep their privacy and collect the data on symptoms and then check back about the seriousness of illness and recovery. It wouldn't be difficult to compare that data with numbers coming from hospitals dealing with the seriously ill. 

If I could design and conduct survey research at 22 and “This is Carol with Cardholder Services” can call us on an automated service with such persistence to get us to use a high-interest credit card I think we can get have the know-how and gusto up to make this work. 

Patti Wood, MA - The Body Language and Human Behavior Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at