>The film also notes that the United States has laws against propagandizing the U.S. public, which might make such a disclosure a confession of a crime. I would add that since 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has required that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”
That changed in 2013:
>The U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm has begun the "unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption," John Hudson of Foreign Policy reported on Sunday.
>The content arrives with the enactment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R- Texas) and Rep. Adam Smith (D- Wash.), which was inserted into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
>The reform effectively nullifies the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was amended in 1985 specifically to prohibit U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States."
>The new law enables U.S. government programming such as Voice of America (VoA) — an outlet created in 1942 to promote a positive understanding of the U.S. abroad — t0 broadcast directly to domestic audiences for the first time.
Imagine you have a tech industry that merged with madison avenue along with psychological methods learned from Guantanamo and CIA Black Sites, and you wanted to build a societal manipulation machine, otherwise known as propaganda. Makes me wonder if there is any relation between the changes mentioned here and some of what the social media infrastructure has been used to do.
> psychological methods learned from Guantanamo and CIA Black Sites,
What would those be? If CIA and such has some special "psychological methods", how comes they never actually used it to achieve anything related to their direct job? I mean, let's embrace the conspiracy and assume they have these spectacular methods that can make anybody think anything and they are willing to use it on anybody, including Americans. Why won't they use it on Taliban or Iranians or Hezbollah and make them love America and crave McDonalds burgers and Starbucks coffee? Why didn't they use it for anything, even if just to get promoted and look good on the annual report?
I think much more realistic hypothesis would be that they have no magic spectacular "psychological methods" at all and are as (in)competent in persuasion as a random politician is, and are forced to muddle through with what they got, and they need "black sites" so that public wouldn't actually learn how low their success rate is and how lucky we are because their opponents aren't exactly geniuses either.
The act "geoblocked" propaganda that was ment e.g. for us European's from being received in the US. I think the argument is by "unblocking" it for US audiences there is indirectly a legalization of national propaganda. Particularly as such propaganda is excempt from the freedom of information act, it might be rather hard to prove that such propaganda only targeted an international audience (which is quite aware that Hollywood movies are all propaganda for the American way of live, I guess)
> The cyber world will progressively become both a boon and a bane to IO personnel, allowing them to reach a global audience, but also providing a large vulnerability to enemy deception and PSYOP efforts that will require a near immediate response to worldwide, operational events .. Update US Influence Operations doctrine to .. develop TTPs for employing PSYOP, MILDEC, and Public Affairs using the new cyber technology. Once developed, the TTPs must .. allow the military IO operator an avenue for developing proficiency in the release of “precision guided messages” to foreign audiences.
> ..government bureaucracy advanced measures aimed at controlling the global online environment. Commercial companies further exploited their geographical flexibility, minimal accountability and ‘black boxed’ practises, to profit from this desire to side-step awkward bureaucracy designed to protect the public ... the ‘merging’ of PSYOP and PA raised concern in academia and beyond ... This article engages in deep exploration of struggles between subfields of propaganda. It shows how PSYOP and Information Operations (IO) personnel struggled against Public Affairs over the adaptation of systems..
Other search terms:
Information Operations (IO)
Influence Operations (IO)
Inform and Influence Activities (IIA)
Interactive Internet Activities (IIA)
However, that act didn't seem to have an effect in publishing media like: Top Gun movies and the America's Army videogame.
Not sure how the VoA programming looks like (sounds like I guess) but I don't think outlets for government promotion were lacking even before the act was overturned
That was a great game. High realism, frag grenades with right range, different stance involving accuracy, shooting using iron sights. I played tons of hours on Bridge and Hospital maps.
During the Cold War, the US government, via the United States Information Agency (USIA)[0] delivered all sorts of propaganda to our ideological adversaries, in particular communist countries. They usually tried to reach the average person and thus skew opinion in our (America's) favor.
I got a glimpse of some of this because I was an exchange student in the 80's, in a program sponsored by Congress and considered relevant to said Cold War. It was pretty interesting! Plenty of eagles and big cars and class mobility, but also a lot of stuff about freedom of thought and expression.
I remember at the time being quite miffed that they were not allowed to intentionally expose US citizens to any of this propaganda -- US expats were not even allowed to use the America-sponsored libraries abroad -- because it seemed like keeping it open would encourage the government to send a message that, broadly speaking, Americans agreed with.
Now that I'm older, I'm not sure. I think maybe it was better for them to have a freer hand in propagandizing, without having to argue about every point in a domestic context. Nowadays, however, it's hard to imagine that secrecy working at all so it's just as well they gave up.
Yup, Obama under the radar a few days before leaving office to Trump approved the creation of a propaganda department specifically targeting US citizens. Its no wonder we hear the same talking points across corporate media.
At this point the only thing we can truly trust is independent journalists. Most concerning is the rampant and normaliced acceptance of censorship in social media. Democracy depends on free speech. Its time we start dictching Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google search for more open platforms that allow a broad and unfiltered exchange of ideas. We the people, not the other way around.
Once this was pointed out, I can't unsee it. It's kind of ruined movies that involves the military or military equipment for me, since it can be really obvious when creators toe the line for the military. When I see military equipment my gut reaction is to anticipate the other shoe dropping, and to look for shoehorned hero worship or some good-versus-evil plot point.
I think Hollywood is lot less subtle now at trying to push political propaganda than it was ever then, except that wokeism is the theme of the day. In some instances it has completely taken over the plot, like in the last season of Fargo, to the point of becoming some sort of unwatcheable catechism.
There's an additional very blatant theme I've been seeing of "science and engineers are the coolest!" that cropped up in, e.g. The Tomorrow War and another recent military themed US movie whose name I forget. They made me wonder if the army is fretting about its access to STEM skills.
You are contrasting “wokeism” to military and secret agencies propaganda of a nation that has been warring, invading and coordinating coups for almost a hundred years?
What defines propaganda? The government manipulating people, often without reveling the source, is propaganda. A privately made movie with a point of view is not. You may not agree with the movie's perspective, but that certainly doesn't make it propaganda.
> Comparing war propaganda, downplaying of war crimes etc, with a civil rights movement.
Wokeism in mass media is big corporations' fear of missing out and losing customers. Those ideals were shared values of the younger generation decades before the industry adapted to it. Now that these kids have grown up, they are valued as consumers.
I just watched Don't Look Up on Netflix and the propaganda was so thick it actually made the whole movie painful to watch. I suppose it's naive to think that old movies are propaganda-free. But I find myself missing the narratives I grew up with. The new ones are whiny, cynical and uninspiring. At least the old ones inspired me towards positive things.
Americans love that stuff though, it’s not necessarily propaganda forced down our throats. We’d still want to see the badass, all American commando on a 100 kill streak.
That’s my understanding. The US military approach is basically “we’ll provide real gear and vehicles as long as your movie doesn’t put us in a negative light”. It’s basically the military getting free advertising in return.
I get the sense most blockbuster Hollywood movies fit that bill quite well with minimal edits. The more niche, gritty movies that talk about the unpleasant/controversial events/aspects probably don’t even ask for help.
Hwæt?! I think it's more than just modern Americans who love(d) heroic war stories. Look at J. Caesar, look at the knightly romances from the Middle Ages -- the latter are especially sanitized, the former were probably bloodied up a bit. The pursuit of that kill streak has been a genre for a really long time. I thought it was common knowledge that the US Government helped it along here and there and has in one medium or another since the beginning. There is a Maldon for every few Beowulfs though.
One of the most interesting and moderately uncomfortable experiences for me was being in another country and seeing a war movie in that country’s theatres made by a director in that country
It was about a conflict I never thought about before, and also had me rooting for an anti-hero that on a side that would go on to oppose America, although acknowledgement of the US’ future involvement wasn’t even a part of the movie
Visitors and immigrants to the US must face that all the time, or dont have such nationalistic conditioning to care in the first place
In any case, the most interesting thing was how different the movie was. Like the things they focused on werent an unrealistic show of force and winning. I am enough of a film buff to put this on the specific director’s prowess, instead of culture, but I do think the surrounding culture is what helped the director greenlight working on that film.
I thought this has been common knowledge forever. I mean, if you see before the closing titles something like
"With grateful thanks to the US Navy and Airforce, without whom this film could not have been made"
then you have to assume that the helpful armed forces at least got approval of the final cut. At any rate, I've always thought that stuff like The Green Berets with John Wayne was pure war propaganda.
I guess some people don't realize that stuff like the Transformers movies were all done with help from the US Military as well.
Probably the same people who don't make the connection with the military displays associated with sporting events (and the national anthem and its military theme before domestic sporting events). Stuff like the Blue Angles. It is all very Roman Empire the way we display our weapons of war, but lots of people can't even see it.
There are obvious exceptions - The Hurt Locker doesn't look to me like anyone in the military signed off on it. Nor Platoon (which I understand is much-liked by veterans).
As we age these tells pile up and if we don't change the world around us we drown in tropes and cliches that are pushed by carpet baggers. So many different things that can't be unseen.
Speaking of good-vs-evil, do you also see WWII veterans and military history in the same light? They got into war that no one asked for. I cannot imagine if US and allies had lost WWII. It is simply unimaginable.
That's an example of a well-cemented "good-vs-evil" dichotomy in the sense that the story of good vs evil in WWII has been told and retold so many times, that people can't imagine arguing with it.
The concepts of "good" and "evil" are interesting, for example the discussion of the Banality of Evil (Arendt) etc.
Right, because there is this magical line in history where everything was different.
It's just that the propaganda for that war was so incredibly effective for so long, it is nearly impossible to find people who see it in a realistic light.
Normally the magic line goes the other way -- people think propaganda or such may have existed in the bad old days but in "modern times" of course everything is copacetic.
WWII being the fight of good versus evil is the foundation myth of post-1945 western civilization. It is the central dogma of the western pseudo-religion, which prevents meaningful discussion of these matters.
I view the veterans of the Abraham Lincoln brigade as having fought and sacrificed on the side of good. When the survivors later tried to join the US Army for the fight against Germans and WWII (which they viewed as a continuation of the same war they had already been fighting) many of the were labelled "premature antifascists" and rejected.
The Nazis were evil, but that doesn’t imply that the allies fought against the Axis powers because they were good. You can do the right thing for the wrong or neutral reasons.
“US and allies”—that the US fought the whole war with the rest of the allies as support is another artifact of Hollywood’s portrayal of WWII. Although it’s understandable that there are less American movies about the Eastern Front, so it’s not like that has to be caused by some propaganda effort.
Fun fact: the "WWII veterans" group includes German veterans. They got into war many of them asked for.
The good side in WWII includes Stalin and his regime. I do think that Hitler was bigger treat to everyone (including Easter Europeans themselves) and the alliance was needed. However, that does not mean Stalin represents "good guy".
The anitisemitism was not limited to Germans. Plenty of non-Germans people cooperated with it for own benefit or out of own anti-semitism. That includes people who were victims themselves - but still disliked Jews.
Also, closer to America, in movies American army simply can not possibly commit blunder, make really bad decisions (whether practically or morally). Real WWII featured a lot of those.
Also, speaking about movies, in American war movies war essentially feel good and heroic. The good and heroes wins. civilians basically dont exist and literally never are a real character with personality, motivations or agency (as limited as it is). The damage dont to them, the moral choices they have to do or their reaction to it dont exist.
I cringe every time I hear the US president being described as the leader of the free world, as if there were 2 specific sides and USA were leading it and as if USA was an advocate for freedom.
USA is an advocate of very specific stability. "Free world" is a hyperbolic but US is still a huge global power.
In cold war it was obvious there were two sides, and the other was obviously more free than the other. Go ask for example Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians who they enjoyed the yoke of the USSR.
Now, as China is becoming an ever more stronger player, we again see that there are two sides arising. While party lacks expansive ambitions in the traditional sense of landborders (except for Taiwan), they would very much like everyone to kotow to the party.
We are in a world where democracies are in decline and autocracies are in the rise. USA is still the biggest democracy. Leader of the free world? It's hyperbolic, but not _obviously totally wrong_.
This is not to say we are in some sort of manichean conflict world were one side is good and one is evil, or that US is good and the autocrats are evil. US is obviously a state actor that acts in it's own benefit and in the benefit of it's elites and so on, and these actions sometimes are very bad for civilians.
> USA is an advocate of very specific stability. "Free world" is a hyperbolic but US is still a huge global power.
> In cold war it was obvious there were two sides, and the other was obviously more free than the other. Go ask for example Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians who they enjoyed the yoke of the USSR.
You could also ask a Guatemalan how they enjoyed living under the US installed military dictatorships (which came out of a US supported coup after democratic elections resulted in a win for the left). Things are by far not as clear cut. Both blocks supported atrocious regimes if it was in their economic interests and worked against "the other side". That we largely only hear about one side shows how well the propaganda was/is working.
> In cold war it was obvious there were two sides ...
These two sides narration was a very intentional American construct. View from the other side wasn't symmetrical. US as seen from the other side was just seen as a powerful country that likes to mess around with other countries business exploiting them for their own purposes.
End of cold war changed nothing. US is still a powerful country that likes to mess around the world to exploit it better, and Russia is still insular country that doesn't want to allow any of that on their turf.
The only thing that changed with the end of the cold war was that US could no longer credibly spin the narrative that Russia wants to take over the world and turn Texans into communists.
Fortunately, after a bit of mucking around USA could brand terrorists as their global super dangerous enemy and business could continue as usual.
Currently when terrorists turned out to be a very limited threat and USA proved to be very incompetent at fighting them long term, USA again began shopping for a narrative enemy. Obvious choice is China, but USA leaders with more than two brain cells are little hesitant about that, because you don't necessarily want to frame yourself as enemy of someone who could very likely seriously eff you up.
Up until 1990 that was a reasonable approximation to the truth. The USA certainly had its issues, but in a comparison between the USA and the USSR there was no question about who the relatively good guys were.
Since the USSR collapsed, and especially since 9/11, things have gotten a lot murkier.
I assume you are American? As resident of one of the dozens of countries that suffered US led coups our opinions differ. The US has influenced with undemocratic methods a lot more countries than the USSR even before the 90s. Just compare Europe and US sphere influence (Latin America and Africa) with USSR sphere of influence (Eastern Europe and Caucasian) Also look what happened Foreign interventions in the USSR sphere of influence for Freedom (Syria, Libya and Yugoslavia, Former USSR naval bases in the Mediterranean) those were rebellions against dictatorships. All the others are insurgencies against democracies.
I seriously challenge you to read up on the history of the Latin Americas or many African nations. The "leader of the free world" was installing and supporting fascist dictatorships left right and center, who killed thousands of people in their torture chambers (often using CIA resources). It's correct that the US was generally better to its own people (unless you were black of course), but it certainly wasn't a beacon of freedom to the world.
You are clearly American. American administrations preferred and supported third-world tyrants during the Cold War over functional democracies since the former could be easily controlled. This is extensively documented and even admitted by several ex-DC head honchos.
Public messaging by POTUS for national consumption is very different from actions on the ground.
That’s only possible with an extremely euro centric world view. If you were to focus on say, South America, you would’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion.
If the US ever had good guy status, it's because of the principles it was founded upon. I'm not even sure up to which point those principles stood. Certainly not as late as the 90s. The second world war seems to have been the major turning point.
Or just the fact that whenever there is an alien invasion, worldwide apocalypse or destruction, the effort to rebuild always starts from the USA. Every time I watch any of those movies I think "I wonder how Europe is faring..."
In France, the french secret services (DGSE) worked hand-in-hand with the production of a TV show called The Bureau (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4063800).
The services were supposedly lacking diverse resources for both operators, admins and field agents of diverse backgrounds.
This series drew a very strong, credible and positive narrative that led to a massive number of people knocking at the doors of the DGSE to join the forces.
Propaganda? I think not. Well thought out recruitment strategy as entertainment? Most likely yes.
Is there a difference between the two? To be discussed... ;)
You are being manipulated in this very second. That you skim HN while watching the show was actually anticipated. This comment will auto-destruct in 60 seconds.
There is no evidence the show was designed as an advertisement for the DGSE. This is simply a happy side-effect of it being popular...
I see a big difference with using movies as propaganda to influence the planet's opinions.
At the same time, one has to be blind to not see that any cinema industry has a political agenda, I mean, just watch the average Netflix production and it is striking.
> There is no evidence the show was designed as an advertisement for the DGSE.
It is for me inconceivable that the DGSE did not think of the outcome before agreeing to be an active collaborator of the show, and act accordingly to it's own benefits.
It's even more obvious when it's the other way around; i.e. movies that criticize them have to create war scenes without the all the free fighter jets and Apache helicopters. One of the worst (war) movie scenes in history have to be the one in "Lions for lambs" [1]. It looks like some low budget / film school creation even though it's a massive production, with Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep.
Why do they even need the military for this? Can't they just use some computer graphics instead? We have video games full of photorealistic fighter jets and helicopters.
I suspect something similar is going on with all the cop/crime shows that show the "hero" cops completely disregard the law and due process. This always happens in situations where all the viewers completely agree that it is justified, e.g. a clear bad/evil guy (we already know he did it) and a small child that has to be saved from a prison...
I think this is essentially suposed to make us conceive law enforcement as always right and doing everything to "keep us safe" even if they have to disregard the law. You can clearly see it's working in how many people unquestionably support the police.
As a person who grew up without a television at home (I was homeschooled in Canada), this is strikingly obvious. Even the differences in mentality and worldview between those who grew up watching American TV shows and those who didn't is immediately obvious to me within 5 minutes of having a casual conversation. One of the reasons I left Canada and moved to Eastern Europe is for the refreshing change in monoculture: I can have normal conversations with people whose minds have not developed in a Hollywood Matrix, whose entire cultural context is not based on popular TV references (or the tropes presented in them). Lots of people in post-Soviet countries don't watch American television, and it is very easy to tell when they do. I now strongly prefer European TV productions (especially older British and French stuff), because the American superpower-worship and military propaganda, and now wokeism, is positively cringeworthy.
What features or differences make this "strikingly obvious"? What conversation subjects do you talk about in a 5 minute casual conversation that demonstrate a person has consumed American TV shows?
Britain invented and filmed the James Bond movies which surely have attracted more young men to the service than anything the Americans have ever come up with, right?
I bumped into this video about the making of 'Top Gun' the other day.
Interesting in many ways. It shows the photographical choices and approaches that they used. The creative process and choices (and the vision and influence of Bruckenheimer).. and the way that the Navy had an influence.
Example: the CO of the Miramar base (where it was shot) had a veto right on the script. He rejected because there was a romance between enlisted, and because there was an in-flight collision. Which resulted in Bruckenheimer finding 'work-arounds' : Charlie becomes an external consultant, the collision becomes a flat spin following a jet wash incident (the CO looked over old accidents to find something suitable)
Readit News
That changed in 2013:
>The U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm has begun the "unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption," John Hudson of Foreign Policy reported on Sunday.
>The content arrives with the enactment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R- Texas) and Rep. Adam Smith (D- Wash.), which was inserted into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
>The reform effectively nullifies the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was amended in 1985 specifically to prohibit U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States."
>The new law enables U.S. government programming such as Voice of America (VoA) — an outlet created in 1942 to promote a positive understanding of the U.S. abroad — t0 broadcast directly to domestic audiences for the first time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offic...
What would those be? If CIA and such has some special "psychological methods", how comes they never actually used it to achieve anything related to their direct job? I mean, let's embrace the conspiracy and assume they have these spectacular methods that can make anybody think anything and they are willing to use it on anybody, including Americans. Why won't they use it on Taliban or Iranians or Hezbollah and make them love America and crave McDonalds burgers and Starbucks coffee? Why didn't they use it for anything, even if just to get promoted and look good on the annual report?
I think much more realistic hypothesis would be that they have no magic spectacular "psychological methods" at all and are as (in)competent in persuasion as a random politician is, and are forced to muddle through with what they got, and they need "black sites" so that public wouldn't actually learn how low their success rate is and how lucky we are because their opponents aren't exactly geniuses either.
2010 paper made a case for Smith-Mundt act changes, https://web.archive.org/web/20220107123332/https://www.hsdl....
> The cyber world will progressively become both a boon and a bane to IO personnel, allowing them to reach a global audience, but also providing a large vulnerability to enemy deception and PSYOP efforts that will require a near immediate response to worldwide, operational events .. Update US Influence Operations doctrine to .. develop TTPs for employing PSYOP, MILDEC, and Public Affairs using the new cyber technology. Once developed, the TTPs must .. allow the military IO operator an avenue for developing proficiency in the release of “precision guided messages” to foreign audiences.
2018 analysis, https://web.archive.org/web/20180720063648if_/http://reposit...
> ..government bureaucracy advanced measures aimed at controlling the global online environment. Commercial companies further exploited their geographical flexibility, minimal accountability and ‘black boxed’ practises, to profit from this desire to side-step awkward bureaucracy designed to protect the public ... the ‘merging’ of PSYOP and PA raised concern in academia and beyond ... This article engages in deep exploration of struggles between subfields of propaganda. It shows how PSYOP and Information Operations (IO) personnel struggled against Public Affairs over the adaptation of systems..
Other search terms:
Not sure how the VoA programming looks like (sounds like I guess) but I don't think outlets for government promotion were lacking even before the act was overturned
That was a great game. High realism, frag grenades with right range, different stance involving accuracy, shooting using iron sights. I played tons of hours on Bridge and Hospital maps.
I got a glimpse of some of this because I was an exchange student in the 80's, in a program sponsored by Congress and considered relevant to said Cold War. It was pretty interesting! Plenty of eagles and big cars and class mobility, but also a lot of stuff about freedom of thought and expression.
I remember at the time being quite miffed that they were not allowed to intentionally expose US citizens to any of this propaganda -- US expats were not even allowed to use the America-sponsored libraries abroad -- because it seemed like keeping it open would encourage the government to send a message that, broadly speaking, Americans agreed with.
Now that I'm older, I'm not sure. I think maybe it was better for them to have a freer hand in propagandizing, without having to argue about every point in a domestic context. Nowadays, however, it's hard to imagine that secrecy working at all so it's just as well they gave up.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agen...
At this point the only thing we can truly trust is independent journalists. Most concerning is the rampant and normaliced acceptance of censorship in social media. Democracy depends on free speech. Its time we start dictching Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google search for more open platforms that allow a broad and unfiltered exchange of ideas. We the people, not the other way around.
That billions of equipment and resources provided by the woke cabala? Let's talk about that instead of military covered intervention in society.
As a citizen from An USA allied country, I find disturbing how much propaganda the military pushes for at global level. That's a very serious matter.
I think the past efforts were pretty blatant. I think we just know more about how they operate and so it becomes easier to see.
> wokeism
Would love to know what this means.
What movies are you thinking of?
Wokeism in mass media is big corporations' fear of missing out and losing customers. Those ideals were shared values of the younger generation decades before the industry adapted to it. Now that these kids have grown up, they are valued as consumers.
I get the sense most blockbuster Hollywood movies fit that bill quite well with minimal edits. The more niche, gritty movies that talk about the unpleasant/controversial events/aspects probably don’t even ask for help.
As for the CIA??
An extreme caricature of American Military! Amazing game too.
It was about a conflict I never thought about before, and also had me rooting for an anti-hero that on a side that would go on to oppose America, although acknowledgement of the US’ future involvement wasn’t even a part of the movie
Visitors and immigrants to the US must face that all the time, or dont have such nationalistic conditioning to care in the first place
In any case, the most interesting thing was how different the movie was. Like the things they focused on werent an unrealistic show of force and winning. I am enough of a film buff to put this on the specific director’s prowess, instead of culture, but I do think the surrounding culture is what helped the director greenlight working on that film.
I guess some people don't realize that stuff like the Transformers movies were all done with help from the US Military as well.
Probably the same people who don't make the connection with the military displays associated with sporting events (and the national anthem and its military theme before domestic sporting events). Stuff like the Blue Angles. It is all very Roman Empire the way we display our weapons of war, but lots of people can't even see it.
The history of this matter remains very clear in most documentaries on the subject both old and new, such as describing the marathon sprint of Zhukov.
Aside: I find the WWII era military training/propaganda videos pretty entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgXuhv7-54
The concepts of "good" and "evil" are interesting, for example the discussion of the Banality of Evil (Arendt) etc.
It's just that the propaganda for that war was so incredibly effective for so long, it is nearly impossible to find people who see it in a realistic light.
Normally the magic line goes the other way -- people think propaganda or such may have existed in the bad old days but in "modern times" of course everything is copacetic.
WWII being the fight of good versus evil is the foundation myth of post-1945 western civilization. It is the central dogma of the western pseudo-religion, which prevents meaningful discussion of these matters.
The Nazis were evil, but that doesn’t imply that the allies fought against the Axis powers because they were good. You can do the right thing for the wrong or neutral reasons.
“US and allies”—that the US fought the whole war with the rest of the allies as support is another artifact of Hollywood’s portrayal of WWII. Although it’s understandable that there are less American movies about the Eastern Front, so it’s not like that has to be caused by some propaganda effort.
The good side in WWII includes Stalin and his regime. I do think that Hitler was bigger treat to everyone (including Easter Europeans themselves) and the alliance was needed. However, that does not mean Stalin represents "good guy".
The anitisemitism was not limited to Germans. Plenty of non-Germans people cooperated with it for own benefit or out of own anti-semitism. That includes people who were victims themselves - but still disliked Jews.
Also, closer to America, in movies American army simply can not possibly commit blunder, make really bad decisions (whether practically or morally). Real WWII featured a lot of those.
Also, speaking about movies, in American war movies war essentially feel good and heroic. The good and heroes wins. civilians basically dont exist and literally never are a real character with personality, motivations or agency (as limited as it is). The damage dont to them, the moral choices they have to do or their reaction to it dont exist.
In cold war it was obvious there were two sides, and the other was obviously more free than the other. Go ask for example Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians who they enjoyed the yoke of the USSR.
Now, as China is becoming an ever more stronger player, we again see that there are two sides arising. While party lacks expansive ambitions in the traditional sense of landborders (except for Taiwan), they would very much like everyone to kotow to the party.
We are in a world where democracies are in decline and autocracies are in the rise. USA is still the biggest democracy. Leader of the free world? It's hyperbolic, but not _obviously totally wrong_.
This is not to say we are in some sort of manichean conflict world were one side is good and one is evil, or that US is good and the autocrats are evil. US is obviously a state actor that acts in it's own benefit and in the benefit of it's elites and so on, and these actions sometimes are very bad for civilians.
> In cold war it was obvious there were two sides, and the other was obviously more free than the other. Go ask for example Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians who they enjoyed the yoke of the USSR.
You could also ask a Guatemalan how they enjoyed living under the US installed military dictatorships (which came out of a US supported coup after democratic elections resulted in a win for the left). Things are by far not as clear cut. Both blocks supported atrocious regimes if it was in their economic interests and worked against "the other side". That we largely only hear about one side shows how well the propaganda was/is working.
Ah yes, proximity. Now go ask the small Central American nations if they enjoyed living close to the USA during the 70s and 80s.
It's quite funny that after the cold war it came out that nukes of 'the more free side' was targetting Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvia cities.
These two sides narration was a very intentional American construct. View from the other side wasn't symmetrical. US as seen from the other side was just seen as a powerful country that likes to mess around with other countries business exploiting them for their own purposes.
End of cold war changed nothing. US is still a powerful country that likes to mess around the world to exploit it better, and Russia is still insular country that doesn't want to allow any of that on their turf.
The only thing that changed with the end of the cold war was that US could no longer credibly spin the narrative that Russia wants to take over the world and turn Texans into communists.
Fortunately, after a bit of mucking around USA could brand terrorists as their global super dangerous enemy and business could continue as usual.
Currently when terrorists turned out to be a very limited threat and USA proved to be very incompetent at fighting them long term, USA again began shopping for a narrative enemy. Obvious choice is China, but USA leaders with more than two brain cells are little hesitant about that, because you don't necessarily want to frame yourself as enemy of someone who could very likely seriously eff you up.
We'll see how it all unfolds.
Um, no. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
Since the USSR collapsed, and especially since 9/11, things have gotten a lot murkier.
Just a massive history of interfering with democracies with the sole aim for furthering the economic goals of the US.
Public messaging by POTUS for national consumption is very different from actions on the ground.
This is a child’s way of seeing the world.
That's a false dichotomy if I ever seen one.
- Guatemalan genocide
- Operation Condor
- Mass sterilization in Puerto Rico
- Panama as a country
- Arming the Taliban
- And more...
I think both governments had really shady people and cannot be characterized as "good".
The services were supposedly lacking diverse resources for both operators, admins and field agents of diverse backgrounds.
This series drew a very strong, credible and positive narrative that led to a massive number of people knocking at the doors of the DGSE to join the forces.
Propaganda? I think not. Well thought out recruitment strategy as entertainment? Most likely yes.
Is there a difference between the two? To be discussed... ;)
I see a big difference with using movies as propaganda to influence the planet's opinions.
At the same time, one has to be blind to not see that any cinema industry has a political agenda, I mean, just watch the average Netflix production and it is striking.
It is for me inconceivable that the DGSE did not think of the outcome before agreeing to be an active collaborator of the show, and act accordingly to it's own benefits.
1: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891527/
I think this is essentially suposed to make us conceive law enforcement as always right and doing everything to "keep us safe" even if they have to disregard the law. You can clearly see it's working in how many people unquestionably support the police.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Interesting in many ways. It shows the photographical choices and approaches that they used. The creative process and choices (and the vision and influence of Bruckenheimer).. and the way that the Navy had an influence.
Example: the CO of the Miramar base (where it was shot) had a veto right on the script. He rejected because there was a romance between enlisted, and because there was an in-flight collision. Which resulted in Bruckenheimer finding 'work-arounds' : Charlie becomes an external consultant, the collision becomes a flat spin following a jet wash incident (the CO looked over old accidents to find something suitable)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Knz5LM_FzEE
It's even funnier that it turns out they just reused US propaganda as theirs.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/top-gun-...