Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
worldbeyondwar.org
worldbeyondwar.org
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.
The Taliban consume the Koran. They reject most forms of mass media. Thus it's very hard to manipulate them into a western lifestyle. The alternative would be to find their "opinion leaders" and coerce them. Anyway, it's naïve to think these techniques are not used at home and abroad.
/conspiracy
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:
Information Operations (IO)
Influence Operations (IO)
Inform and Influence Activities (IIA)
Interactive Internet Activities (IIA)>allow the military IO operator an avenue for developing proficiency in the release of “precision guided messages” to foreign audiences.
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.
TV lawyers and doctors however get to hold jargon-filled monologues and be in lead roles.
/rant
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.
Hundreds of millions are spent worldwide on endowments for universities to push this specific agenda. So, yes, I wouldn't find it surprising if the movie makers are sponsored, too. Now, it's clear why US army would want a positive optics. But who's to benefit from, say, Tajiks internalizing the "oppression scale"?
The (literal) billions described in the NYT article above are just one aspect of the woke, they have many more. They don't just have the money, they have tons of money.
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.
Urban dictionary can help you out if you really don't know https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woke
Pretending to be bravely battling fascism and tyranny on behalf of the oppressed while censoring for theocratic and communist dictatorships is Hollywood's bread and butter. Not just Hollywood for that matter, a lot of multinational corporations in other industries too.
https://twitter.com/raytheontech/status/880497266255175685?l...
It's not that there's something wrong with gay rights, or any other specific social cause powerful organizations adopt. It's just that it's a very cheap way to win a positive image for things that ... would have trouble getting a positive image if focus was on their core business.
You saying you’re completely baffled by this term, or asking for the poster’s particular meaning?
I’d draw a parallel to “White supremacy”. Given the wild range of applications for the term, you need to get a sense of what any one wielder really means.
But it’d be quite obtuse to reply “what’s White supremacy?”
It is a headstone marking the semantic battlefield where competing definitions killed the possibility of clear communication, and now it means nothing.
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.
Propaganda != opinion that you disagree with
But I don't think the problem was that it was so "thick" so much as that it was so poorly done. Instead of being funny, it just reminded me of school bullies and general idiots, and was far too easy to write to be good satire.
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??
Start looking out for any online discussion involving anti-Asian racism / attacks, the housing crisis, etc. and you'll see posts like "but what about the CPP?" and "aren't Asians the most racist against blacks?"
https://twitter.com/alanrmacleod/status/1474350856476762115?...
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.
"With grateful thanks to the US Navy and Airforce, without whom this film could not have been made"
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.
> In 1939, estimates of the Army's strength range between 174,000 and 200,000 soldiers, smaller than that of Portugal's, which ranked it 17th or 19th in the world in size. [1]
Despite of the abundant resources, it was largely a sleeping nation militarily prior to WWII. Air Force was essentially non-existent. Pearl Harbor was the critical moment that kicked the US Military machine in top gear. It only accelerated in the Cold War where there was serious FUD. It is difficult to put into context without having lived in that era. Propaganda, whatever you think of it, was necessary to convince the tax payer for their own security as well recruit enough people to sustain defense. The allies had seen the eye of evil and walked into its belly so it was straight forward to sell. Today's generation is largely detached from that reality.
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 actual myth is that the West is/was systematically engaged on the good side in good vs evil conflicts, when in reality WWII was more of an exception in that regard.
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.
But the naval war in the Atlantic mattered. And, US supplies (particularly SPAM, and trucks, tires, and fuel) delivered through Iran were helpful late in the war.
But aside from naval work that denied Germany South American resources, the Soviets could have done the whole job on their own, and would have overrun all of Europe. In particular, there is no evidence that British and US area bombing achieved anything, although point attacks on rail locomotives did.
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.
US is of course a selfish actor. But it's not black and white, and while US has never been "the good guy" they are still a stabilizing force that for most parts promotes rule based order. Yes, they assault sovereign states and all that, I'm not disagreeing US has pathologies to bear.
But in some regions it's influence benefits the local population (even though the goal is not directly to help anyone but to promote a specific selfish policy).
On the Eurasian theater Russia is not a neglible actor. Given it is being lead by a mafia more or less, in regional matters Russia is still a looming threat (ahem, Ukraine, ahem).
As a citizen of country which shares a very long land border with Russia (Finland), and given the realpolitik fact small nations are at the mercy of larger powers, I much prefer a situation where US can politically and financially influence events in my local vicinity to a one where Russia would be the larger presence.
If I was for example Vietnamese I might hold quite different views. Or if I lived in an area that was a theater of conflict for drone strikes and my family suddenly died as collateral damage.
I also think that the end of the Cold War, the failure of the forever wars, and our bungled pandemic response has taken a lot of gloss off the old propaganda. The interruption of having the USSR fall has made a lot of Americans look around and saw “wait, why does life kinda suck here though?”, and it’s kind of hard to rebuild that propaganda machine once it’s stopped.
Um, no. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
"many of the Non-Aligned Movement's members were actually quite closely aligned with China or the Soviet Union"
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.
Why then would any other part of society be different? Competence is not a widely spread feature of humanity.
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.
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)
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-...
"Creel later published his memoirs of his service with the CPI, 'How We Advertised America', in which he wrote:
“In no degree was the Committee an agency of censorship, a machinery of concealment or repression. Its emphasis throughout was on the open and the positive. At no point did it seek or exercise authorities under those war laws that limited the freedom of speech and press. In all things, from first to last, without halt or change, it was a plain publicity proposition, a vast enterprise in salesmanship, the world's greatest adventures in advertising… We did not call it propaganda, for that word, in German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of the facts.”"
> [Hu Shih] was among the first contributors for radical ideological change and modernity in China. His article on the 'Indianization of China' presented a scathing criticism of Indian influence on China that inhibited the blooming of 'indigenous modernity', progressivism and dynamism there. Hu’s views supported contemporary 'modernist' Chinese intellectuals' labelling of India under the British as a 'ruined' civilisation, 'failed' state or incapable role model for the agenda of modernity. Yet, he did not overlook affinities, mutual respect and admiration for those in India searching for 'indigenous roots' to modernity. His famous observation that 'India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border' is one of the most quoted sentences in any study of Sino-Indian encounters and connections.
Iranians and later Turkic Mongols had a similar affect (Persianisation) on India itself before imperialism took hold, and westernisation came to the fore; for ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaulayism
Dominant cultures have always sought influence.
This is different than Hu Shih's point about non-military cultural influence. Military led cultural influence happens by force. Non military cultural influence happens attraction to culture. Post-WW2 United States had both in combination.
Didn't know about Hu Shih otherwise, so thanks for sharing.
War, Capitalism, ownership and control?
I've always assumed this to be a very deliberate strategy to build an implicit association between the "nobility" of sport and war, to boost recruitment and win over the hearts and minds of the American public for past, current and future military action.
Now count how many times you've seen any sign of the military at a sports event in Europe - rare to never. It's not normal and it's sad to me that it is so normalized in the US.
The narrative around space became very strong, sending messages of conquest, entrepreneurship, science, dreams, you name it.
At the exact same period, bloomed movies like: Mission to Mars, Gravity, Interstellar.
I won't be surprised to see a surge of interest in space-related careers in younger generations in years to come.
On the other have, every American action movie seems to feature guns and explosions and quite a lot of glorification of the military. The military exist to kill people, and to deliver the utmost brutality to others whilst remaining organised, logical and efficient themselves. Guns exist to kill things. Explosive munitions are fundamentally excellent at killing people from a surprisingly long way away, larger than what Hollywood shows. When was the last time you saw a film highlight the loss a family of a minor villain felt when the hero shot him? The true aftermath of an air strike in a foreign country -- lifelong resentment and hatred about the country that provided it? (Vietnam is an interesting place to visit, but don't mention B-52s to the locals). It is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of humanity that armies are required to exist. There is definitely good that comes from them, ranging from humanitarian aid to the research into high end technology, and I'm not calling for their abolition -- I am not naïve. That is fundamentally why the glorification of the military at all costs is problematic. The ethical arguments for their existence require exploring.
American films, on the other hand, will quite happily show a commando killing hundreds or thousands of people in a teenager-friendly film, yet American culture decrees that showing a single naked person mandates that the film is restricted. That mindset -- boobs bad, guns good, explosions fun and exciting -- is slowly but surely exported across the globe.
I'm going to look forward to the sci-fi space films where the drama is survival in a hostile environment, and infinitely prefer them to war films.
So, movies like The Martian? I wish I could come up with more examples, and I hope someone replying to me does...
Is it really unavoidable? I'll play the naïve part here and say that the military is an extension of humanity's tribal nature. The entire concept of countries and borders is rooted in our deep desire to belong to a specific tribe, be defensive of other members of our tribe, and offensive towards other tribes that might want to do us harm. The fact we manage to communicate and exchange goods and ideas is a testament of our collaboration skills, but this "us vs. them" mentality is always present in the back of our monkey brains.
If we ever manage to overcome this innate distrust—either via natural evolution (unlikely) or merging with a neutral AI (more likely?)—it would boost our capacity of working towards common goals as a species to unprecedented levels.
> There is definitely good that comes from them, ranging from humanitarian aid to the research into high end technology
There's no reason these efforts couldn't come from a nonmilitary organization. While competition and developing better weapons of war than other countries is a large component of technological advancement, I'd argue that global collaboration without distrust and politics would accelerate that progress even more. It would certainly help with current issues like climate change, space exploration and pandemic mitigation, while avoiding all of the pain, death and misery that wars and conflicts have brought us throughout history.
Wikileaks is such an incredible gift to mankind. Diplomatic cables leaked there showed me that the USA explicitly interfered in my country's attempt to develop a space program because they don't want us to have rocket and therefore missile technology. They actually wanted to use my country for launches due to it being under the equator but only if they could leave us out of it entirely, no one would even be able to enter the premises.
Also it's nice to have proof and insight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Harsh, I know. But how long can US people watch the lies in their top-selling films about how heroic their soldiers are, while completely ignoring the atrocities their armies are involved in, around the world?
Any links?
Being German and having Russian relatives the perspective on the war on the continent has always been interesting to me. The sheer scale and brutality of the Eastern front, the war crimes and death (The Soviet Union lost more than 15% of its population!) is astonishing.
I don't think popular media reflects this at all, not even necessarily maliciously or as propaganda intentionally. But that disconnect between the reality, and the recognition of it in Russia itself, has had vastly negative consequences when it comes to other countries trying to understand Russia even today. (and I suppose it's not by accident that in Germany for example, often only elder statesmen point this out)
Anthony Bourdain, in "A Cook's Tour: Global Adventures in Extreme Cuisines"
I don't remember watching anything that glorified the Vietnam war though. Full Metal Jacket showed how it was a shitshow. On a weird kind of lighter note, Forrest Gump showed how people died or were gruesomely injured. Rambo may have been the only one that tried to portray it somewhat positively? I don't quite remember.
Vietnam war may have been brutal, and eventually lost, but it disincentivised everyone else in the Southeast Asia from turning to Communism, so in the end it was a net benefit for the free world.
> Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_th...
> German forces managed to occupy or isolate territory which prior to WWII accounted for over 60% of total coal, pig iron, and aluminum production. Nearly 40% of total grain production and 60% of total livestock was lost. Moreover, this area contained 40% Soviet population before the war, 32% of the state enterprise labor force, and one-third of the fixed capital assets of the state enterprise sector.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_I...
Even with support from abroad, I don't see how this takes anything away from Russian war achievements.
11 billions went to the Soviet Union alone. The overall program was almost 50 billion. The reverse program of 7 billions is basically a calculatory sum of the lend and lease of military bases by the British Empire to the US.
> suppy of aid (which the US can afford because of their capitalist practices of exploitation etc)
That's a pretty wild statement considering how the Soviet Union created its resources (with slave labor of millions of people in the Gulag system).
The reality is that it was a complicated decision and there were many factors that went into it and many subsequent interpretations of the history on all sides.
This Twitter thread provides an interesting overview of some of the historiography: https://twitter.com/wc_quinn/status/1458891500344029189
I’ll quote British historian Anthony Beevor (who, by the way, agrees that the Soviet Union was key in defeating Germany):
“[T]he reason why the Russians got to Berlin before the Americans was quite simply that fact that it was American Dodge, Studebaker, Chevrolets and all the trucks that had been given to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease had made their advances in '43 and especially in '44 possible. They'd never have got anywhere near it.”
Also see my other comment, about the production issue, Russian achievement is really huge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29836874
The US supported itself with Lend-Lease. Giving weapons to others ensured they didn't have to deal with a victorious Germany.
Quoting:
> David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, concludes:
> Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance.
> Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Interestingly this American historian seems to believe Russia would have won anyway - with grave consequences for the West.
Yet now, for French people and media, destructions and people displacements were all the fault of Nazi's Germany. And for medias, the time after war was an happy time "les trente glorieuses" [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abb%C3%A9_Pierre#Winter_1954:_...
For you though, the Nazis invaded and occupied France, taking over the ports. The US bombs them to stop their takeover of France... and it's the US you blame?
If your house catches fire and you call the fire department to put it out, do you then blame the fire department for the water damage caused while putting it out?
You know, even if I was born in 1956, I have seen lot of those shelters.
The person who first wrote about the "30 glorious years" was Jean Fourastié. Jean Fourastié had strong link with Jean Monnet. Jean Monnet had been an advisor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1940 to 1946 [0].
[0] Jean Monnet (1988). Mémoires (in French). Fayard. ISBN 978-2-213-65802-5.
Yeah, but that number is so high because they were effective at killing their own people. The number of needless victims during the fighting and those of the "cleansing" after a win is incredibly high.
When?
https://www.spyculture.com/podcasts/
He's also amassed a huge library of documents via FOIA about this particular topic:
John Pilger: ""The BBC is and has long been the most refined propaganda service in the world".
That seems like a ridiculous claim. Carol Danvers was an Air Force officer when the character was created in 1968. No one was trying to sell the Air Force to women in 1968.
Marvel, both the comics and the movies, has been more anti-military than pro-military. The military, specifically the US military, is often the bad guys.
For example, it was the military that led to the creation of the Hulk, and are generally the bad guys in both the comics and movies when it comes to things related to Hulk.
If in a Marvel work the military shows up, it is almost a cliche that they are going to be the bad guys unless it is a military vs. military situation such as with Captain America. And even the first Captain America movie didn't portray the US military all that favorably--they create the first super soldier and then just want to use him as an entertainer!
Not true. US, Russia, China, North Korea - sure. Can you name any other countries? Can you give examples for even a fraction of "all other countries"?
I always (as an adult) assumed the countless war movies and cop TV shows are just that.
That said, a few years ago I stumbled upon some hideous cover of Offspring's gone away. Someone had turned that tune into a cheesy pop tune and made the video about young beautiful housewife and mother getting informed that her darling was killed in line of duty. No way some music production company just decided to do that on its own. Man, it was bad
Battles, gun fights ("it's just a scratch, walk it off"), stabbings, fights and so on.
Then there's topical films like Contagion, and Outbreak.
And then there are disaster films portraying tsunamis nothing like the ones we saw in Japan and Banda Aceh.
As a US citizen I just don’t really care anymore, I sometimes get a good chuckle every time someone tells me I’m oppressed or living in a hellhole. I’m happy where I live and though I recognize there’s faults and I do try to improve them where I can. Maybe it’s state actors, maybe it’s not; I wouldn’t care about a stranger’s opinion in real life, so why would I bother caring about a stranger online? Too little time in life for that.
I absolutely agree with its stated aims and intents. I would love to believe that what they are suggesting could be achievable - but the cynic/skeptic in me worries that this will end up being steamrolled by the people in power as some sort of fringe hippie movement.
Does anyone have direct experience with working with this organization that could relay how effective they are in their approach? Any thoughts on how their stated aims could be realizable?
Even "Eye in the Sky" gave me an overwhelming sense that the military use of drones was poorly managed and the decision making process was incompetent.
The series where the protagonist is a CIA super agent who throws away his career because his morals get in the way.
You may not leave with the impression that all of the CIA are moral, but it does spread the idea that the CIA is incredibly capable and individuals can sway overall policy. Which is nonsense.
That’s hardly in dispute, is it?
> and individuals can sway overall policy
Certainly not the impression I got from at least the first three films. The Bourne Identity ends in an unceremonious coverup of a failed operation, and the sole “idealist” character in the next two films torches her career as well to go to the press. Which depending on your view could be considered exactly what Snowden did, for better or for worse.
Certainly typical tropey US spy movie fare (American characters playing CIA assassination games in Europe, etc.), but more revisionist Western than John Wayne.
Roughly at the time of the films release, the CIA had their communications with many of their foreign agents discoverable by Googling. Hundreds of agents died as a result, while the CIA fired the whistleblower who brought up the vulnerability and seemingly made up a Chinese hack to shift the blame. A far cry from creating programs for super assassins.
Ask the people of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, eastern Ukraine, Iran, etc. if they feel we are living in peaceful times.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
Some scenes:
IP Man 4, which is more well known to western audiences:
You get the idea. Americans make movies where America good, everyone bad. China is now making movies where China good, everyone bad, specially white Americans.
Anyways, along with the glorification of US might and power by the pentagon, their recruiting tactics have also used video game stylization to attract young people:
^ That is a fucking video game ad as far as I’m concerned. No mature person should be turned on by that.
This is because the same movies are also distributed in China, which is a huge market.
But it's a very effective tool to shape public opinion. I'm fairly certain without the overwhelmingly heroic portrait of (members of) the military, the public would be more inclined to question the huge investments that go into warfare. Particularly the display of highly achieved individuals in the military leads to both public respect of military members, and enlistings to service.
Michael Douglas on why he doesn’t get why Gekko was an inspiration:
We’re all vulnerable to this. Just here in tech we’ve deified the guy in a t-shirt/hoodie (zucks of the world) or mythical 10x programmers, built up and tore down people like Adam Neumann, all caricatures.
Propaganda works sadly.
With respect to war, it takes observing a war play out to realize how stupid it actually is. It took Americans 20 years of just watching Iraq/Afghanistan to conclude all that nationalism stuff is just not worth it at all. I don’t know how it’s all going to play out in the next 50 years, but I’m pretty sure in the aftermath of any American/Chinese conflict the conclusion of america-bad by the Chinese and China-bad by the Americans will just seem quite silly also.
More recently, a certain Canadian national has carved out a niche for himself by staring in ultra patriotic movies that are very popular with the Indian audience.
Curious why India came to mind especially if you are not able to make an assessment of this topic as you put it.
Are you joking? Ever since 9/11 the US has been pumping out propaganda disguised as entertainment like gangbusters! It's really obvious when you go and watch reruns of old copaganda shows from 03 to 06, and then there's "24". Of course there's also blatant ra-ra Military propaganda like J.A.G. and NCIS
It's not surprising to see outright propaganda from the US, it's surprising how many decades it's taken for people to begin to call it what it is. Surprising and depressing.
The thing is, everybody expects a Mosfilm flick to toe the party line. What the U.S. has done was sneakier.
Less the Chinese audience and more the CCP State Censors.
The difference being that while state propaganda has infected Hollywood it does not wholly control Hollywood. You’d be hard pressed to find any rough equivalent to Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, All the President’s Men, or The Post etc in China.
Those movies are also propaganda, but in a more subtle and effective way; The message of these movies being that while america sometimes makes mistakes, in the end the american has a good heart and conscience and should be forgiven.
You don’t see in these movies american soldiers raping civilans, laughing about it, and suffering no ill consequences
The second aspect is vastly more important, but then again some people believe in the concept of a 'white lie' or lying for the greater good, which is very dangerous, especially in a world where you cannot be certain that you're the only one who knows a piece of information.And on top of that people who seek to hide the truth or lie by omission often do a lot of worse things than merely not presenting the whole facts.
It’s false advertising at best, predatory at worst. Do you know who are selling a bag of dreams to? Do you care? You’ll take their time, money and lives, and it won’t matter to you in the least, will it?
It is always comically obvious (like in the videos you posted above). Pick any movie and you're likely to see something similar.
On the other hand, consider the last time you saw an Asian male in a Hollywood production that wasn't:
a) a kung-fu caricature b) the joke
Western propaganda is more subtle and effective.
The United States and its state-run propaganda and terrorism organisations cannot be allowed to walk through the 21st century without answering and making amends to the crimes committed.
It has never before been more urgent to question and criticise the United States for its past decades of war, propaganda, sowing discord and effort to partition the world into those who are with them, subordinate, and those who are against them.
It is a good thing that we are still allowed to speak about it without being accused of being shills, spies, or "Russian trolls". But it might not last if these people get their way.
my comment was more on suspicious accounts that single post over the top propaganda and then disappear
Let that thought sink in.
The propaganda coming from the US against the Chinese is more subtle and convincing. It's scary not only because of how good it is, but because people here don't even realize they are being manipulated.
It was scrapped entriely when USA joined in WW2.
I wonder if other neutral countries had similar propaganda awareness education efforts, or if anyone could imagine this state run initiative to exist today anywhere.
I have no doubt the likes of MI5/6 “work” with British series creators too
How it is possible to constantly see discussed some of the egregious things that were done during Vietnam, Iraq, and then see as much blind faith in the moral good of going into new conflicts?
(I am probably on some kind of list now)
And please tell your FSB handlers to stop living in the past ;)
I think it is a weird and complicated thing.
In actual fact so-called liberal democracies are free to the degree that authoritarian tools wouldn’t and can’t work.
Is the USA a liberal democracy? Authoritarian tools (like packing the courts) seem to work there. Successive UK governments have tightened control over the BBC. Assange stews in a high-security prison, untried, for reporting the truth. Craig Murray has just completed his prison sentence for reporting the truth. Neither of those jailings has received significant coverage in the mainstream UK press.