Not sure if troll or misguided, but you know there are people still alive today that can talk about that moral superiority from experience, right? Just ask them, read their stories, etc. If this is how we're talking about that part of the world in that time-frame, I shudder to think how it'll be talked about when there aren't any more people from that period around. We kinda can see that with the neo- movements...

In all fairness though, if your enemies are just Afghan tribemen of Vietnamese farmers with an AK you don't have much of an excuse for losing. But even then you can can the moral high ground because you value life more than them.

Yes, it's all propaganda. But they are distinct tools (approaches?). It's fine to say your enemy has better equipment though, because that gives you an excuse for more R&D and gives you an excuse if you didn't win, why the win took longer, why the win was 'honourable' despite the win seeming inevitable by every conventional metric.

To be slightly more kind. I suppose you could argue this helps the peace afterwards.

If you say the beaten adversary was a worthy opponent, they can help keep their heads high. The Allies are now friends with Germany and Japan. I'm sure some reframing comes along with that.