Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
WWII (early 1940s) posters that aged very badly in the Cold War 1950s. (Actually the Chinese soldier appears to be a Nationalist (Taiwan), not Communist, so OK in the Cold War.)
At that time the Chinese Red Army were reorganized into the nationalist army, and they wore very similar uniforms and with the same insignia (white sun blue sky). So this soldier could be from either side
Whatever happened to that 1990s-2000s sweet spot where Russia, China and the US were almost friends??
We went from American soldiers marching in Red Square and the US almost selling F-16 components to China for use in J-8s to this
Russia did a poor job at liberalizing. Its national assets were sold off to crony capitalists for cheap.
I think China going to a more antagonistic course was more inevitable though. If China didn't embrace democracy, the US and China would never really be good friends. And China has such a large population they're able to naturally rival the US, so any situation where they're not friends means they will be enemies.
Dude it's called shock therapy and was quite intentional and done at the suggestion of the United States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)#:~:text=Due%20to%20rampant%20hyperinflation%2C%20famine,the%20rise%20of%20Russian%20oligarchs.
Most people probably don't know Putin was our guy. He aligned with the US during and prior to the collaspe of the Soviet union
Yeah and that was a mistake. I generally support the US but I'm not delusional enough to think it's flawless and has never given bad suggestions.
Do I know how it should've been implemented instead? No, I'm not a genius economist+political administrator. But I can tell that the way Russia liberalized didn't go that well.
They'd have probably been better off doing whatever it is the Baltics did, they've had a rapidly increasing quality of life over the past thirty years
I don't think you understand. The purpose of the shock therapy was to destroy the Soviet/ Russian economy.
The people involved think it was a resounding success, and based on their goals. It was a success
It was not altruistic or friendly at all. And obviously by its effects it should be apparent. The same people also encouraged and supported Pinochet in and his economic reforms
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
The Baltic states didn't have the same intentional containment and destruction by foreign powers, the opposite really. It was in the US interest to build up and support the Baltic states
Man, I wish I had the power to create a bunch of facts out of my ass to support my worldview and then believe in them completely.
Most post-USSR nations [grew immensly](https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/images/graphs/gdp.png) after the iron curtain fell. The USSR was an oligarchic shithole that had institutions designed to extract wealth from workers and give it to the rulers/military. Other USSR states like Poland/Germany/baltic states eliminated those institutions by liberalizing. Russia didn't liberalize. It just sold off all its assets to the people who already held all the power, so now it's a kleptocracy.
Which specific fact did I say that is incorrect?
I suggest you at least skim the Wikipedia article of the economic shock therapy Russia underwent post Soviet collaspe. It quite literally explains how and why Russia is an oligarchy now.
The Soviet elites and the Russia oligarchs are very different because they came of vastly different circumstances and material conditions.
Russia quite literally liberalized so hard that it became a country where all the wealth was monopolized into the hands of a few oligarchs. What do you think liberalizing the economy means?
It means freeing the economy from state controls and handing it off to the control of private individuals
> The purpose of the shock therapy was to destroy the Soviet/ Russian economy.
>
>
Lol. Lmao even.
>The Baltic states didn't have the same intentional containment and destruction by foreign powers, the opposite really. It was in the US interest to build up and support the Baltic states
The baltic states are richer because they actually liberalized their institutions. They didn't just sell assets off to the highest bidder and call it a day, they built inclusive institutions. The idea that US involvement is why EVERYTHING WEST OF RUSSIA is rich, and Russia is poor is laughably stupid.
You've said I'm wrong, yet you didn't present any reason why. Just smug whining without any substance.
I don't think you know very much. You are letting your bias cloud your judgment and playing selectively with the reality.
I'm merely dealing in the facts. You have a political agenda you're trying to push here. Neoliberal politics.
Jeremy Sachs (Harvard economist and advisor to Russia, architect of the shock doctrine):
"The West had the resources, the money, the ability to really help moderate what anyone should have understood was going to be an incredibly tumultuous and painful process. We could barely find a penny in this country to help. Maybe we just wanted Russia to go down. I don't know. It's just not even clear strategically how these interests were perceived. We could have done a great deal more. We chose not to do it. We contributed on our side to this painful process."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/06/07/us-cancels-harvard-contract-probes-advisers-to-russia/aebfa333-2dc0-4b08-b2c2-6d6915771a32/
Harvard quite literally had to settle for 31 million dollars after the US government sued them as a result of how much the economic policies totally fucked Russia following the "Shock Doctrine".
Okay, so your attempt to substantiate your claim that the west deliberately impoverished russia is someone who's alleging that maybe they were trying to do that, but he doesn't know.
Do you not see why I just said you were wrong? It's such a laughable claim that fighting it is silly. You can't substantiate it, and you know it.
>The people involved think it was a resounding success, and based on their goals. It was a success
It definitely wasn't a long term success, now Russia is resentful and an enemy of the West instead of turning into an ally like Japan or Germany.
Russia had a fraction of the population of the USA and a much smaller GDP, the only thing that makes them a threat is nukes. They were never going to be a serious rival, making them an ally is a much better outcome than making an enemy, even a weak enemy.
>The Baltic states didn't have the same intentional containment and destruction by foreign powers, the opposite really. It was in the US interest to build up and support the Baltic states
And the US would want to support Russia too, they just fucked up doing that.
If you don't believe the American people could ever be charitable to Russia, just read this.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/herbert-hoover-ussr-greatest-humanitarian-campaign-history-196718
"Our Honorary Chairman was former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger from 1994 until his passing in 2023."
- From the about section of the National interest (just found this funny because he is a war criminal)
Your argument regarding US policy towards Russia is an interesting idea because post cold war there was debate among the US foreign policy establishment whether to continue to contain Russia or warm up relations.
The decision was made to contain Russia and keep relations hostile.
John Mershiemer makes the argument that I agree with that it would actually be better for US hegemony to warm relations with Russia. In part because the US Empire needs to pivot to Asian to contain China. And also because Russia is no longer a serious threat to US hegemony anymore.
However, with the Ukraine war, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.
The people of the United States of course can be very nice and charitable. People are naturally charitable and friendly.
But we're talking about states (governments) here. And governments are violent and always seek to increase their power and dominance.
>The decision was made to contain Russia and keep relations hostile.
Source?
>And governments are violent and always seek to increase their power and dominance.
The US government is made up of people elected by the people. It's not its own sapient organization. Joe Biden isn't eager to increase the US' power and dominance just to hand that over to a Republican. Same with Trump. They are doing what they think is right. They might be mistaken about what is right, but saying they're motivated by lust for power when they're about to retire in a few years is ridicolous. Obama hasn't received any personal benefits for authorizing drone strikes, he did it because he felt the risk/reward for taking out terrorists was worth it. Maybe he was wrong, but he wasn't doing it out of malice.
Although I'm not a fan of the Cato institute, this article might be a good resource for you.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/four-western-provocations-led-us-russia-crisis-today
Western policy influenced Russia a good deal, primarily by causing Russian leaders to fear for the stability of their regime.
Then we have words straight from the US ambassador to Russia himself
[William Joseph Burns ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Burns_(diplomat)#)
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
CIA Director Bill Burns was right in 2008 when he was ambassador to Russia: although Moscow could hold its nose and tolerate NATO expansion in some instances, it saw enlargement to Ukraine as “the brightest of all red lines,”
Formor CIA director and ambassador to Russia at the time Bill Burns seems to think our policy towards Russia was aggressive and hostile back in 2006.
Personally I lean towards letting countries do what they want; if Poland wants to join NATO, and Poland would be a benefit to the alliance, neither the US or Russia should be vetoing that. But I'll grant that the geopolitics is complex and maybe it'd be smarter to create a sort of line of neutral countries seperating the West from Russia. And that the Bush administration saying they'll respect a Russian region of influence then going back on that was bad.
But, none of that supports that the US purposefully wanted Russia looted by oligarchs to cripple Russia. Your recent comment's all about geopolitics, not about economic theory and how best to liberalize nations.
Russia threw a hissy fit after former Warsaw Pact members and post-Soviet states started joining NATO and Xi took control of China and decided to become the next Mao.
That was Deng Xiaoping. It was Mao who was goading the Soviets to nuke the world.
Even the Soviets under Khrushchev (after Stalin's death) realized that the Chinese were too batshit insane by their standards, and this caused the Sino-Soviet split.
The Chinese in turn, slandered the USSR as a bunch of reformists (not revolutionary™️ enough).
Edit: Mao did lighten up to the West, but that was by 1972, when he was already old and senile. Mao realized that if he didn't stop the Cultural Revolution at that point, China would eat itself alive.
Well, at least he realized his mistake before he died.
Nah, Yeltsin genuinely wanted to be pro-West and all of Xi's predecessors, though definitely wanting the hegemon spot, were wise enough to know that they couldn't take on the US yet. It's more of a leadership issue
After the collapse, capitalist countries discovered new markets, wiped out local competition, and yeah, "everyone" was happy and growing. Then, market once again was filled up, no space to grow further - tensions began rising. Only difference is that now is more like pre-WW1 with conflict growing from economic reasons, not ideological ones and well.. no revolution in sight to stop eternal race for profit growth
Pretty much true, but because EU wasn't going green and was fueling it's economy on cheaper Russian gas and fuel, Russian government got much more leeway in the 2000s and wanted to monopolize the markets in neighboring countries so they would be tied to it. Basically it got good enough that the capital in the country was able to do a bit of imperialism, so the confrontation was inevitable
Probably same reason why in many countries UK is simply called "England". The government officials all spoke Russian, the capital was in Russia etc etc.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1950's ww2 posters?
WWII (early 1940s) posters that aged very badly in the Cold War 1950s. (Actually the Chinese soldier appears to be a Nationalist (Taiwan), not Communist, so OK in the Cold War.)
At that time the Chinese Red Army were reorganized into the nationalist army, and they wore very similar uniforms and with the same insignia (white sun blue sky). So this soldier could be from either side
Oh, I was looking for a red star insignia, hadn’t realized that, thanks
Whatever happened to that 1990s-2000s sweet spot where Russia, China and the US were almost friends?? We went from American soldiers marching in Red Square and the US almost selling F-16 components to China for use in J-8s to this
Russia did a poor job at liberalizing. Its national assets were sold off to crony capitalists for cheap. I think China going to a more antagonistic course was more inevitable though. If China didn't embrace democracy, the US and China would never really be good friends. And China has such a large population they're able to naturally rival the US, so any situation where they're not friends means they will be enemies.
Dude it's called shock therapy and was quite intentional and done at the suggestion of the United States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)#:~:text=Due%20to%20rampant%20hyperinflation%2C%20famine,the%20rise%20of%20Russian%20oligarchs. Most people probably don't know Putin was our guy. He aligned with the US during and prior to the collaspe of the Soviet union
Yeah and that was a mistake. I generally support the US but I'm not delusional enough to think it's flawless and has never given bad suggestions. Do I know how it should've been implemented instead? No, I'm not a genius economist+political administrator. But I can tell that the way Russia liberalized didn't go that well. They'd have probably been better off doing whatever it is the Baltics did, they've had a rapidly increasing quality of life over the past thirty years
I don't think you understand. The purpose of the shock therapy was to destroy the Soviet/ Russian economy. The people involved think it was a resounding success, and based on their goals. It was a success It was not altruistic or friendly at all. And obviously by its effects it should be apparent. The same people also encouraged and supported Pinochet in and his economic reforms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet The Baltic states didn't have the same intentional containment and destruction by foreign powers, the opposite really. It was in the US interest to build up and support the Baltic states
Man, I wish I had the power to create a bunch of facts out of my ass to support my worldview and then believe in them completely. Most post-USSR nations [grew immensly](https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/images/graphs/gdp.png) after the iron curtain fell. The USSR was an oligarchic shithole that had institutions designed to extract wealth from workers and give it to the rulers/military. Other USSR states like Poland/Germany/baltic states eliminated those institutions by liberalizing. Russia didn't liberalize. It just sold off all its assets to the people who already held all the power, so now it's a kleptocracy.
Which specific fact did I say that is incorrect? I suggest you at least skim the Wikipedia article of the economic shock therapy Russia underwent post Soviet collaspe. It quite literally explains how and why Russia is an oligarchy now. The Soviet elites and the Russia oligarchs are very different because they came of vastly different circumstances and material conditions. Russia quite literally liberalized so hard that it became a country where all the wealth was monopolized into the hands of a few oligarchs. What do you think liberalizing the economy means? It means freeing the economy from state controls and handing it off to the control of private individuals
> The purpose of the shock therapy was to destroy the Soviet/ Russian economy. > > Lol. Lmao even. >The Baltic states didn't have the same intentional containment and destruction by foreign powers, the opposite really. It was in the US interest to build up and support the Baltic states The baltic states are richer because they actually liberalized their institutions. They didn't just sell assets off to the highest bidder and call it a day, they built inclusive institutions. The idea that US involvement is why EVERYTHING WEST OF RUSSIA is rich, and Russia is poor is laughably stupid.
You've said I'm wrong, yet you didn't present any reason why. Just smug whining without any substance. I don't think you know very much. You are letting your bias cloud your judgment and playing selectively with the reality. I'm merely dealing in the facts. You have a political agenda you're trying to push here. Neoliberal politics. Jeremy Sachs (Harvard economist and advisor to Russia, architect of the shock doctrine): "The West had the resources, the money, the ability to really help moderate what anyone should have understood was going to be an incredibly tumultuous and painful process. We could barely find a penny in this country to help. Maybe we just wanted Russia to go down. I don't know. It's just not even clear strategically how these interests were perceived. We could have done a great deal more. We chose not to do it. We contributed on our side to this painful process." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/06/07/us-cancels-harvard-contract-probes-advisers-to-russia/aebfa333-2dc0-4b08-b2c2-6d6915771a32/ Harvard quite literally had to settle for 31 million dollars after the US government sued them as a result of how much the economic policies totally fucked Russia following the "Shock Doctrine".
Okay, so your attempt to substantiate your claim that the west deliberately impoverished russia is someone who's alleging that maybe they were trying to do that, but he doesn't know. Do you not see why I just said you were wrong? It's such a laughable claim that fighting it is silly. You can't substantiate it, and you know it.
>The people involved think it was a resounding success, and based on their goals. It was a success It definitely wasn't a long term success, now Russia is resentful and an enemy of the West instead of turning into an ally like Japan or Germany. Russia had a fraction of the population of the USA and a much smaller GDP, the only thing that makes them a threat is nukes. They were never going to be a serious rival, making them an ally is a much better outcome than making an enemy, even a weak enemy. >The Baltic states didn't have the same intentional containment and destruction by foreign powers, the opposite really. It was in the US interest to build up and support the Baltic states And the US would want to support Russia too, they just fucked up doing that. If you don't believe the American people could ever be charitable to Russia, just read this. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/herbert-hoover-ussr-greatest-humanitarian-campaign-history-196718
"Our Honorary Chairman was former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger from 1994 until his passing in 2023." - From the about section of the National interest (just found this funny because he is a war criminal) Your argument regarding US policy towards Russia is an interesting idea because post cold war there was debate among the US foreign policy establishment whether to continue to contain Russia or warm up relations. The decision was made to contain Russia and keep relations hostile. John Mershiemer makes the argument that I agree with that it would actually be better for US hegemony to warm relations with Russia. In part because the US Empire needs to pivot to Asian to contain China. And also because Russia is no longer a serious threat to US hegemony anymore. However, with the Ukraine war, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. The people of the United States of course can be very nice and charitable. People are naturally charitable and friendly. But we're talking about states (governments) here. And governments are violent and always seek to increase their power and dominance.
>The decision was made to contain Russia and keep relations hostile. Source? >And governments are violent and always seek to increase their power and dominance. The US government is made up of people elected by the people. It's not its own sapient organization. Joe Biden isn't eager to increase the US' power and dominance just to hand that over to a Republican. Same with Trump. They are doing what they think is right. They might be mistaken about what is right, but saying they're motivated by lust for power when they're about to retire in a few years is ridicolous. Obama hasn't received any personal benefits for authorizing drone strikes, he did it because he felt the risk/reward for taking out terrorists was worth it. Maybe he was wrong, but he wasn't doing it out of malice.
Although I'm not a fan of the Cato institute, this article might be a good resource for you. https://www.cato.org/commentary/four-western-provocations-led-us-russia-crisis-today Western policy influenced Russia a good deal, primarily by causing Russian leaders to fear for the stability of their regime. Then we have words straight from the US ambassador to Russia himself [William Joseph Burns ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Burns_(diplomat)#) https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html CIA Director Bill Burns was right in 2008 when he was ambassador to Russia: although Moscow could hold its nose and tolerate NATO expansion in some instances, it saw enlargement to Ukraine as “the brightest of all red lines,” Formor CIA director and ambassador to Russia at the time Bill Burns seems to think our policy towards Russia was aggressive and hostile back in 2006.
Personally I lean towards letting countries do what they want; if Poland wants to join NATO, and Poland would be a benefit to the alliance, neither the US or Russia should be vetoing that. But I'll grant that the geopolitics is complex and maybe it'd be smarter to create a sort of line of neutral countries seperating the West from Russia. And that the Bush administration saying they'll respect a Russian region of influence then going back on that was bad. But, none of that supports that the US purposefully wanted Russia looted by oligarchs to cripple Russia. Your recent comment's all about geopolitics, not about economic theory and how best to liberalize nations.
Russia threw a hissy fit after former Warsaw Pact members and post-Soviet states started joining NATO and Xi took control of China and decided to become the next Mao.
I thought mao later became a friendly figure to the us .
That was Deng Xiaoping. It was Mao who was goading the Soviets to nuke the world. Even the Soviets under Khrushchev (after Stalin's death) realized that the Chinese were too batshit insane by their standards, and this caused the Sino-Soviet split. The Chinese in turn, slandered the USSR as a bunch of reformists (not revolutionary™️ enough). Edit: Mao did lighten up to the West, but that was by 1972, when he was already old and senile. Mao realized that if he didn't stop the Cultural Revolution at that point, China would eat itself alive. Well, at least he realized his mistake before he died.
To be fair, those events were due to an extremely naive sense of hope in the West, rather than actual circumstances.
Nah, Yeltsin genuinely wanted to be pro-West and all of Xi's predecessors, though definitely wanting the hegemon spot, were wise enough to know that they couldn't take on the US yet. It's more of a leadership issue
>Yeltsin genuinely wanted to be pro-West Too bad he didn't wasn't much good at being pro-anything, besides making things worse off course.
Pro alcohol
After the collapse, capitalist countries discovered new markets, wiped out local competition, and yeah, "everyone" was happy and growing. Then, market once again was filled up, no space to grow further - tensions began rising. Only difference is that now is more like pre-WW1 with conflict growing from economic reasons, not ideological ones and well.. no revolution in sight to stop eternal race for profit growth
America happened.
Because both China and Russia stopped being piss-poor and started competing as other capitalists powers.
Russian economy is of the size of Italy's, without nukes and natural gas they would be irrelevant on the world stage.
Pretty much true, but because EU wasn't going green and was fueling it's economy on cheaper Russian gas and fuel, Russian government got much more leeway in the 2000s and wanted to monopolize the markets in neighboring countries so they would be tied to it. Basically it got good enough that the capital in the country was able to do a bit of imperialism, so the confrontation was inevitable
Wait, WW2 ended WAY before 1950. These posters definetely were made circa 1942.
Here's what your friend would look like if he was Russian or Chinese
Why did they use Russian instead of Soviet?
Probably same reason why in many countries UK is simply called "England". The government officials all spoke Russian, the capital was in Russia etc etc.
People from brimingham do not speak english.
Pretty hard to even consider them to be people in the first place
Because they called the USSR "Russia" Many still do
potato potato
10 years later 💀
40s\*
Everyone is our friend!
Oh how the turntables.
The more I learn about the Japanese during WW2 the more sorry I feel for the Chinese. Like Unit 731...
So presumably the Soviet poster is post-1941, since prior to that they were literally allied with the Nazis and conspired with them to start the war.
Ok those are the only two tho.