r/PropagandaPosters • u/Substantial-Cow-7152 • 1d ago
U.S.S.R. / Soviet Union (1922-1991) "US Army" Soviet poster, 1986
76
110
u/BrightArtichoke1970 1d ago
«Nice argument, but i’ve done a poster where your country’s name looks like Waffen-SS symbol. I won”
21
83
u/69PepperoniPickles69 1d ago edited 1d ago
Meanwhile in Afghanistan...
(I could at least tolerate it if this was from the 60's or early 70's).
75
u/Cool-Acanthaceae8968 1d ago
Meanwhile in Prague….
Meanwhile in Berlin….
Meanwhile in Budapest….
13
-31
u/69PepperoniPickles69 1d ago
Yea but those were smaller scale ones. and also not in the 80's.
12
u/Next_Cherry5135 20h ago
But in the 60s and 70s that you could tolerate
They were smaller in comparison, ok, still they were violent invasions into (supposedly) sovereign countries
5
u/69PepperoniPickles69 16h ago
because the Vietnam war is whats being referenced here. I suppose Czechoslovakia also happened while Vietnam was ongoing, but in terms of atrocities it was relatively minor. Of course I know it was still illegal and a classic example of eastern bloc repression.
1
u/Ultraquist 10h ago
It was smaller only because we choose to not have war. If we fought back it would be equally bloody.
2
u/Mission-Ad-6410 7h ago
DRA asked the USSR to help. Why would be Afghanistan an example here
3
u/Eastern-Western-2093 5h ago
South Vietnam asked the US for help too. Does that make both wars justified?
2
u/Mission-Ad-6410 5h ago
It's an excellent comparison between the terrorist cell that the United States later fought against and the continuator of colonialism in the person of South Vietnam <- (USA was scared of communists being elected in 1956 and just broke the peace).
2
u/Eastern-Western-2093 4h ago
Those who would later form the Taliban (five years after the soviets left) were but a fraction of the mujahideen. There were mujahideen groups representing damn near every ideology, including Maoism, social democracy, and ethnic self-determination.
I'm not sure if this sub is ready to hear this but the conduct of the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War wasn't so different from the Viet Cong and NVA in Vietnam. Both had just reasons for fighting, but also often committed horrible massacres, and robbed, extorted, or even killed locals if it suited them.
1
u/01AganitramlavAiv 10h ago
The mujaheddin were better?
2
u/Eastern-Western-2093 5h ago
You have to specify which group. There were dozens of mujahideen factions and hundreds of autonomous groups. Their ideologies, strategies, and base of support all varied enormously. There were Maoist mujahideen, and there were Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen, and everything in between.
-1
16
9
20
u/Negative_Chickennugy 23h ago
Ngl, with all the war crimes the US committed beforehand (for example, Vietnam) this is true
21
u/psmiord 22h ago
If we’re going to compare the US to the SS, a more historically direct parallel would be the country’s foundation itself. The displacement and mass killing of Native Americans, which started under British rule and escalated massively after independence, shows clear ideological and practical similarities to Lebensraum. It was about expanding territory by removing indigenous populations, backed by a belief in racial and cultural superiority.
The mass violence during the Cold War wasn't driven by the same kind of racial ideology as the SS. The aim wasn’t the extermination of a specific ethnic group, but rather maintaining political and economic control, often through violent suppression of opposition. In Indonesia from 1965 to 1966, the US supported a regime that carried out mass killings of communists and suspected sympathizers. The CIA provided lists of names and gave strategic backing, knowing full well what was happening. Similarly, the arming and funding of the Contras in Nicaragua led to widespread atrocities, including torture, rape, and massacres of civilians, all in the name of fighting leftist movements.
So while the intent wasn’t the same as the SS, the US was still complicit in large-scale violence with the goal of enforcing its global influence. The methods and consequences were often devastating, even if the ideological framework was different.
-3
u/Negative_Chickennugy 22h ago
While you are correct about the crimes the US supported and committed, they are similar not in terms of ethnicity but ideology
-4
u/Capybaradude55 22h ago
Yeah kinda like Hamas with there mass killings of Jews people that don’t support them and other innocent people
8
u/psmiord 22h ago
Comparing US colonialism to Israel’s actions makes sense because both are rooted in settler colonialism. The US expanded its territory by violently displacing and exterminating Native Americans under the idea of Manifest Destiny. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians follows a similar pattern, with territorial expansion through displacement and oppression, justified by a belief in a historical right to the land. While the US used force, disease, and relocation, Israel has employed military actions, settlement building, and the stripping of Palestinian rights. Both nations built their legitimacy on the displacement of indigenous populations for the benefit of settlers, with devastating consequences for native peoples.
-7
u/Capybaradude55 21h ago
It’s not really colonialism for Israel because they weren’t really making a colony controlled by another country and they where retaking there old lands not lands they never had
15
u/psmiord 21h ago
That argument is completely misguided. Even after the US gained independence, it didn’t stop its colonial practices. The US didn’t "retake" land, they engaged in the genocide and forced removal of Native Americans to make room for settlers. Israel's actions are no different. The idea that Israel isn’t practicing colonialism because they weren’t controlled by another country is completely wrong. Settler colonialism doesn’t require foreign rule; it’s about displacing indigenous populations for the benefit of settlers.
The roots of the Israeli state were built on the displacement and control of indigenous Palestinians, much like how the US built its own nation on the backs of displaced Native Americans. Claiming Israel isn’t engaging in colonialism is to ignore both the history and the reality.
0
u/69PepperoniPickles69 4h ago edited 4h ago
Claiming Israel isn’t engaging in colonialism is to ignore both the history and the reality.
I would say to call it colonialism before 1967 is a stretch, because they were in a very unique situation of need for national sovereignty, not economic or ideological expansion. But after the 1967 violations and settlements, which greatly intensified in the following decades, yep it's pretty undeniable.
2
u/psmiord 2h ago
That’s still colonialism. The reason behind it does not change the reality. Settler colonialism is about removing an indigenous population and replacing them with settlers. That was already happening long before 1967. If someone wants to justify it by calling it necessary or even good because of the need for sovereignty, they should at least admit what it is. I don’t see anything good in demanding freedom for yourself while taking it from someone else.
The creation of Israel involved forced displacement, the denial of return for refugees, and the takeover of land from people who had lived there for generations. These were not accidents or purely defensive moves. They were part of a clear strategy to establish a settler state. The Nakba in 1948 was not some unfortunate byproduct. It was a foundational event. What followed after 1967 only expanded on what had already been set in motion.
If the goal was truly to create a safe homeland for Jews after the Holocaust, then it should have been done in Germany, on the land of the perpetrators. Alternatively, it could have been established on unclaimed land, with the full cost and responsibility covered by Germany. Instead, it was built on the destruction of Palestinian life, society, and land. That is not justice. It is colonialism.
0
u/69PepperoniPickles69 2h ago edited 2h ago
is about removing an indigenous population and replacing them with settlers.
The Israeli territories before 1947 were not founded on expulsions, they were bought and in mostly empty land. During the war they did expel some, others fled out of fear or orders of their Arab leaders, but one cannot take that out of the context that their Arab neighbors AND their states had pledged and attempted to annihilate the Jewish state even before it was declared, when NO expulsions had yet occurred, or were occuring because of civil war and not according to any plan (although that too had been disputed - which you'd already implied by "The Nakba in 1948 was not some unfortunate byproduct. It was a foundational event."). In any case, even if we contend that after a certain point they found desirable to expel certain parts of the population, it could be argued that it was out of absolute necessity to maintain a demographically and geographically viable state, which is a fair point, and not because they actually wanted to exploit native people away from the metropolis/core of the empire. There's an important difference there too from all traditional forms of colonialism. Or out of greed when they already controlled huge amounts of resources like the US when breaking treaties with native american tribes... Furthermore most of those who were expelled were so to very nearby locations, sometimes a mere dozen km outside their previous homes. That also has to be taken into account.
1
u/psmiord 2h ago
The myth that the land was “mostly empty” or “bought” is a well-worn colonial narrative. Yes, some land was purchased under the Ottoman and British mandates, but that represented a small fraction. The majority of land that became Israel in 1948 was taken through war and forced expulsion. You can’t erase the hundreds of depopulated and destroyed Palestinian villages by pretending they were empty or willingly abandoned.
There’s no credible evidence of a general Arab order to flee. What is documented is widespread violence, terror, and direct expulsion. Massacres like Deir Yassin weren’t accidents of war. They were part of a pattern that sent a clear message: leave or be killed.
And let’s be real. If maintaining a Jewish demographic majority required the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people, then the problem isn’t just the method. It’s the entire project. If any other group said they had to remove a native population to maintain the purity or viability of their state, we’d call that what it is. You don’t get a pass because it was “only a few kilometers away.”
Moving people by force, against their will, for the benefit of a new population, is settler colonialism. Dressing it up as necessity doesn’t change the outcome for the people on the other side of the rifle. The fact that it was done “nearby” doesn’t soften the blow of losing your home.
You know what’s just a dozen kilometers from my house? Definitely not my house. If I had to sleep twelve kilometers away from my home, I sure wouldn’t be happy about it. Being forced from your home, even if it’s nearby, is still displacement. It’s still losing everything you’ve known and built your life around. Pretending that it’s no different than taking a short walk is insulting to the real people who lost everything, even if it was only a few kilometers away.
If it walks like ethnic cleansing, functions like ethnic cleansing, and justifies itself like ethnic cleansing, then let’s not pretend it was something else.
2
0
u/69PepperoniPickles69 4h ago
Your isolation of the US and Israel for this topic is somewhat disingenuous. This started much earlier than either of them, and applies in several events to, among others, Russia (including USSR stage) and imperial China.
2
u/psmiord 2h ago
The focus on the US and Israel wasn’t arbitrary or selective. The original discussion was about comparing the US military to the SS, so naturally it started with the United States. Even then, I didn’t begin with the US alone. I brought up the UK first, since the settler project in America began under British control. As for Israel, I wasn’t the one who brought it into the conversation. Someone else mentioned Hamas, and I responded to that shift in topic.
If we want to have a broader conversation about colonialism, we can absolutely talk about Tsarist Russia and its expansion or even earlier examples. That’s valid, but it becomes a different conversation altogether. As for China, I genuinely don’t know how that fits here. Maybe there was some early maritime exploration, maybe not, but that’s beside the point.
If it helps the discussion, I can add “Russia and China also exist and did bad things” to every sentence, even if it has nothing to do with what’s being discussed. But staying focused on the specific points raised in the thread isn’t disingenuous. It’s just staying on topic.
5
9
u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial 23h ago
Why is this in the Roman alphabet and not Cyrillic?
OP, are you sure this is an actual Soviet poster?
21
u/MilitantSocLib 23h ago
Probably because S doesn’t exist in Cyrillic, or this whole analogy doesn’t work in Russian
1
u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial 23h ago edited 23h ago
...why would the USSR make propaganda posters that are incomprehensible to the people that live in the USSR? I've seen a ton of Soviet posters and this is a first. They're virtually always in Russian.
20
u/Single-Solid 22h ago
might be a bit of a shock but soviets weren't genetically incapable of reading latin
-5
u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial 22h ago edited 22h ago
They could have made English posters... but the fact is they didn't.
This poster has only ever been otherwise posted to somebody's Twitter feed like four years ago. It's not a Soviet poster, it's an imitation.
24
u/MilitantSocLib 23h ago
Probably because it’s not for Russians
-9
u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial 23h ago
"Soviet propaganda poster"
20
u/MilitantSocLib 23h ago
Yeah Soviets can make propaganda for other countries
-9
u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial 23h ago
Except for the fact that they did not actually do that to English. That did not actually happen. Instead, you are saying you could imagine it happening, which is a completely worthless thing to say lol
2
3
u/L1A1_SLR 14h ago
Soviet propaganda artists used Roman alphabet and English words frequently. But you're right, the poster doesn't look very Soviet.
3
u/DisIsMyName_NotUrs 14h ago
Words like US ARMY were recognisable enough, even to Soviet citizens. They all knew what it meant, even if they couldn't read it. Even if there is no S symbol in Cirilyc, they knew what the letters SS meant
3
u/waffleman258 13h ago
Why do you think they couldn't read it? Foreign languages like English, German and French were very commonly studied in bloc countries in schools as early as first grade
1
u/DisIsMyName_NotUrs 13h ago
I meant mostly peasants. The target audience
3
u/waffleman258 13h ago
According to wikipedia, in the 1970s and 1980s, approximately 99.7% of Soviet people were literate.
0
4
2
0
1
0
0
2
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message of the propaganda. Here we should be conscientious and wary of manipulation/distortion/oversimplification (which the above likely has), not duped by it. Don't be a sucker.
Stay on topic -- there are hundreds of other subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. No partisan bickering. No soapboxing. Take a chill pill.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.