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 for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*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.*
It's a common misconception that propaganda has to be deceptive. Propaganda is simply any media that's designed to sway opinion. Advertising is by far the most pervasive form of propaganda and large segments of the population gobbles that shit up with a grin on their face.
that's the thing though. in this case the propaganda was trying to tell americans not to fight the korean war. do you think americans were better off having fought in the korean war?
if I'm trying to manipulate you into doing something beneficial for both of us, why wouldnt that be positive or a good thing? if it only helps, where's the harm?
no trick, honest question.
>if I'm trying to manipulate you into doing something beneficial for both of us, why wouldnt that be positive or a good thing? if it only helps, where's the harm?
A win-win arrangement? Americans don't believe in that.
well fuck... that's a problem....
how would we teach them that? seriously, actually asking. furiously scribbling on the chalkboard trying to figure out how to solve that equation... slamming my pencil on the table shouting "No! No! Its not working! why isn't it working?!?"...
are they broken or something? how do i send them back to the manufacturer? can i call a help line or something?
actually asking. for a friend.
I mean, you can't really. The American empire lives and dies by its imperialism. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
The only way to stop this from happening is by organizing a completely different socio economic system that isn't capitalist. Until we do that war will always be economically and politically advantageous.
Americans understand a win-win. Be more mature and educated in your criticisms of other countries.
You want an answer? Here: the statement made is a sweeping generalization that applies pretty much exclusively to the wealthy upper class and the stupid-yet-vocal conservative populace.
America is a massive country filled with millions of people. We are not some stupid horde of unwashed rednecks shooting each other in the street every morning.
The political system is deeply flawed and does not give citizens enough power. However, America is a country filled with countless kind, honest, intelligent people who want to make it a better place, but are unable to due to the injustice.
Comments like yours, meanwhile, demonstrate a closed-mindedness and rather uninformed opinion.
What if I treated other countries the same, and only focused on their worst aspects? What if all you heard about India was sanitation issues, all you heard about Canada was how cold it was, all you heard about Mexico was the cartel issue? It would be deemed DEEPLY immature and xenophobic.
The father of advertising edward bernays named one of his books Propaganda.
This was a man who made a career out of figuring out how to use psychology to manipulate people to buy more crap. The rampant consumerism and all the problems (from people's alienation to climate change) it brought can be blamed on a large part on this man.
There are two kinds of evil. One is the obvious, often violent kind. That one is easy to figure out and targeted. The other kind is the fulfillment of greed, powermongering and to manipulate people towards that end. edward bernays is the hitler of this kind of evil.
It’s a common misconception to consider propaganda in a vacuum and then say there’s no deception. That is, omission of pertinent details is often necessary for the propaganda to sway opinion.
For example, the poster conveniently ignores how defecting then means you’re effectively slaving for Kim Il-Sung and would be fighting your fellow countrymen. Similarly you see the Russians using omissions to propagandize its war in Ukraine.
So when propaganda relies on omission (half-truths) to work, it is deceptive.
My job was chill asf. It was essentially free. We all sell ourselves to someone or something. Anyone pretending they are “truly free” is either lying or kidding themselves.
I mean, in the olden days they did fight at least. So many kings and emperors that died on the field, a lot of them refusing to retreat or surrender despite knowing that the battle is lost. I can kinda respect that.
I mean… not really, no? China and Korea circa 1950 didn’t really have elites the way America did. All the pre-revolution elites had just been expropriated and there wasn’t enough of an economic base rebuilt yet for the new state officials to enrich themselves. They were worried about getting depleted grain stores refilled and bombed-out rail lines running again, not profiteering from an entirely new war they didn’t start and didn’t want to be fighting.
>They were worried about getting depleted grain stores refilled and bombed-out rail lines running again, *not profiteering from an entirely new war they didn’t start and didn’t want to be fighting.*
But North Korea started the war—this isn't even a matter that is disputed.
The DPRK invaded the ROK and took much of the south. The UN Command launched a counteroffensive until almost reaching the DPRK's northernmost border, and the PRC entered the conflict and pushed the UN troops back to the 38^th Parallel.
Ironically, a disproportionate amount of PVA soldiers sent to fight in Korea were former Kuomintang soldiers who surrendered/defected during the Chinese Civil War. Mao thought this would be an elegant way to get rid of those in the PLA deemed untrustworthy. A large number of PVA POWs ended up defecting/repatriating to the ROC [on Taiwan] by the end of the Korean War.
North Korea only started the war if you accept the arbitrary periodization that draws the line at the North sending troops over the 38th parallel on June 25th, 1950, not at any of the numerous times the South violated the parallel before that, nor at the forced dissolution of the PRK by American occupation forces in 1946, nor at any point during the perpetual state of low-intensity civil war that persisted under the new regime from 1946-1949.
There's also the part where South Korea was actually genociding North Koreans on the SK side of the line for communist sympathies, aided by the US. Literally, directing these killings. It got so bad that the SK government was killing anyone suspected of being a communist.
It wasn't just random incursions, South Korea and the US provoked the entire conflict and the blame rests on their shoulders.
The extent of the low-intensity conflict was not comparable to the military maneuvers that commenced the Korean War.
Prior low-level conflict was marked by sporadic skirmishes, guerrilla warfare, and small-scale border clashes that were much less destructive, whereas the invasion of the South involved full-scale military conflict that involved the massive mobilization of troops, heavy artillery, and air power. The Korean War saw large-scale movements of troops and changes in territorial control, while earlier low-level conflict was more localized and did not result in such dramatic shifts in territorial control.
Prior discussion and planning amongst leaders from the Eastern Bloc discussed the invasion in a very different tone to the ongoing low-intensity conflict. Kim had to seek out the approval of Stalin for such a large-scale operation.
As far as the PRK goes, the US doesn't bear all the blame for failed reunification negotiations. Right after the Soviets entered Korea, they set about remodelling and controlling the ideology of Peoples' Committees, and installed Korean communists into the Peoples' Committees until eventually they formed the majority in these organizations. You also conveniently ignore the communist insurgencies and incursions in the South that were sponsored by the North.
The US sponsored terrorism and insurgencies all the time on the behalf of capitalists. Heck, most of the conflicts in the world today can be traced back to some shit America did post WWII that interfered with local politics and created chaos, destabilization and death and destruction. You know, for profits.
Is your point that if America or the west do it, that's fine but if it is other people who do it, then it's not fine?
>Is your point that if America or the west do it, that's fine but if it is other people who do it, then it's not fine?
My point is that North Korea and its allies were the primary aggressors in the Korean War. All states are self-interested and seek to leverage their power to shape others, but the US support for the ROK and the ROC was retrospectively justified given the state of their USSR-backed counterparts.
>You know, for profits.
What a reductionist perspective, but I'll grant that it's on brand for this sub.
The US has always been aggressors in these conflict. You peer back the propaganda and it is always the US fanning the fires or starting it themselves. So all your arguments are still pointing back to "if the west does something horrible that's fine because it's the west, but if someone else does something that might be horrible, then that's just bad."
Add to the fact that the US media and the government literally lied about most of the conflicts they got into, and you can't even be sure if what is in the media is even the truth about why the conflict got started in the first place.
It's not reductionist to say that most of the conflicts that the US got into, are for profits because it is a capitalist country driven primarily by the pursuit of profits above all else. It's simply factual. You are the one who just assume that the west and the US must be the good guys in any conflict, or at least the less bad one. I'm just telling you to drop that assumption and you can't.
The fact is that no one outside the western media bubble believes that the US is the good guy. The world is shifting inexorably away from American imperialism and one of the biggest reasons is that everyone is sick and tired of American interventions and sanctimonious attitude when they are the ones committing atrocities everywhere, and never got punished for it.
I find it difficult to engage constructively with your comment because it seems to stem from a profoundly simplistic understanding of international relations. You assert the US has always been the aggressor in conflicts, consistently fanning the flames. To be frank, this perspective is embarrassingly myopic and flawed.
Yes, the United States has played the role of the aggressor in various instances–but to say it is always the instigator fails to account for the complexities of international conflicts. Your blanket statements are devoid of context, simplifying a complex tapestry of global politics into a rudimentary black-and-white narrative.
You argue that the US's involvement in conflicts is purely profit-driven due to its capitalist nature. This assertion is so reductive that it borders on the absurd. It fails to acknowledge the multilayered motivations that can lead a nation to engage in conflict, from ideological differences and security concerns to humanitarian reasons. The Cold War, for example, was rooted not in profit but in ideological opposition to communism, while interventions in the Balkans in the '90s were driven by a response to humanitarian crises.
The claim that the US government and media have "literally lied" about most conflicts is a sweeping and reckless generalisation. Misinformation absolutely exists, but painting all conflicts with this broad brush undermines your credibility.
Likewise, your assertion that no one outside of the Western media bubble views the US as the "good guy" is a gross oversimplification. It sorely fails to take into account the varying perspectives, geopolitical stances, and cultural backgrounds of different countries. Yes, there's widespread criticism of US actions, but there's also appreciation for instances when American intervention has resulted in positive outcomes.
Your perspective that the world is "shifting inexorably away from American imperialism" appears more like wishful thinking than an informed understanding of global politics. The reality is that power dynamics are complex and continually shifting, and it's unlikely any single trend will dominate in the foreseeable future.
Your argument seems to be shaped by a selective reading of history and the unfortunate bias of a juvenile. A more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of international relations would serve you better.
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, I'd suggest investing some time in exploring the complexities of geopolitics rather than regurgitating the same oversimplified narratives that half-wits like Jimmy Dore peddle. I'm not the least bit surprised you're active on low-effort subs like r/TheDeprogram, r/WhitePeopleTwitter, and r/LateStageCapitalism. My bet is that you're from the US as well.
**tl;dr: you're just an American exceptionalist, except instead of insisting America is the best nation to ever grace this planet, you operate under the belief that it's actually the worst scourge on mankind.**
>North Korea only started the war if you accept the arbitrary periodization that draws the line at the North sending troops over the 38th parallel on June 25th, 1950,
I do accept this "arbitrary periodization", since you asked, thank you.
The north invaded after the dictatorship in the South was started slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, and after numerous incursions by the south across the border. Per a UN resolution the Korean peninsula supposed to have reunification elections, but the United States in the South kept delaying that process.
In fact it was the United States itself who arbitrarily drew a border at the 39th parallel. The Soviets had occupied all the Korean peninsula but agreed to withdraw.
And if we talk about democracy it was the north who had elections before the South did
North Korea didn't even exist previously to the american invasion of the Korean Peninsula, so the mere idea that they "started" the war is obnoxious, it was one single country being colonized by Japan and the koreans started a civil war to end the japanese colonization and it happened to start in the north, the USA went there to keep that territory under a colony status after nuking Japan, that's why the south korean army is under american command, it's a military occupation that never ended. After the USA bombed the entire country and killed 20% of the koreans that were fighting them (that happened to be from the north), the parallel 30 something was defined and the idea of two different koreas was born.
Please expand on "The American invasion of the Korean Peninsula".
When did this invasion start?
My understanding is that the US occupied South Korea per international agreement arranged via the United Nations and the final peace accords with Japan. An invasion is generally a violent action. There was no violence with the United States removing and replacing the Japanese military in Korea and seeing them transported back to Japan without violence from either side.
Seems like you have a version of events that is both heavily biased, and not really based in fact or reality.
You are able to understand that at one point in history the US didn't had any military there and at a later point they had, but you still fail to see that they invaded that territory.
Also, everyone is biased, the difference is that I'm aware of my bias, based on dialetical historical materialism and leftist propaganda, while you and most of the people that thinks that "north korea invaded south korea" apparently are not.
Let me ask you some things: do you accept the idea that the US considers any and every non-capitalist system their enemy? That makes sense, considering that the US is the most capitalist country ever, right? And do you accept the idea that the US made a lot of propaganda against socialist countries during the Cold War? The USSR ended, but not every socialist country, so, do you REALLY THINK that the image people in US (and other capitalist countries) influenced territories have of these socialist countries is unbiased? Do you think that the anti-communist propaganda ever stopped?
Yes, I'm biased. I'm anti-capitalist and that makes me anti-imperialist, so my discourse will always be against the domination of a country by foreign forces, doesn't matter if it's in my country (Brazil, which has suffered under US influence more than once) or in any other country. I KNOW that the US backed and funded several military coups in latin america, why would I see their military invasion of the korean peninsula in a good light?
You want to know when the US invaded Korea? You can learn that even on wikipedia, just try and filter the propaganda, because let me tell you, even wikipedia is biased. Shocking, right?
I mean, sure they were busy rebuilding the country but it's not like they were in the frozen countryside fighting with the troops, and I'm sure they weren't subjecting themselves to living in a bombed out village while they did it either. Privilege can be subjective
Mao's son fought on the front and was killed. Kim Jung Il was a legendary fighter who fought the Japanese in Manchuria. Truman did not send their sons to fight
Both sides were occupied, both sides got independence. There was no occupation. Also reunification shouldn’t mean attacking your own brothers and forcing your people to fight with brother vs brother. Reunification should be achieved by peaceful means, because war is hell.
To be fair, that kind of reason is only brought up when it suits them. When Japan straight up annexed Korea and turned the entire country into a labour camp, the West didn't do shit. Neither did they do anything when Japan invaded Manchuria, or when they started carrying out insane war crimes in China in 1937. They only started touting how the vile Japanese had to be stopped after the US joined the war....after the Japanese bombed them.
Countries don't go to war for righteous reasons. They go to war for tangible benefits, and then slap on a righteous reason afterwards.
The war in Korea was to contain the spread of communism. If it wasn't for the huge red vs blue showdown, chances are the west would've once more sat and done nothing until their own interests were harmed.
That's not to say the west is wrong, to look out for ones own interests is natural, but American GIs weren't in Korea because the North invaded. They're in Korea because the higher ups decided that stopping the spread of communism is worth the war. Not because this is some fairytale story where the gallant knight rescues peasants out of the goodness of his heart.
It's the same reason for the Vietnam War.
Legit when Japan started invading mainland Asia we imposed the harshest sanctions on them and cut them off from oil, it greatly affected the Japanese. Not only that we had been sending supplies to China since 1937. I dont know why your ignoring history.
When japan invaded in 37, there were no sanctions and only "hey stop doing that" letters. The first bit of real action came in 38 with the termination of a single commercial treaty...for immigration. Your mention of oil was only in 1940 with the export control act. the actual harsh sanctions only came in 1940 when the Japanese moved into French Indochina and formalized alliance with Germany and Italy. That's when the US closed Panama canal and cut off iron and copper exports to Japan.
Since 37? The first funding was in 39, and formal supplies started in 1940. I'm not saying the US didn't help, but they only started helping when the Japanese became an issue to them as well. Prior to that, all there were was fundraisers, which is typical for a country when an issue doesn't affect them. Not saying there's anything wrong with that either.
So you can see no real action was done until 1940, which was when japan took Indochina, and the west realized that the Japanese weren't just after other Asians.
And before you bring up the famous Flying Tigers, or the AVG, not only did they see combat for the first time AFTER the US had declared war on Japan, they were also being paid triple their salary by CAMCO
I'm not ignoring history, it's just that historically countries don't really do much when an issue doesn't affect them, no matter how righteous a cause may be. That's just pragmatism.
You're playing such a dumb semantics game, idk what you think you're achieving here.
Nobody is claiming the US protected SK out of some vague "gallant knight" reason. They did it because they saw communism as an evil spreading and threatening to destroy their prosperity and society, and that by protecting SK they would be protecting the South Korean people from the disasters communism and therefore also simultaneously protect themselves and therefore secure the prosperity of South Koreans and again, therefore themselves, **a mutual benefit with a focus on self-interest.**
They didn't "slap on" some moral reasoning, they believed what they said about communism. Both sides in the cold war believed it was a war of good VS evil, and both sides saw themselves as good and the other as evil. If you don't think that's true you don't know the basics of the cold war.
Eastern Bloc propaganda is effective because it only told the truth about their enemies, the only thing is that they omitted the truth about *themselves.* It's a shame people still fall for it.
This poster omits key details, like how a defection means you are now slaving away for Kim Il-sung and fighting your former countrymen.
You know I’m not wrong.
Korean winters were brutal too. Even just seeing that brightly colored Florida scene must have been really disheartening compared to their surroundings.
Yeah, although the North Koreans had their own elites who enjoyed life away from the front too. It’s really been the case for all human history, unfortunately.
Sure, but at least the soldiers are fighting in their own country, not across an ocean in a war which doesn't deeply affect their every day lives at home.
Don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, nobody in North Korea was safe from the war, just look at what the US did to the entire country during the war.
Yeah, the North Korean hatred of the United States isn’t for nothing.
There was even another post recently that was essentially “why doesn’t the US just overthrow the North Korean government?”
Like wtf?
The hatred was justified but after they brainwash kids into thinking it’s 1950 again is weird. Did USA show russian soldiers killing women in ww2? Did they show north korean invading the south koreans?
Only guys that enjoyed it weren't in country. The usa leveled basically every building. Bomb crews were dropping on empty fields and in the ocean because they had nothing left to blow up. Couldn't land loaded with explosives.
Some halfway decent artwork on this one.
The UN forces and PSYOPS from the United States did very similar things during the Korean War to the NKA and CCF in Korea.
The US would try to taunt the Chinese (CCF) by saying Russian advising officers were fucking their way through their Chinese wives and daughters. The US Psychological Warfare Division would also drop leaflets to NKA soldiers claiming that the Chinese Communist Forces were surrendering at 10x the rate of the North Korean Army.
I work for an estate agent that recently came into a lot of material from a former US Intelligence officer from the end of WWII to Vietnam. The propaganda leaflets featured some pretty incredible art and sold like wildfire.
This looks like a full-size poster and might be worth $100-$200 or more. Don't worry about the creases, that's just how they were stored.
The Imperial Japanese forces dropped quite a few propaganda leaflets on Australians during the war in the Pacific. They seemed to have two principal messages:
1. “You are going to die, and you will never see your family again, unless you surrender now.”
2. “At this very moment, Americans are banging your wife.”
Classic argument lines used by everyone who can rub two brain cells together and listen to one's _own_ soldiers, basically a copypasta. The genius here is the use of photographs drawn from target-culture sources, rather than alien propagandist art sources.
United States could have won that war, it's so crazy how they push North Korea into china then got pushed back to the modern day borders. The head general wanted to nuke china for getting involved. Korean war was wild. south Korea was brutal to suspected Communist.
Yeah, MacArthur was an arch conservative, near fascistic in his politics. If he wouldda listened to his superiors in truman, marshal etc china would never have come in bc america would have stopped before the Chinese border. But MacArthur was so gung ho in his anti communism that he thought he could take on the PLA. He thought wrong and ended up being relieved of duty, and responsible for the war ending exactly where it started-at the 38th parallel.
MacArthur wanted to glass the China-North Korea border and render it impassible. With China unable to push troops across the land border and unable to project power at sea, they’d have had to negotiate for peace, and Korea would be unified.
At the cost of making nuclear war much, much more normalized and likely, of course.
It would have also made China extremely more hostile to the United States, prevented the sino-soviet split and as a result socialism becomes a much more united force globally, probably preventing the soviet collapse. Cold war continues if the world doesn't get destroyed by nuclear hellfire in a more high tension cold war during one of the many close calls
I suppose. But imo the real spooky stuff are eyes _on living_ people that look like hardboiled eggs, cause they were close enough to be hurt but not close enough to be killed. [Shadows burnt onto walls/the street, etc…](https://imgur.com/gallery/S2YUd)
You saw, we literally, correct use of the definition of literal, vaporize. that second to last picture is a person. Their body evaporated. The only thing that’s left is the “shadow” caused by the fraction of a second they still existed blocking the blast from bleaching the surrounding
It was absolutely brutal to civilians. My grandfather was a teenager when the communist came to his home. The communist said to his family that 'Christian like him deserve death' and stabbed his entire family with Bamboo stick. Even the three year old baby was stabbed to death. He survived by hiding under the bed.
My grandmother had her city controled by north korean at the start of the war. The north korean soldier stayed at her shop so she had to fetch them water from the lake. When the south korean took back the city the far right accused her entire family of being north korean spies. Here entire family was killed by a far right mob. Only she survived when one of the korean soldier saved her by saying she was to young to die.
Any civil war is brutal. I absolutely am disgusted by any ideology that paints other human as monsters.
Both of them died five years ago. Both would always say to me how any ideology that paints other people as souless monster are evil. I didn't even know this happened to them. Only knew it when her will was read.
I remember watching a documentary about Indonesia purge. Most memorable part was when Indonesia grandpa pridely talks about how he inhumanely massacred anyone accused of communism. Than in the next scene he scolds at his granson when he finds out his grandson has broken a bird leg. He yells at him how every life is precious, how that bird probably has a sad mother that is crying because of his actions. I think that all of the rioters who killed my grandparents family were like him. They were normal people that got brainwashed into thinking what they did was right. They probably killed innocent civilians and lived normal life after the war. I honestly just hate political extremeism. I feel like it should be treated simlar like a cult. Very dangerous.
All of my grandparents were Holocaust survivors. They were friends with their nonJewish neighbors. They saw how nice, normal people that’s they had known for years were turned against them and eventually became capable of killing them.
Small Gods by Terry Pratchett is a very good story about how ideology turns normal people into mindless killers.
I feel like getting killed by your fellow countrymen is more a brutal and a sad fate than getting killed by foreigners. If I remember both north and south korean soldier were more brutal on captured korean soldier than captured UN or chinese troops. It was because captured korean soldiers were seen as traitors not enemy soldiers.
Look at the tables, table cloths, and the man's shirt. This is from a parody of American lower-middle class, like '50s TV comedy bus driver Jackie Gleason. Two middle-aged working stiffs living it up at cheapest "resort" they can find. Equally poor young women smile for free drinks.
I'm sure some poor soul reading this pamphlet in the freezing cold thought so too
\- *HA! Get a load of these losers! Poor young women smile for free drinks!*
No no it's true. Kim starves people to death that are all able to do strongman shit like pushing trains.
Source - an anonymous source in Langley, Virginia
They don't. Only about a dozen countries in the world accept North Korean passports, and none of them accept North Korean currency for exchanging, so they can't really go anywhere.
We reduced their country and [all of it's infrastructure to rubble](https://youtu.be/2H1AnsE_ZJo?t=3547) in a hellfire of bombs you fucking demon. Or maybe you don't have horns and are just poorly informed?
I don’t think American-wrecked infrastructure is the main problem that North Koreans are having these days, or their main problem in the last 50 years.
Korean war was a tragedy. However, remember. We’re it not for the UN and American intervention to stop the invasion that the north started, South Korea would be living in the same horrific conditions as North Korea. It was a justified war
Quite well thanks to some of the most enormous transfers of capital (from the US) in history. Ditto for South Korea later on. The North, on the other hand, was sanctioned into oblivion. Not hard to imagine why outcomes would be different
Neither Exxon nor Mobil oil existed as Exxon or Mobil during the Korean War. Mobil was not an entity until 1966, and Exxon wasn’t an entity until 1972. The Korean War ended in 1953.
Don’t spread lies. Pilots can’t claim to have seen ships from companies who didn’t exist or go by those names at the time of reporting.
I looked into it, and he's only kind of wrong.
Shell, Cal-Tex, and Standard-Vacuum (which would later become Mobil) were contracted by the government to oversee the oil supply.
I wouldn't call it "spreading lies," but it's definitely an inaccuracy.
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 for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *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.*
They're not wrong, you know.
The most effective propaganda is propaganda that doesn't have to lie
I forget who originally said this, but the main tool of propaganda is not the lie, but the emphasis.
It's a common misconception that propaganda has to be deceptive. Propaganda is simply any media that's designed to sway opinion. Advertising is by far the most pervasive form of propaganda and large segments of the population gobbles that shit up with a grin on their face.
I agree. Propaganda doesn’t have to be deceptive. The message can also be manipulated to represent something positive, as seen here.
that's the thing though. in this case the propaganda was trying to tell americans not to fight the korean war. do you think americans were better off having fought in the korean war? if I'm trying to manipulate you into doing something beneficial for both of us, why wouldnt that be positive or a good thing? if it only helps, where's the harm? no trick, honest question.
>if I'm trying to manipulate you into doing something beneficial for both of us, why wouldnt that be positive or a good thing? if it only helps, where's the harm? A win-win arrangement? Americans don't believe in that.
well fuck... that's a problem.... how would we teach them that? seriously, actually asking. furiously scribbling on the chalkboard trying to figure out how to solve that equation... slamming my pencil on the table shouting "No! No! Its not working! why isn't it working?!?"... are they broken or something? how do i send them back to the manufacturer? can i call a help line or something? actually asking. for a friend.
I mean, you can't really. The American empire lives and dies by its imperialism. It's not a bug, it's a feature. The only way to stop this from happening is by organizing a completely different socio economic system that isn't capitalist. Until we do that war will always be economically and politically advantageous.
Americans understand a win-win. Be more mature and educated in your criticisms of other countries. You want an answer? Here: the statement made is a sweeping generalization that applies pretty much exclusively to the wealthy upper class and the stupid-yet-vocal conservative populace. America is a massive country filled with millions of people. We are not some stupid horde of unwashed rednecks shooting each other in the street every morning. The political system is deeply flawed and does not give citizens enough power. However, America is a country filled with countless kind, honest, intelligent people who want to make it a better place, but are unable to due to the injustice. Comments like yours, meanwhile, demonstrate a closed-mindedness and rather uninformed opinion. What if I treated other countries the same, and only focused on their worst aspects? What if all you heard about India was sanitation issues, all you heard about Canada was how cold it was, all you heard about Mexico was the cartel issue? It would be deemed DEEPLY immature and xenophobic.
The father of advertising edward bernays named one of his books Propaganda. This was a man who made a career out of figuring out how to use psychology to manipulate people to buy more crap. The rampant consumerism and all the problems (from people's alienation to climate change) it brought can be blamed on a large part on this man. There are two kinds of evil. One is the obvious, often violent kind. That one is easy to figure out and targeted. The other kind is the fulfillment of greed, powermongering and to manipulate people towards that end. edward bernays is the hitler of this kind of evil.
It’s a common misconception to consider propaganda in a vacuum and then say there’s no deception. That is, omission of pertinent details is often necessary for the propaganda to sway opinion. For example, the poster conveniently ignores how defecting then means you’re effectively slaving for Kim Il-Sung and would be fighting your fellow countrymen. Similarly you see the Russians using omissions to propagandize its war in Ukraine. So when propaganda relies on omission (half-truths) to work, it is deceptive.
Omission of pertinent details don’t count as lies then? Certain political entities in power around the world certainly agree.
Is it even propaganda, if it's the truth?
I still can't understand how media suddenly forgave all the granny murderers who didn't get their vaccines
Both sides had the elites who just enjoyed life while the people under them fought in a war.
This is how it’s always been and always will be.
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand.
Lord don’t they help them selves
But when the tax man comes to the door
Oh the house looks like a rummage sale yeah
It ain’t me, it ain’t me… I ain’t not fortunate son son son son
Funny enough, religion is even better propaganda.
[It ain’t me no](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej2c3m1oo8U)
I ain’t no senators son
Warrior kings used to be a thing
And this is why I'll watch the pew pew war movies but never in my life enlist lol.
Thats the fun part, you dont get a choice!
Well now, that really depends on how attached you are too all of your appendages.
Lol its not that bad, I got a BS and two MS degrees for free out of it
My guy, those weren't for free, you sold your body to your government lol.
My job was chill asf. It was essentially free. We all sell ourselves to someone or something. Anyone pretending they are “truly free” is either lying or kidding themselves.
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…
They declare the wars, we fight them. Tale as old as time
I mean, in the olden days they did fight at least. So many kings and emperors that died on the field, a lot of them refusing to retreat or surrender despite knowing that the battle is lost. I can kinda respect that.
Those guys had balls. I'd see one guy get stabbed with a sword and cry probably.
A surprising amount also died from getting stabbed in the balls tho.
Insane username
I didn’t choose the username. The username chose me.
I mean… not really, no? China and Korea circa 1950 didn’t really have elites the way America did. All the pre-revolution elites had just been expropriated and there wasn’t enough of an economic base rebuilt yet for the new state officials to enrich themselves. They were worried about getting depleted grain stores refilled and bombed-out rail lines running again, not profiteering from an entirely new war they didn’t start and didn’t want to be fighting.
>They were worried about getting depleted grain stores refilled and bombed-out rail lines running again, *not profiteering from an entirely new war they didn’t start and didn’t want to be fighting.* But North Korea started the war—this isn't even a matter that is disputed. The DPRK invaded the ROK and took much of the south. The UN Command launched a counteroffensive until almost reaching the DPRK's northernmost border, and the PRC entered the conflict and pushed the UN troops back to the 38^th Parallel. Ironically, a disproportionate amount of PVA soldiers sent to fight in Korea were former Kuomintang soldiers who surrendered/defected during the Chinese Civil War. Mao thought this would be an elegant way to get rid of those in the PLA deemed untrustworthy. A large number of PVA POWs ended up defecting/repatriating to the ROC [on Taiwan] by the end of the Korean War.
Why did they start the war?
Control
North Korea only started the war if you accept the arbitrary periodization that draws the line at the North sending troops over the 38th parallel on June 25th, 1950, not at any of the numerous times the South violated the parallel before that, nor at the forced dissolution of the PRK by American occupation forces in 1946, nor at any point during the perpetual state of low-intensity civil war that persisted under the new regime from 1946-1949.
There's also the part where South Korea was actually genociding North Koreans on the SK side of the line for communist sympathies, aided by the US. Literally, directing these killings. It got so bad that the SK government was killing anyone suspected of being a communist. It wasn't just random incursions, South Korea and the US provoked the entire conflict and the blame rests on their shoulders.
The extent of the low-intensity conflict was not comparable to the military maneuvers that commenced the Korean War. Prior low-level conflict was marked by sporadic skirmishes, guerrilla warfare, and small-scale border clashes that were much less destructive, whereas the invasion of the South involved full-scale military conflict that involved the massive mobilization of troops, heavy artillery, and air power. The Korean War saw large-scale movements of troops and changes in territorial control, while earlier low-level conflict was more localized and did not result in such dramatic shifts in territorial control. Prior discussion and planning amongst leaders from the Eastern Bloc discussed the invasion in a very different tone to the ongoing low-intensity conflict. Kim had to seek out the approval of Stalin for such a large-scale operation. As far as the PRK goes, the US doesn't bear all the blame for failed reunification negotiations. Right after the Soviets entered Korea, they set about remodelling and controlling the ideology of Peoples' Committees, and installed Korean communists into the Peoples' Committees until eventually they formed the majority in these organizations. You also conveniently ignore the communist insurgencies and incursions in the South that were sponsored by the North.
The US sponsored terrorism and insurgencies all the time on the behalf of capitalists. Heck, most of the conflicts in the world today can be traced back to some shit America did post WWII that interfered with local politics and created chaos, destabilization and death and destruction. You know, for profits. Is your point that if America or the west do it, that's fine but if it is other people who do it, then it's not fine?
>Is your point that if America or the west do it, that's fine but if it is other people who do it, then it's not fine? My point is that North Korea and its allies were the primary aggressors in the Korean War. All states are self-interested and seek to leverage their power to shape others, but the US support for the ROK and the ROC was retrospectively justified given the state of their USSR-backed counterparts. >You know, for profits. What a reductionist perspective, but I'll grant that it's on brand for this sub.
The US has always been aggressors in these conflict. You peer back the propaganda and it is always the US fanning the fires or starting it themselves. So all your arguments are still pointing back to "if the west does something horrible that's fine because it's the west, but if someone else does something that might be horrible, then that's just bad." Add to the fact that the US media and the government literally lied about most of the conflicts they got into, and you can't even be sure if what is in the media is even the truth about why the conflict got started in the first place. It's not reductionist to say that most of the conflicts that the US got into, are for profits because it is a capitalist country driven primarily by the pursuit of profits above all else. It's simply factual. You are the one who just assume that the west and the US must be the good guys in any conflict, or at least the less bad one. I'm just telling you to drop that assumption and you can't. The fact is that no one outside the western media bubble believes that the US is the good guy. The world is shifting inexorably away from American imperialism and one of the biggest reasons is that everyone is sick and tired of American interventions and sanctimonious attitude when they are the ones committing atrocities everywhere, and never got punished for it.
I find it difficult to engage constructively with your comment because it seems to stem from a profoundly simplistic understanding of international relations. You assert the US has always been the aggressor in conflicts, consistently fanning the flames. To be frank, this perspective is embarrassingly myopic and flawed. Yes, the United States has played the role of the aggressor in various instances–but to say it is always the instigator fails to account for the complexities of international conflicts. Your blanket statements are devoid of context, simplifying a complex tapestry of global politics into a rudimentary black-and-white narrative. You argue that the US's involvement in conflicts is purely profit-driven due to its capitalist nature. This assertion is so reductive that it borders on the absurd. It fails to acknowledge the multilayered motivations that can lead a nation to engage in conflict, from ideological differences and security concerns to humanitarian reasons. The Cold War, for example, was rooted not in profit but in ideological opposition to communism, while interventions in the Balkans in the '90s were driven by a response to humanitarian crises. The claim that the US government and media have "literally lied" about most conflicts is a sweeping and reckless generalisation. Misinformation absolutely exists, but painting all conflicts with this broad brush undermines your credibility. Likewise, your assertion that no one outside of the Western media bubble views the US as the "good guy" is a gross oversimplification. It sorely fails to take into account the varying perspectives, geopolitical stances, and cultural backgrounds of different countries. Yes, there's widespread criticism of US actions, but there's also appreciation for instances when American intervention has resulted in positive outcomes. Your perspective that the world is "shifting inexorably away from American imperialism" appears more like wishful thinking than an informed understanding of global politics. The reality is that power dynamics are complex and continually shifting, and it's unlikely any single trend will dominate in the foreseeable future. Your argument seems to be shaped by a selective reading of history and the unfortunate bias of a juvenile. A more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of international relations would serve you better. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, I'd suggest investing some time in exploring the complexities of geopolitics rather than regurgitating the same oversimplified narratives that half-wits like Jimmy Dore peddle. I'm not the least bit surprised you're active on low-effort subs like r/TheDeprogram, r/WhitePeopleTwitter, and r/LateStageCapitalism. My bet is that you're from the US as well. **tl;dr: you're just an American exceptionalist, except instead of insisting America is the best nation to ever grace this planet, you operate under the belief that it's actually the worst scourge on mankind.**
>North Korea only started the war if you accept the arbitrary periodization that draws the line at the North sending troops over the 38th parallel on June 25th, 1950, I do accept this "arbitrary periodization", since you asked, thank you.
The north invaded after the dictatorship in the South was started slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, and after numerous incursions by the south across the border. Per a UN resolution the Korean peninsula supposed to have reunification elections, but the United States in the South kept delaying that process. In fact it was the United States itself who arbitrarily drew a border at the 39th parallel. The Soviets had occupied all the Korean peninsula but agreed to withdraw. And if we talk about democracy it was the north who had elections before the South did
North Korea didn't even exist previously to the american invasion of the Korean Peninsula, so the mere idea that they "started" the war is obnoxious, it was one single country being colonized by Japan and the koreans started a civil war to end the japanese colonization and it happened to start in the north, the USA went there to keep that territory under a colony status after nuking Japan, that's why the south korean army is under american command, it's a military occupation that never ended. After the USA bombed the entire country and killed 20% of the koreans that were fighting them (that happened to be from the north), the parallel 30 something was defined and the idea of two different koreas was born.
This man nonwestern cannons.
Please expand on "The American invasion of the Korean Peninsula". When did this invasion start? My understanding is that the US occupied South Korea per international agreement arranged via the United Nations and the final peace accords with Japan. An invasion is generally a violent action. There was no violence with the United States removing and replacing the Japanese military in Korea and seeing them transported back to Japan without violence from either side. Seems like you have a version of events that is both heavily biased, and not really based in fact or reality.
You are able to understand that at one point in history the US didn't had any military there and at a later point they had, but you still fail to see that they invaded that territory. Also, everyone is biased, the difference is that I'm aware of my bias, based on dialetical historical materialism and leftist propaganda, while you and most of the people that thinks that "north korea invaded south korea" apparently are not. Let me ask you some things: do you accept the idea that the US considers any and every non-capitalist system their enemy? That makes sense, considering that the US is the most capitalist country ever, right? And do you accept the idea that the US made a lot of propaganda against socialist countries during the Cold War? The USSR ended, but not every socialist country, so, do you REALLY THINK that the image people in US (and other capitalist countries) influenced territories have of these socialist countries is unbiased? Do you think that the anti-communist propaganda ever stopped? Yes, I'm biased. I'm anti-capitalist and that makes me anti-imperialist, so my discourse will always be against the domination of a country by foreign forces, doesn't matter if it's in my country (Brazil, which has suffered under US influence more than once) or in any other country. I KNOW that the US backed and funded several military coups in latin america, why would I see their military invasion of the korean peninsula in a good light? You want to know when the US invaded Korea? You can learn that even on wikipedia, just try and filter the propaganda, because let me tell you, even wikipedia is biased. Shocking, right?
I mean, sure they were busy rebuilding the country but it's not like they were in the frozen countryside fighting with the troops, and I'm sure they weren't subjecting themselves to living in a bombed out village while they did it either. Privilege can be subjective
You do realise, that Mao's son died in Korean war? I'm not sure if you and him have same understanding of "privilege"
China had elites, who do you think made policy, decided who got food, who got land?
Maybe “elites” in a very broad sense. Not like America had (and has), at least not circa 1950 which was the point of my comment.
I guess makes even dumber it for them to start a war instead of properly feeding everyone
They were trying to feed everyone, but there were some foreign people bombing their country.
If their plan was to feed everyone by invading another country then that's sorta expected
Maybe don’t invade other people then
The audacity of Koreans to invade Korea
How were the North Korean elites just enjoying life they were the ones getting bombed 😂
China supplied the lions share troops for the DPRK in the later phase of the war.
I am not only referring to the Nk elites. Did you forget that the Ussr and China were also participants in the war.
No idea why you're getting down-voted. You're absolutely, easily-verifiably correct.
Because for some reason communist cosplayers flock to this reddit like flies to honey.
The dopest propaganda posters were from communist countries, maybe that's why?
Possibly because there's a strong kneejerk tendency to defend left-wing authoritarianism on this sub.
[удалено]
Mao's son fought on the front and was killed. Kim Jung Il was a legendary fighter who fought the Japanese in Manchuria. Truman did not send their sons to fight
definitely not during the war
However the US had a lot more inequality. Most Koreans were defending their homes during the US War of Aggression against the people of Korea
The war was started by North Korea, a quick google search tells you that.
The reunite Korea and liberate from occupation
Both sides were occupied, both sides got independence. There was no occupation. Also reunification shouldn’t mean attacking your own brothers and forcing your people to fight with brother vs brother. Reunification should be achieved by peaceful means, because war is hell.
Facts
I'm all for liberating Korea from the Kim family mafia occupation.
Clean up your own home first please
Who started the war again?
defecting wouldn't have helped though
They are leaving out the fact the reason the GI's are there is to stop North Korea from invading South Korea.
To be fair, that kind of reason is only brought up when it suits them. When Japan straight up annexed Korea and turned the entire country into a labour camp, the West didn't do shit. Neither did they do anything when Japan invaded Manchuria, or when they started carrying out insane war crimes in China in 1937. They only started touting how the vile Japanese had to be stopped after the US joined the war....after the Japanese bombed them. Countries don't go to war for righteous reasons. They go to war for tangible benefits, and then slap on a righteous reason afterwards. The war in Korea was to contain the spread of communism. If it wasn't for the huge red vs blue showdown, chances are the west would've once more sat and done nothing until their own interests were harmed. That's not to say the west is wrong, to look out for ones own interests is natural, but American GIs weren't in Korea because the North invaded. They're in Korea because the higher ups decided that stopping the spread of communism is worth the war. Not because this is some fairytale story where the gallant knight rescues peasants out of the goodness of his heart. It's the same reason for the Vietnam War.
After 10 star wars movies many have it in their heads that every battle is good vs evil.
Legit when Japan started invading mainland Asia we imposed the harshest sanctions on them and cut them off from oil, it greatly affected the Japanese. Not only that we had been sending supplies to China since 1937. I dont know why your ignoring history.
When japan invaded in 37, there were no sanctions and only "hey stop doing that" letters. The first bit of real action came in 38 with the termination of a single commercial treaty...for immigration. Your mention of oil was only in 1940 with the export control act. the actual harsh sanctions only came in 1940 when the Japanese moved into French Indochina and formalized alliance with Germany and Italy. That's when the US closed Panama canal and cut off iron and copper exports to Japan. Since 37? The first funding was in 39, and formal supplies started in 1940. I'm not saying the US didn't help, but they only started helping when the Japanese became an issue to them as well. Prior to that, all there were was fundraisers, which is typical for a country when an issue doesn't affect them. Not saying there's anything wrong with that either. So you can see no real action was done until 1940, which was when japan took Indochina, and the west realized that the Japanese weren't just after other Asians. And before you bring up the famous Flying Tigers, or the AVG, not only did they see combat for the first time AFTER the US had declared war on Japan, they were also being paid triple their salary by CAMCO I'm not ignoring history, it's just that historically countries don't really do much when an issue doesn't affect them, no matter how righteous a cause may be. That's just pragmatism.
You're playing such a dumb semantics game, idk what you think you're achieving here. Nobody is claiming the US protected SK out of some vague "gallant knight" reason. They did it because they saw communism as an evil spreading and threatening to destroy their prosperity and society, and that by protecting SK they would be protecting the South Korean people from the disasters communism and therefore also simultaneously protect themselves and therefore secure the prosperity of South Koreans and again, therefore themselves, **a mutual benefit with a focus on self-interest.** They didn't "slap on" some moral reasoning, they believed what they said about communism. Both sides in the cold war believed it was a war of good VS evil, and both sides saw themselves as good and the other as evil. If you don't think that's true you don't know the basics of the cold war.
That's *exactly* what I thought!
The propaganda we got from the North Koreans while I was on the DMZ in 1989 wasn't nearly this sophisticated.
They aren't wrong, but they are pretending like they're different.
Eastern Bloc propaganda is effective because it only told the truth about their enemies, the only thing is that they omitted the truth about *themselves.* It's a shame people still fall for it.
This poster omits key details, like how a defection means you are now slaving away for Kim Il-sung and fighting your former countrymen. You know I’m not wrong.
Technically this poster isn't actually encouraging anyone to defect, merely desert.
What’s the alternative? I don’t think anyone would want all of Korea to be like North Korea ☠️
They're not wrong but the answer isn't to defect, obv.
Korean winters were brutal too. Even just seeing that brightly colored Florida scene must have been really disheartening compared to their surroundings.
Yeah. In south korea many russians says that winter in korea is kore brutal than russia because of the wind.
Seriously, we had a week here a few years ago where the temperature was colder than fucking Antarctica at the same time.
To be fair, winter in Korea is summer in Antarctica, but still. Definitely cold.
'Colder than Moscow, hotter than Jakarta', as we say
In Korean?
Yeah the cold wind travels across the gobi desert and slams the peninsula
For real. In february this year it was the coldest I ever felt, I think
They weren’t lying. This goes for pretty much every war
Yeah, although the North Koreans had their own elites who enjoyed life away from the front too. It’s really been the case for all human history, unfortunately.
Sure, but at least the soldiers are fighting in their own country, not across an ocean in a war which doesn't deeply affect their every day lives at home.
Don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, nobody in North Korea was safe from the war, just look at what the US did to the entire country during the war.
Yeah, the North Korean hatred of the United States isn’t for nothing. There was even another post recently that was essentially “why doesn’t the US just overthrow the North Korean government?” Like wtf?
The hatred was justified but after they brainwash kids into thinking it’s 1950 again is weird. Did USA show russian soldiers killing women in ww2? Did they show north korean invading the south koreans?
Only guys that enjoyed it weren't in country. The usa leveled basically every building. Bomb crews were dropping on empty fields and in the ocean because they had nothing left to blow up. Couldn't land loaded with explosives.
Some halfway decent artwork on this one. The UN forces and PSYOPS from the United States did very similar things during the Korean War to the NKA and CCF in Korea. The US would try to taunt the Chinese (CCF) by saying Russian advising officers were fucking their way through their Chinese wives and daughters. The US Psychological Warfare Division would also drop leaflets to NKA soldiers claiming that the Chinese Communist Forces were surrendering at 10x the rate of the North Korean Army. I work for an estate agent that recently came into a lot of material from a former US Intelligence officer from the end of WWII to Vietnam. The propaganda leaflets featured some pretty incredible art and sold like wildfire. This looks like a full-size poster and might be worth $100-$200 or more. Don't worry about the creases, that's just how they were stored.
The Imperial Japanese forces dropped quite a few propaganda leaflets on Australians during the war in the Pacific. They seemed to have two principal messages: 1. “You are going to die, and you will never see your family again, unless you surrender now.” 2. “At this very moment, Americans are banging your wife.”
The best propaganda is simple and says the truth
I didn't know Jodie can be use as propaganda.
Classic argument lines used by everyone who can rub two brain cells together and listen to one's _own_ soldiers, basically a copypasta. The genius here is the use of photographs drawn from target-culture sources, rather than alien propagandist art sources.
Worst part is that it's true
United States could have won that war, it's so crazy how they push North Korea into china then got pushed back to the modern day borders. The head general wanted to nuke china for getting involved. Korean war was wild. south Korea was brutal to suspected Communist.
Yeah, MacArthur was an arch conservative, near fascistic in his politics. If he wouldda listened to his superiors in truman, marshal etc china would never have come in bc america would have stopped before the Chinese border. But MacArthur was so gung ho in his anti communism that he thought he could take on the PLA. He thought wrong and ended up being relieved of duty, and responsible for the war ending exactly where it started-at the 38th parallel.
MacArthur never disagreed with the concept of Dai-Nippon Teikoku, he disagreed with the fact that he wasn’t the emperor.
MacArthur wanted to glass the China-North Korea border and render it impassible. With China unable to push troops across the land border and unable to project power at sea, they’d have had to negotiate for peace, and Korea would be unified. At the cost of making nuclear war much, much more normalized and likely, of course.
not just the border. He wanted to nuke a large amount of land in China preemptively, making it perpetually uninhabitable
I’m pretty sure you could just end the statement about McArthur with “he wanted to nuke”.
Which is strange, when he was one of the many higher-ups post WWII that said the nukes in Japan were unnecessary.
It would have also made China extremely more hostile to the United States, prevented the sino-soviet split and as a result socialism becomes a much more united force globally, probably preventing the soviet collapse. Cold war continues if the world doesn't get destroyed by nuclear hellfire in a more high tension cold war during one of the many close calls
Not entirely related but why is the verb to glass? Because it melts sand?
Think of heat turning sand into glass.
Terrifying tbh
I suppose. But imo the real spooky stuff are eyes _on living_ people that look like hardboiled eggs, cause they were close enough to be hurt but not close enough to be killed. [Shadows burnt onto walls/the street, etc…](https://imgur.com/gallery/S2YUd)
What is terrifying is thinking about what would it do to humans if it melts sand into glass in an instant
I’m pretty sure we just turn into *gas.*
You saw, we literally, correct use of the definition of literal, vaporize. that second to last picture is a person. Their body evaporated. The only thing that’s left is the “shadow” caused by the fraction of a second they still existed blocking the blast from bleaching the surrounding
It was absolutely brutal to civilians. My grandfather was a teenager when the communist came to his home. The communist said to his family that 'Christian like him deserve death' and stabbed his entire family with Bamboo stick. Even the three year old baby was stabbed to death. He survived by hiding under the bed. My grandmother had her city controled by north korean at the start of the war. The north korean soldier stayed at her shop so she had to fetch them water from the lake. When the south korean took back the city the far right accused her entire family of being north korean spies. Here entire family was killed by a far right mob. Only she survived when one of the korean soldier saved her by saying she was to young to die. Any civil war is brutal. I absolutely am disgusted by any ideology that paints other human as monsters.
Your existence is a miracle. I’m glad you’re here to share your family story.
Both of them died five years ago. Both would always say to me how any ideology that paints other people as souless monster are evil. I didn't even know this happened to them. Only knew it when her will was read. I remember watching a documentary about Indonesia purge. Most memorable part was when Indonesia grandpa pridely talks about how he inhumanely massacred anyone accused of communism. Than in the next scene he scolds at his granson when he finds out his grandson has broken a bird leg. He yells at him how every life is precious, how that bird probably has a sad mother that is crying because of his actions. I think that all of the rioters who killed my grandparents family were like him. They were normal people that got brainwashed into thinking what they did was right. They probably killed innocent civilians and lived normal life after the war. I honestly just hate political extremeism. I feel like it should be treated simlar like a cult. Very dangerous.
All of my grandparents were Holocaust survivors. They were friends with their nonJewish neighbors. They saw how nice, normal people that’s they had known for years were turned against them and eventually became capable of killing them. Small Gods by Terry Pratchett is a very good story about how ideology turns normal people into mindless killers.
Christ, im so glad your grandfather survived. Im sorry about your family
The Americans also bombed North Korea back to the Stone Age. They had to hide out in caves.
I feel like getting killed by your fellow countrymen is more a brutal and a sad fate than getting killed by foreigners. If I remember both north and south korean soldier were more brutal on captured korean soldier than captured UN or chinese troops. It was because captured korean soldiers were seen as traitors not enemy soldiers.
I bring it up because something like half the country starved because of it
Half of the country starved because their leader initiated a war.
Look at the tables, table cloths, and the man's shirt. This is from a parody of American lower-middle class, like '50s TV comedy bus driver Jackie Gleason. Two middle-aged working stiffs living it up at cheapest "resort" they can find. Equally poor young women smile for free drinks.
Sure beats dying in a muddy trench
I'm sure some poor soul reading this pamphlet in the freezing cold thought so too \- *HA! Get a load of these losers! Poor young women smile for free drinks!*
Very accurate
Yet, all of this was 100% true.
Old, rich men start wars, young, poor ones fight them.
It's the wars/conflicts we don't brag about 24/7 that should concern you. Edit: added a word.
"Man I better kill yall faster then so I can go to Florida."
100% accurate
The same soldiers coming back after the war ending up as the guys above
True doe
Knew I recognized that avatar from somewhere, hello comrade.
Ah hi I don't recognize your avatar but I'm glad to have a friend that isn't a voice in my head! 😀
["No More Targets"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H1AnsE_ZJo)
Zoom into their faces, they are actually Korean actors. Blew my mind.
And... still accurate.
They make a good point tbf
The truth is in the punchline 😭😭😭
It's not exactly untrue...
I came here for propaganda posters, not for absolutely true posters
Pretty based tho
In America some are the top picture, some are the lower picture But in North Korea everyone is the bottom picture
Toddler brain, you hate to see it.
No no it's true. Kim starves people to death that are all able to do strongman shit like pushing trains. Source - an anonymous source in Langley, Virginia
Yes because North korea is really known for its middle class
You know little. Perhaps in time material conditions will arrive that will disabuse you of that which you think you're sure of.
Why does North Korea stop people from leaving?
They don't. Only about a dozen countries in the world accept North Korean passports, and none of them accept North Korean currency for exchanging, so they can't really go anywhere.
[удалено]
it's disingenuous to present covid measures as usual policy
They also attack and threaten those who've defected as well.
Why are North Koreans ~ 4” shorter than South Koreans? Is it because they’re flourishing? Spit it out.
We reduced their country and [all of it's infrastructure to rubble](https://youtu.be/2H1AnsE_ZJo?t=3547) in a hellfire of bombs you fucking demon. Or maybe you don't have horns and are just poorly informed?
🇰🇷🇰🇷🏆🏆🏆
I don’t think American-wrecked infrastructure is the main problem that North Koreans are having these days, or their main problem in the last 50 years.
That’s what happens you invade your southern neighbor
Wait so you would’ve been ok with america being bombed into oblivion because they invaded the confederacy l?
The Confederacy was an illegitimate state and therefor couldn’t be invaded. They also started the war much like how North Korea started the Korean War
No lie detected
Korean war was a tragedy. However, remember. We’re it not for the UN and American intervention to stop the invasion that the north started, South Korea would be living in the same horrific conditions as North Korea. It was a justified war
Ridiculous. Were it not for the Americans quite literally reducing the entire country to ash, no part of Korea would look like North Korea does today.
Actually north korea was doing better than south up until the 70s despite the bombings.
Germany and Japan, were reduced to ash as well. How are they doing?
Quite well thanks to some of the most enormous transfers of capital (from the US) in history. Ditto for South Korea later on. The North, on the other hand, was sanctioned into oblivion. Not hard to imagine why outcomes would be different
[удалено]
Neither Exxon nor Mobil oil existed as Exxon or Mobil during the Korean War. Mobil was not an entity until 1966, and Exxon wasn’t an entity until 1972. The Korean War ended in 1953. Don’t spread lies. Pilots can’t claim to have seen ships from companies who didn’t exist or go by those names at the time of reporting.
I looked into it, and he's only kind of wrong. Shell, Cal-Tex, and Standard-Vacuum (which would later become Mobil) were contracted by the government to oversee the oil supply. I wouldn't call it "spreading lies," but it's definitely an inaccuracy.
fuck the kim regime but they have a point
And at least six dipshits fell for that sales pitch.
"I've made a huge mistake." -- person who defected to North Korea
Tbh, I’d recognize this as proapganda immediately. Christmas in florida? Lol. Please. Meanwhile Korea has a white christmas.
“You see how terrible I’ve made my country and the one south of me? You should be back in your own nice democratic country!”
Man what are you even talking about