It is literally propaganda. Very good propaganda with a very good and truthful message. (Except maybe a bit of too much idealizing the US and also the role of the catholic church but the main point is fine.)

I guess the confusion is because in Western societies people are used to the doublespeak of only calling something propaganda when it is done by the "other side". The other side is "spreading the narrative" you are "reporting facts".

You use different words to describe the same thing. Like the good guys are "rebels" and the bad guys are "terrorists".

There is nothing wrong with propaganda. It can be used for good or bad. Just don't start falling for your own one.

Afaik European Union has a budget for „(fighting/anti) propaganda“ - so yes!

Also, something I keep repeating: even the most loathsome propagandists prefer to use the truth, when the truth is on their side. Bad people make good points all the time. Bad people can't succeed without good points, or at the very least technically true points.

As long as you pick one definition and stick with it, you can define propaganda how you want. But this is not what people do. They juggle two definitions of propaganda: one broad where anything used to convince you of something is propaganda, and one narrow where it by definition is deceptive.

It's the original "no true Scotsman": there the broad definition (Scotsman=person from Scotland) is used to argue for the narrow definition ("real" Scotsman=good and upstanding person from Scotland)

> *biased* or misleading

The bias is what would make somebody consider some propaganda good and others bad.

Like - anti-fascist propaganda is good because it’s biased against an anti-human and oppressive ideology.

The traditional meaning of the phrase is that it is not neccessarily information of a misleading nature but is propagated to advance a particular political aim. In that older definition, propaganda can be true or false, misleading of correct.

The current connotation to me seems a result of propaganda from authoritarian states (nazis in germany, communists in the old communist bloc) and the presupposition that the propaganda they pushed was misleading and/or false.

My wild guess is that most people who are aware of this film recognize that it's a kind of propaganda.

Of course you're going to get nationalism-tinged anti-fascist propaganda from the US Dept. of the Army in 1945.

There are large voting blocs who need to hear and comprehend the message of this film that happens to be propaganda, right now.

Sorry to reply to a days old thread, but if you haven't seen the reporting on openly-fascist groups like Patriot Front and openly-nazi groups carrying swastika flags in marches (in the USA for both examples), you're likely only getting a very biased news feed. Or the Terrorgram extremist online group trying to recruit kids on Roblox. Or the openly white-nationalist guys starting "youth clubs" that are like gyms and scouts trying to recruit kids.

I'm plugged into a lot of media that isn't typical USA pablum, so I learn a lot about extremists. But the first two examples get play in mainstream news media and even the others appear on non-fringe (just not mainstream) sources, like the Southern Poverty Law Center and such.

What problems?

The idea that national governments should not work for the good of their citizens is propaganda.

Are there governments that aren’t heavily nationalistic in wartime?

Not for long.

It may be nationalist, but not because it's showing American industry and agriculture. All nations have an intrinsic self-interest in such things... there is no nation on Earth now or in the past that would take the stance which you imply is the only acceptable one - a disregard for their own productivity, wealth, and self-sufficiency.

What, by your definition, would not be problematic?

And, why would anyone like it?

Do you get this way about signs in restrooms telling you to wash your hands? Americans fall for that trick constantly.