Wartime Western Pro-Soviet Propaganda

I'm not sure where to post this, but I'm curious if there's somewhere on the internet with Pro-soviet propaganda (either American or British) from World War II.

The two I see most often are:

514b97625e73dabd80c6a94edc9ff784.jpg


and

ww2_propaganda_russian_freedom.jpg


Anyone know if there's anymore?
 
by the way, some creators of pro-Soviet propaganda run into trouble with the HUAC during the red scare, do anybody know what happened to creators of pro-western propaganda in the Soviet after the relation turn sour?
 
I think the trend was to refer to the country once or twice as 'The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics', and then on refer to it as 'Russia'. The western propaganda tried to smooth over the fact that it was indeed a communist state birthed by violent revolution, and tried tying it to its heritage as the Russian Empire, the one that froze Napoleon and would do the same to Hitler.

(IMHO, as bad as the Soviet Union was, it is kinda sad that we somehow found the Russian Empire to be less controversial).

If America stayed out of the war for a little longer, say another year, then I'm sure we would've had more distinctly pro-Soviet propaganda in Britain. That was a weird six months between June and December 1941, when the UK and the USSR were the only two standing Allies against Germany.
 
BTW, this from a Trotskyist (to be more precise Shachtmanite) publication is my favorite comment on the Hollywood Ten:

***

Hollywood on Trial was written as a defense of the ten indicted fellow-traveling screen writers; but as a defense it is so worthless as to amount almost to an indictment itself.

No one expects them to reveal facts which they refused to divulge to the Thomas Un-American Committee, or to answer Thomas’s $64 question about membership in the Communist Party. But surely these rather well-known writers, adopting the role of heroic embattled martyrs for the right to believe in their own political ideology without persecution, cannot expect readers to believe that their ideology consists solely of respect for the First Amendment!

What do they stand for? What are their social ideas? Here in this book they could have expressed their social philosophy without prosecutors’ interruptions or distortions, and, if they are to go to jail for their ideas, at least make clear to the people what are those ideas for which they are being penalized.

Nowhere in the 227 pages of the book is the opportunity found to do this.

Instead –

First, they repeat their testimony, which amounted to nothing. Second, they set out to prove that they are every bit as jingoistic, super-patriotic and crude as J. Parnell Thomas. (Says Gordon Kahn: “Nor did J. Parnell Thomas or any of the hundred newspapers covering the hearings ever mention the fact that nowhere in that room was there an American flag.”)

Third, they swear: We never put any Communist propaganda in a picture – name one, they demand! Look at our works: Destination Tokyo, Back to
Bataan, Objective Burma, Behind the Rising Sun, Hitler’s Children ... they shamelessly peddle their wares.

Fourth, no matter what we believe, the Constitution protects our right to privacy; no one asks Eisenhower to swear whether he is a Democrat or Republican, why ask us?

This is the totality of the book. And in his foreword, that incomparable political muddlehead, Thomas Mann, testified that he never saw any Communist propaganda in a Hollywood film.

Mann, of course, is right, even though Kahn does not mention the film Mission to Moscow. This film too was not propaganda for a communist society or ideology: it was simply a crudely lying whitewash of a totalitarian despotism which happened to be allied with American imperialism at the moment. But while there was not a trace of communism in these pictures, there was a ton of chauvinism, jingoism, hate incitement, anti-internationalism and flag-waving imperialist propaganda – propaganda of a kind without which the Thomas Committee itself could not exist. If there is today a spiritual climate of intolerance, suspicion and hate, are not these writers themselves partly responsible?

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol14/no05/enright.htm
 
An interesting contrast is the famous cartoon in 1939:
9k=


and Churchill's comment about putting a good word in for the devil if he joined the fight against Hitler (after the Germans invaded the USSR). The reality was that as bad as Stalin was working with him to stop Hitler was the least bad choice to make. US & UK propaganda had to put the best face on this extolling the "Russians" and their effort/sacrifices (which were real). Remember German propaganda was trying to get sympathy for their "anti-communist" crusade.

None of this excuses what Stalin did in the USSR before, during, and after the war, nor his blatant failure to live up to almost all of his wartime agreements. The reality was in this situation there were no "good" choices only "bad" and "really, really bad".

Hitler-Stalin_cartoon.jpg
 
Top