The Cold War was a time of long lasting strife and antagonism between the east and west. Some would argue that vestiges of that time still carry over into today and into modern politics. One thing that certainly remains as a standing tribute to that time, however, is the vast amount of propaganda generated by both sides of the conflict. The rhetoric of the cold war was pointed in its messages and powerful in its methods, usually using strong visuals to try and make the readers associate certain negative or positive images with ideas. Among these, four posters stand out in particular that come from the Soviet Union and from various western countries.
So what’s the common theme between these posters? What is it that made them so effective in their time? Well, at first there is a very obvious commonality, all are meant to evoke feelings of apprehension and possibly anger and hate. Both the Soviet posters and the western posters use imagery to attempt to make a demon out of someone or something. Yet a key difference arises when what is being demonized is being taken into account.
The Soviet posters specifically target the United States, depicting an obviously American character such as Uncle Sam, or plastering USA on a red and white striped gas mask are. These are not subtle, in fact they are very in your face about who is the enemy in this particular instance. The Soviets did not target the general west in their propaganda, and there is very little in the way of pointed jabs at the likes of France or Great Britain. Rather the Soviets attempted to hold up the United States as the catch all representative of western society and aggression, and thus demonizing the United States alone would achieve their ultimate goal of lambasting the opponents of communism.
In comparison the western propaganda attempts to more diabolize the idea of communism as a whole rather than any one country. Rather than specifically targeting Russia or some other Soviet state, the French and United States posters use a rhetoric that seems to imply that communism itself is what is at fault. The French poster takes it a step further, using a caricature of Stalin to more fully put the blame on the shoulders of individuals, however the over all feeling is that communism itself claims peace while sitting fully armed and ready to attack. The United States poster uses red ink to symbolize the spread of communism, showing that its communism itself that is spreading like an aggressive disease, and that it needs to be halted before it can progress any further.
To reiterate on commonalities however, all four posters use the archetype of aggression or weaponry to symbolize a threat. For the United States it is simply an aggressive spread of red ink on a map as previously stated. However in the French and Soviet posters this aggression is more fully realized by the presence of an actual weapon. For the French it is less of a faint hinting at weaponry and more of a mace in your face. The Soviets use more ideas that hint at weapons more dangerous than a simple mace, poisonous chemicals that rain death in Vietnam, or the hanging threat of nuclear warfare represented by a simple refused pen, for indeed there is no weapon mightier.
Another key commonality between these posters is the striking use of words that are supposed to be the message which the reader takes with them. Almost all of them make use of some sort of easily remembered slogan that helps the message stick in the readers mind. “Paix” or “Peace”, “No- to Chemical weapons”, “It’s your choice”, “The people are waiting”. All of these are simple, short, and easy to remember. This makes them great propaganda slogans, as they can be triggered by either seeing the same poster again, seeing a similar image, or maybe even just hearing about the depicted entity (ie. Soviets, Russia, The United States, etc). Since they are so easy to call to mind, often they will be the first thing thought of when the subject is brought up in conversation or the news. This would immediately generate animosity, even if only at a subconscious level, and further the aims of those who put up the propaganda piece in the first place. Eventually the general undertone of nations towards one another would be entrenched in feelings of distrust, hate, and anger.
All of these feelings of hate and anger that are generated by these posters further what can only be described as a race to death. This race saw world powers trying to display their power through bigger, better bombs and missiles, capable of raining death upon the enemy at the push of a button. It was, and still is, only a matter of time before someone gets too much of an itchy trigger finger and the whole world collapses in on itself in a ball of nuclear fire.
The great race to death is well represented in these posters, with every one hinting at a horrifying outcome unless something is done to stop the “menace” to the various country in which it was displayed. It is posters like this that helped to escalate the war on the home front throughout the opposing powers. While the intent may have been to generate support and sympathy for the nation displaying the poster itself, the ultimate result was fear, hate, and animosity towards those countries, nations, and peoples depicted. Animosities that still linger on into the modern age.
What makes these posters still relevant in the modern age? As stated, the feelings of distrust are still lingering between the major eastern and western powers, some would argue to the extent that we never really left the cold war behind. However there are some key changes that have been taking place, enough that as a people it is possible to look back on these posters as representative of feelings of the past, and to learn from them. In analyzing these posters taken together, it is clear the the arms race was not the only power creep that was taking place, indeed propaganda became less subtle and more pointed in its targets as the cold war crept on. This would in turn heighten the animosity, leading to even more vicious posters and pieces of propaganda until the whole thing comes crashing down. What can be taken away from this then is that this power creep needs to be avoided in the future, not just in an arms race, but also in how we portray a supposed enemy. For in transgressing in representing a supposed enemy, we may in fact make a very real enemy of them.
Brewer, Susan A. Why America Fights: Patriotism and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Carpenter, Laura. “Waiting for Disarmament.” We Want You. November 10, 2016. http://wewantyou.us/2016/11/waiting-for-disarmament/
Charlton-Jones, Andrew. “Jo-Jo-La-Colombe.” We Want You. November 13, 2016. http://wewantyou.us/2016/11/jo-jo-la-coloumbe/
Lany, Brian. “Drawing the Line Against Communist Aggression.” We Want You. November 20, 2016. http://wewantyou.us/2016/11/drawing-the-line-against-communist-aggression/
McCrackin, Daniel. “We Want Peace and Disarmament.” We Want You. November 14, 2016. http://wewantyou.us/2016/11/we-want-peace-and-disarmament/
Trentacoste, Daniel. “No to Chemical Weapons.” We Want You. December 3, 2016. http://wewantyou.us/2016/12/no-to-chemical-weapons/