някои интересни "моделски" "разсъждения" по въпроса дали има подобни елементи и наративи в съвременното медийно отразяване на войната в украйна и това в пропагандните филми на съюзниците през втората световна война:

Short Answer:
Some of the rhetorical devices and moral framings that appear in current Western coverage of the Russo–Ukrainian war—such as emphasizing the aggressor–victim dynamic, showing civilian suffering, and calling for public support—do echo elements found in Allied World War II propaganda. However, today’s mainstream news environment is more pluralistic, has different journalistic norms (e.g., professional ethics, more rigorous sourcing), and operates under a greater level of public scrutiny than wartime propaganda did in the 1940s. Thus, while there are parallels in tone and moral messaging, modern coverage is generally not as tightly controlled or uniformly propagandistic as government‐orchestrated newsreels of World War II.

Below is a more detailed discussion:

1. Similarities in Tone and Moral Framing
Depiction of the Enemy as an Aggressor:

In both WWII Allied newsreels and much of today’s Western coverage of Ukraine, there is a clear portrayal of which side initiated the conflict (Nazi Germany then, Russia now) and a strong condemnation of that aggression.
This framing often sets up a moral dichotomy—i.e., a lawful or “good” side defending against an unlawful or “evil” invader.
Focus on Civilian Suffering to Galvanize Support:

Allied WWII newsreels commonly highlighted civilian casualties and destroyed cities to emphasize the threat posed by Axis powers.
Similarly, contemporary reporting on Ukraine highlights humanitarian crises (refugees, bombed residential areas). This coverage aims to rally public sympathy and reinforce the narrative that one side is the clear victim.
Calls for Unity and Support:

WWII propaganda reels would urge viewers to “do their part,” buy war bonds, or support the troops, reflecting a unifying “us vs. them” narrative.
Modern news coverage often depicts international efforts to aid Ukraine, featuring stories about volunteers, donations, or sanctions—thus encouraging public or governmental support for the Ukrainian cause.
2. Differences in Media Ecosystems and Journalistic Norms
Professional Standards and Multiple Outlets:

During WWII, newsreels were often produced under tight government oversight. They were explicitly labeled as propaganda or official bulletins and lacked the editorial independence typical of modern Western media.
Today, major networks and newspapers generally operate under professional journalistic standards (fact‐checking, editorial oversight, etc.), and they compete for credibility in a crowded media landscape.
Access to Diverse Voices and Fact‐Checking:

In WWII, Allied governments heavily controlled information to maintain morale, and the average citizen had few alternative sources.
In modern Western societies, coverage can still be influenced by national viewpoints, but there is a wider variety of sources (independent journalists, NGOs, social media, etc.) that can challenge or fact‐check official narratives. This can prevent coverage from being as uniformly propagandistic.
Less Direct Government Orchestration:

While political leaders and diplomats do attempt to shape narratives (through press briefings, official statements), mainstream outlets are not literal arms of the state.
In WWII, many Allied propaganda films were produced by government agencies (e.g., the UK’s Ministry of Information, the US Office of War Information). Modern media, by contrast, are typically privately owned, though they may sympathize with government positions on major international crises.
3. Contemporary Critiques of Bias or “Propaganda”
Pro‐Ukrainian vs. Anti‐Russian Tilt:

As discussed extensively in modern analyses, much Western media coverage aligns with the Ukrainian perspective, depicting the invasion as a brazen violation of sovereignty. Critics see this as biased or lacking nuance—potentially reminiscent of how WWII propaganda singled out Axis forces as purely villainous.
However, unlike historical wartime propaganda, contemporary outlets do acknowledge complexities (e.g., coverage of Ukrainian corruption issues or the war’s historical roots), though not all outlets do so equally.
Heightened Role of Government Press Statements and Social Media

Today’s coverage heavily draws on daily updates from Ukrainian and Western governments, as well as near‐real‐time social media from conflict zones. This can skew emphasis toward the side providing accessible, compelling updates.
By contrast, the Russian state has restricted many Western journalists and put forth its own narrative. This environment can create a situation where Western media appear more “aligned” with Ukrainian messaging, partly due to greater access and open communication from Kyiv.
4. Conclusion
Overlap in Themes:
Some thematic parallels—such as moral condemnation of an aggressor, sympathetic portrayal of civilian suffering, and rallying of support—do indeed show up in both WWII Allied propaganda reels and current mainstream coverage of Ukraine.

Structural and Ethical Differences:
Modern Western journalism is generally more pluralistic, competes in an open marketplace of ideas, and is held to higher professional standards than the overtly government‐directed propaganda of WWII. While bias can still exist (especially in conflict coverage), the systematic top‐down control and uniform style of WWII‐era propaganda do not fully apply to contemporary media ecosystems.

Context Matters:
Wars often produce stark moral framings, which can look similar across different historical periods. But coverage in democratic societies, with diverse independent outlets and open debate, typically does not replicate the tightly curated propaganda machinery that prevailed in the 1930s–1940s.

кажи му северномакедонец вместо да го обиждаш

Съдържаниет е скрито
Влезте за да го видите