Introduction: Cartoon Propaganda and Political Concerns
Politicians have recently accused a popular Netflix animation of serving as Russian propaganda aimed at the “militarisation of children.” However, the use of cartoons to influence young audiences is not a new phenomenon. Even the CIA has historically funded children’s entertainment to serve political ends.
Earlier this month, Liberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon addressed the House of Commons regarding the “militarisation of children,” referring not to armed youth but to a cartoon bear. Gordon, alongside a cross-party group of over 50 MPs, signed a parliamentary letter calling for the ban of an animated children’s show, alleging it to be Russian propaganda.
The animation in question is Masha and the Bear, a Russian series targeted at preschoolers. It ranks among the most popular shows on YouTube and is accessible in the UK via ITVX and Netflix. The series chronicles the adventures of Masha, a young girl in a pink hood, and her companion, a brown bear, set in a remote forest. Critics, including MPs, Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, and Estonia’s foreign affairs minister, argue that Masha’s appearance in Soviet-era military costumes is a demonstration of Russian “soft power.”
Historical Roots of Cartoon Propaganda
The use of cartoons as propaganda dates back over a century. David Welch, emeritus professor of modern history at the University of Kent, traces the earliest examples to the First World War.
“All belligerents employed them,”Welch states. One notable British animator in 1914 was Lancelot Speed, whose “lightning sketches” featured caricatures of Kaiser Wilhelm II, portraying him as haunted by ghosts, dressed in women’s clothing, or transformed into a sausage.
“These proved hugely popular with cinema audiences,”Welch adds.
World War II and the Rise of Animated Propaganda
The use of propaganda cartoons intensified during the Second World War. Welch explains that the flexible and slapstick nature of cartoon characters suited the humour-driven propaganda films of the early 1940s.
“The boom was also because of the technological advances in animated film production and the rise of specific global – mainly USA – companies devoted to such productions,”he notes.
Major animation studios contributed to wartime agitprop. Warner Brothers produced The Ducktators, a 1942 cartoon depicting Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo as maladjusted mallards who end up stuffed above a mantelpiece; and Daffy – The Commando (1943), featuring a rotoscoped Adolf Hitler delivering a speech before being struck on the head by Daffy Duck with a mallet.
Disney also played a significant role in US wartime propaganda, producing several government-commissioned cartoons. The most renowned is the Oscar-winning Der Fuehrer’s Face, where Donald Duck dreams he lives in Nazi Germany. In one scene, Donald exhausts himself by repeatedly performing the Nazi salute before awakening to kiss a Statue of Liberty figurine, exclaiming:
“Am I glad to be a citizen of the United States of America!”
Many US wartime cartoons contained racist caricatures and language. For instance, Bugs Bunny appeared in the now-banned Warner Brothers cartoon Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips, which included multiple racial slurs.
The Axis powers also produced propaganda films. Fascist Italy released Il Dottor Churkill in 1941, portraying Winston Churchill as a Jekyll and Hyde monster with sharp teeth who plunders gold domestically and abroad. In 1943, Nazi Germany commissioned Nimbus Libéré in Vichy France to depict a potential Allied invasion as perilous. This film featured an antisemitic caricature in London ordering famous cartoon characters such as Mickey Mouse, Felix the Cat, and Popeye to bomb a family.
Cold War Era: Ideological Propaganda in Animation
During the Cold War, propaganda in cartoons shifted focus from military might to ideological differences between capitalism and communism. Britain’s first animated feature film, Animal Farm (1954), was influenced politically, albeit covertly. Decades after its release, it was revealed that the CIA funded the adaptation of George Orwell’s novel. The film notably altered the original ending to show the farm animals successfully revolting against the pigs, subtly endorsing the overthrow of communist regimes.
Post-20th Century: Digital Animation and Propaganda
While overtly message-driven cartoons became less common by the late 20th century, the advent of accessible digital animation software in the 2000s enabled individuals to create propagandistic cartoons without state support.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the internet saw a surge of crude animations supporting US intervention in the Middle East, often depicting Osama bin Laden in Adobe Flash cartoons where he is mocked, shot, or tortured. One widely circulated animation released a month after 9/11 featured a pixelated Colin Powell singing a parody of Harry Belafonte’s “Banana Boat,” pleading:
“Come Mr Taliban, hand over Bin Laden.”George W. Bush is shown playing bongos as the militant dodges missiles.
Both sides of conflicts have used cartoons for propaganda. The Islamic State, known for graphic recordings of beheadings, briefly produced child-friendly animations distributed via YouTube and Telegram.
Internet Meme Culture and Far-Right Cartoons
The reduced financial barriers to producing animated propaganda merged with the rise of online meme culture. Murdoch Murdoch, a far-right cartoon series launched in 2015, openly embraces racism, misogyny, and Nazi ideology. It was created using existing internet memes from forums such as 4chan. In one episode, protagonists dressed in SS uniforms travel back in time to meet the Beatles.
Recent Trends: War Cartoons and AI-Generated Propaganda
In the past 15 years, there has been an increase in war-related cartoons. Kristián Földes, lecturer and researcher at Charles University, Prague, studied animated propaganda related to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war. He found that both sides respond to each other with cartoon counter-propaganda.
“They anthropomorphise states into children, they both use victim-perpetrator or hero-villain narrative arcs, and they also combine the fictional story of the cartoon with real-life events,”Földes explains.
Recently, the cost of producing cartoon propaganda has decreased significantly. After the onset of the US-Israel conflict with Iran, the Iranian digital media company Explosive Media used generative AI to create Lego Movie-style animations supporting Iran. One video features plastic versions of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu alongside the devil, while another shows a toy Iranian commander rapping insults directed at the US. Both videos were widely shared on social media. Földes notes,
“Distribution through these platforms is easy, effective, and, most importantly, algorithmic. This fits perfectly with cartoons because visual material, especially videos, spreads much more easily in this environment than mere text.”
These pro-Iran videos exemplify a new form of propaganda termed “slopaganda,” characterized by the use of generative AI. Michał Klincewicz, assistant professor of computational cognitive science at Tilburg University, Netherlands, coined the term in an academic paper. Although most slopaganda is text-based, Klincewicz emphasizes that cartoons are particularly effective at conveying emotions rather than facts.
“[The] videos would not have worked so well if they were realistic depictions,”he says. Földes concurs, adding,
“Our current infrastructure is designed to verify or falsify factual claims, not narratives and stories.”
Assessing Masha and the Bear and the Future of Cartoon Propaganda
Regarding Masha and the Bear, Földes states that further study is needed to determine if the series functions as propaganda.
“There are obvious symbolic elements throughout the series,”he observes.
“The bear, for example, quite clearly symbolises Russia. However, compared to the Russian cartoon that we analysed – which was specifically produced as a piece of propaganda – Masha and the Bear exhibits these propagandistic elements only episodically.”
The decision on whether Masha and the Bear will remain available to viewers is still pending. While online propagandists are unlikely to be fully suppressed, the question remains whether their cartoons will ever be removed. Klincewicz is skeptical about this outcome.
“The idea is to deliver a message in a form that is more familiar, less threatening, or that elicits affective responses,”he explains.
“So if we see a cartoon of a death camp kapo as a pig, as opposed to a realistic human being, we get a particular association. I don’t see that changing any time soon.”
