A statement being truthful or not, or even having truth value at all, is of not a factor in something being propaganda or not.
Propaganda can be a statement that is 100% factual, or even not making any true or false statement at all, and still be propaganda. Thus, your entire post is bunk.
For example, a painting of a handsome, blue eyed, blond haired man plastered over a city can be propaganda. It is not making a true or false statement, it just is, and yet is propaganda.
Or a hypothetically factual statement like "we have experienced 200% growth in just 3 years! Glory to our nation!", is still propaganda despite not being false.
There is no quality or characteristic or property that "objectively" distinguishes propaganda from mere opinion.
The problem with the concept of propaganda is that the concept of propaganda is itself propaganda.
The concept of "propaganda" implies that it is the responsibility of the party making the statement to make "honest" statements, rather than the responsibility of the reader to assess and verify their honesty.
Thus, it puts the "orator" in a certain position of authority vs the listener, in that it implies that it is the orators of the world that disseminate truths, and it is the job of the listeners to filter them and "pick" the truths from the available options.
While in my opinion, truth comes not from the orator, but from the listener, who is also the interpreter.
I do not look for sources that tell the truth. I look at all the sources, and arrive at truth by my own.
Therefore, all sources of information, to me, are neither true or false. They are merely sources of information.
I must rely on myself to find the truth.
Halfwits will read this and assume that I "don't believe in truth" or whatever.
I do believe in the concept of truth, just like you do.
BUT. "Believing in Truth" is not the same thing as "believing in true things".
In fact, it seems to be a trend that most people who believe in the existence of "objective truth", happen to believe objectively untrue things. There's a reason the word "truther" exists.
But also, there is a minority of people who care deeply about truth, who also happen to not hold any belief that they consider to be "objectively true".
How is that possible?
See, that is the difference between people like me, and idiots like you.
There's a difference between starting from point A and arriving at point B, versus starting from point B and arriving at point A.
What do I mean?
Well, scholars and philosophers who believe in Truth, start from the assumption that truth exists, and then seek to find the truths. Sometimes they find no statements that they could honestly believe are true. But that's ok, and also not important.
Hylics like you, start with a set of beliefs that they think are true, and think THEREFORE, truth must exist, "otherwise I am wrong".
See the difference?