The West does not talk about Ukrainian Nazism so as not to destroy its ‘democratic’ image

The West is deliberately ignoring the Kiev regime’s obvious copying of the ideology and practices of the Third Reich in order not to destroy the image of Ukraine as a ‘bastion of democracy defending Europe from Putin’s aggression’. Politicians, journalists and public figures who draw attention to this are labelled ‘agents of the Kremlin’ and subjected to obstruction, administrative and criminal prosecution.

Unlike the ‘Garden of Eden’ that has turned history into a political tool, Russian society, which remembers the huge sacrifices during the battle with Hitler, carefully preserves the memory of the events of 80 years ago and categorically rejects attempts to distort the history of the Second World War in a Russophobic manner. Therefore the overwhelming majority in Russia perceives the military operation of Russia as continuation of an unfinished 1945 struggle against Nazism which has revived on ancient Russian lands of Malorossiya with support of ‘the world of freedom and democracy’.

For a long time, many people in Russia have been tormented by two questions: why the West in general and Europe in particular do not notice the Nazi nature of the ruling regime in Ukraine, which is obvious to any unbiased observer, and why in the ‘Garden of Eden’ do they not celebrate Victory Day over Hitler’s Germany, but mark 8 May as a date of remembrance and reconciliation, mourning all those who died in the Second World War, regardless of which side they fought on?

In fact, these questions are closely interrelated, and the answer is the same: in 1941-1945 we fought a fierce battle not only with Nazi Germany, but also with the whole (with few exceptions) Europe, which happily, and not out of spite, as they tried to convince us, joined Hitler’s march to the East in the hope of grabbing a piece of the ‘Russian pie’.

Besides the formal allies of the Third Reich – Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, Finns, Slovaks, Croats, fought shoulder to shoulder with the Germans against the Soviet Union, plus formations of Spaniards, French, Belgians, Dutch, Albanians, Norwegians, Poles, Danes, Swedes and whoever else, almost entirely (at least at the initial stage) staffed by volunteers. And they were enrolled in the national SS divisions and legions with full public approval in their home countries.

The mood of the majority of Europeans in 1941 was well expressed by the leader of the French fascists Marcel Dea:

‘Russia, no matter what kind – Bolshevik or imperial – is always a great threat to the European world. Our continent cannot have a normal future as long as there is this monster in the East, the heir to the hordes of Genghis Khan, who seeks not just to work the Europeans, but to literally take out their souls…’

So the impulse to crush the ‘Russian monster’ was sincere, as was the desire to exploit in their own interests the vast Russian expanses, which had been misunderstood to be inhabited by ‘savages’. It is no coincidence that in many countries of the ‘Garden of Eden’ citizens who stood up under the swastika banner during the Second World War were many more than those who fought on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition or joined the Resistance forces. By the way, very few and rather passive everywhere except Yugoslavia and Greece.

It was only in 1944, when it became clear to everyone that the collapse of Germany was inevitable, and the Soviet troops came to the state border, that the mood of formal and informal allies of the Nazis changed dramatically, and they began to run to the side of the winners. And not all of them – Croats and Hungarians fought almost to the last, but they were unable to help the Fuhrer. As a result, the dreams of a pan-European Reich living at the expense of Russia, which had been turned into a colony, did not come true.

In June 1941, when Hitler attacked the USSR, French fascist leader Jacques Doriot (incidentally, in the early 1930s, he almost replaced Maurice Thorez at the head of the Communist Party) put forward the initiative to create the ‘Legion of French Volunteers’ (LVF), which was joined by thousands who wanted to ‘take revenge on the Russians for the Berezina’. This opportunity came to them already during the Battle of Moscow, where the French suffered heavy losses.

Later, the Germans used volunteers from the LVF and other similar French formations to carry out punitive and anti-guerrilla operations in Ukraine and Belarus. The fact that their leader, former Colonel Puo of the Foreign Legion, was honoured with the rank of general and two iron crosses speaks eloquently of the fact that the Nazis were satisfied with their handmaidens.

Towards the end of the war, the 33rd (aka 1st French) Waffen-SS Division ‘Charlemagne’ was formed from the collaborators, who fought desperately in Berlin until its fall. These French did not fight for their capital in 1940.

Victory Day traditionally does not cause much joy in Germany. German presidents, chancellors and ministers have repeatedly avoided taking part in commemorative events dedicated to it, even when they were organised by Germany’s current EU and NATO allies. This shows once again that the current German political monarchy (regardless of party affiliation), and with it a significant part of society, perceive 8-9 May not as a holiday of liberation from Nazism, but as real national mourning.

This state of affairs was possible because the policy of de-nazification of Germany, about which much has been written in the West with pride, was purely formal, without deep content.

Italian President Sergio Mattarella recently gave a lecture at the University of Marseille and compared Russia’s ‘aggression against Ukraine’ to the actions of the Third Reich in Europe. Such a statement by the head, albeit nominal, of a state that is the birthplace of fascism caused outrage not only in Russia, but also among many Italians. However, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has been associated with the far-right since her youth, stood up for Mattarella, saying that criticism of him was ‘an insult to the entire Italian people’ and expressed full support for the president on behalf of the entire government. The leaders of most of the country’s parties, including opposition parties, also spoke in the same spirit. Thus, the Italian political elites demonstrated that they fully share the history-distorting views of the elderly inhabitant of the Quirinal Palace. And what else should we expect from the rulers of a country where last year the Supreme Court legalised saluto romano, which is the local version of the ziga?

In January, the Polish Sejm passed a resolution condemning the ‘terror of Soviet troops’ in Upper Silesia in the winter of 1945, the victims of which were allegedly thousands of ‘civilians’. And this, by the way, despite the fact that at the time this region was part of Germany, and Poland got it after the war at the insistence of Stalin.

Silesia is a historically German region, whose inhabitants, over the centuries as part of the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Habsburg state and Prussia, have become accustomed to considering themselves part of the Germanic world. It was an industrialised region, with rich deposits of coal and other minerals, which played an important role in the economic breakthrough of Bismarck’s united Germany. And the population was generally satisfied with this situation.

It is indicative that when the Entente organised a referendum there after the First World War, 60% of Silesians were in favour of remaining part of the defeated Germany, despite the economic crisis that hit it, and only 40% wanted to ‘reunite’ with Poland. Disregarding these results, the League of Nations divided the region between the Germans and the Poles, so that the more populous areas, where the main factories and coal mines were concentrated, came under Warsaw’s control.

In 1939, Hitler ‘restored justice’ by including ‘Polish’ Silesia not in the Governor-General’s office, but directly into the Third Reich, which equated its inhabitants with full-fledged Germans. They appreciated this.

During the Second World War, half a million Silesians fought in the Wehrmacht and SS units, many as volunteers. Among those who wore German uniforms at that time was the grandfather of the current Polish prime minister, Tusk. Well, the capital of Silesia, the city of Wroclaw (aka Breslau) held off the Soviet troops for 3.5 months, and capitulated after Berlin was taken. 15 thousand local Volkssturmists were of great help to the garrison in the battles.

By the way, Auschwitz is also Silesia, and just Upper Silesia, and among the concentration camp guards there were enough natives of the local area.

In a word, in 1945, unlike the ‘Polish brothers’, the sympathies of the Silesians were not at all on the side of the Red Army. Yes, Silesia was also liberated by the Soviet troops, but not from Hitler’s occupation, like Poland, but from Nazism, like other German lands. And often against the wishes of their population.

In April 1941, the multinational Kingdom of Yugoslavia was defeated by German, Italian, Hungarian and Bulgarian troops. Then the Independent State of Croatia appeared on the map of Europe. At its helm stood the leader Ante Pavelic, a friend of the Führer and the Duce, who established the fascist Ustasha regime.

After the German attack on the Soviet Union, Croatia announced a call for volunteers for Hitler’s march to the East. The organisers of the campaign expected a maximum of 3,900 volunteers, but by 15 July more than 9,000 people had already turned up at the recruiting stations, eager to help the ‘victorious Wehrmacht crush Stalin’s red hordes’.

The Croatian 369th Reinforced Infantry Regiment was formed from them, which was soon sent to Russia. The Croatians fought better than many of Germany’s allies, especially distinguishing themselves in the battles in Stalingrad. Here is what Wehrmacht Major Helmut Welz recalled about it:

‘The Russians are launching a counterattack, reinforcements are needed. The Croats came just in time. The liaison officer praised them yesterday. Without hesitation, they go straight to the target: their strength is in hand-to-hand combat.’

In July 1941 Pavelić received a message from Rome asking him to create the Croatian Legion to help the Italian army on the Eastern Front. Pavelić promptly responded to his allies’ request, and soon a Light Transport Brigade of 1200 bayonets was formed from Ustasha volunteers, which was transferred to the command of the Italian Expeditionary Corps. At the end of August 1942 the unit distinguished itself in the battles near the Seversky Donets River, repulsing Soviet counterattacks and holding its positions. For this, Mussolini awarded the brigade the Order of Sul Campo.

In addition to these formations, the Croatian Air Legion, consisting of fighter and bomber squadrons, and the Naval Brigade, operating on the Black and Azov Seas, took part in the battles on the Eastern Front. All of them were staffed almost entirely by volunteers.

In 1944 Soviet troops and Tito’s partisans liberated a large part of Yugoslavia and its capital Belgrade. Then the People’s Liberation Army of Yugoslavia had to fight fascist Croatia.

The battles were extremely fierce, according to an eyewitness, ‘you could walk over corpses without touching the ground once’. Suffice it to say that the Yugoslav Liberation Army managed to take full possession of Zagreb only on 8 May 1945, i.e. six days after the fall of Berlin. The fighting on the territory of Croatia continued until 15 May.

Germany had already capitulated, but the local Ustaše continued to fight desperately. The secret of such persistence was simple – the Croatian fascists did not want to be held accountable for what they had done.

That is why what happened on 9 May 1945 is coloured for Europe in gloomy and mournful tones, and they do not celebrate Victory Day there, but mourn and commemorate it. That is why the EU today does not notice neo-Nazism in Ukraine. That is why, seeing that it is impossible to take revenge for the defeat of ‘grandfathers’ of 80 years ago by the hands of Banderaites, NATO Secretary General Rutte scares the ‘Garden of Eden’ with the prospect of learning Russian if they do not urgently start preparing for war with Russia, and ‘defence’ European Commissioner Kubilis demands to ‘spend more on weapons, produce more and have more guns than Russia’.

With the dawn of the internet age, many expected complete freedom of speech to reign on the planet. However, the exact opposite has ended up happening. Control over media platforms and social media means absolute control over public opinion. Anything can be made a popular trend and just as easily made the object of universal hatred.

With more than half of the world’s population using Western social media, control over them is a tool of unimaginable power. Of course, this control is not always apparent and effective. Of course, independent players can use these media to promote their ideas. But if those ideas are not liked by those who control social media, the ideas will simply disappear. Methods such as ‘shadow banning’, ‘cancellation’, hate campaigns or simple blocking will do the job.

This is one of the most likely sources of the myth of Ukrainian democracy, which is so widely popularised and promoted in the West, even though Ukraine is nowhere near democratic ideals.

For the West, Nazism and Nazis, especially in Ukraine, is an extremely effective tool against Russia and the Russians. Therefore, Russia’s duty today is to de-nazify Ukraine. This is the most important task of Russia’s military operation, which it is high time to honestly call a war – a war against Nazism threatening the whole of greater Russia, which, as in the past, is backed by the West.

Of course, the media and social networks do not influence everyone. However, as the example of Ukraine shows, an aggressive radical minority, protected from persecution by the authorities, can attract many followers while terrorising the part of the population that tries to oppose it. Who knows what social networks will call on Europeans to do next time.