So apparently the “denazification” narrative was active in societies

13. Juni 2024

in cri­mea as well - pre rus­si­an capture.

Its from an audi­ence ques­ti­on by a per­son that cant remem­ber the book tit­le of the book she has read, so I have not much to work with here -- but the experts on sta­ge dont nega­te it. It being, that peop­le were out­right afraid, that the “nazis” might come and harm them, short­ly befo­re the rus­si­an invasion.

If that was the case -- isnt it the first thing that comes to mind, that this must be cra­zy rus­si­an Put­ler, or that his aim must be regime chan­ge, becau­se think of the term den­azi­fi­ca­ti­on? May­be not?

The logic, that this is used, so the poli­ti­cal lea­ders­hip of a regi­on can be exch­an­ged - might be a desi­red side effect, but its not the main goal of that pro­pa­gan­da narrative.

The main goal being (assu­med) the one you have the most desi­red effect on. So the main goal of that nar­ra­ti­ve was to put popu­la­ti­ons under fear, to move them towards inaction?

Why am I hea­ring this for the first time today?

Also if it was acti­ve in cri­mea, short­ly befo­re the rus­si­an inva­si­on, of cour­se you pick it as the main nar­ra­ti­ve pre wider inva­si­on -- so it can have its effect on the popu­la­ti­on in the east.

Oh yeah - right, …

Pro­pa­gan­da hat wie­der nie­mand entdeckt.

Am Aller­we­nigs­ten in “war­um wir in den Krieg gehen” Reden…









Hinterlasse eine Antwort