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…
