WHAT IS BEHIND THE ATTEMPTS TO REVISE THE RESULTS OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR ?

The topic of historical speculation around the Great Patriotic War, unfortunately, remains relevant. Revisionists are clearly trying to shift the emphasis, or even completely change the assessment of those events. Some particularly active figures agree to the point that they almost put the USSR and Hitler’s Germany on the same board. Their “argument” is that, they say, in both countries, political regimes were varieties of totalitarianism and supposedly there is no special difference between them.

It has to be stated that distortions, subjects in the wrapper of pseudo-historicism, sometimes seem convincing to some people, therefore, the importance of the struggle on the ideological front should not be underestimated. As practice has shown, the historical truth must be defended, otherwise we risk losing in the information field. Who is behind historical revisionism? What goals do revisionists set? Olga Chetverikova, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of MGIMO, answered these and other questions live on KM TV. On the air of KM TV the program “Conference” and I, its host, Dionysus Kaptar.

Today we have a guest Candidate of Historical Sciences, associate professor of MGIMO Olga Nikolaevna Chetverikova. We will talk about such a problem as revisionism of the results of the Great Patriotic War. Hello, Olga Nikolaevna.

WHY ARE THEY REVIEWING THE RESULTS OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR ?

Dionysus Kaptar: Hello. Not so long ago, the holiday ended. The 65th anniversary was celebrated very grandly, loudly, but the problem, nevertheless, remained the same as it was in previous years. Every year, practically, the same forces say the same thing – they try to undermine, let’s say, the role of our country, our Soviet Union in people’s minds. They are trying to throw mud on our successes at the front, and then our successes in the post-war reconstruction of the world. We are monitoring this topic carefully. We had experts who talked about what was happening on the fronts, and I would like to talk to you about the diplomatic side of the issue. It is about what happened after the war, and whether the problem is really as serious as some experts say, whether revisionism really raises its head.

O.Ch.: Indeed, you know, I would like to say that the problem is extremely acute now, and we can say that this is only the beginning of a serious, deep revision, a deep revision not only of the results of the Second World War, but we are talking in general, we can say, about a change of ideological guidelines. The fact is that this problem, it is multilevel, it includes many aspects, but I wanted to highlight only two aspects, these are geopolitical and global. I would like to start by recalling this famous phrase of Brzezinski, who expresses the essence of American geopolitics in relation to Russia, which is that “the new world order that is being built now is being built without Russia, in spite of Russia and on the wreckage of Russia.” That’s the key phrase. That is, in the order that Western elites are creating now, Russia is not envisaged as something independent, a whole. By this very active expansion, which is carried out (financial, economic, political, ideological), Russia is considered as an object and in no way as a subject of any policy.

D.K.: What is the expression of revisionism? In what theses? Specifically, what is revisionism expressed in – you see, the fact is that we are being integrated into Western civilization, that is, into this new world order, as, I say again, an independent whole, so now, as you know, the policy of rapprochement with NATO, rapprochement with the Vatican is being implemented very actively (this, by the way, all links of the same chain). And in these conditions, when there is such an active embedding of us into structures completely alien to us, a total restructuring and breaking of our consciousness is necessary. That is, it is necessary to remove some fundamental, leading, reference points that justify our geopolitical thinking. In this regard, it is necessary to present those forces that have traditionally been associated with expansion in our geopolitical consciousness: NATO is a military expansion, the Vatican is an ideological expansion, they are presented today as allies, as friends. Therefore, it is no coincidence that on May 9, a parade with the participation of NATO troops took place on Red Square.

D.K.: Your assessment.

O.Ch.: I’ll give it to you now. Naturally, my assessment is harsh and negative – the participation of NATO troops. And this is a very important stage, a very important milestone, first of all, very symbolic for breaking our consciousness. The same significance will be the crowning achievement of the Vatican’s rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church, with us, that is, with the heretical church, the meeting of our Moscow Patriarch with the Pope, which is being prepared by the West, for them it will have the same significance. As for the direct participation of NATO troops. I must say that this plays (as I have already said) the role of a milestone, an important stage. Why – because for us, May 9 is Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War, it is the Victory Day of our people in the war that began on June 22, 1941.

D.K.: Do you think that the NATO troops on Red Square are a kind of blurring of our victory?

O.Ch.: Of course, of course, this is a blurring, because this time we were celebrating not the victory in the Great Patriotic War, but we were celebrating the victory in the pan-European war that had begun…

D.K.: In World War II.

O.Ch.: The Second World War, after all, ended in September 1945, so we celebrate the Second World War in Europe, which began on September 1, 1939. That is, we celebrated the day of the pan-European victory over Nazi Germany, and our victory, it seems to be eroding, that is, it is a victory for Europe and Russia. This substitution has already occurred – we have already celebrated not Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War, which is very important, it was a mix-up. Meanwhile, preparations are very active in the West – it is such an implicit, one might say, but very consistent, very purposeful preparation for the formation of a completely new view of the results of the Second World War. And what happened last year, I mean the resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which equalized the role of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in unleashing the Second World War, is the first very important step, because what it has done, what it leads to – the fact is that if we are assessed as the perpetrators of the Second World War, so we have no right to win. Right? You can already absolutely put it that way.

D.K.: But it is unclear what arguments they operate with.

O.Ch.: Now we will come to this, too. So, since we have no right to win, and Russia is the successor of the Soviet Union, that is, accordingly, we are responsible for everything that happened in the Soviet Union, we are the successors of the Soviet regime, and the Stalinist regime is part of the Soviet regime, so, accordingly, all those claims that will be made and they are already preparing for the Stalinist regime, we will be responsible for all this. That is, the soil is being prepared.

D.K.: And financial as well. Definitely. And this is one of the most important elements, that is, the ground is being prepared so that we do not have the right to fight against the revision of the results of the Second World War, which is being carried out at all rates. This is a revision of territories, borders, and this, of course, is also a financial contribution that Russia will have to pay. In fact, that is, since we are equated with Germany, the Soviet regime is equated with absolutely the same position as the Nazi regime, so, accordingly, preparations are underway to recognize on a general legal scale – this is very important – at the legal level the criminal nature of the Stalinist regime, and, accordingly, the Soviet regime. That is, its criminal nature, its non-legitimacy.

D.K.: This is the main goal of the revisionists?

O.Ch.: Sure. That is, to make a kind of different version of the Nuremberg process in order for this regime… This year, what we had – the 65th anniversary – it seemed that we needed to remember, we need to remember Nazism, neo-Nazism and everything else. What they remember is the famine that Stalin allegedly arranged, and the Stalinist regime (this is very important), he was condemned, PACE condemned that the Stalinist regime was guilty. Katyn – is the Stalinist regime guilty? Guilty. That is, preparations are still underway to condemn the Stalinist regime as not legitimate. A lot has been written about Katyn – this is, of course, a terrible thing, because in fact the reaction to Katyn is like a Holocaust in Polish for Russia, that is, historical guilt is being driven into us for what we did not carry out, but for this historical guilt, for this fact we will have to pay, respectively, and politically, and financially. And at the same time, again, the question of the responsibility of the Poles for the extermination of 80,000, according to the most conservative estimates, of our Red Army soldiers captured during the Soviet-Polish war, 210,000 were captured, 120,000 were taken away and placed in concentration camps, and exactly 80,000 of them were exterminated in Polish camps.

D.K.: This is already a proven fact?

O.Ch.: Yes, there are documents, but the Polish side just completely ignores it. Katyn is presented as the main crime of the twentieth century, I say again that they drive an inferiority complex into us, although there are documents, there are studies, I turn you to the book of the Swede, to his materials that are available and available, where this problem is perfectly described. Those documents, supposedly the newest ones, which have now been thrown on the Internet, are all old falsified documents from 1992. All this has also already been described. So the West is preparing such a radical reassessment, rethinking. In this regard, I want to say that they even have a formula that they are beginning to implement on a general scientific, general educational scale, it is called “to form a unified understanding of European history.” This is the official approach of the European intellectual elite to the Second World War, which will be taught in schools and institutes.

D.K.: To everyone, to the whole European Union?

O.Ch.: Yes, that is, it is an official position, outside of which everything else will be considered as something marginal, having no right to exist. Corresponding to this point of view is Russia, it is responsible for the criminal regime, and accordingly, all Russians, Russians, they are the heirs of criminals and must pay for this idea. This is a strategy.

D.K.: This is what they want to prescribe in textbooks, according to which children will be taught, and in a couple of generations we will get a new generation completely.

O.Ch.: Naturally, the textbook we already have, which is there, in the West – in fact, the role of Russia is either completely scanty, or it is presented as an occupier who came here, defeated Nazism, but came here as an occupier.

D.K.: Who is the main “skirmisher”? This is Britain, Italy… Which countries?

O.Ch.: Now we are moving on to the most important aspect, the second one I am talking about – the ideological one. The fact is that behind all this there is actually one very important process, which, again, is going on secretly, but it is going on very intensively. We are talking about the rehabilitation of Nazi ideology as an ideology that justifies the right of elites, a certain part of the elite, to establish control over anything – over territory, over resources, over people, over human consciousness, and, I say again, in fact, this is the main, main trend today. But precisely due to the fact that the rehabilitation of the law is being secretly prepared, an ideological justification is being created, the right of these elites to rule, the West is very actively hiding, or rather, it does not hide, it does not put it on a prominent plan, as if it ignores, glosses over the fact that, firstly, we did not fight with Nazi Germany, we were at war with Europe, which was under Nazi control, under the control of Nazi Germany. It was actually a single whole – an economic, political, ideological mechanism. The Third Reich was really going against us, that is, the whole of Europe, we were at war with it, with Nazi Europe. And the second very important point that is hidden is who really prepared this Nazi regime, who ensured the rise to power of the Nazis, who ensured the prosperity of Nazi Germany.

Naturally, Anglo-American financial circles are behind this. A lot of literature has been written on this topic, relatively a lot. At least – Heim “Trade with the enemy”, this is Sutton’s book “Wall Street and the rise of the Nazis to power”, this is a book that recently also appeared with us, the drug “How Great Britain and the United States prepared the Third Reich”, this is the book “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”. They show very well, quite reasonably, with documents, based on open sources about who and what and how exactly the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-American financial elite, the banking elite, prepared this whole project. That is, we can call the project – “Nazi Germany” – exactly as a project of the world financial circles. We need to pay the main attention to this now, we need to talk about it, and we need to bring it to the center of all research in general. Because, I think, since they bring our responsibility, which does not exist, into the international legal plane, then we should not take a defensive position, and constantly be in the role of a whipping boy, who will, you know, report every time for what he did not commit, and we should go on a large-scale offensive and indeed, to raise the question of the responsibility of those forces that ensured the rise of the Nazis to power, which gave rise to this terrible World War II, and, accordingly, the Patriotic War, and their responsibility.

D.K.: Are the same forces behind revisionism now that created the Nazi project?

O.Ch.: Of course, absolutely the same forces. The two specific structures that we are pointing to are the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System. It comes from them, and absolutely all the threads stretch from them, and it is no coincidence that the last meeting at which the decision was made on Hitler’s coming to power, where the banker Schroeder, the main financial structure, and, by the way, in the presence of the Dallas brothers, played a key role. A very rarely mentioned fact, a hidden fact, is that the Dulles brothers, one of whom will then create, will be an active participant in the Bilderberg Club of 1953, which currently, as is known, unites the Western elite and which is responsible for making key strategic decisions on the development of the world economy and world politics.

D.K.: Absolutely all the same forces.

O.Ch.: Therefore, by the way, now in the Western, in the German press, in science, in scientific literature, it dominates what they are trying to do – they are now actually trying to rehabilitate Nazism, putting all the blame on Hitler and his entourage. So to say, yes – individual character traits, individual personality behavior – everything else is legitimized. Why this is being done – the fact is that at present the Western elites have already actively begun to create this new world order, which they have been talking about for so long. The specific reason for this was the very economic crisis that was deliberately unleashed in the fall of 2008, and in fact the development of events currently reproduces the very scheme and logic of events that preceded the Second World War.

D.K.: That is, one second – unleashed this crisis, the same thing the Fed and the Bank of England?

O.Ch.: Naturally, the Central Reserve System played a key role in this. It means that everything follows the same logic – the Great Depression of 1929-1933, social unrest is growing, then the rise of totalitarian regimes to power and total war.

D.K.: What is all this being done for now?

O.Ch.: Why this is being done – here, I am specifically reading out to you the positions of representatives of this elite. Rockefeller is the author of the idea of private power: “Something should replace national sovereignty,” he says, “and this is the idea of private power.” That is, excuse me, we are talking about the fact that at present, when they are already preparing this new project, a new world order, we are talking about the fact that national state sovereignty itself is subject to destruction, because it is simply unthinkable in this scheme. Therefore, as Rockefeller said, the private power of transnational elites must be opposed to national sovereignty. And so, back in the late 1990s, they were told the following phrase: “We are on the threshold of global change. All we need is a large-scale crisis, and then the people will accept the new world order.”.

D.K.: Where did he say that? Immediately a question…

O.Ch.: It was he who spoke at the trilateral commission, this is one of his speeches, it was recorded. D.K.: Can I find out where this information came from? How did it get leaked? O.Ch.: It was given by several sources. This, in particular – you can see my article “Modern Catholicism in the transition to a globalized world order“, which was published in the magazine “Russia XXI century”.

D.K.: It’s just strange – such information, in theory, should not be widely available. Why do they actually disavow themselves?

O.Ch.: The fact is that they do not disavow, they prepare, you know, informational and psychological ground. We are talking about the fact that there is an active preparation for the fact that national state sovereignty in modern conditions, when everything is so interconnected and when, so to speak, nothing can be done within the national scale, it is already ineffective, it does not work. Therefore, this is just an ideological preparation, it is not some kind of secret and a project that is being hidden.

D.K.: Just such propaganda.

O.Ch.: Naturally, I say again, this is preparation for the adoption of this project, so the stronger, the more terrible the shocks, the more conditions are created in order to justify the need for a single supranational interstate government. Absolutely everyone is talking about it. Sarkozy talked about it, Blair talked about it, Jacques Attali wrote about it in his latest book, which is called “What after the crisis?”, so we can translate it, in which he also criticizes this financial speculative system, which means that speculators are such and such, they are cracked to pieces, all this is criticized and it shows the whole fraudulent nature of the creation of the financial system. But the way it ends, it ends up saying that a supranational government is needed that can control absolutely everything, since it is impossible to do this on a national scale. Here he says: “I’m afraid that when…” – and when they say “I’m afraid”, they express their plans – “… that such a mistake…” – that is, the mistake of 1929-1933 – “… will happen again, we will first fight, we will kill 300 million, and then reforms will follow in the world the government…”

D.K.: 30 million.?

O.Ch.: 300 million, of course, including China, that’s all the little things for them. In his latest book, he already openly says that “… in any case, a military conflict is imminent, which will lead to very serious consequences, because only after that the elites will understand that it is necessary to create a world government.” That is, everything is already quite frank. And the last meetings of the Bilderberg Club, about which information is already reaching, and in particular, the most recent meeting was in 2009, which was described by Time – but again, Time cannot allow information to leak just like that, right, so for some reason it is necessary – he wrote that in the spring last year, a meeting of the richest people in the world took place, these are Rockefeller, Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg – the mayor of New York, media magnate Turner, and what problem did they discuss – the problem of overpopulation of the Earth, that the problem of overpopulation, too many people live, and we want to solve it. There was a discussion behind closed doors, but still this information about what they discussed, it came out. It is characteristic that before this meeting Ted Turner gave an interview in which he said that the cause of global warming of the Earth, the climate problem, which is also turning into a key problem today, is too large a population. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the population by 2/3 and bring it to 2 billion. human. He said, “There is too much human material.”

ENDGAME. THE GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT PROJECT

D.K.: Olga Nikolaevna, let’s fix it, it’s just that a lot of theses have been expressed by you. Do I understand correctly that the world elites themselves are preparing a big major provocation, as if plunging the planet into a crisis, not even as it were, but in the literal sense, and not only into this crisis that is now underway, but something even more terrible awaits us, and then, under the guise of saviors, they will they come out and reformat the world political space in the way that is beneficial to them? Right?

O.Ch.: In fact, yes.

D.K.: In this case, revisionism is part of this general program, and Russia, to some extent, it turns out, lies like a barrier in the way of these plans?

O.Ch.: Russia is the only one who can apparently resist this, due to the fact that there are ideological, spiritual foundations and supports that do not integrate in any way, do not fit into this ideology, into this worldview of the new world order. Therefore, now they are striking the main blow precisely at our ideological foundations, in order for us to accept this new world order and this civilization, which is being created as completely natural, as inevitable, as without alternative. That’s the thing. And they are embedding at all levels, even breaking the main and basic, our thinking, which has deep roots, whether we want it or not, naturally, in the foundations of Orthodox, Christian, truly Christian. Because if we talk about today’s modern Catholic Church, there is very little left of Christianity there.

D.K.: What can Russia then oppose to these forces? In particular, if we talk about revisionism.

O.Ch.: You know, this is a very difficult and long question. If we talk about revisionism, then, as I have already said, we have no right to be in retreat all the time. Because when we are in retreat, we get the impression and the feeling that we are really to blame, and, by the way, with Katyn – when this happened, apparently, we thought that this would be the end of it, we recognized everything, but this just caused a very powerful Russophobic wave in Poland. Russian Russians, as one of the Polish researchers, or rather, writers, said, that we were always told that they were Germans, it was forbidden to say that they were Russians, and now that they have finally admitted that this is the case, they will now begin to say, now for every descendant of the victim, Russians will be children executioners. That is, it is claimed, this thesis. When we are in such a retreat every time – naturally, they do not like the weak, and here the thesis is that they hate the weak Russia, but they are afraid of the strong – in this case it will only worsen the situation and create the ground for further this ideological expansion, when there will be no more supports. Therefore, our task is to go out and play an independent role, not to be an object, but to be a subject of politics both ideologically and ideologically.

D.K.: How can this be achieved if there are such powerful forces on the other side that you are talking about?

O.Ch.: Firstly, in the international arena, to act from our positions, from the positions of our interests, and not from the position of adapting to those interests that are constantly imposed on us. Because on this board we play black all the time, not white.

D.K.: And without half the figures.

O.Ch.: Yes, already without half the pieces, there are probably a few pawns left. Therefore, the situation can be changed when there is political will, probably, and many are already talking about it, and when we know, when the strategy is clear to us, then we connect the appropriate necessary forces in order to implement it all. Because the methods we use, they are conditioned by the goals we set. Now, since we have no goal to justify, to give the whole truth (now we are talking about the Second World War), methods are not involved. As soon as such a goal is set, then, accordingly, all schools, both scientific and educational, they will work in this direction.

D.K.: Were such goals set in Soviet times? Somehow I don’t really remember – I studied, let’s say, back in the Soviet period, at the end of the Soviet Union, and for some reason we were told almost nothing about either the Bank of England or the Fed in schools. They were silent about it somehow.

O.Ch.: You know, this was partially discussed. By the way, there is a wonderful “History of Diplomacy” six-volume book, which was written in the 1960s and 1970s. There you can find this material, how in the 1920s and 1930s there was active cooperation between American, British and German capital, both before and after the Nazis came to power. It is there, look through it, there are sources, but it did not seem to come to the fore. As for the Eastern countries, since they were our allies, since we created friends and the Warsaw Pact, it was impossible to talk about much of what was in reality, in particular, about the fatal role Poland played in unleashing the Second World War, since it was an ally. And what has surfaced now, in particular, the already published documents of the FSB on the role of Poland in the preparation, together with Nazi Germany, of aggression against the Soviet Union, of course, it was impossible to talk about it then. Now they are talking about it, but again, it is not that it does not exist, it is ignored, you see, it is pretended that it does not exist. Although all these documents just say that Poland played an active role. In particular, even the fact that when Germany withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933, Poland represented it in the League of Nations, not to mention all those joint projects that they developed, how they divided the Soviet Union, what role Poland had to play in the future providing sabotage and intelligence work against the Soviet Union – it’s all not showing.

I’m not talking about her role in the Munich partition of Czechoslovakia, after 1938 – it was also impossible to say – and accordingly, as she hindered, she did everything to ensure that no agreement was concluded in 1939, when negotiations with Britain and France were already underway, this is also well known. Therefore, right now, I think, is the most favorable time to give all this material, all these sources that exist, because it just turns out a strange thing – in the West they are going on the offensive, and they refer to the fact that we are hiding documents that could expose, although at the same time, on the contrary, those documents are just hiding, a huge layer, which, if we open it, everything will appear in a completely different form.

D.K.: They expose the West just.

O.Ch.: Why, for example, are archives concerning the Second World War banned and classified in both England and the USA? Here they demand to declassify all archives that relate to hunger, allegedly the device of hunger – well, then declassify your archives of the Second World War, so that it becomes clear that…

D.K.: By the way – one moment – do you know the situation with the fact that a significant part of Mussolini’s archive was stolen, his correspondence with Churchill?

O.Ch.: Yes.

D.K.: And this, by the way, is also a question – were these documents found later?

O.Ch.: They are, of course, stored in these secret archives.

D.K.: They were stolen just during the 40s, but they were never made public?

O.Ch.: Naturally, they were not made public. As well as a lot of documents have not been made public, they are classified, they can be made public only after several decades.

D.K.: It is very interesting to read Mussolini, what could he have written to Churchill and why it should be kept secret, the question immediately arises, suspicion – was Churchill standing for Mussolini, no matter how seditious it sounds.

O.Ch.: Naturally, especially considering the active financial ties between the USA and Italy, and England and the USA. Why, for example, did Italy become the only country that was mowed down, not touched, actually reduced the debt to other states, England and France, which they had to pay after the First World War? This is $13 billion that the United States has already provided state loans to Western European countries, and Italy was the only one that had these conditions extremely relaxed. The others all paid the entire bill.

D.K.: Apparently, they were given such an indulgence for some serious services.

O.Ch.: Apparently, yes. As for other states, it was all woven into this system of indemnity, which Germany had to pay, over which, with the help of the Dulles plan, the Americans were able to establish total financial control over the economy using all these financial mechanisms.

D.K.: In general, if you pull this thread, it will turn out, as it probably follows from your words, that almost all the key states of the West will be smeared in the so-called Nazi project, and it turns out that this is the core of the European Union.

O.Ch.: Yes, that’s right.

D.K.: And it turns out that to raise this topic in our country – I now understand why it’s scary. We will have to break off economic and trade relations, in fact, with these countries.

O.Ch.: And complete continuity, especially pronounced… Although, you see, this is no longer a secret, there is already a lot of this information about the activities of the trilateral commission and the Bilderberg Club, why is this still treated as something conspiratorial and so on? This is by no means conspiracy theory, these are real projects, these are real plans.

D.K.: Don’t you think that the term “conspiracy theory” itself is such a moronizing term, discrediting any mentally normal person who is just trying to understand the undeclared springs of politics. So in order to discredit him, such a normal, sane person, they label him a conspiracy theorist. Do you agree with this?

O.Ch.: Absolutely right, of course. You know, it’s like in politics – “conspiracy – conspiracy” – a well-known conspiracy is being prepared so that it does not go the way that is directed against the ruling elite, and she is preparing a conspiracy within this conspiracy. It was the same with conspiracy theory. Often the authors of many conspiracy theories, such as completely senile ones, are just those people…

D.K.: My own people. Agents.

O.Ch.: Those people who work for that force to bring this idea to the point of absurdity. As you know, if you want to discredit, bring the idea to the point of absurdity. So it is brought to the point of absurdity. Meanwhile, serious, calm research that is based on documents, facts and sources, they are simply ignored. And therefore, it is no coincidence that both Sutton’s book and the book of Munes, who worked for several years at the Library of Congress, was in the library himself, checked every document from the creation to the secrets of the Federal Reserve System, where he talks about their role in World War II, these books too, and by the way, were not translated

D.K.: Who is this person, what position does he hold?

O.Ch.: He is an American researcher, now he is already a professor. Then he could not publish his book, four publishing houses refused, his friend, a friend, who had the appropriate funds, published it to him. Then, for example, when this book was published in Germany, its entire circulation was liquidated, it was never translated in our country. That is, I think it is necessary, if we go on the offensive, to raise the whole layer of real, this scientific and historical, and not just the one that the neoliberal part of historians suggests, we now have an emphasis on this wing, and the whole layer that speaks about the real role of the ruling circles of the West, and then we will really see this complete continuity, and then we will understand this double standard that is so characteristic of international European and American politics in everything and everywhere. Against this background, of course, you understand, the role of exposing the Stalinist regime is the Stalinist regime, it should be, so to speak, that bogeyman, against which absolutely everything should be cute, that is, attention should be focused on this.

D.K.: This is their goal, the revisionists.

O.Ch.: Yes, and all the little things will suck – everything else does not exist. Even Katyn is the “most terrible” crime of the twentieth century, against which everything pales. So is the Stalinist regime – even the Nazi regime should fade on it.

D.K.: So they will serve. I want to fix it. That is, this is not your point of view, you are not asserting this, you are quoting revisionists. O.Ch.: Naturally, of course, I am setting out their strategic plans. It is no coincidence that in this book, “Russia in the twentieth Century”, a two-volume edition edited by Zubov, it is already openly stated there that the Stalinist regime and Stalin, of course, are worse than Hitler.

D.K.: The second edition, actually at the end of the “Gorbachevshchina”. This is the 80s, the beginning of the 90s – there came to completely absurd, Russophobic statements, and now it turns out the second round.

O.Ch.: Yes, the second round, but they already want to integrate it into educational programs.

D.K.: Olga Nikolaevna, unfortunately, I must state that our broadcast is ending. What can be summarized, what is the main conclusion from your conversation, from your thoughts can be drawn – probably the one that Russia should advance ideologically.

O.Ch.: Naturally.

D.K.: God grant that the authorities will listen to you. Olga Nikolaevna Chetverikova, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of MGIMO, was in our studio.