How to justify NATO’s aggression against Russia

We’ve just witnessed a vast rewriting of history, aimed at manipulating public opinion to justify NATO’s current treatment of Russia. A misleading vision of the June 6, 1944 landings has given rise to a commemoration of events that never existed as they were presented to us.

According to the organizers of the commemorations - in other words, according to Nato, which supplied most of the extras, including heads of state and government - the Allies were united in the fight against Nazism and the defense of freedom. In reality, the aim of the Anglo-Saxon landings was not to liberate France, but to replace Nazi occupation with the Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories (AMGOT).

Rewriting history

While the United Kingdom had accepted the presence of Charles De Gaulle and his Free French on its territory, the United States never recognized him as the leader of the French Resistance during the Second World War. On the contrary, it maintained an embassy in Vichy until April 27, 1942, four months after entering the war. Worse still, on November 22, 1942, they negotiated an agreement with Admiral François Darlan, representing the collaborationist government. It would prevent De Gaulle from coming to North Africa and transfer, in Philippe Pétain’s name, colonial authority from France to the United States at the end of the war.

The Anglo-Saxons had already imposed AMGOT on Italy, and had tried to install it in the territories of the French Empire in North Africa. They were about to extend it to Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium and Denmark. To this end, they trained civil administrators in Charlottesville and Yale.

Informed of what the Anglo-Saxons were up to, Charles De Gaulle rushed back to London from Algiers. Three days before D-Day, on June 3, 1944, he transformed the French Committee for National Liberation (CFLN), which he had chaired, into the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF). He quarrels harshly with the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. He refused to record a speech written by the Anglo-Saxons outlining their vision of the landings, and to send the 120 FFL liaison officers alongside the landing troops. Likewise, he rejected the Anglo-Saxon project for a United Nations Organization (UNO), which was to establish a directoire of the United States and the United Kingdom over the whole world [1]; a project that resurfaced in 1950 with the Korean War, in 1991 with "Desert Storm", and again in 2001 with the attacks in the United States. In the end, he agreed to register vague support for the landing, but not for AMGOT, to send only 20 liaison officers, and succeeded in thwarting the Anglo-Saxon plan for Onu [2]

.

In his Mémoires de guerre, Charles De Gaulle writes: "President Roosevelt kept the document [the proposed agreement between the CFLN and the Allies for the liberation of France] on his table from month to month. Meanwhile, in the United States, an Allied military government (AMGOT) was being set up to take over the administration of France. All kinds of theorists, technicians, businessmen, propagandists and former Frenchmen naturalized as Yankees flocked to this organization. The steps [Jean] Monnet and [Henri] Hoppenot thought should be taken in Washington, the observations the British government was making to the United States, the urgent requests Eisenhower was sending to the White House, all failed to bring about any change. However, since something had to be done, Roosevelt decided in April to instruct [Dwight] Eisenhower that the Commander-in-Chief would have supreme power in France. As such, he was to choose the French authorities who would collaborate with him. We soon learned that Eisenhower was urging the President not to burden him with this political responsibility, and that the British disapproved of such an arbitrary procedure. But Roosevelt, with a few changes to the letter of his instructions, had maintained the essence of them.
To tell the truth, the President’s intentions seemed to me to be of the same order as Alice in Wonderland’s dreams. Roosevelt had already ventured into North Africa, under conditions far more favourable to his designs, with a political enterprise similar to the one he was contemplating for France. Nothing remained of this attempt. My government exercised unfettered authority in Corsica, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Black Africa. The people Washington had counted on to stand in the way had disappeared from the scene. No one cared about the Darlan-Clark agreement [transfer of power from the French colonial Empire to the United States], which was considered null and void by the Comité de la Libération Nationale [Free France], and which I had solemnly declared at the Consultative Assembly that, in France’s eyes, did not exist. I regretted for him and for our relations that the failure of his policy in Africa had not been able to overcome Roosevelt’s illusions. But I was sure that his project, carried over to Metropolitan France, would not even begin to be applied there. The Allies would meet in France no other ministers and no other civil servants than those I would have set up. They would find no French troops other than those under my command. I could confidently challenge Eisenhower to deal validly with someone I had not appointed. In fact, he wouldn’t even dream of it.

In the end, 30,000 Allied soldiers took part in the landings on June 6, 1944, of whom only 177 were French (the fusiliers marins of the Kieffer commando). It wasn’t until August 1 that the 20,000 men of General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque’s 2nd Armored Division (2° DB) landed in Normandy, between Sainte-Marie-du-Mont and Quinéville, an area the Allies called "Utah Beach". They rush to Paris, which rises up and liberates itself.

Amalgam with the war in Ukraine

The commemoration of the falsified version of the D-Day landings was an opportunity for President Joe Biden and his master of ceremonies, President Emmanuel Macron, to draw a parallel with their equally falsified presentation of the current war in Ukraine.

For the record, no Russian delegation was invited. On the contrary, the Ukrainian army, which fought alongside the Nazis, was.

Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron and their guests presented the United States as the victors of the Second World War, whereas it was the Soviet Union that took Berlin and overthrew the Third Reich. They ignored the sacrifice of 8,6 million Soviet soldiers. On the contrary, they have focused their narrative on the 292,000 dead soldiers of the United States (mainly in the battle against Japan after the defeat of the Nazis). Two completely different war efforts.

In passing, they recalled the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis, whether in the "Shoah by bullets" or, from 1942 onwards, in concentration camps. A way of ignoring the murder of 18,2 million Soviet Slavic civilians (distinct from the 8,6 million deaths mentioned above), also considered "sub-human" and designated as the main targets of the Nazi extermination project. Not a word either about all the other target categories, such as other Slavs or Gypsies.

Speaking to Volodymyr Zelensky, US President Joe Biden declared: "Ukraine is being invaded by a tyrant, and we will never give up on him (...) We cannot give up on dictators, it’s unimaginable (...) The soldiers of D-Day did their duty, will we do ours? (...) We must not lose what has been done here".

Far from being a "dictator", Russian President Vladimir Putin was re-elected in March with 88.5% of the vote. The ballot was conducted in a sincere manner, even if, according to Westerners, the election campaign left little room for his opposition. On the contrary, Volodymyr Zelensky has not been President of Ukraine since his term expired on May 21. He has banned the 12 opposition political parties [3], sent his rival, General Valeri Zaloujny, to the UK as ambassador, and failed to hold elections. He remains in power, however. He may be considered the head of Ukraine’s provisional government, but certainly not the elected president.

He illegally commands his country’s armed forces, whose main leaders are "integral nationalists". The latter claim to be the founder of "integral nationalism" [4], Dmytro Dontsov, and his henchman, the Nazi Stepan Bandera. During the Second World War, Dontsov was administrator of the Reinhard Heydrich Institute, responsible for implementing the Final Solution of the Jewish and Gypsy questions, while Bandera, at the head of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), massacred at least 1.6 million Ukrainians, mainly from Donbass and Novorossia. Former Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky took part in this masquerade as a Nazi follower.