New York Times White Washes Nazis

The current levels to which institutions will defend open Nazis is appalling. Let’s be clear here: fascists are the lowest scum of the earth. Open Nazis are the bottom of that corpse heap. Over 50 million people died because of their exterminationist ideology. The Soviet Union alone lost almost 30 million people to stab at the heart of this genocidal ideology. There is no more to say. Nazis do not deserve one inch of sympathy.

But apparently, this is no longer the case. If you’ve been around the internet since the beginning of the Russian-Ukraine war, you’ve no doubt seen countless examples of Ukrainian soldiers wearing open white supremacist patches. Azov Battalion, an openly neo-Nazi military faction, has had their Nazi ties downplayed since Ukraine became an ally to the west. Of course there are also Nazis in the Russian forces, but our governments are not aligned with those.

This issue could not be more clear cut. But the New York Times felt that there were nuances to praising the genocidal titan of Hitler and his holocaust. In a piece by Thomas Gibbons-Neff, the headline refers to the “thorny” history behind Nazi symbolism in Ukraine, and that their use “risks fueling Russian propaganda.” He also declares the West has spent 50 years trying to eliminate Nazi imagery. The white-wash begins without shame.

The article is fascist propaganda. Full-stop. It justifies and excuses the worship of Nazi military units and Adolf Hitler. Gibbons-Neff is either the world’s most gullible man, or a willing partner in promoting this ideology by watering it down for a mainstream audience. I’m willing to believe the latter.

The first justification for wearing the patches comes “soldiers who say the imagery symbolizes Ukrainian sovereignty and pride, not Nazism.” The attempts to deflect Ukraine’s issue with Nazis are made immediately after. Zelensky is jewish, Russia claims de-Nazification as a reason to invade, etc.

Let’s put aside the idea that jewish people are unable to align with Nazi ideals and examine the claim that this bolsters Russian messaging. Russia is being disingenous in this usage, as they dropped requirements to denazify Ukraine in reported ceasefire conditions. This does not mean that Nazi symbols represent anything but violent genocide. The assumption that this does is completely disconnected from reality.

The totenkopf, a skull used by the Nazi SS, is featured prominently on the discussed Ukrainian soldiers. Its use is defended by the Anti-Defamation League.

But Jake Hyman, a spokesman for the group, said it was impossible to “make an inference about the wearer or the Ukrainian Army” based on the patch.

“The image, while offensive, is that of a musical band,” Mr. Hyman said

According to Hyman, prominently displaying a Nazi symbol is not a clear-cut indication that you are a Nazi. Even when used by a band that uses that symbol to signal Nazi regimes. The band is Death In June. Since the article references the Southern Poverty Law Centre describing them as a band that produces “hate speech,” let’s refer to them in one of their public statements, which is most likely where Gibbons-Neff sourced the quotes.

For the uninitiated, DIJ is principally the project of Douglas Pearce who maintains ties to other far-right musicians; who has admitted on-record to his own far-right extremist views, be they cultural or religious; and whose band exploits themes and images of fascism and Nazism to ambiguous ends, which also deserve direct criticism.

If you thought that stretched the realities of credulity, wait until you read this.

In November, during a meeting with Times reporters near the front line, a Ukrainian press officer wore a Totenkopf variation made by a company called R3ICH (pronounced “Reich”). He said he did not believe the patch was affiliated with the Nazis.

What fucking universe are we on? He “did not believe” the Nazi patch created by a company named “Reich” was affiliated with Nazis? How stupid do you think we are?

Very stupid, apparently. The article quotes Ukrainian historian Ihor Kozlovskyi, who said “The symbol can live in any community or any history independently of how it is used in other parts of Earth.” How, exactly, this is possible in an area with a complicated history and prominent ties to Nazi Germany is left unsaid. How a Ukrainian press officer was ignorant of the connect of Reich to a Totenkopf is not combatted.

This fascist propaganda, of course, can’t be done without sowing more seeds of anticommunism. The article references the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany, but fails to mention Stalin’s rebuffed attempts to make an anti-fascist alliance with France and Britain. It mentions the Ukrainians who allied themselves with Nazi Germany, but not that 7 million Ukrainians were enlisted in the Red Army to defeat Hitler. Is this not more justified as a cry for sovereignty than committing atrocities aligned with Nazi Germany? The question can’t be asked, because it goes unsaid.

Oh, but the symbol of the Ukrainian Waffen-SS unit, which committed atrocities in exterminating Polish civilians, is excluded from a ban of Nazi symbols, as decided by Ukraine’s highest court. Which means that there is no institutional Nazism to worry about in Ukraine?

Yes that was really posted in the article, thouigh obviously without that connection being made.

There is very little to say after this,other than an angry condemnation. The New York Times has willfully engaged in watering down the crimes of the Nazi regime. Their concerns about optics are rooted primarily in how it makes Ukraine look when they feature prominent Nazi symbols on soldiers. Questions about the views of these people go unasked, and their excuses on displaying these symbols unexamined. Responses and debunks to their justifications are readily available, yet they are nowhere in the article. This is a choice.

To paraphrase a famous punk song, Nazi New York Times, Fuck Off.