May 7, 2025 (EIRNS)—Thursday and Friday of this week mark an occasion of special significance.
This May 8, the United States officially celebrates the 80th anniversary of Victory Day, when in 1945, Germany formally surrendered to the Allied Powers, putting an end to World War II. On May 9, Russia also officially celebrates Victory Day in what they call the Great Patriotic War, when Germany’s surrender was formally signed in Berlin. Heads of state and government of 29 nations—including BRICS members China, Brazil and Egypt—are gathered in Moscow this week for the Victory Parade and related activities.
In the weeks leading up to May 9, Russia’s top leadership have singled out, with pinpoint accuracy, the role of Great Britain as the force behind the rise of Nazi Germany and the power that urged them to drive East into Russia, in sharp contrast to the role played by the United States in defense of democracy and sovereignty—noting, as well, that this is the crucial lesson to be drawn for today. In recent weeks, Sergey Shoigu, Secretary of the Russian Security Council; Nikolay Patrushev, former Secretary of the Russian Security Council and now personal aide to President Vladimir Putin; and Sergey Naryshkin’s SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) have all struck that same theme: that the United States of Lincoln and FDR is Russia’s natural ally, just as it was in the past, in the war against British-created fascism today.
American statesman Lyndon LaRouche helps us understand the actual nature of fascism—and how it is that it was stopped 80 years ago, but never fully destroyed. In an article written nearly 50 years ago, dated Aug. 19, 1977, and headlined “What Actually Is Fascism?” Lyndon LaRouche wrote:
“Nazism, like present-day ‘environmentalism’ in the B.R.D. (West Germany), has two faces. The primary fact concerning Nazism, like present-day ‘environmentalism,’ is that the institution of the Nazi regime was imposed upon Germany from the outside, by German central bank head Hjalmar Schacht’s collaborators among, chiefly, London and Manhattan financial circles—and not by German industrialists. The secondary fact concerning Nazism is that social forces of varied outlooks and composition were manipulated into acting as an auxiliary political strike-force in support of Schacht’s Hitler project….
“To understand the driving force behind the overall phenomenon, one must concentrate attention at the top, on the Hjalmar Schachts and their analogs. It is at the top that the essence of the matter is defined. However, the relatively tiny forces immediately associated with the top of such conspiracies require significant numbers of manipulated dupes as a social base for the establishment of fascist regimes or other institutions of fascist policies. This social base compels us to focus on the second, complementary aspect of fascism, environmentalism, terrorism, and exotic synthetic religions generally. In this second aspect of the matter, we are obliged to consider the susceptibilities of the various distinct social strata being manipulated. This second aspect of the matter involves the difficulty that large fascist movements have never been sociologically or politically homogeneous….
“The summary strategic evaluation to be made on this point is that when Manhattan and London circles set Hjalmar Schacht’s Hitler-project into motion, they transformed both Germany and Nazism, creating a curious symbiotic interdependency between the Nazi machine and German national economic and related interests. The result was that Germany’s economic and related interests expressed themselves in the distorted forms possible within the framework of the Rentenmark and Mefo-Bill structures created by Schacht and administered by the Hitler apparatus….
“The economic side of Nazism was in full swing prior to 1933, not from Hitler or Gregor Strasser, but from Schacht. As the international monetary crisis deepened, especially after the fall of the Vienna Kreditanstalt and the floating of the British pound in 1931, the existing measures of Schachtian austerity in Germany became altogether insufficient to prop up the tottering German debt structure. A collapse of German debt structures at this juncture would have toppled the power of key London and Manhattan financial institutions totally. More drastic measures were required in the estimation of Schacht and his London and Manhattan associates.
“The existing Weimar structures could not facilitate such increased austerity. The Reichstag had to be eliminated, along with the party structures which might serve as a mobilization point for counterattack against foreign-imposed austerity. For this, Schacht emphasized, Hitler was needed.”
Mankind today is once again staring at the ugly face of fascism: in the followers of Hitler-ally Stepan Bandera who today rule Kiev; in the followers of Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, whom Ben-Gurion called “Vladimir Hitler” for his open defense of the Nazis, who today run Israel’s Netanyahu government and are engaged in the extermination of Gaza and its people; in the use of blind terrorism to spark geopolitical regional wars, such as in the Indian subcontinent.
That is because the British-centered financial interests have once again revived the policies of Schacht—rearmament for war, combined with a bailout of the bankrupt financial system—to try to salvage their world order.
In her weekly webcast dialogue today, “Three Dangerous Hot Spots, One Solution,” Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointed directly to the problem—and its solution.
“We see worldwide a whole pattern of attacks against every single BRICS country…. [On the current India-Pakistan crisis] the first thing to do is to reinstate the [Indus] Waters treaty between India and Pakistan, because that is a very serious question. Otherwise, [they should] really get involved in the New Paradigm, because there is a move for settling all of these questions—if you agree on principles of cooperation. Given that the BRICS countries are intending to use the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, as well as the UN Charter, that is already a framework. So, if you agree that that is what you want to uphold as your basic principles, then you can sit down and discuss all the tricky questions in a separate way, as was done in the Peace of Westphalia.
“I think an approach like that should be taken, and I think Russia and China and other countries—like Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa—there are many countries that could be part of such an approach.”
