IN THE Soviet Union, the saying "nothing is forgotten; nobody is forgotten” was part of all of the public tributes on the anniversary of the victory over fascism. In its successor states you hear it at demonstrations, wreath-laying ceremonies, cultural gatherings and during toasts. Even in today’s Russia, this remains the major state holiday.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was not only the largest possible geopolitical catastrophe; it was also a setback for human civilisation. The growing dominance of the US and the Nato states confronts us with the emergence of new power centres in the struggle for a new world order.

The antagonistic approach to Russia and its efforts to gain respect for its role as a major power in the victory over fascism is growing increasingly dangerous. It affects all areas of social life in Western countries.

They are seeking to achieve the geostrategic interests they have long been pursuing. Underlying this is the integration of Russia into the West’s international politics. Powers like the US, England and Germany had no interest in a strong Russia — not under tsars, general secretaries or presidents.

To understand the background and objectives of this antagonism towards Russia, it is important to understand the social implications of the liberation from fascism. The role of the February 1945 conference of the “big three” in Yalta, Crimea, is key to this understanding. The seriously ill US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, British prime minister Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin all took part.

The outcome influenced the formation of the United Nations in June 1945, as well as the July 1945 Potsdam conference, which determined the European post-war order.

The agreements arrived at included Germany’s unconditional capitulation, the construction of distinct militarily occupied zones controlled by the three victorious powers and France and the disarming of Germany — including the permanent destruction of all military facilities and elimination or control of industries used for arms production.

There was general agreement on the need for amends and reparation and around the need to stamp out Nazism and militarism in Germany, and in every European country that had been occupied by the fascists.

There was also a consensus that all war criminals needed to be brought to trial. The statement foresaw the three powers working together to address the problems facing a liberated Europe.

At the time, the socialist transition in the eastern European states was not on the agenda. Roosevelt believed that the US’s economic power would allow it to establish its influence in eastern Europe, and was ready to keep that door open.

The Soviet Union and Stalin, on the other hand, did not — as Roosevelt’s successor Harry S Truman and the West suggested — intend to use the victory over fascism to inspire worldwide revolutionary action.

What concerned the West was the fact that the USSR’s crucial role in resisting fascist aggression in Europe had gained it many sympathisers. There were obvious signs of political change and the struggle against the war and for peace and security made the social implications of the victory over fascism clear.

The capitalist world faced three key enemies after 1945: socialism in Europe and East Asia, influential communist parties in the West and the developing of national liberation movements. All of this shouldn’t obscure the fact that capital dominated the international economy.

The anti-Hitler coalition was always an alliance of convenience, with differing interests. That was clearly expressed by the opening of a second front in the summer of 1944. Initially the Western allies presumed — according to Churchill — that as long as the Russians fought on, the front line could not prove decisive. The Soviet Union and Germany would bleed each other dry. It was also Churchill who increasingly warned of the consequences of each Soviet army advance. He favoured a timely division of spheres of influence, particularly in south-east Europe.

For the Soviet Union, an alliance with the US and Britain was an important precondition for reconstruction, and the same was true of relations with Germany. The Western Allies, however, were pursuing a course that would split Germany and transform the Western-occupied zones into an anti-Soviet advance post.

The result is that today one can talk without irony of the liberators who were victorious over fascism. Presenting the aggressors and those under attack as if they met on a level playing field is simply intolerable historically, presently and in the future.

That is even more the case with the spread of historical revisionism and the resurgence of fascist ideas and actions. In the EU, however, there is an increasing inclination to trivialise the growing fascist tendencies. As a Russian MP put it, this amounts to “feeding a beast that will eventually be your problem.”

There is no known repetition of history — except as a tragedy or as a farce. The re-emergence of fascist forces and the defamation of Russia as the main enemy is more than tragic in light of the lessons of WWII. In this regard, Stalin’s May 9 1945 appeal to the people of the Soviet Union should be borne in mind.

He said: “Three years ago, Hitler made it clear to the entire nation that his goal was to split up the Soviet Union, tearing away the Caucusus, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic and other areas, in the process. He openly stated: ‘We will destroy Russia, so that it never rises again.’ That was three years ago. However, this absurd objective of Hitler’s was not achieved. The Soviet Union celebrated victory, but it has no desire to either dismember or destroy Germany.”

Bellicose conflicts are always simultaneously ongoing ideological preparation and active manipulation of public opinion. It is all the more so today, amid the communications revolution. As a result it is essential that accurate history be presented and that the roots and background of WWII be clarified in a way that makes no concessions to the spirit of the times.

• Bruno Mahlow was a diplomat in the German Democratic Republic, and from 1973 played a leading role in the international relations department of the Socialist Unity Party (SED) central committee. Translation by: Heiser/Moncourt.