Disinfo: The shift of all blame for WWII outbreak at the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the best example of manipulation of history


The shift of all blame for WWII outbreak at the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is the best example of manipulation of history. It is important to remember the existence of the Pilsudski-Hitler pact signed in 1934 (Non-Aggression Pact between Poland and Germany). Signing of this pact gave Hitler time to re-equip his army.


This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism and an attempt to erode the disastrous historical role of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact by stating that other European countries signed various international agreements with Germany after 1934. See other examples referring to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact here, here and here. First of all, it is impossible to compare the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact - it was a standard international agreement aimed at mutual recognition of borders and a declaration that existing political contradictions would be solved through diplomatic tools. There is no historical evidence that this pact contained any secret protocols, which assumed common aggressive actions of Germany and Poland against the USSR or other countries. Moreover, the pact of 1934 did not include any agreements on advanced political, economic and military relations between Poland and Germany - it was a basic agreement between two neighbouring states. Secondly, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Polish authorities did not have any international competences or possibilities to control the military limitations imposed at Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, so they could not have prevented the re-armament of the German Army. See similar examples of the Russian historical revisionism concerning Poland here and here.


  • Reported in: Issue 165
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12/09/2019
  • Language/target audience: Polish
  • Country: USSR, Germany, Poland
  • Keywords: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Historical revisionism


Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

ECJ decided to limit Gazprom access to the OPAL pipeline made in the interest of the USA

The decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the limitation of access to the OPAL pipeline was made in the interest of the United States; it may be changed when Europe faces shortages of gas during the winter period.


Recurring pro-Kremlin narrative that the United States fully controls the foreign and domestic policy of the European Union. See other examples of this message here, here and here. The statement that the United States controls the work of the European Court of Justice is a conspiracy theory. The Court is not subordinate to or influenced by the US authorities. As can be seen in the Court's statute, before taking up his/her duties each judge shall, before the Court of Justice sitting in open court, take an oath to perform his/her duties impartially and conscientiously and to preserve the secrecy of the deliberations of the Court. This decision could potentially impact the Nord Stream 2 offshore pipeline project (in which Gazprom is involved), which is nearing completion, as well as the first leg of the project, which is operational since 2011. The court's decision annuls a Commission decision from 2016 to exempt the Opal pipeline from EU rules on preventing dominance of the supply infrastructure. Just like Nord Stream, Nord Stream 2 is meant to tap into Opal, with this decision now limiting the volume of that intake to 12.5 bcm/y. See other examples of disinformation about the EU-US relations here.

All of Europe is saying that the sanctions are useless

Various Europeans are saying it; the Austrians, the Finns, the Germans: “the sanctions are bad, we need another approach. Let’s solve the problem with Donbas, but the sanctions are useless.” This is what all of Europe is saying.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Western sanctions on Russia. On 27 June 2019, the Council of the European Union prolonged unanimously economic sanctions, targeting specific sectors of the Russian economy until 31 January 2020.

Other examples of this narrative here and here.

ECHR ruling proves that the European rule of law does not exist

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) proved that the concept of European rule of law is a hypothetical concept that does not exist in reality. By rejecting an appeal against a landmark ruling that Soviet repressions against Lithuanian partisans can be treated as genocide, the ECHR is essentially rewriting the rule of law to fit the narrative that is being propagated in the mainstream media and diplomatic rhetoric in the last few months. It is similar to the recent attempts of rewriting history.


Pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative denigrating the European Court of Human Rights. The disinformation message appeared after the ECHR upheld its earlier ruling that Soviet repressions against Lithuanian partisans can be treated as genocide. Earlier Lithuanian courts have found S.Drelingas guilty of genocide for his participation in a secret operation to detain Adolfas Ramanauskas-Vanagas, one of the leaders of Lithuanian partisans. In March, the ECHR ruled that the judgement did not violate the former KGB officer’s rights. Read more about the ruling in English and Lithuanian. See previous disinformation cases about the Baltic Forest Brothers here.