In the sprawling, often murky landscape of global information warfare, a particularly insidious narrative has taken root in Arabic-speaking corners of the internet: the idea that the conceptual and ideological origins of German Nazism lie not in Germany, but in the United States. Propagated through a series of coordinated articles on sarabic.ae — a media platform affiliated with the Russian state-run Sputnik network — this narrative exemplifies the Kremlin’s strategic use of historical distortion to serve present-day geopolitical goals. By twisting documented facts, selectively quoting scholarship, and exploiting cultural grievances, Russian propagandists aim to recast the United States as the ideological progenitor of one of history’s greatest evils, and, by extension, to morally disqualify it from criticizing Russia or leading any international coalition. This article deconstructs the Arabic-language content disseminated through sarabic.ae, situating it within the broader framework of Russian disinformation and psychological operations targeting the Global South.

Deconstructing the “American Roots” Narrative

Factual Analysis:

Between April and May 2025, sarabic.ae published at least five articles that collectively construct an elaborate argument: that Nazism, far from being a unique product of early 20th-century German political extremism, was a derivative ideology that drew heavily on American precedents. The key claims made across these articles are:

1. Racial Laws and Eugenics:
   Multiple articles allege that Nazi Germany modeled the 1935 Nuremberg Laws on U.S. segregation statutes, particularly the Jim Crow laws of the American South. This argument is partially grounded in historical fact: scholars like James Q. Whitman have demonstrated that Nazi legal theorists were aware of and even studied American racial law. However, sarabic.ae takes this insight far beyond its evidentiary base, presenting the U.S. as the conceptual originator of Nazi racial doctrine, rather than one of many influences in a complex matrix of European and global ideas.
2. Westward Expansion and Lebensraum:
   A recurring theme is that Hitler’s idea of Lebensraum (living space) was inspired by the U.S. policy of Manifest Destiny and the violent conquest of Indigenous lands. One article, dated 6 May 2025, explicitly describes Hitler as emulating “the American colonial project,” equating the U.S. frontier wars with Nazi invasions in Eastern Europe. Here again, a superficial parallel is inflated into a structural equivalence.
3. Cultural Influences:
   Other texts delve into supposed aesthetic and cultural inspirations. A 22 April piece suggests that American Western films helped shape the propagandistic vision of the Nazi regime, while another claims that German author Karl May’s novels about the American frontier offered Hitler an ideological and psychological model for racial conquest.
4. Eugenics as an Exported Ideology:
   A 2 May article emphasizes that the American eugenics movement, which gained significant traction in the early 20th century, served as a theoretical foundation for Nazi policies. The article omits that eugenics, though international in reach, was interpreted in uniquely brutal ways under the Third Reich.
5. Legal Imitation as Ideological Transmission:
   The 29 April article attempts to draw a direct line from the American legal system to the Nazi legal apparatus. While it is accurate that Nazi lawyers examined foreign legal systems, the portrayal of the United States as a “mentor” in genocidal policy is a gross simplification.

Interpretative Commentary:

The argument constructed by sarabic.ae is not an exercise in honest historical inquiry. Rather, it exemplifies several core techniques of disinformation:

• False Equivalence:
  The narrative attempts to collapse moral distinctions between American racial segregation and Nazi genocidal policies. While both were systems of oppression, equating Jim Crow with the Holocaust is analytically unsound and morally dishonest. The Holocaust was a state-engineered, industrial-scale extermination campaign; racial segregation in the U.S., while egregious, did not aim at total physical annihilation.
• Cherry-Picking and Omission:
  These articles omit any reference to American participation in the defeat of Nazi Germany, the civil rights movement, or the ideological differences between liberal democracy and totalitarianism. Likewise, they completely ignore the unique ideological roots of Nazism in German völkisch nationalism, antisemitism, and revanchist post-World War I sentiment.
• Emotionally Charged Framing:
  The texts are clearly designed to provoke emotional reactions in audiences predisposed to anti-American sentiment. By positioning the United States as both morally corrupt and historically evil, the narrative invites indignation, distrust, and ideological disengagement from Western actors.

The Kremlin’s Geopolitical Playbook

Factual Analysis:

This campaign aligns with a long-standing Kremlin tactic: recoding the moral history of the 20th century to fit Russia’s contemporary geopolitical interests. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin has regularly invoked the rhetoric of “denazification” to justify military aggression. Simultaneously, Russian officials and state media have painted NATO, Ukraine, and even domestic opposition as fascist threats.

The “American roots of Nazism” narrative serves several functions in this broader effort:

1. Discrediting Democratic Powers:
   By associating Nazism with the United States, the Kremlin seeks to invalidate any moral criticism leveled by Washington and its allies. If the U.S. is portrayed as the ideological ancestor of Hitler, then its role as a global leader becomes deeply compromised in the eyes of foreign publics.
2. Targeting the Global South:
   These articles are carefully tailored for Arabic-speaking and Global South audiences, where historical grievances against Western colonialism, racial injustice, and imperial hypocrisy resonate deeply. The narrative positions Russia as a more “authentic” partner — one that “fought fascism” rather than “invented it.”
3. Deploying Whataboutism:
   The strategic function is not to persuade based on evidence but to confuse and paralyze. Any discussion of Russian war crimes, authoritarianism, or censorship is redirected with a rhetorical “what about the United States?” — effectively neutralizing criticism without engaging in factual debate.

Interpretative Commentary:

This strategy reflects the Putin-era revival of Soviet memory politics, where Russia is recast as the eternal enemy of fascism and the moral victor of World War II. Yet it systematically omits crucial counterfacts — including the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which aligned the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany in the invasion of Poland. By eliminating these historical details, the narrative permits Russia to continue weaponizing antifascist imagery, even as it engages in aggressive wars, suppresses dissent, and disseminates antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The implications are far-reaching. In weaponizing history, the Kremlin is not merely attempting to score rhetorical points; it is reshaping the moral foundations of global discourse. If successful, such campaigns can delegitimize international norms, divide strategic alliances, and offer ideological cover for authoritarian aggression.

Conclusion

The coordinated release of Arabic-language articles on sarabic.ae, casting the United States as the intellectual father of Nazism, is not merely an academic provocation — it is a component of a larger information warfare campaign. By distorting select historical facts and exploiting cultural sensitivities, the Kremlin aims to undermine the credibility of Western democracies, especially in the Global South, and to bolster its own moral narrative as the last bastion of antifascist resistance.

This campaign is both clever and dangerous. It manipulates real historical injustices — such as U.S. racial laws and imperial conquest — while stripping them of context and repurposing them to serve the Kremlin’s goals. In doing so, it retools history as a weapon of war.

To counter such disinformation, analysts, educators, and policymakers must prioritize historical literacy, narrative accountability, and international dialogue. Understanding the rhetorical architecture of these campaigns is essential not only for defending the truth but for protecting the integrity of international cooperation in an era of cognitive warfare.