National University of “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”
After elaborating on the reasons for admiring the greatest psychologist of the XXth century, the author proceeds to the "crimes" themselves, both of which are connected with the history of German National Socialism:
1) First one relates to the pre-war period (to the 30-s). C.G. Jung, who adored Adolf Hitler, believed him to be a medium who had an exclusive access to the depths of the collective unconscious and who is "possessed by the archetype of the collective Aryan unconscious and could not help obeying the commands of an inner voice": "He is a medium, German policy is not made; it is revealed through Hitler. He is the mouthpiece of the Gods of old... He is the Sybil, the Delphic oracle." At the same time, he tried to approach Hitler as a doctor. In a conversation with an American reporter Jung suggested that the only remedy for Hitler would be his invasion of the Soviet Union. Bakhtiyarov has no doubts about Jung's guilt, because at that time the Eastern direction of German expansion hasn't been chosen yet: the union of Germany and Russia against the Anglo-Saxon forces could have also been an option (Karl Haushofer's project of a Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo axis).
Jung didn't consider this option; he believed that the country which possesses one sixth of Earth won't suffer much from such a war, although he warned that nobody has succeeded in conquering this country yet. In Bakhtiyarov's opinion, Jung misunderstood and underestimated the Slavic world and Russian Orthodoxy in particular; that's why he was so irresponsible in this issue.
Second Jung's crime relates to the post-war period and consists in inventing the therapeutic core of the denazification procedure, that is explicating the idea of the necessity to form the sense of the "collective guilt," which was fatal not only for Germany but for the whole Europe's destiny: "The Germans today are like a drunken man who wakes up the next morning with a hangover. They don't know what they've done and don't want to know. The only feeling is one of boundless misery. They will make convulsive efforts to rehabilitate themselves in face of the accusations and hatred of the surrounding world, but that is not the right way. The only redemption lies, as I have already indicated, in a complete admission of guilt. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Out of honest contrition for sin comes divine grace. That is not only a religious but also a psychological truth. The American treatment of conducting the civilian population through the concentration camps and letting them see all the abominations committed there is therefore quite right. Only, the object lesson should not be driven home with moral instruction; repentance must come from inside the Germans themselves." (From the interview with Peter Schmid published on May 11, 1945).
Bakhtiyarov contends that this program was implemented literally: firstly, until now the most grandiose and controversial in the whole European history revolt against the very Course of History initiated by National Socialists is believed to be totally wrong, shameful and subjected to the unequivocal condemnation. At the same time, secondly, nobody speaks aloud about the military crimes of Anglo-Americans: the destruction of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other peaceful cities of the enemy. Thirdly, one of the most important archetypal symbols - swastika - became forbidden, and Jung as a psychologist couldn't have not been aware of the fact that such a violation of the "ecology of the psychic depths" would inevitably result in quite an unpredictable response from these very depths of the unconscious.
In this respect, Bakhtiyarov even makes a conspirological assumption that Jung could have done it intentionally, in order to make these ideas especially vital by dragging them into the unconscious area. Indeed, since then both Kyiv and Moscow consider themselves as inheritors of Germany's Great Project; keen interest of the Post-Soviet intellectuals to the conservative-revolutionary? literature in the 90-s is the best proof for such a succession.
Surely, although we never know what's going on in the mind of the great, such an assumption seems to be doubtful; that's why Bakhtiyarov reminds of the fact that all the influential minds always bear responsibility for their public statements, for through spreading certain ideas in the informational sphere they can make the unconscious choice that contradicts their conscious intentions...