So, it's 1942-3 Your country was invaded by the Soviets and they murdered 45 million people by taking away all the food and shooting anyone who resisted or tried to escape their rule. The Germans invade to try to conquer the Soviets. And your country with still good farmland and some decent industry.
Who do you join to fight the other? You don't have the choice to run away, they'll kill you and your remaining relatives.
I'd probably fight the Soviets, and when I lost, if I lived, take the offer to flee to Canada.
If I fought the Nazis, if I lived, I'd be a hated jerk in a conquered land for decades, then a hated jerk without the protection of my Soviet masters. ( assuming I wasn't killed anyway since I'd only be protected if I was part of the Soviet occupation and even worse hated )
The third choice was to be an independent partisan, aka, betrayed by those who made the other choices and at best buried in an unmarked mass grave.
No good choices back then for a Ukrainian peasant.
Here's the Politico article referenced above. I rate them as pretty much liars across the board, but... The information here is pretty darn accurate, and the last paragraph is spot on.
Today, it's become axiomatic that if you are calling people Nazis, 90 odd years after they took power in Germany, you're probably a lying sack who's pretty close ideologically to the Nazis.
For history buffs, the parallels between how Adolph took absolute power after what is obviously a false flag operation, and how Joe* got declared Ruler without dissent, are striking.
Not identical, of course, the "suspects" of the Reichstag Fire weren't kept in solitary confinement for a year before trial, and lots of other aspects differ greatly. South American politics has better fits just this year.