>>779876In real life it's more like 10%, going by voter support for chud parties/what is considered acceptable in public debate. This is of course using a semi-grounded definition of Neonazi, not the "everything I don't like is Hitler" that tends to go unchallenged around here.
But to attempt to answer your question:
>Baltics had functioning, stable popular institutions since 1918>Soviets crushed them by force at the start of WW2, local communists were seen as collaborators with foreign occupants>Nazis' brief occupation of the Baltics was seen as a hope for national liberation, like in much of the third world where Nazi movements were essentially anticolonial movements, fighting alongside the SS against Soviet occupants was seen as relatively heroic>Soviet occupation continued ~50 years and involved various atrocities I don't need to go over in this post>the #1 existential fear of modern Baltic states is (for good reason) being occupied by Russia again, this paranoia fuels support for nationalist camps>Soviet legacy aside, (extreme) reactionaries in modern Baltic states find in neonazism a logical bloc against the repeated loss of national sovereignty, this time by the EU (this factor is quite minor since most agree that the EU is a positive influence, but it's worth mentioning