Thank you for your work here. Am 60, but when I was in my teens, I knew of two people who had personally met Hitler, neither fit the typical refugee of the times. The first was a woman who had circulated in the upper edges of German society then, and recollected her times at those lavish balls they used to throw early on. In particular, she recalled eating dinner with him at at least one of those events. I was not in a position to question her in detail, but I gathered that she was an American there that dated an higher up SS officer. She was about my age then, so most likely long gone, I did not keep up with her.
The second lady was one of my neighbors during my growing years. She was a native German who survived those years as a teen and eventually came to the US after the war. She had a loving, supportive family, which she needed, as she suffered from infrequent but persistent mental breakdowns for which she would check herself into a mental health institution for a few weeks at a time. Her husband told my family that she had been taken up into a winter work camp that used human labor to keep railroad lines running. One of the times that she was forced, along with the other laborers, to stand at attention all day in the bitter cold, Hitler came through on an inspection, and shook all of their hands.
These two wildly varying experiences have underlined my understanding of those years and, as well, despite the years and geographical distance, brought me closer to those times than is comfortable. As well, I do keep reading, so that I can at least have a better understanding of those times. And I remain very grateful that my dad failed out of the draft (enlarged heart and flat feet); otherwise I might not be here today.
Thank you, Maureen, for sharing those stories—what a remarkable, unsettling proximity to such a dark chapter of history. The two women you describe, so different in background and experience, really underscore how complex and layered those years were. I’m especially struck by your neighbor’s trauma and how it followed her for decades. That personal aftermath often tells us more about the true nature of a regime than any official narrative.
It’s valuable to preserve and reflect on these lived memories, but as you said, it’s just as important to keep reading, keep learning. Because alongside the individual stories, we also have to confront the full historical record—what was done, who gave the orders, and how entire systems were built around cruelty and terror. Personal recollections can deepen our empathy, but they shouldn't obscure the bigger picture.
Your father’s health disqualifying him from service may have saved him from a brutal war—and it clearly gave you the space to become a thoughtful observer of history. Thanks again for engaging in this conversation with such openness.
I have not, if I recall correctly, read Irving's books, but probably articles taken from his writing on Unz.org. Maybe I can get around to it eventually. But I have read, over decades, a fair amount of history elated to WWII and can say I'm (basically) with Irving.
First, regardless of what the German Nazis did or did not do--and here propaganda churned out by court historians rules the West--there is just versus unjust war making. The only just war to be waged by governments is purely defensive, just as force used by individuals against others must be defensive. FDR wanted to join the war against Germany even though Germany had done nothing to the USA. He sought to and succeeded in provoking desperate Japanese fascists into attacking Pearl Harbor, which was NOT a surprise attack to FDR and his cabal, who knew the attack was coming. They plotted the course on a wall board of the Japanese flotilla as it steamed across the Pacific toward Hawaii. If you believe I am deluded or making this up, read Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit which relied on hundreds of FOIA releases, redacted still today but pieced together, proving the above and much more.
The Japanese had repeatedly offered to FDR or his ambassador or his secretaty of state to withdraw from China and cede its territorial conquests in that region. These entreaties were ignored, because FDR wanted war.
FDR sent emissariess to France inveighing them to go to war with Germany, promising (against the law) future American involvement in the war, on two or maybe three occassions. He and Churchill plotted their joint war crusade against Germany, in secret, without Congressional authority or newspaper reports. Churchill was a permanent war lover; FDR sought war to ease his political embarrassment over the failure of his fascist (coercive takeover of private enterprise decisions by the state) New Deal. Meanwhile, in the background, Americans were consistently opposed to involvement in Europe's war by huge margins--85% agaainst, maybe 10% for.
FDR taunted and provoked Hitler to attack US ships transporting arms to France and England, hoping for an attaack on the atlantic. Germany refused to take the bait, even though transporting arms to its belligerants was an act of war. FDRs freezing of Japanese assets and blockade of oil imports to Japan years before Pearl Harbor weree acts of war. The Americaan admiral Richardson in charge of the Pacific fleet met FDR in the White House and demanded that he remove the Pacific fleet from Hawaii, where it was vulnerable to attack by Japan. FDR refused and after the election fired Richardson. This is not make believe or leftwing history. It is historical fact. Read William Henry Chamberlain's America's Second Crusade.
The Holecast is anti-German pro Zionist propaganda. I have read, more than once, that 2 million died of typhus in Nazi slave labor compounds. The death by gassing was not possible and has been refuted-falsified numerous times, in depth and detail.
Good luck Turfseer, you've swallowed a false history that feels good, but is not. My suggestion is, just go read the historians you dislike, including the two I tossed out. If I recall right, David Irving was a famous British historian ruined and defamed by the US foreign policy cabal. Now I'm motivated to buy his books and actually read them.
Rider, my "friend"—you’ve managed to cram a masterclass in denial, historical cherry-picking, and victim-flipping into a single post. Bravo. If there were a medal for mental gymnastics, you'd be on the podium.
Let’s start with the obvious: David Irving is not a misunderstood historian punished by the “foreign policy cabal.” He’s a professional obfuscator who’s made a career out of airbrushing the Nazis and winking at Holocaust denial while draping himself in the martyr’s robe of “persecuted truth-teller.” The reason he was “ruined” is because he was caught fabricating sources and lost a libel case so thoroughly that the judge called him an anti-Semitic liar who deliberately misrepresented historical evidence. But hey, if that’s your kind of historian, I can’t stop you from stocking your bookshelf with toxic waste.
Now let’s take a closer look at what Irving and his defenders like to leave out. You want to talk about wartime atrocities? Great. Where is your outrage over the Rape of Nanking? Hundreds of thousands of civilians raped, butchered, and buried alive by the Imperial Japanese Army—children bayoneted for sport, women eviscerated in the street. That was happening while your supposedly peace-seeking Japanese leaders were “offering” to withdraw from China, which they’d turned into a charnel house. But sure, let’s pretend the oil embargo was the real crime.
And as for Germany—I’ve personally known people who barely made it out of Nazi Germany alive, their lives upended by the systematic stripping of rights, livelihoods, and basic human dignity. Long before the gas chambers, there were book burnings, beatings, boycotts, and purges. “Defensive war”? The Nazis weren’t defending—they were dreaming up blueprints for racial purification and Lebensraum while marching eastward over a pile of corpses. Spare me the idea that Hitler was some reluctant participant who just wanted to be left alone.
You mention “court historians” as if all of modern scholarship is a Zionist conspiracy. That’s not edgy contrarianism—it’s just lazy. If the only way you can stomach Irving’s version of events is by dismissing the entirety of mainstream historical research as propaganda, then you’re not seeking truth—you’re seeking emotional reassurance wrapped in faux-intellectual rebellion.
Also, let’s not forget this line: “The Holecast is anti-German pro-Zionist propaganda.” First, it’s the Holocaust—try spelling it correctly if you're going to deny it. Second, that statement makes your position crystal clear: you're not here for history, you're here to recycle the same anti-Semitic tropes that have been polluting the discourse for decades. You’re not critiquing excesses in war—you’re resurrecting Nazi apologism with a polite libertarian face.
You want to read Irving? Knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to pretend that’s scholarship. It’s not. It’s propaganda with footnotes.
Wow...Holy Mackeral. Did I hit a hysterical nerve. You misunderstand me. I'm not antisemitic, nor anti American Indian, nor anti Hispanic women, nor anti. I am pro-individual freedom, individual natural, pro reason. Pro facts grounded in reality and...proof. I have no other agenda, not even suppressed and subconscious. I want to know and defend truth, especially challenging these days.
Here is a fact I am guessing you may not know, Turfseer. It's not a fact with "Throw this at that b--tard Turfseer to bring...him...down" inscribed on it. It's just something that is true. In the memoirs of Churchill, Eisenhour and Charles De Gaulle...in other words in the historical accounts of the experiences of the three leaders of the West in much of which concerned events leading up to and through and after WWII...the following observation applies to each memoir. None of these political leaders made any mention of the Holocaust, nor of gassing of "6 million" Jews, gypsies etc. You can easily check out this claim of mine and I hope you do try to do so.
No one knows where the number 6 million holocaust victims came from...except the propaganda either. You can read about technical difficulties concerning the story of gassing slave laborers in Nazi concentration camps ("Work Makes You Free!"). I am stating what I have concluded is true, based on either a fair am ount or at least some significant reading about this in past years. I have no ideological dog in this or any other issue. Why would I? I oppose fascist German policies like I oppose communist Soviet policies...and of course, I disapprove of slave labor and racialism-collectivism.
When Hitler marched to the east, as I remember it, he intended to free Germans forced into Poland and Czekoslovakia by the Treaty of Versailles. The captive people of those regions applauded Nazi troops as they marched along roads and streets. This was because they were routinely systematically abused, tortured, murdered and raped by their owners in thoser E. European nation states.
Britain threw down the gauntlet over Hitler's move into those countries and declared war. Backed and actively encouraged by the US.
HItler was not a thoughtful wise leader, he was an anti-capitalist ideologue embittered by his and others suffering in WWI. In Mein Kampf, he described his intention of moving toward the vast regions of the Soviet Un tion for living room. Was this approp[riate and good? No, war is the most vicious program. But Germany posed no threat to the USA or western Europe. It was after Britain and France declared war and made to move against the German army that the Blitzkreiog over W Europe happened. At Dunkirk, Hitler let the trapped 500,00 or so French and B British escape with their lives. He didn't have to; they were trapped. He wanted peace with Britain which he admired for some reason.
The Japanese fascists of course brutally raped Nanking...that was very bad. But is the USA supposed to act as the world's policeman, endlessly engaging in war with whomever the political elites declare to be bad? They sacrifice the freedom and lives of their own when they so engage.
Anyway, I'm arguing for respect for facts and individual rights, respect most primarily for reason and proof. I hope you do look into some of these claims Turfseer.
Rider, your post isn’t about facts, reason, or individual liberty—it’s about laundering Holocaust denial through smug, pseudo-rational talking points. And yes, you did hit a nerve—because willful stupidity wrapped in condescension deserves to be called out.
Let’s start with your “just stating facts” trick: Churchill, Eisenhower, and de Gaulle didn’t mention the Holocaust in their memoirs, therefore it must not have happened? That’s your smoking gun? You’re confusing memoirs—personal political reflections—with exhaustive war crime documentation. These were not forensic histories. Meanwhile, the Holocaust is documented in thousands of Nazi records, military archives, survivor testimonies, photographs, and even the Nazis’ own confessions at Nuremberg. But no mention in a politician’s memoir means it didn’t happen? That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual laziness with a veneer of sophistication.
And spare me your “I’m not antisemitic” performance. You parrot every boilerplate line from Holocaust denial 101—casting doubt on the death toll, insinuating the gas chambers weren’t technically feasible, and calling it all “propaganda.” Hitler would be rolling in his grave if he heard you claim he wasn’t an antisemite—because he was proudly and vocally one, as early as 1919. The man wrote that Jews were the destroyers of civilization and had to be removed from Europe. He gave speech after speech blaming Jews for Germany’s woes, and he created the legal machinery to turn that hate into genocide. You can read it in Mein Kampf, if you’re not too busy misquoting it.
As for your saintly image of Hitler just wanting to rescue poor Germans in Poland? What fantasy novel are you reading? Hitler invaded Poland under a false flag operation after years of building a militarized, racist state that openly announced its intention to seize land and exterminate “undesirable” populations. That was not some rescue mission—it was premeditated conquest soaked in blood. And no, Hitler didn’t "let the British escape at Dunkirk" out of kindness—he was regrouping. He later flattened London with bombs. So much for admiration.
And please don’t pretend you're above ideology. Your entire comment is steeped in it—it just happens to be the kind that likes to reframe fascists as misunderstood victims and Allied soldiers as dupes of propaganda.
You claim to be defending “reason and proof”? Here’s a proof: you’re defending a worldview that selectively erases atrocities, decontextualizes war, and downplays genocide. That’s not reasonable. That’s disgraceful.
So no, Rider, we’re not in a philosophical salon discussing abstract truths over tea. You’re peddling historical garbage, and I’m not going to let it pass in silence.
Of course, to learn whether or not one has absorbed false history, one must investigate facts. There is no other pathway, which requires reading history that claims to debunk widely accepted history. This is like any other subject in dispute. Question and think to figure it out. I do not intend any sort of condescension. Good luck.
No, Rider—you’re not a victim here, and this isn’t about name-calling. It’s about calling out someone who stares straight at documented mass murder and pretends not to see it.
You don’t need to say you’re a Hitler sympathizer. The way you bend over backward to excuse, relativize, or “contextualize” what he did speaks volumes. You came into this thread pushing classic Holocaust denial talking points, wrapped in polite rhetoric and faux objectivity. When challenged, you retreat with a pouty “Bye” as if your role in spreading dangerous disinformation is no big deal.
So yes—when a man stares genocide in the face and shrugs, we have a word for that. And history will remember who looked away.
Thank you for your work here. Am 60, but when I was in my teens, I knew of two people who had personally met Hitler, neither fit the typical refugee of the times. The first was a woman who had circulated in the upper edges of German society then, and recollected her times at those lavish balls they used to throw early on. In particular, she recalled eating dinner with him at at least one of those events. I was not in a position to question her in detail, but I gathered that she was an American there that dated an higher up SS officer. She was about my age then, so most likely long gone, I did not keep up with her.
The second lady was one of my neighbors during my growing years. She was a native German who survived those years as a teen and eventually came to the US after the war. She had a loving, supportive family, which she needed, as she suffered from infrequent but persistent mental breakdowns for which she would check herself into a mental health institution for a few weeks at a time. Her husband told my family that she had been taken up into a winter work camp that used human labor to keep railroad lines running. One of the times that she was forced, along with the other laborers, to stand at attention all day in the bitter cold, Hitler came through on an inspection, and shook all of their hands.
These two wildly varying experiences have underlined my understanding of those years and, as well, despite the years and geographical distance, brought me closer to those times than is comfortable. As well, I do keep reading, so that I can at least have a better understanding of those times. And I remain very grateful that my dad failed out of the draft (enlarged heart and flat feet); otherwise I might not be here today.
Thank you, Maureen, for sharing those stories—what a remarkable, unsettling proximity to such a dark chapter of history. The two women you describe, so different in background and experience, really underscore how complex and layered those years were. I’m especially struck by your neighbor’s trauma and how it followed her for decades. That personal aftermath often tells us more about the true nature of a regime than any official narrative.
It’s valuable to preserve and reflect on these lived memories, but as you said, it’s just as important to keep reading, keep learning. Because alongside the individual stories, we also have to confront the full historical record—what was done, who gave the orders, and how entire systems were built around cruelty and terror. Personal recollections can deepen our empathy, but they shouldn't obscure the bigger picture.
Your father’s health disqualifying him from service may have saved him from a brutal war—and it clearly gave you the space to become a thoughtful observer of history. Thanks again for engaging in this conversation with such openness.
I have not, if I recall correctly, read Irving's books, but probably articles taken from his writing on Unz.org. Maybe I can get around to it eventually. But I have read, over decades, a fair amount of history elated to WWII and can say I'm (basically) with Irving.
First, regardless of what the German Nazis did or did not do--and here propaganda churned out by court historians rules the West--there is just versus unjust war making. The only just war to be waged by governments is purely defensive, just as force used by individuals against others must be defensive. FDR wanted to join the war against Germany even though Germany had done nothing to the USA. He sought to and succeeded in provoking desperate Japanese fascists into attacking Pearl Harbor, which was NOT a surprise attack to FDR and his cabal, who knew the attack was coming. They plotted the course on a wall board of the Japanese flotilla as it steamed across the Pacific toward Hawaii. If you believe I am deluded or making this up, read Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit which relied on hundreds of FOIA releases, redacted still today but pieced together, proving the above and much more.
The Japanese had repeatedly offered to FDR or his ambassador or his secretaty of state to withdraw from China and cede its territorial conquests in that region. These entreaties were ignored, because FDR wanted war.
FDR sent emissariess to France inveighing them to go to war with Germany, promising (against the law) future American involvement in the war, on two or maybe three occassions. He and Churchill plotted their joint war crusade against Germany, in secret, without Congressional authority or newspaper reports. Churchill was a permanent war lover; FDR sought war to ease his political embarrassment over the failure of his fascist (coercive takeover of private enterprise decisions by the state) New Deal. Meanwhile, in the background, Americans were consistently opposed to involvement in Europe's war by huge margins--85% agaainst, maybe 10% for.
FDR taunted and provoked Hitler to attack US ships transporting arms to France and England, hoping for an attaack on the atlantic. Germany refused to take the bait, even though transporting arms to its belligerants was an act of war. FDRs freezing of Japanese assets and blockade of oil imports to Japan years before Pearl Harbor weree acts of war. The Americaan admiral Richardson in charge of the Pacific fleet met FDR in the White House and demanded that he remove the Pacific fleet from Hawaii, where it was vulnerable to attack by Japan. FDR refused and after the election fired Richardson. This is not make believe or leftwing history. It is historical fact. Read William Henry Chamberlain's America's Second Crusade.
The Holecast is anti-German pro Zionist propaganda. I have read, more than once, that 2 million died of typhus in Nazi slave labor compounds. The death by gassing was not possible and has been refuted-falsified numerous times, in depth and detail.
Good luck Turfseer, you've swallowed a false history that feels good, but is not. My suggestion is, just go read the historians you dislike, including the two I tossed out. If I recall right, David Irving was a famous British historian ruined and defamed by the US foreign policy cabal. Now I'm motivated to buy his books and actually read them.
Rider, my "friend"—you’ve managed to cram a masterclass in denial, historical cherry-picking, and victim-flipping into a single post. Bravo. If there were a medal for mental gymnastics, you'd be on the podium.
Let’s start with the obvious: David Irving is not a misunderstood historian punished by the “foreign policy cabal.” He’s a professional obfuscator who’s made a career out of airbrushing the Nazis and winking at Holocaust denial while draping himself in the martyr’s robe of “persecuted truth-teller.” The reason he was “ruined” is because he was caught fabricating sources and lost a libel case so thoroughly that the judge called him an anti-Semitic liar who deliberately misrepresented historical evidence. But hey, if that’s your kind of historian, I can’t stop you from stocking your bookshelf with toxic waste.
Now let’s take a closer look at what Irving and his defenders like to leave out. You want to talk about wartime atrocities? Great. Where is your outrage over the Rape of Nanking? Hundreds of thousands of civilians raped, butchered, and buried alive by the Imperial Japanese Army—children bayoneted for sport, women eviscerated in the street. That was happening while your supposedly peace-seeking Japanese leaders were “offering” to withdraw from China, which they’d turned into a charnel house. But sure, let’s pretend the oil embargo was the real crime.
And as for Germany—I’ve personally known people who barely made it out of Nazi Germany alive, their lives upended by the systematic stripping of rights, livelihoods, and basic human dignity. Long before the gas chambers, there were book burnings, beatings, boycotts, and purges. “Defensive war”? The Nazis weren’t defending—they were dreaming up blueprints for racial purification and Lebensraum while marching eastward over a pile of corpses. Spare me the idea that Hitler was some reluctant participant who just wanted to be left alone.
You mention “court historians” as if all of modern scholarship is a Zionist conspiracy. That’s not edgy contrarianism—it’s just lazy. If the only way you can stomach Irving’s version of events is by dismissing the entirety of mainstream historical research as propaganda, then you’re not seeking truth—you’re seeking emotional reassurance wrapped in faux-intellectual rebellion.
Also, let’s not forget this line: “The Holecast is anti-German pro-Zionist propaganda.” First, it’s the Holocaust—try spelling it correctly if you're going to deny it. Second, that statement makes your position crystal clear: you're not here for history, you're here to recycle the same anti-Semitic tropes that have been polluting the discourse for decades. You’re not critiquing excesses in war—you’re resurrecting Nazi apologism with a polite libertarian face.
You want to read Irving? Knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to pretend that’s scholarship. It’s not. It’s propaganda with footnotes.
Wow...Holy Mackeral. Did I hit a hysterical nerve. You misunderstand me. I'm not antisemitic, nor anti American Indian, nor anti Hispanic women, nor anti. I am pro-individual freedom, individual natural, pro reason. Pro facts grounded in reality and...proof. I have no other agenda, not even suppressed and subconscious. I want to know and defend truth, especially challenging these days.
Here is a fact I am guessing you may not know, Turfseer. It's not a fact with "Throw this at that b--tard Turfseer to bring...him...down" inscribed on it. It's just something that is true. In the memoirs of Churchill, Eisenhour and Charles De Gaulle...in other words in the historical accounts of the experiences of the three leaders of the West in much of which concerned events leading up to and through and after WWII...the following observation applies to each memoir. None of these political leaders made any mention of the Holocaust, nor of gassing of "6 million" Jews, gypsies etc. You can easily check out this claim of mine and I hope you do try to do so.
No one knows where the number 6 million holocaust victims came from...except the propaganda either. You can read about technical difficulties concerning the story of gassing slave laborers in Nazi concentration camps ("Work Makes You Free!"). I am stating what I have concluded is true, based on either a fair am ount or at least some significant reading about this in past years. I have no ideological dog in this or any other issue. Why would I? I oppose fascist German policies like I oppose communist Soviet policies...and of course, I disapprove of slave labor and racialism-collectivism.
When Hitler marched to the east, as I remember it, he intended to free Germans forced into Poland and Czekoslovakia by the Treaty of Versailles. The captive people of those regions applauded Nazi troops as they marched along roads and streets. This was because they were routinely systematically abused, tortured, murdered and raped by their owners in thoser E. European nation states.
Britain threw down the gauntlet over Hitler's move into those countries and declared war. Backed and actively encouraged by the US.
HItler was not a thoughtful wise leader, he was an anti-capitalist ideologue embittered by his and others suffering in WWI. In Mein Kampf, he described his intention of moving toward the vast regions of the Soviet Un tion for living room. Was this approp[riate and good? No, war is the most vicious program. But Germany posed no threat to the USA or western Europe. It was after Britain and France declared war and made to move against the German army that the Blitzkreiog over W Europe happened. At Dunkirk, Hitler let the trapped 500,00 or so French and B British escape with their lives. He didn't have to; they were trapped. He wanted peace with Britain which he admired for some reason.
The Japanese fascists of course brutally raped Nanking...that was very bad. But is the USA supposed to act as the world's policeman, endlessly engaging in war with whomever the political elites declare to be bad? They sacrifice the freedom and lives of their own when they so engage.
Anyway, I'm arguing for respect for facts and individual rights, respect most primarily for reason and proof. I hope you do look into some of these claims Turfseer.
Rider, your post isn’t about facts, reason, or individual liberty—it’s about laundering Holocaust denial through smug, pseudo-rational talking points. And yes, you did hit a nerve—because willful stupidity wrapped in condescension deserves to be called out.
Let’s start with your “just stating facts” trick: Churchill, Eisenhower, and de Gaulle didn’t mention the Holocaust in their memoirs, therefore it must not have happened? That’s your smoking gun? You’re confusing memoirs—personal political reflections—with exhaustive war crime documentation. These were not forensic histories. Meanwhile, the Holocaust is documented in thousands of Nazi records, military archives, survivor testimonies, photographs, and even the Nazis’ own confessions at Nuremberg. But no mention in a politician’s memoir means it didn’t happen? That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual laziness with a veneer of sophistication.
And spare me your “I’m not antisemitic” performance. You parrot every boilerplate line from Holocaust denial 101—casting doubt on the death toll, insinuating the gas chambers weren’t technically feasible, and calling it all “propaganda.” Hitler would be rolling in his grave if he heard you claim he wasn’t an antisemite—because he was proudly and vocally one, as early as 1919. The man wrote that Jews were the destroyers of civilization and had to be removed from Europe. He gave speech after speech blaming Jews for Germany’s woes, and he created the legal machinery to turn that hate into genocide. You can read it in Mein Kampf, if you’re not too busy misquoting it.
As for your saintly image of Hitler just wanting to rescue poor Germans in Poland? What fantasy novel are you reading? Hitler invaded Poland under a false flag operation after years of building a militarized, racist state that openly announced its intention to seize land and exterminate “undesirable” populations. That was not some rescue mission—it was premeditated conquest soaked in blood. And no, Hitler didn’t "let the British escape at Dunkirk" out of kindness—he was regrouping. He later flattened London with bombs. So much for admiration.
And please don’t pretend you're above ideology. Your entire comment is steeped in it—it just happens to be the kind that likes to reframe fascists as misunderstood victims and Allied soldiers as dupes of propaganda.
You claim to be defending “reason and proof”? Here’s a proof: you’re defending a worldview that selectively erases atrocities, decontextualizes war, and downplays genocide. That’s not reasonable. That’s disgraceful.
So no, Rider, we’re not in a philosophical salon discussing abstract truths over tea. You’re peddling historical garbage, and I’m not going to let it pass in silence.
OK I'm a Hitler sympathizer, an antisemite, stupid, etc. Wise commentary by U,
bye
Of course, to learn whether or not one has absorbed false history, one must investigate facts. There is no other pathway, which requires reading history that claims to debunk widely accepted history. This is like any other subject in dispute. Question and think to figure it out. I do not intend any sort of condescension. Good luck.
No, Rider—you’re not a victim here, and this isn’t about name-calling. It’s about calling out someone who stares straight at documented mass murder and pretends not to see it.
You don’t need to say you’re a Hitler sympathizer. The way you bend over backward to excuse, relativize, or “contextualize” what he did speaks volumes. You came into this thread pushing classic Holocaust denial talking points, wrapped in polite rhetoric and faux objectivity. When challenged, you retreat with a pouty “Bye” as if your role in spreading dangerous disinformation is no big deal.
So yes—when a man stares genocide in the face and shrugs, we have a word for that. And history will remember who looked away.
Not unz.org, but Unzreview.com and William Henry Chamberlin, not Chamberlain.