As a matter of fact, they do. E.g. Richard Evans wrote in his book 'The Hitler Conspiracies' that one of the reasons that it is unlikely that Hitler fled and managed to survive was unlikely, was because he was a "war hero" (approvingly cited).
But this remains limited to professional historians. If you repeat that, then you will be called a Nazi. Another example is where the French Jewish possible presidential candidate Eric Zemmour argued that Philippe Petain, the hero of World War I, did his best to save Jews who were French citizens while sacrificing those who were immigrants. This is not controversial among historians, as far as I know, but it makes Zemmour yet another Jewish Nazi in the eyes of the lying media (and the Jewish pressure groups).
As a matter of fact, they do. E.g. Richard Evans wrote in his book 'The Hitler Conspiracies' that one of the reasons that it is unlikely that Hitler fled and managed to survive was unlikely, was because he was a "war hero" (approvingly cited).
But this remains limited to professional historians. If you repeat that, then you will be called a Nazi. Another example is where the French Jewish possible presidential candidate Eric Zemmour argued that Philippe Petain, the hero of World War I, did his best to save Jews who were French citizens while sacrificing those who were immigrants. This is not controversial among historians, as far as I know, but it makes Zemmour yet another Jewish Nazi in the eyes of the lying media (and the Jewish pressure groups).
What's your justification for him over any of his contemporaries (Churchill, Mao, Roosevelt, Stalin, etc.)?