Imagine doing this to your kid
(i.imgur.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
The official narrative just lists motive of nazi seems to be only aryan supremacy, when there were other factors in Germany such as they had to dig out of the debt hole by themselves as a result of loss from ww2. Why are there all kinds of races found in their ranks? Why are they so reluctant to say anything more concrete about Weimar republic? Why is it so hard to find any info about aforementioned subject? Big tech seem to censor them that you can only find the info about it in more obscure sites.
Not to mention I've been finding out how leftists love distorting their history for their own convenience. Given all these evidences, they try to sweep other side of the story under the rug several times, then wouldn't it be natural to be curious what else did they make it as an official narrative? I know one thing, watergate also seemed to have more to the story than it is officially known. And then there's this video that explains how the narrative was constructed for the masses to swallow. Then no shit, I would believe there's more to the story than just the nazi is evil official narrative.
Like I said, where are you getting this 'official narrative'?
?
This is cited to an unbelievable in every history book that I have read. Incorrectly, by the way, because (1) the debt provisions were abrogated in the early 1930s.
"Nazis" were a diverse bunch with a diverse bunch of motives. For Hitler, the war was about creating more living space for the expansion of Germans.
Who are 'they'? What are the 'concrete' things?
Maybe you should not be getting your information from 'sites', obscure or not.
You just keep repeating 'official narrative' without specifying what narrative is supposed to be the official one, and what makes it 'official'.
And you don't question it if the information is accurate, it could be exaggerated, after all victors write the history.
The historians that were responsible for the WW2 narrative. the concrete info I"m looking for is both sides of the story. We always get what the germans did were bad, we don't get the german side of the story.
Textbook history. Why would most people believe nazi are evil? Click on the links I gave you. I gave you the evidence why I don't trust the history I learned from textbooks, if you don't read them, there's no point discussing further.
And from my anecdote, I have a korean ancestry, I know from personal experience why you never believe only one side of the story. You have no idea how overly they vilify Japan even in children's book. Not saying Japan is saint, but you know maybe stop exaggerating shit and put their own construed narratives in books for children. I find it unforgivable when your government brainwashes children to keep the disputes ongoing. That's what Korea does, creating next generation of anti japan koreans that still rage at imperial flags. I find the pettiness frankly despicable, and I react towards that pettiness some people display with pure disgust. That is all. I don't really believe what the westerners say in general when there's heavy left wing bias in most media, even fox news isn't enough to tip it to the centre.
Historians write history. And this is often from the perspective of the people who have lost wars.
And who are they? What specifically have they said that you think is incorrect?
Again, where are you getting this idea? What work of history are you referring to that just says "what the Germans did was bad" while not presenting their side.
No serious work of history says anything of the sort. You can read books of close to 1000 pages without anything but an occasional hint that the author disapproves of Nazi atrocities.
Which textbooks? School textbooks are notoriously bad and inaccurate on many different fronts. That is because they are derivative and not written by actual specialists.
You get your history from Youtube videos? No wonder you are confused.
Neither of your links had anything to do with World War II.
Ah, this then makes sense.
I agree that exaggerations are bad. But it is historians who have done a lot to combat exaggerations. Something like the 'Gestapo' has a very sinister reputation, and rightly so, but actual scholarship shows that it was nowhere near what it has been reputed to be.
Not believing Westerners is an excellent strategy, since most of the nonsense in the modern world comes from the West.
But these illustrate the point if mainstream media can lie about so many things in the current time, what makes you think historians in the past couldn't? As I explained, if I cannot believe the historians from my own country, I wouldn't believe the textbooks in the west that explained why the nazis are bad.
Ahh, there's your problem...