How much did they write about the the atrocities committed against the Dutch, the Greeks, or the Romanians? Well, then it must never have happened. Churchill didn't write about the mass starvation of the Greeks, therefore it didn't happen. Roosevelt certainly didn't write about the US massacre of soldiers in Sicily, so that didn't happen either. Or, they were politicians writing books and were focusing things that would best fit on their preferred narrative. This is as opposed to the German generals who tended to claim, "bro, I totally didn't have any part in that I swear", rather than "what killings, we were good boys who didn't do nuffin".
This assumes that it's even true that they wrote nothing about the Holocaust. Roosevelt was dead before the war ended, and it's debatable what level of information he had about it, or if he believed it. The fact that you're asking me what Roosevelt thought about the Holocaust, is a representation of the level of ignorance I was just talking about.
Meanwhile, the US military set-up specialized units to deal with concentration camps because American soldiers were committing reprisal killings once they saw the conditions of the concentration camps; and surrendering Nazi units were cutting deals with the Americans to either hide what the camps were, or to claim that they weren't affiliated with them, as they surrendered, so they weren't put up on war-crimes charges. The Night & Fog video comes from the work just after the war: 1946, 47 and so on. That's not decades later.
You think it’s like a big gotcha that you can pick apart each specific piece of evidence by itself without context of all the other evidence.
And you seem to love to put words in peoples mouths about what they believe.
A year or two ago I was on here doing pretty much exactly what you’re doing. All I can say is to keep an open mind and once you start looking at piece after piece of evidence, if you are being objective then it’s impossible not to start to question their narrative. And yes, you can not believe their narrative while also believing that millions of Jews died in camps. The two are not mutually exclusive
I've been here longer than you, and all I've learned is that I actually hate NatSocs more than I thought I did because
A) They are Socialists above all other things
B) They'd be fine killing white people because hopefully it could kill a single jews
C) They're more dedicated to jew hatred than helping white people
D) They almost exclusively have the sole purpose of destroying the dissident right.
You don't have evidence. That's whole fucking point. This isn't about "narrative", you don't have evidence to support your narrative. You have ignorance. A proud ignorance, about something the Useful Idiots among you think didn't happen; and the activists among you would love to replicate because they know it happened and it's a good thing to them. That's the whole point. Your job, as a Useful Idiot to Socialists, is to accept the bullshit they throw at you until you say "It didn't happen but it should have". Then, you can be welcomed among your fellow activists when you figure out that the "it didn't happen" is a lie meant to recruit people into your overton window of: "It happened and it's a good thing"
Look, your Socialists aren't the first ones to do this. The Commies do it with the Holodomor, and the Pro-Palestinians do it with October 7th. The Progressives do it with Aaron Danielson.
If you were being objective about evidence, you wouldn't even entertain the claim.
And yes, you can not believe their narrative while also believing that millions of Jews died in camps.
"It's all just dysentery, bro! Name one Nazi that ever wanted to kill a jew, I dare you!"
How much did they write about the the atrocities committed against the Dutch, the Greeks, or the Romanians? Well, then it must never have happened. Churchill didn't write about the mass starvation of the Greeks, therefore it didn't happen. Roosevelt certainly didn't write about the US massacre of soldiers in Sicily, so that didn't happen either. Or, they were politicians writing books and were focusing things that would best fit on their preferred narrative. This is as opposed to the German generals who tended to claim, "bro, I totally didn't have any part in that I swear", rather than "what killings, we were good boys who didn't do nuffin".
This assumes that it's even true that they wrote nothing about the Holocaust. Roosevelt was dead before the war ended, and it's debatable what level of information he had about it, or if he believed it. The fact that you're asking me what Roosevelt thought about the Holocaust, is a representation of the level of ignorance I was just talking about.
Meanwhile, the US military set-up specialized units to deal with concentration camps because American soldiers were committing reprisal killings once they saw the conditions of the concentration camps; and surrendering Nazi units were cutting deals with the Americans to either hide what the camps were, or to claim that they weren't affiliated with them, as they surrendered, so they weren't put up on war-crimes charges. The Night & Fog video comes from the work just after the war: 1946, 47 and so on. That's not decades later.
Sorry, I meant Truman not Roosevelt.
You think it’s like a big gotcha that you can pick apart each specific piece of evidence by itself without context of all the other evidence.
And you seem to love to put words in peoples mouths about what they believe.
A year or two ago I was on here doing pretty much exactly what you’re doing. All I can say is to keep an open mind and once you start looking at piece after piece of evidence, if you are being objective then it’s impossible not to start to question their narrative. And yes, you can not believe their narrative while also believing that millions of Jews died in camps. The two are not mutually exclusive
I've been here longer than you, and all I've learned is that I actually hate NatSocs more than I thought I did because
You don't have evidence. That's whole fucking point. This isn't about "narrative", you don't have evidence to support your narrative. You have ignorance. A proud ignorance, about something the Useful Idiots among you think didn't happen; and the activists among you would love to replicate because they know it happened and it's a good thing to them. That's the whole point. Your job, as a Useful Idiot to Socialists, is to accept the bullshit they throw at you until you say "It didn't happen but it should have". Then, you can be welcomed among your fellow activists when you figure out that the "it didn't happen" is a lie meant to recruit people into your overton window of: "It happened and it's a good thing"
Look, your Socialists aren't the first ones to do this. The Commies do it with the Holodomor, and the Pro-Palestinians do it with October 7th. The Progressives do it with Aaron Danielson.
If you were being objective about evidence, you wouldn't even entertain the claim.
"It's all just dysentery, bro! Name one Nazi that ever wanted to kill a jew, I dare you!"