Have you considered that saying nukes are fake is a way to further legitimize the holohoax? Why question that narrative when we can just push the narrative off the deep end and say nukes are fake and WW2 never happened.
Its like you and I inspecting something on the ground and some weird guy with a large nose dumps a pile of dirt on it.
Going from nukes are a hoax to WW2 never happened is quite the significant leap. That's like saying if you drink a beer you're gonna start smoking meth. Nukes are pretty irrelevant for the WW2 narrative. They're relevant for the post-war order.
Have you considered that saying nukes are fake is a way to further legitimize the holohoax? Why question that narrative when we can just push the narrative off the deep end and say nukes are fake and WW2 never happened.
Its like you and I inspecting something on the ground and some weird guy with a large nose dumps a pile of dirt on it.
Going from nukes are a hoax to WW2 never happened is quite the significant leap. That's like saying if you drink a beer you're gonna start smoking meth. Nukes are pretty irrelevant for the WW2 narrative. They're relevant for the post-war order.
I don't especially think so.
I think questioning any significant portion of the narrative of early twentieth century history lends itself to asking further questions.