Now if Hitler, or one of his generals, said that the Poles didn't attack after all, what would you think of that? Might you take it as an admission that the Nazis had lied?

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I concede that, if we live in your counterfactual reality where Hitler did the exact opposite of what he actually did, you'd have a point.

I know what you're trying to say but i think you're trying to stretch reality to fit your comparison instead of trying to make an accurate comparison around reality.

Maybe you should look for other real world examples that would fit your comparison better. I bet there are plenty of examples of nazis in nations fighting the nazis doing genocide denial during ww2 that you could find.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean I kinda thought of Hitler and him being a cake-eating vegetarian and then had to improvise afterwards. I did try to pedal back a bit and say "or one of his generals".

Oh and it wasn't just Nazis who denied the holocaust back then. There was an IIRC French historian I can't recall the name who went in there not believing such a thing possible, then saw concentration camps with his own eyes, and went on to compile a minimum number, with the intent that if you say a lower one, you're definitely denying because the number is unassailable, as a minimum (but probably higher. Most definitely probably higher, in fact). Threw out e.g. SS reports because they could be claimed to be fabricated to get a promotion and shit.

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, it's fucked up.

Also, thanks for engaging in good faith.