SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
When the Buchenwald concentration camp was liberated by the United States, the first unit on the scene was the Psychological Warfare Division (PWD/SCHAEF), which according to Wikipedia was tasked with "psychological warfare against German troops and recently liberated countries in Northwest Europe, during and after D-Day."
The PWD headed the "investigation" of Buchenwald, and that special unit was mostly Jewish. The most infamous propaganda from the PWD "investigation" of Buchenwald was a video of a forced march of the civilians of Weimar through the Buchenwald concentration camp, where they were shown a table that they were told contained a lampshade made of human skin at the request of the wife of the SS commandant, Ilse Koch, as well as two shrunken heads.
The artifacts on the table became a huge story reported by American media, although the human skin lampshade and shrunken heads end up "lost" before they are tested for authenticity. At the trial of Ilse Koch, during which she was in late-stage pregnancy after being raped in American detention, there was a different lampshade presented which was tested and shown not to be made of human skin. Ultimately those charges were dropped by prosecutors but she was sentenced to life in prison.
Thomas Dodd, American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trial, took a series of photographs posing with one of the "shrunken heads" allegedly made by the Nazis at Buchenwald and displayed on the table during the forced tour of Weimar. Dodd created a sensation by presenting the shrunken head at the opening of the trial. But ultimately that artifact like the others were "lost" before they were tested for authenticity and have never been found. Of course Revisionists claim the Buchenwald human skin lampshade and shrunken heads were atrocity propaganda planted by PWD. Mainstream historians have mostly dropped the claim of human-skin lampshades and shrunken heads at Buchenwald but at the time they were major news stories in American media.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
There were zero extermination camps. There were concentration and labor camps and transit camps.
ALL of the alleged "Extermination Camps" were located in areas conquered by the Soviet Union.
In 1945 Allied propaganda claimed that all the concentration camps, particularly those in Germany itself were "death camps". The camps that initially figured most prominently were those in Germany such as Dachau, Belsen, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen... I'm sure most of us were shown horrific footage as children of the liberation of these camps, and it would have been those camps which had been liberated by the Western Allies.
But observers among the British and American occupation forces in Germany, while admitting that many inmates had died of disease and starvation in the last months of the war, had found no evidence at all of "gas chambers". So the eastern camps in the Russian zone of occupation like Auschwitz and Treblinka became the most prominent "Extermination camps" although Western observers were denied access to investigate those camps. All of the footage you would have been shown as a child are now acknowledged to have been concentration camps and not extermination camps.
Essentially, the "gas chamber" claim was alleged at the Western Camps but then disproven in every single camp the Western Allies investigated. Only in the camps where the Western Allies were denied access to investigate are those camps still alleged to have been "extermination camps."
Jews were concentrated into camps for the same reasons the Japanese were concentrated into camps in the United States.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
Of course not, I laid out the claims quite clearly that are being contested. Reprisals clearly qualify as "massacres" and they were utilized in response to partisan warfare. Although the practice of reprisals against civilians was legal at the time it still constitutes a massacre. I wouldn't qualify inmates in a concentration camp dying of Typhus as a massacre. I also don't think concentrating a Jew in a camp to conduct labor is particularly more evil than conscripting a German, giving him a rifle, and forcing him to march on Stalingrad and being shot as a deserter if he doesn't comply.
Really the sacredness of the Holocaust comes to those three claims I clearly contested in my earlier post, what you are doing seems like a Motte and Bailey. We've gone from claims of top-secret plans to exterminate world Jewry in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, but you are asking me "do you deny massacres happened?" No I don't, neither do Revisionists.
I would estimate the higher range of Revisionist estimates, around 2 million. This wouldn't entail any Jews who may have died under Stalin during or after the war. None of those 2 million were murdered inside homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. They died mostly of disease like epidemic typhus, especially near the end of the war when the German infrastructure was collapsing from being bombed on all sides. The catastrophic wartime conditions led to a very high death toll in the concentration camps near the end of the war, and those images of the catastrophic conditions are those used most frequently to "sell" the idea to i.e. young students that the Germans had an official, secret policy to gas all the jews inside shower rooms.
Keep in mind that according to the official historical position there were no Jews killed by Stalin. Every single Jew who died in WWII, even if they were a partisan or part of the Red Army, or died under the custody of Stalin during or after the war, all are counted as Holocaust victims. It is not known how many Jews, especially those masses who were deported or evacuated deeper into the Soviet Union ahead of the German advance, died.
When it comes to more specific claims- such as concrete claims regarding the number of Jews killed in a certain time in a certain place, Auschwitz for example, the Revisionist position aligns with the prima facie camp records and top-secret decodes. It may surprise you to know that Britain had intercepted and decoded top-secret communications from Auschwitz to SS Command, including during the height of the Holocaust. Those intercepted decodes pertaining to top-secret communication contained detailed statistics regarding the number of prisoner arrivals, departures, and deaths and contained no reference whatsoever to any alleged extermination operation of millions of people.
The communications do show urgency regarding a high death toll caused by epidemic typhus, with SS command ordering the death toll to be reduced in order to maintain a productive workforce which was crucial for the war effort. The mainstream has no explanation whatsoever why these decodes would elide any reference, even in "innuendo form", to the ongoing alleged extermination program.
The concern over a high death rate caused by typhus led to the increased deliveries and consumption of Zyklon B which, according to camp records, were successful in reducing the rate of registered deaths. Zyklon B was important for delousing clothing and furniture to prevent the spread of Typhus. Of course the official narrative is that the insecticide Zyklon B was the murder weapon used to murder over a million Jews inside gas chambers that had been disguised as shower rooms.
This is to say, when it comes to specific questions over the numbers of deaths in a place like Auschwitz or Majdanek, the Revisionist position is based on official camp records which registered the number and cause of death of inmates, whereas the mainstream claims that the extermination operation was top-secret and so the people murdered were not registered at the camp and their deaths were never recorded, and they were all cremated so their remains can never be recovered... so they don't exist in camp records and the remains don't exist in any known location...
Essentially the Revisionist position says the camp records and top-secret decodes are accurate statistics of inmate deaths, and the mainstream position says that the camp records are not accurate because they do not include the million unregistered inmates secretly murdered inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.
From the Auschwitz Museum:
This data base uses the partially preserved Death Books (Sterbebücher) of Auschwitz Concentration Camp prisoners. The 46 volumes of political department (camp Gestapo) record the deaths of almost 69,000 prisoners who were registered in the camp and who died between July 29, 1941 and December 31, 1943. Their names have been entered in the data base.
When using the data base, please remember that the death certificates cover only registered prisoners who died in the period mentioned in the previous paragraph. The overwhelming majority of victims, mostly Jewish, perished in the gas chambers immediately after arrival, without being entered in the camp records, and without their deaths being noted in the German documents.
...
An analysis of the “denomination” item shows that the majority of the registered prisoners in the Death Books were Roman Catholic (31814 persons - 46,8%) and Jewish (“Mosaic”) (29125 persons - 42,8%). Others belonged to the following denominations: Greek Orthodox (3,6%), Evangelical-Lutheran (3,4%), and Greek Catholic (1,6%). This item is left blank on 1,275 (1,9%) death certificates.
The mainstream position is that the inmates did not exist in camp records, and their deaths did not exist in camp records, and the murder operation that killed them did not exist in camp records, and the murder operation was not referenced at all whatsoever in top-secret decodes, and the remains of those undocumented million inmates secretly killed inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms with Zyklon B are nowhere to be found.... the Revisionists say that these records are reliable.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
No Jews were killed in any gas chambers that had been disguised as shower rooms. They didn't exist. It was one of two salacious rumors about shower rooms. One of those rumors was that the bars of soap given to the inmates were manufactured from the fat of murdered Jews. And the other rumor was that some of these shower rooms were fake shower rooms that were actually gas chambers in disguise.
Both of those rumors survived in the public consciousness long after the end of the war. In some cases bars of soap were given Jewish burial rites by some Synagogues. But now it is admitted that claim was never true. The other salacious shower-room rumor is still claimed to have been true.
The claims made by Holocaust Revisionists are:
- There was no German policy/Hitler order to exterminate all the Jews as claimed.
- There were no gas chambers disguised as shower rooms used to execute millions of people on the pretext of taking a shower.
- The "Six Million" figure is a symbolic propaganda figure with no relation to the actual number of Jews killed in WWII.
The first point has essentially been conceded by the mainstream. Given that no such order has never been found, the prevailing theory focuses on "gradual radicalization" and mind-reading of lower-level officers "reading between the lines" and inferring what they were supposed to do without any written orders by their superiors. Yes it's as ridiculous as it sounds but given the lack of documentary evidence that's what they are stuck with. The reality is that there is no single historical consensus on that point because Revisionists are correct and they are wrong.
The mainstream is extremely defensive of the Gas Chamber story- if they conceded that the entire Holocaust narrative would unravel at the seams. But Revisionists have nonetheless proven their case at Majdanek and forced the mainstream to Revise the status of 5 out of 7 of the originally claimed "gas chambers disguised as shower rooms." So there's precedent for Revisionists making the falsifiable claim - "Hey you said this was a secret gas chamber used to kill Jews for decades but it was no such thing" and they were proven right.
The question of how many Jews died in WWII is a highly open question. Even mainstream historians like Gerald Reitlinger have put the figure as low as 4.2 million. Raul Hilberg himself put the figure at 5.1 million, well short of the vaunted "6 million." Revisionists vary significantly as well, estimates range from probably 300,000 to 2.5 million.
The Revisionist case hinges most notably on actually falsifiable claims at specific camps, such as the Revisionist claim it is false that 800,000 Jews were murdered, buried, unburied, cremated, and reburied at Treblinka. The mainstream could forever disprove Revisionism in the course of 48 hours if they wanted to by excavating these alleged mass graves, the location of which are precisely known. But excavation is strictly forbidden, echoing the exact same arguments currently being employed by the Tribe rejecting calls for excavation of the alleged Children's mass grave at the Kamloops Indian school. Not a single mass grave of the alleged 800,000 victims has been excavated on that site.
The 4 million death toll was maintained by the Auschwitz Museum for decades. They literally had to go out and swap one memorial stone for a different one with a lower number. That is a Revision. Holocaust Historians are wildly variable in how many Jews they say were killed at various camps.
Deborah Lipstadt, our current United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and mainstream historian, claimed that 1.2 million Jews were killed at Majdanek. The downward Revision of Majdanek from 2 million (the figure initially claimed by the Majdanek Museum) to 70,000 in the year 2003 is another case of a Revisionist victory that even flew in the face of claims made by mainstream historians like Lipstadt, and vindicated the findings of Holocaust Revisionists upon conducting their own archival research of the camp.
This was the Soviet claim, and it was not accepted by other historians.
It was etched into stone at the Auschwitz Museum for decades. It was the number of victims claimed at the Nuremberg Trials. It is a downward Revision of millions of deaths at that camp- of course Holocaust Revisionists maintain Auschwitz needs to be revised downward much lower even still. But Holocaust Revisionists, mathematically, can't revise the Auschwitz death-toll any more downward than mainstream Historians already have. The point being Revisionism is necessary and that has been proven in many cases like that one, and is necessary still in similar cases of wildly inflated death tolls at several other camps.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
I think it's a little myopic. Millennials and Gen Z don't tune into CNN. If millions of them are talking about something on the most public and widely used platforms for news and political discussion it's becoming mainstream. I'm not saying it's mainstream yet because it isn't. But it is heading in that direction and has a bigger reach than it ever has before by far. But even if CNN doesn't touch it, and it goes ever more viral on X and being talked about by the likes of Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, that is mainstream as far as I'm concerned.
The age in which CNN dictates what is mainstream by what it covers and how it covers it is so over.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
So why did Taylor "not come out the winner?" This is like saying in the fierce academic debate between the Protestant Darwinists and the Boasian Anthropologists, the Darwinists did not come out the winner. Yes that's true but that's not because they were wrong. It's because their academic opponents, deeply motivated by their own political ideologies and identities, employed systematically authoritarian tactics in the Academy to suppress their opposition and entrench their own perspective as undisputable fact.
Taylor "did not come out the winner" foremost because the Holocaust Narrative, which also essentially began in the 1960s, provided a strong motive and moral impetus for rejecting any sort of Revisionist treatment of WWII. The Holocaust narrative is the reason WWII Revisionism has been delayed for so long.
The problem though is that in the age of internet and podcasts, you can get expert-amateurs who exist outside the Academic Cartel that fiercely controls consensus. Combined with high reach like Joe Rogan and the Revisionism can influence public perception and discredit the expert apparatus that has carefully excised it for so long.
Holocaust Denial is receiving the most engagement at this moment than it ever has since it was formulated in the 1970s. By far. Yes it is going mainstream too.
Some of the keystone claims of the Holocaust narrative are plainly absurd and will be Revised as well. Many already have been Revised. It was claimed 4 million were killed in Auschwitz until the 1990s, when the death toll dropped to 1.1 million. It was claimed 2 million were killed in Majdanek at the Nuremberg Trial and the most recent estimates by the Majdanek Museum estimate the death toll from all prisoners from all causes was about 70,000. It was claimed 5 million Gentiles were killed in the Holocaust, but that has been Revised and acknowledged to have been a deceptive lie. The Holocaust has already been revised a lot and it has a long way to go.
One of the most infamous claims, that the Nazis manufactured bars of soap out of the fat of Jewish Holocaust victims, was Revised not too long ago and admitted to not have been true. The other salacious claim involving shower rooms stands today but it won't for that much longer. Holocaust Revisionism has entailed a steady stream of victories but it hasn't penetrated the public consciousness although it is clearly beginning to do so now.
I think I've solved the mystery of why the right never makes much headway with Jewish voters.
It's because the Right doesn't kowtow to Jews enough right? BTW here's Senator Rick Scott discussing Daylight Saving Time in a brief video, he would probably make more headway with Jewish voters if he made the Israeli flag in his office bigger.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
Is this the turning point for WW2 revisionism entering the mainstream?
Yes, and it's overdue. The immediate aftermath of WWI also entailed an entirely false, one-sided War Guilt narrative that was Revised by historians after tensions cooled in the decades following the war. This has never happened for WW2, the one-sided narrative today, the narrative written by the victors, is essentially the exact same it was in 1945.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
Someone on YouTube took a more pure RL approach a few years back, and it failed suuuuuper hilariously badly (in beautifully hilarious ways). Claude has definitely done better, and that's pretty legit, given that the core of it was trained to be an LLM, not to play video games.
Funnily enough according to the github repo, that RL approach also gets to Cerulean City, the same point as the LLM.
Contrary to OP's interpretation, I find very significant that LLMs are competing with SOTA Reinforcement Learning on a control task like this and an indicator that we are on the precipice of AGI. Having done RL it's super difficult to do well and for it to be stable on a complex task (or even an ostensibly simple task...). The author of that RL project you mentioned spent years on it and dedicated thousands of hours of training time and hand-tailoring reward functions to complete this one task.
I find it incredible that one day soon it may be possible to just create an RL environment and use an LLM to solve it rather than traditional RL methods. AGI is here when we reach that point IMO. LLMs still seem limited by not correctly calibrating the exploration/exploitation tradeoff which is a pitfall of RL as well.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
Both relate anti-authoritarianism to anti-nativism. Do you think Popper would support the political system allowing a racialist movement a public platform, to organize and achieve political power? He clearly wouldn't, the idea that the Paradox of Intolerance means he would be on the side of the political rights of the racialists against antifa is absurd. Antifa has a better reading of it than you do. Not to say he would necessarily support BLM riots or whatever. But he is motivated to suppress racialism just like Adorno.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
The Authoritarian Personality is not at all far from Popper, it also relates anti-authoritarianism to anti-nativism and proposes those emotions as threatening.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
It's pretty clear that racialism falls ideologically under "intolerant" according to Popper, and certainly according to the prevailing political understanding.
Popper's writing certainly suggests he would support suppressing racialism in order to preserve tolerance.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
Popper's analysis was centered on critique of exclusionary racialism, motivated by Nazism. He considered that to be intolerant. He is supporting outlawing that perspective as Intolerant.
The idea he would be on the side of racial nationalists for having a right to free speech, and against European hate speech laws, is not at all supported by the text.
And what is Popper supposed to do about that?
What Popper is doing is pathologizing criticism of the outgroup, except for his own outgroup. This has been the bedrock of post-WWII moral consensus. It's the foundation of Critical Theory and the study of The Authoritarian Personality.
The syllogism is foundational to Critical Theory: racism and antisemitism is a psychopathology with no rational basis (note this is not proven, it's just taken as an unassailable assumption). So any engagement in that behavior is ipso facto irrational. So if you criminalize "irrational intolerance" you are criminalizing racism and anti-semitism. Although Popper suggests the risk of violence from "intolerance" he is unequivocally advocating for criminalizing "incitement of intolerance." He says this directly, he's not saying to only criminalize intolerance if it's physically violent.
It directly follows from Popper and Critical Theory that Gentiles criticizing Jewish culture and morality is a psychopathology and intolerant, whereas Jews criticizing Gentile culture and morality is rational and preaching tolerance.
"We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law." Those are his words.
SecureSignals
6mo ago
Yes, and leftists accuse people like me (and others on the DR) of doing that all the time. It's easy to just accuse your opponent of "not being prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument." You are just avoiding this part of the quote, which is the most unambiguous part:
We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
"Incitement to tolerance" is exactly European-style hate speech laws.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
This is clearly an advocacy for European-style hate speech laws. No doubt my speech should be considered "incitement to intolerance" and criminal according to Karl Popper. I'll add here that Popper is Jewish, so there's an ethnic, self-serving undercurrent to his demand for criminalizing incitement to intolerance. Of course a foreigner going to a foreign land is going to demand the people who live in that country are tolerant of people like him. He doesn't have their best interests at heart.
I would agree it's ambiguous if Popper would support antifa, although Popper himself engaged in street violence as a Marxist in Vienna in 1919. Preaches Marxism in Austria, then immigrates to Britain and preaches the Open Society. Many such cases.
A mutual defense pact that was motivated in large part by Britian's long-standing policy (since the 1600s) of "containing" any continental power they felt was getting too big/powerful too quickly.
Ok then be honest about who started WWII. Britain did because they apparently had a "long-standing policy" of destroying Europe and handing half of it to the Soviet Union before allowing Germany to become too powerful- and I guess Danzig is the tipping point on that question??? No, a pretext. Britain was already engaging in diplomacy due to the unreasonable terms of the Treaty of Versailles- which caused Germany's conflict with Poland in the first place, and then Britain took an unpredictable turn of "no negotiations, only unconditional surrender" even after Germany offered eminently reasonable terms for peace.
You keep citing "Britain's policy since the 1600s" but you emphasize this argument in defense of the mainstream view that Germany started WWII? Total nonsense. It was British aggression that caused WWII, their insistence that the balance of power in Europe remained according to their own wishes, they could and should have accepted peace especially after Germany conquered France and Dunkirk, and offered to evacuate from essentially everywhere except for Poland in exchange for peace... even offering a guarantee on the British colonies. Churchill refused any negotiation, you can't place primary responsibility on the party that offered reasonable terms for peace rather than the side that rejected all negotiation on a murderous demand for unconditional surrender.
If Germany declared war on Britain instead of the other way around, Churchill offered the deal to Hitler that Hitler offered to Churchill, and instead it was Hitler that demanded nothing short of unconditional surrender from Britain with a policy of no negotiations, you would surely point to that as evidence of German warmongering. But the prevailing narrative is in pure contradiction with reality.
Patton, arguably the greatest WWII General, was relieved of command for stating publicly that America had been fighting the wrong enemy- Germany instead of Russia. It isn't as absurd as we all believe it to be, given the historical and cultural context that has influenced us. It's more ambiguous than mainstream history would have us believe. Stage left- "gas chambers where millions were tricked into their own execution on the pretext of taking a shower." That helps remove the ambiguity, although the problem is that it isn't true either.
It is a Revisionist position, because nobody says "WWII was started because the British wanted to stop Germany from getting too powerful, even though Germany did not want war with Britain." But that's the truth. The official position is that Germany wanted and intentionally started war with Britain and France, proving that in international "court" was one of the primary purposes of the Nuremberg Trial even though it fell flat on that front, the mountains of documents and testimony proved that it was not planned for or expected or desired. Nothing forced the British to wage a war of unconditional surrender on Germany. Citing "long-standing policy" is wrong as the policy position of "appeasement" did not fail, what failed was shifting from 0-100, appeasement to "no negotiations ever, only unconditional surrender after we destroy Europe." That was nonsensical and unpredictable, Germany did not expect it and it was an unpredictable departure from British policy to catastrophic consequences.
The Treaty of Versailles failed because it was an unenforceable attempt to forever keep Germany weak. They had no choice but to negotiate, what people call "appeasement" was the correct solution to the quagmire. The British were going to, what declare war on Germany because they mobilized within their own territory? Ok, so you send in the French and they back down. Then the French leave and they do it again... It was never going to work as a long-term steady state.
SecureSignals
7mo ago
Don't know why johnfabian alludes to "vague offers", Hitler offered to evacuate from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway in exchange for Britain's neutrality in the war against the Soviet Union. This was after Hitler conquered France and after Dunkirk, so when he was in his strongest bargaining position. Churchill rejected the offer.
SecureSignals
7mo ago
The idea that the war was justified because contemporary articles compared Hitler to Napoleon is just absurd, as absurd as all the contemporary articles you can point to which endlessly compare X with Hitler to justify some war, whether it's Ukraine (with both Zelensky and Putin invoking Hitler to justify the war effort on the other) or Iraq or Iran. Britain lost its Empire, Europe was destroyed, tens of millions dead, half of Europe gifted to the Soviet Union including Poland.... oh but contemporary articles said it had to be done because of Napoleon, right.
The Holocaust Narrative was not dominant in the 1960s, I said that was when the Holocaust Narrative essentially began in its current form. Yes Origins hardly touches the topic and doesn't mention gas chambers at all. It doesn't really do you any favors though to point out that the Holocaust narrative as such really emerged decades after the war in full form. Usually a historical event is most salient in the public consciousness in the immediate aftermath of the event and fades over time. It's the complete opposite with the Holocaust, in which it was basically ignored for decades and didn't peak in the public consciousness until the 1990s at the earliest, although I would argue it is at its peak right now.
Origins doesn't touch the Holocaust, neither does Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe or Churchill's Second World War totaling 4,448 pages, neither does de Gaulle's three volume Mémoires de guerre, none of them mention gas chambers a single time or anything resembling the prevailing Holocaust narrative. It's a very stark omission, which the mainstream explains away as- they just didn't care enough about Jews enough to mention it.
The fact that WWII Revisionism emerged before the Holocaust narrative in its current form proliferated, and then has been fanatically suppressed ever since the Holocaust narrative has become the holy center of western mythology points to a relationship between the two.
How many various Israeli memorandum have been produced with various proposals and plans in the past 2 years? The mainstream relies on an extremely illogical overemphasis on memos like that. A non-reviewed memo written from memory by an attendee 5 days after a single meeting 1937- how likely is that to be a realistic blueprint ground-truth plan for geopolitical policy in 1940? Various memos have been leaked from the Israeli camp with plans for Gaza, it would be like picking a memo from a single meeting and saying the Israelis absolutely plan to do this 3 years from now. The situation changes, the idea that memo sinks the Revisionist case for WWII is wishful thinking.
The mainstream constantly ignores these kinds of rhetoric and memos coming from Israeli leaders, but then treats a memo from a single meeting in 1937 as a be-all-end-all plan. The memo also validates that Germany did not want war with Great Britain and France, which would validate an important Revisionist position.
This is true but they still ban Holocaust Revisionism, at least on places like Axis History Forum. It's understandable, they don't want their intellectual curiosity in the Axis powers conflated with antisemitism so they police their own community vigorously on that question as far as I can tell. But outside the military forums any sort of Revisionist treatment of the Axis powers or WWII is scandalizing, as you can see from the various reactions of WWII Revisionism being platformed on Tucker Carlson and soon to be on Joe Rogan. Sure the military history community will ponder a question like "What if Britain had remained neutral in the German-Soviet war?" but the powers that be will be apoplectic to hear that question platformed seriously on Rogan.
More options
Context Copy link