Dont know why this reflex to downplay his atrocities is always there.
i don’t think that’s the thrust of the OP? they aren’t saying, “hey, c’mon mate, hitler wasn’t all that bad!”
they’re saying a lot of men did evil deeds, but only one of them is called out for it and their conjecture for why the others escaped scorn and scrutiny is because the skins of their victims had additional levels of pigmentation.
personally, as an indian, more of my countryfolk were killed by churchill than by hitler, but i still don’t see the austrian psycopath as a good person; i still don’t see him as better than churchill. all it means is that i have enough hatred in my heart for them both. and for the others of their kind.
yes, hitler may be the worst of them all by orders of magnitude, but that doesn’t mean the others are saints – and that’s the narrative which shouldn’t be lost.
i don’t think that’s the thrust of the OP? they aren’t saying, “hey, c’mon mate, hitler wasn’t all that bad!”
they’re saying a lot of men did evil deeds, but only one of them is called out for it and their conjecture for why the others escaped scorn and scrutiny is because the skins of their victims had additional levels of pigmentation.
personally, as an indian, more of my countryfolk were killed by churchill than by hitler, but i still don’t see the austrian psycopath as a good person; i still don’t see him as better than churchill. all it means is that i have enough hatred in my heart for them both. and for the others of their kind.
yes, hitler may be the worst of them all by orders of magnitude, but that doesn’t mean the others are saints – and that’s the narrative which shouldn’t be lost.