Horray, we are the point of “actually, a lot of people were as bad as Hitler”.
No, you dickwads. The man murdered 11 million people in 12 years outside of combat action, most of them within the last 5 years of his terror. Thats not counting any of the victims of the war itself: You know, 900.00 People starving in Leningrad alone and so forth.
Thats why he is vilified.
Dont know why this reflex to downplay his atrocities is always there.
Oh and i have plenty of hate for the other fucks on that list. And Stalin. And Mao. And Pol Pot. And Idi Amin. And Netanyahu. And Kissinger. Because some people actually managed to dislike genocide as a concept and not just when it hits the people who look like them.
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.
And every single one is due to Hitler? The Japanese men fighting American men was Hitler’s micromanagement?
No one is saying Hitler was less evil, we’re saying “No one cares about these people’s murder because it wasn’t to the normalized default of white people.”
Did you read the article? Does it say that every one of those is due to Hitler? Did I say that? Do you have the most basic reading comprehension that is required to function as a human being? The answer to all these questions is the same.
It’s not that people don’t care because the victims aren’t white. They don’t care as much because to an american/European audience the deaths are less geopolitically relevant.
Millions die in Africa? Ok, how does that impact the US at all, apart from immigration? Meanwhile Pol Pot and Mao Zedong are household names because there is a clear geopolitical connection which kept those people in the news and history books.
Horray, we are the point of “actually, a lot of people were as bad as Hitler”.
No, you dickwads. The man murdered 11 million people in 12 years outside of combat action, most of them within the last 5 years of his terror. Thats not counting any of the victims of the war itself: You know, 900.00 People starving in Leningrad alone and so forth. Thats why he is vilified.
Dont know why this reflex to downplay his atrocities is always there.
Oh and i have plenty of hate for the other fucks on that list. And Stalin. And Mao. And Pol Pot. And Idi Amin. And Netanyahu. And Kissinger. Because some people actually managed to dislike genocide as a concept and not just when it hits the people who look like them.
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.
Who here is downplaying any atrocities?
Anyone who implies that all these people with astronomically lower body counts than Hitler are just as bad as him, like OOP.
Leopold was responsible for 1.5 to 13 million deaths. And a slave trade that effected many many more lives than that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
And every single one is due to Hitler? The Japanese men fighting American men was Hitler’s micromanagement?
No one is saying Hitler was less evil, we’re saying “No one cares about these people’s murder because it wasn’t to the normalized default of white people.”
Did you read the article? Does it say that every one of those is due to Hitler? Did I say that? Do you have the most basic reading comprehension that is required to function as a human being? The answer to all these questions is the same.
It’s not that people don’t care because the victims aren’t white. They don’t care as much because to an american/European audience the deaths are less geopolitically relevant.
Millions die in Africa? Ok, how does that impact the US at all, apart from immigration? Meanwhile Pol Pot and Mao Zedong are household names because there is a clear geopolitical connection which kept those people in the news and history books.
So?
White people hardly mention Leopold at all.
Also he lost the war