Comment on [deleted]

• nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If you want to discuss, I am pretty certain that the point being made was:

  The right-wing push to add Allied leaders to the list of “villains” is to make the perception of the leadership of Nazi Germany relatively less “bad” and more palatable. Further, the wording and historical revisionism of labeling Churchill (who was a dickhead, TBF) as “the Real Villain” is to go beyond that and make the Nazis, who were literally bent on world domination and genocide of all groups deemed “undsireable” by their leadership into the “Heros” of WWII.

  This is a part of attempts to obliterate any cultural values that are not “nazis/fascists are/were the good guys and democracy is dated”. Such efforts are heavily financed by openly fascist billionaires, like Peter Thiel, as well as the current President of the US who has been known to both be a pedophile and keep a book of Hitler’s speeches on his bedside stand.

  Such views are also much easier to adopt when thinking in moral absolutist terms.

  source

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    So basically this whole article is a propaganda piece (for the most part, as we all know Churchill was a dick) and the user that first responded to me is just feeding into it? Because when you look at WW2, aside from the beginning footsies by the USSR and Nazi Germany, its pretty cut and dry who was terrorizing the world.

    source

    • nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I appear to agree with your take.

      the user that first responded to me is just feeding into it?

      I don’t know if that was their intent. I read it as them pointing at the difference in verbiage between “a villain” and “the Real villain” but not expounding upon it. I may be mistaken though.

      source