/lit/ - Literature

>>11385382
Please, continue.

>>11276604
>Retard
No - this is solid. The reality is that there are few true villains. Mostly what we see as villains are just the protagonists on the other team. The man that wreaks destruction on your people is a believable character when he is revealed to be working towards providing for his own people - your destruction being only a necessary sidenote. Remember also that "villain" is derived from "villein". The perception of the evil nature of the subject in question is founded in the fact that he lies outside of your group. Pic somewhat related.

>>11214048
/lit/ is not one person. Personally, my position on it is one of a skeptic. I wasn't there, I didn't experience it. It's also clear that there are motives behind both sides making their claims, one side to make the bad guys look better, the other side to make the bad guys look worse; considering the nature of WW2 as a war fought with religious fervor and eschatological implications, it's understandable that the battle in its wake has been over the competing narratives in order to convince others of the "good" and "bad" sides for the next war.
I will say that I don't think there's a need to deny the ‘Holocaust’ any more than one needs to deny that Daleks fought in WWII; as with all historical events, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. However, the question I would ask is why there are no laws requiring people to believe that Daleks fought in WWII. If an event occurs (or is assumed to have occurred), then questioning of it should always lead to more evidence about its existence, if it did happen. There's no reason to limit discussion about historical events which definitively occurred (other than for propagandistic purposes, which should not be considered valid from a historian's standpoint.)
There are interesting points made by the revisionists that I don't think can be completely ignored. Towards the end of WWII, many people in Germany were dying of starvation and simple illnesses due to lack of food and medicines. If this affected soldiers and civilians, why would it not affect concentration camp prisoners? And if one accepts that it did indeed affect concentration camp prisoners, why then seek a more convoluted explanation for their deaths? Who benefits?

>>11166988
>if your life is going well you won't have a reason to change a political system
incredible insight anon

>>11124043
>"If the Jew did not exist, the anti‐Semite would invent him"
This is like saying that I would shit in my own milk if no one shit in it for me isn't it? I do not need a foil. I just want to be left alone.