I had the typical "Hollywoodian" understanding of WW2 in my younger years. As time went by, I learned that it wasn't that simple after all: Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to happen, there was no need to drop the A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Winston Churchill wasn't such a pristine wartime leader, but actually quite the opposite, etc. (In a way, Churchill "pleaded guilty" when he [allegedly] said that "history is written by the victors".)
My knowledge was still somewhat cursory, so thanks for posting the article, it was an eye opener in its thoroughness.
I listened to the audio version while driving, and a lot of the points mentioned were news to me. For example, I was unfamiliar with Operation Pike and had no idea that after the war, the occupying Allied (US) forces orchestrated the death of million(s) of Germans due to starvation.
Also, when David Irving was mentioned, I remembered seeing him on the evening news back in the nineties and how he was being portrayed as a madman for "denying" the Holocaust. In the snippet shown, people actually spat on him, and there was almost a lynch mob mentality occurring. Apparently it was a smear campaign, arranged to discredit him for presenting a well-researched, differing point of view to the established WW2 history, particularly how the holocaust went down.
I got the impression from the article that the scope and extent of the holocaust narrative has been exaggerated. In reality, it seems to have happened on a smaller scale.
A personal anecdote: I suppose Auschwitz was one of the places where it took place. I visited the camp in 2005 and in my experience, I had this feeling of "uneasiness" and "heaviness" while there. I guess when something bad and negative happens in a location, it can leave its mark and an imprint.
Last edited: