> You don't have to agree with Neo-Nazi propaganda to acknowledge that what we are taught about WWII and Weimar Germany in school, isn't the truth either.

Go on then.

Say what you mean.

> As if Neo-Nazis were and are the only people capable of authoring propaganda

Of course they aren't. But that's no argument for distributing it.

I deleted and rewrote my comment above, but since you decided to go through this effort I will offer my reply:

> Not something I ever said or implied.

No but you said there was only a single reason to agree with "Neo-Nazi" propaganda as if agreeing with any propaganda is rational. There's a reason it's called propaganda after all. It's not like there weren't deplorable crimes being committed by the Soviets / US / France / Britain and they certainly had their fair share of propaganda during WWI and WWII depicting Germans as barbarians / sub-human / etc...

> I find it interesting who just happens to know who else is Jewish, and then feels the need to interject that into utterly irrelevant contexts.

How is the owner of the second largest publisher of textbooks in the US, and the fact that he served in a Zionist intelligence organization in the US, irrelevant when it comes to what people learn about WWII and propaganda? Please explain.

> No, I'm pretty sure a lot of losers have been able to have their sides heard. It's just that, well, people lose for a reason, and losers tend to be less popular among normal people. Ranting about subhumans can do that, you know.

I've already addressed this above.

> I would be interested to know who exactly you call a Bolshevik, but I did get taught the history of the USSR in school, at least, and "One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich" is not a ringing endorsement.

Are you disputing the well-recorded fact that tens of millions of innocents were killed by the Bolsheviks over the span of about 40 years? Why don't we learn about the Holodomor in the US in grade school? I don't need to explain who the Bolsheviks were - anyone who doesn't already know, can perform a basic internet search to figure that out.

> However, nobody was talking about Bolsheviks until you decided to use them as a distraction.

A distraction? How is me pointing out that history isn't objective and that there are two sides to every story, yet we only learn about one, a distraction? It's highly relevant to the conversation and the GP's post.

> I didn't need the public education system to teach me to hate genocidal racists, thank you.

I never said you did - but if it were me, I'd want to make sure I considered both sides of a historical event before deciding which direction to aim my hatred, if I was into such endeavors. I personally believe that war is a racket, and that there are no good guys in evil and corrupt wars (WWII was definitely one of those, same with WWI). I'm also not naive enough to believe that there wasn't atrocious behavior on both sides of either war. Nor am I going to label anyone who has the gall to question the prevailing narrative or say it is incorrect in some capacity, a Neo-Nazi.