no, like, really, this is kind of serious.

the only part of the holocaust that i can see that is being denied right now is the systematic slaughter of three million ethnic poles, for the crime of speaking the wrong language, and perhaps of having distant ancestors in central asia.

three million dead ethnic poles was not the same percentage of dead poles as jews, but the genocide was no less actual, it was just a little bit slower. the jews were merely the first on the list. and, the poles were most definitely second on the list.

what the narrative is doing is denying the slavic extermination policy, and replacing it with an american concept of critical race theory, which suggests that the slavs had a choice to collaborate or not. but, this is the denial of actual history.

the nazis are thought to have killed between 20-25% of the population of eastern europe, and i think this is widely understood, but it's maybe less understood that these people were not casualties, not collateral damage, but intentionally targeted.

why did hitler invade russia?

c'mon. don't look it up. do you know the answer to this question: why did hitler invade russia? you should.

the answer was to exterminate the slavs, so the region could be repopulated with germans. so, the germans didn't invade carefully with the intent of building on the existing civilization. they destroyed everything: farmlands, cities, infrastructure. when the germans got to ukraine, the first thing they did was burn the crops, so that the ukrainians would starve to death, and the germans could build their pseudo-historical gothic settlements in the crimea (which were in truth never more than pirate bases, to raid the greek settlements from). and, they did starve to death. in large numbers. the german occupation of ukraine was one of the most brutal occupations of the war, with a full on genocide of the ukrainians set in motion...

it's mind-boggling, to me, that this could be a narrative, that we could seriously bring up the question of polish collaboration with the nazis. but, like i say, this is rooted in the problem i've been pointing out for years: crt is not a universal truth, and this is what happens when you try to generalize - you turn victims into oppressors, because they are white, and you don't understand.

...which is racist, yes.

this is the exact point that people are wrong about: they think in their mind that the poles had a choice to collaborate or not. this is obvious to them because the poles are white, and therefore in some way the same as the germans. once you establish that the poles had a choice, they can then be criticized for making the wrong choice.

but, the poles had no choice. the nazis had declared them inferior from the start; the extermination of the slavs was at the very crux of what nazism was. like jews, poles had their backgrounds checked for racial impurities and were rounded up by the secret police and put in work camps, mostly due to the help of ethnic germans, who were given positions of power over the inferior poles when they signed up to be a part of the volk. they were worked to exhaustion, and then cremated in the death camps.

if you want to talk about polish death camps, you should use the term in the same way that you use jewish death camps.

can we make sure we don't forget that the poles were the second largest victim of the holocaust, and might have been the largest (in fact, were the largest if you consider all the jews that died to also be poles) if the war had carried on a little longer?

yeeesh.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.