this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
85 points (100.0% liked)
Wikipedia
4106 readers
130 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What the fuck are you talking about and who the fuck is upvoting you? I feel like you're just making up bullshit to cause controversy.
Who is it who is saying Poland did the holocaust? What's the name of even one of these people?
Neither of those statements have even the slightest bit to do with downplaying Germany being responsible for the holocaust.
It's like tumblr reading comprehension. Poles during the WW2 era were antisemitic and they often assisted with the holocaust. That part's true. The part where you jumped from there to "and so the Germans didn't do the holocaust" is the whole new sentence part.
I'm not planning to be polite to you while you are talking total nonsense. If this is something you actually believe, why do you believe it? Who in Israel or Germany ever said that the Poles "did" the holocaust while the Germans had more of a following-orders role in it?
Read "Maus" by Art Spiegelman. I'm not pinning anyone's war crimes on anyone. I'm stating a fact. The fact that you extrapolated it out into a bunch of wild bullshit I never said isn't my problem.
It's interesting, I have heard this exact phrasing before from people with a very particular axe to grind. I asked for details and it turned out there were none, just a whole lot of the sort of deflection you just did a bunch of in your message.
(I do understand that reacting to this kind of thing with hostility sort of feeds a narrative "oh God people are arguing again and being hostile" which sort of overshadows and diffuses the factual content... probably that was part of the point of the original comment, to instigate that kind of hostile argument instead of a more factual conversation about the original article. But honestly, it is hard for me not to do. I'm just getting sick of a very particular type of bullshit infesting this network that I like.)
I don't want to engage that other guy, as it reeks of bad faith, but could you share your thoughts about the supposed underlying agenda? In PM if this is too inflammatory. Kinda curious why this sort of narrative exists.
I think that the purpose is to spread very particular narratives.
This person has now pivoted to making an accusation that "Nazi nepo babies" are running Germany, implying that no one with any good conscience can support the German government because they're doing outlandish things like trying to blame Poland for the holocaust.
I mentioned the framing of "Nazi nepo babies" as something I've seen before. Before I saw that, and the pivot into criticism of the current German government, I had no idea what the actual agenda was, I just read it as bullshit for an unknown reason. Now I am halfway confident that it is someone who doesn't want ordinary European citizens to support the current German government. The use of an easy catch-phrase that can sum up the criticism in an easily remembered and repeated framing (a framing which obviously isn't true; I think Angela Merkel was also supposed to be a Nazi nepo baby the last time I saw this) is one of the tells that it isn't just someone who is confused, but someone who is deliberately spreading disinformation.
Some other examples I've seen of this kind of catchy framing for whatever bad-faith criticism included saying that voting for Democrats in the US election means someone had to "fall in line" with them, or that they wouldn't "co-sign a genocide" by voting for Democrats. "Blue MAGA" is another, another is that Justin Trudeau is "arrogant" and "narcissistic." You never see this kind of catch-phrase criticism leveled at Le Pen or Alice Weidel. The snide little jingles are always constructed for the most left-most and democracy-supporting politicians, and you see them pop up on social media from time to time, always from people whose general factual arguments don't have a lot of connection to reality but who are super sure of themselves and extremely aggressive that anyone who disagrees with them is a "Westoid" and victim of propaganda and lying on purpose and smells bad.
Ah, I see! Thank you very much for expanding. Clears up the picture nicely.