S.Peelman said:
Hitler didn't only kill Jews though. It's debatable, but you could attribute all World War II deaths directly to Hitler, which would be at least 60m (in six years, that's one hell of a score). These would include military, other minorities, and collateral casualties. I'm not saying he has more on his plate then the other 'big ones', but just to put it out there that his numbers cannot be solely based on Jewish casualties. |
That's oversimplificating it and feels more than obvious to me that any historian buying into it is looking for a cheap way out - the more than stereotyped, defenseless nazi figure, unlike the allies or the communists with their apologists like ther late Hobsbawn. Otherwise you could say Wilhelm II killed 10 million and Hirohito some 20 million.
Remember, the winners tell history as they fit. England declared war against Germany on both world wars and specially in the first you could say they wanted to deliberately curb german hegemony in the continent. I don't remember it ever being accused of a war of aggression. For instance in the most bloody conflict of them all, Germany and the USSR would be at each others throat's very soon anyways... the way Stalin handled east Europe after the war should be more than proof of his intentions.
