Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Double Standards in WWII Historiography

Introduction 

In his most memorable work, The Origins of the Second World War, famous British historian A.J.P. Taylor said this:

‘People regard Hitler as wicked; and then find proofs of his wickedness in evidence which they would not use against others. Why do they apply this double standard? Only because they assume Hitler’s wickedness in the first place.’

This permeates all of my research and thoughts on history. History always seems to revolve around the Hitlerian Axis: 'Hitler was evil', 'Hitler killed millions of people', 'Hitler started WWII', 'Hitler wanted to take over the world', 'Hitler wanted a blond and blue-eyed master race', etc. How many of these accusations are true? We may never know - the postwar Allied Propaganda Machine has been running smoothly and efficiently for over eighty years with no sign of stopping, lest the Balance of Power be disturbed again. 

A.J.P. Taylor


Reader, I'm going to try and... level the playing field, so to speak. Why, you ask? Well, it's simple: History is filled with double standards, especially when it comes to Hitler. Everything Hitler was accused of doing were things done by the Allies on a much broader, lengthier, and bloodier scale, before, during, and long after WWII. In this blog article, I'm gonna explain some important psychological terms and give several examples to illustrate my point.
 

Important Terms


Double Standard

Wikipedia (I'll be using Wikipedia throughout this entire blog's website) defines the double standard as such: 

'A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same. It is often used to describe treatment whereby one group is given more latitude than another. A double standard arises when two or more people, groups, organizations, circumstances, or events are treated differently even though they should be treated the same way. A double standard "implies that two things which are the same are measured by different standards".

Applying different principles to similar situations may or may not indicate a double standard. To distinguish between the application of a double standard and a valid application of different standards toward circumstances that only appear to be the same, several factors must be examined. One is the sameness of those circumstances – what are the parallels between those circumstances, and in what ways do they differ? Another is the philosophy or belief system informing which principles should be applied to those circumstances. Different standards can be applied to situations that appear similar based on a qualifying truth or fact that, upon closer examination, renders those situations distinct (a physical reality or moral obligation, for example). However, if similar-looking situations have been treated according to different principles and there is no truth, fact or principle that distinguishes those situations, then a double standard has been applied.

If correctly identified, a double standard usually indicates the presence of hypocrisy, bias or unjust behaviors.'

How this relates to this discussion is based on what I stated earlier: every single crime Germany was accused of during WWII was also done by the Allies before, during, and long after WWII. The double standard is that only Germany received punishment and eternal demonization. The Allied Propaganda Machine is fully powered and well-oiled - it shows no sign of breaking down anytime soon. You will find thousands of movies, books, TV shows, video games, et al. depicting 'Nazi Germany' as the embodiment of evil, yet you will find very little pieces of media (if any) vilifying, say, Britain for the firebombing of Dresden, or the Bengal Famine, or the Bleiburg Repatriations.

 

Double standards today usually refer to the numerous discrepancies between men and women, but that's not the subject of this article. My point about double standards still stands, though, and I think this picture does a good job of conveying that point.

Historiography

Wikipedia: 
'Historiography is the study of the methods used by historians in developing history as an academic discipline. By extension, the term historiography is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic by using particular sources, techniques of research, and theoretical approaches to the interpretation of documentary sources.'
You'd be forgiven to boiling the definition of historiography down to the 'study of history.' Historiographers utilize many different methods to construct historical narratives. Historians like Leopold von Ranke modernized historiographical processes by including the citation of primary sources in his works. In conjunction with the aforementioned double standard, modern Allied historiographers have a monopoly on the way history is presented, and there is no room for dissent or deviation. They maintain the Allied Propaganda Machine unopposed and unmolested.
 

Leopold von Ranke

Confirmation Bias

Wikipedia: 
'Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, myside bias, or congeniality bias) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, emotionally charged issues and deeply entrenched beliefs.'

Confirmation bias is the order of the day for the Allied Propaganda Machine. They will plaster the piles of corpses at the various concentration camps in Germany (e,g. Bergen-Belsen) but omit the piles of corpses during the Soviet Famine or aforesaid Bengal Famine. These narratives weren't as important as the 'Holocaust,' so they were omitted in favor of 'evidence' which bolsters the orthodox narrative. You will find the use of the confirmation bias throughout the Allied historiographical process and across a wide variety of subjects concerning Hitler and WWII.

 

Does this seem familiar to you?

 

Psychological Projection

Wikipedia: 

'The American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology defines projection as follows:

[T]he process by which one attributes one’s own individual positive or negative characteristics, affects, and impulses to another person or group... often a defense mechanism in which unpleasant or unacceptable impulses, stressors, ideas, affects, or responsibilities are attributed to others. For example, the defense mechanism of projection enables a person conflicted over expressing anger to change “I hate them” to “They hate me.” Such defensive patterns are often used to justify prejudice or evade responsibility.'

The Allies have been using psychological projection onto Germany for over eighty years. If they admitted everything Hitler did (or allegedly did) was also done by them, the 'Good War' narrative would collapse. They'd no longer be the 'good guys' fighting the good fight against evil and tyranny. This also ties into the double standard and hypocrisy (more on that below). they claim to be righteous and good, but we all know that's a bunch of - for lack of a better word - bullshit.
 
 
Now imagine entire countries doing this.

Cognitive Dissonance

Wikipedia: 

'In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly or subconsciously hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions. Being confronted by situations that create this dissonance or highlight these inconsistencies motivates change in their cognitions or actions to reduce this dissonance, maybe by changing a belief, by explaining something away, or by taking actions that reduce perceived inconsistency.

Relevant items of cognition include peoples' actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance exists without outward sign, but surfaces through psychological stress when psychological discomfort is created due to persons participating in an action that creates conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors, or when new information challenges existing beliefs.

According to this theory, when an action or idea is psychologically inconsistent with the other, people automatically try to resolve the conflict, usually by reframing a side to make the combination congruent. Discomfort is triggered by beliefs clashing with new information or by having to conceptually resolve a matter that involves conflicting sides, whereby the individual tries to find a way to reconcile contradictions to reduce their discomfort.'

All the leading historians and historiographers suffer from this phenomenon in one way or another. They claim Hitler was evil and, say, wanted to clamp down on immigration, yet downplay or completely ignore the 'Rivers of Blood' speech from Enoch Powell. They associate National Socialism with Nazism (more on that later) and its xenophobia, yet Powell was not a National Socialist and was very xenophobic. These two contradictory ideas are just two of many which inhabit the minds of these people and drive them to generate fabrications about Hitler and WWII.
 
 
The worst part about it is you don't even know it's happening to you.

Hypocrisy

Wikipedia: 

'Hypocrisy is the practice of feigning what one is not or professing what one does not believe. The word "hypocrisy" entered the English language c. 1200 with the meaning "the sin of pretending to virtue or goodness". Today, "hypocrisy" often refers to advocating behaviors that one does not practice. However, the term can also refer to other forms of pretense, such as engaging in pious or moral behaviors out of a desire for praise rather than out of genuinely pious or moral motivations.

Definitions of hypocrisy vary. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles. According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold". American political journalist Michael Gerson says that political hypocrisy is "the conscious use of a mask to fool the public and gain political benefit".'

As mentioned in the 'Psychological Projection' section, hypocrisy and projection are intertwined when it comes to the Allies. The Allies touted messages of equality, tolerance, justice, etc. yet are tribalist, intolerant, and unjust - especially towards 'undesirables' (something seen as unique to National Socialist Germany!). The only reason why they get to claim the moral high ground is the fact they won WWII and get to write the history books.
 
Take the plank out of your eye, Allies.

Victor's Justice

Wikipedia: 

'Victor's justice is a pejorative term which is used in reference to a distorted application of justice to the defeated party by the victorious party after an armed conflict. Victor's justice generally involves the excessive or unjustified punishment of defeated parties and the light punishment of or clemency for offenses which have been committed by victors. Victors' justice can be used in reference to manifestations of a difference in rules which can amount to hypocrisy and revenge or retributive justice leading to injustice. Victors' justice may also refer to a misrepresentation of historical recording of the events and actions of the losing party throughout or preceding the conflict.'

Victor's Justice is the very essence of the Nuremberg Trials. Germany was charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, etc. yet none of the prosecuting countries have stood trial for their crimes - not during WWII or the colonial era. Every single country Hitler invaded was guilty of the crimes foisted on Germany at the end of WWII, yet none of them have been punished for them. I personally thought the newfangled terms 'genocide' and 'crime against humanity' were created to punish every perpetrator of such crimes, not exclusively Germany. My mistake.
 
 
Even Wikipedia admits it.

Carthaginian Peace

Wikipedia: 
'A Carthaginian peace is the imposition of a very brutal peace intended to permanently cripple the losing side. The term derives from the peace terms imposed on the Carthaginian Empire by the Roman Republic following the Punic Wars. After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies, was forced to demilitarize, paid a constant tribute to Rome and was barred from waging war without Rome's permission. At the end of the Third Punic War, the Romans systematically burned Carthage to the ground and created a brutal workplace for its people, attaching the territory'
This is an accurate description of the period of  'denazification'. Germany lost her acquired territory (again) and was split into four (then two, West and East Germany) parts until 1990. East Germany was particularly brutal, as Soviet Russia ruled with an iron fist. No international tribunal held any trials against the Soviet Union for her crimes during WWII, yet because they won they got a pass. No tribunals were held for any of the countries in Europe that possessed a colonial empire, either. As mentioned before - every single country Germany attacked during the war had colonial possessions (save for Yugoslavia).
 
You really should be blaming these four assholes for WWII, not Hitler.

Some Accusations Against Germany

Racism

This is one the two largest accusations against Germany (the other one being genocide) - how 'antisemitism' (facepalm) led to genocide and 'white superiority' led to war and conquest. We see the movies and video games displaying so-called WWII German contempt for ethnic minorities. We cite the Nuremberg Laws as proof of racism. I will wager most (if not all) of the major historians - Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans, Richard Overy, Gerhard Weinberg, Stephen Ambrose, and so many others neglect to mention the colonial period when they mention German racism during the Third Reich. 
 
Reader, are you familiar with the author known as Rudyard Kipling? Perhaps you've seen the animated Disney movie adapted from his book The Jungle Book? Kipling wrote a poem called The White Man's Burden. Let's take a look at the Wikipedia article concerning the poem:

"The White Man's Burden" (1899), by Rudyard Kipling, is a poem about the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) that exhorts the United States to assume colonial control of the Filipino people and their country.

In "The White Man's Burden", Kipling encouraged the American annexation and colonisation of the Philippine Islands, a Pacific Ocean archipelago purchased in the three-month Spanish–American War (1898). As a colonialist imperialist poet, Kipling exhorts the American reader and listener to take up the enterprise of empire yet warns about the personal costs faced, endured, and paid in building an empire; nonetheless, American colonists imperialists understood the phrase "the white man's burden" to justify colonial imperial conquest as a civilising mission that is ideologically related to the continental expansion philosophy of manifest destiny of the early 19th century. With a central motif of the poem being the superiority of white men, it has long been criticised as a racist poem.

You can read the poem here.
 
Kipling was British, and thus served as a mouthpiece for the British Empire. He, with this poem, served to help voice the racist sentiment shared by the West which caused colonialism to flourish. The White Man's Burden, The White Savior narrative, the Yellow Peril... all of these terms were created by the Allies, not Hitler. As a matter of fact The Nuremberg Laws were based on anti-miscegenation laws in the United States! And let's not even get into, for example, Jim Crow segregation in the US and the use of segregated units during the war by the Allies. Germany did not segregate their troops during the war and had the most ethnically and culturally diverse armed force in history with the Waffen-SS. 
 
The 'racism' of the Third Reich comes from figures like Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Göring, both of whom betrayed Hitler during the Fall of Berlin (it is also no surprise they are considered to be 'Nazis' who loyally carried out Hitler's policies during the National Socialist regime). Many historians omit Hitler's private anti-racist statements and the public racist statements of many Allied leaders (chief among them being Winston Churchill) and tout Mein Kampf as the 'bible' of National Socialism, when in reality it was nothing more than a political publicity stunt Hitler viewed with shame and regret.
 
I could spend hours and endless paragraphs talking about this, but I'd be here for days instead of keeping each section short and sweet. All in all, Reader, there must come a time where you must do your own research outside of 'peer-reviewed' material, for the peers doing the reviewing will just reinforce the 'Racist Hitler' myth, among others. I hope this blog post will point you in the right direction. 
 
 
The psychopaths who did this are the ones who will try to convince you Hitler was the bad guy.

Homophobia

This is another big one, though it's not talked about as much as the other stuff on this list. The orthodox narrative tells us Hitler was uniquely evil for his alleged persecution and mass murder of LGBT people in the Third Reich. In reality, most (if not all) Allied nations during WWII had anti-LGBT laws and persecuted their LGBT communities. Britain made homosexuality a crime for many years of her empire, and nearly every European state had anti-sodomy laws. America still forbids same-sex marriage in some states to this day! None of my school textbooks talked about how prevalent anti-sodomy laws were in the West, or how Germany's anti-sodomy laws originated in the German Empire, not the Third Reich. It's just another hypocritical double standard the Allied Propaganda Machine continues to promote.
 
Right-wing cunts like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Chaya Raichik will pull stunts like this and endlessly cite the 1933 Book Burnings/Destruction of the Berlin Sex Institute (of which there's no proof of Hitler's involvement) as proof of their 'moral superiority.'

Warmongering

The orthodox narrative paints Hitler as a warmonger - the instigator of the Second World War - yet no historians talk about the innumerable wars the various colonial empires instigated worldwide in order to subjugate native populations and seize their territory, or to assert their dominance and extend their influence. Britain, France, America, and Russia are all especially culpable in this regard. Moreover, Hitler was strongly opposed to a global conflict and tried to negotiate peace with the Allies on many occasions - all of which were rejected.
 
A far worse warmonger than Hitler could ever hope to be.

Genocide

(Sigh) Here we go... I know you've been waiting for this one. You know the story - 'The 'Nazis' killed six million Jews and millions of Slavs.' How many times has the Allied Propaganda Machine spat this drivel out at you? How many 'Holocaust' books, movies, TV shows, and references in other media have you seen in your lifetime? Thousands, I would guess. Lemme ask you something else: how many books/games/novels/etc. have you consumed that that about the 1930 Soviet Famine? Or the millions killed in the Congo Free State? Or the genocides of the Aztecs, Incans, and Taíno? How many pieces of material even exist in comparison to the Sacred Six Million that talk about how many hundreds of millions/billions the West has killed over the last five hundred years (and that's just humans - don't even get me started on animals/fish/insects/etc.)? The Allied Propaganda Machine props up the Sacred Six Million and places like Auschwitz and Treblinka as the supreme act of evil in the modern era, yet it has no time or reason to display the barbarity of the Allied countries who also committed genocide. Raphael Lemkin coined the term 'genocide' in response to the reports from the concentration camps. Germany was punished for her so-called crimes during the Nuremberg Trials. And to this very day, no other country with colonial possessions has been prosecuted for genocide the same way Germany was. Not a single one. This tells me the original purpose of the newfangled term 'genocide' was specifically designed to punish Germany, not to vanquish evil and tyranny. There's a United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Holocaust education is mandatory in several states. Where's the United States Manifest Destiny Memorial Museum? Where's the mandatory Manifest Destiny education? We learn about Manifest Destiny and all the lives it claimed, but nowhere near as prominent as the 'Holocaust' (and it wasn't mandatory). That's just complete fuckery. Jews do not automatically deserve special treatment (no ethnic group does). It is nothing more than selective condemnation of selective atrocities. Reader, let me tell you this: you either condemn all the nations during WWII, or you condemn none of them. One genocide should never be less important than another.
 
 
Everyone talks about Hitler's 'kill count', but no one even knows about this guy's kill count.

 

Eugenics

Here's a pervasive myth: Germany invented eugenics and were the only country to put it into Practice. In actuality, Britain invented eugenics and were the first to put it into practice. Naturally, the United States quickly followed suit. As a result of (and in tandem with) this, Britain, France, America, and many other countries passed anti-miscegenation laws and sterilized thousands of people perceived to be 'inferior' on a national scale. The Allied Propaganda Machine works well in this regard, sanitizing eugenics for only one side (the Allies) when it should be condemned on both sides.
 
The original eugenicist

Propaganda

This is an important topic. In this section we talk about the Allied Propaganda Machine and how it's been running since 1945. Propaganda is often portrayed as false or misleading, but the 'father' of modern propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, explicitly stated that in order to be truly effective, it must be true. He also condemned countries like Britain for generating false atrocity propaganda against Germany during WWI (which is where the 'Big Lie' quote comes from). To this day he is seen as a liar and producer of fake news when in reality he wasn't afraid to deliver hard truths. The Allied Propaganda Machine doesn't have to trouble itself with things like this, since its creators won the 'Good War' and thus get to decide what does and doesn't go into the history books. It's not just the fact 'history is written by the victors', it's not just about content, it's about context. The victors not only choose the content of the history books, but the way this content is presented to readers. They have the power to selectively omit elements of the historical narrative which do not align with their desired historiographical viewpoint. They have the power to present truthful accounts of past events with a false contextualization, as well as to generate a false conclusion from those events (or even a right conclusion for the wrong reasons!). If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you go read the book 1984 by George Orwell. There is a very famous quote from that book that applies here: 'He who controls the past controls the future; he who controls the present controls the past.'
 
Like everything else on this list, it's only OK if they do it.

Censorship

Censorship is the order of the day for the Allied Propaganda Machine. Allied historians will cite the 1933 book burnings in National Socialist Germany and the lists of books/art/music/etc. they banned, yet in America alone several state school district curate a list of banned books for their students. The Office of War Information during WWII wouldn't even report any losses or show the corpses of GIs in order to maintain a high morale. Reports from the OWI were heavily sanitized and often upbeat and optimistic, which decitfully contributed to the feeling of camaraderie among the ordinary citizens and the soldiers at the front. As with everythinng else discussed in this article, it is nothing more than a pervasive double standard.
 
1984 is on this list! LOL!

Mass Surveillance

It's well known the NSDAP conducted wiretapping on their citizens (an initiative of Göring, not Hitler or Goebbels). It's also well known the American NSA secretly conducted mass surveillance operations on its citizens thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden. It should also be noted in America alone companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon et al. collect and redistribute their users' personal data/information and release software with spyware. Hypocrisy at its finest. It was especially bad in the wake of the September 11 attacks (more on that later) - there was the Patriot Act and the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, among other things. All in all, The Allies (America in particular) need to stop pointing the finger at National Socialist Germany for using mass surveillance when they continue to do so to this day.
 
Our hero!

Police Brutality

Everyone knows about the Gestapo and their 'brutality', yet most people don't know the Allies use police brutality not on the entire population, but specifically on 'undesirables' (this makes them worse in my eyes - at least the Gestapo didn't discriminate). As a matter of trivia, the modern American (Jesus Christ, it's always America) law enforcement system emerged from the use of slave patrols in the Antebellum period. And I don't think I need to go into detail about the countless cases of 'white' police brutality against 'nonwhites', or how many 'nonwhites' are murdered by law enforcement officials for being 'nonwhite' or just minding their own business. Whenever a historian condemns National Socialist Germany as a 'police state' knowing the shit their own police get away with, it turns my stomach and boils my blood.
 
'Police brutality? Racism ended in the 1980s! What are you, an idiot?'

Use of Concentration Camps

We briefly talked about this in the 'Genocide' section, but yes, National Socialist Germany used concentration camps for its habitual criminals and political dissidents - the Allied Propaganda Machine calls her out for this. In contrast, the Allied Propaganda Machine does nothing when presented with Allied use of concentration camps: stuff like the American interment of her citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent during WWII, the British concentration camps during the Second Boer War, the Soviet gulag system, The American reservation system for Indians... I could go on, but I think you get the point. Just like everything else on this list, it's nothing more than filthy double standards.

The British seem to be responsible for everything - eugenics, civilian bombing, and concentration camps.

 

Show Trials

Most people are aware of the show trials conducted during National Socialist Germany's existence (The 'Supreme Court', if you will, called the Volksgerichthof, was operated by one Roland Friesler, whom Hitler considered an enemy due to his Bolshevik sympathies and did not want him to act as a judge). Many people were put to death just for simply having an alternate opinion and other trumped-up charges. Where the psychological projection comes in is with trials like the Nuremberg Trials (see above for more details), the Central Park Five trial (and the plethora of other trials involving innocent 'nonwhites' being sent to prison), The Dred Scott case, Plessy vs. Ferguson ('separate but equal' my dick), and much more. Man, most of these Allied examples are from America. I'll add more examples from other countries in the future.
 
Judge presiding over a kangaroo court.

Slavery

Historians like Kershaw and Evans wax poetic about Albert Speer and his entire system of slave labor during WWII, yet don't mention anything about Russia and Britain's use of slave labor immediately after Germany surrendered. No prominent WWII historian does, and that's their problem. The double standard of the Allied Propaganda Machine likely in part originates from the fact many Allied atrocities/crimes took place long before WWII, and thus do not deserve significant attention. I disagree - the standard of cancel culture is to hold people/entities accountable for their misdeeds, no matter how much time has passed. When it comes to cancellation, there is no statute of limitations.  
 
Why clear mines yourself when you can just have a dirty Kraut do it instead? I mean, they lost. Note his white armband identifying him as a prisoner of war.

Conscription

Finally, let's talk about military conscription. The Allied Propaganda Machine considers this action to be a crime specific to National Socialist Germany (particularly because it violated the Treaty of Versailles [more on that later]), but in reality every single warring nation during WWII implemented conscription. They also blaspheme Germany for carrying out the death penalty for desertion, but Russia carried it out on a much larger and bloodier scale - to this day, no vilification exists for Russia and the thousands of soldiers she killed for desertion. Additionally, Russia and Germany were not the only country during WWII to make desertion a capital offense; America and Britain did also.
 
When the British Empire does it, it's heroic. When National Socialist Germany does it, it's barbaric. Brilliant.

Conclusion

I hope this blog post and the Wikipedia links I've provided will inspire you to kickstart your own research into these topics. I hope you come from this blog article having learned something new about WWII and the Allied Powers. As I have (hopefully) proven in this article, the Allies were just as criminal as National Socialist Germany - actually, they're more criminal than Germany since they won WWII and have been running the Allied Propagand Machine for over eighty years. I mean, it's one thing to commit atrocities and crimes againt humanity; it's another to commit atrocities and crimes against humanity, accuse another nation of these crimes, go to war with that nation, defeat that nation, and then create over eighty years' worth of media talking about their crimes while saying nothing about your own crimes. To me, that's truly despicable. It's a shame this is the world we live, and that so many people are brainwashed, but for every ten victims of deception and indoctrination, there is one noble person who knows the truth. And that makes this fight worthwhile. 

Sources (In Order)

Disclaimer

I'm primarily using Wikipedia for four reasons:

  1. It's more convenient.
  2. It's intended to be a starting point for further research.
  3. Nothing beats the satisfaction of defeating a villain (in this case, Western Civilization) with their own weapons.
  4. Wikipedia has a feature where you can save every article offline as a PDF file - this is essential for archiving the various pages, as articles get deleted or changed all the time. 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)