That's a serious mischaracterization of my point. It's also justification for being nasty to someone who isn't here.

I'm not saying I'm not accountable for choosing to make the comments I've made.

It’s a mischaracterization of your point? You said:

> A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start."

I don’t know how else to read that other than as an argument that Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start.

Then let me suggest you just walk away from this one. Your tactics are ugly. Your understanding of my point is lacking. This isn't likely to go good places.

I plan to drop it. It's been surprisingly well received so far, by which I mean it didn't turn into a shit show. I see no reason to go there at this late stage in the discussion.

How am I supposed to read it? A retcon is going back and changing the original story. Applied to real history, it means the retcon isn’t true. If Nazis being pure evil from the start is a retcon, then that means Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start. Not so?

I don’t want to walk away from pointing out that Nazis were, in fact, as bad as everyone thinks and were that way from the start. The fact that it’s been well received just adds further motivation to point this out.