The genocide became widely known after the war had already started. The allies did not join the war out of their goodwill but rather due to their own geopolitical and economic interests - they never intended to stop any genocide (the US engaged in eugenics and mandatory sterilisation and only stopped because hitler did it too - they even put the Japanese living in the US in concentration camps), it was just a side-effect.
Regardless (and this is a bit offtopic), I wonder, would you support WWII if only to save people from genocide? In the same spirit would you support war against China in order to save the Uyghurs and other suppressed groups? I personally would reply yes to the first one but I am debating about the second.
No, for two reasons: I don't actually have any concrete information on what is happening in China, and 2 the USA does a lot worse to suppressed groups both inside and outside the country than China has ever done, so I'd support a dismantling of the US State (today, maybe during ww2 I would say first go to war with germany and then dismantle the USA) before I support any kind of intervention in any other place in the world.
I mean, no, it happened, so obviously you cannot prove it didn't happen.
> It’s possible this has occurred
Ah, but "they were not real anti-fascists".
Have we still not gotten over this line of argument?