I just thought about something regarding Czechia and WW2: > Hitler seizes Czechia. This is held up as a violation of the Munich Agreement (it wasn't; you can read the full text, not hard to find) > This is purportedly bad for 3 reasons: 1 - Hitler gets all that Czech military equipment 2 - Hitler gets Czech industry 3 - Czech's lose self-determination > The issue here is that there is ZERO British counter-proposal to mitigate those issues at the time. For example, the British could insist that Czechia be granted self-determination, but be demilitarized, and the Czech military equipment be distributed among France, Britain and Germany. Yes you can quibble about details about who gets what - whatever. The point is that the British could have PROPOSED a solution to the claimed problems that Hitler's occupation of Czechia caused. There are 3 outcomes to making such a proposal: A - Hitler agrees to a British solution to the "Czech dagger" problem and abides by it B - Hitler rejects the British solution C - Hitler agrees, but then doesn't follow through (this is on a continuum) This is really the extent of it. Britain, if their goal truly was to avoid a general war in Europe, there is no reason whatsoever to not propose a different settlement of the Czech issue. At the very worst, Hitler doesn't agree to it or violates it, at which point you're in no worse a situation than OTL. If anything you have yet ANOTHER example of Hitler's duplicity and untrustworthiness. If you think "no point, Hitler's an incorrigible warmonger" - on the contrary! It would provide another piece of evidence. And it would decisively silence the anti-war party in Parliament if Hitler rejected such a proposal. And Chamberlain, surely he would seek to salvage the Czech situation? Isn't that curious - Chamberlain, who in OTL looked like a fool due to what he said about the Munich Agreement (which wasn't actually in it) - made no attempt to salvage the situation? Basically, if Chamberlain (who hallucinated what was signed in Munich, and then impressed his hallucinations onto the British public) Churchill, Halifax and Henderson were genuinely trying to avoid war, there was nothing to lose by proposing a solution that would have preserved Czech independence, kept the Skoda works out of German hands, and distributed the existing Czech arsenal among France, Britain and Germany. And Chamberlain in particular could have preserved his standing if the British proposal was agreed and abided by. There is, however, a perfectly rational explanation for not making such a proposal: they were afraid Hitler would agree.

Very important point. There is infinitely more physical evidence of a "genocide" in Gaza than there is for "the holocaust". This is explained by convenient copes - "they burned all the bodies" - so no bodies need be found. And any ash can be said to be burned bodies. (Auschwitz was a synthetic fuel plant, leaving behind thousands of tons of coal ash). It's all based on paper and "confessions". Biggest mass murder in human history, and the keystone evidence is things that are easy to fake, with a complete absence of things difficult to fake. Gaza is the opposite - a preponderance of difficult to fake evidence, where the easy to fake evidence (testimony, documentation) is really treated as a kind of secondary detailing, NOT as establishing evidence (which is how documents and testimony should always be treated).

You need to stop talking.