B Man on Nostr: Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that all documentaries contain errors, ...

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that all documentaries contain errors, but the issue here isn’t minor inaccuracies, it’s the core analytical framework of the film.

My “big hitter” concern is this: the main message relies on systematic asymmetry in skepticism. The film rigorously doubts mainstream accounts only when they conflict with its preferred narrative, while treating alternative explanations for Germany’s actions with far less scrutiny. That’s not balance, that’s advocacy.

Reframing Germany’s actions as “more logical” isn’t, by itself, controversial, historians routinely analyze motives, constraints, and strategic reasoning. The problem is that the film normalizes and rationalizes those actions while downplaying or relativizing their consequences, and does so by selectively excluding large bodies of contradictory evidence. That moves it from revisionism into propaganda.

“History is written by the victors” is a useful caution, but it’s not a method. Serious historical revision succeeds by adding evidence and withstanding hostile cross-examination from independent sources. This film instead builds a closed narrative system where dissenting evidence is pre-emptively dismissed as censorship or deception.

So my objection isn’t that it challenges orthodoxy, it’s that it challenges orthodoxy without meeting the evidentiary standards it demands from others. That inconsistency is why historians don’t treat it as a neutral corrective, even if some viewers find parts of it provocative or engaging.