Unlike modern libs, Hitler had to engage in the material reality of Russia on some level because he was fighting a war against it, rather than just going off of vibes and half-remembered Red Scare propaganda
Exactly like the classic fallacy they love to use:
Lib cites public CIA talking point as proof we need to bomb X country.
You say, "The CIA lies about this stuff all the time, here's an internal CIA memo where they discuss lying and controlling the media to generate fervor and consent for killing these other people"
The lib says, "Aha, so the CIA isn't a trustworthy source but you're citing them here"
This way they can
A. Dismiss criticism against CIA
B. Maintain that the CIA is a trustworthy source.
C. Prevent you from citing the CIA despite them supposedly believing it is trustworthy (when it says stuff they like).
A lot of people just sort sources into either either implicitly trustworthy or implicitly untrustworthy, which is extremely not how you're supposed to treat sources.
It's also a difference between state actors being aware of the material conditions and talking among each other vs people being fed propaganda from the same people that has an ideological goal who often do not investigate.
If you showed a lib this quote without context they'd cry "tankie"
Your average lib's view of Stalin is to the right of Hitler's
Libs would twist this into "red fash tankies literally quoting Hitler to justify Stalinist Russia" or something
Unlike modern libs, Hitler had to engage in the material reality of Russia on some level because he was fighting a war against it, rather than just going off of vibes and half-remembered Red Scare propaganda
Exactly like the classic fallacy they love to use:
Lib cites public CIA talking point as proof we need to bomb X country. You say, "The CIA lies about this stuff all the time, here's an internal CIA memo where they discuss lying and controlling the media to generate fervor and consent for killing these other people" The lib says, "Aha, so the CIA isn't a trustworthy source but you're citing them here"
This way they can A. Dismiss criticism against CIA B. Maintain that the CIA is a trustworthy source. C. Prevent you from citing the CIA despite them supposedly believing it is trustworthy (when it says stuff they like).
A lot of people just sort sources into either either implicitly trustworthy or implicitly untrustworthy, which is extremely not how you're supposed to treat sources.
“Stalin fed the Russians by stealing the food from Ukrainians. Haven’t you heard of a little thing called Holodomor.”
It's also a difference between state actors being aware of the material conditions and talking among each other vs people being fed propaganda from the same people that has an ideological goal who often do not investigate.