Agreed. For people that were banned off of Reddit from undue and hypocritically applied censorship, they seem to embrace it wholeheartedly here.

It's also a blatant logical fallacy. Espousing for the truthful telling of history doesn't make one an advocate of the side that the truth casts a better light on. For any other historical topic a historian doesn't have to defend himself as being pro-[anything], for merely telling the truth about it, except for WW2. A historian about the Roman empire doesn't mean he's pro Roman empire and anti anyone else. A historian about the American Revolution doesn't make him pro U.S. and anti-British. Just because I believe in the truth about WW2 doesn't make me a "Nazi" or "stormfag". That argument is ridiculous just on the surface.