You must not discuss it. Your view may be mainstream, it is popular and agreed to be the politically correct and wanted truth. Yes. History gets written by the victors.
But endlessly repeating wrong stuff does not make it any less wrong. The claimed arguments you refer to, in parts are known to me. They are the usual limited thinking inside the politically accepted box. You could as well argue that the ECB indeed were independent because politics claim so and the claim serves their interests. That return is to be expected, but by fact create din relaity and beyond the written paragraphs it is wrong, and the ECB is the strong ally and supporter of the EU'S political agendas - thats what it was created for to be. So is the standard view on that national socialism is no socialism and that the state economy of Nazi Germany did not had all traits and characteristics of a socialist planned economy. It had. It was. And Goedbbels agiutated already in the very early 30s agauinst the possessing property owning class and let no dozubt on what it would mean for them if the NSDAP would ever come to govenrment power, it was fully truly socialist propaganda he argued with. It does not matter whether by name or not, it is the klatterns, the mechanisms, the functuonalities that get porpagated. That Hitler did not explicitly found his arguments by mentioning Marx I know myself - but that is irrelevant. The dish gets called differently, but it tastes the same and is made of the same ingredients. And so i say: its not two but one dish only.
And this, it is common practice amongst socialists and communists since one hundred years to always claim that when socialism fails somewhere (once again), to argue that then it was no "real", no "true" socialism, because, so the narrative, real socialism works and function
per definition. One claims and bases on the beleif that one just knows it works, and so one refuses to prove it. If socialism blows it up, its never socialism's guilt, but that of the others, but when economic succees is generated due to entrepreneurship and competent management or whatever, the succeess easily is claimed by lefts. So it is with Hitler as well. Its a failure story, and thus it cannot be socialism. Stalin's Russia of course has nothing to do with socialism, but was just tyranny. The GDR, that was no socialism, but corruption. Cuba, its the evil wicked Yanks, not socialism. Chinese "socialism" is successful, and why? Becasue it has a ver yheavy dose of corrupted capitalism ijected. Without it China would be something nobody talks about today.
Socialism is alwayss the innocent victim. Because we all know: socialism just works, and it is alwayy the persecuted, enver the persecutor.
Why needing to prove the obvious if everybod knows it?
