Posted on 09/04/2024 7:09:49 PM PDT by marcusmaximus
Tucker Carlson hosted 'historian' Darryl Cooper, who went on to claim that the Nazis were simply 'in over their heads.'
Right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson used the latest episode of his online talk show to interview a self-proclaimed “historian” who promoted falsehoods about the Holocaust.
The episode of Carlson’s eponymous show on the social network X, formerly Twitter, earned plaudits from the site’s billionaire owner, Elon Musk, who wrote in a since-deleted post that it was “Very interesting. Worth watching.”
In the interview, Darryl Cooper, author of a Substack with around 112,000 subscribers, told Carlson that the Nazis were simply in over their heads.
“In 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners,” he said during the 138-minute conversation. Cooper then suggested that the murder of millions in the camps was an unintended consequence of Hitler’s unpreparedness for war, contradicting documented historical fact that it was the explicit goal of the Nazi regime’s Final Solution and carried out through a vast system of mass murder that included extermination camps, gas chambers, military units dedicated to mass executions and firing squads.
“They went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps. And millions of people ended up dead there,” Cooper told Carlson on the episode, which was posted on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
It is no reflection on Carlson, Cavett, Susskind, Pine, or Buckley.
*******
You are known by the company you keep.
The real story is this World War I a mistake that gave us World War II. It was unavoidable.
*********
Ever read “The Arms of Krupp”? It is a real insight into how the production of arms grows a desire to make use of them.
I have read the first hand accounts too. Go read Patton’s diary. Read Pat Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
We were manipulated into fighting in Europe and we fought the wrong enemy.
It is really curious to me that it acceptable to debate all kinds of different aspects of WW1, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc... but to question ANY of the revisionist narrative of WW2 is sacrilegious. I say “revisionist” narrative because the narrative we have today IS NOT the narrative we had in 1947.
The whole idea that the allies went to war with Germany to “save” the Jews IS revisionist history. By the way, we did a great job “saving” them when 6 million died in the war.
Maybe if Churchill wasn’t so eager to go war only 2 million or 3 million of them would have died (or maybe FAR fewer)? Maybe if we fought the right enemy, the 6 million who died at the hands of Stalin would have been only 3 million?
A very important point.
Again - with the last Nazis passing over to the other side within a few short years, the Brown Scare continuously intensifies.
Why, and why now?
I woke up after my usual five hours of not great sleep
Thinking Cooper is more open to German explanations for their side of the war than the average westerner is where we like binary especially about Churchill lol myself included
War is complicated but you still have to focus on the cue ball regardless your own flaws if you want to prevail
No mention of aryan race growing room or Hitlers Jewish obsessions by cooper both of which Pelham pointed out are pertinent to German motivations
It was interesting
Id seen him before on the history of Zionism with Jocko
Which seemed fair enough
Of course he gives the Arab side too which aggravates binary righties who don’t give a shit about “the other side “
I’m pro Israel very much but I’m not a rapture mascot proponent
I just they are more decent in comparison culturally and deserve a spot
But like cooper and tucker I too think we might need to preserve a homeland too soon enough
I mean why not us too?
Or are we meld obligated?
I came here 25 years ago and first day read posters advocate browning down white Americans as the best solutuon to racism
I found that very cucked and said so
👊
The left and neocons and protocons do use Hitler as a weapon against paleos
Have forever
D’Souza to Sam Francis is a glaring one
That point could have been made without watering down Hitler and bringing Churchill into it.
Tucker looked tired
He questioned him binary at the end
Not much of an answer
He agreed with some of it
Tucker harped on how we win wwii on to be capitulating since to dark forces wishing to destroy white western liberal culture we fought for
Sorta
Yes, exactly. I can see you are somewhat of a kindred spirit in your approach to this.
As I said, I am generally not a consumer of Tucker Carlson’s product. I don’t watch it slavishly, and I have seen probably 5-10 full videos of him discussing various things including interviews. Most notably, I credit him with helping me change my opinion of Tulsi Gabbard, which was a very heavy lift for me. But I don’t watch television at all, and haven’t for nearly 25 years now, so...I don’t know him.
I even found his delivery occasionally irritating, but on the other hand, I also found it just as much entertaining.
We live in an age of an informational firehose. Information comes at us from all directions, and is composed of good information and bad information, true information and false information.
The honesty, accuracy, and intentions (good, bad, or indifferent) of people pointing that firehose at us can only be determined empirically.
We can’t accept anything at face value anymore, even from entities or people we may have previously found trustworthy and accurate.
It is a constant, ongoing process. It is like that saying ““Love doesn’t just sit there, like a stone, it has to be made, like bread; remade all the time, made new.”
And so it is with information.
I have a personal process that I follow with nearly every item of significant information I see online now. When I see a piece of information that may be meaningful in some way, I follow the same process nearly unconsciously now.
Step One: Is the overall premise plausible?
***************************************************
If I see an article about a woman who got into a street fight with six Special Forces guys and kicked their asses, my first thought is: “Can it be true? Is it plausible?” I have a pretty good though not infallible sense for this as a filter with large holes that still lets a lot of things through for further investigation. For example, if I read that Bill Clinton had sex with a 12 year old girl, this is wholly going to pass this filter and continue to the next one. But if I hear Donald Trump wore a khaki shirt with a swastika armband at some secret event, I won’t. I don’t want to deliberately block things out that I should see, but...I only have limited time. This step is a form of Intellectual Triage.
Step Two: Are the details both plausible and coherent?
***************************************************
That is, are the stated details compatible with each other? For example, if the information states that someone had an incident of some type in one location, yet there is proof they were at another location on that day, I reject the information with the caveat it may have been a mistake by the person relating it and can revisit it if information changes.
Step Three: Is the article overtly biased in its presentation?
***************************************************
When I see an article that starts with sentences that contain things like “debunked allegations of election fraud” (as an example) right away, I am disinclined to accept anything at face value. (Note that this is the filter that made me decide to investigate this interview further, since the allegation of “holocaust denial” is plausible (but not in my mind, probable) and until I watch it, could possibly be coherent (I found it “coherent” with Cooper’s mind-set, although I disagree with many elements of it)
Step Four: What is the source?
***************************************************
If something passes through all the filters and arrives here, I view the source. If it is any of the major networks (including Fox) or someplace like Vox, The New Republic, The Hill, or even Gateway Pundit (some, but not all of the criticism of that site is deserved) I may simply reject the information until additional information comes out. Given their track record, this is wholly deserved on their part. These sites have given good reason to distrust any information from them, since they openly lie at worst, or practice advocacy at best.
Step Five: What do Members of Free Republic say?
***************************************************
One might think this is absolutely unnecessary, but I have been on Free Republic since 2004, and have accrued over 100,000 posts, which means I have read many, many more than that. I have also met dozens of Freepers in person, and have found that my impressions of them as people has been unfailingly accurate. I can, and have determined both the reliability and soundness of individual members of this forum. There are a few, right off the bat, that I reject the content of their postings, often due to Step Three in combination with Step Four above. If I see an opinion on Free Republic, I always look at the source of the information, that is, the poster. There are people who post and I don’t even bother reading it, and others, I take as highly reliable. And that is because they have history for me that demonstrates their sober reliability, in exactly the same way that many of the sources of information in Step Four above have shown their unreliability.
In all of this, I use Free Republic as a filter (as in Step Five). People do initially get things wrong on this site, but even unpopular information is eventually presented appropriately over time, because we still generally (though not always) are able to practice freedom of speech here. One thing I have discovered about Free Republic is, if you present an opinion, you had better think it through, because even if it is one that will popularly be viewed as acceptable, if there are holes in even that, we have enough honest people on here to smoke that out.
Free Republic can be a place of sharp opinions and sharp elbows. One has to think things through before presenting them, and be prepared to accept there are elements or premises that you may have erred on. And people aren’t always kind in their rebuttals. That is life here. I have been both giver and receiver of sharp opinions. And I have both offended and been offended.
But I try to use it always as a learning experience, to keep myself mentally agile, and to sharpen my communication skills. And that is why, after all these years I continue to give money on a monthly basis to this site. And I am grateful to Jim Robinson for making this possible. (Jim, I view you as a Patriot in this endeavor, so...thank you.)
Yes it could have
Like I said last nite he assumes the role of all the participants
I think that has its risks
He could be David duke I don’t know his private thoughts
He sure is worried about our demographic shift in the west and I concur
And I’ve heard him give a lengthy objective appraisal of Zionism from inception to 47
I think he believes that was a motivator for Churchill
Who preferred Zionism over Bolshevism with Jews released from the pale in Eastern Europe
Young Jewish men were sure going somewhere if not killed
I’m ambivalent
But I don’t share the Churchill scorn
Thank you-that is a compliment. You can see from my initial response that I have had many discussions over the years about the strategic bombing of WWII including the use of nuclear weapons against Japan.
I have a fellow Freeper who I greatly admire and respect, but he has a very different opionion than I do on the use of nuclear weapons.
I support it as the right action at that time in history, which I did not live through, and I don’t wish to view the use of those weapons through the prism of the social mores of the 21st Century.
He feels that we surrendered the moral high ground by using nuclear weapons, and he has very good and well thought out reasons for his assessment.
I disagree with him, but...I fully respect his opinion. But he and I have been able to talk it out and conclude that we disagree and leave it at that.
But too often, in those discussions with some people on this forum, the opinions and the elbows can become very sharp, indeed, ad hominem, and I tend to disengage because I have an extremely quick temper, and that is to my disadvantage.
It is why I rarely opine on Civil War or Ukraine matters on this forum. In many aspects, one is not allowed to disagree. It all quickly becomes a vehicle for ad hominem attacks.
And that is not to say I have not participated in those attacks myself, I have. But in all cases, I try to mend fences, because unlike some Freepers, I don’t wish to have a list of people to avoid. If my efforts at public reconciliation on the forum are rebuffed, I just avoid interacting with them. In twenty years, there are possibly about five at most I just don’t interact with at all.
It isn’t what I come here for, and I get the distinct impression, that is EXACTLY why some people DO come here.
Right. We should censor and silence anyone who has a different opinion.
Show me where in the Constitution it guarantees a right to appear on TV. Not being invited to a TV show, which is true of 99% of the American public, is not the same as censorship.
In 1941, Germany launched a war? Really? In 1941?
Um. Poland on September 1,1939 would like to have a word.
If this guy Cooper is a historian, then…
…I’m a 6’1’’ tall ,125-pound supermodel (my measurements are 39 x 24 x 36 in) who now at over 160 years old looks just as hot as ever and was the model for the Statue of Liberty and was the inspiration for Einstein’s TOR, I graduated HS at age 4 and college 2 months later, and I have Olympic Gold medals in every sport not including the 20 I got in Paris just this year, I have three Nobel Prizes in Physics and two in Mathematics and one for Medicine because I not only created Polio but I also cured it, I wrote the greatest novel of all time but was, like Kari Lake, robbed of my Nobel Prize in literature and over 50 years later I am still demanding a recount, and I have 20 Grammy’s and 10 Academy Awards, and have 20 PhD’s including PhD’s in categories that haven’t yet been invented, the first time I played golf I got 15 holes in one, I invented the only true perpetual motion machine and finally Brad Pitt dumped Jennifer Aniston for me and only took up with Angela Jolie because I turned him down and Taylor Swift stole all her song lyrics from me.
Oh, and I have a podcast and some bad opinions. Which would seem to be the bestest thing like ever and stuff and the only thing Darryl Cooper and I have in common. :),
Thank you very much, rlmorel! God bless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.