Posted on 09/05/2024 2:10:04 PM PDT by impimp
I disagree with the degree to which Cooper demonizes Churchill. Churchill’s allies (Poland) were attacked and he engaged in a “total war” philosophy that was somewhat of an acceptable military doctrine since Napoleon. Many German civilians were killed as a result and I do not pass moral judgement on him for what he did in his attacks on Germany. I did agree with Cooper though that there may have been a way to prevent the USA to participate in the war. Participation in this European war was NOT a moral imperative, no matter how many historians say it was.
Similarly, it is not a moral imperative for the USA to support Ukraine. But the media is painting everything in Ukraine through the framework that WW2 historians have created, which is that every nation attacked around the world must be defended.
I believe that the war is deadly and the USA should be less involved in these foreign conflicts. But I also see that benefits of war. War is the number one eliminator of bureaucracy and stupid laws in the losing country - sometimes the replacement laws imposed by the victor are worse, but not always. It will, more often than not, the weak country which has been weakened by stupid laws which loses these conflicts.
"...In the interview, Cooper diminished the Holocaust by claiming that “millions of prisoners of war” had “ended up dead” in concentration camps, suggesting the Nazis did not have genocidal aims against Jews but were simply “unprepared” for the war, among other false assertions. Dani Dayan, the chairman of Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem, said on Wednesday that Carlson and Cooper “engaged in one of the most repugnant Holocaust denial displays of the last years,” calling their discussion “antisemitic, ahistorical” and “an affront to the victims..."
I don't watch Tucker Carlson often (probably 5-10 monologues or interviews at most) but when I see the Left attacking him, I want to know for myself what is real, so I watched that interview.
The "self-proclaimed" historian (which is what the article called him) did absolutely nothing of the sort. Period.
Prominent Republicans find an ally to attack...
If they’re going to engage in random scattershot criticism you’d think they’d do against some Dem.
This is yet another example of the Republican establishment using the same tactics as the left to smear Tucker.
Tucker hosts the most difficult interviews that he can. Months to set some of them up. A real journalist. He lets them speak their own thoughts, not necessarily at all agreeing, but letting them make their point, based on their perspective. I wonder why he is attacked by the MSM? Now that he is without Fox, as is Kelly and Beck. He will do what he does. The independent media is alive and well.
i swear, tucker carlson is turning into glenn beck ... cheetos, anyone?
Lies! He is not remotely close to being a “holocaust denier” . More Deep State BS!
Soviets attacked the other half of Poland a few weeks later. Ironically no war declared against them. Poles were sold out at yalta along with half of Europe. The Polish pilots who fought the battle of Britain were deported at the wars end too
They all have a AICPA handler except Massie, so…
I've heard that Poland had decent relations with Germany until the latter 1930s. Britain and France encouraged Poland to take a hard line with Germany, promising to back Poland in case of war. (Much like the U.S. encouraged Ukraine to stand firm against Russia.)
After the war, Britain and France abandoned Poland to Soviet occupation, reneging on their promise to preserve Polish independence.
i 100% agree that he is not a holocaust denier…the media will paint things in a way that supports their narrative. they will do this with news and with history. I purposely chose to post a jewish media outlet discussing a guy with a slightly different take on WW2 to get the most extreme version of this media manipulation.
No, they exchange $ under the table. Sadly the US banana republic is alive and well. A corporate oligarchy.
agreed!
Not only that, but should interviews only be conducted with people that agree with you? Funny how many ‘conservatives’ embrace the very tyranny they claim to abhor.
Here is what I wrote on another thread about both the historian being interviewed, and the conclusions he reached through his studies of the matter. These are my opinions. They absolutely will not align with everyone elses, but these are mine. As people often say here, “Your mileage may vary.”
**********************************************************************
Okay, I listened to that interview. This hysteria is all BS.
Period.
Tucker apparently characterized the guy as the most honest historian, and I cannot disagree much with that. The guy is honest and says what he thinks. And I think some of conclusions he reaches as a historian are not just wrong in my opinion, but some of them border on the crackpot. That is my opinion.
Personally, I didn’t like the guy at all. But what I saw and what this hysteria shows is dishonesty or ignorance on the part of those piling on Tucker Carlson.
BEING HONEST AND BEING RIGHT ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
This historian may be quite honest. That is a different thing than being right, so I have no issue with Carlson calling him “honest”.
Watching the WWII section of the video, it is clear that the historian Cooper wasn’t talking about the Jewish Holocaust in the WWII segment. Never in the interview that I listened to did he say the Nazi’s didn’t mean for the Holocaust to happen.
Unless I missed it.
Did I miss it? Did anyone else hear him say that? If so, can you mark the time for me so I can go back? (I mean that...if I missed it, I want to know)
Cooper was clearly talking about Barbarossa and the lack of planning on the part of Nazi Germany in many ways, and one of them was the lack of understanding that there were going to be huge masses of people they were going to have to take responsibility for, and that they didn’t think that through or anticipate it. That is a fair assessment.
To go further, anyone who knows history understands that Barbarossa wasn’t fully baked in many respects, due to the fact that Hitler was pushing it, and the Generals were compelled to go along with it (and did to along with it because they did not grasp the enormity of that endeavor, underestimated the unknowns in the Russian military and variables in that campaign and were flush with victory in Europe, which didn’t help them object in the manner they should have.) and that is one of them. But that is as far as it goes with that.
I have never heard of this guy, and frankly, while I didn’t care for him in his presentation and many of the “conclusions” he reaches, he isn’t wrong on everything. I didn’t mind his way of thinking outside the traditional box, I have known lots of people who do that. Some of the things he said were the equivalent of putting yourself in the other person’s shoes and trying to imagine their thought processes. That is often both interesting and illuminative. I think some of the things he said were put forth in that mindset of looking at it from the “other side”, and I think people who might not be following the whole conversation but only getting a piece of it out of context and it would, of course, sound completely outrageous.
For example, it has been clear to me in many histories I have read that Hitler did not want to go to war with England, he thought that the British and the Germans were natural allies against the Russians, and he didn’t think the British would declare war on him if he invaded Poland. He thought they would be all bluster.
And his assessment of Churchill was loaded with a degree of personal animus that I believe clouded and invalidates his judgement in my mind. That is my opinion. Anyone who has read much of anything about Churchill, either written by him or by others knows that the guy was an extremely eccentric guy, even for a Englishman. He was also an extraordinarily heavy drinker who was able to consume huge amounts of alcohol each day that would put others under the table, but according to most people who knew him, he remained functional. I would characterize Churchill in retrospect as a high functioning alcoholic, something I know about since I viewed my father as one.
I objected to his characterization of Churchill as a “psychopath”. I thought it was childish and demeaning, and watching his demeanor as he made those statements reduced his credibility in my eyes. That I think very highly of Churchill must be factored into my response to it, that is plain, but something smacks of his treatment of Churchill that falls outside (in my eyes) the purview of an honest historian.
And I also take issue with his assessment of the firebombing of Germany. The world entered into unrestricted warfare in WWII. It is war. And when you see what the Nazis did to those people they subjugated, there is no doubt that factored in the Allies decision to engage in unrestricted warfare.
When one engages in unrestricted warfare (as some of the people on this forum wish to see happen in Ukraine) it is an absolute certainty that things will get out of hand. What the Nazis did to both Guernica and Rotterdam even BEFORE the Blitz showed that was the course things would take. It ended up with the round the clock bombing by the Allies. Germany would have done the same if they could have, but they couldn’t. That they resorted to the use of V1 and V2 weapons was only due to the fact that they couldn’t do it with conventional weapons. If they had nuclear weapons, they would have used them.
War is war, and once you go on the path of unrestricted war, you better win.
What the Nazis did to the Jews is proof that there wasn’t going to be mercy for any victim of the Nazis. The Holocaust wasn’t an accident. It wasn’t unintentional. It was planned. And that fact that Communists (the heroes of today’s Leftists, including the two people at the top of the Democrat Presidential ticket) have murdered far, FAR more many people than the Nazis ever did does not excuse what the Nazis did, and for THAT the Nazis deserved total defeat.
People I know disagree with me on this. It is my opinion. Others may feel differently.
This is nothing more than media lies and manipulation. Too bad so many accept written opinions as authoritative.
Are u guys like in a club
This is like seventh thread
Pass
Anybody see any similar paths he’s taken? Think Ann Coulter, O’rielly, Savage. The need to stay relevant. You don’t see them too much anymore on the tube.
Way over time to clean house!
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.