Posted on 09/03/2024 4:22:24 PM PDT by Miami Rebel
Darryl Cooper, the historian deemed by Tucker Carlson to be the “best and most honest” in the U.S., appears to have a strange fondness for Adolf Hitler.
Cooper recently joined Carlson on an episode of The Tucker Carlson Show. During their conversation, Cooper claimed that Winston Churchill was the “chief villain” of World War II because he “was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did.” He also claimed that the Holocaust was some kind of unintended consequence of Germany being “completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war.” According to Cooper, millions “ended up dead” because there was no food to feed them and German soldiers decided it was “more humane to just finish them off quickly.”
Based on his social media activity, that whitewashing of the atrocities of the Holocaust isn’t out of the ordinary for Cooper. In a now-deleted tweet from late July, he appeared to claim that scenes of Nazi-occupied France — specifically, a photo of Hitler before the Eiffel Tower — were “preferable” when compared to the scenes of the Olympic opening ceremony in Paris.
“This may be putting it too crudely for some,” he said, “but the picture on the left was infinitely preferable in virtually every way than the one on the right.”
[Hitler in Paris was on the left, the Olympics' opening tableau on the right.]
The month before, he posted a bizarre tweet suggesting that the shooter who tried to assassinate Donald Trump went to Hell and Hitler did not.
"Yes, Tucker's favorite historian is pretty open about being a Hitler guy, and he believes the Allies were on the wrong side of WWII.
"Not sure how this is America first. I don't speak Nazi. pic.twitter.com/bQ4fxpiym4
"— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) September 3, 2024"
[Cooper's tweet: "If you're having a bad day, just remember that Trump's shooter is wandering around Hell looking for Hitler while the two guys dropped by Kyle Rittenhouse figure out how to break the news to him."]
In another tweet from June 2023, Cooper responded to someone arguing Hitler and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini were prime examples that “centralization of power is never a good idea.” Cooper replied with several screenshots of Wikipedia entries of civil wars across the world, claiming “a thousand years of tyranny is preferable to a single day of anarchy.”
"Here are but a few examples where centralized power would’ve been very welcome. As the Arab proverb goes, a thousand years of tyranny is preferable to a single day of anarchy. https://t.co/3LnMNphysn pic.twitter.com/RKLhaJzRQV
"— Martyr Made (@martyrmade) June 18, 2023"
and population management (the world’s population was reduced by about 50 million between 1939 and 1945)
Stalin gave him lots of help.
A journalist doesn’t do interviews with people who they alway agree with. They do controversial interviews that allow different perspectives on hot issues.
What is a “questionable interview”? An interview with someone you yourself do not want to hear? maybe it is best to hear them and decide for yourself rather that just accept what you have been conditioned to accept by sources around you.
We live in a world now where we don’t let anyone finish. We jump right in there with a label to slap on a person without hearing them out or caring that sometimes things aren’t always “either...or”.
You assume that if he interviews a person like Owens that he has to pushback rather than just let her speak and allow the listener to decide what they think.
Most people want free speech and the only way that happens is to allow free speech whether you like the message or not.
If the message is obviously to slander another person with lies then the other person has a legal recourse.
Tucker doesn’t usually do interviews to be combative. He mostly invites them on and lets them speak.
Carlson said, “ You’re the most important popular historian today,” and “I’m a fan of yours.”
While an interviewer isn’t required to push back or to interrupt a guest, it is clear that Carlson is not merely giving Darryl Cooper a fair hearing but he is also endorsing him and therefore his positions.
Very sorry to correct you, but he did indeed have a beer now and then, and a bit of meat here and there. He simply didn’t like meat too much, or alcohol, for that matter. But he liked little children and was okay with dogs.
Stalin, by the way, was also friendly to children, and, if he was in a pleasant mood, he could be downright charming, just like Hitler.
Stalin also had a phenomenal eidetic memory. Even after years, he was able to not only recognize everybody by face and name, but he also clearly remembered what he had been discussing with them, often word for word.
Human beings, even monstrously, satanically evil ones, are not as duo-dimensional as comic-book or movie villains, which are more like cutout characters than like real humans.
Pegleg Pete and Lord Voldemort are memorable characters, though not particularly realistic ones.
He didn’t say he agreed with everything the guy says. I am a fan of certain authors, doesn’t mean I like every book they write.
This is what causes the new cancel culture. The kind of thinking that caused this thread.
Someone slaps a label on a person and everyone is supposed to respond by going along with it or else get branded with the same label. Sometimes you can agree with a person on a few things but not everything and you are still labeled and canceled. I can think for myself.
Trump is “a demonic force, a destroyer”
“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights, I truly can’t wait.”
“I hate him passionately”
-From the texts of Tucker Carlson, the self serving faux populist
“Cooper is not the most popular and not at all the most honest historian. He’s a crank.”
Having listened to half of the interview I’ll second that.
Cooper isn’t offering some new historical insight, it’s storytelling that sounds more like amateur psychoanalysis of Churchill, Hitler, Stalin etc.
I’m particularly fascinated by his labelling Churchill “a psychopath” but apparently finding Hitler unremarkable.
One could accuse Cooper of being a historian, but he would never be found guilty.
“it is clear that Carlson is not merely giving Darryl Cooper a fair hearing but he is also endorsing him and therefore his positions.”
And here we have a classic example of the logical fallacy of “faulty generalization”.
It’s popular with both the “who needs logic?” set and with fans of sophistry.
Thanks for schooling me in rhetoric, but where’s the faulty generalization?
Carlson calls Cooper the best and most honest historian in the United States, then listens to him state his positions on Hitler and Churchill without objection or even mild pushback.
Is it a logical leap to find him in accord?
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.