Problem is, even assuming he's right, under the laws of war, Germany is still responsible for treating them humanely. Taking a surprising number of prisoners and being overwhelmed is not an excuse for anything, under the law. You're still responsible to feed them. Otherwise, if you don't know what you're doing, don't go to war.
"The trains kept coming where else were we gonna put them besides the furnace" in all seriousness, though he's insane for trying to justify killing prisoners in an offensive war as mercy
I can do better. I followed him on X until last year. He tried to make a moral equivalent to hostages taken by Hamas on October 7th to Palestinians held in Israeli jails. I knew then exactly who this guy really was.
"The Germans didn't know what to do with the prisoners" is such a blatant lie that I couldn't keep watching. When planning the invasion, the Germans were pretty sure they would be taking lots of Russian soldiers prisoner. The German plan of a fast campaign like France virtually guaranteed it. The Germans also knew they couldn't handle all those prisoners and stick to their timetable. Historical records show that the Germans planned from the beginning to work and starve many of those prisoners to death. For him to miss (or, more likely, intentionally overlook) that fact is horrible.
Famously, in 1940, Hitler dropped a very peaceful leaflet campaign in the United Kingdom. Delivered, incredibly peacefully, through the medium of lethal explosives
The British declared war on Germany. Didn't you know that? And they started the "strategic [bombing] offensive" of civilian targets which J.M. Spaight of the Air Ministry said was a "splendid decision" in his 1944 book "Bombing Vindicated".
@@youareallbots7536 Personal attack is usually the last resort of a tired mind but you went right there. You're missing the context entirely. Read the Communication of the German Government to the British Government - September 3, 1939 at the Avalon Project.
@@bearcatXFGermany was stalling so that it could complete its objectives in the east before turning west. This isn’t speculation, this is what we know to be true. Germany crushed all opposition on its way to the English Channel and North Atlantic because it had prepared for its Belgium and French campaign in advance, they intended to conquer Europe. The strategy is called: “Defeat in Detail”. The reason Germany was suing for peace with Britain was because they knew Britain’s defensive alliance with Poland and wanted to postpone Britain for as long as possible.
Hitler absolutely did try to make peace with Britain even before Churchill: Neville Chamberlain said in his diaries that Hitler sent him very generous peace proposals, but he wasn't going to accept anything but the total removal of Hitler after Hitler had invaded Poland despite his clear warnings that it would mean war. And Chamberlain was absolutely right to do this. First of all, after Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland, Chamberlain would have to be the stupidest poltician alive to trust Hitler. Second, from a geopolitical standpoint it made no sense for Britain to let Germany take Poland: it's the same reason Britain stayed at war with Napoleon. Why would they let a single country totally dominate the continent and tip the balance of power completely out of wack? People who say "The U.K should have acquiesed to German dominance" just don't understand how politics works
The charitable way to view people who say the Britiah should have made peace is to view history in hindsight - this war ultimately destroys the British Empire and denotes Britain to the status of irrelevancy geopolitically it has today - just a US lap dog. You could argue that was inevitable, but I think people are just grasping at ways to prevent the final elimination of the old world order that resulted from this war. Regardless, peace with Germany wouldn't have achieved this - Britain would barely keep it's empire while all of continental Europe lost big either under the German or Soviet boot.
@@brazwen Exactly, the main reason that the entire was was supposedly fought over was just taken by the Soviets. What was the point of Britain declaring war on Germany and dragging on the war then?
This guy reminds me how others argue the US is responsible for the Pacific War because they provoked Japan. Like, yes, the attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked... but it was provoked by an Allied oil embargo meant to force the end of Japan's brutalization of China. The issue is not whether there was provocation. Provocation ≠ justification. By their logic, an alcoholic husband is allowed to beat his wife if she provokes him by saying she'll leave if he doesn't get help.
Reminds me of the argument cole Phelps from the game la noire had with his marines saying he respects japan And one soldier criticized cole saying that Japan bombed peril harbor And Cole said “they bombed us because we cut off there oil” And that is true but cole missed a big reason why the oil was cut off, for I DONT KNOW, how bout that japan was literally doing every war crime in the book in china cole, that’s why the oil was cut off.
@@yashjoseph3544 yea he was a flawed character I understand his flaws of cheating on his wife and being a arrogant lt, that I understand but when he literally acted like Japan was the victim of the oil being cut off that was more of a blooper to me, cause cole is a smart guy that you would think he would entirely understand why the oil was cut off.
As an Indian, Winston Churchill is a villain to us. That's mostly because of the colonial history in general and some of his policies in specific. However, l lost braincells listening to this conversation lol.
Yeah, I saw the title and was expecting a video covering Churchill’s darker side, like his colonial tendencies and such, and how they conflict with his popular image of the cigar-toting, tough “keep calm and carry on” persona, how he wasn’t all hero and such. But yikes, I didn’t see this coming.
Churchill is definitely villain in some sense and especially what happened in India. But purely in context of world war 2 it's pretty easy to find real bad guys and it's not Churchill
It’s almost like humans are complicated and can do both good and bad things all at the same time and how you evaluation of them is massively dependent on perspective. Or you could listen to this interview and have your brains melt and run out your ears
I have seen this sentiment before - and everyone points to the Bengal famine - whilst completely ignoring the practicalities, the literal fog of war and a number of key factors. When I look at where this idea came from and how it propagated in Indian culture - curiously I see a number of western educated Marxists responsible. I grant you that he was a Man of his time, Racist by todays standards, but par for the course by the standards of the day. Let me ask you this - Given what Japan did to China - would you prefer British rule or Japanese Rule (hint - look up Unit 731 and what happened in Nanking).
@@MajesticDemonLord I'd prefer absolute self-rule, AKA, Poorna Swaraj. Also, there was heavy criticism coming from within India regarding Churchill's policies in real-time. It's not a "Western Educated Marxist" invention.
@@r.b.ratieta6111yeah good comparison but I would take it farther. Not only did he steal your lunch money, he sucker punched you from behind, slapped your momma, took your girlfriend and kicked your dog. Then he's like chill out man
@@kevinrussell3501I usually like to put it as. Man punches random guy (austria) in bar Man punches another random guy (czechoslovakia) He then tells you he won't punch him (czechoslovakia) again, then does it again. He then tells you he won't punch anyone else. He then proceeds to punch all your friends (poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, France.) He then turns to you and says, I promise I won't punch you next. Would you believe him?
"The Germans had no plans for camps for these people." They literally kept accounting-level records of every aspect of the operations of the camps, except instead of monetary count it was a body count.
Actually about the "no plans" is half correct. But not because they didn't want to exterminate people. The method just wasn't developed. At first they shot people but the toll it took on the soldiers was too great. So they needed a more detached method. That's why they switched to gassing. So yes the plans were crap but they developed it. They always planned the extermination route. This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Germany was rationing food the years before the war and during the war, they had a major food shortage. Their plan for inferior peoples was starvation, some Germans, who did not know the top level planning thought it might be due to the "privations" of war, but anybody in the top 100 knew it was part of a larger plan, some out of necessity and some out of ideology to starve as many occupied peoples as possible while maintaining order and morale. The fact that the starvation plans are documented in primary documents and this guy just makes stuff up means he should be deplatformed.
This guy acts like WW2 ONLY started on May 10, 1940 (When Churchill came into the office of Prime Minister). He COMPLETELY forgets Mussolini's invasion of Albania, Invasion of Ethiopia, Japan's conquest of Manchuria, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and subsequent war between Japan and China, and all the expansionist incidents of Nazi Germany before Sept 1, 1939??? This guy interviewed by Pucker Clueless-son is astronomically delusional.
@@afiiik1 The last thing that Russia would do would to be to throw away it’s heritage of fighting facism and rewrite history to support the nation (Germany) that caused them so much suffering.
@@tempejkl Russia is supporting any extremism in the west it can just to devide us. The ultimate goal of this particular narrative is to promote appeasement at all costs. "Churchill was wrong to fight, appeasement is the way" etc.
You are absolutely right. German nazi movement try to build this "Lost Cause: Nazi Edition" since end of WW2. I think this dude obviously got his hands on a translation of one of these many german nazi books full of bs and just repeating the nonsense he read in there. It's a shame to repeat Goebbel's and Hitler's lies when you live in 2024 and have all the opportunity to challenge these statements...
@@molon___labe now everythings is labeled as an opinion, even scientific facts among some percentage of the population worldwide. "The didn't really wanted to do exterminations camps, they didn't know how to manage all those prisoners of war, it just happened" You cannot have a scientific take of these caliber when there are overwhelming proofs of what happened at the time. There is malice here, of the worst kind.
@@molon___labe if I say Cadburys chocolate is better than Herseys that's an opinion because it's based on personal preference. The holocaust is not an opinion. Who killed more people in ww2 is not an opinion. The Nazis being more evil than Churchill is not an opinion
Churchill would paint, write poetry, write and dictate books, enjoyed Dundee cake and malt whisky, smoked a moderate number of cigars, discussed his failings and periods of depression, would talk people up in public in front of their friends often with self deprecation, diminish his own part in things to praise others. He would also at times use physical objects as props to promote deep concentration while thinking over decisions. When interrupted during this could snap at people. He could seem annoyed with people who failed to express points clearly and simply used endless fancy speech. One thing he expressed to his subordinates was not making a decision was worse than a bad decision. He was human, for better or worse. The far right neo nazis hate all of that. In their minds leaders are super human demi gods without failings. They are still filled with spite and rage that their great crusade was crush by a leader like Churchill, a man in a wheelchair and a semi literate Georgian peasant with a withered arm running a chaotic country.
There are many on the right who admire the Machiavellian skills that FDR and Stalin possessed. Churchill by contrast was a pathetic drunkard who lost the Empire and then came up with a revisionist history as a means of copium for failing his King and Empire so badly.
@@Zone47.For one I think you're horribly misunderstanding the original comment, I think got the original commenter was meaning to say that you could tell that Chris was pissed off from the minute he started this video because he already had some idea of where this was going to go, and the statement that this is horribly researched, really tells me you haven't even watched the video considering he literally stops to verify information every chance he gets in this video, and to the other man in this comment section I don't exactly feel like you can say someone is demolishing someone else when they're not actually having a debate, but I would also not call this demolishing him because the points of the other person are completely irrational.
@@genovayork2468 Chris’s specialization is civil war history but no Chris is objectively right in this video. Dude is an apologist to Nazi Germany its insane.
That is an insult to Dr Goebbels, he was smarter than that. He actually managed to go and do the propaganda work and do it successfully and kept his job from the 1920s to 1945 in that bunker.
Im german and Im getting aggressive by hearing this. 16% of the entire polish population died (over the half where jews) and if you listen to him you could think that this was a war like any other in history.
I was in Białystok a few years back. It was apparently once a center of Jewish culture and life with half the city being Jewish. Now? I was told there was one small synagogue left even now. One of those terrifying reminders of the past in simple demographics. (Also, Americans don’t talk enough about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Golden Liberty - it’s very familiar).
I'm American and the only difference was the scale/technological improvements over the last war. The essential ethical/moral character was no different than any other war in human history. The English confiscated and exported food and withheld aid from the Irish such that their population fell by 25% during the Famine as a policy of deliberate starvation, and they weren't even in a declared war with the Irish, does that make the English worse than the Nazis? Does it make you as aggressively angry? If not, why?
Here in the UK, a lot of left leaning people have been trying to paint Churchill as a villain (painting ‘was a racist’ under his statue in Parliament Square during BLM protests). Largely due to his involvement in India and the Bengal famine, which they see him as responsible for. I was expecting this guy to bring some of this stuff up, as a genuine critique of Churchill, not some antisemitic tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Churchill will always be a hero for me
The way I like to look at it, Churchill’s finest hour coincided with that of the British Empire. Outside of that…well, let’s try avoiding moralizing about amorality…
This guy can't even get basic facts about WWII correct. Launched Operation Barbarossa to seize Romania's oil fields? Romania was a German ally and participated in Operation Barbarossa on the German side. This man cannot be taken seriously. Also, does anyone here know if he at any point in the interview mentioned the Bengal famine? I came into this video thinking that was going to be the topic because it is perhaps the most sour note of Churchill's career. From this section it seems this man just dislikes Churchill because he likes Hitler.
@@jdotoz Even then, that's still wrong. The Soviets had already gotten what they wanted from us, so they didn't have any incentive to try and take us down fully. If anything, the Germans had been more of a threat to us than the Soviets considering they allowed both Bulgaria and Hungary to take lands from us and had made the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which specifically allowed the Soviets to take Bessarabia and North Bukovina from us. Maybe they'd have tried to take Romania down later? That's a possibility, Romania and Russia weren't big fans of one another, but even the whole protection part is a big stretch, if that's what his argument was.
Bengal famine wasn’t really Churchill’s fault either. Resupply of Bengal was extremely difficult given that Japanese U-boats infested the waters of Bengal.
@@deschloro That is correct and I generally push back against those that say it was. Could he have handled it better? Yes. Was it his highest priority? No. Winning the war was the best way to address that issue along with many others. I was only saying from the title of the video I assumed that was what was going to be covered. Saying Churchill was a warmonger and Hitler only wanted peace threw me for a loop.
I believe he was making the connection that Operation Barbarossa was a preventative war meant to protect the Romanian oil fields. Of course, this misses the fact that the Soviet Union was in no position to actually challenge Germany on that front. The best reason for that was the sheer success of Barbarossa.
Was Hitler even at Wannsee? There’s an argument to be made that he was a helpless pawn and token spokesperson for the party rather than the one really in charge, though his successful (and counterproductive) micromanaging of various projects suggests they really did follow him.
Yes, not like the Ost plan, but where are countries like:Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, France, Sweden, Belgium, Poland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Greece and so on invaded the USSR... but yes, this is different, after all, who really cares about 27 millons of Soviet lives as opposed to 6 millons of Jews)))
I don't think this man is accidentally acting as a nazi apologist. I believe it is intentional. He even insinuates "bankers" influenced Churchill to fight Germany. His goal is to use this revisionist critique to make fascism more appealing. All his talking points match with neo nazi historical revisionism from materials such as "The Greatest Story Never Told" the pro Hitler documentary.
For sure, he’s known in Germany as one. That’s also why Tucker had him on. Tucker said “his latest project is the most forbidden of all, trying to understand WW2”…clearly a dog whistle considering it’s the most studied war maybe of all time and he’s referring to a guy saying Hitler wasn’t the bad guy. He also called this guy “the best and most honest historian”. And that tweets still up.
It's encouraging to see better explanations of what actually happened leading up to the war instead of the Colin Powell tier fabrications the more intelligent of us have had to roll our eyes at until now.
Churchill was a man with many flaws. He was an imperialist with a very conservative (and frequently racist) points of view. But he was also one of the first to recognize the danger of Hitler, and his determination and courage to see the war through is one of the primary reasons Britain stayed in the war after France fell. Without him, the future of the world is considerably darker. Either Nazism stays around for years longer or Europe eventually becomes consumed by Stalin and his version of communism. Like it or not, he’s a big reason why Western Europe remained democratic after WW2.
WTF are you even talking about. Churchill was a very flawed person, as we all are, but that doesn't change the fact that he was one of the most important heroes the world has ever seen. If you disagree, read a book, kid.
As a Slovak guy, rather than Churchill, we see Chamberlain as the villain. Namely because of the Munich Agreement, or as we call it, the Munich Betrayal/Dictate.
The Western betrayal 😢. Too bad Ike wouldn't have let Patton take Prague. I don't know if that would have helped you Slovaks though. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.
@@dermotmcquaid3692 1.) "we're" (2x)? 2.) that said betrayal was before the first splitting of Czechoslovakia; 3.) his buddies? C'mon, pal. Does Slovak National Uprising ring the bell?
Cooper is also bizarrely an enormous Jim Jones stan. I wish I were kidding but it’s true - he’s an aging edge lord methinks and likes imagining that aligning himself with villains is somehow meaningful. It’s lame and sad but Tucker showcases these idiots and the total lack of ANY scholarship and research to support any of his ludicrous statements is ridiculous when there are THOUSANDS of tomes re WWII that DO criticize Churchill. 🙄
@4Mr.Crowley2 He's not a Jim Jones "stan" at all. He made a 30-odd hour series about Jim Jones, nowhere in there does he support Jim Jones' craziness. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I can tell you haven't listened to his entire series on the Jonestown cult. Maybe do so before spouting off nonsense about it.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 I'd be careful about blaming what people like Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper are doing as a lack of scholarship. They are intentionally engaging in bad faith, which Cooper betrayed with his little smirk when Carlson set him up to engage in barely coded anti-semitism. Consider the words of Jean-Paul Sartre: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
Cooper's engaging in a common strategy among abusers, grifters, and atrocity deniers known as DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. He Denied with his attempted whitewashing of German treatment of prisoners on the eastern front. He Attacked by claiming that Churchill not capitulating to Germany is why Germany engaged in the atrocities he claims didn't happen (ie blaming Churchill for Hitler's actions, commonly worded by abusers as "Look what you made me do"). He Reversed Victim and Offender by insinuating that the reason Churchill did not capitulate to Germany was due to him being influenced by the people the Germans specifically targeted with their atrocities, in an attempt to justify the commission of the atrocities that he claims didn't happen.
A respected expert on this topic weighed in on this; _"It's good to air a different set of opinions, but there has to be a common set of facts. And, in this case, the person in reference [Darryl Cooper] wasn't aware of the facts."_ -Victor Davis Hanson (Military Historian)
@@danielmacdonald9287 And other countries that joined. Moreover extra events that took place at the same time for example like Wołyń massacres where polish soldier and civilians were murdered by Ukrainian nazi.
@@r.b.ratieta6111 To be fair, if anyone is to be blamed on the Allies' side for starting/expanding the war then it would be Britain. Britain told Poland they would receive support if Germany invaded, which resulted in Poland cutting off diplomatic talks about the peaceful annexation of Danzig, but didn't actually get any support once Germany and the Soviets invaded. They then tried winning the war by using France's army to hold the Germans and possible invade Germany itself, but quickly bailed once that plan failed as well.
This is like Lost Causers saying that Lincoln was a tryant: there's some elements of truth, but it's a wild exaggeration in some misguided and often nefarious way to sound "objective." Churchill was not prefect (my biggest beef was how he treated the Irish), but in WWII, while I won't defend every decision, he 100% was the hero.
Hero? Meh, that goes a bit too far. He definitely wasn’t a mustache twirling villain, just a faithful servant of his country and all the skeletons in that closet.
@@brazwen Churchill's "anti-german sentiment" came from the fact that he had travelled through Europe during the interwar period (while researching for a book about his ancestor Sir John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough and his campaign during the 1700's) and witnessed with his own eyes what the nazis were up to before the war started. So unlike Chamberlain for example, Churchill knew that Hitler was something out of the ordinary and couldn't be treated like a 'normal' politician. As to Poland, that was indeed a dirty affair, but it was realpolitik and Churchill did get something out of it (less soviet inflluence on the Balkans and Greece).
@@Xeno_Solarus Exactly, I agree. While I would consider myself a conservative (and as a Canadian I have no real skin in the US political game) I will sometimes agree with Tucker Carlson and at other times I think he's completely out to lunch. That he brought this "historian" guy (who seems like your textbook neo-Nazi anti-semitic Groyper) on shows that he's capable of making stupid decisions as well as better ones.
He is welcome to come to Norway. I will show him where Russian and Polish prisoners of war were starved to death. Were they drank puddlewater and ate grass since the German soldiers were not feeding them. The ground is filled with their corpses. This guy disgust me. Churchill did a lot of mistakes and bad things but to say that he was the big baddie is silly.
He doesn't actually believe that Churchill is the villian of WW2. He is just trying to deflect from what Adolf did and justify the actions of the holocaust. It's not stupidity or ignorance, Darryl Cooper is a smart guy who's just trying to spread his ideology into other people. Which makes him dangerous in my opinion.
It is almost equally silly to say that AH was "the big baddie." Such a statement is highly reductive to an absurd degree. It takes a complicated real-world issue, and reduces it to a cartoonish one fit for a Marvel comic book. It is propaganda, nothing more. If you've studied WW2 with any objectivity and an open mind whatsoever ( referencing primary sources), you can absolutely make an argument that Churchill deserved a high percentage of blame for the events leading to WW2. The Allies of England, USA and France each enjoyed the top 3 colonial empires on the planet. Their "balance of power" foreign policy tactics during WW2 were consistent with their behavior of the preceding 2 centuries. Germany wasn't an existential threat to the empire, it just didn't want to play its part as 2nd fiddle in the current world order which the Allies controlled and exploited.
@@renardfox328did the Allies of ww1 sew the seeds of destabilization that eventually allowed the Nazis to rise to power? Yes Were they dragging their feet too long, refusing to acknowledge reality? Definitely Does this justify any of Hitler’s policies and their implementation? Fuck no That’s like saying 9/11 was deserved because the USA backed the Taliban in their war against the Soviets in the 80s instead of just not interfering
@@dafeekielelliott2442 To phrase it as such implies appeasement was an option and it was perfectly obvious at that point it wasn't. And that's before you even get into the moral obligations of standing up to Fascism.
@@edstockton3685 The German narrative at the time was that they were "righting the wrongs of Versailles" most obviously meaning that they were returning the millions of Germans who had been stripped away from Germany and made into minorities in other countries. Denying the Germans in Poland the right to self-determination is an good way to give the German Empire a strong reason for war, instead of going to war with them if they started demanding non ethnically German territories. And there was almost no obligation to stand up to fascism at the time, especially when so many European countries were authoritarian, whether full on dictatorships or just having rigged/influenced elections, such as the Baltic states, Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, and Germany. Appeasement was always an option for the French and British and likely would have resulted in the Soviets and Germans entering a war against each other instead of Germany occupying France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Luxembourg first.
@@dafeekielelliott2442Churchill understood that no peace was possible with Hitler other than surrendering and allowing him a free hand to do whatever he wanted in Europe. If that is wanting war, then Churchill is guilty of wanting war.
@@TheHistoryUnderground When the historical reality doesn't fit the ideological dogma, revise the history! Anyone who is dogmatically anti-war, anti-gov't or some combination thereof has an impetus to dispute any war as being "necessary" or "unavoidable". This is why so many dogmatic libertarians embrace the Lost Cause. For Darryl Cooper, Pat Buchanan and the paleocons, its about justifying/defending the late 1930s America First Movement/Isolationism. Of course it is not limited to just those ideologies, all of the dogmatic/absolutist ideologues engage in this kind of revisionism.
I honestly think everyone should be required to read “The rise and fall of the third Reich.” It really makes it sink in just how awful the 3rd Reich really was.
2:35 Exactly my reaction to such nonsense statement. Like, surely, Churchill was not a saint and he made bad decisions here and there. Especially Indians, Bangladeshi and Pakistani has few words to say about his policy. But blaming HIM out of all people in WW2 is just stupid.
@@dafeekielelliott2442yes…Because Germans, both far-right and far-lift wanted new big war. First ones (which included monarchists) wanted revenge war, defeat France and Great Britain, annihilate “traitors” and expend Germany by conquering Eastern Europe. Second ones (including pro-Soviet radicals) wanted to establish communism, exterminate “exploitation class” and expend it all over Europe and beyond. All Germans wanted war, one way or another. Along with Hungarians, Italians and many others who ended up in Axis powers. War was inevitable and Churchill fairly said it multiple times. That is why he advocated to been prepared for next big war, in order to make it less sufferable.
@@coldwar45 For context for those who are confused as to who Irving is and don't have the time for Wikipedia read, Irving wrote a biography of Hitler where he claimed Hitler and the Larger german army had no knowledge of the Holocaust and it was "Just something the SS did". He recited a bunch of other Nazi propaganda in his career, even responding to the question of; Was Adolf Hitler an evil tyrant? "I will go further, I will say that he was as evil as Churchill. As evil as Roosevelt." After being disgraced for giving a series of speeches blaming Jews for any hardships that befel them, he now claims that Jews orchestrated his downfall and that they merit persecution. David Irwing was a Nazi, and the interviewee in this video is too.
"To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right. Out of depths of sorrow and sacrifice will be born again the glory of mankind." - Winston Churchill to Allied Delegates June 1941 Wow what a villain!
He was wrong. It was the beginning of the end for for the period of the supreme position and fatherly guidance of European Civilization in the world, finishing what the fratricidal folly of the Great War started. A simple conference in Warsaw, in person between Wilhelm II, Nicholas II and Franz Josef could have resolved the July Crisis without bloodshed and returned stability to Europe; especially if a yearly Pan-European Congress had been opened up afterwards in Geneva or some other neutral city to keep the peace and coordinate the interests of Europe.
@georgegreen711 there were so many near-misses leading up to 1914 that war was almost certain at some point, but I agree that the results of both world wars were among the worse possibilities
I know nothing about this individual, so I may be wrong. My impression is that he holds some views about a certain religion/race of people, and the rest of this nonsense is just apologetics to justify the mistreatment of those people. Edit: OK, at the 28 minute mark I know I was right.
Well, that was just the second solution. The first one was just to make them so miserable they would “voluntarily self-deport” (this should sound familiar in American politics). The second was the camps, many of them across the border in Mexico I mean Poland. The final solution, well, they ran out of space and they couldn’t send them anywhere so what else could they do but… yeah. Let’s just say that I’m nervous about the violence of the rhetoric in our modern scapegoats. We’re not there yet, but it’s on the map and we’re headed that way.
And after the Polish invasion, they invaded Russia. Is Cooper implying that Germany wouldn't have invaded Russia if the UK hadn't declared war on Germany?
@@Justanotherconsumerif the reason of the camps was to deport the Jews, then why did they take away the Jews passports? Why put them in camps instead of forcing them to leave? The ones that left weren’t forced, they saw what was happening and voluntarily left. That is different from being rounded up and put on ships or trains to concentration camps. Doesn’t make it any less terrible what they did, but the plan all along was to implement the final solution. The final in the name isn’t referring to a ‘last resort’ plan, it’s referring to the final chapter in there plan. Aka the mass extermination of the Jews.
As another historian that commented on this interview, with Ben Shapiro pointed out. Cooper almost verbatim spews out the same rhetoric that the nationalist socialists uttered during their reign.
@@Zone47. One of Hitler's target's for extermination were the Socialists. So Hitler and his crew were NOT SOCIALIST. The other two were Bolsheviks/Communists and Trade unionists/organized labor. And Marx was a Jew. All three are to the LEFT of Center. Amazing how those who hate the mythical "Left" will swear by the label of the party Hitler took over as if Hitler's own trustworthy word, while claiming to reject Hitler. ANYTHING to promote fascist scapegoating of the imaginary "Left" while claiming to despise Hitler. That's straight out of far-right fruit-fringe John Birch.
@@Xeno_Solarus I'll explain it AGAIN: BEFORE Hitler went after the Jews he targeted for extermination -- 1. Communists. 2.. Socialists -- the name of the political party Hitler took over is NOT what Hitler was. 3. Trade unionists. All three of those are LEFT of center. Hitler was far-RIGHT.
This alternate facts & alternate history stuff, saying Abraham Lincoln was horrible or Winston Churchill was the biggest villain of WWII, is mostly coming from my side of the political spectrum... It's getting concerning. Letting this guy say the Holocaust was just a result of "not having a plan" for political prisoners?! Holy. Crap. Even when these hosts don't directly say "I agree!" they frequently interview & give a platform to people saying the most absurd things, then defend it saying "I'm just ask questions." I don't need to hear someone ramble about flat earth (or saying "I'm not globe earther or a flat earther," as if that gives both sides equal weight). Stop spreading this nonsense or lose reasonable people like me.
Agreed. It's getting worse and it's very disturbing. As time goes on, I notice a lot of WW1 revisionism ("CeNtRaL pOwErS sHoUlD'vE wOn") and Woodrow Wilson slander... I'm not that old (32) and when I was growing up the 99% consensus that the Entente (plus USA) was the good guy AND Woodrow Wilson was in the top 10 of best ranked Presidents.... sadly, all these egdelords, contrarians are trying revise all of that......
As a conservative-leaning individual, I think there are some seriously concerning things coming from the right-wing. The affinity for contrarianism at any cost, strong-man saviors, and anti-intellectualism is palpable. I honestly can't stand most so-called "conservatives" at this point.
Hey if it's any consolation, far too many on my side, the other side, are fond of two infamous organisations starting with H that are frequently in the news these days. I especially like this channel because it proves to me that you can be conservative and perfectly reasonable, with well considered opinions, that I can understand and respect even if I might not agree with them.
@@christiangudmundsson8390well, respectfully, those 2 H organizations are bad, but this is the case where the I is acting worse than them. You don’t have to sympathize with the H’s to know the I is the one continuing the killing, and trying to drag the USA into a wider war. It’s almost as if the B at the top of the I that is the biggest problem.
Me at the start: “Ah, he’s going to talk about Churchill’s very…controversial views and policies that were controversial even in his time, right?” Me by the end: 😟
Exactly. He was a wartime leader. That was his biggest thing pro. He was not a peacetime leader. Doesn't help what happened in India, too. But whatever
How was he an effective leader that was desperately needed? He did not accomplish the goal of saving Poland, they were occupied by Soviet forces after the war. He did not save Britain from an invasion, Germany's focus was on the east and they were likely physically incapable of invading Britain, hence why they actually wanted an alliance with Britain. He also really did not save Britain's power as the British Empire collapsed after WW2 partly because of their debts to other countries.
@@dafeekielelliott2442 1st most of your comments pertain to other things done by other people which Churchill assumed control of. 2nd Churchill kept Britain’s moral high and prevented the British government accepting Hitlers peace offer. 3rd he had an active role in getting American aid by holding correspondence with FDR. 4th he ran the government very effectively, his cabinet was formed of his allies and enemies so he could get opposing views on issues. 5th he took an active and successful role in the military front, whilst he made a few mistakes he had multiple major successes as well as being involved in military designs. 6th Soviet troops were occupying Eastern Europe, nothing Churchill could do to save that bar declaring war on the USSR which he actually made preparations and was considering but ultimately new it wouldn’t be worth it. 7th he was voted out in 1945, decolonisation was started by the Labour government afterwards, by his re-election there was nothing he could do
1. Thank you Chris for being a vocal and sane person on the internet. You're doing God's work, unironically. 2. If you, person reading this, are coming to the comments in order to justify or defend any of the nonsense that Cooper is spewing, I'd urge you to find people who will show you love and empathy, rather than hatred and callousness. You deserve better than these lies.
I really liked this interview. In a time when it seems like no one is willing to agree on anything, even basic facts, when it doesn't put their side in the best light, here everyone comes together in agreement that this Cooper guy is talking BS.
This interview was just straight up Nazi apologia and propaganda that would make Goebbels blush. Can you imagine having a 2+ hour discussion on WWII and not uttering the word "Holocaust" 1 time?? And yeah you called it when he gave the slick smile.
You're a very brave and a very generous man to go boldly into the darkness that is Tucker Carlson. Brave, because it has measurably damaged your life. You can't unwatch it; it's part of you forever. Generous because it's pretty great content.
I was chopping vegetables while listening to your reaction, but I actually had to stop bc I was worried in all my outrage/shock I'd cut my fingers off. This guy is clearly in love with antisemitic conspiracy theories. Saying that all the camps were "improvised", made solely for prisoners of war? That Churchill was motivated by EMBARRASSMENT? That the poor Germans were merely doing "mercy killings"? I cannot believe Tucker had this guy on his show and never asked any questions or pushed back. Chris, why do you think Tucker didn't push back?! I doubt he believes this guy's fantasy story.
I can’t speak for Chris, but I think it may be a case of believing sunlight is the best disinfectant. Doing a proper journalistic interview is almost a lost art these days, one where you let the subject make their case and either vindicate or damn _themselves._ Tucker let people see just how nuts this guy is without giving him the chance to claim Tucker treated him unfairly.
@@eirreniano, actually, Tucker didn't do any such thing. He treated the guy as though he was a grand revelator, and all narratives of World War II would have to be rewritten because of Darryl Cooper's brilliance.
@@bobtaylor170 Have to agree to disagree there. But, still I only mention it as a possibility. Without hearing Tucker’s opinion on the guy outside the interview, (which I haven’t yet) we can’t know either way.
Um he never says all the camps were improvised or that the Germans mercy killed everyone. What he said was the Germans were not ready for the numbers of prisoners taken in Barbarossa and commander at a POW camp said it would be more humain to kill the prisoners instead of letting them starve. Which is fairly accurate. The Germans were not ready to handle the scale of prisoners they had. Poor living condition, lack of food and hard labor is what killed most prisoners. This doesn't make the Nazis nice or good it's just a reality that they were not ready to handle the people they captured. They also didn't really care and planned to let most of these people die through malnutrition and forced labor because they viewed them as undesirables who were consuming limited resources. I probably need to clarify that overall I think Cooper is making generally bad arguments and coming to ridiculous conclusions.
I am fully against censorship. I don’t agree that people should be actively silenced for their views IF they are not hurting anyone… however, things like this make me question why some people get the platforms to spew twisted nonsense like this. This makes me sort of see why some people criticize Joe Rogan for giving certain people a platform to speak on, and I have generally been critical of that. But this is a person twisting HISTORICAL FACTS and hoping others will listen and agree, which a lot most certainly will. In an era when it is easier than ever to “have the megaphone”, it is so so dangerous for arrogant people to have that capacity and influence people that have a tendency of being manipulated easily.
The thing is people these days claim that not being given a platform alone is censorship. Which is of course wrong. You are not being censored if or silenced if anyone with a smudge of knowledge, critical thinking, and journalistic integrity think you and your ideas are not worth the time to platform or even dangerous to let spread because it is so wrong and vile. If I cant land an interview with the NYT to talk about my favorite game it is only because it isn’t newsworthy not because “they” are silencing me. I can go on the internet or the town center and say all I want. I can create my own platform even. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an entitled child. 😂
I am a socialist who follows you because I am a big history nerd. I appreciate your commentary, specifically on the Civil War, and I thank you for all of your content. That being said, while I understand you lean more conservative, I want to also thank you for responding to this unadulterated racism and ridiculous historical revisionism. This guy is both absurd and obviously just talking fascist apologia. I know Tucker is often seen as a beacon of some kind of truth with conservatives but I hope this video was eye opening to you and others about how disgusting his own politics are. The fact that he didn’t interrupt this guy while he was spouting what is for all intents and purposes Nazi apologia is insanity. You yourself even acknowledge it in this video when he repeatedly fails to challenge his arguments. I love your content and, whether your politics evolve or remain the same, I care about you as a fellow countryman. But I hope this was eye opening as to why so many of these right wing influencers choose to platform and (for some reason) refuse to even argue with when they’re on their shows.
Месяц назад+1
Name a right wnger who avoids discussing a racist past of a guest in their show, then. My reply notifications are on.
Keep in mind he said he Churchill was worse than Stalin, too, who was definitely not a fascist. I don't understand how socialist viewpoints work. They seem like they are just communistic viewpoints without a dictator. How do you divide labor and provide incentive to work under it? If everyone gets equitable treatment? Is there innovation, quality production, or even a happy populous under socialism. I've spent a few years studying examples of socialism and have never seen success that lasts without the creation of a dictatorship. I have, however, seen authoritative success not because of incentive but because of fear and power.
@@whilrykeIn the Putin debate, Tucker listened to him explain in explicit detail that he considered Ukrainian independence an affront to Russian nationalism and an error of history he needed to correct. In this interview, he said Putin was not an ideological person. The grift is real.
Of course he did, he’s espousing “Liberalism bad, America bad, modernity bad, “””””Zionists””””” worst of all.” He’s saying everything Tucker knows his audience wants to hear, why would he push back on a single word?
Well Churchill was not, of course, prime minister when the war started. Nor was he #2 in the conservative party, which was Lord Halifax. So to deem him responsible for the British Empire AND France joining in to defend Poland seems a stretch and a half. No doubt he was pushing for it, as he had been for a decade, rightly so, but Chamberlain made the decision, not Churchill. And if the esteemed right honorable guest truly believes that further appeasement at Poland would have ended Hitler's territorial ambitions then I am sad to say that he is unfit for conversation.
Let's say the British Empire stays out of it. France still joins and loses. The USSR still gets invaded and likely receives aid from the US in terms of lend lease as Roosevelt was deeply distrustful of Nazi Germany and not all together unsympathetic to the Soviet Union. Japan still attacks Pearl Harbor. The Nazis still declare war on the US. And then the UK probably joins the war.
I keep a few different things to read when I feel my faith in humanity shaking and want to remember there is good in this world. Here’s one for anyone who needs it. “Sometimes when I forget that humans are amazing, I think of curiosity singing Happy Birthday on Mars, and this response: ‘No guys you don't understand. The soil testing equipment on Curiosity makes a buzzing noise and the pitch of the noise changes depending on what part of an experiment Curlosity is performing, this is the way Curiosity sings to itself So some of the finest minds currently alive decided to take incredibly expensive important scientific equipment and mess with it until they worked out how to move in just the right way to sing Happy Birthday, then someone made a cake on Curiosity's birthday and took it into Mission control so that a room full of brilliant scientists and engineers could throw a birthday party for a non-autonomous robot 225 million kilometres away and listen to it sing the first ever song sung on Mars*, which was Happy Birthday. This isn't a sad story, this a happy story about the ridiculousness of humans and the way we love things. We built a little robot and called it Curiosity and flung it into the star to go and explore places we can't get to because it's name Is in our nature and then just because we could, we taught it how to sing. That's not sad, that's awesome.’”
Eh, not completely. I scrolled through the comments on the video linked in the description, and there are plenty of people there calling out the BS. Even someone who said “I used to respect Tucker, but this is ridiculous.” I don’t doubt there are comments saying otherwise, but it’s not a complete loss of faith Edit: went back and looked a little more. There were quite a few going “This guy’s onto something” but still nowhere near the number of comments saying Cooper was wrong on everything
@@squatch1565 Yeah, at least there is still a large number of people willing to call out falsehoods compared to the nutcases who think Shickelgruber did nothing wrong.
No, he was the Hero of WW1. I'd argue that Charles Lindberg, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Jackson, Jeff Davis, Aaron Burr are the villains in US history... "honorable" mentions: Joseph McCarthy, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump (even though a above average Presidency).
As a brit I'm fairly unfamiliar with Wilson beyond his relevance to WW1 and the fact that he was spectacularly racist. What else is there that makes him such a notable villain?
@@ddandymann The racism and WW1 failures are the main problems people have with Wilson. There are a few other things to hold against him though, such as the Palmer Raids, his interventions in South America, and the Espionage and Sedition acts. In general, disastrous foreign policy and disregard for civil liberties are why people don't like him.
That reminds me, The Cynical Historian made a video about how historians can be disgraced and gives some examples (and briefly mentions this interview and that Cooper is not a historian since he published nothing and if he did would be immediately disgraced), I think it would be interesting to hear what Chris has to say on the subject being a historian himself.
Although Cynical Historian's very negative view of the comedic film - Death of Stalin is very bizarre. Even said he understood why Russia banned it. He doesn't seem like some Communist but it's very weird how much he seemed offended by "historical inaccuracy" of a comedic film
20:04 - This right here, and how you correct him afterwards, is very reminiscent of today with people defending Putin invading Ukraine & blaming the US for keeping the war going. They think Russia should just have their way with things and that the US & Europe should be trying to convince Ukrakne to surrender, rather than helping them to defend against Russia. "Churchill kept this war going..." "Ukraine/Zelenski are keeping this war going..."
@@corey2232 That’s not a good comparison because the US, unlike the UK in 1940, is not willing to put its own soldiers on the ground to overthrow the despot in question, because of the insurmountable public backlash this would receive. But Ukraine is not strong enough to defeat the Russians completely on their own, so the war is in a perpetual stalemate, and the only solutions are either the war continues in an indefinite stalemate, the US intervenes with soldiers to take Moscow or compel Ukraine to accept the reality on the ground. I’m not saying there aren’t bad actors in right wing commentary who want Ukraine to fall for other reasons, cos there are, but the military reality is simply not comparable because of a lack of willpower on the protector nation to intervene militarily, which should effect how we think the war will actually end.
@Longshanks1690 I think it's an apt comparison. He's the one saying Britain should've just abandoned their allies, allowed Hitler & the Nazi regime to take over Europe, round up prisoners & commit genocide, and continue appeasement to avoid fighting... You're also only speaking of one year, 1940. Hitler had consistently kept pushing & pushing, and the Allies tried appeasement. The world already knew the Nazi regime was terrible years before that as well. It's why Jessie Owens' Olympic gold in Berlin was such a big deal even back then. It wasn't news to anyone the Nazi were awful. So when they continued to prove their intentions year after year, getting bolder & bolder, then INVADING POLAND (you know, like a certain authoritarian has done in Ukraine- AFTER unilaterally anexing their territory years before that - another parallel), the US & EU had a choice. Either continue moving the red line & allowing Russia to conquer sovereign friendly countries, or stand their ground & support a country wanting to move towards the EU & democracy. It's ridiculous we have people like Tucker Carlson going to Moscow, one of only two nice, affluent cities in the entirety of Russia, just to run propaganda for Putin & try to spin this as a "US is bad, Russia is good!" thing. What happened to allowing countries to choose their own path? We used to intrude on countries that didn't want our help, but now we're supposed to reject a European country that has steadily chosen to ally itself with the EU & the US in its time of need... and to side with a country that is as authoritarian as it gets outside of North Korea? No. Appeasement didn't work. It's ridiculous this is even a thing the UNITED STATES has to "debate" due to bad actors within our own government & media.
There are two major differences. First, both Poland and France were occupied, resulting in a situation in which the British Empire had no chance of winning without expanding the war due to their inferior army size. Britain's strategy to win the war was to support France's army which they believed was superior to the German army. In comparison Ukraine is actually still capable of winning as they have not been fully occupied. The second difference is that the territories that the German Empire demanded and failed to diplomatically negotiate for actually wanted to join their fellow Germans. The main reason some people think that Britain was the reason the war started is because they told the Polish that they would support them in a war which resulted in the Polish breaking off diplomatic talks regarding the self determination of the people of Danzig and the Polish Corridor.
@@Longshanks1690 THAT IS PURE BULLSHIT only reason there is a stalemate is that usa has tied ukraines hands behind their backs by stopping them from hitting russia, if Ukraine is given the tools they need they will win on their own
@@Longshanks1690Ukraine can certainly continue to bleed the Russians dry of military equipment and soldiers along with the economic damage Russia is taking through sanctions, refinery destruction, cost of war, etc. Even if military intervention occurred by the West, they wouldn't need to advance to Moscow as the war goal is to drive Russia out of the territory of Ukraine. "Accept the reality on the ground" is code for giving Putin what he wants and is a Pro Russian talking point.
This is absolutely the most flabbergasted and worked up. I have seen you Chris and it was absolutely fantastic. The sad part is that people like him get a platform and a lot of people will just take that narrative that he’s contrived and use it to justify their own prejudice and judgmental beliefs, or use it to back a particular position that they hold, and it’s sad because that whole rant was clearly to undermine the Jewish people and Israel as a nation and to make them out to be the bad guys. It’s exactly the same sort of dribble that the Nazis used and it’s shameful.
About Germans not having a plan for prisoners and population before Barbarossa. They had it for years, a certain book written by a certain Austrian corporal has an entire chapter dedicated to it, and it's called Lebensraum. The plan was to completely exterminate Jews, while others (mostly Slavs) were to be exterminated and/or mass deported. The exact percentages of these measures for each individual nation varied. This is not some arcane knowledge I'm showing here, it's something I learned back in elementary school. So, he either doesn't know about this or he's omitting it on purpose. I don't know what is worse, to be honest. P.S. Writing this at about 25% of the video, I'm curious if I'll remain just on one comment. This was supposed to be a nice, relaxing evening (it's 7:30 PM in my country) with a new VTH video, and I got this individual instead. P.P.S. It is possible, that some of the camp commanders didn't know all the specifics of this doctrine - but it is very, very unlikely.
No offense but actually watching this video through will be hard. Not of any fault of yours but the Cooper guy makes me so frustrated And shame on Tucker Carlson for platforming this individual
Cooper is not a historian in any plausible sense of the word. His only published book is essentially a guide on how to be a more effective internet troll.
@spencerr9299 You're right. Concentration camps started before WW2 they were not built on the spare of the moment. Political prisoners were sent to Concentration camps in 1934. A lot of Jews were sent to Concentration camps in 1938 a year before WW2 Europe offically started in 1939.
Also, Darryl Cooper doesn't think Nazism is necessarily tyranny. The fact that Tucker Carlson brought him on, the fact that avowed White Nationalist have said that they watched Tucker Carlson Tonight every night, the fact that he pushes the great replacement theory, albeit in dog whistle form, shows his ideology as well. Let's put it this way, if an MSNBC host put on an avowed Stalinist, the guest said "Eisenhower was an evil man!", and they gave them no pushback, I'd have the same disgust.
When I first watched this, I was queasy all the way through it. As someone from Southeast Asia, I have no love for Churchill and his policies during the WW2, but vilifying him to this degree is just BS of the highest order. And you KNOW this is just to drum up controversy for views, they themselves do not believe any of this.
I was absolutely shocked that this wasn't about The Bengal Famine, which is what I immediately thought of when I saw the headline. The guy is fricking crazy.
It's like saying Roosevelt is responsible for Japan's invasion of China because the US placed an embargo on oil going to Japan, Japan would have invaded for other reasons without US involvement.
Bengal famine, bombings of German cities targeting civilians and his actions in the countless of deaths in Gallipoli is the crimes he need to pay for. Not for fighting the Germans. He not the worse person of WW2 but definitely bad for non Brits/yanks.
I think there are legitimate criticisms of Churchill's actions in the second world war (unlike you I do agree with him that the bombing campaign against Germany was horrible), but Hitler was definitely far far worse. I just can't with this guy insisting the atrocities on the Eastern Front were just an accident and in his twitter thread afterwards taking Hitler's offers to only annex the majority German parts of Poland at face value (given Hitler's similar promise re-Czechoslovakia which he breached).
I'd point out that the casualty counts for some of those bombing campaigns (like Dresden) have been grossly exaggerated by Holocaust deniers like David Irvine. Don't get me wrong, the bombings did kill many innocent Germans, but nowhere close to the number some people believe. In Dresden, for example, around 25,000 Germans were killed, but pro-Nazi historians have often falsely claimed deaths between 250,000-500,000.
Although I've never met any Holocaust survivor, I have met several people who had survived the Bengal Famine, including my grandfather. The trauma is so great for them that they don't even want to recollect those years. There is so much to discuss about Churchill and his perceived apathy towards the "Brightest Jewel in the Crown" and its people, but the guest didn't even go there. He criticised Churchill for something he actually did brilliantly and rightfully.
Bruh. You cannot say the germans weren't "that bad" just because the Soviets were bad as well. They were 2 bloody and totallitary regimes pushed against each other. 😂
Wait, of all the bad things Churchill has done (mainly his response to the Bengal famine), the guy is criticizing him for the best thing he has done? Wtf?? Edit: stop fucking defending Churchill for his shit in Bengal, wtf
WHY DOES NO ONE EVER READ THE F¥CKING FACTS!!!!!! Churchill was NOT responsible for the FVCKING FAMINE!!!! He was doing everything possible to elevate the famine, NOT exacerbate it! He got the Australian government to promise to send 350,000 tons of wheat to India, and allowed Canada to also send grain as well! He even told the new Viceroy of India in a personal letter if needed, to divert ships from the war effort to help with the famine!
The Bengal Famine was several different famines, all caused by mismanagement by the viceroyship, poor crop yields, and natural disasters. The British Empire was negligent because they had the capacity to alleviate poor crop yields in that region from Burma. The Empire of Japan invaded Burma and cut off Bengal’s cereal supply with the explicit intention of triggering the famines. Saying that Churchill is to blame for the famine is like blaming Churchill for the Holocaust. Churchill used his authority to divert food by rail car into Bengal. Hindis tried to stop him because they wanted the Muslims to starve. The British Empire stopped the Wehrmacht in the Second Battle of El Alamein in which the NSDAP intended to cut off any possible land resupply route into the Indies. If the Axis went unimpinged the death toll would have been much higher.
"Leaflets" - yeah because that's all he dropped on London in 1940! Did the thousands of bombs also have peaceful messages written on them. That guy is insane
@@historyinyourhand1787 The first bombing raid by the British over Germany was a leaflet drop, urging the German people to reject the Austrian painter.
7:00 he is 100% saying it that way on purpose just like when he said "The people they rounded up" REALLY just gonna brush over that?!?!? Can't say churchill is a bad guy and acknowledge the holocaust in the same argument...
I know it's frustrating to watch content like this, but thank you for posting this. As a Jew, seeing so many people revise history in this manner is anxiety inducing to say the least. Your video at the very least provides me some comfort in seeing someone else react appropriately to his insane ramblings.
. For years before the war churchill was one of the few people who saw through hitlers bs. He was the one who got uk to start rearming significantly in 1938 without it i doubt uk would have stood a chance
I studied Churchill a lot over the past year and as much as he was a defender of his nation people wipe away the first 40 years of his contribution to victorian imperialism. But thats just my opinion and one angle of looking at his legacy
From my own conversations with English people, they are well aware of Churchill's failings, his many mistakes and foolish ideas. That despite all of that he achieved things out of courageous will and instilled this in those around him. He called on people stand up and fight while directly telling them of the pain and loss they would need to suffer to win. Personally I am glad that his story still enrages the far right and neo nazis. He completely refutes everything they claim about democratic societies.
Which one, the version printed before the war, or after when they put editorial notes in it at the bottom of pages and perhaps even added content to fit post-war narratives to spread White guilt beyond the 7 million or so NSDAP members and the SS and place it on our entire race? Now obviously, the Holocaust happened; from 1941-1945, 2 million Jews were shot (mainly as partisans), 2 million Jews died from unsanitary labor conditions and overwork as prisoners of war, as under German law then, their entire people were considered enemies of the state and irredeemably Bolshevised, and 2 million Jews were gassed to save food for the war effort (and yes, the Nazis hated the Jews, and not just blindly, as our Bolshevik elites would tell you). Had the Haavara Agreements continued, and Britain and France not been so well-propagandized by the Soviets and their domestic counterparts against Germany and Italy (as well as the trauma of the Great War continuing to fester), eventually there would have been a Great War in the East to liberate Russia, and in order to keep the European Alliance together, Britain and France would have demanded humane treatment of the Slavs and Jews in exchange for their participation, which the National Socialists would have gladly accepted. Poland, a Baltic state, Belarus, and Ukraine would be German puppets, with Britain and France bringing back the Romanov Dynasty in Russia under a Constitutional Monarchy, which they would guarantee the independence of.
Maybe he needs an English copy lol. I don't speak German but I can understand some of it enough to understand when he wants war with certain people, he isn't a good person
@@-._A2._- True, but no one is truly good except God. No one tries to look at why the reaction happened because the reaction was strong and brutal, but the Jewish moral underclass, like they had in Russia, were hard at work trying to make the Weimar Republic into a Soviet state and with the same sort of moral degeneracy that they have later on promoted and directed here in the US and other western countries, which, after seeing little to no resistance from Rabbis or other ostensibly moral people in the Jewish community, they (both the German public and the NSDAP, assumed the whole race had become corrupted their moral underclass), and so they acted accordingly as if the very life of the nation/race was at stake, as if the Jews were engaged in a total war with German people.
Special interest, stim object, the person being interviewed showed not only judgment by calling it "childish" but also a lack of knowledge and understanding how many neurodivergent people function. Some neurotypical people as well. Likely, we will never know if Churchill himself fell in the undiagnosed neurodivergent adult category or not, but certain aspects seem to resemble certain patterns. Churchill's "black dog" description of depressive episodes, can then be a comorbidity or it's standalone thing.
And this is why I love your channel: when you explain something, you also back it up with evidence (articles, websites, etc...) while also trying to be as unbiased as possible
As an Indian leftist Churchill is probably among the people who rank highest on my list of criticism but none of those criticisms make me say he was worse than Hitler. The axis in the East were chopping off Indian heads for sport, I'm certain a man made famine is objectively the lesser evil.
@@jerinmathew4726 Sorry to burst your bubble, but Churchill did everything in his power to elevate the famine in India, even going so far as to divert shipments bound for the war effort to go to Bengal, and securing a promise from the Australian government to send 350,000 tons of wheat to India, as well as grain from Canada. And in actual fact, it was Gandhi’s political party who was trying to throw a spanner in the works to embarrass the Muslim government in charge of Bengal.
@@Invictus357 i am aware of all of it, including his apathy during the famine. Still doesn't make him as evil as the industrialized killing of the nazis , or what Indians suffered under the japanese in Singapore/Andaman or even in Japanese the allied INA
This is what happens when your whole identity becomes wrapped up in being a contrarian.
100%
spot on, flat earthers branched out it seems.
@@Rammsoldatthey can’t do branches those are 3D they can line out
Back in the day contrarians got a job working for the circus but since they don’t exist anymore the clowns have to clown somewhere else.
very true - its all for clicks
Of all the F***ed up stuff Churchill did and said he managed to criticise him on the one thing Churchill did a great job on.
@@pentarandir6575 This guy would probably say Churchill handled the Bengal famine quite well.
Coopers racial proclivities would certainly mean he thinks Churchill handled most of the screwed up things he did just fine
@@captainlamp2.076 Wasn't that that he didn't really handle it badly he just didn't care?
@@TheStupidDetectiv I did, very in-depth infact. Thank you for your input.
@@razier5299 It was more he didn't consider it a major priority so I wouldn't say didn't care exactly but also didn't do much to help.
"Germany just didn't know what to do with their prisoners 😢" never before has one sentence told me everything I need to know about someone
Problem is, even assuming he's right, under the laws of war, Germany is still responsible for treating them humanely. Taking a surprising number of prisoners and being overwhelmed is not an excuse for anything, under the law. You're still responsible to feed them. Otherwise, if you don't know what you're doing, don't go to war.
"The trains kept coming where else were we gonna put them besides the furnace" in all seriousness, though he's insane for trying to justify killing prisoners in an offensive war as mercy
I can do better.
I followed him on X until last year. He tried to make a moral equivalent to hostages taken by Hamas on October 7th to Palestinians held in Israeli jails.
I knew then exactly who this guy really was.
Neither did the British and Americans, but they didn't do what Germany did.
"The Germans didn't know what to do with the prisoners" is such a blatant lie that I couldn't keep watching. When planning the invasion, the Germans were pretty sure they would be taking lots of Russian soldiers prisoner. The German plan of a fast campaign like France virtually guaranteed it. The Germans also knew they couldn't handle all those prisoners and stick to their timetable. Historical records show that the Germans planned from the beginning to work and starve many of those prisoners to death. For him to miss (or, more likely, intentionally overlook) that fact is horrible.
Famously, in 1940, Hitler dropped a very peaceful leaflet campaign in the United Kingdom. Delivered, incredibly peacefully, through the medium of lethal explosives
The British declared war on Germany. Didn't you know that? And they started the "strategic [bombing] offensive" of civilian targets which J.M. Spaight of the Air Ministry said was a "splendid decision" in his 1944 book "Bombing Vindicated".
@@bearcatXF Missing the context of Germany invading Poland ya bozo.
@@youareallbots7536 Personal attack is usually the last resort of a tired mind but you went right there.
You're missing the context entirely. Read the Communication of the German Government to the British Government - September 3, 1939 at the Avalon Project.
@@bearcatXFNazi Germany started civilian bombing in Spain and then Poland.
@@bearcatXFGermany was stalling so that it could complete its objectives in the east before turning west. This isn’t speculation, this is what we know to be true. Germany crushed all opposition on its way to the English Channel and North Atlantic because it had prepared for its Belgium and French campaign in advance, they intended to conquer Europe. The strategy is called: “Defeat in Detail”.
The reason Germany was suing for peace with Britain was because they knew Britain’s defensive alliance with Poland and wanted to postpone Britain for as long as possible.
Hitler absolutely did try to make peace with Britain even before Churchill: Neville Chamberlain said in his diaries that Hitler sent him very generous peace proposals, but he wasn't going to accept anything but the total removal of Hitler after Hitler had invaded Poland despite his clear warnings that it would mean war.
And Chamberlain was absolutely right to do this. First of all, after Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland, Chamberlain would have to be the stupidest poltician alive to trust Hitler.
Second, from a geopolitical standpoint it made no sense for Britain to let Germany take Poland: it's the same reason Britain stayed at war with Napoleon. Why would they let a single country totally dominate the continent and tip the balance of power completely out of wack? People who say "The U.K should have acquiesed to German dominance" just don't understand how politics works
Plus, they ruled the seas they could just blockade Germany until thar economy fell apart
So essentially Britain wanted yet another one of the worst wars in European history in order to maintain their power? Why am I not surprised?
The charitable way to view people who say the Britiah should have made peace is to view history in hindsight - this war ultimately destroys the British Empire and denotes Britain to the status of irrelevancy geopolitically it has today - just a US lap dog. You could argue that was inevitable, but I think people are just grasping at ways to prevent the final elimination of the old world order that resulted from this war. Regardless, peace with Germany wouldn't have achieved this - Britain would barely keep it's empire while all of continental Europe lost big either under the German or Soviet boot.
Then Churchill decide to give Poland to the Soviet. Not exactly great either.
@@brazwen Exactly, the main reason that the entire was was supposedly fought over was just taken by the Soviets. What was the point of Britain declaring war on Germany and dragging on the war then?
This guy reminds me how others argue the US is responsible for the Pacific War because they provoked Japan. Like, yes, the attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked... but it was provoked by an Allied oil embargo meant to force the end of Japan's brutalization of China. The issue is not whether there was provocation. Provocation ≠ justification. By their logic, an alcoholic husband is allowed to beat his wife if she provokes him by saying she'll leave if he doesn't get help.
Reminds me of the argument cole Phelps from the game la noire had with his marines saying he respects japan
And one soldier criticized cole saying that Japan bombed peril harbor
And Cole said “they bombed us because we cut off there oil”
And that is true but cole missed a big reason why the oil was cut off, for I DONT KNOW, how bout that japan was literally doing every war crime in the book in china cole, that’s why the oil was cut off.
@@5552-d8bYeah, Cole wasn’t the best person and the game made that really clear.
FDR knew about Pearl habour, I have no doubt about it
@@chrisigoeb citation needed
@@yashjoseph3544 yea he was a flawed character I understand his flaws of cheating on his wife and being a arrogant lt, that I understand but when he literally acted like Japan was the victim of the oil being cut off that was more of a blooper to me, cause cole is a smart guy that you would think he would entirely understand why the oil was cut off.
I'd heard of Tucker doing this interview, and I assumed everyone was exaggerating about how insane it was. Apparently I was very wrong.
My feelings exactly.
Tucker Carlson is using him as ragebait
Tucker actually holds these views.
You haven't seen his Putin interview?
@@Absinthminded no this is what people mean when they say Tucker dog whistles to fascies
As an Indian, Winston Churchill is a villain to us. That's mostly because of the colonial history in general and some of his policies in specific. However, l lost braincells listening to this conversation lol.
Yeah, I saw the title and was expecting a video covering Churchill’s darker side, like his colonial tendencies and such, and how they conflict with his popular image of the cigar-toting, tough “keep calm and carry on” persona, how he wasn’t all hero and such.
But yikes, I didn’t see this coming.
Churchill is definitely villain in some sense and especially what happened in India. But purely in context of world war 2 it's pretty easy to find real bad guys and it's not Churchill
It’s almost like humans are complicated and can do both good and bad things all at the same time and how you evaluation of them is massively dependent on perspective.
Or you could listen to this interview and have your brains melt and run out your ears
I have seen this sentiment before - and everyone points to the Bengal famine - whilst completely ignoring the practicalities, the literal fog of war and a number of key factors.
When I look at where this idea came from and how it propagated in Indian culture - curiously I see a number of western educated Marxists responsible.
I grant you that he was a Man of his time, Racist by todays standards, but par for the course by the standards of the day.
Let me ask you this - Given what Japan did to China - would you prefer British rule or Japanese Rule (hint - look up Unit 731 and what happened in Nanking).
@@MajesticDemonLord I'd prefer absolute self-rule, AKA, Poorna Swaraj. Also, there was heavy criticism coming from within India regarding Churchill's policies in real-time. It's not a "Western Educated Marxist" invention.
Thank you for making this video.
Bro the 'youtube historian' community is so cooked when all of them fail the physiognomy test and fall for basic reddit morality.
@@josephhall3855 what the hell are you yapping about?
Hey, Mr. Beat! Do you think you’ll livestream your own reaction to the interview?
I read this in your voice lol
@josephhall3855 Ha! You tried using big words. I bet I've seen you in fail army.
"Hitler launches peace proposals"
France & England: "Maybe we shouldn't trust the promises from this guy who has broken his promises several times..."
Peace proposals for Germany's benefit exclusively.
Bully: *Steals someone's lunch.*
The bully after stealing the lunch: "Hey! I just want peace, bro. Chill."
@@r.b.ratieta6111yeah good comparison but I would take it farther. Not only did he steal your lunch money, he sucker punched you from behind, slapped your momma, took your girlfriend and kicked your dog. Then he's like chill out man
@@kevinrussell3501I usually like to put it as.
Man punches random guy (austria) in bar
Man punches another random guy (czechoslovakia)
He then tells you he won't punch him (czechoslovakia) again, then does it again.
He then tells you he won't punch anyone else.
He then proceeds to punch all your friends (poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, France.)
He then turns to you and says, I promise I won't punch you next.
Would you believe him?
@@s.henrlllpoklookout5069 NO! Accept the peace proposal. What could possibly go wrong?
"The Germans had no plans for camps for these people."
They literally kept accounting-level records of every aspect of the operations of the camps, except instead of monetary count it was a body count.
Wonder what this guy thinks about Reinhard Heydrich/Operation Reinhard
@@TrampConnoisseurMakeshimhard
Actually about the "no plans" is half correct. But not because they didn't want to exterminate people. The method just wasn't developed. At first they shot people but the toll it took on the soldiers was too great. So they needed a more detached method. That's why they switched to gassing.
So yes the plans were crap but they developed it. They always planned the extermination route.
This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Germany was rationing food the years before the war and during the war, they had a major food shortage. Their plan for inferior peoples was starvation, some Germans, who did not know the top level planning thought it might be due to the "privations" of war, but anybody in the top 100 knew it was part of a larger plan, some out of necessity and some out of ideology to starve as many occupied peoples as possible while maintaining order and morale. The fact that the starvation plans are documented in primary documents and this guy just makes stuff up means he should be deplatformed.
People like this know it's bullshit but rely on uninformed people to buy into it for it to spread.
This guy acts like WW2 ONLY started on May 10, 1940 (When Churchill came into the office of Prime Minister). He COMPLETELY forgets Mussolini's invasion of Albania, Invasion of Ethiopia, Japan's conquest of Manchuria, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and subsequent war between Japan and China, and all the expansionist incidents of Nazi Germany before Sept 1, 1939??? This guy interviewed by Pucker Clueless-son is astronomically delusional.
you know whats crazier? the British invaded Iceland and Iran in ww2.
@@saemonno-suke9959Yeah. I don’t support the British. USSR ftw
He's saying what the Russians want us to believe. On Tucker Carlson's show. Coincidence?
@@afiiik1 The last thing that Russia would do would to be to throw away it’s heritage of fighting facism and rewrite history to support the nation (Germany) that caused them so much suffering.
@@tempejkl Russia is supporting any extremism in the west it can just to devide us. The ultimate goal of this particular narrative is to promote appeasement at all costs. "Churchill was wrong to fight, appeasement is the way" etc.
What the hell is this nonsense!? Lost Cause: Nazi Edition??
Pretty much.
You are absolutely right. German nazi movement try to build this "Lost Cause: Nazi Edition" since end of WW2. I think this dude obviously got his hands on a translation of one of these many german nazi books full of bs and just repeating the nonsense he read in there. It's a shame to repeat Goebbel's and Hitler's lies when you live in 2024 and have all the opportunity to challenge these statements...
Sad
@@VloggingThroughHistorymore absurd
Yes
My 15 year old brother with an F in history has a better understanding of the Second World War than this guy.
Right this guy just a democrate the guy with the glasses
No he doesnt
@@sanic1085Yeah he does. Cope
My 6 year old niece studying at infant school has more knowledge on the wars than this waste of spunk!
True but how does one get an F in history unless he’s flat out not giving an F?
This man is not an idiot, like some claim. He doesn't deserve the presumption of ignorance. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing, and it's evil.
Oye Vey
OMG how dare someone go against social norms and bring up a differing opinion then yours! If you have a differing opinion then me you're evil!
If that opinion is Holocaust denialism, then yes, they are evil.
@@molon___labe now everythings is labeled as an opinion, even scientific facts among some percentage of the population worldwide.
"The didn't really wanted to do exterminations camps, they didn't know how to manage all those prisoners of war, it just happened"
You cannot have a scientific take of these caliber when there are overwhelming proofs of what happened at the time.
There is malice here, of the worst kind.
@@molon___labe if I say Cadburys chocolate is better than Herseys that's an opinion because it's based on personal preference. The holocaust is not an opinion. Who killed more people in ww2 is not an opinion. The Nazis being more evil than Churchill is not an opinion
Churchill would paint, write poetry, write and dictate books, enjoyed Dundee cake and malt whisky, smoked a moderate number of cigars, discussed his failings and periods of depression, would talk people up in public in front of their friends often with self deprecation, diminish his own part in things to praise others. He would also at times use physical objects as props to promote deep concentration while thinking over decisions. When interrupted during this could snap at people. He could seem annoyed with people who failed to express points clearly and simply used endless fancy speech. One thing he expressed to his subordinates was not making a decision was worse than a bad decision. He was human, for better or worse. The far right neo nazis hate all of that. In their minds leaders are super human demi gods without failings. They are still filled with spite and rage that their great crusade was crush by a leader like Churchill, a man in a wheelchair and a semi literate Georgian peasant with a withered arm running a chaotic country.
Churchill didnt crush anything. The Soviets and Americans did. The british empire died.
There are many on the right who admire the Machiavellian skills that FDR and Stalin possessed. Churchill by contrast was a pathetic drunkard who lost the Empire and then came up with a revisionist history as a means of copium for failing his King and Empire so badly.
Iirc Stalin was actually a bookworm
You know it’s gonna be bad if Chris doesn’t start the video with “Welcome back everybody” but rather, “what am I doing?”.
Chris was pretty terrible I agree. Are all his videos this pathetically unresearched?
Daryl demolishes Chris in any history topic.
@@Zone47.For one I think you're horribly misunderstanding the original comment, I think got the original commenter was meaning to say that you could tell that Chris was pissed off from the minute he started this video because he already had some idea of where this was going to go, and the statement that this is horribly researched, really tells me you haven't even watched the video considering he literally stops to verify information every chance he gets in this video, and to the other man in this comment section I don't exactly feel like you can say someone is demolishing someone else when they're not actually having a debate, but I would also not call this demolishing him because the points of the other person are completely irrational.
@@genovayork2468 Chris’s specialization is civil war history but no Chris is objectively right in this video. Dude is an apologist to Nazi Germany its insane.
@@Zone47. He literally pauses in the middle of videos to research. He did in this very video. Try again.
This is Goebbels level of political propaganda spin!
😂 l like that
That is an insult to Dr Goebbels, he was smarter than that. He actually managed to go and do the propaganda work and do it successfully and kept his job from the 1920s to 1945 in that bunker.
Maybe he’s related!🤣
Trump Level, Goebbels isn’t this pathetic.
Completely accurate assessment!
Im german and Im getting aggressive by hearing this. 16% of the entire polish population died (over the half where jews) and if you listen to him you could think that this was a war like any other in history.
I was in Białystok a few years back. It was apparently once a center of Jewish culture and life with half the city being Jewish.
Now? I was told there was one small synagogue left even now.
One of those terrifying reminders of the past in simple demographics.
(Also, Americans don’t talk enough about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Golden Liberty - it’s very familiar).
It was a war like any other, except the victors wrote quite the big proportion of it.
I'm American and the only difference was the scale/technological improvements over the last war. The essential ethical/moral character was no different than any other war in human history.
The English confiscated and exported food and withheld aid from the Irish such that their population fell by 25% during the Famine as a policy of deliberate starvation, and they weren't even in a declared war with the Irish, does that make the English worse than the Nazis? Does it make you as aggressively angry? If not, why?
@@genovayork2468”duh victors wite duh histowy”
@@Epvil You know that the guy would not be spouting that rhetoric if the Nazis won. It's another dog whistle sadly.
Here in the UK, a lot of left leaning people have been trying to paint Churchill as a villain (painting ‘was a racist’ under his statue in Parliament Square during BLM protests). Largely due to his involvement in India and the Bengal famine, which they see him as responsible for. I was expecting this guy to bring some of this stuff up, as a genuine critique of Churchill, not some antisemitic tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Churchill will always be a hero for me
The way I like to look at it, Churchill’s finest hour coincided with that of the British Empire.
Outside of that…well, let’s try avoiding moralizing about amorality…
This guy can't even get basic facts about WWII correct. Launched Operation Barbarossa to seize Romania's oil fields? Romania was a German ally and participated in Operation Barbarossa on the German side. This man cannot be taken seriously. Also, does anyone here know if he at any point in the interview mentioned the Bengal famine? I came into this video thinking that was going to be the topic because it is perhaps the most sour note of Churchill's career. From this section it seems this man just dislikes Churchill because he likes Hitler.
To be fair, I think he meant it was to protect them more than to seize them.
@@jdotoz Even then, that's still wrong. The Soviets had already gotten what they wanted from us, so they didn't have any incentive to try and take us down fully. If anything, the Germans had been more of a threat to us than the Soviets considering they allowed both Bulgaria and Hungary to take lands from us and had made the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which specifically allowed the Soviets to take Bessarabia and North Bukovina from us.
Maybe they'd have tried to take Romania down later? That's a possibility, Romania and Russia weren't big fans of one another, but even the whole protection part is a big stretch, if that's what his argument was.
Bengal famine wasn’t really Churchill’s fault either. Resupply of Bengal was extremely difficult given that Japanese U-boats infested the waters of Bengal.
@@deschloro That is correct and I generally push back against those that say it was. Could he have handled it better? Yes. Was it his highest priority? No. Winning the war was the best way to address that issue along with many others. I was only saying from the title of the video I assumed that was what was going to be covered. Saying Churchill was a warmonger and Hitler only wanted peace threw me for a loop.
I believe he was making the connection that Operation Barbarossa was a preventative war meant to protect the Romanian oil fields. Of course, this misses the fact that the Soviet Union was in no position to actually challenge Germany on that front. The best reason for that was the sheer success of Barbarossa.
"I'm not saying Hitler is the hero"
Then proceeds to say
'Listen the Holocaust wasn't intentional it was more of a big whoopsie'
The Holocaust follows directly from Nazi ideology. The only "surprise" is they didn't do it sooner.
👍🏻🤣😂😅
Was Hitler even at Wannsee?
There’s an argument to be made that he was a helpless pawn and token spokesperson for the party rather than the one really in charge, though his successful (and counterproductive) micromanaging of various projects suggests they really did follow him.
Yes, not like the Ost plan, but where are countries like:Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, France, Sweden, Belgium, Poland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Greece and so on invaded the USSR... but yes, this is different, after all, who really cares about 27 millons of Soviet lives as opposed to 6 millons of Jews)))
@@Justanotherconsumer Given he was very open about his plans and desires that were carried out yeah I think he's still guilty.
I don't think this man is accidentally acting as a nazi apologist. I believe it is intentional. He even insinuates "bankers" influenced Churchill to fight Germany. His goal is to use this revisionist critique to make fascism more appealing. All his talking points match with neo nazi historical revisionism from materials such as "The Greatest Story Never Told" the pro Hitler documentary.
Yup. He's a Holocaust denier and uses the same b.s. line the Nazis did at the time.
For sure, he’s known in Germany as one. That’s also why Tucker had him on. Tucker said “his latest project is the most forbidden of all, trying to understand WW2”…clearly a dog whistle considering it’s the most studied war maybe of all time and he’s referring to a guy saying Hitler wasn’t the bad guy. He also called this guy “the best and most honest historian”. And that tweets still up.
@@baseballer8370 He's the best and most honest historian.
@@genovayork2468 yeah yeah the Jews are definitely the reason your life’s rough lol.
It's encouraging to see better explanations of what actually happened leading up to the war instead of the Colin Powell tier fabrications the more intelligent of us have had to roll our eyes at until now.
Churchill was a man with many flaws. He was an imperialist with a very conservative (and frequently racist) points of view.
But he was also one of the first to recognize the danger of Hitler, and his determination and courage to see the war through is one of the primary reasons Britain stayed in the war after France fell.
Without him, the future of the world is considerably darker. Either Nazism stays around for years longer or Europe eventually becomes consumed by Stalin and his version of communism. Like it or not, he’s a big reason why Western Europe remained democratic after WW2.
You outed yourself by listing one of his flaws as "being conservative".
And also the deeply revealing syntactical error of "a very conservative (parentheses) points of view". Nice try, kid. Read a book.
WTF are you even talking about. Churchill was a very flawed person, as we all are, but that doesn't change the fact that he was one of the most important heroes the world has ever seen. If you disagree, read a book, kid.
Englishman borned in the 1800s has somewhat racist views?! I'm shocked
@@greybushMEproductions How about you read the rest of the comment, “kid”.
As a Slovak guy, rather than Churchill, we see Chamberlain as the villain. Namely because of the Munich Agreement, or as we call it, the Munich Betrayal/Dictate.
From Northern England. Churchill was no hero, though. Outside of World War ll he was complicated
You guys we're Hitler's Buddies! It was the Czechs that we're pissed off!
The Western betrayal 😢. Too bad Ike wouldn't have let Patton take Prague. I don't know if that would have helped you Slovaks though. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.
@@dermotmcquaid3692
1.) "we're" (2x)?
2.) that said betrayal was before the first splitting of Czechoslovakia;
3.) his buddies? C'mon, pal. Does Slovak National Uprising ring the bell?
@@Tom_Corvus5probably not, since he clearly hasn’t researched anything about Slovakia in WWII
Just FYI, this Cooper guy has an article on German Wikipedia as a well-known Holocaustleugner (aka Holocaust Denier).
Cooper is also bizarrely an enormous Jim Jones stan. I wish I were kidding but it’s true - he’s an aging edge lord methinks and likes imagining that aligning himself with villains is somehow meaningful. It’s lame and sad but Tucker showcases these idiots and the total lack of ANY scholarship and research to support any of his ludicrous statements is ridiculous when there are THOUSANDS of tomes re WWII that DO criticize Churchill. 🙄
@4Mr.Crowley2 He's not a Jim Jones "stan" at all. He made a 30-odd hour series about Jim Jones, nowhere in there does he support Jim Jones' craziness. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I can tell you haven't listened to his entire series on the Jonestown cult. Maybe do so before spouting off nonsense about it.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 I'd be careful about blaming what people like Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper are doing as a lack of scholarship. They are intentionally engaging in bad faith, which Cooper betrayed with his little smirk when Carlson set him up to engage in barely coded anti-semitism.
Consider the words of Jean-Paul Sartre:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
@@joer9156 he has a very long podcast on the history of Zionism as well so the holocaust denial charge is just factually wrong.
Interesting: I found the German page and attempted to switch to the English page and it redirected me to Tucker's wiki
Doing mental gymnastics to try and make Jews the villains of WWII is diabolical.
No, it's an uncomfortable truth of how society actually works and why there will never be world peace
@@ortegaperu8510 what??
@@ortegaperu8510you seriously cannot be defending this guy
Cooper's engaging in a common strategy among abusers, grifters, and atrocity deniers known as DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.
He Denied with his attempted whitewashing of German treatment of prisoners on the eastern front.
He Attacked by claiming that Churchill not capitulating to Germany is why Germany engaged in the atrocities he claims didn't happen (ie blaming Churchill for Hitler's actions, commonly worded by abusers as "Look what you made me do").
He Reversed Victim and Offender by insinuating that the reason Churchill did not capitulate to Germany was due to him being influenced by the people the Germans specifically targeted with their atrocities, in an attempt to justify the commission of the atrocities that he claims didn't happen.
@@silverstudios6916 whom?
A respected expert on this topic weighed in on this;
_"It's good to air a different set of opinions, but there has to be a common set of facts. And, in this case, the person in reference [Darryl Cooper] wasn't aware of the facts."_
-Victor Davis Hanson
(Military Historian)
This video made my blood boil. Sure, Churchill wasn’t a great person, but calling him the primary villain of WWII completely ignores ADOLF HITLER.
It completely ignores Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin
@@royalewithcheese7 And Mussolini
It ignores every single Axis power's leader. Every single one of them.
He was a poor poltcain during peacetime though
@@danielmacdonald9287 And other countries that joined. Moreover extra events that took place at the same time for example like Wołyń massacres where polish soldier and civilians were murdered by Ukrainian nazi.
3 minutes in and Chris has already had a stroke, Fantastic!
I was dying when that happened at 2:35. Due in large part to the fact that my reaction was equally surprised and somewhat similar. 😂😂
While it is amusing to see Chris get angry at such an idiotic take, I do feel bad for him having to go through this.
Closest we’ve ever seen him nearly lose it! Can’t blame him though.
I made it to 6:45 and the suggestion that the gas chambers were an act of mercy before I had my stroke
@@r.b.ratieta6111 To be fair, if anyone is to be blamed on the Allies' side for starting/expanding the war then it would be Britain. Britain told Poland they would receive support if Germany invaded, which resulted in Poland cutting off diplomatic talks about the peaceful annexation of Danzig, but didn't actually get any support once Germany and the Soviets invaded. They then tried winning the war by using France's army to hold the Germans and possible invade Germany itself, but quickly bailed once that plan failed as well.
This is like Lost Causers saying that Lincoln was a tryant: there's some elements of truth, but it's a wild exaggeration in some misguided and often nefarious way to sound "objective." Churchill was not prefect (my biggest beef was how he treated the Irish), but in WWII, while I won't defend every decision, he 100% was the hero.
A lot could also be said about how he treated India.
Hero?
Meh, that goes a bit too far.
He definitely wasn’t a mustache twirling villain, just a faithful servant of his country and all the skeletons in that closet.
And people who praise him shouldn't ihnore that. Its shows thag all "good guys" in history had their skeletons too@@Justanotherconsumer
No, he wasn't a hero. He always had anti-German sentiments. He even gave Poland to the Soviets.
@@brazwen Churchill's "anti-german sentiment" came from the fact that he had travelled through Europe during the interwar period (while researching for a book about his ancestor Sir John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough and his campaign during the 1700's) and witnessed with his own eyes what the nazis were up to before the war started.
So unlike Chamberlain for example, Churchill knew that Hitler was something out of the ordinary and couldn't be treated like a 'normal' politician.
As to Poland, that was indeed a dirty affair, but it was realpolitik and Churchill did get something out of it (less soviet inflluence on the Balkans and Greece).
Pay attention to who Tucker associates with and encourages.
Everyone?
Bro this isn't about Tucker. Get rid of your derangement.
@@Xeno_Solarus Exactly, I agree. While I would consider myself a conservative (and as a Canadian I have no real skin in the US political game) I will sometimes agree with Tucker Carlson and at other times I think he's completely out to lunch. That he brought this "historian" guy (who seems like your textbook neo-Nazi anti-semitic Groyper) on shows that he's capable of making stupid decisions as well as better ones.
@Xeno_Solarus It's only about Tucker. Tucker is a worm. His guests are worms. His fans are even worse.
@@Xeno_SolarusHow is it not about him, he’s shameless 😂. He let Putin slap him silly in that interview.
He is welcome to come to Norway. I will show him where Russian and Polish prisoners of war were starved to death. Were they drank puddlewater and ate grass since the German soldiers were not feeding them. The ground is filled with their corpses.
This guy disgust me. Churchill did a lot of mistakes and bad things but to say that he was the big baddie is silly.
He doesn't actually believe that Churchill is the villian of WW2. He is just trying to deflect from what Adolf did and justify the actions of the holocaust. It's not stupidity or ignorance, Darryl Cooper is a smart guy who's just trying to spread his ideology into other people. Which makes him dangerous in my opinion.
It is almost equally silly to say that AH was "the big baddie." Such a statement is highly reductive to an absurd degree. It takes a complicated real-world issue, and reduces it to a cartoonish one fit for a Marvel comic book. It is propaganda, nothing more.
If you've studied WW2 with any objectivity and an open mind whatsoever ( referencing primary sources), you can absolutely make an argument that Churchill deserved a high percentage of blame for the events leading to WW2. The Allies of England, USA and France each enjoyed the top 3 colonial empires on the planet. Their "balance of power" foreign policy tactics during WW2 were consistent with their behavior of the preceding 2 centuries. Germany wasn't an existential threat to the empire, it just didn't want to play its part as 2nd fiddle in the current world order which the Allies controlled and exploited.
@@renardfox328The uk declared war to defend a ally, womp womp
@@renardfox328did the Allies of ww1 sew the seeds of destabilization that eventually allowed the Nazis to rise to power? Yes
Were they dragging their feet too long, refusing to acknowledge reality? Definitely
Does this justify any of Hitler’s policies and their implementation? Fuck no
That’s like saying 9/11 was deserved because the USA backed the Taliban in their war against the Soviets in the 80s instead of just not interfering
@@waveiscursed It's just that easy isn't it!
I went into this as a left-leaning cautious critic of Churchill but I was truly unprepared for how bad these takes were going to be.
To be fair a lot of what he said was right, while Chamberlin actually tried his best to maintain peace Churchill simply wanted a war with Germany.
@@dafeekielelliott2442 To phrase it as such implies appeasement was an option and it was perfectly obvious at that point it wasn't.
And that's before you even get into the moral obligations of standing up to Fascism.
@@edstockton3685 The German narrative at the time was that they were "righting the wrongs of Versailles" most obviously meaning that they were returning the millions of Germans who had been stripped away from Germany and made into minorities in other countries. Denying the Germans in Poland the right to self-determination is an good way to give the German Empire a strong reason for war, instead of going to war with them if they started demanding non ethnically German territories.
And there was almost no obligation to stand up to fascism at the time, especially when so many European countries were authoritarian, whether full on dictatorships or just having rigged/influenced elections, such as the Baltic states, Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, and Germany.
Appeasement was always an option for the French and British and likely would have resulted in the Soviets and Germans entering a war against each other instead of Germany occupying France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Luxembourg first.
@@dafeekielelliott2442Churchill understood that no peace was possible with Hitler other than surrendering and allowing him a free hand to do whatever he wanted in Europe. If that is wanting war, then Churchill is guilty of wanting war.
@@dafeekielelliott2442 the war was already on when Churchill became president, it was Chemberlain who decided to honor the agreement with Poland.
This gives me straight Lost Cause vibes. Ask Cooper about the American Civil War next 😂
Right? Bet his family had investments in Mercedes and VW
I think you're pretty much guaranteed a "Lincoln the Tyrant" response.
@@TheHistoryUnderground When the historical reality doesn't fit the ideological dogma, revise the history! Anyone who is dogmatically anti-war, anti-gov't or some combination thereof has an impetus to dispute any war as being "necessary" or "unavoidable". This is why so many dogmatic libertarians embrace the Lost Cause. For Darryl Cooper, Pat Buchanan and the paleocons, its about justifying/defending the late 1930s America First Movement/Isolationism. Of course it is not limited to just those ideologies, all of the dogmatic/absolutist ideologues engage in this kind of revisionism.
@@TheHistoryUndergroundI mean Lincoln was a tyrant who violated the constitution and opened the door for the federal government power grab.
@@TheHistoryUndergroundIf you can’t acknowledge the good and bad out of a conflict, you’re not a serious person and should probably grow up.
I honestly think everyone should be required to read “The rise and fall of the third Reich.” It really makes it sink in just how awful the 3rd Reich really was.
"Why is nobody asking about this thing?"
- Tucker Carlson on every well-studied, easily researchable thing
Ian Kershaw is rolling over in his grave…or he would be, if he wasn’t still very much alive.
2:35
Exactly my reaction to such nonsense statement.
Like, surely, Churchill was not a saint and he made bad decisions here and there. Especially Indians, Bangladeshi and Pakistani has few words to say about his policy.
But blaming HIM out of all people in WW2 is just stupid.
Blaming the war on Churchill is a favorite talking point of neo-nazis and other far-right types.
To be fair, he was quite literally calling for war with Germany before WW2 started
@@dafeekielelliott2442 Sure, but because they were already on the path of war themselves.
@@whilryke How so? The war only began once diplomatic talks regarding Danzig's annexation into the German Empire had failed.
@@dafeekielelliott2442yes…Because Germans, both far-right and far-lift wanted new big war.
First ones (which included monarchists) wanted revenge war, defeat France and Great Britain, annihilate “traitors” and expend Germany by conquering Eastern Europe.
Second ones (including pro-Soviet radicals) wanted to establish communism, exterminate “exploitation class” and expend it all over Europe and beyond.
All Germans wanted war, one way or another. Along with Hungarians, Italians and many others who ended up in Axis powers.
War was inevitable and Churchill fairly said it multiple times. That is why he advocated to been prepared for next big war, in order to make it less sufferable.
I don't think I've heard such apologist for Hitler before.
This guy is David Irving for a new generation.
I have, in fact I know this whole "Churchill is responsible for WW2" from them, they came up with it.
@@coldwar45At least Irving used to be an historian, Cooper isn't even that.
@@coldwar45 He's not even that REPUTABLE! AND yes, that is really saying something.
@@coldwar45 For context for those who are confused as to who Irving is and don't have the time for Wikipedia read, Irving wrote a biography of Hitler where he claimed Hitler and the Larger german army had no knowledge of the Holocaust and it was "Just something the SS did". He recited a bunch of other Nazi propaganda in his career, even responding to the question of; Was Adolf Hitler an evil tyrant? "I will go further, I will say that he was as evil as Churchill. As evil as Roosevelt." After being disgraced for giving a series of speeches blaming Jews for any hardships that befel them, he now claims that Jews orchestrated his downfall and that they merit persecution.
David Irwing was a Nazi, and the interviewee in this video is too.
Churchill was a villain to a lot of people. But those people were Nazis.
Well… to the Indians too. 😢 But obviously the Nazis as well.
No
Darryl Cooper: Hitler said...
Me: And you believed him?!
Cooper: Bro, if only we trusted Hitler. 😢
Me: No thanks. 😂
Im losing brain cells listening to cooper! 😭🤦🏻♂️
@@kareemi7080well you seem to have missed the point.
It's called cognitive dissonance.
"To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right. Out of depths of sorrow and sacrifice will be born again the glory of mankind." - Winston Churchill to Allied Delegates June 1941
Wow what a villain!
Do you have quotes on his opinions of Irish and Indians?
He was wrong. It was the beginning of the end for for the period of the supreme position and fatherly guidance of European Civilization in the world, finishing what the fratricidal folly of the Great War started.
A simple conference in Warsaw, in person between Wilhelm II, Nicholas II and Franz Josef could have resolved the July Crisis without bloodshed and returned stability to Europe; especially if a yearly Pan-European Congress had been opened up afterwards in Geneva or some other neutral city to keep the peace and coordinate the interests of Europe.
@@zombieoverlord5173 More to the point, do you?
@georgegreen711 there were so many near-misses leading up to 1914 that war was almost certain at some point, but I agree that the results of both world wars were among the worse possibilities
I know nothing about this individual, so I may be wrong. My impression is that he holds some views about a certain religion/race of people, and the rest of this nonsense is just apologetics to justify the mistreatment of those people.
Edit: OK, at the 28 minute mark I know I was right.
Yeah…it was “just” an invasion of Poland…..they didn’t start shoving Jews into starvation-ghettos or anything.
Well, that was just the second solution.
The first one was just to make them so miserable they would “voluntarily self-deport” (this should sound familiar in American politics).
The second was the camps, many of them across the border in Mexico I mean Poland.
The final solution, well, they ran out of space and they couldn’t send them anywhere so what else could they do but… yeah.
Let’s just say that I’m nervous about the violence of the rhetoric in our modern scapegoats. We’re not there yet, but it’s on the map and we’re headed that way.
And after the Polish invasion, they invaded Russia. Is Cooper implying that Germany wouldn't have invaded Russia if the UK hadn't declared war on Germany?
@@Justanotherconsumerif the reason of the camps was to deport the Jews, then why did they take away the Jews passports? Why put them in camps instead of forcing them to leave? The ones that left weren’t forced, they saw what was happening and voluntarily left. That is different from being rounded up and put on ships or trains to concentration camps. Doesn’t make it any less terrible what they did, but the plan all along was to implement the final solution. The final in the name isn’t referring to a ‘last resort’ plan, it’s referring to the final chapter in there plan. Aka the mass extermination of the Jews.
As another historian that commented on this interview, with Ben Shapiro pointed out. Cooper almost verbatim spews out the same rhetoric that the nationalist socialists uttered during their reign.
And they weren't socialists.
@@jnagarya519they weren’t marxists. But national socialists were entirely socialist.
@@Zone47. One of Hitler's target's for extermination were the Socialists. So Hitler and his crew were NOT SOCIALIST.
The other two were Bolsheviks/Communists and Trade unionists/organized labor.
And Marx was a Jew.
All three are to the LEFT of Center.
Amazing how those who hate the mythical "Left" will swear by the label of the party Hitler took over as if Hitler's own trustworthy word, while claiming to reject Hitler. ANYTHING to promote fascist scapegoating of the imaginary "Left" while claiming to despise Hitler.
That's straight out of far-right fruit-fringe John Birch.
@@jnagarya519no, they were.
@@Xeno_Solarus I'll explain it AGAIN:
BEFORE Hitler went after the Jews he targeted for extermination --
1. Communists.
2.. Socialists -- the name of the political party Hitler took over is NOT what Hitler was.
3. Trade unionists.
All three of those are LEFT of center. Hitler was far-RIGHT.
This alternate facts & alternate history stuff, saying Abraham Lincoln was horrible or Winston Churchill was the biggest villain of WWII, is mostly coming from my side of the political spectrum...
It's getting concerning. Letting this guy say the Holocaust was just a result of "not having a plan" for political prisoners?! Holy. Crap. Even when these hosts don't directly say "I agree!" they frequently interview & give a platform to people saying the most absurd things, then defend it saying "I'm just ask questions."
I don't need to hear someone ramble about flat earth (or saying "I'm not globe earther or a flat earther," as if that gives both sides equal weight). Stop spreading this nonsense or lose reasonable people like me.
Agreed. It's getting worse and it's very disturbing. As time goes on, I notice a lot of WW1 revisionism ("CeNtRaL pOwErS sHoUlD'vE wOn") and Woodrow Wilson slander... I'm not that old (32) and when I was growing up the 99% consensus that the Entente (plus USA) was the good guy AND Woodrow Wilson was in the top 10 of best ranked Presidents.... sadly, all these egdelords, contrarians are trying revise all of that......
As a conservative-leaning individual, I think there are some seriously concerning things coming from the right-wing. The affinity for contrarianism at any cost, strong-man saviors, and anti-intellectualism is palpable. I honestly can't stand most so-called "conservatives" at this point.
Hey if it's any consolation, far too many on my side, the other side, are fond of two infamous organisations starting with H that are frequently in the news these days.
I especially like this channel because it proves to me that you can be conservative and perfectly reasonable, with well considered opinions, that I can understand and respect even if I might not agree with them.
As a conservative myself, I'm furious with Tucker for exposing such blatant Nazi propaganda without any push back
@@christiangudmundsson8390well, respectfully, those 2 H organizations are bad, but this is the case where the I is acting worse than them. You don’t have to sympathize with the H’s to know the I is the one continuing the killing, and trying to drag the USA into a wider war. It’s almost as if the B at the top of the I that is the biggest problem.
Me at the start: “Ah, he’s going to talk about Churchill’s very…controversial views and policies that were controversial even in his time, right?”
Me by the end: 😟
Winston Churchill wasn't perfect but he was no doubt an effective leader that Britain desperately needed!
Exactly. He was a wartime leader. That was his biggest thing pro. He was not a peacetime leader. Doesn't help what happened in India, too. But whatever
@@josephstalin839, exactly. And once the war was finished, the British people voted for a guy who was an actual peacetime leader.
How was he an effective leader that was desperately needed? He did not accomplish the goal of saving Poland, they were occupied by Soviet forces after the war. He did not save Britain from an invasion, Germany's focus was on the east and they were likely physically incapable of invading Britain, hence why they actually wanted an alliance with Britain. He also really did not save Britain's power as the British Empire collapsed after WW2 partly because of their debts to other countries.
@@dafeekielelliott2442 Good. Colonialism is inherently self-destructive and unsustainable. It destroys everything
@@dafeekielelliott2442 1st most of your comments pertain to other things done by other people which Churchill assumed control of. 2nd Churchill kept Britain’s moral high and prevented the British government accepting Hitlers peace offer. 3rd he had an active role in getting American aid by holding correspondence with FDR. 4th he ran the government very effectively, his cabinet was formed of his allies and enemies so he could get opposing views on issues. 5th he took an active and successful role in the military front, whilst he made a few mistakes he had multiple major successes as well as being involved in military designs. 6th Soviet troops were occupying Eastern Europe, nothing Churchill could do to save that bar declaring war on the USSR which he actually made preparations and was considering but ultimately new it wouldn’t be worth it. 7th he was voted out in 1945, decolonisation was started by the Labour government afterwards, by his re-election there was nothing he could do
"This is just an invasion of Poland"
Is this him spinning "this is just an invasion of Ukraine" ?
Probably. Tucker is just straight up a Russian agent now so it makes sense
The irony of those people justifying Russia's invasion of Ukriane because they have "nasis" while downplaying nasi crimes against slavs.
Exactly this. This is just pro-Putin propaganda.
Please refresh yourself by reacting to Epic History’s videos on Lord Nelson’s naval victories.
I second this motion
Third!
I 4th that!
I 5th it
Nelson was pro slavery.
1. Thank you Chris for being a vocal and sane person on the internet. You're doing God's work, unironically.
2. If you, person reading this, are coming to the comments in order to justify or defend any of the nonsense that Cooper is spewing, I'd urge you to find people who will show you love and empathy, rather than hatred and callousness. You deserve better than these lies.
I really liked this interview. In a time when it seems like no one is willing to agree on anything, even basic facts, when it doesn't put their side in the best light, here everyone comes together in agreement that this Cooper guy is talking BS.
Consensus, yes.
Only about 90-95% agreement though, which makes me hang my head in shame about humanity.
Tell me you’re anti-Semitic without telling me you’re anti-Semitic
Wait does that make sense?
Wait are you saying VTH is anti-Semitic or the two dunces?
There we go I knew I’d find it 😂
@@mcwildstyle9106he means the Nazi apologist
@@Blazeit-rj3ebnot even apologist at this point, an outright advocate.
This interview was just straight up Nazi apologia and propaganda that would make Goebbels blush. Can you imagine having a 2+ hour discussion on WWII and not uttering the word "Holocaust" 1 time?? And yeah you called it when he gave the slick smile.
The "Holocaust"
@@kelbyheisenberg954 holocaust , the holocaust... point still stands
@@justinsnyder2846 no I wasn't correcting your spelling.
@@kelbyheisenberg954I’ve personally got no idea what you were trying to do still
@@sjl197he’s being an edge lord
You're a very brave and a very generous man to go boldly into the darkness that is Tucker Carlson.
Brave, because it has measurably damaged your life. You can't unwatch it; it's part of you forever.
Generous because it's pretty great content.
I was chopping vegetables while listening to your reaction, but I actually had to stop bc I was worried in all my outrage/shock I'd cut my fingers off. This guy is clearly in love with antisemitic conspiracy theories. Saying that all the camps were "improvised", made solely for prisoners of war? That Churchill was motivated by EMBARRASSMENT? That the poor Germans were merely doing "mercy killings"? I cannot believe Tucker had this guy on his show and never asked any questions or pushed back. Chris, why do you think Tucker didn't push back?! I doubt he believes this guy's fantasy story.
I can’t speak for Chris, but I think it may be a case of believing sunlight is the best disinfectant. Doing a proper journalistic interview is almost a lost art these days, one where you let the subject make their case and either vindicate or damn _themselves._ Tucker let people see just how nuts this guy is without giving him the chance to claim Tucker treated him unfairly.
@@eirreniano, actually, Tucker didn't do any such thing. He treated the guy as though he was a grand revelator, and all narratives of World War II would have to be rewritten because of Darryl Cooper's brilliance.
@@bobtaylor170 Have to agree to disagree there. But, still I only mention it as a possibility. Without hearing Tucker’s opinion on the guy outside the interview, (which I haven’t yet) we can’t know either way.
@@eirrenia Carlson lives to create controversy for stupid people. He gave the guy a platform and didn't challenge a word Cooper said.
Um he never says all the camps were improvised or that the Germans mercy killed everyone.
What he said was the Germans were not ready for the numbers of prisoners taken in Barbarossa and commander at a POW camp said it would be more humain to kill the prisoners instead of letting them starve.
Which is fairly accurate. The Germans were not ready to handle the scale of prisoners they had. Poor living condition, lack of food and hard labor is what killed most prisoners. This doesn't make the Nazis nice or good it's just a reality that they were not ready to handle the people they captured. They also didn't really care and planned to let most of these people die through malnutrition and forced labor because they viewed them as undesirables who were consuming limited resources.
I probably need to clarify that overall I think Cooper is making generally bad arguments and coming to ridiculous conclusions.
I am fully against censorship. I don’t agree that people should be actively silenced for their views IF they are not hurting anyone… however, things like this make me question why some people get the platforms to spew twisted nonsense like this. This makes me sort of see why some people criticize Joe Rogan for giving certain people a platform to speak on, and I have generally been critical of that. But this is a person twisting HISTORICAL FACTS and hoping others will listen and agree, which a lot most certainly will. In an era when it is easier than ever to “have the megaphone”, it is so so dangerous for arrogant people to have that capacity and influence people that have a tendency of being manipulated easily.
The thing is people these days claim that not being given a platform alone is censorship. Which is of course wrong.
You are not being censored if or silenced if anyone with a smudge of knowledge, critical thinking, and journalistic integrity think you and your ideas are not worth the time to platform or even dangerous to let spread because it is so wrong and vile.
If I cant land an interview with the NYT to talk about my favorite game it is only because it isn’t newsworthy not because “they” are silencing me. I can go on the internet or the town center and say all I want. I can create my own platform even.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is an entitled child. 😂
The government isn’t doing anything dude quit whining about “censorship”
@@avinashreji60come on that's not the point at all.
@@avinashreji60 what are you talking about? I didn’t say a single thing about the government censoring anyone… dude.
@@RaulV22 Then who are you talking about being silenced
9:32 "This guy's an idiot!"
Took the words straight out of my mouth
A useful one?
I kinda feel like idiot is to kind a word
I am a socialist who follows you because I am a big history nerd. I appreciate your commentary, specifically on the Civil War, and I thank you for all of your content. That being said, while I understand you lean more conservative, I want to also thank you for responding to this unadulterated racism and ridiculous historical revisionism. This guy is both absurd and obviously just talking fascist apologia. I know Tucker is often seen as a beacon of some kind of truth with conservatives but I hope this video was eye opening to you and others about how disgusting his own politics are. The fact that he didn’t interrupt this guy while he was spouting what is for all intents and purposes Nazi apologia is insanity. You yourself even acknowledge it in this video when he repeatedly fails to challenge his arguments. I love your content and, whether your politics evolve or remain the same, I care about you as a fellow countryman. But I hope this was eye opening as to why so many of these right wing influencers choose to platform and (for some reason) refuse to even argue with when they’re on their shows.
Name a right wnger who avoids discussing a racist past of a guest in their show, then. My reply notifications are on.
It’s times like this I remember a German saying: If a man sits down to dinner with five Nazis, there are six Nazis at that table.
@@_somerandomguyontheinternet_ it's times like this i remember a newer German saying: AUSLANDER RAUS
Right Wingers bro? You must not know how bad guys like Don Lemon are when it comes to "debating"
Keep in mind he said he Churchill was worse than Stalin, too, who was definitely not a fascist. I don't understand how socialist viewpoints work. They seem like they are just communistic viewpoints without a dictator. How do you divide labor and provide incentive to work under it? If everyone gets equitable treatment? Is there innovation, quality production, or even a happy populous under socialism. I've spent a few years studying examples of socialism and have never seen success that lasts without the creation of a dictatorship. I have, however, seen authoritative success not because of incentive but because of fear and power.
When I saw the title, my first thought was that this was going to be from an Indian perspective.
You must be so disappointed.
Me: *reads video title*
Me: *clicks on video*
Chris: “I don’t know what im doing here”
🤣🤣
I wouldn’t be surprised if this Cooper guy thought Aliens built the Pyramids in Egypt.
Yeah, the guys a straight goof
*Ancient super-race built the Pyramids
The fact that we still don’t know who built the Says a lot.
Honestly thats not as stupid as what this guy is saying
What is wrong with thinking that? You one of those geniuses that thinks you know who built them? With their pullies? 🤡
This is the same way they are justifying what Putin is doing in Ukraine.
NATO Bot
If only the West had let Russia take Ukraine, it would’ve been kumbaya. 😢
@@iamwonka Putin’s not invited you into the Kremlin buddy, so stop defending a fascist dictator
@@bdog7827 because Russia isn’t doing what Hitler did?
@@bdog7827Russian bot
Tucker Carlson really sat there most of the time not even questioning him
yeah its an interview not a debate
After the Putin interview it has to be expected
@@whilrykeIn the Putin debate, Tucker listened to him explain in explicit detail that he considered Ukrainian independence an affront to Russian nationalism and an error of history he needed to correct.
In this interview, he said Putin was not an ideological person.
The grift is real.
Of course he did, he’s espousing “Liberalism bad, America bad, modernity bad, “””””Zionists””””” worst of all.”
He’s saying everything Tucker knows his audience wants to hear, why would he push back on a single word?
@@dukerrrthe biggest problem is that he gave him a platform… you’re not very bright and it shows
That thumbnail gave me a good chuckle
Well Churchill was not, of course, prime minister when the war started. Nor was he #2 in the conservative party, which was Lord Halifax. So to deem him responsible for the British Empire AND France joining in to defend Poland seems a stretch and a half. No doubt he was pushing for it, as he had been for a decade, rightly so, but Chamberlain made the decision, not Churchill.
And if the esteemed right honorable guest truly believes that further appeasement at Poland would have ended Hitler's territorial ambitions then I am sad to say that he is unfit for conversation.
Let's say the British Empire stays out of it.
France still joins and loses.
The USSR still gets invaded and likely receives aid from the US in terms of lend lease as Roosevelt was deeply distrustful of Nazi Germany and not all together unsympathetic to the Soviet Union.
Japan still attacks Pearl Harbor.
The Nazis still declare war on the US.
And then the UK probably joins the war.
Don’t look at comments under original video unless you want to lose faith in humanity. 😭
Yup, Tucker's audience is coming out of the woodworks.
I keep a few different things to read when I feel my faith in humanity shaking and want to remember there is good in this world. Here’s one for anyone who needs it.
“Sometimes when I forget that humans are amazing, I think of curiosity singing Happy Birthday on Mars, and this response:
‘No guys you don't understand.
The soil testing equipment on Curiosity makes a buzzing noise and the pitch of the noise changes depending on what part of an experiment Curlosity is performing, this is the way Curiosity sings to itself
So some of the finest minds currently alive decided to take incredibly expensive important scientific equipment and mess with it until they worked out how to move in just the right way to sing Happy Birthday, then someone made a cake on Curiosity's birthday and took it into Mission control so that a room full of brilliant scientists and engineers could throw a birthday party for a non-autonomous robot 225 million kilometres away and listen to it sing the first ever song sung on Mars*, which was Happy Birthday.
This isn't a sad story, this a happy story about the ridiculousness of humans and the way we love things. We built a little robot and called it Curiosity and flung it into the star to go and explore places we can't get to because it's name Is in our nature and then just because we could, we taught it how to sing.
That's not sad, that's awesome.’”
Eh, not completely. I scrolled through the comments on the video linked in the description, and there are plenty of people there calling out the BS. Even someone who said “I used to respect Tucker, but this is ridiculous.” I don’t doubt there are comments saying otherwise, but it’s not a complete loss of faith
Edit: went back and looked a little more. There were quite a few going “This guy’s onto something” but still nowhere near the number of comments saying Cooper was wrong on everything
@@squatch1565 Yeah, at least there is still a large number of people willing to call out falsehoods compared to the nutcases who think Shickelgruber did nothing wrong.
Can we all agree that Woodrow Wilson was a great villain in US history.
Him and Jefferson Davis.
No, he was the Hero of WW1. I'd argue that Charles Lindberg, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Jackson, Jeff Davis, Aaron Burr are the villains in US history... "honorable" mentions: Joseph McCarthy, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump (even though a above average Presidency).
Me when I hear the name Woodrow Wilson:
*Psycho strings intensify*
As a brit I'm fairly unfamiliar with Wilson beyond his relevance to WW1 and the fact that he was spectacularly racist. What else is there that makes him such a notable villain?
@@ddandymann The racism and WW1 failures are the main problems people have with Wilson. There are a few other things to hold against him though, such as the Palmer Raids, his interventions in South America, and the Espionage and Sedition acts.
In general, disastrous foreign policy and disregard for civil liberties are why people don't like him.
That reminds me, The Cynical Historian made a video about how historians can be disgraced and gives some examples (and briefly mentions this interview and that Cooper is not a historian since he published nothing and if he did would be immediately disgraced), I think it would be interesting to hear what Chris has to say on the subject being a historian himself.
Although Cynical Historian's very negative view of the comedic film - Death of Stalin is very bizarre. Even said he understood why Russia banned it. He doesn't seem like some Communist but it's very weird how much he seemed offended by "historical inaccuracy" of a comedic film
@@Nathan-jh1ho What a weird non-sequitur. Why would anyone presume he's some sort of communist because of his criticism of a film?
@@whilryke I said he doesn't
@@Nathan-jh1ho But why would the thought cross anyone's mind, I mean?
@@whilryke because the film is anti Stalinist and anti soviet and many modern day communists love and try to defend Stalin
20:04 - This right here, and how you correct him afterwards, is very reminiscent of today with people defending Putin invading Ukraine & blaming the US for keeping the war going.
They think Russia should just have their way with things and that the US & Europe should be trying to convince Ukrakne to surrender, rather than helping them to defend against Russia.
"Churchill kept this war going..."
"Ukraine/Zelenski are keeping this war going..."
@@corey2232 That’s not a good comparison because the US, unlike the UK in 1940, is not willing to put its own soldiers on the ground to overthrow the despot in question, because of the insurmountable public backlash this would receive. But Ukraine is not strong enough to defeat the Russians completely on their own, so the war is in a perpetual stalemate, and the only solutions are either the war continues in an indefinite stalemate, the US intervenes with soldiers to take Moscow or compel Ukraine to accept the reality on the ground.
I’m not saying there aren’t bad actors in right wing commentary who want Ukraine to fall for other reasons, cos there are, but the military reality is simply not comparable because of a lack of willpower on the protector nation to intervene militarily, which should effect how we think the war will actually end.
@Longshanks1690 I think it's an apt comparison.
He's the one saying Britain should've just abandoned their allies, allowed Hitler & the Nazi regime to take over Europe, round up prisoners & commit genocide, and continue appeasement to avoid fighting...
You're also only speaking of one year, 1940. Hitler had consistently kept pushing & pushing, and the Allies tried appeasement. The world already knew the Nazi regime was terrible years before that as well. It's why Jessie Owens' Olympic gold in Berlin was such a big deal even back then. It wasn't news to anyone the Nazi were awful.
So when they continued to prove their intentions year after year, getting bolder & bolder, then INVADING POLAND (you know, like a certain authoritarian has done in Ukraine- AFTER unilaterally anexing their territory years before that - another parallel), the US & EU had a choice. Either continue moving the red line & allowing Russia to conquer sovereign friendly countries, or stand their ground & support a country wanting to move towards the EU & democracy.
It's ridiculous we have people like Tucker Carlson going to Moscow, one of only two nice, affluent cities in the entirety of Russia, just to run propaganda for Putin & try to spin this as a "US is bad, Russia is good!" thing.
What happened to allowing countries to choose their own path? We used to intrude on countries that didn't want our help, but now we're supposed to reject a European country that has steadily chosen to ally itself with the EU & the US in its time of need... and to side with a country that is as authoritarian as it gets outside of North Korea? No. Appeasement didn't work. It's ridiculous this is even a thing the UNITED STATES has to "debate" due to bad actors within our own government & media.
There are two major differences.
First, both Poland and France were occupied, resulting in a situation in which the British Empire had no chance of winning without expanding the war due to their inferior army size. Britain's strategy to win the war was to support France's army which they believed was superior to the German army. In comparison Ukraine is actually still capable of winning as they have not been fully occupied.
The second difference is that the territories that the German Empire demanded and failed to diplomatically negotiate for actually wanted to join their fellow Germans. The main reason some people think that Britain was the reason the war started is because they told the Polish that they would support them in a war which resulted in the Polish breaking off diplomatic talks regarding the self determination of the people of Danzig and the Polish Corridor.
@@Longshanks1690 THAT IS PURE BULLSHIT only reason there is a stalemate is that usa has tied ukraines hands behind their backs by stopping them from hitting russia, if Ukraine is given the tools they need they will win on their own
@@Longshanks1690Ukraine can certainly continue to bleed the Russians dry of military equipment and soldiers along with the economic damage Russia is taking through sanctions, refinery destruction, cost of war, etc. Even if military intervention occurred by the West, they wouldn't need to advance to Moscow as the war goal is to drive Russia out of the territory of Ukraine. "Accept the reality on the ground" is code for giving Putin what he wants and is a Pro Russian talking point.
This is absolutely the most flabbergasted and worked up. I have seen you Chris and it was absolutely fantastic. The sad part is that people like him get a platform and a lot of people will just take that narrative that he’s contrived and use it to justify their own prejudice and judgmental beliefs, or use it to back a particular position that they hold, and it’s sad because that whole rant was clearly to undermine the Jewish people and Israel as a nation and to make them out to be the bad guys. It’s exactly the same sort of dribble that the Nazis used and it’s shameful.
This interview is like a reddit forum of a shitpost to history.
No, he’d get banned from Reddit.
He’s a 4Chan post of history.
@@Longshanks1690 Reddit has a right wing bias.
About Germans not having a plan for prisoners and population before Barbarossa. They had it for years, a certain book written by a certain Austrian corporal has an entire chapter dedicated to it, and it's called Lebensraum. The plan was to completely exterminate Jews, while others (mostly Slavs) were to be exterminated and/or mass deported. The exact percentages of these measures for each individual nation varied. This is not some arcane knowledge I'm showing here, it's something I learned back in elementary school. So, he either doesn't know about this or he's omitting it on purpose. I don't know what is worse, to be honest.
P.S. Writing this at about 25% of the video, I'm curious if I'll remain just on one comment. This was supposed to be a nice, relaxing evening (it's 7:30 PM in my country) with a new VTH video, and I got this individual instead.
P.P.S. It is possible, that some of the camp commanders didn't know all the specifics of this doctrine - but it is very, very unlikely.
No offense but actually watching this video through will be hard. Not of any fault of yours but the Cooper guy makes me so frustrated
And shame on Tucker Carlson for platforming this individual
I know what you mean. Had to pause every 5 mins because i was getting so frustrated
Cooper is not a historian in any plausible sense of the word. His only published book is essentially a guide on how to be a more effective internet troll.
@spencerr9299 You're right. Concentration camps started before WW2 they were not built on the spare of the moment. Political prisoners were sent to Concentration camps in 1934. A lot of Jews were sent to Concentration camps in 1938 a year before WW2 Europe offically started in 1939.
Churchill had nothing to do with the former Soviet Union switching over to England's side. Hitler broke his two year non-agression pact with Stalin.
I'm only 3 minutes in, but this guy sounds like the onlyfans version of a historian.
Don't insult only Fans they have more integrity than cooper does.
He does have a SubStack lol
At least onlyfans models are sexy
This man is an insult to history
VTH this particular edit doesn't even get into this guy's advocation of the "final solution" - it's some of the most disgusting stuff out there
Some of it is better off not even platformed to ridicule it.
Also, Darryl Cooper doesn't think Nazism is necessarily tyranny. The fact that Tucker Carlson brought him on, the fact that avowed White Nationalist have said that they watched Tucker Carlson Tonight every night, the fact that he pushes the great replacement theory, albeit in dog whistle form, shows his ideology as well. Let's put it this way, if an MSNBC host put on an avowed Stalinist, the guest said "Eisenhower was an evil man!", and they gave them no pushback, I'd have the same disgust.
Classic Tucker Carlson hater.
@@damianrobbins4167 MSNBC does this and have had actual Mao and CCP admires and apologist on. So no you wouldn't have the same level of disgust.
@@Lovemy1911a1 First off, I don't watch MSNBC, because unlike you I'm not a partisan hack. So let's start there. Next shitty argument please.....
@@damianrobbins4167 well I'm glad MSNBC disgust you. But maybe don't use hypotheticals that have actually happened.
@@Lovemy1911a1 ??????
Please do more content reacting to people who do not know what on earth they're talking about, it's immensely satisfying
When I first watched this, I was queasy all the way through it. As someone from Southeast Asia, I have no love for Churchill and his policies during the WW2, but vilifying him to this degree is just BS of the highest order. And you KNOW this is just to drum up controversy for views, they themselves do not believe any of this.
I was absolutely shocked that this wasn't about The Bengal Famine, which is what I immediately thought of when I saw the headline. The guy is fricking crazy.
It's like saying Roosevelt is responsible for Japan's invasion of China because the US placed an embargo on oil going to Japan, Japan would have invaded for other reasons without US involvement.
China was at war with Japan before the embargo, not that it makes his claims any less absurd
@mini2239 you're right, what was I thinking, even so, claims beyond ridiculous
Bengal famine, bombings of German cities targeting civilians and his actions in the countless of deaths in Gallipoli is the crimes he need to pay for. Not for fighting the Germans.
He not the worse person of WW2 but definitely bad for non Brits/yanks.
I think there are legitimate criticisms of Churchill's actions in the second world war (unlike you I do agree with him that the bombing campaign against Germany was horrible), but Hitler was definitely far far worse. I just can't with this guy insisting the atrocities on the Eastern Front were just an accident and in his twitter thread afterwards taking Hitler's offers to only annex the majority German parts of Poland at face value (given Hitler's similar promise re-Czechoslovakia which he breached).
Yeah, some wars have obviously right and wrong sides even though the people involved might do good and evil things.
I'd point out that the casualty counts for some of those bombing campaigns (like Dresden) have been grossly exaggerated by Holocaust deniers like David Irvine. Don't get me wrong, the bombings did kill many innocent Germans, but nowhere close to the number some people believe.
In Dresden, for example, around 25,000 Germans were killed, but pro-Nazi historians have often falsely claimed deaths between 250,000-500,000.
Although I've never met any Holocaust survivor, I have met several people who had survived the Bengal Famine, including my grandfather. The trauma is so great for them that they don't even want to recollect those years. There is so much to discuss about Churchill and his perceived apathy towards the "Brightest Jewel in the Crown" and its people, but the guest didn't even go there. He criticised Churchill for something he actually did brilliantly and rightfully.
Bruh. You cannot say the germans weren't "that bad" just because the Soviets were bad as well.
They were 2 bloody and totallitary regimes pushed against each other. 😂
He didn't say that
Ok, who took this guy's brain cell.
Wait, of all the bad things Churchill has done (mainly his response to the Bengal famine), the guy is criticizing him for the best thing he has done? Wtf??
Edit: stop fucking defending Churchill for his shit in Bengal, wtf
WHY DOES NO ONE EVER READ THE F¥CKING FACTS!!!!!!
Churchill was NOT responsible for the FVCKING FAMINE!!!!
He was doing everything possible to elevate the famine, NOT exacerbate it!
He got the Australian government to promise to send 350,000 tons of wheat to India, and allowed Canada to also send grain as well!
He even told the new Viceroy of India in a personal letter if needed, to divert ships from the war effort to help with the famine!
@@pablo2448
You mean Churchill doing everything in his power to get help for the relief of the Bengal famine?
*worst. He doomed Europe.
Did Churchill cause the the typhoon that caused the famine ?? Usual clueless comment
The Bengal Famine was several different famines, all caused by mismanagement by the viceroyship, poor crop yields, and natural disasters. The British Empire was negligent because they had the capacity to alleviate poor crop yields in that region from Burma. The Empire of Japan invaded Burma and cut off Bengal’s cereal supply with the explicit intention of triggering the famines. Saying that Churchill is to blame for the famine is like blaming Churchill for the Holocaust. Churchill used his authority to divert food by rail car into Bengal. Hindis tried to stop him because they wanted the Muslims to starve. The British Empire stopped the Wehrmacht in the Second Battle of El Alamein in which the NSDAP intended to cut off any possible land resupply route into the Indies. If the Axis went unimpinged the death toll would have been much higher.
"Leaflets" - yeah because that's all he dropped on London in 1940! Did the thousands of bombs also have peaceful messages written on them. That guy is insane
@@historyinyourhand1787
The first bombing raid by the British over Germany was a leaflet drop, urging the German people to reject the Austrian painter.
7:00 he is 100% saying it that way on purpose just like when he said "The people they rounded up" REALLY just gonna brush over that?!?!? Can't say churchill is a bad guy and acknowledge the holocaust in the same argument...
I know it's frustrating to watch content like this, but thank you for posting this. As a Jew, seeing so many people revise history in this manner is anxiety inducing to say the least. Your video at the very least provides me some comfort in seeing someone else react appropriately to his insane ramblings.
He is absolutely right. Winston Churchill can be chiefly blamed… for Germany not steamrolling the USSR and taking hold over all of Europe.
. For years before the war churchill was one of the few people who saw through hitlers bs. He was the one who got uk to start rearming significantly in 1938 without it i doubt uk would have stood a chance
The USSR woulda won anyways without the UK..
I studied Churchill a lot over the past year and as much as he was a defender of his nation people wipe away the first 40 years of his contribution to victorian imperialism. But thats just my opinion and one angle of looking at his legacy
There are a lot of legitimately concerning things Churchill did and he’s a very human figure with very real flaws.
This video does not discuss those.
@@Justanotherconsumerunfortunately not… im just shocked Cooper has a platform like this though
He wasn’t perfect by no means but these guys are saying he was the Villain of WW2!! That is mind boggling!
From my own conversations with English people, they are well aware of Churchill's failings, his many mistakes and foolish ideas. That despite all of that he achieved things out of courageous will and instilled this in those around him. He called on people stand up and fight while directly telling them of the pain and loss they would need to suffer to win. Personally I am glad that his story still enrages the far right and neo nazis. He completely refutes everything they claim about democratic societies.
ANOTHER EPISODE OF CHRIS IS PISSED!
“Chris is Pissed” needs to be a series
@@Valorum_it could be a playlist
Cooper knows nothing about history. Churchill was not perfect, but he did the best he could. I can not say anything else Cooper really making me mad.
This video was NEEDED! If you’re reading this comment, like this video because this needs to be seen by as many people as possible.
He might want to re-read Mein Kampf.
LOL right, or understand a leader doesn't have to be perfect to not be a villain(sorry for the double negative).
Which one, the version printed before the war, or after when they put editorial notes in it at the bottom of pages and perhaps even added content to fit post-war narratives to spread White guilt beyond the 7 million or so NSDAP members and the SS and place it on our entire race? Now obviously, the Holocaust happened; from 1941-1945, 2 million Jews were shot (mainly as partisans), 2 million Jews died from unsanitary labor conditions and overwork as prisoners of war, as under German law then, their entire people were considered enemies of the state and irredeemably Bolshevised, and 2 million Jews were gassed to save food for the war effort (and yes, the Nazis hated the Jews, and not just blindly, as our Bolshevik elites would tell you).
Had the Haavara Agreements continued, and Britain and France not been so well-propagandized by the Soviets and their domestic counterparts against Germany and Italy (as well as the trauma of the Great War continuing to fester), eventually there would have been a Great War in the East to liberate Russia, and in order to keep the European Alliance together, Britain and France would have demanded humane treatment of the Slavs and Jews in exchange for their participation, which the National Socialists would have gladly accepted. Poland, a Baltic state, Belarus, and Ukraine would be German puppets, with Britain and France bringing back the Romanov Dynasty in Russia under a Constitutional Monarchy, which they would guarantee the independence of.
Maybe he needs an English copy lol. I don't speak German but I can understand some of it enough to understand when he wants war with certain people, he isn't a good person
@@-._A2._- True, but no one is truly good except God.
No one tries to look at why the reaction happened because the reaction was strong and brutal, but the Jewish moral underclass, like they had in Russia, were hard at work trying to make the Weimar Republic into a Soviet state and with the same sort of moral degeneracy that they have later on promoted and directed here in the US and other western countries, which, after seeing little to no resistance from Rabbis or other ostensibly moral people in the Jewish community, they (both the German public and the NSDAP, assumed the whole race had become corrupted their moral underclass), and so they acted accordingly as if the very life of the nation/race was at stake, as if the Jews were engaged in a total war with German people.
I just assume he reads it a lot and thinks it is a good read
thanks for covering this, this guy is a lunatic and Tucker had no business letting him sit there and spew that stuff without challenging
As a Warhammer player I take personal offense to this guy's comments about playing with figurines.
He is a heretic.
Truly the worst part about what he said unforgivable
Special interest, stim object, the person being interviewed showed not only judgment by calling it "childish" but also a lack of knowledge and understanding how many neurodivergent people function. Some neurotypical people as well. Likely, we will never know if Churchill himself fell in the undiagnosed neurodivergent adult category or not, but certain aspects seem to resemble certain patterns. Churchill's "black dog" description of depressive episodes, can then be a comorbidity or it's standalone thing.
And this is why I love your channel: when you explain something, you also back it up with evidence (articles, websites, etc...) while also trying to be as unbiased as possible
As an Indian leftist Churchill is probably among the people who rank highest on my list of criticism but none of those criticisms make me say he was worse than Hitler. The axis in the East were chopping off Indian heads for sport, I'm certain a man made famine is objectively the lesser evil.
@@jerinmathew4726
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Churchill did everything in his power to elevate the famine in India, even going so far as to divert shipments bound for the war effort to go to Bengal, and securing a promise from the Australian government to send 350,000 tons of wheat to India, as well as grain from Canada.
And in actual fact, it was Gandhi’s political party who was trying to throw a spanner in the works to embarrass the Muslim government in charge of Bengal.
@@Invictus357 i am aware of all of it, including his apathy during the famine. Still doesn't make him as evil as the industrialized killing of the nazis , or what Indians suffered under the japanese in Singapore/Andaman or even in Japanese the allied INA
@@jerinmathew4726 yea if your palestinan or indian worst OF CHURCHİL YES bro hardest saying it.
@@Invictus357 *Alleviate (not elevate).
I think that typo has given this guy the impression that you were agreeing with him.