This guy Cooper’s thesis is basically this: 1. Hitler had won the war by 1940 2. Resisting Hitler’s victory by fighting on was villainous 3. Churchill restisted 4. Therefore Churchill was a villain 1 is contestable (history revealed did a good job contesting this, and 2 is outright absurd. Saying that hitler should have been allowed victory in Europe in 1940 is the same as saying that the nazi regime and its genocide should have been allowed to continue. Nefarious or moronic? you choose!
@@kennethlauer4735 Right... highlights copied from Amazon: Among the British and Churchillian blunders were: The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that mutilated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler. Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan. The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939 - that guaranteed the Second World War. Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler and 'the Unnecessary War' is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future that no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned. Attacking Britain's hero is a tough pill to swallow. Think about how much Britain as lost over the last 150 years or so including and right up to today as their culture is going away completely. You can't speak of their idols... it is the last thing they have left
Some people seem to enjoy being contrarian purely for the sake of it. They start with the assumption that "we've been lied to about everything", and then work their way backward, dismissing facts and evidence that don’t align with their contrarian narrative, often prioritizing skepticism over reasoned analysis.
@goyonman9655 If you are lying, either actively or by omission, you don't have a different view. You are dishonest. This guy is lying, actively and by omission. He doesn't have a different view. He's dishonest. Calling him out for his lies is the right thing to do.
It was in my day, but I don't recall if it was discussed in school, but there were numerous TV shows about WWII including the Holocaust. What I recall, even at the time, the German people were subject to the anti-Semitic nature of the Nazi's but the death camps weren't well known to most people. Few people then and now realize that the Nazi's practiced their death campaign on German citizens who were considered feeble long before they came after the Jews.
@thermalreboot You are correct about the Nazis carrying out a lot of their early atrocities on German citizens, many of whom were not Jewish. Germany actually had a fairly small population of Jews in relative terms. Along with the euthanasia program that murdered people who the Nazis considered to be medically unfit, the original concentration camps (placea like Dachau and Bergen-Belsen) were set up inside of Germany and held primarily people who were considered to be enemies of the state or undesirable elements. These weren't extermination camps, like Sobribor or Treblinka, though they were still horrific places and incredibly deadly. While it seems to be the case that most Germans did know one way or another about the mass murder of Jews, the extermination camps would all be located in the East, outside of Germany. Auschwitz was actually a complex of camps that functioned as both a concentration/work camp and an extermination camp. It was located in Poland. It makes on wonder if this was a case of the Nazis trying to separate themselves from their own atrocities by carrying them out in a foreign lands.
Ehrm, yeah you gave it a spin here. Of course 'the instability of the political system of the Weimar republic' is discussed. But reducing the problems of the Weimar republic to some glitch in their institutional makeup is exactly that type of superficial scapegoating that purposefully evades a bunch of other questions. This is what one of your most decorated economists of all times, John Maynard Keynes wrote in his book called 'The consequences of the peace treaty': "The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable-abhorrent and detestable, even if it were possible, even if it enriched ourselves, even if it did not sow the decay of the whole civilized life of Europe." Likewise chapters such as the madness of the Bavarian Soviet Republic under figures such as Eugen Leviné, a direct attempt (and short lived success) of the Soviet Union to create a communist seperatist state within the heart of Bavaria are virtually unheard of among all Westerners. Douglas Murray recently went to a pro-Palestine ralley in Harvard (I think). He likened the actions of the Israeli forces to those of those of the British forces during WW2. A female student stood up and called it a flawed analogy because the British never bombed German civilians during WW2. Sorry, but I feel this is rather the level of 'education' we are talking about when it comes to British and American schools teaching the subject.
From the US....dear UK friends and family...to my knowledge this is not a an excepted view of Churchill. I do not understand this young man's credentials. I would ask him to examine who might be the "villians" in the US Civil war? Union troops committed (what we would call today) many atrocities against civilians to "free the slaves." Yes Dresden, Cologne, Hiroshima were all civilian tragedies---in comparison to the US Civil War, was there also not some "noble cause." One might claim Churchill "freed the Jews," as Lincoln "freed the slaves."
I began to suspect Tucker was a shoddy journalist after he gullibly swallowed Andrew Tate’s lies and this interview just cements my opinion. Great reaction video.
Why is he a shoddy journalist? He doesn't need to push the guest on your particular issues in order to qualify as a good journalist. He just needs to ask the questions that expose the views of the interviewee, and that he has done. In your mind is "good" journalism only when the journalist asserts your bias? Apparently the journalist is just supposed to be a stand-in for you? Get serious.
@@stevedoetsch no, a good journalist has to, at the bare minimum, have some knowledge of the criminal charges against Tate, so that when Tate lies and says he was charged for simply helping some girls start Tik Tok accounts, that journalist would be able to recite the actual charges against Tate, rather than sitting there open mouthed stating, “aw shucks, that’s terrible!”
I think Tuker is an example of a "red pilled" person who has rightly seen that there is a lot of lies, hypocrisy and has started to question the stories we are told. However hes gone so far with it that nothing we are told is true, everything is a lie, all the things we think about us is a lie. He in other wors has become a right wing woke man. No different from a left wing woke person who does exactly the same thing but just with a different agenda.
@@katej910 I'm afraid I have to disagree 100%. A journalist asks all the questions he/she feels are relevant and lets the person talk. Somehow in your mind, the journalist is supposed to know if a person is guilty or innocent of charges (which so far absolutely nothing is sticking after all this time with the Tates) like sensationalist journalists do, which is why people like Tucker are becoming popular. he isn't doing the massively slanted journalism of the CNNs and MSDNCs which are losing more and more viewers all the time, because far too often their 'conclusions' are totally wrong. Tucker is not an investigative journalist doing months-long stories, he is doing interviews on the regular with people that are interesting and letting people say their peace. Perhaps Russia, Cuba or China would be preferable for you where whatever the journalist's position is, is the truth?
I'm starting to think a lot of people are not aware of history, just take in what has been shown in a few films. Then everything gets sensationalised when someone 'discover' certain elements of history, or what they have seen/read. I'm convinced this is a result of internet, people not reading books, Ctrl-F.
Yes it was a mistake to use 'colonial' and untested troops at Gallipoli. It was considered it would be a walkover. The best troops were kept on the Western front.
@@FiveLiver John Curtin was PM in WW2, & the 9th Div distinguished itself in North Africa, Crete & various other places - nothing to do with Gallipoli whatsoever ........
@FiveLiver Well, I'm assuming you're a Pommy know-it-all, so put that superior intellect to use & look it up - there have been many books written on the subject, incl by British historians, all of whom vindicate Curtin's stance. (btw, you'll notice I didn't take your obvious & unimaginative bait about Gallipoli & the Western Front, but I will mention 2 inconvenient facts: 1) roughly 80,000 "best" British troops failed in the Dardanelles campaign too, & 2) the AIF had the best success ratio on the Western Front, particularly under Gen John Monash's tactics, which were widely adopted by British commanders after 3 years of stalemate, & changed the course of the campaign. So significant was his contribution that King George knighted him on the battlefield in front of allied troops & High Command. And here's something else: the Light Horse took Jerusalem & were ordered to hand it over to Allenby, which they did, & rode away to fight & win another battle. Allenby & his British troops were promptly forced out by a Turkish counter-attack within 48 hrs. Having just won a battle, & with scarce supplies & water, the Light Horse rode back, attacked, & took the city again, but this time their officers refused to hand it over to incompetents. It was thought that holding a city that somebody else had captured for you "would be a walkover." Apparently not ......
Churchill was flawed but he defo was not the "chief villian" and imo he deserves his place as a national hero. The nazi regime was a threat to stability to the of europe and just sitting back and negotiating and doing nothing i guess we will never know the outcome. However it is possibile it would at the very least lead to years of instability in Europe, the nazis showed themselves to be expansive in nature, they had a ideology that was completely intolerant. If we just sat back and allowed the germans to continue to grow in power and influence maybe war would be inevitable anyway just we would be even less advantaged. This man also openly calls himself a facist and has a lot of sympathy for the nazis all over his timeline. This is right wing wokism
Cooper believes Churchill should have made peace in 1940 on Germany's terms, so he has a total inability to see the consequences of doing that. For Americans it would have meant a Pearl Harbor on two fronts.
Oh God, here we go again. The little people trying to feel better about themselves by trying to denigrate a man they can't understand let alone hope to emulate. And as for Carlson, he'll say absolutely anything if he thinks it'll keep his face in front of a camera.
@@ChewyChicken589 Winston Churchill smoked like a chimney, drank like a fish, beat Hitler, lived to be 90, and was admired the world over by people who understand more about life than you do. Not even in your dreams my friend.
@@ChewyChicken589 Nope, Hitler was whipped. As to the Allies, they did NOT constitute the entire first world - exaggeration is basically lying: you shouldn't do it. Having the rigfht allies is part of the art of war. Britain had the US and the USSR, Hitler chose Japan and Italy. It's clear you're one of that legion of people who have a chip on their shoulder and much bile to unload.
Churchill is, in my opinion, the greatest leader of the 20th century, and certainly the most far-sighted, intelligent, inspiring and understanding of the allied leaders. And I am not British, but I did read enough about this war and did my best to read at least a chunk of Churchill's book on the Second World War. Many of the comments on this video are troubling. People think they know a lot more than they do because they read some revisionist anti-Western history, without first reading the more orthodox sources. While it's good to inform yourself from different perspectives, it is stupid to buy into this nonsense like there wouldn't be a war without Churchill, when if you study even the most basic history you would know the war started many months before he ever became prime minister, and had he been in charge earlier, Hitler could have easily been stopped well before 1939, when entering the Rhineland, or during the Sudetenland crisis. People think they're so smart for supporting some unorthodox positions, but they don't even know the basics.
@@angelozachos8777 Well I've read a lot of sources, about WWII in general, but most relevant I guess are Antony Beevor and Churchill's own book about the war. But also all sorts of other general books about the Second World War, also from Russian perspective. I am quite interested in the topic.
To some of the questions you pose in the video, yes, WWII, particularly the western theater, is not taught around these details as much and in the same way as in Western Europe, so I think he is right to point out that Churchill was the outlier in British government and society whereas in the US, Chamberlin is presented as the outlier. Also I think cooper would agree with you about the distinctions between technical and nominal concentration camps, and would refer to Germany’s as death camps. I think your analysis is correct though. I’d be curious to hear his response to some of these criticisms about his counterfactuals. Have you listened to his podcasts and do you take opposition to anything he’s said on them?
@@isolatedbutjacked7036 its a full blown lie... it was only 1.8 million... they count the people that fled europe with the death count.. they did the same thing on oct 7th including the people taken hostage in the death toll but then they quietly release the real numbers.. satan is the biggest deceiver.. they dont call them the synagogue of satan for no reason
@red_ed5715 At some point, there wasn't much of a choice, now was there. I personally am in the Patton school of thought. We should have armed the Germans and marched the Red ass army back to Moscow. But that shit wasn't in the cards now, was it.
I wouldn't say Churchill was evil, but I do believe he was a major war monger and he made multiple decisions that negatively affected the British during the war. A channel called TIKhistory has a video on why he dislikes Churchill that I think you'd be interested in, especially since TIK uses sources and better explains his reasoning and evidence more than the two people in this video you're watching.
@@isolatedbutjacked7036 of course he did? What kind of immoral, horrific animal would have made peace with Adolf/ One would have to be morally corrupt and a complete ignoramus
I often reflect on Tucker's fanatical comments on his hate for Trump and his father being in the CIA if not him too, don't recall don't care enough but he's an odd dude. Camelaa has got her cackle, Tucker's got his girly chuckle
Hey history reaveled i tried to search for your videos for 2 days.( i forgot your channel name) i searched for key words in and topics you talk about but couldnt find you before now. it might be that you have gotten shadow banned.:(
At 14:00 you ask “Why on Earth would Britain have made peace…”…this is the crux of the debate. Some of us believe like Darryl that we should have made PEACE. That’s it. It’s not dishonest, immoral, or ill informed, we just feel in good faith, it was an unnecessary war. If we can ally with Stalin then we could have made peace with Hitler. And we didn’t save Poland. We threw Poland under a bus to the communists. We didn’t save lives because 10’s of millions more died. We lost our empire. We lost almost all our treasure. We only finished paying off our War Debt in 2006!! We lost our reserve currency status. We became part of a liberal movement that is ruining us today with mass immigration. Completely transforming the country while replacing indigenous British people with 3rd world hoards. France was ruined, Germany was ruined, Britain was ruined…nothing good came from it. Only the myth that we fought for noble reasons. That this alone was a truly noble war. Well it wasn’t.
the alliance with the USSR was circumstance, nothing more, if germany wasnt fighting them we wouldnt have. poland only wanted us to fight germany, churchill wasnt in charge when they were invaded, he wanted to continue east and liberate poland but he was voted out and the USA didnt want to. so that promise to poland was made 3 prime ministers earlier. hitler already decided he was going east in the 20s, every life lost in the east would still have been lost + the countless millions that would have died if either side won and took all of europe. our empire was being dismantled in 1898, in fact 1/2 of its landmass was already independent before WW2, and other promises meant we wouldnt have an empire war or no war. likely would have happened anyway if just delayed to the 80s or 90s everything youre xomplaining about here started 30 years after churchill died, theres zero connection and would still happen as it was completely different people who have brought it about. as a bonus, hitler wanted to invade the USA some time after dealing with the USSR and using the british fleet. so either we fight and even stronger germany then, or join them against the USA and still have a gigantic war anyway.
Since there was no declaration of war against Stalin, since the Transfer Agreement was boycotted by Brits and US, since the Madagascar solution was denied implementation, I think Churchill would have been a great member of the LGBT community today.
America gave 15m pairs of boots to ruzzia.. lend lease- billions of dollars (today's money 180billion) yet here you are, barely having read a book in your life obviously 🤦🏼♂️ commie...FML.
No he didn't, but like any sensible statesman he knew when to cut cards with the devil. "My enemy's enemy is my friend". Try not to talk like a p^^^^^r.
What should Churchill/Britain/The Allie have done in regards to world war 2 is a question that can only really be construed in 2 ways: 1. What is the most militarily effective course of action, and 2. What was the most morally justifiable course of action. On 1, the military action was a success (evidenced by the victory in 1945). On 2, preventing and eliminating the Nazi control of Europe, as well as bringing the holocaust to a speedier end, is absolutely morally justified (and certainly more so than sitting idly by and letting hitler have his way with Europe). Given that, on what account is Churchill a villain? Unless what we mean by villain is hero
Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and their allies were warmongers. Churchill was a realist. And the world would have been a lot better off if people listened to him in 1935 and stopped Hitler then.
@@algardner5228 so what. It was the perfect time to have a warmonger as a leader. There were evil psychopaths that were trying to take over the world. Like do y’all understand that WW2 ended with the United States in control of most of the world? The United States could’ve made all of Europe, japan, china, and Korea all pay taxes to the United States if they wanted to. But they just said let’s rebuild and agree to have open trade and no wars of aggression. And that’s been pretty much the norm for the past 80 years… let National socialist Germany and Imperial Japan be the global powers and how do you think the world would be? Got a bunch of Americans on here crying like America didn’t sacrifice the least and gain the most out of every country involved. Churchill did what he felt was necessary to protect his people. Of course he would want the United States to help them. Of course he isn’t just going to let Germany take over all of Europe and then when they feel like it take the uk. A certified psychopath was leading Germany. You guys sound as bad as the left crying about George Washington and Andrew Jackson being bad because they owned slaves. I assume you believe dropping the nukes was evil too. That we should’ve just let a million American men die invading japan and giving up partial control of japan to the Soviets. You guys are pathetic. War was coming to America whether Churchill wanted it to or not. Oh he should’ve made a peace agreement with Germany. Right like the non aggression pact that the Russians signed with Germany?? Or like peace deal the Japanese signed right before Pearl Harbor.. Hitler believed that he could purify the aryan race and it would give them superpowers. That the aryans had superpowers before they slept with Jews, Russians, French, Irish, British, and everyone that ain’t blonde haired and blue eyed.. but oh they weren’t going to try eliminating anyone else after the Jews.. right.. logic says they would have to eliminate everyone who isn’t blonde haired and blue eyed. Stop being dumb.
@@phil3924 @phil3924 That's not what defines someone as a "warmonger", because it depends why those wars were fought. But hey, start speaking German or hop into a crematory; you're free to live the life that you think Churchill stole from you.
@@stevedoetsch The Brits spent much of their time subjugating other nations, and now look at them- subjugated by their very own government occupied by the people from the nations they subjugated.
Yeah this was a super interesting interview but all of the incidents Tucker Carlson and his guest mentioned were almost wildly taken out of context. One of the things I was shocked they didn't mention was the sinking of the French fleet in the Mediterranean Sea once France has fallen in June of 1940. Really that's something that was terrible but Churchill saw it as military necessary because of the defeat in the Battle for France and Western Europe to knock any threat to the British Navy in the region. Also the Famine in India was also a stain on Churchill as well however that had been the policy of the British Empire since almost the creation of the British Raja in India to subdue any radical elements which the British did numerous times before the war. I would say that all of the villain's shadow is deserved on Churchill but not for World War 2. It is deserved for his pervious actions in the Great War (World War 1) and the Second Boer War. Most especially in the WWI because he sent scores of good men from Australia, New Zealand, India and other colonial territorial holdings to their deaths for nothing in failed campaigns like the amphibious landing on the Gallipoli peninsula. Everyone warned him that the Turkish forces were heavily defended but he did it anyway. It was all over a twisted imperial ego and some racism over the abilities of the Turkish forces. That is really the only thing you can fault Churchill over, his hubris and arrogance as a military operational planner. 😊
I'll have to look into your claims about eunsatzgrupen having prearranged plans, and being there planned before the invasion, but the numbers of POWs they captured were huge, hundreds of thousands,right from the start, and most weren't jews, they were soviet POWs, so at this point this seems debatable.
Criticizing Churchill for internment camps like the US didn’t also intern Japanese is kind of rich. Yeah it’s bad but the false correlation rubs me the wrong way. Churchill was a hero. This entire interview was a guy looking to interpret every action Churchill took negatively and every action Hitler took positively. It’s gross
7:38 did Churchill do something worse than than the final solution? Ask the Indians - 1944 Bengal Famine - approximately 3.8 mill Indians died as a result of their food being exported to the UK & British Empire. Bear in mind, millions of Indian soldiers fought in WW1. & WW2 on the behalf of England. Not their war, but they did it. Churchill’s “appreciation” to India was famine. Given the West were colonials -please let’s not kid ourselves that they were the good guys!!!
what he likely means is not the idea that german society was humilliated via verseilles but via the pressures and results it had on there society. Berlin became a den of sin and debauchery. This is sometimes celebrated for high tolerance for the gueer communities. But this was also a time where some germans where due too economic factors forced into protitution too continue too eat. Those parts of weimar culture are nearly never dicussed. especially not how far that went for the poor and how liberating it was for the rich outsiders. Many times people stick too the very big picture.
hate the fact people think britain created the concentration camp when it was the spanish. also that they dont know the ones in the boer war only had deaths because the boer fighters were raiding the food supplies going to the camps.
I am actually embarassed for having listened (and liked on top of that!) Darryll's podcast in it's early days. Then the podcats became boring and the host increasingly unlikeable. Wannabe grifter.
Not a good start to this video, with 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, currently with laws in place that cover "Holocaust" denial as a punishable offence. Even questioning numbers is something akin to historical blasphemy. To handwave this off as if it's not an extraordinary fact in itself is dismissive. Name a single historical fact that is such a sacred cow as the 6 million number. In Germany, for example, "downplaying" that dubious number is sufficient to prosecute. YCLIU
@@red_ed5715 no they didnt. If the germans in Poland didnt like living in Poland they could have moved to Germany. Poland did nothing that warranted invasion
Sir Winston Churchill was a HERO and a great man who stood up to great evil and I only wish the UK and other western nations now had leaders like him today.
He's a big part of why native Brits are becoming a minority in their own land now. White people becoming a minority is the prize we won for destroying Germany
29:00 Conservative vs Conservative Isolationist. Conservatives love Churchhill, but Conservative Isolationists do not they are hyper Nutralist and think that a country should only interfear in its own favor, in other words since Germany attacked Poland England should stay out of the war it is not there bisiness.
@@jackbrewster9766 yes, that's my point. The stab in the back was them getting the us into the war against Germany which is why Germany lost. Before that, Germany had totally dominated the war to the point where England only had two weeks worth of food and supplies left for their troops
@ChewyChicken589 nah man i think you're incorrect. The stab in the back narrative was the story made up by the German high command to excuse the fact that they has bungled the war effort. It is definitely a good possibility the Germans would have eventually won the day without US involvement, but that didn't happen because of the German military doctrine of unrestricted Uboat warfare, the zimmerman telegram and the general overconfidence of the german military. They pushed the army to the breaking point, while at home unrest was growing rapidly to the point of various attempted rebellions by the various dissident groups in germany where happening constantly, food was scarce, the economy was crap and eastern europe was exploding into violence of the Russian civil war. The Kaiser and the German military lost that war, but the military could never cope with it, so they made up a story so they could try to preserve their dignity, which was the absolve themselves of all responsibility for the loss of the war and blame it on everyone they could think of.
I'll preface this by saying I'm firmly right-wing. With that said, I don't think Churchill was the chief villain, but he was very misguided and his actions were a net negative for the world and for the British. He never saw a war he didn't want. He was agitating for a war with the Germans for a while. Let's take him for his word and evaluate the outcomes - the British entered WW2 in order to preserve Poland's independence. What was the outcome? Not only was Poland not independent, but the entirety of eastern Europe lost its independence to the savage Bolsheviks. What would have been the result of not declaring war? Likely the Nazis and Bolsheviks fight each other until one loses, and the winner then likely dominates eastern Europe. So we're saying the worst case scenario of not declaring war on the Germans ends up being the actual outcome of declaring war, just with fewer deaths. What was the point of fighting the war if the outcome is of winning the war is WORSE than the outcome of not fighting at all? He destroyed the British empire along the way and the British economy to fight the war. The British won bragging rights and that's it. Just a lot of death and elimination of wealth to have a worse geopolitical outcome.
Very much wrong. Britain being in the war encouraged the Allies to keep fighting and be a huge burden on Germany. If the Britain did not join the war and was cowardly then Nazi Germany would have likely won the war against the Soviets. The Allies destroyed Germany’s capacity to trade, produce, and manage an entire war. Germany winning this war would be a disaster for Eroupe as hitler’s policies would likely lay waste to the people’s there. I do not deny that the war brought about the end of the British empire as it most definitely did. While yes, many of the former colonies are in rough shape today, maintaining an empire like that with the current moralistic standards and how the economy works today is unrealistic.
@@Woody-rc5nh If I understand your point accurately, you're saying that if Britain did not declare war on Germany then Germany defeats the Soviets and Germany dominates Eastern Europe. How is that a worse outcome than what actually occurred? With Britain fighting the war, the Soviets won and dominated Eastern Europe destroying Eastern Europe with authoritarian totalitarian rule. It's just replacing Germany and the Soviets. Many would argue the Soviets dominating Eastern Europe is worse for Eastern Europe than Germany dominating Eastern Europe. So why fight the war and have so many British die to have an equal or worse outcome?
@@AmericanRevanchism You do not seem to really understand the plan that Germany had for all Eastern Europe. Generalplan Ost was a plan to effectively genocide the entirety of this region whereas the Soviets were more concerned about controlling it and spreading their ideology. I am not saying life under the Soviets would be preferable, nor am I saying the the Soviets didn't kill anyone. However, it sure as hell is better than what the Nazis had in mind. You need to understand that the Nazi party was genuinely insane.
@@AmericanRevanchism You do not seem to really understand the plan that Germany had for all Eastern Europe. Generalplan Ost was a plan to effectively genocide the entirety of this region whereas the Soviets were more concerned about controlling it and spreading their ideology. I am not saying life under the Soviets would be preferable, nor am I saying the the Soviets didn't kill anyone. However, it sure as hell is better than what the Nazis had in mind. You need to understand that the Nazi party was genuinely insane.
"Germany, who did not want the war, was trapped and doomed to destruction nevertheless, and there was nothing she could do about it but fight on. The vast majority of the death and destruction in the war was directly attributable to the inhuman Allied demand for unconditional surrender, combined with the plan to implement the genocidal Morganthau Plan immediately following any such unconditional surrender. The demand for unconditional surrender, therefore seems on its face a stupid, counterproductive policy, until one realizes that all the death and destruction which occurred inside Germany was precisely what both Roosevelt and Churchill wanted. They did not want peace with Germany. They wanted to destroy Germany. That is also what International ....y wanted. It is estimated that more than 8 million Germans died during the war, but an astonishing 13 million additional Germans died after the war was over; the result of expulsions, mass murder, brutality, exposure and starvation. That would be a total of more than 20 million German deaths as a result of the war. The estimated deaths during the war for the United States and Great Britain were 413,000 and 450,000 respectively. The claim that 6 died is patently absurd. Germany was clearly the real victim of the war."
lol. You sound ridiculous. Germany wanted war and sought it out. They spent years building a massive military to fight it. Oh to fight the Soviets? The Soviets who were using horses and didn’t even have a sufficient amount of rifles to defend their country? Unconditional surrender is how you win a war. That’s why the United States hasn’t won a war since World War Two. They haven’t gone for unconditional surrender. You’re lacking context of the time too. World War One was horrific and now Germany is on the war path again.. so what the allies should’ve fought both wars and then made the same mistake of world war 1? F no. You force them to submit. You take away their ability to wage war and cause mass suffering and death for a third time. If Germany didn’t want war then they should’ve stayed their asses in Germany and stopped rounding up Jews and putting them in ghettos. The German population earned the suffering they received. Oh they didn’t have enough food to feed the population they captured.. so how did they survive before you invaded? They grew their food right? Yeah so you let them grow their damn food and you focus on military objectives. Instead they had an evil agenda of destroying the Jewish and non Aryan populations. 6 million isn’t even a large number for a country that spent a decade documenting all of them and had a fully mobilized military economy. I mean it would only take 6 camps with 5 chambers operating 5 days a week 8 hour days with 20 per chamber per hour for 4 years. They were already rounded up and documented. So all they had to do was empty ghettos and put them on trains and pull 100 off per hour.
i love how you brushed over the fact that churchill bombed german civilians, women and children (all the men were off to war) as if it was ok and justifiable and 'military targets', what military targets have kids and women in them, kindergartens? also you are saying that just because they were allowed to put on shakespear plays in concentration camps, it wasnt a real concentration camp and people werent jailed and trapped there. are you insane?
It's excellent propaganda for those susceptible to it, look how Hitler mesmerized the German population, same message in your movie. American bushes and Fords funding Germany 👀
its strange hearing people say britain couldnt fight the war without the USSR or USA despite the fact the british empire ha a million more personnel than the USA . not to mention D-day was an american plan, britain had italy already aimed at along with 3 pther invasion points that had to be abandoned to do D-day. even more when you realise almost all military advancements made for the allies was done by britain, radar, jet engine, certain bombs, hobarts funnies, commandos, SAS, the first true MBT, etc.
@@bigenglishmonkey cracking the enigma… I got nothing but respect for the uk. But I’m not so sure that the uk would’ve been able to beat Germany without American supplies and the Russians occupying a massive amount of soldiers and weaponry. But we all needed each other. I don’t believe the Soviets would’ve won at Stalingrad if it wasn’t for allied bombing of German infrastructure. The UK sacrificed a lot of lives bombing Germany before the United States joined the war and after the French surrendered. Churchill wanted the Soviets to know that they weren’t alone and that the UK Is still bringing the fight to Germany. Which was huge. The luftwaffe was basically destroyed by allied bombing. They targeted Germanys oil supplies and then destroyed the planes while they sat on the ground. The Germans were tough with the luftwaffe supporting their troops. That’s how they wiped out France and got so far into Russia. But yeah cracking the Enigma was huge. The movie on it is pretty good. Except when they had to let the guy’s brother get attacked by German u boats. I’m pretty sure that actually happened. I mean they definitely had to pick who lived and who died. Which must’ve sucked.
@@forfun6273 britain made it 3 years before lend lease and about 70% of it arrived after the war, ended. as for the rest, it was either given to exiled troops to use or just replaced what britain sent to the USSR. britains own oil supply lasted throughout and only hit its reserves in 1945. food was reportedly the biggest issue but given britain supplied 1/3 of the food americans ate in europe im questioning how dire supplies really were. i mean, people at the time though a german invasion was gauranteed yet now we know it was impossible. won't ever know as only 1 of britains invasion plans actually got used, but as long as germany couldntleave europe properly then it couldnt lose. napoleonic wars 2.0 the imitation game or U-571? havent watched either but the latter is hated in britain and poland as its americans getting the machine instead of brits and poles.
@@bigenglishmonkey the imitation game. It’s about Allan Turin. Basically it starts in like the 60s/70s his house is robbed but he lies to the police about it. The cops like WTH? What’s he hiding??? And gets ahold of his records for during the war. Then it goes back to like 39 or something and basically follows Turin as he’s recruited by the government to crack the code. Then how him and the few others end up building the machine to crack enigma. It ends up not being fast enough. The one guy figures out how to make it faster. But still wasn’t fast enough. So they’re all miserable and sitting in a bar drinking. When one of the women who was responsible for transcribing the intercepted messages mentions that the German she’s been intercepting must have a wife because he always uses the same word in every letter. Turin is like HOLY SHIT! So they look for words that are repeated everyday. It ends up being the weather report at like 6am. Every report included the words weather, hail, and Hitler. So instead of the machine trying to decode the entire alphabet it just had to focus on those words and they knew what the final letter would be for each letter in each word. So yeah it went from taking days and not solving an encryption to solving it pretty quick. So yeah they’re all excited and they decode the most recent intercept and it’s Germany directing U boats to intercept a bunch of supply ships. One guy picks up the phone to call and tell the ships to change course. But Turin hangs up the phone. And yeah he’s basically says look solving the code was the easy part. Now we have to prevent the Germans from figuring out that we solved it because the Germans could simply change it around and then they’ll be screwed. But the one guy realizes his brother is on a ship that’s escorting the supply ships so he begs them to do it just once. They refuse and his brother dies. But then it goes back to the 60s/70s you find out he was a closeted gay man and that’s why he wasn’t honest about it because the guy that broke in was his gay lover or something. Idk. I didn’t really care to pay attention to that part. I mean it was sad and sucked how his childhood friend (love) died. I saw a criticism that they gave too much credit to Allan Turin and not enough credit to the other super smart guy. But yeah there’s no American involvement. It’s on RUclips for free if I’m not mistaken. I think it’s worth a watch. But Allan was way ahead of his time. Like he basically made a computer in the 40s and theorized artificial intelligence. I’m pretty certain there’s a test named after him that he came up with to determine if a computer is sentient. Something like that… but was the food coming from India? And/or other colonies? Or was the UK able to produce that much food on its own? From the movie it made it seem like the German blockade was sinking a ridiculous amount of tonnage of supplies and it was hurting Britain pretty bad. But it is just a movie.. also I see a lot of Indians crying about Churchill and claiming he starved a bunch of Indians because they had a famine and Churchill didn’t give af and took a bunch of food from India to support the war effort and they didn’t need as much as they took. I mean I’ll definitely admit that I’m not nearly as informed about the uk during ww2 as I am about the United States. I just know that the Royal Air Force was bad ass with the Battle of Britain and then the bombing campaigns. Like the bouncing Bettys and destroying the Bismarck which made them hide the tirpitz for the rest of the war pretty much. Then you hear about the crazy tank battles in Africa and Italy between Rommel and Montgomery. Rommel was a bad ass but he still lost. I know he embarrassed the Americans a few times in Africa.
I appreciate you acknowledging the Churchill/Chamberlain thing is abused. I can see you're coming at this with a British persoective, so I cut you slack on a lot of this because i take your word for it that you guys were taught these things. He is definitwly speaking to us unfoetunate Americans who have had a lousier education.
@@nitrocellulosedoormat yup the same one where he diverted grain laden ships intended for Bengal and redirected them to buffer stocks for Britain Incase of invasion of Greece and then yogislavia. Let's not forget the war debt that was owed to India that wasn't payed or how about how slavery wasn't ended just rebranded as indenture and sold to the world. I've got records of deaths of indentured laborers that died from sun exposure kids as young as 3 months old dying on their mothers backs but slavery ended right. Alot of history gets white washed by the victors n those who where trampled under foot or used as tools to achieve said victory ever gets mentioned hence the denial of the Bengal famine.
the famine started after a storm, 2 cyclones, a flood, crop disease, a japanese invasion and blockade, and refugee crisis due to said japanese invasion?
When you think about it Winston Churchill was the reason Britain lost its empire and became the sad sack of shame it is today. If he never came in to meddle with WW2 and didn’t take France’s side in the war, not only would thousands of British lives but would preserve Britain’s tradition and power on the world stage. This is coming from an American btw.
The British empire was already in terminal decline by the point, the war just finished it off, the empire was not sustainable because colonialism was too expensive maintain.
@@cane6074 I saw somewhere that a lot of European colonies were abandoned because they were concerned that the Soviets would use them as a way to attack the west and push communism.
man so much by yanks on the start of the war. Remember US had concentration camps too ....filled with Japanese Americans, and segregation was still prevalent
Think those Japanese Americans pined for being sent to the gas chambers, and wished that instead of a racist society imprisoning them on a temporary basis they got subjected to genocide???
The death count from the Japanese internment camps is estimated to be 8 people total. Old folks with heart conditions mostly. No gas chambers, no mass starvations, no killing if children. Not the same as the Soviets or the Germans.
@@katej910 Did I claim to be critiquing him? I did not. I wrote that I disliked his treatment of the subject and analysis. I wouldn't waste my time critiquing someone on youtube. That's for people with no life or a monetized channel, (which are actually the same thing).
please read Bengal Famine in ww2 where Churchill facilitated death of atleast 2 millon indians by starvation. what hitler did to jews churchill did the same to indians. but i think we do not get counted as humans
Mostly correct. Although. 1) The author somehow conveniently remembers the Soviet famine (collectivization famine 1930-33), however, omits to recall the totally intentional famine of Bengal. 2) He also advances long questionable Soviet mass rape claims that are spurious at best. 3) Cold war was not an invention of the Soviets who adhered to the treaty of Potsdam, so no, it was Churchill and his ilk who initiated the cold war. 4) Churchill was a rabid racist. Do you contend that?
British empire met its sunset,since war monger Churchill dug a tomb for the Nation step by step:Boer war,Gallipoli disaster ww1,Norway fiasco , Attack on Mers El-Kebir (thousand French sailor deaths 1940), Bengal famine (30 million souls perished) etc.He promoted a war,but didn't have muscle to show in Poland & Dunkirk theaters. He dragged the world (Canada,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,India,and USA) into flames in order to preserve the Empire; and fostered monster Soviet communism to poison the entire world . Britain is the one deserved most blames for sacrificing millions of lives during and after WW2.
My grandfathers fought in that war, while my grandmothers had to spend their nights in air raid shelter, and they didn't think the wrong side won, especially after seeing what had gone on.
yes as the war was done to destroy germany as a comercial competitor and on the other side the agressive reds,among other reasons. the rest is the mythology nonsense.
@@d.k8746 absolute abject ignorance. Poland was a sovereign nation at that point after WW1, and the league of nations was a growing concept that required intervention. Yes, of course one wants to stop the economic growth of a morally repugnant enemy, thats what the entire cold war was because all variations of marxism are garbage epistemology.
This guy Cooper’s thesis is basically this:
1. Hitler had won the war by 1940
2. Resisting Hitler’s victory by fighting on was villainous
3. Churchill restisted
4. Therefore Churchill was a villain
1 is contestable (history revealed did a good job contesting this, and 2 is outright absurd. Saying that hitler should have been allowed victory in Europe in 1940 is the same as saying that the nazi regime and its genocide should have been allowed to continue.
Nefarious or moronic? you choose!
Moronic
That is not how he presented it.
@@travisjazzbo3490 that may not be how he presented it, but that is the crux of his argument. If you disagree, do tell
Have you read Patrick Buchanan's book, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War"?
@@kennethlauer4735 Right... highlights copied from Amazon:
Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:
The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that mutilated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler.
Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan.
The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939 - that guaranteed the Second World War.
Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler and 'the Unnecessary War' is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future that no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned.
Attacking Britain's hero is a tough pill to swallow. Think about how much Britain as lost over the last 150 years or so including and right up to today as their culture is going away completely.
You can't speak of their idols... it is the last thing they have left
Another David Irving. And this guy is a 2 bit wanna be.
This guy is the definition of cherry picking history to suit a narrative.
Everyone cherry-picks history
People aren’t good at truth seeking - but people are excellent at story telling ✌️
Some people seem to enjoy being contrarian purely for the sake of it. They start with the assumption that "we've been lied to about everything", and then work their way backward, dismissing facts and evidence that don’t align with their contrarian narrative, often prioritizing skepticism over reasoned analysis.
Or you cant accept someone has a different view than you
@goyonman9655 If you are lying, either actively or by omission, you don't have a different view. You are dishonest. This guy is lying, actively and by omission. He doesn't have a different view. He's dishonest. Calling him out for his lies is the right thing to do.
@@matthewharris8819
You clearly don't see how emotional you are
@@goyonman9655 I guess. What I see is a guy who can argue the facts thinking he can win by just calling everyone emotional.
@@matthewharris8819
Lol
The comment argued no facts
3:20
This is definitely discussed in American history education. This guy is just poorly informed
@@damileslol8479 No, He's being dishonest.
It was in my day, but I don't recall if it was discussed in school, but there were numerous TV shows about WWII including the Holocaust. What I recall, even at the time, the German people were subject to the anti-Semitic nature of the Nazi's but the death camps weren't well known to most people. Few people then and now realize that the Nazi's practiced their death campaign on German citizens who were considered feeble long before they came after the Jews.
you are the one uninformed
@thermalreboot You are correct about the Nazis carrying out a lot of their early atrocities on German citizens, many of whom were not Jewish. Germany actually had a fairly small population of Jews in relative terms.
Along with the euthanasia program that murdered people who the Nazis considered to be medically unfit, the original concentration camps (placea like Dachau and Bergen-Belsen) were set up inside of Germany and held primarily people who were considered to be enemies of the state or undesirable elements. These weren't extermination camps, like Sobribor or Treblinka, though they were still horrific places and incredibly deadly.
While it seems to be the case that most Germans did know one way or another about the mass murder of Jews, the extermination camps would all be located in the East, outside of Germany. Auschwitz was actually a complex of camps that functioned as both a concentration/work camp and an extermination camp. It was located in Poland. It makes on wonder if this was a case of the Nazis trying to separate themselves from their own atrocities by carrying them out in a foreign lands.
Ehrm, yeah you gave it a spin here. Of course 'the instability of the political system of the Weimar republic' is discussed. But reducing the problems of the Weimar republic to some glitch in their institutional makeup is exactly that type of superficial scapegoating that purposefully evades a bunch of other questions. This is what one of your most decorated economists of all times, John Maynard Keynes wrote in his book called 'The consequences of the peace treaty':
"The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable-abhorrent and detestable, even if it were possible, even if it enriched ourselves, even if it did not sow the decay of the whole civilized life of Europe."
Likewise chapters such as the madness of the Bavarian Soviet Republic under figures such as Eugen Leviné, a direct attempt (and short lived success) of the Soviet Union to create a communist seperatist state within the heart of Bavaria are virtually unheard of among all Westerners.
Douglas Murray recently went to a pro-Palestine ralley in Harvard (I think). He likened the actions of the Israeli forces to those of those of the British forces during WW2. A female student stood up and called it a flawed analogy because the British never bombed German civilians during WW2. Sorry, but I feel this is rather the level of 'education' we are talking about when it comes to British and American schools teaching the subject.
From the US....dear UK friends and family...to my knowledge this is not a an excepted view of Churchill. I do not understand this young man's credentials. I would ask him to examine who might be the "villians" in the US Civil war? Union troops committed (what we would call today) many atrocities against civilians to "free the slaves." Yes Dresden, Cologne, Hiroshima were all civilian tragedies---in comparison to the US Civil War, was there also not some "noble cause." One might claim Churchill "freed the Jews," as Lincoln "freed the slaves."
Please don't compare the confederate army to the SS
I began to suspect Tucker was a shoddy journalist after he gullibly swallowed Andrew Tate’s lies and this interview just cements my opinion.
Great reaction video.
It's amazing how many Tucker Carlson supporters scream about pedophilia and do nothing when he brings on and promotes an actual sex trafficker.
Why is he a shoddy journalist? He doesn't need to push the guest on your particular issues in order to qualify as a good journalist. He just needs to ask the questions that expose the views of the interviewee, and that he has done.
In your mind is "good" journalism only when the journalist asserts your bias? Apparently the journalist is just supposed to be a stand-in for you? Get serious.
@@stevedoetsch no, a good journalist has to, at the bare minimum, have some knowledge of the criminal charges against Tate, so that when Tate lies and says he was charged for simply helping some girls start Tik Tok accounts, that journalist would be able to recite the actual charges against Tate, rather than sitting there open mouthed stating, “aw shucks, that’s terrible!”
I think Tuker is an example of a "red pilled" person who has rightly seen that there is a lot of lies, hypocrisy and has started to question the stories we are told. However hes gone so far with it that nothing we are told is true, everything is a lie, all the things we think about us is a lie. He in other wors has become a right wing woke man. No different from a left wing woke person who does exactly the same thing but just with a different agenda.
@@katej910 I'm afraid I have to disagree 100%. A journalist asks all the questions he/she feels are relevant and lets the person talk.
Somehow in your mind, the journalist is supposed to know if a person is guilty or innocent of charges (which so far absolutely nothing is sticking after all this time with the Tates) like sensationalist journalists do, which is why people like Tucker are becoming popular. he isn't doing the massively slanted journalism of the CNNs and MSDNCs which are losing more and more viewers all the time, because far too often their 'conclusions' are totally wrong.
Tucker is not an investigative journalist doing months-long stories, he is doing interviews on the regular with people that are interesting and letting people say their peace.
Perhaps Russia, Cuba or China would be preferable for you where whatever the journalist's position is, is the truth?
I'm starting to think a lot of people are not aware of history, just take in what has been shown in a few films. Then everything gets sensationalised when someone 'discover' certain elements of history, or what they have seen/read.
I'm convinced this is a result of internet, people not reading books, Ctrl-F.
Ask John Curtin & the Australian Army 9th Division if Churchill had "villainish" tendencies .......
What they would say?🤔🤔
I truly don't know ....please let me know what these people would say...
Yes it was a mistake to use 'colonial' and untested troops at Gallipoli. It was considered it would be a walkover. The best troops were kept on the Western front.
@@FiveLiver John Curtin was PM in WW2, & the 9th Div distinguished itself in North Africa, Crete & various other places - nothing to do with Gallipoli whatsoever ........
@@hellas_crater Australians whine about something else? - Do tell
@FiveLiver Well, I'm assuming you're a Pommy know-it-all, so put that superior intellect to use & look it up - there have been many books written on the subject, incl by British historians, all of whom vindicate Curtin's stance.
(btw, you'll notice I didn't take your obvious & unimaginative bait about Gallipoli & the Western Front, but I will mention 2 inconvenient facts: 1) roughly 80,000 "best" British troops failed in the Dardanelles campaign too, & 2) the AIF had the best success ratio on the Western Front, particularly under Gen John Monash's tactics, which were widely adopted by British commanders after 3 years of stalemate, & changed the course of the campaign. So significant was his contribution that King George knighted him on the battlefield in front of allied troops & High Command.
And here's something else: the Light Horse took Jerusalem & were ordered to hand it over to Allenby, which they did, & rode away to fight & win another battle. Allenby & his British troops were promptly forced out by a Turkish counter-attack within 48 hrs. Having just won a battle, & with scarce supplies & water, the Light Horse rode back, attacked, & took the city again, but this time their officers refused to hand it over to incompetents. It was thought that holding a city that somebody else had captured for you "would be a walkover." Apparently not ......
Churchill was flawed but he defo was not the "chief villian" and imo he deserves his place as a national hero.
The nazi regime was a threat to stability to the of europe and just sitting back and negotiating and doing nothing i guess we will never know the outcome. However it is possibile it would at the very least lead to years of instability in Europe, the nazis showed themselves to be expansive in nature, they had a ideology that was completely intolerant. If we just sat back and allowed the germans to continue to grow in power and influence maybe war would be inevitable anyway just we would be even less advantaged.
This man also openly calls himself a facist and has a lot of sympathy for the nazis all over his timeline.
This is right wing wokism
Someone should study this guy's body language, particularly his creepy hand gestures.
Yes, he looks like hes trying to convince himself he knows what hes talking about.
Tucker has a teenagers moral compass. I used to be a fan, so it’s crazy how disgusted I am by him now.
You sound very emotional
Why were you a fan?
Turning into some right-wing version of Noam Chomsky
Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany
Cooper believes Churchill should have made peace in 1940 on Germany's terms, so he has a total inability to see the consequences of doing that. For Americans it would have meant a Pearl Harbor on two fronts.
Oh God, here we go again. The little people trying to feel better about themselves by trying to denigrate a man they can't understand let alone hope to emulate.
And as for Carlson, he'll say absolutely anything if he thinks it'll keep his face in front of a camera.
Tucker has to have some angle for attention, he can't do OnlyFans.
Give me a bottle of whiskey and I can emulate Winston Churchill just fine
@@ChewyChicken589 Winston Churchill smoked like a chimney, drank like a fish, beat Hitler, lived to be 90, and was admired the world over by people who understand more about life than you do. Not even in your dreams my friend.
@@TarlachOakleaf correction, he BARELY beat Hitler with the entire first world behind him
@@ChewyChicken589 Nope, Hitler was whipped. As to the Allies, they did NOT constitute the entire first world - exaggeration is basically lying: you shouldn't do it. Having the rigfht allies is part of the art of war. Britain had the US and the USSR, Hitler chose Japan and Italy.
It's clear you're one of that legion of people who have a chip on their shoulder and much bile to unload.
Churchill is, in my opinion, the greatest leader of the 20th century, and certainly the most far-sighted, intelligent, inspiring and understanding of the allied leaders. And I am not British, but I did read enough about this war and did my best to read at least a chunk of Churchill's book on the Second World War.
Many of the comments on this video are troubling. People think they know a lot more than they do because they read some revisionist anti-Western history, without first reading the more orthodox sources. While it's good to inform yourself from different perspectives, it is stupid to buy into this nonsense like there wouldn't be a war without Churchill, when if you study even the most basic history you would know the war started many months before he ever became prime minister, and had he been in charge earlier, Hitler could have easily been stopped well before 1939, when entering the Rhineland, or during the Sudetenland crisis.
People think they're so smart for supporting some unorthodox positions, but they don't even know the basics.
Name me the authors which educated you about Churchill
@@angelozachos8777 Well I've read a lot of sources, about WWII in general, but most relevant I guess are Antony Beevor and Churchill's own book about the war. But also all sorts of other general books about the Second World War, also from Russian perspective. I am quite interested in the topic.
@@angelozachos8777 Not David Irving or Pat Buchanan
Good post. The Coopers of this world are looking at low resolution images with a magnifying glass.
I like how he thought Indians were disposable subhumans. How about you?
I don't get it. It's as if Chamberlain never existed and it was Churchill who set this all up...
Chamberlain was under immense pressure from the organized and well funded Pro War clique led by Churchill in Westminster
7:47 Does this guy expect to be treated seriously making those claims?" Yes, yes he does.
To some of the questions you pose in the video, yes, WWII, particularly the western theater, is not taught around these details as much and in the same way as in Western Europe, so I think he is right to point out that Churchill was the outlier in British government and society whereas in the US, Chamberlin is presented as the outlier. Also I think cooper would agree with you about the distinctions between technical and nominal concentration camps, and would refer to Germany’s as death camps. I think your analysis is correct though. I’d be curious to hear his response to some of these criticisms about his counterfactuals.
Have you listened to his podcasts and do you take opposition to anything he’s said on them?
1:30 people have gone to jail in Germany for questioning the 6 million number
Uhh nazi people and In Germany muslim do
It’s so true you can’t question it
@@isolatedbutjacked7036 its a full blown lie... it was only 1.8 million... they count the people that fled europe with the death count.. they did the same thing on oct 7th including the people taken hostage in the death toll but then they quietly release the real numbers.. satan is the biggest deceiver.. they dont call them the synagogue of satan for no reason
🇮🇱
Yes, supporting the Nazis is a crime in Germany. That doesn't make Holocaust revisionism or denial correct.
Always love your videos. Keep it up!
Thank you for all you do!
Seems Tucker Carlson's kind of living in his own world now, I used to be a fan of his but I do not know what's going on with him lately
Russian foreign aid.
The man who saved Britain from nazi tyranny is the biggest villian of ww2.
why should the uk have lost its empire over a port in poland?
Why should Hitler have invaded Poland? Was he stupid?
Because when you make an alliance, you honor your alliances, or no one will come to your aid when its tour turn.
@@CaspertheSarcasticGhost lmao we didn't honor the alliance we abandoned them to the soviets
@red_ed5715 At some point, there wasn't much of a choice, now was there. I personally am in the Patton school of thought. We should have armed the Germans and marched the Red ass army back to Moscow. But that shit wasn't in the cards now, was it.
@@red_ed5715 No we didn't abandon them to the Soviets, after TWO world wars Britain was in no position to fight another war.
Love you videos
I liked the interview by Tucker, I also liked your non emotional rebuttal. Very nice conversations.
I wouldn't say Churchill was evil, but I do believe he was a major war monger and he made multiple decisions that negatively affected the British during the war. A channel called TIKhistory has a video on why he dislikes Churchill that I think you'd be interested in, especially since TIK uses sources and better explains his reasoning and evidence more than the two people in this video you're watching.
Based comments
He was evil. He sold out western civilization
hahaha marxist ignoramus.
He turned down hitlers calls for peace with britain
@@isolatedbutjacked7036 of course he did? What kind of immoral, horrific animal would have made peace with Adolf/ One would have to be morally corrupt and a complete ignoramus
Churchill didn't plan on the invasion of Gallipoli. His plan was to force the Dardanelles.
I often reflect on Tucker's fanatical comments on his hate for Trump and his father being in the CIA if not him too, don't recall don't care enough but he's an odd dude. Camelaa has got her cackle, Tucker's got his girly chuckle
Thanks for doing this video.
Hey history reaveled i tried to search for your videos for 2 days.( i forgot your channel name) i searched for key words in and topics you talk about but couldnt find you before now. it might be that you have gotten shadow banned.:(
Thanks for letting me know
I like Darryl Cooper but his views on some things seem a bit forced to be on the contrarian side
Because he ain't funded by the red sea pedestrians like Churchill was.
At 14:00 you ask “Why on Earth would Britain have made peace…”…this is the crux of the debate.
Some of us believe like Darryl that we should have made PEACE. That’s it. It’s not dishonest, immoral, or ill informed, we just feel in good faith, it was an unnecessary war.
If we can ally with Stalin then we could have made peace with Hitler.
And we didn’t save Poland. We threw Poland under a bus to the communists.
We didn’t save lives because 10’s of millions more died.
We lost our empire.
We lost almost all our treasure. We only finished paying off our War Debt in 2006!!
We lost our reserve currency status.
We became part of a liberal movement that is ruining us today with mass immigration. Completely transforming the country while replacing indigenous British people with 3rd world hoards.
France was ruined, Germany was ruined, Britain was ruined…nothing good came from it.
Only the myth that we fought for noble reasons. That this alone was a truly noble war. Well it wasn’t.
Great summary
Ironically Churchill himself called it the Unnecessary War, although what he thought would have prevented the war differs from Darryl's analysis.
Are you a pacifist?
the alliance with the USSR was circumstance, nothing more, if germany wasnt fighting them we wouldnt have.
poland only wanted us to fight germany, churchill wasnt in charge when they were invaded, he wanted to continue east and liberate poland but he was voted out and the USA didnt want to.
so that promise to poland was made 3 prime ministers earlier.
hitler already decided he was going east in the 20s, every life lost in the east would still have been lost + the countless millions that would have died if either side won and took all of europe.
our empire was being dismantled in 1898, in fact 1/2 of its landmass was already independent before WW2, and other promises meant we wouldnt have an empire war or no war.
likely would have happened anyway if just delayed to the 80s or 90s
everything youre xomplaining about here started 30 years after churchill died, theres zero connection and would still happen as it was completely different people who have brought it about.
as a bonus, hitler wanted to invade the USA some time after dealing with the USSR and using the british fleet.
so either we fight and even stronger germany then, or join them against the USA and still have a gigantic war anyway.
@@katej910 No, they’re a Nazi.
24:00 What is your opinion on Operation Unthinkable that was promoted by Churchhill against the USSR?
Since there was no declaration of war against Stalin, since the Transfer Agreement was boycotted by Brits and US, since the Madagascar solution was denied implementation, I think Churchill would have been a great member of the LGBT community today.
Winston sided with the commies.
@@pwnagenuss good. Better then the Nazis
@@MrRushhour4by what standard?
America gave 15m pairs of boots to ruzzia.. lend lease- billions of dollars (today's money 180billion) yet here you are, barely having read a book in your life obviously 🤦🏼♂️ commie...FML.
@@red_ed5715 The nazis came closer to taking over Europe. Priorities you see.
No he didn't, but like any sensible statesman he knew when to cut cards with the devil. "My enemy's enemy is my friend". Try not to talk like a p^^^^^r.
What should Churchill/Britain/The Allie have done in regards to world war 2 is a question that can only really be construed in 2 ways: 1. What is the most militarily effective course of action, and 2. What was the most morally justifiable course of action.
On 1, the military action was a success (evidenced by the victory in 1945). On 2, preventing and eliminating the Nazi control of Europe, as well as bringing the holocaust to a speedier end, is absolutely morally justified (and certainly more so than sitting idly by and letting hitler have his way with Europe).
Given that, on what account is Churchill a villain? Unless what we mean by villain is hero
That's a fair nose and lips you've got going on there.
Churchill was a warmonger
No, Hitler was a warmonger.
Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and their allies were warmongers. Churchill was a realist. And the world would have been a lot better off if people listened to him in 1935 and stopped Hitler then.
Churchill had a longer track record of war
@@algardner5228 so what. It was the perfect time to have a warmonger as a leader. There were evil psychopaths that were trying to take over the world. Like do y’all understand that WW2 ended with the United States in control of most of the world? The United States could’ve made all of Europe, japan, china, and Korea all pay taxes to the United States if they wanted to. But they just said let’s rebuild and agree to have open trade and no wars of aggression. And that’s been pretty much the norm for the past 80 years… let National socialist Germany and Imperial Japan be the global powers and how do you think the world would be? Got a bunch of Americans on here crying like America didn’t sacrifice the least and gain the most out of every country involved. Churchill did what he felt was necessary to protect his people. Of course he would want the United States to help them. Of course he isn’t just going to let Germany take over all of Europe and then when they feel like it take the uk. A certified psychopath was leading Germany. You guys sound as bad as the left crying about George Washington and Andrew Jackson being bad because they owned slaves. I assume you believe dropping the nukes was evil too. That we should’ve just let a million American men die invading japan and giving up partial control of japan to the Soviets. You guys are pathetic. War was coming to America whether Churchill wanted it to or not. Oh he should’ve made a peace agreement with Germany. Right like the non aggression pact that the Russians signed with Germany?? Or like peace deal the Japanese signed right before Pearl Harbor.. Hitler believed that he could purify the aryan race and it would give them superpowers. That the aryans had superpowers before they slept with Jews, Russians, French, Irish, British, and everyone that ain’t blonde haired and blue eyed.. but oh they weren’t going to try eliminating anyone else after the Jews.. right.. logic says they would have to eliminate everyone who isn’t blonde haired and blue eyed. Stop being dumb.
@@phil3924 @phil3924 That's not what defines someone as a "warmonger", because it depends why those wars were fought. But hey, start speaking German or hop into a crematory; you're free to live the life that you think Churchill stole from you.
We did it in GCSE history, alongside American history if I remember correctly
Excellent video. I'll give you a sub.
The man who engineered The Dresden Massacre was a villain?? You don't say..
Everyone is evil but you. You're the only good person left.
@@stevedoetsch There's no such thing. Subjective duality subjugates its subjects.
@@stevedoetsch You can remove all dualities from the equation altogether, and Dresden still shouldn't have happened. It was a crime against humanity.
@@stevedoetsch The Brits spent much of their time subjugating other nations, and now look at them- subjugated by their very own government occupied by the people from the nations they subjugated.
....ffs. that was the Americans....
How can you get this so wrong: Darryl Cooper! HOW?
Yeah this was a super interesting interview but all of the incidents Tucker Carlson and his guest mentioned were almost wildly taken out of context. One of the things I was shocked they didn't mention was the sinking of the French fleet in the Mediterranean Sea once France has fallen in June of 1940. Really that's something that was terrible but Churchill saw it as military necessary because of the defeat in the Battle for France and Western Europe to knock any threat to the British Navy in the region. Also the Famine in India was also a stain on Churchill as well however that had been the policy of the British Empire since almost the creation of the British Raja in India to subdue any radical elements which the British did numerous times before the war. I would say that all of the villain's shadow is deserved on Churchill but not for World War 2. It is deserved for his pervious actions in the Great War (World War 1) and the Second Boer War. Most especially in the WWI because he sent scores of good men from Australia, New Zealand, India and other colonial territorial holdings to their deaths for nothing in failed campaigns like the amphibious landing on the Gallipoli peninsula. Everyone warned him that the Turkish forces were heavily defended but he did it anyway. It was all over a twisted imperial ego and some racism over the abilities of the Turkish forces. That is really the only thing you can fault Churchill over, his hubris and arrogance as a military operational planner. 😊
No, that is not discussed in America...
What? Treat of Versailles wasn't taught in your school?
Actually he supported Milwall!
Was it Churchill or Benjamin Franklin who was the silverware thief? 🤭
I'll have to look into your claims about eunsatzgrupen having prearranged plans, and being there planned before the invasion, but the numbers of POWs they captured were huge, hundreds of thousands,right from the start, and most weren't jews, they were soviet POWs, so at this point this seems debatable.
loosing an empire about poland lol
The Empire was already being dismantled, and would have been dismantled without any war.
@@deriznohappehquite and the war helped that?
Criticizing Churchill for internment camps like the US didn’t also intern Japanese is kind of rich. Yeah it’s bad but the false correlation rubs me the wrong way. Churchill was a hero.
This entire interview was a guy looking to interpret every action Churchill took negatively and every action Hitler took positively. It’s gross
Look at gaza and the lies!
I love martyrmade. He is the most impartial podcaster it there
7:38 did Churchill do something worse than than the final solution? Ask the Indians - 1944 Bengal Famine - approximately 3.8 mill Indians died as a result of their food being exported to the UK & British Empire. Bear in mind, millions of Indian soldiers fought in WW1. & WW2 on the behalf of England. Not their war, but they did it. Churchill’s “appreciation” to India was famine.
Given the West were colonials -please let’s not kid ourselves that they were the good guys!!!
Tucker should have interviewed you instead!
That last pavelić was monstrous sadistic ‘man’
Yes. You should see what he gave Ireland; the black and tans.
what he likely means is not the idea that german society was humilliated via verseilles but via the pressures and results it had on there society. Berlin became a den of sin and debauchery. This is sometimes celebrated for high tolerance for the gueer communities. But this was also a time where some germans where due too economic factors forced into protitution too continue too eat. Those parts of weimar culture are nearly never dicussed. especially not how far that went for the poor and how liberating it was for the rich outsiders.
Many times people stick too the very big picture.
"Churchill was a villain!?"
In many ways, yeah. In many ways he was a nasty, rotten ass individual. Yeah.
so that means Hitler was the hero? you know what villain means means right?
hate the fact people think britain created the concentration camp when it was the spanish.
also that they dont know the ones in the boer war only had deaths because the boer fighters were raiding the food supplies going to the camps.
Britain’s fault
16:59 what?
Britain had a whole freaking empire. They could theoretically raise more fighting men than Germany or even the Soviets.
He was a hero, just not in a shining armor.
I am actually embarassed for having listened (and liked on top of that!) Darryll's podcast in it's early days. Then the podcats became boring and the host increasingly unlikeable. Wannabe grifter.
Not a good start to this video, with 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, currently with laws in place that cover "Holocaust" denial as a punishable offence. Even questioning numbers is something akin to historical blasphemy. To handwave this off as if it's not an extraordinary fact in itself is dismissive. Name a single historical fact that is such a sacred cow as the 6 million number. In Germany, for example, "downplaying" that dubious number is sufficient to prosecute. YCLIU
I stopped listening at that early moment in the video. Blatant dishonesty is so tiresome. This podcaster gaslights his listeners.
Very nice job.
Fantastic video-thank you!
God bless
Part of God's plan.
Churchill literally started WW2
You banged your head?
No that was Germany invading Poland
@@MrRushhour4 they had a responsibility and duty to the germans in poland.
You bumped your head?
@@red_ed5715 no they didnt. If the germans in Poland didnt like living in Poland they could have moved to Germany. Poland did nothing that warranted invasion
Sir Winston Churchill was a HERO and a great man who stood up to great evil and I only wish the UK and other western nations now had leaders like him today.
😂😂😂
He's a big part of why native Brits are becoming a minority in their own land now. White people becoming a minority is the prize we won for destroying Germany
@@ChewyChicken589 Nice of you to think that NAZis would have been better than their grandkids! LOL!
@@litoaykiuat least if Germany had won, Britain would still be full of British people
he was a criminal paid and bought for who made the civilians the primary target first among many other crimes.
29:00 Conservative vs Conservative Isolationist. Conservatives love Churchhill, but Conservative Isolationists do not they are hyper Nutralist and think that a country should only interfear in its own favor, in other words since Germany attacked Poland England should stay out of the war it is not there bisiness.
They were literally all villains. Churchhill allowed many atrocities. So did the U.S. leaders.
Oh no
How were the allies just as evil as the Nazis?
Please name any war where atrocities are not committed?
Allowed? You mean committed.
@@mikecrimlis3366 quite the opposite infact. "Lefty" is about the anti-thesis to me. I'm just not a narrativecuck like you
9:04 your response is off topic and you show that you aren’t even listening to what the man is saying.
Good point.
Good point.
he straight up lies a few times as well
The Stab in the Back was not a myth.
Yes it was the German army lost because of the USAs entry and the fact they their people were starving. Everything after that was cope
@@jackbrewster9766 yes, that's my point. The stab in the back was them getting the us into the war against Germany which is why Germany lost. Before that, Germany had totally dominated the war to the point where England only had two weeks worth of food and supplies left for their troops
@ChewyChicken589 nah man i think you're incorrect. The stab in the back narrative was the story made up by the German high command to excuse the fact that they has bungled the war effort. It is definitely a good possibility the Germans would have eventually won the day without US involvement, but that didn't happen because of the German military doctrine of unrestricted Uboat warfare, the zimmerman telegram and the general overconfidence of the german military. They pushed the army to the breaking point, while at home unrest was growing rapidly to the point of various attempted rebellions by the various dissident groups in germany where happening constantly, food was scarce, the economy was crap and eastern europe was exploding into violence of the Russian civil war. The Kaiser and the German military lost that war, but the military could never cope with it, so they made up a story so they could try to preserve their dignity, which was the absolve themselves of all responsibility for the loss of the war and blame it on everyone they could think of.
I'll preface this by saying I'm firmly right-wing.
With that said, I don't think Churchill was the chief villain, but he was very misguided and his actions were a net negative for the world and for the British. He never saw a war he didn't want. He was agitating for a war with the Germans for a while. Let's take him for his word and evaluate the outcomes - the British entered WW2 in order to preserve Poland's independence. What was the outcome? Not only was Poland not independent, but the entirety of eastern Europe lost its independence to the savage Bolsheviks. What would have been the result of not declaring war? Likely the Nazis and Bolsheviks fight each other until one loses, and the winner then likely dominates eastern Europe. So we're saying the worst case scenario of not declaring war on the Germans ends up being the actual outcome of declaring war, just with fewer deaths. What was the point of fighting the war if the outcome is of winning the war is WORSE than the outcome of not fighting at all? He destroyed the British empire along the way and the British economy to fight the war. The British won bragging rights and that's it. Just a lot of death and elimination of wealth to have a worse geopolitical outcome.
Very much wrong. Britain being in the war encouraged the Allies to keep fighting and be a huge burden on Germany. If the Britain did not join the war and was cowardly then Nazi Germany would have likely won the war against the Soviets. The Allies destroyed Germany’s capacity to trade, produce, and manage an entire war. Germany winning this war would be a disaster for Eroupe as hitler’s policies would likely lay waste to the people’s there. I do not deny that the war brought about the end of the British empire as it most definitely did. While yes, many of the former colonies are in rough shape today, maintaining an empire like that with the current moralistic standards and how the economy works today is unrealistic.
@@Woody-rc5nh If I understand your point accurately, you're saying that if Britain did not declare war on Germany then Germany defeats the Soviets and Germany dominates Eastern Europe. How is that a worse outcome than what actually occurred? With Britain fighting the war, the Soviets won and dominated Eastern Europe destroying Eastern Europe with authoritarian totalitarian rule. It's just replacing Germany and the Soviets. Many would argue the Soviets dominating Eastern Europe is worse for Eastern Europe than Germany dominating Eastern Europe. So why fight the war and have so many British die to have an equal or worse outcome?
@@AmericanRevanchism You do not seem to really understand the plan that Germany had for all Eastern Europe. Generalplan Ost was a plan to effectively genocide the entirety of this region whereas the Soviets were more concerned about controlling it and spreading their ideology. I am not saying life under the Soviets would be preferable, nor am I saying the the Soviets didn't kill anyone. However, it sure as hell is better than what the Nazis had in mind. You need to understand that the Nazi party was genuinely insane.
@@AmericanRevanchism You do not seem to really understand the plan that Germany had for all Eastern Europe. Generalplan Ost was a plan to effectively genocide the entirety of this region whereas the Soviets were more concerned about controlling it and spreading their ideology. I am not saying life under the Soviets would be preferable, nor am I saying the the Soviets didn't kill anyone. However, it sure as hell is better than what the Nazis had in mind. You need to understand that the Nazi party was genuinely insane.
"Germany, who did not want the war, was trapped and doomed to
destruction nevertheless, and there was nothing she could do about it but fight
on. The vast majority of the death and destruction in the war was directly
attributable to the inhuman Allied demand for unconditional surrender,
combined with the plan to implement the genocidal Morganthau Plan
immediately following any such unconditional surrender. The demand for
unconditional surrender, therefore seems on its face a stupid, counterproductive policy, until one realizes that all the death and destruction which
occurred inside Germany was precisely what both Roosevelt and Churchill
wanted. They did not want peace with Germany. They wanted to destroy
Germany. That is also what International ....y wanted.
It is estimated that more than 8 million Germans died during the war, but
an astonishing 13 million additional Germans died after the war was over; the
result of expulsions, mass murder, brutality, exposure and starvation. That
would be a total of more than 20 million German deaths as a result of the war.
The estimated deaths during the war for the United States and Great Britain
were 413,000 and 450,000 respectively. The claim that 6 died is patently absurd. Germany was clearly the real victim
of the war."
lol. You sound ridiculous. Germany wanted war and sought it out. They spent years building a massive military to fight it. Oh to fight the Soviets? The Soviets who were using horses and didn’t even have a sufficient amount of rifles to defend their country? Unconditional surrender is how you win a war. That’s why the United States hasn’t won a war since World War Two. They haven’t gone for unconditional surrender. You’re lacking context of the time too. World War One was horrific and now Germany is on the war path again.. so what the allies should’ve fought both wars and then made the same mistake of world war 1? F no. You force them to submit. You take away their ability to wage war and cause mass suffering and death for a third time. If Germany didn’t want war then they should’ve stayed their asses in Germany and stopped rounding up Jews and putting them in ghettos. The German population earned the suffering they received. Oh they didn’t have enough food to feed the population they captured.. so how did they survive before you invaded? They grew their food right? Yeah so you let them grow their damn food and you focus on military objectives. Instead they had an evil agenda of destroying the Jewish and non Aryan populations. 6 million isn’t even a large number for a country that spent a decade documenting all of them and had a fully mobilized military economy. I mean it would only take 6 camps with 5 chambers operating 5 days a week 8 hour days with 20 per chamber per hour for 4 years. They were already rounded up and documented. So all they had to do was empty ghettos and put them on trains and pull 100 off per hour.
Completely absurd
@@deriznohappehquite cause u dont know ur @ from your elbow.
i love how you brushed over the fact that churchill bombed german civilians, women and children (all the men were off to war) as if it was ok and justifiable and 'military targets', what military targets have kids and women in them, kindergartens? also you are saying that just because they were allowed to put on shakespear plays in concentration camps, it wasnt a real concentration camp and people werent jailed and trapped there. are you insane?
Didn't like every nation bomb cities?
'Europa the final battle' shows stuff.
I also highly recommend the Secret Masonic Victory of World War 2
It's excellent propaganda for those susceptible to it, look how Hitler mesmerized the German population, same message in your movie. American bushes and Fords funding Germany 👀
its strange hearing people say britain couldnt fight the war without the USSR or USA despite the fact the british empire ha a million more personnel than the USA .
not to mention D-day was an american plan, britain had italy already aimed at along with 3 pther invasion points that had to be abandoned to do D-day.
even more when you realise almost all military advancements made for the allies was done by britain, radar, jet engine, certain bombs, hobarts funnies, commandos, SAS, the first true MBT, etc.
@@bigenglishmonkey cracking the enigma… I got nothing but respect for the uk. But I’m not so sure that the uk would’ve been able to beat Germany without American supplies and the Russians occupying a massive amount of soldiers and weaponry. But we all needed each other. I don’t believe the Soviets would’ve won at Stalingrad if it wasn’t for allied bombing of German infrastructure. The UK sacrificed a lot of lives bombing Germany before the United States joined the war and after the French surrendered. Churchill wanted the Soviets to know that they weren’t alone and that the UK Is still bringing the fight to Germany. Which was huge. The luftwaffe was basically destroyed by allied bombing. They targeted Germanys oil supplies and then destroyed the planes while they sat on the ground. The Germans were tough with the luftwaffe supporting their troops. That’s how they wiped out France and got so far into Russia. But yeah cracking the Enigma was huge. The movie on it is pretty good. Except when they had to let the guy’s brother get attacked by German u boats. I’m pretty sure that actually happened. I mean they definitely had to pick who lived and who died. Which must’ve sucked.
@@forfun6273
britain made it 3 years before lend lease and about 70% of it arrived after the war, ended.
as for the rest, it was either given to exiled troops to use or just replaced what britain sent to the USSR.
britains own oil supply lasted throughout and only hit its reserves in 1945.
food was reportedly the biggest issue but given britain supplied 1/3 of the food americans ate in europe im questioning how dire supplies really were.
i mean, people at the time though a german invasion was gauranteed yet now we know it was impossible.
won't ever know as only 1 of britains invasion plans actually got used, but as long as germany couldntleave europe properly then it couldnt lose.
napoleonic wars 2.0
the imitation game or U-571?
havent watched either but the latter is hated in britain and poland as its americans getting the machine instead of brits and poles.
@@bigenglishmonkey the imitation game. It’s about Allan Turin. Basically it starts in like the 60s/70s his house is robbed but he lies to the police about it. The cops like WTH? What’s he hiding??? And gets ahold of his records for during the war. Then it goes back to like 39 or something and basically follows Turin as he’s recruited by the government to crack the code. Then how him and the few others end up building the machine to crack enigma. It ends up not being fast enough. The one guy figures out how to make it faster. But still wasn’t fast enough. So they’re all miserable and sitting in a bar drinking. When one of the women who was responsible for transcribing the intercepted messages mentions that the German she’s been intercepting must have a wife because he always uses the same word in every letter. Turin is like HOLY SHIT! So they look for words that are repeated everyday. It ends up being the weather report at like 6am. Every report included the words weather, hail, and Hitler. So instead of the machine trying to decode the entire alphabet it just had to focus on those words and they knew what the final letter would be for each letter in each word. So yeah it went from taking days and not solving an encryption to solving it pretty quick. So yeah they’re all excited and they decode the most recent intercept and it’s Germany directing U boats to intercept a bunch of supply ships. One guy picks up the phone to call and tell the ships to change course. But Turin hangs up the phone. And yeah he’s basically says look solving the code was the easy part. Now we have to prevent the Germans from figuring out that we solved it because the Germans could simply change it around and then they’ll be screwed. But the one guy realizes his brother is on a ship that’s escorting the supply ships so he begs them to do it just once. They refuse and his brother dies. But then it goes back to the 60s/70s you find out he was a closeted gay man and that’s why he wasn’t honest about it because the guy that broke in was his gay lover or something. Idk. I didn’t really care to pay attention to that part. I mean it was sad and sucked how his childhood friend (love) died. I saw a criticism that they gave too much credit to Allan Turin and not enough credit to the other super smart guy. But yeah there’s no American involvement. It’s on RUclips for free if I’m not mistaken. I think it’s worth a watch. But Allan was way ahead of his time. Like he basically made a computer in the 40s and theorized artificial intelligence. I’m pretty certain there’s a test named after him that he came up with to determine if a computer is sentient. Something like that… but was the food coming from India? And/or other colonies? Or was the UK able to produce that much food on its own? From the movie it made it seem like the German blockade was sinking a ridiculous amount of tonnage of supplies and it was hurting Britain pretty bad. But it is just a movie.. also I see a lot of Indians crying about Churchill and claiming he starved a bunch of Indians because they had a famine and Churchill didn’t give af and took a bunch of food from India to support the war effort and they didn’t need as much as they took. I mean I’ll definitely admit that I’m not nearly as informed about the uk during ww2 as I am about the United States. I just know that the Royal Air Force was bad ass with the Battle of Britain and then the bombing campaigns. Like the bouncing Bettys and destroying the Bismarck which made them hide the tirpitz for the rest of the war pretty much. Then you hear about the crazy tank battles in Africa and Italy between Rommel and Montgomery. Rommel was a bad ass but he still lost. I know he embarrassed the Americans a few times in Africa.
Hitler whas also military in first war. Usa😅
I appreciate you acknowledging the Churchill/Chamberlain thing is abused. I can see you're coming at this with a British persoective, so I cut you slack on a lot of this because i take your word for it that you guys were taught these things. He is definitwly speaking to us unfoetunate Americans who have had a lousier education.
It's was my understanding, church hill was the cause of mass Indians dieing, but i could be wrong.
you mean the bengal famine that happened during the height of the war?
@@nitrocellulosedoormat yup the same one where he diverted grain laden ships intended for Bengal and redirected them to buffer stocks for Britain Incase of invasion of Greece and then yogislavia. Let's not forget the war debt that was owed to India that wasn't payed or how about how slavery wasn't ended just rebranded as indenture and sold to the world. I've got records of deaths of indentured laborers that died from sun exposure kids as young as 3 months old dying on their mothers backs but slavery ended right. Alot of history gets white washed by the victors n those who where trampled under foot or used as tools to achieve said victory ever gets mentioned hence the denial of the Bengal famine.
the famine started after a storm, 2 cyclones, a flood, crop disease, a japanese invasion and blockade, and refugee crisis due to said japanese invasion?
This guy I'd a utter clown
Winston Churchill was a great American hero--without being an American himself.
--
His mum was American though. He'd have qualified for a US passport.
Churchhill was the worst British leader of all time
When you think about it Winston Churchill was the reason Britain lost its empire and became the sad sack of shame it is today.
If he never came in to meddle with WW2 and didn’t take France’s side in the war, not only would thousands of British lives but would preserve Britain’s tradition and power on the world stage.
This is coming from an American btw.
You think Germany would’ve just stopped with mainland Europe and none British colonies? Idk about all that.
@@forfun6273Germany was protecting Europe from globalism and Communism/Marxism
The British empire was already in terminal decline by the point, the war just finished it off, the empire was not sustainable because colonialism was too expensive maintain.
@@cane6074 I saw somewhere that a lot of European colonies were abandoned because they were concerned that the Soviets would use them as a way to attack the west and push communism.
Britain was pretty much fine until like the 2010s. Kind of stupid of you to blame it on Churchill.
Yes, Churchill was a villain. What happened in Dresden was a holocaust
Cope, Germany bombed where they pleased, did they believe we werent going to respond in kind
No, lol.
@@WilliamRP263 also, Germany did THE HOLOCAUST. Idgaf what happens to dresden after that shit
@@MrRushhour4the British bombed German civilians for months before the Germans started bombing civilians in England as a response
@@MrRushhour4you mean that alleged historical event that is actually scientifically impossible?
🦁👑🇬🇧👑🦁
man so much by yanks on the start of the war.
Remember US had concentration camps too ....filled with Japanese Americans, and segregation was still prevalent
Think those Japanese Americans pined for being sent to the gas chambers, and wished that instead of a racist society imprisoning them on a temporary basis they got subjected to genocide???
The death count from the Japanese internment camps is estimated to be 8 people total. Old folks with heart conditions mostly. No gas chambers, no mass starvations, no killing if children. Not the same as the Soviets or the Germans.
@@jackbrewster9766 yes agree but he was on about the british camps
I disagree with Cooper but I also didn't like your analysis so not much was gained listening to this.
Any actual critique?
@@katej910 Did I claim to be critiquing him? I did not. I wrote that I disliked his treatment of the subject and analysis. I wouldn't waste my time critiquing someone on youtube. That's for people with no life or a monetized channel, (which are actually the same thing).
Look at the confused look on his face when he heard about the peace agreements. Why was I ever subscribed to this channel
Lame response
please read Bengal Famine in ww2 where Churchill facilitated death of atleast 2 millon indians by starvation. what hitler did to jews churchill did the same to indians. but i think we do not get counted as humans
Alot of westerners especially woman don‘t see you as human this is the truth
Tucker gets all his talking points from the Kremlin
Coopers point; Churchill wanted and worked for a grand war. That made him a villain! Even Hitler in all his maddness and malice did not want that.
Mostly correct. Although. 1) The author somehow conveniently remembers the Soviet famine (collectivization famine 1930-33), however, omits to recall the totally intentional famine of Bengal. 2) He also advances long questionable Soviet mass rape claims that are spurious at best. 3) Cold war was not an invention of the Soviets who adhered to the treaty of Potsdam, so no, it was Churchill and his ilk who initiated the cold war. 4) Churchill was a rabid racist. Do you contend that?
For an Australian, Churchill is a villain
Why.
British empire met its sunset,since war monger Churchill dug a tomb for the Nation step by step:Boer war,Gallipoli disaster ww1,Norway fiasco , Attack on Mers El-Kebir (thousand French sailor deaths 1940), Bengal famine (30 million souls perished) etc.He promoted a war,but didn't have muscle to show in Poland & Dunkirk theaters. He dragged the world (Canada,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,India,and USA) into flames in order to preserve the Empire; and fostered monster Soviet communism to poison the entire world . Britain is the one deserved most blames for sacrificing millions of lives during and after WW2.
Darryl is that you?
I bet you hate David Irving too
Churchill was a hero, without him we would all be speaking German.
Yeah, that worked out real well. The movie Idiocracy wasn't fiction
Instead, we are soon to all be speaking Arabic 😂
What a victory ✌️
@@angelozachos8777 He must be turning in his grave!
Seems to me and most of the men that fought that the wrong side won.
My grandfathers fought in that war, while my grandmothers had to spend their nights in air raid shelter, and they didn't think the wrong side won, especially after seeing what had gone on.
Because you have no concept of whats right.....
yes as the war was done to destroy germany as a comercial competitor and on the other side the agressive reds,among other reasons. the rest is the mythology nonsense.
@@d.k8746 absolute abject ignorance. Poland was a sovereign nation at that point after WW1, and the league of nations was a growing concept that required intervention. Yes, of course one wants to stop the economic growth of a morally repugnant enemy, thats what the entire cold war was because all variations of marxism are garbage epistemology.
@@jessereichbach588 ignoramus nonsense.
Apocolyps means lifting of the veil. This is ThE GREAT AWAKENING. This is Ridiculous he probably thinks "ITS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE"