Andrew Roberts hits back at Churchill revisionist Darryl Cooper from the Tucker Carlson show
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- The historian Darryl Cooper appeared on the Tucker Carlson show last week to reveal why he thinks Churchill was the 'chief villain' of the Second World War and why Churchill, not Hitler was behind mass murder, terror and war crimes. Historian Andrew Roberts joins the Spectator's editor Fraser Nelson to unpack each accusation and explain why they are baseless.
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 John Lewis/Waitrose voucher
www.spectator....
// FREE PODCASTS FROM THE SPECTATOR
Hear more from The Spectator's journalists on their podcasts, covering everything from the politics of the UK, US and China, to religion, literature, lifestyle and more.
www.spectator....
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspectator
/ the-spectator
/ spectator1828
/ thespectatormagazine
The most appalling point Daryl makes to me, as a Dutch person, is after invading our country he said Britain should have mind their own business and leave it be. Good lord am I thankful for people like Churchill for standing up for our sovereignty.
And totally ignores the Rotterdam Blitz, suggesting that it was Winston Churchill who came up with the idea of bombing open cities.
@@notmyrealnameyo As a Belgian i have noticed the amount of dutch people moving into Belgium has skyrocketed.... you seem to really enjoy your "sovereignty" out there lately? Do you know what that word actually means?
really? you are about to become a minority in your own country, how's it feeling to have "won"
@@camger0014As an Anglo Irish person
I don’t think the pretext of Defending Plucky Belgium in 1914 was worth wrecking Britain
@@camger0014 According to our statistics bureau, it's 3500 native Dutch and 2000 with a non-Dutch background in the last tracked year (2022). Emigration numbers have remained pretty stable since 2000. There's 18 million people living over here. Don't spout nonsense.
The fact that Darryl won't debate Andrew tells you everything you need to know about Darryl's belief in his own arguments.
Actually, it doesn't. Trump should never have agreed to debate Harris on ABC, and if you don't get the relevance of that perhaps you need to think about it.
@@gandydancer9710 if Darryl Cooper believed his beliefs would stand up to scrutiny and push back he would debate, the fact he doesn't indicates that he knows they won't
@@Catherine-2008 You"ve made a rather dull assumption that does not contain the totality of possible reasons.
While I am not in agreement with Daryl, but am critical of Churchill to much lessor degree, suppose Darly's reason for not debating is because, as he stated in the Tucker interview, that he already plans a historical podcast on WWII that will be released soon.
How many more visitors to his substack will he get if he keeps his mouth shut now, refuses debate on others' podcasts and releases the argument mere weeks from now?
He's built an incredible following whether contrarian or not that will likely be in his financial favor if he gets his work out on WWII while this is still hot.
@@aaronsabel Good grief, any halfwit came make up 'arguments' to justify whatever they want and get a large following by spewing their 'facts' their 'life experience' on social media. It happens all the time. If he can make strong arguments against other historians that have specialized in studying Churchill wouldn't it make sense that he would generate more interest in his podcast that would get him more followers and have even greater financial success by proving them wrong? Why not tell The Spectator and others that he will debate after he has released his WWII podcast?
@@gandydancer9710 you realize it was Harris who was afraid of Trump and chose that debate herself, right? What happened to the right, when we were in favor of showing our ideas are correct through debate?
The reason why Darryl Cooper won't discuss his assertion with a historian who knows what he's talking about is because he's not a historian and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Agreed. If i was in his position i would he thrilled for the opportunity to defend myself and debate a historian of Robert's level
Not an argument.
Darryl Cooper is using the same arguments David Irving used, and we all know what happened to him.
@@ES-qm5hr Association fallacy. Typical of conformist morons.
@@abpunk11He said he wouldn't debate on the platform which he was invited to.... Plus our esteemed historian hasn't really said anything.... IF ANYONE SAW WHAT DARYL COOPER SAID.... HE WOULD UNDERSTAND.
Its a pity that Tucker Carlson uses his platform to promote a so called historian with half baked apologia for Nazi Germany talking points. And by promote I mean to both host that nobody and utterly fail to hold him to account.
Carlson is doing this deliberately and is by no means led by misjudgent. He pretends being "just someone who wishes all to be heard" but his presentations are a carefully planned blend of messages he wishes to promote. Several known people who appeared on his show since he was suspended by Fox said they were instructed what to talk about and what NOT to talk about. And they were not random guests interviewed about specific issues but special guests expected to talk about a verity line of topics.
You are first assuming that Tucker Carlson knows the first thing about WW2 and Churchill. In order to push back and hold Cooper to account one would first have to know Cooper is wrong.
we have politicians committing genocide right now without any accountability in fact they will most like become rich like tony blair working as a consultant. tucker is pure entertainment. winston was no hitler neither a saint.
It’s a pity you’re so unintelligent and easily brainwashed into the anti white narrative
I can't help but think that Tucker Carlson's integrity as a journalist is completely up in the air for even entertaining this type of scholarship, which is really the lack thereof.
amazingly Cooper, despite not wanting to represent himself in this conversation, is given fair treatment here. as opposed to not showing the clips or inaccurately paraphrasing his arguments. refreshing. had he taken part he would have had something to say about "unprovoked" though
Actually he is not. He effectively gets called a hitler lover eventhough he never says so. At no point does Darryl condone the atrocities on the other, they are just not an onject of this discussion. Yet it is made to seem if he does.
When we have to listen to yet another gormless attack on Churchill, I am always comforted by the fact that Churchill himself, constantly attacked by political opponents throughout his life, would have been entirely up for a fight ridiculing these dummies.
He was a drunken warmonger. Truth hurts but it's part of growing up.
Your defending the traitor Churchill? Holy shit for brains
@@CALISUPERSPORT He may have been a drunk but not making an accommodation to Nazi hegemony over Europe after the fall of France was completely justified. Churchill's importance is way overblown because Britain wasn't in any case going to do that, but calling Churchill a "warmonger" is dumb as rocks.
@@gandydancer9710how was it justified? We lost our Empire, Europe was divided between Moscow & Berlin (still is), and British kids are a minority in British cities…
Churchill achieved nothing. The only argument for it is that “this special group are special for some reason, so saving 6 million of them is more important than saving 75 million white Europeans”
@@CALISUPERSPORT
Clearly, you have yet to grow up.
Daryl Cooper isn't a historian.
He is a liar.
I'm just absolutely amazed how Darly Cooper's argument & thought processes are 100% incorrect.
No they are not
Just because he’s rebutting the narrative doesn’t make him anything. If you’re reading into it it simply exposes the indoctrination. Because you would likely be open to discernment on any other subject other than this one.
Because you’ve been brainwashed. Churchill destroyed our Empire in an unwinnable war. We are an American colony and about to become an ethnic minority by 2060.. we lost.
But in a way that shows his biases right through, so at least that’s nice.
@@jkb358 back to where its hot you go himmler.
Pls he is NOT a popular historian - he is NOT accepted in any reputable American academic circles and never will be - let’s not give him more than he is due - I.e., our utter contempt and scorn.
Absolutely correct.
Well if the establishment historians who are wrong about almost everything don’t approve of him then I guess I won’t either, but my ideology definitely isn’t performative
That’s Darryl Cooper what a clown
The fact is, Churchill destroyed any opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also across Western Europe, thus making the current political situation possible.
Churchill was evil. Period
Cooper is totally wrong about Churchill and needs to educate himself about a historical figure he doesn't understand. However, why can't you discuss Churchill and his part in WW2 without mentioning the Holocaust? (Roberts must have known this.) Churchill wrote his six-volume history of WW2 immediately after the war and didn't mention the Holocaust. He barely referenced the Jews in his writings, relegating their part in an enormous world war to a few sentences and mostly in regard to Palestine and its implications as a colony of the Empire. He does however reference the crimes against Jews in Hungary and calls it the greatest crime against humanity in history (I paraphrase), and goes onto say that it would result in the prosecution of those involved. So Cooper may be guilty of much, but this isn't one to hang around his neck. The lack of reference to Jewish issues in WW2 by Churchill does tend to confirm that he was not a pawn of any Zionist conspiracy.
What a great man-to give up all of Eastern Europe to Stalin, yet create a beautiful democracy of tolerance and diversity. I’m so grateful.
How could he give up Eastern Europe? That was one of the few parts of the world he and his county did not even claim as part of that ginormous empire.
@@Thomas...191 Then why did Churchill meet with Stalin during the war and they each signed a map allowing the Soviets to have majority influence in the Balkans except in Greece which would be majority British?
@user-wj6dt5bq3w are you talking of the yalta conference? Where infamously the two conspirators were fdr and stalin. In a scene in which FDR froze Churchill out...
" A popular historian. .. Darryl Cooper ... who made some quite serious points..."
He may be "popular," but he's not a "serious" figure, but merely an ill- educated, self- promoting attention seeker.
Andrew Roberts is a genuine historianl who engages in serious research of not just secondary but primary sources.
So, I can appreciate why master Cooper declined your invitation to debate with Andrew Roberts.
Ha ha
Cooper would have been torn apart in a debate with Roberts. He came across in his discussion with Carlson as someone deeply ignorant of history. The frightening thing is that people like him spread damaging lies. The fact that he ignored the genocide of the Jews and other victims of the Nazis says a lot about him.
As a a matter of interest, where exactly is he popular? Arizona? Idaho? North Dakota perhaps? I've never heard of the clown until now and I doubt many people on this side of the Atlantic have either. Apart for the Nazi-bots and the lunatic fringe of course.
@@paddy864 I actually really like darryl cooper. His martyr made podcast is quite good. He is definitely wrong in this case, but he never struck me as antisemitic. Well, there were a red flag or two, but it always seemed to me questioning common narratives, not actual hate
@@jonathanhollenbeak9047 He's a Neo-Nazi, just because you are unable to see it doesn't mean he isn't one.
I watched the entire interview with Daryl Cooper. He claimed to have read countless books about WW2, but in the end I was left with the impression that he had never read a book.
He was vague and meandering throughout. He seemed to be very confused about exactly what time periods he was discussing. He always seemed to be attempting to make a point but never actually made his point.
My firm impression was that he had perhaps read a Wikipedia article about the war but had in fact skimmed through it too quickly and so was confused about the actual facts of the war.
As for the claim that Hitler never intended to invade Russia..... Hitler outlined his plans to invade Russia in a conference with his generals in 1937. That would be an odd thing to do if you did not intend to invade Russia.
When did Cooper say Hitler never intended to invade Russia? I think you're making that up. Timestamp, please.
addendum: Mein Kampf was written in 1925 and I believe Hitler advocated for Germany seizing lebenstraum in that book, well before 1937, so it would be odd if Cooper said any such thing. Yes, he asserted, though maybe only as "hyperbole", that it was up to Churchill how the war would go, but, no, I don't recall the assertion you claim was made being made during the interview by Carlson.. Again: Timestamp?
@@IvanLeonard-b7y this is a guy who’s been releasing 7+ hour history deep dives on his platform for years and you’re going to judge his knowledge pool based off a 2 hour interview where he’s skimming over topics for the sake of time? Please tell me one thing you’ve researched enough in your entire life you could actually speak on the behalf of for 7 hours. Does a degree make someone a historian? Or does passion, hours, and a starvation for understanding make someone a historian?
@@noahshockley8544
Cooper does not seem aware that Churchill was not prime minister when Britain made an alliance with Poland or when Britain declared war after Hitler invaded Poland. If he were a historian, he would know that Churchill was an outsider when British policy on Germany was being determined leading up to the war. He did not become prime minister until the day Germany launched its offensive against Holland, Belgium and France. Cooper seems unfamiliar with Churchill's political situation in the 1930's, when he wasn't in the cabinet and whose opinions were largely ignored by the government.
@@castlerock58 : Cooper’s knowledge of 1930’s British and German politics is pick n mix. He is an anti semitic dilettante.
@@gandydancer9710Ivan Leonard is full of sh#t. He clearly didn’t watch the interview.
All you need to know about Roberts is how he wrote article upon article about Nordstream and since the attack on it he's gone silent.
Carlson is rapidly turning into a crank.
Remember. Most white Americans are German
Yes, he gets weirder the older he gets.
He's long been a crank.
@@FirstLastWinLose - I agree.. and it’s unfortunate. At times, Carson has very insightful takes on the human condition.
@dvs21a I believe you are correct. He masterfully convinced the world that he is somehow a conservative truth seeker.
The perspective of a real historian like Andrew Roberts is always a breath of fresh air!
Establishment historian*
Thank God for real historians like Andrew Roberts..
Also Niall Ferguson, Stephen Kotkin. I think they are colleagues.
Sycophantic History isn’t History
Establishment*
@@AdamRiddle-c3l as opposed to anti-establishment
If I were going to make a movie about Democrat segregation and Klan terrorism in the 1950s and 1960s I'd cast this Darryl Cooper guy as head of the White Citizens Counsel. The dude is creepily perfect for the role.
Roberts is a master historian, Cooper is a clown
Daryl Cooper was the silliest guest that Tucker has ever had. His hand waving was a just one ridiculous ’tell’
Thank heaven for Andrew Roberts.
Cooper is right
And you are a fool or a nazi, your choice.
@@jkb358 As in right off his trolley. The guy is a basket case.
@@philipbrooks402 your ignorance and cognitive dissonance is showing
@@jkb358 Ok then genius, put your money where your mouth is and tell us where Andrew Roberts, a hugely regarded historian with a large body of work and numerous well- reviewed books to his name, has got it wrong then? I mean, I'm sure you've read his biography of Churchill, and the earlier one by none other than Roy Jenkins of course?
*At least we aren't speaking German!*
I've started learning Arabic.
Thanks Churchill.
We're not speaking German just 150 other different languages 😒
Keeping the world safe for the liberal order!
No but we will soon be living under communism
Or the alternative of still being a rich state and a world power. Beating Germany meant the US could bankrupt and destroy the UK. The question of was it worth fighting on at the end of 1940 is worth asking.
Taking Tucker Carlson seriously. How quaint.
He somewhat needs to be taken seriously, not because of the seriousness or rigour of his journalism, but because of the number of people he reaches with this sort of shite.
Churchill played a key role in eliminating opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also across Western Europe, thus shaping the current political situation.
A low Iq liberal who’s less intelligent and informed than tucker claiming nobody should take him seriously? How typical
I'm afraid if you do lots of important stuff in your life you make mistakes. Churchill had such an incredible life it was bound to be so. Carlson has a history of anti British hatred and resorts to lies to back up this hatred. I used to admire Carlson but since he was let off the leash post Fox he's become a parody and dishonest actor. Shallow and disengenuos
He;s pro-Russia. so he has to denegrate US alies like Britain & Israel.
What astonishes me is Carlson's acceptance of the rubbish spouted by a fellow posing as a 'historian'.
The Carlson/Cooper view of history is a sick joke.
It is obvious Churchill betrayed Europe , Einstein
Too many people say that who can't formulate an argument as to why. I suspect that that includes you.
@@gandydancer9710 Do you know anything about the Second World War and the events that lead up to it?
@@Brommear Far, far more than you have demonstrated that you do, which is nothing.
I don't, as it happens, agree with either Cooper or Roberts, but YOU have vomited up nothing but empty insult -- now of me as well -- and have offered nothing to engage with. Why bother opening your yap to do that?
I’d rather have a Europe without any Jews than a Europe without any Europeans (the American reality)
I KNOW it is commonplace to say these days " you couldn"t make this rubbish up". But Darryl Cooper has .
The mythification of Churchill and the demonisation of Hitler both have face saving value.
Combination of American anti British sentiment and the neo Nazi alt right revisionist movement, that Tucker would be well advised to leave alone.
America isn’t Britains friend
It never really has been
Thank you for that enlightening talk. One minor quibble. Hannah Arendt didn’t argue that the bureaucrats who implemented nazi policies weren’t evil, but rather that they were both evil and banal. They weren’t dramatic villains, but they were villains none the less. That makes their actions all the more horrific.
Another reason not to bother with the Carlson show.
Is no one going to mention Mein Kampf ?
Good point, but there is so much to be mentioned in rebuttal of that fool Cooper that it would take a 12 hour Mini-Series to begin to do it justice!
@@paddy864 That’s why free speech is so important. Most subjects have a rich and sometimes complex nature. In each case human contributions can be effected by various bias. A select and powerful authority is not trustworthy enough to choose what misinformation is. I do not support all viewpoints but I do support the freedom to declare them.
How does Mein Kampf disprove Cooper? The book talks about the desire for an alliance with Britain.
The greatest things we should take seriously, regarding Tucker at least, is not taking Tucker seriously. He sat in front of Putin and let him lie about Poland. Tucker is a dangerous pseudo-intellectual.
What lie about Poland? Its a fact that there were negotiations between the Poles and Germans over Danzig. Its also a fact that Poland participated in the destruction of Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939.
Perhaps The Spectator could send Mr Cooper a copy of Mr Robert’s book, as obviously his life has, thus far, been untroubled by a well-researched, well-written, intelligent history book.
@@pn1302 Abnd on the evidence so far I'm unconvinced that he should care.
@@gandydancer9710 The evidence that Cooper is a dolt with a child's understanding of WW2 and not even a decent grasp of the most basic facts, as Roberts pointed out? As a matter of interest, what exaxtly did Robert's say that you believe is incorrect?
Good idea but frankly the Box-set of the 1974 British TV series "The World At War" would be enough to increase his knowledge by a factor of about 50,and would probably better suit his attention-span too.
@@pn1302 Hasn't cared enough to read them obviously, which is a pity for him.
Cooper is a cowboy not a historian. More click bait - and I've fallen for it - again!
It was only about a week ago. You didn’t seem to spend much time thinking about what he said and the implications. Hopefully it took more than just someone reciting the accepted narrative to dissuade you.
Well, fallen for attacking the man not the ball
You’re projecting
Thank goodness for Andrew Roberts
Cooper is correct
@@jkb358 Cooper is wrong. Roberts doesn't even seem to understand the argument Cooper actually made.
@@jkb358 about what? Churchill was more evil than Hitler or even Stalin?
@@gandydancer9710 He understands, as does anyone with a decent grasp of modern history, that Cooper is talking absolute nonsense and is obviously unaware of even the basic facts and timeline around the start of WW2, as he pointed out in his replies.
and Victor Davis Hanson
Just look around at your societies, does it look like we won?
I don't know about you but if 'speaking German' was how losing would look - than that's fine with me.
Churchill was a man (a great man) of his age, era and mores
So true He destroyed any opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also in the rest of Western Europe, thus making the current political situation possible.
@@nestororozco827 Precisely, if a local pro-native party wins even 20 percent anywhere in Europe, the great horde of western media screams, "Its 1933 again!"
Analyzing a debate between two Nazis and antisemitic minds, unfortunately Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson have their public and that is scary. Thanks god this deviations are not happening the same way in Latin America at least for the moment.
@JorgeRzezak On the contrary... these type of laidback empty "conversations" by these "used ideas American salesman" (Carlson, Cooper, Joe Rogan, Patrick Bet David etc.) are both exported as a method to the "Non US world", as well as distributed in their original form...
And here we are... on a UK based channel... the nation who issued Hugh Trevor Roper and A.G.P. Taylor.... discussing the mouth farts of the likes of this blogger and Carlson... who by the way just loves to include repeated presentations about how wrong he was about important things, how disconnected and affluent he lived his life for decades, how much he ignores criticism...
And those clowns set the intellectual weather in the rest of the world...
Sad.
Very happy to see the true British spirit of reason and decency is still alive
Not decent to allege that Cooper's hero was Hitler - that was straight out of the gutter.
Can it be argued that Hitler attacked Poland and Czechoslovakia to take that territory before the Soviet Union did the same? Roberts does not mention Stalin and what his ambitions were in 1939.
No. If he were really concerned that Stalin was going to move into Poland and Czechoslovakia, and he had no ulterior designs on those countries, why did he not simply help them in defending against a Soviet Invasion? The answer is because he did have designs on Eastern Europe.
@@firebird4491 ok. So Hitler wanted to take the territory before Stalin did. Point is, the East was his focus. GB did not have to make decision for entire world that WWII was necessary.
@@Steve-Richter The UK went to war with Hitler’s Germany after it had conceded time and again to his demands in the name of peace. Hitler’s violation of the Munich agreement, which was already a major concession by the British government, killed any desire for further appeasement. The British people did not want another war and neither did its government (for many reasons). Churchill wanted one, but only because he believed it was inevitable anyway and was proven correct. He played no role in the war’s outbreak, and by the time he became prime minister hundreds of thousands had already died. They could not simply make peace and behave as if nothing had happened. Yes, Hitler’s ultimate objective was Eastern Europe, but he also wanted Germany to be the dominant power in all of Europe and later the world. The British government could not reasonably make peace and allow Hitler to dominate the entire continent, and thereby put British sovereignty in danger.
@@Steve-Richter RUclips autodeleted my comment, so I'll keep it simple. The UK did not decide for the world to go to war with Hitler. Hitler chose to go to war with the world. He declared war on and violently occupied Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and much of the Soviet Union. He also declared war on the United States. The public education system may have given you limited and vague information about the war, but that doesn't mean that what was taught was a lie. You just need to read more about the war really understand just how wrong Darryl Cooper is about the subject.
@@firebird4491 The period I need to know more about is after Germany takes Poland, leading up to invasion of France. On France, it would be fascinating to hear why it is the French people were not much interested in fighting to remain free. Partly, I suspect, that France was suspicious of GB and Churchill. That GB was working to have France fight Germany, sparing GB from having to join in directly.
I think any historian claiming one man was a good guy and another was a bad guy isn’t to be trusted.
That includes this guy. Laughable.
This guy doesn't say that Churchill was a good guy, in his book, by his own admission, he talks about many Churchill's mistakes. All he does in this interview, he dismantles evident lies of a pseudo-historian.
@@Kot-dj4ws Making mistakes is not evidence of being a "bad guy", certainly not in Churchill's case, but you're right, he has shown that Cooper is not a serious historian at all, his is little more than a conspiracy-nut and a nazi-apologist.
I think anyone who claims Churchill was the chief villain of the war and was chiefly responsible for world war 2 is delusional
well, we can safely say that Hitler was a bad guy (just read Mein Kampf) and Stalin was a bad guy (Holodomor and Gulags) anyone in comparison would appear to be good or somewhat good??? to say "is laughable" is crazy you appear to be a pro troll???
@@Drew-xk3hx do you call anyone who disagrees with your views a troll?
I happen to think different countries have different versions of historical events… of course you believe your own countries version.
Let’s go ask a Jewish scholar about the history of Palestine and then a Palestinian scholar the exact same question… I’m sure we would get the EXACT same answer right? Or do you just let your own biases decide who’s right and who’s wrong?
Classic hubris. You lack self awareness little lad.
It feels like Tucker lost his momentum and decided to go political shock jock from time to time.
@@bertmustin in this instance, Tucker has helped me understand the nuances of the start of WWII
Darryl Cooper's moral logic is truly silly. He compares the dilemma facing the Germans in Russia (with thousands of prisoners) with Israel's dilemma in Gaza with civilians. The Germans invaded Russia in an act of pure aggression. Israel invaded Gaza in an act of self-defence. The moral difference is obvious.
hahahahahha Mossad bot detected
@@ralphballon1539 You have to be Mossad to defend Israel?
@@FiveLiver I mean pretty much… hahaha
I am guessing Darrly has a WW2 memorobilia collection that only covers the German side.....
Who cares what you guess?
@@brightonduder I am guiessing he bought some off Mel Gibson.
Being styled by Hugo Boss does win them a few style points. But thats as far as that goes.
Why would you object to memorabilia from the good side?
@@j.w.m.415 Is that you Darryl Cooper?
The comments by Cooper regarding the Holocaust made my stomach turn.
What Holocaust?
Cause you don't live in reality
@@jkb358 You and Cooper wouldn't live in a fantasy world of lies and half truths.
@@SFRZRD Denier.
@@MrDavidht yeah, we don't. Facts over feelings
Churchill was no saint by any means, but these are the same people who think Chamberlain ought to have made a pact with Hitler against the USSR
This guy discredited himself upon opening his mouth on Piers Morgan when he said Hitler invaded Poland in 1940 instead of 39. That was the first fact out of his mouth and it was wrong. Stopped listening to this apologist after that gaffe
Churchill was probably the greatest man of the 20th century
Maybe....maybe...we're beginning to learn a bit more about Tucker....and it's not very attractive..... I've unsubscribed to him...and my decision is not just because of his show with a historian named "Darryl." He's friend with Candace Owens and is completely and despicably ignorant on the Israeli/Gazan situation. If he was truly a journalist, he would go to Israel...as has Douglas Murray. No, giggling in a New England farmhouse will not be a lasting format.
Lmfao this guy gripes that in the two hour conversation with Tucker & Cooper, the H word isn’t mentioned, yet, Churchill didn’t mention it once either in his post war memoirs…. 🤣
Because these guys know ultimately the war was bad for Europe and Britain. The last bone they always throw is: “those 6 million are more valuable than 75 million white Christians” which doesn’t make any sense
I wonder what will be written about the conflict in Ukraine and Gaza.
Every historians wants to stomp on the podcaster who is just understanding the reality now
Where were they when David Irving was begging to debate the topic? Could they have been scared of debating a serious historian perhaps?
Cooper should not have declined this interview. The purpose is to educate the viewer. Much would be learned from the two sides making their case.
These two people and most of the comments section appear to think we are in the 19th century
🙄
Sorry Spectator this is too stupid, you lost me at Tucker Carlson, another video i won't be watching
And I thought all the stupid ideas had already come out of the USA. But then, Lo! And behold!! There’s more, Folks!! If only these half-baked theories were subjected to rigorous scrutiny before they saw the light of day!
Bad facts? Mistakes and lies.
मैंने लॉर्ड रॉबर्ट्स की किताब पढ़ी है और मुझे यह काफी हद तक अनावश्यक नहीं लगी। ऐसा लगा कि यह किताब चर्चिल की जीवनी के बजाय उनकी आलोचनाओं को संबोधित करने के लिए लिखी गई है। कुल मिलाकर यह मेरे लिए एक अच्छी तरह से शोध की गई और उपयोगी किताब थी।
~8:30 Fraser Nelson. It’s TODAY’S British governments who would be the capitulationists to the likes of a Hitler, not the 1930s Britain. Which still had spine and guts and principles and a clear moral compass.
Ie he wants a war with Russia 🙄
Do you actually think Britain stood up to the likes of Hitler for principles
Oh dear how niave
How naive of you
The Brits fought the war over the balance of power in Europe, there was nothing "moral" or "principled" about it. Please enter adulthood.
The fake, so-called "historian," Darryl Cooper could not face a real historian, who knows the real facts. What a coward 😂
In order for Tucker to be fair his next interview must be Andrew Roberts. Roberts’ books are so well researched and cited it would be hard not to be convinced.
Daryll WHO? 🤣
We thought the wrong war
i feel most sorry for Jocko Willink who tied up with this guy on his podcast.
I will say, though, if you listen to the whole Carlson interview Cooper does make some good observation about European immigration. apart from that its Irving/Buchanan rehashed
Stop being triggered emotional thinkers. You even played the part where he said the opposite of "Churchill, not Hitler was behind mass murder." 03:25
I never heard of Darryl cooper and I’m scared to google him and find out he’s American . This is appalling
Daryl looks like an SS officer
The overreaction to one interview is incredible
Everyone should be utterly intolerant of revision, disinformation, propaganda, and error. Whether it comes from the left and right.
Its fighting against people who are trying to rewrite history
@abpunk11 History is always being rewritten. Always. If Saint Winston Churchill was such a great man let's see if he survives the constant rewriting of WW2 history over the next 2 centuries by non-Western historians who have a dim view of the British Empire, Churchill's lifelong project. Do you really think in 2224 respected Indian historians will be as enamored of Churchill as this gentleman here?
Just proves his point, people get angry when you undermine their myths with fact.
Carlson shouldn't have given this conspiracy cultist any platform. He did. So those conspiracies need to be publicly debunked.
It's hard to tell who is the worst-informed of the two, Cooper (a bit of a kid really) or Carlson (an egotistical crank).
Excellent talk, thank you.
Churchill rolled tanks into Glasgow agenst people Teanamen or what...
LOL. Churchill gave up power & so did his party after elections. CCP does not.
Has Andrew publicly commented on P Buchanan’s view that the war was unnecessary? That given its German speaking majorities Danzig should have been sacrificed… that a polish war guarantee by Chamberlain and Co. was the a priori error in statecraft. If someone know of such public commentary can you provide the link?
"Lord" Roberts' history sounds like something out of the Ladybird books.
His biography is shit. A very poor narrative he takes everything from Churchill’s memoirs very uncritically. The guy couldn’t even get the date of Barbarossa write in the Daily Mail! Wrong by a year. Just another sycophantic Tory boot polisher.
Your preferred reading I take it?
@@paddy864 You tried.
@@paddy864 Go and visit Australia and talk to older generations there. They’ll tell you what a worthless tosser Churchill was after both Gallipoli and Singapore.
And read any biography of General Wavell - hamstrung by Churchill throughout. A true military genius that should have the real plaudits and statue.
Andrew Roberts totally discredited himself when he compared clown Zelensky to great Churchill.
I trusted his research and bought his book but now will not listen to him any longer.
Andrew Roberts says, If you have different ideas, just publish a book. Lol. As if. The politics of book publishing does not make it that simple. Roberts otherwise makes some good points but he is so pompous and arrogant (and his critiques of Churchill are used to bolster his Churchill boosterism, soft of like criticizing a young Prince Hal). Nonetheless, I watched the Cooper talk and he's a much more affable fellow, which is also dangerous, as Roberts does point out the underlying Jewish conspiracy theories--as old as the faith itself--are the not so subtle underpinnings of Cooper's arguments. (Also, saying that Jews started the Mid East conflict by existing is like saying every country started whatever war by existing, as every country begins in a war for land; and the victor claims that land. There has been plenty of time for Palestine to make something of itself if it hadn't been so endlessly exploited by its "leaders" and the Arab world. Sad
You can easily make your books available as PDF with a fee/free download. That's how I read Irwings books at the time (at least 15 years ago).
Offcourse Cooper is not a "failed historian turned contrarian" due to lack of puvlishing channels but rather a political provocatoore. Totally opposed to Irving on the methodical aspect.
The Palestinian cause isJihad; the perpetual war against unbelievers. Peace cannot be allowed, so no end to their 'refugee' status can be allowed either.
With a guy as morally upright as Tucker Carlson, I did Nazi this coming
Very good that. He'll be Putin you on his list when the Orange Musolini returns to power.
Fraser Nelson is a good devil's advocate.
Yes, he presented that bery well and covered Cooper's most obvious idiocies, allowing Robert's space to bat them out of the park with ease.
Cooper was and is mad. Calm. Polite. But, yes, bonkers.
13:50: WOAH! Daryl Cooper's hero?! Huh? Kitty's got claws!
I think Cooper’s thesis owes a lot to Pat Buchanans “unnecessary war” book that came out in 2008. I haven’t read Cooper’s book, but it sounds like he cribbed a lot from Buchanan. Interesting points are made, but the overall understanding of the war and Churchill’s role requires bracketing out Hitler’s racial ideology and his desire for territory in the east. Churchill refused to do that, and he was right to do so.
A.J.P Taylor encapsulated these views already in the 1950s and in his book punished early 1960s. Cooper seems to be mostly basing his claims on summaries spread all over discussion boards, blogs and channels, though I would assume he has the "right" books decorating his zoom call backround wall.
Most of his interpretations of the past are used as metaphors as to partially hide his present political ideas.
Saying that... his "tone" is that of an uninformed person living in a far away continent and who never bothered to try and "feel" other people living in other , different, continents. It's all stats and numbers and anecdotes and in the subtext a strong notion that "when it's real white Christian people forming a hegemonic society its the best" (and any influence by people whom are NOT of those origins is basically a pollution and disruption).
Cooper hasn't written a book.
That was nothing unique to Churchill. Chamberlain sent messages to Mussolini in early 1939 asking him if he would please tell Hitler to not invade the Soviet region of Ukraine.
Churchill was a terrible painter - the whole day for a bathroom ceiling.
Whilst it would perhaps be narrow minded to dismiss Cooper’s claims out of hand it’s equally difficult to consider them in good faith when his motives for ‘reevaluating’ an historical titan like Churchill appear to be wilfully provocative and self-promoting.
No doubt he’s consciously aware that those who say outrageous and/or incendiary things invariably get more attention than those who don’t…. 😉
Cooper revisionst claims is of course rediculus. But! Darryl Cooper talk about Ukriaina as a "demokracy" who "unprovoked" was invaded make him far from thrustwordy. Historians shall talk about history and not mix into present political correktness.
Ukraine, unlike Russia, is a developing democracy. A democracy doesn't get established overnight, it takes many years to build. At least Ukrainians have elected and changeable government and parliament, free media and free speech. The legal system and living standards are still to be improved. Corruption still remains a problem.
@@Kot-dj4ws true. Taiwan was a dictatorship for decades, but got its act together.
Churchhills forces were trying to invade Norway BEFORE the Germans. HMS Glowworm were sunk in NORWAY on april 8. 1940.
what's your point?
@@FiveLiver The point is that after Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, all of Western Europe was up for grabs by intervention from one side or the other. The British plan to invade Norway in 1940 has not even been denied by the British, its a fact.
Judge Churchill by his own standards. He was a hardcore anti-Communist who loved the British Empire and wanted to protect it. His policies resulted in the expansion of world Communism, Soviet domination in Europe, and the collapse of the British Empire. Great Britain became a glorified aircraft carrier for the US and is now a total basket case. Even Japan is better off at this point, and Japan LOST. Churchill's legacy isn't looking so great. The only thing his defenders can say is "at least we're not speaking German," which at this point rings hollow.
What? Everything you have said has been understood for decades now. It is nothing new. Ww2 coat Britain and many others A LOT, but everyone seems to be in agreement that it was necessary and the right thing to do. But your take is that it doesn't matter if Germany had have won? Are you nuts?
@@user-qk2rt1cn2s yes, that is the consensus NOW. That is a post hoc rationalization of Churchill's policies though. Nobody at that time (other than Leftists) would have been down for suiciding the Empire and surrendering the world to your enemies (the US and USSR) simply because Hitler was BAD or something. Churchill was a failire judged on his own terms, which damages his legacy immensely and makes him at best a tragic and catastrophic figure for Great Britain who any patriotic Englishman should be able to criticize.
Exactly. His bellicosity cost us lives and empire. Patience, better timing and military build up would have led to far better outcomes for this country. Churchill was one of those that today we revile for WW1 - the pompous sergeant yelling “Over the top boys!” To our young men. A huge percentage of the public reviled him both before and after WW2. We had to build a myth about Churchill and British morality because the realization that we had lost everything was too great to bear. (Peter Hitchens echoes this in his brilliant Phoney War)
@@user-qk2rt1cn2sRead AJP Taylor’s “The Origins of WW2” the history is far from settled and you clearly show how uninformed you are
@@tb8865👏👏👏👏👏👏
Is Tucker broadcasting from the Kremlin yet?
Criticizing Churchill is still taboo in the UK. We are fed propaganda by people like Roberts. There should be a reappraisal of Churchill's legacy but there is no stomach for it in Britain. In the US, books have appeared analysing how the US ended up as a global hegemon after WW2 and why Britain became a second-rate power.
In 1939 Britain was a superpower but by 1947 it was bankrupt. It had to leave India quickly because it had run out of gold and dollars. How did this happen? Britain's demise was engineered by Churchill and the US Treasury. The American economist Benn Steil has analysed the terrible deals that Churchill negotiated. FDR wanted to break up the British Empire, and Hitler wanted to invade the Soviet Union. There was a peace deal to be reached with Hitler in 1940 because Hitler wanted to avoid a two-front war. Britain could have rearmed and left Hitler and Stalin to fight to the death. This is what FDR was doing.
Hitler explains his foreign policy in his two books. He wanted an alliance with Britain, as he considered the English to be Aryans. Like Netanyahu, Churchill realised he would be out of a job if the war ended. He didn't win a general election in 1940 he was appointed by Attlee. Many Tories, like my grandmother, considered Churchill a warmonger and wanted Halifax. Churchill was even trying to prolong the war in 1945 by proposing to invade the Soviet Union. Churchill did not have a plan for victory in 1940 apart from persuading the US to join the war. Had the Germans not declared war on the US in December 1941, FDR would have focused on defeating Japan and left Britain to fight on its own. The war could have been managed much better from a British point of view. Germany invaded France with over 3 million men in 1940 Britain was obvious it could not win on its own.
Criticism of Churchill in the last 30 years in the UK has almost become compulsory!
We are given the facts by Roberts because he has gained a huge knowledge of his subjects. Btw. is every historian feeding us propaganda or just the ones you don’t like?
Indeed in the world of publishing there are many other books that explain how America had for some time been planning how to deal with the British Empire but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree to put the blame at Churchills feet, he believed very strongly in the British Empire and did everything he could to preserve and protect it but was not responsible for the events !
Britain was bankrupt by its involvement in 2 World Wars,America profited because of British commitment to both, The British Empire was remember committed from 1939
in WW2, fighting across Europe and N.Africa,then declared war on Japan in support of the US and following Japanese attacks in the Eastern Empire, but we do appreciate the US finally turning up in 1941 and going onto a huge industrialised footing paid for in part by Britain!
As for FDR buying time , it was far from a done deal that the US would ever end its isolationist position, thank God for Pearl, eh old chap? Rather a different set of priorities when the Nazis are knocking on the front door without the Atlantic Ocean to
ensure safety!
As for the rest of, pure conjecture old chap!
FDR would, sooner or later, likely have attacked Germany regardless since the Anglo-American alliance was strong at this point and Britain relied upon America to fix the issue by the same metric it had undertaken to in 1917
@@user-hu3iy9gz5j If British had stayed out of war, how would the US attack
You say Churchill should have made peace with Hitler in 1940, but what about Poland Czechoslovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe? Abandon them to their fate?
After 1945, what was life like for people in Eastern Europe? Rainbows and lollipops? Or 50 years of soul destroying Russian oppression? Or are you one of the people who thinks these countries wanted to be in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact?
@@user-hu3iy9gz5jyes despite the massive isolationist movement in America, FDR was planning to join the war long before pearl harbour happened.
This is really depressing. Our civilization is in deep trouble when such nonsense is spread by such ignoramuses like Tucker Carlson. At least in science this is less likely to happen. Maxwell's Equations are the same across ideological boundaries on this planet and across the universe
Tucker an ignoramus? His nightly show on Fox was very informative. And he has me thinking about this chapter of history. France was not eager to stand up to Germany after it took Poland. Why should GB think it had to jump in?
@@Steve-Richter Well, whether something is informative depends how well informed you already are and can detect nonsense.
May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second World War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government - 1929 - 1939. The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him.
Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance.
Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. I don’t know if there is an English translation yet . In Russian the title is “Украинский фронт Третьей мировой войны”
@@Steve-Richter Well, whether something is informative depends how well informed you already are and can detect whether it is accurate.
May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government, years 1929 - 1939.
The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him.
Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance.
Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. Hope Tucker Carlson reads it when it gets translated
@@Steve-Richter May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government, years 1929 - 1939.
The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him.
Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance.
Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. Hope Tucker Carlson reads it when it gets translated
@@Steve-Richter I cannot answer. I am being censored.
What a clown
The fact is, Churchill helped make modern UK 🇬🇧 possible by dismantling the reactionary movement in Europe, thereby making any significant right-wing movement in the future impossible.
Churchill was a racist, at least you admit that.
If you’re myopically judging historical figures by modern standards then _everyone_ was. 🙂
@@makara80 Not everyone in Churchill's day, thought of Indians as " filthy beasts ". So, I am not using so called modern standards.
Interesting that most people are making his point that you can’t even question the traditional narrative. Calm down Brits
5:55... 'he ultimately took Czechoslovakia. Rubbish, he didn't. He took the Czech lands and gave Slovakia independence for the first time in their history. This is pretty poor.
Then: 8:58. 'The guarantee to Poland to an independent sovereign country … so Britain had every right to guarantee Poland.” (He’s right, but Churchill didn’t keep the previous government’s promise!)
The sad truth is that Poland was betrayed by the Western Allies, especially FD Roosevelt, but also Churchill. He did struggle with this.
Clearly, the man Andrew Roberts is critiquing is not a serious scholar, and he is, but isn't it fascinating how he doesn't GIVE A FLIP about Poland? Wow!!
@@woff1959 You have taken one fact "Hitler gave Slovakia Independence" and totally ignored all the context. Perhaps you are unaware. Hitler threatened Slovakia to declare independence or they would be divided between Hungary and Poland. Slovakia became a puppet state under German control. That's some crazy version of independence you believe in.
However, I agree with the 2nd part of your comment. In my opinion, the allies made a deal with the devil (Stalin) to win the war and ended up abandoning all of Eastern Europe to the same kind of oppression Hitler was offering.
@@IvanLeonard-b7y Look, Slovakia was independent from 1939, sure it was a puppet state, but it was there. As for the Allies, have a look a McMeekin's book _Stalin's War_ which tells all about how the Western Allies sold out Central Europe, China, Korea, Manchuria etc. Unbelievable.
My point was that sure, Churchill was a good war leader for the British, but he sold out his empire in the process and caused untold suffering for millions in India, Africa and around the world. I blame Roosevelt more than Churchill, though.
@@woff1959 "Slovakia was independent from 1939, sure it was a puppet state,.." Nazi logic sure is something
@@IvanLeonard-b7y Hungary took Czech Ruthenia. The OP's point is correct that Germany technically only took Bohemia-Moravia in March 1939.
@@tnndll4294 Define puppet state? You mean like Ukraine is for the US today?
Nobody criticizes Somebody. I’m just glad Carlson aired this perspective; it needs clarification. Because, essentially, the UK 🇬🇧 DID lose their Empire & the war did destroy a better world system.
No. NATO slowed the spread of Communism. UK is rotting today bec. they let in new antisemites from the MidEast.
The "Britain lost its empire due to this act/that person" is a bogus claim. The British empire was based on a thin hegemonic system of political and economical superiority + strong fleet. It was not a sustainable imperial system and was too similar to the ancient Greece systems of hegemony. Most peoples Britain ruled would have become nationally and politically awaken anywhere. With the Great War or without it and 20 years later. Holding the empire was a lost cause due to many reasons. Starting with the fact Britain was never ready to get into real prolonged wars to keep it.
A Roman historian once wrote that the island of Britain was "the one province too far" Rome got itself into. Britain doesn't have the blend of features which makes a natural born heart of an empire (like Anatolia, Persia or Germany). And "loosing" the empire as it happened was not a question of "why" but rather "why so late".
Roberts doesn't discuss the Soviet Union as a threat. He doesn't talk about the starvation of Queen Victoria's Indian empire.
Perhaps Mr Cooper would be interested in debating me regarding my opinion that it is actually the Daleks who are invading Ukraine?
no offense but Andrew Roberts doesn't seem to think critically about current events like the way in Ukraine and just repeats the media narrative. When someone cannot even do that, how would he able to call himself an expert on something he hasn't lived through it? Don't get me wrong, I don't buy some of the arguments from Darryl Cooper that simple is a nerd that read books and is trying to give you a readers digest with some human bias, but it seems Andrew Roberts is just speculative as Darryl is. At the end, both are full of it, and honeslty if Churchill was good or bad, who gives a **, he was on the winning team.
Do you believe Russia was justified in invading Ukraine?
@@firebird4491 I believe Ukraine was killing people in Donbas long before the invasion.
Just because a narrative is in the media doesn't mean it's wrong. Russia had no good justification to invade. In fact, a lot of their argument was based on blood and soil which is basically the same excuse Hitler gave for invading Austria.
Never heard of Cooper before but based on this video, he comes across so much more nuanced and interesting compared to Roberts who is doing the usual hero worship routine which is so tired and not at all very convincing. I'll be sure to go watch the Tucker video now. Thanks Spectator!
Oooh yes, old history’s a bit boring, we all like a bit of new and more entertaining history!
Easier for you than reading Roberts' book I guess!
@@poppyland74 Are you his publisher or something? If his book is anything like his various interviews i've seen, I doubt it's up to much.
@@poppyland74exactly! Conspiracy theories are far more exciting, and you can learn all about them on Tic Toc...lol
@@jez49647 You mean direct refutations of the claims made? If you listen to what is being said instead of pasting suspected motives onto it all in order to dismiss it, you might learn something.
I’ve seen a lot of detractors viciously go after Darryl since his interviews, but none of them have addressed the substance of the discussion. They’d rather conflate credentials with merit, or invent positions for him that he’s never taken to attack instead.
Did you watch the clip, Andrew just demolished every one of Cooper's positions that the host brought up without attacking Cooper's credentials
Today's conspiracy theories are tomorrow's truths
No, similar like most previous conspiracy theories from the past are still nothing else than nonsense.
The allies literally wrote about about the German conspiracy to start WW2 and "prosecuted" them on such conspiracy.
Shut up
Like what?
Said no one important. ever.