WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Markk]

I guess this means that once again you can't objectively deal with the actual history of what occurred. And just make it personal about those that share the truths with you.

Carry on.

Markk, I am aiming at a clarifying question instead of trading assumptions. What part of this history do you think people are avoiding? The race for preparedness for the conflict is well known. The phrase "phony war" is even covered in various TV documentaries. Dealing with Jews was handled poorly by both Germany and the US. Hitler misjudged the preparation needed to defeat Russia, cold turn of events. US traud a shake path with internal divisions.

That is a great question. I believe most people don't have a clue about the very basics of WW2 history. There is just so much to review and take in. Unless one made it a specific study, or are a boomer, I doubt the average person could note what countries formed the Allies, and which the Axis.

As far as avoiding..... I think in this case they are avoiding what Cooper even said. Most people here except for maybe Morley, most likely haven't even watched the podcast or understand Cooper's approach to history.

[Markk]

Here's one of many of similar responses to Mark from February in a flurry of related threads:

We've already seen lots of human rights violations, the worst being from Trump, but plenty to be had with Clinton and Obama. Fortunately I didn't vote for them or support them. But lets look at your personal playbook, your fantasy, the holocaust. Markkk, you personally face the same problem the Nazis did with mass deportations. It's difficult to move lots of people out from a country. One problem is that there must be other countries willing to take them. Hitler found out the hard way, not everyone wanted their refugees.

I understand very well that WW2 didn't start out with Hitler masterminding a Rube-Goldberg scenic route for the explicit purpose of gassing millions of Jewish people.

But, this isn't a case of arguing for second degree murder vs. first degree murder. In second degree murder, something else really bad was planned, but during a botched execution, the "fog of war" led to murder. It's still first degree murder. The gas chambers were extraordinarily planned out and systematically implemented for the sake of murdering people. It's the largest and most systematic first-degree murder operation in history. The fact that a bank robbery goes wrong due to lack of planning, and then because of that, the robbers now conspire and execute a witness who saw it, doesn't make them less bad. We often say when exploring the dark path of crime that one of the things that is so bad, is that once you get in deep, you can't easily get out, and you keep doing worse things. The fact that the Nazis kept digging themselves deeper in scaling atrocities makes them more bad, not less bad.

The gas chambers were implemented for efficiency, speed, and scale. It's quite possible that soldiers who carried out orders sometimes justified it to themselves as "better than shooting" just as soldiers justified shooting children because they were better off, considering the parents had also been shot.

It's staggering that Markk buys into this nonsense. I'm actually surprised, and that's the only reason I broke my streak of ignoring his vast ignorance. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I've jested about this interview in the past to our right-wingers, probably even Markk, and I just figured they ignore it because they're smart enough not to go there. Holy hell, guess I was wrong.

LoL....what on earth are you even talking about?

I'll quote Trump on this one...."I am not really sure what he said here, and I am not sure if he did either!"

I have no idea how when someone quotes something that happened from a historical perspective, that they automatically believe it in regard to their personal ideology.

[Morley]

He absolutely is suggesting that the intent was not there. This is not just the reading of everyone else on this thread, it’s the interpretation of news media and organizations all over the world.

Please correct me if I’m wrong—but even following the torrent of criticism that followed the interview, I don’t think that either Tucker or Darryl bothered to publicly say, “Golly, that’s not what we meant. We knew that the Nazis had this planned all along. Sorry if we gave some other impression.”

It is not clear that the Nazi leaders were already envisioning mass murder as their "solution" to their so-called Jewish problem.

What he said one more time, is that they were not ready for, or had a plan how to, and I'll quote what he said; ..."when they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth, that they were going to have to handle; they went in with no plan for that...and, they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there. You have letters, as early as July August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps they are setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering, or people they were rounding up, so two months after, or a month or two after operation Barbarossa was launched, and they are writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, "we can't feed these people, we don't have the food to feed these people," one of them actually says..." Rather to wait for them to slowly wait for these people to starve this winter, wouldn't it be more humane for us to finish them off quickly now..."

Morley, he is not even strictly speaking about the Jews, but also Russian and Polish prisoners of war, and political prisoners....people. This isn't him saying anything other than what occurred from a historical point of view.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... %20ghettos.

Once again, your above reply has nothing to do with what you quoted me as saying. It's not an answer to:

1. He absolutely is suggesting that the intent was not there.
2. This is not just the reading of everyone else on this thread, it’s the interpretation of news media and organizations all over the world.
3. Neither Tucker nor Cooper have disputed these interpretations.

[Morley]

Cooper did not suggest that, come on Morley, he was quoting a letter to high command in Berlin stating it, as a "proof text" that the Germans were not prepared. He is not suggesting that gassing is humane, he is quoting a German Commandant that said it. And as I pasted in my last post, he was not even specifically directing the statement to the Jews, but to others as well.

He quoted him to make his point. While Cooper does not say outright, “The Holocaust was humane,” he does explicitly suggest that at least this Nazi saw mass murder as a merciful act. He presents this reasoning without condemnation or critique. This is why so many historians, journalists, and institutions have denounced his remarks as apologetic, revisionist, and morally obscene. To my knowledge, neither Cooper nor Carlson have said that their remarks were in any way misinterpreted.

[Morley]

It's staggering that Markk buys into this nonsense. I'm actually surprised, and that's the only reason I broke my streak of ignoring his vast ignorance. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I've jested about this interview in the past to our right-wingers, probably even Markk, and I just figured they ignore it because they're smart enough not to go there. Holy hell, guess I was wrong.

This.

[Morley]

Markk, was Churchill "the chief villain of World War II," like Cooper says around minute 50?

Are statements like this a part of what you call "Cooper's approach to history" that you admire?

[Morley]

Cooper did not suggest that, come on Morley, he was quoting a letter to high command in Berlin stating it, as a "proof text" that the Germans were not prepared. He is not suggesting that gassing is humane, he is quoting a German Commandant that said it. And as I pasted in my last post, he was not even specifically directing the statement to the Jews, but to others as well.

No, you're misrepresenting him. He was indeed specifically talking about Jews. This has been researched to determine who Cooper could have been mining the quote from.

When Darryl Cooper quotes: “Rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?” --he's indirectly quoting Rolf-Heinz Höppner, who was an SS officer who served as the head of the Central Resettlement Office in Poland. Here's the whole quotation:

"There is a danger that this winter we will not be able to feed all the Jews. It should therefore be seriously considered whether the most humane solution would not be to finish off those Jews not capable of labor by some quick-acting means. It is not out of the question that this might be the most humane solution, especially if one considers the suffering that would otherwise result if such people were to starve to death."

—Rolf-Heinz Höppner, in a memorandum to Adolf Eichmann, July 16, 1941
(Source: Yad Vashem Archives; also published in the Nuremberg Trial records)

[Markk]

It is not clear that the Nazi leaders were already envisioning mass murder as their "solution" to their so-called Jewish problem.

What he said one more time, is that they were not ready for, or had a plan how to, and I'll quote what he said; ..."when they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth, that they were going to have to handle; they went in with no plan for that...and, they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there. You have letters, as early as July August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps they are setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering, or people they were rounding up, so two months after, or a month or two after operation Barbarossa was launched, and they are writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, "we can't feed these people, we don't have the food to feed these people," one of them actually says..." Rather to wait for them to slowly wait for these people to starve this winter, wouldn't it be more humane for us to finish them off quickly now..."

Morley he is not even strictly speaking about the Jews, but also Russian and Polish prisoners of war, and political prisoners....people. This isn't him saying anything other than what occurred from a historical point of view.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... %20ghettos.

Once again, your above reply has nothing to do with what you quoted me as saying. It's not an answer to:

1. He absolutely is suggesting that the intent was not there.
2. This is not just the reading of everyone else on this thread, it’s the interpretation of news media and organizations all over the world.
3. Neither Tucker nor Cooper have disputed these interpretations.

It is, it is what he said, word for word in what we are discussing. Where in that statement does he deny the holocaust?

Gad just wrote..."I understand very well that WW2 didn't start out with Hitler masterminding a Rube-Goldberg scenic route for the explicit purpose of gassing millions of Jewish people." By your logic, Gad is denying the Holocaust.

You said "The Nazi plans for dealing with the Jews evolved over time, becoming more and more radicalized as the war progressed" are you a Holocaust denier?

Why can you and Gad agree with his point, and not be lumped into the same boat?

Here it is one more time, where does he deny the Holocaust? That is what the media states about him on this subject.

.."when they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth, that they were going to have to handle; they went in with no plan for that...and, they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there. You have letters, as early as July August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps they are setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering, or people they were rounding up, so two months after, or a month or two after operation Barbarossa was launched, and they are writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, "we can't feed these people, we don't have the food to feed these people," one of them actually says..." Rather to wait for them to slowly wait for these people to starve this winter, wouldn't it be more humane for us to finish them off quickly now..."

[Morley]

Who has said Cooper denies the Holocaust? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Markk]

Markk, was Churchill "the chief villain of World War II," like Cooper says around minute 50?

Are statements like this a part of what you call "Cooper's approach to history" that you admire?

I don't agree with his opinion, at least what I have heard about it in the podcast, but I understand it. He walks that statement back on Rogan and even on Tucker, if I remember he said it was a jab at his podcast partner whose wife is from the UK. But he did say he does not like Churchill as a leader and said a little as to why.

I admire the way Churchill stood up and led Britain. But I also understand that much of England, like Cooper, did not think much of him. Did you know he lost the 1945 election as PM, despite all he did for Britain? I never really understood that, it had to do with social reform, but in my mind it is like, come on folks!

But what little I know about Churchill, I don't agree with Cooper. I tried to read Churchill's books about 35 years ago, but I couldn't get into them. maybe I will try again some day.