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

[Kishkumen]

Classic!

[Chap]

Markk: I really like this guy as an physician. You should hire him to remove your appendix. He's really good.

Morley: Listening to him, he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about.

Markk: I know appendix removal better that I know almost anything else except religion. This guy is good.

Morley: I checked and I see that he has no training or experience as a physician. I looked to see what other physicians said and nobody thought he was competent.

Markk: He tries really hard and puts a lot of effort into his work. He has some theories about appendix removal that you might like, if you'd just give him a chance. Watch this interview where he explains his process. Don't let your bias get in your way.

Morley: Are you kidding? In that video, your guy said the liver is the worst organ in the body. That the body would be better off with no liver.

Markk: Yeah, I don't agree with him about that--but, hell, I can see where he's coming from. A lot of people don't like liver. I'd rather have a good steak, myself. Still he has some good ideas about the appendix thing. Just give him a chance.

This is the point where Morley should have just turned and walked out of the room. But Morley didn't. Morley is an idiot.

Very, very good. I think, of course, that Markk would never recommend a surgeon on the kind of flimsy basis he is shown doing in this imaginary conversation, since even though he knows nothing about surgery he does know that it takes years of study and practice, plus some very stiff exams to qualify. However, he has no idea of what it takes to reach the stage where, even if other historians do not necessarily agree with your views on some particular historical issue, they still recognise you as a competent member of their profession, and regard you as someone whose publications on some relevant area might be part of the recommended reading for their students.

What is worse, Markk does not know that he does not know about this topic. That's the real danger, for Markk as well as for those who read his posts.

[Markk]

Morley: You're grasping at straws here. Professions are defined, in part, by the people working in the profession, and the standards set by people working in the professions. Effort may be necessary, but it's never sufficient. You already know this. An apprentice electrician who couldn't grasp the fundamentals of his profession would never be advanced to journeyman, no matter how much effort he was putting in. And that's a good thing. A journalist who tried really, really hard, but who was a plagiarist and could not keep to the ethics of his profession, would be pilloried, and that's a good thing.

Focus, This is what I wrote, which you are opining to...

...I think a historian should be rated on their work as a whole. I think effort should be paramount. In my opinion, lazy history is bad history....which is why I have so much respect for Dan Vogel. Few Mormon historians work harder and are more informed than he is. Also in my opinion, objectivity is key, nothing is worse that a history being written without objectivity, a-la Kerry Muhlestein.

You don't have to always agree with their reconstructions and conclusions, but in my view even when you disagree with a well-written piece of history, you can understand where and why they came to the conclusions they did.

In Cooper's case, from the two podcasts I have listened to on the subject at hand, while I don't agree with all his conclusions, I understand how and why he came up with them.

How did what I wrote here graduate to what you are now saying? I believe, right or wrong a good historian should be exhaustive in researching and reading the material that will help him produce the best possible reconstruction, and as I wrote they need to be able to place personal biases aside and be objective as possible, which in my opinion is a necessary attribute for good history.

Effort may be necessary, but it's never sufficient.

I never once said that, please show me were I said it was? I wrote that a historian should be rated for their work as a whole, and that effort should be paramount, and that in my opinion, lazy history is bad history.....where did I say it is alone sufficient?

An apprentice electrician who couldn't grasp the fundamentals of his profession would never be advanced to journeyman, no matter how much effort he was putting in. And that's a good thing.

This is just another response you did not think out. A person or student pursuing a career as a historian, who does not grasp the fundamentals of what it takes to be a historian, no matter the effort, will not make a very good historian.

We can go back and forth with meaningless examples, like, as a contractor/PM I have had electricians that are as bright (lol no pun intended) as they come, and know their trade, but are down right lazy and don't care for many reasons. They can't get to work on time, meet deadlines, submit the paperwork required to get paid... etc...because they are just lazy and don't want to make the effort to be their best.

A journalist who tried really, really hard, but who was a plagiarist and could not keep to the ethics of his profession, would be pilloried, and that's a good thing.

Lol, have you watched the news these days.....ever hear of Jake Tapper? An to be fair we could go back and forth for a week on left wing and right wing so-called journalists who have done quite well for themselves. Tapper got a no doubt huge payday with a book deal for his admitted incompetence.

Morley read what I wrote, I did not say in any way that effort is the only requirement for being a successful, but that I believe effort is essential to good history, and that lazy history is bad history.

If you believe that a historian should not be rated as a whole for their work, including their hard work and objectivity, then we can simply agree to disagree.

[Markk]

Fox News is a media outlet and organization, you wrote, as a question, which we are discussing, not journalism:

"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."

Is Fox News Reputable?

Has Fox News demonstrated expertise? Do they have experience in both the news and as editorial opinion, and even their hit pieces? I'll add are they competitive with their competition...e.g. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS...? Do they hold a substantial percentage of the overall market viewing and listening (radio) share with both the networks and the cable news competitors?

Every one of those is a yes.

Is Fox News "recognized by other outlets to be reliable?" Right leaning yes, left leaning no...which point to my original assertion it is hard to corral what is reputable because of our biases.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I wrote, which had to do with a person's credibility within their profession.

Yes it does....it shows that reputable is hard to corral given our bias. You said it was not. It has everything to do with the discussion.

Is Fox News reputable?

[Markk]

Markk, simple "yes" or "no" question"

Did the holocaust happen?

This may be a good exercise....

Yes, most certainly.

Yes or no for you, "do you support Israel's right to be a sovereign nation and defend as such from those that want another holocaust?"

[Markk]

Markk: I really like this guy as an physician. You should hire him to remove your appendix. He's really good.

Morley: Listening to him, he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about.

Markk: I know appendix removal better that I know almost anything else except religion. This guy is good.

Morley: I checked and I see that he has no training or experience as a physician. I looked to see what other physicians said and nobody thought he was competent.

Markk: He tries really hard and puts a lot of effort into his work. He has some theories about appendix removal that you might like, if you'd just give him a chance. Watch this interview where he explains his process. Don't let your bias get in your way.

Morley: Are you kidding? In that video, your guy said the liver is the worst organ in the body. That the body would be better off with no liver.

Markk: Yeah, I don't agree with him about that--but, hell, I can see where he's coming from. A lot of people don't like liver. I'd rather have a good steak, myself. Still he has some good ideas about the appendix thing. Just give him a chance.

This is the point where Morley should have just turned and walked out of the room. But Morley didn't. Morley is an idiot.

Lol, this is just silly. We are discussing a podcaster, story teller, or historian....not a doctor. One you even conceded was correct in regard to Germany not being prepared after you gave him a chance.

I started listening today on his podcast about the West Virginia Coal mine wars. I am about an hour and a half into it, and so far it is fascinating. I have seen short documentaries on this, but never anything details like this. I promise if you listen to it you will learn some interesting history, and he will not remove your appendix.

https://www.martyrmade.com/featured-pod ... se-america

[Markk]

Again, this has nothing to do with what I wrote, which had to do with a person's credibility within their profession.

I admire your efforts Morley. Indeed you are correct.

Cooper is not a "historian" by any standards that would exclude Joe Rogan from also being a historian.

What makes/defines a person as a historian?

[Markk]

Markk, you invoked my name in at least 5 previous posts within this thread, so I figure that you just missed my questions:

In 1939 the Germans were clearly persecuting the Jews, but it was not until 1941 and 1942, did the Germans start mass exterminations. Until the camps were built, again over 1000, the Nazis kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them.

1. Can you explain why the Nazis “kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them”… but then felt stressed when they rounded them up and couldn’t starve them fast enough while stuffed into concentration camps?

2. Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

I actually asked you a question in my OP, I was waiting for you to answer.

1. I gave a response to question one of my post that you obviously missed. It was a temporary solution while the leadership, I guess primarily Himmler, Heydrich, and Hitler, figured out their options. If you watched the podcast or read the posts, according to Cooper, which I agree, Germany was not prepared for handling millions of Jews, POWs, and political prisoners collectively. This seems totally plausible to me, and I plan to read more about this. It is something I never thought much about before I heard his take on it.

2. What claim? ...I said I agreed with his assertion that Germany was not prepared for taking care of the millions of folks they were going to "capture" and or "arrest." I also said I disagreed with his take on Churchill.

Apparently you have a claim in mind, what is it and do you agree and/or disagree, and why?

[huckelberry]

Markk, you invoked my name in at least 5 previous posts within this thread, so I figure that you just missed my questions:

In 1939 the Germans were clearly persecuting the Jews, but it was not until 1941 and 1942, did the Germans start mass exterminations. Until the camps were built, again over 1000, the Nazis kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them.

1. Can you explain why the Nazis “kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them”… but then felt stressed when they rounded them up and couldn’t starve them fast enough while stuffed into concentration camps?

2. Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

I do not find this claim clear enough to believe or disbelieve. It might sound like the Nazis didn't intend large harm towards Jews but it does not actually say that. The clear part is Jews were being harmed and sometimes German people found the process difficult. It reminds me of a book I read some years ago, Hitler's Willing Executioners. The book did not hide the horrors of the holocaust. It explored the willingness of people to commit terrible acts and sometimes to have resistance to that.

It is possible that is Cooper's concern, a concern which may garble some judgements. Listening to his interview with Rogan I hear he does not think of himself as a historian but a storyteller hoping to show personal experience. He sees war as brutalizing people, survivors or not.

He is an odd mix of political views. Positive about the labor movement and critical of capitalist repressions of labor unions. He sees value in socialized medical care.

I doubt he is actually interested in apologetics for Nazis. He might want an audience enough to allow ambiguity to create notice and audience growth.

[Markk]

Markk, you invoked my name in at least 5 previous posts within this thread, so I figure that you just missed my questions:

1. Can you explain why the Nazis “kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them”… but then felt stressed when they rounded them up and couldn’t starve them fast enough while stuffed into concentration camps?

2. Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

I do not find this claim clear enough to believe or disbelieve. It might sound like the Nazis didn't intend large harm towards Jews but it does not actually say that. The clear part is Jews were being harmed and sometimes German people found the process difficult. It reminds me of a book I read some years ago, Hitler's Willing Executioners. The book did not hide the horrors of the holocaust. It explored the willingness of people to commit terrible acts and sometimes to have resistance to that.

It is possible that is Cooper's concern, a concern which may garble some judgements. Listening to his interview with Rogan I hear he does not think of himself as a historian but a storyteller hoping to show personal experience. He sees war as brutalizing people, survivors or not.

He is an odd mix of political views. Positive about the labor movement and critical of capitalist repressions of labor unions. He sees value in socialized medical care.

I doubt he is actually interested in apologetics for Nazis. He might want an audience enough to allow ambiguity to create notice and audience growth.

I don't think, at least it was my take, that the Nazis did not intend to do large harm, but that they weren't prepared and did not have a plan for whatever their primary motive was.

Cooper said a little about this and how Goebbels had to hush Hitler during a rally for being too bold with saying they had to be annihilated.

From what I was reading, Hitler assigned Himmler to lead the "Jewish problem" in 1941, and they came up with Operation Reinhard.....which was to exterminate the Jews in German-occupied Poland.

In regard to Cooper, He had a rough upbringing, no father, and in the beginning of the podcast explains his style as a story teller, because of how he was raised. Rogan referred to his style as full of charity.