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

[canpakes]

Markk, how many of Carlson and Cooper’s audience do you think are aware of that passage, let alone read it?

Do you see any difference between what is conveyed in that passage, and how Cooper has paraphrased and presented it?

1. Not many, you obviously didn't, you didn't even watch the video before you made your judgement. I doubt you even knew what you were linking. The "journalists" didn't yet they wrote lies about Copper. Have you watched it yet?

Your assumptions and continued weird anger/angst/chagrin over the topic is noted, but you’re not correct. I located the transcript for you, even.

I’ll disagree with you about the difference between the source and Cooper’s paraphrasing, given how inhumane the intent expressed within the passage is, and Cooper’s whitewashing of it to portray the killing of millions as something originally unintended.

2. No, not really aside from the general way he spoke it. It was a two paragraph comment, in a general context.

Would it be problematic to misrepresent something to a fairly large audience of people possibly ignorant of the facts yet also prone to believe their host without question?

As I read the letter and go back and listen to the context of what he said and read the transcript, he was generally accurate with his opinion. Read my last post to Gad, I touched on this.

‘Generally accurate’ with ‘facts’ leaves a whole lot of room for manipulation. After all, the Nazis ‘humanely’ allowed one-third of the Jewish population to live, and was known to provide beds, some food and shelter to all of their prisoners at some point, correct?

That last sentence is ‘factual’, but what message would I be trying to convey if it was read by someone ignorant of history?

[Markk]

I doubt if Gad would appreciate that

Stalin at every step of his journey was a master of starving his own people, not to mention the fact he didn't try very hard to prevent Hitler from starving out Leningrad. But why would you think this? Why would you think I'd want to give Stalin a free pass? That is more likely to be your buddy Tucker Carlson who also said he's on Russia's side. It's your team who thinks all the authoritarians and dictators are super tough and cool, not mine.

Focus, I was defending you in that when Moksha accused you as being in line with Stalin. She said it, not me.

viewtopic.php?p=2899822#p2899822

[Marcus]

Markk, you said there was 'a smear attempt and a lie'?

"Mr. Cooper isn't known for having done any scholarly research on Nazism and the Holocaust, and his statements in this interview clearly demonstrate his ignorance."

https://www.yadvashem.org/press-release ... 16-52.html

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as the comments above, along with the full press release, in my opinion, are spot on.

[Chap]

[...]
We called him "uncle Joe, while all along they knew just how sick he was.

[...]

As you will know from your careful reading of the source material, Churchill and Roosevelt coined the term "Uncle Joe" as part of their confidential exchanges of messages on policy involving the Soviet Union. When they later had what they thought was a convivial meeting with Stalin, they told him about their name for him, expecting that it would amuse him. In fact he was highly offended, since he thought the name disrespectful, and almost walked out.

[Markk]

[...]
We called him "uncle Joe, while all along they knew just how sick he was.

[...]

As you will know from your careful reading of the source material, Churchill and Roosevelt coined the term "Uncle Joe" as part of their confidential exchanges of messages on policy involving the Soviet Union. When they later had what they thought was a convivial meeting with Stalin, they told him about their name for him, expecting that it would amuse him. In fact he was highly offended, since he thought the name disrespectful, and almost walked out.

I am glad you are reading the history, and the objective approach we are now having, thanks.

My point is that Churchill and Roosevelt made huge moral concessions in their dealings with Stalin and communist party of the Soviet Union. They no doubt had the intel of what he did to his people and religion in the name of communism. Was it a necessary concession? My guess, and opinion is yes not knowing how it would have turned out if the US would not have entered the war, and if England and France would not have declared war on Germany after the 39 invasion.

Poland was in a bad way being divided by the Germans and the Soviet after their respective invasions of their country. Germany had already took Austria, and Czechoslovakia, and neither France or England did much, in fact they both signed what was basically a concession in the name of peace for our time.

What I am getting at is one of the "what ifs" that I asked you earlier. If England and France would not have declared war after the invasion of Poland on Germany....and the war did not go global but stayed between Russia and Germany, as both Hitler and Stalin knew and thought would happen.

Chamberlain and Daladier were in a tough position. Hitler and Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, and the Stalin and the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east a few weeks later. Churchill was the one pushing for the war, and detested the appeasement of Chamberlain and Daladier and the Munich agreement and called for war, so I will add him in that tough position, and I'll add Roosevelt given his financial support to England and France, and from what little I have read and recall his wanting understanding the necessity of a war once England and France committed to it.

It was like picking between Charles Manson, and Jack the Ripper....or just turning a blind eye to it all.

[canpakes]

It was like picking between Charles Manson, and Jack the Ripper....or just turning a blind eye to it all.

Which is Hitler, and which is Churchill?

[Chap]

[..]

Churchill had a closer relationship with him than Roosevelt for sure, and even met with him secretly after he knew Germany was done, in regard how to divide up Germany and eastern Europe. He was trying to salvage as much as he could knowing the British Empire was basically over.

[...]

I think you must be referring to the October 1944 meeting between Churchill and Stalin in Moscow? It was no more secret than any other of the meetings between representatives of western Allies and Stalin had been, and Churchill kept Roosevelt fully informed of what took place. Apart from discussing plans for the post-war division of Germany, which in principle the UK, USA and the Soviet Union were agreed on, Churchill attempted to get some guarantee that the people of Poland would have a voice in the future of their country - which is after all the formal motive for which Britain had declared war on Germany in 1939. Of course Stalin ended up doing what he had always intended to do, and the Iron Curtain descended across Europe, with a Soviet puppet government in Poland and other countries on the Soviet side of the curtain.

Can you give us a reference to a contemporary source to support your apparent belief that suggests that Churchill's attempts to get guarantees for Poland had something to do his concerns about the British Empire?

[Markk]

[..]

Churchill had a closer relationship with him than Roosevelt for sure, and even met with him secretly after he knew Germany was done, in regard how to divide up Germany and eastern Europe. He was trying to salvage as much as he could knowing the British Empire was basically over.

[...]

I think you must be referring to the October 1944 meeting between Churchill and Stalin in Moscow? It was no more secret than any other of the meetings between representatives of western Allies and Stalin had been, and Churchill kept Roosevelt fully informed of what took place. Apart from discussing plans for the post-war division of Germany, which in principle the UK, USA and the Soviet Union were agreed on, Churchill attempted to get some guarantee that the people of Poland would have a voice in the future of their country - which is after all the formal motive for which Britain had declared war on Germany in 1939. Of course Stalin ended up doing what he had always intended to do, and the Iron Curtain descended across Europe, with a Soviet puppet government in Poland and other countries on the Soviet side of the curtain.

Can you give us a reference to a contemporary source to support your apparent belief that suggests that Churchill's attempts to get guarantees for Poland had something to do his concerns about the British Empire?

Churchill was rightfully concerned that they were losing power and were too dependent on America and the the Soviet Union was going to get way too much of eastern Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement



I didn't say Poland, I said Eastern Europe....and we can add alot more to his concerns such as the Mediterranean and Suez Canal.

From Wiki...



During the Second World War, Winston Churchill became painfully aware that the UK had spent virtually all of its reserve capital on the war and was becoming economically dependent upon American support. He recognised that the Soviet Union would end up being much stronger than it was before the war, while Britain would be weaker. Fearing that the United States might return to isolationism after the war, leaving an economically weakened Britain to face the Soviet Union alone, he sought a preemptive agreement with Stalin that might stabilize the post-war world and tie the Soviets down in a way that was favourable to British interests.[5] In this regard, Churchill was especially concerned about securing the Mediterranean within the British sphere of influence, making it clear that he did not want Communists to come to power in Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia as he believed that Communist governments in those countries would allow the Soviet Union to establish air and naval bases in those nations, which would threaten British shipping in the Mediterranean


Churchill did not tell Roosevelt about the "Naughty document" until after it was presented to Stalin the next day or so, and there was not any US representative at the table.

[Markk]

Cakes: Your assumptions and continued weird anger/angst/chagrin over the topic is noted, but you’re not correct. I located the transcript for you, even.

Lol, so are you saying you read the transcript before you pasted the link I posted in the OP? You didn't find it until I asked whether or not you watched the podcast, right? How much of the transcript did you actually read?

[canpakes]

Cakes: Your assumptions and continued weird anger/angst/chagrin over the topic is noted, but you’re not correct. I located the transcript for you, even.

Lol, so are you saying you read the transcript before you pasted the link I posted in the OP? You didn't find it until I asked whether or not you watched the podcast, right? How much of the transcript did you actually read?

Your phrasing is weird so I’m not sure what you’re asking, but given that I mentioned the interview in the first place which led to you beginning this thread, yes. I’ve seen the interview.

Here’s a link to that, too -

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTgPEGYS2o