I know you hate American support for Ukraine and want more isolationist foreign policy, but you only hurt your case when you play footsie with Nazi apologists.
It's obvious you didn't listen to it... no one who actually listened to the entire podcast came away feeling this way. The ENTIRE convo was about understanding there are multiple sides/views to every issue. In that context, it completely changes what he was saying. He was in no way "whitewashing" anything, he was, very specifically, trying to illustrate, across like 12 different examples, what it means to consider multiple perspectives on all historical events. You don't have to like it, but his podcast wasn't about Churchill, he was using it as an illustration that, perhaps, in war, everyone is the bad guy, and we shouldn't be so naive as to have "heroes" (who sat in an office and sent other people to their death) and "villains." If you're going to form this strong an opinion, I think you owe it an actual listen. It might make you even more mad, but maybe you'll learn something about Jonestown or something else of interest in the midst of that anger...
He in no way apologized for anything the Nazis did, and in fact, decried them as evil. He simply provided possible explanations for why things may have turned out the way they did, and alternatives that could have played out should different paths of diplomacy been taken. Churchill was a terrible leader, and did all sorts of stupid stuff in Africa and in Egypt that cost the UK tons of money and resources. His exact point was that even bringing this stuff for discussion up triggers an automatic response like no other topic in history. This UT post is Exhibit A.
The tweet was bad. Completely agree. Turns out he's a human who gets triggered and says stupid shit - sounds like every single other human on earth.
Shit, he even talks in the podcast about how much he studies, to an INSANE extent, before he talks long form about things because he wants to "try to understand them from every angle." That he's willing to represent that vision is fantastic, whether we agree with his deductions or not is irrelevant. The point is to think. And he does that.
And you're dead right in your analysis - he specifically decries how terrible Germany is, but basically says "everyone already knows that so it isn't interesting." what IS interesting is the miscasting of Churchill, which is why he spends time there. I thought this stuff was all obvious listening to the discussion, that all our "journalists" are now too busy to do journalism is sad... especially when you're condemning a man who talks about the thousands of hours he spends researching his topics. Then he gets trashed by people "who read the transcript" of one part of one discussion...
The fact that he puts so much time into his research should make one immediately question their previously conceived beliefs about a topic. I thought it was a very good podcast that provided some alternative views on choices made by world leaders at the time. I, in no way, came away with the perspective that Nazi Germany was justified in anything they did. A lot more time should be spent on studying the shibboleth that Churchill was some genius, great man. But, most people can't even approach this topic at all.
The great Pat Buchanan came to a similar conclusion in his book "Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War." (Well worth reading from an excellent writer.) Churchill, a known alcoholic, was every bit as responsible for the war as was Hitler. Maybe more.
What do you mean by "excuses?" I don't know Darryl Cooper. Have never met him. He's never interacted with my children, I've never asked him for help and had him say yes or no, he wasn't there when grandparents died, I know nothing of Darryl Cooper. I'm not making "excuses" for someone I don't know. I have no vote, whatsoever, on if Darryl Cooper is a good or bad person. I'm taking issue with misinterpreting the conversation he had with Tucker as an excuse TO determine that someone you've never met is a good or bad person. He may be wrong about something - to extrapolate that to the level that's been done is insane.
We used to understand this, because we used to not think that media personalities, celebrities, and "social media" whatevers were actually a part of our life. Now, for some insane reason, we judge the character of people because of the facade of reality that's painted in front of us. Disagree with what Darryl said, make a better argument that he did, give me an even more nuanced take on WWII that I can use to try to reframe my perspective and think a little deeper. Or don't. But to jump right to "he's a horrible human" because of his perception of a historical event that he's specifically talking about how nuanced it is is insane to me
As far as Churchill goes the good outweighed the bad and he was the right man in the right place at the right time. Infact he was the only man willing to take on that responsability and to do it successfully.
What was the responsibility? Explain what that means. He sent other people to die. No general sitting in an ivory tower is taking on responsibility. The people he's sending to die are taking on responsibility. At least in comic books and super hero movies we praise the person ACTUALLY DOING the hard work. This war hero nonsense of praising people sitting in rooms talking while millions of people die is ridiculous
Churchill did not just sit in an ivory tower and was very well aware of what the men in the field were facing and also what Europe would have faced had Germany taken over. He was not afraid to get out of his shelter and travel to different places, he believed strongly in face to face negotiations. Just because we have no examples today of what a true leader is supposed to do does not mean they have never existed. Yes I praise Churchill and think of him as an exceptional Human being, flawed maybe but basically a good man.
Churchill wasn’t a terrible leader. He saved western civilization. Did he make mistakes and do dumb stuff trying to save the empire? Yes. But was he terrible? Not exactly.
This kind of reminds me of a year or two ago when Alex went on Rogan, and when the topic of Tulsi Gabbard came up Alex’s response was something like “isn’t she crazy or something?”. He still seems to trust corporate media to form his opinions in some cases, even after everything that has happened.
Like many here, I did not come to that conclusion after watching / listening to the podcast. The ENTIRE podcast. Perhaps the visual medium conveys perspectives differently. And I am admittedly biased as I watched / listened to TC for years. I never heard of Cooper until now. The zeitgeist of "Hitler" and "Nazi" borders on the irrational. Check that, it is irrational, so I'm not going to make assumptions about Cooper outside of the discussion. And that discussion include assertions regarding the historical primary records that he says he examined, so this needs to be paid attention to.
As and aside, I suggest reading Erik Larson's "The Spendid and the Vile" for perspective re: Churchill's first 18 or so months as PM.
Salis cum granis I think is the Latin proverb in mind right now right now.
I appreciate Tucker very much. But with a grain of salt! And a There are not multiple sides when talking about murdering millions and millions of people. For no reason except for their religion or other features they were born with.
You need to listen to it. I did and it was before the Free Press hit piece Neither Tucker nor Mr Cooper expressed any sympathy for Nazis no Hitler. Pointing out that Churchill is a human being with some strange habits is not vilifying him. You really owe it to yourself to listen to the actual podcast. Mr Cooper just posted a podcast last night you should listen too he describes the complete horror that the actual people experienced in their own words.
Alex, trust me, watch the video and you'll see how highly emotive Daryl Cooper is - professing to nearly tear up when he's talking about things. You're missing so much if you do not watch the video.
I appreciate Tuckers off the wall views on certain things, his spot on takes on other things and endure some of his crap like this, where he's just wrong on so much. Yet that is his right as an American, and our right to call him out on it.
i listened to it yesterday and watched it today. i think Mr Cooper needs to manage his eyeglasses a bit better. his hands are very expressive but he doesn't use them effectively. obviously he's not comfortable being on camera
For someone who fights people that dig in their heels and aren't open-minded, you are digging in your heels and are extremely close minded here.
I have no knowledge of who he is, but all the furor and your post made me listen to the entire thing. I thought what he said was very interesting and different than the regular textbooks that you read.
He never once made excuses or apologizing for the Nazis. He added a detail of one thing that was written by one person and didn't absolve the Nazis of their war crimes.
The idea that you are so close minded about this is very disappointing. I think you THINK you are open-minded but you really aren't.
Words mean things. Reading the transcript should be sufficient evidence for points of view. Ethos and logos. Pathos too often gets in the way of truth.
Russians are good at brainwashing and have been doing it for 100 years. KGB guy Putin had a special training on psychological warfare and used in during his assignment in East Germany.
That’s like saying, I read your text. Lol. Watching a delivery is very different than reading words. Someone can write “I love this.” Then you see them say it and it’s totally different. Sarcasm and intonation isn’t decipherable in a transcript. I’m not saying you will change your mind. But I am saying, commenting on an interview without watching all of it OPEN MINDED vs reading a deadpan transcript are not the same. Sorry.
Nazi is synonymous with evil, there is no sugar coating it. Any whiff of rationalizing or trying to justify anything these animals did just displays their ignorance of the truth.
it's used so often these days to silence anyone and everyone. saddam hussein was pictured on billboards on 1-95 with hitler and stalin. trump is compared to hitler about every 5 minutes. it's like the "me too" gals; they used the word "rape" so much that they made it meaningless. at this point, the word nazi is synonymous with nothing. it's an all purpose insult the democratic party tosses around like candy. very sad.
I am surprised that someone like Alex who has been subject to revisionist history would be so quick to dismiss the idea that we've been subject to revisionist history for likely all of our lives, or to brand someone as a Nazi apologist before he reads or listens to the upcoming series. The interview was broadstrokes of what I expect to be an intensely detailed podcast series which will fill in missing pieces with evidence.
I am just commenting to say I very much appreciate people who watched the entire podcast posting their opinions. It is so important to post these perspectives. I have yet to watch it myself. Free speech is worthless if we don't all actually engage and USE this (actually innate) freedom. Discuss, debate, research, inquire, investigate, be humble and and be willing to truly listen! These are the high level skills humanity is developing! NOT EASY!!!!! But it's beautiful to see us trying our best. ❤️❤️❤️😎😎😎
He is a Nazi apologist, sort of. He likely cut his WW2 history teeth by reading the historical literature available during the Cold War, which was heavily weighted towards the German perspective, given that they lost the war and everything German was made available to the public, while most Allied and Soviet historical documents remained classified until recently. Cooper needs to take a refresher course based on declassified Allied and Soviet documents.
I agree. Unfortunately Cooper is not suited to short form. Also Tucker didn’t do his job by extracting caveats and steering Cooper to flesh out what he was trying to say.
Was EXACTLY my 1st visceral reaction to this story. We all KNOW and see what party supports HAMAS and just who ALL these protesters in BLUE run cities or in BLUE run states, and in BLUE run public university systems are. Just how the average BLUE voter will still vote BLUE says what exactly. What will be telling is to see how the American Jewish voting bloc changes this election cycle. Over 75% of them vote BLUE. The IRONY is not lost considering what was allowed to occur in the last century and playing out in modern day. Its ALL out in the open and yet the average BLUE voter wishes to enable it to continue with their votes
Did Alex say censor him? (Answer is No.) Alex did exactly what free speech is all about about, he countered what he considered bad speech with better speech.
Nothing he wrote even substantively refutes a podcast he clearly did not listen to. This is a hit piece in a similar vein to all the ones Alex suffered for asking questions about the vaxx during Covid.
We should ask serious questions about the post war justification and propaganda on the allied side. Particularly because it has been used by the necons and the military industrial complex to justify every use of force since.
I actually argue that Germany was wrong convicted for the atrocities of WW2. We all know how propaganda works so we can be surprised that such a thriving country was made to appear evil to the world.
Nazi Germany killed SIX MILLION JEWS. There’s plenty of realms of films which documents this reality. Eisenhower made sure all this was fully documented so the world would see it and never forget it, and he mandated every single German who lived near such concentration camps to walk through them and personally see the atrocities.
Hey - so as we know, during the pandemic, President Biden and the govt used a lot of propaganda, film etc — and hopefully our children will realize the propaganda vs the narrative. What I’m saying is that there is the same propaganda at play in history
Exactly. The commenters don't like Alex's take on the podcast and immediately jump to Alex is censoring. (Not very thoughtful thinkers, it seems.) Alex is exercising his free speech right to counter Cooper's free speech.
Isn't it nice to have a civil debate over a guest's views? Isn't it nice to be able to hear different points of view? Hope it continues. Under Harris/Walz, I believe freedom of speech is going to be policed for content, meaning it won't be freedom of speech.
As the election grows closer, I'm seeing more and more censorship on the Internet. Even Judge Nap received a strike for an inoculous comment by a guest that took his show off of YouTube for a week. Good thing that most of the hosts that don't toe the democrat line now also can be seen on Rumble.
Seems as if Tucker likes more speech rather than less. Why don't you contact him and arrange an interview to discuss these issues. I would definitely be very interested in the back and forth, give and take.
Freedom of speech - isn't always pretty or politically correct and often includes off-color hyperbole - and doesn't exist if certain ideas and/or people are excluded...
I am not sure if Alex was advocating for censorship here, but I just want to say that Reality itself "operates" through inclusion. Exclusion is resistance to the very nature of Nature. Or, God. Choose your term. God/Nature/Reality. The point is that it ALL works through inclusion and allowance. Freedom. The inhabitants of a forest are free to express themselves. The forest itself is an expression. A gestalt. "It" trusts itself. To use the God word, God is allowing. Inclusive. God doesn't use an eraser, doesn't have one. Nothing is actually erased. Anything less than full freedom of speech (and assembly, etc etc) is in opposition to Reality. But we are afraid and actually terrified of trusting our very Selves. And I capped that word because our true natures are Divine and Holy and Freaking Powerful. We are Creator beings who have forgotten our true natures. We are creating our own realities. End of speech! ❤️. PS I am neither religious nor new agey. I deny both identifications. 😏😁
Agree. The only thing I think you missed is that the victors of WW1 crushed the German people and their economy, almost out of sheer spite.
Which begs the question:
Would we even have had WW2 and the associated atrocities (or Hitlers rise to power) committed if we had not punished the Germans so severely?
Perhaps I'm playing arm chair QB...but still....I don't think (and they should have) anyone involved with the Versailles Treaty thought about the obvious potential for unintended consequences.
It becomes especially messy if you consider the US only even fought in WWI because our central bankers wanted to ensure the Fed and Federal Income taxes became enshrined in the constitution so they could complete the process of fleecing the American citizens of every dollar of their labor to transfer it to the State
I'm inclined to agree with you - that WW2 may have been either significantly smaller or avoided entirely by less spiteful WW1 victors. In an attempt to completely neuter Germany, they allies went a bit too far and dug a bit too deep.
That said, I had entire chunks of my family tree wiped out in Poland both via the Holocaust (both Jewish and non-Jewish victims - the Nazis loved murdering Catholic Poles too) and through the initial German invasion in 1939 and ethnic cleansing that took place afterwards - and I refuse to give credence to any "alternative theory" that proposes that Hitler could be trusted with any peace agreement after the invasion of Poland.
Perhaps it's my familial history clouding my opinion, but, the idea that he was just a victim of a spiteful Churchill at that point, to me, is ludicrous.
I also saw an excellent thread explaining why Churchill and/or Chamberlain would have never agreed to a peace treaty with Hitler in 1940 that goes beyond the obvious mistrust-of-Hitler issues, but speaks more to a far more basic reason: England did not want a single superpower on the continent, and permitting it to exist would put England's own survival in jeopardy
Be careful. You sound like all those leftists that say that heterodox ideas should not be ‘platformed’… When you have been one of those heterodox idea people. You’re being a hypocrite . Tucker likes heterodox and wants to hear those ideas even if he doesn’t agree with them. That’s what journalism should be. And there is likely some truth to what was said, WW2 being put forward as a ‘good war’ has allowed an interventionist foreign policy since which had beeb disastrous for the American people but great for our ruling class.
Yes, this is his point, I think. He is anti-war first and foremost and suspicious of these "good wars." I'm sure that's where he is coming from. But at any rate, because people don't like one guest is no reason to cancel Tucker.
So I agree with your takes on the majority of you article here. That being said- I haven't listened to the Tucker interview, and probably won't, although I like Tucker a lot.
My observations about your post-
1. You're upset that he's playing "footsie" with a Nazi apologist. I thought that free speech is what you are fighting the government about? I'm fine with you disagreeing with his logic or viewpoints, but it seems hypocritical to criticize the interview.
2. Do we know that Tucker fully agreed with him, or was just having a conversation?
3. What if Tucker comes out later and gives an explanation that separates the antisemitic parts of this, with the need to end our Ukraine support?
Btw- thank you for writing this. We don't always agree, but I'm glad you make me think.
I listened to it and found nothing antisemitic about it. What is an anti-Semite anyway? Aren't the Palestinians the true Semites, while most of the Ashkenazi Jews have white skin and immigrated to Israel from Europe after WWII? (note the last 4 letters Ash...)
Nazi sympathizer? Alex, please stop copying and pasting Bari's drunken essays. Your credibility should be your biggest concern after investing 2-3 minutes in that garbage. This is why intelligent people are wondering what may actually be happening in Gaza when the slightest inclusion of anything not in lockstep (NAZI pun intended) with Israel is mentioned. I support Israel. I support Israel less, and suspect your motives more, after reading this piece from you.
I don't know anything about Darryl Cooper and I haven't listened to the podcast but my first reaction was to see the irony in you writing an article that could easily have been written about you and Tucker during the Covid peak (and probably was many times). C'mon, Tucker! Playing footsie with Alex Berenson, really?! It's certainly possible (maybe even beneficial) that Tucker is going to cross a line trying to come to grips with his newfound perspective on the US war machine but either way, I generally trust his intentions. In 2024, I am more concerned about Alex Berenson weighing in on who Tucker Carlson should be "associating" with than I am about Tucker having someone on that I don't agree with. I respect your right to disagree with Tucker or with Darryl Cooper but when you jump on the "playing footsie" train you're getting dangerously close to that pro censorship line.
The historical revisionists have correctly pointed out that all the nations involved in WWII committed significant atrocities. That fact is a hard pill for the "my country right or wrong" crowd to swallow. The Ukraine war is objectionable because it cannot be won, it exposes the USA to significant danger of nuclear war, and it has been devastating for Ukraine, the supposed beneficiary of our policy. Ending our current policy would be more like sanity than isolationism.
I agree Alex and with most of your post but disagree that Allied acts against civilians were necessarily "atrocities." The use of the A-bomb against Japan saved US and Japanese lives. I'm not as certain about the bombing of Dresden and other German cities, but Churchill saved England and Europe from Nazi domination by rallying the Brits, who fought valiantly with plenty of US and USSR help. Chamberlain proved that Hitler could not be trusted not to break treaties, and the idea that Churchill could have negotiated a lasting peace is risible.
Spot on. The idea of WW2 as a ‘good war’ has justified a disastrous interventionist foreign policy by America. It is not our job to right the wrongs of the world. It’s also important to know that America didn’t go into WW2 to ‘free the jews’. Most Americans had zero idea it was going on and wouldn’t have sent their sons to die for this cause in 1940… nor would they today.
We didn’t send our military to stop Pol Pot either.
The idea that we go to war for ‘moral’ reasons is idiotic.
Nor did Lincoln invade the South to bring an end to slavery. He said so himself. Everything we learned in school about the Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression is wrong.
The trauma from any war is unfathomable. But WW2 seems to be a special case where the trauma to the mass human psyche is especially unfathomable and incredibly affecting. In so many ways, it really fucked us up very deeply. I believe the secrets and lies and propaganda about every aspect of the war (causes, events, leaders etc) are like a thick wall we are just now starting to peek through. I honor all honest discussion about this horrific war.
I guess you'll have to ask Tucker as to his thinking in this regard... myself, I suspect when he came to the realization some years ago that Government lies, constantly, he remains in an exploratory mode in both examining the false beliefs he had for so long living in DC and his revelations more recently. I feel his pain as I myself have been on the same path for some 5-7 years now.
The Feds have been lying forever... it didn't just start in 2016. The problem is that the Government has become so huge that now with their lies they can do truly serious damage to the economy, society, culture and as you know personally individuals. Exploring what they have lied about historically is a perfectly logical path to go down. I would encourage him to open up the books on the creation of the Fed in 1913 and the Depression that followed. There has been a whole lot of lying going on about that period.
I'm going to put this one from Alex Berenson in the "uninspired opinion piece heavily shrouded by personal biases" bin. You are capable of much better Alex and you should have gone with your initial instinct of not going there.
I'll look forward to your next insightful piece of journalism.
@Alex Berenson - Did you listen to all of it? I think it's important for people reading (and supporting you) to know if you actually listened to the entire interview...
Cooper is not a “nazi” apologist. You should actually listen to his podcasts. The Free Press totally misrepresented him. Don’t fall for it, Alex!
I read the transcript. He is a Nazi apologist.
It's obvious you didn't listen to it... no one who actually listened to the entire podcast came away feeling this way. The ENTIRE convo was about understanding there are multiple sides/views to every issue. In that context, it completely changes what he was saying. He was in no way "whitewashing" anything, he was, very specifically, trying to illustrate, across like 12 different examples, what it means to consider multiple perspectives on all historical events. You don't have to like it, but his podcast wasn't about Churchill, he was using it as an illustration that, perhaps, in war, everyone is the bad guy, and we shouldn't be so naive as to have "heroes" (who sat in an office and sent other people to their death) and "villains." If you're going to form this strong an opinion, I think you owe it an actual listen. It might make you even more mad, but maybe you'll learn something about Jonestown or something else of interest in the midst of that anger...
He in no way apologized for anything the Nazis did, and in fact, decried them as evil. He simply provided possible explanations for why things may have turned out the way they did, and alternatives that could have played out should different paths of diplomacy been taken. Churchill was a terrible leader, and did all sorts of stupid stuff in Africa and in Egypt that cost the UK tons of money and resources. His exact point was that even bringing this stuff for discussion up triggers an automatic response like no other topic in history. This UT post is Exhibit A.
The tweet was bad, however. I will give you that.
The tweet was bad. Completely agree. Turns out he's a human who gets triggered and says stupid shit - sounds like every single other human on earth.
Shit, he even talks in the podcast about how much he studies, to an INSANE extent, before he talks long form about things because he wants to "try to understand them from every angle." That he's willing to represent that vision is fantastic, whether we agree with his deductions or not is irrelevant. The point is to think. And he does that.
And you're dead right in your analysis - he specifically decries how terrible Germany is, but basically says "everyone already knows that so it isn't interesting." what IS interesting is the miscasting of Churchill, which is why he spends time there. I thought this stuff was all obvious listening to the discussion, that all our "journalists" are now too busy to do journalism is sad... especially when you're condemning a man who talks about the thousands of hours he spends researching his topics. Then he gets trashed by people "who read the transcript" of one part of one discussion...
The fact that he puts so much time into his research should make one immediately question their previously conceived beliefs about a topic. I thought it was a very good podcast that provided some alternative views on choices made by world leaders at the time. I, in no way, came away with the perspective that Nazi Germany was justified in anything they did. A lot more time should be spent on studying the shibboleth that Churchill was some genius, great man. But, most people can't even approach this topic at all.
The great Pat Buchanan came to a similar conclusion in his book "Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War." (Well worth reading from an excellent writer.) Churchill, a known alcoholic, was every bit as responsible for the war as was Hitler. Maybe more.
That was not his only "bad" tweet. He had another tweet suggesting that Hitler is not in hell (while the two guys Kyle Rittenhouse killed are) and another where he said God sent the Romans to “to destroy the leprous temple and put an end to the Israelite religion for all time.” How many excuses do you want to make for this guy? Receipts: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9f67c934-7dce-4486-9c03-18de2aba71fc_1188x394.png?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
https://x.com/martyrmade/status/1697297571591631151?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
What do you mean by "excuses?" I don't know Darryl Cooper. Have never met him. He's never interacted with my children, I've never asked him for help and had him say yes or no, he wasn't there when grandparents died, I know nothing of Darryl Cooper. I'm not making "excuses" for someone I don't know. I have no vote, whatsoever, on if Darryl Cooper is a good or bad person. I'm taking issue with misinterpreting the conversation he had with Tucker as an excuse TO determine that someone you've never met is a good or bad person. He may be wrong about something - to extrapolate that to the level that's been done is insane.
We used to understand this, because we used to not think that media personalities, celebrities, and "social media" whatevers were actually a part of our life. Now, for some insane reason, we judge the character of people because of the facade of reality that's painted in front of us. Disagree with what Darryl said, make a better argument that he did, give me an even more nuanced take on WWII that I can use to try to reframe my perspective and think a little deeper. Or don't. But to jump right to "he's a horrible human" because of his perception of a historical event that he's specifically talking about how nuanced it is is insane to me
As far as Churchill goes the good outweighed the bad and he was the right man in the right place at the right time. Infact he was the only man willing to take on that responsability and to do it successfully.
What was the responsibility? Explain what that means. He sent other people to die. No general sitting in an ivory tower is taking on responsibility. The people he's sending to die are taking on responsibility. At least in comic books and super hero movies we praise the person ACTUALLY DOING the hard work. This war hero nonsense of praising people sitting in rooms talking while millions of people die is ridiculous
Churchill did not just sit in an ivory tower and was very well aware of what the men in the field were facing and also what Europe would have faced had Germany taken over. He was not afraid to get out of his shelter and travel to different places, he believed strongly in face to face negotiations. Just because we have no examples today of what a true leader is supposed to do does not mean they have never existed. Yes I praise Churchill and think of him as an exceptional Human being, flawed maybe but basically a good man.
Hitler was not fighting in trenches either in WWII.
Churchill wasn’t a terrible leader. He saved western civilization. Did he make mistakes and do dumb stuff trying to save the empire? Yes. But was he terrible? Not exactly.
Can you be specific about your "Churchill was a terrible leader" comment? Also, was he more "bad" than "good"? Even the best ballplayers make errors.
This kind of reminds me of a year or two ago when Alex went on Rogan, and when the topic of Tulsi Gabbard came up Alex’s response was something like “isn’t she crazy or something?”. He still seems to trust corporate media to form his opinions in some cases, even after everything that has happened.
I thought this exact same thing. And I have listened to all 35 hours of his podcast of the Israel/palestinian conflict. Very balanced to me
Which podcast are you referring to? Thanks.
This. You can listen to it on any podcast ap. Very long and detailed. https://www.martyrmade.com/featured-podcasts/fear-loathing-in-the-new-jerusalem
Thanks
Like many here, I did not come to that conclusion after watching / listening to the podcast. The ENTIRE podcast. Perhaps the visual medium conveys perspectives differently. And I am admittedly biased as I watched / listened to TC for years. I never heard of Cooper until now. The zeitgeist of "Hitler" and "Nazi" borders on the irrational. Check that, it is irrational, so I'm not going to make assumptions about Cooper outside of the discussion. And that discussion include assertions regarding the historical primary records that he says he examined, so this needs to be paid attention to.
As and aside, I suggest reading Erik Larson's "The Spendid and the Vile" for perspective re: Churchill's first 18 or so months as PM.
Salis cum granis I think is the Latin proverb in mind right now right now.
I appreciate Tucker very much. But with a grain of salt! And a There are not multiple sides when talking about murdering millions and millions of people. For no reason except for their religion or other features they were born with.
Well Victor Davis Hanson missed the nuance as well as most of the rest of humanity.
You need to listen to it. I did and it was before the Free Press hit piece Neither Tucker nor Mr Cooper expressed any sympathy for Nazis no Hitler. Pointing out that Churchill is a human being with some strange habits is not vilifying him. You really owe it to yourself to listen to the actual podcast. Mr Cooper just posted a podcast last night you should listen too he describes the complete horror that the actual people experienced in their own words.
Alex, trust me, watch the video and you'll see how highly emotive Daryl Cooper is - professing to nearly tear up when he's talking about things. You're missing so much if you do not watch the video.
I appreciate Tuckers off the wall views on certain things, his spot on takes on other things and endure some of his crap like this, where he's just wrong on so much. Yet that is his right as an American, and our right to call him out on it.
Please give some examples on where you think Tucker is "just wrong on so much."
yes, i second your question
i listened to it yesterday and watched it today. i think Mr Cooper needs to manage his eyeglasses a bit better. his hands are very expressive but he doesn't use them effectively. obviously he's not comfortable being on camera
You are such a hypocrite.
For someone who fights people that dig in their heels and aren't open-minded, you are digging in your heels and are extremely close minded here.
I have no knowledge of who he is, but all the furor and your post made me listen to the entire thing. I thought what he said was very interesting and different than the regular textbooks that you read.
He never once made excuses or apologizing for the Nazis. He added a detail of one thing that was written by one person and didn't absolve the Nazis of their war crimes.
The idea that you are so close minded about this is very disappointing. I think you THINK you are open-minded but you really aren't.
Words mean things. Reading the transcript should be sufficient evidence for points of view. Ethos and logos. Pathos too often gets in the way of truth.
Try it then. Listen to the conversation and see.
I liked Tucker too, before he became Putin's lap dog.
His broadcasts about Ukraine are nothing more than Kremlin's talking points translated to English.
And our media serves up the CIA talking points already in English, which is obviously the better language. Heck, half their letters are upside down!
I'm with you, Curious man, let's stay curious unless we are told not to!
i think a lot of americans, me included, would agree with those talking points
Russians are good at brainwashing and have been doing it for 100 years. KGB guy Putin had a special training on psychological warfare and used in during his assignment in East Germany.
americans aren't too bad at brainwashing either.
Coopers response: https://open.substack.com/pub/martyrmade/p/my-response-to-the-mob?r=nl3ud&utm_medium=ios
This was very hard to listen to as expected.
That’s like saying, I read your text. Lol. Watching a delivery is very different than reading words. Someone can write “I love this.” Then you see them say it and it’s totally different. Sarcasm and intonation isn’t decipherable in a transcript. I’m not saying you will change your mind. But I am saying, commenting on an interview without watching all of it OPEN MINDED vs reading a deadpan transcript are not the same. Sorry.
Nazi is synonymous with evil, there is no sugar coating it. Any whiff of rationalizing or trying to justify anything these animals did just displays their ignorance of the truth.
it's used so often these days to silence anyone and everyone. saddam hussein was pictured on billboards on 1-95 with hitler and stalin. trump is compared to hitler about every 5 minutes. it's like the "me too" gals; they used the word "rape" so much that they made it meaningless. at this point, the word nazi is synonymous with nothing. it's an all purpose insult the democratic party tosses around like candy. very sad.
I am surprised that someone like Alex who has been subject to revisionist history would be so quick to dismiss the idea that we've been subject to revisionist history for likely all of our lives, or to brand someone as a Nazi apologist before he reads or listens to the upcoming series. The interview was broadstrokes of what I expect to be an intensely detailed podcast series which will fill in missing pieces with evidence.
I am just commenting to say I very much appreciate people who watched the entire podcast posting their opinions. It is so important to post these perspectives. I have yet to watch it myself. Free speech is worthless if we don't all actually engage and USE this (actually innate) freedom. Discuss, debate, research, inquire, investigate, be humble and and be willing to truly listen! These are the high level skills humanity is developing! NOT EASY!!!!! But it's beautiful to see us trying our best. ❤️❤️❤️😎😎😎
He is a Nazi apologist, sort of. He likely cut his WW2 history teeth by reading the historical literature available during the Cold War, which was heavily weighted towards the German perspective, given that they lost the war and everything German was made available to the public, while most Allied and Soviet historical documents remained classified until recently. Cooper needs to take a refresher course based on declassified Allied and Soviet documents.
Coooers response to the madness: https://open.substack.com/pub/martyrmade/p/my-response-to-the-mob?r=nl3ud&utm_medium=ios
I agree. Unfortunately Cooper is not suited to short form. Also Tucker didn’t do his job by extracting caveats and steering Cooper to flesh out what he was trying to say.
I'm more worried about TODAY's Democrat Fascists...who appear to be on the path of NAZIS Fascists of 1930's!
At least German Nazis loved their country...today's democrats has a raw hatred for America and the west.
Alex do you PREFER censorship or to hear out people who you disagree with? SHAME on you for being in the CENSORSHIP CAMP!
Was EXACTLY my 1st visceral reaction to this story. We all KNOW and see what party supports HAMAS and just who ALL these protesters in BLUE run cities or in BLUE run states, and in BLUE run public university systems are. Just how the average BLUE voter will still vote BLUE says what exactly. What will be telling is to see how the American Jewish voting bloc changes this election cycle. Over 75% of them vote BLUE. The IRONY is not lost considering what was allowed to occur in the last century and playing out in modern day. Its ALL out in the open and yet the average BLUE voter wishes to enable it to continue with their votes
Did Alex say censor him? (Answer is No.) Alex did exactly what free speech is all about about, he countered what he considered bad speech with better speech.
Nothing he wrote even substantively refutes a podcast he clearly did not listen to. This is a hit piece in a similar vein to all the ones Alex suffered for asking questions about the vaxx during Covid.
We should ask serious questions about the post war justification and propaganda on the allied side. Particularly because it has been used by the necons and the military industrial complex to justify every use of force since.
I actually argue that Germany was wrong convicted for the atrocities of WW2. We all know how propaganda works so we can be surprised that such a thriving country was made to appear evil to the world.
Here’s my analysis if anyone’s interested: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-holocaust-examined
Nazi Germany killed SIX MILLION JEWS. There’s plenty of realms of films which documents this reality. Eisenhower made sure all this was fully documented so the world would see it and never forget it, and he mandated every single German who lived near such concentration camps to walk through them and personally see the atrocities.
Hey - so as we know, during the pandemic, President Biden and the govt used a lot of propaganda, film etc — and hopefully our children will realize the propaganda vs the narrative. What I’m saying is that there is the same propaganda at play in history
the world continually forgets. just look at how western "democracies" behaved during covid and are behaving now. they've obviously forgotten
my father took some snapshots of mass graves at the camp his troupe liberated. they are in his WW2 scrapbook. i've seen them since childhood
Just asking for clarification purposes, did Alex say Tucker or the historian should be censored?
Exactly. The commenters don't like Alex's take on the podcast and immediately jump to Alex is censoring. (Not very thoughtful thinkers, it seems.) Alex is exercising his free speech right to counter Cooper's free speech.
Like, like, like...Fight, fight, fight because is you bend to today's Dems, a new holocaust in Israel is guaranteed.
Isn't it nice to have a civil debate over a guest's views? Isn't it nice to be able to hear different points of view? Hope it continues. Under Harris/Walz, I believe freedom of speech is going to be policed for content, meaning it won't be freedom of speech.
As the election grows closer, I'm seeing more and more censorship on the Internet. Even Judge Nap received a strike for an inoculous comment by a guest that took his show off of YouTube for a week. Good thing that most of the hosts that don't toe the democrat line now also can be seen on Rumble.
Seems as if Tucker likes more speech rather than less. Why don't you contact him and arrange an interview to discuss these issues. I would definitely be very interested in the back and forth, give and take.
Brilliant idea! Two great minds asking questions, probing, discussing this topic would be epic and welcome. Hope it happens.
Freedom of speech - isn't always pretty or politically correct and often includes off-color hyperbole - and doesn't exist if certain ideas and/or people are excluded...
100% More of this. Debate all of this out in the open instead of giving me 1 "approved" narrative.
I am not sure if Alex was advocating for censorship here, but I just want to say that Reality itself "operates" through inclusion. Exclusion is resistance to the very nature of Nature. Or, God. Choose your term. God/Nature/Reality. The point is that it ALL works through inclusion and allowance. Freedom. The inhabitants of a forest are free to express themselves. The forest itself is an expression. A gestalt. "It" trusts itself. To use the God word, God is allowing. Inclusive. God doesn't use an eraser, doesn't have one. Nothing is actually erased. Anything less than full freedom of speech (and assembly, etc etc) is in opposition to Reality. But we are afraid and actually terrified of trusting our very Selves. And I capped that word because our true natures are Divine and Holy and Freaking Powerful. We are Creator beings who have forgotten our true natures. We are creating our own realities. End of speech! ❤️. PS I am neither religious nor new agey. I deny both identifications. 😏😁
Agree. The only thing I think you missed is that the victors of WW1 crushed the German people and their economy, almost out of sheer spite.
Which begs the question:
Would we even have had WW2 and the associated atrocities (or Hitlers rise to power) committed if we had not punished the Germans so severely?
Perhaps I'm playing arm chair QB...but still....I don't think (and they should have) anyone involved with the Versailles Treaty thought about the obvious potential for unintended consequences.
It becomes especially messy if you consider the US only even fought in WWI because our central bankers wanted to ensure the Fed and Federal Income taxes became enshrined in the constitution so they could complete the process of fleecing the American citizens of every dollar of their labor to transfer it to the State
I'm inclined to agree with you - that WW2 may have been either significantly smaller or avoided entirely by less spiteful WW1 victors. In an attempt to completely neuter Germany, they allies went a bit too far and dug a bit too deep.
That said, I had entire chunks of my family tree wiped out in Poland both via the Holocaust (both Jewish and non-Jewish victims - the Nazis loved murdering Catholic Poles too) and through the initial German invasion in 1939 and ethnic cleansing that took place afterwards - and I refuse to give credence to any "alternative theory" that proposes that Hitler could be trusted with any peace agreement after the invasion of Poland.
Perhaps it's my familial history clouding my opinion, but, the idea that he was just a victim of a spiteful Churchill at that point, to me, is ludicrous.
I also saw an excellent thread explaining why Churchill and/or Chamberlain would have never agreed to a peace treaty with Hitler in 1940 that goes beyond the obvious mistrust-of-Hitler issues, but speaks more to a far more basic reason: England did not want a single superpower on the continent, and permitting it to exist would put England's own survival in jeopardy
https://x.com/pegobry_en/status/1831155897630081260
No it's real. I married into a Jewish family and I have heard directly from my wife's relatives their experience of oppression.
These are genuine people who have no reason to embellish or exaggerate.
On my side, if anything, they under exaggerated. They didn't want to bring up all the horrors of occupation, both during and/or after the war.
No one ever thinks about unintended consequences. If they did, they would be intended consequences now wouldn’t they? 😂🇺🇸
Don’t we go through the same charade every four years?
Yup. Exactly.
The only two laws of history is the law of unintended consequences and the enigmatic lesson that people forget history.
Your point is key!
Be careful. You sound like all those leftists that say that heterodox ideas should not be ‘platformed’… When you have been one of those heterodox idea people. You’re being a hypocrite . Tucker likes heterodox and wants to hear those ideas even if he doesn’t agree with them. That’s what journalism should be. And there is likely some truth to what was said, WW2 being put forward as a ‘good war’ has allowed an interventionist foreign policy since which had beeb disastrous for the American people but great for our ruling class.
There is no such thing as a ‘good war’.
Yes, this is his point, I think. He is anti-war first and foremost and suspicious of these "good wars." I'm sure that's where he is coming from. But at any rate, because people don't like one guest is no reason to cancel Tucker.
So I agree with your takes on the majority of you article here. That being said- I haven't listened to the Tucker interview, and probably won't, although I like Tucker a lot.
My observations about your post-
1. You're upset that he's playing "footsie" with a Nazi apologist. I thought that free speech is what you are fighting the government about? I'm fine with you disagreeing with his logic or viewpoints, but it seems hypocritical to criticize the interview.
2. Do we know that Tucker fully agreed with him, or was just having a conversation?
3. What if Tucker comes out later and gives an explanation that separates the antisemitic parts of this, with the need to end our Ukraine support?
Btw- thank you for writing this. We don't always agree, but I'm glad you make me think.
You should listen to the podcast, because the popular framing of it is on par with the "very fine people" hoax.
Thanks!
I listened to it and found nothing antisemitic about it. What is an anti-Semite anyway? Aren't the Palestinians the true Semites, while most of the Ashkenazi Jews have white skin and immigrated to Israel from Europe after WWII? (note the last 4 letters Ash...)
How can you agree to his takes if you haven’t listened to the podcast in its entirety??? Same question for Alex’s takes…
you should listen to the interview. there were no nazi apologies in it. see for yourself
Nazi sympathizer? Alex, please stop copying and pasting Bari's drunken essays. Your credibility should be your biggest concern after investing 2-3 minutes in that garbage. This is why intelligent people are wondering what may actually be happening in Gaza when the slightest inclusion of anything not in lockstep (NAZI pun intended) with Israel is mentioned. I support Israel. I support Israel less, and suspect your motives more, after reading this piece from you.
Free speech is a crazy messy thing ain’t it?
I don't know anything about Darryl Cooper and I haven't listened to the podcast but my first reaction was to see the irony in you writing an article that could easily have been written about you and Tucker during the Covid peak (and probably was many times). C'mon, Tucker! Playing footsie with Alex Berenson, really?! It's certainly possible (maybe even beneficial) that Tucker is going to cross a line trying to come to grips with his newfound perspective on the US war machine but either way, I generally trust his intentions. In 2024, I am more concerned about Alex Berenson weighing in on who Tucker Carlson should be "associating" with than I am about Tucker having someone on that I don't agree with. I respect your right to disagree with Tucker or with Darryl Cooper but when you jump on the "playing footsie" train you're getting dangerously close to that pro censorship line.
The historical revisionists have correctly pointed out that all the nations involved in WWII committed significant atrocities. That fact is a hard pill for the "my country right or wrong" crowd to swallow. The Ukraine war is objectionable because it cannot be won, it exposes the USA to significant danger of nuclear war, and it has been devastating for Ukraine, the supposed beneficiary of our policy. Ending our current policy would be more like sanity than isolationism.
I agree Alex and with most of your post but disagree that Allied acts against civilians were necessarily "atrocities." The use of the A-bomb against Japan saved US and Japanese lives. I'm not as certain about the bombing of Dresden and other German cities, but Churchill saved England and Europe from Nazi domination by rallying the Brits, who fought valiantly with plenty of US and USSR help. Chamberlain proved that Hitler could not be trusted not to break treaties, and the idea that Churchill could have negotiated a lasting peace is risible.
40 million people died in WWll. People should have done anything to avoid it.
Spot on. The idea of WW2 as a ‘good war’ has justified a disastrous interventionist foreign policy by America. It is not our job to right the wrongs of the world. It’s also important to know that America didn’t go into WW2 to ‘free the jews’. Most Americans had zero idea it was going on and wouldn’t have sent their sons to die for this cause in 1940… nor would they today.
We didn’t send our military to stop Pol Pot either.
The idea that we go to war for ‘moral’ reasons is idiotic.
Nor did Lincoln invade the South to bring an end to slavery. He said so himself. Everything we learned in school about the Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression is wrong.
The trauma from any war is unfathomable. But WW2 seems to be a special case where the trauma to the mass human psyche is especially unfathomable and incredibly affecting. In so many ways, it really fucked us up very deeply. I believe the secrets and lies and propaganda about every aspect of the war (causes, events, leaders etc) are like a thick wall we are just now starting to peek through. I honor all honest discussion about this horrific war.
Oh Lordy Alex...
I guess you'll have to ask Tucker as to his thinking in this regard... myself, I suspect when he came to the realization some years ago that Government lies, constantly, he remains in an exploratory mode in both examining the false beliefs he had for so long living in DC and his revelations more recently. I feel his pain as I myself have been on the same path for some 5-7 years now.
The Feds have been lying forever... it didn't just start in 2016. The problem is that the Government has become so huge that now with their lies they can do truly serious damage to the economy, society, culture and as you know personally individuals. Exploring what they have lied about historically is a perfectly logical path to go down. I would encourage him to open up the books on the creation of the Fed in 1913 and the Depression that followed. There has been a whole lot of lying going on about that period.
I'm going to put this one from Alex Berenson in the "uninspired opinion piece heavily shrouded by personal biases" bin. You are capable of much better Alex and you should have gone with your initial instinct of not going there.
I'll look forward to your next insightful piece of journalism.
@Alex Berenson - Did you listen to all of it? I think it's important for people reading (and supporting you) to know if you actually listened to the entire interview...
I love(d?) Tucker but totally agree.