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

[Markk]

Yes, Morley, that's what I was referring to. I don't recall the statement conceding he isn't a WW2 expert. I commend him for recognizing that. I would suggest caution when bragging about one's knowledge unless one can really back it up. I do get it though, that he read a lot of books a long time ago, he got sucked into right-wing politics, and everything since then became about that rather than real knowledge.

I had a teacher in high school with this take on learning:

unconsciously incompetent
consciously incompetent
consciously competent
unconsciously competent

Trite, but, I think there is a point. It's the unconsciously incompetent apologist who can't hide the urge to pee their pants. "Jim Jones was a liberal! Nobody knows about it except Cooper!" even though it's in paragraph 2 of the wiki article.

After butting up against facts; getting owned a few times, you're supposed to transition to the next rung. Weirdly, it's like a feature of right-wingers that this never happens. But, it could happen, and it does happen if a person is seriously interested in improving. Even an apologist for evil can become a better apologist for evil by learning the hard lessons. Instead of coming right out and saying that civil rights are the fruit of cult leaders and we all need to serve Donald Trump in whatever he commands, you're supposed to find some interesting factoid about Jim Jones not a lot of people may know about, that deeply couches the accusation a person wants to get to, and then hope the audience doesn't see the plan for fool's mate.

Lol, so you are basing what you said, because I said that WW2 may be written about more than any other subject than religion....

That makes me a "buff". Lol...You are just lying more now. But hey just fall back on the ad homs.

[Chap]

Markk for the pro-German, Hitler, and Trump position, and Gad for the pro-Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin position. You might say that the pro-Hitler and Trump position has won, and America is dwindling.

LOL, you do understand that Stalin is responsible for more deaths than Hitler, maybe twice as many. I doubt if Gad would appreciate that.

Stalin was a ruthless dictator. Many Soviet citizens died as a result of his repressive political policies before and after WW2, some by starvation or forced labour, or both, and some by execution. Perhaps the worst thing he did to the Soviet Union, however, was his refusal to believe that Hitler was about to break the non-aggression pact that his Foreign Minister Molotov had signed with the German minister Ribbentrop, and launch operation Barbarossa in June 1941. British attempts to warn him were dismissed as 'imperialist provocation', good generals were purged, no defence preparations were made, and as a result the German attack was at first met with little resistance, and large numbers of civilians and military died.

Having said that, I take it that there is no dispute that the British government was right to welcome the Soviet Union as an ally against Hitler as soon as Hitler's perfidy became clear to the Soviets. And certainly the US had no problem about joining the alliance with Stalin when it in turn was forced to take part in WW2 in December 1941.

In term of historical comparison, it is worth noting that under Stalin it was not only dangerous to criticise him in any way, but also dangerous not to express adulation with sufficient enthusiasm. The story goes that in a small Russian town, a meeting was organised by the town council to express support for Comrade Stalin's policies. At the end of the meeting, the 'spontaneous standing ovation' had gone on for (say) twenty minutes when the mayor noticed that some elderly members of the public were showing signs of fatigue and distress. He therefore stopped applauding and sat down, and the meeting dispersed. Shortly afterwards he was arrested by the secret police.

How fortunate we are that there are no leaders of western countries who demand constant expressions of unqualified admiration and praise! If there were, where might it all eventually lead us to?

[canpakes]

LOL, you do understand that Stalin is responsible for more deaths than Hitler, maybe twice as many. I doubt if Gad would appreciate that.

Maybe Cooper can come up with an excuse for that.

OK, just joshin’ with you, Markk : )

[Markk]

Gad: I didn't initially follow the interaction with Marcus, it looks like Markk found the letter Marcus referenced. Even without the context that starvation was a high level plan for the Nazis, which they tried elsewhere also, not just the Soviet Union, Cooper abuses the letter to intone a humanitarian agenda. It apparently went right over Markk's head that the officer confined his sentiments of a "quick death" to those incapable of working during the winter. It sounds like they would have enough food for those who could work. He also uses the word "pleasant" not "humane". Not that it would make much difference if they did. Speaking in terms that give deniability is a pretty obvious strategy. I'm just pointing out the official's letter wasn't even trying for deniability. There is no way to misread the letter in a positive light.

Lol....Gad, The intent of the letter, in in the title of it " Re.: Solution of the Jewish Question"

It was written after a political SS officer after having several meetings with "Reichsstatthalterei, " who are basically appointed governors over the defeated areas. These Reichsstatthalterei were very powerful men and leaders.

The letter continues.... "During meetings at the Reichsstatthalterei, the issue of the Jewish question in the Reichsgau Wartheland was brought up by various parties. The following solution is proposed there: "

Gad, Höppner was writing Berlin with proposals in regard to the Jewish solution; he was asking Eichmann for his opinions and I suppose direction.

And he uses both the words Humane and pleasant in context.


4. There is a danger this winter that the Jews may not all be able to be fed. It is seriously worth considering whether the most humane solution is not to eliminate the Jews, as far as they are not capable of working, by some quick-acting agent. In any case, this would be more pleasant than letting them starve.


You are correct in one thing here, there is no way to misread this letter in a positive light, and I am not sure who was. But what I am sure of is that you have not read the memo for any context in regard to what Cooper said. Cooper said clearly that the Germans were not "prepared," and this letter shows what we have been discussing, that there was not a clear plan; in so much that the governors in charge of the camps,who Cooper called commandants, were making suggestions and asking advice from Hoppner, who in turn wrote Eichmann in Berlin.

In this light, this is what Cooper said....

So its two months after, a month or two after Barbarossa was launched, and theyre writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, we can't feed these people.

00:49:42
We don't have the food to feed these people. And one of them actually says, rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn't it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now? ..." but at the end of the day, you launched that war with no plan to care for the millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war that were going to come under your control, and millions of people died because of that. You can look at it and say, well, yeah. ..."

Gad, we have the letter, we have the transcript....trying to force your skewed interpretations into this shows you have either not read the letter, or the transcript, or are just too proud, I guess, to be objective and concede what the history actually shows.

If they had a plan Gad, why were the governors of those in charge of these people, giving suggestions, and asking for a plan? I have shown a number of different plans for the Jewish question and the war, and it clearly shows it as a evolution, based on being reactionary, and not a concrete proactive specific plan for the war. Hitler was WW1 corporal, planning and administrating a World War, while not taking the advice of his generals kind of says it all.

[canpakes]

“There is a danger this winter that the Jews may not all be able to be fed. It is seriously worth considering whether the most humane solution is not to eliminate the Jews, as far as they are not capable of working, by some quick-acting agent. In any case, this would be more pleasant than letting them starve.”

You are correct in one thing here, there is no way to misread this letter in a positive light, …

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?

[Markk]

LOL, you do understand that Stalin is responsible for more deaths than Hitler, maybe twice as many. I doubt if Gad would appreciate that.

Stalin was a ruthless dictator. Many Soviet citizens died as a result of his repressive political policies before and after WW2, some by starvation or forced labour, or both, and some by execution. Perhaps the worst thing he did to the Soviet Union, however, was his refusal to believe that Hitler was about to break the non-aggression pact that his Foreign Minister Molotov had signed with the German minister Ribbentrop, and launch operation Barbarossa in June 1941. British attempts to warn him were dismissed as 'imperialist provocation', good generals were purged, no defence preparations were made, and as a result the German attack was at first met with little resistance, and large numbers of civilians and military died.

Having said that, I take it that there is no dispute that the British government was right to welcome the Soviet Union as an ally against Hitler as soon as Hitler's perfidy became clear to the Soviets. And certainly the US had no problem about joining the alliance with Stalin when it in turn was forced to take part in WW2 in December 1941.

In term of historical comparison, it is worth noting that under Stalin it was not only dangerous to criticise him in any way, but also dangerous not to express adulation with sufficient enthusiasm. The story goes that in a small Russian town, a meeting was organised by the town council to express support for Comrade Stalin's policies. At the end of the meeting, the 'spontaneous standing ovation' had gone on for (say) twenty minutes when the mayor noticed that some elderly members of the public were showing signs of fatigue and distress. He therefore stopped applauding and sat down, and the meeting dispersed. Shortly afterwards he was arrested by the secret police.

How fortunate we are that there are no leaders of western countries who demand constant expressions of unqualified admiration and praise! If there were, where might it all eventually lead us to?

Churchill and Roosevelt knew, without doubt, what Stalin had done to the peasants and his military and anything remotely a threat. What he did to the religious leaders are unspeakable. He had zero regard for human life, no matter who.

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

World politics is dirty business and in this case it was a Godfather scenario...."keep your friend close but your enemies closer."

[Markk]

You are correct in one thing here, there is no way to misread this letter in a positive light, …

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?

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

[Marcus]

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? ...

What "journalists" "wrote lies about Copper"?
(I assume you mean Daryl and not the metal.)

The only thing close to journalists in this thread that I've read is the press release:

Yad Vashem Chairman Dani Dayan remarked:

"Tucker Carlson and his guest Darryl Cooper engaged in one of the most repugnant forms of Holocaust denial of recent years. These far-fetched conspiracy theories are not only dangerous and malevolent, they are antisemitic."

Cooper attempts to prove his mistaken point by quoting a letter supposedly from a German Wehrmacht officer, where he indicates that the murder of civilians and POWS in the USSR was out of “humane” concerns due to insufficient food supplies. This, too, is patently false. In reality, the letter by SS officer Rolf-Heinz Höppner on 16 July 1941, advocated for the murder of all the Jews in the western region of occupied Poland, called by the Nazis the Warthegau. Misrepresenting this as anything but intentional mass murder distorts history and downplays the Nazis responsibility for the Holocaust and for their other crimes.

Head of Yad Vashem's International Institute for Holocaust Research Prof. Dan Michman states:

"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

What about that statement constitutes "lies" about Cooper?

[Gadianton]

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.

[Markk]

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? ...

What "journalists" "wrote lies about Copper"?
(I assume you mean Daryl and not the metal.)

The only thing close to journalists in this thread that I've read is the press release:

Yad Vashem Chairman Dani Dayan remarked:

"Tucker Carlson and his guest Darryl Cooper engaged in one of the most repugnant forms of Holocaust denial of recent years. These far-fetched conspiracy theories are not only dangerous and malevolent, they are antisemitic."

Cooper attempts to prove his mistaken point by quoting a letter supposedly from a German Wehrmacht officer, where he indicates that the murder of civilians and POWS in the USSR was out of “humane” concerns due to insufficient food supplies. This, too, is patently false. In reality, the letter by SS officer Rolf-Heinz Höppner on 16 July 1941, advocated for the murder of all the Jews in the western region of occupied Poland, called by the Nazis the Warthegau. Misrepresenting this as anything but intentional mass murder distorts history and downplays the Nazis responsibility for the Holocaust and for their other crimes.

Head of Yad Vashem's International Institute for Holocaust Research Prof. Dan Michman states:

"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

What about that statement constitutes "lies" about Cooper?

The ones that called him a Nazi apologists....I suggest you read the OP link.

In regard to the link and quote you pasted. For one, it did not link the letter, it took me some time to find it. It did not say that the memo was a question, to Eichmann regarding the Jewish question that asked question and shared solution for several different ways to deal with the question.

The editorial comment called Cooper and Tucker were denying the Holocaust.... which is a blatant lie. Cooper was specifically talking about Barbarossa and how Germany was not prepared.....which is factual history.

They did not even mention the Holocaust in the 2 hour plus interview, it was not the topic.

It was a total smear attempt and a lie, especially of omission.