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

[Markk]

We, the US chose the other mass murderer to "partner" with against fascism. You conceded Stalin was a mass murderer.....

Unless you think we should have chosen Hitler, this means nothing. This is more moral equivalency BS.

edit: Maybe you think that when Germany declared war on the US, we should have gone to war with Russia instead? Or perhaps we should have gone to war with both Russia and Germany? Oh, and Japan and Italy?

Lol, come on Morley....I am telling you the history. What you think, or what I think, or what anyone's personal opinion is, does not matter. You are basically arguing against a history book.

The context to what I wrote is in regard to Finland having to choose between two evils for their survival. And what we chose to do, in regard to becoming allies with Stalin and his murderous regimen; to better fight against Hitler, who had declared war on us and had attacked our close friendly nations.

I am not saying anything about what we should have done, or asking you what you think we should have done....I am simply telling you what we did do.

[Morley]

Unless you think we should have chosen Hitler, this means nothing. This is more moral equivalency BS.

edit: Maybe you think that when Germany declared war on the US, we should have gone to war with Russia instead? Or perhaps we should have gone to war with both Russia and Germany? Oh, and Japan and Italy?

Lol, come on Morley....I am telling you the history. What you think, or what I think, or what anyone's personal opinion is, does not matter. You are basically arguing against a history book.

1. How the hell am I arguing against a history book? Where am I disputing history?
2. Of course opinions matter. The idea that opinions don't matter is ridiculous. Or do you think that either the study or discussion of history is nothing more than a recitation of facts?
3. You write as if you believe that you're revealing some hidden truth about Stalin that no one has considered.

The context to what I wrote is in regard to Finland having to choose between two evils for their survival. And what we chose to do, in regard to becoming allies with Stalin and his murderous regimen; to better fight against Hitler, who had declared war on us and had attacked our close friendly nations.

I am not saying anything about what we should have done, or asking you what you think we should have done....I am simply telling you what we did do.

No one was pushing back on the idea that Finland had to chose between two evils. The idea that Finland had good reasons for joining Germany in WWII was not news to anyone but (perhaps) you.

I stand by what I said in reply to this:

We, the US chose the other mass murderer to "partner" with against fascism. You conceded Stalin was a mass murderer.....

Again, unless you think we should have chosen Hitler, this means absolutely nothing. It is more moral equivalency BS.

[Morley]

I gonna post this again for you, Markk. I'd be interested in a reply.

Their logic, which you were opining to, is that if one brings up a truth against the Nazis or Hitler, that is not tied up with the accepted bow, then that person is a Nazi apologist....which folks here have done with Cooper, and myself.

(Ellipsis in the original.)

I keep trying to find this out, Markk, but can’t get a straight answer:

What truth —that’s not “tied up with the accepted bow” — is Cooper advancing?

In the things he says that you accept, I don’t see that he’s presenting anything different from the mainstream. The reason that folks call Cooper a Nazi apologist is because he says dumbass things like that Churchill was the villain of WWII. But that’s not the truth you’re referring to—because you don’t agree with that.

When I asked this earlier, you finally acknowledged that Cooper had nothing unique to contribute. Now you seem to be saying that he (and you) have some special truth that others are not willing to accept.

For a while, you said this truth was that Cooper said the Nazis were unprepared and people here disagreed. When I asked you to show me who it was who claimed that the Nazis were not unprepared, you couldn't name anyone. So it’s not that.

Again, what is Cooper’s truth that nobody here but you accepts--the one that gets you both called Nazi apologists? Please lay it out for everyone.

[Markk]

Lol, come on Morley....I am telling you the history. What you think, or what I think, or what anyone's personal opinion is, does not matter. You are basically arguing against a history book.

1. How the hell am I arguing against a history book? Where am I disputing history?
2. Of course opinions matter. The idea that opinions don't matter is ridiculous. Or do you think that either the study or discussion of history is nothing more than a recitation of facts?
3. You write as if you believe that you're revealing some hidden truth about Stalin that no one has considered.

The context to what I wrote is in regard to Finland having to chose between two evils for their survival. And what we chose to do, in regard to becoming allies with Stalin and his murderous regimen; to better fight against Hitler, who had declared war on us and had attacked our close friendly nations.

I am not saying anything about what we should have done, or asking you what you think we should have done....I am simply telling you what we did do.

No one was pushing back on the idea that Finland had to chose between two evils. The idea that Finland had good reasons for joining Germany in WWII was not news to anyone but (perhaps) you.

I stand by what I said in reply to this:

We, the US chose the other mass murderer to "partner" with against fascism. You conceded Stalin was a mass murderer.....

Again, unless you think we should have chosen Hitler, this means absolutely nothing. It is more moral equivalency BS.

1. By ignoring the context of what i wrote and making it about me other than the history.
2. Opinion does not matter over more that obvious facts....you can have the opinion on whether or not Van Gogh was a "good" artist, but it is fruitless to argue whether or not he was a artist or not. likewise to argue that the US did not partner with a the murderer Stalin, is equally fruitless. All I did is tell that truth and you got butthurt.
3. No I'm not, I am simply pointing out factual history that you do not want to accept and make it about me for some reason, my guess is that you do not want to discuss the history objectively, but just defend an argument that you have lost long ago.

No one was pushing back on the idea that Finland had to chose between two evils. The idea that Finland had good reasons for joining Germany in WWII was not news to anyone but (perhaps) you.

Lol....then why are you getting butt hurt and asserting nonsense about me saying things like, "Maybe you think that when Germany declared war on the US, we should have gone to war with Russia instead? Or perhaps we should have gone to war with both Russia and Germany? Oh, and Japan and Italy?"

And I doubt you knew the history behind Finland and WW2 politics, before this thread.....the very most of people in this world would have no idea, or folks on this board. The Winter War and the history of the two border countries is not exactly widely studied history.

I stand by what I said in reply to this:

We, the US chose the other mass murderer to "partner" with against fascism. You conceded Stalin was a mass murderer.....

Again, unless you think we should have chosen Hitler, this means absolutely nothing. It is more moral equivalency BS.

LOl You can stand by that all you want, but it makes no sense in that you are not following the context that it was written, to a person that was ranting something about the KKK and accusing me of making excuses about Hitler because they are married to the narrow minded views. As you are now falling into.

[Markk]

I gonna post this again for you, Markk. I'd be interested in a reply.

Their logic, which you were opining to, is that if one brings up a truth against the Nazis or Hitler, that is not tied up with the accepted bow, then that person is a Nazi apologist....which folks here have done with Cooper, and myself.

(Ellipsis in the original.)

I keep trying to find this out, Markk, but can’t get a straight answer:

What truth —that’s not “tied up with the accepted bow” — is Cooper advancing?

In the things he says that you accept, I don’t see that he’s presenting anything different from the mainstream. The reason that folks call Cooper a Nazi apologist is because he says dumbass things like that Churchill was the villain of WWII. But that’s not the truth you’re referring to—because you don’t agree with that.

When I asked this earlier, you finally acknowledged that Cooper had nothing unique to contribute. Now you seem to be saying that he (and you) have some special truth that others are not willing to accept.

For a while, you said this truth was that Cooper said the Nazis were unprepared and people here disagreed. When I asked you to show me who it was who claimed that the Nazis were not unprepared, you couldn't name anyone. So it’s not that.

Again, what is Cooper’s truth that nobody here but you accepts--the one that gets you both called Nazi apologists? Please lay it out for everyone.

Go back and read my conversations with Gad, and others, including yourself....

Morley: Seriously?

In his Tucker Carlson interview, Cooper describes the Nazis as having “…gone in with no plan for [handling prisoners]… millions ended up dead there… we don’t have the food to feed these people… 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?’ “

He presents this as the motivation behind resorting to gas chambers. Gassing the Jews was more humane than letting them starve.

That you buy this stuff is incredible, Markk.

Follow the thread....

You’re right to correct me. The Nazi plans for dealing with the Jews evolved over time, becoming more and more radicalized as the war progressed. However, none of their plans had anything to do with being humane, as Cooper suggested. Gassing someone is not a humane solution to the problem of shooting them. viewtopic.php?p=2897851#p2897851

[Morley]

I gonna post this again for you, Markk. I'd be interested in a reply.

(Ellipsis in the original.)

I keep trying to find this out, Markk, but can’t get a straight answer:

What truth —that’s not “tied up with the accepted bow” — is Cooper advancing?

In the things he says that you accept, I don’t see that he’s presenting anything different from the mainstream. The reason that folks call Cooper a Nazi apologist is because he says dumbass things like that Churchill was the villain of WWII. But that’s not the truth you’re referring to—because you don’t agree with that.

When I asked this earlier, you finally acknowledged that Cooper had nothing unique to contribute. Now you seem to be saying that he (and you) have some special truth that others are not willing to accept.

For a while, you said this truth was that Cooper said the Nazis were unprepared and people here disagreed. When I asked you to show me who it was who claimed that the Nazis were not unprepared, you couldn't name anyone. So it’s not that.

Again, what is Cooper’s truth that nobody here but you accepts--the one that gets you both called Nazi apologists? Please lay it out for everyone.

Go back and read my conversations with Gad, and others, including yourself....

Morley: Seriously?

In his Tucker Carlson interview, Cooper describes the Nazis as having “…gone in with no plan for [handling prisoners]… millions ended up dead there… we don’t have the food to feed these people… 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?’ “

He presents this as the motivation behind resorting to gas chambers. Gassing the Jews was more humane than letting them starve.

That you buy this stuff is incredible, Markk.

Follow the thread....

You’re right to correct me. The Nazi plans for dealing with the Jews evolved over time, becoming more and more radicalized as the war progressed. However, none of their plans had anything to do with being humane, as Cooper suggested. Gassing someone is not a humane solution to the problem of shooting them. viewtopic.php?p=2897851#p2897851

Yeah, I have. Though you kvetch that you, Cooper, and Tucker are misunderstood and vilified, you've yet to say why, how, or when.

You've yet to explain what contribution Cooper makes to the historical narrative.

[Gadianton]

Again, what is Cooper’s truth that nobody here but you accepts--the one that gets you both called Nazi apologists? Please lay it out for everyone.

Go back and read my conversations with Gad, and others, including yourself....

Morley, I recommend that you do not follow Markk's advice and read my conversation with him in this thread. The Cooper quote provided by somebody (eh hum) had missed the first part about "going into the east" and so Markk and I were way out of context. I was arguing as if Cooper were speaking of the war in general, and in particular, concentration camps within Germany itself. Markk was totally on the same page, misrepresenting Cooper, even talking about the "six camps". Cooper made no sense in that context, but Markk couldn't see that, and extended Cooper's reasoning to the entire war with his trademark doe-eyed enthusiasm for right-wing nonsense.

After I listened again and realized my mistake, I watched this SLICE documentary (it happened to be recommended around that time, I was not pursuing it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34fpZqYLfXw

Cooper's comments made much more sense after watching that, but it did not help the argument he is making. For one, the taking of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers as easy prisoners (which the documentary illuminates) has nothing to do with the Jewish camps, segregation and extermination experiments inside of Russia. Focusing on this one mere point: inability to feed vast armies captured is not connected to the daily operations of camps for Jewish civilians ran as experiments in slave labor. There was no apparent shortage of food for the Jewish camp, only the suggestion that there "might not be enough food" for those who aren't able to work, come winter. There is no indication that the officer's comment is anything but rhetorical, "can't work? Why should we waste food then?" Imagine if the Nazis had only captured a fraction of the Russian soldiers that they did. Are we to believe that suddenly there would be an abundance of food available for the Jewish labor camps? Such that we'd never have heard of the possibility of Jewish slaves starving? This, when the Nazis had pre-meditated plans for conquering vast territories through starvation? Give me a break! his brief comments are a string of non-sequiturs that illuminate nothing about anything except for his own motives.

[Morley]

And I doubt you knew the history behind Finland and WW2 politics, before this thread.....the very most of people in this world would have no idea, or folks on this board. The Winter War and the history of the two border countries is not exactly widely studied history.

Ha! You have those doubts, do you? Wow. What are these doubts based on?

I speak Swedish. Like Huck, my grandfather was an immigrant from Sweden and another great-grandfather came from Denmark. The Nordic peoples are my ancestors. I've driven through those countries. I've been to the bunkers in northern Sweden where the lines of defense against Russia still stand. I've been to Finland and heard the saying that "it's not if Russia will invade, but when Russia will invade." I've visited the Oslo City Hall where there are still murals against Quisling and the Nazis. Nordic fear of both Germany and Russia are very real. The short-lived Swedish aspirations of empire when Gustavus Adolphus took pieces of Russia and Germany continue to generate consequences. Yeah, please, go ahead and doubt that I know any of the history of this area. Doubt that anyone knows anything as well as you do.

I think this is a pretty good summary of your purpose in this thread. You're sure that nobody knows the history as well as you do. Everyone here is stumbling around in the dark, while Markk, Cooper, and Tucker are tutoring us. We give opinions while you provide facts. You can't believe that anyone has read as widely as you or thought as deeply as you--because that's obviously not possible. We are all wearing blinkers of liberal bias that can only be corrected by you, Tucker, and Darryl.

You won't say what unique thoughts you, Tucker, and Darryl have to contribute, but you're certain that this is must be true. Because liberals.

[Marcus]

The Cooper quote provided by somebody (eh hum) had missed the first part about "going into the east" and so Markk and I were way out of context. I was arguing as if Cooper were speaking of the war in general, and in particular, concentration camps within Germany itself. Markk was totally on the same page, misrepresenting Cooper, even talking about the "six camps". Cooper made no sense in that context, but Markk couldn't see that, and extended Cooper's reasoning to the entire war with his trademark doe-eyed enthusiasm for right-wing nonsense.

Lol. Just to clarify, the Cooper quote was a quote of just the part in the transcript. I quoted a holocaust memorial press release that referred to just the words Cooper stated from the letter, and the press release explained his incorrect interpretation of that section.

I also read the letter in question, and there was much more to it, but the holocaust memorial press release only discussed how incorrect his snippet of an interpretation was.

That assessment of Cooper's misinterpretation was borne out even more as you guys went further and further into the details of the letter.

Bottom line, in my opinion, any way you look at it, Cooper's discussion of the letter was shallow and self-serving, and I agree with the assessment that minimizing what Nazis did, (IN ANY WAY, Markk), is a form of holocaust denial.

[Chap]

Yeah, please, go ahead and doubt that I know any of the history of this area. Doubt that anyone knows anything as well as you do.

I think this is a pretty good summary of your purpose in this thread. You're sure that nobody knows the history as well as you do. Everyone here is stumbling around in the dark, while Markk, Cooper, and Tucker are tutoring us. We give opinions while you provide facts. You can't believe that anyone has read as widely as you or thought as deeply as you--because that's obviously not possible. We are all wearing blinkers of liberal bias that can only be corrected by you, Tucker, and Darryl.

You won't say what unique thoughts you, Tucker, and Darryl have to contribute, but you're certain that this is must be true. Because liberals.

That's about it. He has no idea how historians actually work, and has had no historical training. He loves reading 'war books', and if he finds some guy somewhere who says in a video or a podcast that everybody else who has studied WWII over the last eighty years has had things upside down, he starts jumping up and down like a little girl in a school playground chanting "I know a secret!" It doesn't occur to him that the guy in question may just be a publicity-seeking amateur, whose opinions aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit, which appears to be the case with Cooper.