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

[canpakes]

But anyways it appears you are starting to see, and soften, that what Cooper spoke about is within reason and within the pale.

No. There had been no change in my opinion on Jewish chances for survival in the war, and no change in my conclusion regarding Cooper’s erroneous and dangerous Sad Nazi narrative. Nothing you’re offering supports a change.

[Markk]

Cakes: Strange that you say that I ‘jumped on this’ when my initial remark referring to the interview did not make an untrue or outlandish claim. And as you can read from the transcript, it reflects Cooper’s comments.

I still believe that his narrative about an ‘accidental holocaust’ initiated by concerned ‘Sad Nazis’ bemoaning the hunger of their prisoners and wanting to kill them for ‘humane’ reasons is both erroneous and dangerous. And Cooper’s take on Churchill (his ‘chief villain’ narrative, continuing for several minutes after the ‘humane’ remark) seems to disregard several other major factors and players in favor of focusing nearly completely on Churchill’s supposed deficiencies.

This is your first post....where you jumped in.

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

Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

1. was just a ignorant uncoherent question, and why I did not respond until Morley asked me too.

2. I did not answer this in that Cooper made a lot of claims, some i agreed with, others I did not.

You jumped into this thread not understanding the flow of it, and it was obvious you didn't listen to the podcast. I will add after you found the transcript, you did not read it, at least with any comprehension, in that you did not even understand that he was discussing Barbarossa, and not the invasion of Poland and the Jewish ghettos across Poland. You pasted the article in my OP, without testing it.

Where did Copper say or imply an accidental Holocaust.....you have the transcript...CFR please.

Where did he say "sad Nazis" ....why is telling this history dangerous, it is in books and websites all over net....it is history?

You got caught with your pants down and instead of just admitting you where discussing something others were not in context, you tried to force your out of context thoughts into a conversation where it did not belong. I can only suggest you don't dlb. down on that again, but it seems that may be too late.

In regard to his Churchill comment read what I wrote in the OP, and throughout the thread.

[Markk]

But anyways it appears you are starting to see, and soften, that what Cooper spoke about is within reason and within the pale.

No. There had been no change in my opinion on Jewish chances for survival in the war, and no change in my conclusion regarding Cooper’s erroneous and dangerous Sad Nazi narrative. Nothing you’re offering supports a change.

Lol. I'll what for you to point to his sad Nazi narrative, you can cut and paste it from the transcript. I thought he was quoting a Nazi?

If your opinion all along was that the chances for Jewish chances for survival, please break that down like you asked me to do, and I did. I think we would agree on a lot of that. But there is a lot to the evolution to the Final Solution that helps us understand the history and to help avoid such things in the future.

I've given you my opinions and whys, and the ebb and flow of the Jewish Question in the ten years of Hitlers run, give me yours....

[Gadianton]

although Markk is busy getting his ass handed to him by Canpakes, let me just remind Mark that line number 1:

when they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth,

is false. there were no millions and millions of prisoners, Jewish or otherwise, at any time.

(this is important because in the Cooper/Markk simplistic model that is also a misrepresentation, there were never millions of people getting fed that suddenly, could not be fed anymore because food was running low)

[canpakes]

Cakes: Strange that you say that I ‘jumped on this’ when my initial remark referring to the interview did not make an untrue or outlandish claim. And as you can read from the transcript, it reflects Cooper’s comments.

I still believe that his narrative about an ‘accidental holocaust’ initiated by concerned ‘Sad Nazis’ bemoaning the hunger of their prisoners and wanting to kill them for ‘humane’ reasons is both erroneous and dangerous. And Cooper’s take on Churchill (his ‘chief villain’ narrative, continuing for several minutes after the ‘humane’ remark) seems to disregard several other major factors and players in favor of focusing nearly completely on Churchill’s supposed deficiencies.

This is your first post....where you jumped in.

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

Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

1. was just a ignorant uncoherent question, and why I did not respond until Morley asked me too.

2. I did not answer this in that Cooper made a lot of claims, some i agreed with, others I did not.

Markk, I’m directly quoting you in that post, as well as paraphrasing Cooper. If anything is ignorant and ‘uncoherent’ (irony noted) then you have only yourself and Cooper to blame.

Be nicer to yourself. It’s a Sunday.

You jumped into this thread not understanding the flow of it, and it was obvious you didn't listen to the podcast.

Try again. You created this thread by taking a comment I had made in another thread and using it as your lead post here, and addressed me while doing so.

Do you invite people over to BBQs and then accuse them of storming (stormtroopering? Is it too soon?) into your house uninvited?

And I had already read the transcript. I’m the one who directed you to that transcript. You asked for the link. : D

I will add after you found the transcript, you did not read it, at least with any comprehension, in that you did not even understand that he was discussing Barbarossa, and not the invasion of Poland and the Jewish ghettos across Poland. You pasted the article in my OP, without testing it.

I like how you believe that a person can quote a transcript and refer to passages running more than 10 minutes in length without reading it. I also like how you think that your reading (or listening) comprehension issues are someone else’s fault.

Where did Copper say or imply an accidental Holocaust.....you have the transcript...CFR please.

Where did he say "sad Nazis" ....why is telling this history dangerous, it is in books and websites all over net....it is history?

So, the Nazis were happy to ‘humanely’ kill the Jews? Happy Nazis, then?

Do you know what you want to say at this point, or are you just throwing another tantrum?

You got caught with your pants down and instead of just admitting you where discussing something others were not in context, you tried to force your out of context thoughts into a conversation where it did not belong. I can only suggest you don't dlb. down on that again, but it seems that may be too late.

And it’s mazing how I did all that by quoting you.

In regard to his Churchill comment read what I wrote in the OP, and throughout the thread.

I’ve already read it, but it doesn’t matter what opinion you’ve offered on Churchill considering that I haven’t asked you your opinion on Churchill. My comments, where they concern Cooper’s statements on Churchill, are about Cooper’s statements on Churchill.

I hope that’s explicit enough for you. : D

[Markk]

Cakes: Markk, I’m directly quoting you in that post, as well as paraphrasing Cooper. If anything is ignorant and ‘uncoherent’ (irony noted) then you have only yourself and Cooper to blame

No, you are taking what I said out of context and putting it is your own context....you can clearly see it here.

Markk: Was Cooper incorrect? Are you saying that in 1939, after the swift defeat of , that Germany was ready for the handling and extermination of 3 million Jews?

The factual history has nothing to do with Neo-Nazi rhetoric in my world, maybe it does with you, but I doubt that. Trying force a factual history into a sick ideology of Neo-Nazis does not make for a logical argument.

Morley, was Germany ready, with just six camps, which were built for political prisoners, to deal with the extermination of 3 million Jews? The answer to that question is no, they just weren't.

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

In 1942 they were still discussing this given the number of Jews that they wanted to murder, some 11 million. There what was called the Wannsee Conference, called by maybe the most ruthless Nazi of all....Reinhard Heydrich. On a side note he got his own a few months later when he was assassinated by two Czechs trained for the mission, it is a great story.

But anyways, Cooper was in no way spouting or hinting at Neo-Nazi rhetoric, it is just a false and a stretch of a comparison.

I am going to go out on a limb, and I can't prove it, and I might be wrong, but the only reason this was made "news," is because it involved Tucker Carlson.

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

I spent 9 pages the leading up to this, then you wrote this nonsense about them then feeling stressed because of this.

I wrote on another post about how some of the SS, including Himmler struggled with having to shoot The Jews directly

Mark: I don't recall the name of a book I read about the SS and the early days of extermination. But it read that, under Himmler, who was timid and had a weak stomach himself, the SS were suffering from having to shoot the Jews before they started gassing them. Alcoholism and morale were real problems here. It was then that gas became the way. They started to experiment with gas vans and smaller chambers around 1941, then in '42 they went full force with the gas...in those early days they starved and worked the Jews to death, or just shot them.

You drafted some out of context question for what reason I am still not sure of.

[Markk]

although Markk is busy getting his ass handed to him by Canpakes, let me just remind Mark that line number 1:

LoL.....Cakes is lost and had no idea what Cooper was even talking about, he thought he was talking only about Jews....you haven't even read what I am writing. I would love for you to explain what Cakes argument even is...I will wait, just like I am for my other questions I ask you.

Here my question to you, in all this, what is Cakes view here?

Gad: is false. there were no millions and millions of prisoners, Jewish or otherwise, at any time.

(this is important because in the Cooper/Markk simplistic model that is also a misrepresentation, there were never millions of people getting fed that suddenly, could not be fed anymore because food was running low)

Lol....I thought that was the point, they weren't prepared. There was a half million POW's in the first month or so alone. let alone the political prisoners and citizens. How many Soviet POWs did Germany take by the end of 1941?

[Marcus]

It astonishes me that Markk would write that the SS were distressed at having to shoot to kill people, so the solution was to use gas to kill many more people.

No nazis were 'distressed' at that?

To me, it's still an attempt to minimize what was done by pretending considerations were humane, or that all these horrific things 'just happened' because he thinks they weren't 'planned.'. (again, markk's opinion, not facts.)

[canpakes]

I spent 9 pages the leading up to this, then you wrote this nonsense about them then feeling stressed because of this.

Hey, not to upset you or anything, but you are the person who talked about Nazi stress. And apparently while trying to support Cooper’s Sad Nazi story.

Here you go:

viewtopic.php?p=2897775#p2897775

Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

[Markk]

I spent 9 pages the leading up to this, then you wrote this nonsense about them then feeling stressed because of this.

Hey, not to upset you or anything, but you are the person who talked about Nazi stress. And apparently while trying to support Cooper’s Sad Nazi story.

Here you go:

viewtopic.php?p=2897775#p2897775

Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

Lol....again in what context.... this has gone full circle and once more you are to proud to just concede you you didn't know what you were talking about.

I will wait for you after all to counter my view with your view, in regard to the Jewish Question, and its evolution leading up to the final solution. It okay to explore this and it's okay to be wrong and learn.

Did you even read my last post to you where I pasted what you just linked? I think that is a issue here is that you don't even bother to read what others say.