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

[Markk]

Morley:I didn't claim that you said podcasts are the best way to learn. I'm responding to what you actually did say--that you know that historical documentaries and historical podcasts are the future of learning. I'm saying--very plainly--that they are NOT the future of learning. I presented a backstory as to why I reason as such.

Yes, I see that you're willing make that supposition based nothing but on your gut feeling. That is that same gut feeling that seems to undergird everything you have to say on this subject.

I also witness that you're willing to die on that empty, barren, God-forsaken hill. Where do you want your poor, dead body buried? On that same hill?

1. You forgot the "more and more", and that "we will have to see how AI impacts that." Your personal opinion is just that, and is not backed up by any data, as I presented.

It is funny how you now write that you didn't claim I said podcasts were the best way to learn...., then you write as you conclusion...." Long story short: After years of advocacy, I concluded that I was mostly wrong about these things. Changing the school calendar didn't provided better outcomes for students. Access to technology didn't have the desired effect of improving student learning.

Universities are adopting online teaching for the same reasons that they're gong with adjunct faculty instead of relying tenure-track teachers. It's not because it's more effective; it's because it's cheaper.

While you'd seemingly lecture educators on the most effective way to teach, you almost certainly would bristle if someone outside of your profession tried to tell you the best way to build an house."

Morley: You already made that same kind of promise on the Tucker interview video, and it turned out to be a lie. Why would you expect me to take that bait again? How many presentations of Cooper's do I have to listen to before I'm allowed to voice an opinion on him?

Again, there are some 50 pages on this thread criticizing Cooper in regard to his podcasts....and not one of you that I am aware of have even watched one....it is simply laughable.

Again, some folks here took me out of context, created a strawman, and then criticize it together, even though it is not what I said.


You did the same thing here....

You wrote..." Early on, you want us to know that you know more about WWII than anything but religion" I never said such a thing in that context..... This is what I wrote..." Keep it is context to my point. There is maybe no other subject written about, except for maybe religion that I know of besides WW2." There are countless books, papers, documents, on these two subjects, countless. read the context of why I wrote it to Ripley.

Again laughable, and it is not even worth discussing.

[Marcus]

What impression do you think you've been giving, Markk?

...This is what Markk said...."I am in no way a WW2 expert, not even close, but I have studied it off and on for the last 50 years as a hobby, and can generally hold my own in general history of both campaigns"...

Gad may be referring to this:

There is maybe no other subject written about, except for maybe religion that I know of besides WW2.

In this, it kind of sounds like you’re saying you’re an expert.

Didn’t you also say that you’d been studying the subject for years?

I have read more books than I could ever remember, and it really doesn't matter if you believe me or not, again join in and let's talk about the war and we you test my general knowledge. I will say a few books that come to mind that made a huge impact was the Rape of Nanjing, Iwo Assault on Hell, and A Tomb Called Iwo Jima. Technical Histories like the Rise and Fall of the Third Rich I read early on, but these days I prefer Bios like I mentioned.

[Morley]

1. You forgot the "more and more", and that "we will have to see how AI impacts that."

I didn't forget it.

Your personal opinion is just that, and is not backed up by any data, as I presented.

Actually, it was. And no, you didn't present any data. What do you think "backed by data" means?

It is funny how you now write that you didn't claim I said podcasts were the best way to learn...., then you write as you conclusion...." Long story short: After years of advocacy, I concluded that I was mostly wrong about these things. Changing the school calendar didn't provided better outcomes for students. Access to technology didn't have the desired effect of improving student learning.

Universities are adopting online teaching for the same reasons that they're gong with adjunct faculty instead of relying tenure-track teachers. It's not because it's more effective; it's because it's cheaper.

While you'd seemingly lecture educators on the most effective way to teach, you almost certainly would bristle if someone outside of your profession tried to tell you the best way to build an house."

You're right, I didn't claim that you said podcasts are the best way to learn. And in quoting me, you're showing that.

Morley: You already made that same kind of promise on the Tucker interview video, and it turned out to be a lie. Why would you expect me to take that bait again? How many presentations of Cooper's do I have to listen to before I'm allowed to voice an opinion on him?

Again, there are some 50 pages on this thread criticizing Cooper in regard to his podcasts....and not one of you that I am aware of have even watched one....it is simply laughable.

This thread has been critiquing the Cooper you teed up--the Cooper in the Carlson interview. You're having a tough time defending that Cooper, so you're trying to move the conversation to your podcast Cooper. Not surprisingly, no one is biting.

I'll ask again: How much Cooper does a person have to be exposed to before they're allowed to critique him? Obviously, the Carlson interview alone doesn't suffice.

Again, some folks here took me out of context, created a strawman, and then criticize it together, even though it is not what I said.

You did the same thing here....

You wrote..." Early on, you want us to know that you know more about WWII than anything but religion" I never said such a thing in that context..... This is what I wrote..." Keep it is context to my point. There is maybe no other subject written about, except for maybe religion that I know of besides WW2." There are countless books, papers, documents, on these two subjects, countless. read the context of why I wrote it to Ripley.

When I write, "you wanted us to know that you know more about WWII than anything but religion," you think I'm misrepresenting you, because what you really said was "There is maybe no other subject written about, except for maybe religion that I know of besides WW2."

Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference.

Again laughable, and it is not even worth discussing.

I believe you're right.

Go in peace, Markk.

[Markk]

1. You forgot the "more and more", and that "we will have to see how A.I. impacts that."

I didn't forget it.

Your personal opinion is just that, and is not backed up by any data, as I presented.

Actually, it was. And no, you didn't present any data. What do you think "backed by data" means?

It is funny how you now write that you didn't claim I said podcasts were the best way to learn...., then you write as you conclusion...." Long story short: After years of advocacy, I concluded that I was mostly wrong about these things. Changing the school calendar didn't provided better outcomes for students. Access to technology didn't have the desired effect of improving student learning.

Universities are adopting online teaching for the same reasons that they're gong with adjunct faculty instead of relying tenure-track teachers. It's not because it's more effective; it's because it's cheaper.

While you'd seemingly lecture educators on the most effective way to teach, you almost certainly would bristle if someone outside of your profession tried to tell you the best way to build an house."

You're right, I didn't claim that you said podcasts are the best way to learn. And in quoting me, you're showing that.

Again, there are some 50 pages on this thread criticizing Cooper in regard to his podcasts....and not one of you that I am aware of have even watched one....it is simply laughable.

This thread has been critiquing the Cooper you teed up--the Cooper in the Carlson interview. You're having a tough time defending that Cooper, so you're trying to move the conversation to your podcast Cooper. Not surprisingly, no one is biting.

I'll ask again: How much Cooper does a person have to be exposed to before they're allowed to critique him? Obviously, the Carlson interview alone doesn't suffice.

Again, some folks here took me out of context, created a strawman, and then criticize it together, even though it is not what I said.

You did the same thing here....

You wrote..." Early on, you want us to know that you know more about WWII than anything but religion" I never said such a thing in that context..... This is what I wrote..." Keep it is context to my point. There is maybe no other subject written about, except for maybe religion that I know of besides WW2." There are countless books, papers, documents, on these two subjects, countless. read the context of why I wrote it to Ripley.

When I write, "you wanted us to know that you know more about WWII than anything but religion," you think I'm misrepresenting you, because what you really said was "There is maybe no other subject written about, except for maybe religion that I know of besides WW2."

Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference.

Again laughable, and it is not even worth discussing.

I believe you're right.

Go in peace, Markk.

Morley, If you are going to criticize him as a podcaster, it would be best to listen to at least one of his podcasts, it is not that difficult to understand the logic behind that. Yours is a classic example of identity politics and blind allegiance to your tribe. Again laughable.

Marcus is absolutely the worse educator around. I haven't read what he has taught, or what he is even a professor of, or how he communicates it, but I have seen enough here to know I am correct, I don't need to know anything else. And I see no reason to waste my time to see whether I am being fair with my opinion here. Same logic Morley, and beyond irresponsible and pretty much academically corrupt.

[Markk]

What impression do you think you've been giving, Markk?

This is what I said in context to a post to Chap, who more or less started the conversation....maybe you missed it:

..."I am in no way a WW2 expert, not even close, but I have studied it off and on for the last 50 years as a hobby, and can generally hold my own in general history of both campaigns.... so once again as you suggest, let's "check the history." Let's start with the Lend Lease act and what it did for the Allies and Britain..."

viewtopic.php?p=2897409#p2897409

[Morley]

Morley, If you are going to criticize him as a podcaster, it would be best to listen to at least one of his podcasts, it is not that difficult to understand the logic behind that.

I absolutely agree. If I ever criticize Cooper as a podcaster, I will certainly do that.

[Gadianton]

In search for a pro-Cooper perspective, since Markk can't make a case, I've come across some interesting tid-bits. Check out this Reddit post that seems to agree with both Markk and also agree with the rest of us:

I've listened to all of the public episodes of MartyrMade and they're some of the best and most insightful history podcasts available. He's actually injecting some original thought, not just reading a textbook (sorry Mike Duncan fans).

But then you look at his Twitter feed and it's just all unhinged replacement theory nonsense. I'm not even reacting to the politics of it, just the baseless conspiracy theories he signs on to. How is it possible for one person to have densely researched, extremely thoughtful podcasts about history but also look at the world around them and believe every reactionary meme?

https://www.reddit.com/r/podcasts/comme ... artyrmade/

Notice that Markk's harshness towards immigrants and "send ''em all to Guantanamo Bay, I don't care" is dead in line with replacement theory doctrine. And many of Markk's perception about SoCal being "overran" resonate as well.

Following up on some other tidbits in that Reddit, it appears he collaborated a bit with Daniele Bolelli, who has a podcast "History on Fire," but also has a masters in history and lectures around SoCal colleges and Universities. I haven't detecting anything unsettling about him yet. He appears to like and admire Cooper's work. Another from the same crowd, "Alexander von Sternberg," of the "Impossible History" podcast (lol), and apparently is at least a grad student (one day a podcaster will get a Phd lets hope), thinks highly of Cooper's podcast, but has some criticisms:

https://historyimpossible.substack.com/ ... ers-shadow

edited to add: the link does not work; search for the following below to get there:

(Contextualizing Third Reich revisionism (and Darryl Cooper's sources)

There's some great stuff in here, though I haven't read the whole thing. If you want to understand Markk's "Stalin was worse!" and many other Markkisms learned from Cooper. But I think is particularly important:

I had been very lightly aware of the debate at the center of the Historikerstreit thanks to passing references made in the historiographical sections of the books I read for my own historiographic analysis of Holocaust histories, but my attention had been more directed at the older split in the historiography—that is, between the functionalist and intentionalist school of thinking when it came to the Nazis and the Final Solution.

he links to this wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functiona ... ism_debate

Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not.

Extreme functionalists such as Martin Broszat believe that the Nazi leadership did not consciously initiate the Holocaust and that initiative instead came from the lower ranks of the German bureaucracy.

Together with his friend Broszat, Mommsen developed a structuralist interpretation of the Third Reich, that saw the Nazi state as a chaotic collection of rival bureaucracies engaged in endless power struggles, and the Final Solution as a result of the "cumulative radicalization" of the German state as opposed to a long-term plan on the part of Adolf Hitler

Sounds an awful lot like, "they weren't prepared!"

Well, I'm guessing Cooper's podcasts haven't prepared Markk to contemplate this interpretive conflict.

[Markk]

In search for a pro-Cooper perspective, since Markk can't make a case, I've come across some interesting tid-bits. Check out this Reddit post that seems to agree with both Markk and also agree with the rest of us:

I've listened to all of the public episodes of MartyrMade and they're some of the best and most insightful history podcasts available. He's actually injecting some original thought, not just reading a textbook (sorry Mike Duncan fans).

But then you look at his Twitter feed and it's just all unhinged replacement theory nonsense. I'm not even reacting to the politics of it, just the baseless conspiracy theories he signs on to. How is it possible for one person to have densely researched, extremely thoughtful podcasts about history but also look at the world around them and believe every reactionary meme?

https://www.reddit.com/r/podcasts/comme ... artyrmade/

Notice that Markk's harshness towards immigrants and "send ''em all to Guantanamo Bay, I don't care" is dead in line with replacement theory doctrine. And many of Markk's perception about SoCal being "overran" resonate as well.

Following up on some other tidbits in that Reddit, it appears he collaborated a bit with Daniele Bolelli, who has a podcast "History on Fire," but also has a masters in history and lectures around SoCal colleges and Universities. I haven't detecting anything unsettling about him yet. He appears to like and admire Cooper's work. Another from the same crowd, "Alexander von Sternberg," of the "Impossible History" podcast (lol), and apparently is at least a grad student (one day a podcaster will get a Phd lets hope), thinks highly of Cooper's podcast, but has some criticisms:

https://historyimpossible.substack.com/ ... ers-shadow

(Contextualizing Third Reich revisionism (and Darryl Cooper's sources)

There's some great stuff in here, though I haven't read the whole thing. If you want to understand Markk's "Stalin was worse!" and many other Markkisms learned from Cooper. But I think is particularly important:

I had been very lightly aware of the debate at the center of the Historikerstreit thanks to passing references made in the historiographical sections of the books I read for my own historiographic analysis of Holocaust histories, but my attention had been more directed at the older split in the historiography—that is, between the functionalist and intentionalist school of thinking when it came to the Nazis and the Final Solution.

he links to this wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functiona ... ism_debate

Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not.

Extreme functionalists such as Martin Broszat believe that the Nazi leadership did not consciously initiate the Holocaust and that initiative instead came from the lower ranks of the German bureaucracy.

Together with his friend Broszat, Mommsen developed a structuralist interpretation of the Third Reich, that saw the Nazi state as a chaotic collection of rival bureaucracies engaged in endless power struggles, and the Final Solution as a result of the "cumulative radicalization" of the German state as opposed to a long-term plan on the part of Adolf Hitler

Sounds an awful lot like, "they weren't prepared!"

Well, I'm guessing Cooper's podcasts haven't prepared Markk to contemplate this interpretive conflict.

Lol... wow, let me guess, a drunk post?

You spend all that time searching reddit, and writing nonsense, why don't you just listen to one of his podcasts, I suggest this one as a starter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=407acHQpzR4&t=295s

[Marcus]

...Marcus is absolutely the worse educator around. I haven't read what he has taught, or what he is even a professor of, or how he communicates it, but I have seen enough here to know I am correct, I don't need to know anything else. And I see no reason to waste my time to see whether I am being fair with my opinion here. Same logic Morley, and beyond irresponsible and pretty much academically corrupt.

I am sure that Morley will agree with me that reading this from someone who posts the way you do is a tremendous compliment to both of us.

Your adding that you have formed this opinion 1) without knowing anything about us, 2) without knowing whether you are being fair, and 3) without 'wasting any time' on research and instead just trusting your gut is just icing on the cake. Chef's kiss to you, you amusing little fool.

(Apropos of nothing at all whatsoever, have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"?)

[Jersey Girl]

Marcus is absolutely the worse educator around. I haven't read what he has taught, or what he is even a professor of, or how he communicates it, but I have seen enough here to know I am correct, I don't need to know anything else. And I see no reason to waste my time to see whether I am being fair with my opinion here. Same logic Morley, and beyond irresponsible and pretty much academically corrupt.

This is me (again):