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

[Chap]

What is ironic is you display yourself as a Nazi more that anyone here, just exchange the word Christian for Jew and it proves that point. Your hatred is apparent and I get you hate Christians and people like me and Ceeboo.

QFT. I spent a large part of my life as a believing and practicing Christian, and I would have expressed then the same views as I express today. And so would all of my friends from that part of my life.

[Markk]

What is ironic is you display yourself as a Nazi more that anyone here, just exchange the word Christian for Jew and it proves that point. Your hatred is apparent and I get you hate Christians and people like me and Ceeboo.

QFT. I spent a large part of my life as a believing and practicing Christian, and I would have expressed then the same views as I express today. And so would all of my friends from that part of my life.

Didn't I say that to Gad?

[Gadianton]

the SS were suffering from having to shoot the Jews, before they started gassing them

The interesting thing to me about this quote, Morley, is how much suffering all of these heroic Nazis experienced as they brought down terror on innocent people, while powerless to ever change course. All Markk needs to do is look in the mirror and see how little he's been bothered by the outrageous tactics of his own administration, leading to such wholly unnecessary suffering of immigrants both illegal and legal if not even citizens in cases, and the fact he's personally called for even more outrageous tactics without a blink, such as "send them all to Guantanamo" and has zero problems with eliminating due process. Markk has shown persistent zero empathy or sympathy for the immigrant victims of his country, why would the Nazis care about their victims, largely the immigrants of their country?

The Milgram experiment is a weighty piece of evidence against any flippant claims that "Nazis were suffering". But there's something very specific that makes me wince when Markk's ignorant lips flap out such crass apologetics for the worst mass-scale brutality ever. And that is this. There was a Netflix documentary recently, looking it up here, I think it was "Ordinary men, the Forgotten Holocaust". The most horrible part of all the horrible parts, for me, was the description of the Nazi soldiers whose duty it was to walk their civilian prisoners to that spot in the forest and shoot them. The soldiers were cordial and might chat briefly about the weather or get to know the victim's names and where they were from. "Just doing our job! Nothing personal!" The tougher job was that of killing the children. But guess what? They figured that one out just fine. You see, their reasoning was, cue Markk, given the parents had just been killed, if the children were to live, they'd suffer all the more. By killing the child, one was easing the child's suffering. See? No gas necessary. An ordinary person could shoot kids in the head point blank all day long and not suffer at all. When the war ended, "welp, that was awkward," and then the excuses pile on.

[Morley]

How is telling the truth of what happened, sympathy? It is called history. There is so much written on this by countless authors why are you picking out Cooper?

It's not called history, it's a kind of hagiography. Saying that the poor Nazis suffered because they had to shoot Jews (well, before for they came up with more efficient ways of exterminating them), is definitely expressing sympathy for an evil perpetrator. Who, besides you, Darryl, and Tucker, would call that "history"?

It was you who introduced Cooper. I focused on Cooper because you used what Cooper said to bolster your arguments. I admit that I can't understand why you think he has any credibility at all.

[Markk]

the SS were suffering from having to shoot the Jews, before they started gassing them

The interesting thing to me about this quote, Morley, is how much suffering all of these heroic Nazis experienced as they brought down terror on innocent people, while powerless to ever change course. All Markk needs to do is look in the mirror and see how little he's been bothered by the outrageous tactics of his own administration, leading to such wholly unnecessary suffering of immigrants both illegal and legal if not even citizens in cases, and the fact he's personally called for even more outrageous tactics without a blink, such as "send them all to Guantanamo" and has zero problems with eliminating due process. Markk has shown persistent zero empathy or sympathy for the immigrant victims of his country, why would the Nazis care about their victims, largely the immigrants of their country?

The Milgram experiment is a weighty piece of evidence against any flippant claims that "Nazis were suffering". But there's something very specific that makes me wince when Markk's ignorant lips flap out such crass apologetics for the worst mass-scale brutality ever. And that is this. There was a Netflix documentary recently, looking it up here, I think it was "Ordinary men, the Forgotten Holocaust". The most horrible part of all the horrible parts, for me, was the description of the Nazi soldiers whose duty it was to walk their civilian prisoners to that spot in the forest and shoot them. The soldiers were cordial and might chat briefly about the weather or get to know the victim's names and where they were from. "Just doing our job! Nothing personal!" The tougher job was that of killing the children. But guess what? They figured that one out just fine. You see, their reasoning was, queue Markk, given the parents had just been killed, if the children were to live, they'd suffer all the more. By killing the child, one was easing the child's suffering. See? No gas necessary. An ordinary person could shoot kids in the head point blank all day long and not suffer at all. When the war ended, "welp, that was awkward," and then the excuses pile on.

I guess this means that once again you can't objectively deal with the actual history of what occurred. And just make it personal about those that share the truths with you.

Carry on.

[Gadianton]

Cooper shows history in a way that many historians miss. One thing I learned from listening to his podcast, was in regard to Jim Jones, that lends to his style, is that Jones was a Civil Rights leader before he went nuts. He stated if Jones were to have been hit by a bus and killed in 1960-ish, he would have went down as a great civil rights pioneer.

Stunning. Dude, your mind is blown. I asked you what you learned about WW2 history from Cooper that you hadn't learned from all your legit WW2 books, and your answer is you learned that Jim Jones was a civil rights activist.

(boy didn't we screw up by giving people civil rights!)

I think we get your attachment to Cooper.

by the way, from wikipedia:

he began to be influenced by Father Divine and the Peace Mission movement. Jones distinguished himself through civil rights activism, founding the Temple as a fully integrated congregation.

Paragraph 2 of the Jim Jones wiki article. What historians, specifically, "missed" that Jim Jones was a civil rights activist?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

… the gas chambers.

They don’t believe in death by gas chambers, and they claim undesirables were only deloused with Zyklon B. They also argue the figures of Jewish deaths were greatly exaggerated, that only around 350,000 died due to supply chains. You will not change their minds.

- Doc

[Morley]

Are you saying in say 1910, as an example, Himmler, one of the most evil men who ever existed, hated Jews and wanted to exterminate every last one of them? If you read his bio he did not start digging into the Nazi propaganda until around 1921 or so. Do you believe historians should paint him as such? If he had good in him at a early age, should a historian paint over that? I don't know, you tell me. Cooper believes they shouldn't.

You're implying arguments that don't exist. No, I'm not saying that, nor have I anywhere hinted that I believe that. And no historian suggests that Himmler (nor any other Nazi) was born evil. No one paints him or any other Nazi as such. I thought you were a great reader of WWII history? Where are you getting this stuff?

Cooper is not breaking any new ground here. You're not making any new arguments. These are just weak-ass neo-Nazi apologetics.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[Morley]

Hmm, let's do a little analysis for how Cooper is playing into the hands of the neo-Nazis in the Carlson interview.

Cooper basically suggests that the Holocaust was a logistical tragedy, not a well thought-out plan. Neo-Nazis often argue the Holocaust was either exaggerated or accidental. Cooper modifies this to be that it was the result of poor war-planning and the fog of war.

At one point, Cooper says, “Rather than let them starve, wouldn’t it be more humane to finish them off?” He then suggests that gas chambers were a way to minimize suffering. Neo-Nazis have long held that the camps were labor centers, not death factories, and that deaths were due to famine or disease. Cooper doesn’t outright deny the Holocaust—but explains it as a kind of bureaucratic blundering. The Nazis then really had no choice but to kill the Jews.

In the Carlson interview, Cooper also claimed that Hitler didn’t want a war with the West, but that he was provoked into it. He says, "Churchill was a bloodthirsty sociopath” and then goes on to explain that Churchill was the aggressor, while Hitler just wanted peace. He's echoing the neo-Nazi attempt to rewrite WWII--by villainizing the Allies and exonerating Hitler.

Cooper complains that "the Holocaust is a sacred myth that cannot be questioned.” By using the term "myth,' he's undermining the evidence that what happened was indeed a genocide. Neo-Nazis love this this word, because it subtly casts doubt on the reality of the Holocaust.

My favorite line is when Cooper complains that “you’re not allowed to tell the truth” about WWII or Jewish suffering. He's framing himself as a truth-teller who's being punished for just asking questions. This is a classic tactic of the far-right and of neo-Nazi apologists. It's also one that Markk is echoing here, when he accuses other participants of trying to suppress what he calls "history."