Tucker Carlson criticized by radical propagandists for hosting a “neo nazi”

[elektra]

OK, I have re-watched the segment on Cooper’s take on Winston Churchill. Which goes for about 30 minutes. I recall, watching most of that segment a few days ago. But now I have watched the entire segment.

Cooper talked about his idea that Winston Churchill was evil, that Churchill wanted a war with Germany , that Churchill played with action figures/toys in his downtime, and was upset when people interrupted him for news of the day…Cooper also talked about Churchill constantly ordering the bombings of German civilians because that’s all that has military at the time could do around 1940. Cooper said that Churchill was influenced by the bankers and the media to go to war with Germany.

Also said that after Germany had taken over France and pretty much controlled Europe that it made tons and tons of peace officers to the British, saying we don’t want war with England, we even want the British to hold onto their overseas colonies in Africa. And frankly, that makes sense because I recall Hitler and the Leaders of the third Reich were often in praise of the British empire. They respected the British empire, they wanted to have an alliance with the British against the Soviets from what I understand.

Fwiw I’m glad that the British, the United States of America and the Soviet Union all worked together against the Empire of Japan and the third reich . I’m glad that the British chose not to Ally with the third reich.

So on that segment, which ran for about 30 minutes on Winston Churchill, there was a lot of things that Cooper said that I was in disagreement with. Or maybe I should simply say I was against because I am somebody who would admires the allied powers of World War II and the sacrifices they made. The Allied leadership, including the Soviet union were faced with a monumental task of defeating the empire of Japan and the third Reich . So my disagreement is based on an ideology of supporting America and the allies of World War II. But there is nothing that Mr. Cooper said that can be construed as anti Jewish for example or in support of Adolf Hitler.

We might not like Churchill being referred to as evil, but do you know how many times I have seen posters on the US message board suggest that FDR was evil. That of course does not equal to them supporting Hitler. People can have a viewpoint that FDR, Churchill and or Hitler were all evil. That doesn’t mean that they supported the ideology of the third reich. It’s simply put Criticizing Churchill or FDR does not equal supporting Hitler.

By the way, I did not see Cooper deny the holocaust. And that would require simple evidence. Ok I want to hear Cooper say that 6 million Jews did not perish in World War II. I did not hear that. And even if Cooper said that it still doesn’t equal him supporting Hitler. It would make him a guy with a poor viewpoint in my opinion, and one that is ignorant of history. But we have to have specific evidence here …if somebody supports Hitler they actually have to say it. Because there has been holocaust denialists who have said well I don’t support Hitler. I just question the numbers with regards to the holocaust.

At the end of the segment Cooper is talking about the great migration north by millions of African-Americans to work in the Auto plant and steel jobs in the northern parts of the USA. And it was really interesting frankly. He talked about the challenges that blacks faced….Similar in a sense to what Italian and Irish immigrants face when they first arrived in America looking for work. I think the take away from that is how at least in those days those types of jobs paid an honest wage..remember in 1914 Henry Ford revolutionized the workforce and literally doubled the wages of his workers overnight. Ford was criticized by some of his wealthy friends and the newspapers saying “well you’re just gonna break your company”. On the contrary Ford Motor Company became a dominating force in the auto industry for decades to come and it provided millions of jobs to black and white Americans for decades to come. …. we need that today.

The CEO class of today, Elon Musk for all the good he has done for free speech on Twitter. His jobs at Tesla are nothing like they were when we compare them to Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, Republic steel, etc from the American past. If you work at Tesla today you’re making much less compared to what the average steel worker made 50 years ago. And you don’t really have benefits or any kind of job protection because there’s not unions at Tesla.

Cooper really dont know much, but being so well read, he ignores.

I could care less what cooper says and how wrong he is, he is just mimicking, following on Howard Zinn's footsteps.

What I stated is why is Tucker in agreement?

Churchill's first targets in Germany was a seaplane base, surrounded by housing. Revisionist like to cling to civilian casualties as if they are the target and avoidable.

Cooper was dishonest. There is no value in listening to cooper. Not even to research history to counter the revisionism with fact.

Howard Zinn is the king asshole marxist American hater. Addressing Howard Zinn's original rants addresses all the back-benchers like cooper.

Churchill, do you know why he was a hero. 1899, Boer war, taken prisoner as a civilian and escaping. A great story thst some revisionists use to make Churchill look bad.

 

[forkup]

With respect that’s not what Mr. Cooper said. It’s great that Tucker Carlson is bringing on different viewpoints. Getting away from the same old mainstream media… World War II cost the lives of tens of millions of people. Cooper was saying that the German people felt that they were the victims of World War I. That is not anything controversial really. And Cooper was trying to put himself into the shoes of the German people from the end of World War I the start of World War II. I think that’s fair. Doesn’t make one a nazi sympathizer.

Cooper also sad that Germany made a big mistake by invading the Soviet Union because they weren’t ready for the prisoners of war. He also compare that to Israel invading Gaza in the sense that Israel might not be prepared to know how to deal with tens of thousands of people who are now homeless.


And I wouldn’t classify Cooper as a revisionist. Cooper criticized Hitler. Did you watch the entire segment? He even said that he understands that some of what he is saying is going to instantaneously trigger people. Even myself as somebody who deeply admires the allied leaders I breathed for a moment, I took a step back and just listen to the guy. Including when he was talking about Winston Churchill. Really interesting how he talked about how Churchill played with action figures in his downtime. And that after taking over France, Hitler offered peace proposals to England tons and tons of times only to be rejected.

The thing is, I don’t sympathize with all of what Mr. Cooper is saying…. So just to alleviate your concerns I stand by the allies of World War II. I always will. But it’s a breath of fresh air to hear a different perspective on World War II.

If you fancy yourself a historian and lay the blame for the war on Churchill BEFORE he was actually prime minister, you can't call yourself a historian.

 

[forkup]

What did he “revise” or make up?

Well, for starters, kind of hard to blame Churchill for all countries Germany invaded since Churchill only became PM after Germany invaded Norway.

Kind of hard to cast aspersions in Churchill approving the bombing of civilians like some great terrorist act and not an attmept to hit Germanies industrial capacity, when Germany bombed Guernica in 1937, Warschaw in 1939, and Rotterdam in 1940 BEFORE a single pound of bomb had fallen on Germany, not to mention the Blitz.

Kind of hard to claim the Holocaust and the Russian starving of POW's was some accidental thing when there's plenty of REAL historians who look into the internal documents of the Germans themselves showing some serious preparation. Look up the Wannsee conference if you have the balls.

Just for starters.

 

[theHawk]

Well, for starters, kind of hard to blame Churchill for all countries Germany invaded since Churchill only became PM after Germany invaded Norway.

Kind of hard to cast aspersions in Churchill approving the bombing of civilians like some great terrorist act and not an attmept to hit Germanies industrial capacity, when Germany bombed Guernica in 1937, Warschaw in 1939, and Rotterdam in 1940 BEFORE a single pound of bomb had fallen on Germany, not to mention the Blitz.

Kind of hard to claim the Holocaust and the Russian starving of POW's was some accidental thing when there's plenty of REAL historians who look into the internal documents of the Germans themselves showing some serious preparation. Look up the Wannsee conference if you have the balls.

Just for starters.

He didn’t blame Churchill for Germany invading other countries, he blamed the outcome of WWI which took away a lot of German land and separated German people.

The bombings he is talking about were done on civilians, he wasn’t criticizing bombing industrial factories. It bombing civilians a good thing or bad thing? Not talking accidental, talking about specifically targeting them.

I never heard him say the Holocaust was “accidental”. Now you’re just lying.

 

[forkup]

He didn’t blame Churchill for Germany invading other countries, he blamed the outcome of WWI which took away a lot of German land and separated German people.

The bombings he is talking about were done on civilians, he wasn’t criticizing bombing industrial factories. It bombing civilians a good thing or bad thing? Not talking accidental, talking about specifically targeting them.

I never heard him say the Holocaust was “accidental”. Now you’re just lying.

When you blame Churchill for "what WW2 became" because he feels he should have surrendered because the battle of France was lost. You are blaming him.

He actually doesn't mention the holocaust at all. Because the holocaust doesn't fit in his narrative of Germans killing people out of stupidity not malice. Yet Germany knew perfectly well what they were doing. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036414?mag=the-nazis-nightmarish-plan-to-starve-the-soviet-union

In the second World War, carpet bombing was the only bombing possible to effectively bomb factories, so civilians will be hit. And yes, since it is civilians who produce war material, bombing them is deemed a valid target. Cynical in today's setting of smart bombs. In a war the size of WW2 where a bomb falling within a mile, not so much. So is the Black Forest by the way, since it was home to several covert facilities of the Germans, something friend Cooper forgets to mention

 

[theHawk]

He actually doesn't mention the holocaust at all. Because the holocaust doesn't fit in his narrative of Germans killing people out of stupidity not malice. Yet Germany knew perfectly well what they were doing. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036414?mag=the-nazis-nightmarish-plan-to-starve-the-soviet-union

I think you are missing his point. He isn’t condoning what the Germans did, he is showing how sick in the head they were that they actually believed gassing them was “humane”. It demonstrates how populations demonize certain people to a point that they are willing to commit genocide and murder people. The Nazis did it, the Bolsheviks did it, Mao did it.

And it will happen again if we let those types in power again. In this day in age it would be the Democrats and Globalists that would go that far.

 

[Arlette]

Clucker can only get the outcasts. That's all he has to work with. No decent person will sit down with Clucker Carlson.

 

[forkup]

I think you are missing his point. He isn’t condoning what the Germans did, he is showing how sick in the head they were that they actually believed gassing them was “humane”. It demonstrates how populations demonize certain people to a point that they are willing to commit genocide and murder people. The Nazis did it, the Bolsheviks did it, Mao did it.

And it will happen again if we let those types in power again. In this day in age it would be the Democrats and Globalists that would go that far.

Nah, he's simply putting the blame for the severity of the conflict not on the people who do the invading but on the person who refuses to surrender to the invader.

That's what the main premise of the thing is. Churchill NOT Germany was to main bad guy during WW2. That's not just bad revisionist history. It's plain bad. As in... a completely amoral position.

 

[theHawk]

Nah, he's simply putting the blame for the severity of the conflict not on the people who do the invading but on the person who refuses to surrender to the invader.

That's what the main premise of the thing is. Churchill NOT Germany was to main bad guy during WW2. That's not just bad revisionist history. It's plain bad. As in... a completely amoral position.

Churchill was not the main bag guy in WWII. Simply saying he did plenty of bad things doesn’t mean we support the other side.

 

[forkup]

Churchill was not the main bag guy in WWII. Simply saying he did plenty of bad things doesn’t mean we support the other side.

Saying he was responsible for the scale and saying one of the bad things is not accepting peace overtures from one of the biggest mass-murderers in history is supporting the other side. Any way you slice it.

 

[theHawk]

Saying he was responsible for the scale and saying one of the bad things is not accepting peace overtures from one of the biggest mass-murderers in history is supporting the other side. Any way you slice it.

Funny, considering we accepted a peace deal with the Bolsheviks, who were bigger mass murderers than the Nazis.

 

[forkup]

Funny, considering we accepted a peace deal with the Bolsheviks, who were bigger mass murderers than the Nazis.

We weren't at war with the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks weren't killing the British. Germany was.

It also at best makes the British hypocritical. It doesn't make the decision to NOT accept peace with Germany as something to resent. As I said. He's literally criticizing Churchill's decision not to concede defeat to Germany. And you are, "so what?"

 

[theHawk]

We weren't at war with the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks weren't killing the British. Germany was.

It also at best makes the British hypocritical. It doesn't make the decision to NOT accept peace with Germany as something to resent. As I said. He's literally criticizing Churchill's decision not to concede defeat to Germany. And you are, "so what?"

We weren’t at war with Germany either. England drew us into their war.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Great? The guy is a revisionist hack. On top of hundreds of other revisionists.

Why give revisionists a platform to legitamize the revisionism

Tucker hurt his reputation with this giy and the knucklehead he interviewed the day before.

Funny how liberals aren't arguing that the guy is factually wrong. They just call him names and think they've won the debate. That may have worked 20 years ago, but no one is buying it anymore.