The reason why Darryl Cooper won't discuss his assertion with a historian who knows what he's talking about is because he's not a historian and doesn't know what he's talking about.
@@abpunk11He said he wouldn't debate on the platform which he was invited to.... Plus our esteemed historian hasn't really said anything.... IF ANYONE SAW WHAT DARYL COOPER SAID.... HE WOULD UNDERSTAND.
The most appalling point Daryl makes to me, as a Dutch person, is after invading our country he said Britain should have mind their own business and leave it be. Good lord am I thankful for people like Churchill for standing up for our sovereignty.
@@notmyrealnameyo As a Belgian i have noticed the amount of dutch people moving into Belgium has skyrocketed.... you seem to really enjoy your "sovereignty" out there lately? Do you know what that word actually means?
@@camger0014 According to our statistics bureau, it's 3500 native Dutch and 2000 with a non-Dutch background in the last tracked year (2022). Emigration numbers have remained pretty stable since 2000. There's 18 million people living over here. Don't spout nonsense.
Actually, it doesn't. Trump should never have agreed to debate Harris on ABC, and if you don't get the relevance of that perhaps you need to think about it.
@@gandydancer9710 if Darryl Cooper believed his beliefs would stand up to scrutiny and push back he would debate, the fact he doesn't indicates that he knows they won't
@@Catherine-2008 You"ve made a rather dull assumption that does not contain the totality of possible reasons. While I am not in agreement with Daryl, but am critical of Churchill to much lessor degree, suppose Darly's reason for not debating is because, as he stated in the Tucker interview, that he already plans a historical podcast on WWII that will be released soon. How many more visitors to his substack will he get if he keeps his mouth shut now, refuses debate on others' podcasts and releases the argument mere weeks from now? He's built an incredible following whether contrarian or not that will likely be in his financial favor if he gets his work out on WWII while this is still hot.
@@aaronsabel Good grief, any halfwit came make up 'arguments' to justify whatever they want and get a large following by spewing their 'facts' their 'life experience' on social media. It happens all the time. If he can make strong arguments against other historians that have specialized in studying Churchill wouldn't it make sense that he would generate more interest in his podcast that would get him more followers and have even greater financial success by proving them wrong? Why not tell The Spectator and others that he will debate after he has released his WWII podcast?
@@gandydancer9710 you realize it was Harris who was afraid of Trump and chose that debate herself, right? What happened to the right, when we were in favor of showing our ideas are correct through debate?
@@andrewhotston983 Worse. He’s part of the Alt-Right ecosystem deliberately trying to muddy the waters by reinterpreting history to give white Americans a sense of pride.
@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590 That Churchill was responsible for the escalation of WW2 after the invasion of Poland. Churchill wasn't even PM then! And the allegation that Zionists were pushing for war, and the Holocaust was just an unfortunate side effect, when anti-Semitism was actually essential to Hitler's strategy. Cooper's whole argument is pure BS.
@@andrewhotston983If anything it's more Roosevelt, who had pushed for Britain to go to war, and promised that they would unconditionally guarantee Poland come what, a boldfaced lie considering there was zero consideration to give Poland even a chance to last. Though considering Churchill was particularly bellicose, and the figure most representing war with Germany, yes he was a driving force in the UK government, taking over after he advised Chamberlin into a botch mission into Norway. Keep in mind, the French were up until the moment of invasion trying to negotiate with the Germans to find a settlement without war. Also, yes, semites tended to back Churchill because he was bellicose against Germany and they despised the man who expelled them and so poured their considerable resources into empowering him. He was also a zionist, and so naturally would help them in their project in Israel, whereas even today most British people are markedly less pro-Israel than their American counterparts.
@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590 he’s no historian, and published nothing in his whole life, and yet all these clowns believe him 😂😂😂. There’s far better researched biographies of Churchill out there if anyone is really interested.
When we have to listen to yet another gormless attack on Churchill, I am always comforted by the fact that Churchill himself, constantly attacked by political opponents throughout his life, would have been entirely up for a fight ridiculing these dummies.
@@CALISUPERSPORT He may have been a drunk but not making an accommodation to Nazi hegemony over Europe after the fall of France was completely justified. Churchill's importance is way overblown because Britain wasn't in any case going to do that, but calling Churchill a "warmonger" is dumb as rocks.
@@gandydancer9710how was it justified? We lost our Empire, Europe was divided between Moscow & Berlin (still is), and British kids are a minority in British cities… Churchill achieved nothing. The only argument for it is that “this special group are special for some reason, so saving 6 million of them is more important than saving 75 million white Europeans”
@@DanLetts97Don’t waste your time, it’s pointless! And you know, I’m sick of hearing about what we didn’t do, instead of what we did do! We couldn’t be all things to all people, all the bloody time! We were at war and in great peril, but we came through, I’m just sorry that others didn’t, but that’s not Churchill’s fault!
I watched the entire interview with Daryl Cooper. He claimed to have read countless books about WW2, but in the end I was left with the impression that he had never read a book. He was vague and meandering throughout. He seemed to be very confused about exactly what time periods he was discussing. He always seemed to be attempting to make a point but never actually made his point. My firm impression was that he had perhaps read a Wikipedia article about the war but had in fact skimmed through it too quickly and so was confused about the actual facts of the war. As for the claim that Hitler never intended to invade Russia..... Hitler outlined his plans to invade Russia in a conference with his generals in 1937. That would be an odd thing to do if you did not intend to invade Russia.
When did Cooper say Hitler never intended to invade Russia? I think you're making that up. Timestamp, please. addendum: Mein Kampf was written in 1925 and I believe Hitler advocated for Germany seizing lebenstraum in that book, well before 1937, so it would be odd if Cooper said any such thing. Yes, he asserted, though maybe only as "hyperbole", that it was up to Churchill how the war would go, but, no, I don't recall the assertion you claim was made being made during the interview by Carlson.. Again: Timestamp?
@@IvanLeonard-b7y this is a guy who’s been releasing 7+ hour history deep dives on his platform for years and you’re going to judge his knowledge pool based off a 2 hour interview where he’s skimming over topics for the sake of time? Please tell me one thing you’ve researched enough in your entire life you could actually speak on the behalf of for 7 hours. Does a degree make someone a historian? Or does passion, hours, and a starvation for understanding make someone a historian?
@@noahshockley8544 Cooper does not seem aware that Churchill was not prime minister when Britain made an alliance with Poland or when Britain declared war after Hitler invaded Poland. If he were a historian, he would know that Churchill was an outsider when British policy on Germany was being determined leading up to the war. He did not become prime minister until the day Germany launched its offensive against Holland, Belgium and France. Cooper seems unfamiliar with Churchill's political situation in the 1930's, when he wasn't in the cabinet and whose opinions were largely ignored by the government.
Having claimed the Germans caused the deaths, violation, torture, and plunder of millions because they found themselves with prisoners they hadn’t planned to have, Cooper should be made to debate Heinrich Himmler or Adolf Eichmann. The architects of the Shoah and the Reich’s other crimes would be alarmed to hear their hard work, preparation, and innovation was being dismissed as unintentional.
" A popular historian. .. Darryl Cooper ... who made some quite serious points..." He may be "popular," but he's not a "serious" figure, but merely an ill- educated, self- promoting attention seeker. Andrew Roberts is a genuine historianl who engages in serious research of not just secondary but primary sources. So, I can appreciate why master Cooper declined your invitation to debate with Andrew Roberts.
Cooper would have been torn apart in a debate with Roberts. He came across in his discussion with Carlson as someone deeply ignorant of history. The frightening thing is that people like him spread damaging lies. The fact that he ignored the genocide of the Jews and other victims of the Nazis says a lot about him.
As a a matter of interest, where exactly is he popular? Arizona? Idaho? North Dakota perhaps? I've never heard of the clown until now and I doubt many people on this side of the Atlantic have either. Apart for the Nazi-bots and the lunatic fringe of course.
@@paddy864 I actually really like darryl cooper. His martyr made podcast is quite good. He is definitely wrong in this case, but he never struck me as antisemitic. Well, there were a red flag or two, but it always seemed to me questioning common narratives, not actual hate
Hitler didn't have a plan? That's a very odd statement (Mein Kampf??). Prior to the invasion of Poland, the German government had created concentration camps, they had expropriated all of the wealth of the Jewish citizens. Quickly as Europe was occupied the German authorities set up camps to control the population. The Schwansee Conference was literally generating a plan. When the Soviet Union was invaded and millions of soldiers taken prisoner, they were immediately put in slave labor conditions. There is no clear line of delineation between before and after the invasion of Poland.
@@Jeremy-y1t During the war, the US for instance had concentration camps for ethnic Japanese citizens. The Germans (and of course the Soviets) had this system before the war began. I was responding to Cooper saying that Germans had no plan.
@@Jeremy-y1t Allied WW2 internment camps were a travesty - but the Allied never committed mass murder in them. It's a complete false equivalency. A country not signing the Geneva Conventions doesn't mean that war crimes against them are fair game.
Just because he’s rebutting the narrative doesn’t make him anything. If you’re reading into it it simply exposes the indoctrination. Because you would likely be open to discernment on any other subject other than this one.
Because you’ve been brainwashed. Churchill destroyed our Empire in an unwinnable war. We are an American colony and about to become an ethnic minority by 2060.. we lost.
I can't help but think that Tucker Carlson's integrity as a journalist is completely up in the air for even entertaining this type of scholarship, which is really the lack thereof.
@@gregogrady8027Tucker Carlson loves to spew bullshit. Not valid diverse opinions. Facts are not opinions to argue over. Churchill wasn’t even in power until after WW2 had fully begun. Duh. That’s a fact.
you missed the whole point of tucker. he invites people on, and asks for their opinions. Just like he did putin. Hes not going to try and argue with people. Tucker is a welcome change from BBC, MSNBC and CNN and FOX that doe nothing but horrible interviews.
Or the alternative of still being a rich state and a world power. Beating Germany meant the US could bankrupt and destroy the UK. The question of was it worth fighting on at the end of 1940 is worth asking.
Darryl Cooper's moral logic is truly silly. He compares the dilemma facing the Germans in Russia (with thousands of prisoners) with Israel's dilemma in Gaza with civilians. The Germans invaded Russia in an act of pure aggression. Israel invaded Gaza in an act of self-defence. The moral difference is obvious.
One can manage to be critical of the Germans in WW2, the Netanyahu government in Israel and Hamas. In fact I'd argue any reasonable person should be critical of all three.
Israel did not invade Gaza in act of self-defense. Stop deluding yourself. They're aiming for territorial expansion and then flood western countries with those immigrants.
@@tomac100 You brought up faith or belief I merely replied in kind. Spare me your 2nd rate gaslighting and sophistry. And stay away from history, your mindset is all wrong for it.
@d.jparer5184 I enjoyed watching Carlson for some years but the scales fell from from my eyes the day I saw him interview Hungary's premier Viktor Orban ... very similar to that with Putin ...
Perhaps The Spectator could send Mr Cooper a copy of Mr Robert’s book, as obviously his life has, thus far, been untroubled by a well-researched, well-written, intelligent history book.
@@gandydancer9710 The evidence that Cooper is a dolt with a child's understanding of WW2 and not even a decent grasp of the most basic facts, as Roberts pointed out? As a matter of interest, what exaxtly did Robert's say that you believe is incorrect?
Good idea but frankly the Box-set of the 1974 British TV series "The World At War" would be enough to increase his knowledge by a factor of about 50,and would probably better suit his attention-span too.
He somewhat needs to be taken seriously, not because of the seriousness or rigour of his journalism, but because of the number of people he reaches with this sort of shite.
Churchill played a key role in eliminating opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also across Western Europe, thus shaping the current political situation.
The fact is, Churchill destroyed any opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also across Western Europe, thus making the current political situation possible.
Pls he is NOT a popular historian - he is NOT accepted in any reputable American academic circles and never will be - let’s not give him more than he is due - I.e., our utter contempt and scorn.
Well if the establishment historians who are wrong about almost everything don’t approve of him then I guess I won’t either, but my ideology definitely isn’t performative
@@tomac100 yeah ok - I’m not of the mien who agrees that ascribing ‘woke’ to someone or somethg means that they or it is then delegitimized…reputable historians today are in many ways doing indescribable good by relooking at history USING academic rigor and research tools - ie not just making grand, uninformed and politically/ideologically biased pronouncements.
Contempt to the outsider then? , that's why the inquisition went for Galileo. Academia,degrees or badges shouldn't be the reason to give nothing, less among everything "contempt and scorn". Trash his arguments with the same and with respect. Regardless his ideas and manners, acting like a monkey only remarks your weaknesses of thought,not his
All I can say to it is that not every crackpot deserves 30 minutes rebuttal video on TH-cam. There is just not enough electric power produced to make it possible.
They have to make a thirty minute rebuttal video because deviating from the generic narrative of Winston Churchill is akin to sacrificing a sacred cow. If what Cooper said was so ridiculous, they wouldn't be spending so much time on it.
Bro misses out that Churchill wasn't Prime Minister until May 1940, the day after the German invasion of France. Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939...
@@Brommear Far, far more than you have demonstrated that you do, which is nothing. I don't, as it happens, agree with either Cooper or Roberts, but YOU have vomited up nothing but empty insult -- now of me as well -- and have offered nothing to engage with. Why bother opening your yap to do that?
amazingly Cooper, despite not wanting to represent himself in this conversation, is given fair treatment here. as opposed to not showing the clips or inaccurately paraphrasing his arguments. refreshing. had he taken part he would have had something to say about "unprovoked" though
Actually he is not. He effectively gets called a hitler lover eventhough he never says so. At no point does Darryl condone the atrocities on the other, they are just not an onject of this discussion. Yet it is made to seem if he does.
@@etoiledageo Unfortunately that's precisely the problem. It was 'not an object of the discussion' meaning he was avoiding or uncomfortable talking about Hitler's crimes, because *they SHOULD have been part of the discussion*. It doesn't make sense for him to have not talked about Hitler's crimes considering he was, (although admittedly part of it was probably for clickbait purposes) essentially equating Churchill's actions to that of Hitler, therefore it's not really a jump to call him a Hitler sympathiser, even if it's just for clout and not really what he believes.
It was only about a week ago. You didn’t seem to spend much time thinking about what he said and the implications. Hopefully it took more than just someone reciting the accepted narrative to dissuade you.
Its a pity that Tucker Carlson uses his platform to promote a so called historian with half baked apologia for Nazi Germany talking points. And by promote I mean to both host that nobody and utterly fail to hold him to account.
Carlson is doing this deliberately and is by no means led by misjudgent. He pretends being "just someone who wishes all to be heard" but his presentations are a carefully planned blend of messages he wishes to promote. Several known people who appeared on his show since he was suspended by Fox said they were instructed what to talk about and what NOT to talk about. And they were not random guests interviewed about specific issues but special guests expected to talk about a verity line of topics.
You are first assuming that Tucker Carlson knows the first thing about WW2 and Churchill. In order to push back and hold Cooper to account one would first have to know Cooper is wrong.
we have politicians committing genocide right now without any accountability in fact they will most like become rich like tony blair working as a consultant. tucker is pure entertainment. winston was no hitler neither a saint.
This is how you have a conversation... you can disagree without hate, point out historical evidence when you disagree, and find semi common ground. Wonderful!
I suspect that no one who has commented on this has actually listened to any of the Martyr Made podcast. If you have then you'll know that Mr. Cooper has thoroughly researched his topics. What he has said about Churchill had been said by Historians such as AJP Taylor. And Pat Buchanan wrote about this topic in his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
Someone saying anything similar to someone else before doesn’t mean that point is necessarily more or less true simply because it’s been said before. Pat Buchanan views don’t seem very important if someone is also talking about people who were serious who researched primary sources, no? There could be an argument to make about how the war should have been responded to differently etc but saying “chief villain of ww2” is obviously hyperbolic and stupid. It’s not a good look to be hyperbolic on that topic but then to speak of the forced mass starvation of POW’s in a way that, can be perceived as, trying hard to not ascribe any forethought, malice, or willful intent Nazi germany. He did not do well in this interview and the fact it’s on Tucker is already going to make work uneasy.
@@GG-un7hj That's a stupid simple minded comment. Over 60 million people lost their lives in WW2. If that could have been prevented by negotiation with Hitler then that might have been a good thing. Churchill pushed for war wanted war and was giddy about war. He authorized the bombing of civilians, mostly women and children were killed. Seems to me that is a war crime. And the end result of the "good war" was Eastern Europe under the boot of Stalin. Britain losing its empire. Socialism in Britain and the most populous country in the world falling to communism. What if that could have been prevented?
Darryl Cooper is not a popular historian, he’s just some guy who does a podcast and if Tucker Carlson endorses him, that is all you need to know about how credible he is.
Cooper is totally wrong about Churchill and needs to educate himself about a historical figure he doesn't understand. However, why can't you discuss Churchill and his part in WW2 without mentioning the Holocaust? (Roberts must have known this.) Churchill wrote his six-volume history of WW2 immediately after the war and didn't mention the Holocaust. He barely referenced the Jews in his writings, relegating their part in an enormous world war to a few sentences and mostly in regard to Palestine and its implications as a colony of the Empire. He does however reference the crimes against Jews in Hungary and calls it the greatest crime against humanity in history (I paraphrase), and goes onto say that it would result in the prosecution of those involved. So Cooper may be guilty of much, but this isn't one to hang around his neck. The lack of reference to Jewish issues in WW2 by Churchill does tend to confirm that he was not a pawn of any Zionist conspiracy.
@user-wj6dt5bq3w are you talking of the yalta conference? Where infamously the two conspirators were fdr and stalin. In a scene in which FDR froze Churchill out...
@@Thomas...191 While I agree that there was not much that could be done after World War II, Britain did go to war "over Poland". Obviously, it was not really over Poland, but over balance of power.
@@jkb358 Ok then genius, put your money where your mouth is and tell us where Andrew Roberts, a hugely regarded historian with a large body of work and numerous well- reviewed books to his name, has got it wrong then? I mean, I'm sure you've read his biography of Churchill, and the earlier one by none other than Roy Jenkins of course?
This guy doesn't say that Churchill was a good guy, in his book, by his own admission, he talks about many Churchill's mistakes. All he does in this interview, he dismantles evident lies of a pseudo-historian.
@@Kot-dj4ws Making mistakes is not evidence of being a "bad guy", certainly not in Churchill's case, but you're right, he has shown that Cooper is not a serious historian at all, his is little more than a conspiracy-nut and a nazi-apologist.
well, we can safely say that Hitler was a bad guy (just read Mein Kampf) and Stalin was a bad guy (Holodomor and Gulags) anyone in comparison would appear to be good or somewhat good??? to say "is laughable" is crazy you appear to be a pro troll???
@@Drew-xk3hx do you call anyone who disagrees with your views a troll? I happen to think different countries have different versions of historical events… of course you believe your own countries version. Let’s go ask a Jewish scholar about the history of Palestine and then a Palestinian scholar the exact same question… I’m sure we would get the EXACT same answer right? Or do you just let your own biases decide who’s right and who’s wrong? Classic hubris. You lack self awareness little lad.
Can it be argued that Hitler attacked Poland and Czechoslovakia to take that territory before the Soviet Union did the same? Roberts does not mention Stalin and what his ambitions were in 1939.
No. If he were really concerned that Stalin was going to move into Poland and Czechoslovakia, and he had no ulterior designs on those countries, why did he not simply help them in defending against a Soviet Invasion? The answer is because he did have designs on Eastern Europe.
@@firebird4491 ok. So Hitler wanted to take the territory before Stalin did. Point is, the East was his focus. GB did not have to make decision for entire world that WWII was necessary.
@@Steve-Richter The UK went to war with Hitler’s Germany after it had conceded time and again to his demands in the name of peace. Hitler’s violation of the Munich agreement, which was already a major concession by the British government, killed any desire for further appeasement. The British people did not want another war and neither did its government (for many reasons). Churchill wanted one, but only because he believed it was inevitable anyway and was proven correct. He played no role in the war’s outbreak, and by the time he became prime minister hundreds of thousands had already died. They could not simply make peace and behave as if nothing had happened. Yes, Hitler’s ultimate objective was Eastern Europe, but he also wanted Germany to be the dominant power in all of Europe and later the world. The British government could not reasonably make peace and allow Hitler to dominate the entire continent, and thereby put British sovereignty in danger.
@@Steve-Richter TH-cam autodeleted my comment, so I'll keep it simple. The UK did not decide for the world to go to war with Hitler. Hitler chose to go to war with the world. He declared war on and violently occupied Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and much of the Soviet Union. He also declared war on the United States. The public education system may have given you limited and vague information about the war, but that doesn't mean that what was taught was a lie. You just need to read more about the war really understand just how wrong Darryl Cooper is about the subject.
@@firebird4491 The period I need to know more about is after Germany takes Poland, leading up to invasion of France. On France, it would be fascinating to hear why it is the French people were not much interested in fighting to remain free. Partly, I suspect, that France was suspicious of GB and Churchill. That GB was working to have France fight Germany, sparing GB from having to join in directly.
I think that Daryl's discussion needs to include the source materials, the whole argument feels very broad in regards to Nazi Germany (to the point of sidelining actions that took place in the 1930s to restrict certain ethnic/religious groups, before the invasions and annexations began) ... And needs an examination of the Nazi party's goals and actions during the 1930s and 1940s. Unless the whole point is to play down the Authoritanism, but I why would anyone do that? In regards to Churchill, there is no real talk of specific events, communications, etc nor timelines; very strange almost like Daryl is paraphrasing the war era, which is curious as I am sure there is lots of documentation and source material. So, whilst I would like to think that the discussion points in the Tucker interview/conversation were made in good faith. I can't help but feel this is more of an attack on the concept of 'Hero' and those that like to associate with the concept of 'Churchill the Hero', rather than the war itself. More like it is just contrarianism to provoke, under the guise of 'just asking questions' style commentary, but I guess you have to find a niche somewhere (attention and audience capture are powerful elements in the content creators' collective psyche)
@@gandydancer9710 He understands, as does anyone with a decent grasp of modern history, that Cooper is talking absolute nonsense and is obviously unaware of even the basic facts and timeline around the start of WW2, as he pointed out in his replies.
I used to like Tucker and to be sure a ton of his interviews are still interesting but he doesn’t once in his conversation with Cooper, challenge him. Instead he praises him. Moreover, Cooper is not a historian, he is only a well read podcaster. Tucker instead calls him “the most important living historian.” That’s like calling a little league baseball pitcher an MLB star. Has Tucker lost his mind like Candace Owens?
So true He destroyed any opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also in the rest of Western Europe, thus making the current political situation possible.
My father was a POW in Poland during the war. He remembers the camp was divided between British POWs and Russian POWs. The British were treated well under the circumstances, but the Russians were machine-gunned when they were brought in. He said you could hear the screams above the high separating wall. The Germans had no problem dealing with their prisoners.
Analyzing a debate between two Nazis and antisemitic minds, unfortunately Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson have their public and that is scary. Thanks god this deviations are not happening the same way in Latin America at least for the moment.
@JorgeRzezak On the contrary... these type of laidback empty "conversations" by these "used ideas American salesman" (Carlson, Cooper, Joe Rogan, Patrick Bet David etc.) are both exported as a method to the "Non US world", as well as distributed in their original form... And here we are... on a UK based channel... the nation who issued Hugh Trevor Roper and A.G.P. Taylor.... discussing the mouth farts of the likes of this blogger and Carlson... who by the way just loves to include repeated presentations about how wrong he was about important things, how disconnected and affluent he lived his life for decades, how much he ignores criticism... And those clowns set the intellectual weather in the rest of the world... Sad.
Has Andrew publicly commented on P Buchanan’s view that the war was unnecessary? That given its German speaking majorities Danzig should have been sacrificed… that a polish war guarantee by Chamberlain and Co. was the a priori error in statecraft. If someone know of such public commentary can you provide the link?
Considering he wrote that book a while ago, probably not. It is a good read though, and offers a countervailing perspective unlike what's contemporarily debated.
@@therandompersona appreciate the reply. PJB focuses on the war guarantee and in my judgement makes a credible counter factual case. In the end it’s a what if game… fun to play but never to be resolved. What is clear is that Churchill’s empire project was dismantled and Christian Europe lost both God and perhaps its soul over the course of the war and the decades than followed.
This is really depressing. Our civilization is in deep trouble when such nonsense is spread by such ignoramuses like Tucker Carlson. At least in science this is less likely to happen. Maxwell's Equations are the same across ideological boundaries on this planet and across the universe
Tucker an ignoramus? His nightly show on Fox was very informative. And he has me thinking about this chapter of history. France was not eager to stand up to Germany after it took Poland. Why should GB think it had to jump in?
@@Steve-Richter Well, whether something is informative depends how well informed you already are and can detect nonsense.
May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second World War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government - 1929 - 1939. The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him. Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance. Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. I don’t know if there is an English translation yet . In Russian the title is “Украинский фронт Третьей мировой войны”
@@Steve-Richter Well, whether something is informative depends how well informed you already are and can detect whether it is accurate.
May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government, years 1929 - 1939. The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him. Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance. Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. Hope Tucker Carlson reads it when it gets translated
@@Steve-Richter May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government, years 1929 - 1939. The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him. Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance. Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. Hope Tucker Carlson reads it when it gets translated
In order for Tucker to be fair his next interview must be Andrew Roberts. Roberts’ books are so well researched and cited it would be hard not to be convinced.
@@paddy864 That’s why free speech is so important. Most subjects have a rich and sometimes complex nature. In each case human contributions can be effected by various bias. A select and powerful authority is not trustworthy enough to choose what misinformation is. I do not support all viewpoints but I do support the freedom to declare them.
I've read his book on Churchill and Napoleon. I thought they were quite good. He wrote a piece in February 2021. This was before the Americans blew up the Nord Stream, which happened late in 2022. But in his piece, he cited the usual warmongering jingoistic stuff. It seems clear that he is just another neocon.
5:55... 'he ultimately took Czechoslovakia. Rubbish, he didn't. He took the Czech lands and gave Slovakia independence for the first time in their history. This is pretty poor. Then: 8:58. 'The guarantee to Poland to an independent sovereign country … so Britain had every right to guarantee Poland.” (He’s right, but Churchill didn’t keep the previous government’s promise!) The sad truth is that Poland was betrayed by the Western Allies, especially FD Roosevelt, but also Churchill. He did struggle with this. Clearly, the man Andrew Roberts is critiquing is not a serious scholar, and he is, but isn't it fascinating how he doesn't GIVE A FLIP about Poland? Wow!!
@@woff1959 You have taken one fact "Hitler gave Slovakia Independence" and totally ignored all the context. Perhaps you are unaware. Hitler threatened Slovakia to declare independence or they would be divided between Hungary and Poland. Slovakia became a puppet state under German control. That's some crazy version of independence you believe in. However, I agree with the 2nd part of your comment. In my opinion, the allies made a deal with the devil (Stalin) to win the war and ended up abandoning all of Eastern Europe to the same kind of oppression Hitler was offering.
@@IvanLeonard-b7y Look, Slovakia was independent from 1939, sure it was a puppet state, but it was there. As for the Allies, have a look a McMeekin's book _Stalin's War_ which tells all about how the Western Allies sold out Central Europe, China, Korea, Manchuria etc. Unbelievable. My point was that sure, Churchill was a good war leader for the British, but he sold out his empire in the process and caused untold suffering for millions in India, Africa and around the world. I blame Roosevelt more than Churchill, though.
@@tnndll4294 It's a historical fact. It's not that I like it. Then again, so were all the Soviet-occupied states. They were puppet states too. I was there, I remember.
There are two motivations for this, anti-zionism or anti-semitism, one can see that in the assertion that he was financially backed to act as he did, when actually Churchill was not primarily focused on Hitler's actions towards the Jews, either before or during the war. He was the man who wanted to stop Hitler, so of course prominent Jews would back him, The main motivation though is American isolationism , this is why Carlson has him on. Churchill's real crime in their eyes is to keep fighting with the declared intension of persuading the US to join the War. That along with his headline grabbing name is why the focus is on him, rather than on Chamberlain who actually was the Prime Minister that set the Polish trip wire and declared war. Chamberlain as the greatest warmonger doesn't quite sell as many books.
Judge Churchill by his own standards. He was a hardcore anti-Communist who loved the British Empire and wanted to protect it. His policies resulted in the expansion of world Communism, Soviet domination in Europe, and the collapse of the British Empire. Great Britain became a glorified aircraft carrier for the US and is now a total basket case. Even Japan is better off at this point, and Japan LOST. Churchill's legacy isn't looking so great. The only thing his defenders can say is "at least we're not speaking German," which at this point rings hollow.
What? Everything you have said has been understood for decades now. It is nothing new. Ww2 coat Britain and many others A LOT, but everyone seems to be in agreement that it was necessary and the right thing to do. But your take is that it doesn't matter if Germany had have won? Are you nuts?
@@Richard-d1y yes, that is the consensus NOW. That is a post hoc rationalization of Churchill's policies though. Nobody at that time (other than Leftists) would have been down for suiciding the Empire and surrendering the world to your enemies (the US and USSR) simply because Hitler was BAD or something. Churchill was a failire judged on his own terms, which damages his legacy immensely and makes him at best a tragic and catastrophic figure for Great Britain who any patriotic Englishman should be able to criticize.
Exactly. His bellicosity cost us lives and empire. Patience, better timing and military build up would have led to far better outcomes for this country. Churchill was one of those that today we revile for WW1 - the pompous sergeant yelling “Over the top boys!” To our young men. A huge percentage of the public reviled him both before and after WW2. We had to build a myth about Churchill and British morality because the realization that we had lost everything was too great to bear. (Peter Hitchens echoes this in his brilliant Phoney War)
Thank you for that enlightening talk. One minor quibble. Hannah Arendt didn’t argue that the bureaucrats who implemented nazi policies weren’t evil, but rather that they were both evil and banal. They weren’t dramatic villains, but they were villains none the less. That makes them all the more horrific.
मैंने लॉर्ड रॉबर्ट्स की किताब पढ़ी है और मुझे यह काफी हद तक अनावश्यक नहीं लगी। ऐसा लगा कि यह किताब चर्चिल की जीवनी के बजाय उनकी आलोचनाओं को संबोधित करने के लिए लिखी गई है। कुल मिलाकर यह मेरे लिए एक अच्छी तरह से शोध की गई और उपयोगी किताब थी।
Cooper is kidding us, of course, as one of the great comedians of all time. This is the only judgment that makes any sense. Thanks to Andrew Roberts for his rebuttal. Next time, The Spectator should present an hour on someone we can take more seriously than Cooper. I suggest Bob Hope.
What a disappointing response from Andrew... It's obvious that most commenters here did not watch the interview and are having a knee jerk emotional response to Darryl Cooper. Instead of an arrogant smug and condescending approach, filled with strawman and ad hominen arguing I was hoping this acclaimed expert (Andrew) would build good arguments on top of the facts I'm sure he is well equipped with. The interviewer actually did a much better portrayal of Darryl's assertions Darryl's argument from What I remember (you can listen to him directly) was that AFTER the fall of 1940 AFTER the Brits left DUNKIRK, Germany had successfully conquered Europe and Without help Britain had no chance of changing that reality. THAT is why Darryl is criticizing Churchil making the case the Churchil wanted to carry the conflict and Largely by his actions the conflict endured and because it endured it escalated. It would have been nice if Andrews would rebuttal this instead of something else that Cooper never argued for, namely that Churchil was not Prime minister in 1939 after Poland's invasion. That's just one example. He also implies Cooper is anti-semetic because he did not mention the holocaust. To me knowing Coopers position that was just a bad display of someone trying to demoralize another man reading things into his motivations instead of responding to what is said with good faith. Just listen to Darryl at 4:10 "So you're saying Churchill was a vilain therefore you think Hitler/Stalin were the good guys. No that's not what I'm saying.". 4:19 Adolf hitler is cheifly responsible for this". The man has an 8 hour podcast on the history of Israel and Palestine. Anybody who actually listen to him (not some caricature of him presented by a third party) will see that: 1 he is NOT anti semitic. He's got deep empathy for jews in their historical sufferings 3 he does not speak as much on what is mostly known (Holocaust in this case) as he likes to explore and inform on aspects less known in general 4 he goes through great lengths to learn and step into the shoes of all parties involved and understand their motives and mindset. A good argument demands a good understanding and characterization of the opponents arguments, position and motivations. Andrew missed on all 3 of these in my opinion.
If Britain had negotiated peace then Hitler would have had free rein to subjugate Europe. The fact that some people are angry that this didn’t happen tells you everything you need to know about them.
The greatest things we should take seriously, regarding Tucker at least, is not taking Tucker seriously. He sat in front of Putin and let him lie about Poland. Tucker is a dangerous pseudo-intellectual.
I am not a fan of Tucker Carlson anymore. For me, his trip to Russia was very revelatory. He missed a great opportunity to pin Putin down in his interview and he missed it by being so agreeable with most anything Putin had to say. He did not challenge him the way that Putin needs to be challenged. As a matter of fact, Putin himself remarked how he thought that Carlson would have been tougher on him. A nice little jab from Vladimir. He really lost me with his ridiculous trip to a Russian supermarket, crowing about how groceries which cost him $400 in the USA only cost him $100 in Russia. This assertion simply revealed his total ignorance of the Russian economy. The average Russian earns far less than the average American and he should have known that before waxing poetic about how wonderful Russia is. Admittedly, infrastructure in many parts of Russia has improved greatly since the Soviet Union, but he ignores that, even though the shelves are full, repression of the people continues as it did in the Soviet Union, simply without communists. This interview with Cooper is simply the icing on the cake for me. Carlson is now pretty regularly revealing himself as uninformed and frankly a bit of a loon. Cooper is his favorite historian? Give me a break.
i feel most sorry for Jocko Willink who tied up with this guy on his podcast. I will say, though, if you listen to the whole Carlson interview Cooper does make some good observation about European immigration. apart from that its Irving/Buchanan rehashed
Churchill is going to be a hero to those who supported him and a villain to those who didn't or don't. Since my parent's generation fought in the war directly, both on the British and Russian sides, we are not going to have a neutral or non-emotional opinion.
@abpunk11 History is always being rewritten. Always. If Saint Winston Churchill was such a great man let's see if he survives the constant rewriting of WW2 history over the next 2 centuries by non-Western historians who have a dim view of the British Empire, Churchill's lifelong project. Do you really think in 2224 respected Indian historians will be as enamored of Churchill as this gentleman here?
The reason why Darryl Cooper won't discuss his assertion with a historian who knows what he's talking about is because he's not a historian and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Agreed. If i was in his position i would he thrilled for the opportunity to defend myself and debate a historian of Robert's level
Not an argument.
Darryl Cooper is using the same arguments David Irving used, and we all know what happened to him.
@@ES-qm5hr Association fallacy. Typical of conformist morons.
@@abpunk11He said he wouldn't debate on the platform which he was invited to.... Plus our esteemed historian hasn't really said anything.... IF ANYONE SAW WHAT DARYL COOPER SAID.... HE WOULD UNDERSTAND.
The most appalling point Daryl makes to me, as a Dutch person, is after invading our country he said Britain should have mind their own business and leave it be. Good lord am I thankful for people like Churchill for standing up for our sovereignty.
And totally ignores the Rotterdam Blitz, suggesting that it was Winston Churchill who came up with the idea of bombing open cities.
@@notmyrealnameyo As a Belgian i have noticed the amount of dutch people moving into Belgium has skyrocketed.... you seem to really enjoy your "sovereignty" out there lately? Do you know what that word actually means?
really? you are about to become a minority in your own country, how's it feeling to have "won"
@@camger0014As an Anglo Irish person
I don’t think the pretext of Defending Plucky Belgium in 1914 was worth wrecking Britain
@@camger0014 According to our statistics bureau, it's 3500 native Dutch and 2000 with a non-Dutch background in the last tracked year (2022). Emigration numbers have remained pretty stable since 2000. There's 18 million people living over here. Don't spout nonsense.
The fact that Darryl won't debate Andrew tells you everything you need to know about Darryl's belief in his own arguments.
Actually, it doesn't. Trump should never have agreed to debate Harris on ABC, and if you don't get the relevance of that perhaps you need to think about it.
@@gandydancer9710 if Darryl Cooper believed his beliefs would stand up to scrutiny and push back he would debate, the fact he doesn't indicates that he knows they won't
@@Catherine-2008 You"ve made a rather dull assumption that does not contain the totality of possible reasons.
While I am not in agreement with Daryl, but am critical of Churchill to much lessor degree, suppose Darly's reason for not debating is because, as he stated in the Tucker interview, that he already plans a historical podcast on WWII that will be released soon.
How many more visitors to his substack will he get if he keeps his mouth shut now, refuses debate on others' podcasts and releases the argument mere weeks from now?
He's built an incredible following whether contrarian or not that will likely be in his financial favor if he gets his work out on WWII while this is still hot.
@@aaronsabel Good grief, any halfwit came make up 'arguments' to justify whatever they want and get a large following by spewing their 'facts' their 'life experience' on social media. It happens all the time. If he can make strong arguments against other historians that have specialized in studying Churchill wouldn't it make sense that he would generate more interest in his podcast that would get him more followers and have even greater financial success by proving them wrong? Why not tell The Spectator and others that he will debate after he has released his WWII podcast?
@@gandydancer9710 you realize it was Harris who was afraid of Trump and chose that debate herself, right? What happened to the right, when we were in favor of showing our ideas are correct through debate?
Daryl Cooper isn't a historian.
He is a liar.
@@andrewhotston983 Worse. He’s part of the Alt-Right ecosystem deliberately trying to muddy the waters by reinterpreting history to give white Americans a sense of pride.
While I have no doubt he is wrong about some things, can you name a few of those 'lies'?
@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590 That Churchill was responsible for the escalation of WW2 after the invasion of Poland. Churchill wasn't even PM then!
And the allegation that Zionists were pushing for war, and the Holocaust was just an unfortunate side effect, when anti-Semitism was actually essential to Hitler's strategy.
Cooper's whole argument is pure BS.
@@andrewhotston983If anything it's more Roosevelt, who had pushed for Britain to go to war, and promised that they would unconditionally guarantee Poland come what, a boldfaced lie considering there was zero consideration to give Poland even a chance to last. Though considering Churchill was particularly bellicose, and the figure most representing war with Germany, yes he was a driving force in the UK government, taking over after he advised Chamberlin into a botch mission into Norway. Keep in mind, the French were up until the moment of invasion trying to negotiate with the Germans to find a settlement without war. Also, yes, semites tended to back Churchill because he was bellicose against Germany and they despised the man who expelled them and so poured their considerable resources into empowering him. He was also a zionist, and so naturally would help them in their project in Israel, whereas even today most British people are markedly less pro-Israel than their American counterparts.
@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590 he’s no historian, and published nothing in his whole life, and yet all these clowns believe him 😂😂😂. There’s far better researched biographies of Churchill out there if anyone is really interested.
When we have to listen to yet another gormless attack on Churchill, I am always comforted by the fact that Churchill himself, constantly attacked by political opponents throughout his life, would have been entirely up for a fight ridiculing these dummies.
He was a drunken warmonger. Truth hurts but it's part of growing up.
Your defending the traitor Churchill? Holy shit for brains
@@CALISUPERSPORT He may have been a drunk but not making an accommodation to Nazi hegemony over Europe after the fall of France was completely justified. Churchill's importance is way overblown because Britain wasn't in any case going to do that, but calling Churchill a "warmonger" is dumb as rocks.
@@gandydancer9710how was it justified? We lost our Empire, Europe was divided between Moscow & Berlin (still is), and British kids are a minority in British cities…
Churchill achieved nothing. The only argument for it is that “this special group are special for some reason, so saving 6 million of them is more important than saving 75 million white Europeans”
@@CALISUPERSPORT
Clearly, you have yet to grow up.
Roberts is a master historian, Cooper is a clown
Tell me, what did Churchill have to do with the Nuremberg laws? The night of long knives? The holocaust?
The center of the world isn't europe or ww2 you know, churchill was an evil person, his acts and statements shows.
He caused all of the deaths.
He could've minded his business. No Soviet Union, Isreal and no China today
@@Tbone1492 didn’t even address my question. Not even close.
@@DanLetts97Don’t waste your time, it’s pointless! And you know, I’m sick of hearing about what we didn’t do, instead of what we did do! We couldn’t be all things to all people, all the bloody time! We were at war and in great peril, but we came through, I’m just sorry that others didn’t, but that’s not Churchill’s fault!
‘Morally bankrupt’ is a spot on description of Cooper.
And Tucker Carlson.
@@Ben1159a Andrew Roberts actually claims Churchill only got drunk once during WWII, and you "boomers" believe this establishment hack?
@@Ben1159a sold his soul to 'the devil' for a fistful of rubles
I watched the entire interview with Daryl Cooper. He claimed to have read countless books about WW2, but in the end I was left with the impression that he had never read a book.
He was vague and meandering throughout. He seemed to be very confused about exactly what time periods he was discussing. He always seemed to be attempting to make a point but never actually made his point.
My firm impression was that he had perhaps read a Wikipedia article about the war but had in fact skimmed through it too quickly and so was confused about the actual facts of the war.
As for the claim that Hitler never intended to invade Russia..... Hitler outlined his plans to invade Russia in a conference with his generals in 1937. That would be an odd thing to do if you did not intend to invade Russia.
When did Cooper say Hitler never intended to invade Russia? I think you're making that up. Timestamp, please.
addendum: Mein Kampf was written in 1925 and I believe Hitler advocated for Germany seizing lebenstraum in that book, well before 1937, so it would be odd if Cooper said any such thing. Yes, he asserted, though maybe only as "hyperbole", that it was up to Churchill how the war would go, but, no, I don't recall the assertion you claim was made being made during the interview by Carlson.. Again: Timestamp?
@@IvanLeonard-b7y this is a guy who’s been releasing 7+ hour history deep dives on his platform for years and you’re going to judge his knowledge pool based off a 2 hour interview where he’s skimming over topics for the sake of time? Please tell me one thing you’ve researched enough in your entire life you could actually speak on the behalf of for 7 hours. Does a degree make someone a historian? Or does passion, hours, and a starvation for understanding make someone a historian?
@@noahshockley8544
Cooper does not seem aware that Churchill was not prime minister when Britain made an alliance with Poland or when Britain declared war after Hitler invaded Poland. If he were a historian, he would know that Churchill was an outsider when British policy on Germany was being determined leading up to the war. He did not become prime minister until the day Germany launched its offensive against Holland, Belgium and France. Cooper seems unfamiliar with Churchill's political situation in the 1930's, when he wasn't in the cabinet and whose opinions were largely ignored by the government.
@@castlerock58 : Cooper’s knowledge of 1930’s British and German politics is pick n mix. He is an anti semitic dilettante.
@@gandydancer9710Ivan Leonard is full of sh#t. He clearly didn’t watch the interview.
Having claimed the Germans caused the deaths, violation, torture, and plunder of millions because they found themselves with prisoners they hadn’t planned to have, Cooper should be made to debate Heinrich Himmler or Adolf Eichmann. The architects of the Shoah and the Reich’s other crimes would be alarmed to hear their hard work, preparation, and innovation was being dismissed as unintentional.
Churchill caused all of the deaths.
Or the Grand Mufta
I KNOW it is commonplace to say these days " you couldn"t make this rubbish up". But Darryl Cooper has .
I know funny, and this is funny….
And Tucker puts it around the world.
" A popular historian. .. Darryl Cooper ... who made some quite serious points..."
He may be "popular," but he's not a "serious" figure, but merely an ill- educated, self- promoting attention seeker.
Andrew Roberts is a genuine historianl who engages in serious research of not just secondary but primary sources.
So, I can appreciate why master Cooper declined your invitation to debate with Andrew Roberts.
Ha ha
Cooper would have been torn apart in a debate with Roberts. He came across in his discussion with Carlson as someone deeply ignorant of history. The frightening thing is that people like him spread damaging lies. The fact that he ignored the genocide of the Jews and other victims of the Nazis says a lot about him.
As a a matter of interest, where exactly is he popular? Arizona? Idaho? North Dakota perhaps? I've never heard of the clown until now and I doubt many people on this side of the Atlantic have either. Apart for the Nazi-bots and the lunatic fringe of course.
@@paddy864 I actually really like darryl cooper. His martyr made podcast is quite good. He is definitely wrong in this case, but he never struck me as antisemitic. Well, there were a red flag or two, but it always seemed to me questioning common narratives, not actual hate
@@jonathanhollenbeak9047 He's a Neo-Nazi, just because you are unable to see it doesn't mean he isn't one.
Hitler didn't have a plan? That's a very odd statement (Mein Kampf??). Prior to the invasion of Poland, the German government had created concentration camps, they had expropriated all of the wealth of the Jewish citizens. Quickly as Europe was occupied the German authorities set up camps to control the population. The Schwansee Conference was literally generating a plan. When the Soviet Union was invaded and millions of soldiers taken prisoner, they were immediately put in slave labor conditions. There is no clear line of delineation between before and after the invasion of Poland.
The Allies used concentration camps.
The USSR had never signed the Geneva Convention.
@@Jeremy-y1t During the war, the US for instance had concentration camps for ethnic Japanese citizens. The Germans (and of course the Soviets) had this system before the war began. I was responding to Cooper saying that Germans had no plan.
@@Jeremy-y1t Allied WW2 internment camps were a travesty - but the Allied never committed mass murder in them. It's a complete false equivalency.
A country not signing the Geneva Conventions doesn't mean that war crimes against them are fair game.
@@charlesiragui2473 The USSR had gulags.
@@Jeremy-y1t Yes, they had a plan too.
I'm just absolutely amazed how Darly Cooper's argument & thought processes are 100% incorrect.
No they are not
Just because he’s rebutting the narrative doesn’t make him anything. If you’re reading into it it simply exposes the indoctrination. Because you would likely be open to discernment on any other subject other than this one.
Because you’ve been brainwashed. Churchill destroyed our Empire in an unwinnable war. We are an American colony and about to become an ethnic minority by 2060.. we lost.
But in a way that shows his biases right through, so at least that’s nice.
@@jkb358 back to where its hot you go himmler.
I can't help but think that Tucker Carlson's integrity as a journalist is completely up in the air for even entertaining this type of scholarship, which is really the lack thereof.
@@MyloBgood Tucker Carlson doesn’t have integrity.
Tucker values diversity of views and discussion. Not tyrannical censorship or regulation of such views and discussions.
@@gregogrady8027Tucker Carlson loves to spew bullshit. Not valid diverse opinions. Facts are not opinions to argue over.
Churchill wasn’t even in power until after WW2 had fully begun. Duh. That’s a fact.
you missed the whole point of tucker. he invites people on, and asks for their opinions. Just like he did putin. Hes not going to try and argue with people. Tucker is a welcome change from BBC, MSNBC and CNN and FOX that doe nothing but horrible interviews.
@@gregogrady8027 Is he gonna invite someone who says the Earth is round?
Man, fantastic interview, interviewer and guest.
Absolutely dismantled Cooper.
*At least we aren't speaking German!*
I've started learning Arabic.
Thanks Churchill.
We're not speaking German just 150 other different languages 😒
Keeping the world safe for the liberal order!
No but we will soon be living under communism
Or the alternative of still being a rich state and a world power. Beating Germany meant the US could bankrupt and destroy the UK. The question of was it worth fighting on at the end of 1940 is worth asking.
Well done! As an American citizen I apologize for the tripe from Cooper and Carlson.
Very happy to see the true British spirit of reason and decency is still alive
Not decent to allege that Cooper's hero was Hitler - that was straight out of the gutter.
Carlson is rapidly turning into a crank.
Remember. Most white Americans are German
Yes, he gets weirder the older he gets.
He's long been a crank.
@@FirstLastWinLose - I agree.. and it’s unfortunate. At times, Carson has very insightful takes on the human condition.
@dvs21a I believe you are correct. He masterfully convinced the world that he is somehow a conservative truth seeker.
Darryl Cooper's moral logic is truly silly. He compares the dilemma facing the Germans in Russia (with thousands of prisoners) with Israel's dilemma in Gaza with civilians. The Germans invaded Russia in an act of pure aggression. Israel invaded Gaza in an act of self-defence. The moral difference is obvious.
hahahahahha Mossad bot detected
@@ralphballon1539 You have to be Mossad to defend Israel?
@@FiveLiver I mean pretty much… hahaha
One can manage to be critical of the Germans in WW2, the Netanyahu government in Israel and Hamas. In fact I'd argue any reasonable person should be critical of all three.
Israel did not invade Gaza in act of self-defense. Stop deluding yourself. They're aiming for territorial expansion and then flood western countries with those immigrants.
The perspective of a real historian like Andrew Roberts is always a breath of fresh air!
Establishment historian*
While Andrew Roberts is certainly more right about Churchill than Daryl Cooper, he is also a neoconservative warmonger.
@@AdamRiddle-c3lmisinformation bot*
Cooper has a weird way of waving his hand with his pinky finger bent backward, anyone else notice that?
Cooper was and is mad. Calm. Polite. But, yes, bonkers.
@@tomac100 I'm an agnostic, so heresy isn't something I worry over.
@@tomac100 In terms of extreme faith in any position, I think you ought to look at yourself for supporting, in any way, anyone like Cooper.
@@tomac100 You brought up faith or belief I merely replied in kind. Spare me your 2nd rate gaslighting and sophistry. And stay away from history, your mindset is all wrong for it.
@@tomac100 Gaslighting and sophistry get the response I made. Go elsewhere to dazzle.
@@tomac100 I ordered you to go elsewhere, so go elsewhere.
It's hard to tell who is the worst-informed of the two, Cooper (a bit of a kid really) or Carlson (an egotistical crank).
@@JohnGrayOnline Carlson is pretty good for the most part, this interview was quite an aberration...
@d.jparer5184 I enjoyed watching Carlson for some years but the scales fell from from my eyes the day I saw him interview Hungary's premier Viktor Orban ... very similar to that with Putin ...
Perhaps The Spectator could send Mr Cooper a copy of Mr Robert’s book, as obviously his life has, thus far, been untroubled by a well-researched, well-written, intelligent history book.
@@pn1302 Abnd on the evidence so far I'm unconvinced that he should care.
@@gandydancer9710 The evidence that Cooper is a dolt with a child's understanding of WW2 and not even a decent grasp of the most basic facts, as Roberts pointed out? As a matter of interest, what exaxtly did Robert's say that you believe is incorrect?
Good idea but frankly the Box-set of the 1974 British TV series "The World At War" would be enough to increase his knowledge by a factor of about 50,and would probably better suit his attention-span too.
@@pn1302 Hasn't cared enough to read them obviously, which is a pity for him.
Taking Tucker Carlson seriously. How quaint.
He somewhat needs to be taken seriously, not because of the seriousness or rigour of his journalism, but because of the number of people he reaches with this sort of shite.
Churchill played a key role in eliminating opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also across Western Europe, thus shaping the current political situation.
A low Iq liberal who’s less intelligent and informed than tucker claiming nobody should take him seriously? How typical
Much prefer this format than two people talking over the top of each other.
Did Cooper not read Churchill's own six volume history of The Second World War, starting with "The Gathering Storm"?
It has been thoroughly debunked.
@@Jeremy-y1t "trust me bro"
That’s Darryl Cooper what a clown
The fact is, Churchill destroyed any opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also across Western Europe, thus making the current political situation possible.
Churchill was evil. Period
Pls he is NOT a popular historian - he is NOT accepted in any reputable American academic circles and never will be - let’s not give him more than he is due - I.e., our utter contempt and scorn.
Absolutely correct.
Well if the establishment historians who are wrong about almost everything don’t approve of him then I guess I won’t either, but my ideology definitely isn’t performative
@@AdamRiddle-c3l pls advise as to why you say establishment historians are wrong @ almost everythg - thx.
@@tomac100 yeah ok - I’m not of the mien who agrees that ascribing ‘woke’ to someone or somethg means that they or it is then delegitimized…reputable historians today are in many ways doing indescribable good by relooking at history USING academic rigor and research tools - ie not just making grand, uninformed and politically/ideologically biased pronouncements.
Contempt to the outsider then? , that's why the inquisition went for Galileo.
Academia,degrees or badges shouldn't be the reason to give nothing, less among everything "contempt and scorn". Trash his arguments with the same and with respect. Regardless his ideas and manners, acting like a monkey only remarks your weaknesses of thought,not his
All I can say to it is that not every crackpot deserves 30 minutes rebuttal video on TH-cam. There is just not enough electric power produced to make it possible.
They have to make a thirty minute rebuttal video because deviating from the generic narrative of Winston Churchill is akin to sacrificing a sacred cow. If what Cooper said was so ridiculous, they wouldn't be spending so much time on it.
@@thenneklkt7786 I am afraid you poorly chose an idiom and it is unclear what you mean.
@@thenneklkt7786 “what he said must be true because people spent time giving rebuttal to what he said”
That makes no sense at all.
Bro misses out that Churchill wasn't Prime Minister until May 1940, the day after the German invasion of France. Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939...
Stalin invaded Poland in September 1939.
@Jeremy-y1t yep
@@kincaidwolf5184 Churchill had been bribed to press for war in early 1938.
@@Jeremy-y1t Churchill wasn't in Government in 1938...
The Carlson/Cooper view of history is a sick joke.
It is obvious Churchill betrayed Europe , Einstein
Too many people say that who can't formulate an argument as to why. I suspect that that includes you.
@@gandydancer9710 Do you know anything about the Second World War and the events that lead up to it?
@@Brommear Far, far more than you have demonstrated that you do, which is nothing.
I don't, as it happens, agree with either Cooper or Roberts, but YOU have vomited up nothing but empty insult -- now of me as well -- and have offered nothing to engage with. Why bother opening your yap to do that?
I’d rather have a Europe without any Jews than a Europe without any Europeans (the American reality)
What is also very bad is that Carlson never challenges Cooper on his claims.
The only 2 points I have ever had against Churchill was eugenics and not wanting to break up of the English Empire. Past that, I agree with Roberts.
Churchill signed the British Empire away.
@@Jeremy-y1t Eden and his party did by act of Parliament. Churchill did by his intransigence.
@@Redneckthinker Churchill had agreed to the Atlantic Charter.
The Suez Crisis was the inevitable result of Churchill's treason during World War II.
Eugenics?
Strangely support for eugenics was the marker that he was more of a liberal in those days.
amazingly Cooper, despite not wanting to represent himself in this conversation, is given fair treatment here. as opposed to not showing the clips or inaccurately paraphrasing his arguments. refreshing. had he taken part he would have had something to say about "unprovoked" though
Actually he is not. He effectively gets called a hitler lover eventhough he never says so. At no point does Darryl condone the atrocities on the other, they are just not an onject of this discussion. Yet it is made to seem if he does.
@@etoiledageo Unfortunately that's precisely the problem. It was 'not an object of the discussion' meaning he was avoiding or uncomfortable talking about Hitler's crimes, because *they SHOULD have been part of the discussion*. It doesn't make sense for him to have not talked about Hitler's crimes considering he was, (although admittedly part of it was probably for clickbait purposes) essentially equating Churchill's actions to that of Hitler, therefore it's not really a jump to call him a Hitler sympathiser, even if it's just for clout and not really what he believes.
Cooper is a cowboy not a historian. More click bait - and I've fallen for it - again!
It was only about a week ago. You didn’t seem to spend much time thinking about what he said and the implications. Hopefully it took more than just someone reciting the accepted narrative to dissuade you.
Well, fallen for attacking the man not the ball
You’re projecting
Is Tucker broadcasting from the Kremlin yet?
Its a pity that Tucker Carlson uses his platform to promote a so called historian with half baked apologia for Nazi Germany talking points. And by promote I mean to both host that nobody and utterly fail to hold him to account.
Carlson is doing this deliberately and is by no means led by misjudgent. He pretends being "just someone who wishes all to be heard" but his presentations are a carefully planned blend of messages he wishes to promote. Several known people who appeared on his show since he was suspended by Fox said they were instructed what to talk about and what NOT to talk about. And they were not random guests interviewed about specific issues but special guests expected to talk about a verity line of topics.
You are first assuming that Tucker Carlson knows the first thing about WW2 and Churchill. In order to push back and hold Cooper to account one would first have to know Cooper is wrong.
we have politicians committing genocide right now without any accountability in fact they will most like become rich like tony blair working as a consultant. tucker is pure entertainment. winston was no hitler neither a saint.
It’s a pity you’re so unintelligent and easily brainwashed into the anti white narrative
What precisely do you mean 'hold him to account'? Do you mean in the way that Trump has been 'held to account' twice now?
What an absolute farce of an argument from Cooper. Well done Andrew, althought probably the easiest shift youve ever had to put in
Guaranteed I won’t be reading any of Darryl Coopers twisted fantasy books anytime soon.
This is how you have a conversation... you can disagree without hate, point out historical evidence when you disagree, and find semi common ground. Wonderful!
I suspect that no one who has commented on this has actually listened to any of the Martyr Made podcast. If you have then you'll know that Mr. Cooper has thoroughly researched his topics. What he has said about Churchill had been said by Historians such as AJP Taylor. And Pat Buchanan wrote about this topic in his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
Someone saying anything similar to someone else before doesn’t mean that point is necessarily more or less true simply because it’s been said before.
Pat Buchanan views don’t seem very important if someone is also talking about people who were serious who researched primary sources, no?
There could be an argument to make about how the war should have been responded to differently etc but saying “chief villain of ww2” is obviously hyperbolic and stupid.
It’s not a good look to be hyperbolic on that topic but then to speak of the forced mass starvation of POW’s in a way that, can be perceived as, trying hard to not ascribe any forethought, malice, or willful intent Nazi germany.
He did not do well in this interview and the fact it’s on Tucker is already going to make work uneasy.
Who said Pat Buchanan is a Respected Historian?
Let me guess, you’re a big fan of David Irving and Mel Gibson too?
Was Father Coughlin a hero too?
@@GG-un7hj That's a stupid simple minded comment. Over 60 million people lost their lives in WW2. If that could have been prevented by negotiation with Hitler then that might have been a good thing. Churchill pushed for war wanted war and was giddy about war. He authorized the bombing of civilians, mostly women and children were killed. Seems to me that is a war crime. And the end result of the "good war" was Eastern Europe under the boot of Stalin. Britain losing its empire. Socialism in Britain and the most populous country in the world falling to communism. What if that could have been prevented?
@@williamtallman9816This is the argument of the Nazi sympathiser.
Thank you, you judge the person by their time!
Thank God for real historians like Andrew Roberts..
Also Niall Ferguson, Stephen Kotkin. I think they are colleagues.
Sycophantic History isn’t History
Establishment*
@@AdamRiddle-c3l as opposed to anti-establishment
@@AdamRiddle-c3l The establishment also said the Earth is round, do you question that?
The most interesting thing is gow the media responded to this episode. Complete panic, we must preserve our myths.
These two people and most of the comments section appear to think we are in the 19th century
🙄
Darryl Cooper is not a popular historian, he’s just some guy who does a podcast and if Tucker Carlson endorses him, that is all you need to know about how credible he is.
Cooper is totally wrong about Churchill and needs to educate himself about a historical figure he doesn't understand. However, why can't you discuss Churchill and his part in WW2 without mentioning the Holocaust? (Roberts must have known this.) Churchill wrote his six-volume history of WW2 immediately after the war and didn't mention the Holocaust. He barely referenced the Jews in his writings, relegating their part in an enormous world war to a few sentences and mostly in regard to Palestine and its implications as a colony of the Empire. He does however reference the crimes against Jews in Hungary and calls it the greatest crime against humanity in history (I paraphrase), and goes onto say that it would result in the prosecution of those involved. So Cooper may be guilty of much, but this isn't one to hang around his neck. The lack of reference to Jewish issues in WW2 by Churchill does tend to confirm that he was not a pawn of any Zionist conspiracy.
What a great man-to give up all of Eastern Europe to Stalin, yet create a beautiful democracy of tolerance and diversity. I’m so grateful.
How could he give up Eastern Europe? That was one of the few parts of the world he and his county did not even claim as part of that ginormous empire.
@user-wj6dt5bq3w are you talking of the yalta conference? Where infamously the two conspirators were fdr and stalin. In a scene in which FDR froze Churchill out...
@@Thomas...191 While I agree that there was not much that could be done after World War II, Britain did go to war "over Poland". Obviously, it was not really over Poland, but over balance of power.
The comments by Cooper regarding the Holocaust made my stomach turn.
What Holocaust?
Cause you don't live in reality
@@jkb358 You and Cooper wouldn't live in a fantasy world of lies and half truths.
@@SFRZRD Denier.
@@MrDavidht yeah, we don't. Facts over feelings
I am guessing Darrly has a WW2 memorobilia collection that only covers the German side.....
Who cares what you guess?
@@brightonduder I am guiessing he bought some off Mel Gibson.
Being styled by Hugo Boss does win them a few style points. But thats as far as that goes.
Why would you object to memorabilia from the good side?
@@j.w.m.415 Is that you Darryl Cooper?
Thank heaven for Andrew Roberts.
Cooper is right
And you are a fool or a nazi, your choice.
@@jkb358 As in right off his trolley. The guy is a basket case.
@@philipbrooks402 your ignorance and cognitive dissonance is showing
@@jkb358 Ok then genius, put your money where your mouth is and tell us where Andrew Roberts, a hugely regarded historian with a large body of work and numerous well- reviewed books to his name, has got it wrong then? I mean, I'm sure you've read his biography of Churchill, and the earlier one by none other than Roy Jenkins of course?
As someone who was born in the last month of the German occupation of my country, Denmark Darryl Cooper's version is very offensive.
Denmark was extremely pro-Nazi, like Norway.
@@Jeremy-y1t Brits were nazis like, but with non white people, but i guess you don't value indian or african lives right ?
Its offensive for him to suggest that we should have valued English+Commonwealth lives more than those on the continent?
@@partizanSquadYou really don’t understand what Nazism is do you.
I think any historian claiming one man was a good guy and another was a bad guy isn’t to be trusted.
That includes this guy. Laughable.
This guy doesn't say that Churchill was a good guy, in his book, by his own admission, he talks about many Churchill's mistakes. All he does in this interview, he dismantles evident lies of a pseudo-historian.
@@Kot-dj4ws Making mistakes is not evidence of being a "bad guy", certainly not in Churchill's case, but you're right, he has shown that Cooper is not a serious historian at all, his is little more than a conspiracy-nut and a nazi-apologist.
I think anyone who claims Churchill was the chief villain of the war and was chiefly responsible for world war 2 is delusional
well, we can safely say that Hitler was a bad guy (just read Mein Kampf) and Stalin was a bad guy (Holodomor and Gulags) anyone in comparison would appear to be good or somewhat good??? to say "is laughable" is crazy you appear to be a pro troll???
@@Drew-xk3hx do you call anyone who disagrees with your views a troll?
I happen to think different countries have different versions of historical events… of course you believe your own countries version.
Let’s go ask a Jewish scholar about the history of Palestine and then a Palestinian scholar the exact same question… I’m sure we would get the EXACT same answer right? Or do you just let your own biases decide who’s right and who’s wrong?
Classic hubris. You lack self awareness little lad.
Thank you, Andrew! I was hoping you would speak to this insanity.
Can it be argued that Hitler attacked Poland and Czechoslovakia to take that territory before the Soviet Union did the same? Roberts does not mention Stalin and what his ambitions were in 1939.
No. If he were really concerned that Stalin was going to move into Poland and Czechoslovakia, and he had no ulterior designs on those countries, why did he not simply help them in defending against a Soviet Invasion? The answer is because he did have designs on Eastern Europe.
@@firebird4491 ok. So Hitler wanted to take the territory before Stalin did. Point is, the East was his focus. GB did not have to make decision for entire world that WWII was necessary.
@@Steve-Richter The UK went to war with Hitler’s Germany after it had conceded time and again to his demands in the name of peace. Hitler’s violation of the Munich agreement, which was already a major concession by the British government, killed any desire for further appeasement. The British people did not want another war and neither did its government (for many reasons). Churchill wanted one, but only because he believed it was inevitable anyway and was proven correct. He played no role in the war’s outbreak, and by the time he became prime minister hundreds of thousands had already died. They could not simply make peace and behave as if nothing had happened. Yes, Hitler’s ultimate objective was Eastern Europe, but he also wanted Germany to be the dominant power in all of Europe and later the world. The British government could not reasonably make peace and allow Hitler to dominate the entire continent, and thereby put British sovereignty in danger.
@@Steve-Richter TH-cam autodeleted my comment, so I'll keep it simple. The UK did not decide for the world to go to war with Hitler. Hitler chose to go to war with the world. He declared war on and violently occupied Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and much of the Soviet Union. He also declared war on the United States. The public education system may have given you limited and vague information about the war, but that doesn't mean that what was taught was a lie. You just need to read more about the war really understand just how wrong Darryl Cooper is about the subject.
@@firebird4491 The period I need to know more about is after Germany takes Poland, leading up to invasion of France. On France, it would be fascinating to hear why it is the French people were not much interested in fighting to remain free. Partly, I suspect, that France was suspicious of GB and Churchill. That GB was working to have France fight Germany, sparing GB from having to join in directly.
I think that Daryl's discussion needs to include the source materials, the whole argument feels very broad in regards to Nazi Germany (to the point of sidelining actions that took place in the 1930s to restrict certain ethnic/religious groups, before the invasions and annexations began) ... And needs an examination of the Nazi party's goals and actions during the 1930s and 1940s. Unless the whole point is to play down the Authoritanism, but I why would anyone do that?
In regards to Churchill, there is no real talk of specific events, communications, etc nor timelines; very strange almost like Daryl is paraphrasing the war era, which is curious as I am sure there is lots of documentation and source material.
So, whilst I would like to think that the discussion points in the Tucker interview/conversation were made in good faith. I can't help but feel this is more of an attack on the concept of 'Hero' and those that like to associate with the concept of 'Churchill the Hero', rather than the war itself. More like it is just contrarianism to provoke, under the guise of 'just asking questions' style commentary, but I guess you have to find a niche somewhere (attention and audience capture are powerful elements in the content creators' collective psyche)
He's factually wrong Churchill became Prime Minister 8 months after Germany invaded Poland with the Soviet Union
Thank goodness for Andrew Roberts
Cooper is correct
@@jkb358 Cooper is wrong. Roberts doesn't even seem to understand the argument Cooper actually made.
@@jkb358 about what? Churchill was more evil than Hitler or even Stalin?
@@gandydancer9710 He understands, as does anyone with a decent grasp of modern history, that Cooper is talking absolute nonsense and is obviously unaware of even the basic facts and timeline around the start of WW2, as he pointed out in his replies.
and Victor Davis Hanson
I used to like Tucker and to be sure a ton of his interviews are still interesting but he doesn’t once in his conversation with Cooper, challenge him. Instead he praises him. Moreover, Cooper is not a historian, he is only a well read podcaster. Tucker instead calls him “the most important living historian.” That’s like calling a little league baseball pitcher an MLB star. Has Tucker lost his mind like Candace Owens?
He seems very cynical, and shameless given the things he would spew at fox when he was still there.
Churchill was a man (a great man) of his age, era and mores
So true He destroyed any opposition to liberalism not only in the UK but also in the rest of Western Europe, thus making the current political situation possible.
My father was a POW in Poland during the war. He remembers the camp was divided between British POWs and Russian POWs. The British were treated well under the circumstances, but the Russians were machine-gunned when they were brought in. He said you could hear the screams above the high separating wall. The Germans had no problem dealing with their prisoners.
The USSR had never signed the Geneva Convention.
Analyzing a debate between two Nazis and antisemitic minds, unfortunately Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson have their public and that is scary. Thanks god this deviations are not happening the same way in Latin America at least for the moment.
@JorgeRzezak On the contrary... these type of laidback empty "conversations" by these "used ideas American salesman" (Carlson, Cooper, Joe Rogan, Patrick Bet David etc.) are both exported as a method to the "Non US world", as well as distributed in their original form...
And here we are... on a UK based channel... the nation who issued Hugh Trevor Roper and A.G.P. Taylor.... discussing the mouth farts of the likes of this blogger and Carlson... who by the way just loves to include repeated presentations about how wrong he was about important things, how disconnected and affluent he lived his life for decades, how much he ignores criticism...
And those clowns set the intellectual weather in the rest of the world...
Sad.
Has Andrew publicly commented on P Buchanan’s view that the war was unnecessary? That given its German speaking majorities Danzig should have been sacrificed… that a polish war guarantee by Chamberlain and Co. was the a priori error in statecraft. If someone know of such public commentary can you provide the link?
Considering he wrote that book a while ago, probably not. It is a good read though, and offers a countervailing perspective unlike what's contemporarily debated.
@@therandompersona appreciate the reply. PJB focuses on the war guarantee and in my judgement makes a credible counter factual case. In the end it’s a what if game… fun to play but never to be resolved. What is clear is that Churchill’s empire project was dismantled and Christian Europe lost both God and perhaps its soul over the course of the war and the decades than followed.
My father fought in the Second World War
I remember him saying
A group of men controlling
The world
Churchill was one of them
This is really depressing. Our civilization is in deep trouble when such nonsense is spread by such ignoramuses like Tucker Carlson. At least in science this is less likely to happen. Maxwell's Equations are the same across ideological boundaries on this planet and across the universe
Tucker an ignoramus? His nightly show on Fox was very informative. And he has me thinking about this chapter of history. France was not eager to stand up to Germany after it took Poland. Why should GB think it had to jump in?
@@Steve-Richter Well, whether something is informative depends how well informed you already are and can detect nonsense.
May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second World War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government - 1929 - 1939. The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him.
Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance.
Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. I don’t know if there is an English translation yet . In Russian the title is “Украинский фронт Третьей мировой войны”
@@Steve-Richter Well, whether something is informative depends how well informed you already are and can detect whether it is accurate.
May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government, years 1929 - 1939.
The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him.
Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance.
Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. Hope Tucker Carlson reads it when it gets translated
@@Steve-Richter May I suggest you start with The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of Churchill’s six- volume The Second War.. Then you will understand that Churchill kept warning about the danger from H during his “wilderness years” , the years he was out of government, years 1929 - 1939.
The world watched Germany rearm, reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, rape Austria in 1938, annex the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Churchill tried to do everything he could to warn the West of the coming disaster - nobody listened to him.
Why should GB think it had to jump in? - Because after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the UK and Poland had signed an agreement of mutual assistance.
Tucker Carlson also has no clue about Putin and Russia. There is an excellent book that came out at the beginning of this year in Prague written by Yuri Fedorov, a physicist who became one of the best military experts there is, titled “The Ukrainian Front of the Third World War”. Hope Tucker Carlson reads it when it gets translated
@@Steve-Richter I cannot answer. I am being censored.
In order for Tucker to be fair his next interview must be Andrew Roberts. Roberts’ books are so well researched and cited it would be hard not to be convinced.
Is no one going to mention Mein Kampf ?
Good point, but there is so much to be mentioned in rebuttal of that fool Cooper that it would take a 12 hour Mini-Series to begin to do it justice!
@@paddy864 That’s why free speech is so important. Most subjects have a rich and sometimes complex nature. In each case human contributions can be effected by various bias. A select and powerful authority is not trustworthy enough to choose what misinformation is. I do not support all viewpoints but I do support the freedom to declare them.
Excellent refutation of a grifter. I would have said morally repugnant, rather than bereft. But the point well made
Cooper obviously doesn't actually believe in his position. Otherwise, he would've debated and defended his position.
Darryl Cooper is basically propagating the Lost Cause version of WWII. Sounds familiar?
That's a really dumb thing to say.
Cooper isn't a historian.
Neither is the debunked racist liar Roberts.
All you need to know about Roberts is how he wrote article upon article about Nordstream and since the attack on it he's gone silent.
You mean you _don't_ believe Putler bombed the pipeline instead of simply turning off the gas on his end? You conspiracy theorist, Neo-Nazi, etc.
I've read his book on Churchill and Napoleon. I thought they were quite good.
He wrote a piece in February 2021. This was before the Americans blew up the Nord Stream, which happened late in 2022. But in his piece, he cited the usual warmongering jingoistic stuff. It seems clear that he is just another neocon.
Found the Russian bots
@@jameswelsh1019 "Discussing Nordstream means you're a bot"
Lol
@@jameswelsh1019 Found the guy who's not very bright.
Churchill was no saint by any means, but these are the same people who think Chamberlain ought to have made a pact with Hitler against the USSR
The only threat was from Communism.
5:55... 'he ultimately took Czechoslovakia. Rubbish, he didn't. He took the Czech lands and gave Slovakia independence for the first time in their history. This is pretty poor.
Then: 8:58. 'The guarantee to Poland to an independent sovereign country … so Britain had every right to guarantee Poland.” (He’s right, but Churchill didn’t keep the previous government’s promise!)
The sad truth is that Poland was betrayed by the Western Allies, especially FD Roosevelt, but also Churchill. He did struggle with this.
Clearly, the man Andrew Roberts is critiquing is not a serious scholar, and he is, but isn't it fascinating how he doesn't GIVE A FLIP about Poland? Wow!!
@@woff1959 You have taken one fact "Hitler gave Slovakia Independence" and totally ignored all the context. Perhaps you are unaware. Hitler threatened Slovakia to declare independence or they would be divided between Hungary and Poland. Slovakia became a puppet state under German control. That's some crazy version of independence you believe in.
However, I agree with the 2nd part of your comment. In my opinion, the allies made a deal with the devil (Stalin) to win the war and ended up abandoning all of Eastern Europe to the same kind of oppression Hitler was offering.
@@IvanLeonard-b7y Look, Slovakia was independent from 1939, sure it was a puppet state, but it was there. As for the Allies, have a look a McMeekin's book _Stalin's War_ which tells all about how the Western Allies sold out Central Europe, China, Korea, Manchuria etc. Unbelievable.
My point was that sure, Churchill was a good war leader for the British, but he sold out his empire in the process and caused untold suffering for millions in India, Africa and around the world. I blame Roosevelt more than Churchill, though.
@@woff1959 "Slovakia was independent from 1939, sure it was a puppet state,.." Nazi logic sure is something
@@tnndll4294 It's a historical fact. It's not that I like it. Then again, so were all the Soviet-occupied states. They were puppet states too. I was there, I remember.
There are two motivations for this, anti-zionism or anti-semitism, one can see that in the assertion that he was financially backed to act as he did, when actually Churchill was not primarily focused on Hitler's actions towards the Jews, either before or during the war. He was the man who wanted to stop Hitler, so of course prominent Jews would back him, The main motivation though is American isolationism , this is why Carlson has him on. Churchill's real crime in their eyes is to keep fighting with the declared intension of persuading the US to join the War. That along with his headline grabbing name is why the focus is on him, rather than on Chamberlain who actually was the Prime Minister that set the Polish trip wire and declared war. Chamberlain as the greatest warmonger doesn't quite sell as many books.
Churchill had pressed for war from May 1938 after being bribed by Strakosch.
Judge Churchill by his own standards. He was a hardcore anti-Communist who loved the British Empire and wanted to protect it. His policies resulted in the expansion of world Communism, Soviet domination in Europe, and the collapse of the British Empire. Great Britain became a glorified aircraft carrier for the US and is now a total basket case. Even Japan is better off at this point, and Japan LOST. Churchill's legacy isn't looking so great. The only thing his defenders can say is "at least we're not speaking German," which at this point rings hollow.
What? Everything you have said has been understood for decades now. It is nothing new. Ww2 coat Britain and many others A LOT, but everyone seems to be in agreement that it was necessary and the right thing to do. But your take is that it doesn't matter if Germany had have won? Are you nuts?
@@Richard-d1y yes, that is the consensus NOW. That is a post hoc rationalization of Churchill's policies though. Nobody at that time (other than Leftists) would have been down for suiciding the Empire and surrendering the world to your enemies (the US and USSR) simply because Hitler was BAD or something. Churchill was a failire judged on his own terms, which damages his legacy immensely and makes him at best a tragic and catastrophic figure for Great Britain who any patriotic Englishman should be able to criticize.
Exactly. His bellicosity cost us lives and empire. Patience, better timing and military build up would have led to far better outcomes for this country. Churchill was one of those that today we revile for WW1 - the pompous sergeant yelling “Over the top boys!” To our young men. A huge percentage of the public reviled him both before and after WW2. We had to build a myth about Churchill and British morality because the realization that we had lost everything was too great to bear. (Peter Hitchens echoes this in his brilliant Phoney War)
@@Richard-d1yRead AJP Taylor’s “The Origins of WW2” the history is far from settled and you clearly show how uninformed you are
@@tb8865👏👏👏👏👏👏
"The historian Darryl Cooper ". Not a single credible historian agrees with this statement.
Thank you for that enlightening talk. One minor quibble. Hannah Arendt didn’t argue that the bureaucrats who implemented nazi policies weren’t evil, but rather that they were both evil and banal. They weren’t dramatic villains, but they were villains none the less. That makes them all the more horrific.
What astonishes me is Carlson's acceptance of the rubbish spouted by a fellow posing as a 'historian'.
Bad facts? Mistakes and lies.
ANDREW ROBERTS just wants to sell books
मैंने लॉर्ड रॉबर्ट्स की किताब पढ़ी है और मुझे यह काफी हद तक अनावश्यक नहीं लगी। ऐसा लगा कि यह किताब चर्चिल की जीवनी के बजाय उनकी आलोचनाओं को संबोधित करने के लिए लिखी गई है। कुल मिलाकर यह मेरे लिए एक अच्छी तरह से शोध की गई और उपयोगी किताब थी।
Cooper is kidding us, of course, as one of the great comedians of all time. This is the only judgment that makes any sense. Thanks to Andrew Roberts for his rebuttal. Next time, The Spectator should present an hour on someone we can take more seriously than Cooper. I suggest Bob Hope.
Roberts is a debuked racist liar, and Hope funded Lehi and the Irgun.
Daryll WHO? 🤣
Daryl Cooper reminds me of David Irving. More faction than fact
Irving told the truth.
Sorry Spectator this is too stupid, you lost me at Tucker Carlson, another video i won't be watching
I’m happy to see the right pretty roundly reject this nonsense.
13:50: WOAH! Daryl Cooper's hero?! Huh? Kitty's got claws!
Daryl Cooper was the silliest guest that Tucker has ever had. His hand waving was a just one ridiculous ’tell’
Churchill was a terrible war leader, that is just a fact. Continuing the war against Hitler just to hand Poland to the Soviets was utterly ridiculous
What a disappointing response from Andrew... It's obvious that most commenters here did not watch the interview and are having a knee jerk emotional response to Darryl Cooper. Instead of an arrogant smug and condescending approach, filled with strawman and ad hominen arguing I was hoping this acclaimed expert (Andrew) would build good arguments on top of the facts I'm sure he is well equipped with. The interviewer actually did a much better portrayal of Darryl's assertions
Darryl's argument from What I remember (you can listen to him directly) was that AFTER the fall of 1940 AFTER the Brits left DUNKIRK, Germany had successfully conquered Europe and Without help Britain had no chance of changing that reality. THAT is why Darryl is criticizing Churchil making the case the Churchil wanted to carry the conflict and Largely by his actions the conflict endured and because it endured it escalated. It would have been nice if Andrews would rebuttal this instead of something else that Cooper never argued for, namely that Churchil was not Prime minister in 1939 after Poland's invasion. That's just one example. He also implies Cooper is anti-semetic because he did not mention the holocaust. To me knowing Coopers position that was just a bad display of someone trying to demoralize another man reading things into his motivations instead of responding to what is said with good faith.
Just listen to Darryl at 4:10 "So you're saying Churchill was a vilain therefore you think Hitler/Stalin were the good guys. No that's not what I'm saying.". 4:19 Adolf hitler is cheifly responsible for this".
The man has an 8 hour podcast on the history of Israel and Palestine. Anybody who actually listen to him (not some caricature of him presented by a third party) will see that:
1 he is NOT anti semitic. He's got deep empathy for jews in their historical sufferings
3 he does not speak as much on what is mostly known (Holocaust in this case) as he likes to explore and inform on aspects less known in general
4 he goes through great lengths to learn and step into the shoes of all parties involved and understand their motives and mindset.
A good argument demands a good understanding and characterization of the opponents arguments, position and motivations. Andrew missed on all 3 of these in my opinion.
If Britain had negotiated peace then Hitler would have had free rein to subjugate Europe. The fact that some people are angry that this didn’t happen tells you everything you need to know about them.
Churchill was a traitor.
Churchhills forces were trying to invade Norway BEFORE the Germans. HMS Glowworm were sunk in NORWAY on april 8. 1940.
what's your point?
The greatest things we should take seriously, regarding Tucker at least, is not taking Tucker seriously. He sat in front of Putin and let him lie about Poland. Tucker is a dangerous pseudo-intellectual.
Excellent talk, thank you.
I am not a fan of Tucker Carlson anymore. For me, his trip to Russia was very revelatory. He missed a great opportunity to pin Putin down in his interview and he missed it by being so agreeable with most anything Putin had to say. He did not challenge him the way that Putin needs to be challenged. As a matter of fact, Putin himself remarked how he thought that Carlson would have been tougher on him. A nice little jab from Vladimir.
He really lost me with his ridiculous trip to a Russian supermarket, crowing about how groceries which cost him $400 in the USA only cost him $100 in Russia. This assertion simply revealed his total ignorance of the Russian economy. The average Russian earns far less than the average American and he should have known that before waxing poetic about how wonderful Russia is. Admittedly, infrastructure in many parts of Russia has improved greatly since the Soviet Union, but he ignores that, even though the shelves are full, repression of the people continues as it did in the Soviet Union, simply without communists.
This interview with Cooper is simply the icing on the cake for me. Carlson is now pretty regularly revealing himself as uninformed and frankly a bit of a loon. Cooper is his favorite historian? Give me a break.
i feel most sorry for Jocko Willink who tied up with this guy on his podcast.
I will say, though, if you listen to the whole Carlson interview Cooper does make some good observation about European immigration. apart from that its Irving/Buchanan rehashed
Churchill is going to be a hero to those who supported him and a villain to those who didn't or don't. Since my parent's generation fought in the war directly, both on the British and Russian sides, we are not going to have a neutral or non-emotional opinion.
The overreaction to one interview is incredible
Everyone should be utterly intolerant of revision, disinformation, propaganda, and error. Whether it comes from the left and right.
Its fighting against people who are trying to rewrite history
@abpunk11 History is always being rewritten. Always. If Saint Winston Churchill was such a great man let's see if he survives the constant rewriting of WW2 history over the next 2 centuries by non-Western historians who have a dim view of the British Empire, Churchill's lifelong project. Do you really think in 2224 respected Indian historians will be as enamored of Churchill as this gentleman here?
Just proves his point, people get angry when you undermine their myths with fact.
Carlson shouldn't have given this conspiracy cultist any platform. He did. So those conspiracies need to be publicly debunked.