Tucker recently had an alternative historian on his show (Darryl Cooper, who runs the Martyr Made podcast) to expound on his view of the genesis of WWII, namely that Winston Churchill was a villainous figure. His twitter thread made after the show does a decent job of summarizing that point.
Obviously any suggestion that Hitler was not 100% Satan incensed the boomer right, provoking febrile emotional reactions like this one from Billboard Chris. The likes of Seth Dillon are also making their favorite call for "moral clarity," which I just read as "die for Israel" these days.
At the same time, a couple people made some decent counterpoints, namely that Hitler invaded a lot of countries at the time he was supposedly suing for peace. This is the problem with calling Churchill "the chief villain," which Cooper walked back into "a chief villain" on X.
Overall, the controversy is a good thing for the right. Tucker is softening up the ironclad boomer mythology of WWII - when you delve deeper into the motivations of the belligerents, you eventually delve into the question of, "so where did the Nazis get all this animus against Jews?" and "why is the Holocaust the greatest tragedy when 14 million Asians were killed by Japan and 20 million Ukrainians were killed in the Holodomor?" Also, blue laser eyes/red tint profile pics are gay.
It's the same reason most people would recoil if you were to tell most people you are reading Mein Kampf. They are trained to fear seeking alternative points of view. I don't know anything about this guy, and I at least hope if Carlson has him on there's more substance behind it then just wild conspiracy.
There's only something to fear from listening to others if your stance isn't the right one. If you're standing on solid ground, why be afraid?
I've always been curious as to what's actually in that book but I don't want to end up on every government list in existence by trying to search for it.
Reading Mein Kampf is one thing that really started waking me up. I read it on a whim thinking "If they're slandering Trump this much, I may as well read it with an open mind" and ended up surprised with how much I agreed with. Especially when he talks about the news and journalists. It does get bogged down in the specific and detailed politics of Germany at the time, which is understandable.
You're laterally Hitler.
You can literally buy it at many book stores or rent it from the library.
Most of it is ideological ranting about jews. It's not a particularly good read, tbh. Like, literally, as an author, he doesn't right very well.
But how well does he left?
He's pretty good at it, tbh.
I've heard mixed opinions on the quality and accuracy of many of its translations. Which makes sense given how controversial it is.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't apply at least a little bias into such a task, from one extreme or another.
Honestly, get 2 and contrast.
There's a lot of different versions. It's quite a common book, tbh.
Choose ones from different decades if you're concerned.
Unlike translating from other languages from centuries ago, this is modern german. The context is pretty clear. Not to mention, he's pretty clear. He's ranting, but he's not vague. When he's talking about the trade-unionists, he's talking about the trade-unionists. He's not talking about anything else. And he'll rant about trade unionists and why trade unionism doesn't work, or isn't real socialism, for several pages. You kinda can't miss his intent. I'll grant that "Gleichschaltung" or the like are words that were adopted into political vocabulary and weren't naturally occurring before the NSDAP. So, we actually have to use phrases and words that convey their political meaning in the context. So instead of "Gleichschaltung" we might say "synchronization" or "coming together" or "solidification", or something like that but you should be able to get the context cues to know well enough what he's talking about.
Hell, get the native german and contrast if it's really a concern. I'm sure there's a free PDF of the original german.
Honestly this sounds like a job for a LLM. It's the same issue as anime localizers, so why not the same solution?
You can find it anywhere. Its anti semitic ranting from a mass murderer to be. And the writing sucks.
In a vacuum for no reason at all just like everyone else who can’t stand them, and their demonic destructive ways. Kicked out of all those “evil racist” counties for absolutely no reason at all. At what point do you start admitting theirs a pattern that can’t be denied?
There was plenty of substance, but he hurts himself by saying "well I don't want to go to into it because it will trigger people's ingrained responses", as well as "I like to be hyperbolic and cause trouble".
It's kind of an assinine game to play: "Let me tell you the truth of history, but oops! You're just not ready for it." It's a grifter move straight from "The Secret" from over a decade ago.
I mean, wouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't the grifter move from "The Secret" be straight from "Mein Kampf," instead?
No, because Hitler isn't trying to hide anything in Mein Kampf. He's not trying to lure the reader in. The third sentence is:
"German-Austria must return to the great German mother country, and not because of any economic considerations."
Subtlety is not Hitler's strong suit.
Straight lies are different. Hitler's much more comfortable with just full-on denying he's doing the thing he's doing while doing it and claiming that you're fucking crazy to think that the thing he's doing is the thing he's actively doing.
There's a famous speech he gave where he was making fun of FDR for claiming that Hitler had ambitions on Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia... etc. as a way of basically saying that FDR was a delusional conspiracy theorist for claiming that Hitler wanted to invade Czechoslovakia. ... Which he then proceeded to do a few years later.
I have a problem with the way the early German invasions are portrayed. There were regions in those countries that had majority german populations who lived on land that had been part of Prussia prior to Versailles. The germans in those regions were being persecuted in many ways, including rapes, robbery, and murder, either by state actors or with the tacit approval of state actors.
The guy who viewed himself as the protector of the German people included all German people in that group no matter what country their lands were now considered part of.
When the governments of the places where Germans were being persecuted refused to do anything to stop the persecutions, Germany took back land that had been theirs just 20 years before. They had to take over the entire countries to force capitulation.
it sounds exactly like Russia and Ukraine.
That's nonsense. German persecution in Denmark, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and France was never even remotely as serious as you are claiming, and I'd doubt that's the case in Poland as well.
If anyone was persecuting Denmark, it was Germany, as it had been for decades.
Crux question. If Hitler wasn't around, would there be a WW2.
Yes there would have been.
There would have been wars, but I don't know if they would have coalesced into such a grand scale. Weimar Germany would have descended into civil war, perhaps balkanizing, Russia would have gradually seized Eastern Europe and may have gone to war with the West, Japan and the US likely would've fought.
I know you don't want to accept this point, but which countries turned it into a grand scale?
That is a grand scale. Bigger than what we got in fact.
Germany played a massive part in this. Invading Belgium, Poland, France, Africa, Russia, and declaring war on the US kind of speaks for itself.
If Eastern Europe's assimilation into the USSR provoked a war (not a given), the Soviets would have crumbled without Lend-Lease.
I don't see how there wouldn't have been. There was too much left unsettled from the first go-around. Germany was likely to do something with the state of their country whether Hitler or someone else. The US was already all over the Pacific. You had the British still in China. Stalin would have started pushing West.
There was far, far more going on than Hitler invaded Poland.
Could the commies have one but for Hitler?
Presumably they then don't fight Russia, though I have no idea.
Hitler and the Nazis were bad, but the commies would have purged MORE and been far worse of they took over instead of them.
The problem is how WW1 ended set up WW2 to happen, there were a lot of conditions during the war that would have prevented a WW2 at it's conclusion but this is the timeline we are on.
That might be debatable, and I think it depends on the particular communist, and the particular location. Greece, Romania, and Yugoslavia, didn't seem to be better under National Socialism than Communism. If you're going to be trapped under Communism, Tito's probably a better bet if Gorbachev isn't available.
Meanwhile, Poland is less murdered, but only after Stalin is dead, same with Ukraine. So long-term Poland is better off under Communism maybe? Just don't be born in the wrong decade? Ukraine starts off worse with the Holodomor, doesn't get better under the Holocaust, but DOES get better under Kruschev, then stops getting better, and gets irradiated with Chernobyl. Offsetting penalties I guess, but we can see why Azov has appeal. Czechoslovakia is kind of a mirror version of this where neither Germany nor the USSR were particularly bloodthirsty in Czechoslovakia. Certainly nobody seemed to want to go back to the days when the NatSocs were in charge, when the option of a liberal democracy was available.
I suppose the fact that nobody really went back to explore Fascism or National Socialism after the fall of the USSR is kinda telling what people thought of it. You'll probably have more fans of Monarchism than Fascism in Eastern Europe.
I don't see fascism as too far off what's happening in Russia now. You have national pride. You have strongman. You have repression of political dissent. The word got dirtied, for sure. But the kernel of truth to the leftists calling everyone fascist is that the ideas constituting fascism never left. They could never leave.
Fascism is nothing like what's happening in Russia, dirty or not.
Fascism is explicitly about Italian Civic National State Syndicalism. If we at least remove the explicitly Italian part out of that, the Russian Federation is simply not a Civic National State Syndicalist government.
What you're referring to is basically a leftist, over-broad, strawman definition, which never fit Fascism, because the Left didn't want to admit that Fascism is a fundamentally left-wing ideology.
It's true that Fascism didn't fully leave, but that is because Fascism, even more than National Socialism, is the only practical application of Socialism that can exist. The more practically feedable a Socialist policy becomes, the more it actually resembles a Fascist state/organization. Fascism is the necessary endpoint of a practical application of Leftism.
ww2 was a european socialist brother war that the common man was sacrificed to.
IAST😞
not upvoted enough
At least everyone can agree that it was either socialists or communists who caused WWII.
It certainly wasn't small government.
Well the Liberals had been mostly wiped out politically, and it damn sure wasn't the monarchists... soooo...
Incredibly so.
I'm at ~35 or so of his thread. If what he says is the absolute truth, German high command were the dumbest motherfuckers to ever live. They prosecute a land war so successful, they control an entire continent and don't have the logistics to deal with the huge numbers of POWs they're taking. Yet they wring their hands and complain to the ref that England is breaking the rules instead of destroying their enemy. Were Nazis the original boomercons?
I understand the 'no more brother war' rationale for dragging feet against England. However, the whole European project was, ostensibly, started to defend Germans and secure their future. Why go through all that trouble if you're just going to shrug and let Churchill bomb civilian centers to hell and back? What is the point of preserving your brother from death if he's just going to kill you?
Hitler was the original TDS.
I listened to the entire podcast yesterday.
I don't really care about Darryl's claim that Winston Churchill was "the chief villain", but his assessment of Hitler & Hitler's intentions are sympathetic to a clear fault.
He's right that you need to understand the perspective of the actors from their views, but there's a big difference between understanding those perspectives, and taking dishonest spin at face value.
For example, we know that most of the Democratic elite are aware that Donald Trump is not a dictator, who raped a woman in a department store bathroom, is a KGB & FSB Agent, who pays women to piss on beds because Obama slept in one. That's propaganda that they don't believe, you shouldn't take them at their word.
Simultaneously, Hitler knew good and god damned well that he was spinning circles around Chamberlain. He survived an assassination plot because of the diplomatic success that Chamberlain straight up gave him. He expected a war with the west and wanted it over quickly. Hitler obviously intended a war with the USSR, even though Stalin didn't, since Hitler was both supplying goods to the USSR, and his government proposed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and his government was the first one to break it. Hell, Hitler's recordings at the Eagle's Nest were very clear that he intended to go to war with Russia much earlier than he did, but he didn't realize how badly the Winter War had gone for Russia until long after it was over. He wished he'd invaded then, but the military wasn't up to strength.
The idea that he felt by 1940 that the United States was a more dangerous enemy than the Soviet Union is bananas. There were barely 200,000 men in the entire US Army at that time. Everyone in Europe believed that if the US was going to re-tool for war, it would take years. Goering famously considered the US military-industrial capacity to be a fucking joke.
The reality is that if there was any genuine desire to prevent a war with England, he could have done it, and would have had it. Using Mosby as a fascist puppet government is not "wanting peace". If he really wanted peace, he wouldn't have abandoned Rudolf Hess to die in prison, and wouldn't have publicly disowned him with the entirety of the Nazi government, nor would Hess have needed to parachute into Scotland without telling anyone.
He wanted a war with both the USSR and England. This was because, in his mind, the USSR was the center of Judeo-Bolshevism, and the England was the center of Judeo-Capitalism. To "save Europe", he had to destroy both governments, and exterminate jews not simply from Poland, but from the whole continent. At least from an ideological perspective. From a straight geo-political perspective; Russia always presented an ever-present threat to Germany, and England had clearly intended to manipulate Europe into an environment which benefited it the most, making both legitimate targets from geo-politics alone.
When you're not blathering on about the jews, you're a phenomenal writer. You could probably have a successful substack if you wanted to put in the effort.
I take the same approach with jews as I've done here. You just don't like the outcome.
Eh, you never write about the jews, as far as I remember. You just burn through the comments calling us 'stormfags' and 'retards'.
At this point it's kinda endearing.
I write about the jews because you're retarded.
Lol. Obviously not. One of us understands mathematics/physics/engineering, and one of us is you. But you're a phenomenal writer about history, whether you're correct or not.
None of think that every jew is complicit in a conspiracy. But that's you're only point.
Many of them are. Hey, but not all -- yeah, that's already been covered.
Yes, you are retarded.
You appeal to physics to deflect my criticism of your ideological possession.
As if I haven't met a retarded physicist before.
A number of tweets in his thread have context added, because he was misleading (or outright lying).
Hes taking a very specific point of view to make Hitler seem less bad. If he was being honest, I'd say he had more of a point.
Ultimately, I think ww2 was largely driven by the impacts of ww1 and driving Germany to hyper inflation, etc. If they'd have had a stable economy and not been overrun by communists, Hitler wouldn't have been in power.
I also don't think Churchill was a villain, because that sits on the aggressors (namely, Hitler et al). Was Churchill (or anyone else) perfect? No. But to claim he's a villain is hyperbole.
Also, to claim nobody but Churchill wanted war is hilarious. Hitler literally started it by invading other countries. That's an act of war, and he knew it. He just thought everyone else would back down.
Of course Churchill wanted war, he declared war on Germany to 'save' Poland. Although 'saving' Poland turned into handing it over to the Soviet invaders for the next 40 years.
Why save Poland?
Its NAZI Germany pillaging and raping Poland had anything to do with it. Stormfags are really grasping at straws here.
What's weird is if Germany hadn't started it, there wouldn't have been that need. Strange.
They didn't "start" anything. Wilson laid the groundwork for the next war, more than anyone else.
That's like blaming Germany for the 1920 invasion of Poland, or the Winter War.
Even if we accept the "groundwork" argument, the decision for Russia to invade Poland and Finland doesn't rest on the Germans.
Yeah, Germany invading people definitely wasn't starting anything. Riiiight.
Your reddit tier snark aside that's completely correct. You don't unilaterally declare one country the villain of a continent wide mutual war caused by a Serbian communist, and then enslave those people with onerous inflation and economic warfare, and then play the "I'm not touching you" game.
The Germans had every right to kick the living shit out of the rest of Europe for that.
In conclusion, fuck off back to reddit, leftist.
Sorry, just because I'm not a neonazi fuckwad doesn't make me a leftist. Get over yourself.
Yeah, Germany invading other countries was what actually started the war. We can talk about why, but if they didn't commit acts of war, nobody would have gone after them.
If you don't want people to call you a duck, stop quacking maybe.
Yes it does.
b-b-b-b-b-but Danzig!
I'm not convinced Churchill was a villain, but Russia/Ukraine doesn't cleanly break down like that.
Why are you talking about Russia and Ukraine in a topic about ww2?
Because Russia is the aggressor, but they are not exactly the villain, or perhaps not the only villain.
The US by way of NATO is the aggressor, and have pulled a DARVO to try to blame Russia.
The US foreign policy towards Russia could be described as a child swinging its fists near someone's face and saying, "I'm not hitting you! I'm not hitting you!"
But that's not the point of this topic... If you want to talk about Russia and Ukraine, that's an entirely different conflict with different origins, and not relevant to the point I made about ww2.
You: I don't think X is a villain because Y were the aggressors.
Me: Here's an example where the aggressors aren't automatically the villains.
You: What does that have to do with anything?
You clearly don't understand what context is.
I'm not saying that WWII and the Ukraine war are exactly the same. I think this is clear. I am saying that aggression is not ipso facto proof of villainy.
They did have a stable economy and weren't over-run by communists in the last days of the SDP's rule. The problem is that the SDP were Socialists and intended to go right back to everything they had just done after having reversed course to save the economy.
The problem with Germany was that they were over-run by Socialists. And the Socialists wanted to find a way to make Socialism work, come hell or high water, because obviously if you try Socialism with the right people in the right way it totally works.
"The goal of Socialism is Communism" - Vladimir Lenin
Yes, but this was also a scathing rebuke of the Socialists for not going fast enough. He despised how many socialists were head-in-the-clouds style "thinkers" and "authors" rather than people who actually pushed for a revolution. His problem was that the socialists would debate forever on their committees agreeing to nothing and 'thinking' about everything, and accomplishing less. Germany had already rebuked Communists (him personally). Instead it was over-run by Socialists who were arguing about how Marxian prophecies could really be fulfilled, and what was real Socialism, while Lenin had already moved well beyond that (and died).