@@famitsus987 If my son was kicked out of school because the teachers kept rambling about killing god and using blood to bake crackers I would probably wonder what's wrong with everyone else, actually.
But they just had too many "prisoners of war" (Jewish babies) to "keep contained" (murder) in order to solve the "Jewish Problem" (their genocidal racism)
Churchill wasn't even Prime Minister when Britain declared war on Germany. But he galvanised resistance to Germany. France's army - though on paper seemed good, was actually pretty crap. Full of conscripts, under trained and with outdated equipment - still fighting WW1 while the Germans had different ideas. As for that bloke's assertion that the war would have stayed a little thing in Poland - that's BS. Mussolini wanted North Africa. Hitler wanted Norway. It was the Axis who escalated things, not Churchill. The guy's a nob.
@@cass7448 I wonder if he's the same bloke who JK Rowling called to look at that mould. - Meh, no need to do anything, it's not doing any harm. It probably won't spread at all - or cause any neural diseases that might explain a rash tendency to act inhumanely towards other people.
@@CaptainWelshieyeah. Chamberlain going for a war dec in 1936 or 1938 would have required France too or else British forces couldn’t read Germany. And France was in no condition for a sending out the first war Dec.
The preamble about myths, real history, and general slandering of credentialed historians is such a giveaway that he's about to depart completely from reality and spew some nonsense, which he ironically then fails to give really any evidence for
Churchill is a bit of a villain (not completely deservedly) in my part of South Wales, being regarded as responsible for troops opening fire on miners rioting for decent pay and conditions in Tonypandy. We still prefer him to Hitler at the end of the day though..
Yeah, fair enough. And of course the elephant in the room with Churchill is that he was a MEGA imperialist, but especially considering the standards of the time and even from a modern lens, it really shouldn't be enough to make you "both sides" WW2, not to mention what this lunatic went with. And as a Not-Bri'ish, I still hold that his accomplishments in opposing fascism still make him, maybe not a guy I'd sit down and have a drink with, but definitely someone who's status as a national icon is justifiable.
@@anonymooseplays3905 All European leaders were imperialist at the time. The war was fought over imperialist goals on both sides. Only a couple were trying to exterminate whole populations. It's pretty easy to make a distinction between these people. Luckily, Europe hasn't been at war since.
Well the disparity of how Germany treated East POW versus West had racial components too, not sure if this revisionist will touch on this inconvenient fact.
“We didn’t have enough food for the prisoners so we had to kill them” is one of the evilest statements to ever be spoken by anyone. If you truly felt empathy toward the prisoners maybe don’t invade their country so they wouldn’t turn into prisoners and die.
yeah how could they have know!!! Just ignore the whole plan they drew up literally called the HUNGER PLAN where they planned to kill two thirds of eastern europe by starvation. This was not planned by the SS or Nazi officials but by the wehrmacht. This was how they planned to feed the army by pillaging everything. The civilian deaths where a byproduct they where willing to make.
In a weird way, Winston Churchill's imperialist mindset helped ensure Britain did not fall. His stubborn devotion to the crumbling British Empire gave him the succor to never surrender.
One thing about the war ending, it could have ended literally 3 different times before September 1, 1939. When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, England and France could have enforced the treaty and put an end to Adolf. When the Anschluss occurred, England and France could have enforced the treaty and put an end to Adolf. When Adolf went after the Sudetenland, France could have enforced its treaty and put an end to Adolf. Adolf was not competent. His military successes, his land grabs, were not because of competence. He basically only took Ws before July 1941. This wasn’t because of competence. It was because his counterparties were stupidly incompetent. There is a reason why Adolf’s generals were saying to not do these things. They knew of England’s and France’s treaties. Each of these pre-WWII acts could have ended Adolf if England and France were just smart enough to do more than bending over
I'd say it isn't so much about competence as it is about risks and gambles. There was immense public pressure in the UK to avoid another continental Great War, so while France was much more hawkish about confronting Germany it was the British who were willing to go to extreme lengths to avoid war. The British government just wasn't willing to take the to them greater risk of unpopular war to the seemingly safe bet of just letting Hitler have his way and surely he doesn't ACTUALLY mean what he says.
@@arskakarva7474 You’re right. Hitler was willing to take irrational risks and then got lucky when it ended up his way. England was so fearful of putting a weak Germany in its place that they instead spent years getting gapped by Germany’s military instead. Instead of putting Germany down when it would have been fairly easy, they chose Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain because of… vibes. To be clear, I agree with you on the political weakness of France and in particular England. Those two are among the four most responsible parties for WWII. Part of why it Adolf was lucky is in fact that the leaders of England and France were so incredibly weak
Darryl's twitter is completely unhinged. I called this guy out on his Russian propaganda on this other video he was on and he actually responded. I also called him out how many people JQ on his twitter posts and he couldn't respond, just said I was "moralizing." I tried to respond with actual proof but my reply got taken down somehow (curious? free speech?). Not surprising to see him doing this here.
Just as a note for peeps, while Chamberlain did vote in the general meeting of the 5 leaders of the country to hear out the Germans, he was exhausted by that point having lost multiple campaigns and was dying of cancer. The guys mindset was very much 1 of a guy who had suffered heavily politically and personally. People forget that. They also forget he continued to work in the war cabinet under Churchill until he died of cancer, not seeing the end of the war.
Great job, but it’s not enough to say that Carlson is a moron: Carlson knows exactly what he’s doing and he’s doing it with relish. Relativising truth, deconstructing collective identities/histories and pseudo-revisionism are all part of an established playbook.
You think giving a soapbox to a nazi and not pushing back even a little bit and instead opting to call him a proponent of the West and of Western values is a "normal one". That's a very odd take.
@lonerbox What’s insane, is that Germans attacked France through Belgium in WWI, BEFORE they did it in WWII- it was called the Van Schleiffen plan. I still have NO idea why the Maginot Line wasn’t also along the Belgium border given that fact pattern.
The Maginot line was never meant to extend to Belgium, it was meant to drive the Germans to go through Belgium where the French and English armies would focus
because it shouldnt have mattered. Belgium had forts on the albert channel which should hold of the germans until the french reinforced them. The ardenne forest was a logistical nightmare. The reason the allies lost was because the germans put everything one the card of rushing trough the ardennes on 3 roads and surprise the allies. The allied recon failed miserably which led to the disaster we know. If the germans where spotted best case they wouldve been stopped and the war wouldve turned into ww1 but shorter or worst case for them the allies wouldve bombed their best forces into the ground.
A yes, the german military staff, world renowned for its professialism, didnt expected massiv numbers of POW's in Russia, after 2 years of war and many campaigns with hundreds of thousands of POW's. That was surely because the german military thought so highly about the red army...
How much of a plan or desire hitler had to do the eastern genocide early on way before he had power, is a real historical question to be answered about an individual way back closer to ww1 than the second war. Its not the same as the question of whether the nazis had any idea they were going ti do a genocide in 1941, asking that is sort of completely crazy.
It's not so unfathomable that GB would hope to stand alone against Germany -- 1. GB had the hugest overseas empire the world has ever seen 2. GB had the greatest fleet and near full control of the seas 3. US was generally leaning towards GB and there could always be hope of them eventually, later if not sooner, joining the war. 4. La Manche is nothing to sneeze at as a defense. Conversely, USSR was reasonably concerned about all capitalist countries allying against them (remember 1918-21?), and USSR knew their weaknesses quite well, and there is no La Manche between Germany and USSR no matter how many hours I spend looking at the map of eastern Europe.
I live in the US and learned about Versailles in public schooling, i dont know what his excuse is. People like this will talk about the spark notes of the interwar period like they're obscure balkan war crimes from ww2 its fucking insufferable
One point about Churchill and the concentration camps Churchill's quote comes from a letter in June 1901 before it would have been known by him how bad the conditions were which were first confirmed in July 1901. Churchill's statement on the concentration camps is: "Sir, In his rejoinder to Lord Hugh Cecil, Lord Crewe deals chiefly with two questions. First, if the war in South Africa is being prosecuted by “methods of barbarism,” as Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman contends, are the generals responsible or only the Government? Now, a military commander has nothing to say to the policy which leads to a war, nor to the conditions which it may be thought desirable to exact before peace is restored. But for the methods by which that war is waged he is certainly responsible equally with the Government at home. If the methods are of the general’s own choosing, the balance of responsibility, if any exist, rests with him. No one can relieve him of it; for no authority can justify an inhuman act. And the contention that the soldier is absolved of any portion of his responsibility for the methods by which warfare is conducted would be extremely mischievous were it not altogether absurd. The ethics of slaughter are naturally obscure; but one clear principle cannot be overlooked; and the civilized combatant is obliged, at peril of being classed a savage, to avoid unnecessary cruelty to his enemy. Unless there has been unnecessary cruelty, whatever the suffering, there can be no barbarity. If there has been unnecessary cruelty, all who are in any way responsible for it are infected with the taint of inhumanity. When, therefore, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman speaks of “methods of barbarism,” his charge applies to generals abroad not less than to Ministers at home. When he declines to press his charge against the generals, it is evident that either his logic or his courage is at fault; and when Lord Crewe, hastening to succour his leader, informs us that “public opinion will not burden Lord Kitchener, but will lay heavy responsibility upon the Government,” he merely affords a rare and pleasing example of party loyalty in the Liberal ranks. The second question which Lord Crewe raises, but which he does not answer, is of much more importance. Is the policy of concentrating the civil inhabitants barbarous? As Lord Hugh Cecil pointed out, the privations of the women and children in the refugee camps are nothing in comparison to those endured by the civil inhabitants of a fortified town during a siege. Nevertheless, as the death-rate shows, they have undoubtedly been severe. “The essential fact,” says Lord Crewe, “is not in a distinction between fortifications and no fortifications, but between the results involved by active resistance on the one hand, and passive submission on the other.” As a matter of fact, the resistance of a hardy population scattered over a vast region and continually supplying the enemy’s army with food and information is plainly more formidable than the resistance-if it can be called resistance-of the unhappy inhabitants of an invested town. In the former case the non-combatants undoubtedly prolong the operations; in the other, by eating up the food of the garrison, they terminate them. It is difficult to understand why Lord Crewe calls the former condition “passive submission” and the latter “active resistance.” His expressions would be better chosen if their application were reversed. But, putting all this aside, I would venture to observe that “the essential fact” lies neither in the question of fortifications nor in that of resistance, but in the actual suffering inflicted on helpless human beings. If women and children are dying of disease and want, whether they have offered technical resistance or not is a minor consideration. The supreme question is-Was there any alternative action by which this suffering might have been diminished without impeding the military operations? Lord Crewe is silent. He does not tell us-others, less careful of their words than he, do not tell us-whether they would have faced the alternative to the concentration camps. Would they have refused to accept any responsibility for the Boer women and children left in the devastated districts? Would they have said that their case was primarily a matter for the Boer generals to consider? Would they, having trampled the crops-the enemy’s commissariat-or destroyed the houses-often his magazines-have left the women sitting hungry amid the ruins? The mind revolts from such ideas; and so we come to concentration camps, honestly believing that upon the whole they involve the minimum of suffering to the unfortunate people for whom we have made ourselves responsible." Later in 1957 in Churchill's book, he praised the person who brought attention to it, Emily Hobhouse saying: "Nothing, not even the incapacity of the military authorities when charged with the novel and distasteful task of herding large bodies of civilians into captivity, could justify the conditions in the camps themselves. By February 1902 more than 20,000 of the prisoners, or nearly one in every six, had died, mostly of disease. At first the authorities denied that anything was wrong, or that any alleviation was possible, but at length an Englishwoman, Miss Emily Hobhouse, exposed and proclaimed the terrible facts. Campbell-Bannerman, soon to be Prime Minister, but at this time in Opposition, denounced the camps as “methods of barbarism.” Chamberlain removed them from military control; conditions thereupon speedily improved, and at last, on March 23, 1902, the Boers sued for peace" So it seems he was favourable to the camps in theory as necessary to reducing Boer civilian suffering and to win the war but suggesting that Churchill was in favour of them regardless of their conditions and the cost to Boer civilians and prisoners is inaccurate. Churchill was problematic, especially with many of his views but the faults of Churchill are greatly exaggerated from the Bengal famine, Gallipoli, Boer war and the second world war.
You seem to have well researched Churchill, I’m curious about one thing based on your last paragraph. What level of fault do you place on Churchill and/or his government for the Bengal famine? No doubt Churchill’s views on India can easily color an analysis of this topic. Please note, I am referring to this as a famine in the colloquial sense. I know whether this was an actual famine is disputed.
You're revising history. Churchill was in full support of the concentration camps of the Boers, it's why he defended them as having only the bare necessary amount of suffering. That is full on support of those camps. There's no evidence he's made these comments after the conditions of the concentration camps were known. The only those statements come from pro Winston Churchill websites such that the Churchill project. I'd like to know where you got your sources from.
@@ayarzeev8237 I wouldn't say Churchill was all too responsible for the famine. The claim he was originates with Madhusree Mukerjee in her book 'Churchill's Secret War' who, it's important to bare in mind, isn't a historian at all and conflates his racism and racist quotes with effectively genocidal intent. The causes of the famine was due to hoarding, internal issues between hindus and muslims, the second world war (for a number of reasons), poor weather (including a cyclone in late 1942) and the mismanagement by the then viceroy Lord Linlithgow. Churchill initially wasn't fully aware of how serious the famine was and was inclined to leave it to the regional leader's since he had a world war to worry about which limited what he could do in any case as both the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea were hotly contested and completely unsafe for sending aid ships without dedicating considerable naval assets that may be needed elsewhere. However, once Churchill was aware of how serious it actually was, he removed Lord Linlithgow for his failure and appointed Wavell in October 1943 with the following direction: "...to make sure that India was a safe base for the great operations against Japan which were now pending, and that the war was pressed to a successful conclusion, and that famine and food difficulties were dealt with.” He also sent a personal letter to Wavell saying: "Peace, order and a high condition of war-time well-being among the masses of the people constitute the essential foundation of the forward thrust against the enemy….The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good." Some of the evidence used that Churchill wanted the famine was that he denied Canadian aid going to India which he did because it would take too long and the journey was too risky, instead he arranged for Australia to send aid. He also later requested aid from the US to be sent saying: "I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more. I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help." FDR denied because of the war which was also causing issues with how much aid Britain could send without undermining the war effort in the Pacific and in Europe, and most specifically operation overlord. It's worth bearing in mind that trade was so bad that Britain, which Churchill definitely did care massively about, was still rationing food until 1954. Almost an entire decade after the war ended. Personally from what I've found, I'm satisfied that, whilst Churchill made awful comments about Indians, he neither caused nor exacerbated the famine (or at least not intentionally), and that the famine would have been dealt with far better, if it occurred at all, had there not been a World War going on at the time which I believe was the primary factor for why it got as bad as it did. I cannot see any actual intent in this letters that Churchill wanted Indians to starve or that he was apathetic to the situation when he was aware of how bad it was. You could make the case that didn't take early warnings seriously enough and so he has some fault there, but that is easy to say in hindsight when you aren't facing the dilemmas and considerations he was facing that had to be dealt with in a timely manner. Hope this helps
Oh and nobody was demonising the peace faction in the UK during WW2, the majority of MPs were a peace faction, they however put that aside because they knew the war was now needing to be seen to the end. Also the black forest bombing was because the Germans were storing munitions in the forest lol.
Your point on the main point of Allied bombings not being to destroy major arms munitions factories isn't true though. The cities targeted were often heavily important in arms production and the targeting of those factories heavily crippled German arms production. Yes, anti-air defences would have been diverted to protect cities, but that by itself wouldn't have strained the German military in the same way German bombings of London and major British cities didn't strain the UK's military. It was the targeting and destruction of German factories that heavily contributed to German logistics being so strained and eventually collapsing.
One correction - It was the RAF who first bombed Germany - there were a few minor raids before the Battle of Britain and the Germans only started the blitz on British cities after that.
@@ayarzeev8237 Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Germans start bombing London and other civilian targets in Britain as a response to the first (pretty ineffective) raid on Berlin - which had the benefit of taking pressure off the RAF airfields, allowing them to respond to the Luftwaffe more efficiently. I'm not trying to support that guy's 'Churchill was the real villain' theory of why the war escalated - as you say the attack on Rotterdam shows that Hitler wasn't merely responding to outside aggression. Just a technical point.
@@bengreen171 to be clear, I didn’t think you left it out intentionally. Just wanted to leave that info for anyone else that comes along so they don’t misconstrue what is actually meant. Cheers! 👍
Fuck, i'm an idiot, i mixed up the sufis and the druze, it would have been so good to say something like, no actually it was the druze, the masters of spin, but its the sufis that spin... What a shame. On me i guess.
The British never really betrayed Zionism, even when they wrote the white paper only the immigration quotas where enforced, jewish settlements expanded during the white paper era and the country was being prepared for partitioning not for a binational Palestinian-controlled state.
Had to stop listening 4 minutes in. STOP SAYING THE WORD “LIKE” YOU COULD CUT THAT WORD OUT OF YOUR VOCABULARY AND NOTHING WOULD CHANGE EXCEPT THE STATE OF MY SANITY
Your position on Churchill and Britain during WW2 neglects that Britain and the Soviets both would have run out of materiel to fight with if not for American industry and the Cash and Carry program
I too have always wondered why the British didn’t just let the nazis win ww2, what villains
Just like the West isn’t allowing Russia to just win in Ukraine. The West are always the villains it seems.
Anyone who even knows about the Einsatzgruppen can see through the complete horseshit this is.
Anyone who knows anything about german atrocities knows he is talking out of his ass.
You see, the mass graves were just kind of a little oopsie.
@@petrilofberg1758sure thing 6 billon cookies but 110 schools your son was kicked out of was it his fault or the school’s fault
@@famitsus987 If my son was kicked out of school because the teachers kept rambling about killing god and using blood to bake crackers I would probably wonder what's wrong with everyone else, actually.
@@famitsus987slavery was also done everywhere, I guess it's right. Marrying 9 year olds is also widespread, I guess that's justified too.
16:00 this guy is glossing over the holocaust of bullets. Before they ever made a camp there were ghettos and mass executions
But they just had too many "prisoners of war" (Jewish babies) to "keep contained" (murder) in order to solve the "Jewish Problem" (their genocidal racism)
Churchill wasn't even Prime Minister when Britain declared war on Germany.
But he galvanised resistance to Germany.
France's army - though on paper seemed good, was actually pretty crap. Full of conscripts, under trained and with outdated equipment - still fighting WW1 while the Germans had different ideas.
As for that bloke's assertion that the war would have stayed a little thing in Poland - that's BS. Mussolini wanted North Africa. Hitler wanted Norway. It was the Axis who escalated things, not Churchill. The guy's a nob.
Dude is basically arguing appeasement was going fine, actually.
@@cass7448
I wonder if he's the same bloke who JK Rowling called to look at that mould. - Meh, no need to do anything, it's not doing any harm. It probably won't spread at all - or cause any neural diseases that might explain a rash tendency to act inhumanely towards other people.
Also, France had a lot of political infighting with the government and her army at the time.
@@CaptainWelshieyeah. Chamberlain going for a war dec in 1936 or 1938 would have required France too or else British forces couldn’t read Germany. And France was in no condition for a sending out the first war Dec.
France har much better tanks tanks Germany though, which they didn't want to use fearing they would loose them. (Pretty sure it's not a factoid)
The preamble about myths, real history, and general slandering of credentialed historians is such a giveaway that he's about to depart completely from reality and spew some nonsense, which he ironically then fails to give really any evidence for
Churchill is a bit of a villain (not completely deservedly) in my part of South Wales, being regarded as responsible for troops opening fire on miners rioting for decent pay and conditions in Tonypandy.
We still prefer him to Hitler at the end of the day though..
He was even responsible for the famine in India
But still, making him the villain of WWII?!?
Revisionism shitery
Yeah, fair enough. And of course the elephant in the room with Churchill is that he was a MEGA imperialist, but especially considering the standards of the time and even from a modern lens, it really shouldn't be enough to make you "both sides" WW2, not to mention what this lunatic went with. And as a Not-Bri'ish, I still hold that his accomplishments in opposing fascism still make him, maybe not a guy I'd sit down and have a drink with, but definitely someone who's status as a national icon is justifiable.
This is literally what the video was actually about but instead he’s gotta put up some bullshit clickbait heading
@@remylebeau_guy is a nazi
@@anonymooseplays3905 All European leaders were imperialist at the time. The war was fought over imperialist goals on both sides. Only a couple were trying to exterminate whole populations. It's pretty easy to make a distinction between these people. Luckily, Europe hasn't been at war since.
"did you know that Tame Impala was only one guy?" is frickin hilarious
Well the disparity of how Germany treated East POW versus West had racial components too, not sure if this revisionist will touch on this inconvenient fact.
That Churchill impression was amazing holy shit
True tho!
“We didn’t have enough food for the prisoners so we had to kill them” is one of the evilest statements to ever be spoken by anyone.
If you truly felt empathy toward the prisoners maybe don’t invade their country so they wouldn’t turn into prisoners and die.
yeah how could they have know!!! Just ignore the whole plan they drew up literally called the HUNGER PLAN where they planned to kill two thirds of eastern europe by starvation. This was not planned by the SS or Nazi officials but by the wehrmacht. This was how they planned to feed the army by pillaging everything. The civilian deaths where a byproduct they where willing to make.
In a weird way, Winston Churchill's imperialist mindset helped ensure Britain did not fall. His stubborn devotion to the crumbling British Empire gave him the succor to never surrender.
Tucker carlson is the final boss of just asking questions.
One thing about the war ending, it could have ended literally 3 different times before September 1, 1939.
When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, England and France could have enforced the treaty and put an end to Adolf.
When the Anschluss occurred, England and France could have enforced the treaty and put an end to Adolf.
When Adolf went after the Sudetenland, France could have enforced its treaty and put an end to Adolf.
Adolf was not competent. His military successes, his land grabs, were not because of competence. He basically only took Ws before July 1941. This wasn’t because of competence. It was because his counterparties were stupidly incompetent. There is a reason why Adolf’s generals were saying to not do these things. They knew of England’s and France’s treaties. Each of these pre-WWII acts could have ended Adolf if England and France were just smart enough to do more than bending over
I'd say it isn't so much about competence as it is about risks and gambles. There was immense public pressure in the UK to avoid another continental Great War, so while France was much more hawkish about confronting Germany it was the British who were willing to go to extreme lengths to avoid war. The British government just wasn't willing to take the to them greater risk of unpopular war to the seemingly safe bet of just letting Hitler have his way and surely he doesn't ACTUALLY mean what he says.
@@arskakarva7474
You’re right. Hitler was willing to take irrational risks and then got lucky when it ended up his way.
England was so fearful of putting a weak Germany in its place that they instead spent years getting gapped by Germany’s military instead. Instead of putting Germany down when it would have been fairly easy, they chose Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain because of… vibes.
To be clear, I agree with you on the political weakness of France and in particular England. Those two are among the four most responsible parties for WWII. Part of why it Adolf was lucky is in fact that the leaders of England and France were so incredibly weak
It seems the Jews aren't so much chosen as singled out by the schoolyard bully.
In every generation aye 🙏
🥲
@@dysmissme7343 reasonably so this generation tho🤗
@@timmysleftnutsack5075 "MY Judenhass is DIFFERENT. MINE is totally rational and justified!" -everyone ever
"Tell my story to those who ask. Tell it truly..my evil deeds along with the good...and let me be judged accordingly. The rest..is silence".
Darryl's twitter is completely unhinged. I called this guy out on his Russian propaganda on this other video he was on and he actually responded. I also called him out how many people JQ on his twitter posts and he couldn't respond, just said I was "moralizing." I tried to respond with actual proof but my reply got taken down somehow (curious? free speech?). Not surprising to see him doing this here.
I read once that the Ardenne had 20 years of heavy logging between the world wars so it was less forest than the old guys in charge remembered
Just as a note for peeps, while Chamberlain did vote in the general meeting of the 5 leaders of the country to hear out the Germans, he was exhausted by that point having lost multiple campaigns and was dying of cancer. The guys mindset was very much 1 of a guy who had suffered heavily politically and personally. People forget that. They also forget he continued to work in the war cabinet under Churchill until he died of cancer, not seeing the end of the war.
17:58 "we have the concepts of a plan!" (Except it wasn't concepts it was breaking ground on the execution camps)
that's a deliciously apposite connection.
Great job, but it’s not enough to say that Carlson is a moron: Carlson knows exactly what he’s doing and he’s doing it with relish. Relativising truth, deconstructing collective identities/histories and pseudo-revisionism are all part of an established playbook.
12:25 churchcill speech - 2024, circa, colorized
I don't know how you can mentally keep up with these people. With a high school level of history knowledge and decide to revise history entirely.
How on earth does this guy work with Jocko Wilink?
Tucker having a normal one
You think giving a soapbox to a nazi and not pushing back even a little bit and instead opting to call him a proponent of the West and of Western values is a "normal one". That's a very odd take.
Conservative here. I disavow Tucker Carlson. Oh, and Dick Cheney too btw.
Same
You need to do Churchill speeches more often. I've never laughed so hard in my life
@lonerbox What’s insane, is that Germans attacked France through Belgium in WWI, BEFORE they did it in WWII- it was called the Van Schleiffen plan. I still have NO idea why the Maginot Line wasn’t also along the Belgium border given that fact pattern.
If I remember correctly, it had something to do with French and Belgian politics at the time, and also money I would assume
The Maginot line was never meant to extend to Belgium, it was meant to drive the Germans to go through Belgium where the French and English armies would focus
@BaconWars211 well there was a plan to extend it but it was given up on when the Belgians declared neutrality
because it shouldnt have mattered. Belgium had forts on the albert channel which should hold of the germans until the french reinforced them. The ardenne forest was a logistical nightmare. The reason the allies lost was because the germans put everything one the card of rushing trough the ardennes on 3 roads and surprise the allies. The allied recon failed miserably which led to the disaster we know. If the germans where spotted best case they wouldve been stopped and the war wouldve turned into ww1 but shorter or worst case for them the allies wouldve bombed their best forces into the ground.
I feel dirty just listening to this 🤢
A yes, the german military staff, world renowned for its professialism, didnt expected massiv numbers of POW's in Russia, after 2 years of war and many campaigns with hundreds of thousands of POW's.
That was surely because the german military thought so highly about the red army...
15:20: If Churchill was the villain, then that means his enemies--
--Stalin
🤦🏻♀🤦🏻♀🤦🏻♀🤦🏻♀
How much of a plan or desire hitler had to do the eastern genocide early on way before he had power, is a real historical question to be answered about an individual way back closer to ww1 than the second war. Its not the same as the question of whether the nazis had any idea they were going ti do a genocide in 1941, asking that is sort of completely crazy.
It's not so unfathomable that GB would hope to stand alone against Germany -- 1. GB had the hugest overseas empire the world has ever seen 2. GB had the greatest fleet and near full control of the seas 3. US was generally leaning towards GB and there could always be hope of them eventually, later if not sooner, joining the war. 4. La Manche is nothing to sneeze at as a defense. Conversely, USSR was reasonably concerned about all capitalist countries allying against them (remember 1918-21?), and USSR knew their weaknesses quite well, and there is no La Manche between Germany and USSR no matter how many hours I spend looking at the map of eastern Europe.
I live in the US and learned about Versailles in public schooling, i dont know what his excuse is. People like this will talk about the spark notes of the interwar period like they're obscure balkan war crimes from ww2 its fucking insufferable
It was despicable
He also has a pretty popular podcast account of Israel-Palestine which is responsible for a lot of hot takes made by Dave Smith.
Wow only took him 40 minutes to get to the jews. What patience!
One point about Churchill and the concentration camps Churchill's quote comes from a letter in June 1901 before it would have been known by him how bad the conditions were which were first confirmed in July 1901. Churchill's statement on the concentration camps is:
"Sir, In his rejoinder to Lord Hugh Cecil, Lord Crewe deals chiefly with two questions. First, if the war in South Africa is being prosecuted by “methods of barbarism,” as Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman contends, are the generals responsible or only the Government? Now, a military commander has nothing to say to the policy which leads to a war, nor to the conditions which it may be thought desirable to exact before peace is restored. But for the methods by which that war is waged he is certainly responsible equally with the Government at home.
If the methods are of the general’s own choosing, the balance of responsibility, if any exist, rests with him. No one can relieve him of it; for no authority can justify an inhuman act. And the contention that the soldier is absolved of any portion of his responsibility for the methods by which warfare is conducted would be extremely mischievous were it not altogether absurd. The ethics of slaughter are naturally obscure; but one clear principle cannot be overlooked; and the civilized combatant is obliged, at peril of being classed a savage, to avoid unnecessary cruelty to his enemy. Unless there has been unnecessary cruelty, whatever the suffering, there can be no barbarity. If there has been unnecessary cruelty, all who are in any way responsible for it are infected with the taint of inhumanity.
When, therefore, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman speaks of “methods of barbarism,” his charge applies to generals abroad not less than to Ministers at home. When he declines to press his charge against the generals, it is evident that either his logic or his courage is at fault; and when Lord Crewe, hastening to succour his leader, informs us that “public opinion will not burden Lord Kitchener, but will lay heavy responsibility upon the Government,” he merely affords a rare and pleasing example of party loyalty in the Liberal ranks.
The second question which Lord Crewe raises, but which he does not answer, is of much more importance. Is the policy of concentrating the civil inhabitants barbarous? As Lord Hugh Cecil pointed out, the privations of the women and children in the refugee camps are nothing in comparison to those endured by the civil inhabitants of a fortified town during a siege. Nevertheless, as the death-rate shows, they have undoubtedly been severe.
“The essential fact,” says Lord Crewe, “is not in a distinction between fortifications and no fortifications, but between the results involved by active resistance on the one hand, and passive submission on the other.” As a matter of fact, the resistance of a hardy population scattered over a vast region and continually supplying the enemy’s army with food and information is plainly more formidable than the resistance-if it can be called resistance-of the unhappy inhabitants of an invested town. In the former case the non-combatants undoubtedly prolong the operations; in the other, by eating up the food of the garrison, they terminate them.
It is difficult to understand why Lord Crewe calls the former condition “passive submission” and the latter “active resistance.” His expressions would be better chosen if their application were reversed. But, putting all this aside, I would venture to observe that “the essential fact” lies neither in the question of fortifications nor in that of resistance, but in the actual suffering inflicted on helpless human beings. If women and children are dying of disease and want, whether they have offered technical resistance or not is a minor consideration.
The supreme question is-Was there any alternative action by which this suffering might have been diminished without impeding the military operations? Lord Crewe is silent. He does not tell us-others, less careful of their words than he, do not tell us-whether they would have faced the alternative to the concentration camps. Would they have refused to accept any responsibility for the Boer women and children left in the devastated districts? Would they have said that their case was primarily a matter for the Boer generals to consider? Would they, having trampled the crops-the enemy’s commissariat-or destroyed the houses-often his magazines-have left the women sitting hungry amid the ruins? The mind revolts from such ideas; and so we come to concentration camps, honestly believing that upon the whole they involve the minimum of suffering to the unfortunate people for whom we have made ourselves responsible."
Later in 1957 in Churchill's book, he praised the person who brought attention to it, Emily Hobhouse saying:
"Nothing, not even the incapacity of the military authorities when charged with the novel and distasteful task of herding large bodies of civilians into captivity, could justify the conditions in the camps themselves. By February 1902 more than 20,000 of the prisoners, or nearly one in every six, had died, mostly of disease. At first the authorities denied that anything was wrong, or that any alleviation was possible, but at length an Englishwoman, Miss Emily Hobhouse, exposed and proclaimed the terrible facts. Campbell-Bannerman, soon to be Prime Minister, but at this time in Opposition, denounced the camps as “methods of barbarism.” Chamberlain removed them from military control; conditions thereupon speedily improved, and at last, on March 23, 1902, the Boers sued for peace"
So it seems he was favourable to the camps in theory as necessary to reducing Boer civilian suffering and to win the war but suggesting that Churchill was in favour of them regardless of their conditions and the cost to Boer civilians and prisoners is inaccurate. Churchill was problematic, especially with many of his views but the faults of Churchill are greatly exaggerated from the Bengal famine, Gallipoli, Boer war and the second world war.
You seem to have well researched Churchill, I’m curious about one thing based on your last paragraph. What level of fault do you place on Churchill and/or his government for the Bengal famine? No doubt Churchill’s views on India can easily color an analysis of this topic.
Please note, I am referring to this as a famine in the colloquial sense. I know whether this was an actual famine is disputed.
No reputable historian disputes the Bengal famine as a famine.@@ayarzeev8237
You're revising history. Churchill was in full support of the concentration camps of the Boers, it's why he defended them as having only the bare necessary amount of suffering. That is full on support of those camps.
There's no evidence he's made these comments after the conditions of the concentration camps were known. The only those statements come from pro Winston Churchill websites such that the Churchill project.
I'd like to know where you got your sources from.
@@ayarzeev8237 I wouldn't say Churchill was all too responsible for the famine. The claim he was originates with Madhusree Mukerjee in her book 'Churchill's Secret War' who, it's important to bare in mind, isn't a historian at all and conflates his racism and racist quotes with effectively genocidal intent.
The causes of the famine was due to hoarding, internal issues between hindus and muslims, the second world war (for a number of reasons), poor weather (including a cyclone in late 1942) and the mismanagement by the then viceroy Lord Linlithgow. Churchill initially wasn't fully aware of how serious the famine was and was inclined to leave it to the regional leader's since he had a world war to worry about which limited what he could do in any case as both the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea were hotly contested and completely unsafe for sending aid ships without dedicating considerable naval assets that may be needed elsewhere.
However, once Churchill was aware of how serious it actually was, he removed Lord Linlithgow for his failure and appointed Wavell in October 1943 with the following direction:
"...to make sure that India was a safe base for the great operations against Japan which were now pending, and that the war was pressed to a successful conclusion, and that famine and food difficulties were dealt with.”
He also sent a personal letter to Wavell saying:
"Peace, order and a high condition of war-time well-being among the masses of the people constitute the essential foundation of the forward thrust against the enemy….The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good."
Some of the evidence used that Churchill wanted the famine was that he denied Canadian aid going to India which he did because it would take too long and the journey was too risky, instead he arranged for Australia to send aid. He also later requested aid from the US to be sent saying:
"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.
I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help."
FDR denied because of the war which was also causing issues with how much aid Britain could send without undermining the war effort in the Pacific and in Europe, and most specifically operation overlord. It's worth bearing in mind that trade was so bad that Britain, which Churchill definitely did care massively about, was still rationing food until 1954. Almost an entire decade after the war ended.
Personally from what I've found, I'm satisfied that, whilst Churchill made awful comments about Indians, he neither caused nor exacerbated the famine (or at least not intentionally), and that the famine would have been dealt with far better, if it occurred at all, had there not been a World War going on at the time which I believe was the primary factor for why it got as bad as it did. I cannot see any actual intent in this letters that Churchill wanted Indians to starve or that he was apathetic to the situation when he was aware of how bad it was. You could make the case that didn't take early warnings seriously enough and so he has some fault there, but that is easy to say in hindsight when you aren't facing the dilemmas and considerations he was facing that had to be dealt with in a timely manner.
Hope this helps
@@RetractedandRedacted this does help. Thank you for the very thorough response. Cheers!
Imagine being so much against Ukraine that you begin justifying the Nazis starting WW2 to defend your position.
The bombings did not demoralize the population. It made their resolve higher
Did he confuse churchill with dark helmet
Damn I’m early to the box today
You always come first.
no box for you!
Darryl and Dave smith really bringing the weird hands angle to the anti-west movement
Mission impossible: spot the truth in the Tucker bit
3:45 that's problematic if you're Tim Pool
Oh and nobody was demonising the peace faction in the UK during WW2, the majority of MPs were a peace faction, they however put that aside because they knew the war was now needing to be seen to the end. Also the black forest bombing was because the Germans were storing munitions in the forest lol.
beautiful intro
🙏🏿thank you
12:31 based asf
Your point on the main point of Allied bombings not being to destroy major arms munitions factories isn't true though.
The cities targeted were often heavily important in arms production and the targeting of those factories heavily crippled German arms production. Yes, anti-air defences would have been diverted to protect cities, but that by itself wouldn't have strained the German military in the same way German bombings of London and major British cities didn't strain the UK's military. It was the targeting and destruction of German factories that heavily contributed to German logistics being so strained and eventually collapsing.
Just so you know, the twitch link in the video description doesn't work.
You and D dropped very similar videos within hours… I’m watching yours now
One correction - It was the RAF who first bombed Germany - there were a few minor raids before the Battle of Britain and the Germans only started the blitz on British cities after that.
The RAF began targeting east of the Rhine in response to the Rotterdam Blitz. The Germans also threatened to bomb Utrecht the same way
@@ayarzeev8237
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Germans start bombing London and other civilian targets in Britain as a response to the first (pretty ineffective) raid on Berlin - which had the benefit of taking pressure off the RAF airfields, allowing them to respond to the Luftwaffe more efficiently.
I'm not trying to support that guy's 'Churchill was the real villain' theory of why the war escalated - as you say the attack on Rotterdam shows that Hitler wasn't merely responding to outside aggression.
Just a technical point.
@@bengreen171 what you said was correct, it needed the context that Germany opened the box with their tactics in the Netherlands.
@@ayarzeev8237
yeah, fair point.
@@bengreen171 to be clear, I didn’t think you left it out intentionally. Just wanted to leave that info for anyone else that comes along so they don’t misconstrue what is actually meant. Cheers! 👍
Tbh I agree with the Kraut video
Fuck, i'm an idiot, i mixed up the sufis and the druze, it would have been so good to say something like, no actually it was the druze, the masters of spin, but its the sufis that spin... What a shame. On me i guess.
Oh wait wasn't this guy in Zone of Interest?
The way he talks with his hands and pushes his glasses up his nose really annoys me.
17:55 you saying Hitler had a concept of a plan? History does repeat itself lol
New intro nice
14:45 the inflatable tanks thing has come back in strength in Ukriane
Weird this keeps happening to tucker
18:00 a concept of a plan
what do you mean by what do you mean the threat to the east? fascism only took europe because of the bolshevik menace.
Gallipoli.
Tucker does "understand"! ^^
The guy talks like britain lost the first world war...
english speaking germans? .... like the royal family?
45:19 by financiers...
This is tuckers least scitzo take
sorry im going to meme, but first girl sounds like idoobz wife
9:20 TRUE!
12:25 😂😂😂
The British never really betrayed Zionism, even when they wrote the white paper only the immigration quotas where enforced, jewish settlements expanded during the white paper era and the country was being prepared for partitioning not for a binational Palestinian-controlled state.
Based historians know that Winston Churchill did more harm to the allies than good lol
America's only great war
Had to stop listening 4 minutes in. STOP SAYING THE WORD “LIKE” YOU COULD CUT THAT WORD OUT OF YOUR VOCABULARY AND NOTHING WOULD CHANGE EXCEPT THE STATE OF MY SANITY
churchil was a horrible person tho lets be real
Your position on Churchill and Britain during WW2 neglects that Britain and the Soviets both would have run out of materiel to fight with if not for American industry and the Cash and Carry program
guy with glasses has drug hands