Heroes and Villains of World War II

Spawned by a guest on Tucker Carlson's show,  there is a debate that Churchill was the villain of World War II or least morally equivalent with Hitler.  This podcast refutes this rubbish and proposes Carlson's true intentions. 

Transcript

Heroes and Villains of World War II

September 2024

I had a singular goal when I started this podcast four years ago.  To combat the progressive history of DEI and ESG, the isms of class, race, sex, and colonialism were not only predominant but dominating on the left.  And now I find myself in a strange middle.  You see, the right is now engaging in the same madness as the left, not seeing history as that of research, scholarship, detection, and deduction, but rather just another platform to support a pre-set narrative or belief. You take an idea, then cherry-pick facts or make them up to support your concept.  In this case, a moral equivalency between Churchill and Hitler, nee, the former as the worse of the two.  

Typically, controversies around history tend to confine themselves to those, like me, who steep themselves in the details of our genre.  Yet now and then, debates occur that spill into the mainstream.  Was Cleopatra black?  Was there value to imperialism and, lately, spawned by (now) extreme right-wing media personality Tucker Carlson’s featured guest on his show, stating that moral equivalency.  Daryl Cooper, a podcaster (I think on the evidence, he is about as much a historian as Nikole Hannah Jones), made some interesting statements.  I will address his contentions and several others supporting his views, dredged from the stinking muck that is a part of social media.  

The fact that there is even a debate shows how debased much of the online right wing has become.  I would not even dignify this argument were it not for the popularization of such heinous figures as Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban on the right.  I will get to Carlson’s true motivations later, but for now, let me address the history.  

I have studied wars from the conquest of Sargon the Akkadian, who lived 4400 hundred years ago, to that of Vietnam. Wars are often immoral—a simple taste for conquest, expansion, wealth, and power.  When Darius I of Persia entered Greece, it was not to liberate the city-states of the peninsula.  Nor, when Alexander of Macedon went the other way, his goal was to spread Greek learning and culture, though that was a result.  Both were rapacious conquerors.  Many wars were of a more nuanced version.  When Romans and Carthaginians clashed in the 200s BCE, was there a victim or oppressor, a hero state, or a villainous one? Instead, it was two expansionist powers running into each other.  A “this town ain’t big enough for the both of us” or, in this case, the Western Mediterranean.  

And even Rome’s conquests, up to a point, were as much defense as offense.  Rome’s sister Latin cities would have wrecked Rome, but the city on the Tiber got in first and then best.  

Were there heroes or Villains in the 30-year war in which nearly 1/3 of Germany was wrecked in the 1600s?  Like Rome and Carthage, the Seven Years’ War in the following century was a clash of Empires.  World War I, until the Germans conquered Belgium, pitted Imperial forces against one another, and the French Republic was thrown in for good measure.  Nearly a third of the colonists stayed loyal to Britain in our own American War for Independence.  I (shockingly) think the colonists have a very good case for separation, which one can read about in my series of July 2024 Podcasts. But that argument is not universal.  

World War II, with combatting Nazism, their genocidal designs, and their leader, was one of the few genuinely moral wars.  Yet, as noted, Cooper and many individuals, more than I had imagined, do not think so.  Instead, Germany was pulled into conflict with Churchill’s action, which perpetuated war and led to the domination of the East by the Soviet Union.  And for good measure, his bombing of German cities was itself, an immoral act.  So, I will address these one at a time.   

Hitler was justified because of the terrible reparation imposed in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles 

Mein Kampf compares Jews, who created the underpinnings for capitalism, to Marxism. He, in fact, states they are the perpetrators of the belief.  Hitler clearly indicates, as early as the 1920s, his feelings of hatred and designs on extermination.  It is a little rich to say that the Jews were primarily to blame for harsh indemnities after a war that had seen the death of 1.5 million French and 1 million British, but that is in his own words. 

The Treaty of Versailles was rough, and in the late 1940s, the Allies went in a different direction, helping Germany (and Japan) rebuild. But the later atrocities committed by Hitler are in no way justified by the treaty. After his reestablishment of the state in the 1930s, he could have tried to improve the economy or have Germany go for economic prosperity. He did not. He chose war, and again, his desires for doing so are stated.  Of course, Cooper is dealing with conjecture. So I will painfully do so, supported by the fact. 

No Reason to Declare war, but should have sued for Peace

Once Hitler obtained power in 1934, one of his first acts was to reoccupy the German Rhineland with troops in 1936, in violation of the Versailles Treaty.  Then, he expanded the German army, again in violation.  Then, he occupied Austria in 1938.  Britain and France were nervous, having lost less than 20 years earlier, the aforementioned 3.5 million people to German Aggression.  But they did not do anything.  Then, in 1939, Hitler took the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia with the claim that it was German people (like Austria) and that he was uniting his kind.  Thoroughly alarmed, there was a peace conference at which Hitler said, sorry about the concern, guys. This is it, I am satisfied.  Neville Chamberlain, who has gotten a bad historical rap, said there would be “peace in our time.” Hitler then took the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Now, appeasement is bad, of course.  And appeasing bullies like Hitler (and Putin) is also a path to war.  But let’s be clear. We sit here in 2024 with our presentism and vanity to think we know what was going through the heads of the French and British leaders who did not read about war but saw it firsthand.  It was the worst war in history (up to that time), and we are supposed to think that they would not be alarmed by this continuous aggression.  

The contention is that when Hitler then invaded Poland, the Allies should not have declared war on them because he was that bulwark against the Soviets and had no intention of invading the West.  This is rubbish.  First, it is difficult to believe that Hitler, who had railed against the perfidies of the signers of the Treaty of Versailles, would not have simply left France alone if the allies had not declared war. This theory posits that after carving up Poland (and secretly agreeing to divide up Eastern Europe, with the West pacifistic at his back, Hitler would then have invaded the Soviets in 1940, not in 1941, and the two would have then fought to a standstill. Hitler would not have needed to expend troops on a Western Front nor, later, in Africa.  

Second, the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty, signed one week before the carving up of Poland, gave Hitler peace on his eastern flank.  Again, he signed one week before Britain and France declared war.

The treaty was the culmination of negotiations that began as early as 1934. Under the Secret Protocol, Poland was to be shared, while Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Bessarabia went to the Soviet Union. The protocol also recognized Lithuania’s interest in the Vilnius region. In the West, the rumored existence of the Secret Protocol was proven only when it was made public during the Nuremberg trials.  Part of the impetus for the treaty was one signed between Britain and Poland, guaranteeing Polish independence.  Why, how dare a sovereign nation such as Poland negotiate a treaty without Hitler’s permission?  And, of course, Britain took this step in response to the aforementioned Nazi aggression.  

But the Allies did declare war.  Germany, in May 1940, successfully invaded France, and here is where Cooper has another of these crackpot theories.  The British should have sued for peace, which Hitler would have granted, but Churchill was a warmonger and wanted conflict.  After all the aggressive moves listed above, it is simply preposterous to believe that Hitler would honor that pact.  His entire history, from his rise to power to his rule over Germany, was one of double-dealing and breaking of promises.  Cooper also suggests that Britain would have been safe.  I am writing this on a Thursday.  Britain was so safe from Viking invaders that our days of the week were named for them.  1066 William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, became the conqueror. No prizes for how got that epitaph.  If not for some time storms in the late 1500s, our Thursday might be El Jueves.  If not for the Royal Navy in 1804, Britain’s new Thursday might be Jeudi.  Britain was, and could be, conquered.  Hitler broke every promise he ever made, and once Britain was off its war footing. He would have struck.  I cannot know this for certain, but of course, neither can Cooper.  However, I have the history.  

Hitler was a Bulwark Against the Soviets

Now, let’s assume that Cooper is right. The warmonger Churchill is replaced by another appeasing government that sues for peace. This time, for the only time in his history, Hitler honors the pact and leaves Britain alone.  

Because Hitler made no bones about coveting Eastern Europe as living space for his superior Aryan race, conflict with the Soviets was inevitable.  Therefore, Hitler would break (earlier) the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact that was supposed to last for ten years. I find it interesting that Cooper was convinced that Hitler would break that pact but certainly would honor the one with the British, but I digress.  

In this counterfactual, Hitler did not need to leave so many troops in the West, which could be redeployed in the East.  But here is the reality: the actual amount of troops initially left in the West would not have made the difference.  As it was, in July of 1941, when Hitler invaded, he still had three million troops, 3,000 planes, and 3,000 tanks, and by the winter of 1941, it was not enough to get the job done. In other words, they would not fight to a standstill, but rather, the Soviets would have, eventually, prevailed.  It would have taken longer without allied materials and support.  But in the first year, Russia fought virtually alone and still stopped the Wehrmacht.  Hitler learned what the Poles in the 1500s, the Swedes in the 1700s, and the French in the 1800s.  Unless one is China and can muster an army exceeding 20 million, Russia is too big to be conquered wholesale.  The only ones to do it were the Mongols, who operated entirely as a mobile force – and their transportation relied on ever-present, unlimited grass, not on petrol transported hundreds of miles from Romania.  

Ironically, the Bulwark theory works the opposite way. Had Britain, and later presumably the US, stayed on the sidelines when the inevitable Soviet victory came, they would not have stopped in East Germany. The Iron Curtain would have been displayed on the Bay of Biscay.  

But once again, let’s say that somehow, with better timing than July, Hitler had prevailed.  We are then to assume that a Nazi empire stretching from the English Channel to the Ural Mountains was a good thing. 

In history, conquerors have done many horrific things.  Alexander’s massacre of the Tyrians or Caesar’s causing the death of a million Gauls come to mind.  But if the Tyrians or Gauls had submitted, there is reason to believe that things would not have gone as badly based on their subsequent careers.  Not so for the Jews in all the places that Hitler conquered.  But here is where it gets especially awful.  Hitler, unlike conquerors before him, did not kill 6 million out of reprisal or even a certain thirst for madness. He did it when we built a car or set up a train network. Logically and systematically with numbers and logistics and timetables.  Humans are emotional animals at heart.  We are predators and carnivores. It is our capacity for reason, for judgment that makes us different, and Hitler used that to try to wipe out a race of people.  If an intruder invaded my home and killed him, it would be very disturbing, but I would live with it.  If I decided that Craig down the street was bad because of his birth.  I took him and, without an ounce of remorse, murdered him; that would make me a psychopath.  Hitler did this on a national scale.  There is nothing, not even remote, like that about Churchill.

Bombing of German Cities

This is not a chicken or egg thing.  In June of 1940, Germany began indiscriminately bombing London and other German cities.  This was not about hitting military targets but sapping the will to resist.  It was later that Britain returned the measure in kind.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  An argument could be made that the attacks contributed to the Allied victory. Vast numbers of German soldiers and planes were diverted from the eastern and western fronts, while Allied bombing attacks virtually destroyed the German air force, clearing the way for the invasion of the continent. Another is that, like Hamas today, Germany was moving war production into civilian areas and, thus, it was necessary to bomb them.  It is my opinion that given the casualty rate of the bombing force (nearly 44%), the cost was greater than the result, and other targets should have been chosen.  But again, we only know that the bombings did not achieve the full war aims until AFTER the war.  20/20 hindsight and second-guessing are beautiful things.  

Churchill was a Colonist 

During World War I, Britain had the largest empire the world had ever seen.  They were a major colonial power.  So was France.  And Belgium.  And Holland, Austria, Russia, Italy, Japan, and Germany with its African and Pacific colonies.  But what was Nazi Germany if not a grand colonist experiment with focused genocide as its goal?  

In his fantastic counter piece to Cooper, Mark Antonio Wright has a better sense of Churchill.  “Churchill was not a perfect man. He made many well-documented mistakes. However, his foresight about what Hitler’s Germany was and his brilliance in 1940 are well remembered because they are examples of genuine leadership. No, Churchill wasn’t any villain. Indeed, he was one of the greatest of the Great Men of history. His achievement was simple though not easy: He saved the Western world from darkness and tyranny.”

Before people pontificate on World War II, thinking the Rise and Fall of the rise and fall of the third reich is good primer because it was not written 80 years after the fact William Shirer was an eyewitness. Does the book have flaws? Several, but as a beginning point, it is highly valuable. 

And now to Carlson.  He did not introduce Cooper as a podcaster or historian but rather as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.”  The best?  Chernow, Brands, or even Victor Davis Hanson? Do those historians take a backseat to this guy?  And honesty.  Funny how people expressing controversial opinions win addled brain supporters only for honesty when said honesty aligns with their views.  I honestly think Cooper and Carlson are cranks.  Carlson’s supporters would say this view is dishonest because, of course, they disagree with it.  There was a time when the right fought the left because leftism was not based on objective truths, not subjective ones.  We see this today when Michelle Obama extols the virtues of “my truth.”  What are some objective truths? The United States net-net is a good thing.  Tyrants are bad things.  Personal liberty, not much of that in Nazi Germany but plenty in 1940s Britain, is a good thing.  But now we have “honesty,” which is Tucker’s speak for a variation of my truth.  Funny how much the new right so resembles the old left. 

Here is some more honesty.  Attention is the coin of the realm of social media. When there were limited platforms, only 3 TV channels for example, limited radio shows, and starting up a newspaper required capital, a degree of talent was involved.  Not to say that attention was not important.  If it bleeds, it leads to all of that.  But without talent, hard work, and effort, failure was inevitable.  That is not really the case when someone with a microphone and free audio software can be a podcaster.  Today, there are 1.7 million podcasts in the US, one for every 340 Americans.  It is not talent, research, hard work, and well-thought-out opinions but attention that is paramount. If Carlson had brought someone like the great historian and WWII expert Rick Atkinson on his show, a guy who has done the work,  it would have been entertaining and informative but not controversial. Would I be writing this today? Hundreds of stories and all the major conservative media outlets have featured pieces on this in the past three days—National Review at least two. Tell the world that grass is green and meh. Tell the world that grass is magenta, and we have been fooled by a uni party, a governmental conspiracy that has secretly altered our eyeballs while we sleep, at that might break through.  So Carlson was not going for information. As I am talking about him, he was going for trouble and Mission Accomplished.

I am not an angry guy by nature, but I am pissed off right now. I had this wonderful podcast teed up this week about Russian Endgames. They are playing the long game in their effort to conquer the Ukraine. I also have a piece on Public Teacher’s Unions and how they harmed their country.  That is the fight I was born to fight, a worthy fight, the one I should be contending. Instead, I have to challenge this nonsense because Carlson, since beginning his own media company after being dumped by Fox for lying about voting records, is trying to build a business.  

Rush Limbaugh was once a thought leader on the right. Yes, he, too, courted controversy with his silly crowd-pleasing femi nazis pattern and his unique entertainment style.  But he was also a full-throated articulator and proponent of Reagan-style conservatism. In five years, he did what William F Buckley or George F Will never did: bringing conservatism to the masses. He did until Trump came along, and his audience began to dwindle.  Then Rush pivoted and followed them in a complete MAGA makeover.  

I am a former (would like to think successful) business person and arch-capitalist, so I get it.  At some point, I, too, would like to monetize content through advertising (not subs; I want my stuff available), which means ears and eyeballs.  But that is it.  We are not selling dish soap or Cadillacs.  We are not selling hotel rooms vs. renting a home.  We are selling ideas, and, more to the point, we are selling Herbeliefs, things we believe in, and principles we hold dear.  What does it mean to see a Limbaugh, a Carlson, or lately a Ben Shapiro selling beliefs and then changing those on a dime for business expediency?  Years ago, GM tried to sell something called a Cimmaron.  It was a Cadillac but built on a Chevy body.  In other words, it was not the real thing.  For those who say they are conservative, a well-developed set of beliefs encapsulates that.  Those beliefs do not jibe with the celebration of a Hitler, or even a Putin, Tucker.  I am providing my beliefs, like or unfollowing them or whatever.  I have been a Reagan-style conservative for 30 years, and I am not going to change that because 1000 fewer people are tuning in.  

The Cooper interview, coupled with Carlson’s praise of Putin and his belief that Aliens are sitting in some lab in Roswell, means that he has morphed from opinion provider to grifter, sort of a rotten PT Barnum.  He is now no different from leftist grifters like Patrice Cullours, Ibram Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo.  In the TV show The Boys, superhero Homelander is put down by his former boss Stan Edgar. To paraphrase a terrific line, Tucker is not a conservative but a bad product.