Kevin in the comments pointed me to and article in Commentary, which I read and thought worth passing along. Tucker Screwtape.
Winston Churchill was cast as the “chief villain” of the episode and a “psychopath,” while Hitler was portrayed as a reasonable statesman who sought peace and understanding with England. Carlson’s interlocutor attributed the death of countless multitudes in German camps to an unfortunate lack of preparation on the part of Germany, and an overpopulation of POWs. Carlson, in turn, enthusiastically agreed with his guest’s characterization of Churchill and said his intention was to ensure that the guest would come to be seen as “the most important historian in the United States.”
At book club we are discussing Freedom at Midnight and and disassembled Gandhi's reputation, which persists against all reason. We made an effort to find some good things to say about him and did find a few, but we were hard pressed.
6 comments:
I haven't watched his shows before or now. Is this sort of enthusiastic talk his usual boiler-plate chatter? (That's not an excuse, of course--you're supposed to pay attention to what your guest is saying.)
I don't know. I know that Glenn Loury was afraid he was not going to get a fair hearing but in fact did get an honorable chance - but that was three years ago.
Isaiah nailed it long ago...
I've been listening to Darryl Cooper's Martyr Made podcast for years, and I listened to the Tucker interview as well once I became aware of it due to all the controversy. Let me stick up for Mr. Cooper and say that in all the many hours of his content I've listened to, I never heard him deny the Holocaust or give me the impression he was anti-Semitic in any way.
That includes the Tucker Carlson interview. Unless of course Holocaust denial extends to saying the Nazis didn't have a firm plan on how to exterminate the Jews from the get-go, which, seeing as the Final Solution wasn't finalized until 1942, seems a defensible position.
Then again, in a response he posted to his podcast about this ordeal, he pointed out he wasn't talking about the Holocaust per se, rather Germany's war and invasion plans of Poland (he does acknowledge this of course affected Jews). Executing such an act without a plan or capability of taking care of the prisoners of war you capture is clearly murder in his eyes.
The podcast episode is about an hour long, and I'm not all the way through it yet, but he also clarifies that he was being deliberately provocative and hyperbolic about Churchill. Your mileage may vary on that as a justification, but he likens the situation to a drug crazed father holding his family hostage. The police show up and arguably make the situation worse (not simply by showing up) resulting in the family ending up dead in a murder-suicide. In this analogy, the father is Hitler and the police are Churchill. He points out it goes without saying the father is the worst person in this situation, but perhaps it's worth examining the actions of the police to determine if they exacerbated an already tense situation. I think he brings up a tough question there, and I don't think it should be taboo to discuss it.
So, I almost wouldn't be surprised to find out that Mr. Soloveichik didn't actually watch the interview. Mr. Cooper has promised that he'll be explaining his position more clearly in his next series which is about the war from the German perspective. I can already hear the accusations of him being a Nazi apologist on that. Perhaps he's pulled the wool over my eyes all these years I've been listening to him. Maybe he's been a holocaust denying neo-Nazi all along, but I tend to doubt it.
Regardless, I'd recommend listening to the Tucker interview and Cooper's response if you haven't already. I don't think Darryl Cooper is being fairly represented in the media, including the linked article.
Thank you for this.
In Bloodlands the claim was made that the Germans were quite content to round up a bunch of Slavs and surround them in a field until they starved to death.
Post a Comment