Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I am a citizen of Great Britain.
I listened to a podcast in which Darryl Cooper Esq. made several claims. The primary Cooper Esq. thesis is Sir Winston Churchill is not a saint (true) but the person who turned WW2 into something else. In essence, Mr. Cooper Esq. states Sir Winston Churchill drove the war into a longer and even more painful event.
The thesis apparently overlooks the following:
Great Britain had been bombed repeatedly and mercilessly since 1939. This was ignored. That bombing eliminated the historic centres of Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry, and others. Thousands of civilians were killed and many more lost their homes — that made the war profoundly personal for many, many families.
Of course, the very same thing happened right across Europe as the Nazis were driven back. The loss of family to war is painful, but when the very same war comes to your backyard, it's a whole different level of hurt.
The evacuation from Dunkerque did indeed end the opposing force to the Nazis in Western Europe — which Cooper Esq. blithely considers should have been the point Great Britain sued for peace. It was not, and is not, in our nature to do this in the face of an evil empire that had already driven roughshod through multiple treaties. Great Britain was left in absolutely no doubt about the Nazi intentions, with or without a treaty.
Sir Winston Churchill led a coalition government, and to a person they stood with him.
From absolute oblivion, they fought back. And yes, the USA was initially cautious, for good reason, until it too had no choice. The allies — including Russia and many other nations — fought back.
We — the allies — won.
We — the allies — did this together.
Mr. Cooper Esq. needs to adjust his thesis, including the idea that France (like any of the nations invaded by the Nazis) simply agreed. This was not the case. They too saw multiple atrocities.
Is Great Britain clear of all mistakes/atrocities? No.
Was Sir Winston Churchill perfect? No.
It's war. Terrible, evil, and unusual things happen. Consideration of history is healthy, but blocking out significant parts to suit a modern-day 'view' is plain wrong.
Very best, Andrew Marsh.
Discussion (148)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Hi Andrew,
I don't think you need to worry too much that Darryl Cooper (it's kind of you to dignify him with an honorific, but just to be clear for those reading in the US sense, he's not a lawyer, let alone any sort of an historian) is changing minds or having much of an impact on this side of the pond. At least, not among those with any brains, sense of history, or sense of proportion.
I haven't listened to the entire session, but the lengthy excerpt I heard, in which Cooper is explaining to a credulous Tucker that the Holocaust happened because the Nazis had rounded up too many political prisoners and sent them to camps (there were other bowdlerizations there, too numerous to mention) and--because their resources were so stretched, presumably because of the threats posed to their peaceful intentions by the likes of that aggressive warmonger Churchill--the Nazis didn't have enough to feed all the prisoners properly (which, of course, they would have preferred to do), so they sent millions of them to the ovens and the gas chambers as the more humane alternative to letting them starve them over the course of time. Glory be.
Take into account that, and the fact that many of the Nazi actions cited by Cooper as evidence of Churchill's depravity occurred before Churchill was in any position of power in the British government, and certainly before he joined the Cabinet and became Prime Minister, and it quickly becomes apparent what an ignorant farrago (is there any other kind) of nonsense Copper is spouting. Layer in his accusations that Churchill was bribed by, in the pocket of, and acting on behalf of, the Jews, and I think Cooper's motives become self-evident.
So far, these are the two most useful pieces I've found on the subject:
spiked-online.com
Open link
freebeacon.com
Open link
Hope that reassures you somewhat.
All the best,
Born in Birmingham (UK)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I doubt you need to defend Churchill here on R>, with possibly one or two (Jew hating) exceptions.
I know I shouldn't be surprised even at this late stage in western civilization, but Tucker and his guest astonished me with this nonsense. People are losing their ever lovin' minds.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I heard excerpts from the inerview. The guy is a total moron. His statements were verbal clickbait, as far as I'm concerned . . .
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
thefp.com
Open link
washingtonexaminer.com
Open link
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I heard a commentator say that it was the policy and culture of Britain to prevent any unified power in continental Europe. This had 2000 years of history and about 250 years of steady war with France. It seem unlikely that Britain would align with a powerful Germany, but Chamberlain did have an agreement recently and Britain and Germany were aligned before WWI.
Cooper did have an interesting comment that most people seem to ignore: Germany/Hitler considered communism to be the greatest threat and wanted to ally with Britain to fight communism. I think that is a very interesting what-if alternate history discussion. What if Britain and Germany reached agreement with a pacified France and focused on destroying the USSR? That would kind of wind the clock back to 1870s. What would the last 100 years be like without communist powers? Note, the war in the Pacific was almost inevitable in 1940, but an alliance of English and Germanic people would be formidable as it is today.
You're seeing five of 148 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.