What’s Really at Stake with the WWII Debate

Last week, Tucker Carlson broke the internet—again. This time, he did so by interviewing the popular historian podcaster Darryl Cooper (aka Martyr Made) who made some controversial assertions about World War II—namely, that Winston Churchill was a warmonger who instigated the war, authorized inhumane attacks on civilians, and ignored Hitler’s many peace proposals. This set off a firestorm in the media, with a number of critics and even a White House spokesman calling Cooper and Carlson Nazi sympathizers deserving cancellation for daring to challenge the official narrative of WWII.

And while an instance of history nerds arguing with one another might seem “too online” for most normal people to care about, it actually reveals a great deal about today’s political culture. As Cooper himself noted in the interview, the popular beliefs about Churchill and the Allied Powers in WWII are critical to the Western identity today. As the story goes, the Americans and British were liberators who championed freedom and justice while the Germans and Japanese were genocidal monsters that would enslave humanity. As for the Russians, who were also genocidal monsters enslaving humanity, they’re generally not part of the conversation.

On the one hand, this narrative has benefitted Americans, who can take pride in being part of a nation that exterminated fascism from the world. Considering that leftist historical revisionists continually cast America and the West as forces for evil, World War II stands as one of those positive moments where they actually helped make the world a better place. Thus, to tarnish this popular view in the name of “just asking questions” only serves to embolden America’s enemies in their hatred of the “Undefeated 2-Time World War Champ.”

On the other hand, this narrative has become the basis of nearly every bad foreign policy position since WWII. Every foreign enemy is supposedly Hitler, thus necessitating costly intervention. By extension, everyone who seeks peaceful resolutions is treated as ignominious traitors and stooges who hate their country and side with the enemy. 

This is to say nothing of Leftists who use Hitler to demonize every conservative politician and policy, which in turn justifies every dirty, unconstitutional tactic that they routinely take against the other side. To paraphrase Dostoevsky, “If every opponent is Hitler, everything is permitted.” 

Thus, when Cooper suggests that Hitler was unnecessarily provoked to aggression and that a world war was actually the worst possible way to deal with this problem, he effectively calls into question the current Western political order. 

Then again, maybe the current Western political order isn’t the best of all possible worlds. Maybe the U.S. would do better to remain neutral in foreign conflicts, seek diplomatic means of resolving conflicts, and scale down its defenses in a purely defensive capacity. Instead of blowing our surplus wealth trying to be Team USA: World Police, we could update our infrastructure, improve our education and healthcare systems, and help poorer nations through foreign investment and collaborative projects rather than military occupation.

Perhaps leftist politicians might think twice before calling their opponent Hitler, recognizing that doing so fosters violent extremism and endangers constitutional norms. In a healthy democracy where all actors act in their rational self-interest, political opponents would first seek common ground and find areas of compromise. In an unhealthy democracy (or more accurately, an oligarchy), political opponents use any available means to attack the other in a fight for political survival—much like it happens in a world war. 

And, if Americans recognize that Churchill was not the hero they imagined and that protracted global conflict was not the only answer, let alone the best one, maybe Americans could transcend their differences and see who their real enemy is. Based on Cooper’s interpretation, the real threat in World War II was the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Hitler seemed to believe that he could unite the Western nations against the communist menace to the east, but Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt sided with Stalin, thinking him the lesser evil whom they could work with. if Americans recognize that Churchill was not the hero they imagined and that protracted global conflict was not the only answer, let alone the best one, maybe Americans could transcend their differences and see who their real enemy is. Tweet This

Americans today make a similar decision, making common cause with corrupt elites to help them defeat the other political party. Time and again, Democrat and Republican voters will join forces with the industry elites who profit from making Americans dumber, sicker, poorer, sadder, less free, and less safe, all so they can defeat the other side in the next election. Imagine if they realized that the real enemy is these elites and not one another. Not only would their fortunes improve significantly, but they could develop a more democratic system that rightly denies the influence of these oligarchs instead of excusing them as a necessary evil.

Of course, it’s possible that accepting Cooper’s arguments on World War II could lead to none of these things, or that the more credentialed historians could debunk his claims and set the record straight (and not just launch ad hominem attacks and make lame appeals to authority). America would go on being the World Police, playing whack-a-mole with every would-be Hitler, and its politics could be one continuous cycle of dispatching the next fascist dictator who would challenge “our democracy” by daring to run against the Democratic candidate. In other words, today’s status quo would remain undisrupted.

What is least likely is that Americans will become Nazis upon being exposed to an alternative view of history casting doubt on certain figures and their decisions. If anything, there is more to learn from WWII if it’s understood that Churchill made mistakes in precipitating the war or that Hitler wrongly assumed the Western powers had his back when he invaded Poland. By contrast, there’s nothing to learn if this history is a simplified Disney movie where unimpeachable good triumphs over irredeemable evil. 

So let the questioning continue, and let Americans learn more about their history. Henry Ford may have said once that “history is more or less bunk,” but this is only the case when myth continues to prevail over truth.