Cameroni

From your own link: "The Soviet POWs were the first to feel this. Within a few months two million of the 3.35 million prisoners, that had been imprisoned until the end of 1941, died from cachexia due to insufficient food rations, lack of medical care and lacking protection against heat and cold. " So this exactly what Cooper was talking about. It indeed seems logical that once some Soviet POWs were transferred to the Reich their food rations and general conditions improved. In other words, food in Germany was more available than in some remote recently conquered part of Soviet Russia. This also explains in part (there are are other reasons) why only 3.5 percent of American/Canddian/UK etc POWs, perished, but so many more Soviet POWs died, more than 50%.. However, we're not really talking about Germany, we're talking about the situation in the territory conquered from the Soviet Union and other parts of Eastern Europe. It was not the same situation there as was found in Germany. "Starvation and its associated illnesses killed about 20 million people in Europe and Asia during World War II, approximately the same as the number of soldiers killed in battle. Most of the deaths from starvation in Europe were in the Soviet Union and Poland, countries invaded by Germany and occupied in whole or part during the war." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_agriculture_in_Nazi_Germany Since starvation did kill 20 million people during WWII Cooper seems to have been correct, that this was one of the main, but forgotten issues. Quite perspicacious of him. And indeed he was also correct in that the majority of those deaths were in Soviet Russia, ie Russians and Russian POWs.

Cooper is right to indict the German leadership for starting a war without making adequate provision to feed millions of prisoners of war. But of course the same happened with the Americans and their camps like the Rheinwiesenlager after the war, the exact same issues, malnutrition, deaths by starvation, lack of medical facilities, dysentry and typhus, camps in the open air etc.. Looking at the occupation of Japan it seems planning was also sub-par. In the modern world the same with Iraq. Palestine now, the same. The reason the holocaust did not come up was because, again, it was not a podcast about the holocaust. It did not feature at all. Which is why it's so bizarre for the White House to call this holocaust denial, most likely they did so on the word of Yad Vashem, or another organisation. These entities are always striving to highlight their relevance to ensure funding. But since Cooper was not talking about the holocaust at all it is really quite bizarre.

That is not what he is saying. He quoted a letter where a German Kommadant complained that there was no food and wondered if it might not be more humane to shoot the Soviet prisoners of war than to let them perish slowly through starvation. However, this was in connection with Cooper's condemnation of the Wehrmacht for starting a war in which they failed to make adequate provision to feed millions of prisoners of war. Cooper is correct to say that many prisoners of war starved for this reason due to a lack of food and malnutrition. This is in no way a statement about Romas, Jews, the Holocaust, death camps and such, and in no way denies any of these. If you want to watch the podcast, since you're interested in history, you can find it here:

It's good to see that people actually watched the interview. Like you I had a look and can confirm that in no way was this conversation about the holocaust, about holocaust denial or anything of the kind. It's a very interesting discussion with a very knowledgeable and interesting podcaster. I thought your assessment was very fair and accurate. Clearly Cooper was condemning, not excusing the Wehrmacht, when he said that they had put themselves into a position where they started a war and did not make provisions for prisoners of war which meant that as a result mililons died. This statement was about prisoners of war primarily, not about jews and the holocaust. What's more this statement is completely correct, academic historians such as Ruediger Overmans wrote exactly the same, that the Wehrmacht was ill prepared for the 5.7 million prisoners of war it captured in the East. For left-wing people, or those with a holocaust industry protectionist instinct to claim that "Aaaah, it's holocaust denial because he's implying there was no plan to murder jews, that people just starved in the camps" is a total misrepresentation. You could equally claim he denied the moon landing because he did not refer to the evidence for the moon landing. It's ludicrous. Cooper's correct statment does not mean he thinks there were no extermination camps and that people ONLY died by starvation. But of course a large number of Soviet prisoneres of war did die of starvation, and the Wehrmacht was to blame because they did not make provision for these prisoners. That's what Cooper was saying in reality. Left wing people have twisted his words and defamed him for the sole reason that Cooper is known to be a very right wing podcaster, as indeed is Carlson. Of course they did the same with Carlson's Putin interview, where Putin gave his view on history, and many then used this to imply that Putin wants to reconstitute Imperial Russia. The mendacious, malicious and obvious misrepresentation of the facts by the mainstream media and left wingers, is more real than I ever thought possible.

Yes, but looking at it they both died, so one of the heirs would have been a better comparison.

That's wrong. The ERM was very much related to fundamentals like inflation. Whilst under Lawson the British had shadowed the Deutschmark as an indicator to inflation, John Major's decision to join ERM was precisely to formalise this with the aim of keeping inflation down. "In 1989, the UK had inflation three times the rate of Germany, higher interest rates at 15%, and much lower labour productivity than France and Germany, which indicated the UK's different economic state in comparison to other ERM countries". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday That was the whole reason why the high interest rates the Bundesbank set for the ERM were not suitable for the UK, or Italy, at the time. However, due to national prestige, the Brits could not admit they made a mistake and their economy was to weak to keep pace with Germany, so their ability to adjust interet rates was inhibited. George Soros understood that the Brits had made a mistake by bringing the pound into the ERM at too high a rate, that inflation was too high in the UK at triple the German rate and the UK interst rates were hurting UK asset prices. The Italians had solved the problem by devaluing the Lira, however, the British thought this would cause further inflation for the pound, if it were devalued, which was correct. The remarks by the Bundesbank that there would have to be further devaluations set off a selling spree of the pound. The Brits tried to prop it up with buying interventions but did not succeed. They then raised the interest rate to tempt buyers to buy the pound, that too did not work. So ultimately Britain had to leave the ERM which is what Soros understood to be the most likely outcome and he made billions on this bet. As you can see, the ERM was highly related to inflation, and understanding all the fundamentals around the situation of the pound allowed Soros to make this bet. He had an edge. This is what truly successful traders try to do, to understand fundamentals in a way that allows them to predict what will happen. They then place trades based on that plan. They hold those trades for a long time. They are not day traders.

I do like it, it looks very useful. And his success is surprising, considering it's not a statistically or mathematically heavy formula.

Well, that's wrong. His 13 keys purport to predict the winner of the popular vote according to his book and papers. Only in 2016 did he claim he was predicting Electoral College. However, his papers and books don't support this claim, which he was making for the obvious reasson of saving his 2016 prediciton.

Not a conspiracy at all. Lichtman is on record that his 13 keys predict the popular vote. He is also on record in 2016 for claiming otherwise, that he was predicting electoral college, however, his books and papers don't support his claim. Since Lichtman tried to switch positions in 2016, and suddenly claimed he was predicting Electoral College not popular vote, the fact that he was trying to fit his prediction to the circumstances is the only logical conclusion. "In 2016, Lichtman predicted a Trump victory using the Keys. However, Trump lost the popular vote, and Lichtman had previously clarified that the Keys only predicted the popular vote, not the Electoral College outcome. Lichtman claims that in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College,[40] but this claim is not supported by his books and papers from 2016, which explicitly stated that the Keys predict the popular vote." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House Unless you think Wikipedia is peddling conspiracy Patong?

If you read his book on his 13 keys you will see him stating clearly that his 13 keys predict the popular vote. However, you won't see him stating that now: In 2016, Lichtman predicted a Trump victory using the Keys. However, Trump lost the popular vote, and Lichtman had previously clarified that the Keys only predicted the popular vote, not the Electoral College outcome. Lichtman claims that in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College,[40] but this claim is not supported by his books and papers from 2016, which explicitly stated that the Keys predict the popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House Lichtman tried to pull a fast one in 2016, and in order to try and make his prediction fit the circumstances he suddenly claimed he was predicting the outcome of the Electora College, however, his books and papers do not support his claim. They rather state that his keys predict the popular vote. Now, most likely Lichtman, aware of the 2016 result, will again claim he's predicting Electoral College. Since most people agree this is how Trump would most likely win again, not via the popular vote.

Exactly this, some traders only rely on technicals and can have a measure of success for some time. However, truly successful traders don't just rely on technicals. Take one of the most famous Forex trades of all time, when George Soros broke the bank of England. Soros did not just use technicals, rather he understood the fundamentals, that the British government would not be able to defend the pound and went on a gigantic short of the Pound. This would not have been possible with mere chart analsysis.

Almost certainly no.

Wolfgang Benz is more the expert on Generalplan Ost, Overmans was more someone who wanted to solve the difficult questions of what actually happened on the ground, how many Germans died, how many Soviet prisoners of war died ... Generalplan Ost was more of a resettlement fantasy of the SS to be implemented after German victory.

That's what you claim, however, very successful Forex traders say that understanding fundamentals is just as key as technical indicators and chart analysis. I do agree with your last paragraph though, the news is indeed also made to fit what happened, to get some kind of explanation. However, the market does have real fundamentals, and those people who move the markets do not just place trades on a whim, they also consider the fundamentals of the economy.

Again, the Wehrmacht was poorly prepared for taking care of prisoners in the East, the letters by German officers which Cooper mentions where they complain there is no food to feed the prisoners are real. The German standard scholarship agrees that the Wehrmacht made insufficient provisions for prisoners. To see Generalplan Ost as a blueprint for what actually happened in the East is problematic. From your own link: "It was a confidential proposal whose content was known only to those at the top level of the Nazi hierarchy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost Since this plan was only known to those at the top level of the Nazi hierarchy, it is not realistic to see day to day actions carried out by Germans on the ground as motivated by this plan. In addition this plan was never fully implemented. Again, from your own link: "Generalplan Ost was only partially implemented during the war in territories occupied by Germany on the Eastern Front during World War II...However, its full implementation was not considered practicable during major military operations, and never materialised due to Germany's defeat." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost Generalplan Ost is more accurately seen as what the SS would have wanted to happen in case of German victory, it was more a plan for the future than an actual plan for how to deal with prisoners of wars on the ground during Germany's actual military operations.

How is this dishonesty? Cooper is merely pointing out correctly that prior to WW1 Germans were viewed very favourably in Britain, but then turned into demons in WWII and then again back to good guys after the war. He is right that the innate evil of Germans is a poor and unsatsifying explanation for WWII.

One can debate what might have happened had Britian accepted German peace offers in 1940, however, we know that Hitler viewed Russia and the colonial peoples as the main threat to the Germanic peoples, therefore he had always said a strong British empire was needed. Besides, why would Hitler have invaded Britain, it had nothing to offer Germany. The only reason for Operation Sealion was to knock Britain out of the war. It's not just that Churchill dismissed German peace offers in 1940, Cooper also says, correctly, that Britain was instrumental in turning the regional German-Polish war into a world war. Indeed, after the BEF fled at Dunkirk Britain had no means to fight back, apart from bombing civilians, and it was Churchill's plan to get either the US or Russia to fight Germany. So in a very real sense Churchill is the person most reponsible for WWII, according to Cooper.

In terms of Churchill, I don't think Cooper was saying that his opposition to Germany was due in part to "pressure from unnamed financiers", what Cooper is actually saying is that Churchill's animosity to Germany was real and was already present, that he was motivated by his failure in WWI to prove that he was a capable warlord after all and that it was the British media complex and financiers that helped put Churchill in a position where he was the person fighting for Britain, and that these financiers shared Churchill's earlier support for Zioninsm. Cooper doesn't name the backers of Churchill, but he most likely means Harry Levy-Lawson, 1st Viscount Burnham, a former proprietor of the Daily Telegraph who came from a Jewish family. As to the financiers Churchill was friends with Nathan Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild, and received "extensive loans" from the Rothschilds. In addition Churchill was friends with Sir Henry Strakosch GBE, an Austrian-born British banker and businessman. As a Jewish financier, the financial help he offered to Winston Churchill was exploited by Nazi propaganda during the 1930s and World War II already. "Files declassified in the 2000s showed that Strakosch provided large financial gifts to Churchill in 1938 and 1940, which enabled Churchill to pay off his vast debts and to withdraw his Kent home Chartwell from sale at a time of severe financial pressures." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Strakosch#:~:text=Sir Henry Strakosch GBE (9,Holocaust deniers in later years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Randolph_Churchill#:~:text=Churchill was a friend of,extensive loans" from the Rothschilds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Levy-Lawson,_1st_Viscount_Burnham Indeed you are right that antisemites and holocaust deniers have used this financial support from jews in their arguments, and indeed Nazi Germany already used this in their propaganda at the time. However, in this instance it is a case of the people you don't agree with having historical facts on their side. The loans to Churchill by Strakosch and Nathaniel Rothschild did happen. Tucker did not seem overly interested in this, but his interest was in why did Churchill persist in fighting Nazi Germany when he did not have the means to do so. This was of course not an adversarial interview because Tucker is a fan of Cooper. Overmans did write the standard work on German casualties in WW2, that's true. But that's not all. In Germany there is a work "Germany and the Second World War (German: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg) a 12,000-page, 13-volume work published by the Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt (DVA), that has taken academics from the military history centre of the German armed forces 30 years to finish. It is considered one of the ultimate standard works on WWII in German academia. Overmans wrote the chapter "Die Kriegsgefangenenpolitik des Deutschen Reiches 1939 bis 1945"("The prisoner of war policies of the German Reich 1939 to 1945"). Germany and the Second World War. Vol. IX. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, München. pp. 729–875. ISBN 3-421-06528-4. Overmans also wrote several standard works on prisoners of war and was editor of other major works on prisoners of war. His essay above ("The prisoner of war policies of the German Reich 1939 to 1945") Germany and the Second World War. Vol. IX. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, München. pp. 729–875. ISBN 3-421-06528-4, is where you will find his exploration of the difficulties the Wehrmacht faced in the administration of millions of Soviet prisoners, including lack of food, camps being built in the open air, lack of medical facilities, dysentry and typhus epidemics and so on. He does not absolve the Wehrmacht of mass slaughter, but explains how this mass slaughter happened. I realise you would like a moralist soundbite about this issue, but it is large and complex issue.

There were a number of reassons. Ruediger Overmans describes how despite counting on 2 to 3 million prisoners of war in the first year of the war against Russia the Wehrmacht had made no meaningful provisions for this number of Soviet prisoners. Overwhelmingly the Russian prisoners of war were kept in the open air, much like German prisoners of war after 1945 by the Americans. There was no medical servicing to speak of so many Russian POWs perished through common diseases like dysentry and Typhus. There was a malnutrition due to food shortage, again like the German POWs experienced after 1945. This was exacerbated by the Backe Plan which sought to ensure that available food was provided to German soldiers in the first instance. There is a debate among historians whether this Backe Plan was just a rational plan for food distribution or an ideological infused plan to starve Soviet POWs, but this debate is not settled either way. Soviet POWs were also interned in regular concentration camps in Germany. Many were killed there, a small number in medical experiments. About 80000 Soviet prisoners of war were murdered for being Jews. In 2015 the German state decided to compensate the surviving Russian prisoners of war financially for their suffering. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsgefangene_des_Zweiten_Weltkrieges#cite_note-52

Yes indeed, in today's money it was 4 million USD. Still remarkable for a man who had such a gigantic inheritance. However, Churchill never chose to pay off his debt, but simply kept it even after his financial windfall. Again, you are insinuating that Daryl Cooper is anti-semitic without any shred of real evidence, this after calling him a holocaust denier on the basis of his comment about Germany's army being unprepared about the number of prisoners of war, the same argument made by Ruediger Overmans in his academic standard work on prisoners of war in Germany. The accusations against Cooper seem way over the top, when examined against what he actually said.

That's nonsense. No competent trader relies solely on technical trading, rather successful forex traders rely on both technical and fundamental info. Obviously I'm not talking about algorithmic trading without humans.

Or it could just be an accurate statement of history, Germany had over 1000 prisoner of war camps and only 6 extermination camps. Links are above. Indeed the rate of survival of Western Allied prisoners of war was excellent, Only 3.5 percent of the American, British, Canadian western prisoners of war did not survive WWII. More than half of Russian prisoners of war perished. Part of the reason was that in the East the Wehrmacht struggled precisely with the issues Dary Cooper referred to such as lack of food. Ruediger Overmans has written extensively in his books on Germany's policy on prisoners of war and the lack of preparations which resulted in disastrous conditions for Soviet POWs. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/us-prisoners-war-civilian-american-citizens-captured.html#:~:text=Survival Rates in Japanese and German WWII Camps&text=POWs and internees.-,Dr.,a 40% death rate). https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/oa_edited_volume/chapter/3441470

You are completely wrong, Germany held 5.7 million Soviet prisoners of war alone. In addition they held American, British and other Allied prisoners of war. There were 1000 prisoner of war camps in Germany, but there were only 6 extermination camps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoner-of-war_camps_in_World_War_II https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-persecution-of-soviet-prisoners-of-war#:~:text=Existing sources suggest that some,POWs remained in German custody. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp

I don't think you will find much about Daryl Cooper and the Holocaust. I've never heard of him before the Carlson interview, and indeed never watched Carlson before, but after searching online it does not look like Daryl Cooper has a particular interest in the holocaust. Though he has done a lot of research on the history of Israel/Palestine. Since he is not a holocaust academic I don't think his views on the holocaust would be particularly noteworthy. Carlson did not ask deep probing questions about the Holocaust because this was not an interview about the holocaust. Rather Carlson's strategy was to ask interesting questions about a whole host of topics Daryl Cooper was actually knowlegeable about, such as Jim Jones, leaders of WWII and such. In that Carlson succeeded and it was an extremely interesting interview whiich gave Cooper ample chance to shine with his preferred topics. Thanks for the interesting article on Substack, which I read with great interest. But if the most egregious charge against Cooper is that he did an interview with Greg Johnson then you might as well claim that Louis Theroux and the BBC are holocaust deniers. You can't convict someone by association, you'd have to find something in the actual writings of Daryl Cooper that suggests he is a holocaust denier. There is nothing I have found, and I note you clearly have not either. Indeed Cooper has said that FDR should not have entered the war on the side of Britain. Cooper's argument is that it was Churchill who ensured that the local Polish German war turned into a world war, and that it was Churchill who refused to end the war in 1940, after Germany had sued for peace with Britain. This again, does not make Cooper a holocaust denier. Churchill was indeed under the thumb of banks, for the simple reason that he had over 4 million million USD in debt as he was terrible with money and always had banks finance his lifestyle, even after his massive inheritance. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/churchill-bad-at-finances.html It's a sad state of affairs when someone can't tell the truth and historical facts anymore, for fear of being bullied, and defamed as a holocaust denier.

Well, the interview was not about the extermination of the jews. Anyone who watches it will be disabused of this notion. So there was no reason for Cooper to mention this. His statement related to prisoners of war and political prisoners, it was not meant to be construed as applying to Auschwitz and other extermination camps.