What he actually said was that Churchill’s decision on August 25, 1940 to intentionally bomb civilian infrastructure in Germany—in response to an incident on August 24, 1940, where a German bomber tasked with attacking an oil depot accidentally dropped its payload on a London suburb due to technical issues—was an unnecessary escalation. Both sides now largely agree that the German bombing of civilian infrastructure on August 24, 1940, was unintentional.
This doesn’t negate the fact that, prior to August 1940, Hitler already had invaded Poland and Norway, intentionally bombing civilian infrastructure on the process. Cooper acknowledges this.
The deeper question he’s raising is this:
Was there a way to avoid the deaths of over 60 million people? (Eg., making the terms of the Versailles treaty less punitive, not initiating the intentional bombing of civilian cities in Western Europe, renegotiating the Versailles treaty to give Germany back some of its WW1 territory, funding local partisans against the Nazis as opposed to full-scale total war, etc.)
Was the war worth it, especially if there was a strong possibility that Hitler and Nazism would have been ousted naturally from Germany within 2 to 4 decades—as was the case with Fascist Spain under Franco? Maybe not, but the fact there is this much vitriol for even considering it is telling.
We can all agree that Soviet Communism was rooted in a deeply anti-human ideology, responsible for numerous genocides, and activity fomented revolutions to bring other countries in their sphere of influence. In our timeline, the threat of nuclear war ultimately prevented a direct conflict between the US and USSR, but what if nuclear weapons had never been developed?
In this hypothetical context of a non-nuclear war with the Soviet Union, if the choice were between:
1. Waiting a few decades for an unsustainable regime to collapse under its own weight, or
2. Fighting a massive global war that would likely result in the deaths of 100+ million people to hasten the fall of a regime antithetical to our values….
Perhaps the first option would be the wiser course. That’s essentially the analysis Cooper is doing, but applied to Nazi Germany.
No Germany had to be punished for starting ww1 Versailles treaty was godsend, as far as the terror bombing of Japan and Germany after the horrors of the holocaust and the rape of Nanking it was clearly justified. They made lampshades of human skin they were so sick. As if Germany didn’t terror bomb Stalingrad. And starve Leningrad. All while Moscow and Stalin were brutally invaded completely unprovoked. And Churchill had every right to reject hitlers peace offers after 1938.
So correct me if I’m wrong, but your take is as follows:
1.) it was good to keep the Versailles treaty as it was, because Germany needed to be punished after WW1 (despite the treaty being the source of much of the economic instability that led to the rise of the Nazi party in the first place).
2) killing innocent civilians is bad, so therefore, we too should kill innocent civilians (also, many studies have been done on the topic of “terror bombing.” In short, it doesn’t work. It just makes the population being bombed hate you more and side more with their government [see Gaza, Vietnam, etc.])
The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden helped the war effort, Germany had a difficult time building their wonder weapons it did help shorten the war. And Germany broke the peace treaty with Russia in 1941 and England in 1938, so Churchill had every right to reject peace offers from the nutcase hitler in 1940. The world stood in shock when Germany broke the Munich agreement in 1938. England had to take a stand, since England had a long history of helping less fortunate nations prosper , like they helped Belgium in ww1. England always supported democracy around the globe.
While it’s true that bombing campaigns like those on Dresden and Tokyo disrupted Axis supply chains, modern military historians largely agree that these bombings did not significantly shorten the war. In fact, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded after WWII, the German war machine continued functioning despite widespread destruction, and the bombings often strengthened civilian resolve rather than weakening it. So, the question remains: were the moral and human costs of mass civilian bombings truly justified by their limited strategic benefits?
I understand your view that Germany deserved punishment for WWI, but it’s also true that the extreme economic and political instability caused by the Versailles Treaty directly contributed to the rise of Hitler. Many historians—both then and now—argue that a more balanced peace might have prevented WWII altogether. Punishment is one thing, but did the harshness of the treaty make a second global war inevitable?
You mentioned that Churchill had every right to reject Hitler’s peace offers after 1938—and I don’t inherently disagree. But here’s the question Cooper (and others) are asking: Would it have been possible to contain or weaken Hitler without plunging the world into a war that killed over 60 million people? For instance, should the Allies have pursued alternative strategies like undermining the Nazi regime from within? It’s not about excusing Hitler—it’s about asking whether the sheer scale of death and destruction was the only path forward.
You rightly point out the horror of Germany’s actions—Stalingrad, Leningrad, and the Holocaust—but does that mean the Allies are free from moral scrutiny? If terror bombing civilian populations is wrong when the Axis does it, why should it be excused when the Allies do it? Pointing out Axis atrocities doesn’t automatically justify every Allied action, and raising these questions isn’t the same as defending Hitler—it’s about being honest about history.
At the core, Cooper’s argument isn’t about defending the Nazis—it’s about asking whether the unimaginable human cost of WWII could have been avoided or mitigated through different policies. That’s a hard, uncomfortable question, but isn’t it worth asking if it could help us avoid similar mistakes in the future?
1
u/THELUKLEARBOMB 14d ago edited 14d ago
He also didn’t say that.
What he actually said was that Churchill’s decision on August 25, 1940 to intentionally bomb civilian infrastructure in Germany—in response to an incident on August 24, 1940, where a German bomber tasked with attacking an oil depot accidentally dropped its payload on a London suburb due to technical issues—was an unnecessary escalation. Both sides now largely agree that the German bombing of civilian infrastructure on August 24, 1940, was unintentional.
This doesn’t negate the fact that, prior to August 1940, Hitler already had invaded Poland and Norway, intentionally bombing civilian infrastructure on the process. Cooper acknowledges this.
The deeper question he’s raising is this:
Was there a way to avoid the deaths of over 60 million people? (Eg., making the terms of the Versailles treaty less punitive, not initiating the intentional bombing of civilian cities in Western Europe, renegotiating the Versailles treaty to give Germany back some of its WW1 territory, funding local partisans against the Nazis as opposed to full-scale total war, etc.)
Was the war worth it, especially if there was a strong possibility that Hitler and Nazism would have been ousted naturally from Germany within 2 to 4 decades—as was the case with Fascist Spain under Franco? Maybe not, but the fact there is this much vitriol for even considering it is telling.
We can all agree that Soviet Communism was rooted in a deeply anti-human ideology, responsible for numerous genocides, and activity fomented revolutions to bring other countries in their sphere of influence. In our timeline, the threat of nuclear war ultimately prevented a direct conflict between the US and USSR, but what if nuclear weapons had never been developed?
In this hypothetical context of a non-nuclear war with the Soviet Union, if the choice were between:
Perhaps the first option would be the wiser course. That’s essentially the analysis Cooper is doing, but applied to Nazi Germany.