Acclaimed Historians Debunk Claim the U.S. Should Have Allied with Hitler | Real Talk | PragerU

There is a chemistry professor who's purporting to be a great historian who is making claims that it is possible that the United States should have actually allied with Hitler uh and not with the communist Stalin. >> Yeah. When you look at World War II and the deal is the argument is if we had chosen Stalin, we could have prevented the Holocaust. Now wait a minute. >> You mean if we had chosen to go to war against Stalin? >> Yeah. cho chosen instead of him being an ally. We would we' fought Stalin. We could have stopped the the Holocaust. Time out. Choosing Stalin over Hitler. Hitler started the Holocaust 8 years before America got in the war. We would not have stopped the Holocaust by being in the war. And then when you look at Stalin, Stalin is responsible for 42.7 million deaths. Now, I will tell you, Stalin came as an ally in the war, but early on, I mean, we hated Stalin. And Roosevelt is very clear that this guy is wicked and evil. But then we get into war and we're not prepared for war. We're still when World War II starts, we're still flying World War I biplanes. Our military training is we're painting broomsticks black and using that as a rifle to teach guys how to shoot a we have we figured based on what Woodro Wilson said that if we're not a threat to anybody, nobody will come after us. Well, we were a threat to nobody and we thought that would keep us safe and we were just sitting ducks. We got attacked on Pearl Harbor. So it took us 11 months from the time we got attacked before we finally got engaged in the war. For 11 months we're trying to train soldiers and build tanks and build planes. And so when we get involved in the war at that point, Roosevelt is so clear Stalin is really, really bad, but we're behind the eightball. He said, but Stalin does have 20 million soldiers will come fight Hitler, and Hitler is what we've got to stop. And so he does not like Stalin. He tried throughout the war to do things to limit Stalin's influence. Uh Stalin did a lot of unethical stuff to America, really bad stuff to us as well. >> And this is where the adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, came from, right? Or kind of the the thought behind it. >> This is not a defense of Stalin. No, >> it's arguable that Stalin was every bit as evil as Hitler was. What Stalin did was atrocious on every level. And so the fact that he was part of the Allied forces is not a justification of him and what he did. But it's also very dishonest to say, well, if we would have joined with Hitler, because Hitler was really far more oppressed, it's kind of the way the argument goes, right? Because what happened after World War I and what happened to Germany, it just wasn't fair and and Hitler was trying to do a good thing. It's a crazy argument to make if you consider all of the details. And this is where I understand that people will draw different conclusions, but I I do question, is it because you have not gotten all the information, right? Are you ignorant of some of that? Or are you intentional? Are you intentionally promoting something that you know to be false or is it that you just have not done the research on this that you should and it it in some situations seems like it doesn't take very much research to realize that you're having a crazy position on this even though we can't acknowledge two things can be true at once. It's true Hitler was really bad and Stalin was really bad. >> It's not an either or. >> But it's also true when we went against Hitler and Stalin says I want to help you beat Hitler. We were like we will take all the help we can get cuz we're going to need help to beat this guy. That's true. And as we went in the war, we really tried to limit Stalin. He got involved in the European or in the Pacific theater in the final day of the war. I mean, after we dropped the first atomic bomb, he says, "I'm going to come help you." And that's what gave him the the clout to get in and take South Korea, make it in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, all the communism came in on that very last day. We tried to keep him out of it, but there was a treaty provision that that put it. We didn't like Stalin. We didn't like having to work with him, but it was the enemy of the enemy is my friend kind of thing. So, it's not an either or thing is often presented by that chemistry professor as you point out who has it so wrong and has so many facts wrong about the war. >> Looking back now, it's always easier to be smarter, right, when you're looking back at history. Do you think that the United States made the wrong decision in allying and and with our allies as well as with the Soviets to go against Hitler? And basically this tactic was destroy Nazism, fascism, and then go after communism. Was that the right tactic in your opinion? >> The those are decisions that are hard to know at the time they're made. But at the time they were made, it was called the Germany first proposition. Even though Japan attacked us, Germany did not. We went to war against Japan because Ger went to war against Germany because Germany had an agreement with Japan that if anybody attacks Japan, Germany will come to their defense. Germany didn't want to fight us. But after Japan declared war on us and and attacked us, now they have to defend Japan. Now they're against us. He tried to keep America out. So we now have to look at that. And so the president and Eisenhower and other leaders said, "Hey, Hitler is the key to everything going in World War II. He's got to be taken out first. So we're going to put all of our resources, major resources in Europe, even though we we've got the Japanese and they're the ones who attacked us. Hitler didn't. We've got to get rid of Hitler first because that will cause Japan to collapse if they don't have this port. 80% of their oil they had to import. They didn't even produce enough to keep their own for Japan. Japan didn't have enough resources to keep their their navy in the sea. So you take Hitler out. And so it was called the Germany first approach. So take out him first. Now he's responsible for about 45 million deaths. So if we can get him isolated and done, then we can win the Pacific. Then we can stop the World War, stop the killing. And that essentially is what we pursued. So in doing that you you have Hitler had turned Stalin is originally is an Allied Hitler and then Hitler turns on Stalin and goes and kills the biggest land battle in the history of the world was the Germans and the Russians fighting each other. And that's when Stalin says hey I'll join the Allies and he brings 20 million troops that are fighting Hitler and we say we can use those 20 million troops. But at that point, we started trying to isolate him with what was going on. We started cutting we we had what was called Operation Paperclip where we were taking the the brains out of the the Nazi empire and we did not let him know about it because we didn't want the brains going over to the the the Soviet or Yeah. to the Soviet side. So, we knew he was a problem, but we needed to win the war. And >> and there's question marks surrounding all of this, too, cuz a lot of question marks around Operation Paperclip. uh some big question marks of how that was handled. But the point is even backing up to Stalin, Stalin wasn't our friend when this thing started. >> It it was in the midst of going after Hitler that Hitler turns on Stalin a little bit and we realize we might have found someone that can help us beat Hitler. So it wasn't a alignment of common values. It was alignment of common enemy. And so looking back now, I I don't know that Hitler could have been defeated as maybe in general, but as well or as quickly for sure, we can say without having had the Russians support and aid. Um, but we also know that the Russians were quite horrific. Um, anywhere they had victories, what they were doing to people, uh, to civilians, to prisoners of war, >> atrocities the the genocides the the the Soviets committed, abominable. Abominable. And this is where I think again when you tell the whole story, you can have honest conversations and we could even have difference of opinion honestly and fairly to say I think we never should have done it. Well, I understand but I don't know if we could have won if we didn't. You can have an honest conversation, but I think part of what's happening today is people aren't having entirely honest conversations. I think there's again a lot of agenda driven conversations. And I I don't always know if I I think more the people we deal with and especially with what y'all do at Prager, use so much of who listens and follows and the people that I mean the amazing conversion testimonies. I am blown away by your reach. Younger generation. I think the younger generation is far more ignorant of truth than they are intentional against it. That's right. >> But I do think there's a lot of political leaders. There's a lot of academic leaders that are far more intentional than they are ignorant that they don't care what the truth is. They're promoting an agenda. And to your point, I think what's crazy is we're starting to see even more of that on the right. And it's not just a healthy distrust of what we've been told because that's that's probably valid. Uh we recognize now, especially since co we've been lied to on so many levels. Uh and we don't even have to get into, you know, some of the JFK file question marks. I mean, there's so many things now. I don't know how much we've been lied to about. We We now are creating a more healthy distrust. We're just having a harder time finding what's actually true. And it is sad to see it happening now far more than it should on the right side. It used to be on the left side. We could say, "Take all that with a grain of salt. Go to your research, look it up." Now we're having to say it far more on the right side to voices that used to be far more known and trusted that we thought, "Well, if it came off this person, we feel good about it." Well, what a huge responsibility we have when we have these large audiences, right? To make sure that we do what's right and what's good and we serve our country and we serve truth. When when you when we talk about this chemistry professor who is now supposedly a history expert, you know, I can think about a bunch of comedians who are now suddenly history experts as well. And I you talk about co I completely agree. Look, as a mom, when they forced my children to get jabbed and I refused to do it, now I don't trust doctors anymore, right? And so there is definitely this issue of distrust and we don't know what an expert even is. But we've kind of thrown everything out the window and now it's just okay well are the new experts chemistry professors and comedians and people that just know how to give these social media sound bites and they say I'm just asking questions. I'm like I just learned from you that that's a Marxist tactic which is fascinating because it does feel like it's incredibly destructive. I mean, the chemistry professor is saying that we were lied to about Pearl Harbor. The chemistry professor is saying that the allies have left 20,000 some American troops back in Europe and that the land mass of Europe may have not been as significant, right? The the UK and and and France and all of those areas may have not as been as significant. We may have, you know, needed to go into the USSR or the Soviets first, right? And so, you know, there's a lot of this confusion that's being created and and I worry because I think the president and the uh Make America Great Again movement has made incredible strides with young people and with people who are really undecided about what is going on, right? He was able to undo the brainwashing of of much of the academia and the media and really get people to open their minds and understand that conservatives are not racist. We are not whitewashing American history. We are good and kind and we care about all humans and we look at everybody equally. And I think we've made so much progress over the last few years to get people to really see the truth about us. And then we have people from within our movement destroying it for us, right? We we really want to have this open tent of goodness and we have people who possibly have I don't know for what reasons really a nefarious agenda to propagate lies. Maybe you have a sense and like you know I'd like to ask the question why are they doing this? Why?