“The story we got about World War II is all wrong,” a guest told Tucker Carlson on his podcast two weeks ago. “I think that’s right,” replied Carlson. The guest, a Cornell chemistry professor named David Collum, then spelled out what he meant: “One can make the argument we should have sided with Hitler and fought Stalin.” Such sentiments might sound shocking to the uninitiated, but they are not to Carlson’s audience. In fact, the notion that the German dictator was unfairly maligned has become a running theme on Carlson’s show—and beyond.
Last September, Carlson interviewed a man named Darryl Cooper, whom he dubbed “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Cooper’s conception of honest history soon became clear: He suggested that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill might have been “the chief villain of the Second World War,” with Nazi Germany at best coming in second. The day after the episode aired, Cooper further downplayed Hitler’s genocidal ambitions, writing on social media that the German leader had sought peace with Europe and merely wanted “to reach an acceptable solution to the Jewish problem.” He did not explain why the Jews should have been considered a “problem” in the first place.
Enjoy a year of unlimited access to The Atlantic—including every story on our site and app, subscriber newsletters, and more.
“What is it about Hitler? Why is he the most evil?” the far-right podcaster Candace Owens asked in July 2024. “The first thing people would say is: ‘Well, an ethnic cleansing almost took place.’ And now I offer back: ‘You mean like we actually did to the Germans.’” A repeat guest on Carlson’s show, Owens defended him after his conversation with Cooper. “Many Americans are learning that WW2 history is not as black and white as we were taught and some details were purposefully omitted from our textbooks,” she wrote on X.
These Reich rehabilitators are not fringe figures. Carlson’s show ranks among the top podcasts in America. He spoke before President Donald Trump on the final night of the 2024 Republican National Convention, and his son serves as a deputy press secretary to Vice President J. D. Vance, who owes his office in part to Carlson’s advocacy. Owens has millions of followers on YouTube, Instagram, and X, and over the past six months, she has been interviewed by some of the nation’s most popular podcasters, including the comedian Theo Von and the ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith. Her output has attained sufficient notoriety that she is currently being sued by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, over her repeated claims that the French first lady was actually born a man. Cooper, the would-be World War II revisionist, publishes the top-selling history newsletter on the entire Substack platform.
Why does a potent portion of the American right seek to rehabilitate Hitler? The Nazi apologetics are partly an attention-seeking attempt at provocation—an effort to signal iconoclasm by transgressing one of society’s few remaining taboos. But there is more to the story than that. Carlson and his fellow travelers on the far right correctly identify the Second World War as a pivot point in America’s understanding of itself and its attitude toward its Jewish citizens. The country learned hard lessons from the Nazi Holocaust about the catastrophic consequences of conspiratorial prejudice. Today, a growing constituency on the right wants the nation to unlearn them.
Before World War II, the United States was a far more anti-Semitic place than it is now. Far from joining the conflict to rescue Europe’s Jews, the country was largely unsympathetic to their plight. In 1938, on the eve of the Holocaust, Gallup found that 54 percent of Americans believed that “the persecution of Jews in Europe has been partly their own fault,” and that another 11 percent thought it was “entirely” their fault. In other words, as the Nazis prepared to exterminate the Jews, most Americans blamed the victims.
The same week that the Kristallnacht pogrom left thousands of synagogues and Jewish businesses in ruins, 72 percent of Americans opposed allowing “a larger number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live.” Months later, 67 percent opposed a bill aimed at accepting child refugees from Germany; the idea never made it to a congressional vote. Many Americans worried, however illogically, that fleeing Jews might be German spies, a vanishingly rare occurrence. Those with suspicions included President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who suggested in 1940 that some refugees could be engaged in espionage under compulsion from the Nazis, “especially Jewish refugees.”
This climate of paranoia and hostility had deadly consequences. In 1939, the U.S. and Canada turned away the M.S. St. Louis, which carried nearly 1,000 Jewish refugees. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where hundreds of the passengers were captured and killed by the Germans. Restrained by public sentiment, Roosevelt not only kept the country’s refugee caps largely in place but also rejected pleas to bomb the Auschwitz concentration camp and the railway tracks that led to it. When the United States finally entered the war, it did so not out of any special sense of obligation to the Jews but to defend itself after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That indifference to the Holocaust was immediately dispelled when the Allied Forces liberated several of the Nazi camps where millions of Jews had been murdered. Entering the gates of these sadistic sites, American service members came face-to-face with unspeakable Nazi atrocities—rotting piles of naked corpses, gas chambers, thousands of emaciated adults. Denial gave way to revulsion. “I thought of some of the stories I previously had read about Dachau and was glad of the chance to see for myself just to prove once and for all that what I had heard was propaganda,” Sergeant Horace Evers wrote to his family in May 1945. “But no it wasn’t propaganda at all … If anything some of the truth had been held back.”
Make your inbox more interesting with newsletters from your favorite Atlantic writers.
Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future U.S. president, personally went to Ohrdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald and the first Nazi camp liberated by American troops. “I made the visit deliberately,” he cabled to Washington, “in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’” Eisenhower then requested that members of Congress and prominent journalists be brought to the camps to see and document the horrors themselves. “I pray you to believe what I have said about Buchenwald,” the legendary CBS broadcaster Edward R. Murrow told his listeners after touring the camp. “I reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it, I have no words.”
Two-thirds of Europe’s Jews had been murdered. American soldiers, drafted from across the United States, returned home bearing witness to what they had encountered. “Anti-Semitism was right there, it had been carried to the ultimate, and I knew that that was something we had to get rid of because I had experienced it,” Sergeant Leon Bass, a Black veteran whose segregated unit entered Buchenwald, later testified. In this way, the American people learned firsthand where rampant anti-Jewish prejudice led—and the country was transformed.
Americans began to understand themselves as the ones who’d defeated the Nazis and saved the Jews. Slowly but surely, anti-Semitism became un-American. But today, those lessons—like the people who learned them—are passing away, and a wave of propagandists with a very different agenda has arisen to fill the void they left behind.
Over the past few years, Tucker Carlson and his co-ideologues have begun insinuating anti-Semitic ideas into the public discourse. The former Fox News host has described Ben Shapiro, perhaps the most prominent American Jewish conservative, and those like him as foreign subversives who “don’t care about the country at all.” He has also promoted a lightly sanitized version of the white-supremacist “Great Replacement” theory that has inspired multiple anti-Semitic massacres on American soil. Candace Owens has accused Israel of involvement in the 9/11 attacks and the JFK assassination, and claimed that a Jewish pedophile cult controls the world. (Like many pushing such slanders, she has apparently discerned that replacingJews with Israel or Zionists grants age-old conspiracy theories new legitimacy.) In March, an influencer named Ian Carroll—who has a combined 3.8 million social-media followers, and whose work has been shared by Elon Musk—joined Joe Rogan, arguably the most popular podcaster in America, to expound without challenge about how a “giant group of Jewish billionaires is running a sex-trafficking operation targeting American politicians and business people.”
Before America entered World War II, reactionaries such as the famed aviator Charles Lindbergh and the Catholic radio firebrand Father Charles Coughlin inveighed against the country’s tiny Jewish population, accusing it of controlling America’s institutions and dragging the U.S. to war. “Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government,” Lindbergh declared of American Jews in 1941. “Why is there persecution in Germany today?” asked Coughlin after Kristallnacht. “Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted.” For these men and their millions of supporters, behind every perceived social and political problem lay a sinister Jewish culprit.
The 21st-century heirs of Lindbergh and Coughlin seek to turn back the clock to a time when such sentiments were seen by many as sensible rather than scandalous. These far-right figures have correctly ascertained that to change what is possible in American politics, they need to change how America talks about itself and its past. “The reason I keep focusing on this is probably the same reason you’re doing it,” Carlson told Darryl Cooper, the amateur Holocaust historian. “I think it’s central to the society we live in, the myths upon which it’s built. I think it’s also the cause of the destruction of Western civilization—these lies.”
Carlson couches his claims in layers of intellectual abstraction. Others are less coy. “Hitler burned down the trans clinics, arrested the Rothschild bankers, and gave free homes to families,” the former mixed martial artist Jake Shields told his 870,000 followers on X last week. “Does this sound like the most evil man who ever lived?” The post received 44,000 likes. (Shields has also denied that “a single Jew died in gas chambers.”) “Hitler was right about y’all,” said Myron Gaines, a manosphere podcaster with some 2 million followers across platforms, referring to Jews last year. “You guys come into a country, you push your pornography, you push your fuckin’ central banking, you push your degeneracy, you push the LGBT community, you push all this fuckin’ bullshit into a society, you destroy it from within.” These influencers are less respectable than Carlson, but their views are precisely the ones that more presentable propagandists like him are effectively working to mainstream. After Carlson’s guest last month suggested that the U.S. “should have sided with Hitler,” Shields reposted the clip.
Had Carlson and his cohort attempted their revisionism 20 years ago, they would have encountered a chorus of contradiction from real people who had experienced the history they sought to rewrite and know where its conspiratorial calumnies lead. But today, most of those people are dead, and a new generation is rising that never witnessed the Holocaust firsthand or heard about it from family and friends who did.
Late last year, David Shor, one of the Democratic Party’s top data scientists, surveyed some 130,000 voters about whether they had a “favorable” or “unfavorable” opinion of Jewish people. Hardly anyone over the age of 70 said their view was unfavorable. More than a quarter of those under 25 did. The question is not whether America’s self-understanding is changing; it’s how far that change will go—and what the consequences will be.
Yair Rosenberg is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of its newsletter Deep Shtetl, about the intersection of politics, culture, and religion.
Story March 07, 2025 (Watch and/or listen on the page, linked just above.)
Republicans in Congress are pushing forward budget plans that would cut trillions in federal spending and give trillions more in tax cuts that disproportionately benefit corporations and the ultra-rich. This week, hundreds of faith leaders gathered on the Christian holy day of Ash Wednesday on Capitol Hill to voice their opposition. “There’s no way you can do the kinds of cuts they’re talking about — it’s mathematically impossible — without touching Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” says Bishop William Barber, one of the participants. Barber also reflects on the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when civil rights marchers were brutalized in Selma, Alabama, and stresses that economic justice was always at the heart of the movement alongside ending segregation and winning voting rights.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
House Republicans narrowly adopted a budget proposal last week to cut as much as $2 trillion in spending over a 10-year period, in part to fund Trump’s tax cuts. A new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows the proposed budget would require massive cuts to Medicaid spending. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, has warned the U.S. government will go bankrupt without his Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, which is working to slash a trillion dollars from the deficit.
This week, hundreds of faith leaders gathered to mark the Christian holy day of Ash Wednesday on Capitol Hill and to protest the impact the proposed cuts could have on the poor and the vulnerable. This is Bishop William Barber speaking at the protest Wednesday.
BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: If an unelected technocrat can delete the financial commitments of a government established for the people and by the people, and we don’t say anything, we betray our moral commitments to liberty.
AMY GOODMAN: Faith leaders also shared findings of a new report Wednesday called “The High Moral Stake: Our Budget, Our Future,” which details how President Trump and the Republican Party are taking more essential services and money away from working people while cutting taxes for the wealthiest. It was authored by Institute for Policy Studies, the Economic Policy Institute and Repairers of the Breach.
For more, we’re joined from North Carolina by Bishop William Barber, president and senior lecturer at Repairers of the Breach, national co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, founding director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School. He’s co-author of the new book White Poverty: How Exposing Myths About Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy.
Bishop Barber, welcome back to Democracy Now! on this 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when voting rights activists marched — tried to march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, led by John Lewis, and were beaten down by Alabama state troopers. Five months later, the Voting Rights Act would be signed by President Johnson. Your thoughts on putting history and this moment together, and what you were demanding on Wednesday?
BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, thank you so much, Amy.
As I was listening to that song, “We Shall Overcome,” there’s another line that says, “We are not afraid.” And I want to thank Representative Green for his courage and showing the way of courage. He’s a dear friend of mine. He’s exactly right: You cannot wait until a dictator is in charge. You must challenge the way toward that dictatorship.
And we must remember, on this day 60 years ago, we did see that Bloody Sunday, but for nearly 40 years, Amelia Boynton, who was also beaten that day, a woman that John Lewis held in his arms, they have been working against voter suppression in that particular city. They also connected the issues of voter suppression and voter denial to economic injustice. Remember, the voting piece was supposed to be a part of the Civil Rights Act of ’64 along with raising the minimum wage to a living wage, and those things were gutted out of the ’64 Civil Rights Act, which made the ’65 march and the ’65 Voting Rights Act necessary.
At the end of that march, when they finally did reach Montgomery, Dr. King gave an amazing sermon. And he chose not to just talk about voting rights, but he chose to connect voting rights to economic injustice. And in that sermon, he said that the greatest fear of the greedy oligarchs in this country was for the masses of Black people and poor white people to join together and form a voting bloc that could fundamentally shift the economic architecture of the nation, and that every time this possibility becomes possible, the forces of extremism and the forces of division sow that division to keep it from happening.
I think we see that here today, what’s going on with this Congress. And it’s amazing to me, for instance, that they would censure Representative Green. They didn’t censure our sister out of Georgia. They didn’t censure the man who called Obama a liar on the floor. It’s a strange time that — the cheering, the applauding. But I think we are in a crisis of civilization, really, not just a crisis of democracy. It’s going to call people to have to stand, regardless of where they are.
So, what we’re dealing with right now, Amy, before I even talk about the specific policy, is this immoral philosophy that’s at work. Number one, they are operating off of the deliberate attempt to use executive orders as a way of intentionally violating the Constitution, thereby creating enough confusion to distract people from what’s going on in the Congress, because what happens in the Congress has the weight of the law, and EO doesn’t have the weight of law.
Number two, we are seeing the tyranny of technology and the dehumanization of people.
Number three, we’re seeing the attempt to make people justify their existence, which has its roots in racism, apartheid and Nazism.
Number four, we’re seeing the denial of equality on every front.
Five, we’re seeing the outright violation of freedom of speech, due to the process — due process and equal protection under the law for all persons, and an attempt to end birthright citizenship.
Number six, we are seeing the outright betrayal of liberty.
Number seven, we are seeing the idolatry of the certainty of white supremacy, that some people can decide who’s in, who’s out, who’s right, who’s wrong.
And number eight, we’re seeing the misuse of religious Christian nationalism in an attempt to falsely claim that their immoral actions are moral.
This is what is underneath, if you will, what we see going on. It is dangerous. It leads us to dictatorships and worse. And we must be courageous in this moment. I think that what you saw happen with Representative Green is just the tip of the kind of pushback we’re going to see as the weather gets warmer and as people see more and more the kind of damage that’s being suggested by this current budget and this current Congress. (snip-MORE; watch/listen on the page)
Scottie's Playtime 