Rees-Mogg Accuses Tucker Carlson of 'Verging on Defending Hitler'

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has accused Tucker Carlson of "verging on defending Hitler" after an extraordinary podcast clash in which the US commentator questioned whether Britain should ever have fought the Second World War. The hour-long confrontation, which has drawn condemnation from prominent conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic, marks one of the sharpest public rifts yet between traditional British conservatism and America's populist right.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former UK business secretary, hosted Tucker Carlson for a podcast interview that spiralled into a clash over the Second World War.

The Podcast Clash

The exchange took place on The Tucker Carlson Show, in an episode titled "Tucker Confronts Britain's Most Pro-War Advocate," published on Saturday, October 3. Carlson recorded the interview at Rees-Mogg's home, and what began as a conversation about modern foreign policy, UK military preparedness, and Russia's war in Ukraine soon turned into something far more explosive.

According to reports of the interview, Carlson repeatedly suggested the West had invited aggression from Russia, mocked the size of Britain's armed forces, and even claimed — incorrectly — that Russia has a larger economy than the United Kingdom. Rees-Mogg, the former UK business secretary who lost his parliamentary seat in 2024 and now works as a commentator, countered that the UK economy was bigger and argued that Britain and its allies had to support Ukraine to deter further Russian expansion.

Then, about halfway through the hour-long conversation, the discussion shifted to history — and the argument turned volcanic.

'Who Cares?': Carlson's Case Against the War

Carlson told Rees-Mogg he had "never understood why fight the Second World War in the first place," arguing that Britain should not have defended Poland against Nazi invasion because the UK "had nothing to do with it at all."

He echoed Adolf Hitler's own justification for invading Poland. "Well, Hitler said that 15% of Poland was once Germany and it was given to Poland at the Treaty of Versailles," Carlson said. "That was German territory with Germans in it. That was his case. And by the way, that was true."

Carlson argued that Britain's decision to declare war had ruined the country. "The UK had nothing to do with it at all. And they destroyed their empire and their country fighting this war that they still pretend was a good idea, but it wasn't," he said. He added that "the war wasn't worth fighting in the first place," pointing to the enormous loss of life.

He further claimed that Hitler repeatedly said he did not want war with Britain, telling Rees-Mogg: "You (Britain) attacked the Germans, they didn't attack you."

When Rees-Mogg warned that without fighting, Britain would be speaking German today, Carlson replied dismissively: "Who cares? There are a lot of people in Britain who can't speak English. So it would be nice to have at least a European language spoken in your country."

Rees-Mogg Fights Back

Rees-Mogg, visibly startled, found himself defending a position most British politicians consider beyond debate. He described the Second World War as "the classic good versus evil," and reminded Carlson that Britain had treaty obligations to Belgium and other allies that were attacked by Germany.

"Otherwise we'd be speaking German," Rees-Mogg said — before delivering the line that gave the story its headline: "I'm very surprised you're verging on defending Hitler. I think this is not really what you want to be doing."

Carlson denied defending the Nazi leader, responding with sarcasm: "Yeah, I guess I'm just a secret Nazi. I'm actually not a secret Nazi… and hardly a public Nazi."

"I'm reassured," Rees-Mogg replied dryly, before adding: "Germany would have invaded us."

Rees-Mogg said he was less sure about the justification for the First World War, but insisted it was necessary for Britain to intervene in the Second — a war in which his own political tradition takes enormous pride.

A Wider Feud With the Right

The interview has sparked fury across the political right in both countries. The sharpest response came from Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, who condemned Carlson on X.

"When it seemed impossible for Toxic Tucker to descend deeper into the sewer here he goes opining that UK should have let Nazis take over. Forget that Hitler murdered 11 million people? I thought Tucker was against killing? He needs help. Serious help," Huckabee wrote.

Senator Ted Cruz also rejected Carlson's argument. "Yes, Tucker, the UK is better off for winning WWII. America is better off for winning WWII. And the world would be much worse off if the Nazis had won WWII. This is not complicated," he posted.

Former British MEP Lance Forman was among the British conservatives who weighed in publicly, according to reports.

This is not Carlson's first controversy involving revisionist arguments about the Second World War. In 2024, he hosted the commentator Darryl Cooper for an interview in which Cooper described Winston Churchill as the "chief villain" of the war, triggering widespread criticism from historians and political figures. Carlson defended hosting Cooper as part of a willingness to challenge accepted historical narratives.

Carlson's trajectory has taken him steadily further from the conservative mainstream. A former Fox News anchor, he left the network and has since fallen out with Donald Trump — reportedly over the president's willingness to involve the United States in foreign wars, including the Iran conflict. In 2024, he became the first Western journalist to interview Vladimir Putin since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and he has taken a sympathetic position toward Moscow.

Tucker Carlson during a podcast recording. He has repeatedly questioned Western military interventions since leaving Fox News.

What This Means

The clash matters beyond its entertainment value because it exposes a genuine ideological rift. Rees-Mogg represents an older British conservatism built on Churchill, the "special relationship," and pride in the war effort. Carlson represents a newer American populism that treats every foreign intervention — past or present — as a costly mistake.

That populist strain has real momentum in Washington, where the debate over Ukraine, the Iran war, and America's role in the world continues to split Republicans. When a figure as prominent as Carlson suggests on camera that defeating Hitler wasn't worth it, it stops being a podcast provocation and becomes a data point about how far the revisionist current now runs.

It also puts British conservatives in an awkward position. Figures like Rees-Mogg share Carlson's scepticism of parts of the modern progressive consensus, but his historical revisionism — and his soft line on Putin — collides head-on with the patriotic, pro-military traditions of the British right. The backlash from Huckabee and Cruz suggests American conservatives feel that tension too.

Winston Churchill waves to crowds in Whitehall on VE Day, 8 May 1945 — the victory Carlson suggested Britain might have been better off without.

What Happens Next

Carlson has not yet responded publicly to the condemnation beyond his on-air denial that he was defending Hitler, and it is unclear whether he will address the backlash directly. Rees-Mogg, meanwhile, has emerged with his reputation among British conservatives arguably strengthened by standing his ground.

The episode will likely keep circulating — clips of the "who cares?" exchange are already being shared widely — and it adds fuel to the ongoing debate over how Western societies remember the Second World War. For Carlson, who has built his post-Fox platform on challenging foreign-policy orthodoxy, the furore may simply confirm his appeal to an audience tired of conventional wisdom. For his critics, it is evidence of a dangerous current: the normalisation of arguments that, not long ago, sat far outside mainstream debate.