YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Sanshain]

One one hand, I've found this at the top of his user page:

On the other hand, I didn't watch it for fear of cringe, so it may be clickbait combined with trying to do everything he can to deny the problems with Soviet Arms.

Holy fuck dude, at least pretend to justify your biases. I don't particularly like this guy a great deal, but he spends the entire video absolutely shitting on the T-34 and every conception of Russia being able to win WWII alone, the T-34 being a good design, and the idea that lots of T-34's equaled a better tank force than what the Germans had.

 

[Corpun]

If any of you care, Cody explained his political views/positions here:

https://twitter.com/AltHistoryHub/status/1223215082542333952

https://twitter.com/AltHistoryHub/status/1223214404067610627

There are too many retards who think you have to be this or that on the politism auxis if you want to feed poor people.

Check out this criminally small channel: Spy Collection sitting at only 1.8k subs and many of it's videos barely have 200 views. Not super strictly historytuber since he covers some modern espionage related documents, but the best videos IMO are his historical intelligence memorabilia showcases:

he has vids on spy cameras and electronic cryptography devices so arguably also a techtuber lol. Shilling in selfish hope that he gets big and gains access to more items for my entertainment

Maybe it's just me but I wish channels like these would get popular more. Not just history minded channels, but these ones in general. There is something really nice about someone just recording themselves and putting together a video on a topic they really like.

Maybe I just really like people who do niche things though.

 

[Iceland Heavy]

Proving further that youtube hobby historians are a plague youtube decided to drop this video in my recommended list

Channel seems to be dedicated to forced jokes, exaggerated accents, and a promotion of historical revisionism, but a version that desperately wants to downplay any significance Germany had in the war... for some reason. One can probably gleam from the segment where he criticizes the BBC for favoring the tories exactly where his politics lie.

The video uses a lot of assumptions and half truths to present a hypothesis that has no facts behind it and merely rely on presuming everyone involved having the worst intentions.
That hypothesis being that the Horten Ho 229 was a piece of shit, and that the people involved in making it were all lying when they claimed it was planned to have stealth capabilities. You know, to own the wehraboos.
See the problem is that while true that the design of the Horten Ho 229 and later stealth fighters were likely a coincidence rather than a direct inspiration, it is then a far jump to then claim that the Horten Ho was never meant to avoid radar detection.
The youtuber presumes that all the nazi scientists were merely looking to make money, and therefore everything they said was a lie. In fact he goes so far as to claim all the former nazis were lying out of their asses to make good careers and good money. Which is weird considering he lumps in men like Gerd von Rundstedt who died penniless,
The video never answers why it was paramount for the Americans to keep as many of them out of Soviet hands as possible if so many of them were just stumbling buffoons with no worth.
It claims the Horten brothers lied to China about the plane's supposed role as a stealth fighter as they were simply looking to make money and the Smithsonian could not find traces of the supposed stealth coating the brothers referenced.
Problem is that Reimar Horten presented the plane as a stealth fighter to the Chinese in 1945, so rather immediately after the war, it would not be possible for them to piggyback on already existing technology at the time. It was the Chinese who offered the brothers work, not the brothers trying to persuade their way in. The brothers not going to China as Walter Horten elected to stay in Germany after the war. And you're reaching conclusions if you presume that just because the prototype had never been coated that it was never planned to do so later. We know for a fact that the Germans were the first to begin developing stealth coating with the Sumpf and Schornsteinfeger coating used on naval vessels. You would have to presume that worst of intentions from the Horten brothers even though they would have to know about the relatively recent invention of stealth coating, how it worked, and having designed a plane whose form makes it ideal as an attempt as a stealth fighter. It's kinda like accusing the designer of the Tiger tank of lying for stating that they were planning to use a anti magnetic coating on their tank just because you couldn't find Zimmerit on a unfinished tiger tank.

I've been noticing more and more lately where not only hobby historians, but actual historians as well are consistently presuming the worst intentions in situations where historical documentation is lacking, and you rely a lot on personal accounts. It's not wrong that the capabilities of the Horten Ho 229 has oft been exaggerated in fiction, being presented as a futuristic super jet capable of demolishing modern fighter jets. But it's ludicrous to lump the Horten Ho 229 in with nazi UFOs and doomsday clocks when we already know the Germans had the technology, and there is little reason to doubt the Horten brothers when they spoke about the plans for it to have stealth capabilities

The humor and editing is potential history-reddit tier shit, and does the usual youtube history thing where the sucky thing you're discussing sucks more than anything else even though anyone who has ever been in an army knows that in the army everything is a shoddy piece of shit no matter which side you're on. But at least it makes the good point that more internet historians should accept which is that none of the allies could have carried the war alone. The fact that this is lauded praise is a sad fact of the situation we find ourselves in

We're reaching anti-anti-Wehraboo levels of pendulum swinging here. The stereotype of the clueless pop historian being someone who thinks the Nazis were superscience gods that the US beat single-handedly has long given way to someone who thinks the Nazis were the most cartoonishly incompetent and evil Saturday morning cartoon villains to ever exist and the Soviets beat them single-handedly. The T-34 guy is just keeping ahead of the curve.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Actual Justice Warrior made a response video to Step Back History's (The cynical historian's fat canadian commie friend) awful take on Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[Slap47]

The humor and editing is potential history-reddit tier shit, and does the usual youtube history thing where the sucky thing you're discussing sucks more than anything else even though anyone who has ever been in an army knows that in the army everything is a shoddy piece of shit no matter which side you're on. But at least it makes the good point that more internet historians should accept which is that none of the allies could have carried the war alone. The fact that this is lauded praise is a sad fact of the situation we find ourselves in

The overwhelming majority of actual historians also believe that the USSR could have won the whole war alone.

Its such a strange absurdity.

Lets just ignore:
Lend Lease giving the USSR hundreds of thousands of high quality trucks and trains to do their encirclements
The USSR already losing 24 million people (10 million soldiers) in a war where they had the allies helping them and keeping Japan off their back.
The Soviets literally requiring imported machine parts, rubber, and copper to run their factories, not to mention the high quality diesel
The USSR missing almost 5 years of the war (it started in 1937).
British Lend Lease saving the USSR at Moscow
Allied food imports preventing famine. The USSR had a famine immediately after ww2 when the shipments stopped.


I like the video, but I dislike the potential history meme style. I wish people would develop something new.

 

[Corpun]

The overwhelming majority of actual historians also believe that the USSR could have won the whole war alone.

Its such a strange absurdity.

I blame revisionists for this. It seems in recent years that the Western Allies are increasingly scrutinized (rightly so) over segregation, colonialism, etc. while the commies are called wholesome because they liked equality on paper, just ignore all the ethnic genocides they commited on minorities.

 

[Toolbox]

I blame revisionists for this. It seems in recent years that the Western Allies are increasingly scrutinized (rightly so) over segregation, colonialism, etc. while the commies are called wholesome because they liked equality on paper, just ignore all the ethnic genocides they commited on minorities.

But how will admitting the faults of communist nations too help them push their narrative? Whenever someone only criticizes capitalist nations, look into what they push for. Commies want blind faith in their system, it's the only way it works.

 

[Slap47]

Most Historian react videos are pretty dogshit and amount to "wow, thats pretty cool". You'll actually learn stuff from this guy so I recommend him.

He really respects TIK so presumably he's not in the Historytuber sphere.

I blame revisionists for this. It seems in recent years that the Western Allies are increasingly scrutinized (rightly so) over segregation, colonialism, etc. while the commies are called wholesome because they liked equality on paper, just ignore all the ethnic genocides they commited on minorities.

Oddly enough, the western allied armies themselves weren't the best.

1. American soldiers were beloved because they were really kind, but they weren't actually that great as soldiers. The USA refused to create a larger army and did not use troop rotation like other armies. Soldiers just fought till they died or broke. Most of their training wasn't actually useful for modern war, and they didn't have troop standards so you had alot of guys with weight problems and disabilities. Their army was a mix of hardened veterans who were getting overworked and raw recruits who had no idea. It was sorta a clusterfuck, but the USA went from having a tiny military to the largest military in just a couple years so its entirely understandable.

2. Eisenhower and his staff were genius at logistics, but the allied armies just didn't have the same success as the Soviets. D-Day and Market Garden scared the allies into no longer doing aggressive movements. While the USSR was encircling millions the allies were just slowly pushing forward on a broad front. They got a few encirclements, but only because of some Germans were too broken to fall back. At the end of the war the Germans abandoned fighting on the west and threw everything at the Soviets. The Allied push was still a crawl compared to what the USSR was doing.

3. The best soldiers of the allies were colonial and dominion troops, but they got shit on for no good reason. Canadians were not allowed to march into Rome despite their success because the American generals insisted on it the victory being an American one. Black French soldiers were banned from marching in the liberation of Paris despite making up a high percentage of De'Gaulle's force because of racism, and British colonial troops got second-rate equipment despite showing the best results.

 

[khaine]

I'm quite partial to hypohistericalhistory. He is an Aussie, so most of his content is focussed on the pacific theatre of ww2

 

[Corpun]

1. American soldiers were beloved because they were really kind, but they weren't actually that great as soldiers. The USA refused to create a larger army and did not use troop rotation like other armies. Soldiers just fought till they died or broke. Most of their training wasn't actually useful for modern war, and they didn't have troop standards so you had alot of guys with weight problems and disabilities. Their army was a mix of hardened veterans who were getting overworked and raw recruits who had no idea. It was sorta a clusterfuck, but the USA went from having a tiny military to the largest military in just a couple years so its entirely understandable.

2. Eisenhower and his staff were genius at logistics, but the allied armies just didn't have the same success as the Soviets. D-Day and Market Garden scared the allies into no longer doing aggressive movements. While the USSR was encircling millions the allies were just slowly pushing forward on a broad front. They got a few encirclements, but only because of some Germans were too broken to fall back. At the end of the war the Germans abandoned fighting on the west and threw everything at the Soviets. The Allied push was still a crawl compared to what the USSR was doing.

3. The best soldiers of the allies were colonial and dominion troops, but they got shit on for no good reason. Canadians were not allowed to march into Rome despite their success because the American generals insisted on it the victory being an American one. Black French soldiers were banned from marching in the liberation of Paris despite making up a high percentage of De'Gaulle's force because of racism, and British colonial troops got second-rate equipment despite showing the best results.

Yeah the western allies had massive shortcomings but too many tards go hurr durr Bengal famine when you bring up the Holodomor or racism in Allied forces when mentioning how Soviets treated Germans they captured, military or otherwise.

Because a wartime famine where troops are piled into one region is totally the same thing as a famine deliberately made in peacetime.

 

[Slap47]

Insulting people for being leftwing is bigotry. Insulting people for being rightwing is progress.

Yeah the western allies had massive shortcomings but too many tards go hurr durr Bengal famine when you bring up the Holodomor or racism in Allied forces when mentioning how Soviets treated Germans they captured, military or otherwise.

Because a wartime famine where troops are piled into one region is totally the same thing as a famine deliberately made in peacetime.

Everytime I see comments about the Bengal famine its either Indian ultra-nationalists or leftists hyping up the death count to like 30 million people.
Its insanely common.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Someone is making fun of Whatifalthist.

 

[DeadwastePrime]

Someone is making fun of Whatifalthist.

based and althistory pilled

 

[Mike Stoklasa]

I forgot Ross Scott existed for a few years. This is the second time that I've done this. When I remembered he existed the last time, Freeman's Mind was done. Yay!

This time there are dozens of new episodes of Game Dungeon to watch. Yay!

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Khan's Den is a Turkish history youtuber that talks about the history of the various Turkic peoples.
He has videos in multiple different languages and from what I can tell he does a decent job covering his topics.

 

[Gaius Cumulus]

Been lurking on the Farms for over a year now, might as well have my first post be about some history autism.

For anyone looking for genuinely solid channels that aren't full of ideological dogshit or half-researched nonsense, I've got a couple recommendations I don't think I've seen mentioned yet, save for some that have only been brought up in passing.

Ancient Americas focuses primarily on the histories of ancient North, South and Meso America, from the arrival of humans on the Continents to first contact with Europeans. Very solid stuff, the vast majority of it has been overlooked by other history channels and none seem to have the expertise in the area this guy does. Only downside is that his voice is kinda annoying.

The Histocrat has quality videos on the Neolithic Revolution, the rise of Sumer, Pre-Roman Britain and the Bronze Age Collapse. He's also got a series on mythological/legendary figures and stories that I haven't watched, but if they're anything like his other videos, they should also be pretty good.

Metatron is an Italian (or something) that fluently speaks Classical Latin, along with several other languages, and has a shit ton of stuff on ancient and medieval armor, weaponry and warfare. Downside is that a lot of his thumbnails and titles look like cringey clickbait, which reflects poorly on the videos actual quality.

Maritime Horrors is a channel dedicated to both famous and obscure seafaring catastrophes, with most focusing on particularly mysterious or brutal shipwrecks. One of his best is on the Franklin Expedition, which I highly recommend.

Fall of Civilizations is one I saw mentioned a few pages ago by @Second Sun, and it's one of the best on Youtube at what it does. The videos themselves can get very long, since they're made directly from a podcast, but they're very high quality and very well researched. The Assyrian, Songhai and Sumerian episodes are particularly good.

Additionally, there are channels like Voices of the Past, History of the Earth, History of the Universe, Epic History TV and Ben G Thomas that put out very solid stuff, with many having already been mentioned here in the thread at one time or another.

Hope these help wash the taste of Cynical Historian and Extra Credits out of your mouths.

 

[Slap47]

Weirdly enough, Extra Credits quality has gone up significantly, while Cynical has transitioned into Breadtube lite.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

World of Antiquity is a youtube channel hosted by a guy that looks like he was bullied in high school.

Weirdly enough, Extra Credits quality has gone up significantly, while Cynical has transitioned into Breadtube lite.

Really? What has Extra Credits done recently?

 

[Slap47]

This fellow has a good up and coming channel.

Really? What has Extra Credits done recently?

Their series on Japanese fascism is very well researched. It would enrage Kraut because it rejects the idea that fascism is inherent to the Japanese bloodline. I'm sure they'll have some lies episode where they declare that they've been spewing nonsense to further a narrative, but it seems good so far.

 

[Jarolleon]

This narrative was taken up by the breadtube/breadtuber adjacent history tube starting about a year ago, because filthy right wing chuds started suggesting the historical narratives for wars like the World Wars or the Civil War have been written now from a victors point of view, and any wrongdoing from the good guys is deliberately censored. Strangely enough these people will go on to talk about how the US was terrible in WW2 because they segregated the army, etc.

I've seen this point presented convincingly once from Dr. Kenneth Harl talking about Byzantium- "Historians write history because they can't do politics", citing Anna Comnenos and Thucydides as examples. IMO on an inter-cultural level history gets written by the victors because they tend to have better access to education and publishing networks, or outright destroy their enemies' writings like the Romans did to Carthage. But within a culture it's written by the losers, because the victors are busy actually doing things. Most Imperial Roman history was written by Senators who hated the Imperial system, & even the most blatant example of the victor writing history, Winston Churchill, didn't start writing until he lost Britain to the Labour Party, who were dismantling the Empire he loved so much at record speed.

Edit: He did write The River War &c. beforehand, but that preceded his political career.