YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Slap47]

Ezekiel is an idealist.

Fredda is special.

Here he does an entire video about the 3% "myth", something no one except for his Ohioan neighbors and fellow Redditors ever heard of, misconstruing it as "only 3% of Americans supported the Revolutionary War"; and then he tacitly admits that only 3% of Americans were fighting in the Revolutionary War, about halfway through the video, but claims that it's actually 12% if you go off of the claims of people he personally dislikes.

Here he does a reaction video to Rudyard, where most of his sources against him that paint him as misinformed (and believe me, no one thinks he's super-well-informed) are actually text walls written by Redditors who don't understand nuance. My favorite is them taking objection to Rudyard saying "if they weren't in the West, MLK and Ghandi would've been shot", saying MLK was shot, when:

1. Both were shot.
2. Rutger obviously meant "shot by the government" and the writer doesn't get context.

Overall, he and his commenters seem like people who are very left-wing for their areas, who aren't aware of internet idiocy on their own team, and who just wanna take potshots. Oh shoot, I'm projecting.

Respecting the pronouns of a far-right mosque bomber... alright then.

Armies were comically small for most of the eighteenth century despite states spending upwards of 70% of their budget on the military. Giant empires with millions of people deciding everything off a few thousand professional drunks. After Napoleon armies grew by 5x in pretty much every country, but the % of the GDP spent on the military dropped to like 10-20%.

3-14% of of your population fighting is a pretty high number and shows a revolution with a very high amount of support. In the 1750s Prussia had 100,000-130,000 soldiers (with a peak of 200,000 at the most desperate part of the war) and a population of 4.5 million. That is about 3% and that is Prussia under Fredrick the Great after he had doubled the size of the military. This element of the far-right are pretty schizo for believing that liberalism needs a vanguard to thrive.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Here he does a reaction video to Rudyard, where most of his sources against him that paint him as misinformed (and believe me, no one thinks he's super-well-informed) are actually text walls written by Redditors who don't understand nuance. My favorite is them taking objection to Rudyard saying "if they weren't in the West, MLK and Ghandi would've been shot", saying MLK was shot, when:

1. Both were shot.
2. Rutger obviously meant "shot by the government" and the writer doesn't get context.

And what's worse Ghandi even vaguely admitted this fact that nonviolent protest only works on people with a conscience.
edit: fucked up a spelling

 

[Hoplixe]

And what's worse Ghandi even vaguely admitted this fact that nonviolent protest only works on people with a conscious.

His entire schtick was that the guilt and demoralisation that comes with beating non-violent and friendly protestors would start breaking apart the traditional mechanisms of Colonial Suppression, his writings explicitly outlined that his manner of passive resistance would break down the will of the oppressors who would begin to question themselves and sap their energies.

And it did, British Soldiers and Officers would write about how they hated breaking up the protests and how demoralising it was, they would go out of their way to avoid doing their jobs.

 

[Slap47]

Two takes on the Martha's Vineyard drama.

 

[Trig.Point]

And it did, British Soldiers and Officers would write about how they hated breaking up the protests and how demoralising it was, they would go out of their way to avoid doing their jobs.

The Gurkhas didn't have that problem they happily shot 1500 people during the Amritsar massacre.

 

[Hoplixe]

The Gurkhas didn't have that problem they happily shot 1500 people during the Amritsar massacre.

The Gurkhas aren't Christian anglos, and Gandhi to the British suited their interests perfectly; he was a known and (partially) controllable element when it came to channelling colonial discontent, especially when the alternatives were men like Chandra Bose and the Azad Hind.

The Amritsar Massacre did not arise out of nowhere, violent attacks on European missionaries and visitors preceded it; most importantly, it was conducted by (Foreign) Colonial troops against Colonial subjects in a time before the nascent independence movement had gained widespread popularity; it would be later, when the British tried to give extremely limited self-rule, whilst simultaneously trying to institute wartime-esque measures of arrest/trial without jury or the right to defence, that pro-dominion/union political groups and figures lost their influence or became anti-British.

The India of Gandhi's time, was a bubbling pot of indignation and impatience, just waiting to bubble over to start killing Britishers (and each other); the illusion of British Imperial Infallibility had long since dissipated after WW1.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

View attachment 3709952
View attachment 3709953

Two takes on the Martha's Vineyard drama.

Dark DeSantis when?

 

[naaaaiiiiillllll!!!]

His video is okay, but does anybody notice his voice/narration sounds really odd in this video? Almost like an AI text-to-speech program trained on Monsieur Z's voice from previous videos (the way he says "Japan" and how the tone of a couple of sentence endings is just bizarre). There were suspicions in other threads about big info-YouTubers like CPG Grey using text-to-speech as a form of autopilot/laziness (also how many of their narrations are becoming more robotic/same-y).

It could just be me going crazy I'll admit...

 

[Mr. Confederate Man]

Rutger obviously meant "shot by the government" and the writer doesn't get context.

 

[Trig.Point]

Anton Joly is a historian who's published 5 books on the geography of the Battle of Stalingrad.

He's having a back and forth with TIK (formerly of Marks and Spencers) about whether a German breakout from Stalignrad was possible. It is genuinely great stuff, even if you're not interested in the battle itself.

It's the type of back and forth Reddit historians aspire to have unfortunately they're all a bunch of fannies who keep making appeals to authority rather than actual arguments, and then start whinging about why YouTubers like TIK are dominating the discussion on military history.

Also Joly makes Paul Harrell style YouTube videos and produced a really great one on German generals taken prisoner during the battle.

 

[Slap47]

Questionable decision.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

His video is okay, but does anybody notice his voice/narration sounds really odd in this video? Almost like an AI text-to-speech program trained on Monsieur Z's voice from previous videos (the way he says "Japan" and how the tone of a couple of sentence endings is just bizarre). There were suspicions in other threads about big info-YouTubers like CPG Grey using text-to-speech as a form of autopilot/laziness (also how many of their narrations are becoming more robotic/same-y).

It could just be me going crazy I'll admit...

I also watched this video and I agree, Mr. Z's voice sounds slightly robotic. Could be a problem with the mic or audio mixing though, so I wouldn't say he went to AI-mode just yet.

View attachment 3713059

Questionable decision.

Oh boy, can't wait to see how this turns out to be.

 

[Coptakhenaten]

Not to get too ranty but why is every online historian such a massive retard? TIK, Mark Felton, and Monsieur Z are looking like the few sane ones at the moment.

TIK is good because he seems like the type who is absolutely anal about not knowing everything or there being a counter-argument he never thought of so he researches every possible facet and angle until he creates an iron clad argument he doesn't feel insecure about. It makes his content well researched.

 

[JJLiautaud]

TIK is good because he seems like the type who is absolutely anal about not knowing everything or there being a counter-argument he never thought of so he researches every possible facet and angle until he creates an iron clad argument he doesn't feel insecure about. It makes his content well researched.

I think I've said this before but TIK's use of inline video citations is seriously one of the greatest things ever conceived by man on the internet, and the fact that no other history tuber does this shows how genuinely awful they are and why they can't be trusted.

 

[Mr. Confederate Man]

I think I've said this before but TIK's use of inline video citations is seriously one of the greatest things ever conceived by man on the internet, and the fact that no other history tuber does this shows how genuinely awful they are and why they can't be trusted.

All because the communists in his comment section lied that he wasn’t citing his sources when TIK put them in the description/top comment

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

All because the communists in his comment section lied that he wasn’t citing his sources when TIK put them in the description/top comment

Eh, Commies are too lazy to read anything that isn't by Marx. Even then, they barely understand what he's saying.

 

[Mr. Confederate Man]

Eh, Commies are too lazy to read anything that isn't by Marx. Even then, they barely understand what he's saying.

If they read Marx, then their two braincells probably would realize why Communism doesn't work. Even easier is one reads Rosa Luxembourg and her silly ramblings about how toothpaste doesn't clean teeth because of some capitalist conspiracy.

 

[JJLiautaud]

If they read Marx, then their two braincells probably would realize why Communism doesn't work. Even easier is one reads Rosa Luxembourg and her silly ramblings about how toothpaste doesn't clean teeth because of some capitalist conspiracy.

Fucking what? Is that where that inane line of argumentation came from? If so, im glad the freikorps killed her.

 

[Mr. Confederate Man]

Fucking what? Is that were that inane line of argumentation came from? If so, im glad the freikorps killed her.

At the library that Ms. Confederate Woman works at, I saw one of Rosa’s books on the discard cart (because no one ever read it in the at least 20 years it was there lol) so I thumbed through it and saw a chapter devoted to that conspiracy theory

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

If they read Marx, then their two braincells probably would realize why Communism doesn't work. Even easier is one reads Rosa Luxembourg and her silly ramblings about how toothpaste doesn't clean teeth because of some capitalist conspiracy.

Jesus, no wonder why the Spartacist Rebellion failed with people like her at the helm. Makes me wonder how hard a Leftist rebellion would fail with people like Vaush or ContraPoints at the helm.