YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Which was to counter ludicrous propaganda from the war years to justify the loss of lives to defend polish independence by handing them over to the USSR.
Zoomer Historian is a bit too far into the David Irving camp of "Hitler did nothing wrong, it was all Himmler and a few rogue generals, Churchill was bribed to go to war!", but the guy making the response video probably still believes the Germans made skin lamps and jew soap
Zoomer doesn't directly make those arguments but I certainly get that impression. Especially because he often passively throws in statements that are verifiably false, amid a video that is largely accurate. Like how he passively says Hitler and the nazis were Christians when they literally planned to edit the bible and were only stopped due to how politically destructive it would have been.

Zoomer Historian will say things that are objectively accurate and then mix in inaccuracies so long as it makes Hitler look more sympathetic.
 
This view was the new hotness but genetic archeology has more or less debunked this view, there was significant and quick genetic turnover right around when the Anglo Saxon invasions happened.
Agreed. I could find the papers I was taught on, but the prevailing academic theory is that the Celts more or less wiped out the indigenous Britons sometime in the early Bronze Age, if I recall correctly. The Romans had little genetic impact on Britain, same with the Vikings, same with the Normans. The Anglo-Saxons are the only group to have a really massive genetic impact on Britain since the Celts.
 
This view was the new hotness but genetic archeology has more or less debunked this view, there was significant and quick genetic turnover right around when the Anglo Saxon invasions happened.
It isn't "No replacement or genetic influx", it is "Some replacement or genetic influx" since it is opposed to the traditional historiographical view of total extermination that was promoted since the Medieval era. It is that the adoption of Anglo-Saxon culture and religion by the native Britons in addition to settlement largely in the eastern part of the island was what happened, not the wholesale genocide of the Britons. There is very high genetic continuity with all English people and the Britons, with the lowest being in the East at around 70-50%. You should actually watch the video first, since he actually mentions genetic studies being in support of this view.
The Anglo-Saxons are the only group to have a really massive genetic impact on Britain since the Celts.
Even that is debatable as we don't have very strong sense of the genetic make-up of pre-Anglo-Saxon dwellers of what is now England. This is in part due to the fact that we don't really have much in the way of a baseline, same problem as doing genetic studies on Native Americans, because most modern individuals are in part European, the Welsh are also part English. Estimates can be as low as 20%. Wholesale replacements are done via disease most of the time, not violent invasion, and the Celtic replacement of the EEF population was in no small part due to pastoral diseases (like yursinia pestis) that the locals had no resistance to, which was also contributed to the EEF replacement of the WHG population of Britain.
 
I'm super late to this but - he's a British guy who generally believes the British Empire was a net-positive on the world and that if the United Kingdom did not get involved in WW2 it would have retained its empire instead of going into rapid decline.

Which is generally understandable except the implication that WW2 was avoidable or that if it wasn't, the UK should have stayed out of it.

If he went back a couple of decades and replaced "WWII" with "WWI" then his whole schpeel would have an actual leg to stand on. It's fairly agreed upon that the Empire began its slow death spiral after 4 years of Trench Warfare and poor planning sapped them of their manpower, stored wealth, and goodwill within the Commonwealth. They then spent the 20s relying on the Americans to help keep them afloat with the Washington Naval Conference more or less confirming their demotion to "Little Brother" status within the Anglo-Alliance they had going on with the United States. Yanks literally dictating Royal Naval policy.

It also didn't help that Winston Churchill fucked up the proposed return to the Gold Standard in 1925, fixing it at the pre-war rate instead of the actual current value because his pride refused to accept the reality the pound had begun depreciating. So he more or less guaranteed it would lose out to the Dollar. All of this was happening before Hitler even became chancellor and demanded land. Winning that conflict with Nazi Germany may have been the only thing keeping the "Britannica" illusion alive for another decade and a half, however, that's another debatable topic.

They basically became Spain after the War of the Spanish Succession, which itself is sometimes considered "WW0".

Semi-related video so I contribute to the thread instead of word-dump:


It's probably already been posted here, but it's the only decent video where the narrator doesn't make me want to cut my ears off or TTS.
 
Last edited:
Animated historical entertainment channel Mitsi Studio released a video on the American Civil War.


It's a pretty simplified explanation of what happened but makes a few jabs at the Union and brings up the inconvenient fact that the conflict didn't exactly end slavery at all on the global scale.
 
Atun Shei is probably my favorite left-leaning youtuber. His videos are generally based in fact and cover unique topics. Him being comically wrong about stuff like protesters destroying non-Confederate monuments was hilarious and I am able to enjoy the content of people I consider weirdos. He is also able to avoid "Bread-tube speak" so I do not find his content insufferable despite being almost certain that he dresses up in Antifa garb and smashes stuff during protests.
 
It isn't "No replacement or genetic influx", it is "Some replacement or genetic influx" since it is opposed to the traditional historiographical view of total extermination that was promoted since the Medieval era. It is that the adoption of Anglo-Saxon culture and religion by the native Britons in addition to settlement largely in the eastern part of the island was what happened, not the wholesale genocide of the Britons. There is very high genetic continuity with all English people and the Britons, with the lowest being in the East at around 70-50%. You should actually watch the video first, since he actually mentions genetic studies being in support of this view.
His argument is retarded special pleading, which as a vague welsh nationalist probably makes him feel better that the ancestors of his people didn't get completely smashed by a bunch of Germanics, but doesn't do much for the truth
 
Agreed. I could find the papers I was taught on, but the prevailing academic theory is that the Celts more or less wiped out the indigenous Britons sometime in the early Bronze Age, if I recall correctly. The Romans had little genetic impact on Britain, same with the Vikings, same with the Normans. The Anglo-Saxons are the only group to have a really massive genetic impact on Britain since the Celts.
So that's where all the bruthas went. Hmm, very interesting.
 
If he went back a couple of decades and replaced "WWII" with "WWI" then his whole schpeel would have an actual leg to stand on. It's fairly agreed upon that the Empire began its slow death spiral after 4 years of Trench Warfare and poor planning sapped them of their manpower, stored wealth, and goodwill within the Commonwealth. They then spent the 20s relying on the Americans to help keep them afloat with the Washington Naval Conference more or less confirming their demotion to "Little Brother" status within the Anglo-Alliance they had going on with the United States. Yanks literally dictating Royal Naval policy.

It also didn't help that Winston Churchill fucked up the proposed return to the Gold Standard in 1925, fixing it at the pre-war rate instead of the actual current value because his pride refused to accept the reality the pound had begun depreciating. So he more or less guaranteed it would lose out to the Dollar. All of this was happening before Hitler even became chancellor and demanded land. Winning that conflict with Nazi Germany may have been the only thing keeping the "Britannica" illusion alive for another decade and a half, however, that's another debatable topic.

They basically became Spain after the War of the Spanish Succession, which itself is sometimes considered "WW0".
Unfathomably based. I didn't know about that but you're right.
Back to the topic of Zoomer though. I don't think he's being intentionally dishonest. He's just a proud Brit who would rather blame Churchill 100% for the end of British prestige, rather than attribute it to wider factors. Overall Zoomer Historian has good info but as with all history, the difference between truth and opinion lies in what facts are often set aside or left out. RIP Britain.
 
Unfathomably based. I didn't know about that but you're right.
Back to the topic of Zoomer though. I don't think he's being intentionally dishonest. He's just a proud Brit who would rather blame Churchill 100% for the end of British prestige, rather than attribute it to wider factors. Overall Zoomer Historian has good info but as with all history, the difference between truth and opinion lies in what facts are often set aside or left out. RIP Britain.
He did try to say that the Nazis didn't hate the Slavs outright or that they were pro-Christian when their actions to both mentioned parties weren't exactly friendly to say the least. Regardless I find it ironic that ZH hates Churchill for being "anti-British" when he did the most British thing of all, telling the continent to go fuck itself.
 
He did try to say that the Nazis didn't hate the Slavs outright or that they were pro-Christian when their actions to both mentioned parties weren't exactly friendly to say the least. Regardless I find it ironic that ZH hates Churchill for being "anti-British" when he did the most British thing of all, telling the continent to go fuck itself.
Winston Churchill along with Abe Lincoln are two people the e-right doesn't like for bad reasons.
 
Winston Churchill along with Abe Lincoln are two people the e-right doesn't like for bad reasons.

Churchill was the smartest of the major Allied Leaders which isn't a high bar but still. Modern white Supremacists and far right hate Lincoln for some reason even though he stood almost like a lone figure for what they claim they want against both the South and North who wanted to import blacks into society in their own way.
 
Winston Churchill along with Abe Lincoln are two people the e-right doesn't like for bad reasons.
Churchill was a very big retard and stuck his nose into too many places where it didn't belong.
While the RN fucked up a lot in the Med and Scandinavia he shares the blame with them. I mean this is the sped that described Italy as the soft underbelly of the Axis and was responsible for Gallipoli.
He also was a terrible negotiator. He gave the Yaks a lot of shit for free while the Yanks wouldn't piss on the bongs without at least a written contract.
He is only remembered fondly do to being on the winning side and being measured against Chamberlain and Clemet Attlee. If you look deep down no matter if you are an Empire-boo, the remnant of the BUF or really hate Germans, Churchill didn't really do that well.
 
It's because Libertarianism. They (correctly) view him as a statist who made the role of President more monarchal than before. I am however a Federalist through and through so I see that as a good thing.
I hold a lot more hatred for Wilson and FDR than Lincoln, even though Lincoln laid the foundations for further entrenchment and expansion of the Federal Government. It's that demon and crypto-communist that fucked shit up a lot more than Lincoln ever did.
 
Back