YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Willie B. Hardigan]

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 wasn't the smartest, at least in terms of raw brain power. He and FDR were about equal, but he was just slightly wiser than the others. He had been in major politics since 1899. Still, that didn't stop him from doing a lot of retarded things in a similar vein such as censoring information about the Soviet's atrocities during the late 30s when they were still flirting with the Nazis because they didn't want the public to start hating their one continental ally still (barely) standing.

George Orwell was gonna publish a book about them until it was disavowed by the government. This led him to write Animal Farm which was one big allegory to the Soviet Union. He also lost most of Ireland during the late 10's and early 20's, which can be considered a plus or minus depending on your stance on Micks.

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.

I think a good 90% of right-leaning people who hate Wilson today would probably not even remember he existed had he not created the Federal Reserve. Left-leaning people don't like him because of his Confederate sympathies and pro-segregation stance. He once threw a Civil Rights activist out of the Oval Office in 1914. That's the kind of "Based" stuff Twitter conservatives praise nonstop nowadays.

 

[Computer God Autism]

I think a good 90% of right-leaning people who hate Wilson today would probably not even remember he existed had he not created the Federal Reserve.

There is a lot of criticism to be had with Wilson over his handling of America's involvement in WW1 and its role in the post-war settlement, and even were the Federal Reserve and its consequences just a footnote in American history and not something with that still has very significant consequences on the day-to-day economic wellbeing of most Americans, his expansion of the income tax would be more than enough to make up for it.

Not every criticism needs to be backed by some nuanced historical dialogue to be salient, and behaving as if it does is more ridiculous than implying that whining about the Federal Reserve's antics are plebian.

 

[Willie B. Hardigan]

Not every criticism needs to be backed by some nuanced historical dialogue to be salient, and behaving as if it does is more ridiculous than implying that whining about the Federal Reserve's antics are plebian.

I'm not saying that you can't hate the man just for the Federal Reserve because its creation has indeed become a massive thorn in the side of honest Americans for decades. My point was that the average person with basic historical figures knowledge would not know anything beyond the big talking points being thrown around in common discourse. One of those now is an aversion to current or historical government expansion when previously, at least in the 90s "liberal" mainstream, it was viewed as a sort of "good". See the shifting attitudes towards FDR from reverence to disdain, at least in ever-growing right-wing circles.

I can't seem to recall much popular discussion over Wilson before the 2010s or anything about America's involvement in WWI. It was always viewed as some European prelude to the more famous second round just 20 years later, at least in the States. That explains my assumption on why most people who aren't dedicated history autists would be unread about the subject. I guess it's probably elitist gatekeeping as you said but better safe than sorry since there is so much pop history going around fucking up with actual historical perception. I'd rather they come to their newfound Wilson hatred through self-discovery and not because the Youtuber/Twitter man said "Federal Reserve" bad. You gotta know why it was created, how it was created, then why it fucking sucks dick, to get the ball rolling toward making proper changes so we don't keep suffering from Woody's big mistake.

I'll be honest, I'm not even safe from hating figures for "simple" reasons. Fucking despise Arthur Wellesley mainly because he was an arrogant asshole who took too much credit for accomplishments he had minimal part in. The guy's ego was so big he chimped out over some guy who dared to make a Waterloo recreation using sources that weren't British propaganda essentially.

 

[Computer God Autism]

My point was that the average person with basic historical figures knowledge would not know anything beyond the big talking points being thrown around in common discourse.

Okay, but this is a truism.

One of those now is an aversion to current or historical government expansion when previously, at least in the 90s "liberal" mainstream, it was viewed as a sort of "good". See the shifting attitudes towards FDR from reverence to disdain, at least in ever-growing right-wing circles.

The American right did not revere FDR in the 90s, and open expansion of the government has never been popular with them save for the most die-hard neocons (many of whose thinking heads were disillusioned Trotskyites, mind you). Criticism of FDR's admin and government overreach might be more vociferous now but acting as if the paleocons and libertarians holding their tongues in an era of political consensus is indicative that they were viewed as anything more than a necessary evil is out of touch; 90s talking heads like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul led the charge in giving voice to these changing attitudes in the late aughts.

I can't seem to recall much popular discussion over Wilson before the 2010s or anything about America's involvement in WWI.

Probably because the hundred year anniversary of WW1 was in the 2010s and it renewed a lot of interest in a war that had previously been buried under the WW2 creation mythos.

Opinions and talking points on historical subjects shifting with time is fairly natural and not always nefarious. I'd trust someone who criticizes the Wilson/FDR/Lincoln/Churchill/etc. admins to be more historically literate than someone who doesn't, simply because surface level state education fosters a hagiography of them.

I'd rather they come to their newfound Wilson hatred through self-discovery and not because the Youtuber/Twitter man said "Federal Reserve" bad.

As opposed to credentialed book man saying "Federal Reserve bad/good"?

I'm all for people actually reading books and investigating primary sources, but pretending that one medium is somehow inherently less credible or propagandistic than the other is ridiculous, and using that to gatekeep self-discovery of historical positions or to tell someone they can't criticize or dislike something without having complete knowledge of its context is bloody absurd.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Remember live aid, Bob Geldof, and Do they know it's Christmas Time?

 

[Jonkler]

Andrew Rakich / Atun-Shei Films
===============================================================

This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.

I forgot to add that his high school is Wayland High School (proof).

 

[ShittlerNiggler]

Remember live aid, Bob Geldof, and Do they know it's Christmas Time?

Wasn't this just another "rich people telling normal people to donate money" moment? Without watching the video, let me guess they just gave all the money to either a corrupt african government or some americans pocketed it for themselves.

 

[Trig.Point]

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 wasn't responsible for Gallipoli, he gave the Navy an entirely achievable objective and they fucked it up. They should have had plans in place to take the Dardennelles prior to the war, but they'd done fuck all. They refused to build capable minesweepers that could operate with the main fleet, they should have forced the passage using the dozens of pre dreadnoughts that were fit for nothing eles, but refused.

When they insisted the Army land, they fucked up the loading of the ships, so the landings were fucked before they even started. They didn't even have maps!.

Incidentally the Army and Navy learned nothing from Gallipoli. As late as 1943 they were still fucking up Amphibious operations in the Dodecanese, which they tried to blame on the americans because they refused to have anything to do with it.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

He wasn't responsible for Gallipoli, he gave the Navy an entirely achievable objective and they fucked it up. They should have had plans in place to take the Dardennelles prior to the war, but they'd done fuck all. They refused to build capable minesweepers that could operate with the main fleet, they should have forced the passage using the dozens of pre dreadnoughts that were fit for nothing eles, but refused.

When they insisted the Army land, they fucked up the loading of the ships, so the landings were fucked before they even started. They didn't even have maps!.

Incidentally the Army and Navy learned nothing from Gallipoli. As late as 1943 they were still fucking up Amphibious operations in the Dodecanese, which they tried to blame on the americans because they refused to have anything to do with it.

The RN from about the mid nineteenth through the twentieth century is the perfect example of how to fuck absolutely everything up all the time and still win because you had friends who were willing to just carry you all the time everywhere.

 

[Willie B. Hardigan]

Okay, but this is a truism.

It is, but people can forget even the most "obvious" of things.

The American right did not revere FDR in the 90s, and open expansion of the government has never been popular with them save for the most die-hard neocons (many of whose thinking heads were disillusioned Trotskyites, mind you). Criticism of FDR's admin and government overreach might be more vociferous now but acting as if the paleocons and libertarians holding their tongues in an era of political consensus is indicative that they were viewed as anything more than a necessary evil is out of touch; 90s talking heads like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul led the charge in giving voice to these changing attitudes in the late aughts.

I should have clarified that the massive expansion of the federal state under FDR was viewed as an indispensable evil that helped end the Depression and win the war for a long time by the Neocons & their Boomer supporters. That explains the quotations around "good" in my previous comment so that was my fault for not being clearer. Nowadays is the idea that none of these things should have been implemented at all even if it was to fight the Nazis or Japanese, that their implementation itself is a violation of the United States constitution. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul started asking the right questions however it would take another decade for those to seep into mainstream discussion. End the Fed wouldn't be published until 2007. It was unthinkable to even say FDR was mediocre in 1992.

Opinions and talking points on historical subjects shifting with time is fairly natural and not always nefarious. I'd trust someone who criticizes the Wilson/FDR/Lincoln/Churchill/etc. admins to be more historically literate than someone who doesn't, simply because surface level state education fosters a hagiography of them.

These shifting views are needed because the values of a generation are always different than the previous so any "analysis" from the past will be skewed by whatever zeitgeist was popular at the time but that's also why I hold my tongue automatically proclaiming somebody who hates previously idolized figures "enlightened". They might be just following another crowd that, while more educated than say the public school system, is still following some politically charged movement. One that can be just as naive or fickle as the others. A chronic contrarian who just wants to appear like some sort of shunned genius is neither cultivated nor unique but it does garner attention towards them.

I'm all for people actually reading books and investigating primary sources, but pretending that one medium is somehow inherently less credible or propagandistic than the other is ridiculous, and using that to gatekeep self-discovery of historical positions or to tell someone they can't criticize or dislike something without having complete knowledge of its context is bloody absurd.

Shitty sources from historical media before the advent of the internet have existed by the bulk, that is undeniable, however, my personal view is that a person can not go beyond just scratching the surface from Youtuber essays alone. It's much harder to publish a full 90-page dissertation than it is to have an AI scan Wikipedia or Britannica the upload it as a video. The usage of history games to form historical opinions is also in the same vein despite my love for Victoria 2. It's entertainment that can be insightful but not a replacement for real primary sources. Somebody who only knows about 1900s geopolitics through a History Channel documentary they watched a year ago can have credible opinions about the subject, they just won't be as impactful compared to somebody who combed through dozens of archives to reach the same conclusion. History isn't a hard science like Aerospace engineering so there's much more leeway but we should still strive to some sort of standard even if it isn't as easily quantifiable.

Honestly, I was a lot more forgiving a couple of years ago but multiple instances of being led astray by Armchair Historians have soured me. The "old man yells at cloud" type of thinking might be seeping into my thought processes, unfortunately.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Andrew Rakich / Atun-Shei Films
===============================================================

This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.

How long before a full thread on him?

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

How long before a full thread on him?

He's frankly not that interesting and his only real claim to lolcowdom is occasionally releasing a stupid ass video and being a semi-frequent collaborator for other, funnier, cows.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Proud to have Prussian ancestors.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

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.

Hitler was not Pagan all of this comes from the unreliable table talks.
There's not a single persecution of the church in Nazi Germany however there was persecution of neo Pagan groups for being weirdos and a lot of them were outright banned.

Most of the Hitler with Pagan stuff comes from allied war propaganda and stuff written after the war it's weird most of the people close to the national socialist inner circle including their kids said their parents weren't pagans

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.

Hitler didn't hate slavic people whatsoever most of the war crimes that the Nazis get blamed for were actually the Red Army dressed up in Nazi uniforms I'm not trying to make up a conspiracy they actually did do that it lowered nearly 1,000,000 Ukrainian volunteers that he refused to uh give weapons because he thought they were communists.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

 

[Yours Truly 2095]

I enjoy hypohistericalhistory I do wish he'd post more. Learned so much about Australias efforts to kill the Japanese.

A playlist. He also does modern stuff

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBV-kb1YR88cqlokuYOfaArzhezLvFpyb

 

[JJLiautaud]

Hitler didn't hate slavic people whatsoever most of the war crimes that the Nazis get blamed for were actually the Red Army dressed up in Nazi uniforms I'm not trying to make up a conspiracy they actually did do that it lowered nearly 1,000,000 Ukrainian volunteers that he refused to uh give weapons because he thought they were communists.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard, while he may not have had much personal animus towards the Slavs like he did towards the Jews, he still planned for their liquidation and removal in General plan Ost.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

 

[Chunky Salsa]

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard, while he may not have had much personal animus towards the Slavs like he did towards the Jews, he still planned for their liquidation and removal in General plan Ost.

Nah, Hitler didn't say 'Liquidate the slavs' what he actually said was...something else, trust.