YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

Thoughts on this channel for ancient history? I haven't seen it mentioned here, so I thought it would be good to share. The topics for the videos are a solid choice for me, but the editing really makes me feel like I'm watching a generic video essay like how SunnyV2 edits his videos tbh.
 
No!
If you don't want to watch he pretty much concludes that, yes, yes it is.
No, but I wish. Also reminds of how absolutely shit most definitions of fascism really are. If your definition of fascist doesn't include: revolutionary, republican, right-wing, anti-communist, authoritarian, nationalist, meritocratic and progressive, then it is invariably inaccurate. When people try to lump Christian (or other religious) dictatorialism, nationalism and monarchism in it, I just roll my eyes, because they are clearly just using it as a broad brush for "thing I don't like".
 
Thoughts on this channel for ancient history? I haven't seen it mentioned here, so I thought it would be good to share. The topics for the videos are a solid choice for me, but the editing really makes me feel like I'm watching a generic video essay like how SunnyV2 edits his videos tbh.
I watched their The Ahhiyawa Problem video, which was interesting enough. Does get into a part of history that I find interesting: what the hell to interpret from the information given.
 
Here is a video on why Kaiser Wilhelm II got rid of Bismarck as Chancellor.

It's surprising that when you compare how historiography treated the two following WW2, Bismarck got off clean compared to Frederick II. Sure, none of the wars Bismarck instigated involved anywhere near as naked aggression as Frederick's invasion of Silesia or partition of Poland, but he was willing to commit what any capable sovereign would have termed treason for the sake of instigating wars of expansion and viewed his own subjects with the same corrective lenses as the NSDAP.

Nevermind that despite being a literal homosexual, Frederick II was nowhere near as prone to performative histrionics as Bismarck.
 
It's surprising that when you compare how historiography treated the two following WW2, Bismarck got off clean compared to Frederick II. Sure, none of the wars Bismarck instigated involved anywhere near as naked aggression as Frederick's invasion of Silesia or partition of Poland, but he was willing to commit what any capable sovereign would have termed treason for the sake of instigating wars of expansion and viewed his own subjects with the same corrective lenses as the NSDAP.

Nevermind that despite being a literal homosexual, Frederick II was nowhere near as prone to performative histrionics as Bismarck.
Bismarck simply had the luck of serving Wilhelm I, probably the most inept and feckless Hohenzollern of the entire dynasty (At least Wilhelm II TRIED to rule). I recall one incident where Wilhelm said he would abdicate if Bismarck resigned during some dispute between the two, that is how dependent Wilhelm was on his chief minister.

It's amazing to think how differently German Unification could have gone if Bismarck had serious political operators opposed to him within Germany, instead of effectively seizing the entire system of Prussian patronage for himself and being the power behind the throne. Even Count Cavour had to tolerate the Savoyards butting in with his Risorgiomento schemes.
 
Someone made a video criticizing Shadiversity.

IMG_20250202_200604.jpg
I thought I will give it watch, but nah maybe tomorow.
 
One of the most evil men to ever be involved with the US Government.

Every day we learn more and more information that proves the "Satanic Panic" of the 80s wasn't just blind mass hysteria from religious zealots, but a legitimate concern that may have held a lot more weight than we were let on to believe.



Old Video Tax about Whaling (Screw Youtube Age-Restrictions):

 
Back