YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

Some nigger in timeghost crew destroyed SD card with multiple videos on it . How do you even manage to do such thing I will never know.
Every single World War ii historian is the most politically illiterate retired on the face of the planet and literally just a propagandist for current geopolitics at this point also side chant with literally just FD R's propaganda broadcast FDI was literally a tyrant and a psychopath
All the arguments lefty types use for the bombing of Dresden sounds no different then the arguments Israel uses for bombing of civilian targets in Gaza.
Yes a left ist have no principles news at 11 also feted cheese as admitted that he's a propagandist so I don't know why anybody takes him seriously
 

Every single World War ii historian is the most politically illiterate retired on the face of the planet and literally just a propagandist for current geopolitics at this point also side chant with literally just FD R's propaganda broadcast FDI was literally a tyrant and a psychopath
Zoomer Historian reminds me of Academic Agent given their foaming over Churchill.

Churchill Derangement Syndrome is real, though the man was no angel IRL, either.
 
Zoomer Historian reminds me of Academic Agent given their foaming over Churchill.

Churchill Derangement Syndrome is real, though the man was no angel IRL, either.
I disagree. AA is a (half-)brit, he hates Churchill because he (correctly) identifies his policies with the decline of the British Empire. Zoomer Historian hates Churchill because millennial/zoomer /POL/tards are as obsessed with WWII hagiography as boomers and adopt the opposite of what they were taught in public school out of a combination of spite and basic scrutiny.

If anything Null would be a closer comparison. He defaults to the 'half of all women voted for Hitler' talking point in his woman rants, as if there aren't any other historical examples he could draw on and telling the people disagree with him that white women voted for someone who wound up killing millions of white men will somehow make them more well-disposed to women's suffrage.
 
If anything Null would be a closer comparison. He defaults to the 'half of all women voted for Hitler' talking point in his woman rants, as if there aren't any other historical examples he could draw on and telling the people disagree with him that white women voted for someone who wound up killing millions of white men will somehow make them more well-disposed to women's suffrage.
I'm actually of the opinion that women suffrage is wrong because it's simply a upper middle class plot against rocking class and middle class people to devalue labor
 
I'm actually of the opinion that women suffrage is wrong because it's simply a upper middle class plot against rocking class and middle class people to devalue labor
Also Middle and lower class women always worked. It's just upper class trustfund girlies who didn't work (or at useless make work jobs like running societies and different NGOs, the same as they do now with the "Day in the Life" corpo videos)

Everyone always jokes that the real boss (in actual productive companies) is your boss's wife. There is a reason for that.
 
If anything Null would be a closer comparison. He defaults to the 'half of all women voted for Hitler' talking point in his woman rants, as if there aren't any other historical examples he could draw on and telling the people disagree with him that white women voted for someone who wound up killing millions of white men will somehow make them more well-disposed to women's suffrage.
He's just a racist feminist at the end of the day, when you accept that, basically all his inane takes make sense.
 
1744297472780.png



Trump worse than Wilson now.
 
Wilson may have increased segregation, violated the rights of World War I protestors, empowered wall street arms dealers, founded the Federal Reserve, got 100,000 americans killed in Europe, and began these long military occupations in the Caribbean but how dare Trump do the thing that every other country does to us.

 
Wilson may have increased segregation, violated the rights of World War I protestors, empowered wall street arms dealers, founded the Federal Reserve, got 100,000 americans killed in Europe, and began these long military occupations in the Caribbean but how dare Trump do the thing that every other country does to us.

The prerequisite for being worst president should require having at least 1 genocide under your belt.

No... the "trans-genocide" is not a genocide.
 
Churchill did nothing wrong, I will not elaborate.

- Gallipoli was a good strategy. Knockout the Ottomans and secure some oil. Churchill got unlucky and faced one of the greatest commanders in history. The terrain was awful, but they had good reason to underestimate the Turks. They were comically incompetent and disorganized with the exception of Attaturk.

- Indian famines. You cannot blame one man for this as British rule and precolonial India setup a system where peasants paid rents to landlords who did not care about them. It was an export based economy that relied on imported rice. That rice being cutoff only happened after the British got basically their entire army in Asia destroyed at the Battle of Singapore. The army was well equipped and had alot of soldiers. It was just caught by surprise.

-France 1940. British and French were well prepared to hold the Germans back like in ww1. The politicians (including Chamberlain) did everything that could be reasonably be done. The commanders failed. Churchhill did a good job at salvaging the France debacle and not surrendering. Some here support a British surrender, but why surrender to somebody who has broken every agreement they have ever made?

-Strategic bombing. Pretty much every military historian I have read agrees that had it minimal impact on he war, but at the time they did not know that. Nobody could predict that the Germans would somehow increase production by moving factories into the forest. At the time they did predict that it would strengthen German resolve, but that was hardly the goal anyway. Regardless, this decision was the right call. The Germans had already been doing strategic bombing against the allies so there was literally no reason not to bomb them back.

-Italy. Dunno why this campaign gets so much hate. The allies were not ready for D-Day and had to do something. Italy was a place where they could practice for D-Day, use their naval supremacy to the fullest, and actually divert some units away from the Eastern Front.

- The British Empire. People love the British Empire, but it sucked. It cost the govt alot of money just to enrich a small few elites with stocks and properties across the empire. You can get the resources without owning the places.
 
- Gallipoli was a good strategy. Knockout the Ottomans and secure some oil. Churchill got unlucky and faced one of the greatest commanders in history. The terrain was awful, but they had good reason to underestimate the Turks. They were comically incompetent and disorganized with the exception of Attaturk.
Not to mention the Royal Navy decided to send the battleships in without clearing the area of mines.

-France 1940. British and French were well prepared to hold the Germans back like in ww1. The politicians (including Chamberlain) did everything that could be reasonably be done. The commanders failed. Churchhill did a good job at salvaging the France debacle and not surrendering. Some here support a British surrender, but why surrender to somebody who has broken every agreement they have ever made?
This is what the "Hitler wanted peace" crowd fail to see. If Hitler truly wanted peace, why did he invade the rest of Czechia? Why did Memel get occupied? Why didn't the Germans heed the British and French calls to withdraw from Poland?
 
Back