- Dołączono
- 25 Kwi 2023
YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory
- Twórca wątku Corpun
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Quarterback Rex Grossman
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 14 Mar 2023
Based Goldsworthy still uses BC/AD while everyone else is speedrunning into BCE/CE so Bluesky doesn't get mad.
grump
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 14 Kwi 2016
Not exactly a Youtube Historian per se. But I've been listening to Procopius's Secret History and its an absolute riot. Better than most of the history youtube videos I watch.
Anyone who loves (other people's) drama and ancient history which I presume to be anyone reading this, owes it to themselves to get this audiobook...or I guess you can just get the book itself but the audiobook is good for listening to while working and the narration is funny.
Note that there are free versions on youtube narrated by AI. Do not listen to those. Get the one I've linked to. If you can't find it for free its available for very cheap on Amazon like about a buck or two. The narration makes a difference. There may be a better narrator than the one I've linked but I haven't found it yet.
Anyone who loves (other people's) drama and ancient history which I presume to be anyone reading this, owes it to themselves to get this audiobook...or I guess you can just get the book itself but the audiobook is good for listening to while working and the narration is funny.
Note that there are free versions on youtube narrated by AI. Do not listen to those. Get the one I've linked to. If you can't find it for free its available for very cheap on Amazon like about a buck or two. The narration makes a difference. There may be a better narrator than the one I've linked but I haven't found it yet.
- Dołączono
- 1 Paź 2018
- Dołączono
- 13 Kwi 2021
- Dołączono
- 19 Maj 2024
Two videos on Hitler's planned and completed projects to transform Berlin into Germania. I like the fact that the guy took actual footage of the places he went to during his visit to Berlin and how he doesn't focus on "nazis bad!" and instead just talk about the buildings.
I don't really like this guy. On the alt-hist vid he made about what if the 22nd amendment didn't pass he dedicated the latter half of it to suck off troons and Obama. A rather strange breed of libtard for somebody so young since most of them are berniebros
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 4 Lut 2018
ZH is a retard, but him getting purged because he criticized/mocked either India or Israel is a bit more concerning than that.
- Dołączono
- 14 Cze 2024
New Gavin, on the Battle of Maldon poem.
Great video imo, goes over the poem and it’s content, and a bit about New Historicism’s methodology, then historical context of the poem while demonstrating some of how that methodology is put to use, and different potential readings of the poem.
74164978231
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 4 Sie 2022
The only homosexuality that existed in ancient Rome and Greece would be considered rape or pedophilia today.
That should tell you everything you need to know about homosexuality.
Ostatnio edytowane przez moderatora:
- Dołączono
- 4 Lut 2018
Hello chat, here is my list of top 11 History youtube channels (that are still active and in no particular order):
1. Epimetheus
Hand drawn masterpieces with videos where you pretty much always learn something new.
2. Asianometry
Despite the name of the channel he talks about whatever he feels like in an extreme amount of detail. Very opinionated and source based. Often directly discusses the claims of historians.
3. Atun Shei
A self-aware weirdo who borders on being breadtube with video-essay like content. However, his videos are well sourced and I would say he has more to say than your average pop-history soyman or breadtube troon.
4. Cooking History with Max Miller
Literally just a cooking show that uses primary sources to cook food from the past. Context and history of the meals actually being explained unlike most other channels who attempt this. He used to work for Disney and his skills as a presenter really shine through.
5. Hoser
Alot of infographic/pop-history type channels steal his ideas, but he usually did them first and with the most detail.
6. Noj Rants
I am pretty sure this guy has an MA or PhD in Russian history or something. Communists hate him and the funny part is he isn't even some rightwinger/liberal trying to tear down communism.
7. OverSimplified
I would be lying if I did not admit to watching most of his videos the day they came out. They are not all that accurate, well sourced or even that deep, but they are good fun.
8. Britmonkey
A defender of free market capitalism and modern social democratic politics who talks about history that does not get much attention. Really hates living in the UK. Is more about bringing attention to things to make arguments about modern politics than discussing stuff like historiography and historical debates.
9. Kraut
He has a thread. He definitely deserves to have that thread. He really likes to make grand PhD thesis level arguments that do not hold up that well. He thinks he has a big brain and you have a little brain. However, his efforts to defend liberalism against the evil far-right and crazy communists are enjoyable to watch.
10. Historia Civilis
An unironic communist who tries really hard to hide it. He does an extraordinary job at fully explaining complicated historical events in a way that makes them easy to understand and does extremely long series that tie into eachother. His commitment to being accurate shines through.
11. Mad at the Internet.
The host of the show Josh is a follower of Great Man history. A very interesting perspective.
Honorary mentions: Cool History Bros (discusses ancient Chinese history), Townsends, Ancient Recitations (the history channel of the youtuber Sargon of Akkad. He just reads ancient classics as audiobooks for free), Timeghost, Potential history. Sir Manatee (Weimar autist).
1. Epimetheus
Hand drawn masterpieces with videos where you pretty much always learn something new.
2. Asianometry
Despite the name of the channel he talks about whatever he feels like in an extreme amount of detail. Very opinionated and source based. Often directly discusses the claims of historians.
3. Atun Shei
A self-aware weirdo who borders on being breadtube with video-essay like content. However, his videos are well sourced and I would say he has more to say than your average pop-history soyman or breadtube troon.
4. Cooking History with Max Miller
Literally just a cooking show that uses primary sources to cook food from the past. Context and history of the meals actually being explained unlike most other channels who attempt this. He used to work for Disney and his skills as a presenter really shine through.
5. Hoser
Alot of infographic/pop-history type channels steal his ideas, but he usually did them first and with the most detail.
6. Noj Rants
I am pretty sure this guy has an MA or PhD in Russian history or something. Communists hate him and the funny part is he isn't even some rightwinger/liberal trying to tear down communism.
7. OverSimplified
I would be lying if I did not admit to watching most of his videos the day they came out. They are not all that accurate, well sourced or even that deep, but they are good fun.
8. Britmonkey
A defender of free market capitalism and modern social democratic politics who talks about history that does not get much attention. Really hates living in the UK. Is more about bringing attention to things to make arguments about modern politics than discussing stuff like historiography and historical debates.
9. Kraut
He has a thread. He definitely deserves to have that thread. He really likes to make grand PhD thesis level arguments that do not hold up that well. He thinks he has a big brain and you have a little brain. However, his efforts to defend liberalism against the evil far-right and crazy communists are enjoyable to watch.
10. Historia Civilis
An unironic communist who tries really hard to hide it. He does an extraordinary job at fully explaining complicated historical events in a way that makes them easy to understand and does extremely long series that tie into eachother. His commitment to being accurate shines through.
11. Mad at the Internet.
The host of the show Josh is a follower of Great Man history. A very interesting perspective.
Honorary mentions: Cool History Bros (discusses ancient Chinese history), Townsends, Ancient Recitations (the history channel of the youtuber Sargon of Akkad. He just reads ancient classics as audiobooks for free), Timeghost, Potential history. Sir Manatee (Weimar autist).
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 30 Wrz 2019
I keep meaning to watch his video criticizing realism (as I'm someone who most closely identifies with that particular philosophy). I definitely don't watch his other content though; maybe I'm too quick to judge a book by its cover but countryball shit doesn't help me take a video seriously.
- Dołączono
- 14 Cze 2024
I watched a few of his new videos a couple years ago, and it left a lot to be desired. From what little I can recall of his “academics please respond” days, his content had improved, but not by much. In short, you’re not missing much by judging that book by its cover. He’s still the same Kraut he was all those years ago, he’s just learned to not make his same mistakes.
That said, take this with a grain of salt, it’s based off admittedly vague recollections of his new stuff, and it’s certainly possible he’s improved since then.
- Dołączono
- 25 Maj 2024
Huge fan of Noj, as he seems to just relate things as they were in a very dry, often sarcastic, manner, even if I get the vibe that he is some variety of leftist, he isn't exactly sugar coating how awful the Bolshevik systems were. The most recent video was genuinely hilarious in how absurd it is.
Between Clower and Gavin, I am really enjoying the "actual academics making YouTube videos on extremely niche topics" genre.
Himmler
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 2 Kwi 2019
This guy's series on the CIA has been really fun to watch and he links all his sources
- Dołączono
- 25 Kwi 2023
- Dołączono
- 4 Lut 2018
In school I asked the professor why I should use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. He declared that either was fine, but that I would be making a political statement by using the latter.
The rot is deep.
- Dołączono
- 23 Cze 2015
I enjoy his later stuff.
I barly remember his old shit, but I find his new stuff to be enjoyable, even if I disagree sometimes with them.
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 14 Gru 2022
I didn't watch him in signifcant quantities but I assumed he was well researched given the length and controversial nature of his videos, which I now know is incorrect. I dug into his Rhodesia video in this thread a little while ago and it was near enough all the evidence I needed to write him off as being reliable since he seems more prone to accepting someone else's TLDR of a book as actually having read it himself. I'm sure it's a general trend in his videos but it was enough to throw his entire methodology into question.
I remember in one video bashing Churchill* he raised the fact the British started night bombing the Germans before the Germans night bombed them, which is true. This of course neglets the fact they were done in response to the Germans night bombing the French first. There's lots of little half-truths like that which are true technically but given the objective of telling us that (to paint the British and Churchill as malicious and evil) you're clearly meant to ignore that the Germans were first it before the British were but to the French.
If you're ever told something where the intent is to leave you thinking, "Wow, that's evil, and they just decided to do that?" you're probably being a little deceived. You see it a lot in politics but it's also blatant in history. The main issue with doing this when it comes to WW2 is Hitler didn't just decide to start invading the East on a whim, it was done so with an objective tied to the economy you can read clearly in Mein Kampf (even in the Dalton, pro-Hitler translated edition). This is why the tactic is to ignore Czechoslovakia**, focus wholly on Poland, and try to paint Churchill as being out for German blood (and pretend Neville Chamberlain never existed) and paint the Allies as bad actors/slaves to the Jews, ignoring that no nation in history was allowed to expand as much as Hitler had without pushback***.
What he and people like him (History channels with an agenda is present an incomplete picture of the side they want to lionise whilst relying on a similarly incomplete picture of the side they dislike. You can complete the picture for both sides yourself, it just often requires a little extra work on your part, which most casual watchers aren't going to be assed doing especially if they believe what they're being told at face-value is the whole story.
Zoomer Historian may present things that would otherwise go neglected or left out of most WW2 lessons, but he was absolutely shameless (or if I was being especially kind: naïve) in whitewashing the Germans and tarring their enemies to cartoonish extremes. This is especially odd given the fact he is British but given his tone you'd think the UK should've been nuked for opposing Hitler.
All that said I don't support the removal of his channel. He didn't do anything wrong really other than be a mediocre to downright awful history youtube channel. The idea he got banned for criticising Indians once but the pro-German WW2 stuff was fine (like it was for years) gets the ol' noggin joggin. Knowing he's not around to make the likes of Fredda seethe is also another reason he needs to be brought back, even if he helps keep people like Fredda alive by giving them content to react to.
I only wish his biggest critics weren't exactly like him but from the opposite side of the spectrum. On the same side, there's a bit more courtesy and the arguments are made from good faith. An example, albeit less entertaining to watch and less educational, is Lavander criticising Monsieur Z about his take that "Austria-Hungary fell due to multiculturalism", because clearly a lot more goes into it than that given most empires were composed of multiple people groups and had more contributing to the fall, It's a decent video but it's not really a compelling watch. Lavander does have his own issue but it rarely features, mostly going with the take that the UK were the bad guys in WW1 based on hearsay from an American diplomat's daughter, who was married to a German aristocrat and shared said exchange after her father was dead..
*You can criticise and point out Churchill's faults, but there's tons of straight up lies and made up shit that's sold wholesale as fact. People want to pin the state of the world on a single man because it's easier than accepting the truth of modernity's complexity. I could just as easily blame Nietzsche seething at his sister's husband being an anti-semite thus calling Jews the most racially pure and thus superior race in Europe because of their self-serving nature and not being beholden to slave morality (i.e. selflessness, altruism, compassion, things which'd otherwise prevent you from achieving good due to an obligation to do what society considers "right"), which in turn helped Hitler conclude morality as also tied intrinsically to race and that the Jewish race was entirely self-serving and evil. It's very easy to argue any one man is responsible for everything that went wrong. The easier to say and so dismiss but ultimately more complex is a simple: it's complicated.
**The pro-German argument for why Hitler annexing the Czechs wasn't an issue is because when they surrendered, they surrendered their entire country ergo they essentially gave it to Hitler for free and he could do anything he wanted with it no problem.
(Outside of the German occupied areas, annexing the Czechs after getting their territorial demands was pretty much unjustifiable and took any negotiation with Germany off the table. Had Hitler (though I think it was more Ribbentrop's idea) not done this, WW2 could've been avoided altogether even if the Germans pressed for Danzig since the Allies disliked the flippancy of the Polish in 1938/39 during the Tilea affair and the Polish were god awful at foreign relations. The Germans had stacked the deck so much against themselves by taking all of Czechoslovakia that not even the Polish government doing all it could to piss of the Allies was enough for Allies to consider their demand. The Polish being the way they were you could attribute to being sandwiched between the USSR and Germany so it's a little understandable.
***The original Allied strat with Germany mirrored the original Napoleon I strategy of just trying tokeep them contained within their borders and try to attrition them into white peace/surrender, made especially prevalent given the first year of the war is called "The Phony War" and saw absolutely no push into either France or Germany by either side. By far the biggest act of "evil" in WW2 is the French/Allies lying to the Polish that they were going to push into the Saar and take pressure off the Poles. One, because it was a lie, they were going to pull back and maintain a defence along the Maginot and Belgian borders, and two, had the French pushed they would've met little resistance and the war could've been over a lot sooner if not before '41. Mussolini only joined in the war because he saw the Germans were still alive after a whole year and assumed the Allies weren't shit. Similarly the lack of advance by the Allies reassured the Soviets that they wouldn't come to the aid of the Polish and so initiated the invasion. It was by far the biggest strateguc fuck-up of WW2, nothing else even comes close.It honestly deserves more attention than the fact the French surrendered.
I remember in one video bashing Churchill* he raised the fact the British started night bombing the Germans before the Germans night bombed them, which is true. This of course neglets the fact they were done in response to the Germans night bombing the French first. There's lots of little half-truths like that which are true technically but given the objective of telling us that (to paint the British and Churchill as malicious and evil) you're clearly meant to ignore that the Germans were first it before the British were but to the French.
If you're ever told something where the intent is to leave you thinking, "Wow, that's evil, and they just decided to do that?" you're probably being a little deceived. You see it a lot in politics but it's also blatant in history. The main issue with doing this when it comes to WW2 is Hitler didn't just decide to start invading the East on a whim, it was done so with an objective tied to the economy you can read clearly in Mein Kampf (even in the Dalton, pro-Hitler translated edition). This is why the tactic is to ignore Czechoslovakia**, focus wholly on Poland, and try to paint Churchill as being out for German blood (and pretend Neville Chamberlain never existed) and paint the Allies as bad actors/slaves to the Jews, ignoring that no nation in history was allowed to expand as much as Hitler had without pushback***.
What he and people like him (History channels with an agenda is present an incomplete picture of the side they want to lionise whilst relying on a similarly incomplete picture of the side they dislike. You can complete the picture for both sides yourself, it just often requires a little extra work on your part, which most casual watchers aren't going to be assed doing especially if they believe what they're being told at face-value is the whole story.
Zoomer Historian may present things that would otherwise go neglected or left out of most WW2 lessons, but he was absolutely shameless (or if I was being especially kind: naïve) in whitewashing the Germans and tarring their enemies to cartoonish extremes. This is especially odd given the fact he is British but given his tone you'd think the UK should've been nuked for opposing Hitler.
All that said I don't support the removal of his channel. He didn't do anything wrong really other than be a mediocre to downright awful history youtube channel. The idea he got banned for criticising Indians once but the pro-German WW2 stuff was fine (like it was for years) gets the ol' noggin joggin. Knowing he's not around to make the likes of Fredda seethe is also another reason he needs to be brought back, even if he helps keep people like Fredda alive by giving them content to react to.
I only wish his biggest critics weren't exactly like him but from the opposite side of the spectrum. On the same side, there's a bit more courtesy and the arguments are made from good faith. An example, albeit less entertaining to watch and less educational, is Lavander criticising Monsieur Z about his take that "Austria-Hungary fell due to multiculturalism", because clearly a lot more goes into it than that given most empires were composed of multiple people groups and had more contributing to the fall, It's a decent video but it's not really a compelling watch. Lavander does have his own issue but it rarely features, mostly going with the take that the UK were the bad guys in WW1 based on hearsay from an American diplomat's daughter, who was married to a German aristocrat and shared said exchange after her father was dead..
*You can criticise and point out Churchill's faults, but there's tons of straight up lies and made up shit that's sold wholesale as fact. People want to pin the state of the world on a single man because it's easier than accepting the truth of modernity's complexity. I could just as easily blame Nietzsche seething at his sister's husband being an anti-semite thus calling Jews the most racially pure and thus superior race in Europe because of their self-serving nature and not being beholden to slave morality (i.e. selflessness, altruism, compassion, things which'd otherwise prevent you from achieving good due to an obligation to do what society considers "right"), which in turn helped Hitler conclude morality as also tied intrinsically to race and that the Jewish race was entirely self-serving and evil. It's very easy to argue any one man is responsible for everything that went wrong. The easier to say and so dismiss but ultimately more complex is a simple: it's complicated.
**The pro-German argument for why Hitler annexing the Czechs wasn't an issue is because when they surrendered, they surrendered their entire country ergo they essentially gave it to Hitler for free and he could do anything he wanted with it no problem.
(Outside of the German occupied areas, annexing the Czechs after getting their territorial demands was pretty much unjustifiable and took any negotiation with Germany off the table. Had Hitler (though I think it was more Ribbentrop's idea) not done this, WW2 could've been avoided altogether even if the Germans pressed for Danzig since the Allies disliked the flippancy of the Polish in 1938/39 during the Tilea affair and the Polish were god awful at foreign relations. The Germans had stacked the deck so much against themselves by taking all of Czechoslovakia that not even the Polish government doing all it could to piss of the Allies was enough for Allies to consider their demand. The Polish being the way they were you could attribute to being sandwiched between the USSR and Germany so it's a little understandable.***The original Allied strat with Germany mirrored the original Napoleon I strategy of just trying tokeep them contained within their borders and try to attrition them into white peace/surrender, made especially prevalent given the first year of the war is called "The Phony War" and saw absolutely no push into either France or Germany by either side. By far the biggest act of "evil" in WW2 is the French/Allies lying to the Polish that they were going to push into the Saar and take pressure off the Poles. One, because it was a lie, they were going to pull back and maintain a defence along the Maginot and Belgian borders, and two, had the French pushed they would've met little resistance and the war could've been over a lot sooner if not before '41. Mussolini only joined in the war because he saw the Germans were still alive after a whole year and assumed the Allies weren't shit. Similarly the lack of advance by the Allies reassured the Soviets that they wouldn't come to the aid of the Polish and so initiated the invasion. It was by far the biggest strateguc fuck-up of WW2, nothing else even comes close.It honestly deserves more attention than the fact the French surrendered.
There are people out there, such as Zoomer's critics and political opposite, who legitimately believe Hitler's entire impetus for war was genocide with some nebulous desire for lebensraum. This is a perspective proven wrong with a surface level look into Birger Dahlerus, which I'm using as an excuse to segue to the only video on Youtube about him that wasn't just Nuremberg footage.
There is an alien.
Surprisingly this Turk is the only person on Youtube to make a video with some level of production on the man, which is a shame because though he failed, what he tried to do was both a herculean task probably doomed from the outset but also sincerely noble in intent: stop the war.
He was a Swedish businessman (he was German but his his nationality, which I think contributed to the British being less receptive) and friend of Herman Goring, and he spent the month leading up to the war trying to negotiate some sort of deal to prevent an actual conflict breaking out, using his friendship to Goring and British business connections to convey to the German government that, no, the UK would not let them gobble up Poland like Czechoslovakia. The German government thought the UK would baulk on its guarantee/alliance with Poland (Probably because Ribbentrop thought the UK would do nothing about it) and occupy Danzig without much more than verbal complaint, which given the French and British being pissed off at the Poles for being belligerent retards on the subject of Romania, might've contributed to things. Mussolini also said were war to break out, Italy would declare war immediately which likely encouraged the Germans to be aggressive. However instead of immediate Italian support, Mussolini declared war in June, and given the Germans would've been fucked had the French not pulled their commitment from the Saar offensive, you could argue this support was a major contributing factor to Germany marching into Danzig in the first place since they were originally relying on the Italians of all people to take the pressure off.
Dahlerus thought he had personally failed, as though he fucked up somewhere, somehow, and could've stopped it if he had done something differently. He had to be reassured at the Nuremberg trials that he had been mislead by the Germans because Goring told Dahlerus that he would do everything he could to prevent a war. Given historians like to paint everyone in the German government as being over the top evil, Dahlerus' comments and continued relationship and back-and-forth with Goring leading up to September paints the odd picture that out of everyone in the upper German leadership, Goring was the most anti-war behind the scenes but probably got out-manoeuvred by others in Berlin and a bunch of IRL circumstances that made taking Danzig a no brainer.
Why Dahlerus is good for highlighting the nuance in the lead-up to the war but also taking the wind out of both pro-Nazi and pro-Allied sails is that both sides had individuals in their government who, on an individual level, seemed earnest in trying to prevent the outbreak of war but there were as equally many factors in making it the right thing to do. From both German and British perspectives, the war should've been over quickly but things rarely proceed according to plan. From the early period, the Germans got no Italian military support like they were promised, and the Russians helped take out Poland effectively minimising any toll on the Germans expected by the French – it was complete botch-job.
Regardless, because Dahlerus was such a small part of the big picture of WW2, and he wasn't a public figure, there isn't much out there on him given the most significant public appearance he made was at Nuremburg. The War Hitler Won: September, 1939 by Nicholas Bethell touches on him a little, covering the lead up to the war. There is another book but it's in Swedish.
What's interesting is rather than try to merge together all the Slavic groups into one unified identity, they tried to assert themselves over one another thus remaining separate. Think how Milanese and Napoli people in Italy think of themselves as "Italian" rather than strictly their city/region of choice. There was a concerted effort to have the people of a unified Italian and German states to think of themselves as being "Italian"/"German" atop their regional identity, whereas the Slavs didn't really attempt this. Not an incredibly in-depth video but it does help shed light on how Yugoslavia, despite existing for roughly 74 years (the same length of time from Italian and German unifications up to WW1) never achieved the same state of national unity.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 30 Wrz 2019
It's such a common redirection technique, and my biggest gripe with it is that it's a complete non-issue. I frankly don't care whether it was the allies or the axis to initiate the use of strategic bombing. Strategic bombing was an inevitable fact of warfare for both sides in the conflict; it was going to occur no matter who did it first. If you read anything on the development of air doctrine during the interwar years, you can see that's where it was heading.
And besides, most people's major issue with the Nazi regime doesn't have much to do with how they fought the war.
I think making moral judgements on historical events and decisions is inevitable. But the least you can do is be properly informed on the issue before you make the judgement. You might reject the "other side's" reasoning for something, but at least engage with it.
And things being presented as simple or having a singular cause is almost always wrong. Even if one "cause" may have an outsized influence on the event, it is likely not enough on its own to result in the event.