YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Joshua Cohen Mohnstein]

Whether or not Churchill had legitimate reasons for committing Britain to the war at all costs or was just following the prior two centuries of British strategy of trying to prevent a European hegemon (something that was going to fail inevitably because they also tried to monopolize colonization) is ultimately intangible to the actual results of the course he committed the British Empire

Regardless of the fate of the empire, Britain was consistently successful in using its naval supremacy and allies to beat prevent the domination of continental Europe. France and Spain, Russia, Napoleon, Germany, Germany again. To call Churchill an idiot for not immediately capitulating relies heavily on hindsight.

There was no short or long term strategic or material gain for Britain from its participation in the second world war, unlike the first, and it effectively had to auction off its empire to the US for victory - which obviously raises the question of whether that could even be called a victory.

The empire was dead by WW1, the US had been supporting for independence movements all around the world for over a century prior, and European imperialism was falling out of fashion. I seriously can't imagine the British empire ever returning anywhere near its peak post-1900. I'm not saying its impossible (nothing is inevitable).

 

[Computer God Autism]

Regardless of the fate of the empire, Britain was consistently successful in using its naval supremacy and allies to beat prevent the domination of continental Europe. France and Spain, Russia, Napoleon, Germany, Germany again. To call Churchill an idiot for not immediately capitulating relies heavily on hindsight.

Yes, which is why I did not say he should have capitulated, I said he should have recognized the strategic situation and come to a settlement. Germany had no way of enforcing any meaningful territorial or economic concessions from the British, and they could and would have used the threat of another blockade from the Royal Navy as a beating stick during negotiations. Him committing to total war with the Germans, openly refusing any possibility of a settlement, while simultaneously having no path to achieving victory over them with Britain alone was in contravention of that traditional strategy which required having continental allies.

The empire was dead by WW1, the US had been supporting for independence movements all around the world for over a century prior, and European imperialism was falling out of fashion. I seriously can't imagine the British empire ever returning anywhere near its peak post-1900. I'm not saying its impossible (nothing is inevitable).

European imperialism reached its peak in the aftermath of WW1, where one of the only regions that had hitherto been directly out-of-bounds, the Middle East, was carved up as a consequence of the Ottoman's involvement with the losing side. The French were still conducting campaigns of subjugation in West Africa in the 1920s. Japan wanted to emulate Europe so badly they proceeded to colonize China. Saying it was falling out of fashion is simply untrue.

Britain could have suffered a defeat in 1940 and still preserved the empire as a broader Anglosphere with some smaller colonies. US agitation, whose only fruit prior to WW1 was the Spanish-American War that gained it an empire, was not by itself sufficient to break apart the empire. That required Britain to be economically, demographically and morally weakened by another world war, and then be put in a situation where it could not resolve a colonial crisis without outside aid as a result - this was how we got Suez historically, which was the definitive blow the British empire.

 

[Professor Donger]

Found an interesting new channel to watch

 

[Joshua Cohen Mohnstein]

Yes, which is why I did not say he should have capitulated, I said he should have recognized the strategic situation and come to a settlement. Germany had no way of enforcing any meaningful territorial or economic concessions from the British, and they could and would have used the threat of another blockade from the Royal Navy as a beating stick during negotiations. Him committing to total war with the Germans, openly refusing any possibility of a settlement, while simultaneously having no path to achieving victory over them with Britain alone was in contravention of that traditional strategy which required having continental allies.

European imperialism reached its peak in the aftermath of WW1, where one of the only regions that had hitherto been directly out-of-bounds, the Middle East, was carved up as a consequence of the Ottoman's involvement with the losing side. The French were still conducting campaigns of subjugation in West Africa in the 1920s. Japan wanted to emulate Europe so badly they proceeded to colonize China. Saying it was falling out of fashion is simply untrue.

Britain could have suffered a defeat in 1940 and still preserved the empire as a broader Anglosphere with some smaller colonies. US agitation, whose only fruit prior to WW1 was the Spanish-American War that gained it an empire, was not by itself sufficient to break apart the empire. That required Britain to be economically, demographically and morally weakened by another world war, and then be put in a situation where it could not resolve a colonial crisis without outside aid as a result - this was how we got Suez historically, which was the definitive blow the British empire.

I will concede that I was wrong and you're correct in that imperialism peaked post-WW2, then quickly declined post-WW2. But independence and nationalist movements were already beginning to brew after WW1 and the US had been rather consistent with its support of independence in the western hemisphere, albeit rather passively and diplomatically.

But to say a defeated Britain could have maintained its holdings is almost impossible to be sure of. That's entirely dependent on the success of the German invasion of the USSR, which would have gone much differently without a second front to worry about, as well as the US's level involvement in the conflict, who may've preferred to use the USSR as a proxy, or done nothing, or sent troops through Alaska or whatever. But I sincerely doubt the Axis would leave British colonies alone. Japan was already cutting a swathe through Southeast Asia, Germany and Italy were desperate to control the Mediterranean, which was by no means as secure as the Atlantic or Indian Ocean was. I just struggle to imagine a scenario where the UK ends up in good shape at all.

 

[Professor Donger]

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Found an interesting new channel to watch

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xl62ZI_iPfY

Calum is good shit, I've been watching him for a couple years at this point. This video was a real change of pace for him but the quality was still there as it was in his other videos.

 

[Computer God Autism]

But to say a defeated Britain could have maintained its holdings is almost impossible to be sure of.

Certainly, which is why I specified a broader Anglosphere with some colonies. Britain would have inevitably let India go, but it could have easily held the likes of Malaysia or Rhodesia had it wished, let alone the Dominions, which it did historically try to Federate with. Fundamentally I don't see how Britain coming to a negotiated settlement with Germany in 1940 or 1941 that spares it the stresses of a half-decade of total war would result in the independence of Australia.

But I sincerely doubt the Axis would leave British colonies alone. Japan was already cutting a swathe through Southeast Asia, Germany and Italy were desperate to control the Mediterranean, which was by no means as secure as the Atlantic or Indian Ocean was.

Japan and Germany weren't tied at the hip; Japan never declared war on the USSR (despite Hitler declaring war on the US thinking it would prompt the Japanese to do the same) and their agreement to not enter separate peace negotiations was only established in Dec 1941, as part of Germany declaring war on the US. It's very possible that a peace between Germany and Britain would result in the two theaters of WWII becoming separate wars, with Japan facing Britain undivided. Italy would doubtlessly want British colonies, but after the failure of Egypt and then Operation Compass wouldn't be in much of a position to be making meaningful demands from the British - moreover, they could be compensated with land from the French if Germany saw fit to redraw the borders later.

I just struggle to imagine a scenario where the UK ends up in good shape at all.

Peace in 40 or 41 wouldn't leave the Empire in great shape, but it would still leave an empire.

 

[Dan of Steel]

The greatest deterrent to anti-semitism to observe the behavior of the people who are obsessed with hating the Jews. After a while it just gets tedious reading yet another post about why everything they don't like is the fault of the International Jewish Conspiracy.

This single-minded focus inevitably leads to them adopting retarded, backwards, contradictory beliefs, which leads to the enthusiastic adoption of ideas 'Islam is actually based and good for Europe!', 'Hitler was actually a wholesome anti-racist', 'the Holocaust was actually a summer vacation', 'Christianity is a Jewish psyop against bvsed paganism', or 'whites need to ally with brown people to destroy Israel!' etc., thus turning off everyone except for third-worlders, edgy teenagers, or immature autists who need someone to blame for their shortcomings

Mostly people in these spheres online have autism and one of the cores symptoms of autism is black and white thinking. I think that's where a lot of problems when discussing Judaism. Or they take infographs that have been floating around on /pol/ for like a decade about how the Talmud says this or that about goyim meanwhile the Talmud isn't this hidden thing, you can read all of it online, in English if you want to. It's a massive fucking tome of several volumes, but it's all there. The interesting thing I find about the Talmud is because it's thousands of Rabbis sperging and arguing with each other for hundreds of years, dissenting opinions, unpopular views, all of them are there. The Talmud is by its nature contradictory because it's Rabbis arguing in a several-hundred year long forum thread about theoretical legal cases.

This doesn't mean that Jews, like any other group of people should be immune from criticism or immune from being looked at with a critical historical lens. People like Sabbatai Zevi (Shabtai Tzvi) and Jacob Frank were very real and their wacky ideas did trickle down and have influence in things like the Donmeh. Maurice Samuel (the dude who wrote You Gentiles) was real and was most definitely a Jewish Supremacist. As people like Norman Finkelstein have pointed out, Israel and Zionist politicians have used The Holocaust as a cudgel to bludgeon people with to get policies they want to see enacted. The fact that "The Holocaust" is called the a holocaust is also kinda weird when you think about it because the etymology of "holocaust" in Greek means "burnt offering". ...A burnt offering to what? or to whom?

I don't think people should be afraid to point out when people are being intellectually dishonest, even if they're "le based". Just like how I don't think acknowledging bad shit has been done to Jews or using them as a scapegoat has also happened doesn't make you a zogbot or an IDF shabbo's goy if you're being intellectually honest. Being intellectually honest means trusting that another person is also engaging in good faith unless they're shown otherwise, I think if more people extended that grace, I don't think "da jooz" would be such a third-rail topic.

Both people being bad faith about Rabbinic Judaism and Jews being neurotic and thinking everyone is secretly antisemitic creates this radioactive negative feedback loop where even trying to engage honestly with the topic and history of Judaism becomes a third rail where you're one side or the other, and I think that's really annoying.

 

[Übertroon]

The jew fears the turtle ship builder

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

Britain didn't want to accept it had been defeated in 1940, which is understandable. But rather than attempt to come to a negotiated settlement with Germany and save face (something Halifax proposed after the Fall of France), Churchill committed Britain to a war it was not prepared to fight or win on its own. There was no short or long term strategic or material gain for Britain from its participation in the second world war, unlike the first, and it effectively had to auction off its empire to the US for victory - which obviously raises the question of whether that could even be called a victory.

But to say a defeated Britain could have maintained its holdings is almost impossible to be sure of. That's entirely dependent on the success of the German invasion of the USSR, which would have gone much differently without a second front to worry about, as well as the US's level involvement in the conflict, who may've preferred to use the USSR as a proxy, or done nothing, or sent troops through Alaska or whatever. But I sincerely doubt the Axis would leave British colonies alone. Japan was already cutting a swathe through Southeast Asia, Germany and Italy were desperate to control the Mediterranean, which was by no means as secure as the Atlantic or Indian Ocean was. I just struggle to imagine a scenario where the UK ends up in good shape at all.

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be" turned out to be a "be careful what you wish for" situation. Regardless of this, one criticism of Churchill I fully disagree with was he simply handed over Eastern Europe to Stalin. I'd disagree, considering Churchill was sidelined at later Allied conferences with a clear Soviet bias present. I'd also note Churchill's political relationship with the Polish government in exile and his truly being sorry Poland was not independent at the end. The man died a depressive drunk, considering Attlee essentially dissolved the Empire under his premiership.

Regardless of Churchill being a Victorian temporal fish out of water who was likely born fifty years too late, I would say the real person at fault for the war getting started would be Joseph Stalin. If you read up on him and see how crafty and self-aware he was, things will fall into place once you start comparing notes. In regards to Molotov-Ribbentrop, I'm not going to say Pilsudski not dying of stomach cancer would have prevented the war (given Hitler and Stalin respected him to some degree) considering the Reich and the USSR both wanted Poland gone for their own reasons.

 

[Imperial Citizen]

The fact that "The Holocaust" is called the a holocaust is also kinda weird when you think about it because the etymology of "holocaust" in Greek means "burnt offering". ...A burnt offering to what? or to whom?

The Jewish term for the Holocaust is the Hebrew word, Shoah. It means utter destruction. Apparently, holocaust was used to mean the same in English at the time and so it stuck.

Though this brings up an issue I have with these ‘based’ or revisionist “historians”. Why the fuck would you want to deny the Holocaust? More than a third of worldwide Jewry was exterminated. Cultures and traditions wiped out across Eastern Europe. A blow to Judaism that we can never recover from. If the Jews are responsible for all the evils in the world, every gassed kike would be a victory.

Yet there’s an entire industry dedicated to revealing the TRVTH! that white people’s greatest threat to international Jewry never slaughtered 6 million of their enemy. The traitors that stabbed Germany in the back, that spread degeneracy and communism throughout the world, were never punished for their wicked crimes.

Am I supposed to be afraid of neo-nazis if the best they supposed did was kill 271,000 Jews indirectly through starvation and disease?

 

[Computer God Autism]

A blow to Judaism that we can never recover from.

You got your own ethnostate out of it.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

You got your own ethnostate out of it.

And endless public sympathy replete with laws making it illegal to say anything bad about them.

 

[Radola Gajda]

Kinda interesting video about tomb where bunch of mummies were dumped, if you can ignore few instances of libtard sperging.
Those damned anti vaxxers am I right fellas?
I will use BCE /CE and if you don't like it go and watch cat videos.
And few other cases.
Imo we know that late Egyptian dynasties turned to plundering of tombs . So imo what happened here is either on orders of pharaoh or some high official bunch of old tombs were opened, treasures were collected, Mummies taken out to strip them of everything valuable and after they were done with them. They just put them into single empty tomb .

 

[Joshua Cohen Mohnstein]

I don't think people should be afraid to point out when people are being intellectually dishonest, even if they're "le based". Just like how I don't think acknowledging bad shit has been done to Jews or using them as a scapegoat has also happened doesn't make you a zogbot or an IDF shabbo's goy if you're being intellectually honest. Being intellectually honest means trusting that another person is also engaging in good faith unless they're shown otherwise, I think if more people extended that grace, I don't think "da jooz" would be such a third-rail topic.

Both people being bad faith about Rabbinic Judaism and Jews being neurotic and thinking everyone is secretly antisemitic creates this radioactive negative feedback loop where even trying to engage honestly with the topic and history of Judaism becomes a third rail where you're one side or the other, and I think that's really annoying.

You'd think they'd be more upset about the Holocaust leading to Nuremburg trials and shit like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights essentially laying the groundwork for endless brown migration, globalism, the demonization of even the blandest of nationalism into KKK-Hitler-Fascism, and godless secular humanism. We don't get to have our own countries anymore because FDR turned away a boat of kikes 90 years ago.

But its always Israel, Israel, Israel. Jews = left-wing = anti-white = Israel, they say. If Israel was gone, things would be based and trad! Never mind odious jews like Magnus Hirschfield, Leon Trotsky, and Karl Marx died before the state even existed, or that opposition to Zionism amongst leftist jews has existed ever since its inception, or that anti-Israel jews still just as likely to, and have, pushed nation-rotting garbage into the collective culture, etc. etc.

It makes me wonder how much of the surge in antisemitism has been spread by Muslims, either by the rich ones buying influence or the millions now online (hundreds of millions of third-worlders have come online in recent years and online translation tools are more accessible and sophisticated than ever) associating their durka durka sandwar grievances with the countercultural anti-progressivism and anti-leftism of the 2020's in Europe and North America.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

You'd think they'd be more upset about the Holocaust leading to Nuremburg trials and shit like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights essentially laying the groundwork for endless brown migration, globalism, the demonization of nationalism, and godless secular humanism. We don't get to have our own countries anymore because FDR turned away a boat of kikes 90 years ago.

But its always Israel, Israel, Israel. Jews = left-wing = anti-white = Israel. Never mind odious jews like Magnus Hirschfield, Leon Trotsky, and Karl Marx died before the state even existed, or that opposition to Zionism amongst leftist jews has existed ever since its inception, or that anti-Israel jews still just as likely to, and have, pushed nation-rotting garbage into the collective culture, etc. etc.

It makes me wonder how much of the surge in antisemitism has been spread by Muslims, either by the rich ones buying influence or the millions now online (hundreds of millions of third-worlders have come online in recent years and online translation tools are even more accessible and sophisticated) associating their durka durka sandwar grievances with the countercultural anti-progressivism and anti-leftism of the 2020's in Europe and North America.

Things like what I highlighted are why I find it laughable people consider Churchill among globalism's architects because he was very anti-Islam and anti-India his whole life, considering he fought at Omdurman vs. Muslims and in northeast India against Sikh tribesmen (see My Early Life). It wouldn't surprise me if he heard horror stories about the Sepoy Mutiny as well as a young boy given he was part of the aristocracy and British military, considering he talks about India quite a bit in the same memoir.

Have had thoughts today that lefty politics in the 21st century are largely a cover for "anti-Christian and anti-white". Granted, they've been anti-Christian since Robespierre's time, but the white hate has been kicking up more lately.

 

[Joshua Cohen Mohnstein]

the white hate has been kicking up more lately.

It's because Marxist economics suck utter cock and the highly-anticipated "scientifically-proven" revolution prophesized by Marx never happened. The cultural path was the only way to go, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union. People stopped being so jealous of the rich when their material conditions improved without revolution, but browns, women, homos, and other members of the 'oppressed' will always be envious of the top dogs, Christian white men.

 

[Imperial Citizen]

You got your own ethnostate out of it.

The Haganah and Irgun were shooting at British soldiers before WW2. The Zionist project would have lived or died without the Holocaust.

But what I mean by an unrecoverable blow is the fact that the Jewish populations of entire regions and countries were wiped out. Half of all Jews lived in Europe. Now it’s less than 10%. Over a thousand years of traditions and cultures gone in less than a decade. Histories that we can never preserve. Burned away in a fucking krema.

An ethnostate can’t bring that back.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

The Haganah and Irgun were shooting at British soldiers before WW2. The Zionist project would have lived or died without the Holocaust.

But what I mean by an unrecoverable blow is the fact that the Jewish populations of entire regions and countries were wiped out. Half of all Jews lived in Europe. Now it’s less than 10%. Over a thousand years of traditions and cultures gone in less than a decade. Histories that we can never preserve. Burned away in a fucking krema.

An ethnostate can’t bring that back.

Not to mention said ethnostate was constantly having to watch it's neighbors who were, to put it lightly, not pleased about it's existence.

 

[Nonga Tork]

Whether or not Churchill had legitimate reasons for committing Britain to the war at all costs or was just following the prior two centuries of British strategy of trying to prevent a European hegemon (something that was going to fail inevitably because they also tried to monopolize colonization) is ultimately intangible to the actual results of the course he committed the British Empire to, which was inexorable geopolitical decline for not even short-term gain. Some of Churchill-hate is just /pol/tard edgelord Nazi worship, but pointing out that Britain did not benefit in either the short or long term from Churchill committing it to war even after France fell is legitimate criticism.

Britain was on a course of inexorable geopolitical decline by the time of WWII anyway, not fighting in WWII wouldn't change that. If you want to change that, you'd have to not have Britain get involved in WWI, or at the very least grant dominion status to India in the 1920s while the Indian elite were interested in maintaining some times to the British Empire rather than being set on total independence from Britain. Not fighting Hitler past 1940 would sacrifice a lot of good will towards Britain and British pride in exchange for what, the ability to do what France did and spend the saved blood and treasure fighting in colonial wars that inevitably end in defeat and the dissolution of the empire anyway?