History & Gaming. I've got a degree in history that I try to leverage to provide insightful content where I do my best to avoid some of the ignorant stuff I see elsewhere on RU-vid.
I try to hold myself to certain levels of decorum and respect, openness and general quality.
The Silent war of Wikipedia between standard editors and the fringe or comedy groups is honestly the goofiest shenanigans one can witness The Croat Fascists are an absurdity where in which you see both OKW and the Gestapo write letters to their superiors about how bad they were
*when showing pics of pre war Germany* “Does this look like a society that was about to commit one of the worst atrocities ever?” I mean they did so… yes. It has the same vibe as conspiracy theorists looking at something like the Egyptian pyramids or any other megalithic structures (easter island, Stonehenge, etc) and going “Theres no way these stones could have been moved and arranged in such a way naturally” even tho the proof is in the existence of the thing
*when showing pics of pre war Germany* “Does this look like a society that was about to commit one of the worst atrocities ever?” I mean they did so… yes. It has the same vibe as conspiracy theorists looking at something like the Egyptian pyramids or any other megalithic structures (easter island, Stonehenge, etc) and going “Theres no way these stones could have been moved and arranged in such a way naturally” even tho the proof is in the existence of the thing
diplomats are federal employee ass federal employees - specifically ambassadors are politically appointed. in my anecdotal personal experience as a foreign service brat i guess the officers lean democrat but like, very conservatively democrat
I enjoy Kraut, mostly because i haven't had as much time to explore and find other RU-vidrs like him, outside of Brains4Breakfast, but due to his passing, its been hard to find a replacement, so most of my view of this spectrum of entertainment is from Kraut or Lazerpig, and LP has his own personal issues in videos, so I appreciate Krauts lesser-seen faults being able to be shown
I liked kraut a lot more when he made stances against facism, and his videos in the rise of facism in Italy and japan. When he went towards sociology and anthropology videos it fell off very hard
Fascists - "We hate capitalism and communism" Also fascists - "We must protect the big businesses from failing and purge those nasty Bolsheviks from our lands!"
I hate to be petty but I can't stand the other guys voice. I don't understand how people could listen to hours of his content. I cringe just from the clips in this video. It's probably too mean and in poor taste to criticize someone's voice but they are popular, so some people must like it.
getting a prageru ad about “maoism with american features” taking over the country immediately after he quotes him is just the cherry on top of a shit sundae 35:19
Isnt your opening literally a logical fallacy? "What I say is supported by teachers therefore it's true",as much as "I studied it,therefore I know better". These are not arguments. I am not going to lie,I have watched many vids of the AltHist dude,but you going into "why my side needs to be respected and is definitely not right",along with "history making circles is stupid" while this phrase literally appears in many many many languages as a basic quote to remember from the elders,in all corners of the world ,makes me not think of your opinion highly mate. I am going to watch the rest of the video just to be sure,but you already lost me,not more than two minutes in
So you saying that muslim expansion into Europe was not a threat to european nations and that stuff like Spain being entirely conquered by arabs for a while or repeated oppressions and enslavement of christians didnt happened?
You are applying modern ideas and concepts to history. The idea of a nation didn't exist; unity within religion was almost nonexistent. "Muslims" didn't conquer Spain, that frames it as muslims vs christians, it was just conquered.
Zeittelman rejects the idea that imperialism in National Socialism comes from "capitalism": "What speaks against such an interpretation is, as we have shown above, the argument that H**ler roundly rejected the exploitation of these sources of raw materials in the service of private profit interests and advocated instead that the economy of the East should be organized by the state from the very beginning. What should at least be noted is that H**ler, as his refusal to industrialize Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export which was characteristic for the phase of monopoly capitalism." -Zeittelman, "Hitler’s policies of Seduction", page 286 Hitler himself also absoleutly hated capitalism as he thought that it was part of an "international Jewish conspiracy" to destroy the world. So, even if National Socialism failed to implement socialism, it’s not because National Socialism is capitalism, it’s because Hitler was a failure. Quote from Hitler himself: "<…> capital is international, as the only one on this earth which is at all international, it is international because its holders, the Jews, are international because of their being spread all over the world. And here everyone should actually already throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, if this capital is international because its holders, the Jews, are spread internationally all over the world, then it must be insanity to think that one will be able to fight this capital of the same members of this race internationally." Hi**er literally thought that capitalism was Jewish.
"Look, this guy using 'The Anti-M*slim Inner Circle' as his source, clearly he is biased" Two citation later in the video: "Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors" 🤨
"I personally like to joke around Russians are Mongols or Tatars, like German are Huns, French are Germanic barbarians, Castilians are Moors, etc, but anyone who legitimately thinks Russian civilization descent from the Golden Horde is disillusioned. I’m from Spain, but there’s more arguments our society descend from Moors societies than Russia does for Mongols. It’s called the Black Legend. Russia is slandered and to extension Mongolia because Dutch, French, German, Polish, and Ukrainian nationalists use Mongolia as a clear lesser to attack the Russian nation. Kraut uses old Western European theories, such as ones originating in Netherlands, to view Russian history. It started out as political/cultural until it got into racial during the late 19th century to early 20th century. That’s when the “horde blood” was used to explain the actions of the Russian and East Slavic nations. These are the undertones. Kraut’s causal racism into a “history” video will be believed because many of his viewers are barely knowledgeable about European history. I can do the same: the origins of French centralism = Germanic Barbarian invasions. The origins of German militarism = Godless Pagans. The origins of Spanish statism = Moor Conquest." I copy and pasted this from r/mongolia and I couldn't have stated much better than this actually educated and unbiased Spanish individual.
thank you fredda for recommending me "The Landscape of History". It is actually easy to understand. Clear sentences and good metaphor. Definitely gonna finish it.
Rudyard became internet famous too early and has never got over child level thinking. But you are doing a video about him without knowing anything about him so I think you're worse.
My guy made a video saying Pax video is false, but ended up making a video that literally didnt show one thing wrong with Pax video. 😂 i literally just wasted 35 minutes of my time listening to this.
I think something that a lot of people don't really think about when it comes to modern imperialism versus more historic forms of conquest is scale and time frame. Just because of geographic and technological limitations, you could not conquer groups at the same scale as you could at the modern day, nor could you do it over as quick a Time frame. This sort of "slow conquest" I think it led to a lot more cultural fusion between groups, especially since the Conquered groups would have to necessarily retain much more autonomy just because of the physical distances involved in ruling. Even the largest empire is like the Romans had to subdivide it into much smaller parts managed at lower levels. You wouldn't just see Northern Europeans sailing down to Africa and conquering coastal regions, historically it probably would have been Northern Europeans conquering Southern europeans, who would then help to conquer North africa, who would then help to conquer central Africa, and despite northern Europe being where the heads of state were, all of these regions were semi-autonomous from each other allowing the native groups to still preserve cultural traditions while incorporating the new ones from the conquering culture. Borders are relatively blurry and flexible, existing local leaders might still be in place even if they're paying tribute to an imperial ruler, etc. None of this is to defend the morality of course, it is still conquest after all, but I think it's important to note that historical conquest allow these groups to retain much more autonomy and individuality than modern colonialism. This is why you don't see indigeneity is a concept until more recent times historically. Modern imperialism is unique because it happened so quickly that it creates Stark divides between the colonized and colonizer groups, in addition to the imperial Nations being able to much more directly manage their imperial holdings.
Well im not that well versed on his ideologies or politics but i do enjoy his cover of battles, logistics, or war in general. So this video is interesting.
I think it's very funny that he didn't talk about the EZLN in his Mexico video. Gee I wonder if it's because the Zapatista uprising raises important questions about whether Liberal Economic Globalization is always good.
Leave aside Pax Tube, any allegiances and subjective opinions. Take it like this: if you are thrown out of your house unlawfully, forcefully, without ANY guilt of your own, DON'T you want to take it back? This is literally the reason the Crusades into the Middle East started. Christians wanted their rightful lands returned to them.
take it like this : an armed religious lunatic comes to you house and tells you that because his family lived in seed house in the 1600s and he is now going forcefully evict you from your home. do you think he is in the right?
Except European Catholic crusaders never owned the house. For hundreds of years prior it was the indigenous Assyrian, Aramean, Phoenician, Chaldean, Arab and Persian Christians who lived their and had their own beliefs like Miaphysitism and Nestorianism that were regarded as high heresy by the western Churches. Why do you think North Africa and Egypt fell so quickly to the Muslims? After being oppressed by Byzantium for their Miaphysite or Donatist or Arian-like flavours of Christianity, they were very much welcoming this new religion that let them practice their old religion for a bit of taxation.
@@theokrayou are aware, that it is a historical fact, that the arab-muslim expansion in the middle east was in its largest parts a military conquest? Do you belief, that anyone non Muslim is buying, that Islam is a religion of peace? Why was it so fast in its expansion? Because people were forced to convert. Maybe someday Muslims start to admit and reflect on the wrongdoings, mistakes and atrocities done in the Name of Islam, like Christians and other religions do. That would really help.
Something funny He says the Army is non-college educated (which is true in many but not all cases) But also mentions Army Officers, who by and large have degrees.
