>>17967442
Nah

He can't be any worse than Anton Shay.. Aton Shay? Whatever that faggots name is

>Reads David Irving's books from the 1970s.
>Finds out Churchill was in debt to a random jew
>"omg this is craaazy"
>Makes an entire YouTube channel around this fact
>Makes a ton of money

Honestly he's just a grifter. All he does is making videos on Irving's 'Hitlers War' and then repackage it like its unveiled secret lore newsflash that's going to change the entire narrative on ww2, pretends like Churchill was a God emperor dictator with ultimate power to influence every aspect of British politics in order to maximize the jew-debt discovery in Irvings book, while simultaneously tells his audience in the beginning of every video "not to overthink it".

I'm confident he's also a straight up faggot nazi irl who fully believes Hitler dindu nuffin, but you also gotta give him some credit to be able of milking this cow he's found, while also dodging the YouTube banhammer despite pressure from the reddit mob.

In the end he has made a ton of money from a bunch of retards so I guess good for him?

>>17967442
I can excuse being a pretentious wehraboo, his biggest sin is creating insanely boring content. If you're going to suck Hitler off then for the love of God at least make it interesting.

>>17967442
that filipino guy who larps as nazi tradcath is worse but yeah he is close second

>>17967442
I think he's right that Churchill was a ridiculously incompetent leader that destroyed Britain's empire, he just doesn't attribute this same incompetence to Chamberlain who is equally as guilty

File: IMG_4200.jpg (435 KB, 1355x1996)

435 KB JPG

>>17967602
>that filipino guy who larps as nazi tradcath

Which one?

>>17967442
Certainly a contender. Prime example of someone who uses history as a tool to further an agenda instead of studying it independent from his own biases. He should go back to making fifa videos, would be infinitely more entertaining.

>>17967442
By chud standards he's fairly milquetoast

>>17967442
Zoomer 'Histrorian' is not a historian. He just repeats verbatim people like David Irving and never once critically evaluates his sources. If he did, then he'd know that some of Irving's books, such as his one on Dresden, are pure bullshit.

P.S. If you want get on a Holocaust denier's nerves, just deny that Dresden ever happened. Photos? Fake. Testimonies? Fabricated. Records? Phoney.

>>17967442
Who is this

>>17967442
No (he’s still bad though)

>>17967611
Pretty much every historian agrees that Churchill was a disaster in terms of military aspects of the war.
He literally prolonged the North Africa campaign by 2 more years by sending everything to Greece when Connor was about to capture Tripoli.
He also botched Gazala by forcing his generals to be on the offensive, and then demanded Tobruk to be held when it should have been evacuated, leading to nearly 40.000 captured Commonwealth forces.
He scorned Wavell for the East Africa campaign despite it was perfectly executed, because he thought it should have been won sooner even if it meant twice as many British casualties.
He was a major reason why North Africa was so sluggish, because he forced his generals to command half of the globe. It wasn't until Montgomery that Churchill limited their field of responsibility to just the North Africa front.
He also botched Norway in early 1940, but somehow managed to deflect it on Chamberlain.

This goes hand in hand with his own catastrophic resume from ww1.

Zoomer Historian doesn't attack this though. His whole shtick is to insinuate that Churchill was controlled by the jews because he had a debt to one jew (who wasn't even politically aligned), and then continues to insinuate that Churchill controlled the entire British political system unto waging war against their will, simply because Churchill wanted it.

>>17967767
He has a point tho. Nazi chuds don't realise that they couldn't prove a single genocide in history by their own definition of acceptable evidence.

If the holocaust wasn't real then I contest that the Communists ever killed anyone either.

File: IMG_4472.png (1.5 MB, 737x1346)

1.5 MB PNG

>>17967467

Atun-shill? Yeah he’s a Communist faggot. With any hope, he’ll end up like Malcolm Caldwell.

>>17967611

The British Empire has been stagnating since the 1870s at the minimum and been in decline from 1914 onward. WWII just sped up the process.

>>17967766
>Pretty much every historian agrees that Churchill was a disaster in terms of military aspects of the war

Churchill was definitely something of an amateur when it came to strategy, but politically, he was invaluable to the Allied cause. Had he been PM in 1938 instead of that degenerate coward Chamberlain, things might not have spiraled out of control as they did. I doubt he would have passed up on an opportunity such as the Oster conspiracy to get rid of Hitler bloodlessly.

>>17967631
>>17967726

Honestly Zoomer’s opinions don’t particularly aggravate me because they’re basically rehashes of David Irving’s shit takes and they’re pretty tame as far as Neo-Nazi propaganda goes. It’s his continuous insistence that he’s “just reporting the facts” before immediately spewing a bunch of conjecture that pisses me off because of how brazenly dishonest it is.

Simple History is, but Zoomer Historian is a close second.

>>17967820
What pisses me off is his justification for Germany's invasion of Poland. You REALLY need a solid ground to justify this on because Germany comes off as a warmongering psychopath if the Polish campaign is not properly justified. And his justification as to why Germany knowingly plunged Europe into a permanently, irrecovably destructive war is to repeat a blatant lie that Poles massacred Germans in the Polish corridor, a claim that David Irving denies as total propaganda meant to justify a war to reclaim ethnic and historic German territory. Everything else comes off as completely dishonest because its from the POV of a poor wittle Germany that was always at fault for everything

>>17967866
always not at fault for everything* my bad

>>17967766
Churchill was a disaster in all aspects. Regardless on whether or not you think Germany needed to be stopped, the war absolutely destroyed the British Empire and with it, Britain's global relevancy. Any leader that completely squanders your global influence is objectively a shit leader that deserves nothing except repudiation. Also he starved all of those jeets

File: FB_IMG_1756309907248.jpg (61 KB, 1018x973)

61 KB JPG

>>17967820
>Had he been PM in 1938 instead of that degenerate coward Chamberlain, things might not have spiraled out of control as they did.
Ah yes the famous 'appeasement myth', largely created by Churchill himself to make himself look good, especially when he was running for office again in the 1950s.
Churchill tried to sell the idea that everything would have been so much better if everyone had just listened to Mr Churchill from the start.

Fact is that Chamberlain actually played his card extremely well because no one wanted war in 1938 and Chamberlain would have been in no position to oppose Hitler if Hitler did go to war, and we dont know what kind of chaos that would have spiraled if war did happen. The Soviets for example were already then playing with the idea of sending the red army into Europe to "aid" the Czechs.
The Oster conspiracy was just a conspiracy (at the time, not with hindsight) and the British never trusted the fate of Europe to it.

The problem with this debate is that it's always with hindsight. We know what the nazies did and would do, so when we read history we tend to think "wow why didn't these morons stop the nazies earlier". But the truth is that in 1938 neither Hitler nor his Germany appeared extraordinarily wicked, a lot of their arguments made sense, and their ambitions appeared to be limited. Their moral actions did not seems particularly malicious.
Chamberlain was dealt with bad cards because he inherited a pacifist country and a economically stagnated Europe. The Munich agreement was the right decision to corner Hitler from further demands, or to otherwise reveal Hitler as a warmongerer who needed to be confronted.
Churchill was just spewing bullshit because he had no responsibility at the time and could thus say whatever he wanted without repercussions, but the truth is Churchill would also have had his hands tied in 1938. In fact, he may have given Hitler a betted moral highground than Chamberlain actually managed pull away.

>>17967832
>He really doesn't. The very existence of Holocaust denial *laws* throughout Europe render the Holocaust a fabrication by default.
Nope it doesn't. Pretty much every genocide has denial laws against them where it took place. Be it Armenia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Cambodia etc.

There's a lot of basis to doubt the >Holocaust narrative. By comparison, there is very little basis to doubt that communists murdered tens of millions and fabricated the Holocaust.
This is basically just you seething over the fact that thr Holocaust is used as a moral club by the left and the media, which is insufferable, but it doesn't disprove it.

Again, how are you going to prove any genocide using your own definition of acceptable evidence. Go on, I'm waiting.

>>17967467
He does WWII now? I only know him for dressing up as a confederate and making strawman arguments for himself to debunk

File: hqdefault.jpg (36 KB, 480x360)

36 KB JPG

>>17967442

>>17967887
Ok and?
Britain decision to continue the war was a decision taken by the nation, not by Churchill alone, which is what Zoomer Historian insinuate in virtually every video that touches on the subject. He deliberately ignores the basic fundamentals principles of parliamentarism, and paints Churchill as some sort of godlike dictator who took everyone to war against their interests.

This is in stark contrast to Hitler who was a dictator, and who did not have to answer to anyone for his decisions.

>>17967442
I don't even know who you're talking about. you should probably get some sun and touch some grass

>>17967904
>quoting southern politicians, officers, soldiers and government documents is strawman
/pol/ isn't sending its best folks

>>17967911
>But what about the genocide of turkmenistan by the Mongols in 13th century !!???

Kill yourself faggot.
You basically agree that the communists did nothing wrong because you can't prove it happened.

Can you also prove German women were raped in 1945? We all know women typically lie the night after right? Can't trust witnesses. Do you have any signed reports? Show them.

You were also wrong about all the other genocides because denying the Armenian genocide I'm Armenia is criminalized, as is denying the Rwanda genocide in Rwanda or the Khmer genocide in Cambodia.

File: images.png (7 KB, 212x238)

7 KB PNG

>>17967940
>Unable to prove any communist genocide.
Not sure if you're a nazifag or a CCP tankie.

>>17967726
>P.S. If you want get on a Holocaust denier's nerves
looks like you hooked one ITT lol

>>17967944
Funny how Zoomer Historian donators always wants to talk about the holocaust despite the fact that Zoomer Historian himself avoids the topic like the plague.

You dont want to talk about his actual content, you just want to dive straight into the holocaust denial field.

You know what. Fuck it. It never happened. And Hitler was kinda based for financing zionism and sheltering German jew citizens in camps while sending ethnic Germans to die in the frozen wasteland. So much for your messiah who apparently knew more about the Jewish plot for world domination than you do, yet did nothing.

>>17967955
Yeah your counter argument was that we should seethe that the Mongol invasion of Central Asia in 12th century isn't listed as a genocide. Very compelling argument.

I like how you continue to run away from the debate on communist genocide as soon as you're pressed on showing evidence. It's oathetic, and yet you believe it happened just because historians says so.
/pol/ isn't sending their best ro turn/his/ into their backyard.

>>17967956
>in camps
Not even camps, they were spa resorts.

>>17967975
>Everyone who don't suck Hitlers dick must be a jew
What causes this?

>>17967956
>yet did nothing.
worse, he actively helped da joos take over by killing off the strongest EVROPEAN men, allowed the slavic untermensch to rape EVROPE, and made any sort of ethnonationalism a completely forbidden topic among EVROPEANS

>>17967820
>It’s his continuous insistence that he’s “just reporting the facts” before immediately spewing a bunch of conjecture that pisses me off because of how brazenly dishonest it is.

We see this behavior on /his/ as well. Hitler fanboys are a bunch of subversive rats who knowingly cherrypicks facts that confirms their narrative.
They are perfectly aware of this, yet do it anyway.

>>17967442
You are brown

>>17967442
I love him because he pretty obviously has a bias and agenda, but claims that he has none with a disclaimer at the start of every video. Leftists/libs/the general historical academic establishment also have pretty extreme biases but they dress theirs up and come up with massive cope sessions about why they are actually purely rational and empirical in their analyses. It's a clever, if somewhat played out, rhetorical trick and he has earned my respect for that.

>>17967820
>Had he been PM in 1938 instead of that degenerate coward Chamberlain, things might not have spiraled out of control as they did.


More sensible people have pointed out that Great Britain was in no position to contend with Germany, other than through a naval blockade at that point.
Chamberlain didn't just do the Albion thing on account of his genetic inclinations, he literally did not have the means to oppose Hitler.

>>17967442
I don't give a fuck about retards who unironically use zoomer as their nicknames

>>17968634
Historians emphasize more on the fact that there was no public/parlament support for confronting Germany in 1938, rather than the lack of military means to do so.
Germany was not seen as aggressively ambitious or dangerous yet. Many resonated with Hitlers arguments.
Chamberlain needed better ground to draw a line in the sand, so the Munich agreement was meant to corner Hitler because it was going to be "peace in our time", which would then severely expose Hitler as a warmongerer that needed to be confronted if Hitler continued.
The bottom line is that Chamberlain purposely portrayed himself as naive to build up public support (and obviously more time for British rearmament). Chamberlain also suspected thar Hitlers ambitions wasn't just confined to the Sudetenland, but to dominate all of Czechia. Munich pulled the rug on him.

History has done Chamberlain dirty largely thanks to Churchill because Chamberlain was dead and couldn't defend himself from accusations. Churchill was extremely good at making pompous speeches about romanticized battle when Churchill did manage to win, and building up a cult of personality around himself. It's a myth that still lived strong even today.
Even the Rommel myth was created largely by the British (and Churchill in particular) to cover for their own catastrophic fuckups by trying to paint Rommel as some AAA star general.

I don't hate Churchill or even personally resent him, but I think the modern assessment on Churchill is fairly accurate. He was a typical politician who liked to glorify and lie, as politicians often do, and we've embraced a distorted 'larger-than-life' image of Churchill instead of seeing the man he actually was.

That also goes for nazi stormfaggots, although they've taken the normie image of Churchill and spun it to the other end; that he was the demigod normies view him as, but that he by that merit singlehandedly steered Britain into its doom for the sake of Jewish will.

>>17968903
>we've embraced a distorted 'larger-than-life' image of Churchill instead of seeing the man he actually was.
John Lukacs seems to buy into it

>>17968575
Name me one historian (actual historian) who tell their audience not to think about what they're getting spoonfed, as zoomer historian does in every video.
If anything historians emphasize that you must not take things at face value but instead use critical thinking with reason and logic.

What zoomer historian does is probably thr most blatant propaganda possible.
The fact that he even names his videos "The Complete History of ..." is another example because the title of the video now suggests that this is the best and final source if information, and that no other information or perspective needs to be added. You simply only need to watch this video.

He also likes to use describing words when he talks about something, for maximal emotional manipulation on his viewers, also something historians refrain themselves from doing because it's dishonest and manipulation, not presenting objective history.

>>17968911
I said modern assessment, but you obviously have reading disability.

All this revisionism shit caused more trouble to huwhite nationalism than before.

>>17968921
Sorry I wasn't disagreeing with you. My fingers are hurting from cryotherapy. I just wanted to get your opinion on him..

File: FPS main character template.png (1.1 MB, 1536x1024)

1.1 MB PNG

>>17967911
>There's no law against me denying the genocide of the Native Americans.
Crackers get triggered whenever you remind them that their family physiognomy is distinct and enduring.

>>17968903
>Even the Rommel myth was created largely by the British (and Churchill in particular) to cover for their own catastrophic fuckups by trying to paint Rommel as some AAA star general.
The British ran away so fast that the Germans had to invent Blitzkrieg on the spot just to have a chance to potentially keep up.

>>17968916
Having spent extensive time in academia I can tell you full stop that the cold and rational analysis crucial to good historiography fuckin explodes the moment the French revolution happens. It is usually completely gone by the time we get to the 20th century, with strictures being laid out as to what are acceptable narratives, let alone accounts of events. These follow no clear path other than complete and total obedience to very certain historical narratives, it creates a strange case where both pop history and academic papers have almost a 1:1 congruence, with academia just being more granular.

>>17969663
no /pol/tard, not sucking off hitler is not
>complete and total obedience to very certain historical narratives

>>17969693
it's like you didn't even read my post

Who are the best YouTube /his/torians?

File: Indiana_Neidell_Korean_Wa(...).jpg (2.68 MB, 2959x3317)

2.68 MB JPG

>>17969743
Pic related

File: ove3nhjyb4n21.jpg (56 KB, 750x630)

56 KB JPG

>>17969747
smiling albert kesselring

>>17969747
I really like him, the other series I'm not as big a fan of, Indy just does it the best.

File: He-Man Action Belt Toy on(...).png (128 KB, 910x1300)

128 KB PNG

>>17969663
>Having spent extensive time in academia I can tell you full stop that the cold and rational analysis crucial to good historiography fuckin explodes the moment the French revolution happens.
In any case, we gotta return to the standards set by Roman & Biblical historiography.

File: bce9dc679f450b87735731a77(...).jpg (2.2 MB, 3264x1842)

2.2 MB JPG

>>17967467
They both represent the two polar ends of youtube partisan slop. Antifag breadtuber slop and neo-nazi /pol/ slop

File: surprised anne.png (69 KB, 246x252)

69 KB PNG

>>17968634
>More sensible people have pointed out that Great Britain was in no position to contend with Germany, other than through a naval blockade at that point.

Considering that Germany had yet to negotiate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the USSR, that would have been utterly devastating to Germany's economy, especially if they were trapped in a protracted ground war with the Czechs.

>>17967890
>>17968903

Apart from the fact that signing away another country's sovereignty (after they appealed to YOU for help) is appalling in its own right, Munich only served to to both embolden Hitler into believing that he could continue gobbling up territory and that France and Britain wouldn't have the balls to oppose him, and provided him unfettered access to the Czech military-industrial complex, which gave him with the means to actually do it.

So no, Chamberlain still isn't getting any sympathy from me, no matter how much 4-D chess he thought he was playing.

>But the truth is that in 1938 neither Hitler nor his Germany appeared extraordinarily wicked, a lot of their arguments made sense, and their ambitions appeared to be limited. Their moral actions did not seems particularly malicious.

By the time of the Munich Crisis, Hitler had already

>murdered hundreds of political opponents in the Night of the Long Knives (including some of the prominent politicians of Weimar Republic, one of whom had previously been head of state) and imprisoned thousands more
>thrown the Treaty of Versailles into the shredder
>was waging a very bloody proxy war in Spain
>annexed Austria after overthrowing its government in a state-sponsored coup

To say no one could see where this man was going is absurd, they just didn't want to.

>>17969743

>WWII

Mark Felton, TIK, Timothy Snyder

>Maritime History

Oceanliner Designs, Big Old Boats, Brick Immortar

>RMS Titanic

Historic Travels

>Biographies

People Profiles

>WTF moments in general

Count Dankula

>>17969878
>>WWII
>Mark Felton
Hitler's Navel Floss.

>>17969878
>Apart from the fact that signing away another country's sovereignty (after they appealed to YOU for help) is appalling in its own right, Munich only served to to both embolden Hitler into believing that he could continue gobbling up territory and that France and Britain wouldn't have the balls to oppose him, and provided him unfettered access to the Czech military-industrial complex, which gave him with the means to actually do it.

>So no, Chamberlain still isn't getting any sympathy from me, no matter how much 4-D chess he thought he was playing.

Your criticism comes from a different angle though. Not from the "he was just naive and le stupid" like Churchill tried to sell, but that Chamberlain was acting on cold self-interest of Britain's foreign policy where he successfully outmanouvered Hitler to gain the moral highground for a confrontation while robbing Hitler of the opportunity to wage war on Czechodlovskia and potentially bring the entire state under the German fold under a just war for Sudetenland.

Your criticism is also heavily influenced by hindsight which you should acknowledge, because you yourself know who Hitler was and what he would do, but no one in 1938 did. Chamberlains main priority was to roadblock Hitler from further territory and Chamberlain did not know whether he was dealing with a Gorbachev-sequence kind of Hitler, or a PolPot-esque kind of Hitler. He found out what kind of Hitler he was dealing with and with Hitler taking czechia, he had just created what Chamberlain needed: justification and public opinion (along with armament rediness).

So again, Churchill could not have gone to war in 1938 even if he had wanted to, and we cam also speculate that he may have botched Britaind maneuverability to do so if he acted too rashly.

>>17969878
>murdered hundreds of political opponents in the Night of the Long Knives (including some of the prominent politicians of Weimar Republic, one of whom had previously been head of state) and imprisoned thousands more
>thrown the Treaty of Versailles into the shredder
>was waging a very bloody proxy war in Spain
>annexed Austria after overthrowing its government in a state-sponsored coup

I guess I'll play the devils advocate here by "defending" Hitler ( my main point is that the common views on Churchill are distorted, just so we're on the same page), because I will say this:
The actions that Hitlers government had done prior to Munich wasn't as shocking to the people at the time, as it may appears to us in 2025 with complete hindsight to who Hitler was.
The Nuremberg laws wasn't much different from the apartheid system in many British dominions or American racial segregation
The NS racial fixation wasn't that different from Sweden having a racial hygiene institution etc.
The night of the long knives wasn't more shocking than British troops firing into the people leading a crowd of protestors in India, such as the Amritsar massacre, or Britain being closely allied with fascist states like Portugal that used murder to consolidate their rule. Likewise can be said of American allies during the cold war, despite America styling themselves as a beacon of world freedom and democracy
I'm not trying to justify any of this by the way, I'm just arguing the perspective of cold geopolitical nature of the world

As for Versailles, most British politicians regarded it as unjust. This sentiment began almost immediately after the treaty was signed. Many sympathized with Hitlers arguments and many more heavily questioned why Britain should risk conflict to enforce it
This actually defends Chamberlain as a man who understood that versailles needed to be enforced, but had inherited a nation with the opposite opinion, so he had to maneuver against Hitler based on this premise

File: 1756840122174211.jpg (76 KB, 680x539)

76 KB JPG

>>17967726
As a holocaust denier I am completely and uncontrollably outraged by this post

>>17967442
No, it is Kings and Generals.
You dont like him because of his politics but his videos are well researched heterodox perspectives on WWII and the SCW.
>>17967560
>>17967573
>Hitler bad
daring today arent we?

>>17967766
>His whole shtick is to insinuate that Churchill was controlled by the jews because he had a debt to one jew (who wasn't even politically aligned), and then continues to insinuate that Churchill controlled the entire British political system unto waging war against their will, simply because Churchill wanted it.
He doesnt actually do this.
You have gleaned this because this is a strawman used against people who post HERE and then it is retroactively applied because the people who get into debates here think Zoomer Historian is the origin of the Churchill re-evaluation.

Zoomer Historian doesnt really talk that much about Churchill all things considered, his channel is more centered on the untold stories of Germany's side.

The re-evaluation of Churchill comes from Alt-Hype who has been doing it for years.
Academic Agent who has been doing this for five years.
Daryl Cooper who came about around the same time as ZH.

You didnt know Alt Hype did this, if you even remember him.
You didnt know AA did this, he's too obscure.
Maybe you've heard of Daryl Cooper because hes on X.

But all of this to say, (You) dont actually where or when this conversation was and is being had.
That is why you are taking shots at ZH who made 1 (one) video about Churchill a year ago.

>>17967726
>P.S. If you want get on a Holocaust denier's nerves, just deny that Dresden ever happened. Photos? Fake. Testimonies? Fabricated. Records? Phoney.
This gets on the nerves of everyone because it immediately shuts down serious discussion.
>there can be no serious discussion questioning the holocaust
why the fuck not?
They do it in China, that Chinese professor does it today in Canada, they did it at Yale, they used to do it on American talk shows.
You are in this bizarre echo chamber where you have never heard any of the arguments against the holocaust slander.

>records
im glad you mentioned this
What official records do we have of the holocaust?

>>17967797
>but what about
who cares?
>nazi chuds
where?
>couldnt prove a single genocide in history
The Gaza genocide is the most well documented genocide in history, maybe topped by White genocide.
These are both provable in ways the holocaust is not.
Furthermore we have evidence contraindicating the stories of the holocaust and the fact the holocaust myth comes from unreliable people such as the Communists in the Red Army.
>communists didnt kill anyone
1, no one cares.
2, communists arent some great evil, only boomers think that.
(You), because you are obsessed with nazis, think that nazis are obsessed with communists.
They arent.

>>17967934
>>But what about the genocide of turkmenistan by the Mongols in 13th century !!???
who are you quoting?
He said the Whites in Haiti and the Native Americans.

>>17967866
>warmongering psychopath
because they were irredentists?
You are delulu. The Poles were irredentists and won their land by conquest.
The Soviets were irredentists and won their land by conquest.
The French were irredentists and won their land by conquest.
Why the special standard for Germany?
>not properly justified
What does this even mean?
Was Poland justified in revolting against Germany?
Was Poland justified in taking Ciesyn?
Was Lithuania justified in taking Memel?
Was France justified in Taking Alsace-Lorraine?
what about the UK in Palestine?
Are these justified?
Its debatable and the main point here is this, nothing Germany did was out of character or unique given the time, place, and circumstances.
>blatant lie
not a lie, read Unz Review, its been proven.
>poor wittle Germany
Germany was the country most wronged by its neighbors and if we are tallying up diplomatic grievances Germany has the most.

Why even go through this? Why not just say "I dont like Germans because my people have historically fought against Germans and I am an ethnic nationalist."?
We could respect that, but this "NO NO NO GERMANY IS ATTACKING THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER" not only is that dishonest its really fucking gay.

>>17967442
I love how triggered trannies are that they have to make a whole thread about him

>>17967442
the wojak avatar is a redflag.

>>17970409
>Why the special standard for Germany
Because Germany has promised they wouldn't conquer any more land. Multiple times.

File: No_entrance_for_poles1.jpg (76 KB, 420x282)

76 KB JPG

>>17970409
>Why the special standard for Germany?
Genociding Jews
Destorying the whole state of Polish nation
Claiming that the Poles are subuhmans that shouldn't be allowed higher education and only be useful as slaves simply becasue they speak Polish
Murdering 100k teachers, priests, intellectuals, civic officials, and the upper classes in 39/40
Attempt to destory a whole nation by starvation, murder, and forced expulsion to Siberia
Attempt to destroy Warsaw (over 1 m city back then) to make a diffrent city for Germans only
and many others but there is a limit to how the post big can get

And it's only from Polish perspective, I don't remember Poles or French doing anything like that to Germany
I hope unhonest rats like you will eat a bullet someday, your level of insincerity and hollowness is disgusting, you are like a Jew in your beloved nazi propaganda but x100 worse

>>17967614
Pax something, i don't really remember

>>17969743
i have yet to find a ww2 channel that's above the level of history channel schlock. at best you'll find lectures from 10+ years ago on specific topics

>>17967442
>>17967467
>>17967602
Who the heck are these people

>>17968706
/thread

Like seriously, Millennials don't remind the world what gen they belong to on a daily basis, why should we tolerate Z's constantly doing that?

>>17971441
>Genociding Jews
Shitler didn't kill a single kike, he was just mindraped by Slavs and thus the savior of muh white race killed more White people, because Slavs aren't white or smth.

>>17970381
LOL
what a fucking wasted post.
Do you want me to link a dozen of videos by Zoomer Historian where he talks about Churchill being the driving force in almost all turn of events that leads to war? Or how thr continuation of the war only came to be because Churchill willed it and because he was being paid to do so?
His debt is constantly mentions in every opportunity as the primary motivation dör everything Churchill does.

Daryl Cooper said Churchill was a villain because he wanted to keep the war going. Sure, you could argue that, cold geopolitics is often very immoral and Britain was prepared to go all the way just to win.
Zoomer historian describes Churchill as being literally puppet mastered, and has nearly godlike powers to singlehandedly steered Britain.

>>17967899
>the Holocaust in Canada

>>17969752
>>17969747
This guy and his show would be great if they didn’t fly into rage spirals about the nazis in every episode. This guy’s rage tirades makes me have to fast forward looking for where he gets back to the story, it’s impossible to comfortably sit down and watch.

>>17971646
Yes, link exactly 12 of them.
You cant because there arent 12, you vastly overplay zoomer historian as a strawman and it doesnt even work because nothing he says is actually wrong, you just dislike that he overemphasizes jewish influence in British politics.

>>17971441
>genociding jews
Now post something that isnt historical revisionism.
>destroying the whole state of Polish nation
ESL, Poland wasnt destroyed, they wouldnt surrender and accept a peace deal where Germans would leave Poland so what are the Germans supposed to do? just leave a hostile region they expended blood and treasure to subdue?
Let the Poles continue a war against Germany unabated?
What's the answer here if your enemy wont surrender?
>claiming Poles are subhumans
There isnt actually any evidence this was official policy. We have Official NSDAP policy and it stated Poles are an Aryan subrace. Rein's Race and Culture of our Ancestors was their official policy, this is where it is stated Poles are an Aryan group.

Americans all the time call non-Whites various things, Republicans and Democrats alike both believe browns are inferior (they never say it out loud) but their official stance is extremely pro-non-White.
Germany was very likely similar in that you had an obvious underclass with a lower IQ, more anti social behaviors, and less capability for high HDI, which was an unspoken truth, but the official policy wasnt anti-Polish at all.
The most anti-Polish action took place literally during a war with the Poles so obviously its going to be against the Poles.
Rest of your post is unsubstantiated garbage that wouldnt pass in a modern court.

>>17971392
They didnt conquer any land and Germany never "promised they wouldnt conquer".
Also grow the fuck up.
>DEY PROMISED
yeah and NATO promised no more new entries, then half the former Warsaw pact joins, Missiles on the border of Russia, NATO troops engaging in proxy wars with Russian and Chinese troops in Africa and West Asia.

wow, its almost like geopolitics is conducted by people over the age of 12.

>>17971668
Describe this Jewish influence in British politics.

>>17971678
Remember this post when anon starts screaming about others being perfidious.

>muh russia
>muh nato

There it is.

>>17971679
Much like Britain and the United States today, organized ethnic lobbies hold outsized political influence due to being more organized than the disorganized ethnic majority.
According to Mark Sykes "The jews are the most powerful lobby in Britain, they run every media outlet and every courtroom."
According to Winston Churchill "The assassination of Walter Guinness was suppressed by the jewish media."
Chaim Weizmann was an extremely influential jew in British politics at the time being able to completely direct the British policy in Palestine from London despite the protests of the Arab political leadership who were avowed allies of the British.


What evidence would you need to see to admit jews had more influence than they were warranted in British politics?

>>17971681
>NO NO NO POLITICS MUST BE CONDUCTED BY FOUR YEAR OLDS
dilate tranny.
the moralizing is by far the most retarded case against Hitler.
No one gives a fuck about morality anymore, too many people have died, we know we are being lied to everyday, you lost three elections, cant even slow down a genocide, and you're about to see a fascist police state because you couldnt stop morality policing people.
now the boomers have been activated, played like a fiddle, and you unwittingly dug everyone's grave.

When America becomes a fascist superstate (not a based one but an anti-European anti-human, pro-jewish one) its YOUR fault.

>>17971692
>muh trannies

>>17969747
Would be good if not for his MacArthur Derangement Syndrome.

>>17971693
You are anti-tranny?

>>17971676
neck yourself krautloving subhuman and release your whore mother fromt he burden of having to sustain you
nazis slaughter millions and attempted to genocide whole nations and you are spending your neet days praising them, you are such a piece of shit it's not even funny, i hope whatever conspiracy you believe about white genocide is true and black arabs or whatever will slowly skin alive your whole family vermin

>>17971804
Having a melty?

>>17971853
not worse than helga's 5y old pussy in berlin 45

>>17971668
I've already found 4 videos where he talks about Churchill being the driving force for war and that Churchill did so because he was being controlled. Before i link the videos I want to know whether you dispute zoomer historian doing this or not. Does zoomer historian say this or not?

>>17971792
>muh trannies

>>17971676
>There isnt actually any evidence this was official policy.

LMAO.
Every fucking book on ww2 describes how Hitler regarded slavs as subhuman and how Poles were treated worse than colonial subjects during the occupation.

>Poland wasnt destroyed, they wouldnt surrender and accept a peace deal where Germans would leave Poland so what are the Germans supposed to do?
Norway and Netherlands never sued for peace either, yet they were treated like normal. Unlike the case with Poland and the Poles.

>>17967904
And then the confederate soldier turns into an waffen ss soldier.. for some reason

>>17971676
>In October 1939, Directive No.1306 of Nazi Germany's Propaganda Ministry stated: "It must be made clear even to the German milkmaid that Polishness equals subhumanity. Poles, Jews and Gypsies are on the same inferior level... This should be brought home as a leitmotiv, and from time to time, in the form of existing concepts such as 'Polish economy', 'Polish ruin' and so on, until everyone in Germany sees every Pole, whether farm worker or intellectual, as vermin.

>>17970366
>Straight up lies are now "heterodox perspectives"
Lmao

>>17972048
most nazis have 0 self-awareness

>>17971676
Incorrect on all counts

File: Honest Abe.jpg (355 KB, 1913x1227)

355 KB JPG

>>17967931
>>quoting southern politicians, officers, soldiers and government documents is strawman
But that's not what he did.

>>17971479
Zoomer Historian is a British not so secret about it nazi apologist. He makes youtube videos about WW2 that boil down to just regurgitating old pol nazi apologist points

Atun Shei is a left wing youtuber. He used to be a more liberal minded reddit tier history guy who made silly skits, but then he became a far left breadtuber guy.

>>17972731
>being objective is nazi apology from /pol/
why?

>>17972171
No, actually I am correct, keep seething.
>https://books.google.com/books/about/Rasse_und_Kultur_unserer_Urv%C3%A4ter.html?id=dgGgAAAAMAAJ

Feel free to post your sources.

>>17972047
>source: hearsay
Give us an official policy document, otherwise fuck off with the hearsay.

The book 'From peace to war' where that quote is from, doesnt cite any directive.
please post an official policy statement from the German archives.
Furthermore, even that fallacious quote itself came from October after the Germans had been at war with the Poles for a month.
Would German opinion of Poles have changed if they actually did surrender and ceded German land back to the German people?
or is the counter Polish sentiment just inborn, is Germany at war with Poland today? by your logic they should be.

>>17971995
>every book on WW2
so what? Every book on geocentrism describes an incorrect theory as true and yet it was the most popular view in natural science for centuries. people can be wrong.
"books" are irrelevant when primary sources are available.
>Hitler regarded slavs as subhuman
nope.
The primary sources show the Slavs were seen as an Aryan people.
all this talk of "subhuman" the Germans barely even used the term. its used more by people critiquing Germany than by the Germans themselves.
>Poles were treated worse than colonial subjects
No they werent, they were treated much better than any defeated people until the US began invading and occupying.
Britain killed 10% of the arabs because the arabs were protesting.
Germany did not even kill 50% of the Poles despite 100% of the Poles actively fighting Germany as partisans, which is illegal and removes the protections of the Geneva convention.
Germany was within their rights to annihilate the Poles as an ethnic group because of their mass mobilization as partisans, yet the Germans didnt, they governed Poland with an even if not favorable hand considering how the Poles murdered, terrorized, bombed, tortured, and sabotaged the Germans throughout the war despite being defeated.
Poland was also never apart of the Geneva Convention so by any metric the Germans were merciful to the Poles.
Norway and the Netherlands both had large factions of pro-Germans among the populace and the newly formed ersatz governments.
They also didnt have a huge partisan army.
More Northmen and Dutchmen fought FOR Germany than fought against Germany as resistance.
>treated like Normal
yeah, treated like countries that werent engaged in illegal modes of warfare which strip the protections of the Geneva Convention.
>Poland and the Poles
They lost their "war-time rights" and protection by international laws when they immediately began engaging in modes of warfare recognized as illegitimate by international councils and conventions.

>>17971883
You said a dozen.
Find me a dozen.
>4
4 out of how many videos on his channel? 30 or so?
>does ZH say this or not
I dont watch his videos.
>>17971888
you did admit to being a tranny
>>17971854
>SLAVS ARENT SUBHUMAN YOU MUST TREAT US AS HUMANS
also slavs:
>haha child rape yes YES!

I am starting to think Hitler should have actually tried to exterminate the Poles.
He had truckloads of Sarin, just kill them. They really are rapey subhuman creeps.
Must be an R1a thing.
imagine sharing your paternal ancestor with half of India, couldnt be me (human).

>>17972181
>shitty gish gallop that constantly shifts back and forth between the confederates being a sovereign country being invaded by foreigners and americans being oppressed
>provides 0 sources for any claim
yawn

>>17973067
Hes not objective though. Nazi apologist are basically post modernist who operate from this mindset that objective truth does matter and that they can play this "might makes truth" thing .

>>17973089
>sources show the Slavs were seen as an Aryan people.
So who is more likely correct? Countless historians who study this shit for a living whom all proven the exact same conclusions in their publications.
Or one random american autistic neet on an imageboard obsessively shitposting "nah that's not true".
Who do you think I should trust?
Think long and hard.

Hmmm...
I think I'm gonna go with the first one.
The Germans treated Poles worse than colonial subjects. Seethe and cope.

>yeah, treated like countries that werent engaged in illegal modes of warfare which strip the protections of the Geneva Convention.
That wasn't your point tho, even though this is also wrong because both Netherlands and Norway had violent resistance movements, and had standing armies that continued to fight for the allies during the occupation.

But your point was that the polish government in exile never sued for peace so the Germans 'naturally' had no choice but to destroy their country and enslave their people, which they didn't do to other countries under the same circumstances.

>>17973093
>muh trannies
>muh sarin

File: 1756318373820611.jpg (107 KB, 1070x965)

107 KB JPG

>>17973093
>4 out of how many videos on his channel? 30 or so?
LMAO so 4 ENTIRE videos is not enough?
Sorry not gonna go through all his stuff because I actually cant stand his nasal-speaking voice.
You really think it's not a big deal if he spends 4 entire videos talking about how Churchill was just being a puppet and influenced all of British politics to war? You really going to pretend like Zoomer Historian doesnt say this because he only says it throughout 4 entire videos (that I found without actually trying). Xd

>I dont watch his videos
LMAO You love Zoomer Historian videos you fucking moron and you're probably one of his subscribers. How does it feel to give money to a literal grifter?
You also continously try to ridicule anyone who debate his channel cause your trying to defend your pretty boy.

You also LITERARY linked one of his videos as a source in another thread. Don't pretend like it wasn't you. It's so obvious when you're the one posting, you amerimutt nazi, you formulate your posts exactly the same every time, the exact same mass-quoting every line of every post in every thread, and you love using "???????" And "No one said this" as your ultimate autistic defense.
And now you're going to pretend like you're not the same person.

>>17967906
You're a moron. Tik is one of the best history tubers and an example for what proper amateur scholarship should look like. He actually understands how to cross reference and critically engage with sources unlike most others and dare I say most people who unironically post here. I bet you're one of them.

>giant wall of bunkertranny seethe
Yeah....

>EVERYONE IS A TRANNY SLAV JEW I WILL GENOCIDE YOU ALL WITH MY IMAGINARY SARIN NUKES
>oh? yeah, we are the good guys, believe us!

>>17973817
His problem is his endless obsession with fascism and socialism. He's literally taking the autistic route every time and makes 50 videos to do his mental gymnastic.

50 videos and he, nor anyone else, still can't define what fascism is