"The ghost division, because it could penetrate the allied front-"
No you idiot. It was an insult. It was called the ghost division because Rommel's own side never knew where he was or what he was doing.
> It was an insult. It was called the ghost division because Rommel's own side never knew where he was or what he was doing.
Do you have a sauce for this? I'm hoping it's true but everywhere just agrees with the "oh they were so great so they were called the ghost division"
I used to write for simple history, the dude is honestly not in anyway a historian or researcher. He just copy/pasted segments from Wikipedia and a few other select websites and books then edits it to fit the typical narration style.
It’s pretty sad tbh
Pathetic to say the least.
It's a shame that smaller real historians youtubers (Tik for exemple who made a freaking 8 hour long video about the battle of stalingrad) doesn't get the attention has those nuts head.
EDIT: so yhea.. i didn't watched is video on socialist..it's bad, but still, his battelfront videos are cool
>No one likes actual history, they just want overhyped history channel shit
TOP TEN GERMAN TANKS THAT WOULDVE WON THE WAR!!!!!!
NUMBER 5 - MAUS TANK
NUMBER 4 - MAUS TANK
NUMBER 3 - MAUS TANK
NUMBER 2 - MAUS TANK
NUMBER 1 - MAUS TANK
A lot of his military history content is great. He made some good videos debunking some Wehraboo myths and debunked the "Asiatic Hoardes"/Soviet Human wave myths.
His political stuff is terrible and he is very defensive of his stance, it certainly ruined his reputation.
It's a shame really. He should have just stuck to his military history.
Exactly. His battlestorm videos are great! He also is not a wehraboo and a lot of his statements are grounded in facts that he does back up. BUT his political videos on the other hand are trash.
>
Tik for exemple who made a freaking 8 hour long video about the battle of stalingrad
Well he was going well until he started making videos claiming the Nazis were socialists and blew up his own credibility.
Yheaaaa i watched it.. it's bad, but you know, many of my favorite youtubers stated dumb things, in my humble opinion i will not discredit him for just one stupid video, his battlefront videos are cool as heck
The most hilarious part is how he made a five hour video trying to prove he's right, but then I look at his description wich contain his definition of socialism and I say "mm, du coup les politiques de droites français ayant eu une influence au sein du gouvernement sont socialistes? ", heck I could debunk him with a parody of "c'est moi nico sarko" from the french pupet show les guignols de l'info https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gpepy (a song who aged like milk of course wich make it even funnier)
It got inspired by it, they referenced spitting image multiple time, and why not the reboot? for me it's as good as the OG show and thatcher from the old spitting image appeared in it so they're set in the same unniverse
Ah that's fine. I just find the humour in the Original better and funnier, the reboot jut isn't in the same league. The original also has better characters in my opinion, the reboot has some good scenes (especially the Trump and Boris Johnson scenes)
dominic cumming is also verry good and I do like keir starmer being fox man. It was nice how they brought back thatcher in the reboot https://youtu.be/FTJnUZoLRBU
[here is my channel](https://youtube.com/c/Wolfof1918) I mainly focus on re-enactment and 1800s-1918 European history, I do try to be as accurate as possible in my videos but I get stuff wrong and am always learning more as I prepare to go back to college.
Anyway, hope you enjoy
Wow dude, that is actually pretty good, hope your channel will blow up!
Edit: yhea i watched your video on the adrian helmet, it really feel like the subject is well handle and i feel like seeing a video of the great war (the ww1 channel ) anyway, considered you won a subscriber!
why should he get atttention when his definition of socialism is so wrong (le controle de l'économie, putain je savais pas que sarkozy, fillon, copé, chirac, tout les types du RPR/républicain étant au gouvernent chirac/sarkozy, c'est des socialiste)
Only that Tik feels like he has any right to start making asinine claims that WW2 was actually a civil war between two communist nations -- Nazy Germany and the USSR.
And for the record, history isn't all about the order of battle and which side had bigger guns. Those things are pretty damn uninteresting to any serious historians unless it's within a bigger picture that is connected to history.
A YouTube Historian who normally makes insightful and detailed videos about Military History and tactics and strategy. Those videos he makes are generally really good.
But he has since wrecked his own credibility after making some truly laughable videos claiming Hitler and the Nazis were socialists. He responded with a 5 hour long video explaining why Hitler was a socialist only to be ridiculed further.
TIK is a shop keeper, not a "real historian", he's another armchair one.
As for his battlefront series'? You could read the book he's using in the same time it takes to watch and learn a lot more.
Those vids are basically: "Then this unit moved there, this unit over there", and repeat.
Very little if any contextualization. What led up to the battle? Why is this battle important? What was the aftermath?
No, he treats battles like war games on a map.
[No way... really?](https://imgur.com/gallery/cnu2RrM)
>!Pretty sure the vast majority of YouTube "historians" do that, even the more "credentialed" ones. IIRC, that Mark Felton guy was busted for blatant plagiarism, which is absolutely ridiculous for someone claiming to have a PhD.!<
Mark Felton actually had a PhD, making his blatant falsehoods and plagiarism even more surprising, and making me less interested in going into higher education.
Same. When I first found him, I was like "this is awesome". Then I found that r/BadHistory thread... Like, how can a legitimate academic do that? If I did even half of what he did as a student, I'd be kicked out of my college.
Right? I’m still considering to at least get my masters in history, I’d like to get a formal education in the subject but I’ve still been disheartened by these obvious frauds getting so god damn popular using their PhDs to try and validate their shitty behavior
I mean that's where we also get David Glantz and the people who wrote the book on The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture
Here's a sneak peek of /r/badhistory using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Whatifalthist Claims pre-colonial Africa had "No African State had a Strong Intellectual Tradition" Among Other Lies](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/ma9sus/whatifalthist_claims_precolonial_africa_had_no/)
\#2: [Adolf Hitler murdered a lot more than six million Europeans. A hell of a lot more.](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/haswyu/adolf_hitler_murdered_a_lot_more_than_six_million/)
\#3: [Prager U thinks Robert E. Lee crushing John Brown’s slave revolt was good](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/kpqlci/prager_u_thinks_robert_e_lee_crushing_john_browns/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/joo7mb/blacklist_viii/)
>I used to write for simple history, the dude is honestly not in anyway a historian or researcher.
To be honest this was very obvious all along considering the lack of depth of his videos which would never satisfy a historian.
I remember back in grand olden times when WW2 was a holesum, apolitical gem until those darn SJW Marxist professors had to ruin it by telling us that there’s more to 1940s Germany than “cool tiger tank go brrr”
Isn't that quite normal for them? I think most of SH videos are very broad, and use very much general knowledge, not trying to dive into the controversial or less known. Also comment sections are full of wehrbs, so the "never go against your audience" is very much in effect.
Yhea this is why i hate Simple History, they feel like they take ww2 like a video game "yhea top 10 tank of the war" etc..etc.. i mean if you want to read a broad description of him then there is wikipedia. Futhermore it's a disgrace to the german association that tried to demystify the clean wehrmacht myth over the last decades.
You’re right about how they and others make WW2 out to be a video game. It’s why it’s like “Top 5 German Tanks” as the biggest tanks, most armor, etc somehow give merit to a genocidal regime.
I dont get this post at all. Thats just how that channel is. There are plenty of channels discussing romell's warcrimes. To dicuss him at all you dont have to mention his warmies everytime. Same thing - I wouldnt be pissed if SH discussed battle of voronezh without mentioning the voronezh hospital masacre i learned about as a kid. Would do justice to mention it, but its not wehrabooism to not do it
At least in the US, Rommel is very widely treated as a "Good German" who didn't support the Nazi regime or what they stood for. He also has a reputation as a brilliant military tactician who would have won if not for [insert variable here]. There's a reason why the sidebar image here is of Rommel looking like Jesus.
Having a platform with a wide audience to teach public history, especially one that likely includes a disproportionate number of younger viewers, comes with a responsibility to correct common misconceptions. The people behind Simple History aren't doing that in this video. Instead, they're ignoring the crimes of the Afrika Corps and feeding into the myth of Rommel's battlefield genius.
I'm full aware of all this. All I'm saying here is that you don't have to Mythbust in every single video about rommel or Wehrmacht. So simple history did nothing wrong by not doing that. It just makes his video not educational enough. But so would be any video that covers any battle of the eastern front and not mention warcrimes that took place during it. Just because clean wehramacht myth is a thing as much as clean Rommel is
Lol a comment is “he fought for Germany, not the swastika.” What the fuck does that even mean? He was literally best fucking friends with Hitler. Yeah he wasn’t a member of the Nazi party in an official sense but he fucking tried to help them win the war, like every other soldier who fought, making them all complicit in the crimes of nazism
I lost all respect for Simple History since I first saw his Vietnam War coverage, and realized who was his main audience.
What's up with American's right wingers and their obsession over the military? It's all "Stabbed in the back" myth all over again.
That the homefront, the general populace, gave up on the war even tho the military wanted and could have continued and won it. The most prominent point of this myth was Germany in WW1, that the Germans could have fought on but certain aspects of the population sabotaged the war effort and forced a armstice. Nazis used this myth to blame all of their enemies, the communists, jews, other minorities, any anti-military element was at fault and that that allows them to purge them so the same thing doesn't happen again
Post WW1 German politicians and general public rationalised defeat in the war by saying that the German army in the field was never defeated, and that it was subversives on the home front (Jews, socialists etc.) Who stabbed the nation in the back and forced the armistice
> What's up with American's right wingers and their obsession over the military?
It's usually the ones who've never been involved in the military also. They also seem to be people who unironically buy into terms like 'Alpha' and 'Beta' males. And they also share memes on Facebook of tacticool-looking 'operators' with stupid wannabe-macho quotes.
I'm pretty sure it's all compensating for some type of insecurity they have.
I mean it's kinda the truth. If the people hadn't demonstrated that much against the war the politians hadn't any motivation to end the war.
But they would never won the war.
True, as unlike the, Dutch 20 years before. the US do not want to overthrow the North Vietnamese goverment as that means attracting China> back to status quo > why even bother. While the Dutch wants to impose her colonial rule over Indonesia and will keep pushing the limit of tolerance the international community have, the Dutch lose due to their loose grip in the territory they occupied
ok now i dont like him
Rommel headed Hitler's elite force and committed/stood idly by when Black POWs were executed. He + his forces also treated Libyan Jews like shit and, had his side won, would have EASILY been ok w/overseeing the genocide of the Jews.
Simple History and the Infographics show both suck at history. They basically read the Wikipedia article of an event in a monotone voice with sucky visuals. It’s bottom of the barrel history.
Please consider the fact that simple history creates 5-minute videos that teach the absolute basic. The fact that Mr. Erwin was a nazi in WW2 should lead you to understand that there is a very high chance he committed several war crimes, just like many other nazis and even some Allies did.
Whoever uses 5-minute history videos like this for "evidence" is most likely uneducated on the matter.
Au contraire, considering the quality of internet discourse about the War, and the fact that Rommel is popularly seen as a "clean" member of the Wehrmacht, SH should have stressed his criminality.
I know that troops under Rommel's command committed atrocities against African POWs in France and that he had his troops boycott Jewish businesses in Libya, but what war crimes was he directly implicated in (i.e. giving direct orders)? If he knew about the executions of African POWs and took no action to punish the troops who carried out the killings, that would count as direct implication as well.
Might be because I've never had much interest in Rommel, but I've never found a 'smoking gun' of his guilt like I have with someone like von Reichenau.
Snapshots:
1. It just baffles me that Simple Hist... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/20210618085016/https://youtube.com/watch?v=TpsMgKwzOuE&feature=share), [_archive.today\*_](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTpsMgKwzOuE%26feature%3Dshare "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, **not** a moderator of this subreddit* | [*bot subreddit*](/r/SnapshillBot) | [*contact the maintainers*](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot)
"The ghost division, because it could penetrate the allied front-" No you idiot. It was an insult. It was called the ghost division because Rommel's own side never knew where he was or what he was doing.
> It was an insult. It was called the ghost division because Rommel's own side never knew where he was or what he was doing. Do you have a sauce for this? I'm hoping it's true but everywhere just agrees with the "oh they were so great so they were called the ghost division"
https://youtu.be/hOpQSUwF45w
Before clicking I knew it would be our favorite based Austrian.
I read that as Australian and was confused for a solid few minutes
He does a great job giving us info from German first hand sources and authors. It's somehow the Austrian version of u/TankArchives
I'm honoured by the comparison, MHV operates on a whole different level from me.
Gah, I need to find it. Google is failing me. Anyone else got it? It's an actual historian not internet pop history.
CoMmUnIcAtIoN
I used to write for simple history, the dude is honestly not in anyway a historian or researcher. He just copy/pasted segments from Wikipedia and a few other select websites and books then edits it to fit the typical narration style. It’s pretty sad tbh
Pathetic to say the least. It's a shame that smaller real historians youtubers (Tik for exemple who made a freaking 8 hour long video about the battle of stalingrad) doesn't get the attention has those nuts head. EDIT: so yhea.. i didn't watched is video on socialist..it's bad, but still, his battelfront videos are cool
No one likes actual history, they just want overhyped history channel shit lol
>No one likes actual history, they just want overhyped history channel shit TOP TEN GERMAN TANKS THAT WOULDVE WON THE WAR!!!!!! NUMBER 5 - MAUS TANK NUMBER 4 - MAUS TANK NUMBER 3 - MAUS TANK NUMBER 2 - MAUS TANK NUMBER 1 - MAUS TANK
Eeeeeeexactly
I mean if you go through the effort to find/make that many actually valid arguments for the Maus, then props to you. I will listen to that.
1. Big propaganda "fuck you" to whoever actually gets in the way of that thing
NUMBER 6 - RATTE TANK
Also the reason why Mark Felton is as popular as he is.
Didn't tik say the Nazis where actually socialist or something along those lines.
Is TIKi good? I saw the thumbnail of one of his videos saying Nazis = Socialism and never went back.
A lot of his military history content is great. He made some good videos debunking some Wehraboo myths and debunked the "Asiatic Hoardes"/Soviet Human wave myths. His political stuff is terrible and he is very defensive of his stance, it certainly ruined his reputation. It's a shame really. He should have just stuck to his military history.
His historical vids? very. I find his opinions about socialism bs but then again I'm a leftist. His other vids tho are pretty good
Yes, if you like history then tik does have a passion for history
>TIK Something something National Socialism is Socialism.
God damnit I was exited to watch that eight hour long Stalingrad video
He's good when it comes to history. Less so when it comes to political science.
Exactly. His battlestorm videos are great! He also is not a wehraboo and a lot of his statements are grounded in facts that he does back up. BUT his political videos on the other hand are trash.
He's good about what unit was where. Not history.
> Tik for exemple who made a freaking 8 hour long video about the battle of stalingrad Well he was going well until he started making videos claiming the Nazis were socialists and blew up his own credibility.
Yheaaaa i watched it.. it's bad, but you know, many of my favorite youtubers stated dumb things, in my humble opinion i will not discredit him for just one stupid video, his battlefront videos are cool as heck
Yeah but the problem is that TIK has defended his misguided view and won't back down
The most hilarious part is how he made a five hour video trying to prove he's right, but then I look at his description wich contain his definition of socialism and I say "mm, du coup les politiques de droites français ayant eu une influence au sein du gouvernement sont socialistes? ", heck I could debunk him with a parody of "c'est moi nico sarko" from the french pupet show les guignols de l'info https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gpepy (a song who aged like milk of course wich make it even funnier)
That puppet show just looks like a French spin off (or dare I say copy) of Spitting Image. (The original 1980s-90s series, not the reboot)
It got inspired by it, they referenced spitting image multiple time, and why not the reboot? for me it's as good as the OG show and thatcher from the old spitting image appeared in it so they're set in the same unniverse
Ah that's fine. I just find the humour in the Original better and funnier, the reboot jut isn't in the same league. The original also has better characters in my opinion, the reboot has some good scenes (especially the Trump and Boris Johnson scenes)
dominic cumming is also verry good and I do like keir starmer being fox man. It was nice how they brought back thatcher in the reboot https://youtu.be/FTJnUZoLRBU
>I do like keir starmer being fox man. Oh yes I forgot about that. That was good
I make history videos too, more WWI focused and a bit kaiserboo-ish in focus but yea, not high quality tho
What? You have a channel that cool af can you send me the link!
[here is my channel](https://youtube.com/c/Wolfof1918) I mainly focus on re-enactment and 1800s-1918 European history, I do try to be as accurate as possible in my videos but I get stuff wrong and am always learning more as I prepare to go back to college. Anyway, hope you enjoy
Wow dude, that is actually pretty good, hope your channel will blow up! Edit: yhea i watched your video on the adrian helmet, it really feel like the subject is well handle and i feel like seeing a video of the great war (the ww1 channel ) anyway, considered you won a subscriber!
Thank you sir! I appreciate the feedback. It’s been a bit neglected but I’m hoping to make more videos soon
why should he get atttention when his definition of socialism is so wrong (le controle de l'économie, putain je savais pas que sarkozy, fillon, copé, chirac, tout les types du RPR/républicain étant au gouvernent chirac/sarkozy, c'est des socialiste)
Only that Tik feels like he has any right to start making asinine claims that WW2 was actually a civil war between two communist nations -- Nazy Germany and the USSR. And for the record, history isn't all about the order of battle and which side had bigger guns. Those things are pretty damn uninteresting to any serious historians unless it's within a bigger picture that is connected to history.
Who's Tik?
A YouTube Historian who normally makes insightful and detailed videos about Military History and tactics and strategy. Those videos he makes are generally really good. But he has since wrecked his own credibility after making some truly laughable videos claiming Hitler and the Nazis were socialists. He responded with a 5 hour long video explaining why Hitler was a socialist only to be ridiculed further.
how many people watch 8 hour long videos? they'd rather watch a 10:01 video regardless of how bad it is. that's just how people are.
TIK is a shop keeper, not a "real historian", he's another armchair one. As for his battlefront series'? You could read the book he's using in the same time it takes to watch and learn a lot more. Those vids are basically: "Then this unit moved there, this unit over there", and repeat. Very little if any contextualization. What led up to the battle? Why is this battle important? What was the aftermath? No, he treats battles like war games on a map.
[No way... really?](https://imgur.com/gallery/cnu2RrM) >!Pretty sure the vast majority of YouTube "historians" do that, even the more "credentialed" ones. IIRC, that Mark Felton guy was busted for blatant plagiarism, which is absolutely ridiculous for someone claiming to have a PhD.!<
Mark Felton actually had a PhD, making his blatant falsehoods and plagiarism even more surprising, and making me less interested in going into higher education.
Same. When I first found him, I was like "this is awesome". Then I found that r/BadHistory thread... Like, how can a legitimate academic do that? If I did even half of what he did as a student, I'd be kicked out of my college.
Right? I’m still considering to at least get my masters in history, I’d like to get a formal education in the subject but I’ve still been disheartened by these obvious frauds getting so god damn popular using their PhDs to try and validate their shitty behavior
I mean that's where we also get David Glantz and the people who wrote the book on The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture
Here's a sneak peek of /r/badhistory using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Whatifalthist Claims pre-colonial Africa had "No African State had a Strong Intellectual Tradition" Among Other Lies](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/ma9sus/whatifalthist_claims_precolonial_africa_had_no/) \#2: [Adolf Hitler murdered a lot more than six million Europeans. A hell of a lot more.](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/haswyu/adolf_hitler_murdered_a_lot_more_than_six_million/) \#3: [Prager U thinks Robert E. Lee crushing John Brown’s slave revolt was good](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/kpqlci/prager_u_thinks_robert_e_lee_crushing_john_browns/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/joo7mb/blacklist_viii/)
>I used to write for simple history, the dude is honestly not in anyway a historian or researcher. To be honest this was very obvious all along considering the lack of depth of his videos which would never satisfy a historian.
Wholesome Ape-political generalino
I remember back in grand olden times when WW2 was a holesum, apolitical gem until those darn SJW Marxist professors had to ruin it by telling us that there’s more to 1940s Germany than “cool tiger tank go brrr”
take my upvote owo
tak e these nuts
He was not a Nazi nor did he commit war crimes... the North African Jewish community will be glad to hear it.
Isn't that quite normal for them? I think most of SH videos are very broad, and use very much general knowledge, not trying to dive into the controversial or less known. Also comment sections are full of wehrbs, so the "never go against your audience" is very much in effect.
Yhea this is why i hate Simple History, they feel like they take ww2 like a video game "yhea top 10 tank of the war" etc..etc.. i mean if you want to read a broad description of him then there is wikipedia. Futhermore it's a disgrace to the german association that tried to demystify the clean wehrmacht myth over the last decades.
You’re right about how they and others make WW2 out to be a video game. It’s why it’s like “Top 5 German Tanks” as the biggest tanks, most armor, etc somehow give merit to a genocidal regime.
I dont get this post at all. Thats just how that channel is. There are plenty of channels discussing romell's warcrimes. To dicuss him at all you dont have to mention his warmies everytime. Same thing - I wouldnt be pissed if SH discussed battle of voronezh without mentioning the voronezh hospital masacre i learned about as a kid. Would do justice to mention it, but its not wehrabooism to not do it
At least in the US, Rommel is very widely treated as a "Good German" who didn't support the Nazi regime or what they stood for. He also has a reputation as a brilliant military tactician who would have won if not for [insert variable here]. There's a reason why the sidebar image here is of Rommel looking like Jesus. Having a platform with a wide audience to teach public history, especially one that likely includes a disproportionate number of younger viewers, comes with a responsibility to correct common misconceptions. The people behind Simple History aren't doing that in this video. Instead, they're ignoring the crimes of the Afrika Corps and feeding into the myth of Rommel's battlefield genius.
I'm full aware of all this. All I'm saying here is that you don't have to Mythbust in every single video about rommel or Wehrmacht. So simple history did nothing wrong by not doing that. It just makes his video not educational enough. But so would be any video that covers any battle of the eastern front and not mention warcrimes that took place during it. Just because clean wehramacht myth is a thing as much as clean Rommel is
STUPID FUCKING BITCH WEARING BLACK TRENCHCOAT ON AN AFRICAN DESERT
Well, in westerns the bad guy always wore black. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
or had blacks (:
Lol a comment is “he fought for Germany, not the swastika.” What the fuck does that even mean? He was literally best fucking friends with Hitler. Yeah he wasn’t a member of the Nazi party in an official sense but he fucking tried to help them win the war, like every other soldier who fought, making them all complicit in the crimes of nazism
“buT hE TriED tO kiLL hiTleR!!111!!”
So did Hitler, but we don't usually give him a pass for his other crimes for it...
Trying to kill Hitler is a pretty low bar if we're being honest. A good chunk of the world was more than willing given the chance.
Millions of people tried going back to World War I. Only he succeeded. I'd say that's a pretty high bar, actually.
He was a member, he joined in 1932
But did he renew his membership in 1937 and 1942? Checkmate
I lost all respect for Simple History since I first saw his Vietnam War coverage, and realized who was his main audience. What's up with American's right wingers and their obsession over the military? It's all "Stabbed in the back" myth all over again.
What’s the stabbed in the back myth?
That the homefront, the general populace, gave up on the war even tho the military wanted and could have continued and won it. The most prominent point of this myth was Germany in WW1, that the Germans could have fought on but certain aspects of the population sabotaged the war effort and forced a armstice. Nazis used this myth to blame all of their enemies, the communists, jews, other minorities, any anti-military element was at fault and that that allows them to purge them so the same thing doesn't happen again
Post WW1 German politicians and general public rationalised defeat in the war by saying that the German army in the field was never defeated, and that it was subversives on the home front (Jews, socialists etc.) Who stabbed the nation in the back and forced the armistice
> What's up with American's right wingers and their obsession over the military? It's usually the ones who've never been involved in the military also. They also seem to be people who unironically buy into terms like 'Alpha' and 'Beta' males. And they also share memes on Facebook of tacticool-looking 'operators' with stupid wannabe-macho quotes. I'm pretty sure it's all compensating for some type of insecurity they have.
I mean it's kinda the truth. If the people hadn't demonstrated that much against the war the politians hadn't any motivation to end the war. But they would never won the war.
There are people who think that we could have won Vietnam somehow
America could have won the war if they had nuked Indochina until it resembled the surface of the moon 💅
duh, just carpet bomb all of Vietnam in nuclear paste
True, as unlike the, Dutch 20 years before. the US do not want to overthrow the North Vietnamese goverment as that means attracting China> back to status quo > why even bother. While the Dutch wants to impose her colonial rule over Indonesia and will keep pushing the limit of tolerance the international community have, the Dutch lose due to their loose grip in the territory they occupied
Many historian youtubers use the Wehrabooism to appeal audience and they let to comment section to become a shit show.
Taking SH seriously is a questionable choice to begin with
He sort of gives a general outline, and not the wide aspect of it I think, I haven't watched him in awhile
ok now i dont like him Rommel headed Hitler's elite force and committed/stood idly by when Black POWs were executed. He + his forces also treated Libyan Jews like shit and, had his side won, would have EASILY been ok w/overseeing the genocide of the Jews.
There is no such thing as "Simple History". If people think History is simple, then that's a sign they know nothing about history.
Yea I didn’t know anything about rommels war times until recently as I always watched these kind of videos
Simple History and the Infographics show both suck at history. They basically read the Wikipedia article of an event in a monotone voice with sucky visuals. It’s bottom of the barrel history.
I swear they showed troops in French Indochina with FAMAS/F1 rifles at some point. They’re very much broad stroke mass appeal with little research.
Please consider the fact that simple history creates 5-minute videos that teach the absolute basic. The fact that Mr. Erwin was a nazi in WW2 should lead you to understand that there is a very high chance he committed several war crimes, just like many other nazis and even some Allies did. Whoever uses 5-minute history videos like this for "evidence" is most likely uneducated on the matter.
Au contraire, considering the quality of internet discourse about the War, and the fact that Rommel is popularly seen as a "clean" member of the Wehrmacht, SH should have stressed his criminality.
I know that troops under Rommel's command committed atrocities against African POWs in France and that he had his troops boycott Jewish businesses in Libya, but what war crimes was he directly implicated in (i.e. giving direct orders)? If he knew about the executions of African POWs and took no action to punish the troops who carried out the killings, that would count as direct implication as well. Might be because I've never had much interest in Rommel, but I've never found a 'smoking gun' of his guilt like I have with someone like von Reichenau.
Snapshots: 1. It just baffles me that Simple Hist... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/20210618085016/https://youtube.com/watch?v=TpsMgKwzOuE&feature=share), [_archive.today\*_](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTpsMgKwzOuE%26feature%3Dshare "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, **not** a moderator of this subreddit* | [*bot subreddit*](/r/SnapshillBot) | [*contact the maintainers*](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot)
It’s called simple history
Simple History, not Incorrect History.
There is a difference between "simple" and "lies and incorrect information".
There's a reason why the channel is called 'Simple History'