His whole point about the Nazis is that they're such an extreme example of "fascism", that the drawbacks of the ideology started to outweigh it's benefits. Historically, in most cases the authoritarian militarists win, because they're less extreme, and as such the unity, agression, and willingness to suffer for the greater good instilled by that ideology outweighs the downsides.
At 50:55 or so, he did not say that liberalism is not the best ideology of the three...you misheard that. He said that liberalism did not win the wars because it was the best ideology, it won the wars because the USA was liberal and so big.
You got tripped up by him saying that "the Communist societies that work best are the ones that are theocracies", but I believe when he said that he was referring to the way Communism is a religion itself...at least that seems to be the major point he is making. So when you thought he was making a completely contradictory statement at around 26:55, he was really just talking about Communist "theocracy" with people who have the greatest faith in the dogma of the State.
50:55 he didn’t say liberalism wasn’t the best ideology, he said he was liberal. He just said liberalism didn’t win because it was the best there’s a difference between the 2.
his conculsion of pre ww1 russia is wrong. he forgets that Japan handed Russia its ass. After the defeat by Japan, the Russian military went through massive reforms. These reforms helped russian early victories in the war. But as the war ran on - the russians lost so much territory that the german lines had reached Riga -> aka they were miles from taking St Petersburg. the russian military saw these defeats and asked the tsar to abdicate. he did, but the new government continued the war. it was lenin that finally stopped it. If there was no Russo-Japanese ware, there would have been no military reforms. Without these reforms it is likely that russia would have had the russian revolution early.
55:05 Britain gave it up because lots of American settlers were already living there by then and Britain didn't want another war with the United States. At least according to Google.
Im nearing the end of me watching your reaction, and im getting the feeling that this dude actually kinda, somehow likes fascism ... maybe? At least he romaticed some of the values he prescribed to fascism. Makes sense in hindsight tbh I think his use of the word "autistic" in context with liberalism and marxism makes no sense and is suuper inappropriate, also makes me wonder if he even knows what the word means
fascism and national socialism are two completely different ideologies though. its so common for people to use them both to describe the same thing when there not. national socialism as a huge emphasis on racial genetics where as fascism did not necessary need racist ideas to work. mussolini didn't believe in the idea of a pure race
Thanks for giving me a Whatifalthist fix that only you could give. I just really wanted you to react to Whatifalthist, and now that you finally did, if you want to you could now take another long break from him. Not to get too political, but someone should tell Whatifalthist that the biggest reason why the left has been very successful with the Managerial Revolution, is because a lot of the right especially in North America doesn't really have good ideas anymore.
There was actually a chance for Germany to defeat Britain. If Hitler hadn't shifted the focus from military to civillian targets, as the time the RAF was hanging on by the skin of their teeth, Brtain may have been forced to surrender, simply due to having no way to fight back.
I'm not too sure about that, the only way I see the UK surrendering is if the US never gives Lend-Lease to Britain or the Soviets aren't invaded in 1941, at that point UK may surrender out of hopelessness.
@@crazmapping As I said, it was merely a chance at British surrender. Whether or not they actually would, is of course impossible to determine, as it would depend on the concrete situation at the time.
That is a very well entrenched myth...the RAF was never "losing" the Battle of Britain, the idea that they were is actually based on wildly wrong public propaganda put out by the Nazis. At the point at which Germany loudly believed that Britain was down to about 150 fighters and close to defeat, the RAF had 600 operational fighters, and had hundreds more in reserve in crates ready to be assembled.
There are a number of well researched and documented history channels on YT that cover the myth that the RAF was "losing" the BoB. Military History Visualized has a video about misconceptions of WW2 ruclips.net/video/5JxQhxOJa5U/видео.html The channel Caliban rising has done a deep dive on the numbers ruclips.net/video/DbYOs8Q72q8/видео.html
Britain would never have surrendered. A negotiated ceasefire/armistice would be theoretically possible, but never capitulation. And in the case of a ceasefire, Britain would have just rejoined the war when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in an attempt to stop them gaining hegemony over the whole continent. That, or Germany would declare war on them when the Japanese invade the British colonies (just as how Germany declared war on the United States).
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
His whole point about the Nazis is that they're such an extreme example of "fascism", that the drawbacks of the ideology started to outweigh it's benefits.
Historically, in most cases the authoritarian militarists win, because they're less extreme, and as such the unity, agression, and willingness to suffer for the greater good instilled by that ideology outweighs the downsides.
At 50:55 or so, he did not say that liberalism is not the best ideology of the three...you misheard that. He said that liberalism did not win the wars because it was the best ideology, it won the wars because the USA was liberal and so big.
You got tripped up by him saying that "the Communist societies that work best are the ones that are theocracies", but I believe when he said that he was referring to the way Communism is a religion itself...at least that seems to be the major point he is making. So when you thought he was making a completely contradictory statement at around 26:55, he was really just talking about Communist "theocracy" with people who have the greatest faith in the dogma of the State.
50:55 he didn’t say liberalism wasn’t the best ideology, he said he was liberal. He just said liberalism didn’t win because it was the best there’s a difference between the 2.
his conculsion of pre ww1 russia is wrong. he forgets that Japan handed Russia its ass. After the defeat by Japan, the Russian military went through massive reforms. These reforms helped russian early victories in the war. But as the war ran on - the russians lost so much territory that the german lines had reached Riga -> aka they were miles from taking St Petersburg. the russian military saw these defeats and asked the tsar to abdicate. he did, but the new government continued the war. it was lenin that finally stopped it. If there was no Russo-Japanese ware, there would have been no military reforms. Without these reforms it is likely that russia would have had the russian revolution early.
55:05 Britain gave it up because lots of American settlers were already living there by then and Britain didn't want another war with the United States. At least according to Google.
WhatIfAltHist is the embodiment of talking a whole lot, but not actually saying anything.
Im nearing the end of me watching your reaction, and im getting the feeling that this dude actually kinda, somehow likes fascism ... maybe? At least he romaticed some of the values he prescribed to fascism. Makes sense in hindsight tbh
I think his use of the word "autistic" in context with liberalism and marxism makes no sense and is suuper inappropriate, also makes me wonder if he even knows what the word means
fascism and national socialism are two completely different ideologies though. its so common for people to use them both to describe the same thing when there not. national socialism as a huge emphasis on racial genetics where as fascism did not necessary need racist ideas to work. mussolini didn't believe in the idea of a pure race
6:55
Thanks for giving me a Whatifalthist fix that only you could give. I just really wanted you to react to Whatifalthist, and now that you finally did, if you want to you could now take another long break from him. Not to get too political, but someone should tell Whatifalthist that the biggest reason why the left has been very successful with the Managerial Revolution, is because a lot of the right especially in North America doesn't really have good ideas anymore.
I couldn't get to the end the original video. This dude seem very suspicious on his beliefs
Try TIKhistory
There was actually a chance for Germany to defeat Britain. If Hitler hadn't shifted the focus from military to civillian targets, as the time the RAF was hanging on by the skin of their teeth, Brtain may have been forced to surrender, simply due to having no way to fight back.
I'm not too sure about that, the only way I see the UK surrendering is if the US never gives Lend-Lease to Britain or the Soviets aren't invaded in 1941, at that point UK may surrender out of hopelessness.
@@crazmapping As I said, it was merely a chance at British surrender. Whether or not they actually would, is of course impossible to determine, as it would depend on the concrete situation at the time.
That is a very well entrenched myth...the RAF was never "losing" the Battle of Britain, the idea that they were is actually based on wildly wrong public propaganda put out by the Nazis. At the point at which Germany loudly believed that Britain was down to about 150 fighters and close to defeat, the RAF had 600 operational fighters, and had hundreds more in reserve in crates ready to be assembled.
There are a number of well researched and documented history channels on YT that cover the myth that the RAF was "losing" the BoB.
Military History Visualized has a video about misconceptions of WW2 ruclips.net/video/5JxQhxOJa5U/видео.html
The channel Caliban rising has done a deep dive on the numbers ruclips.net/video/DbYOs8Q72q8/видео.html
Britain would never have surrendered. A negotiated ceasefire/armistice would be theoretically possible, but never capitulation. And in the case of a ceasefire, Britain would have just rejoined the war when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in an attempt to stop them gaining hegemony over the whole continent. That, or Germany would declare war on them when the Japanese invade the British colonies (just as how Germany declared war on the United States).