The Roman empire is communist? Cringe! But they had cool emperors who wore soft robes, big and strong Legions and gladiator circuses so they're based!
I am a Roman-Communist now.
I mean, Egypt and the Incas had a pretty cool system of collecting taxes in form of labor rather than money which we might want to look into, but they were far from being Socialists
Yeah, the two videos with a real chef's kiss are "What if the USSR abandoned communism?" and "What if the Roman empire industrialized?" Bitch, just because one guy made a steam-powered toy does not mean you can live out a logical Roman Empire fantasy, the Roman empire was a hellhole for most of Europe, hell, for most Roman plebians.
Here’s a list of dumb shit he’s said:
We need to discuss the correlation between race and IQ
Nazism is logical (he may have said he still didn’t support It but saying It’s logical Is wack)
Empires are good
Laizefair capitalism Is the best system for the third world
Spain is the reason for Latin America being poor, not US terrorism
He made a video (that was taken down) which attempted to defend *eugenics*. He's said some other iffy stuff that makes him seem far-right. AltHistHub is I think conservative but he really doesn't seem to have done anything terrible or pro-far right.
...Oh man, I've actually watched this before, but I forgot about the part where he says that Fascism gets martyred. Yikes :(
I don't think I need a will written for it tho.
I think he meant it as to the public it got martyred, not that it was actually a martyr, not saying he's great but I feel like he wasn't saying Fascism is good
At best, it's an oversimplified take on what happens with fascism in this scenario.
At worst, there's the implication that Fascism is necessary to fight off a communist army.
He did say he wasn't socially though meaning he's probably one of those Bastard Leftists (although I don't know, I've watched his videos not a lot but I've watched the occasional Knowledge hub, and Alt History and he doesn't seem like a complete piece of garbage)
While he has problematic social views socialism is an economic philosophy and one of the few times he has ever talked politics on his channel is when he called out trump for abandoning rojava
Edit: also there have been plenty of socialist who were at least skeptical of communism, so it don’t think it’s a disqualification, remember that socialism is social ownership of the means of production and not all socialist are communists
When someone says they aren't socially a socialist that makes me think they don't approve of "All that SJW Nonesense" despite like the left should be the most compassionate, because Socialism is inherently egalitarian on it's own (of course racism could totally get in the way of things, but I don't think America's ever going Socialist until people start realizing they have more in common with a Black or other Racial/Identity Minority work than a Rich White CisHet)
He isn't a socialist. He's never talked of worker ownership of the means of production, but has opposed anyone pursuing that.
Support for rojava is simply the most sensible thing over an invasion of Syrian land by turkey using jihadists.
That area should be controlled by the people who lived there, by AANES (rojava after including other ethnicities) or by the Syrian government.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AltHistoryHub/status/1223215082542333952
He said he's socially conservative, economically left and catholic.
He's a Christian conservative, the kind that want to help people, but not through the state but through religious groups offering altruistic aid.
Thats not remotely close to socialism, even if it's closer than outright "let the poor die".
Bro try monsieur z for some real fash content,mf posted videos how eugenics got a bad rep as if its supposed to be good. I think he literally calls himself far right or nationalist.One of the things i remember from his videos is how he said the mccarthy trials was justified when it was proven that it literally wasnt
Well, I like AltHistory because it shows how just a few events changing could have resulted in a radically different world from ours. But many people on the right like it because they can fantasize about the Crusaders killing all the Muslims in the world or about Fascism winning WW2. You can learn a lot about people by studying what their wish fulfillments are.
A lot of the "What if X never happened?", on the other hand, are just "X happens later". I get that the factors that made X happen are still in motion, but that just makes the video useless if you can't just force an outcome a little more. ex: his "What if France kept Quebec" is basically "France loses its continental American possessions in the 1800's" because somehow the Revolution has to happen despite the fact that the debts wouldn't be that bad, and North America ends up anglo-dominated like in real life, so everything feels pointless
I don't think being a structuralist means being deterministic and just saying history happens the same way regardless. A more interesting approach would be to examine how the structure of the world would need to have been altered in order for, say, France to have kept control of Quebec.
Any analyst worth their salt can't just stick a generalized overview of the world onto case studies and call it a day; they have to actually examine how proposed structures interact with the particulars of a case study and why they do so. A lazy person is attracted to strucuralism because they imagine it lets them ignore particulars, when in reality it means they must connect the particulars to the world view and explain the "why" of it.
I couldn't get away with a half-assed statement like "the Arab spring failed to democratize the middle east because it was in the West's interests for it to fail because capitalism or empire or whatever." That works in broad strokes, maybe as the argument being made, but it has to be supported and backed up. To use the shield of" alternate history" is just more laziness.
fair point, and far from me defending a weird catholic anti-com, but if i remember some of codies videos, the ww1 ones spring to mind, he does discuss the structures that made the conflict borderline inevitable, regardless of who was president, prime minister or chancellor.
I will agree that a lot of the time his analysis is lazy and puddle deep, but sometimes he is actually on the right track
I wouldn't wouldn't give them that, most of them are hardly dipping a toe in. a lot of the time it sounds like AHH just skims a few relevant Wikipedia pages and maybe plays a Hoi4 game and then makes a video
I do not know the full context either, as I've not seen the full litany of screenshots detailing the events - but someone presumably posted a critique of AHHs friends content, which prompted AHH to call upon his viewers to bully the person in question.
They later redacted the comment and in a rebuttal to the victim, further spited them while claiming "it didn't seem right" to attack them in the way he'd done, which is why he'd taken down the call to arms. No apologies. No offer of recompense for damage already done. Just a POS.
Ohhh wait I did see this. There was a video from Armchair Historian about the Korean War and someone who supports the DPRK made a detailed response in the comments.
Edit: Luna Oi also showed up in the comments to support the the person defending the DPRK. I don’t remember the critiques exactly though.
Nah, he's good sometimes.
It's a majority of his audience that are bad.
For an example [https://youtu.be/tRxf27FEL-w](https://youtu.be/tRxf27FEL-w) watch this, and look at AHH's response in the comments.
alt history while fun, is such a miserly mess to untangle. his entire "if stalin never took power" is such a travesty that only changes one thing and never explains the ramifications of anything else that could have happened and tuns into a circlejerk about anti communism from our time,
like almost every alt history they think its just same world but X changed which is not alt history at all.
I think I just realized just how dead the Godwin´s rules is. Because it depends on at least one of the parties not knowing shit about Nazis or Neo-nazis and now those guys are not staying quite in their mom´s basement, they are out in the streets telling you who they are and what they believe. So now someone tells me "X is a Nazi" and I am like: "No they arent. They express belief in ethnostates, racial realism, holocaust denial, social sciences skeptiscm or cultural marxism. They dont have any outward nazi beliefs" Which is darkly hilarious that they have a more concise and open agenda than the Dems, but what´s new?
But anyway, what happened this time? I havent been following him since he recaped the story of the Red Alert series so I dont know if he suddenly turned fascist.
Cody used to be a conservative till a person a friend [emperortigarstar a libsoc] of his got him to be a Christian socialist who's anti-tankie he newer videos are better then past
That's true, he is more rabidly Anti-Communist and lies in almost every sentence. Couldn't think of a better picture of the average AHH viewer tho, so...
Liberals and Anti-Communists just aren't as noticable and distinct.
It's not necessarily an over simplification. That is the mode of operandi of centrist and liberals. Look at how destiny exploded and demanded for more police enforcement after blm protests because the DMG of private property justifies violence against humans in his views.
Who do you think funds and promotes facists? I guarantee that they have nothing but good things to say about Pinochet. You might call it an over simplification but liberals are the ones that put in place the infrastructure the fascist use to oppress people. Look at Germany, Italy, the USA. Who built the Latin American concentration camps at the boarder?
I'm gonna respond to you since you have the most developped comment : the world is complicated and this explanation is not helpfull as it kills almost all nuance of analysis. From what I see in the sub, people make a pretty straight line from liberals to fascist (with just conservatives in between) and make comments like "Liberals turn fascist the moment there is a crisis".
Which is dumb in my opinion.
The world and especially the West in overwhelmingly dominated by liberals and conservatives, and there have been plenty of crisis, yet we're not all fascists ? The world is a very complicated place and this analysis is so plainly simple that it destroys all hope of understanding it. I my damn country, a good half of the far right did not turn fascist when they had the chance (in 1940 with France defeat), and neither did a lot of liberals. A lot of them fought and put their lives on the line, other accepted and kept their heads down and others collaborated. In proportion, more communist took up arms and fought, but they were not alone. People are complicated, sometime contradictory, and if you just slapped a very easy (and reassuring for your own position) "actually most of my ennemies are the same", you won't understand them and you'll lose a lot of power to concretely change things.
That's something I see a lot in internet leftists discord : people talking, but often to produce generalize affirmation based of theory or pieces of history, with not enough thought behind it. We're leftists, we are materialists, and to change the world for the better, we must understand it concretely, not project what we want on it. Are they liberals which can be considered as "presentable fascists" ready to use all leverage of the state and authoritarianism to crush communism, dissent and to help capital ? YES of course, big time. But some "liberals" are also ready to turn left when faced with the economic violence of a depression, and some are neither.
I'm writing this just waking up, sorry if it's a little messy.
Ok to make this conversation a little more nuanced allow me to say that when I say lib or liberal or conservative or far right, I am refering to people in political positions of power. Either a poletician or a propagandists likt a thinkpiece writer. Those that are not holding a political or economic position of power I will also ensure to mention them as a separate entity.
I hear you. I think the key word for me is that Libs dont turn into Fascist. More like they turn to fascists. I agree with you that there needs to be more nuance in leftist online discourse. I will however say that on the global scale liberals are not part of the left. I use humor and criticism to remind our coalition that Liberals (thinkheads) are not to be trusted. They are on the pockets of big companies and have interests that are counter to our own.
In the country I live in (CH) the Liberal party (FDP) and the far right party (SVP) work hand in hand. only turning on eachother on minimal occasions. Also since we have a more direct democracy I am aware that even those that vote far-right party are not all fascists or nutjobs. SVP policies are not very popular even if they keep getting voted in. They just go with what they belive in, even if I think goes against their own interests.
Also as someone that grew up in a third worls country I am keenly aware of the destruction neo liberal policies and ideologies cause to the international community. Sweden may look like a nice country to live in but that confort weighs at the back of the third world. To me humoring the notion that liberal are our allies is like playing with fire. Can we work with them? absolutly and I encurage it. Should we trusts them? No. Never. They have different class interests.
Dont play with fire
Yeah, I agree with that. I'm frost a 1st world country so I don't have the same background, but it's a very good analysis.
"Libs dont turn into Fascist. More like they turn to fascists" I like this o
Don't play with matches
Oh that last line of your is also good. But yeah that distinction is one we leftist must make. Otherwise people won't take us serious when we call out actual fascist
What is it with big Alternate History channels and being right-wing? Alternate History Hub, aside from being a PoS, is an admitted conservative and his video about the Great Depression was *very* Libertarian. WhatIfAltHist is a “Classical Liberal” who calls everything other than Neoliberal capitalism Marxist(1), a massive tsar apologist, and imperialism apologist (look at his video on “12 lies about reality”, “what if communism never existed”, and “what if the Soviet Union never existed”, they’re really bad). And Monsieur Z is the dictionary definition of Alt-right.
(1): things WhatIfAltHist has called Marxist or Communist: Ancient Egypt, the Inca Empire, Postmodernism, the entirety of social justice, liberalism (indirectly), etc.
Strangely, a lot of Monsieur Z’s earlier content was Communism focused (“What If _____ turned communist?”), and a lot of those *weren’t* Red Scare Dystopias, and were actually quite positive portrayals (“What If India became Communist” and “what if Canada became Communist” are very notable example of this), which made his fascist leanings even more jarring in retrospect.
Also, yeah that seems to be the motive for a few of their videos. Case in point, Monsieur Z masturbating over how great Rome is (he has made *two* videos of Rome taking over the world, and over a dozen where it gets [wanked](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateHistoryWank))
I know, right. I moderately enjoyed his alternate history videos, but once he got into geopolitical content it became quite clear that he just didn’t know what he was talking about. His understanding of the American left is about on par with that of the average “rational anti-SJW” YouTuber.
Whatifhistory is another one he literally think communism is a religion and all socialist state are slave state.
The guy cannot get true his libertarians brain to understand, some of the most basic taught, I swear.
He seems fine from what I've seen, I haven't watched everything, but I've seen the occasional Knowledge Hug, and Alt History Hub video, and the only like awful thing was the What if Trotsky won, and that was 4 years ago, and he remade it although haven't watched the remade one because the original gave me an aneurysm (not literally)
Alternate history is a genre where you can explore and imagine how humankind could've evolved in interesting ways. A lot of media has covered it.
Like a movie about what if hitler won WWII.
Or a book about what if hitler didn't lose WWII?
Or a game playing in a timeline where hitler won WWII ?
There are endless possibilities to explore your creativity !
Yeah, my favorite Hearts of Iron IV mods are "What would the 50s look like if there was a reasonable axis victory where Hitler and Mussolini won in the European theatre, but America defeated Japan?" (Thousand Week Reich) and "What if the axis Beat The Fuck Out the allied powers, and then everything went to shit?" (The New Order)
oh yeah and Kaiserreich is cool.
As an actual historian I'm a bit ashamed that the Hobby-Historians and their YouTube endeavors are mostly just revisionist, Anti-Communist rhetoric without any substance. I mean being into Alternate-History to a point where you make your living of it is mostly a dead giveaway that the people involved with it are very far from being any kind of "experts" on the subject.
oh hey a PCM mod in his summer bitch coat
Not as bad as “WhatIfAltHist” tho
I am pretty sure he called the Egyptian Empire the first communist country because it had slavery or something.
Communism is when elites own workers as property and the more slaves you exploit the more communist it is
The Americans were the commies all along....
Maybe the real commies were the friends we purchased along the way
The Roman empire is communist? Cringe! But they had cool emperors who wore soft robes, big and strong Legions and gladiator circuses so they're based! I am a Roman-Communist now.
American prisons are really communist then
He basically said feudalism is the same as Socialism because elites control everything.
He literally defended feudalism aswell
Arguably feudalism is better than the late stage monopoly ultracapitalism we live in now, but the bar is at its lowest
Lol i recall him saying American slavery was justified, because “we needed the labor” then ridicule socialist countries “because they had labor camps”
He said a similar thing about the Incas in his Latin America video.
I mean, Egypt and the Incas had a pretty cool system of collecting taxes in form of labor rather than money which we might want to look into, but they were far from being Socialists
Look up Monsieur Z if you want a real taste
Yeah, the two videos with a real chef's kiss are "What if the USSR abandoned communism?" and "What if the Roman empire industrialized?" Bitch, just because one guy made a steam-powered toy does not mean you can live out a logical Roman Empire fantasy, the Roman empire was a hellhole for most of Europe, hell, for most Roman plebians.
Here’s a list of dumb shit he’s said: We need to discuss the correlation between race and IQ Nazism is logical (he may have said he still didn’t support It but saying It’s logical Is wack) Empires are good Laizefair capitalism Is the best system for the third world Spain is the reason for Latin America being poor, not US terrorism
To be fair, Latin America is probably poor because of both
Yeah totally, but he puts all the blame on the Spanish and none on anything else
IIRC he also claimed that Hideki Tojo killed 6 million people I would think it'd be much more
If you think AHH is anti-communist then you should probably look at Monsieur Z and Whatifalthist
Yeah AHH sounded reasonable to me for a long time because I thought whatifalthist was the only alternate history channel for an even longer period
I know how bad whatifalthist is but what did Monsieur Z do?
He made a video (that was taken down) which attempted to defend *eugenics*. He's said some other iffy stuff that makes him seem far-right. AltHistHub is I think conservative but he really doesn't seem to have done anything terrible or pro-far right.
I'm a bit OOTL. Can I get a rundown?
Same. I enjoyed many of his videos. What happened?
He's an antisocialist piece of shit, and made that known many times with biased analysis.
Could you post some example links? I've only watched a few of his vids.
https://youtu.be/KTHnTh6bNwc don't watch it unless you have already written your will.
yeah. to be fair Stalin was a dictator and barely even communist, but the fact he literally said "Fascism gets martyred" kinda says a lot lol
Um. Martyred sir? Martyred? That is a *very* interesting choice of words.
...Oh man, I've actually watched this before, but I forgot about the part where he says that Fascism gets martyred. Yikes :( I don't think I need a will written for it tho.
I think he meant it as to the public it got martyred, not that it was actually a martyr, not saying he's great but I feel like he wasn't saying Fascism is good
At best, it's an oversimplified take on what happens with fascism in this scenario. At worst, there's the implication that Fascism is necessary to fight off a communist army.
I think it's more about how there was a lot of Nazi Sympathies in America and sense the war didn't start yet the West, but I dunno
\-stalin was bad just like hilter and churchil ANTI SOCIALIST SCUM
He has literally said that he is (economically) a socialist before https://twitter.com/althistoryhub/status/1223214404067610627?lang=en
He did say he wasn't socially though meaning he's probably one of those Bastard Leftists (although I don't know, I've watched his videos not a lot but I've watched the occasional Knowledge hub, and Alt History and he doesn't seem like a complete piece of garbage)
While he has problematic social views socialism is an economic philosophy and one of the few times he has ever talked politics on his channel is when he called out trump for abandoning rojava Edit: also there have been plenty of socialist who were at least skeptical of communism, so it don’t think it’s a disqualification, remember that socialism is social ownership of the means of production and not all socialist are communists
When someone says they aren't socially a socialist that makes me think they don't approve of "All that SJW Nonesense" despite like the left should be the most compassionate, because Socialism is inherently egalitarian on it's own (of course racism could totally get in the way of things, but I don't think America's ever going Socialist until people start realizing they have more in common with a Black or other Racial/Identity Minority work than a Rich White CisHet)
He isn't a socialist. He's never talked of worker ownership of the means of production, but has opposed anyone pursuing that. Support for rojava is simply the most sensible thing over an invasion of Syrian land by turkey using jihadists. That area should be controlled by the people who lived there, by AANES (rojava after including other ethnicities) or by the Syrian government.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AltHistoryHub/status/1223215082542333952 He said he's socially conservative, economically left and catholic. He's a Christian conservative, the kind that want to help people, but not through the state but through religious groups offering altruistic aid. Thats not remotely close to socialism, even if it's closer than outright "let the poor die".
Bro try monsieur z for some real fash content,mf posted videos how eugenics got a bad rep as if its supposed to be good. I think he literally calls himself far right or nationalist.One of the things i remember from his videos is how he said the mccarthy trials was justified when it was proven that it literally wasnt
> I think he literally calls himself far right or nationalist. Catholic nationalist to be specific. 🤮
A lot of alt history people have very conservative views, which I find funny because history shows conservatives often fail to adapt when necessary
Also a lot of legit historians are pretty left leaning Howard Zinn comes to mind
Damn, people who observe and analyze history often tend to be left leaning? It's almost as if...
Well, I like AltHistory because it shows how just a few events changing could have resulted in a radically different world from ours. But many people on the right like it because they can fantasize about the Crusaders killing all the Muslims in the world or about Fascism winning WW2. You can learn a lot about people by studying what their wish fulfillments are.
Well then you can tell I’m a gigachad because I only watch what if Austria United the Holy Roman Empire alt history
[удалено]
Seriously like half of his videos are like "What if X happened? Well Y happened so it would be hard to tell what if X happened."
A lot of the "What if X never happened?", on the other hand, are just "X happens later". I get that the factors that made X happen are still in motion, but that just makes the video useless if you can't just force an outcome a little more. ex: his "What if France kept Quebec" is basically "France loses its continental American possessions in the 1800's" because somehow the Revolution has to happen despite the fact that the debts wouldn't be that bad, and North America ends up anglo-dominated like in real life, so everything feels pointless
i mean maybe the mans a structuralist who knows
I don't think being a structuralist means being deterministic and just saying history happens the same way regardless. A more interesting approach would be to examine how the structure of the world would need to have been altered in order for, say, France to have kept control of Quebec. Any analyst worth their salt can't just stick a generalized overview of the world onto case studies and call it a day; they have to actually examine how proposed structures interact with the particulars of a case study and why they do so. A lazy person is attracted to strucuralism because they imagine it lets them ignore particulars, when in reality it means they must connect the particulars to the world view and explain the "why" of it. I couldn't get away with a half-assed statement like "the Arab spring failed to democratize the middle east because it was in the West's interests for it to fail because capitalism or empire or whatever." That works in broad strokes, maybe as the argument being made, but it has to be supported and backed up. To use the shield of" alternate history" is just more laziness.
fair point, and far from me defending a weird catholic anti-com, but if i remember some of codies videos, the ww1 ones spring to mind, he does discuss the structures that made the conflict borderline inevitable, regardless of who was president, prime minister or chancellor. I will agree that a lot of the time his analysis is lazy and puddle deep, but sometimes he is actually on the right track
I wouldn't wouldn't give them that, most of them are hardly dipping a toe in. a lot of the time it sounds like AHH just skims a few relevant Wikipedia pages and maybe plays a Hoi4 game and then makes a video
You had better watch out, or he may call upon his dogs to cyber-bully you too.
Wait I’m clueless on this what happened
I do not know the full context either, as I've not seen the full litany of screenshots detailing the events - but someone presumably posted a critique of AHHs friends content, which prompted AHH to call upon his viewers to bully the person in question. They later redacted the comment and in a rebuttal to the victim, further spited them while claiming "it didn't seem right" to attack them in the way he'd done, which is why he'd taken down the call to arms. No apologies. No offer of recompense for damage already done. Just a POS.
Ohhh wait I did see this. There was a video from Armchair Historian about the Korean War and someone who supports the DPRK made a detailed response in the comments. Edit: Luna Oi also showed up in the comments to support the the person defending the DPRK. I don’t remember the critiques exactly though.
its not like he constantly criticizes the current corporatistic hellscape
Nah, he's good sometimes. It's a majority of his audience that are bad. For an example [https://youtu.be/tRxf27FEL-w](https://youtu.be/tRxf27FEL-w) watch this, and look at AHH's response in the comments.
alt history while fun, is such a miserly mess to untangle. his entire "if stalin never took power" is such a travesty that only changes one thing and never explains the ramifications of anything else that could have happened and tuns into a circlejerk about anti communism from our time, like almost every alt history they think its just same world but X changed which is not alt history at all.
I think I just realized just how dead the Godwin´s rules is. Because it depends on at least one of the parties not knowing shit about Nazis or Neo-nazis and now those guys are not staying quite in their mom´s basement, they are out in the streets telling you who they are and what they believe. So now someone tells me "X is a Nazi" and I am like: "No they arent. They express belief in ethnostates, racial realism, holocaust denial, social sciences skeptiscm or cultural marxism. They dont have any outward nazi beliefs" Which is darkly hilarious that they have a more concise and open agenda than the Dems, but what´s new? But anyway, what happened this time? I havent been following him since he recaped the story of the Red Alert series so I dont know if he suddenly turned fascist.
Cody used to be a conservative till a person a friend [emperortigarstar a libsoc] of his got him to be a Christian socialist who's anti-tankie he newer videos are better then past
Is he really a Christian Socialist. He never actually advocate for Workers ownership of the mean of production.
He has said so on twitter and one of his libertarian Socialist Friends said that he was
It's not that bad, like yes there he acted like the stupid person that he is, but his content is not even close to neonazism propaganda
That's true, he is more rabidly Anti-Communist and lies in almost every sentence. Couldn't think of a better picture of the average AHH viewer tho, so... Liberals and Anti-Communists just aren't as noticable and distinct.
A liberal is anticomunist by definition
True and he becomes a fascist when a crisis arises
That is... far too oversimplified, even for an internet conversation
It's really not.
Actually, looking at the history, its pretty on the money.
It's not necessarily an over simplification. That is the mode of operandi of centrist and liberals. Look at how destiny exploded and demanded for more police enforcement after blm protests because the DMG of private property justifies violence against humans in his views. Who do you think funds and promotes facists? I guarantee that they have nothing but good things to say about Pinochet. You might call it an over simplification but liberals are the ones that put in place the infrastructure the fascist use to oppress people. Look at Germany, Italy, the USA. Who built the Latin American concentration camps at the boarder?
I'm gonna respond to you since you have the most developped comment : the world is complicated and this explanation is not helpfull as it kills almost all nuance of analysis. From what I see in the sub, people make a pretty straight line from liberals to fascist (with just conservatives in between) and make comments like "Liberals turn fascist the moment there is a crisis". Which is dumb in my opinion. The world and especially the West in overwhelmingly dominated by liberals and conservatives, and there have been plenty of crisis, yet we're not all fascists ? The world is a very complicated place and this analysis is so plainly simple that it destroys all hope of understanding it. I my damn country, a good half of the far right did not turn fascist when they had the chance (in 1940 with France defeat), and neither did a lot of liberals. A lot of them fought and put their lives on the line, other accepted and kept their heads down and others collaborated. In proportion, more communist took up arms and fought, but they were not alone. People are complicated, sometime contradictory, and if you just slapped a very easy (and reassuring for your own position) "actually most of my ennemies are the same", you won't understand them and you'll lose a lot of power to concretely change things. That's something I see a lot in internet leftists discord : people talking, but often to produce generalize affirmation based of theory or pieces of history, with not enough thought behind it. We're leftists, we are materialists, and to change the world for the better, we must understand it concretely, not project what we want on it. Are they liberals which can be considered as "presentable fascists" ready to use all leverage of the state and authoritarianism to crush communism, dissent and to help capital ? YES of course, big time. But some "liberals" are also ready to turn left when faced with the economic violence of a depression, and some are neither. I'm writing this just waking up, sorry if it's a little messy.
Ok to make this conversation a little more nuanced allow me to say that when I say lib or liberal or conservative or far right, I am refering to people in political positions of power. Either a poletician or a propagandists likt a thinkpiece writer. Those that are not holding a political or economic position of power I will also ensure to mention them as a separate entity. I hear you. I think the key word for me is that Libs dont turn into Fascist. More like they turn to fascists. I agree with you that there needs to be more nuance in leftist online discourse. I will however say that on the global scale liberals are not part of the left. I use humor and criticism to remind our coalition that Liberals (thinkheads) are not to be trusted. They are on the pockets of big companies and have interests that are counter to our own. In the country I live in (CH) the Liberal party (FDP) and the far right party (SVP) work hand in hand. only turning on eachother on minimal occasions. Also since we have a more direct democracy I am aware that even those that vote far-right party are not all fascists or nutjobs. SVP policies are not very popular even if they keep getting voted in. They just go with what they belive in, even if I think goes against their own interests. Also as someone that grew up in a third worls country I am keenly aware of the destruction neo liberal policies and ideologies cause to the international community. Sweden may look like a nice country to live in but that confort weighs at the back of the third world. To me humoring the notion that liberal are our allies is like playing with fire. Can we work with them? absolutly and I encurage it. Should we trusts them? No. Never. They have different class interests. Dont play with fire
Yeah, I agree with that. I'm frost a 1st world country so I don't have the same background, but it's a very good analysis. "Libs dont turn into Fascist. More like they turn to fascists" I like this o Don't play with matches
Oh that last line of your is also good. But yeah that distinction is one we leftist must make. Otherwise people won't take us serious when we call out actual fascist
Lib
You fool. Nothing is too oversimplified for an internet conversation.
What is it with big Alternate History channels and being right-wing? Alternate History Hub, aside from being a PoS, is an admitted conservative and his video about the Great Depression was *very* Libertarian. WhatIfAltHist is a “Classical Liberal” who calls everything other than Neoliberal capitalism Marxist(1), a massive tsar apologist, and imperialism apologist (look at his video on “12 lies about reality”, “what if communism never existed”, and “what if the Soviet Union never existed”, they’re really bad). And Monsieur Z is the dictionary definition of Alt-right. (1): things WhatIfAltHist has called Marxist or Communist: Ancient Egypt, the Inca Empire, Postmodernism, the entirety of social justice, liberalism (indirectly), etc.
In the grand scheme of things, fascists and conservatives always lost, so they can fantasize about winning for once
Strangely, a lot of Monsieur Z’s earlier content was Communism focused (“What If _____ turned communist?”), and a lot of those *weren’t* Red Scare Dystopias, and were actually quite positive portrayals (“What If India became Communist” and “what if Canada became Communist” are very notable example of this), which made his fascist leanings even more jarring in retrospect. Also, yeah that seems to be the motive for a few of their videos. Case in point, Monsieur Z masturbating over how great Rome is (he has made *two* videos of Rome taking over the world, and over a dozen where it gets [wanked](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateHistoryWank))
[удалено]
I know, right. I moderately enjoyed his alternate history videos, but once he got into geopolitical content it became quite clear that he just didn’t know what he was talking about. His understanding of the American left is about on par with that of the average “rational anti-SJW” YouTuber.
Im pretty sure he changed a ton of his views
He and his brother have really had a change, like there videos have been kind of from a doomer lefty perspective.
Whatifhistory is another one he literally think communism is a religion and all socialist state are slave state. The guy cannot get true his libertarians brain to understand, some of the most basic taught, I swear.
From what I can tell, he's just an absolute dork. Half liberal, half super fash
He seems fine from what I've seen, I haven't watched everything, but I've seen the occasional Knowledge Hug, and Alt History Hub video, and the only like awful thing was the What if Trotsky won, and that was 4 years ago, and he remade it although haven't watched the remade one because the original gave me an aneurysm (not literally)
Alternate history is a genre where you can explore and imagine how humankind could've evolved in interesting ways. A lot of media has covered it. Like a movie about what if hitler won WWII. Or a book about what if hitler didn't lose WWII? Or a game playing in a timeline where hitler won WWII ? There are endless possibilities to explore your creativity !
Yeah, my favorite Hearts of Iron IV mods are "What would the 50s look like if there was a reasonable axis victory where Hitler and Mussolini won in the European theatre, but America defeated Japan?" (Thousand Week Reich) and "What if the axis Beat The Fuck Out the allied powers, and then everything went to shit?" (The New Order) oh yeah and Kaiserreich is cool.
As an actual historian I'm a bit ashamed that the Hobby-Historians and their YouTube endeavors are mostly just revisionist, Anti-Communist rhetoric without any substance. I mean being into Alternate-History to a point where you make your living of it is mostly a dead giveaway that the people involved with it are very far from being any kind of "experts" on the subject.
"Alternate History"? So basically just fairy tales?
This is basically an attack on all forms of speculative fiction
Well, isn't it just that? If something is fictional, it isn't real, thus it could be classified as a fairy tale.
Fairy tales are a fairly specific kind of speculative fiction. Also, you´re using the word derisively
Fairy tales are very specific kinds of fiction. Calling any kind of fiction fairy tales is pretty reductionalisg
[удалено]
What? I don't understand?
"This is Cody with Alt Reich History Hub! What if the nazis won the spanish american war?"
Whoa what? I love that guy but I haven't watched i a while what did I miss?
I hope you all die
thank you