Opinion - Other History Youtubers

[NormanStewart]

@nicholasrusson_58993

There’s a very intelligent and very articulate chap I often interact with on Gab who holds even stronger anti-Atun views than that.

I despise Atun too. I was being, well, nice in my reply there (cleaning it up for this forum).

[1nt17cs152.ritvik]

@NormanStewart

Karolina Żebrowska, TheLongHairedFlapper, priorattire (the latter’s my wife’s favorite, for women’s fashion history)

something tells me that you watch it to because of uh… curly hair

[Chewbacca]

@nicholasrusson_58993

I ignore him because I find his presentation style to be aggressively abrasive.

I have the same feeling when watching him. To me he also comes accross as a “quoter without evaluation”. E.g. Hitler was not obsessed about Stalingrad because he said so in speeches. The name was not a factor.

Obsessiveness is hard to measure BUT Hitler in his speeches was probably trying to convince the Germans that the name Stalingrad was irrelevant to him. In spite of the fact that it was a house to house forever slogging match.

Let alone his unwillingness to retreat from Festung Stalingrad later. The name mattered I think.

[NormanStewart]

@1nt17cs152.ritvik

something tells me that you watch it to because of uh… curly hair

TheLongHairedFlapper definitely

[NormanStewart]

@NormanStewart

Halley’s Comet sighting of 1910.

For anyone interested:

Halley's Comet and the End of the World

[NormanStewart]

@Chewbacca

To me he also comes accross as a “quoter without evaluation”.

One should evaluate, but when one is twisting what is said to imply meanings to fit his worldview, he runs a serious risk of becoming a “quoter with overevaluation” or, worse, “quoter with misinterpretation” or “quoter with fabrication.” As an example, I pointed out the blatant manipulation of Stimson’s quotes on black servicemen by TG in my posts months ago. That’s a combination of misinterpretation, sensationalism and even omission (in that they ignore what Stimson himself had to say on the matter).

@Racism of the US Army - Fighting for Freedom? - WW2 Special

When asked to justify this policy by a Representative to Congress in 1943, Secretary of War Henry Stimson would reply that:

Negro units have… […] …been unable to master the techniques of modern weapons.

That’s not what he said. That was a quote from William Hastie (who was not a Congressman, he was Stimson’s civilian aide) in a 1972 interview…
Judge William H. Hastie Oral History Interview | Harry S. Truman

…not Stimson himself…

…that was sensationalized and twisted quite sloppily:
The African American Experience during World War II - Neil A. Wynn - Google Boeken

Wynn is another British historian and this was his only published work (outside of essays for journals).

Gluckstein again:

The second part of the quote was sensationalized by the NAACP, through Hastie and Truman Gibson. Hastie actually stepped down as a civilian aide to Secretary Stimson because he claimed that they were planning a separate OCS for the Air Corps and he wasn’t informed. The Air Corps denied the claims, but he said they were lying, and resigned. Part of Hastie’s resignation letter, published on the Chicago Defender:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/813068464855187467/844810942263853086/unknown.png

And now we know where the “[…]” comes from. It’s because it was two things attributed to him, but not definitively said by him that JD and I could find, yet.

Regarding the second comment about “not knowing how to operate modern weapons,” Hastie’s big push wasn’t for ground combat. He wanted (not wrongfully) blacks to be represented in artillery, mechanized divisions, and most important to him, the Air Corps. So, the soft implication of the phrase, when spoken out of context, is that “black people can’t even use machine guns,” when Stimson could have been (and this is conjecture on our part) referring to the fact they didn’t have the education level to handle more advanced mechanized weapons, which require training and a certain level of basic education to use.

Even then, with context of the whole discussion (and considering Stimson did sign off on multiple mechanized all-black units), Stimson couldn’t have harbored that as a universal belief.

So, it’s easy to presume he may have been speaking about mass mobilization of “all blacks,” not just the higher-educated or capable ones. This does tie into racial (and regional) disparities in education.

The NAACP, following W. E. B. DuBois’ lead, really had and has a very bad habit of presuming that “anything one white man can do, all black men can do.” There’s a reality that “white militaries” learned a long time ago – some people really are just bullet fodder and they are useful. You give them a rifle, you give them some training, you point them at the enemy. But, that is “beneath the black man” in some views on the other side.

We will never know whether Stimson himself actually said that, because he died only 5 years after the war ended.

I see this a lot, “well, he said that, but he didn’t really mean it.” I’d ask: what makes one the authority to state that (unless he can read minds of people he had never even met associates of who are long dead)?

@Chewbacca

Hitler in his speeches was probably trying to convince the Germans that the name Stalingrad was irrelevant to him. In spite of the fact that it was a house to house forever slogging match.

Yes, because Hitler was seeing how the battle was going and was desperate to beat the Russians and fully take the Volga and the Caucasus before the harsh winter. When the battle didn’t end by wintertime, he was forced to bog down, there was so much territory to defend and his supply lines were already thin. So, he downplayed the true nature of the battle to the public.

Look at the oil production of the region at the time and the geography of the area to see why it’s strategically important. It wasn’t just the name.

[No_Retreat]

WOW! You’re the man! Can’t wait to dig into this list!