*makes right-wing propaganda*

>*makes right-wing propaganda*

Attached: sargon.png (503x457, 471K)

>*makes right-wing propaganda*
based
who's that though

He's pretty objective, 2bh. He does videos ranging from absolving Goering of the guilt of the Luftwaffe's failure to provide airlifts to Paulus in Stalingrad, to dispelling the myth that '41 - '42 Red Army regiments were commonly without rifles.

Based if true. But, literally who?

He's a typical military history autist with no understanding of anything outside that subject.

His attempts to tackle economics and political science are lethal cringe weapons.

if it agrees with me, it's provocative and something "we all need right now".

if it disagrees with me, it's propaganda.

What’s the name of his channel

TIK

Military historians are among the cringiest peoples I've met. They are the kind of faggots that are persuaded that warfare history is still an interesting subject to research. It's not. There's nothing valuable you can add on this branch and everything is already done decades ago, unlike *literally* any other subjects in history. They're also the guys that will bring old weapons to class believing it can enhance their presentation. Again, if you're doing your PHD and you STILL feel the need to bring out an old rusted knife to make your presentation interesting, good chances are your subject is weak and boring. They also larps during their week-end which there isn't inherently wrong about that except that I find it stupid.

Now that's on an academic level. I can't fucking stand amateur historian obsessed about warfare history.

t. historian

A lot of those channels do that. They try to study the subject in order to discuss it, but without guidance, formal education or the habit of reading actual books they inevitably fall for one of the millions of online austrian economics think-thanks out there and their astroturf channels and websites.

We've all made that mistake. Usually when we were 17 but still.

>Now that's on an academic level. I can't fucking stand amateur historian obsessed about warfare history.
You sound like a faggot on your own right desu.

I AM THE BEAST I WORSHIP
I CLOSE MY EYES AND SEIZE IT

Are you one of those guy that makes threads about wikipedia battle results with the captions that they could make great movies?

No, but I'm studying history rn and I'm already familiar with people like you. Humanities people with status anxiety who are insecure about the discipline they've chosen to study for not being "brainy" enough, always angry at the "fucking dilettantes" because that's how you feel part of something exclusive and highbrow. And you don't hate amateur historians, you're threatened by them because the academic teaching of History is so specific and directed that we're always at risk of being made to feel ignorant on our own discipline by someone curious about an aspect of it we weren't taught, and if you have low self-esteem that's something that will keep you awake at night.

Jesus could you be any more insufferable

Why are you so paranoid? Austrian economics autists are minnows in a pond dominated by massmillion schools of neo-liberal expert-opinions-for-hire sailfish.

His left eye is way too high for his dead right eye.

I CLENCH MY FIST AND BEAT IT
My dick that is

I think you make a lot of projecting.

There is no insecurity on my part because I'm already secured in my position. An historian has a duty to both push the science forward while preserving the commune memory. What I am accusing the warfare historians is that they aren't doing the former. They are regurgitating a subject that has been done a million time already with sources that were already overused decades ago. Military history is a viable subject when you explore beyond the warfare aspect. You are accusing me of being too "brainy" but if your subject isn't, then it's worthless. History is a science and a science aims to always innovate and evolve. There is no point to study something stagnant. As for the latter, warfare historians offers no valuable information to preserve. One is more concerned with remembering the consequence of the first world war than the military strategies around it.

I am not threatened by amateurs because amateurs cannot do what I do. An amateur can knows plenty about ancient history (of which I'm unashamedly completely ignorant) but the amateur will not know about the scientific method he requires to make something with that information. For my thesis, I vastly used a book written by an amateur historian (and veterinarian as his regular job) and while his work gave me a lot of valuable raw information, it didn't had any scientific worth because it wasn't innovating in anything. The amateur can read and write however he wants, if he doesn't attain this scientific rigor then his knowledge are nothing more than anecdotes. This rigor isn't also confined to university classes. It can be self-taught but doing so is like climbing a mountain backward : achievable but difficult.

>An historian
Stopped reading there.
We all have google at our fingertips right now.

>One is more concerned with remembering the consequence of the first world war than the military strategies around it.

The strategies of the First World War are of great important to military science.