Desert Fox
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 10,584
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
So as many who are familiar with my posts on this forum are aware I have posted TIK's videos a few times.
And the guy does his research which is PHENOMENAL to say the least and I have enjoyed many of his videos (Stalingrad series, although I do have some points I could criticize him on)
However, for someone who claims to be an unbiased researcher/WW2 history enthusiast/proponent of unbiased truth/"historian" (and whatever else he or his followers claim him to be) he has been disingenuous and biased on many accounts but recently he seems to have gone off the rails with this whole historically inaccurate and false strawman of "everyone who isn't a Liberal Democrat/Capitalist is a Socialist Mass Murderer" and of course "anyone who disagrees with me is a Socialist".
He's basically taking the establishment's position, the position of the elites, and thus the safe position. There is nothing daring and commendable about taking the position of the majority, because it's the easiest and safest thing to do.
By bashing Germans and repeating the same old holocaust/"zhe ebil Germans" narrative TIK is beating the pulpified carcass of a dead horse, one that countless many "historians" have already beaten countless times.
He is disingenuous because he's aware of the facts but deliberately fools his audience and the little personality cult following he has garnered.
And anyone who disagrees with him and his cult followers is attacked by them not unlike a mob of AntiFa Bolsheviks.
And he is aware of the facts which is apparent to anyone who has watched his videos and noticed his contradictory narrative where in one video he says one thing but in the next he pushes a narrative that conflicts with the other when in actuality both facts compliment each other.
For example in his latest video "Fate of Soviet Prisoners" he states that the Germans deliberately starved Soviet POW's whom they were morally responsible to protect implying that they had the means to do so.
But in other videos he states (quoting sources) that the Wehrmacht "suffered severe logistical and food shortages which hampered its ability to conduct war effectively as well as feed the populations within its occupied territories".
Logically and if one were honest one would conclude that the Whermacht's main objective was to knock out its main adversaries and achieve victory (whatever form that victory might have taken in the eyes of its leadership) and to use every means towards that end, which included not being a humanitarian organization that deprives it's own soldiers of limited food supplies and resources to feed 4 million POW's whilst fighting a war on multiple fronts against industrially equal or superior powers with more resources at their disposal than it..
Hitler had as much moral responsibility over Soviet POW's as Winston Churchill had over the 4 million civilians he starved to death in 1943 during the Bengal Famine when he confiscated their food to feed White Greeks and British soldiers.
Churchill was a truly humanitarian
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-more-villain-than-hero-in-britain-s-colonies
TIK deliberately ignored the fact that Hitler did attempt to reach some form of agreement with the Soviets on treatment of POW's which Stalin turned down because in his view "any Soviet soldier who surrenders is a traitor", and Stalin did indeed prove his words when in 1945 German camps containing Soviet POW's who were "liberated" by the Red army were executed, tortured or sent packing to Siberia in cattle cars.
Thus not only Stalin didn't care about his own soldiers in German captivity, he meted out the same treatment to German POW's in his captivity. Therefore to expect Hitler to babysit Soviet POW's at the expense of his own soldiers after this is to be unrealistic and illogical especially from the modern, mechanistic and secular warfare perspective where only cold ruthless logic prevails and not vague concepts of "morality" which are religious in origin.
British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:
"When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."
Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:
"Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."
But TIK won't mention this because he's a disingenuous propagandist. He's peddling the same old mainstream garbage you can find on the History channel. If I want to hear the same old garbage propaganda I can just watch mainstream TV.
In more than one video now TIK has repeatedly also used the already debunked canard of "National Socialism = Marxist Socialism because of the word Socialism therefore National Socialism is a Marxist ideology" (this is how low TIK has sunk because of his disingenuity).
Anyone with basic political science knowledge and knowledge of European history from the last 2-300 years, particularly of WW2 (as TIK specializes in but twists facts to further an agenda) knows that the first ideology is a Folkish & Nationalistic ideology while the second is an Internationalist & materialistic ideology (to put it in a nutshell).
Just because the word "Socialism" is in "National Socialism" doesn't mean Hitler is now a Communist/Marxist. Socialism predates Marx and the term itself was used by numerous people with different meanings. For Marx what he called socialism was just a phase before Communism was achieved.
For Hitler and other Right wingers their Socialism was derived from the Catholic Social Doctrine (based in religious morality, ironically for TIK who claims to be proponent of moralism whilst championing capitalism) or from Oswald Spengler's Prussian Socialism which was attributed to the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck when he made reforms that helped the workers against the mistreatment of employers. Hitler even states in Mein Kampf that the Christian Social movement of Dr. Karl Lueger, the mayor of Vienna when Hitler resided there during his homeless years, influenced his future political planning. Whereas Hitler calls Marx a devil. TIK extensively quotes Mein Kampf which further proves that he is disingenuous and selectively chooses quotes to push his own agenda.
TIK also extensively quoted from Hitler's Second Book in his video "The Real Reason why Hitler HAD To start WW2" yet did he not mention Hitlers admiration of America's founding fathers and its then racially selective immigration policy, of the British Race theorist Houstin Stewart Chamberlin, and of the American racial theorist Madison Grant who was personally close to President Theodore Roosevelt?
This leads me to believe that TIK is being disingenuous and pushing a agenda that is biased and partial rather than neutral and genuinely interested in the truth.
@Nilgiri @Psychic @LeGenD @Army research @The Sandman
And the guy does his research which is PHENOMENAL to say the least and I have enjoyed many of his videos (Stalingrad series, although I do have some points I could criticize him on)
However, for someone who claims to be an unbiased researcher/WW2 history enthusiast/proponent of unbiased truth/"historian" (and whatever else he or his followers claim him to be) he has been disingenuous and biased on many accounts but recently he seems to have gone off the rails with this whole historically inaccurate and false strawman of "everyone who isn't a Liberal Democrat/Capitalist is a Socialist Mass Murderer" and of course "anyone who disagrees with me is a Socialist".
He's basically taking the establishment's position, the position of the elites, and thus the safe position. There is nothing daring and commendable about taking the position of the majority, because it's the easiest and safest thing to do.
By bashing Germans and repeating the same old holocaust/"zhe ebil Germans" narrative TIK is beating the pulpified carcass of a dead horse, one that countless many "historians" have already beaten countless times.
He is disingenuous because he's aware of the facts but deliberately fools his audience and the little personality cult following he has garnered.
And anyone who disagrees with him and his cult followers is attacked by them not unlike a mob of AntiFa Bolsheviks.
And he is aware of the facts which is apparent to anyone who has watched his videos and noticed his contradictory narrative where in one video he says one thing but in the next he pushes a narrative that conflicts with the other when in actuality both facts compliment each other.
For example in his latest video "Fate of Soviet Prisoners" he states that the Germans deliberately starved Soviet POW's whom they were morally responsible to protect implying that they had the means to do so.
But in other videos he states (quoting sources) that the Wehrmacht "suffered severe logistical and food shortages which hampered its ability to conduct war effectively as well as feed the populations within its occupied territories".
Logically and if one were honest one would conclude that the Whermacht's main objective was to knock out its main adversaries and achieve victory (whatever form that victory might have taken in the eyes of its leadership) and to use every means towards that end, which included not being a humanitarian organization that deprives it's own soldiers of limited food supplies and resources to feed 4 million POW's whilst fighting a war on multiple fronts against industrially equal or superior powers with more resources at their disposal than it..
Hitler had as much moral responsibility over Soviet POW's as Winston Churchill had over the 4 million civilians he starved to death in 1943 during the Bengal Famine when he confiscated their food to feed White Greeks and British soldiers.
Churchill was a truly humanitarian
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-more-villain-than-hero-in-britain-s-colonies
TIK deliberately ignored the fact that Hitler did attempt to reach some form of agreement with the Soviets on treatment of POW's which Stalin turned down because in his view "any Soviet soldier who surrenders is a traitor", and Stalin did indeed prove his words when in 1945 German camps containing Soviet POW's who were "liberated" by the Red army were executed, tortured or sent packing to Siberia in cattle cars.
Thus not only Stalin didn't care about his own soldiers in German captivity, he meted out the same treatment to German POW's in his captivity. Therefore to expect Hitler to babysit Soviet POW's at the expense of his own soldiers after this is to be unrealistic and illogical especially from the modern, mechanistic and secular warfare perspective where only cold ruthless logic prevails and not vague concepts of "morality" which are religious in origin.
British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:
"When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."
Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:
"Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."
But TIK won't mention this because he's a disingenuous propagandist. He's peddling the same old mainstream garbage you can find on the History channel. If I want to hear the same old garbage propaganda I can just watch mainstream TV.
In more than one video now TIK has repeatedly also used the already debunked canard of "National Socialism = Marxist Socialism because of the word Socialism therefore National Socialism is a Marxist ideology" (this is how low TIK has sunk because of his disingenuity).
Anyone with basic political science knowledge and knowledge of European history from the last 2-300 years, particularly of WW2 (as TIK specializes in but twists facts to further an agenda) knows that the first ideology is a Folkish & Nationalistic ideology while the second is an Internationalist & materialistic ideology (to put it in a nutshell).
Just because the word "Socialism" is in "National Socialism" doesn't mean Hitler is now a Communist/Marxist. Socialism predates Marx and the term itself was used by numerous people with different meanings. For Marx what he called socialism was just a phase before Communism was achieved.
For Hitler and other Right wingers their Socialism was derived from the Catholic Social Doctrine (based in religious morality, ironically for TIK who claims to be proponent of moralism whilst championing capitalism) or from Oswald Spengler's Prussian Socialism which was attributed to the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck when he made reforms that helped the workers against the mistreatment of employers. Hitler even states in Mein Kampf that the Christian Social movement of Dr. Karl Lueger, the mayor of Vienna when Hitler resided there during his homeless years, influenced his future political planning. Whereas Hitler calls Marx a devil. TIK extensively quotes Mein Kampf which further proves that he is disingenuous and selectively chooses quotes to push his own agenda.
TIK also extensively quoted from Hitler's Second Book in his video "The Real Reason why Hitler HAD To start WW2" yet did he not mention Hitlers admiration of America's founding fathers and its then racially selective immigration policy, of the British Race theorist Houstin Stewart Chamberlin, and of the American racial theorist Madison Grant who was personally close to President Theodore Roosevelt?
This leads me to believe that TIK is being disingenuous and pushing a agenda that is biased and partial rather than neutral and genuinely interested in the truth.
@Nilgiri @Psychic @LeGenD @Army research @The Sandman
Last edited:
.... we have talked on this extensively after all.
