How Alt-History Can Be Dangerous

[@hallamhal]

Most "What if the Nazis won WW2?" Alt histories I've seen seem to start with some change to the Nazis that would go against their whole ideology, that lead to the war in the first place

[@FreddaYT]

And they seem to all ignore scholarship on what Nazi ideology was actually like in practice, and its effects on their success (which is to say, the self-destructiveness of the ideology). I think the Man in the High Castle got at it pretty well, how the ideology is completely untenable. The scenarios correctly assume that the second Hitler's amphetamine-addled body croaks, it all comes falling down, but they incorrectly undervalue the effect the lack of any real Nazi consensus ideology has within the Nazi movement itself. Every Nazi had their own idea of what Nazism actually was, sometimes with some commonalities. Should there be any sort of peace at the end of WW2 where the Reich is not dismantled, it'd find a way to destroy itself anyways.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

@@FreddaYT What in National Socialism makes it unsustainable, exactly? I've seen this being said by some people but was never explained their reasoning or their reasoning was quite flawed. From what I've seen they had a pretty uh... "good" plan for what to do: -Conquer Eastern Europe -Exterminate and enslave the "subhumans" -Colonize those areas with Germans I am unaware of what they planned to do with the conquered lands to the West and North. Most likely just turn them into client states like Slovakia. What in here is untenable or self destructive? And now, can't your third paragraph be applied to the Soviet Union as well? After Lenin died (and during the revolution itself) they had a rather unstable phase with multiple competing factions that hated each other but didn't fall apart

[@Tom_Cruise_Missile]

​@@FreddaYT any ideology based on exclusion, that actively DESTROYS those it excludes, will eventually eat itself alive.

[@justlemonade7191]

@@Tom_Cruise_Missile what you meant is fascism

[@Tom_Cruise_Missile]

@@justlemonade7191 yes, but not exclusively.

[@AlternateHistory]

Hi I am also an alternate history youtuber. The appeal for me, when it comes to alternate history, is the endless amount of worlds one can visit in an imaginary way and for someone who loves to travel, this is probably the single most important point. Interesting perspective you gave on the subject. I am positively surprised.

[@FreddaYT]

I love the alt-part of alt-history, I just hate the history part is quite often handled in such a clunky manner with little of the understanding and respect it deserves. I think if at all possible anyone who seeks to disseminate works of history on a large scale should at least aspire to reach the sort of understanding of history given by a formal education on the subject. Not saying everyone has to attend a university, but at least read historiography and important texts on key subjects that you'll be talking about. Basically read stuff other than Spengler (which is part of Whatifalthist's problem).

[@aweirdredguy3885]

Your alternate Worlds are not interestings,its basically victorian England but with today 's technologies

[@eminentbishop1325]

​@@aweirdredguy3885oof bud. Criticism comes in all flavors but that one was spicy lol personally i disagree with the sentiment. Its a normal alt hist channel that covers the basics like kost of em do lolol

[@OsamaBknLaden]

_a 1000 years of human history is made up_ @@FreddaYT

[@enderkatze6129]

​@@FreddaYTSpengler? Spengler who?

[@MrOuija-rr8kq]

I refuse to believe any entity is “unbiased”. That’s literally impossible.

[@TheKing-mm4me]

Yes because Bias is an opinion

[@crpse-qf6rh]

@@TheKing-mm4me ofcourse because you look at things of your OWN perspective so any historical event you tell can be told in a biased way

[@longiusaescius2537]

You don't get it bro communism is perfect and it's totally never basically a substitute religion for people you have to believe me

[@kevaughnramsay9846]

​@@longiusaescius2537Damn you're really upset about that video huh? 😂

[@longiusaescius2537]

@@kevaughnramsay9846 Your girl ended up in that river L

[@ErisRising]

Many years ago, I wrote an alternate history in which the turning point was Eisenhower having a heart attack shortly before the 1952 convention, and Walt Disney being offered as a compromise candidate when the other potentials can't draw enough unified support. The outcome ended up being catastrophic despite Disney being an overall well-meaning President. My point was to satirize the concept of America really needing a successful businessman to run things, and to illustrate how fragile the country really is, and how easily it can all fall apart when the wrong person is at the helm. I was planning to write a sequel someday, but reality overtook me.

[@knightlypoleaxe2501]

“Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” ― Tom Lehrer

[@DinoRicky]

@@knightlypoleaxe2501you wrote that story? It got so popular that alt history hub’s iceburg had your alt history

[@Lexi_547]

Do you write "A World of Laughter, a world of tears?

[@ErisRising]

@@Lexi_547 Yes! How gratifying that you remember it. Made my day.

[@DinoRicky]

@@ErisRising nice sorry for forgetting the name

[@puchy110]

There is a term found on the AH wiki called a “wankfest” referring to Alternative histories that are either of a particular nationalist, religious, ethnic, etc. bias or domination. For example, if the Caliphate won one battle Islam would be the world religion, or Alexander the Great could’ve conquered his way to the Pacific Ocean. Good AH should at least be kept within the bounds of, realism.

[@dylanchouinard6141]

I respectfully disagree with your last point. Unrealistic alternate history does have it’s time and place. Sometimes you just want to make a silly world because it’s entertaining

[@SpartanChief2277]

@@dylanchouinard6141 this, if i just wanna make an aztec superpower, why cant i? a million sacrifices a week to suffice

[@Silver_Prussian]

Is there one about the left's crazyness, manipulative tactics, bias,multiculturalism,persecution of basic rights religion and culture and son on ?

[@puchy110]

@@dylanchouinard6141 that’s true, my bad for leaving out the context. It was a guideline under Featured Alternate Histories. Essentially the cream of the crop on the alt hist wiki needed to be within the bounds of realism, but as someone who binges both Paradox and Total War, yeah, love me some map painting.

[@puchy110]

@@PriaGuy I’d argue conquering Europe was the unrealistic part, but, the French Republic held its own against two coalitions of monarchists before Napoleon became emperor.

[@SkullCrabz]

I think one of the biggest issues with alternative history is many treat it as a form of history which it is not its creative writing with a basis in history.

[@neoqwerty]

Also most of the people who do that are boring and forget to check for technological breakthroughs that their alternate history path might affect. I should not have only ran into a "the phones didn't become dominant tech and ham radio took off instead" situation in a freaking omegaverse alt-history that stemmed from the Carthage Empire winning the Second Punic War. Every other alt-history setting I've read assumed EVERY piece of tech would still happen the way it did instead of researching the similar tech that could have wound up happening instead-- unless it's about videophones, somehow that one happens all the time and I blame 1950's American suburbanite futurism for pushing it.

[@richardnixonpog9925]

i think modern AHHub has hit that perfect balance between informative and realistic, his videos have definitely improved with time and as a long time viewer he's come a long way. not perfect and definitely guilty of a few of the sins you mentioned but I think he's found his footing. anyways, good video, hope you have a nice day

[@thenightwatchman1598]

your goodwill falls on the deaf ears of dishonest swine who don't deserve your worthless pity.

[@TurkRoacher]

j

[@Onelifegaming096]

​@@TurkRoacherj

[@Vextonomy]

Althist cody is a conservative but is very liberal. A great balance

[@MarcTelang]

@@Vextonomy I wouldn't say he is a conservative more like a liberal who tries to stay as neutral as possible.

[@robert9016]

Possible History is one of the best alt history channels I’ve come across, with actually great historical analysis that takes materialist analysis into account. He is also a critic of Whatifalthist

[@Maltheus_]

100% agree Possible History is great and I love the videos where he casually refutes WhatIfAltHist's god awful takes

[@TT-pl5iw]

@@Maltheus_ Any particular examples? I'm looking through his list of work and not seeing anything that mentions Whatifalthist specifically.

[@Churrb]

Possible history is so chill.. I love him

[@Maltheus_]

@@TT-pl5iw I think he unfortunately deleted the videos about WhatIfAltHist about a month ago or so. I think he had one video criticizing WhatIfAltHist’s “The coming European crisis” video and another about his future borders map video or whatever it’s called.

[@jzdude01]

I read this as potential history at first and was like my homeboy ain’t an alternative history channel…

[@yiannchrst]

I am from Greece, and I have to say, at least half of the history we learn on school is false or at least biased. I hurt sometimes when I study it as someone who tries to learn history on his own...

[@Thess-wm8ke]

I'd say our history is fine, just not the only thing to stick to when learning

[@o-pitamask4698]

I am Greek too but not living in it Didn’t know that the patriotism is so deep in trenched

[@yiannchrst]

@@o-pitamask4698 it is mostly subtle changes

[@JmKrokY]

Damn

[@ElSanicc]

@@yiannchrst I'm curious, can you tell me some of the changes, and if not yoy can tell me if there is a place where i can see the changes.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

If you want to see the really bad things Z posts look at his takes on geopolitics. He deflects the criticism by saying they're "just a hobby" and things like that but they're truly awful. For example: He predicted a possible collapse of Mexico due to political and economic pressures, completely ignoring Mexico did not collapse when things were oh so much worse+ The fact America wouldn't just allow their neighbour to collapse.

[@FreddaYT]

Yeah America would not allow a Syria on its border lmao.

[@conserva-chan2735]

Yeah he don't know shit about the Banana Wars or Mexican Revolution

[@TheFuri0uswc]

If mexico was about to collapse I imainge that U.S. would baild the out or heavily support the government against any rebel avcity. U.S. been down this road before and I can say with full confidence as history as shown they will intervene.

[@conserva-chan2735]

@@TheFuri0uswc yup. U.S would almost immediately occupy Mexico and set up a new government, regardless of backlash out of necessity.

[@Nostripe361]

A stable Mexico is a key security concern for the us.

[@FreddaYT]

I asked Alternatehistoryhub if he wanted me to take him off the thumbnail, he said it's fine. He's there as representative of the genre as one of the best creators. The others are also there as representative of the genre, but for other reasons obviously. Note: There's an issue on the Cuba timeline with duplicatre dates; one of the duplicates is meant to read "October 1960, Cuba nationalizes US properties"

[@Johan_the_Marshal]

So would you say the historians you should be wary of are those who believe they are without biases? Thank you for the advice my friend

[@Cool-123]

“The greatest historian admits his biases” to be blunt then admit your own when you described how Castro’s government stole land from it’s owners (excuse me “economic justice”). In addition your assessment of Columbus while somewhat valid is absurd in regards to his belief that he wanted to send gold back to the Spanish crown for the end times, when literally he offered to sail for multiple countries included Portugal and Britain. Furthermore, your own assessments of history also propaganda. I admit I have a slight right bias, however you can’t deny you have a left bias as well. Next time you criticize someone for being biased then be man enough to admit your own.

[@a3cools115]

Stick to lets plays bro

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@Cool-123 I noticed that as well. The description of Columbus was particularly over the top.

[@joesendell5900]

@@Cool-123 Fredda is very openly socialist, in what way does he hide his bias?

[@Nebyab]

Kudos for the opening. I've always had trouble explaining historiography and historical bias at a high level to people without extensive academic language. I think you did a really great job with that (and the whole video honestly). As someone whose never been especially interested in counterfactuals, it surprised me recently not only how the youtube side of it has exploded in popularity, but also how frequently it seems that a reactionary worldview gets pushed as a baseline to audiences who (tragically) seem untrained in unpacking and unpacking bias. Really great video on the topic. (Also good choice with the Disco Elysium music)

[@FreddaYT]

The civil war was in the 19th century, and the most divided the 20th century was, was probably during the 1930s or 1960s.

[@enderkatze6129]

​@@FreddaYTarguably the 20th century was more divided in the early 1940s than in the 1930s Cus y'know World War and all that.

[@salamantics]

@@enderkatze6129ww2 started in the 30s

[@bobbertcanuck1935]

I'll spoil something for all of you. NO, he does not tar and feather AltHistoryHub. I don't think he says a negative word against Cody. Fredda analyses Alternate History and what History even is at it's roots. It's a good video essay, watch it. I understand that the Thumbnail is what catches your eye, but the cover is not the entirety of the book.

[@johnsteampunk6408]

Add on Note: he more of critizies another Alt-Hist youtuber called Monsieur Z.

[@puchy110]

The Byzantine scenario was the only one made by Cody which I objected to, and it was purely on the POD(point of divergence). The Turks would’ve concentrated their focus on Persia, which they were bringing under their control, or gone for the Shia Fatimids. The Seljuks found their heresy insufferable and wanted to obliterated the dynasty at all costs; something they found even worse than Orthodox Christianity.

[@vrabb9030]

ngl though, the cover of the book is meant to describe or give a general idea of what the actual book is.

[@nbewarwe]

AHH is the only alt-history channel I watch as he seems to try to keep his scenarios realistic, even if said scenarios do end up being disappointing, rather than doing wish-fullfillment. He at least comes across as wanting to explore history through alt-history rather than push a narrative or fantasize.

[@lukajolich7669]

@@vrabb9030 Yeah. I think he either shouldn't have put AHH there, or at least not clumped AHH with the other two as if they share the same issues.

[@TheEmperorYTP]

Y'all think monsieur z is bad, but y'all haven't seen zvallid agree with the statements "the bad guys (referring to the allies) won ww2" or "the axis pact sounds more preferable than the european union" or "probably better than things are now(referring to an axis powers victory in world war II)". How there haven't been a thousand expose videos on this guy is beyond me. By the way, if you want to find these comments, they are below the video "what it would be like if germany had won ww2?". His responses range from simply hearting the comment to "I think the same"

[@sirmagnifus7350]

Oh yeah forgot bout that fucking goofball i thought he was some 8 year old kid but turns out he is an adult with an 8 year old mind

[@thegreatestoctopus9739]

Because it's literally just jokes, you don't actually think he supports nazis right? In his video where the Nazis are a third party to the cold war he literally points out their genocides and authoritarianism

[@TheEmperorYTP]

@@thegreatestoctopus9739Considering that he's pro-meloni and pro-putin (while obviously not being a tankie) I highly doubt that, but the ball's in your court. Can you demonstrate that these are jokes?

[@thegreatestoctopus9739]

@@TheEmperorYTP I mean you're the one accusing him of having Nazi sympathies, you're the one who is supposed to show actual evidence that isn't more than a comment or two. Like I said, he has actively pointed out Nazi warcrimes and lust for war, so it's not likely that he actually supports these guys. Plus he made a massive meme video where Russia just takes over the war, which clearly is made to poke at Russian propaganda that they were going to win the war in just two weeks

[@thegreatestoctopus9739]

@@TheEmperorYTP Well first off reading comments isn't like talking in real life, you might not be able to catch the sarcasm, especially in such point blank statements as " the Nazis were the good guys". Second off,saying that Churchill was a warmonger isn't Nazi propaganda, it's fact. He has used chemical weapons in the middle east, actively didn't help the Indians in their famine even tho it was 1944 and the war was closing in on its end by then and literally supported Musolini's use of chemical weapons in Ethiopia, he is a warmonger, just because he defeated the Nazis doesn't disprove this. And lastly I am talking about a recent video uploaded like 4 or 5 months ago, but even then, you can't claim that the video you used isn't a meme either, like "PUTIN YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS" like damn bro you really got him this time

[@zemiron]

Harry Turtledove's approach to alternative history is really to transplant a situation that happened in real history and apply it to an alternative history. For instance, Turtledove's Southern Victory series is more about how could a Confederate fascist and genocidal regime, like the Nazis, than about the South winning the Civil War. And in his "In the Presence of Mine Enemies," he transplants the Fall of the Soviet Union into a world where the Nazis won World War II and became engaged in a cold war with the Japanese.

[@alexanderzippel8809]

Yes. Turtledove isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel but rather recontextualises what actually happened and makes it more accessible. Like why did the Treaty of Versailles make it easier for the Nazis to rise to power? Here is the same treaty but on US (or in this case CS) Soil making it probably easier to comprehend for Americans

[@enderkatze6129]

One Must consider that Turtledove PUMPS Out books, so the effort He Puts into each is likely Limited

[@MouldedMind]

@@enderkatze6129 that's how he pays for his childrens tuition it is said

[@ianbyrne465]

​@@MouldedMindking shit

[@gegecry]

Truly funny having the channel logos of Monsieur z,whatifalthist and alternate history hub in the thumbnail but having the map style of possible history in the background.

[@raiogelato6921]

How to prove you are right in any aspect: "trust me i read a lot of books"

[@SpoopySquid]

*nervously shoves the pile of Mills & Boone novels under the bed* Yep, I read a lot of books

[@raiogelato6921]

@@SpoopySquid *throws mein kampf out the window and sits on top of the harry potter premium book collection* Yep, i read a lot of books

[@rudolfsteyr5228]

how do you prove you are right? agreeing with your opinion?

[@umadbroimatroll7918]

@@rudolfsteyr5228 facts and logic.

[@rudolfsteyr5228]

@@umadbroimatroll7918 how do you get those?

[@TheDragonborn97]

As a writer in the AH wiki i could say that things did changed and for the better, now neonazi or confederate stuff isn't as popular as it was.

[@FreddaYT]

That's great to hear.

[@TheDragonborn97]

@@FreddaYT Definitely :)

[@Alexandraadftxr7052]

It's not a problem if I ask that there are any alternativ history stories, that have alchemi, or magic in the mix? I know it sounds stupid, but I tried to write one like that two, or three years ago.

[@kommando5562]

Your wrong about that and thank god for it tbh

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

but neonazis and alt-righters still make an extremely sizeable amount of the world population unfortunately, i'd say 1/4 of the human population or even more

[@enderkatze6129]

I'm glad to hear you consider cody a positive example of an alt-hist KZbinr, but the thumbnail made it look like you're accusing him of the same thing as others

[@Galloh]

One thing that always bothered me about whatifalthist is that he bases a lot of his points on “crises in history happen every xx years” and then goes on and lists non-human problems like the Black Death. I mean, a crisis every 70 years “as the generations forget the woes of war” works as long as the crises are war-like crises… not if they are unpredictable events like disease or climate change.

[@markweber5578]

The basis of that theory is not so much that a crisis happens every Century it's that we react to crisis badly or in an extreme way every century.

[@adamnesico]

Black death non human? Do you think that the transmission had nothing to do with humans?

[@alanpennie]

There's a difference provided we accept that wars are the result of human agency. Tolstoy argued (in War and Peace) that their causes are more occult though I don't find is argument easy to follow. It's easy to get mired in arguments about free will.

[@LifeLibertyProperty]

What makes you think they are not predictable.

[@joaojonito3764]

Alternate history is just an hobby, an experiment. Anyone expecting completely 100% realistic and unbiased alt history shouldnt be Watching it in the first place

[@Ω3103ζ]

i dont necessarily agree that there is no such thing as apolitical history, but the video is still good and points out something that i have been kinda noticing myself in the last couple years. Sometimes alternate history is just wish-fullfilment fantasy- but that doesnt mean it cant be entertaining in its own way.

[@skeleex]

I think the channel meant there is no such thing as apolitical alternate history, because apolitical history is the same as history. I think that history becomes apolitical when it is skewed to not face reality, therefore nullifying the definition as it is no longer history, as all history is objective

[@astronomicvulpine9836]

History is past politics

[@ignemuton5500]

what may seem apolitical today may only be so because the people for whom this was politics are no longer with us. even back during the roman empire they had political advertisements and endorsements for candidates, some of the earliest written records of history are taxes, and some of the earliest wars are about how much people were willing to be taxed, our current politics too will become the history of the future

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

@@ignemuton5500 A book describing what took place at a given time is not inherently political. If you just say: "X politician did y, wich resulted in z" All you're doing is telling the facts. Interpreting history in the other hand is certainly political.

[@A_B_1917]

​@@Testimony_Of_JTF Except it is, since as it was propably already mentioned, even seemingly objective statements ultimately do choose the information that is in the statement, and one that isn't. "Lilcoln has used his powers to prosecute dissidents that didn't agree with his vision of America" propably wouldn't paint a pretty picture, by omitting what Lincoln was for, and what the dissidents were for (that is, literal slavery).

[@MajoraZ]

As a side effect of what you point out here, I find alt history scenarios often perpetuate already dominant narratives/topics, and confirm preconceived notions, vs shining a light on less appreciated parts of history. One of my biggest passions is Mesoamerican (Aztec, Maya, etc) history and archeology: It is such a neglected part of world history, and there's so much there not often talked about, and it's generally regarded as a afterthought, even though it is involved in one of the most pivotal events in all of world history with the Conquest of Mexico. I RARELY see people use that (let alone earlier parts of Mesoamerican history) in alt history scenarios, because given the way it is taught about and most people view history, European success is seen as a inevitability Now, how likely the Spanish colonization of Mesoamerica is or isn't is sort of besides my point here: My point is more about how it doesn't even occur to many people to even see that as a viable what if-scenario, even though there are many very unlikely what-ifs people make all the time, simply because the colonization of the Americas as it happened historically is taken for granted by most people as just how history is; and that most people aren't even aware of other Mesoamerican wars, states, rulers, etc to make what ifs about (I'm sure at least 80% of the people reading this haven't even heard of Teotihuacan, let alone that it may have conquered Maya city-states like Tikal; so the idea of a what-if where Maya states conquer Teotihuacan instead and bring Maya influence into Central Mexico wouldn't even be on most people's radar nor would they have the knowledge about Mesoamerica to even ponder the implications and downstream effects of it)... ...Nonetheless, I think me explaining a bit about the conquest and why it playing out differently IS warranted here to convey my point a bit more, so I'll do that briefly (and yes, this is me trying to be brief) A lot of people know the Conquest of Mexico as Cortes playing local states (or "Tribes" instead of "states", because people don't realize how all of Mesoamerica were urbanized state societies, not just the Aztec) against the Aztec, also aided by smallpox. And if you read Cortes's letters or Bernal Diaz's accounts of the expedition, that's maybe not far off. And that's how most people know it, because the Conquest is taught about as a part of EUROPEAN history: The Aztec and Mesoamerica is just a stepping stone to talk about European colonization. But if you actually know about Mesoamerican politics or history, then a very different picture is painted: The Aztec Empire's political system was more a hegemonic network of states kept in line or linked via fragile tax/tributary and vassal relationship; and flaunting your military might, economic success, and ties to other legendary civilizations and kings to get states to align with you and suck up with political marriages; rather then the Aztec actually managing subjects directly: They mostly kept their rulers, laws, and customs and got left alone to self manage as long as they paid taxes, and still saw themselves as independent polities, with their own ambitions. Subjects switching political allegiances, seceding, preforming coups, rebellions, etc as opportunistic attempts to gain power and influence were very common in Mesoamerica. When you look at Cortes's expedition from this perspective, the takeaway of what went down is VERY different: When Cortes arrived at the city of Cempoala, the capital of one of 3 major kingdoms in the Totonac civilizations, they told Cortes a sob story of how the Aztec were dragging off women and children (when we know from documents like the Codex Mendoza that the Aztec didn't actually demand slaves or sacrifices as taxes almost at all) and how there's an Aztec fort nearby at Tzinpantzinco they wanted Cortes's help taking out (There was no such fort there, it was actually another, rival Totonac captial). Then they direct Cortes through territory controlled by Tlaxcala, a republic/kingdom they had hostilities with, and the Conquistadors get attacked. The Tlaxcaltecas and Conquistadors fight to a standstill, and then eventually leading Tlaxcalteca politicians come to a begruding agreement to ally with Cortes, to use them against the Aztec, as Tlaxcala had been a victim of invasions to be conquered by them (but was still unconquered so far, not a subject). As the Conquistadors and Tlaxcaltecas move onwards to Tenochtitlan, they stop in Cholula, which had traditionally be allied with Tlaxcala but recently had became an Aztec vassal. Cortes happens to hear from the Tlaxcaltecas or Malinche that the denizens of Cholula plan to attack them in their sleep, and they massacre a bunch of people there, and the Tlaxcalteca end up propping up a new, Tlaxcala aligned leadership in the city. When they arrive at Tenochtitlan, Moctezuma II lets them in, and Cortes frames this as Moctezuma II giving him the city and hosting him in lavish palaces and a gift of concubines, but if you're actually familiar with Nahuatl speeches and customs, it's clear he's actually doing a standard diplomatic greeting to foreign dignitaries and is giving noblewomen and princesses as political marriages, while trying to court Cortes and his men into becoming a subject or a vassal by flexing how opulent the city is. (When Pánfilo de Narváez arrived, who actually was sent by the governor of Cuba to arrest Cortes as he had been out on his expedition illegally, Narvaez actually worked with Aztec officials to get capture Cortes, since by this point they realized Cortes wasn't a licensed diplomat representing a foreign king.) Given what I just explained, all of that should sound a lot more like local states manipulating Cortes and using them against their political rivals, rather then wanting to be free of Aztec tyranny or Cortes using them. Note also how Cortes doesn't actually ally with any actual Aztec subject states inside the Political core of the empire like Texcoco, Xochimilco, Chalco, etc, untill AFTER Moctezuma II is dead, Tenochtitlan is struck by smallpox, it's elite warriors and officials were killed while unarmed in the Toxcatl massacre, etc. Those core Aztec subject states had heavy political intermarriages with Tenochtitlan and benefitted from that and the tax influx into the valley. Them siding with Cortes only after Tenochtitlan's ability to project force and to leverage it's economic power or it's political connections is severed too sounds a lot more like opportunistic coups then them "resenting" Aztec rule: In a political system where subjects mostly got left alone anyways, state X allying or pledging themselves to state Y to take out rivals or their captial (once it was vulnerable or they no longer benefitted from the association) so X could be in a poisition of higher standing in the new kingdom they helped Y prop up is a pretty rational thing to do, and is something you see ALL the time in Mesoamerican history: The Aztec Empire was itself founded this way. When you're not looking at it just as Cortes being the only one with agency, and actually understand the political dynamics of how things played out from the Mesoamerican side, there's a LOT more room for ways things could have played out differently, to say nothing about all the ways Cortes himself got absurdly lucky (more or less randomly coming across shipwrecked Spaniards who had learned local languages to act as translators, or how he arrived JUST as Tlaxcala was on it's last legs but not yet conquered by the Aztec, Or how one of the men in Pánfilo de Narváez's force (who was actually sent by the governor of Cuba to arrest Cortes since he was acting illegally, and Aztec officials actually worked with Narvaez to arrest him once they realized Cortes wasn't a legitimate diplomat) happened to be carrying smallpox to lead to that initial outbreak etc): Like What if Tlaxcala were already conquered by the a time a major Spanish expedition gets into Central Mexico, so there's no key power for Conquistadors to ally with? What if Aztec officials actually successfully arrested Cortes alongside Narváez, opening up proper diplomatic channels with Spain? What if the first major epidemic only happens a decade or two later? What if, without Cortes's early initial success that allows them to inherit the Aztec Empire's trade networks, infrastructure and manpower to launch further campaigns from, Spain decides it's not worth the effort to pursue mass direct colonization (since it took decades of subsequent campaigns, in some areas centuries, to conquer the other states and kingdoms in Mesoamerica that were either never part of the Aztec Empire to begin with or didn't cede to Spain right away) and opts for something more hands off in the area and focuses their efforts into military efforts in Eurasia that have more obvious returns? What if other European powers never got as enticed to commit to colonization as a result of that? Again, if this would all actually lead to a massively different end result is debatable: Spain was certainly already poking around the area (there had been expeditions in 1517 and 1518, but both had mostly failed), and some degree of large scale epidemics and European imperialism likely would have occurred (though I personally think that there's a good chance the outbreaks would have not been as catastrophic, and European imperialism in the area would have played out more like what we see in India and SEA, with the co-opting of existing institutions and making local powers dependent on Spanish trade/approval; rather then the complete collapse and transformation of existing civilization), but my point is that you simply do not see these alt history scenarios being explored much, because it doesn't occur to people to bother, or they don't know enough about the subject matter too even if they wanted to.

[@Lemonadee771]

God, reading about the conquest of the americas is almost painful. So much suffering, so much destroyed, all because of spanish greed, all completely irreversible. The fact that almost all Mayan and Aztec books/manuscripts were burned by the spaniards will forever make my blood boil.

[@stefanofeblesverastegui8869]

Motherfuckin whatifalthist made 1 video on what if the aztecs beat the spanish and 2 viedos on what if the americas weren't colonized. Tho, I must admit that he may be a lot of alt-riht thins, but never "eurocentric"

[@joaogabrielimperial7777]

i remeber of a scenario I made in which China protected the Aztecs and gave them guns, in which Europeans and Chinese colonized the Americas at the same time

[@BrandonPilcher]

I wonder what it would be like if the Maya city-states ever coalesced into a larger nation-state, or at least something like what the Aztecs had. That'd probably be necessary if they were to invade Teotihuacan instead of the proposed reverse. But I admit this isn't an area I know a lot about the way you do.

[@zpex8697]

Thank you for addressing this in just this way, usually I would see other people down right accusing others. But I thank you for simply addressing the main idea without harming or accusing any of the creators.

[@FreddaYT]

That was my hope, and I think many didn't walk away with the same takeaway though and that's most likely on me.

[@avery4149]

AH is what got me into creative writings and reading in the first place. At first, it was me writing whatever world I can came up with (I write grounded sci-fi), then as I sat through creative writing classes, and sociology major in college, I realised just how naive I was to how the world works. I still write these days, but now with the urge to always keep it grounded in how the world will realistically progress even though it is still science fiction.

[@QuadZillaGodZillasbrother]

Even though there are a lot of alternate history KZbinrs out there that have political biases and that you can definitely tell they still make a great content that is interesting I love alternate histories they’re great works of fiction and they really make you think

[@FreddaYT]

Alt-history is cool and fun.

[@Klaesick]

Personally, I LOVE Alternate History. Imagining scenarios ranging from "realistic" (The closest to realistic we can get, which may or may not be saying much) to down right wacky (In a good way), or sometihng of a mix, and all are fun. Making maps is a hobby of mine, imagine these worlds in my head is so cool to me. Alternate History can be Aliens invading Earth in WW2, an island of the coast of Massachusetts in 1998 being transported back to the Bronze Age, the Aztec defeating the Spanish, Humanity being stuck with Medieval Technongly into the Modern Era, a new landmass or continent existing, Islam and Christianity switching places, Australia being French, the evolution of a Dutch-Japanese mixed language, imagining how other fictional universes could happen in the quote on quote "real" world, a world where Humans still have to live with Neanderthals. Heck, you could even show what KZbin videos might exist in that timeline, if KZbin exists at all lol. What sucks is that many of the Alternate History channels (WIAH, Mr. Z) I used to love and enjoy has become far to blunt in sending messages to the views/reader. I don't feel like I'm watching a snceriaro in a cool niche genre of sci-fi with themes and ideas that relate to our world, I feel like I'm watching a rant from Ben Shapiro. I have my biases, sure, but I'd rather prefer media that presents that bias and views in an intelligent way. I will say the criticism of this video could be applied to ANY work of fiction as well. Problematic ideas and themes could be pedaled by anything, not matter where it comes from. But still, I think you get that. The overall message of the video is "Analyze and don't blindly consume the messages that are in the media you follow", which I think is good for anyone, in my hopefully-humble biased opinion. Still love ya though Cody. AlternateHistroyHub has remained at the top for a reason.

[@hugobatista9541]

I like to imagine the people from AH making their own AH. In Kaiserreich, Winston Churchill writes an AH universe, where he imagines an Entente victory in the Weltkrieg.

[@porterwayman8643]

Yeah, I don’t even know the last time WIAH has done a straight up alternate history video, just weird political videos

[@concept5631]

AlternateHistoryHub and EmperorTigerStar are pretty great.

[@joaogabrielimperial7777]

you may be biased towards both sides make a video where western liberalism makes countries very rich and communist countries are miserable states where people are slaves to the government while in another video western liberalism makes people poor and work like slaves while communist states achieve enormous efficiency and prosperity making them great places to live or a video in which colonial powers take technology and wealth to Africa and overthrow inefficient oligarchies, leaving the continent rich and in another, colonization never occurs, making African empires become super powers even if you only believe in the first options. see from other perspectives even without believing in it, just to create spectacular stories.

[@MyUsersDark]

Cody is pretty good, but certain scenarios such as "What if Sweden won the Great Northern war" aren't very well thought out. Then again, no one's perfect.

[@YuriNikolajavič]

AH Hub is literally the most centrist of everyone on Alt History channels..

[@Pepagg8]

I love how all videos talking about alt right alt history have alternatehistoryhub in the thumbnail and then not mentioning it once.

[@TacitusKilgore-qj8do]

I'm okay with ckickbait to some extent but that genuinely gives me an ick, that channel is not far right, from all I know and having watched them for a a while, it's a pretty good channel run by pretty good people and to just put them in the thumbnail to get clicks rubs me the wrong way

[@puncifikator3870]

I agree with what you're talking about but nothing will change my mind on the fact that the central powers winning is the best timeline for humanity

[@FreddaYT]

Lmfao

[@sorrymabbad]

The weakest Kaiserreich enjoyer (one of God's chosen warriors) vs the strongest TNO fan (Reddit moderator)

[@johay899]

I agree

[@conserva-chan2735]

Big Austria under Blessed Karl would be super epic

[@wilma_balls]

(at the cost of all of armenia)

[@nanowithbeans2511]

Alternate history with biases that borderline wish fulfillment has always been a thing, especially with napoleon as I personally seen a lot of alternate history where napoleon becomes a world conqueror.

[@swampo5675]

French dreams

[@guntherdoesaliltrolling5757]

​@@swampo5675British Nightmare

[@leaderofthebunch-deadbeat7716]

Livy wrote Ab Urbe Condita Libri book nine 2000 year ago which is literally about Alexander the Great living longer and invading Italy only to be firmly defeated by the Roman Republic, this has always been a thing

[@downix]

A big problem for the English speaking history market when it comes to the 20th century is that it is difficult to get good numbers for the Soviet sphere of influence. While a few historians, like J. Arch Getty do manage to present them in an unfiltered form, in my experience many of those writing histories are in some kind of one-upsmanship contest, trying to make the most sensational claim. Due to this, many alt-histoties start with a garbage in/garbage out scenario. Their foundation is already distorted, so any change becomes amplified.

[@KelvynWard]

1.10 - I disagree. A historian stating they are or are not conscious of their biases is not a measure of how bias/unbias they are. Every historian must start with an inquiry question and aim to bring an answer to that inquiry. That is the purpose of history, so seek and establish truth as well as understanding our past. Additionally, in history we steer clear from the word 'bias' at all costs. The best way to test how 'bias/unbias' a historian is, is to look at their responses to their inquiry and look at the evidence used to support it along with their conclusions. For example, historians who heavily condemn the trans-atlantic slave trade (and rightfully go) but are silent on modern day slavery or slavery in other parts of the world are likely to be ignoring the latter because it doesn't fit their contemporary political narrative.

[@longiusaescius2537]

Exactly

[@abdqs853]

You misunderstand what he said, he didn't say to trust the historian who says he conscious of his bias, he saying to trust the historian who is conscious of his bias, ie you should judge whether a historian is conscious of his bias, that is how you will know that they are not trying to sell you propaganda. And please tell me which historian is staying silent on modern day slavery.

[@siyacer]

​@@abdqs853pretty much every one of them, modern day slavery is just seen as an afterthought of "oh that's so terrible" but nothing gets done, while transatlantic slavery consistently gets villified and condemned centuries after it ended. and saying you're aware of your biases doesn't make you more credible or trustworthy. because being aware of something doesn't mean you won't try to push it or let it slip into your retelling of history

[@BlisaBLisa]

these are different historical events (often in different parts of the world) i dont think talking about one but not the other is proof of bias, a historian could just have a different area of focus. i think most of the bias that exists around it is something like, americans tend to be more interested in american slavery because its effects are still felt pretty strongly here. its more relevant in discussions of politics and social issues in this country. its not so much an ideological bias

[@longiusaescius2537]

@@BlisaBLisa only strong because Lincoln didn't live

[@okapijohn4351]

The problem of alternative history is that it is like a blank canvas in which any ignorant can say the most non-sense stuff and still looking genius.

[@lob5645]

"Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should - in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 - and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible." George Orwell - Notes on Nationalism

[@Cool-123]

That is pretty much every ideology, whether that be communist, libertarian, or as you stated nationalist.

[@iratepirate3896]

"Every leftist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should - in which, for example, the French Commune was a success or the nationalist uprising was crushed in 1936- and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible."

[@longiusaescius2537]

A shame that spineless brit escaped the Russians

[@KZ-xt4hl]

​@@Cool-123cope

[@theholypeanut8193]

Wait... That sounds awfully like the HOI4 steam workshop.

[@dogman9558]

Putting cody from alternate history hub in the same thumbnail as whatifalhist is pretty crazy

[@thundercheckov9782]

The problem is that it takes 10 seconds to make a ludicrously false or partial historical claim, and it takes ten paragraphs with sources to debunk it wether by nuancing or flat out proving wrong. And even if proven wrong, some will still cling on to it as it challenges whatever they see as the current "politicaly correct" agenda. It's good to have critic thinking, but swalowing some self-proclaimed expert's punchline as a fact is the exact opposite of that. We've had that during the previous presidential elections in France with a far-right politician claiming Marshal Pétain (head of the collaborationist Vichy France during WW2 German occupation of the country) saved jews from death among other things. Which is so astronomicaly far from any kind of truth a dozen of historians had to write a pamphlet explaining how bulshitty some of his claims were. Of course despite decent media coverage this did'nt change anything for his followers : they wanted their hero to say something controversial and something controversial he said. Any further effort in trying to prove it wrong just reinforced his base of followers. The guy still lost in the end but his ideas are now ingrained in some far-righter's minds forever and it helped the big far right party in France appear more reasonnable for less politicized people in comparison. The harm was done.

[@cronaalbarn2146]

I don't think any of the creators on that thumbnail are alt right, closest would be mr. z who is the most right leaning of the bunch, followed by whatifaltist, and althub. Implying that the are alt right is giving me click bait vibes, like you're being antagonistic to get views. Well it's working because I wanna see what you have to say, I've certainly rolled my eyes at several of Mr. Zs scenarios where blatantly authoritarian and repressive government getting their way somehow makes the world a better place, usually the what if "insert nation" joined the central powers.

[@FreddaYT]

You should watch the video and then make up your mind.

[@somenerd1182]

@@FreddaYT Then let people watch it

[@Sam-ip6co]

@@FreddaYT Slander

[@cronaalbarn2146]

Glad to see this wasn't a video attacking alt histroy creators and instead just asks people to take a subjective view of it, and to look at the narrative that's being made as just that, a narrative. I still feel that the term alt right being in the thumbnail is a bad choice and rather click baity. Terms like altright/left, communist, fascist, nazi, and others carry meaning with them that when paired with a picture implies links between them. This video also sounds way to clean not to be scripted so I find your slip up where you almost call Mr. Z an alt right author to be intentional, not accidental. I've watched many freeform videos and none of them sound as clean as this, and while it's not impossible that this is freeform it doesn't sound like it. You brought up how the underlying message in narratives are forms of propaganda, and it looks like you slipped a little of your own in there. That said I did enjoy the video and I'm glad it's not just one seeking to start needless drama.

[@stol8868]

I really like alt history, and generally enjoy writing it, specifically to interrogate ideas in a familiar yet different setting, and and trying to see how historical political movements could otherwise pan out (or in other words an exercise to read history I would otherwise miss and trying to make it interact with other ideas)

[@Last-voice-on-October-21st]

So since history is never truly expressed by a purely unbiased source, doesn't that mean this video is a form of propaganda? And if so, for what purpose?

[@ivangrozny496]

Yes, for the purpose of encouraging unbelief in the traditional views of Christendom

[@Last-voice-on-October-21st]

@@ivangrozny496 is that it?

[@Last-voice-on-October-21st]

@@ivangrozny496 I'd think that a loaded topic such as critiques on a historian would have more than just one motivation

[@J.Velas.9]

It's just leftist propaganda. He doesn't have a problem with AH scenarios talking about communism working but with Z's Bay of Pigs video it's "reeee but Castro wanted economic *justice* reee" pfft yeah forced labor camps are so just

[@InsufficientGravitas]

Probably anti-nationalist or anti-alt-right given the examples of bad alt fiction presented in the video.

[@3zzzTyle]

My favorite alt-history is the one I make in Paradox games.

[@byzantineboi8345]

It’s a good video, and the general idea is good effectively “don’t trust everything to see on the internet” but how do i know your not doing the same thing your saying the alt history guys do?

[@FreddaYT]

Because I haven't told you how the evil SJWs are making it so you aren't having sex and because of that we're going to have a civil war. (This is a thesis from a Whatifalthist video) I'm openly discussing these themes, whereas alt-history generally presents itself as purely entertainment, promoting only theoretical or historical "facts" when it does present non-fiction.

[@byzantineboi8345]

yeah that’s true tbh, Whatifalthist is a bad example he’s a bit weird, Moniseur Z is disliked more for stuff he said a while back but he’s probably more entertaining in my opinion and definitely more positive in his outlook, while both are definitely biased and try to add they’re biases in there vids. Z is more subtle and less serious and more focused on entertaining. Althist is most definitely serious but is way in over his head he’s got a lot of strange claims about himself and I’ve heard roomers of substance abuse in his subreddit. He takes the topics too seriously doesn’t have much fun with them he’s all doom and gloom, and definitely doesn’t proof read his stuff. Z while he makes mistakes and still has bias, I will still call him less politically active he has his thoughts and makes the odd more serious video the rest is just entertainment, just cus there’s a bias don’t mean I can’t enjoy it. As for you, I can nether prove no disprove your own bias we all are in some form, I do not know if your doing the same thing as them but with different political views, I’ll acknowledge they’re actions in that but it’s only fair to assume the same for you and for myself as well, any KZbinr with a relation to history has bias in some from some are just better or actively try hiding it, others admit and get on with it. I do hope you don’t interpret this as me trying to defend them in anyway or to antagonize you, I merely chose to point out a logical assumption. Also I’m from Europe they’re very US sentric my thoughts on may subjects differ from there’s drastically.

[@ansyyxux]

It's not really to not trust anything, but to think about/analyse them, and be aware that there are biases

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

@@FreddaYT This is exactly the thing you are talking about, this is your perspective on what he is saying

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

@@ansyyxux theyre for damned fun, i dont thinkthat much when i played in the playground and i should not

[@accurateworry]

I don’t see how you connected althistoryhub with this. I certainly don’t think he’s alt right.

[@Hawkatana]

He was just in the thumbnail. The *real* creator he's criticising is Monsieur Z.

[@daveholland6293]

@@Hawkatana So it's scumbag click-bait?

[@Hawkatana]

@@daveholland6293 Nope.

[@jaajembryons1803]

​@@Hawkatanahow is it not lol, putting a popular content creator in the thumbnail just to not talk about it is literally the definition of clickbait

[@Hawkatana]

@@jaajembryons1803 Nice fanfic, kid.

[@Túrin_Tura]

The video was alright. But I really am not a fan of the "Don't let X team propagandize you! (Proceeds with blatant Y team propaganda)" type videos Just feels like it fuels the tribalism that already plagues online spaces (especially those that deal in history). When someone starts to show some right wing views/anti left views, leftists jump straight to "ALT-RIGHT PIPELINE!" And when someone mentions any critique of capitalism/benefit to socialism, rightists jump straight to "CULTURAL MARXIST!" Just gets so exhausting. All you did this video is single out the farthest right popular Alt-Hist channel and say "Hey look guys hes biased and wrong lol alt-hist is real dangerous" If you are gonna make fun of lazy right wing alt-hist, you need to point out the same lazyness for left wing alt-hist. Cmon brother, with clickbaity videos like this you gotta put more perspectives in there. Otherwise its just an echochamber. Anyways this might have come off wrong, my apologies if it does, just hope your more careful with clickbait and painting things as alt-right in the future.

[@Túrin_Tura]

Just realized this format is very new to you so just wanna make it clear that Im mainly saying to just be aware how quickly this type of content can turn echochambery.

[@FreddaYT]

I think whatifalthis is further right than Z. I didn't say alt-hist is dangerous, I said it can be dangerous if viewers are not equipped to understand history. I'll point out the lazyness of left-wing alt-hist when I see it. I've yet to see left-wing alt-history creators on KZbin.

[@jertdw3646]

@@FreddaYT bruh you literally put alt right in title. Your flimsy excude of "mighy be dangerous" doesnt cut it. You know what feelings would be evoked and whay subconciois associations would be made when people see that word and these youtube creators profiles in the thumb nail. I remember a rings of power thumb nail where the black dwarf woman had gold grills photoshoped to her mouth. With your leftist sensibility, you know what that thumbnail is trying to say. But you play dumb with this? You gotta play the youtube game for clicks,I get it. Atleast be honest. You people are supposed to be bettee than rightoids correct?

[@taylore.4304]

love your videos and the background music btw

[@grantexploit5903]

4:10 According to my conception of the "Point of Divergence", _any_ change the author of an alternate history makes is either at or after that point. However, most alternate histories have a "spool-up" time of some length before major changes manifest. 4:45 I don't exactly think this is correct-authors often create works that don't consciously make commentary on their world or broadcast their mindset. Of course, they can still be interpreted by others as having said commentary, and as people are always a reflection of their influences and surroundings, so will their works. So one's intentions isn't particularly relevant.

[@FreddaYT]

Authors simultaneously create commentary consciously and subconsciously, I consider your intentions when authoring a work to be very relevant. If your intention is to create a work without bias that is "a-political" then that in itself is going to shape your work. You cannot divorce the author and their ideas from their work, especially not when dealing with history which is all interpretation of sources and so is inseparable from the historian writing the history. For fiction take for example George R. R. Martin who is writing a fantasy book. The book is incredibly critical of war and the institutions that lead people to war, because George R. R. Martin was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam war. Similarly any historian of genocide is writing about genocide to help prevent a future genocide. Any historian of fascism is writing so as to help people understand and identify fascism in the past and the future. Every work you author has an editorial intent, which may differ from the real effect it has.

[@noxer5589]

10:00 unfathomably based infrastructure roadway proposal

[@Cool-123]

His analysis is kind of hypocritical in and of itself, he states that history is always subjective and is inherently propaganda. However then proceeds to rail against positions he disagrees with. The interpretation he presents for example of Columbus is a left wing narrative that to put it simply does not take into account literally any motivation and instead reconstructs him through a modern lease, Columbus yes was entrepreneurial however was also an explorer that wished to find a route to the east, he did indeed own slaves in the colony he governed, however also treated the natives in a fairly equal manner to the white settlers hense why he was removed by the crown. In addition the idea that his motivation was to give gold to the Spanish crown for the end times is entirely rooted in myth considering he went to various other kingdoms first to fund his exposition. The man legitimately inserts his own personal bias and says that what he says is fact in contradiction to his earlier statement about how history is interpreted. I acknowledge my own view point is also partially obscured however I do believe my reading to be closer to the truth than his now. Now, I will commit the greatest sin of all, a personal attack. The real reason he is making this is to get attention and leach off of other creators, for example he includes, Cody and Whatifalthist on the title screen with the words “alt-right” (ooooo, ghost sounds), however then proceeds to mostly just rail against Dean in his Cuba video by praising Cuban redistributionist communist economic policies. The only reason he includes them is click bait. This is again going back to the fact that he directly contradicts his own statements by stating his reading as objective. Ultimately the man is a hypocrite trying to generally mooch off of the success of others to boost his channel by generating a stupid media hype.

[@longiusaescius2537]

Who's Dean?

[@thenutella8846]

Hi, I know this is a year old comment but I've gotta put my 2 cents into it. What he said about Columbus was based off of Columbus' own letters and those of his acquaintances, including his mistreatment of the natives (no he did not treat them equally to spaniards, though he definitely did mistreat the spaniards too) and his desire to fund another crusade to bring about the end times. His contemporaries called it brutal, it's not a modern values left wing retelling, it's getting rid of the history of whitewashing. Also, It doesn't matter which country he went to for sponsorship, as long at it was Christian nation willing to take the holy land.

[@Alexandraadftxr7052]

I like alternativ history stories. My only problem is that most of those are "What if Naci Germany won WWII", and about that American civil war that I as an Europian don't know anything, and don't care about. The first alternativ history story that I found that was not one of those two was the Leviathan book series. (Sorry for the grammer, and speling mistakes English is not my first launvige.)

[@kalkuttadrop6371]

Kinda saddened you only discussed Mr. Z. Whatifalthist and Althisthub have their own bias (Libertarian and Center Left respectively) so it would be interesting to see how they influences there work

[@Cool-123]

You forgetting about the greatest Sin of all Tiger Star

[@Cool-123]

Also considering this man’s biases in his description of how Castro’s government literally stole land from those who owned it.

[@MrAlepedroza]

Whatifalthist and Mr Z reek of grifting conservatism ill disguised as "libertarianism".

[@a3cools115]

@@Cool-123 But no one likes furries and he's not straight

[@Bribridude130]

I thought AlternateHistoryHub was a conservative?

[@Nootathotep]

you really brushed past the whole "early revolutionary Cuba was good" part this take seems to struggle with bias too

[@longiusaescius2537]

Yeah

[@rodclaude-s9f]

Yes it was bias but it was actually true

[@Nootathotep]

@@rodclaude-s9f disagree personally but not really the point

[@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva]

I was waiting for the punchline of this video pointing out its author's own biases in retelling the Cuban Revolution by leaving out direct Marxist-Leninist involvement, the fact the Castro brothers and Ché were already Marxist before coming to power and influence, and referring to communist expropriation as "democratizing," but it never came. But considering how you threw your hands up and said you weren't besmirching the good name of the guy who made a screeching and crying video about how the Turks were going to genocide all the Kurds in Syria because Trumpler told them to, then didn't say mum about the subsequent humanitarian disaster of the 2021 Afghan withdrawal, I'm not exactly surprised.

[@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva]

And like a typical hypocritical weasel, all he's done is picked the low-hanging fruit comments to reply to and spam likes all over the circle-jerking comments to bury the actual criticism.

[@sneedchuckington]

The "far right" is icky and bad, come join the breadtube echo chamber instead. Not a strong pitch tbh.

[@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva]

@@sneedchuckington I guess the British government money ain't what it used to be for these slimeballs.

[@sneedchuckington]

@@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva lmao I still can't believe they kepy calling the right grifters after that news got out.

[@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva]

@@sneedchuckington I'm not a particularly tribalistic person when it comes to politics, but the lefties are definitely the scummier of the two nowadays. A righty will say to your face what their beliefs and biases are while a lefty will pretend they're just being objective and fair. But then you look into the bibliography of their argument and it's just "Marxist philosopher," "Studied at Beijing University" and "Soviet-educated economist" all the way down.

[@charmyzard]

If this video is just to yell at Monsieur Z for that one video, why include AltHistHub and Whatifalthist in the thumbnail?

[@longiusaescius2537]

Clickbait

[@Frixworks]

0:00 Intro 0:28 Part One: "The Objective Historian" 3:07 Part Two: Constructing Reality 4:35 Part Three: The Thesis 10:41: Outro

[@colindunnigan8621]

Am I going to get slapped around if I said the plane appearing @8:22 is not a B-26? (It's a B-29 for what it's worth).

[@norikofu509]

So... what you're saying is that Alt History is good but the problem is that it can have bias and be very out of touch from reality?

[@siyacer]

No he's saying everything that could *potentially* disagree with me is bad

[@nowhereman6019]

After spending too much time on HoI4 subreddits, I can confidently say that Alternate History is just Historical Fanfiction mixed with political bias.

[@sorrymabbad]

Monsieur Z's breaking point with me was when I discovered his video on alternate Rhodesian victory, which would make it "the most prosperous country in Africa". He also fell into the trap of equalizing Indonesia to Yugoslavia and said it's balkanization is unavoidable in the next 30 years (it's not. Comparing Indonesia to Yugoslavia is like comparing a rotten orange to a slightly dented apple.) Anyway, I then discovered that he once uploaded his "Great America" video, which didn't surprise me tbh.

[@hs5312]

The Indonesia one could have a grain of truth to it, although i would see more decentralization in such a scenario rather then breaking, but who knows you can't say something that has happened won't happen

[@sorrymabbad]

@@hs5312 His points are complete nonsense and utterly disregard the facts on the ground. And while it's true that there is a prevailing anti-javanese sentiment outside of Java, it's more of a "hey, why don't you give us more attention and develop our areas" than calls for full on independence.

[@hs5312]

@@sorrymabbad I forgot to mention in the original comment, but sometimes these videos exaggerate real problems/issues and go certain places to get more views, if his video just described the problems and gave a realistic approach versus saying will Indonesia break up, saying the later on your video will get far more views

[@martinschmitt9242]

For me the breaking point was all the right wing populism he’s recently started to push on his channel

[@hs5312]

@@martinschmitt9242 i stopped looking at him as alternate history and more as a politics channel at that point. although still watch his videos to at least get some surface level knowledge from time to time.

[@unofficial_computer]

Whatifalthist is just a dodgy bloke, I did a vid on him last year or so and the guy just refuses to acknowledge criticism.

[@stetsonpowers5010]

As someone who watches many of these “alt right” history channels, I would say lumping them into the “alt right” category is shortsighted. Each channel has unique views on the world and that’s what makes these channels so interesting, it leaves it open for interpretation (and ultimately is educational and thought provoking. Even with oversimplifications) On the other hand there isn’t any “alt left” history channels I know of that are particularly successful or interesting. When I talk to my lefty friends about history they are very demanding in the interruption of the history. It is very black and white or mostly just black because they can’t see the good in the bad and the bad in the good. The problem is the lefties I know (for the most part) who study history use it to make political points and as a means to an end. Whereas the righties I know (for the most part) study history because they love the stories, the heroics, the struggle and the ambiguity of the human experience. This gives them a sense of human nature and an understanding that gives their alternative history views heart and realism. True, they haven’t been trained to analyze history or understand their “internal biases”. But if they were trained, say went to college for “alt history”, I feel the heart and passion would be replaced with a distain for all things not woke.

[@longiusaescius2537]

True

[@seabreeze4559]

values v virtue signalling

[@Caleb6000]

If you look at these channels' comment sections it basically confirms that a lot of this content is dog whistling to other extreme right individuals. I've encountered eugenicists on Whatifalthist's comment section. Some guy on Monsieur Z's video on South Africa genuinely believed that a small group of Afrikaners could've conquered the entire continent 😂 clearly for some of these guys it's not about some fun alt history, it's about living out their fascism fantasies.

[@longiusaescius2537]

@Cal508 Lol if the first's section was actually that way

[@Blank_Dude2]

Don't you dare put my boy alternate history hub with people like whatifalthist

[@ferretman6790]

Your the one literally saying having thoughts is dangerous

[@chrisgaming9567]

"Hey maybe you shouldn't eat rotten meat" "Your the one literally saying having food is dangerous"

[@dropyourself]

No, *promoting* fascism can be dangerous not thinking about fascism. Not that any of these dweebs are an actual danger to anyone but themselves.

[@masonpyle5929]

Is this guy a communist?

[@ferretman6790]

@@chrisgaming9567not even a close comparison. That’s would be saving one’s life, this man is saying thinking is dangerous

[@chrisgaming9567]

@@ferretman6790 Show me where in the video he says that

[@dziewiaty]

I honestly don't understand critiques of alternate history as much as praising it. It all boils down to fan fiction. Butterfly effect is so unpredictable Lenin outliving Staling is as much plausible to me as Lincoln being actual vampire hunter.

[@Andrewtr6]

(Before viewing commentary) I really hope this is a joke and not a serious take. I thought this video was going to focus on Alt-History Hub but it didn't. The video still felt like your target is the "Alt-Right" rather than Alt-History and that this is more of a response video to M. Z's video. If this was meant to convince people that Alt-History is being used as a trojan horse, more examples should have been used instead of just one. Otherwise, it just feels like another creator has views you don't like and came to a conclusion you disagree with.

[@ItalianIrishguy]

Yes

[@FreddaYT]

Left-wingers also want to legislate to prevent profiteering in healthcare.

[@SpartanChief2277]

@@FreddaYT ?

[@Túrin_Tura]

Facts

[@Túrin_Tura]

@@FreddaYT Bruh what?

[@RNB_lovr]

People will say central powers winning would prevent suffering like world war two but it just would have had its own problems

[@lsuperior]

Those same people say that as they finish their 13th Kaiserreich campaign LOL

[@RNB_lovr]

@@lsuperior ong

[@vittoriovenetov9655]

Any side winning a war has consequences looking back though we can infer what might have happened. I think had Germany won that Europe for the most part would haven't have had a war for as long. The real problem was Austria and the Ottomans, I think if they lost but Germany somehow won still then peace could be preserved much longer as many people's would no longer be oppressed by their government. Germany had much too ambitious goals though tbh either way WW1 would have led to another war, someone else just would have started it.

[@BlisaBLisa]

i would like to see an alt history about what would’ve happened if the first settlers came to america, gave the native americans guns, and left.

[@BlisaBLisa]

no one else comes to america after that either everyone just loses interest for whatever reason so the native americans are left to their own devices. tbh just “what if europeans never colonized america and the natives kept and developed it on their own” would be a pretty interesting alt history but I think giving them guns makes it even better. just for funsies

[@jakobali612]

If they gave them guns and left. The tribe that got it would proceed to either mass enslave or mass murder the other tribes. creating big influx of cheap slaves, like the ones in africa did. I love how alt history is very subjective, goofy scenarios emerge from it.

[@blades9152]

@@jakobali612especially if the senecas and the Iroquois got the guns.

[@epistimonkapetanios]

What if we banned alternate history and went down the Gay 1984 path?

[@danielomar9712]

It's called Fembavaria

[@epistimonkapetanios]

@@danielomar9712 I think I get the reference! Is it to the hoi4 Anime Bavaria mod?

[@danielomar9712]

@@epistimonkapetanios yes Yes

[@daveholland6293]

We already have that, it's called "trans kids" and "drag queen story hour"

[@danielomar9712]

@@daveholland6293 based and HRTpilled

[@popbasketball1696]

This guy did the same thing that MZ did.... leave out some history.... lol, Fidel Castro lied to the Cuban people, he never spoke about communist ideals during the revolution... many people started leaving right around the land reforms, to say the Cuban enjoyed these land reforms and enjoyed Fidels communistic policies is a dangerous misleading false statement. The Cuban people left before ,during, and after the implementation of communistic policies, I think that should be mentioned in your timeline.

[@reviveempires]

The guys twitter bio literally reads Marxist appreciator, don't ever expect anything other than hypocrisy

[@classicrob16]

So Alternate history hub in the thumbnail is just clickbait?

[@jonahpeacock2561]

Calling Z far right feels wrong as he is tamer than many of our elected republicans in America. His channel is also overtly political in a way that is not disingenuous, his bias/point of view is apparent when watching his content.

[@sneedchuckington]

Yeah but these people consider breadtube to be the center.

[@Pantherenjoyer]

he's far right

[@imperator692]

He has this privated video which is basically Nazi propaganda about the end of the white race. he's pretty far right

[@aregulargenericname8794]

@@Pantherenjoyer But how? The answer doesn't matter, what matters is how?

[@moustachio05]

​@@aregulargenericname8794 isn't he literally pro racial segregation?

[@captainpiggz6391]

Listen I’m sure you have some good points, but the thumbnail and the far right accusations make me immediately disregard what you have to say as disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

[@TorricRoma]

The thumbnail is essential calling every alternative history channel alt right. The video itself isn't terrible but it seems he is salty that people in the alternative history community are more found in the center or center right instead of his left wing camp. Then again maybe it's cause left wing alt history boils down to "we overthrow the bourgeoisie and now there is a utopia" without any through line on how you got from A to Z

[@longiusaescius2537]

@TorricRoma exactly, all economic policy they propose is just cover for social agenda anyway, if you gave them all E policy they want like in Singapore but no agenda they'd take laez fair capitalism with a rainbow paint job instead

[@Bluesonofman]

The Bay of Pigs failed because JFK refused to escalate after the first wave of air strikes and when the troops the US trained and equipped where sent in, they landed and where immediately spotted. I never watched the vid you used as an example this is just information I remember from a conversation I had with someone on the topic. A lot of CIA agents died in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs failure.

[@FreddaYT]

They used US B29 bombers painted to look like Cuban bombers piloted by defectors, they literally had air support.

[@Bluesonofman]

@@FreddaYT I won’t argue against that. There was still only one wave of air strikes from the US proper.

[@insantiy1974]

Hi I wanted to ask, do you believe alternate history can be used in a responsible way as a political tool to help people understand politics in a digestible way such as the show Man in the high castle which it's themes about racism, nationalism, xenophobia and etcetera have been used to highlight bad ideologies and viewpoints even atrocities commited by these regimes. Im asking because to I want to write a alt history comic and want to approach in a positive responsible way .

[@joekabira3986]

I personally would say go for it, regardless of his answer. It’s your idea and premise, after all, and if anything it’ll be of great help for you to grow in your own understanding of history and its driving factors.

[@a3cools115]

YWNBAW

[@sorrymabbad]

I mean, there's 2 great Nazi-victory althis mod on Hearts of Iron 4 that basically clowns on the idea of "muh superior Nazis" and reveals just how shitty things are under the Reich, so I guess go for it mate

[@joekabira3986]

@@a3cools115 who are you talking to? Lol.

[@FreddaYT]

Yes, I do! I think although the show version of "The Plot Against America" sort of failed in its messaging due to the implication that everything will be fine in the end, and lacking emphasis on actions that led to things being fine, it did a really good job of showing the atrocities and issues caused by its alt-history scenario.

[@Valuepak]

Don't know why so many people dislike this content

[@DinoCon]

"but many creators use alt-history as a trojan horse for disturbing ideas." Disturbing to whom? You?

[@MrGoldfish8]

Any reasonable person is reviled by fascism.

[@blades9152]

@@MrGoldfish8yes, but is it reasonable to assume that anyone who talks about alternate history scenarios involving the subject are fascists? No.

[@stantorren4400]

@@blades9152Then why is such a large community of alt history filled with fascists

[@dropyourself]

​@@blades9152many of them currently or used to hang around with fascists

[@petavaldman2150]

@@blades9152 Wait I don't get this. You first quote the video acknowledging that Fredda doesn't see talking about alternate history scenarios involving the subject, as bad, but rather has a problem when people use it as a vehicle for "disturbing ideas", then a comment later you claim that Fredda sees everyone who talks about alternate history scenarios involving the subject as fascists. Those are contradictory.

[@luis.....]

6:02 *"Democratic"* revolution? 🤨

[@luis.....]

8:04 "Economic justice in Cuba" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Does anyone really believes that Castro was a good guy until Bahía de Cochinos???

[@masonpyle5929]

That’s a interesting way to spell communist

[@collin1061]

At the time it genuinely was, it consistent of various factions ranging from liberals and communists to overthrow the fascist regime under Batista, though after the revolution some of the factions and figures fled to the US such as Manuel Urrutia Lleó whom became president after Batista was overthrown but he had a political conflict with Castro due to the rise of communist ideology leading to him seeking asylum in the US

[@SpartanChief2277]

@@collin1061 left bias is showing bro

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

@@luis..... he was a great guy, sure he denounced anti semitism but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things

[@dylangtech]

While I appreciate the means by which you criticize Z by not jumping the gun and calling him slurs like "fascist" (as so many have), and by acknowledging your efforts to "propagandize", it's rather important that many of the points and strategies you use in your videos are identical to Z's. To use the Cuban example: Your argument is that information was left out and that the US's overt efforts to isolate and beligerize Cuba were what led to them embracing communism and threatening war on the US alongside the USSR. This is effectively the same argument that Russia only invaded Ukraine because Ukraine was belligerent to Russian minorities. You say this is a commentary on alt history creators, but this is more a commentary on Cuba, and this is what makes you and him identical in subverting the premise of the video and inserting political themes. It's a 2-way street. I also find it important to note that Z is popular among rightists and doesn't hide it. It's hard to talk about anything right-of-Bernie Sanders because it risks you getting purged for "far right extremism" and "terrorism". Surely you, a KZbinr, can understand why he is popular for both alt history AND for his right-leaning ideology, which he doesn't hide?

[@FreddaYT]

What are you talking about. It's more like saying Russia invaded Ukraine, which led them to developing a closer friendship with the US, which is literally what happened.

[@dylangtech]

@@FreddaYT You're making my point clear: You left out Castro's communist revolution in the same way Z left out America's aggression to Cuba after the fact.

[@collin1061]

@@dylangtech didn’t he talk about Castro declaring himself a Marxist and enacting policies in line with Marxist ideology in the video? Are you talking more about Cuba’s transformation into a proper Marxist state under a vanguardist one-party government?

[@adamheuer8502]

Refuses to trade with a dictatorial regime. Agressionnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!

[@a3cools115]

@@adamheuer8502 Overthrowing Regime is a form of aggression

[@destroyerofcringe3475]

Wait a second your telling me if we had just been a bit nicer to the Cubans who did not have too much Anti-American sentiment we could of avoided the whole thing.

[@FreddaYT]

Is being anti-American justification for bombing and trying to invade a country?

[@destroyerofcringe3475]

@@FreddaYT no definitely not, we need to chill out

[@clutrike7956]

God... the removal of public dislikes really does bring out the most idiotic of takes

[@FreddaYT]

The video has 75% likes the rest dislikes.

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

"take" is a gay word and it's overrated and annoying

[@lerneanlion]

What you said about how each historian interpretating events in the past reminded me of what Eren Kruger said to Grisha in Attack on Titan. It's about who knows what really happened back then. Sure, the Fall of Lago did happen but the Marleyans clearly exaggerated the numbers of the deaths and the devastation. heck, they never even mentioned why it happened in the first place. That one is bias there. They just painted the Eldians, the Subjects of Ymir, as people who did terrible things for no reason. But if you asked me, I think it is because the city has become a safe haven and recruiting ground for the Marleyan Liberation Army. And we all know how monarchs in the past dealt with rebellions and uprisings. It's just happened that the Eldian King also happened to be the Founding Titan. And as since he can turned his own people into Titans without their consents, he is willing to do it if it means preventing a rebellion from happening and securing his own power over his realm.

[@Adsper2000]

I mean the season 2 outro does depict the Fall of Lago from the Eldian perspective, and they show the Pure Titans devouring everyone inside the city. Titans are kinda just indiscriminate weapons of slaughter by their nature, I don’t really think the death toll was exaggerated.

[@lerneanlion]

@@Adsper2000 And my guess is that somehow, the leaders of the Marleyan Liberation Army survived the Fall of Lago, thus forcing the Founding Titan to command them to go Monte and Valle in search of them and also destroy what left of their followers and possibly to even get rid of them as well, right? Also, yes. Titans are like guns and bullets. They do not discriminate. They harmed everyone.

[@Adsper2000]

@@lerneanlion Well we don’t really know if Lago, Monte, and Valle were formal parts of the Eldian Empire that were in rebellion, or if they were cities/provinces that split off and retained their independence when the rest of Marley was crushed (we don’t even really know if Marley was one united empire, a couple of disparate kingdoms, or a collection of many city-states before being conquered by Eldia). For all we know, this was just a mop-up campaign to seize control of the rest of unoccupied Marley. Maybe somebody insulted an Eldian envoy and inspired collective retribution, which is why the operation was conducted with such brutality.

[@lerneanlion]

@@Adsper2000 That is also possible. However, considering the fact that the Marleyans are the Romans of the world of Attack on Titan. I think their government is definitely republican. Believe me, even the Romans in our world believed that the titles of Caesar and Imperator are of republican offices.

[@henriquetolentino6181]

The eldian empire was pretty much just unapologetically evil with the way they were presented in the show, which kind of harms the storyline of marleyan oppression isayama tried to tell.

[@nicholasjonas2505]

So... by looking at how certain factions could have won wars based on decisions they could've made, that makes me biased towards that faction? I don't see how that makes sense. In my personal, unprofessional opinion, I think it was a stupid military decision for nazi Germany to attack the Soviet Union and start a 2-front war. If they had focused on completely obliterating Britain, so that the allies couldn't have used it as a staging base of operations, they could've then put their attention towards the Soviet Union. The Soviet leaders even remarked that it was the allies that saved them from total internal collapse due to a lack of resources and proper military commanders. So, does this make me biased towards nazis? Am i suddenly a nazi for criticizing they're strategy? I just don't understand how I'm biased in this situation. I think both nazis and soviets were batshit insane people, but they were also people, doing what was best for them in the end. I should therefore, be an unbiased historian. Please explain the faults in my argument. I am eager to learn.

[@ACE234dm]

In this particular case you may not be biased towards the Nazi faction, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your argument is without bias. Bias can be a tricky thing to try and identify in the first place, so instead of stating that you are an "Unbiased Historian", it would be better if you described yourself as having bias, but making the most accurate attempt that you are capable of in order to explain yourself. The evidence stated is all true, but is all evidence to explain your argument rather than the full picture. A lot of what strategies the Nazis made base themselves on portraying to everyone Nazi Germany as a strong state, and so in your specific case, your criticism of their strategy actually makes your argument opposing to Nazism. I am not a professional, and so I probably made a few errors in my explanation, but I tried my best to explain myself and I am open to any constructive and thought-out responses to this reply.

[@astronomicvulpine9836]

Do you remember when Mr. Z made a video that said "eugenics is good but hitler ruined it's reputation" and then deleted it lol

[@ronniehopper2726]

He didn't delete it

[@astronomicvulpine9836]

@@ronniehopper2726 link?

[@ronniehopper2726]

@@astronomicvulpine9836 you know we can't post links on KZbin right,

[@stuffbuddy4304]

Eugenics is still going on today. A good example is when people abort babies because they've got disabilities like downsyndrome.

[@daveholland6293]

I think it's good that we we can used things like CRISPR in the future to remove genetic diseases even if it's called and IS "eugenics" cope

[@ender7278]

"All accounts of history are biased" to "alternate history is literal propaganda" is one hell of a leap in logic.

[@prudenciosghost]

Good thing that isn't what he said.

[@accountrandomnumber182]

What is a leap of logic is that you say "all"

[@blades9152]

@@prudenciosghostit is

[@jexcala7485]

The issue with the notion of biases is that humans and every living being on the planet is inherently biased to their interests. This is just the natural state of things, so believing that you're above biases in any way is disingenuous.

[@FreddaYT]

I never said I'm above biases, but saying you are biased isn't enough. You have to also say "This source is promoting this view" or "this idea" to be fully transparent, and that is something a lot of these alt-historians will never do because some of them (Whatifalthist) use sources who were foundational inspirations for Nazi ideology, and actually being clear and open about that would scare their viewers away.

[@jexcala7485]

@@FreddaYT I'm pretty sure Whatifalthist has been open about being a biased libertarian and has called the Nazis evil. In terms of it "not being enough" to admit biases, it should be noted that full context must be given, and to assume that everyone has an agenda of "promoting x ideology" would indicate a sense of paranoia on the creator's part if anything.

[@longiusaescius2537]

But then how could he spin the Cuban Revolution his way?

[@wertywerrtyson5529]

It’s perfectly possible to look at “what if the nazis won WWII” without being a Nazi. What if you do the what if the Soviet Union won the Cold War after? Are you a Nazi and a Communist? There are some really biased historians but there are also less biased ones. You should at least attempt to be as unbiased as possible even if you will still be unconsciously biased. A historian that looks at all sides and don’t have any skin in the game is more trustworthy than someone that is only presenting evidence that will back up his or her claim. A good historian or any scientist will try as much as possible to push aside personal politics. Present the facts to the best of his or her ability and let the reader reach his or her own conclusion. How do you explain people that can show good and bad things about socialism and capitalism etc? If everyone is pushing their politics then these people shouldn’t exist. They should only say bad things about socialism or only bad things about capitalism. If you don’t believe in objective reality and everything is just “my truth and your truth” than what even is the point of trying to understand history or the world?

[@chrisgaming9567]

The problem isn't the topics being covered. You'd know that if you watched the video.

[@zzeegermantube]

Having watched quite a few of Mr Z's videos I find your claim that his videos are overtly far right highly questionable. You don't really offer any proof for that. Whether he has a firm grasp of history is obviously something that isn't easy to proof, besides the point that the burden of accuracy for these kind of videos isn't equal to the academic standards when you're writing a history essay. Of course that all depends on how serious you take this Alt History thing. Assuming that someone who makes a video on how the Nazis could have won WW2 is alt-right or even worse fascist is in this context very questionable. It actually reveals a lot more about your biases. I haven't seen the video on Cuba, but I'm assuming at no point does Mr Z say Cuba is bad because it was communist. Your accusation that Mr Z is purposely hiding his political intentions comes across as rediculous since you don't offer any actual proof for this. The fact that history is written by people with their own biases who use sources written by people who in turn have their own biases doesn't automatically make history as such "propaganda". I think that is a very serious "accusation" level at the subject of history that is unwarranted. Going by that view why waste our time studying history at all? Yes, "history" has been and will continue to be misused for propaganda, but that is the difference between genuine history that seeks to be objective and well propaganda, which is politically motivated. As for whether Castro really held strong anti-American tendencies or was pushed into anti-Americanism by US actions, well your timeline supports the later, but what sources are there regarding Castro's views of the US before the events after he seized power?

[@joshwolf6932]

It's been my general belief that Germany could only win WW2 if they weren't taken over by the Nazis in the first place. But if the Nazis don't take power, than Germany doesn't start WW2. And if Germany starts WW2, who does??? The Soviets maybe? I don't really know. There just really isn't a conceivable way to have WW2 without the Axis powers becoming what they were. That's always been the issue of Alternate History - most of it doesn't make sense because it's not something properly conceivable.

[@blades9152]

Hypothetically a situation where Trotsky takes the USSR instead of Stalin would lead to Russia attacking Germany, leading to Russia being the aggressor and WW2 being completely different.

[@lukedornon7799]

Either objective historical facts exist or everyone just gets to imagine whatever history they like because everything contradictory can be safely ignored as political propaganda...

[@FreddaYT]

No there's such a thing as a historical consensus and an ideal historical truth, not an objective one. We're all working towars the ideal historical truth but it does not exist because it's ideal. Anybody purporting to represent objective history is a liar or has no idea what they're talking about.

[@stuffbuddy4304]

@@FreddaYT if there's no such thing as an ideal historical truth, then how do we know that the historical consensus is near it or far away from it? Historical facts and historical perspectives are two different things which are both needed to understand history. You're conflating the two.

[@monarchtherapsidsinostran9125]

@@FreddaYT dw bruh the not zees won ww2. idc what my lying eyes tell me. tis subjective.

[@longiusaescius2537]

@staffbuddy4304 exactly

[@BonejanglesTV]

I'm convinced that althistoryhub and monsieur z are all the same person. they sound identical to each other

[@somethingsomething3395]

Z is Cody's evil twin.

[@alexiel4406]

@@somethingsomething3395 "evil"

[@BonejanglesTV]

@@alexiel4406 Yes.

[@alexiel4406]

@@BonejanglesTV differing views does not make one evil 😁

[@BonejanglesTV]

@@alexiel4406 in reality of course monsieur z isnt evil, but many ahistorical alt-right points as covered in the video are dangerous to the althist community overall

[@zach3318]

Is the thumbnail implying Alt History Hub is “alt right”? lol Many of your criticisms don’t seem to apply to that creator. Such as “falsely implying one event in a war would change the outcome”. I feel like everyone of his videos usually start with “So many things would have to change to support this alternative outcome, you take this video as a thought experiment” He’s quite critical of most all extremist belief and political systems. Your video seems like an example of “everyone I disagree with is a literal Nazi”

[@ratvaporizette]

Alternate History Hub wasn't even mentioned in the video, the thumbnail included alt-history channels, AHH is a alt-history channel. Also Fredda even hearted comments saying AHH is not-bad/good at alternate history. jfc please use critical thinking.

[@NulledSeries]

​@@ratvaporizetteMore like watch the video before commenting

[@KeirLawrie]

Of course this guy is a Disco Elysium fan lol. He's got his rhetoric and encyclopedia maxed out

[@snipman8067]

You forgot some parts with the Cuba timeline. Castro made dozens of speeches before he came out as a marxist-leninist demanding an end to the bourgeoisie and a proletariat revolution. Hell, this was even before the first sanctions on Cuba. Castro also made dozens of speeches before the first sanctions about how the US was an evil empire. The US and Cuba were never going to get along. Let's not forget that Cuba is what, 90 miles from the US? A communist state that close to the US was a threat to national security. That was the primary reason for the US attempting the bay of pigs invasion. The US didn't just hate Cuba to hate Cuba. No one has ever hated something just to hate something. Everyone has their reason for hating someone/something, and it could be as stupid as that person calling them a meanie head or something more serious like a genuine crime. Quit making things up for political points.

[@FreddaYT]

Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are different things. The bourgeoisie and a proletarian revolution are not Marxist-Leninist concepts. Do you believe Castro was wrong in denouncing the US support for dictators in Latin America? Do you also not believe Castro was aware of US anxieties towards having a country aligned with its enemies close to mainland USA? This is exactly the reasoning for not immediately aligning with the Soviet Union following the revolution despite his criticisms of the United States and capitalism. Until of course confrontation with the United States seemed inevitable (after they attempted to invade). Your argument in support of the US invasion of Cuba is the same argument used by Russia to justify its invasion of Ukraine. You should maybe reflect on that.

[@snipman8067]

@@FreddaYT when did I say it's ok to invade another country? I said there was a reason, whether you agree with said reason or not is not of my concern. But no one does something without a reason to do it, especially an invasion of another country. Castro was 110% aware of the problem he was creating between the US and Cuba, especially when you make a speech calling them an evil empire. That's like calling someone an asshole to their face, you can't expect that person to be friendly to you after that point. Not for a little while at least. I don't take sides in history, I look at it from the least biased side possible. Both sides in the American-Cuban conflict did some very... Questionable things to put it mildly. Castro did everything that made the US fearful that Cuba was going to join forces with the USSR, while the US did everything that pushed Castro more and more against the US. However, Castro was inevitably going to side against the US as Castro had already said, he hated the US and wanted to see its destruction. He had picked a side in the cold war before he announced it.

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

@@FreddaYT a proletariat revolution aligns with marxist leninism and marxist leninism is the practical end of what marxism started tho. Marx had no real works regarding what to do when the revolution actually started, he mostly focused on theory. Lenin and leninism is the works of marx applied to real life and revolutionary circumstances. Leninism is a way to overthrow and govern, how to implement marxs theory.

[@shen4379]

​@@FreddaYT It's crazy how you managed to draw a wrong conclusion (especially this conclusion, which is egregiously wrong) twice despite giving great insight beforehand. How, in any reasonable or logical way, did OP argue in support, implicit or otherwise, of the US invasion of Cuba???

[@Vextonomy]

Cody isnt alt right tho

[@paramutt5507]

Proto Capitalist? I'm sitting here staring at those words with the video paused thinking "What kinda commie bullshit did I click on?" You are trying to claim that genocide and slavery are Capitalist. I was interested in your video. You clearly have extreme biases. No thanks.

[@thehighnoonsaloon7794]

Proto-capitalism is a widely used academic term. Dismissing someone's points off of their ideologies shows significantly more bias than simply... Having an idealogy. As for slavery, yeah, that is absolutely a proto-capitalist (if not just capitalist) institution. Everyone is biased, you're upset because this person's bias is against your current perspective

[@proster7920]

​@@thehighnoonsaloon7794 there is nothing wrong with someone having a bias or a perception. The problem is that when you're being illogical and trying to pass that stupidity as academical or truthful. In that case it does not matter whether one has bias or perception even if they do play a factor, that doesn't mean you could just accept something that is extremely fallacious.

[@thehighnoonsaloon7794]

@@proster7920 Proto-capitalism is also a real and recognizable thing so

[@proster7920]

@@thehighnoonsaloon7794 yes and that is why it had nothing to do with most of what Fredda was showing. The problem is that he name something that he didn't like (proto capitalism). And then accuse something unrelated to it of being that thing just so we could push his agenda and worldview.

[@thehighnoonsaloon7794]

@@proster7920 Id love for you to substantiate this

[@ajw20]

I mean, yeah. History is hard enough, and alt-historians must walk a fine line. My personal project on Reddit is of an America that annexed Canada and the Caribbean, but an America that’s also more LIKE Canada, focusing on what a more Liberal and multi-lingual America would look like today. It’s a passion project for me because if follows my “dream reality”, and it’s easy to see what my message is. (My message, very blunt, being “give us universal healthcare please”)l It’s just here for fun, especially since it’s small, and I won’t be making any money or influencing any large swaths of people with it! Also quick edit, I see you having a lot of negative comments here- ignore it, KZbin comments will always suck, man, and I found this video genuinely interesting, despite the somewhat clickbait thumbnail lol

[@andryuu_2000]

Basically US Roman Republic

[@granildennuellefrayzenm7620]

I have my own alt history what if Antarctica was green and when the western roman fell they somehow built ships that can cross the Atlantic and find the green Antarctica, the fleet is massive carrying 200,000 people to said continent and these romans founded the roman Antarctican empire and hid themselves from the outside world and developing more advanced tech than the outside world. Then the current world discovers it and this roman Antarctican empire is a utopia with freedom and free healthcare and a massive population of 2.2 billion and a 50 million strom modern army. Disclaimer this is more of fantasy than alt history, but i like to run my imagination wild😅 im sorry if this is so unrealistic scenario but its really fun for me by the way i am sorry if my grammar is not good i am from the Philippines and just a 17 year old kid pls be easy on me😅😅😅. Edit: i forgot i am not writting this alt history its just a scenario i kept in my mid 😊

[@SowerValler]

Tf did Alternate History Hub do?

[@Svistov]

Cody left a comment here saying that he hopes fredda doesn't go to hard on him and fredda responded that he's fine. TLDR: we got clickbaited

[@groundedbeef727]

@@Svistov I don't actually blame him, cody is one of the most popular alt historians on youtube, for good reason, his videos are well researched and make alot of sense, he's a fun guy to watch too. It's pretty obvious why Cody is almost the "mascot" of the alt history presence on youtube.

[@Svistov]

​@@groundedbeef727yes, I quite like his content, it doesn't seem to show bias to any side and it kinda makes sense. He also makes his videos interesting and entertaining unlike whatifalthist and monsieur z (and it is actually alt history unlike the other two advertised as alt history). Sorry for the late response, I don't get notifications for responses to my comments.

[@Jimboy8023]

Something I like about the KZbin channel althisthub is how often points of divergences meant nothing. When Hitler starts Sea Lion it fails, when Japan wins Midway it means nothing. Cody is honest enough to acknowledge that sometimes history can't be changed by the flick of a switch

[@AlexVictorianus]

Yes, I agreree. But Fredda is also quite radical - left marxist. Everything can be bad, if it is too much.

[@Hawkatana]

Nope.

[@jaajembryons1803]

​@@Hawkatanayep

[@Hawkatana]

@@jaajembryons1803 Nope.

[@siyacer]

well said

[@siyacer]

​@@Hawkatanafredda isn't going to fuck you bro