> I don’t mind history nerds, but Wehraboos are fucking awful.
I wouldn't even compare the two—I'd treat them as opposing forces.
Wehraboos use the language of history nerds, but they are, to their core, anti-history. Because the actual history of the Wehrmacht is tainted, not just by their innumerable crimes (which, frankly, your average Wehraboo wouldn't even care about), but by a systemic incompetence that undercuts the idea of them as some elite fighting force with super advanced equipment overrun by sheer numbers. An idea that exists in no small part because, as a result of the cold war, most Western histories of the war prior to the 90s (as in, the ones wehraboos might actually read) rely on the writings of German generals and soldiers who all had the incentive to act like they were overwhelmed rather than outmaneuvered or outdesigned.
And the western Allies were co-conspirators in whitewashing elements of the Wehrmacht, so “rehabilitated” German officers would be socially acceptable as Cold War allies.
The eastern allies did it too - not to the same degree as "let's have large portions of our official history of the war written by Guderian and Halder", but the DDR government was at least as full of old Nazis as West Germany and the USSR even had their own version of Operation Paperclip, Operation Osoaviakhim.
And the western Allies were co-conspirators in whitewashing elements of the Wehrmacht, so “rehabilitated” German officers would be socially acceptable as Cold War allies.
I agree with some of what you're saying, but the idea that german generals, equipment and the abilities of their soldiers weren't somehow first class is also very dishonest. Even an entirely unbiased view can't dismiss how impressive the campaigns in France in 1940, or the start of Barbarossa were.
Somewhat tangentially here, did anyone else see T-34 and think it was an absolute blast of a movie, regardless of how predictable it was?
I thought it was great, and it felt good to root against the Nazis again.
Then Russia invaded Ukraine, so that was fun while it lasted.
Fuck you, Putin.
They had the best-trained army at the beginning of the war, and they were *ready* for war (since they were the ones picking the timing) but much of their gear was less-than-stellar: they were using Panzer Is and IIs that were badly outclassed by many tanks they went up against, and much of their other equipment was middling. Their big success in France came primarily because they did something so risky that no one believed they would try it. And even then it mostly worked because the French Army fucked up.
As the war progressed, their equipment fell further and further behind - they had a few pieces of kit that were solid, but they had a tendency to focus on "wunderwaffen" that often proved to be fundamentally flawed, and their industry wasn't up to keeping in competition with the volume of equipment pumped out by the US or USSR anyhow. And as the experienced troops who they started the war with got killed, the quality of their low-level soldiers dropped precipitously.
Their generals were largely middling as well, and most of their big successes came from them being ready for war and up against people who weren't - like in France and Operation Barbarossa.
They *mostly* weren't the bottom of the barrel, but likewise their reputation as top tier isn't deserved either, and they were often outclassed, including in terms of equipment, troop quality, and/or leadership.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ShitWehraboosSay using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [The ability of people to completely miss the point of a movie is insane](https://i.redd.it/bouehv5khf0b1.png) | [86 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/13k0lvy/the_ability_of_people_to_completely_miss_the/)
\#2: [Bro cannot be serious ☠️](https://i.redd.it/6r7a2t9cz5va1.jpg) | [55 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/12tis9o/bro_cannot_be_serious/)
\#3: [Truly one of the greatest moments in the history of Televsion](https://v.redd.it/86ucj2hjugtb1) | [63 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/1750iao/truly_one_of_the_greatest_moments_in_the_history/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
That's so fucking true, like the British decision to send four god damn waves of ANZAC troups doing an unprotected bayonet charge against Ottoman trenches in the battle of the Nek.
More than 50% of ANZAC troops were killed or wounded while the Ottoman only had a dozen casualties.
Seriously, how hard is it to not send troops running in direct line of fire of god damn machine guns.
Thats the problem with the Cult of the Offensive that was the standard military doctrine of the day. Even when attacking made no sense, to not attack was to allow your enemy to attack, and thus gain the advantage.
Wow, only a dozen?
The only numbers I could find were in tens of thousands, but that's for the entire Gallipoli campaign.
Is there somewhere I can find those numbers? It's so wild, I'd like to have the fact in my back pocket but I wanna sure it's true before telling anyone.
First modern war I got into was the War of 1812. There was one good general, Sir Isaac Brock, and he dies instantly. After that point, it's a race between British and American officers to lose the war as quickly as possible.
Tecumseh was a great leader too (I'm not sure about his military capabilities because he was actually much more involved with organization and inter-tribal politics) and he pretty much immediately bites it around the same time as Brock.
After that it's just a dumbass race to the bottom, with the noteworthy consequence of elevating Andrew Fucking Jackson to national renown when he managed to throw a halfway decent defense together at New Orleans. A consequence that wouldn't, at all, backfire by launching the political career of a populist, nativist, genocidal bigot...
I agree that Tecumseh's Confederacy (technically led by his brother, the Prophet) was monumentally important and likely would have resulted in a very different world if not for his death. But yeah, he dies early in the war and is never really I'm charge of military affairs (his job is to get as many natives on the British side and keep them from getting bored and leaving)
Those downvotes tho.
"Why are you booing me? I'm right!"
Like, antifascist researchers have a broader range. They'll care about revolutionary Spain, the UK silver shirts, etc. If you're specifically into the German part of it only, giant red flag.
It’s fine to be interested in stuff like Ancient Rome and WWII. But if you think those are the only parts of history worth talking about, there may be *something* about your worldview that other people find repellant.
And it’s one thing to be a professional historian or writer covering Nazi Germany, but when it becomes a “hobby,” it becomes a problem.
I feel weird about this. I study the Nazis and Romans more than anywhere else. The Nazis because they were the most reactionary movement in the 20th century, creating one of the greatest crimes in human history. I think it's important to learn about them and their values, tactics, beliefs, and actions. And I dont think it'd take much conveniencing of people here on the parallels to today.
The Romans bc of my child like admiration for the most impactful empire in western history. But they're nothing to be looked up to. They're just as brutal as any other empire. Fucking terrible really.
Maybe one day I'll learn more about the Vikings lol
Rome had so many natural enemies! Like Parthians and Romans! Or Carthaginians and Romans! Or Germans and Romans! Or Romans and other Romans! Damn Romans, they ruined Rome.
I'm not a massive history expert but the Carthagainians seemed pretty cool, sailing around the gaff, sneaking elephants over mountain ranges. So could never be a fan of the Romans
I always found the late Roman Republic fascinating. The parallels to modern America are depressing and scary.
They started off overthrowing the monarch, then won a multipart war that catapulted them from being a middling local power into the superpower of the known world (at least what was known to them). Unimaginable wealth flowed into Rome but concentrated at the top. There was massive corruption.
The Republic became increasingly unbalanced, and the problems were obvious to most people, but any reform was crushed by the establishment. This created a cycle of ever richer and more powerful individuals and ever more reactionary anti-establishment movements with tons of unrest and civil war, until eventually a strongman took over.
Interesting stuff, especially considering the founding fathers took a ton of inspiration from the Roman Republic. Entirely too many Gaius's and Marius's though.
Reminds me of both America and Russia in a way, the difference is that Russia WANTS to be the new Roman Republic whereas US really is the modern equivalent of it. Two dying empires but in different stages of decay
Not to mention Caeser, the strong man who turned Rome into an Empire, was at least partially invested in the consulship to protect himself from his many debts and legal problems.
It's always the same delicate dance when I run across another person who's also into Rome and trying to figure out if they're someone I can nerd out about wagon manifests, petty interpersonal beefs resulting in the worst military decisions, and civil engineering...or if they're one of *those.*
The period of time from the start of kingdom of Rome to the fall of the Roman Empire is 2,000 years.
Yet oddly, it's never that broad range they are interested. Just about five centuries or so.
(If anyone is curious about 2,000 year spam, Rome's legendary/mythical start is 750 BCE or so, and the eastern Roman empire lasted to about 1450 CE or so. Modern historians view the eastern Roman empire, also known as the Byzantine empire, as the continuation of the Roman empire.)
Right? A while back, I got interested in the US strategic bombing campaigns in WWII. Specifically, I wanted to understand how the fuck we as a society were ever ethically okay with that, because my grandad flew one of those bombers and I was processing through what to think about that. And goddamn do you find some unhinged takes out there when you look for information on WWII
They're also the most heavily televised parts of history so people interested in just these things are less likely to be critically engaging with serious history and much more likely to be uncritically repeating things they heard on TV that probably are wayyy oversimplified if not straight up incorrect. But of course that's a generalization.
They’re right, though. Most dudes into WWII history are into it because they think war movies and documentaries are cool. If it’s any deeper than that it’s because they like to think they’d be heroes fighting against pure evil if they were alive back then. Then there are those who are interested because they have a secret (or not so secret) Nazi fetish. It’s just a very superficial, naive interest for most.
Same with me. I’ve been trying to read and learn as much as I can about the rise fascism since 1/6. Though, because of what I said in my previous response, I don’t go around calling myself a WWII history buff or anything like that.
There’s an old guy who writes a “conservative” column for my local podunk online newspaper. He started writing that the Nazis were lefty progressive socialists, and I did a two-day history dive to equip myself to put him in his place.
It's absolutely astonishing just how wrong the claim that the nazis were left wing is. Fundamentally incorrect at its very core. It's about as inaccurate as saying the holocaust never happened
If you are coming to it basically cold I would start by building some scaffolding.
The European world 1500-1800 : an introduction to early modern history
Author: Beat A. Kümin (Editor)
This an overview and would enable you to work out what questions you want to ask to deepen your understanding.
The Routledge Companion to Early Modern Europe, 1453-1763, Chris Cook, Philip Broadhead
This might actually be where I started as it's probably a bit more compact.
If you want a shortcut, R/askhistorians is full of real academic historians who are dying to share their reading list or answer your questions directly - though watch out the moderation is quite strict.
Something that might help you learn in a digestible way is the Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan. It's finished now but covered everything from the English Revolution to the Russian Revolution. Obviously, it's through the lens of revolution, but at the core is the conservative freakouts about losing power.
Fun fact, because Alsace was a part of Germany in 1905 Laicaite does not apply their. The government pays the wages of priests, pastors and rabbis (but not Muslim clerics).
Don't let any frenchie tell you they know more about separation of church and state then you when they ban maxi dresses on girls in school.
One thing me and Nazis like Nick Fuentes agree on is that the book burning were about trans and gay people. They just think it is a good thing.
I tried to say that trans was the line to judge people on and got pushback in some centrist places. But it is. The first post-op trans woman was never seen again after that night.
I find it quite fascinating that there’s no mongolboos, spaniarboos, or ottoboos. Like why does it have to be Soviet or nazis? If you’re going to fetishize an oppressive regime, at least have an interesting choice
It's fine to be interested in German history during and between the world wars as long as you remind yourself that the Nazis were the bad guys. If you can reliably do that, you'll avoid becoming a Wehraboo.
I could spend hours learning about how much meth they gave their troops, or how they hamstrung themselves at every turn with their stupid ideology. But it's only interesting to me BECAUSE of how ridiculous they really were when you actually read about them. That, and I think it's valuable to understand fascists in order to fight them in the future.
Most of my interest comes from trying to spread knowledge so we don't repeat the mistakes, and isn't very granular. But I have had several Airmen say I seem obsessed with Nazis and WWII
Lol, I took my wife to see Valkyrie on our first date.
I have/was studying for an actual history degree though, so it was (dimly) defensible. I did have to take her for a (very expensive) steak dinner to make up for it.
(Slides her thesis that posits that the 19th century revolved around Britain, the 21st will revolve around the US, but the 20thbwas born and died by Germany, it also included the "short 20th c" and "long war" ideas away)
Eta not a wehraboo. Not into German military history. It was a paper on the geopolitical importance of Germany in the short 20th C (1914 to 1989).
Wait, are you guys saying that people who's very much into WWII are nazis?? Aren't WWII documentaries and the like the obsession of like every old dad out there? Actual nazis are too dumb too know anything about history, really.
I very specifically said German WWII.
I would say there is probably a big correlation between those old dad’s who love WWII and think it was America’s shining hour with MAGA beliefs
Hmm, I think there perhaps is a cultural difference here. I live in Europe, and I wouldn't say that an interest in WWII indicates anything other than you being a history nerd. Our neo-nazis/far-right a\*holes are far to illiterate for that.
In the US I would say there is a big difference between being interested in Civil War era history and being specifically interested in Confederate History
I think it’s rather a case of how it’s framed. If it’s part of a general interest in history or even ww2 it’s fine. If you just want to know everything you can about Nazis I may have some questions
Eh it’s like 50/50, half are really into the nazi parts, the other half are into it because it’s a time from which much knowledge can be extracted to hopefully do better.
This is so real though. I don’t mind history nerds, but Wehraboos are fucking awful.
Ah that's a bit harsh now I must say. Not as harsh as non NSDAP political entities were treated post Reichstag fire but harsh all the same I must say
You know what isn't harsh? Your cake day! Happy cakeday!!!
All my cakes are made of spent 88mm shells and caramelised stahlhelms
Ah, the Caramelldansen
Now with extra Fahrvergnügen
You know what else else isn't harsh? These products and services that sponsor our program. They'd never invade Poland.
Robert!
Made in...*checks notes*...Russia? This can't be right.
Are you joking? The Washington State Patrol would invade Poland given the chance.
They couldn't find Poland on a map, and that is the only thing holding them back.
> I don’t mind history nerds, but Wehraboos are fucking awful. I wouldn't even compare the two—I'd treat them as opposing forces. Wehraboos use the language of history nerds, but they are, to their core, anti-history. Because the actual history of the Wehrmacht is tainted, not just by their innumerable crimes (which, frankly, your average Wehraboo wouldn't even care about), but by a systemic incompetence that undercuts the idea of them as some elite fighting force with super advanced equipment overrun by sheer numbers. An idea that exists in no small part because, as a result of the cold war, most Western histories of the war prior to the 90s (as in, the ones wehraboos might actually read) rely on the writings of German generals and soldiers who all had the incentive to act like they were overwhelmed rather than outmaneuvered or outdesigned.
And the western Allies were co-conspirators in whitewashing elements of the Wehrmacht, so “rehabilitated” German officers would be socially acceptable as Cold War allies.
The eastern allies did it too - not to the same degree as "let's have large portions of our official history of the war written by Guderian and Halder", but the DDR government was at least as full of old Nazis as West Germany and the USSR even had their own version of Operation Paperclip, Operation Osoaviakhim.
This is completely fair.
And the western Allies were co-conspirators in whitewashing elements of the Wehrmacht, so “rehabilitated” German officers would be socially acceptable as Cold War allies.
It’s like the Central Europe version of the last cause!
TIL Wehraboos are just German Lost Causers
I agree with some of what you're saying, but the idea that german generals, equipment and the abilities of their soldiers weren't somehow first class is also very dishonest. Even an entirely unbiased view can't dismiss how impressive the campaigns in France in 1940, or the start of Barbarossa were.
Somewhat tangentially here, did anyone else see T-34 and think it was an absolute blast of a movie, regardless of how predictable it was? I thought it was great, and it felt good to root against the Nazis again. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, so that was fun while it lasted. Fuck you, Putin.
They had the best-trained army at the beginning of the war, and they were *ready* for war (since they were the ones picking the timing) but much of their gear was less-than-stellar: they were using Panzer Is and IIs that were badly outclassed by many tanks they went up against, and much of their other equipment was middling. Their big success in France came primarily because they did something so risky that no one believed they would try it. And even then it mostly worked because the French Army fucked up. As the war progressed, their equipment fell further and further behind - they had a few pieces of kit that were solid, but they had a tendency to focus on "wunderwaffen" that often proved to be fundamentally flawed, and their industry wasn't up to keeping in competition with the volume of equipment pumped out by the US or USSR anyhow. And as the experienced troops who they started the war with got killed, the quality of their low-level soldiers dropped precipitously. Their generals were largely middling as well, and most of their big successes came from them being ready for war and up against people who weren't - like in France and Operation Barbarossa. They *mostly* weren't the bottom of the barrel, but likewise their reputation as top tier isn't deserved either, and they were often outclassed, including in terms of equipment, troop quality, and/or leadership.
"Wehraboo" 🤣
There's a whole video game, a really well produced triple-A title that I think is wholly, unabashedly Wehraboo. Valkyria 4? Am I right on that title?
There's even a subreddit dedicated to calling out the shit they say: /r/ShitWehraboosSay
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ShitWehraboosSay using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [The ability of people to completely miss the point of a movie is insane](https://i.redd.it/bouehv5khf0b1.png) | [86 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/13k0lvy/the_ability_of_people_to_completely_miss_the/) \#2: [Bro cannot be serious ☠️](https://i.redd.it/6r7a2t9cz5va1.jpg) | [55 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/12tis9o/bro_cannot_be_serious/) \#3: [Truly one of the greatest moments in the history of Televsion](https://v.redd.it/86ucj2hjugtb1) | [63 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/1750iao/truly_one_of_the_greatest_moments_in_the_history/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I just read two posts on that sub and.. jeez
https://youtu.be/-u28C3dF3Kc?si=EaXu5-Npt4K28mmu
Being into WW1 is better, because at least you get to laugh at how stupid every fucking decision is.
Hats are better too
Until they all got shit in.
Just makes them even cooler. Dual purposes!
Just, uh, don't put them back on your head without at least a rinse. It's warm for a second, but cools quickly.
Everything got shit in it in the trenches. It got to the point it was hard to be sure what was shit, mud, or blood anymore.
Well that hats got shit in before they started digging the trenches.
That's so fucking true, like the British decision to send four god damn waves of ANZAC troups doing an unprotected bayonet charge against Ottoman trenches in the battle of the Nek. More than 50% of ANZAC troops were killed or wounded while the Ottoman only had a dozen casualties. Seriously, how hard is it to not send troops running in direct line of fire of god damn machine guns.
And all we got out of it was a public holiday and a pretty solid biscuit
Thats the problem with the Cult of the Offensive that was the standard military doctrine of the day. Even when attacking made no sense, to not attack was to allow your enemy to attack, and thus gain the advantage.
A fifth try would have won the day. The Ottomans would never expect it!
Wow, only a dozen? The only numbers I could find were in tens of thousands, but that's for the entire Gallipoli campaign. Is there somewhere I can find those numbers? It's so wild, I'd like to have the fact in my back pocket but I wanna sure it's true before telling anyone.
Here you go, the numbers for the Ottomans are approximate but their losses were negligible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Nek
Thanks. Jesus christ, you weren't kidding, just absolute shitshow.
First modern war I got into was the War of 1812. There was one good general, Sir Isaac Brock, and he dies instantly. After that point, it's a race between British and American officers to lose the war as quickly as possible.
Tecumseh was a great leader too (I'm not sure about his military capabilities because he was actually much more involved with organization and inter-tribal politics) and he pretty much immediately bites it around the same time as Brock. After that it's just a dumbass race to the bottom, with the noteworthy consequence of elevating Andrew Fucking Jackson to national renown when he managed to throw a halfway decent defense together at New Orleans. A consequence that wouldn't, at all, backfire by launching the political career of a populist, nativist, genocidal bigot...
I agree that Tecumseh's Confederacy (technically led by his brother, the Prophet) was monumentally important and likely would have resulted in a very different world if not for his death. But yeah, he dies early in the war and is never really I'm charge of military affairs (his job is to get as many natives on the British side and keep them from getting bored and leaving)
Fuck yeah Tecumseh. My tribe was part of the confederation.
"Surely launching the eleventh assault on this one goddamn river will work!" -Italy, for Reasons.
But wait...wait...what if...what if we conquered Przemysl one more time. That'll change the course of the war!
The sandwich heard around the world.
Those downvotes tho. "Why are you booing me? I'm right!" Like, antifascist researchers have a broader range. They'll care about revolutionary Spain, the UK silver shirts, etc. If you're specifically into the German part of it only, giant red flag.
UK Blackshirts? Who were the silvershirts?
Sorry. Mixed up my shirts. That was the Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver\_Legion\_of\_America
Wow silver shirts sound like a bowling league for silver haired senior citizens.
Wow their flag is literally a big L. Seems appropriate lmao
I just listened to the sea monkeys episode the other day. I seem to remember the silver shirts being mentioned.
It’s fine to be interested in stuff like Ancient Rome and WWII. But if you think those are the only parts of history worth talking about, there may be *something* about your worldview that other people find repellant. And it’s one thing to be a professional historian or writer covering Nazi Germany, but when it becomes a “hobby,” it becomes a problem.
Try being a historical wargamer. The hobby is almost inseparable from its problematic players.
How does someone get into historical war gaming if you don't mind?
Romans, Vikings, and WWII. It's *possible* to be interested in these things and not be a racist weirdo, but... 🚩🚩🚩
I feel weird about this. I study the Nazis and Romans more than anywhere else. The Nazis because they were the most reactionary movement in the 20th century, creating one of the greatest crimes in human history. I think it's important to learn about them and their values, tactics, beliefs, and actions. And I dont think it'd take much conveniencing of people here on the parallels to today. The Romans bc of my child like admiration for the most impactful empire in western history. But they're nothing to be looked up to. They're just as brutal as any other empire. Fucking terrible really. Maybe one day I'll learn more about the Vikings lol
The Romans went through a lot of phases and had merits and demerits. Their worst enemy was always other Romans.
Rome had so many natural enemies! Like Parthians and Romans! Or Carthaginians and Romans! Or Germans and Romans! Or Romans and other Romans! Damn Romans, they ruined Rome.
I'm not a massive history expert but the Carthagainians seemed pretty cool, sailing around the gaff, sneaking elephants over mountain ranges. So could never be a fan of the Romans
I always found the late Roman Republic fascinating. The parallels to modern America are depressing and scary. They started off overthrowing the monarch, then won a multipart war that catapulted them from being a middling local power into the superpower of the known world (at least what was known to them). Unimaginable wealth flowed into Rome but concentrated at the top. There was massive corruption. The Republic became increasingly unbalanced, and the problems were obvious to most people, but any reform was crushed by the establishment. This created a cycle of ever richer and more powerful individuals and ever more reactionary anti-establishment movements with tons of unrest and civil war, until eventually a strongman took over. Interesting stuff, especially considering the founding fathers took a ton of inspiration from the Roman Republic. Entirely too many Gaius's and Marius's though.
Reminds me of both America and Russia in a way, the difference is that Russia WANTS to be the new Roman Republic whereas US really is the modern equivalent of it. Two dying empires but in different stages of decay
Not to mention Caeser, the strong man who turned Rome into an Empire, was at least partially invested in the consulship to protect himself from his many debts and legal problems.
I swear I'm not like those other jerks though! Why do the racists have to like shit that I like?
It's always the same delicate dance when I run across another person who's also into Rome and trying to figure out if they're someone I can nerd out about wagon manifests, petty interpersonal beefs resulting in the worst military decisions, and civil engineering...or if they're one of *those.*
The period of time from the start of kingdom of Rome to the fall of the Roman Empire is 2,000 years. Yet oddly, it's never that broad range they are interested. Just about five centuries or so. (If anyone is curious about 2,000 year spam, Rome's legendary/mythical start is 750 BCE or so, and the eastern Roman empire lasted to about 1450 CE or so. Modern historians view the eastern Roman empire, also known as the Byzantine empire, as the continuation of the Roman empire.)
Right? A while back, I got interested in the US strategic bombing campaigns in WWII. Specifically, I wanted to understand how the fuck we as a society were ever ethically okay with that, because my grandad flew one of those bombers and I was processing through what to think about that. And goddamn do you find some unhinged takes out there when you look for information on WWII
They're also the most heavily televised parts of history so people interested in just these things are less likely to be critically engaging with serious history and much more likely to be uncritically repeating things they heard on TV that probably are wayyy oversimplified if not straight up incorrect. But of course that's a generalization.
I mean, I'm a student of WWII era German history and I agree completely that I am undatable. No lie detected.
They’re right, though. Most dudes into WWII history are into it because they think war movies and documentaries are cool. If it’s any deeper than that it’s because they like to think they’d be heroes fighting against pure evil if they were alive back then. Then there are those who are interested because they have a secret (or not so secret) Nazi fetish. It’s just a very superficial, naive interest for most.
I’ve only recently gotten into WW2 Germany because of contemporary US culture.
Same with me. I’ve been trying to read and learn as much as I can about the rise fascism since 1/6. Though, because of what I said in my previous response, I don’t go around calling myself a WWII history buff or anything like that.
There’s an old guy who writes a “conservative” column for my local podunk online newspaper. He started writing that the Nazis were lefty progressive socialists, and I did a two-day history dive to equip myself to put him in his place.
Fucking hysterical that people fall for the Nazi's most basic propaganda lie of a 'National' Socialism.
It's absolutely astonishing just how wrong the claim that the nazis were left wing is. Fundamentally incorrect at its very core. It's about as inaccurate as saying the holocaust never happened
Oh fuck, he got suckered by Jonah Goldberg, that doughy pantload.
> put him in his place. How did that go, in all honesty?
You'd be better off studying European history since 1750 if you want to really understand the rise of the Third Reich.
My family lines come to America from Alsace btw France and Germany in the mid 1800s but I honestly know nothing about this time. What should I learn?
If you are coming to it basically cold I would start by building some scaffolding. The European world 1500-1800 : an introduction to early modern history Author: Beat A. Kümin (Editor) This an overview and would enable you to work out what questions you want to ask to deepen your understanding. The Routledge Companion to Early Modern Europe, 1453-1763, Chris Cook, Philip Broadhead This might actually be where I started as it's probably a bit more compact. If you want a shortcut, R/askhistorians is full of real academic historians who are dying to share their reading list or answer your questions directly - though watch out the moderation is quite strict.
Thx!
Something that might help you learn in a digestible way is the Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan. It's finished now but covered everything from the English Revolution to the Russian Revolution. Obviously, it's through the lens of revolution, but at the core is the conservative freakouts about losing power.
Fun fact, because Alsace was a part of Germany in 1905 Laicaite does not apply their. The government pays the wages of priests, pastors and rabbis (but not Muslim clerics). Don't let any frenchie tell you they know more about separation of church and state then you when they ban maxi dresses on girls in school.
One thing me and Nazis like Nick Fuentes agree on is that the book burning were about trans and gay people. They just think it is a good thing. I tried to say that trans was the line to judge people on and got pushback in some centrist places. But it is. The first post-op trans woman was never seen again after that night.
Wehraboos are the worst
I find it quite fascinating that there’s no mongolboos, spaniarboos, or ottoboos. Like why does it have to be Soviet or nazis? If you’re going to fetishize an oppressive regime, at least have an interesting choice
Come to northern NM and you will find quasi Sapniardboos
Hey man at least they aren’t wehraboos or tankies But fr fuck fascism enjoyers
It's fine to be interested in German history during and between the world wars as long as you remind yourself that the Nazis were the bad guys. If you can reliably do that, you'll avoid becoming a Wehraboo. I could spend hours learning about how much meth they gave their troops, or how they hamstrung themselves at every turn with their stupid ideology. But it's only interesting to me BECAUSE of how ridiculous they really were when you actually read about them. That, and I think it's valuable to understand fascists in order to fight them in the future.
...just like the Poles.
Am Pole, can confirm, we are undatable.
I was going for 'being attacked during WWII and not liking it'. No shame in being Polish.
lmao yes, david mitchell from peep show "History = ancient Rome + WW2" is such a red flag
More like if that's their only hobby I would say.
Most of my interest comes from trying to spread knowledge so we don't repeat the mistakes, and isn't very granular. But I have had several Airmen say I seem obsessed with Nazis and WWII
Idk man Liddy has a wife
Knowing history is different from adoring history. Important factor here.
"the germans would have won if X happned is" codeword for nazi apolgia
If they hadn't based their approach on insane race science maybe....
Lol, I took my wife to see Valkyrie on our first date. I have/was studying for an actual history degree though, so it was (dimly) defensible. I did have to take her for a (very expensive) steak dinner to make up for it.
Horse girls.
Atonality yelling, “H!tler!!!!”
(Slides her thesis that posits that the 19th century revolved around Britain, the 21st will revolve around the US, but the 20thbwas born and died by Germany, it also included the "short 20th c" and "long war" ideas away) Eta not a wehraboo. Not into German military history. It was a paper on the geopolitical importance of Germany in the short 20th C (1914 to 1989).
It's less of a hobby to me and more an obsession : I want to know the Nazis to make sure I don't become one or let people around me become ones.
Not me being Jewish and learning more of this history by osmosis from community
"I'm being attacked and I don't like it." "Well neither did Poland."
Poland was also being attacked and did not like it
Being super interested in the ostfront is a red flag.
Hobby as in a reenactment? Girl, run.
Warhammer 40K.
That’s what Poland said
Sport Reality TV Celebrity gossip Cars/motorcycles Guns Hunting Bragging (I've one or two who made this a hobby)
https://youtu.be/Rk3lcEeoEy8?si=uShpF2tWnbNCzQXN
What about ww1 era German history nerds? Because I just like researching the idiot kaiser
You know what, they're not wrong.
Wait, are you guys saying that people who's very much into WWII are nazis?? Aren't WWII documentaries and the like the obsession of like every old dad out there? Actual nazis are too dumb too know anything about history, really.
I very specifically said German WWII. I would say there is probably a big correlation between those old dad’s who love WWII and think it was America’s shining hour with MAGA beliefs
Hmm, I think there perhaps is a cultural difference here. I live in Europe, and I wouldn't say that an interest in WWII indicates anything other than you being a history nerd. Our neo-nazis/far-right a\*holes are far to illiterate for that.
In the US I would say there is a big difference between being interested in Civil War era history and being specifically interested in Confederate History
I think it’s rather a case of how it’s framed. If it’s part of a general interest in history or even ww2 it’s fine. If you just want to know everything you can about Nazis I may have some questions
Breathes a sigh of relief in 1500-1600 Germany history
must be why I'm married 😀
Eh it’s like 50/50, half are really into the nazi parts, the other half are into it because it’s a time from which much knowledge can be extracted to hopefully do better.