Comments by "AFGuidesHD" (@AFGuidesHD) on "STALINGRAD PROPAGANDA! Was Hitler really “obsessed” with taking the city?" video.

Hitler: Gives orders explaining the strategic value of the city and that the name has nothing to do with the objectives. Revisionist Historians: Hitler was obsessed with the name.
553
@tisFrancesfault Yes revisionism is good. But these "historians" regularly use "revisionist" as an insult. I am merely using their own insults against them.
46
@robert48044 For the Americans, General MacArthur was a true madman. Not many people know but his mad plan in the Korean War was to nuke China so much that the fallout would create a radioactive barrier to Chinese troops.
23
@robert48044 that wasn't a mad idea though.
10
@kaptainkaos1202 Yes but mainstream historians and certain unacademic folk like to use the term as if it's a bad thing.
5
Exactly, Leningrad had far more powerful propaganda reasons to be taken being the birth place of bolshevism than Stalingrad did.
4
Hitler also said that the allies would never eject the Germans from positions in Normandy. There doesn't seem to be a "Hitler was obsessed with Normandy" narrative. Is there?
1
The difference between being a madman and a genius is the result. Churchill was equally at odds with his Generals, undoubtedly had Britain lost we would have a "madman Churchill" narrative for mainstream historians to blame everything on.
1