What does Veeky Forums think of john green's Crash Course series? accurate? bias? full of shit?

What was wrong with that vid?

Oh come this screen cap is stupid

It's exactly what it sounds like: a Crash Course.

If you know nothing about history, it's a good spring board into more advanced subjects but doesn't teach anything beyond that. Also, it's a bit biased towards the left but most episodes it isn't noticeable.

well for one he starts it by talking about the kardashian's

>constantly shits on Plato
>nothing but praise for Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite

wtf john

It really makes you think.

I hate him.
I wonder if there is any Eurofag who appreciate these videos.

Mr Green and his friends transform the narrative of historical fact in spectacular event or means to spread certain political thesis. (Disgusting public history 2.0)

He gets a lot of the little details wrong, dates mostly, and sometimes the big detail as well (HURR NO ONE SUCCESSFULLY INVADED RUSSIA EXCEPT THE MONGOLS) There's some left-leaning bias, but generally you wouldn't know it if you weren't actively looking for it. Overall, it's a pleb youtube series for plebs. Anyone that is actually serious about history will pick up a fucking book

> NO ONE SUCCESSFULLY INVADED RUSSIA EXCEPT THE MONGOLS
Well, can you name one successful invasion? It is true that Russia lost some offensive wars, but you can't really name any invasion that was a success because there were zero ones.

Rurik

Poland not only invaded Russia, they sacked Moscow. Germany not only invaded Russia successfully in WWI, they beat them. The Ottomans successfully invaded and took Russian clay. France and Britain both successfully invaded and held Russian territory during the Crimean War. Russia has a generally successful military history, but they've also gotten shit on by their neighbors several times.

There wasn't even Russia as political entity to be invaded at this point.
I give you this, if you use most broad definitions of the ''success'' or ''invasion'', as territorial losses for Russia were pretty negligible in the end.

>invade Russia and burn Moscow to the ground
>not a successful invasion
Yeah, okay, Vanya the Vatnik.

Also how the fuck was Brest-Litovsk a "negligible territory loss?" They lost 1/3rd of their territory.

>Russia

Didn't exist as a political entity at the point of the mongol conquest of Kievan Rus'

Did poles installed their rule or got some land from this? Without real shift in power it could as well be just a big raid.

They got Smolensk and Chernihiv: the largest expansion in Commonwealth history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truce_of_Deulino

I like it. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Not bad, I expected less. Then it should counts as one.

Glad you agree, Stepan.

john green a shit

I mean usually pretty much basic facts, but he presents them in the most SJWized cucked way possible and definitely twists shit to fit that narrative, he doesn't straight up tell lies but it's not amazing or very honest

He's pretty good at pinning everything wrong with the world on capitalism and a lack of social safety nets.

He is a moron.

He said that the title "the great" is misogynistic because more men was calld "the great" than women

>twitter
>writes wall of text
LEARN TO USE IT FUCKING FAGGOT HOLY SHIT THERES A CHARACTER LIMIT FOR A REASON

>This is actually true

Whaaaat the fuck

youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrkWDCvxg

His mind only works in soundbites.

>the dark ages weren't dark
>the renaissance isn't real
>LEL MONGOLS
>muh islamic golden age
>muh euro centric boogeyman
>against "great men" history narrative
>revisionist as fuck

Even James fucking Portnow is better. He may be and SJW, but not full of shit to the brim.

If he isn't a kike, he sure could have fooled me.

What are you gonna do next? Ask for our opinion on Guns, Germs and Steel?

what is your opinion on it?