"Unsupported conspiracy to convince a historically illiterate audience that Kissinger is a war criminal" :agony-consuming:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/p4s4q4/renegade_cuts_video_on_henry_kissinger_is_a_crime/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
'After all, if Henry Kissinger is deserving of the status of “war criminal,” then shouldn't every other Cold War Secretary of State from John Foster Dulles to James Baker be just as deserving of the title as well? Maybe a video about the crimes of George Shultz or Dean Acheson won’t get as many clicks. Maybe “Cyrus Vance is a WAR CRIMINAL” just doesn’t sound sexy enough. That being said, I eagerly look forward to Renegade Cut’s next video: “Why Hillary Clinton should be tried in THE HAGUE.” '
:yes-comm:
How can I be a murderer if everyone I work for also murders people?
I had to read that post about 10 times before I realized it was supposed to be sarcastic, like we're not supposed to agree that Hillary Clinton should be tried for war crimes
You know who else was never convicted of war crimes? Hitler.
Edit - Lots of people in that thread upset that their comment section is being brigaded. Oh, now they're against interventionism.
Shit is so annoying to see. It's a liberal talking points and technicalities. Well acktually, it wasn't a war crime by the standards set at the time.
The ones complaining about comments pointing out how awful Kissinger suck too. They want you to write a whole dissertation for them to disprove every single point and you have to be civil and academic while doing it. God forbid you make a spelling or grammar mistake.
"Wydm this 19 minute youtube video isnt a rigorous academic work of history"
Ironically enough these people who demand sourced and supported papers to prove left-wing talking points are the same sort of people who believe whatever shit the state dept shits out
I mean looking at the comment section on the 'study' of left-wing vs right-wing extremism earlier today, it proved that r*dditors come into a discussion ready to agree with the headline instead of reading the content if it reinforces their beliefs on enlightened centrism.
Lesson in there for us. If we call it "providing an endnote" instead of "taking a shit," then it won't stink. :think-about-it:
well yeah the state department is obviously correct, or they wouldn't be the state department, they'd be like, the lying pinko bastard department, or something
the burden of proof is on whatever information shifts the narrative, the status quo never has to assert its validity because it is already valid by virtue of being the status quo, duh!
um ackshully if you haven't been tried at the hague then it's just a "war oopsie" and not a "war crime"
I love the "No one in the Thirty Years War did anything wrong" defense.
Jesus. I always knew badhistory was just libs doing the usual snopes-tier pedantry, but I didn’t think it would get to the point of dying on a hill for a man even many other libs consider vile.
listen if any single fragment of your assertion can be nitpicked apart then it's just not a valid assertion, sweaty
One of OP's points is that Kissinger's wish to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet was actually the PRIMARY motive and not the secondary like the video claimed. Ah, shit. Burnt.
I find the idea of defending Kissinger so repellent that I can't even guess why anyone would even want to
:not-hillary: Honestly, I think the fixation on Kissinger is myopic, and that US foreign policy under his tenure is incredibly underappreciated :not-hillary:
Imagine being to the right of Christopher Hitchens on Kissinger, even in the depths of his rightward warmongering mania he still rightfully dispised Kissinger
literally every academia adjacent reddit sub like askhistorians and warcollege is nauseatingly liberal. unsurprised in the slightest to see badhistory do this garbage.
One sweet day We Will be able to say ”Henry Kissinger was a war criminal.” instead.
:sadness: When you check Kissinger's bio on Wikipedia and it's still present-tense
One of the few good pipelines. Also not affiliated with breadtube to my knowledge.
EDIT: oh man, people seem to be really unhappy with this post. I’m not going to delete it for two reasons. (1) I believe the historical arguments made in this post are correct and that they are backed up by strong sources. (2) Some people can’t tell the difference between correcting bad history and defending Kissinger’s horrible actions. I am doing the former not the latter.
Woo-wee. We've got a live one.
Actually uh, war crimes didn't exist back during Genghis Khan so calling him a war criminal is WRONG, no I refuse to listen anymore you're dumb and incorrect
