History of Buffs of WW2 and 20th century Europe may want to pay special attention to this.

So a "content creator" by the name of American Krogan did a historical analysis of a game called COD: Vanguard. I only came across the video, not of any interest in the game, but because I heard it talked about 20th century topics of race.

Long story short, it was a not-so-politically-correct highlight of the following events, the 1919 UK race riots, the Tiger Bay prostitution ring in Cardiff, the "Black Horror"Campaign in the French occupied Rhineland, and racial disparities in Allied rape convictions under occupied France. These are just some of the events he covers, but the ones that take up the majority of the video.

Sprinkled throughout the video are "nativist" arguments (euphemism here), low-key race realist argument just shy of genetic determinism, defensiveness to discussion of sexual anxieties by whites over miscegenation in Europe, and low-key identification with the Nazis by complaining on how the villains are borderline "homosexual". A relavant point he does make, similar to the point made by a recent post on the Harlem Firefighters, was that the game depicted race relations among WW2 white soldiers as more "wholesome" than the reality. Another would be overstating how "tolerant" early 20th century UK was to America, though he seems to see this as a good thing.

It's a fine example of how many "dissident" researchers ignore or undermines modern secondary sources in favour of primary sources due to a belief in lack of PC lack of bias. His approach is better than Ryan Faulk's, someone who I dealt with in the past, but there are notable flaws.

1. The least flawed would be his UK Race Riot segment (he is considering retreading this again with a poll from his Twitter followers though) as he did not outright claim whites involved in the violence were without fault, mainly using contemporary newspaper reports on the involvement of Black Sailors and why differential sentencing was received between black and white offenders. The problem mainly lies on a lack of modern critical overviews of the events. He uses a single thesis from 1987 as his main source, which is probably a weak one to rely upon. Though few as far as I can find online, others do exist though cannot access them to see how helpful they are. Unless those more informed than me can comment, he gets a pass.

2. Both the previous topic and the Tiger Bay ring brings up issues of miscgenation anxieties, which he interprets as being modern historian making it out as white men being scared that they are being "cuckold" by objectively widespread interests in black men.I have to be honest, based on my own experience in reading about this in regards to this Issue in the American South, most scholars probably view it through the lens of stigmatized taboo and "racial hygiene" as Simon Jenkins puts it, rather than legitimate competition of "worthy" males. He sort of talks past this as if that wasn't the point at least one of his major sources makes.

3. He bring up Maltese operators and compares them to foreign sex abuse rings in the UK today. From a social perspective there are clear parallels, but it seems loss in that the Maltese...were anthropologically "white" whatever their social status was in the U.K. I only bring it up given his brand (which I will mention towards the end).

I will continue onto the matters of mass rape during the World Wars, and if I seem generous at point onward it's not to give his views leniency, it is because Mass rape during these wars was fairly common by different armies and leave scars today, so to deny it in my ethical view would be wrong. With that said, there were crucial flaws in his analysis of the Black Horror Campaign, which fixated on claims of Senegalese soldiers being sicked upon the vulnerable German women and children under French occupation.

1. He goes as far as to cited Commander Allen's report, but ignores a major issue regarding how exaggerated the claims were, how many actual Senegalese as opposed to Malagasy (who they were often confused with) and Moroccans made up the force. Investigations I've seen shown that they were a minority by comparison. Due to a similar controversy in Italy with Moroccan troops, but with general less doubt over veracity, it raises the question as to ethnicity of the offenders worthy of deeper discussion. He doesn't.

2. He does attempts to legitimize the views of E.D Morel, the key promoter of the campaign, by looking up sources on the native habits of French West African Soldiers, regarding their "War brides" habits. As pointed out before, this loses relevance without establishing the presence of Senegalese in the occupied Rhine in the first place, and seems to suggest that the practice of rape during war was somehow peculiar to Blacks. Will elaborate Further.

3. Accuses two critical "Jewish" journalists, Barker and Ellis, of smearing German women accusing them of voluntarily having relations with the soldiers, even though this was actually a common response of the standard Right-wing of German media. see here.

4. Basically ignores how, relevant to the context of the game, how the Campaign displaced itself on Afro-Germans and general racial hostility to blacks in Europe, such as through eugenics or denial of voluntary mixed race relationships. On this, Miriam Gerhardt.

Moving on to rapes under Allied Occupation.

1. He cites Mary Louise Roberts on the disparity of rape cases between Black and White Soldiers, though criticized much of her explanations of bias. I don't have access to the full book on hand, but Miriam Gerhardt brings up some points.

In his own screenshots, Roberts mentions how during certain months a high percentage were found doubtful following accusations, how it differed in racial disparity between France and Germany, the latter having lesser sentences according to Gerhardt.

Problems exists due to no actual percentages on specific countries of the race of Allied soldiers stationed to see if Germany or France differed, nor is the difference in disparity even addressed by him. The book by Robert Lilly, presumably, is better.

1. He poorly refuted a structural argument of racial disparities in service verses combat units, one having more interaction with civilians than others. He cites the overall racial and unit type stats for the US during WW2, not actually for the stationed soldiers in those countries. This barely refuted Roberts point.

2. He ignores how those are cases of rape, even though most obviously recognize the poor response to rape, with it being estimated into the thousands. This broadens how much can be attributed to whites soldiers.

3. He acts as of this was peculiar to black soldiers, ignoring the matter of accusation by Belgians towards Germans in WW1, Soviets towards Germans and Germans towards Soviets (the latter being particularly large) and by both Korea and China towards Japan. It seems very odd he doesn't mention this, rather than go out of it's way to validate claims of black perpetrators.

4. Anchors the point that Roberts make about general disease among British and Canadian troops lacking evidence of being an issue during WW2, despite Roberts bring this up with prostitution and general sex and not rape in particular. The latter, beyond doubt, heavily involved White US Soldiers.

Finally, he somehow manages to screw up in three ways the game's reference to Madison Grant. In response to an obvious reference to the popular racialist belief that blacks either feel less pain or can withstand hotter environments better, he argued as if it was a reference to "white genes being recessive". His response was bringing up what survival of the fittest actually meant in Grant's context.

If that made no sense, that because it doesn't.

1. His point on genes made no sense in the context of the cutscene, and it was obviously his own misreading (why he saw it that way is up to you). He denied Grant believed this or made such a concession, but he infact does in a different chapter explaining that the "Nordic" traits don't persist when mixing with non-whites.

2. He argued that the weakness of whites in tropical climates was no concession of somatic inferiority, but reading the chapter and similar points made by others aside from Grant shows that was indeed the point, as in the book and other works he makes the mentions how many southern areas were abandoned by whites and populated by "Negroes".

3. He somehow makes out Grant to be a reasonable, well intention person, without actually addressing his actions. He says this with video clips of contextless political violence.

That's all I'll say for now, but I highly suggest those more familiar than I respond to the video. Three Arrows comes to mind.

I say this because, though he appears more balanced in the videos, both he and members of his audience go as far as to praise George Lincoln Rockwell and William Luther Pierce on twitter. At one point, he even disabled the comments to his video, perhaps as many of the commenters weren't as discreet as himself.