It’s difficult to prove with such a small sample size, as it barely gets covered, however, there is one definitive test for that theory: January 1945.
That is the date of the so-called Bloody (Orthodox) Christmas, where over 20 000 ethnic Bulgarians in Macedonia were massacred by the Yugoslav authorities. It’s a massacre that barely if ever gets covered, and to this day the authorities in North Macedonia that are loyal to the old regime either deny it or claim that ‘it wasn’t that bad’. Or worse, they say that ‘they deserved it’.
If Sparty truly wants to cover obscure and forgotten war crimes, then this should be one of the main topics of that WAH episode. If he ignores it (which I suspect he will) then there will be a very strong case for his anti-BG bias.
As we approach the liberation of Sicily and fall of Mussolini in July/August 1943, will we see the story how the Allies will support the Italian citizens?
I want to bring the discussion back to the original points which was about the use of sources of the TG videos. As I have said before, I would consider an addition historian next to Indy and @Spartacus as the quality of the WBW and WAH videos has fallen after the Battle of Stalingrad. It seams that the recent videos miss the depth that we were used to with the weekly WBW and (then bi-weekly) WAH videos.
I will give an additional example from the videos of the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of Stalingrad: We know that the Soviets made defensive lines during both Stalingrad and Kursk. At Stalingrad (see The Battle of Stalingrad Every Week with Maps - YouTube for instance) these defensive lines were drawn in the maps but the Germans did overrun them so there were not extremely important at that battle. At Kursk some of these lines held while others were overrun and these lines were mentioned in the videos of the buildup of the defenses of Kursk and when the Germans attacked. At Kursk the defensive lines were, among on others, one of the important things that STOPPED the Germans, but there were not shown on the map or mentioned how they exactly worked. If I would go back to the videos of prior to the battle of Stalingrad, the quality of the material was good (of not excellent). But the quality of the material has fallen (just like Paulus’ 6th Army at) after Stalingrad and it is unfortunately that this drop in quality has not been recovered to previous levels in the recent videos.
There can be several things why the quality has dropped:
Work on D-Day 1944/2023.
War in Ukraine as TimeGhost did make videos about the history of Ukraine, the Holodomor, and Babyn Yar. In addition some supporters of this show from Ukraine now have more urgent things to do in Ukraine, and as a result they can not contribute anymore. Think about colorist, map editors or very important people providing Indy and @Spartacus with translated sources in their language.
Astrid who has fallen ill (and recovered), as she is the director of this show, which means that others had to take over her part while making the videos (hence the delay of some of the videos).
and Indy’s wedding (plans)
As we all know, this war won’t have lulls in fighting anymore and will significantly increase in the upcoming months, this means that there won’t be time to recover from the lulls in fighting to backtrack and forecast the plans and strategies in the details we were used to. As a result, I would say (to among others @Spartacus) (when possible) hire an additional (full-time) historian that can work according to the TimeGhost ethics of the United Nations.
(Like this post if you also agree that TimeGhost should expand with an extra historian!)
I’ve noted similar issues with their use (or the lack thereof) of sources in the older videos as well (I’m transcribing their older videos and some of them were… less than pleasing, shall we say). The difference, in my view, is the scale regarding the decline in quality.
Their overuse of Martin Gilbert, and for that matter, general books on WWII, since the very beginning, for one.
Their constant need to stick to the popular views on things instead of confronting them outright (see their comment sections and Indy’s videos on drugs in Nazi Germany). Of course, they’d go too far in the other direction too (see how they’ve treated Churchill, for instance).
Speaking of the drug videos, sensationalism. That was also a problem in the early videos.
The overly emotionally-charged moments (See Sparty’s WAH videos; understandable for WWII, but it is definitely not the best method of teaching). It honestly came close to being borderline manipulative at times.
Not using the proper videos and images at points (you can see an example of that in their racism video I criticized last year; see below)
Speaking of the technical side of things, the sound quality was (and is) iffy in many videos. Even in some recent videos, Indy and Sparty sometimes sound like they’re shouting in empty rooms.
I pointed out in an earlier post about their quoting a primary source from a secondary source despite the fact that the primary source is still readily available online (Molotov’s telegram to Poland, for instance)
And of course, videos like these:
And that’s just a few I can think of at the top of my head. I haven’t finished transcribing all of them; maybe my views would change, maybe not.
I’ll be honest, this isn’t the impression their content gave me, and on some fact not being mentionned, it’s not really a issue for me because they can’t say everything in 20minutes video, some things need to be left out. The episode on the bengal famine didn’t gave me the impression they laid the blame solely on churchill, more on british mismanagement.
It would appear that way, but you have to be willing to look deeper into the sources and corroborate the story. That’s when I noticed more flaws in their presentations of the war.
It’s easy to say “the racism video is well-researched”… if you only took Sparty’s word for it.
OK… but why call Churchill an architect of death in title? This is the title btw Stalin, Hitler, and Churchill - Architects of Death. For Clickbait? But… there are better ways to go about it and for WW2 clickbait is not something you want when you are making the largest documentary on ww2.
I’ll admit this one has issues, although I don’t think not mentionning something mean spartacus is biased, the WAH episode often last 20min, you can’t say everything. Didn’t noticed issue on the video audio tho and it’s not issue to have emotionally-charged moment, you’re suppose to feel bad for the holocaust victims per example.
True, but that should never be a crutch (which, to use an example from their later videos, the ad before Sparty introduces himself is definitely trying too hard to be emotional). Even the teaching of the Holocaust should never just boil down to moments like this.
Didn’t felt it was just those moments for me, I did had a slight issue when he said pierre laval protected french jews because delaying their deportation isn’t protecting them and laval wished for a nazi germany victory, wich mean a holocaust of french jews.
Just to comment on the ‘not enough time’ thing. I think this is an invalid argument. It is their channel and they can make the videos as long as they want. Speaking as a fiction writer, one of the most important rules is that every chapter needs to be as long as it NEEDS to be.
So, for example, if you have a dull chapter/episode with not enough happening, you just give a regular overview of what is happening and/or cover a theatre that you haven’t managed to cover in the past and end at, say, 12 minutes. Or, if you have a major chapter/episode with a lot of major events happening, you say f- it and you make it as long as it needs to be. 20 minutes? 30 minutes? 45 minutes? As much as you need.
And let’s not pretend it will be that difficult either. The whole channel is about Indy and Sparty sitting in front of the camera and reading a script and then add in some pretty pictures in post. Will it really make that big of a difference to sit in front of the camera an extra 15 minutes to cover everything you need?
Also, side note…
Ah, so Sparty CAN namedrop people who DELAY deportations but NOT mention people like Dimitar Peshev who actually stopped deportations. That’s another red flag for his bias.
I wouldn’t say bias, he’s not obligatted to say the guy name, beside the episode was focusing on the french side. I’d say it’s a valid one, they clearly limit their WAH episode time.
Perhaps I need to translate it to a format you will understand as fiction writer: There is a difference between writing a story with just shallow characters and the same story with layered characters. We are telling that the “story” / history of the WBW and WAH videos is not “layered” / “deep” / “well-researched” enough as they are primarily using secondary sources, when better first hand sources are available. I mean we all know how WW2 went, or at least that what we learned during history class, but that is just the shallow story full of misconceptions and shortcuts. I mean my history books during elementary and high school both had 1 chapter of WW2 history and literally 1 paragraph (of 2 pages) on the entire holocaust! What TimeGhost WW2 WBW and WAH is “promising” is the “layered” / “deep” / “well-researched” story / history of WW2.
The problem is also not the presenting of the videos as sitting in front of a camera for a few minutes longer is not the main time constraint. It is the researching before the final text is written that is our main concern. In addition, adding 1 minute of content may be adding 1 minute of filming the script. It is also several minutes of editing, and is definitely many more minutes of actual research. This is the difference between fiction and non-fiction as with fiction one can just select a depth of the story while with non-fiction and with the promise of giving the well-researched history of WW2, one has to keep up with its promise.
He covered the Persian famine, that by his own admission, nobody on the Time Ghost team had ever heard of. However, someone probably sends information to the team through the appropriate channels (I’m pretty sure they are NOT reading the forum posts) rather than assuming they will find out on their own. Better yet, included links or citations for good sources on the subject if you have them.
Is not showing them on the map an issue with Indy or with the people that make the animated maps for them?
WTH are you talking about? I have literally complained about their sources before and I literally explained why they shouldn’t use the ‘not enough time’ excuse for not covering events and details. Do you have a problem or something?
And are you seriously calling my never-mentioned-before work shallow!?
