So are the facts correct?
Exaggerated at best.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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!?
1 Like
@obiwanbul Did I mention your work (as shallow): NO, I mentioned Indy’s and Spartacus’ work.
@joshism I think it is more of a chain of information:
In my point of view, researching for these videos is “similar” to writing a (scientific) report when the promise of the best WW2 documentary is held. If one want make the videos one has to research the sources for the video. One can start with good secondary sources but when these secondary sources quote other (either first hand or other secondary) sources, one has to check these sources as well.
And as we have seen with for instance Patton is that the reality was more nuanced (Patton indeed gave the order to take out all those who resisted within 200 yards but did not mean it to take that literally according to him. Patton did try to cover up the events which is not nice and according to customs in the army) than what was presented in the videos (Spartacus saying that Patton gave order to “Kill devastatingly” according to the commander of the 180th regiment John T Compton but Spartacus did not state his source in the video. He presents the facts of Biscari as war crimes ordered by Patton).
And Patton’s orders (even to todays standards) were not war crimes as soldiers that have not surrendered are still soldiers, even those within 200 yard (tell that the Soviets during Stalingrad or the Germans during the Battle of Berlin). After they have surrendered they are POWs and different rules apply to POWs, including the very important rule of not shooting them. One should not cover up the events, but that is not giving the order of war crimes, that is giving the order of a cover up of events. In the end, Spartacus did correctly state that Patton was in favor of the cover up.
The thing is that Indy and Spartacus provide the Mapping team with their findings as they are doing the research on the events and have determined what they are going to talk about in the videos. The mapping team, I assume, is researching the content but focusses on the maps but they should follow the same protocol of researching till the (most) original sources have been found. In addition they should also cross check if multiple sources state different things, like if one source is stating that one town has been taken while another is stating that that town has not been taken.
So if one does not follow the protocol of the research, one is forwarding the mistakes of its predecessors while more or better sources state a different picture. Unfortunately, this is not happening with the WAH and WBW videos, and is the thing what we are asking for.
2 Likes
There is one more thing wrong in the the episode. It is in the thumbnail. Try to guess what it is.
Nope. It is not that Churchil is not smoking a cigar. It is this.
This is the state emblem that was adopted on the 26th of January 1950, the very same day the constitution of India was formed. We somehow have jumped 7 years in the timeline.
4 Likes
Well spotted Pink Panther 
but In that case which of the three is a zombie 
?
1 Like
For the lions, the one that is facing you. And for the leaders - Churchill. He is the only one that doesn’t have a mustache.
1 Like
Hmph!
1 Like
Wow, great catch. …although no surprise, accuracy is a second tier priority for the franchise. 
2 Likes
Was there an official symbol for India in the 1940s that they could have used instead? Especially one chosen by Indians rather than the British colonial government, since the symbol is presumably meant to represent not simply India but rather the Indian people?
2 Likes
I wish I knew as it was never taught to us. Neither can I find anything about the State Emblem for British India before 1947. My guess is that it didn’t exist. Why? The following is just a guess. The raj was not entirely under British rule, there were only 11 states under direct British rule (and the rest under kings. Sure they had a regent that kept a watch and informed the king what the British didn’t like) and since 1937, the provisional governments (the 11 states) were given to the Indians to rule. Hence, it makes no sense to have a state emblem.
Under British rule, no. However the provisional government of India (aka the one that Bose forms and is a puppet Government of the Japanese) had a state emblem ( a seal to be more precise)
I do get what they are going for, but assume that they put 50 star US flag instead of the 48 star one. It is off. They could have used the flag or the star of India (but that was only for Knighthood). If they wanted to foreshadow that India will be free they could have used the Swaraj flag that was made in 1931.
2 Likes
The USA flag is a poor example because it changes over time in a very specific way (more states = more stars).
The Swaraj flag would seem to have been a good choice, especially since the formal flag of India adopted after independence is very similiar.
2 Likes