Matrix Games Forums

On Youtube a channel called TIK is doing a series of videos on the battle of Stalingrad that is very interesting. When you get to youtube just do a search on TIK.[&o]

thats a pretty good one,very informative.

I wasn't too impressed with the start of this but having watched a few of them they are worth a viewing.

Tik is a very knowledgeable historian. But his discourse always has a strong revisionnist flavor which ends up sounding like a marketing gimmick, and that combined with his slight haughtiness in always implying he has the absolute truth when in fact it's often based on assumptions, and remains in the realm of theories, gets on my nerves quite fast.

For me, it becomes hard to trace the line between the youtuber wanting more views and the serious historian. Sadly, because I think he is very talented and most of his stuff is really good.

I enjoyed his discussion on the impact of limited oil supplies on German strategy. However, I recently watched a video on 2nd Kharkov that was dripping with so much sarcasm about Manstein that I could not finish the clip. Doesn't TIK know about Manstein's initiative rating?

The people from France say "puta-click" (translate to whore-clicking) when talking about 'sensationalist' big titles and content. I think it applies perfectly to Tik. Provocation is his trademark. As I said, it's sad because the guy has a lot of depth as an historian. But he makes his name on bashing on Manstein and other German generals. Not saying that what he says is wrong, only that he puts much more emphasis on it than a serious historian would. You can have a critic look at someone or a group of people, figure out possible hidden motives. But going to the extreme of saying everything those people ever said was false and always strive to prove this, because it suits your world view and makes your Youtube channel thrive, that's where he looses me.

I agree with Joelmars take on TIK. He is indeed very knowledgeble and makes good videos but has a strong bias for the Soviets and sometimes tends to be quite unbearable to watch because of this. He also makes some really big mistakes: I remember a video of his which had calculated ratios incorrectly and came to the conclusion that the Soviets only had a 2:1 advantage with the Germans, which was "not a big deal". The famous Nigel Askey wrote a short counter paper to his video and tore his arguments to shreds. I would recommend you gents give it a read.

Cheers!