>>I've also found that YouTube leads to a very poor, surface understanding of most issues - and this isn't the fault of YouTube specifically, it's just a limit

>>I've also found that YouTube leads to a very poor, surface understanding of most issues - and this isn't the fault of YouTube specifically, it's just a limit of video. Try watching TIK's BattleStorm Stalingrad series (link below). Exceptionally well-researched and the videos are information-dense. I own one of the books cited in his series, the 700-page "Armageddon in Stalingrad" by David Glantz. His video format communicates a fairly high understanding of the play of events, of the people involved, and other nuances, in less time than pouring over ALL of the source material would take. He mixes tactical/operational maps with dialogue bubbles of key commanders, tables of equipment readiness/casualties, quotes from people who fought there or from books, and lately he's been adding photos showing where on the battlefield they were taken. So a lot of it is book content (and many of the authors comment on his videos, praising his work), but he steps through the battle in almost real-time, and it provides a better view of scope, scale, and even decision-making by key leaders than digesting static maps in a book would. I would challenge the assertion that reading all of the books oneself would yield a significantly higher comprehension of the battle, and it certainly wouldn't be time-efficient to do so. Hence video as a communication medium is not inherently flawed. Like any other medium it is reliant upon exceptionally well-produced content. Most YT content isn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAfo5mse-ag&list=PLNSNgGzaledi9jQeOzCUtBP2pxYdCYiXX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAfo5mse-ag&list=PLNSNgGzale...