Kinda OT but.... History's The World Wars

[Lt. Heinz Becker]

The last two nights I have been watching the History Channel's mini series The World Wars. Honestly it is disappointing to see the amount of inaccuracies found in the program. The first night was about WWI, and it was kind of comical to see Hitler drilling in boot camp with a U.S. Model 1903 rifle. Also I spotted a M3 Stuart light tank in WWI, but I could let them slide with that because I image there isn't a lot of original WWI tanks around. Seeing U.S. troops with British made Enfield No.1 Mk.3's also made me laugh, and seeing British troops with American made weapons was funny. I understand there are logistics involved such as availability of prop weapons, but if you have American and British made weapons, how hard is it to put them in the correct hands of the country that used them?

The second part of the series last night got off to a better start, but as it progressed it just went downhill. For one, I swear I saw a 1940's Lincoln Continental in Germany. I'm not 100% certain it was a Lincoln, but that grill is very distinctive, and I swear it looked like it. Also apparently Prime Minister Chamberlain flew over to Germany in a Lancaster to talk to Hitler about peace in our time. I saw Japanese soldiers in China in 1937 with Russian made PPS-43 sub machineguns. Also, it surprised me they mentioned how Italy invaded Ethiopia, but failed to even MENTION the Spanish Civil War and how that played a role in things to come. On their diagram, they showed the Germans invading over the Maginot Line instead of invading Belgium through the Ardennes, and they basically skipped over the Italian invasions of North Africa and their attempt at invading Greece until Germany stepped in. Apparently after the Battle of Britain nothing happened until Operation Barbarossa on June 22nd, 1941. That's where the show left off, I image they'll pick up at Pearl Harbor, but honestly its disappointing the lack of more details and inaccuracies this show has done so far. I've learned more about WWII playing the ETO Expansion then I have watching this show. Thank you guys for being historically accurate.

[Pat Pattle]

I know what you mean, there's such a wealth of material out there nowadays that there's no excuses to get it wrong. I've seen so many documentaries with the wrong aircraft for the period etc. Ok for us amateurs to makes mistakes but not a professional production.

[middle]

I think there may be some younger producers who are not very concerned about factual accuracy. I saw a thing on the History Channel about the Civil War in the US and a statement was made that "after the war so many firearms were available that the beginning of crime started", or something to that effect.. It's as if the producers are anti gun people who used the piece to push home the stock argument that crime is caused by guns and gun availability. As if the populace of the US didn't have firearms before the civil war. There is a definite move to try and rewrite history and feed it to the younger folks who don't know any better.

[gecko]

I've got little respect left for history channel these days, they don't seem to think actual history is exciting enough anymore.

[Lt. Heinz Becker]

One scene had German paratroops jumping out of a C 130 and also some scenes looked like they were from other shows like Valkyrie and Harts War. Wonder if they had permission to use these scenes because the two Ju-52's being escorted by 109's was definitely Hitler's visit to the eastern front in Valkyrie.

Also apparently according to History's diagram, when Hitler invaded Russia, apparently he attacked Moscow and Stalingrad at the same time? Hitler attacked Moscow late 1941, early 1942, and didn't they attack Stalingrad around September 1942 and the German 6th Army surrender around February 1943? I might be off a month or two but sure ain't off a full year like they were. Those winter month were brutal, I know the Russians counterattacked Army Group Center in the winter of 1941-1942, and Germany attacked south to get to the oil fields that was beyond the Caucasus Mountains in the spring-summer of 42' to fuel their war effort.

[middle]

I saw the re-runs of the World Wars show last night...it's an oversimplification of the events to be sure....They oughtta call it the "Rewrite History Channel".

[Autothrottle]

Just my two cents: Note the fact that Hitler wears the same SA type uniform he did since the mid-30's I imagine? He often wore other suits as well to some of his meetings with factory owners and workers. Another inaccuracy could be how Hitler ended his life in Berlin without Eva Braun by his side. He also seemed rather healthy looking before the final gunshot, however the last footage of him alive he looked weakened and riddled with advanced Parkinson's Disease , so his hands would have not been so steady as they portrayed him taking both the poison pill and firing the near-fatal gunshot to his head. There are so many more things that could have been done to this series that would have made it a true classic.

Its more like the feeling you got when you watched Pearl Harbor for the first time and saw the wealth of inaccuracies that were glossed over in Hollywood's name.

[Lt. Heinz Becker]

Its more like the feeling you got when you watched Pearl Harbor for the first time and saw the wealth of inaccuracies that were glossed over in Hollywood's name.

Like the later variant P-40's and modern ships in some scenes, I know where you're coming from. Also, where are the P-36's?

[gecko]

Pearl Harbor? Oh please. Give me Tora Tora Tora any time over that piece of rubbish. Real airplanes, not all correct but they cared about making them as close as they could and did a descent job. With today's CGI and ridiculous budgets there are no excuses for getting such basic stuff wrong. Oh, and next time Ben Affleck panics about not be able to shake the bandit off his six while taking NO evasive action...just shoot me.

[KellyB]

I think there may be some younger producers who are not very concerned about factual accuracy. I saw a thing on the History Channel about the Civil War in the US and a statement was made that "after the war so many firearms were available that the beginning of crime started", or something to that effect.. It's as if the producers are anti gun people who used the piece to push home the stock argument that crime is caused by guns and gun availability. As if the populace of the US didn't have firearms before the civil war. There is a definite move to try and rewrite history and feed it to the younger folks who don't know any better.

I think you've got it. That's exactly one of their disinformation moves.

If you asked them for a quick answer to "Who won the Revolutionary War?" it would not surprise me to see a moment of indecision.

Then, there's what is taught in schools as history. It's more of an historical novel with this or that bend to it to suit whoever is teaching it.

My son and his wife often discuss what is being taught with the kids to see if any mention is made of the Holocaust as a bad thing or not.

Then, there's what's out on the web, but we won't even grace that with any further consideration.....

[Naismith]

Sort of OT, I apologise, how did I ever miss this series? I'm in the middle of watching "Band of Brothers", the HBO series. Never been in combat but I'm thinking the atmosphere of it really comes across well. Frustrating, terrifying. Great acting.

[Lt. Heinz Becker]

Band of Brothers is a great mini series. Seen the whole thing several times and have it on DVD set. Also it is an honor to have Carwood Lipton from my state and his view on the Battle of the Bulge in the episode "The Breaking Point" is fascinating. Another mini series to watch is The Pacific. It is made by the same guys who made Band of Brothers. I think The Pacific is a little bit too gory, graphic and bloody than it has to be, but it is still good nonetheless.

[gecko]

I've heard the same folks will be doing another series focusing on B-17 crews in the near-ish future. If the others are any indicator, it should be great!

[glh]

I seem to recall that I heard that the 1950's British black-and-white film "The Dam Busters" has (or is) being re-made.
But I cannot remember the source.

Anybody confirm that with some info ?? Thanks.

[Threedp]

Peter Jackson has the rights to and is developing a remake of 'The Dam Busters'. Replica, static Lancs have been built and Stephen Fry has written a script. That said, the thing never seems to move forward. I'm not holding my breath.

A word in defense of 'The World Wars': Yes, it is lacking in the historical accuracy of its dramatized portions, but given the scope of what it's attempting to convey, I'm guessing accuracy on that score would have cost way more than a documentary can afford. The fault is in relying on so much dramatization and not minimizing the inaccuracies with camera work (no long shots of the Stuart would have helped camouflage its inaccuracy). Perhaps more CGI, which so far (I'm only through part 1) seems pretty good (although Patton appears to have too many CGI tanks, they are the right ones). Maybe more historical footage?

Yes, it is oversimplifying, but given the scope of the production, that's justified. They can't all be 'The World at War'. It's a 'survey' series. The importance of it is hitting on the experience of the personalities, and that it does seem to be doing quite well. I've learned a few things and I've checked their accuracy. Also, while there are some experts in there that may be questionable, they certainly included some highly historically respectable people like Max Hastings, and that gives it credibility. And I've certainly found no egregious history re-writing in evidence.

So while it won't end up in my video library, I'm finding it worthwhile viewing. In our society, which is so grossly historically ignorant, if the flash that this was promoted with and its glossy looking production brought any non-history regulars in to view it, I don't see that as a bad thing. With luck, it will lead them to bigger and better things.