Has anyone seen the latest extravaganza on the History Channel? I don't know who the armorer was on the show but he was obviously a historical idiot. Germans were using 03 springfields, Churchill was using a 1911 and all the warring powers were using SMLE's. It looked like one British soldier was using a chrome plated M1 Garand! I was so turned off by the ineptitude of the first episode I couldn't bring myself to watch the second. WWII use to be the bread and butter for the history channel but they seem to be losing their focus. Even from a historical perspective the story line seems to be taking a lot of liberties.
The World Wars on the History Channel
- Thread starter chrisp51
- Start date
What show is this, specifically? I haven't seen it. Are these re-enactors with the wrong equipment?
I'm used to seeing actual footage of the wrong thing for the subject at hand, sometimes just because real footage doesn't exist, and often because the editor simply doesn't know the difference.
Can't tell you how many times I have seen shows on the Battle of the Bulge (winter 44) showing German panzers (early models) crossing summer fields (France 40) mixed together with actual proper footage of the real event. For one example.
They do it all the time with all kinds of things. Is what you are talking about something different?
I'm used to seeing actual footage of the wrong thing for the subject at hand, sometimes just because real footage doesn't exist, and often because the editor simply doesn't know the difference.
Can't tell you how many times I have seen shows on the Battle of the Bulge (winter 44) showing German panzers (early models) crossing summer fields (France 40) mixed together with actual proper footage of the real event. For one example.
They do it all the time with all kinds of things. Is what you are talking about something different?
I also noticed historical inaccuracy in one of their so-called "expert" commentators. On guy was talking about Roosevelt speaking early in his presidency about the need for the New Deal (the "All we have to fear..." speach). The commentator stated something to the positive effect of having an obviously handicapped president inspiring a nation.
The problem with that is that Roosevelt kept his handicap almost totally hidden until later in his presidency. Very few people even knew he had any kind of handicap.
The problem with that is that Roosevelt kept his handicap almost totally hidden until later in his presidency. Very few people even knew he had any kind of handicap.
I watched the show last night, and while I was kinda pleased to see something relating to history- there were some real doozies as far as the equipment of the reinactors. A clip supposedly showing a young Patton in the very early 1920's standing in front of a Sherman tank, U.S. GI's shooting SMLE's, and a young Patton (or was it McArthur?) standing between two targets yelling at the SMLE equipped troops who were made to look like they were shooting live fire. Oh, there were a couple of Garands, but it was either Doughboys or Japanese troops carrying them IIRC.
Does anyone know if the Japanese representatives were actually shunned as bad as they were portrayed during the months involved in the formation of the treaty of Versailles? The program came within a hair of outright saying they may have never attacked the U.S. if it hadn't been for the way they were treated during that treaty process.
Does anyone know if the Japanese representatives were actually shunned as bad as they were portrayed during the months involved in the formation of the treaty of Versailles? The program came within a hair of outright saying they may have never attacked the U.S. if it hadn't been for the way they were treated during that treaty process.
Before my dad passed away he was watching a show on the History Channel about aircraft carriers during WWII. He told me most of it was BS. He should know he was an Air Radioman flying in Dauntless SBD's off the Yorktown and Lexington in the Pacific during 1944 and 1945. Since then I have always been a bit skeptical of the History Channel.
I like the show, but the reenactment scenes are absolutely awful. I'm pretty sure Stalin was carrying a Lee Enfield in the scene during the 1917 revolution, just about everyone else seemed to be carrying them during the WWI, regardless of which side they were on. Douglas MacArthur was shown wearing the five star rank of General of the Army during his tenure as Army Chief of Staff from 1930 to 1935 during which he held the temporary rank of four star General. In fact, the five star rank did not exist prior to December 1944. Stuff like that is really annoying because it's so simple, I mean how hard is it to use the right insignia and the right rifles?
Dfariswheel
New member
Of all the dumb mistakes, like Hitler in 1914 using a WWII British Commando Knife, German police, Russian revolutionaries, and American soldiers using Lee-Enfields and American troops wearing British canteens and British Webley revolver full-flap holsters, the most disgraceful thing was George Patton with a pearl handled Colt Single Action jammed into in a Model 1916 flap holster for the 1911 .45 auto.
Then there were the historical inaccuracies like Patton standing in a non-period correct car with a WWII machine gun chasing Mexican bandits and blazing away at 50 feet and missing.
Not to mention the machine gun belt was not feeding into the gun that was doing the blazing away.
Famously, Patton used cars to get to where the Mexicans were hold up and engaged them with his Six Gun, taking credit for killing one.
I doubt that MacArthur was striding around the battle field wearing an officers dress coat and hat, and with his 1916 holster hanging by one hook from a leather belt.
Churchill did not first see combat in WWI. He famously used a Mauser Broom handle pistol to shoot his way out of a tight spot in the river war in the Sudan in the 1890's.
As I found out some where else, Churchill DID use a Colt Government Model .45 in WWI.
For reasons I just can't fathom, in many scenes the film was reversed to look like Enfield and Mauser rifle bolt handles were on the LEFT side of the rifles.
You see this a lot with old film from WWI and especially WWII, but that's an accident in getting old negatives reversed.
Why this was done in this show is a mystery.
It's casual carelessness that just ruins these shows, that with only a moderate amount of care could be excellent.
To those who just don't understand, it's like watching a show about the Civil War and seeing General Grant riding around in a jeep. The dumb, careless attitude toward even partial authenticity just destroys the whole thing.
Then there were the historical inaccuracies like Patton standing in a non-period correct car with a WWII machine gun chasing Mexican bandits and blazing away at 50 feet and missing.
Not to mention the machine gun belt was not feeding into the gun that was doing the blazing away.
Famously, Patton used cars to get to where the Mexicans were hold up and engaged them with his Six Gun, taking credit for killing one.
I doubt that MacArthur was striding around the battle field wearing an officers dress coat and hat, and with his 1916 holster hanging by one hook from a leather belt.
Churchill did not first see combat in WWI. He famously used a Mauser Broom handle pistol to shoot his way out of a tight spot in the river war in the Sudan in the 1890's.
As I found out some where else, Churchill DID use a Colt Government Model .45 in WWI.
For reasons I just can't fathom, in many scenes the film was reversed to look like Enfield and Mauser rifle bolt handles were on the LEFT side of the rifles.
You see this a lot with old film from WWI and especially WWII, but that's an accident in getting old negatives reversed.
Why this was done in this show is a mystery.
It's casual carelessness that just ruins these shows, that with only a moderate amount of care could be excellent.
To those who just don't understand, it's like watching a show about the Civil War and seeing General Grant riding around in a jeep. The dumb, careless attitude toward even partial authenticity just destroys the whole thing.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The Japanese issue (didn't watch the show) is interesting. I read a scholarly book on it and not to divert but two take away points were:
1. Pearl Harbor was in part payback for Admiral Perry's actions. Forceful opening of Japan was not appreciated.
2. The Japanese wanted an empire taken on the European and American model. The opposition to such was that only white folks could have empires - not Asians. It wasn't because we really cared that much for the subjects of other empires. That was a big issue in the Pacific War strategies.
As far as stupidity - I watched one on Midway and it was a total crap bucket. I won't list the ways but GEEZ.
1. Pearl Harbor was in part payback for Admiral Perry's actions. Forceful opening of Japan was not appreciated.
2. The Japanese wanted an empire taken on the European and American model. The opposition to such was that only white folks could have empires - not Asians. It wasn't because we really cared that much for the subjects of other empires. That was a big issue in the Pacific War strategies.
As far as stupidity - I watched one on Midway and it was a total crap bucket. I won't list the ways but GEEZ.
Some good information in the show, but I did find the re-enactments laughable.
Heck, there was one scene of Hitler firing, what appeared to be, a M1903. When he charged the bolt to reload, they showed a close-up of a SMLE???
I know that most viewers aren't watching the show for the guns, but sheesh make a little bit of an effort guys
Heck, there was one scene of Hitler firing, what appeared to be, a M1903. When he charged the bolt to reload, they showed a close-up of a SMLE???
I know that most viewers aren't watching the show for the guns, but sheesh make a little bit of an effort guys
Here we have what used to be called the Military Channel which broadcast programming not related to the military. Now it's called American Heroes Channel and broadcasts programs relating to organized crime. I'd be interested in knowing just when Charles “Lucky” Luciano or Al Capone became American heroes?
OK, I did catch the show, and its crap.
Not only are there so many equipment errors as to be beyond acceptable, but they left out a tremendous number of things that were more than just a little important.
No mention at all of the North African campaign, and almost nothing about the eastern front after Stalingrad, for a couple.
Big on Patton slapping a soldier though. Not a single word of the rivalry with Montgomery, or mention of him at all that I noticed.
Nothing between D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge....
I could go on, but about all they got fully correct was who were the Allies and who were the Axis.
Sub par, by far.
Oh, yeah, MODERN Japanese flag ships (note the white radar domes) show as WWII ships...
Not only are there so many equipment errors as to be beyond acceptable, but they left out a tremendous number of things that were more than just a little important.
No mention at all of the North African campaign, and almost nothing about the eastern front after Stalingrad, for a couple.
Big on Patton slapping a soldier though. Not a single word of the rivalry with Montgomery, or mention of him at all that I noticed.
Nothing between D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge....
I could go on, but about all they got fully correct was who were the Allies and who were the Axis.
Sub par, by far.
Oh, yeah, MODERN Japanese flag ships (note the white radar domes) show as WWII ships...
So do folk think we'd be better off watching the 'Epic' WWII movies like:
The Longest Day
A Bridge Too Far
Midway
Tora Tora Tora
Band Of Brothers
etc.
I've notice a trend of non-fiction books about WWII coming out fairly recently that have been savaged in the comment section on Amazon for being inaccurate.
I do have to wonder where these authors are getting their information to write new books about WWII. I would think most documents have already been raked over by previous authors. But honestly for all I really know maybe there's piles of documents still unread.
For sure though, first hand accounts, especially from the higher ups during WWII are getting mighty hard to come by as our veterans pass on.
One exception I found was the book 'Thunder Below' that according to Wikipedia didn't come out until 1992 but is a fascinating account of WWII submarine warefare written by Eugene Fluckey who commanded the USS Barb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_B._Fluckey
The Longest Day
A Bridge Too Far
Midway
Tora Tora Tora
Band Of Brothers
etc.
I've notice a trend of non-fiction books about WWII coming out fairly recently that have been savaged in the comment section on Amazon for being inaccurate.
I do have to wonder where these authors are getting their information to write new books about WWII. I would think most documents have already been raked over by previous authors. But honestly for all I really know maybe there's piles of documents still unread.
For sure though, first hand accounts, especially from the higher ups during WWII are getting mighty hard to come by as our veterans pass on.
One exception I found was the book 'Thunder Below' that according to Wikipedia didn't come out until 1992 but is a fascinating account of WWII submarine warefare written by Eugene Fluckey who commanded the USS Barb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_B._Fluckey
2ndsojourn
New member
In the scenes of the Pacific last night did you see the Aegis cruisers with their cruise missile launch tubes?
Also, no mention of Eisenhower whatsoever, the Supreme Allied Commander.
Also, no mention of Eisenhower whatsoever, the Supreme Allied Commander.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Oh, that's the one that went back in time as in the Japanese anime. Their version of Final Countdown - that's movie with Kirk Douglas, IIRC. It had a cop-out ending.
In the Midway show, they showed an attack on one of the four Japanese carriers. Unfortunately, it was stock footage of a small cargo ship being strafed.
In the Midway show, they showed an attack on one of the four Japanese carriers. Unfortunately, it was stock footage of a small cargo ship being strafed.
I guess I'm the only person who watches something like this and doesn't give a hoot about the minutiae. What type gun was being used or what type canteen doesn't really ammount to a pinch of puppy poop in the telling the story.
They left out some stuff? No kidding? They're covering thirty years in six hours. I'd expect some things to be left out.
I noticed all those things. I chuckled, and kept watching. I just think of it as a "beginners guide to the World Wars." If you want more detail, study more.
They left out some stuff? No kidding? They're covering thirty years in six hours. I'd expect some things to be left out.
I noticed all those things. I chuckled, and kept watching. I just think of it as a "beginners guide to the World Wars." If you want more detail, study more.