PDA

View Full Version : History Channel lies (Don´t read if you want to be ignorant)



Prof.Lokovich
12-22-2005, 10:12 AM
I am tired of the lies that latelly Jistory Channel is spreading around.

One of them is the history that both Germany and Japan where on preparatives for radioactive attacks, the first using V-2 and the seconds using Aichi bombers based on giant submarines.
Both lies. Germany didn´t prepared that kind of attakcs atacks even when posible because of an order of Hitler of not use gas, because he was gased on Wolrd War I. If they had the posibility, or the knows of use that kind of stuff, they will desesperadly use on the eastern front but that didn´t hapened. The thrut is that by that time, no one knew the effects of such, for example on post war there was the idea of use a-bombs on the poles to create a world with better weather ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif )
About Japan, I have spoken with experts and also told me that is a lie, those bombers where designed to launch an atack on Panamá. They performed some attacks using globes carring bombs, if they wanted that kind of attack they will use gas that was available. The most fun part is that the germans send the radioactive stuff in a submarine (imagine the people encolsed there wich such dangerous load) with boxes marked "To Japan" and they show a video of the crew leaving the vessel, but no boxes was show.
So both lies.

Changing the theme, the other lies resides on that they say that United States was the only country on send a sonde to another planet. This is another lie because Russia (or on that times USSR) send a sonde to Venus, and send it to the athmosphere taking data of temperature.

Other lie is that the US had a supersonic aircraft before the war, and after check the design (in form of 3D animated artwork with Me-262 dogfight) you can know that the aircraft can not break the sound barrier, with problems that involved the Delta Dagger proyect.

And last (by now), they teached that Rommel was fooled a lot of times on North Afrika, not indicating the good tactics and skills he had.

That channel should be re-called "The Fairy Tales Channel"

PS: Sorry for my bad english.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 10:23 AM
Er...Rommel was fooled a lot of times.

MLudner
12-22-2005, 10:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

They were talking about theoretical matters, Friend. They do that sometimes for fun and profit.

It was all "What if" type stuff. Besides, they interviewed a Japanese Army Officer on camera who was claiming that the Japanese had detonated an Atomic device ... not that I necessarily believe the fellow, but they did have something to go on.

berg417448
12-22-2005, 10:39 AM
The German submarine U-234 had a cargo which contained uranium oxide ore. confirmed here by an officer from the U-234:

http://klipsun.wwu.edu/mission.htm

http://uboat.net/boats/u234.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostsub/map_u0234.html

The U-234 chief radio operator, Wolfgang Hirschfeld, wrote a book after the war. He witnessed the loading of the U-boat:

"The most important and secret item of cargo, the uranium oxide, which I (Hirschfeld) believe was highly radioactive, was loaded into one of the vertical steel tubes one morning in February, 1945. Two Japanese officers were to travel aboard U-234 on the voyage to Tokyo: Air Force Colonel Genzo Shosi, an aeronautical engineer, and Navy Captain Hideo Tomonaga, a submarine architect who, it will be recalled, had arrived in France aboard U-180 about eighteen months previously with a fortune in gold for the Japanese Embassy in Berlin. I (Hirschfeld) saw these two officers seated on a crate on the forecasting engaged in painting a description in black characters on the brown paper wrapping gummed around each of a number of containers of uniform size. At the time I didn't see how many containers there were, but the Loading Manifest showed ten. Each case was a cube, possibly steel and lead, nine inches along each side and enormously heavy. Once the inscription U-235 had been painted on the wrapping of a package, it would then be carried over to the knot of crewmen under the supervision of Sub-Lt Pfaff and the boatswain, Peter Scholch, and stowed in one of the six vertical mineshafts.' "

MLudner
12-22-2005, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Er...Rommel was fooled a lot of times.


Indeed he was. Rommel was an excellent general, but far from perfect. Manstein was better, anyway.

ploughman
12-22-2005, 10:52 AM
True about Rommel, Monty was a scarey little freak but he out-foxed the fox, twice.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 10:55 AM
Inflatables....doncha just love 'em? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Prof.Lokovich:
I am tired of the lies that latelly Jistory Channel is spreading around.

One of them is the history that both Germany and Japan where on preparatives for radioactive attacks, the first using V-2 and the seconds using Aichi bombers based on giant submarines.
Both lies. Germany didn´t prepared that kind of attakcs atacks even when posible because of an order of Hitler of not use gas, because he was gased on Wolrd War I. If they had the posibility, or the knows of use that kind of stuff, they will desesperadly use on the eastern front but that didn´t hapened. The thrut is that by that time, no one knew the effects of such, for example on post war there was the idea of use a-bombs on the poles to create a world with better weather ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif )
About Japan, I have spoken with experts and also told me that is a lie, those bombers where designed to launch an atack on Panamá. They performed some attacks using globes carring bombs, if they wanted that kind of attack they will use gas that was available. The most fun part is that the germans send the radioactive stuff in a submarine (imagine the people encolsed there wich such dangerous load) with boxes marked "To Japan" and they show a video of the crew leaving the vessel, but no boxes was show.
So both lies.

Changing the theme, the other lies resides on that they say that United States was the only country on send a sonde to another planet. This is another lie because Russia (or on that times USSR) send a sonde to Venus, and send it to the athmosphere taking data of temperature.

Other lie is that the US had a supersonic aircraft before the war, and after check the design (in form of 3D animated artwork with Me-262 dogfight) you can know that the aircraft can not break the sound barrier, with problems that involved the Delta Dagger proyect.

And last (by now), they teached that Rommel was fooled a lot of times on North Afrika, not indicating the good tactics and skills he had.

That channel should be re-called "The Fairy Tales Channel"

PS: Sorry for my bad english. Agreed 100%! If your only source of History is the history ch, or high school history in the USA from the 1970s on (once the librals took over) than your in bad shape.. history wise! In that you can see how the Hitler channel plays up the USA as bad and gives the Germans credit for everything even made.. Perfect example, if you watch the hitler channel you would think the F86 sweep wing design was based off something they learned from the Me262, not true, and they fail to mention that the only reason the Germans sweep the wings was to regain the cg of he plane, nothing to do with hight speed drag. Another classic example of the librals facnation with Hitler is when they talk about the V2, as if the Germans desinged it from scratch in some void and that it totally caught the USA off gaurd.. The Hitler channel never mentions the fact that the V2 used 20 some pattents from Goddards rocket desings from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. As a mater of fact, system to system the only differnec between the V2 and Goddards rockets is the size and that the V2 had a bomb in the nose instead of a camera or test equipment.

ploughman
12-22-2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Inflatables....doncha just love 'em? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Shouldn't this be in, you know, the 'other' thread. The one where we sneak in pictures of neked ladies under the pretext of women in WWII Soviet frontal aviation?

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 11:04 AM
No you misunderstand me....Rommel was fooled on more than one occaision by inflatable tanks and sundry vehicles. Very fond of his tartan scarf too, he was. I think he's the only Nazi general with a Bundesmarine ship named after him....

Mind you, I'm sure there would be room for some inflatable action in 'Minsk Minx Madness' or 'Babes Over Belarus', or whatever we decide to call it...

ploughman
12-22-2005, 11:07 AM
True, being highly thought of by the Western Allies, having not only given us a good thrashing but also being implicated in the July plot against Herr Hitler, he was seen as a positive role model for the West German armed forces.

SlickStick
12-22-2005, 12:38 PM
This is the DVD set that I'm hoping Santa Wife gets me for Xmas:

Great Blunders of WWII (http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70106)

I've often wondered about the major mistakes that turned the tides of war and this seems poised to answer many of my questions. I wonder if anything about Rommel will be in there?

danjama
12-22-2005, 01:59 PM
To original poster:

So what are you gonna do about it?

Thats what i thought http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

jugent
12-22-2005, 02:32 PM
Forget the scientific in History Channel, one lie I remember whas "The allies got superior tanks in 1943"

A war is a good way of make the people to unite and to think of other things than unfairness, unefficiant public gouverment, and other things.
And to justify and glorify the homecountry and look back at good old days is another whay to make people forget.

Wag the dog is a satiric way to show this.
I dont know if this is a correct quote

"The people need bread and spectacles keep the people calm"

The whole theatre of war in north africa was lost when most of the resources was moved to russia.

Rommel and D.A.K was very professional and fulfilled many objectives against all odds and with little and unsufficiant resources.

Did u know that they only got aproximatly 20 operational german tanks by the time of the Battle of EL ALAMEIN. The rest was Italian or conqured tanks.

UK/US had never beaten Germany in a stragecically victory before and thats why they blew up the battle of El Al Amain to a major victory.

It was an unecesary lost of lives because the US invasion of africa would have forced DAK to withdraw anyway. Montgomery attacked because Churchill and Roosewelt didnt optimize their deeds.

Montgomery did nothing right all along the war,
El Al Alamain, Opeation Goodwood, Market Garden was examples of his failures
Stalingrad was a such, but North Africa wasnt a theatre of significans.
This is not told in History Channel

Xiolablu3
12-22-2005, 03:01 PM
The reaon Rommel had hardly any tanks left was because Monty drew him into a trap, and made him attack where he hought the line was weakest, this is where most of his Armour was knocked out.

Your story is full of bias too....for the other side.

Monty gave a new spirit to a beaten British army in Africa, he built it up so that that he couldnt loose, and he wouldnt be rushed.

If Rommel had won in Africa he could have attacked Russia from the South and met up with Army Group South, so it wasnt exactly insignificant.

Monty knew what Rommel was doing through Ultra transcripts at Bletchly so he had a lot of advantages, but he still had to beat Rommel at some point, which he did. To say the Germans had few tanks at El Alemain (not sure if 20 is true or not) is no fault but Rommels after his failed attack on Monty.

PBNA-Boosher
12-22-2005, 03:20 PM
Tell us something we don't know...

ploughman
12-22-2005, 03:31 PM
Montgomery did nothing right all along the war,
El Al Alamain, Opeation Goodwood, Market Garden was examples of his failures
Stalingrad was a such, but North Africa wasnt a theatre of significans.
This is not told in History Channel

1. Monty was the architect of Overlord.

2. How many Axis troops surrendered in Tunisia?

3. How may Axis troops surrendered in the Stalingrad pocket?

4. Thank you for voting, democracy appreciates your participation.

Sharkey888
12-22-2005, 03:51 PM
Monty was very methodical so for set-piece battles as at El Alamein or Normandy this was good. But when the battle called for a little more "abrupt action" this is where he failed-giving the Germans time to recover.

As for Rommel, he was the opposite. He was a bit too eager and this caused him problems. He was a great division/corps commander but the higher up he went-well you know the outcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And lets remember the D-Day landings were never in doubt. I wonder what might have happened if Pas-de-Calais was attacked instead of Normandy, for a bigger risk-bigger victory.

Chuck_Older
12-22-2005, 04:56 PM
The Germans used poisonous gasses many many times during WWII, to the sorrow of many millions

Tator_Totts
12-22-2005, 05:35 PM
And the band played on.

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 05:52 PM
rommel had few tanks and supplies, because aircraft and ships and subs sunk *alot* of axis shipping. it was rommel who said dont attack malta, give me the troops.

north africa wasnt important apart from, it would open up the oil fields of the middle east to the axis, a route to india and russia. plus africa is rich in resources. not important at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

rommel pushed his troops very hard, to the limit or beyond, monty operated within the limits of his army.

some of monties failures wherent his fault aswell.

ImpStarDuece
12-22-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Sharkey888:
Monty was very methodical so for set-piece battles as at El Alamein or Normandy this was good. But when the battle called for a little more "abrupt action" this is where he failed-giving the Germans time to recover.

As for Rommel, he was the opposite. He was a bit too eager and this caused him problems. He was a great division/corps commander but the higher up he went-well you know the outcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And lets remember the D-Day landings were never in doubt. I wonder what might have happened if Pas-de-Calais was attacked instead of Normandy, for a bigger risk-bigger victory.

Taken from Carlo D'este's excellent "Decision in Normandy"

"In Normandy he [Montogomery] mastermonded the most successful invasion in history, aided by the exception contributions of the Allied air and naval forces in what will probably stand as a classic example of three-dimensional battle on a large scale.

The notion that Montgomery's campaign was the product of a grand design executed exactly as planned is, of course, a misconception that has failed the test of careful scruitny. Montgomery kept his nerve in trying circumsatnces and Eisenhower was correct when he credited Montgomery with flexiability in adapting to the situation he encountered after the Germans refused to concede Caen.

His shift to a strategy of containment had many adverse side effects, but in defiance of the circumsatances arising from the failure of the original plan Mongomery's perserverance, in the face of harsh criticism, eventually enabled Bradley to grasp the initiative and stage a breakthrough which lead to the great breakout in the west."

D'este notes that Monty was 'his own worst enemy', difficult to like in the best of circumstances, by turns irascable, vain and arrogant, but he was also a brilliant maverick who had much to admire about him and who methods and approach were ultimately vindicated with the collapse of the Germany army around Falasie. In fact, Patton and Bradley rebuffed Monty's more fluid and ambitious encirclement plans early in August, preferring a 'solid shoulder at Argentan, rather than a broken neck at Falaise', although Montgomery's failure to sufficiently reiforce Crear in order to give the Canadian sufficient mass to swing in from the north and capture Falaise more quickly was equally mistaken.

Prof.Lokovich
12-23-2005, 08:15 AM
All of above is true, but Rommel skills and tactics have to not be forgotten.

Going back to THC, also there are errors that dont have explanation, for example on Hornets B-25 attacks on Japan, they show a video of an A-26 Intruder set up!.

Sharkey888
12-23-2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Taken from Carlo D'este's excellent "Decision in Normandy"



While a good book, you have to admit it's kinda "Montyesque", I mean it does have his name in the title!

You would think the US only had "token" forces by reading that one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-23-2005, 08:54 AM
Churchill had to make an apologetic statement in the House of Commons after Monty claimed credit for stopping the Germans in the Ardennes in 1944.

han freak solo
12-23-2005, 09:53 AM
Have you been reincarnated from a previously banned forum member, Prof.Lokovich?

MLudner
12-23-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Prof.Lokovich:
All of above is true, but Rommel skills and tactics have to not be forgotten.

Going back to THC, also there are errors that dont have explanation, for example on Hornets B-25 attacks on Japan, they show a video of an A-26 Intruder set up!.

Aw, He-double-toothpicks, Friend: They do stuff like that all the time. NBD. They put in the footage as representative eye-candy.
One of my favorites was when my girlfriend and I were watching a program on the Battle of the Bulge and it showed a Pather roll past a wrecked SU-76. There weren't a lot of SU-76's in the US Army....in fact, there weren't any SU-76's in the US Army.

telsono
12-23-2005, 02:40 PM
Carlo D'Este is one of my favorite authors. His books are researched quite well.
The History Channel, on the other hand, is so laughable at times. Every time that they reference Grumman Hellcats, they show pictures of P-47's! What the heck they used my ex-wife to do commentary on their show about Berring and Russia's colonization of Alaska and California. The only thing she was expert on was BS.

Prof.Lokovich
12-23-2005, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
Have you been reincarnated from a previously banned forum member, Prof.Lokovich?

No. Why you ask?

MLudner
12-23-2005, 04:15 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No offense, but that just struck me funny.