PDA

View Full Version : OT: The History Channel



Shakthamac
02-07-2005, 04:48 PM
Am I the only one or do some of you other guys out there cringe when the History Channel is showing a documentary and they get stuff wrong. This seems to happen quite a bit, so I wonder where they get their sources from. Example: I am currently watching a show on the Fletcher class destroyers. In the span of half an hour, they have mentioned how effective the 20mm was against aircraft and when citing 7th fleet actions at Leyte Gulf, the called it Halsey's Task Force.

sigh.

Shakthamac
02-07-2005, 04:48 PM
Am I the only one or do some of you other guys out there cringe when the History Channel is showing a documentary and they get stuff wrong. This seems to happen quite a bit, so I wonder where they get their sources from. Example: I am currently watching a show on the Fletcher class destroyers. In the span of half an hour, they have mentioned how effective the 20mm was against aircraft and when citing 7th fleet actions at Leyte Gulf, the called it Halsey's Task Force.

sigh.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-07-2005, 04:54 PM
I think the History Channel is great for casual history buffs and for introducing people that want to get into history to various subjects but its riddled with mistakes. I don't really fault them for it, there are a lot of shows, dealing with literally thousands of topics and they're a cable station and not even a heavily watched station at that when compared to FX, USA, TNT, etc. I still like to watch the History Channel because I get to see other areas of history in really easy to digest portions and then if I get interested I can do some reading on it.

Shakthamac
02-07-2005, 05:05 PM
i think id agree with that. but it still makes me mad

Waldo.Pepper
02-08-2005, 08:09 AM
I expect it from the History Channel. What I really can't stand is when I read a book from a knowledgeable publisher/author combination - that gets things I consider obvious completely wrong.

The other night I am reading a book on German nightfighter pilots/tactics.

They have a picture of a Bf110 in it with these big fat drop tanks under the wings to increase mission duration loiter time etc. (the one with the big bat tail on it even!) So the genuis who writes the caption calls them bombs.

Gotta love this stuff.

Cloudy_
02-08-2005, 08:59 AM
Someday, when I win the lottery, I'm going to do several documentaries the right way. What irks me on the history channel are that the people that make the programs appear to have only a passing familiarity with the subject. For instance, I happened to tune in the other night for the Secret Japanese/Allied/German Aircraft of WWII and was irritated by their selective coverage and ridiculous "what if's".

They took a lot of time talking about an aircraft broadly similar to the He-162 that was going to be a ground attack wonder but IMHO appeared to be entirely unsuited to the job . They prattled on about how obsolete the Stuka was but never mentioned the Hs-129. I think that they just drew projected aircraft types out of a hat and said "Hey, let's make a documentary!"

What especially annoys me is any of their "history" of armored warfare type programs. They usually show a bit about German Blitzkrieg and finish with half the program about the M-1 Abrams. Arrrggghhhhh!!! You can be charitable and say that you can't do justice to the subject in an hour but some of theses programs have spanned multiple hours and the formula is the same. The emPHAsis is always placed in the wrong places and it almost always ends up being "visual history lite".

Stiglr
02-08-2005, 09:52 AM
Yeah, but still better than watching prime time "reality" trash TV isn't it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

papaboon
02-08-2005, 09:59 AM
I'm just grateful that at least they have something about WWII on cable!

Cloudy_
02-08-2005, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Yeah, but still better than watching prime time "reality" trash TV isn't it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you got me on that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

telsono
02-08-2005, 03:56 PM
One of my pet peeves about the History Channel is how they place more emphasis on the Horton brothers on the development of the flying wing design. The Horton brothers were inspired by the work of Northrop and freely admitted it. Just look at Northrop's designs compared to those of the Hortons and you can see the similarities of approach.
The Flying Wing Bomber of Northrop had inherent stealth capability because of its design which were revised in the B-2. The design team went to Silverhill to see the Horton aircraft there, but some of Northrop's early flying wing aircraft are there as well.
One other aircraft that had a low radar silhouette was the Lockheed P-38. I guess Kelly Johnson's designs just had that fundamental characteristic.
I have one question, why is Marion Carl emphasised more than his squadron commander at Guadalcanal? Major John L. Smith shot down 16 of his 19 victories there (number 2 Marine wildcat ace) and won both the MoH and Navy Cross for his actions as a squadron commander and pilot during that campaign. Every VMF 223 Wildcat for Guadalcanal is said to belong to Marion Carl (no slight against a true hero), but his CO was one heck of a pilot as well.

Shakthamac
02-10-2005, 01:19 PM
another thing that irks me about the history channel are their "what-if" programs that talk about secret wonder weapons of Japan and Germany which basically take the position of saying, "The Allies are really lucky these were too late to get into the war, or they would have their *sses kicked." Why has there never been a show on Allied counters to these "wonder" weapons? Wheres the show on the P-80 / Meteor / whatever else I can't think of? The closest show I can recall as being similar was a recent one that dealt with Russian aircraft manufacturers. Sad.

Capt._Tenneal
02-10-2005, 01:27 PM
There WAS a show called Secret Allied Aircraft of WW II so all the bases were covered AFAIK. The newest is secret Russian aircraft. Maybe in the future there will be secret Italian aircraft, who knows ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zyzbot
02-10-2005, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
another thing that irks me about the history channel are their "what-if" programs that talk about secret wonder weapons of Japan and Germany which basically take the position of saying, "The Allies are really lucky these were too late to get into the war, or they would have their *sses kicked." Why has there never been a show on Allied counters to these "wonder" weapons? Wheres the show on the P-80 / Meteor / whatever else I can't think of? The closest show I can recall as being similar was a recent one that dealt with Russian aircraft manufacturers. Sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


They just ran a show like that last week. They did Secret weapons of the Japanese, Germans, Russia, and America all in one night.

Shakthamac
02-10-2005, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
I expect it from the History Channel. What I really can't stand is when I read a book from a knowledgeable publisher/author combination - that gets things I consider obvious completely wrong.

The other night I am reading a book on German nightfighter pilots/tactics.

They have a picture of a Bf110 in it with these big fat drop tanks under the wings to increase mission duration loiter time etc. (the one with the big bat tail on it even!) So the genuis who writes the caption calls them bombs.

Gotta love this stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this as well. Two semesters ago, I took a class on WW2 at my university because I figured it would be easy. (well for me it was). At any rate, we had to purchase several books for this class, one of them being, "A War to be Won," which basically details every operational aspect of WW2. But while reading it, I come across glaring errors in the text that I recognize, not to mention how many I read that I simply wasn't familiar with. Simple errors really burn me and make me question the validity of the entire work.

Shakthamac
02-10-2005, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
another thing that irks me about the history channel are their "what-if" programs that talk about secret wonder weapons of Japan and Germany which basically take the position of saying, "The Allies are really lucky these were too late to get into the war, or they would have their *sses kicked." Why has there never been a show on Allied counters to these "wonder" weapons? Wheres the show on the P-80 / Meteor / whatever else I can't think of? The closest show I can recall as being similar was a recent one that dealt with Russian aircraft manufacturers. Sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


They just ran a show like that last week. They did Secret weapons of the Japanese, Germans, Russia, and America all in one night. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

interesting. I didn't catch that one. But I do recall seeing the secret weapons of the Axis quite a few times.

Shakthamac
02-10-2005, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
There WAS a show called _Secret Allied Aircraft of WW II_ so all the bases were covered AFAIK. The newest is secret Russian aircraft. Maybe in the future there will be secret Italian aircraft, who knows ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Bad

Tallyho1961
02-10-2005, 01:44 PM
Like all TV channels, History Channel occasionally needs to dumb itself down, or tart itself up, to attract viewers. Having said that, if I was stuck on a desert island and could only have one channel, I know what my choice would be, warts and all.

(Was that a mixed metaphor?)

pauldun171
02-10-2005, 09:31 PM
Let's see...
Getting facts wrong, "historians" letting their current political beliefs come out in narration...
It hit Discovery channel first.

Capt._Tenneal
02-10-2005, 10:26 PM
If you used to get Discovery Wings on cable they're now The Military Channel. I flip back and forth between that and History Channel. I don't know if they're as "liberal" with the facts as History Channel is sometimes.

Cloudy_
02-11-2005, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
I agree with this as well. Two semesters ago, I took a class on WW2 at my university because I figured it would be easy. (well for me it was). At any rate, we had to purchase several books for this class, one of them being, "A War to be Won," which basically details every operational aspect of WW2. But while reading it, I come across glaring errors in the text that I recognize, not to mention how many I read that I simply wasn't familiar with. Simple errors really burn me and make me question the validity of the entire work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent, you are noticing that all that is in black and white isn't necessarily correct. It requires quite a bit of reading or a good memory to see this and when it dawns on you for the first time, it is a revelation! When I run across a factual error in a text that I recognize, I immediately wonder: "How many more are there that I don't see?" Is it a typo, a true goof or intentional? Does it support the author's theories? Can I believe anything he states again?

Such questions are healthy to ask and are a good basis for remaining impartial and objective by digging up the true facts on your own. They keep you sharp. Not all "facts" written down are actually fact. Not all quotes are actually quotes. Not all who wander are lost - er, that's a different book... That's what carefully reading history is all about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

johann_thor
02-11-2005, 07:19 AM
both the history channel and discovery civilization have inconsistent information in different series. thats a good thing. they dont censor nthe stuff and maintain a certain view of history. sometimes the technical details are screwed up and somtimes detail is not an issue when they select material. some series are good but some are proper ****. i reccommend BBC documentaries - they rock!

...edited for spelling ... poster suffers from vanity http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cloudy_
02-11-2005, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by johann_thor:
i reccommend BBC documentaries - they rock! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and no... I feel that British documentaries are usually quality items except that they seem to wander off the subject. For a <span class="ev_code_RED">theoretical</span> example, when talking about "Armored Warfare in WWII", they would start with the history of body armor in ancient through medieval times, talk about World War I tanks,then wander off exploring the mystical background of tank proponent Liddell Hart which takes up at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the program before finally getting around to the subject of the documentary! Not that I'm complaining but I really wish documentaries would stick to their specific subjects. I can always find out or already know the general background stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stiglr
02-11-2005, 11:35 AM
One thing to keep in mind...

ALL history has a certain element of propoganda to it, because it's written by those who are "in power". Or those "who won".

I'm not saying it's all bald face lies, but all of us have likely digested a lot of "truths" and "facts" that are westernized, Americanized, etc. You can look back at some older school texts and see it within the span of your own lifetime.

Or, I'll bet if you find two histories on the Cold War, one written by a Russian historian and one by an American, I bet you'd get some "variations" from what ought to be well-established fact. Viewpoint is a big factor in history writing.

As a buddy of mine once said, "A point of view is also a point of blindness".

Indianer.
02-11-2005, 01:59 PM
i have a book with picture of MIG 3s lined up in the snow...

"Red Air Force YAKs" lol

I had to show my wife the in-game A/C displayer to prove i was in the right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Shakthamac
02-11-2005, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
One thing to keep in mind...

ALL history has a certain element of propoganda to it, because it's written by those who are "in power". Or those "who won".

I'm not saying it's all bald face lies, but all of us have likely digested a lot of "truths" and "facts" that are westernized, Americanized, etc. You can look back at some older school texts and see it within the span of your own lifetime.

Or, I'll bet if you find two histories on the Cold War, one written by a Russian historian and one by an American, I bet you'd get some "variations" from what ought to be well-established fact. Viewpoint is a big factor in history writing.

As a buddy of mine once said, "A point of view is also a point of blindness". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree with that, but keep in mind that factual information has a no-sided viewpoint. when the history channel is talking about the b29 bombing campaign and they show images of b17s flying over germany, thats pretty sad. i realize they are doing this for a certain type of visual aesthetic, but its a poor decision. they should know better than that.

Stiglr
02-11-2005, 02:24 PM
Those sorts of things are just "production decisions". The narrative is talking about high level carpet bombing, and perhaps they have no footage of correct-era B-29s carpet bombing, so they put in the Forts for a second and a half... and almost nobody notices.

Not to say that it's right, but that's what happens. In its worst form, you get "Midway", the '70s movie disaster, where they switch plane types between fast cuts, have SBDs going on strikes with no bombs, Panther jets crashing on Korea-era flattops, and other ridiculous "errors".

Waldo.Pepper
02-11-2005, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Indianer.:
i have a book with picture of MIG 3s lined up in the snow...

"Red Air Force YAKs" lol

I had to show my wife the in-game A/C displayer to prove i was in the right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh man you got it bad don't you Indianer? HAD to show my wife. If I show her she's polite and all but I can just FEEL her eyes roll after I turn my back and walk away. I don't bother the poor lass with it much anymore.

BBC stuff is GREAT GREAT GREAT. But nothing is flawless. The Auschwitz series is great. I am downloading all 6 episode of it to burn.

Cloudy_
02-11-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Those sorts of things are just "production decisions". The narrative is talking about high level carpet bombing, and perhaps they have no footage of correct-era B-29s carpet bombing, so they put in the Forts for a second and a half... and almost nobody notices.

Not to say that it's right, but that's what happens. In its worst form, you get "Midway", the '70s movie disaster, where they switch plane types between fast cuts, have SBDs going on strikes with no bombs, Panther jets crashing on Korea-era flattops, and other ridiculous "errors". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with decisions like this is that people who attempt to learn from the program such as children or people who are visually-oriented or even people who are developing an interest in aviation may then equate film footage of a B-17 with the narrative mentioning "B-29". I view it as sort of teaching a kid that dog is cat, good is bad etc. Not a good example. I wouldn't doubt that videos of these programs are used to teach kids in school http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

johann_thor
02-11-2005, 04:31 PM
cromwell productions material ... as seen on DC/HC ... is extremely bad. it is an exception if they get technical info correct. luck almost. an hour (actually 40-something mins) of absolutely nothing.

Shakthamac
02-11-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cloudy_:

The problem with decisions like this is that people who attempt to learn from the program such as children or people who are visually-oriented or even people who are developing an interest in aviation may then equate film footage of a B-17 with the narrative mentioning "B-29". I view it as sort of teaching a kid that dog is cat, good is bad etc. Not a good example. I wouldn't doubt that videos of these programs are used to teach kids in school http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed