History Channel Miniseries: The World Wars

[Garandomatic]

Don't think anyone has posted this yet.

 

Saw this today. I first thought it is a shame I don't have history, as it might have promise. At least some promise. Focuses on the effect that WWI had on Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Patton, etc. Looks decent in the previews, but I had a quintuple take when I saw a "young Patton" riding a Stuart to take the "opposing trench." I know FT17s are rare birds, but cmon. Just saw another trailer, and he's aiming an Enfield, had to pause it, looks like a No. 1 mk III, and is wearing an enlisted disk on his collar. Sheesh. The Hitler part still looks interesting.

 

http://www.history.com/shows/the-world-wars/videos/the-world-wars-going-to-fight?m=5189719baf036&s=All&f=1&free=false

[warguy]

Yeah, I will probably watch it, but quite frankly the previews lead me to believe it will be pretty cheesy. If I were a betting man, I suspect there will be many more historical "inaccuracies" throughout, but we'll see.

[dustin]

I am looking forward to this three night event. The production quality looks really good though, I'm not going to pick it a part. The recreations just add flavor to a documentary of these men's lives rather than a narrator and clips of stock footage. These errors are just going to be blips and I like the idea of this new angle. We shall see overall M-W.

[Garandomatic]

I'll give it a chance, for sure, but I'd like them to be a bit more cautious with high profile people, though. As much of a martinet as Patton was, I find it hard to believe that he'd not shave, and even amateur historical advisors should have kiboshed the enlisted collar disk and Enfield. A random soldier I could shrug off more. Stuff like that, to me, weakens the overall product, which is what it seems like they are trying to give us. My hopes kind of faded as I watched the previews, but I will still give it a chance whenever I get to see it.

[Bob Hudson]

Here's some screen shots, the first being "Captain Patton"

 

 

 

[Government Issue]

Don't think anyone has posted this yet.

 

Saw this today. I first thought it is a shame I don't have history, as it might have promise. At least some promise. Focuses on the effect that WWI had on Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Patton, etc. Looks decent in the previews, but I had a quintuple take when I saw a "young Patton" riding a Stuart to take the "opposing trench." I know FT17s are rare birds, but cmon. Just saw another trailer, and he's aiming an Enfield, had to pause it, looks like a No. 1 mk III, and is wearing an enlisted disk on his collar. Sheesh. The Hitler part still looks interesting.

 

http://www.history.com/shows/the-world-wars/videos/the-world-wars-going-to-fight?m=5189719baf036&s=All&f=1&free=false

 

I was watching the previews and noticed the stuarts. I had a real good laugh on that one, but as many others have stated the quality of many of the history channels programs has declined over the years. Now, they have made good programs like WWII in HD, and for D-Day this year they will be releasing a D-Day in HD special so there is some hope there.

 

In regards to whatever monstrosity this "World Wars" show is, I have no idea. I'm just preparing myself to see if they portray Hitler as a combat soldier (which the previews allude to) or the cowardly "rear area pig" he actually was. I'm going to be so ticked if they portray him as a valiant combatant who was driven mad by the war because he was a liar--not a soldier. I know this is a US military forum but I think some here might be interested to see how much more of a scumbag der furher has been found out to be in the recent years. Here's some stuff I've been reading lately on the subject so you can see what I mean.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303804/Adolf-Hitler-loner-rear-area-pig-according-WWI-regiment.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169131/Astonishing-letter-reveals-Hitler-ordered-Gestapo-leave-WW1-commander-alone.html

[RustyCanteen]

Errors happen in anything.

 

But can we please leave politics out of this? We're talking about a miniseries, this isn't a political discussion forum. ajbUSWM - I wasn't aware that it had aired yet. I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion since the show has yet to air..but please keep politics out of it.

 

Thanks,

RC

[ajbUSWM]

Errors happen in anything.

 

But can we please leave politics out of this? We're talking about a miniseries, this isn't a political discussion forum. ajbUSWM - I wasn't aware that it had aired yet. I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion since the show has yet to air..but please keep politics out of it.

 

Thanks,

RC

 

It hasn't. I noticed that the history channels are skewing history in strange ways of late. If the series shows Hitler using a positive victim viewpoint... it has nothing to do with history and everything to do with politics. Some have called for the rewriting of our history ... and it is happening on a grand scale.

 

One can hope that the series accurately portrays those leaders... but that has been the exception not the rule.

 

I am looking forward to watching the series and reading the forum's thoughts and feedback.

[ajbUSWM]

Just found this ad line from the History Channel series:

 

"WWI Made Stalin a Man. WWII Made Him a Tyrant."

 

My prediction was correct....rewriting history not reporting history.

[Bob Hudson]

rewriting history not reporting history.

 

History is always someone's interpretation of events and is always skewed by the reporter's personal perspective. You can have six people watch the same event transpire and then ask each about it and you will get six differing accounts. If the event happened 70 or 100 years perspectives are going to be wildy different than they were say just after the wars began or ended. The events of the past get viewed - and judged - through 21st century lenses with all of their political distortions. Sadly, most people will not seek out multiple sources of history interpretation and thus often end up with an imperfect knowledge of history. This is nothing new: how many people think they know the true history of key events because they saw an Oliver Stone movie?

 

We have always had "historical revisionism" which wikipedia defines as, "the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event." Sometimes the revisions are for the good as when newly-discovered source material reveals important facts. Other times - maybe increasingly so these days - it's revised based on a desire to conform with some modern day agenda.

 

It's interesting to note that we are right now at an important milestone in WWII history: even the youngest people who were "adults" then are nearing the end of their lifespans. Those who were old enough to be decison-makers then - the politicians, generals, etc. have long since passed - and soon there will few if any people at all who can give us a first hand account of that historical event.

 

Luckily technology has made it easy to record so many of their first-hand accounts, unlike say for WWI or the Civil War, so that it will be easier to argue against extreme revisionism.

[normaninvasion]

At least it isn't about aliens or bigfoot

[gwb123]

At least it isn't about aliens or bigfoot

 

... or Nazi time machines....

[Bob Hudson]

At least it isn't about aliens or bigfoot

 

I just hope they tell the true story of how Captain America defeated Hitler!

[ajbUSWM]

 

History is always someone's interpretation of events and is always skewed by the reporter's personal perspective. You can have six people watch the same event transpire and then ask each about it and you will get six differing accounts. If the event happened 70 or 100 years perspectives are going to be wildy different than they were say just after the wars began or ended. The events of the past get viewed - and judged - through 21st century lenses with all of their political distortions. Sadly, most people will not seek out multiple sources of history interpretation and thus often end up with an imperfect knowledge of history. This is nothing new: how many people think they know the true history of key events because they saw an Oliver Stone movie?

 

We have always had "historical revisionism" which wikipedia defines as, "the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event." Sometimes the revisions are for the good as when newly-discovered source material reveals important facts. Other times - maybe increasingly so these days - it's revised based on a desire to conform with some modern day agenda.

 

It's interesting to note that we are right now at an important milestone in WWII history: even the youngest people who were "adults" then are nearing the end of their lifespans. Those who were old enough to be decison-makers then - the politicians, generals, etc. have long since passed - and soon there will few if any people at all who can give us a first hand account of that historical event.

 

Luckily technology has made it easy to record so many of their first-hand accounts, unlike say for WWI or the Civil War, so that it will be easier to argue against extreme revisionism.

 

Bob,

 

Agreed. However, if this series paints Stalin as normal nice guy prior to WWII when he was murdering 10 million innocent people, then it goes beyond revisionism to lying propaganda.

 

As I said, the history channels have been usurped by some pretty seedy people who insert a political agenda into their programming. One hopes that the facts are presented, but based on the tag line above, I suspect this series may have more to do with ulterior motives and less to do with history.

 

Looking forward to watching them to find out.

[ajbUSWM]

 

I just hope they tell the true story of how Captain America defeated Hitler!

 

HAHA

[normaninvasion]

I don't know...I never got my history from the tv or movies. Could care less. Books, books, and more books is my lifestyle. If anything, the series may spark an interest in some who will dig deeper into these individuals who shaped history. Anyone who takes the idiot box as gospel has given up the highest mental resource: critical thinking.

[kammo-man]

Nice slash pocket b 3 on Patton

 

 

[Garandomatic]

Any reviews?

[Dr_rambow]

I didn't watch any of it yet, but as far as the American WWI scenes I can say with a high degree of certainty that it is not going to be pretty (as if the Stuart tank was any indication).

A conversation with a buddy who was an extra.

Me: "Scene looks farb-tastic, but your fall was good. You also seem to be the only one with 1910 kit. Also, why the guy with the campaign hat and post 20's officer? Did they spend all of their money on CGI?"

Buddy: "Oh it was terrible Todd, Canadian gear, nambo holsters, lever action rifles. There were only 3 or 4 of us with 1910 gear."

Don't believe me?

[reinking71]

Can't watch it any more.

[ajbUSWM]

It is pretty bad.

 

The funniest part was John McCain talking about arrogance and ignorance. Talk about calling the kettle black.

 

My next favorite part is when Patton meets McArthur in a WWI battlefield and introduces himself as "Lieutenant George S. Patton" when his uniform rank is Lt. Colonel. Oops.

 

Last but not least, they inserted Leon Panetta as a military expert on what it means to be in combat... from a man who has never been in combat nor wore a uniform and know less about the military than anyone on this forum.

 

Yes... it was pretty bad.

[Scarecrow]

"pretty bad" is being very kind. I normally do not criticize Hollwood all that much when they make an effort, so if a button is wrong or the stitching isn't just quite correct, I don't get too excited. But this is a monstrosity, looks like they threw it together over a weekend. It's awful. Brig. General Douglas MacArthur on the front lines screaming "watch the left flank", watch the right flank, move forward men, move. move. move" is where I became too nauseated and shut it off. Had the DVR set up to record the next two episodes, deleted the record setting. Absolute trash.

[jgawne]

If someone claims to be an expert, or have expert consultants, or that things are accurate and correct, they deserve to be called out for it if they do a bad job.

 

The reason this show is crap, is that they just didn't care, and didn't put enough money into it to do it right. If no one makes their feelings known that "history shows" should be done to a reasonable standard, this is all we will ever get.

 

IF enough people shame them, then maybe next time they will take a slightly less profit and do a better job.

[plick27]

I watched it with my 15yr old son. He knew almost all of the figures that were represented in the show but only in regards to what they did in WWII. While we were watching it he said "we fought in Mexico?" "Patton and Hitler were in WWI?" "I thought we were in WWI the whole time" "I didn't know Italy was in WWI". Before it was even over he was on his phone looking up stuff on WWI. I definitely agree some of the scenes in it were cringe worthy, but judging by his questions, I think it had it's desired effect.

[BROBS]

Plick.. agreed on that point. My wife was saying the same things.

 

However when Hitler shaved his mustache into the trademark "Hitler-stache" during WW1 in the trenches after a gas attach, apparently he used a Fairbairn-Sykes knife that wasn't produced until 1941.

 

CRAZY historical inaccuracies.

-Brian