Do you consider History Channel...

Yes, that must be why Portuguese HC shows sow many features on Spanish history.

There's a scene like that in The Man Who Killed Liberty Valance when Jimmy Stewart pick ups the Duke's steak from the floor after being tripped by Lee Marvin

Phillistinism. Cow and horse manure has always been extremely important in European and Near East agriculture as a natural fertiliser. Fields were allowed to rest every 3-4 years, sometimes year on - year off, being employed a pasture precisely to have them increase the soil nitrogenated nutrients. All this to say that bullshit is serious (faecal) matter.

That is why HC and its several cousins take it so seriously to spread bullshit.

 

I always say HC is entertaining. Other than that it's complete Bull. I remember seing on doc wich was well done about the death of Hitler. Other than that, Meh...

Confucius also said: For one to figure out if you're a man or a woman, place one hand between your legs. If you find two balls, you're a man. If you don't, then you're a woman. If however, by any chance, you find four balls, make no mistake. You're not Superman!



Cheers...

 

Take for example a statement from a newbie. That the RAF during the BoB was down to a "Handful" of fighters. When pointed out that that was inncorrect he then stated that "countless" "documentaries" he had watched had stated so. It is sad that most who watch THC and other stations don't realize that because a "documentary" says it is so do not make it accurate and true.

 

The first series to covered ULTRA was the BBC series The Secret War telling the story of the boffins from Radar to the Battle of the Beams and so on. ULTRA was covered in the episode Still secret which is one of my favorite episodes, sadly the BBC to date has not released this series on DVD but they did on video if you can track it down. Yes I did buy it when it first came out and still enjoy watching it.

I believe CH4 or CH5 did a series on ULTRA some seven years ago which bought us a more up to date account on what went on at Bletchley. I agree with Martin the World at War. is dated but is still a good series to watch.

 

For the benefit of SMLE shooter, pulling this from http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/26195-motherland-stalingrad.html to avoid a thread hijack there.

Basically the problem with HC, MC, Discovery, etc. is that the main idea may actually be good, and at times they get some very interesting invited personalities, but the main problems are:

a) they have to compress whtever it is into a 45 min feature;
b) research is hurried, and due to several limitations they include the wrong footage (snow in Kursk :lol: )
c) the "talking heads" do provide hours long interviews, but they are edited so heavily that the snippets extracted come out of context and they make no sense at all.
d) those "10 best" features are simply the expression of the prejudices of the editor, they have to be taken with such a large boatload of salt to make the entire Dead Sea float.
e) they are addressed to a general audience, not specialised military historians (as we pretend to be in our dreams of greatness). That is: they level the show to the lowest common denominator.
f) sometimes the shows can be simple and adulterated bullsh!t, like the ones on those nazi bases in Antartica
g) those dramatisations are stomach churning! At times they're discussing whether a mouse hole is round or square, but they speak with such a deep, serious voice that it's totally ridiculous! And then there comes the P-47 footage when they're talking about Me109s

But do read the rest of the thread.

 

I only watch it for the footage, not the historical accuracy and if I do hear something that dosn't sound right, It is straight to the books to find a reference.

 

The History Channel does have flaws which i found out the hard way.
BY saying that , there were two documentries that were on track that the History channel aired. Hitler on Drugs High Hitler and the other one was The british Freecrop, they were kind of truthful. I don't know about the rest of them though.

 

We call the History Channel "Channel Nazi" in our house, as they seem to have a bit of a fixation with all things jackbooted.

I try to avoid it, and at the shows I go to which they attend I stop outside their tent and explain to my son why they're unreliable as loudly as is polite.

The final straw for me was when I complained about a mistake they made, and not only where they arrogant in response but they also accidently emailed me their internal email about it where their biggest concern was whinging about me daring to email them.

Lazy, inaccurate, arrogant arses... history is simply a marketing keyword to them.

Boo, hiss, etc,

 

Exactly. It all comes down to profit. They are in the entertainment industry.

 

Talk about dropping a clanger Awfully ignorant, they're there just to make a quick buck. They are the tabloids of "history"!

 

Yup. And unfortuntely some take what they see on the Military and History Channels as the Gospel truth.

 

Sirs, this guy is so right about History channel being pro nazi.
I never really seen an Allied point of view Docomentry during ww2, well maybe two mintues the rest is about the Germans.
There's even been fake ww1 footage on the History Channel. I nearly feel for it too.

 

That is because they are constantly trying to ram how the point that the Germans are bad, and the allies are good. They will quickly mention the flaws of the Germans and the atrocities they committed, much like the holocaust. But will rarely go into detail about the allies ones, except if it is about the Russians. I believe them to be a bit 'American' always seeming to ignore to the rest of the nations and only focus on the American's such as Omaha, Utah, the 101st and the 82nd during Operation Market Garden of course the Battle of the Bulge and the Crossing of the Rhine.

 

Snake oil salesmen

 

And they gear thier programming to thier target audience. The US. For all the others they have thier International Channel.

 

It isn’t just whom they gear their target audience toward (that is a big part of it though), but the sponsors who are willing to pay for the Disney company to air programs, and on which version. The "basic" (THC), or the upgraded more expensive sections. It has been a few years since The History Channel/Disney produced any of their own programs, but those were pretty good when they did so. As the audience demographic shifted toward the video gamer, pimple poppers, the quality of the product has deteriorated.

They used to run fine old documentaries from the immediate post-WW2 era as well, but no longer. Remember the Disney multi-national company is interested in sales and entertainment, not education. Look at whom they own; A&E, The History Channel, The Biography Channel, History Channel International, and the Military History Channel. That ignores the ABC networks, the entire ESPN offerings, and I forget how many others.

The History Channel is not interested in historical accuracy, and the use of the name "History" is rather silly since it is only entertainment and commercial sales in which they concern themselves. In the interest of accuracy, they have dropped both "The" and "Channel" from their official title, now they are just "History" as if that makes history a marketable commodity rather than a subject.

 

But Clint!!!! If its on THC it must all be true !! If its vcalled a "Documentary" then its all truth and facts. Some here have implied it is so LOL.

 

Sad, but too true. Happy Holidays to you and yours Robert! We are getting some snow here today, and an Arctic front is settling in, looking for below zero temps over the week-end, into mid week. Brrrr, don't like the cold but as long as the wind stays down I can stand it.

 

Thanks Clint. You too. We are waiting for our Arctic front to hit us here in a few hours or so. Not as bad as Montana but bad for us LOL. People will lose all sense of logic when there is snow and/or ice LOL.

 

Better than Wiki sure. Some people that know a lot appear for example in shootout and dogfights. What really pisses me off is that the always show u the American aces whilst the top scorers where the Germans and they never show em. Or for instance what about Hiroyoshi, i have found some really great data and they hardly mention him or his scores