"History" and the History Channel

[Ruy Horta]

Proof that there was a conspiracy by FDR!!!

Fits, since the carriers were suspiciously elsewhere...

There is lot of stock footage that shows either models or actual american types reenacting certain events. I'm not sure if the latter is often recognized as such by more than the most observant and those who know their types. Of course just having a split second to recognize the type doesn't help!

The footage of air attack on Midway is pretty famous, and mixed in between are shots of either P-36s or P-35s, judging by the cowling and cowling gun stubs, but still not sure which one. The same goes for footage with Japanese Dauntless dive bombers. Just imagine what this might cause in 200 years or so when they start mixing up conspiracy theory and stock footage

[Nick Beale]

And there's the standard "Battle of Britain" compilation of air-to-air footage that they use every time: includes an Fw 190 being shot down over a snow-covered landscape (in Summer 1940, in Kent?), an Ar 96 being shot up at close range, and the pre-war He 111s releasing their bombs.

[George Hopp]

One shot I do love is of USN Brewster Buffaloes in, I believe, John Wayne's "Fighting SeeBees" or something like that. They don't actually fit in the movie, but photos of Buffaloes in USN markings are rare so they're nice to see.

[Ruy Horta]

The problem with this series and many others made by History Channel is that they fail to do a proper research job. I'm left with the feeling that this is, at least in part, done on prupose to enhance the spectacle for mainly an American audience.

Last week they aired Battle 360, following the USS Enterprise during WW2. Certainly they pay tribute to the veterans, but they did not even bother to double check events in (old) standard works like Morison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II.

The result is highly inflated claims and images, probably based on current eyewitness accounts and at best contemporary reports and claims.

An early strike becoming a devastating blow to the IJN. Reality perhaps important for moral, but insignificant in terms of effectiveness.

I don't mind having a one sided approach of events, as long as there has been some effort to check the claims, especially if the information is readily available.

IMHO this is not a cost issue, but driven to the point of falsifying history.

[Skyraider3D]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

IMHO this is not a cost issue, but driven to the point of falsifying history.

You're quite right there!

Then again no serious researcher would rely on History Channel programs, so the damage done may be limited.

What always cracks me up is programs that describe the B-17 as the airplane that shot down most enemy aircraft over Germany. Sure, if all the gunner claims would have been actual kills...

[Mark E Horan]

Gents;

I have not read every post in this thread. However I can spaek a bit on the issue from the point of view of someone involved in the making of two "documentaries". As some of you might know, I know more than a tad about the Battle of Midway. I was contacted by a team tat was making the documentary for the discovery of the carrier Yorktown. I made many points to them about what should and should not be included, and set them up with many vets that were still around to talk to them

On their dime they brought me to NYC to view all of the footage they had obtained to tell them what to use. I spent hours there doing so. During the viewing, I found that they had actual footage shot on Yorktown on 4 June. Part of this was movie footage of the lst aircraft to land on Yorktown (Tom Cheek's VF-3 F4F) that closed the deck just prior to the dive bomber attack on her. I let them know that Cheek was still alive, I new where he was, and that I knew he'd be happy to talk with them.

I was also shown what they had poot together thus far and it was filled with trash - silly pre-war stuff and lots of 1943-45 Essex class carrier footage. With all the Enterprise footage from 1942 on hand, plus bunches of other 1942 stuff, they had all they needed to do a first class job. But I soon got the word that they were "too far along" to change what they had done already, and had no more money to do another West Coast interview. And that was that. They never used any of the "never seen before" Yorktown stuff - go figure!

Net effect was they did exactly what they wanted to do regardless of what the expert they paid to help them get it right (that was me) said. The net result is these folks just don't give a rat's ass if it is right, they don't even care if it true. They just get some hot idea and run with it
because once it is made, they have a better resume.

Mark

[Skyraider3D]

Hi Mark, that's a very interesting and very worrying insider's view you're offering us there. I hope they didn't put your name in the credits...!

To be honest, the "twist" in your story sadly wasn't much of a surprise to me, as I've worked on (totally non-related) specialised projects that had a similar "work flow". I.e. have a team produce stuff, get experts to look at it, conclude it's all wrong, but directors/management go with it anyway as the money is gone and the time is up. So very tiresome...

With material like this, which only appeals to a limited audience, I guess there are really just two categories of people. Those that deliver (let's face it) crap and make half a buck out of it and those that invest tons of personal money and time and produce the real gems. I do worry what history books will tell us in a hundred years' time. Likewise, how true is the stuff we read about wars etc. from more than a hundred years back? And of course, whatever will happen to the unseen historic material as in your example? Back into a dusty filing cabinet never to be seen again...? Such a waste.

[Ruy Horta]

Mark, thanks for sharing your experience.

The main problem IMHO is the trend to visualize the events, this has become the prime mover in many of these programs, be it reenacting or CG. Both probably consume most of the budget.

Look at older documentaries, like the BBC's epical WW1 and 2 productions, or the German Damals - Vor Vierzig Jahren, relying on the strength of contemporary images (moving and still) with interviews, and the emphasis is on history.

A dutch production team is having good success here with their In Europe, the first series covering modern Europe up to the middle of WW2, the new series continuing from that point. The series being proof that there is a viable market for a more "serious" approach.

Documentaries like the one made about PQ17 and the Battle of the Java Sea, are both very good examples of the "pure" approach that have lost nothing in intensity by relying on original material and interviews alone.

Need we discuss the strength of a production like Shoah?

IMHO the main culprit, and I must admit that I have reached the point of hating it, is the docudrama approach. Its like learning about the American Civil War by watching the North and South mini-series. I don't mind enjoying a series like North and South, as long as it is clear that I'm watching an entertainment program.

With CG, I'm still convinced that it can serve some purpose as long as it is not the main dish. The double edge with CG is that it is easy to falsify history, yet leave an image in the viewer's mind "that is worth a thousand words".

It feels like twenty to thirty years ago, before the impact of commercial TV made itself felt in Europe they simply made better documentaries. Call it a Golden Age for lack of a better word, with a smarter and more engaged look at the world.

Today it often feels like the age of the lowest common denominator, at least in terms of documentaries.

[RodM]

Hi Everyone,

as poorly researched and inaccurate as many of these throw-away history documentaries are, will they be regularly watched or taken seriously in 50 years time?

Now, if you want to know about something really, really scary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/ma...secondworldwar

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/foi/log2007.htm

It really scares me that there are persons willing to go to such lengths to falsify history, especially when their motives are not clear...

Cheers

Rod

[Skyraider3D]

That is worrying indeed.

Originally Posted by RodM

It really scares me that there are persons willing to go to such lengths to falsify history, especially when their motives are not clear...

The first article reads:
"After a 13-month police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, in part because of Allen's deteriorating health."
Perhaps this man wanted to make his mark as a writer/historian by coming up with something sensational before he was too sick to do so. So he had to invent something outrageous and stick in into the national archives to give him "proof". Sad case if that's really so...