I enjoy watching certain programs on AHC regarding World War Two, the Civil War and brief biographies of Churchil and Stalin. Much of the material was never covered in the History classes I took in high school.

I am curious as to how historically accurate these shows are. Does anyone have some insight on this? Thanks

Uh, which programs?

World War II in color. British narration. I will have to look up the others.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
...in the History classes I took in high school...

WWII as explained in textbooks: US + Churchill = Good guys. Germans = Bad guys. Hitler = Very bad guy. Move along and learn about the '60s and all that Baby Boomer stuff. Everybody likes the '60s!

WWII as explained on TV: They have to keep your attention so you will watch all of the commercials so they can pay their bills. Saw an hour of WWII and the only thing I know for certain is that I can bundle my home and auto insurance.

Depends on the perspective of who is selling it. Remember, the OJ bullshit was thrown at us as the "Trial of the Century". Would this lead us to believe that the goings on in Nuremberg wasn't all that much???

Plenty of errors if you're an old fart that was a kid in the 60's when WWII was recent.

One recent one on the Pacific War in Color that had Corsairs identified as Hellcats.

are you saying Hogan's Heroes is not historically accurate??

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
are you saying Hogan's Heroes is not historically accurate??

THREAD DRIFT: I could watch that show every night. I wish there were more episodes. I love when they're on some black ops work and the music playing is so undercover.

Do do dum dum dum dum... tink tink tink

If you love the show, you probably know what the above sounds like.

BACK ON THREAD: I assume there will always be errors in human production. I think that's outweighed by the depth these programs bring vs. the 30,000 foot 6 week fly by most people get on American history.

quote:

Plenty of errors if you're an old fart that was a kid in the 60's when WWII was recent

I think what many of the younger generation forget that if the United States had to invade Japan that many of us would not be here today. My father after having survived the Battle of the Bulge was on a troop ship headed for Japan when the atomic bomb was dropped.

The reason I asked the original question is that a friend of mine who is a Professor of History mentioned that the programs on the History Channel had some glaring errors. That was when the History Channel was about history, not Pawn Stars.

History is always being reinterpreted to fit the perspective of the author.

Brian Kilmeade recently did a series on the US Civil War for Fox News, fairly accurately, but pretty much concluded that it was solely about slavery -- the popular opinion today, but not factual according to Bruce Catton, who said it ranked 8th on his list of 10 causes.

During History Channel's dying days (before reality shows), they did a segment on the attack that killed Yamamoto, and got one of the participating P-38 pilots to call it an assassination, implying it was unwarranted.

I don't watch or read modern interpretations of historical events any more, preferring older, more respected sources. My time is better spent looking at old Calvin and Hobbes comics.

By the way, I also had a relative on a troop ship going from Europe to the Pacific when the bombs were dropped.

AHC (formerly The Military Channel) is basically what The History Channel used to be.

quote:

Originally posted by AUTiger89:
AHC (formerly The Military Channel) is basically what The History Channel used to be.

Smithsonian Channel has some fairly decent shows of an historical basis, unless it involves something with the 44th President, and then it’s all sung praises.

I think all history is slanted in the direction of the narrator/creator/author. Just the way it is. The best will be more objective and fair but we all have bias and favorites and this comes through on all history mediums from shows to podcasts to books. I like to just read up on a bunch of different angles and form my own thoughts on what happened.

quote:

I think all history is slanted in the direction of the narrator/creator/author. Just the way it is. The best will be more objective and fair but we all have bias and favorites and this comes through on all history mediums from shows to podcasts to books. I like to just read up on a bunch of different angles and form my own thoughts on what happened.

I agree. I especially enjoyed reading D Day from the perspective of the German soldiers who were there. It was compiled from interviews of German soldiers that served in Normandy. The interviews were obtained in the early 1950s. The soldiers perspective on the British and American soldiers was fascinating.

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
...The best will be more objective and fair but we all have bias and favorites and this comes through on all history mediums...

I agree. Mostly, they don't consider that they're writing about men of different times, and that different times had different attitudes. A man named Benjamin Grierson, a Colonel commanding several Union cavalry regiments, performed a brilliant campaign that allowed Grant to finally take Vicksburg, incurring minimal casualties on both sides. He was promoted to Brigadier General for his successful effort, and consequently became one of my heroes. After the war, I was shocked to find out that he commanded units of Buffalo Soldiers and helped with the destruction of the Indians. I realized, eventually, that he was a Man of his Times -- no more, no less -- and understood why he did it. I don't think most history writers understand this concept.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

I think all history is slanted in the direction of the narrator/creator/author. Just the way it is. The best will be more objective and fair but we all have bias and favorites and this comes through on all history mediums from shows to podcasts to books. I like to just read up on a bunch of different angles and form my own thoughts on what happened.

I agree. I especially enjoyed reading D Day from the perspective of the German soldiers who were there. It was compiled from interviews of German soldiers that served in Normandy. The interviews were obtained in the early 1950s. The soldiers perspective on the British and American soldiers was fascinating.

ZSMICHAEL - That does sound fascinating!

Do you have the title to that book/books?

Yep. Here it is:

https://www.amazon.com/DAY-Thr..._product_top?ie=UTF8

quote:

During History Channel's dying days (before reality shows), they did a segment on the attack that killed Yamamoto, and got one of the participating P-38 pilots to call it an assassination, implying it was unwarranted.

Was "payback" for Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR had signed off on Yamamoto attack.

Justifiable under any circumstance. We were at war, he was the enemy.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Yep. Here it is:

https://www.amazon.com/DAY-Thr..._product_top?ie=UTF8

Thanks. Just bought this on paperback. Sounds like a fascinating read. A friend of mine who is from Germany was able to give me a little insight on this perspective. I really wanted him to record his grandfather talking to all of his war buddies from many countries. He asked me where my family was from. I kept telling him they were from Georgia (the state, not the country). Gave me a hard time about it until I added 'since 1735'. Then he gave me the nickname of 1735 on all of his company e-mails.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Yep. Here it is:

https://www.amazon.com/DAY-Thr..._product_top?ie=UTF8

Thank-you!