Presidents at War

[dockmurgw]

There's a real good show running on History Channel right now, Presidents at War. Lots of great archival footage, and real life stories of the members of the greatest generation that went on to be US Presidents. If you haven't seen it, you'll want to.

[snuffy51]

Watched the program last evening, pretty good. Would not have taken much to change a lot of history. Think what if.

[swsig]

I watched it, too. For me, "Presidents at War" was compromised by some egregious errors in the stock footage that was used. While describing the Salerno invasion, they showed an Essex class carrier. These carriers were not used in the European theater, and certainly not at Salerno. Worst of all, they showed a B-52 dropping bombs on "Salerno". A B-52!!! Come on, this is the History Channel. They're supposed to be experts on history. If they can't get the ships and planes right, what else are they screwing up?

[M29since14]

They assume we don’t know better, I guess.

[Faulkner]

Originally Posted by M29since14

They assume we don’t know better, I guess.

People who watch the History Channel typically do know better . . . the History Channel producers should know better too.

[MCorps0311]

I haven't seen it yet.

[old bear]

The History Chanel comes up with some great themes, bud sadly lacks proper execution of these ideas.
Now that I think about it, what in the Hell does American Pickers have to do with history?

[dockmurgw]

Originally Posted by old bear

The History Chanel comes up with some great themes, bud sadly lacks proper execution of these ideas.
Now that I think about it, what in the Hell does American Pickers have to do with history?

Since you brought it up, I was going to reply to the comment about History Channel viewers knowing better with the following: Pawn Stars? Swamp People? American Pickers? And all the other moronic reality shows they put on, but decided to be nice and control myself. So much for self control. But besides that, I'm not so picky that I didn't enjoy watching it, even with misplaced archival footage.

[Absalom]

Back during the first years of the History Channel, it was all history.

In fact, largely due to the fact that WW II was the first war with tons of decent footage by all sides (but no sound; all that was edited in), they had so many WW II and Nazi documentaries that we used to call it “the Nazi channel”. But at least it was history.

I think what happened was that things got more expensive. For example, the BBC, a source of a lot of the HC’s material, started showing the stuff on their own international channels rather than selling it.

So the HC started backfilling cheap reality-TV garbage. The same happened to the Learning Channel. And nobody goes broke making their TV offerings LESS intellectually challenging.

[chopshopcop]

There's only a finite supply of archival WWII footage, no telling how much was lost over the decades due to neglect, poor storage of the film stock, or just a plain lack of interest in preservation. If you watch enough of these history shows on any channel, you'll wind up seeing the same footage on every one of them. Some films have pretty much become just stock filler whether the topic is the European theater or the Pacific. You'll see the same aircraft, same ships, same troops fighting in Europe on one program, on another they're all in the Pacific.

Even with all the errors, at least someone cares enough to tell the history of that time and of the people that served

[okiegtrider]

Originally Posted by Absalom

Back during the first years of the History Channel, it was all history.

In fact, largely due to the fact that WW II was the first war with tons of decent footage by all sides (but no sound; all that was edited in), they had so many WW II and Nazi documentaries that we used to call it “the Nazi channel”. But at least it was history.

I think what happened was that things got more expensive. For example, the BBC, a source of a lot of the HC’s material, started showing the stuff on their own international channels rather than selling it.

So the HC started backfilling cheap reality-TV garbage. The same happened to the Learning Channel. And nobody goes broke making their TV offerings LESS intellectually challenging.

That solves a minor mystery for me. I knew the History Channel went in the dumper as far as programming goes some years back, just didn't know why. It was once one of my favs. Not so much these days. Guess that explains it.

[TomkinsSP]

Originally Posted by swsig

I watched it, too. For me, "Presidents at War" was compromised by some egregious errors in the stock footage that was used. While describing the Salerno invasion, they showed an Essex class carrier. These carriers were not used in the European theater, and certainly not at Salerno. Worst of all, they showed a B-52 dropping bombs on "Salerno". A B-52!!! Come on, this is the History Channel. They're supposed to be experts on history. If they can't get the ships and planes right, what else are they screwing up?

I just find it amazing George C. Scott was able to fight off those M48s at Kasserine Pass.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by chopshopcop

There's only a finite supply of archival WWII footage, no telling how much was lost over the decades due to neglect, poor storage of the film stock, or just a plain lack of interest in preservation. If you watch enough of these history shows on any channel, you'll wind up seeing the same footage on every one of them. Some films have pretty much become just stock filler whether the topic is the European theater or the Pacific. You'll see the same aircraft, same ships, same troops fighting in Europe on one program, on another they're all in the Pacific.

Even with all the errors, at least someone cares enough to tell the history of that time and of the people that served

^^THIS^^
I watched the first half last night and wish I had been home to watch the second half tonight.

I enjoyed the story of how many of our past presidents served heroically in the armed forces, rather than being disappointed by picking apart whether they used the exact right footage of exactly the correct planes and ships, etc. As chopshopcop points out, there is only so much of the old footage available to use, and re-filming all the scenes with authentic vehicles and weapons etc. would be prohibitively expensive.

Besides, that isn't what the documentary was about. It was about the grit and courage of the people - not which rifle they shot or which tank they rode in or what ship they were on.

[chiefbob81]

Interogative: I think American Pickers is amazing history, IMHO

[Kurusu]

Originally Posted by TomkinsSP

I just find it amazing George C. Scott was able to fight off those M48s at Kasserine Pass.

The great lack of WWII German tanks explains that. Even Sherman tanks weren't much available at least not in quantity.

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Watched it and reminded me that we are in fact the greatest country in the world. After it I was ready to go out and kick some backside. Too bad the vocal portion of this country seems to have lost its collective balls.

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by Absalom

Back during the first years of the History Channel, it was all history.

In fact, largely due to the fact that WW II was the first war with tons of decent footage by all sides (but no sound; all that was edited in), they had so many WW II and Nazi documentaries that we used to call it “the Nazi channel”. But at least it was history.

The History Channel's logo back then was a large capital "H". We started calling it the Hitler Channel. It was like all Hitler, all the time.

[crazyphil]

"Those who do not remember the past
are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

[TomkinsSP]

^^^or Pliny 1800 years earlier^^^
"Qui historia negare repeat"
(Victim of a Jesuit education.)

[britbike1]

Originally Posted by old bear

The History Chanel comes up with some great themes, bud sadly lacks proper execution of these ideas.
Now that I think about it, what in the Hell does American Pickers have to do with history?

I think Pickers at least gives some history of the items. I'm still trying to figure out why Tree House Masters is on Animal Planet and the travel channel is full of food shows.

[redlevel]

I watched the first segment. Saw the B-52 bombing Salerno.
Also heard the reference to GHW Bush as a “young fighter ace.”

I enjoyed it, even with the discrepancies.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by redlevel

I watched the first segment. Saw the B-52 bombing Salerno.
Also heard the reference to GHW Bush as a “young fighter ace.”

I enjoyed it, even with the discrepancies.

Bush actually flew bombers - not fighters - right?

[Old TexMex]

Yes, torpedo bombers, Avenger I believe.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Old TexMex

Yes, torpedo bombers, Avenger I believe.

HEY! My memory ain't what it used to be, but it still works - at least most of the time!

[walkinghorse]

Originally Posted by Absalom

Back during the first years of the History Channel, it was all history.

In fact, largely due to the fact that WW II was the first war with tons of decent footage by all sides (but no sound; all that was edited in), they had so many WW II and Nazi documentaries that we used to call it “the Nazi channel”. But at least it was history.

I think what happened was that things got more expensive. For example, the BBC, a source of a lot of the HC’s material, started showing the stuff on their own international channels rather than selling it.

So the HC started backfilling cheap reality-TV garbage. The same happened to the Learning Channel. And nobody goes broke making their TV offerings LESS intellectually challenging.

Advertising $$$$$ needed for survival rather than accuracy of content. After all they are competing against reality shows, and amateur singing, dancing, romance competitions, etc. that attract viewers which the advertising industry measures for where the $$ are!
For example some of the youngsters today think that Pearl Harbor was in retaliation for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

[sigp220.45]

GHWB was reunited with his issued Victory Model a few years ago. He seems a little puzzled by it in this photo.

[THE PILGRIM]

George H W Bush flew the TBM, which was a GM Built version of the Grumman TBF.
Here’s the one over at Tucson.

[redlevel]

I didn’t intend to diminish GHW Bush’s wartime service, by the way. Anyone who flew one of those torpedo bombers into the teeth of enemy AAfire was a hero. Although I disagreed with much of his political agenda, I admired him for his service. As the son of a prestigious and elite family who could have avoided service, he chose to go to war in a true combat posting.

[S&WIowegan]

Yes Bush flew an Avenger. I am currently reading Meacham's biography of GHWB. He enlisted the day he turned 18 and chose Navy and aviator as what he wanted to do. The training cycle was exceedingly long(from mid-1942 through 1943) so he didn't see combat until 1944. The planes had two crew on board and a pilot. When GHWB was shot down the two crew members lost their lives and GHWB was lucky to survive. As soon as he was fit to fly, he flew more missions, totaling 40 some.

I have never been a big Bush fan but he was never even close to being a coward.

[WR Moore]

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

Watched it and reminded me that we are in fact the greatest country in the world............ Too bad the vocal portion of this country seems to have lost its collective balls.

Those vocals that still have them probably deeply regret it and want to do something to make amends for their toxic masculinity.

I watched parts and gave up. Entirely too many errors slathered upon excessive BS between the rare good points. Make that extremely rare.

[TomkinsSP]

Originally Posted by Old TexMex

Yes, torpedo bombers, Avenger I believe.

My FIL who flew FM "cats" said they are properly referred to as "turkeys" (big, ungainly, etc.. But I bet the German word used by U-boat crews would get me banned.)

[Kurusu]

Originally Posted by crazyphil

"Those who do not remember the past
are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

That's why I eat everyday. Can't remember what I've eaten yesterday.