World Wars on History Channel -- Three thumbs up!

[vigil617]

Just finished the first two-hour installment of World Wars on the History Channel. This is must-see TV, guys.

Say what you want about the History Channel, and I will agree with some of it. In this case, though, I think we are looking at a landmark in television -- an examination of the two World Wars that, as Churchill said, were in actuality a single Thirty Years' War.

You will learn much from this series. I know I have, and I consider myself knowledgeable about military and world history, especially of World War II. But the connections to World War I have never been more clearly drawn for me than they are here.

Within the historical framework, which is fascinating, are the personal profiles of several of the later World War II major-players: Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Patton, MacArthur, Mussolini, Stalin, and Lenin, and how the Great War so directly influenced their actions in the second World War. Also, the pivotal role of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 in plunging Germany into economic depression through unbelievable reparations, and the alienation of the ally Japanese, who had committed thousands of soldiers to the Allies' cause, only to be virtually ignored at the treaty negotiations. Both of these helped set the stage for these countries' actions in World War II.

If you like military history, or if you just want a better understanding of the ways the World Wars came to be, you need to see this. I cannot recommend it highly enough, based on what I saw tonight.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) the first episode replays at 7 p.m. Eastern Time and the next installment airs at 9 p.m. You can bet I will be in front of the TV for this. It is that compelling, and I hope you will tune in. Very much worth watching, IMHO.

 

[TAROMAN]

Now for a dissenting opinion..

Watched about 15 minutes of it and turned it off.
"CPT" Patton (wearing LT rank) shooting a SMLE at Villa's troops.
In 1914, Patton mounts a 1917 Browning on a 1920 Dodge touring car..
Imperial German Army are also shooting SMLEs.
Maybe History Channel could have possibly hired SOMEONE with a smidgen of knowledge of military history and weaponry.

 

[Texas Star]

Actually, why DID WWI begin? I was taught in school that it was because the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated in Serbia.

Why would that cause Britain and France to go to war with Germany etc.?

I have also read it was because the German emperor was jealous of larger British colonies in Africa.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

I thought it was pretty interesting too & it had some things I hadn't heard before either.

.

Actually, why DID WWI begin?

Pt.1 repeats again tomorrow before Pt.2 comes on....it's complicated.

 

[Fishinfool]

I watched it. Informative, and generally well done. But like TAROMAN noted, lots of detail inaccuracy. Little things, like German troops shooting SMLE's drive me nuts. I doubt the average viewer would notice, or care.

Larry

 

[mjlabs]

good show, I will watch/record them all ......typical Hollywood inaccuracies of course...as with all shows on tv.

 

[brucev]

Actually, why DID WWI begin? I was taught in school that it was because the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated in Serbia.

Why would that cause Britain and France to go to war with Germany etc.?

I have also read it was because the German emperor was jealous of larger British colonies in Africa.

Simply stated... WWI was a rooted in a conflict over resources and markets. Germany was a threat that had to be solved by britain, a empire on the edge of failure. France justifiably was not greatly interested in doing anything that would help britiain or Germany.

That declaration of war which was styled as the treaty of Versailles demonstrates the calculated goal of the european powers to control access to raw materials as well as control of markets for finished goods.

Had the U.S. stood aside and simply continued to sell food and materials to the combatants, the result would have been the realigning of power on the european continent in favor of Germany. France would have continued to be a major power and britain would have declined. A further result would have been the hastening of the breakup of the british empire, a consequent result of WWII.

The U.S. would have greatly benefited. We would not have wasted untold millions of dollars in a war that was irrelevant to the nation. We would not have had millions of dollars tied up in debt owed to us by the combatant powers, debt that in many cases was never paid. Beyond conjecture, perhaps WWII would have still occurred, perhaps not. It is definite that the U.S. would not have wasted years fighting in europe following a japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It is certain that we would have had a vastly improved level of manpower and material available with which to deal with the japs aggressively and decisively rather than having to be content with delay and bit by bit measures.

 

[wbraswell]

I'm sure these days the cost of weaponry rentals for TV productions is high enough without being absolutely correct. It irritated me a little, but the information of history was great. I never knew that Germany sent Lenin back to Russia, and financed him. Outstanding. It's great to see the History Channel with programming actually about history.

 

[WuzzFuzz]

Personally, I enjoyed watching PBS. The show was about the history, showing how from the Civil war, burial of the dead evolved to to Memorial Day we now celebrate our members of the armed forces, whom have died.


WuzzFuzz

 

[NYlakesider]

I watched it. Informative, and generally well done. But like TAROMAN noted, lots of detail inaccuracy. Little things, like German troops shooting SMLE's drive me nuts. I doubt the average viewer would notice, or care.

Larry

I thought it was sort of good! For all the advertising they did in advance it should have been much better than it was!

Way too many wrong things though! Patton's rank for one segment. Patton shooting a machine gun off the touring car and the belts DID NOT MOVE. Watching the show sort of led you to believe that both the Germans and our troops carried Enfield's at times (Not the 1917) I also think I watched a soldier change out the 10 round magazine from his Enfield. Lots of shots of BARs being used, I thought the BAR got there too late to see much action. The usual movie nonsense of soldiers having to rack semi auto guns between shots. Looked like some English officers were carrying 1911s.

Not sure of some of the historical facts presented but I wonder if a little history rewrite was done on some of the characters.

 

[Speedo2]

I too was distracted by the many technical inaccuracies of the program. Perhaps the greatest of which were the statements that Germany surrendered at the end of WW-1. As I understand it, the end of WW-1 was a negotiated armistice; Germany was not militarily defeated. The "surrender" occurred many months (or years) later with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson's capitulation to the parties that insisted upon draconian reparations, in return for the failed League of Nations, was also glossed over.

Much new (to me) and interesting information such as the Zimmerman telegram that contributed to the US entry into WW-1 and Hitler's close encounter with a British infantryman will keep me coming back to watch. INHO, there are many lessons that can (and should) be learned from the WW-1 period; perhaps the most profound and eventful decade in human history. -S2

 

[Brian41]

I enjoyed the first segment and will watch the rest too. I have to admit though I don't know nearly enough about WWI and did learn a lot. I'm sure they don't care that much about being accurate with their guns as few will even notice. I know a lot of what has been pointed out here slipped past me as I'm also not that up on guns of the era. I'm learning though and a reason I come here.

 

[30-30remchester]

For me, I have a hard time believing shows like this when so little research was done on the guns. Makes me wonder if the same amount of research was done on the rest of the show.

 

[Texas Star]

I thought it was sort of good! For all the advertising they did in advance it should have been much better than it was!

Way too many wrong things though! Patton's rank for one segment. Patton shooting a machine gun off the touring car and the belts DID NOT MOVE. Watching the show sort of led you to believe that both the Germans and our troops carried Enfield's at times (Not the 1917) I also think I watched a soldier change out the 10 round magazine from his Enfield. Lots of shots of BARs being used, I thought the BAR got there too late to see much action. The usual movie nonsense of soldiers having to rack semi auto guns between shots. Looked like some English officers were carrying 1911s.

Not sure of some of the historical facts presented but I wonder if a little history rewrite was done on some of the characters.

Some English officers DID carry 191l's. Churchill was among them, buying his Colt Govt. Model in 1915.
He sometimes wore this gun under his suit coat in WW II, also. In one photo of an Allied conference, the bulge of the .45 under his white suit was really obvious.

In addition to .45's like his, the British govt. bought some 1911's chambered for the .455 Webley auto ctg. These were used mainly by Royal Navy and air units, the RAF getting most eventually. In WW II, after the first year or so, these .455 Colts were all called in and issued to RAF Coastal Command, to arm crews of flying boats doing rescue work in the Channel. Because they also picked up downed German aircrews, they had to be armed, lest a German commandeer the rescue plane. I presume that others in Coastal Command needing a pistol also got some of those Colts.

Also, at Churchill's insistence, Commando units used the Colt .45 auto as their standard handgun in WW II. They also retained the Tommy gun long after others went to Stens.

 

[vigil617]

Since those of you who are up on the weaponry have pointed out the mistakes made with a few of those, I'll go along with you on that criticism. It was not distracting for me, because I am not that familiar with each.

I hate to think you'll throw the baby out with the bath water on the rest of the series, though. I honestly don't think that a few wrong guns or vehicles here and there indicate general questionability of the historical facts presented. The sum is greater than the total of the parts in this case.

I greatly admire Churchill in volunteering and going to the front lines as an infantry officer after the debacle at Gallipoli for which he was largely responsible as its primary planner. I also was astonished to learn Hitler had been in the sights of a British soldier -- named in the series -- who decided not to fire on him while the rest of the German unit was in retreat, and I did not know that Hitler had been injured in a mustard gas attack near the end of the war and, as a consequence, was in the hospital at the time of the cessation of hostilities and considered it a personal affront that the Germans capitulated. He wanted to fight to the death for the Fatherland; if only he had been able to do so in World War I.

The fact that Lenin and Stalin were transported by the Germans back to Russia during the war, and financed by them, for the specific purpose of overthrowing the czar was amazing to me, and was a masterful stroke that eliminated Russia from the rest of the war as one of the Allies.

For me, the most thought-provoking fact presented last night was that in the 30 years between 1914 and 1945, over 100 million people died as a result of the two wars (or the one war, if you agree with Churchill.) That, in and of itself, is reason to watch this series, so we can better understand what happened and apply its lessons to our own times.

 

[brucev]

Two very useful books helpful to understanding the dynamics of the period before WWI as well as the actual war itself are The Proud Tower and The Guns of August. As well a useful book is The Zimmermann Telegram. These books by Barbara Tuchman are well written, readable and free of historical revisionism which seems to be such a problem for much current scholarship.

 

[cowart]

For me, I have a hard time believing shows like this when so little research was done on the guns.

In 1914, Patton mounys a 1917 Browning on a 1920 Dodge touring car.. Imperial German Army are also shooting SMLEs.

The reality of movie production is that you have to *rent* props like these, and you can only rent what the rental houses have available, and only when they have it available in the needed quantities to fit your shooting schedule. See
Movie Gun Services LLC

Where would you go to rent a 1914 Dodge touring car instead of a 1920 model? Hertz?

Where would you go to rent a few hundred WWI era Mausers in military trim? Where would you purchase enough 8mm blanks to supply them if the rental houses only happen to have .303,.308, and 30-06 blanks?

There is a world of difference between George Lucas spending millions of dollars and years of time to shoot Star Wars, and someone at the History Channel shooting a TV SHOW.

 

[wbraswell]

Exactly what cowart posted. The show is about the men and how these times changed them, not technical details, which almost nobody except us, would notice. And I did notice nearly all. At least Mussolini used a Carcano, and I didn't know he was a radio hack.

 

[therevjay]

I guess they found a sale on SMLE's. I think they could have came up with enough M1903's or M1917's and '98 Mausers for the close ups.

Patton was riding a M3 tank. But I doubt there are any running Renualt tanks still around. So that's understandable. All in all I thought it wasn't a bad show.

 

[UncleEd]

The reality of movie production is that you have to *rent* props like these, and you can only rent what the rental houses have available, and only when they have it available in the needed quantities to fit your shooting schedule. See
Movie Gun Services LLC

Where would you go to rent a 1914 Dodge touring car instead of a 1920 model? Hertz?

Where would you go to rent a few hundred WWI era Mausers in military trim? Where would you purchase enough 8mm blanks to supply them if the rental houses only happen to have .303,.308, and 30-06 blanks?

There is a world of difference between George Lucas spending millions of dollars and years of time to shoot Star Wars, and someone at the History Channel shooting a TV SHOW.

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

It's the history/story not the little artifacts that count.

So many in the past have gotten all huffy that more modern tanks have been used to represent German and American tanks. Tell us, wise guys of history, where would you get enough Shermans for a large movie? Where would you get enough Panzers, in all their varieties, for a large movie?


Now they can be "manufactured" via computer but those techniques didn't exist even a few years ago.

I hope that Patton in this series is actually carrying a Ruger Vaquero to represent his famous SAA.