The World Wars
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:02 pm
Last week I was surfing through channels and came across the History Channel's: The World Wars. This series presents how WW-I and WW2 tie together through key personalities such as Churchill, Hitler, Patton...ect... At least the History Channel is doing something besides pawn shops and junk collectors. I think they are trying to have something real history that the average American just won't change the channel from. Americans are very history illiterate in general. I can appreciate the effort but this may actually do more harm than good.
I understand that to be accessable they can't get bogged down by too much detail. So they don't present much detail. It would be better if the facts they do present were at least correct, though. I was frankly appalled at the number of incorrect facts. Was the basic narrative written by high school students?
Some examples:
The viewer may well come away thinking that the Germans defeated the French in 1940 by a massive (and improvised) frontal assault on the Maginot Line, after finally being forced to act. No mention of Plan Gelb, von Mannstein, the drive to Muese river, Eben Emal, and the encirclement of the Allies in Belgium. Little to no mention of Dunkirk. No mention of the Allied adventure in Norway or the real rationales behind Wesserubung.
The Blitz is presented as Hitler's original plan to force Britain out of the war and not in sequence with the Battle of Britain. The Battle of Britain is presented after the Blitz chronologically!
Hitler is said to want to avoid a two front war at all costs. Okay... what about Barbarossa? When it comes to Barbarossa this is not explained.
The events leading up to the Pacific War, present Imperial Japan almost as the good guys and as the main result of decades of western imperialism in Asia. No mention of the Rape of Nanking but I might have tuned out by then.
This is in no way the caliber and quality of the BBC's old and outstanding: The World at War series.
I understand that to be accessable they can't get bogged down by too much detail. So they don't present much detail. It would be better if the facts they do present were at least correct, though. I was frankly appalled at the number of incorrect facts. Was the basic narrative written by high school students?
Some examples:
The viewer may well come away thinking that the Germans defeated the French in 1940 by a massive (and improvised) frontal assault on the Maginot Line, after finally being forced to act. No mention of Plan Gelb, von Mannstein, the drive to Muese river, Eben Emal, and the encirclement of the Allies in Belgium. Little to no mention of Dunkirk. No mention of the Allied adventure in Norway or the real rationales behind Wesserubung.
The Blitz is presented as Hitler's original plan to force Britain out of the war and not in sequence with the Battle of Britain. The Battle of Britain is presented after the Blitz chronologically!
Hitler is said to want to avoid a two front war at all costs. Okay... what about Barbarossa? When it comes to Barbarossa this is not explained.
The events leading up to the Pacific War, present Imperial Japan almost as the good guys and as the main result of decades of western imperialism in Asia. No mention of the Rape of Nanking but I might have tuned out by then.
This is in no way the caliber and quality of the BBC's old and outstanding: The World at War series.