Are there any historians at the History Channel?

[oldfart]

Apparently not. I tuned in to about fifteen minutes tonight to their highly publicized three night series on "The World Wars". In that time they manged to to butcher the First World War and the Russian Revolution; getting virtually everything wrong.

Their story went like this:

1. The Germans, wanting to get the Russians out of the War sent Lenin back to Russia in a sealed train with ten million dollars to finance the revolution. (true)

2. Lenin is met by Stalin and the two proceed to spend months arming workers and planning the revolution. The problem here is that:
a) when Lenin arrived, the first revolution which overthrew the czar was already in progress. The famous photo of Lenin addressing the crowd at Finland Station in Leningrad was taken within 48 hours of his arrival. It's hard to spend months planning a revolution already in progress.
b) Stalin was a minor figure at the time. Lenin spent far more time with Trotsky and other more senior Bolsheviks. I guess the History Channel got their information from Stalin's biography while he was still alive. That's the only source I know of to link Lenin and Stalin closely at this time.

3) Lenin leads the revolution in storming the Winter Palace to overthrow the czar. This is the real howler.
a) The czar had abdicated months early and a provisional government under Kerensky was in place. It's hard to overthrow a czar who abdicated earlier.
b) The Winter Palace was the seat of the Kerensky government, a fact the History Channel seems unaware of.
c) At the time, Lenin was trying to discourage efforts to unseat Karensky, fearing the coup would fail.

In short, the History Channel apparently didn't realize there were two Russian Revolutions and collapsed the two, and got much of their information from Stalinist history.

The butchery calls into question whether the History Channel should stick to programming about extraterrestrial aliens and leave real history alone. I don't think a single person is capable of this big of a disaster, so it seems to be a collective effort.

Anybody have a clue as to how or why they got this so wrong? Did they really think everyone in America is so ignorant they could get away with it?

 

[Nutz]

First of all, thanks for the info...I am no expert on Russian history and appreciate your insight. This is something I will probably research in an effort to learn more.

My question is this, do you think they were just giving a very short synopsis in attempt to introduce the players? There is a whole lot of history they are trying to cram into a few hours. I mean, the series is about the wars, not the Russian revolution.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s likely the makers of the documentary that got it wrong, having little to do with the ‘history’ channel, which of course it’s not.

 

[oldfart]

First of all, thanks for the info...I am no expert on Russian history and appreciate your insight. This is something I will probably research in an effort to learn more.

My question is this, do you think they were just giving a very short synopsis in attempt to introduce the players? There is a whole lot of history they are trying to cram into a few hours. I mean, the series is about the wars, not the Russian revolution.

Just my 2 cents.

There is an excellent and very readable book titled "A History of the Soviet Union from Beginning to End" by Peter Kenez which is the place to start. I've read hundreds of books on Russian and Soviet history and at this point this is hands down the best.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/History-Soviet-Union-Beginning-End/dp/0521682967/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401162051&sr=1-1&keywords=history+of+the+soviet+union]Amazon.com: A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (9780521682961): Peter Kenez: Books[/ame]

I have trouble understanding how an interest in keeping it simple would lead anyone to get it completely wrong. For example, why bring in Stalin at all, when he is a minor player? Why confuse when Lenin arrived in Russia, or confuse the February Revolution with the October Revolution? This just baffles me. A concise, correct version would take no longer than their mishmash.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I thought it was fucking awesome!

It was a blast and now a lot of people who didn't know a single thing about those wars have learned something. So good on them.

 

[oldfart]

It’s likely the makers of the documentary that got it wrong, having little to do with the ‘history’ channel, which of course it’s not.

You are correct of course. But this raises two questions: why did the producers get it so wrong, and why did the History Channel not exercise some oversight about what goes out over their name? We now have two organizations that appear to know less history than Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Bush92]

There is not much history on the History Channel. Just re-runs of Pawn Stars.Its a joke.

 

[whitehall]

It's just a name. The History Channel ain't about history. It's about making money. The HC fabricated an elaborate hoax about the existence of "mermaids". How can you trust their judgement about real history?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Are you talking about the Hitler Channel?

 

[Picaro]

I canceled our satellite subscription years ago, But I think most of the military history moved to its own channel and have newer documentaries to offer.

And yes, the History Channel went downhill a long time ago; they were running a lot of 'paranormal' flying saucers crap at the time we tired of paying for 700+ channels and nothing to watch and canceled. Regular TV got better.

 

[September]

Are there any historians at the history channel

 

[Political Junky]

They got Cheney and McCain to make numerous appearances. Both praised FDR.

 

[bendog]

I didn't watch that, though I thought my daughter was going to TiVo it. But, did anyone happen to catch the series on the robber barons that preceeded the show old fart posts about? I did some fact checking while watching it and didn't see any huge mis-statements.

About The Men Who Built America - HISTORY.com

It was interesting in that it examined the inter-relations between men, social and economic.

I also thought it a little interesting in that it may have overplayed the purchasing of the 1896 election. It is true that McKinley was literally given suitcases holding millions, but the series didn't expose some of the internal divides amongst the democrats and Bryan's positions on gold and silver.

But most of all it was their moral ambiguity, and at the end Henry Ford emerges with the notion of building something workers would want, and paying workers enough to buy it. That, coupled with Citizens United and the dems complaints about the Kochs, seemed to me to be thought provoking. I think in ways the gop is searching for a soul, and if history is a guide there are several directions they can take. And further, the Kochs do pay workers. But, is their motivation Henry Ford's or Carnegie/Fiskes?

 

[Picaro]

I didn't watch that, though I thought my daughter was going to TiVo it. But, did anyone happen to catch the series on the robber barons that preceeded the show old fart posts about? I did some fact checking while watching it and didn't see any huge mis-statements.

About The Men Who Built America - HISTORY.com

It was interesting in that it examined the inter-relations between men, social and economic.

I also thought it a little interesting in that it may have overplayed the purchasing of the 1896 election. It is true that McKinley was literally given suitcases holding millions, but the series didn't expose some of the internal divides amongst the democrats and Bryan's positions on gold and silver.

But most of all it was their moral ambiguity, and at the end Henry Ford emerges with the notion of building something workers would want, and paying workers enough to buy it. That, coupled with Citizens United and the dems complaints about the Kochs, seemed to me to be thought provoking. I think in ways the gop is searching for a soul, and if history is a guide there are several directions they can take. And further, the Kochs do pay workers. But, is their motivation Henry Ford's or Carnegie/Fiskes?

I also thought it a little interesting in that it may have overplayed the purchasing of the 1896 election. It is true that McKinley was literally given suitcases holding millions, but the series didn't expose some of the internal divides amongst the democrats and Bryan's positions on gold and silver.

Well, U.S. politics has always been thoroughly corrupt, including the 'Founders' for the most part, with a few exceptions like Franklin and George Mason, a very few others. I don't know that it can be overplayed, but it certainly can be over-emphasized to the exclusion of other things going on concurrently, for sure.

Contrary to what 'conservatives' routinely claim, the 'Founding Fathers' weren't 'libertarians', and neither were they stupid enough to allow corporations the kind of power they have today. You can thank the railroads and the Civil War for that.

But most of all it was their moral ambiguity, and at the end Henry Ford emerges with the notion of building something workers would want, and paying workers enough to buy it.

Ford's '$5 A Day' program was largely just a PR stunt; very few workers ever managed to qualify for it, not to mention that Ford required his workers to allow unannounced 'home inspections' and the like, and routinely required his employees to not read any magazines or books he didn't like and would fire them if they were found in their homes, that sort of 'enlightened social engineering'. His 'associate' Harry Bennett I think his name was, was nothing but a gangster and thug, operating his own 'department' under Ford, so I wouldn't get all warm and fuzzy over Henry Ford.

That, coupled with Citizens United and the dems complaints about the Kochs, seemed to me to be thought provoking. I think in ways the gop is searching for a soul, and if history is a guide there are several directions they can take. And further, the Kochs do pay workers. But, is their motivation Henry Ford's or Carnegie/Fiskes?

Their 'motivation' is turning the U.S. into another banana republic, one they own and rule, just like every other group of megalomaniacs and sociopaths wants for themselves.

It's ironic that the Koch family's fortune was first made by Joseph Stalin, without any 'free market' within a thousand miles of their decade or so of contract work building up a key sector of the Soviet economy, and yet these libertoons and right wing muppets endlessly spam message boards with the latest 'talking points' from some Koch financed media hack or other daily these days. It's hilarious, really.

 

[whitehall]

I didn't watch that, though I thought my daughter was going to TiVo it. But, did anyone happen to catch the series on the robber barons that preceeded the show old fart posts about? I did some fact checking while watching it and didn't see any huge mis-statements.

About The Men Who Built America - HISTORY.com

It was interesting in that it examined the inter-relations between men, social and economic.

I also thought it a little interesting in that it may have overplayed the purchasing of the 1896 election. It is true that McKinley was literally given suitcases holding millions, but the series didn't expose some of the internal divides amongst the democrats and Bryan's positions on gold and silver.

But most of all it was their moral ambiguity, and at the end Henry Ford emerges with the notion of building something workers would want, and paying workers enough to buy it. That, coupled with Citizens United and the dems complaints about the Kochs, seemed to me to be thought provoking. I think in ways the gop is searching for a soul, and if history is a guide there are several directions they can take. And further, the Kochs do pay workers. But, is their motivation Henry Ford's or Carnegie/Fiskes?

I also thought it a little interesting in that it may have overplayed the purchasing of the 1896 election. It is true that McKinley was literally given suitcases holding millions, but the series didn't expose some of the internal divides amongst the democrats and Bryan's positions on gold and silver.

Well, U.S. politics has always been thoroughly corrupt, including the 'Founders' for the most part, with a few exceptions like Franklin and George Mason, a very few others. I don't know that it can be overplayed, but it certainly can be over-emphasized to the exclusion of other things going on concurrently, for sure.

Contrary to what 'conservatives' routinely claim, the 'Founding Fathers' weren't 'libertarians', and neither were they stupid enough to allow corporations the kind of power they have today. You can thank the railroads and the Civil War for that.

But most of all it was their moral ambiguity, and at the end Henry Ford emerges with the notion of building something workers would want, and paying workers enough to buy it.

Ford's '$5 A Day' program was largely just a PR stunt; very few workers ever managed to qualify for it, not to mention that Ford required his workers to allow unannounced 'home inspections' and the like, and routinely required his employees to not read any magazines or books he didn't like and would fire them if they were found in their homes, that sort of 'enlightened social engineering'. His 'associate' Harry Bennett I think his name was, was nothing but a gangster and thug, operating his own 'department' under Ford, so I wouldn't get all warm and fuzzy over Henry Ford.

That, coupled with Citizens United and the dems complaints about the Kochs, seemed to me to be thought provoking. I think in ways the gop is searching for a soul, and if history is a guide there are several directions they can take. And further, the Kochs do pay workers. But, is their motivation Henry Ford's or Carnegie/Fiskes?

Their 'motivation' is turning the U.S. into another banana republic, one they own and rule, just like every other group of megalomaniacs and sociopaths wants for themselves.

It's ironic that the Koch family's fortune was first made by Joseph Stalin, without any 'free market' within a thousand miles of their decade or so of contract work building up a key sector of the Soviet economy, and yet these libertoons and right wing muppets endlessly spam message boards with the latest 'talking points' from some Koch financed media hack or other daily these days. It's hilarious, really.

The Koch brothers...Stalin? Fred Koch was born in freaking Texas. He made his money just like Rockefeller, with oil wells. Maybe it's the union based education that skewed the minds of radical left wing Americans. The Koch brothers ain't your enemy. They build hospitals and cancer research centers.

 

[Picaro]

The Koch brothers...Stalin? Fred Koch was born in freaking Texas. He made his money just like Rockefeller, with oil wells.

They never drilled wells, and neither did Rockefeller get started in drilling oil wells, either. Both did however start out in refining.

Being 'freaking born in Texas' doesn't have much to do with anything.

Maybe it's the union based education that skewed the minds of radical left wing Americans. The Koch brothers ain't your enemy. They build hospitals and cancer research centers.

Maybe it's your utter ignorance of their history that has embarrassed you. It's obvious a 'union based education' would have served you better than the one you've had ...

I'll add that the pipeline business relies on using eminent domain laws and hiring state governments to force people to allow 'free market' types like the Kochs to run over landowners without having to pay 'free market' prices for the land they run pipes over. They've pretty much avoided 'free markets' wherever possible, like most billionaires have and still do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch

Fred Koch claimed to hate the Reds, but he didn't let that interfere with stuffing his pockets with Stalin's money up through the 1950's, and then after that blood money dried up he suddenly felt the need to join the Birchers and run around being 'all outraged n anti-Communist n stuff'. Of course this just makes them even more attractive to what passes for 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' these days; they love wealthy sociopaths.

 

[bendog]

"The Koch brothers...Stalin? Fred Koch was born in freaking Texas. He made his money just like Rockefeller, with oil wells. Maybe it's the union based education that skewed the minds of radical left wing Americans. The Koch brothers ain't your enemy. They build hospitals and cancer research centers. "

But so did Rockefeller and Carnegie/Fiske, and their very means to achieve wealth was driving wages down to the lowest level, with people literally starving and being worked to death. The point of my post must not have been clear. The progressive era began with William Jennings Bryan. The robber barons financed the election of McKinley primarily to avoid it. Ironically, McKinley was assassinated by a anarchist, and that movement arose from opposition to the employment practices of the robber barons. The progressive era married some progressive ideas championed by Teddy Roosevelt with the general republican belief that capitalism is the engine of American prosperity, and Mark Hannah led that, and he was McKinley's version of the Bush dynasties' Jim Baker.

The question is whether the backers of the tea party, like the Kochs, still support progressive reforms.

 

[oldfart]

Well last night I caught about fifteen minutes of the mini-series again. This time they butchered Hitler's rise to power. They stated the "Night of the Long Knives" brought Hitler to power; it purged the SA and Ernst Rohm. They claimed Hitler was elected to a ceremonial position. He lost the election for President to Hindenburg and a few months later was selected as Chancellor. No mention of the Reichstag fire.

I still don't see the benefit in getting everything howlingly wrong.

 

[mamooth]

A few other problems I noticed in the "World Wars" series ...

1. When the topic was MacArthur in 1942, they show pictures of him wearing 5 stars. He didn't get the 5th star until Dec. 1944.

2. In the re-enactments with Hitler, the German soldiers are wielding British Lee-Enfield rifles instead of Mausers.

3. When the topic was German bombing attacks on London, the film clips showed American B-17s.

4. When the topic was Pearl Harbor, the film clip of the "Japanese Navy" showed a modern American Ticonderoga class cruiser with a Japanese flag pasted on.

5. A claim was made that Americans admired the wheelchair-bound FDR for overcoming his disability. No, FDR took great pains to hide his disability, and very few people at the time knew he often used a wheelchair.

6. Battle of the Bulge talk is accompanied by video of battles with no snow anywhere.

7. MacArthur flies out of the Philippines, instead of going in a PT boat.

8. It's Super-Patton! Apparently, there were no other American generals, and Patton himself invented the tank. Hey, we all like Patton, but this was piling it on thick.

 

[shart_attack]

Apparently not. I tuned in to about fifteen minutes tonight to their highly publicized three night series on "The World Wars". In that time they manged to to butcher the First World War and the Russian Revolution; getting virtually everything wrong.

Their story went like this:

1. The Germans, wanting to get the Russians out of the War sent Lenin back to Russia in a sealed train with ten million dollars to finance the revolution. (true)

2. Lenin is met by Stalin and the two proceed to spend months arming workers and planning the revolution. The problem here is that:
a) when Lenin arrived, the first revolution which overthrew the czar was already in progress. The famous photo of Lenin addressing the crowd at Finland Station in Leningrad was taken within 48 hours of his arrival. It's hard to spend months planning a revolution already in progress.
b) Stalin was a minor figure at the time. Lenin spent far more time with Trotsky and other more senior Bolsheviks. I guess the History Channel got their information from Stalin's biography while he was still alive. That's the only source I know of to link Lenin and Stalin closely at this time.

3) Lenin leads the revolution in storming the Winter Palace to overthrow the czar. This is the real howler.
a) The czar had abdicated months early and a provisional government under Kerensky was in place. It's hard to overthrow a czar who abdicated earlier.
b) The Winter Palace was the seat of the Kerensky government, a fact the History Channel seems unaware of.
c) At the time, Lenin was trying to discourage efforts to unseat Karensky, fearing the coup would fail.

In short, the History Channel apparently didn't realize there were two Russian Revolutions and collapsed the two, and got much of their information from Stalinist history.

The butchery calls into question whether the History Channel should stick to programming about extraterrestrial aliens and leave real history alone. I don't think a single person is capable of this big of a disaster, so it seems to be a collective effort.

Anybody have a clue as to how or why they got this so wrong? Did they really think everyone in America is so ignorant they could get away with it?

I personally call it the Pawn Shop Channel now.