“Come Monday…” is a weekly series that will
involve a review of (or commentary about) websites, movies, documentaries,
television shows, sports, music, and whatever else may tickle my fancy at the
time. Be assured that these reviews will
be generally positive, as in accordance to the Jimmy Buffett song “Come
Monday.” This is subject to change,
however. In fact, I would be most
derelict in my duties to neglect going on a rant every once in a while. For rants promote change, and change can be
good—right? Therefore, since good is
generally considered as being a positive force in 99.3% of the parallel
universes that I am aware of, even a rant could be considered as being
something positive, and a genuine hissy-fit would be even better (so I’m told).
Aside from suggesting the possibility of convulsive laughter involved, the use of
hysterical in the description of something can also denote an acute break with
reality. It is on the basis of both
counts that I now propose that [The History Channel] should become The
Hysterical Channel.
Okay, it is not
like it has not been a long time coming.
For what used to be a channel with very high quality programming has
gradually become the home of such critically-acclaimed series as [Big Rig Bounty Hunters] and [Mountain Men] over the last 14 years that I have fairly
intimate knowledge of.
Alas, it was in
1999 when I first caught sight of what The History Channel had to offer, and it
was one of the biggest reasons for why I believed that life would not be well
worth living (naturally-speaking, of course) without cable television after I
had to come off of the truck in 2000 because of very poor health. For I could not get enough of their
documentaries on a rather broad range of subjects, and now, [The World Wars]
seems to be the best they have to offer.
In all fairness,
The World Wars would probably be a feast for the eyes of those without much
knowledge of what really happened during [World War I] and [World War II], as well as the years in-between. For its graphics and reenactments were generally very
well done, but their version of the events from 1914 to 1945 left much to be
greatly desired.
Let us take their
account of the role that [Joseph Stalin] played in removing Russia from
World War I and the complete take-over of the [Bolsheviks] soon after for an
example. For they had him joined at the
hip with [Vladimir Lenin] when Stalin was actually a mid-level player at best
until he eliminated (quite literally) his competition after Lenin’s death in
1924.
Now, this is not to
say that The World Wars did not have its moments for me. For I found the thought of [Adullamite’s]
head exploding after him hearing them claim that the then Lt. Colonel [George S. Patton] had the Germans on the run for the first time in the war when he
lead a tank brigade against their lines in northern France during the last year
or so of World War I quite entertaining.
Oh, and their failure to mention that Patton’s tanks were French giving
him gas, which would have undoubtedly came roaring out when the actor portraying
Patton meeting with the then Brigadier General (one star) [Douglas MacArthur]
on a World War I battlefield identifying himself as being Lieutenant Patton
instead of Lieutenant Colonel Patton gave me an added chuckle or two.
Speaking of Patton,
whoever did much of the writing and editing for the mini-series must have a
huge crush on the old boy. For Patton
was given primary credit for taking Italy during World War II when he was just
one cog in a very large gear. Granted,
it is arguable that Patton was a very big cog in any gear he was attached to,
but he really did not do anything extraordinary during the Allied Italian
Peninsula Campaign.
Oh, and aside from
possibility having a huge crush of Patton, the responsible writers and editors
must have hated the then General of the Army (five stars) [Dwight D.Eisenhower]. For even during their
segment on [D-Day], I do not recall any mention of Eisenhower being involved in
the least little bit, with them preferring to give most of the credit to [President Roosevelt] and some to [Prime Minister Churchill].
Yes, the absolute
truth of the matter may very well be that I am just getting much older and
crankier than I am willing to recognize.
For I had my own bout with head-explosivititis when during the watching
of a [PBS documentary] on a recent expedition to find sunken ships and military
equipment off of the coast of Normandy in France, I heard something mentioned about
the Allies not having the use of modern Apache helicopters to place troops
behind enemy lines making things very difficult for them. Um, isn’t an Apache actually a [gunship],
with room for only the pilot and gunner on-board? Yeah, what difference would that make to one
in the throes of hysteria?
Please Also Visit:
I found that in general, tv no longer has much to offer. I would rather see an episode of Law and order that I've already seen 6 times than watch most of the new shows
ReplyDeleteHistory is being 'changed' to suit the new order...
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I don't watch the History Channel, but I have seen some pretty juvenile documentaries that bear some similarity of style to the examples you give. How can you leave Eisenhower out of D-Day?! Thanks for visiting A Bit About Britain.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, my dear Ann!!! I used to assume that all of the documentaries broadcast by PBS were good (if not great) but we just watched another PBS documentary on D-Day that was as bad as the one mentioned is this article. So, it is looking more and more like we should follow your example.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, my dear Shadow!!! Yes, such has been happening since the dawn of time, but shouldn't they wait until all of the eye-witness accounts have been buried under the manure?
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, my dear Mike!!! "Juvenile" is a very good word to describe far too many of the documentaries being produced lately, and your reaction to at least the D-Day segment of The World Wars should be quite telling to all who are not sure of what is really what. For one would naturally think that a Brit would be quite satisfied with any account that portrays Churchill in a very favorable light while not caring much about an American being greatly slighted.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of portraying Churchill in a very favorable light, they did touch upon Gallipoli in the first episode, but they identified they horrendous Allied casualties as being British troops instead of specifying that the vast majority of the ones used as canon fodder were from Australia and New Zealand.
Now, please understand that I am not trying to trash Churchill. For I consider him to be one of the finest leaders our Heavenly Father has ever raised up, and The World Wars did do a good job of showing that Churchill was haunted by Gallipoli and volunteered for front-line duty in the trenches of France afterward.
That sounds like an interesting (American made) series.
ReplyDeleteFar too many miss out things in such programmes.
As for the tanks....
Thanks for stopping by, my dear Adullamite!!! Please don't go to watch The World Wars until you have a high-definition camera in place to capture your initial reactions and upload them so that we can all enjoy the show.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone has their own point of view and we have to find what fits ours. I can watch 3 documentaries on the same subject and they will all be totally different.
ReplyDeleteYears ago I watched the History Channel all the time and even subscribed to their magazine. It's been years since I tuned in. I should check it out to learn how WWII ended. I wonder if we won.
ReplyDeleteI'm flat out keeping up with today's news today which tomorrow will make it yesterday's news, thereby turning it into history...if you know what I mean...
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, my dear Lady Lilith!!! That is a very good point. Hard facts should not be open to interpretation, but this serves as job security for historians.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, my dear Stephen!!! Well, at least they got that part right in both wars.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, my dear Lee!!! I actually do know what you mean, which is troubling me greatly. (LOL?)
ReplyDeleteMy husband also noticed the slight against Eisenhower. I supposed it must have been in there originally and got cut without thinking... I mean, how can you leave out someone so important to the operation?
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, my dear Linda!!! Well, the premise of the three-part documentary was to show how participation in WW I affected the primary leaders during WW II, and my wife insists that Eisenhower was mentioned at least one time during the World War I segment, which I must have missed. Now, it is arguable that he did not play any sort of truly major role during World War I, with him just being a member of MacArthur's staff, but that should have been beside the point--especially with him playing such an extremely crucial role during the whole of World War II. I mean, come on, just keeping Patton and British Field Marshal Montgomery from sending their troops against each other helped keep the war from dragging on for another couple of years or so!
ReplyDelete