The History Channel errors

[Cicero]

There was a thread a few years back that went on forever arguing that WW2 started in 1932.

Of course, going by the argument of Bryan Ekers above, World War 1 didn't start until 1917. Who gives a fuck that most of the world was involved but the USA wasn't?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

But why 1939? Japan invaded China in 1937. So, if we say when did the first fighting of WWII start, it was 1937.

Yes, true enough. But the problem is that WW2 was really 2 simultaneous wars, starting at 2 different times in 2 different theaters. Both 1937 and 1939 are correct.

Now: It's pretty funny to criticize History Channel for being inaccurate about that when they keep running all those idiotic UFO shows.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

Yes, they are, I'm afraid- 1941 is wrong.

No-one tries to argue that World War I didn't begin until April 6, 1917. Why is it even remotely acceptable - on a board allegedly dedicated to fighting ignorance - to seriously suggest that WWII didn't start until the Americans got involved?

Not only the Americans but the Japanese also. IMHO it's not a World War until all the World Powers are involved. Heck in 1939 the USSR wasn't even fully involved. Only two of the World Powers- Germany and GB (France and Italy might edge in there). In 1939 only 2 of the 5 great WP were involved, and there was little activity in the Americas or Asia (other than the Japanese in China).

In WWI, the USA wasn't quite a full World Power yet, or at least many didn't consider it so. Back then, the World Powers were all European- France, GB, Germany, Austro-Hungary (which actually wasn't a WP at all, but people thought it was), Russia, and maybe Turkey & Italy, with Japan lined up with the USA as new upstarts.

[Boyo Jim]

The Soviets were involved in 1939, as allies of the Germans. They invaded Poland, and took half of it. Shortly afterward, in November 1939, they invaded Finland. That war lasted into March of 1940, when a peace treaty was signed. And within 3 months of that, Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

That war lasted into March of 1940, when a peace treaty was signed. And within 3 months of that, Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

Well, June 22, 1941, is more like a year and 3 months after March 1940.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

The Soviets were involved in 1939, as allies of the Germans. They invaded Poland, and took half of it. Shortly afterward, in November 1939, they invaded Finland. That war lasted into March of 1940, when a peace treaty was signed. And within 3 months of that, Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

When did the Finns began fighting with the Nazis?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Well, June 22, 1941, is more like a year and 3 months after March 1940.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

When did the Finns began fighting with the Nazis?

Finland fought as an ally of the Nazis from 1941 through 1944, and then against the Nazis from late 1944 until VE day.

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Our Brave Russian Allies became Those Commies not long after the War & their role was diminished.)

They became those 'Commies' when:

1)They annexed the portion of Poland they conquered in 1939 as well as the Baltic States and the northern portion of East Prussia

2)They installed puppet states in the nations they 'liberated' and executed the leaders of the democratic factions in these countries

3)They committed massive crimes against humanity at the end and in the period immediatly after the end of the war. They ethnically cleansed many a region in Eastern Europe; they considered anyone (POW, a kidnapped slave laborer, etc) who has been exposed to Germany or the West in general a criminal and shipped millions to Gulags; they used German POWs and kidnapped German civilians to rebuild cities.

Really the Soviets were no better than the Nazis and they committed exactly the same 4 war crimes that were prosecuted against the Nazi leadership at Nuremberg. While it was important to have them as allies in the defeat of Hitler, the way that we accommodated them and turned a blind eye to their crimes is something of a black eye for the West.

For Eastern Europeans, WWII really didnt end until 1989 and the dissolution of the USSR and their puppet states.

[DrDeth]

I love the idea of the Brits going "How dare those Yanks say that WWII didn't start until they were in it, as clearly WWII started as soon as WE were in it!".

[madsircool]

And the Brits never followed through on what they entered the war for in the first place: The sovereignty of Poland.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by madsircool

And the Brits never followed through on what they entered the war for in the first place: The sovereignty of Poland.

To be fair, they wanted to, but there was an enormous bear sleeping in the middle of it.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by madsircool

They became those 'Commies' when:

1)They annexed the portion of Poland they conquered in 1939 as well as the Baltic States and the northern portion of East Prussia

2)They installed puppet states in the nations they 'liberated' and executed the leaders of the democratic factions in these countries

3)They committed massive crimes against humanity at the end and in the period immediatly after the end of the war. They ethnically cleansed many a region in Eastern Europe; they considered anyone (POW, a kidnapped slave laborer, etc) who has been exposed to Germany or the West in general a criminal and shipped millions to Gulags; they used German POWs and kidnapped German civilians to rebuild cities.

Really the Soviets were no better than the Nazis and they committed exactly the same 4 war crimes that were prosecuted against the Nazi leadership at Nuremberg. While it was important to have them as allies in the defeat of Hitler, the way that we accommodated them and turned a blind eye to their crimes is something of a black eye for the West.

For Eastern Europeans, WWII really didnt end until 1989 and the dissolution of the USSR and their puppet states.

Yes, I know all that stuff. Except that my father survived being shot down by the Luftwaffe, only to die in the crash of a bomber 10 years later. So I'm a Cold War Orphan (according to the US Government), not an orphan of WWII.

All the Cold War evils shouldn't erase the memory of Stalingrad--which is what my statement was referring to.....

[Slow Moving Vehicle]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, technically (one might argue) it wasn't a world war until all the major powers took a side.

What bugs me is the casual suggestion that D-Day was the beginning of the end of the war in Europe. It was certainly a major aggravating element, but I'd cite Stalingrad as the turning point.

Well, not that I disagree with you, but this is not so much a factual error as a difference in interpretation, really.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

True, but the History Channel does unload some whoppers now and then. They have a recurring bit with someone who's supposed to be a carrier commander (and thus should know better) who says Midway was the first battle in which the two opposing fleets never saw each other, only each other's aircraft.

Watch it again: This same knucklehead (why did they use him as some kind of historical expert??) also said that the U.S.S. Langley (CV-1) was also converted from the U.S.S. Jupiter, a cruiser.

[Boyo Jim]

Maybe he commands a Carrier air conditioning franchise.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Maybe he commands a Carrier air conditioning franchise.

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I love the idea of the Brits going "How dare those Yanks say that WWII didn't start until they were in it, as clearly WWII started as soon as WE were in it!".

Considering the British sort of got the rest of their Empire involved in pretty short order, I think they've got a far stronger case for the kick-off date than the US.

Even without Japan and the US involved, people were already thinking "Oh dear, here we go again" in most of Europe and their colonies/dominions in 1939.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by mlees

Watch it again: This same knucklehead (why did they use him as some kind of historical expert??) also said that the U.S.S. Langley (CV-1) was also converted from the U.S.S. Jupiter, a cruiser.

The Langley was converted from the Jupiter, or was your point that the Jupiter was a collier, not a cruiser? Could that not have been a mis-speak?

Like the famous song about the Bismarck with guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees, when is should be the other way around?

[mlees]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

The Langley was converted from the Jupiter, or was your point that the Jupiter was a collier, not a cruiser? Could that not have been a mis-speak?

Like the famous song about the Bismarck with guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees, when is should be the other way around?

Collier was the point.

In thinking about it further, I realised that the Independence class U.S.S. Langley was a light carrier built on a Cleveland class (cruiser) hull, and that maybe he got his wires crossed. But with him screwing up about Midway being the first battle in which neither surface forces sighted each other, I was in no mood to be charitable.

[Blkshp]

I'm not sure if it was on Monsterquest, Chasing Bigfoot, The Legend of Bigfoot, Searching for Sasquatch or Testing Bigfoot, but they had a footprint with three toes and everybody knows an 8 foot primate couldn't possibly run as well as Bigfoot does with just three toes. Mistake or HOAX!