Even the BBC can go wrong. Terribly wrong

[Chocks away!]

I was just watching a BBC documentary about fighter bombers in world war two and in spite of the great footage, it had some embarrasing faults. (It's a frickin BBC documentary!)
50 % of the whole documentary was devoted to british fighter bombers and their development and they were glorified in an obvious propaganda like way, american fighter bombers (the P-47) were mentioned hurriedly, the german planes even less, while the Me 262 got much of the attention even if it was mostly used as an interceptor!
Furthermore ''the Me-262 was armed with four 20mm cannon '' ( ) ,
''The F-86 was the first swept wing jet fighter''( Just after mentioning the swept winged Me-262 for crying out loud) and finally , as usual, the Russian aircraft got the 5 minutes allowance that can always be squezed in. (or... not) In fact only the famous Il-2 was mentioned.
What is going on here? I thought the BBC was a guarantee of objective, serious work...

 

[Nonskimmer]

The wonderful world of "expert" television documentary. I find that the national networks of most if not all countries tend to put their own spin on things like that, and often get the facts quite wrong. BBC, CBC, CTV, CBS, NBC, ABC, and on, and on, and on...Even the Discovery Channel or the History Channel make gaffs sometimes.

 

[Chocks away!]

Ridiculous... If someone bothered to open a basic book about world war two aircraft he'd be able to put together a better documentary! These mistakes suggest that there was no aviation historian even involved in the making...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I seen documentaries that said the F-80 was the world's first jet, the B-52 was the world's largest combat aircraft, and the P-51 was the fastest WW2 piston fighter!!!

 

[evangilder]

I seen documentaries that said the F-80 was the world's first jet, the B-52 was the world's largest combat aircraft, and the P-51 was the fastest WW2 piston fighter!!!

Jeeze, were they crockumentaries?!

 

[wmaxt]

I seen documentaries that said the F-80 was the world's first jet, the B-52 was the world's largest combat aircraft, and the P-51 was the fastest WW2 piston fighter!!!

Jeeze, were they crockumentaries?!

They also youse the easiest material they can find not necissarily the correct info. Low budgets on documentaries doesn't help.

wmaxt

 

[evangilder]

Yes, but it doesn't cost much to do a little reading, or to consult a local WWII aviation museum. Otherwise, it's really a low budget fiction film.

 

[Udet]

Boys:

I have always called such documentaries "microwave documentaries".

Will a microwave meal ever come anywhere near surpassing a recipe created by a professional chef who took care of using only the finest ingredients?

It´s quite simple, the fundamental target of such programs is the non-specialized mass.

To some extent, such programs -and publications fitting in the same category- are responsible for creating the common belief the USA had a joyride in Europe; defeating Germany was so simple, so fast.

Basics: TV has a more profound impact in the collective mind than publications can ever come close to attain. More than ever in the present-day world. This is the era of the Homo Videns.

Processed images are an extremely confortable and easy way to access information. Such format is far more powerful and smashing than the words of an author published in a book.


See some images of such documentaries regarding airwarfare over the ETO: the somber and momentous voice of the narrator telling how superior all USAAF planes were -dramatic musical finery added to furhter shock the viewer-, backed by a quick succession of 5 or 6 guncamera shots of allied planes blowing Bf 109s and Fw 190s is more than enough to consolidate the commonly accepted view of the war.

 

[Chocks away!]

Yep. I agree completely. Especially about the 109 and 190 blasting part

 

[plan_D]

Nothing wrong with microwave meals.

And I've seen a documentary that said the USS Iowa sunk the Tirpitz in the Atlantic.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Great aren't they?

What is going on here? I thought the BBC was a guarantee of objective, serious work...

They get their monry whether they produce good or bad shows, and yes, they're sods for propaganda

The vids are good enough IMHO.

The docs in those series are usually good though? (presenter is a high-ranking ex-military type with necessary 'tache?)


In fairness, we do get a some informative, objective material on UK terrestrial though.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Boys:

To some extent, such programs -and publications fitting in the same category- are responsible for creating the common belief the USA had a joyride in Europe; defeating Germany was so simple, so fast.

See some images of such documentaries regarding airwarfare over the ETO: the somber and momentous voice of the narrator telling how superior all USAAF planes were -dramatic musical finery added to furhter shock the viewer-, backed by a quick succession of 5 or 6 guncamera shots of allied planes blowing Bf 109s and Fw 190s is more than enough to consolidate the commonly accepted view of the war.

While I agree with you to a point, the better made documentaries paint a much different picture, especially the ones made between the 50th and 60th D day anniversary bandwagon. Many of these do show a tremendous struggle by the US and her allies with interviews of active participants from both sides. Aviation related documentaries are the minority here. The majority of the American public is not aviation orientated and will accept any line fed by them by so-called "experts." It's when you have those who take an interest in this subject matter that learn that well over 10,000 heavy bombers were lost in the ETO alone, the question is now raised why?

The picture will always be painted with a slant by the victors to the point where it may seem their adversary was easily defeated, it's unfortunate but that's just the way it is, and it doesn't matter who they are, I believe that's just human nature. I think the job of a good historian or one who teaches or discusses this subject matter is to put in in perspective and articulate the abilities of all combatants.

 

[plan_D]

While all that is very nice, and I certainly like to take the view of the defeated ...but without degrading the attempts of the victors (like some people ...on here), we still won. So let me just stand up and do the victory dance because no matter how fantastic and amazingly fantastical ,over-the-top better than us they were ...they lost. The moral of the story is don't lose the war. Or...even better ...just don't start it if you're going to lose.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

While all that is very nice, and I certainly like to take the view of the defeated ...but without degrading the attempts of the victors (like some people ...on here), we still won. So let me just stand up and do the victory dance because no matter how fantastic and amazingly fantastical ,over-the-top better than us they were ...they lost. The moral of the story is don't lose the war. Or...even better ...just don't start it if you're going to lose.

Yep!

Would of, could of, should of, May 7, 1945 happened, that can't be changed....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And I've seen a documentary that said the USS Iowa sunk the Tirpitz in the Atlantic.

LOL that is fricken amazing!

While all that is very nice, and I certainly like to take the view of the defeated ...but without degrading the attempts of the victors (like some people ...on here), we still won. So let me just stand up and do the victory dance because no matter how fantastic and amazingly fantastical ,over-the-top better than us they were ...they lost. The moral of the story is don't lose the war. Or...even better ...just don't start it if you're going to lose.

Agree 100%

 

[schwarzpanzer]

The picture will always be painted with a slant by the victors to the point where it may seem their adversary was easily defeated

Credit to the Americans there, one said something like we were that ][ close to losing.

PlanD:

So let me just stand up and do the victory dance

That's goading IMHO.

While all that is very nice, and I certainly like to take the view of the defeated ...but without degrading the attempts of the victors (like some people ...on here),

I kinda respect and degrade both in equal measures, I suppose I'm rare in being neutral.

no matter how fantastic and amazingly fantastical ,over-the-top better than us they were ...they lost.

Which would you say is the wealthiest, most powerful nation in Europe now?

And which was the weakest, poorest in the 30's?

To be honest Germany was completely gang-banged, also had bad luck and incompetent leadership but untill 41 was really angry.

The moral of the story is don't lose the war. Or...even better ...just don't start it if you're going to lose.

It went a bit dodgy in '41 didn't it?

Thats when Hitler started losing touch IMO, when the death camps started and USSR, USA came into it too.

Germany had nothing to lose 'till that point though, so it could only gain, thats where the real danger is, mocking a 'defeated' enemy, much like the Cold War now.

Nazism had to be stopped though in the end. But things like the Versailles treaty, stolen territories, poverty etc, you can understand it?

 

[Piaggio108]

I've seen a documentary about the Battle of Britain that talks about the Hurricane for maybe 2 minutes. The only other place it gets in is when they show a Hurricane taking off. They say it's a Spitfire.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That kind of defeats the purpose of a BoB documentary doesn't it?

 

[hellmaker]

If you want a true documentary you'll have to do some serious digging. None of those national stations can give an objective oppinion. It's in their nature. First come the national "heroes"(whether there are any or not) and then in the order of appearance the other "players" each of them with even less time than the one it follows... Politics is everything...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I allways liked the World at War series.