Errors in Military Documentaries

[Jody]

Hi folks,
As a school teacher and a 3rd Reich historian (at least I feel I am), I am about to go nuts by the errors I am seeing on such channels as Discovery and the History Channel. This of course is nothing new, but these shows really need to get a fact checker, or at least a competent one.

Now I could write a book on errors I have heard mentioned on these shows (for that matter, most of us could on this forum) and I hate how students repeat it back to me as fact. Of course students feel it has to be accurate because it was heard on TV. The bigger question is this, if we can spot errors on shows we know something about, what about the shows we know very little of the subject area, how much of this is slipping past us too.

Here are a few shows that come to mind (of course I know you folks will add some gems as well). This is just the tip of the ice berg.

Weaponology-The Waffen SS, I know this show has been discussed before on this forum, but it really drives me nuts. Who is the idiot that put this show together. Here are some gems from that stupid episodes. One thing is that the Waffen SS soldier wore a chained SS dagger into battle, they also made it appear that the Sturmgewehr was also standard issue. I liked the goofball that was holding up a chained fake (a bad one at that) of an SS officers dagger and referred to it as an honor dagger. I also like the guy who said that the SS never surrendered, and always fought to the last round. This might be interesting to my SS veteran friend who was captured in 1944, without much of a fight. Of course the guys who did most of the commenting were wearing fake SS camo caps or fake SS camo pants. They are the same group of guys that worship the SS and feel they could have won WWII if they had a few more Tiger tanks. So the question is, how accurate are the other shows in the same series.

Hitler's Bodguard, this series disapoints me somewhat. It is a British production and they are usually more accurate than us Yanks (I guess not anymore). This series makes some simple mistakes that thumbing through a basic WWII book could provide. Here are some comments that made me gasp-Two SS officers went to GFM Rommels home with poison (they wre in fact two Heer Generals), how could they miss this. Another was that Hitler celebrated with the Luftwaffe in Christmas of 1940 in France and Hitler presented Adolf Galland with the Iron Cross (I wonder if it was the 2nd or 1st class). Another blooper was that Hanna Reitsch was the only woman to win the Iron Cross or that Sepp Dietrich was sentenced to life in prison for the Malmedy Massacre (they fail to mention how long Dietrich really served). Plus there are many, many more errors in this series. Plus they keep showing film clips of members of the German Army when they refer to the LAH or the Fuehrer Begleit Brigade.

Nazi Scrapbooks from Hell (National Geographic channel). This show really got me and as a matter of fact I am currently in a discussion (via e-mail) with several people involved in this program and with the Holocaust Museum in D.C. I will let you know what they end up telling me. First off I study the Holocaust and read on it probbaly more than any other WWII subject. I am not one that is in denial about the Holocaust. The show was pretty good until the end of the epsisode when they tried to say that an SS officer in the scrapbook is actually seen (possibly) in a photo at the main train yard with his back to the camera when families arrived. They did measurements, had FBI men get involved, etc. The conclusion it appeared to be the same man. One minor issue that escaped everyone was that the man in the photo with his back to the camera was in fact an NCO with NCO tresse around his color.


I noticed in an old land-mark series like The World at War the errors were minor. So what does that have to say about documentary producers in todays world. If things like this keep up, I would love to see a WWII documentary 20 years from now (that is providing they don't become illegal to watch or show them for fear of offending someone). I guess we have entered a phase during this time of even our History becoming no more than just mere entertainment value wrapped around a few facts.

That is my rant, what are your .02 cents? Are you folks seeing the same thing?

Regards,
Jody

BTW, here is the photo of the SS officer from the series Nazi Scrapbooks from Hell. The man is SS-Obersturmfuehrer Karl Hoecker. Please see thread #3.

[Garulfo]

Hanna Reitsch was the only woman to win the Iron Cross.

She was the only woman to win the first class, but some nurses won the second class too.

[Jody]

Errors

She was the only woman to win the first class, but some nurses won the second class too.

I know that, but the series said she was the only woman to win the Iron Cross (no class designation was mentioned).

Back on the Nazi Scrapbooks from Hell show; here is the photo of the man they claim to be the officer in the above photo (SS man with back to the camera, grasping a cane, wearing a peak cap). It is an NCO not an officer, but not according to the Holocaust Museum or the FBI. Is this man SS-Obsturmfuehrer Karl Hoecker?

Regards,
Jody

[Jonathan M]

Jody i totally agree with you. As we do exactly the same job and share the same passion for the histroy of the TR in WW2 i find myself experiencing the same frustrations, almost to the point of screaming at the screen. I expect it with Hollywood, im going to see Valkyrie on Thursday and the GF has already warned me she'll walk out of the cinema if i start as usual tearing the uniforms, hardware and story to bits. But these documentary channels i expect to do their homework and research.

You're not alone mate!

Jonathan

[pauke]

input

.02 dollar = 2 cents. Where are the math teachers???? Let's have some accuracy!

[Jody]

.02 dollar = 2 cents. Where are the math teachers???? Let's have some accuracy!

I am sorry to say but you can use .02 to represent 2 cents. Please let us not turn this thread into an argument over this.

What is your take on errors in documentaries?

[Mark C. Yerger]

They use Charles Sydnor as an expert on most anything (along with a few others) even though his only book is an outdated one full of mistakes that is 30 years old.

But he has a degree so he MUST know everything.

My favorite was translating (then) Obergruppenführer Paul Hausser's rank as "Chief Squad Leader." The facts and comments for anything SS are especially poor. I watch the films and play music so I don't hear moron commentary. The good motion picture film they find, nobody has the knowledge to say the important personalities being shown.

It's also based on average TV viewer knowledge. I've written a dozen books on WWII and read over a 1,000. Strangers I meet think they know "all about WWII" because they watch the History Channel.

Yes, this is a topic that sends my blood pressure through the roof.

[paddywhack]

oh how about the actually films them selfs! the other think that REALLY gets me is say there talking about the invasion or poland or france and they show tigers and panthers in late war russia!! or there was a VERY good doc/drama 3 part series on dunkirk that was ruined when they showed "stukas" thats were in fact russian dive bombers! il-2a!!!!!! i mean come on thats fecking BASIC!!!!
its happens ALL the time!!!

[Paul B]

Hi Jody

Very interesting and thought provoking thread you've started here.

The problem with many of the documentaries you see on the History Channel and other channels like it is that they are by-and-large assembled by documentary makers working to a brief, rather than people with a deep understanding and passion for the particular period. Sadly it seems that many researchers on these programs want to cut corners or meet deadlines, hence the lazy use of the same old film clips (whether the clip is strictly relevent or not -how many times has the clip of the grenadiers from Kampfgruppe Hansen in the Bulge been shown to represent the French Campaign in 1940, for example. As far as the researcher choosing the film is concerned it shows German soldiers in the Low Countries. Job done!) or recourse to the same well-known "experts".

Interestingly, the groundbreaking BBC series "The Great War", released in 1964 on the one hand made remarkable use of archive film -including German footage from what was then East German archives and which (apart from the bits used in the series) is now lost for good- but on the other included lots of footage from 1920s and 30s feature films to make up for the events where there was no existing genuine film, for example the landings at Y Beach on Gallipoli. At least this series was honest enough to explicitly state that some reconstructed footage had been used for this very reason.

"The World At War" carries it's age very well for a number of reasons -the involvement of Dr Nobel Frankland DFC, then Director of the Imperial War Museum, the obvious care taken in the selection of archive footage and of interviewees are all factors in this. Also, given that historical interpretation and opinion is always been revised and re-evaluated (compare a documentary on British generals in WWI now with one made twenty years ago...), "The World At War" was careful to present WWII in a purely factual way, indeed the only non-participant in the war to appear is Stephen Ambrose, and his brief appearance is more concerned with the legacy of the war than it's course. This was a very wise move, and contributes no doubt to the enduring appeal of the series.

Whilst a lot of more modern war documentaries are sloppily done, there are still some very well-made productions out there which use little seen material and do include genuinely new interviews or footage. If you haven't seen them I'd strongly recommend BBC's "Nazis: A Warning From History", "The Battle of the Atlantic" and "War of the Century", and also the three episode German documentary "Stalingrad" which has a treasure trove of archive footage and veteran interviews.

All the best

Paul.

[pauke]

comment

Just as $.02 doesn't mean .02 cents so it is with history and movies. The main purpose of a movie is to get people to spend money. That is the measure of "success" in films. Being that they are art, you get an impression which may leave you with a warm, fuzzy feeling. If you want historical accuracy then you can only watch WW 2 newsreels. Unfortunately the plot is broken up in diverse snippets which may or may not be interesting, but, then, we usually end up only seeing the more interesting ones. Anything done afterwards is only going to be accurate to a certain percentage. It's all acting based on a script designed to hopefully hold your attention and sell products through ads. This goes for documentaries as well. Even with decades of research what does one human being actually know about past events? Only an impression albeit with perhaps many details so that one fancies himself an "expert" or comes to be considered by others as such. "Knowledge puffs one up..." is an accurate Biblical description of a person being an historical "expert". See Stephen Ambrose about "puffuppedness". Movies, documentaries, books are all rewarded with money and certainly are viewed as measures of accomplishment. In the end they are only impressions to varying degrees. The more books I read the more I realize how little I know in this vast world. But I'm thankful for the lasting impressions of good books. Ah, another warm fuzzy. As for movies and documentaries, they're entertainment and to spend one's energy getting upset over commercial offerings is not worth it. If you don't like a movie you've paid to see they already have your money. So, whether you're upset about accuracy or not at least someone is happy! Getting upset about injustice, poverty, homelessness, etc. and doing something about it through involvement and MONEY is much more exciting and rewarding. It might make you feel like an expert and give you a warm fuzzy. If you want a real thrill sell a nice relic and donate $500 or $1000 to Habitat for Humanity or a local food pantry. But tell no one, lest you become puffed up.... enjoy history and "stuff", but live in the present. And make it count.

[bobcam1]

pauke,
While I agree with the altruistic comments in your post, I think it suffers from some of the same inaccuracies that spawned this thread originally.

I'm not aware of many true documentaries that are "based on a script designed to hopefully hold your attention and sell products through ads." The majority of documentary filmmakers produce their work because of a passion for the subject, and are rarely "rewarded with money" other than a stipend from a corporate sponsor, or perhaps a grant from their government, such as the types that many Canadian filmmakers thankfully receive.

I also take issue with your comment "Even with decades of research what does one human being actually know about past events?" I think that comment slights the hard work and dedication that many historians have shown throughout their lifetimes. Many of these people have a VAST knowledge of historical events that they have amassed through the perusing of historical documents, eyewitness testimony, filmed accounts, and forensic examination of areas and objects from these periods.

As for taking a Biblical phrase, "Knowledge puffs one up" and giving it a derisive turn, I, for one, hope that my children become as puffy as zeppelins.....

The comments that rankle me the most, are: "to spend one's energy getting upset over commercial offerings is not worth it......whether you're upset about accuracy or not at least someone is happy!"
If people were to have taken that road, there would be no history to speak of, teach, enjoy or cherish, because people would have had the same "who cares?" attitude that you do.
I am personally saddened by the increasingly pervasive attitude of today's generation (and some older ones) to dismiss history as boring and irrelevant.

Santayana's words have never rung so true.....

Bob.

[Jonathan M]

Just as $.02 doesn't mean .02 cents so it is with history and movies. The main purpose of a movie is to get people to spend money. That is the measure of "success" in films. Being that they are art, you get an impression which may leave you with a warm, fuzzy feeling. If you want historical accuracy then you can only watch WW 2 newsreels. Unfortunately the plot is broken up in diverse snippets which may or may not be interesting, but, then, we usually end up only seeing the more interesting ones. Anything done afterwards is only going to be accurate to a certain percentage. It's all acting based on a script designed to hopefully hold your attention and sell products through ads. This goes for documentaries as well. Even with decades of research what does one human being actually know about past events? Only an impression albeit with perhaps many details so that one fancies himself an "expert" or comes to be considered by others as such. "Knowledge puffs one up..." is an accurate Biblical description of a person being an historical "expert". See Stephen Ambrose about "puffuppedness". Movies, documentaries, books are all rewarded with money and certainly are viewed as measures of accomplishment. In the end they are only impressions to varying degrees. The more books I read the more I realize how little I know in this vast world. But I'm thankful for the lasting impressions of good books. Ah, another warm fuzzy. As for movies and documentaries, they're entertainment and to spend one's energy getting upset over commercial offerings is not worth it. If you don't like a movie you've paid to see they already have your money. So, whether you're upset about accuracy or not at least someone is happy! Getting upset about injustice, poverty, homelessness, etc. and doing something about it through involvement and MONEY is much more exciting and rewarding. It might make you feel like an expert and give you a warm fuzzy. If you want a real thrill sell a nice relic and donate $500 or $1000 to Habitat for Humanity or a local food pantry. But tell no one, lest you become puffed up.... enjoy history and "stuff", but live in the present. And make it count.

Pauke, documentaries are, by their pure essence, educational and informative in nature. If they are rewarded by money i fail to see how an inaccuarte and poorly researched documentary that fails to deliver its intended knowledge effectively, can be rewarded with much money!

I take your point about films but its up to the individual to react as they see fit. Getting narked about historical accuracy doesnt mean one won't enjoy the film, its certainly nothing to do with 'puffupedness' rather a wish or desire to see things done in a proper manner.

As to 'even with decades of research what does one human being actually know about past events?', it demeans any scholarly work or attitude one takes to History and it is a very dismissive statment. If i can apply this to the knowledge on this forum then how much does one know about the hobby we enjoy despite a lifetime of learning, for some not me as ive just started really.

Though i disagree with bob's assertion that the basis of this thread is flawed i totally agree with his thoughts on the 'Who Care's' attitude many take towards the Past, its study and its implications. If one doesn't learn from and heed the mistakes of the Past one is sure to repeat them.

On a personal note, as a History teacher it pisses me off that someone in this forum adopts this attitude and frankly mate as a teacher i live firmly 'in the present' and strive and work damn hard to improve the possible quality of life my students will have in the future, whether its teaching them History, Maths, PE or just talking to them about life in general.

Anyhow we all have our opinions and we have this great venue to share them and at the end of the day opinions are like something else we all have

Jonathan

Jonathan

[pauke]

comment

Unfortunately the printed word can be read in various ways different from the writer's intent. To simplify and clarify a few ideas stated: movies and documentaries are commercial. They cannot exist without money behind them. Even Ken Burns' worthy documentaries have to find funding. Keep in mind he isn't an academic historian, but rather a film maker. Certainly he knows and learns a lot through his film making. Historical research is of great value as it's the only way to convey the past well. But can anyone name a movie or documentary that was amended and reissued because of a backlash based on inaccuracies? Once they come out, that's it. Even an author isn't likely to correct himself in a later edition of a book. Errata yes, but facts or theories, no. But, at least books come out with new and debateable ideas which can end up being refuted in later books. "Knowledge puffs up..." refers to a person becoming haughty because of perceived self-importance. Knowledge is not bad, an I-am-an-expert attitude can be, however. In over 30 years as a history teacher I used a handful of good documentaries, but never a movie. They're entertainment, not history. Nothing I convey here should be read in a negative tone. Movies can be fun and entertaining. Yes, I've actually seen one--ha ha!(Laugh here, meant to be a joke!) Documentaries can be informative, yet are nevertheless commercial especially considering their length requirements. But they remain someone's synthesized POV which is usually better than nothing on a given subject. I have to laugh if a KL commander in Schindler's List goes from being a lieutenant to a captain suddenly. But getting mad about it won't change the film. Ditto for the non-German haircuts on the Germans in Saving Pvt. Ryan. It's good to be able to spot the errors, but I save my passion for things that can be changed or affected in this brief life. Now you can open fire on what I've posted! Feuer frei auf lohnende Zeilen! (Another joke!)

[Jonathan M]

Unfortunately the printed word can be read in various ways different from the writer's intent. To simplify and clarify a few ideas stated: movies and documentaries are commercial. They cannot exist without money behind them. Even Ken Burns' worthy documentaries have to find funding. Keep in mind he isn't an academic historian, but rather a film maker. Certainly he knows and learns a lot through his film making. Historical research is of great value as it's the only way to convey the past well. But can anyone name a movie or documentary that was amended and reissued because of a backlash based on inaccuracies? Once they come out, that's it. Even an author isn't likely to correct himself in a later edition of a book. Errata yes, but facts or theories, no. But, at least books come out with new and debateable ideas which can end up being refuted in later books. "Knowledge puffs up..." refers to a person becoming haughty because of perceived self-importance. Knowledge is not bad, an I-am-an-expert attitude can be, however. In over 30 years as a history teacher I used a handful of good documentaries, but never a movie. They're entertainment, not history. Nothing I convey here should be read in a negative tone. Movies can be fun and entertaining. Yes, I've actually seen one--ha ha!(Laugh here, meant to be a joke!) Documentaries can be informative, yet are nevertheless commercial especially considering their length requirements. But they remain someone's synthesized POV which is usually better than nothing on a given subject. I have to laugh if a KL commander in Schindler's List goes from being a lieutenant to a captain suddenly. But getting mad about it won't change the film. Ditto for the non-German haircuts on the Germans in Saving Pvt. Ryan. It's good to be able to spot the errors, but I save my passion for things that can be changed or affected in this brief life. Now you can open fire on what I've posted! Feuer frei auf lohnende Zeilen! (Another joke!)

The one thing we agree on is using a film to teach History! I remember a teaching student doing that .

SPR is a good case in point actually. The 'skinhead' SS manner in the last fight scene clearly point to an ulterior motive, actually good teaching point on bias!

I do apologise for my earlier rant, it wasnt a personal thing against you in any way though. in 30 years teaching you would have had your fair share of 'one of those days'

Jonathan

[bobcam1]

Though i disagree with bob's assertion that the basis of this thread is flawed i totally agree with his thoughts on the 'Who Care's' attitude many take towards the Past, its study and its implications.

Just for accuracy's sake (), I never said that the basis of this thread is flawed. If you'll read my opening line again, you may see that it was some of pauke's statements that I was referring to as being flawed (my opinion, only...) I made the statement about inaccuracies to compare his response to the reason that this thread was started, namely, inaccuracies.....

I am glad that this thread is so thought-provoking, though....

Bob.