what the worst mistake youve seen in a documentary

[Bryant U.]

I remember watching the History Channel. It was a documentary with black & white footage of WW2. They showed clips of the German Wochenshau showing German soldiers in combat in Normandy, but the History Channel attribured this footage to the Eastern front. It's a total fraud, but, I don't mind it now, cos this channel doesn't show too many documentaries of that war anymore. Instead, it's all about dirty jobs n non-history related populist sell out crap.

Exactly. I used to joke and call the History Channel "The WWII Channel" but now it's the "UFO-Bigfoot-Pawn Star-Conspiracy Channel".

-Bryant

[paddywhack]

another few to add!!

"mystery's of ww2" there first one was appalling!!it was on the battle for malta the clips they showed were a hogde podge of clips from the pacific to air battle over europe with bf109ks attacking b17s!!!really a lazy lazy show and brand new!(Though to be fair there one on wittman was good!)
also another from "Britains greatest machines" were they claimed a single british ferret scout car that captured a small unguarded bridge in normandy let the allies break out normandy and all over france just like the bridge at remagen!! i mean how the hell did they come up with THAT statement!!!!

[Jonathan M]

Not essentially a documentary, but in the opening scenes of episode 1 of The Pacific as they are setting the scene the narrator talks about the attack on Pearl Harbour. Only that the planes you see in the film are Betties (G4M's) and Anne's (Ki 30's) none of which are carrier borne therefore not involved in PH strike. You'd think with their budget they could have done better, even it meant churning out the same PH films of the attack.

[paddywhack]

Not essentially a documentary, but in the opening scenes of episode 1 of The Pacific as they are setting the scene the narrator talks about the attack on Pearl Harbour. Only that the planes you see in the film are Betties (G4M's) and Anne's (Ki 30's) none of which are carrier borne therefore not involved in PH strike. You'd think with their budget they could have done better, even it meant churning out the same PH films of the attack.

true but the narrator was also talking about all the other loses in the pacific around that time and just after PH not just on pearl harbor!!

[Jonathan M]

true but the narrator was also talking about all the other loses in the pacific around that time and just after PH not just on pearl harbor!!

But he dwelt on PH as the pics were being shown. Another iffy moment was that world map that had Iceland under German occuaption and predicted Fall Blau before it actually happened! The scene wehre the NCO's are told they will win the war.

[bigschuss]

In just about every documentary I have seen on the History Channel they refer to the Medal of Honor as the Congressional Medal of Honor. I can't stand that one.

[paddywhack]

But he dwelt on PH as the pics were being shown. Another iffy moment was that world map that had Iceland under German occuaption and predicted Fall Blau before it actually happened! The scene wehre the NCO's are told they will win the war.

well i can forgive them that as they were also talking about all the other events so wanst just like it was only pearl harbour!so that is forgivable!! as for the map i also noticed that most of africa was also under nazi rule! but well at the time i SUPPOSE it was a projection of what they expected to happen as the axis forces seemed unstoppable!!!!! though i could be wrong about the map!!!

[paddywhack]

just saw another MASSIVE mistake in a documentary!! in "tales of the gun" they claim that gun powder was first invented in europe in the 12th century!!!!!!! so what happened in china centuries before??!!
no one got anymore??

[FLiPSiDE]

As for mistakes: One that I think is funny is in the Scorched Earth series on their "Leibstandarte" episode, they have an "expert" who states:
"Sepp Dietrich was actually quite similar to Rommel, they were very similar commanders". The funny thing is seconds later they have another expert that states "by all accounts Sepp Dietrich was considered quite dim, but however, he was popular with his men and admired by Hitler for his loyalty" and goes on to tell the story of a German General during the Normandy campaign who had spent over an hour trying to explain a basic military maneuver to Dietrich, but in the end Dietrich was never really able to grasp it, so the General finally gave up trying to explain it, and had come to the conclusion that he was not capable of understanding basic tactics. So to watch this video, it looks like the are claiming Rommel was also slow with grasping military tactics and not very intelligent, but however, quite popular with his men?


As for clips that don't match up historically, this is very common (almost every doc I watch does this). However when making a historical documentary, sometimes there just isn't an easily attainable source of photos/videos that show the exact moment in history (at least not within the deadlines needed to complete the documentary) so they have to put in things that "represent" the story they focus on. Also it's important to realize that these documentaries are not very profitable endeavors so they can't always afford to hire a specialist WWII historian to proof-read and verify every clip of film or comment for accuracy (how many times have you seen a video about the Normandy landings and they show early model Panzer I and Panzer II tanks). So It is either show video from WWII but not of the exact engagement, or in many cases you'll see them cut to the same blurry re-enactment clips over and over again (B-Roll footage) as filler.

Watching a TV documentary on almost any subject when you are yourself an amateur expert on the subject, will undoubtedly result in you finding error with the information. As the fact is an expert will know much more about a broader range of subjects than a production team assigned to shoot/organize a doc on a particular battle or period of history. Making a story about a specific battle, even if you have the commanders names right, the dates right, the divisions correct, some interviews with relevant info, you would also have to be to have good knowledge of German weapons/armor to be able to tell that a panzer I tank obviously doesn't fit in a battle of the bulge video (even though the clip you found has a column of them driving in snow).

[DennyB]

In just about every documentary I have seen on the History Channel they refer to the Medal of Honor as the Congressional Medal of Honor. I can't stand that one.

That is certainly widespread. I once sent a message to an announcer at an event at a 4-H Center to recognize a Medal of Honor recipient in the audience. What did he announce? That (the recipient's name) a "Congressional Medal of Honor Winner" was in the crowd.
I went to the recipient and apologized as I knew they do not like to be called "Winner" and he laughed and said "That happens all the time".

[MJC]

Stock footage used on History Channel to portray US aircraft strafing behind the Normandy beachhead is actually a Japanese A6M. I forgot we had one of those at Normandy!

A least a dozen other examples come to mind.

[bobcam1]

In just about every documentary I have seen on the History Channel they refer to the Medal of Honor as the Congressional Medal of Honor. I can't stand that one.

I'll second THAT one! (...or THIRD it, since Denny has already done so...)

[paddywhack]

but simple things like not having Russian aircraft clips used to portray Dunkirk and when talking about one gun and use clips of a completely different gun or using Japanese aircraft staffing Normandy beaches is just basic!!if your going to go to the trouble of making a documentary at least get your clips some what right!!! and i do know what you mean though about rolling out the blurry b clips of reinactors !!

[FLiPSiDE]

I agree with you paddywhack, you see so many clips that with even basic knowledge of WW2 military history you would know don't fit the era or story. Many of those making the films assume "oh it's just a representation of an aircraft attacking so it doesn't matter if it's a plane from another country/period".

Even from a production standpoint many of the docs on WW2 are of very low quality. Notice next time when they cut to a veteran or expert interview in the doc you are watching, how it looks in one clip like the colors went "out of wack" on your TV set for just the duration of that one interview clip. It is obvious they forgot/neglected to properly white balance their camera and everyone's skin is a very odd red-ish color. Something like that might not be noticeable to the average viewer, but it is an elementary mistake for a production crew.

I was told by some industry pros that making a one-off documentary like that you are lucky if you receive $10,000 as payment for being picked-up by the Military or History channel. With a budget like that, it is no wonder we see so many blunders or poor quality docs. As how are you supposed to: hire a researcher, locate and pay to have archive film footage converted-over to video for use in the doc, pay a professional crew, travel/shoot interviews, pay for stock music, and edit and do the graphic design for a doc and do so with anything left over?

[Jean-Loup]

"In just about every documentary I have seen on the History Channel they refer to the Medal of Honor as the Congressional Medal of Honor. I can't stand that one."

The movie Forrest Gump probably popularised this mistake.

JL