Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I saw most of World Wars and would have liked it if I were in elementary or maybe jrHS but otherwise it was too cheaply made and passed over relevant persons and events to focus on the personalities presented. But then I am extremely well read in WW1/2 history for decades now and not an average viewer.
To the average viewer, who saw a few films and heard about portions in history class, something which delve deep might have lost them. I think this documentary is not aimed at the extremely well read but the people who are not, and it served well in that regard. And I really like how instead of entering the war in 1939 as if nothing but vaccuum existed, they show how the past made the future. There have been a number of comments from people here in this forum who had not heard much of the background. Sometimes you have to pick your audience.
I would submit that society today is much more sensitive/averse to battlefield casualties than in the past.
In the Battle of the Somme in 1916, the British sustained about 57,000 casualties in a single day, of which around 19,000 were deaths. The US suffered a similar number (roughly) of deaths in the Battle Of The Bulge in World War II over a six-week period.
Today that would probably be unthinkable and (thankfully) unlikely in any current scenarios.
The Russians in WW2 seemed to have a different perspective - "Your rifle cost the State money to procure. So did your boots, equipment, etc. You, on the other hand, cost nothing".
I loved the first episode of "The Sixties." I remember the first color TV on our street in base housing. What a thrill. I also remember that my paternal grandparents on Long Island getting the first TV I had seen in a person's house.
Amazing the stuff we remember. I remember one of our first color TV's, big thing w/ the 2 dials for color and tint. Some stations the people were green, some they were normal. Gonna watch the sixties tonight.
Amazing the stuff we remember. I remember one of our first color TV's, big thing w/ the 2 dials for color and tint. Some stations the people were green, some they were normal. Gonna watch the sixties tonight.
My great aunt was the first in the family to get a color tv. You could tell the color was wonky, but not quite identify it, when we'd all go over to sit and watch a show together. We were watching the FBI and this guy got shot and apparently he was a secret vulcan.
My uncle, who worked in some sort of teck, went behind and adjusted the color so he was back to human.
Is the Sixties on somewhere online? Al I get is msnbc.
I would submit that society today is much more sensitive/averse to battlefield casualties than in the past.
In the Battle of the Somme in 1916, the British sustained about 57,000 casualties in a single day, of which around 19,000 were deaths. The US suffered a similar number (roughly) of deaths in the Battle Of The Bulge in World War II over a six-week period.
Today that would probably be unthinkable and (thankfully) unlikely in any current scenarios.
The Russians in WW2 seemed to have a different perspective - "Your rifle cost the State money to procure. So did your boots, equipment, etc. You, on the other hand, cost nothing".
Remember today we have reporters with the troops and film form live battles on TV. Even with the more limited role today, people see bits and pieces of the war. One of the turning points was Viet Nam, for many reasons but one was the six o'clock news. Eat your dinner, enjoy your steak while seeing burned children, critically wounded soldiers and representative of our ally shoot or in other ways kill their own. One thing it cost us was a sensitivity to violence. We stopped being horrified. We just ate our dinner. I think one of the reasons things got so violent in the sixties, that it became so easy not to see it, was the news and the war on tv over dinner.
But it also made real what our soldiers were doing. And what war looked like, to a much greater degree than it had openly been done before. And I think in a way we never really broke away from the aura of war. But people did begin to question.
If there was to be another world war in terms of the mid twentieth century version, I think those in control would heavily control access to things like numbers and real conditions, and even if there wasn't a real good reason one would be created to justify the slaughter. With what we have now, we could kill even more. And like in other wars, likely the 'count' would be managed so it wouldn't be so plainly stated. But if the technology we have now was out there, it might also end up like in the sixties and eating dinner to war. Humans have an astonishing capacity to rationalize and turn off horror in real life when they cannot stop it.
I was pleasantly surprised by the Sixties program. It seemed to capture the television aura of the time. It's true how they would replicate the concept of a hit show and they are still doing it. I also enjoyed the short comment about how some television producer would try to pitch Hogan's Heroes to the networks and they also did a good job describing Laugh-in.
As for the World Wars, I agree with Felix. I am by no means an expert on WWI or WWII but I didn't learn anything from the series that I didn't already know. Maybe, not at an elementary school level, but more for the non-honor high school social studies class. Certainly, WWII is a continuation of the unresolved issues of WWI just as there is a continium of the same unresolved issues from the American Revolution to the War of 1812 and even the American Civil War. Basic schoolbook stuff. Also kind of dumbed down by actors speaking in accented English portraying the major dictators. That kind of reminded me of Hogan's Heroes or Marlon Brando playing a Nazi. I prefer documentaries that focus on primary sources. However, as I mentioned before, I still offer praise to the History Channel for this type of programming as opposed to their moronic reality shows.
There was some "real time" coverage of WWII. Reporters like Edward R. Murrow would give live commentary on the radio as the bombs were bursting over London. Instead of eating dinner in front of the TV during the Viet Nam era, people would be eagerly listening to the radio during WWII and for some, during WWI
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
