The World Wars

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

The World Wars

Post by decaro »

Did anyone else catch "The World Wars" -- a three-part presentation by the History Channel that runs 9 pm EST until Wednesday?

It's basically about how WW I never quite ended and how it shaped several notable leaders of WW II, a time Churchill called the "30 years war". it seemed a bit simplistic, but nonetheless entertaining and informative.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Ostwindflak
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:36 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: The World Wars

Post by Ostwindflak »

I watched it last night and I thought it was well done. I will be watching the remaining two episodes.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: The World Wars

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

I watched it last night and I thought it was well done. I will be watching the remaining two episodes.

I'm waiting for more on Japan, but did you think its being "dissed" at Versailles was enough of a rationale to build battleships in order to be taken seriously by the major powers?
Apparently those powers didn't think that Japan contributed enough in losses for a seat at the talks.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Ostwindflak
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:36 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: The World Wars

Post by Ostwindflak »

My answer is "no" I do not believe that was enough of a rationale. I do think it only served to fuel the flames of a Japan who thought itself to be ignored by the Western Powers when it thought itself to be the equals in terms of military and industry.

The creation of a powerful IJN and the Japanese Army was a by product I believe of Japan wanting to be recognized as a powerful sovereign nation to be taken seriously on the world stage. Part of it could also be that they saw how war weary the West was in the aftermath of WWI and believed there was nobody who would challenge their build up and subsequent conquests on Mainland Asia thus giving them free reign to take what they wanted.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: The World Wars

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

My answer is "no" I do not believe that was enough of a rationale. I do think it only served to fuel the flames of a Japan who thought itself to be ignored by the Western Powers when it thought itself to be the equals in terms of military and industry ...

I seem to recall naval treaties at the end of this war that severely limited Japan and Germany in terms of capital ships, but maybe we'll see more on that tonight.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: The World Wars

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

My answer is "no" I do not believe that was enough of a rationale. I do think it only served to fuel the flames of a Japan who thought itself to be ignored by the Western Powers when it thought itself to be the equals in terms of military and industry ...

I seem to recall naval treaties at the end of this war that severely limited Japan and Germany in terms of capital ships, but maybe we'll see more on that tonight.

The post WWI naval treaties limited all of the major powers.
Flipper
aaatoysandmore
Posts: 2846
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:35 pm

RE: The World Wars

Post by aaatoysandmore »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwp0vBaVgNo

There's a good hollywood series documentary of the history of ancient wars. Key in on words like "believe" and "imagine". John Keenan is mentioned.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The World Wars

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

My answer is "no" I do not believe that was enough of a rationale. I do think it only served to fuel the flames of a Japan who thought itself to be ignored by the Western Powers when it thought itself to be the equals in terms of military and industry ...

I seem to recall naval treaties at the end of this war that severely limited Japan and Germany in terms of capital ships, but maybe we'll see more on that tonight.

warspite1

The Washington Treaty of 1921/2 (and subsequent follow-ups) limited the tonnage of 5 powers - UK, USA, Japan, France and Italy - until Japan announced its intention to withdraw in the mid-thirties. The USSR was not a party to the Treaty system and Germany was limited via the Treaty of Versailles (and later the Anglo-German Naval agreement).
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: The World Wars

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

My answer is "no" I do not believe that was enough of a rationale. I do think it only served to fuel the flames of a Japan who thought itself to be ignored by the Western Powers when it thought itself to be the equals in terms of military and industry ...

I seem to recall naval treaties at the end of this war that severely limited Japan and Germany in terms of capital ships, but maybe we'll see more on that tonight.

warspite1

The Washington Treaty of 1921/2 (and subsequent follow-ups) limited the tonnage of 5 powers - UK, USA, Japan, France and Italy - until Japan announced its intention to withdraw in the mid-thirties ...

Japan was more limited re Capital Ships/CVs:

British Empire 525,000 tons/135,000 tons

United States 525,000 tons/135,000 tons

Empire of Japan 315,000 tons/ 81,000 tons

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Washington_Nava ... ap=ask.com


Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The World Wars

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




I seem to recall naval treaties at the end of this war that severely limited Japan and Germany in terms of capital ships, but maybe we'll see more on that tonight.

warspite1

The Washington Treaty of 1921/2 (and subsequent follow-ups) limited the tonnage of 5 powers - UK, USA, Japan, France and Italy - until Japan announced its intention to withdraw in the mid-thirties ...

Japan was more limited re Capital Ships/CVs:

British Empire 525,000 tons/135,000 tons

United States 525,000 tons/135,000 tons

Empire of Japan 315,000 tons/ 81,000 tons

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Washington_Nava ... ap=ask.com


warspite1

Unlike the British and US, Japan was a single-ocean navy. The ratios reflected that.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: The World Wars

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Unlike the British and US, Japan was a single-ocean navy. The ratios reflected that.

I guess I don't really need to add that Japan lied of the tonnages of MANY ships, but what the hay... I will...[:D]
Flipper
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The World Wars

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Unlike the British and US, Japan was a single-ocean navy. The ratios reflected that.

I guess I don't really need to add that Japan lied of the tonnages of MANY ships, but what the hay... I will...[:D]
warspite1

Yes I don't think any country was "whiter than white" but Japan's breaches really took the mickey....being thousands of tons over rather than hundreds.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: The World Wars

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Unlike the British and US, Japan was a single-ocean navy. The ratios reflected that.

Yes, but Japan planned to fight both Pacific and Atlantic fleets.

"... Japanese naval doctrine required the maintenance of a fleet 70% the size of that of the United States, which was felt to be the minimum necessary to defeat the United States in any subsequent war; (the Japanese envisaged two separate engagements, first with the U.S. Pacific Fleet, then with the Atlantic Fleet and calculated that a 7:5 ratio in the first battle would produce a big enough margin of victory to be able to win the subsequent engagement) thus a 5:3 ratio, or 60%, was unacceptable."
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The World Wars

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Unlike the British and US, Japan was a single-ocean navy. The ratios reflected that.

Yes, but Japan planned to fight both Pacific and Atlantic fleets.

"... Japanese naval doctrine required the maintenance of a fleet 70% the size of that of the United States, which was felt to be the minimum necessary to defeat the United States in any subsequent war; (the Japanese envisaged two separate engagements, first with the U.S. Pacific Fleet, then with the Atlantic Fleet and calculated that a 7:5 ratio in the first battle would produce a big enough margin of victory to be able to win the subsequent engagement) thus a 5:3 ratio, or 60%, was unacceptable."
warspite1

Yes, that would have gone down well during the Treaty talks....

Japanese Navy Minister: "But we need the same ratio of ship tonnage as you Americans - because one day we might want to attack you. In fact we should have more, because we will want to take on the British too at the same time". [;)]


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: The World Wars

Post by wworld7 »

This is my laugh for the day!!!!!
Flipper
User avatar
bayonetbrant
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: the rare sane part of the southeastern US
Contact:

RE: The World Wars

Post by bayonetbrant »

From a Facebook discussion among a couple of history scholars / PhD's

Jim
May 26
I'm watching The World Wars on the History Channel. Why can't they get such basic elements right, as the uniforms and headgear? Hitler would not have trained wearing the stahlhelm in 1914, as it hadn't been invented yet.
Like · · Share
5 people like this.

Mark. Did the Brits go over the top in such caps? Ahh well. Better this than nada
May 26 at 9:14pm · Like

Jim In 1914 yes, but the trenches were fresh then.
May 26 at 9:16pm · Like

Mark Thought maybe so
May 26 at 9:19pm · Like

Alan It's amazing how little of what is on the history channel is accurate. Shameful really.
May 26 at 9:33pm · Like · 4

Cosmos Poor budget for accuracy.
May 26 at 9:34pm · Like · 1

Jim Wilson has a RADIO in his office! There were no commercial broadcasts until 1920, by KDKA in Pittsburgh. The second station on the air was KQV, also in Pittsburgh; these are the only stations east of the Mississippi with call letters starting with K. That radio in the White House is from the twenties, and in 1917 there would have been no signals to pick up, even if the radio set had existed then.
There is a family connection to this blatant flaw, as my granddad, Florence Potts, was the guy who built the transmitter for KQV.
May 26 at 9:53pm · Like · 2

Diane History Channel got coopted by the same garbage eaters that destroyed A&E and The Learning Channel. They've been garbage for several yers. It is a darned shame. The Military History Channel was half-way decent for awhile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_channel
May 26 at 9:59pm · Like · 2

Ulrich if i remember it right-the first stahlhelm was given to troops in jan 1916 and was called M1916 in 1918 we had also colored helmets in big square pattern and helmets was also produced in a light diff form for the muslims that fought with us, so they could keep it on when praying.
May 26 at 10:16pm · Like

Jim They showed the Germans wearing it in 1914, even the recruits at that time.
May 26 at 10:24pm · Like

Ulrich thatz a nice joke- they should keep the facts but i guess the ppl that do such a doku have the same level as the channel itselve. we got TLC here now and i m asking myselve what do i learn from honey boo boo or the cake boss????
May 26 at 10:30pm · Like · 2

Jim All you can learn is not to watch that shit.
May 26 at 10:38pm · Like · 1

Ulrich so true Jim and they told us here as it started itz a channel for women!! such a bullfrog!!
May 26 at 10:41pm · Like

Edward I lost interest in this documentary once I saw their passing off an M3A1 Stuart as a WW1 tank in the trailer.
Yesterday at 2:41am · Like · 1

Anthony I used to work with a former Navy SEAL medic. He was in Panama. The Discovery Channel aired a series of documentaries including that op. He was portrayed by an average height Black actor and the wounded man he worked died on the ground according to the documentary. Reality... He's at least 6'4" if not taller, White as most SEALs, and he saved the guy on the ground. He did later due under the care if a doctor in-flight returning to the states. Apparently facts are only as necessary in documentaries as they suit a dramatic story.
Yesterday at 7:53am · Like · 1


another
The World Wars has Americans in the Philippines wearing M1 helmets. MacArthur is a five-star. And Manila is a jungle village.

Darin And the Soviets made peace with the Germans in days, gas was used by the Allies in October 1914 although it was a new German innovation, and Churchill was new to gunfire despite his unmentioned experiences in South Africa, Sudan, and India. I could go on . . .
1 hr · Like · 2

James Uh Oh. History Channel strikes again!
1 hr · Like · 1

Cosmos Someone at the History channel is on drugs.
1 hr · Like · 1

Jim I just saw a V1 on a rail car. In Stalingrad.
1 hr · Like · 3

Chou Oh no.
1 hr · Like

Jim That's what the Romans said when the Germans carrying SMLE's attacked them in the jungle.
1 hr · Like · 2

James Thought the Toltecs said that about the Germans....
1 hr · Like · 1

Cosmos Started watching part three...Oy vegh.
1 hr · Like · 1

Jim You can get a much better view of history from Microsoft's old Rise of Nations game.
1 hr · Like · 1

Cosmos I though wiki was bad.
1 hr · Like · 2

Alan Jim , are you saying there wasn't V1's at Stalingrad ?
1 hr · Like

Jim No, just V2's.
59 mins · Like · 1

Alan Yea.. Those V2's made V1's look like Scud missles...
57 mins · Like · 1

Jim They just showed Patton's Third Army attacking the Germans in the Bulge. The Americans were using T-34/85's.
30 mins · Like

Alan I think it was the Russian lend/lease program to the Americans.
27 mins · Like · 1

William Sounds like low-budget TV to me.
18 mins · Like

Jim I've seen better accuracy in a SyFy movie.
18 mins · Like

Alan This alt- history just writes itself
17 mins · Like · 1

William At least Avatar was shot on location.
=+=+=+=+=
BayonetBrant
Editorial director ~ www.armchairdragoons.com
Host/Producter ~ Mentioned in Dispatches podcast
All around awesome dude & more handsome than I deserve to be with such a sparkling personality

Image
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: The World Wars

Post by decaro »

I think the wheels fell off this special last night; there had been problems with stock footage -- from PT 109, Valkyrie and other familiar flics -- that often didn't match the narration, but claiming that Patton was pivotal to the success of the Normandy landings, or that FDR brought him back for the Bulge even though he was in the Euro Theater since Cobra was just sloppy.

It's a shame because this show started out so well.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Ostwindflak
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:36 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: The World Wars

Post by Ostwindflak »

I felt the same way. The first episode was good, minus a young Patton riding on the back of a Stuart Light tank. I could overlook the German Stahlhelms. I started getting really uneasy during the second episode with some of the inaccuracies I was seeing. Last night was appalling in terms of historical accuracy. I couldn't bring myself to finish the episode. I turned it off with a half hour left.

Roosevelt had nothing to do with pulling Patton from active duty or "punishing him". For God sakes someone at the History Channel should read "Crusade In Europe" by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Not to mention a lot of other blunders in terms of how politics and military planning was portrayed and the equipment soldiers were using. If I was any of those "guest speakers" they had I would not want my name associated with this show. Too bad, it turned out the way it did because it had a lot of potential.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The World Wars

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

I watched it last night and I thought it was well done. I will be watching the remaining two episodes.

I'm waiting for more on Japan, but did you think its being "dissed" at Versailles was enough of a rationale to build battleships in order to be taken seriously by the major powers?
Apparently those powers didn't think that Japan contributed enough in losses for a seat at the talks.
warspite1

Frankly, she didn't contribute sufficiently. She used the war to opportunistically grab a few German possessions in the region, but when asked by the Royal Navy to assist in the Mediterranean, she sent just four destroyers.....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: The World Wars

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

I felt the same way. The first episode was good, minus a young Patton riding on the back of a Stuart Light tank. I could overlook the German Stahlhelms. I started getting really uneasy during the second episode with some of the inaccuracies I was seeing. Last night was appalling in terms of historical accuracy. I couldn't bring myself to finish the episode. I turned it off with a half hour left ..

Would you believe I turned it off as well?

Last night was make or break for this show, and it broke badly. I was appalled that it didn't even mention that President Truman served as a captain of arty during WWI since that supposedly was the show's premise. Then again, Bernard Montgomery was severely wounded in that war and spent the duration as a staff officer, but I don't recall that his name was even mentioned.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”