I've finally watched World at War, so what next?

  • Thread starter The Fisher King
  • Start date
T

The Fisher King

Guest
A few months ago on "The Military History" channel screened the whole of the "world at war" documentary series from the 1970's.

I recorded every episode, and I finally watched the last episode on the weekend.

For me it is the best account of WW2 on film. The interviews with the people who lived through those dark days brought everything to life in a way that it's hard to convey through the written word.

So now what do I watch now, any pointers?
 
A Brit docu-drama on forces during the Bosnian conflict . Wasn't it called Peace Keepers? Brit UN forces coping with affairs over there, I recall. I thought it was very good. That conflict was ignored in this country, in part because Clinton was the President. With the exception of Pres. Johnson, news of military affairs goes to the back of the page during Democrat administrations.
I don't know if the portrayal was accurate or not, but it seemed to explain what was going on at the time. I thought it was very good, but it has been some time since I reviewed it.

True to form, you now see very little on the conflict in Afghanistan. You don't find the mainstream reporters, or even many from the cable news (Fox included) with the troops. I see more coverage from British corespondents and I thank them for that. I imagine any docudramas on this conflict will originate with them , as well.
 
USS Wyoming said:
A Brit docu-drama on forces during the Bosnian conflict . Wasn't it called Peace Keepers? Brit UN forces coping with affairs over there, I recall. I thought it was very good. That conflict was ignored in this country, in part because Clinton was the President.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but he didn't take office until January of 1993. The Bosnian Conflict had been going on for a year and a half by that time. The first administration to basically ignore it was that of Republican George H. W. Bush.
 
I have the box set of the "World at War", must have watched it about a dozen times by now.
 
Recently we had a documentery series on Dutch television about the war in the Netherlands. So that is from the German attack, the years of occupation until the liberation. It was a brand new series with new insights, information and interviews with people who lived through it. I thought it was very good, but you have to understand Dutch to really appreciate it !:biggrin:
 
ACSpectre,

My reference,
That conflict was ignored in this country, in part because Clinton was the President.
Click to expand...
was directed at the major news outlets sporadic coverage during his administration.

I did not intend to qualify the handling of the conflict by either administration.
 
USS Wyoming said:
ACSpectre,

My reference, was directed at the major news outlets sporadic coverage during his administration.

I did not intend to qualify the handling of the conflict by either administration.
Click to expand...

Nor I, my point was simply to illustrate that the press gave this conflict no coverage of substance during the G.H.W. Bush administration.
 
I will put forward commentary that I "think" is correct just from memory, which is what I did in my first post. I run the risk of requiring a retraction should my memory fail me during a hasty response on this forum. But, I don't think this is one of those times,

International Developement Research Center by Steven Livingston (Hey, I'm American and the research is Canadian, I can't be more fair than that!) this research is about 35 pages and I've just scratched the surface, but I am going to mark it and read the entire study. It is not revealing to me, just affirming. I've cut a couple select passages I think supports my claim without having to paste several pages.

Systematic empirical investigation of news content supports these criticisms of the American news media. From 1990 to1998, American television networks more than doubled the time devoted to celebrity and entertainment, disasters, accidents and crime, while decreasing the time spent on policy and international affairs (Patterson 2000)

Similarly, between 1985 and 1995, international news in the national weekly news magazines declined from 24 to 14 per cent in Time, from 22 to 12 per cent in Newsweek, and from 20 to 14 per cent in U.S. News and World Report (Hickey 1998).
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that international coverage may have subsided during the end of the Bush administration, but it went from diminished to none existent during the Clinton administration.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
So, appearently during the administration of a Democratic president the news is less focused on worldnews and/or world politics then during the reign :))) of a Republican president.
That surprises me. Usually public opinion in the Netherlands is pro democratic because (this is just one of the reasons) a demcratic president tends to be more outward looking then a republican one and therefore more open to a dialogue.

If you look back, almost all wars the US participated in in the previous century was during the administration of a democratic president. Exceptions are Grenada, Panama and Iraq....
 
USS Wyoming said:
I will put forward commentary that I "think" is correct just from memory, which is what I did in my first post. I run the risk of requiring a retraction should my memory fail me during a hasty response on this forum. But, I don't think this is one of those times,

International Developement Research Center by Steven Livingston (Hey, I'm American and the research is Canadian, I can't be more fair than that!) this research is about 35 pages and I've just scratched the surface, but I am going to mark it and read the entire study. It is not revealing to me, just affirming. I've cut a couple select passages I think supports my claim without having to paste several pages.

I'm not arguing that international coverage may have subsided during the end of the Bush administration, but it went from diminished to none existent during the Clinton administration.
Click to expand...

This was Clinton playing to his base. Foreign policy was never his strong point and the reality is, that with the exception of the Bosnian conflict, the years of his administration were relatively quiet on the international front. He was always more comfortable hob knobbing with the Hollywood A list than he was at a G8 conference. His rocky relationship with the military is well documented. His record of avoiding the draft alienated him from the military even before he took office. There was no way that he was going to attract the block of voters that were strong military supporters so he basically ignored them and cozied up to that block of voters that were, shall we say, less supportive of the military. The most vocal of this group was the Hollywood elite, so they got the lion's share of media coverage in this country. What was really scary to me during this time was that some people really believed that the likes of Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, et al actually had something substantive to contribute to political discourse in this country. The other point I found extremely troubling was Clinton's opportunistic use of the military to deflect attention when things went sour for him on the domestic/personal front.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mTk said:
Coming up on HBO March 14th...The Pacific. Ten episodes! Can hardly wait. Saw a couple of trailers and looks to be just like Band of Brothers, same producers.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't have HBO. I'm going to have to wait for this to come out on DVD. I am definitely looking forward to seeing it.
 
I suspect you'd find the same decrease in "substantive" news for all western television over that period, regardless of the political stripe in power at the time. Infotaintment, and pundits pandering to the lowest common denominator on left or right, has basically ruined television news.

I will also put a vote in for "The War" by Ken Burns....am watching it now in dribs and drabs when time permits. Some very good combat footage in there including the assault on (I think) Pelieau....you can hear the bullets bouncing off the Amtracks so it ain't no staged after battle shot.
 
McIvan said:
I suspect you'd find the same decrease in "substantive" news for all western television over that period, regardless of the political stripe in power at the time. Infotaintment, and pundits pandering to the lowest common denominator or left or right, has bascially ruined television news.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more and it's not just the news media. The rise of reality TV has a whole segment of the population willing to sell their sole to get their own 15 minutes of fame.

My TV rarely leaves the History Channel.
 
You can also buy an entire set of "Die Deutsche Wochenschau" Not a documentary, but German newsreels that cover everything from the manufacture of helmets to combat on the Eastern Front. I have a 23 DVD set that covers the period 1939 to April 1945. LOTS of combat action and coverage of home front activities, ceremonies and other little interesting scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom