|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 8:30:31 GMT
The thread title refers to a docudrama series which recently popped up on BBC2 and which purports to deal with the rise and fall of Nazism in nine hour-long episodes. It’s quite good in parts, especially for someone who may not be too familiar with the history of the Third Reich, although WWII history buffs are not likely to encounter much in the way of new insights or revelations. All nine episodes are available on the iPlayer here.
As the trailer shows the programme is in the now standard format combining archive footage, re-enactment and talking heads. Normally I’d avoid docudramas which rely on re-enactments like the plague but in this case they’re quite good. The producers have taken the trouble to include actors who bear some resemblance to the subjects, while clever camera-work avoids showing too much facial detail. One curious thing though – there’s no dialogue - the reason for which is obvious when you see the credits. The re-enactments were all shot in Lithuania using local actors. The BBC’s main contribution to this series is in knitting the three elements together as well as orchestrating the talking heads. And that’s where we can discern the extent to which programmes like this have been subject to dumbing down as well as how hornswoggled the BBC is by its self-imposed diversity targets. I’m just over half-way through and have counted 14 talking heads so far, including four what we might call A-list historians of the Third Reich. The other ten include former General Mike Jackson, who isn’t bad but seems to be vicariously re-living his Balkan adventures through the prism of the Eastern Front. Also featured is former chess champion Garry Kasparov who presents himself as an authority on Stalin. There are a couple of other historians of minor note, one German and one American. And there we have it – half of the so-called experts are females, few of whom are working historians and those that are are also very much minor league. But the female experts include – wait for it – Ash Sarkar, Afua Hirsch and Labour peer Baroness Helena Kennedy! I don’t think I’ll be bothering with the remaining episodes, I’m clearly not part of the BBC’s target audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 29, 2022 10:03:57 GMT
The WW2 was a pack of lies from the beginning. The BBC had the monopoly in information, and as per usual it sold its clients down the river and they will prosecute people who tell differently. Remember that historian who had a large collection of artefacts which proved the official story was a lie. They stole them and destroyed them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Oct 29, 2022 10:12:38 GMT
The WW2 was a pack of lies from the beginning. The BBC had the monopoly in information, and as per usual it sold its clients down the river and they will prosecute people who tell differently. Remember that historian who had a large collection of artefacts which proved the official story was a lie. They stole them and destroyed them. What historian? What was there name? And what lies? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 11:14:43 GMT
From the Mind Zone Rules:
"Any assertion or claim that is made, must provide a source to support it or declare itself an 'opinion'."
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 29, 2022 12:02:27 GMT
From the Mind Zone Rules: "Any assertion or claim that is made, must provide a source to support it or declare itself an 'opinion'." Crikey, you need to revisit your OP then. Where is the source to support these assertions/ claims, or the declaration that each of the below is your opinion? 1.) which purports to deal with the rise and fall of Nazism in nine hour-long episodes. 2.) It’s quite good in parts, especially for someone who may not be too familiar with the history of the Third Reich3.) WWII history buffs are not likely to encounter much in the way of new insights or revelations. 4.) As the trailer shows the programme is in the now standard format combining archive footage, re-enactment and talking heads. 5.) Normally I’d avoid docudramas which rely on re-enactments like the plague but in this case they’re quite good. 6.) The producers have taken the trouble to include actors who bear some resemblance to the subjects
7.) clever camera-work avoids showing too much facial detail. 8.) One curious thing though – there’s no dialogue - the reason for which is obvious when you see the credits. The re-enactments were all shot in Lithuania using local actors.9.) The BBC’s main contribution to this series is in knitting the three elements together as well as orchestrating the talking heads. 10.) we can discern the extent to which programmes like this have been subject to dumbing down 11.) how hornswoggled the BBC is by its self-imposed diversity targets.12.) I' m just over half-way through and have counted 14 talking heads so far, including four what we might call A-list historians of the Third Reich.
13.) The other ten include former General Mike Jackson, who isn’t bad but seems to be vicariously re-living his Balkan adventures through the prism of the Eastern Front. Also featured is former chess champion Garry Kasparov who presents himself as an authority on Stalin. There are a couple of other historians of minor note, one German and one American. And there we have it – half of the so-called experts are females, few of whom are working historians and those that are are also very much minor league.
14.) I don’t think I’ll be bothering with the remaining episodes, I’m clearly not part of the BBC’s target audience.In accordance with the mind zone rules, if these are opinions, please can you declare each as such. If they are assertions/claims, please can you evidence them by providing sources for each. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 29, 2022 12:47:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 29, 2022 16:02:25 GMT
David Irving FFS a classic  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 16:07:35 GMT
It wasn't the BBC that raided Irving's archive, but the lawyers acting for Deborah Lipstadt.
The BBC had nothing to do with it, they were not a party to the litigation.
(The court transcripts are easily available online).
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Oct 29, 2022 16:12:42 GMT
your link does not provide a source to support any of your claims from your last post as anything other than your own wild opinions |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 16:14:27 GMT
colbops: I already gave the links to the source materials for my claims and statements - the iPlayer. If you wish to prove me wrong in any detail you'll need to go to the trouble of watching it yourself, something which I very much doubt you'll bother doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 16:16:49 GMT
your link does not provide a source to support any of your claims from your last post as anything other than your own wild opinions I believe it's just this sort of picayune nitpicking and pointless argumentation that the new Mind Zone rules are intended to deter.
But let's see what you're made of. Pick a 'wild opinion' you don't agree with and let's discuss it.
Edit: not sure now whether your response is directed to me or the Baron. Please clarify. If the latter then ignore this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Oct 29, 2022 16:21:28 GMT
David Irving was allegedly very good at finding old records.
One of his books was highly rated and made his name yet he got involved in the Holocaust and that destroyed his reputation.
The arguments I have heard of is that the gassing of people in the numbers alleged could not have happened, not enough man hours to have killed that many in that time.
Now in many countries just to ask that question is dangerous as we are still too close to the second world war resolution, perhaps in a 100 years time it will be safe to do so. When nobody cares.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 29, 2022 16:25:20 GMT
It wasn't the BBC that raided Irving's archive, but the lawyers acting for Deborah Lipstadt.
The BBC had nothing to do with it, they were not a party to the litigation.
(The court transcripts are easily available online).
The BBC I was saying was a propaganda arm of the government during WW2, as per the cretins who manned the radio and told sweet lies to their audiences each night to help the war effort. The same power that we had then is now prosecuting people who do their own research, and this chap was a reputable historian before he contradicted their bullshit, and that is why he could not be allowed to continue and stealing his archives was an obvious method to achieve this end, no matter what compliment prostitutes were charged to do the dirty deeds on him. You have to understand the interdependence of the organs of the state. I know they try and compartmentalise it all, but it will not wash in a country that tells us we have free speech, and goes on about China as some higher moral authority. |
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Oct 29, 2022 16:27:17 GMT
your link does not provide a source to support any of your claims from your last post as anything other than your own wild opinions I believe it's just this sort of picayune nitpicking and pointless argumentation that the new Mind Zone rules are intended to deter.
But let's see what you're made of. Pick a 'wild opinion' you don't agree with and let's discuss it.
Edit: not sure now whether your response is directed to me or the Baron. Please clarify. If the latter then ignore this post.
i was obviously posting to baron. backing up your own point to him, in fact |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 16:28:23 GMT
OK sorry. I took the wrong end of the stick.
|
|
