Udet on History Channel

[Barrett]

Forumites: "Hitler's Generals Week" on the cable History Channel will have the long-expected segment on Udet Wednesday night the 20th. Seems a Discovery segment was indicated early this year but nothing further developed.

[Vin]

There is a series presently being shown on ABC TV on Tuesday nights which I noted as coming from History Channel (or was it Discovery Channel ?) called "Decisive Weapons". Last night the Aircraft Carrier was featured. It was centred on the Battle of Midway. Last week it featured the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain (I missed that one). Next week will be the Lee Enfield in the American Civil War. Nothing yet, that I have seen, on WW 1 aviation. If anyone knows the series, is anything coming up ?


Vin

[Vigilant]

The series was on UK telly earlier this year and is narrated by Radio 1 DJ and all-round good bloke John Peel. I don't recall seeing anything from WWI, though a good case could be made for WWI era artillery. It decisively stopped anyone from winning for 4 years!

[Amy]

Barrett:

Thanks for the tip.

Amy

[Reinout]

Dear all,

I saw that Udet flick a few months ago, it is definitely worth seeing/taping it!

Be prepared to witness some of Udet's most stunning flying tricks - that boy could fly like no other!

Kind regards,

Reinout

[Billy_Bishop]

I can't wait to see how the History Channel may have messed up this one. I still chuckle when I recall Gerald McRainey's description of the Airco D.H. 4 as a FRENCH designed attack bomber.

And for Vin,
One of the many types of rifle-musket used in the American Civil War was the Enfield, not Lee-Enfield. The Lee-Enfield was a British army rifle that came into being around 1890 or so.

Just thought you'd want to know.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Vin]

Thanks, Al. I'll know a bit more next Wednesday morning


Vin

All,
I just watched it and it seems to have been well researched and put together. Udet could fly but he wasn't suited for the managerial life. He let the Nazis suck him into the maelstrom and he never recovered, and only in the darkness of his last years did he discovered how he'd been duped. He was a playboy party animal at heart who lived with his head in the clouds. His primary passion which was to fly, was only realized during his times as a pilot in WW1 and between the wars as a movie pilot/stunt flyer. Funny thing that he learned his dive bombing idea from the U.S. Navy though.
VBR,
JIm

Doesn't ANYBODY proofread these things before they air them?! They got off to a bad start when Roger Mudd proclaimed that Udet was second only to vonR with "26" kills!? Oops. Then a photo of Boelcke in the background while a voice-over identifies him as "The Red Baron" Later a photo of Udet in a room full of photos and mementos AGAIN they show a picture of Boelcke only this time he is "Udet wearing his Blue Max". I may have missed more but I was busy throwing up. "History" Channel? I think not. If that's as close as they can get, it makes you wonder how much they actually get right.

Mike Adams,
Perhaps some of the producers are not as well versed as some of us on WW1 Aviation, however the show was more about Udets later years as opposed to his WW1 career. I also heard the error about his kill score, but later on I believe that it was rectified. The pictures of Boelke were also misidentified, however if you are going to hold two errors against them which are minor in the overall outcome of the show's content, then perhaps you are seeking a perfection that is just not possible with human beings. Cut them a little slack once, and look at the research that has filled in some of the gaps in his later years plus the how and why of his death. Yes it's 'The History Channel', what channel do you watch? This discussion on historical accuracy was held a few threads back, and I believe that it was resolved that history, is all interpretation based on written facts, based on eye witness accounts by human beings which never perfectly match each other. We TRY to strive for accuracy but you have to remember that resources are flawed in one respect or another. The point...THERE IS NO 100% Accuracy!
Regards,
Jim