Press Ministry Requests $17M for 1C's Patriotic Computer Game

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Please delete this thread it has no place here.

I see nothing wrong with the thread, as originally started. It was a response to a press report regarding 1C:Maddox. AS Oleg has now confirmed, the report was misleading, but we had a sensible enough discussion about the implications of the thread. The fact that some people used this as an excuse to indulge in idiotic trolling is no reason to delete the lot. I'd say edit out the trolls, ban them for a day or two, and let it stand. Not that I'm a moderator - or would want to be when people make postings like that.

[ramstein]

so, is everything about Russia wrong that is/was on the History channel?

also, curious... why don't other countries (other than the USA) have a history channel??
note: there is an International History channel I watch on Cable TV, and it's quite good..

[robtek]

"History - Channel" doesn't report history, "Hystory - Channel" makes history!

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by robtek

"History - Channel" doesn't report history, "Hystory - Channel" makes history!

I doubt anyone that watches would necessarily dispute this.

However, it is better to have information out there... than none at all.

Most of what they show and explain is pretty well done.

Afterall, for viewers to enjoy TV even history has to get dressed up abit to do enough "horse and pony show" to keep viewers interested in history.

You could probably poll most students and find that history is boring... remembering all the stupid dates and such.

The history teachers seem to always focus on the details that people forget the fastest.

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by ramstein

so, is everything about Russia wrong that is/was on the History channel?

also, curious... why don't other countries (other than the USA) have a history channel??
note: there is an International History channel I watch on Cable TV, and it's quite good..

In Europe, England, Middle East, if you do any traveling you're looking at a life-size 3D history channel.

[bf-110]

Well,History Channel is quite good for propaganda,but Hollywood still the best for this purpouse.
They can make the biggest historical fiasco to turn into a glorious and unique event.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by ramstein

so, is everything about Russia wrong that is/was on the History channel?

also, curious... why don't other countries (other than the USA) have a history channel??
note: there is an International History channel I watch on Cable TV, and it's quite good..

They do, they're just not as notorious for rewriting history to favour their home countries. There's Yesterday, UKTV History and several more in the UK. There's quite a lot of history programmes on other British TV channels already. Don't know whether it's the same in the US.

[baronWastelan]

Sports has always been the best way to promote patriotism.





or maybe not...

[ramstein]

those that say the history channel rewrote history.. or Russian hsitory, could you please be specific.. what did they lie about or rewrite.. I have always wanted to know what they lied about, and so far those that claim they lie, have not given an answer on what it is they rewrote history about..

this is the no spin spin zone..
no propaganda,,, spill the beans on what was not true..

This should be interesting if there is a game about history that corrects any lies..

thanx..

[Novotny]

You must understand, the History channel is not exactly written by or for the educated.

To wit:

"Why does the History Channel have such an inclination to lying or exaggerating and being subjective?
Every time I see something on the History Channel, it contradicts completely what other sources say.

Like for instance, at the battle of Iwo Jima, the History Channel says that the Americans suffered 8000 casualties whilst the Japanese suffered more than 300,000 casualties. Yet on wikipedia, it says that the Americans suffered 27,909 casualties while the Japanese actually suffered 22,786 casualties - which was nearly the entire Japanese garrison of the island: they therefore actually suffered less casualties than the Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

Or the Battle of Gaugamela were the History Channel says that there was 250,000 Persians fighting, contradicting Discovery Civilization Channel which says there were 60,000 Persians.

I can cite hundreds of examples, but I'm am afraid you'd stop reading. So why is the History Channel like this?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

This is a really funny question. I love the responses. First, let me say that I am a Grad Student of Medieval history. I have been studying College level history for the last 6 years and I am hoping to get a Ph.D. in Medieval history in the next 2-3 years.

The History Channel is GARBAGE. Here is the truth: historians dedicate their lives to a specific field of research, and debate evidence they have found. All history is debate and agreement between two historians can be very difficult to find.

For documenteries from PBS or the History Channel, it is impossible to for them to present all sides of any historical issues. There are simply are too many scholars with too many ideas about how the past happened. Go to a larger university library and look up the crusades. You should find over a thousand book on the subject, all of which specialise in different issues, arguing different points and forging different conclusions. How could you condense all these books with all their disagreements into one hour long documentary? YOU CAN'T.

Now, the History Channel is worse than most because they try to be entertaining to a specific demographic of Americans. That are looking at the older, conservative, non-academically trained, "history buff." Somebody who casualy reads about World War II, but lacks the ability to read foreign languages and lacks access to a scholarly library. Hence, the History Channel's programming is a very popular version of history which often oversimplifies complex events; it generally covers American topics from an American point of view, and even throws in some programming about monster machines, Ice Road Truckers and programming about what would happen if humans suddenly disappeared - all of which have nothing to do with history.

The bottom line is that the History Channel wants to entertain the every-day Joe and give him a sense of knowledge so they can make money. Nobody will watch a program about how Ancient Greek colonists interacted with the native people of ancient Sicily. Most people find the push by archaeologists to find the marble quarries used to build the Parthanon in Athens interesting, but that's history. But you can go to a university and listen to talks on these subjects.

As a grad student in Medieval history, I ALWAY begin my research with Wikipedia which every history professor in the country would approve of. It gives you a broad overview of almost any subject, a list of major players which one should research, and usually a bibliography which states some of the most accepted sources on the subject. It is a wonderful starting point: it isn't always "accurate" but then again, history is debate. It usually gives you a simple explanation of all sides of the debate.

I just love how academic historians and popular historians disagree."

(Novotny here. I have sub-edited the above to remove grammatical errors and improve the readability, without changing the basic discourse. original link: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4102816AAKYEvo)

Basically, if you want to understand history, go to a university. If you want to be entertained, watch TV.