History Channel - this is how you do history.

I have really enjoyed The History Channel. It has produced many excellent multi-episode shows about The French Revolution, Man: The Story of Us, The Men Who Built America, and a series on all American Presidents, to now American Pickers, Pawn Stars, American Restoration. They're all good show, but come on, is Big Hoss getting a sweet deal on Clark Gable's condom box really history? Steve McQueen is the coolest guy of ever-all time, but Rick Harris's man-boner for all things McQueen is getting old, and I don't care if Frank gets the goddamn enamel Standard Oil sign for a good price either. History Channel has become another piece that celebrates consumerism. It just focused on history and pop culture.

If you want good history, you need to go to the American Heroes Channel. I know, what a dumbass name for a channel, but it's history programming is aces. The latest piece of history-wood inducing programming is the multi episode Apocalypse WWI.

It's 4 one hour episodes did an excellent job of going beyond the conventional narrative. Each episode is built around one year. The first episode centers on 1914, and focused mainly on the politics of the period in regards to the interrelations of the English, Russian, and German monarchies. It touches on the shaky nature of the Austrian Empire regarding the various slavic ethnicities. Lastly the heavy role of nationalism throughout European nations goes a long way toward explaining how the assassination of an heir would spiral from regional political quarrel to a full blown global conflict. If the lesson of WWII is the folly of appeasement, then the lesson of WWI is its contrary, the rush to fight for national pride.

The final episode is excellent in its exposition of the nationalism, and need to punish the Central belligerents, that pollutes the conditions Treaty of Versailles, and other peace accords, as a harbinger of what is to come. In the century since WWI we have emphasized the lessons of WWII, and lost sight of the lessons of WWI.

Santayana was right - over and over.

It's been 100 years

June 28, 1914 the first domino was tipped. Dominoes from that that first historical domino, and the imperceptibly long domino chain that followed are still toppling today. Arch Duke Ferdinand was shot by Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo triggering World War I. It's history we've heard over and over, but unlike World War II, World War I is comparatively under studied, under discussed, and under investigated. Consider what would not have happened without World War I.

Without World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles is the rise of Hitler, and the Nazis in post war Europe possible?
If the Nazis don't ascend, does WWII become less likely?
Without WWI does Germany return the exiled Lenin to Russia to threaten the already weak Czar?
If Lenin does not return to Russia is there a Bolshevik Revolution?
With no Bolshevik Revolution, is there a different end to the Russian Czar?
Without WWI and the treaties defining its end, do Japan, and to a lesser extent, Italy, get the shaft as victors with no spoils?
Without hurt national pride to Italy and Japan begin their quest for empire?
Again, does this make WWII less likely?
Without WWI how does the end of the Ottoman Empire come about? Do the Ottomans crumble organically, as they had been, and then what does the Middle East look like if its borders are the result of its own regional political dynamics as opposed to the benefit of France and England as they drew them at the end of WWI?

None of this is to say WWI would never have happened. Europe in the early 20th Century was a tinder box of nationalism, competition among royals, as well as regional and ethnic strife. But we don't study the "War to end all wars" the way we study World War II. World War I was the beginning of the end of monarchies as a heads of state. It saw the end of the Russian Czar, German Kaiser, Ottoman Sultan, Austrian Emperor, as well as the dwindling importance of the English Crown.

Where are the movies about the soldiers, and generals that fought WWI? It's been easy to romanticize WWII. Villains are obvious, making the heroes just as obvious. WWI is not so easy to romanticize into conventional stories. The bad guys are not so obviously bad. The Arch-Duke whose assassination sparked it all was not a loved royal figure whose assassination was unforeseen. The Kaiser wasn't particularly evil and tyrannical. If we spent more time learning the lessons of WWI, and less time over learning, and misapplying the lessons of WWII we'd be in a better spot.

History Channel - come on man!!!

I generally love the History Channel.

There's a lot to like. Watching people barter, and price antiques on shows like Pawn Stars, American Pickers, and American Restoration, besides it's entertainment value, allows for spontaneous education. I mean, one can't help but learn SOMETHING from the experts brought in to assess objects ranging from a 1st edition of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea to weapons from the the Colonial, and Civil War eras.

Where the History Channel really drives it home is the dedicated mini-series that focus on particular subjects like Mankind: The Story of All of Us, The Men Who Built America,  and The Ultimate Guide To Presidents all dealt with the subject matter interestingly, and informatively.

Needless to say I was in the early throes of a nerdgasm when History Channel promoted a 3 night miniserries - The World Wars. First off, it was three straight nights, not one night a week over three weeks. Kickass! Teasers promised that it treated the World War I, and II as a singular event, with a promised focus on the Treaty of Versailles and how it's terms contributed to the Second World War, as well as principles in WWII, and their development in WWI, and the interim time.

Well it was a waste. It sucked. Assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke started WWI. That's the beginning! No deeper explanations of the web of alliances, and the dominoes that toppled after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. That's remedial 8th grade history. Lame!!

Any interesting tidbits? Well, the fucked up Gallipoli invasion was mostly the fault of Churchill. But it was underplayed if that cluster cost him credibility when he was the only one who really thought Hitler was bad news. That's another thing, they kept on the point that only Churchill thought Hitler was a bad guy, like if we had only listened to Churchill. The whole rise of the 3rd Reich is glossed over. 6 hours and they couldn't touch on how deep economic ties in the west were to industrial Germany in the 30s. That's kind of important I think.

What else? Oh yeah - a soldier had Hitler in his gunsight during WWI, but did not pull the trigger. How do we know that's true? It's not like there were big nametags on WWI uniforms. Shit, Hitler - as was customary in the early 20th Century - even still had a giant mustache as opposed to the teeny half-stache that was his hallmark.

The whole 3 nights was just reciting 8th grade remedial history. Hitler bad. Churchill and Roosevelt good. Stalin, kinda bad, then ok, then bad again.

History Channel - come on man.