Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries" channel.

Thanks for your service Christopher. From an Englishman who had uncles in RN Subs :)
6
Love the dad's army Easter Egg. I loved time team as a kid in the 90s. Wonderful
4
@christainmarks106 I believe Christian is surprised that you thought the interviews were conducted while the Soviet Union still existed. Though he could have put it in a nicer way.
4
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. More a case of pointing out that "this is history, but very recent history and we don't know the whole story". This isn't unusual. There are still documents from ww2 classified by the government of Great Britain. They are under the 100 year rule. It's not a conspiracy theory just because it's secret.
4
Probably find out 100 years after the incident. ,😅
4
It was a communist state throught the cold war and a close ally of the ussr until the split and move towards the none aligned states. It may not have been part of the ussr. But it wasn't a western state either. So kind of gets lumped in with all the other communist countries
4
@Crashed131963 I was under the impression that high level officers in the red fleet were all Russians. Paranoid bunch and what not. But if course your right. Long after the fall of the ussr
3
@josephturner4047 thank you for your service
3
It's really not. It's a documentary made in the West about the cold war. Which had only ended a decade before. Access to information about what the ussr did at the time was more difficult than it is now. Access to information in general was harder as the internet was still a novelty for lots of people. It's told largely from the western perspective and yes, it focuses on the failures of the Soviet navy submarines. But. That's because they are well documented. It's not propoganda. Its just told from a western perspective. As a addendum. What would be the point in anti Soviet propoganda, a decade after the Soviet Union fell?
2
@andrewthomson I knew what it meant Andrew. But like you was confused. I'm not sure if the op thinks that RN Subs were tracked or that the RN tracked Argentine subs. As I understand it. Neither happened
2
He did a lot of documentaries in the 90s and early 00s. Very much what we called at the time "the BBC accent" :)
2
@xenophon8958 yes, it's good seeing old documentaries. Only down side is they do get some things wrong (I used to love the battlefield series on history channel, I think originally made for BBC). But since more has been discovered and declassified. They are a little out of date on specifics. It's like reading an old history book. Good news is there are some good YouTube channels now. The tank museum and the greatwar/ww2 are my faves. Just sadly they don't have the budget of a TV production :)
2
This was made for TV years ago. Just seeing Richard Overy is the giveaway. So sadly you won't see a follow-up. But at least these old documentaries are available online. :)
2
Have they started producing their own documentaries? This one was pretty good for when it was made
2
@DameWhoGames623 I totally agree. But my comment was the preposition that the speaker held a very different view due to the reasons I stated
2
This is an interesting idea as a program. But it's a bit redundant as a discussion. Sealion could not have happened, not until the RN was destroyed. Germany couldn't have done this in 1940 even if every U boat and plane was thrown against them. Germany just didn't have the firepower or technology.
2
Weaker ago? It's a standard part of any history book that covers that time. Had it not been for the war, it probably would have been the most important event of the early 20th century.
2
@ragingstauner6109 that is all kinds of confusing lol
2
@SW-mv6fw would you mind explaining what you mean? I've never heard of it. The name does ring a bell. But I'm thinking of the polesti oil fields. I know lots of American, great British and allied airmen died to attack the place. But few are still alive and I doubt any live there. Any explanation would be great. Thanks
2
You have to remember, the victors had little interest in what government represented the central powers nations. It just wasn't a factor. If a serial killer spends more than 4 years killing your family and friends. You don't care much that he or she 'found god' the day after being caught. It's human nature to blame and want revenge.
2
@seashorelineone buy a none Apple product :) Side note. I don't have add blockers. I'm using YT app and a android phone. There are no adverts for me.
2
The interviews are great. But the narration is so full of errors its embarrassing.
2
@deanmartin7924 I certainly don't disagree. But to "the West" you chaps were still in "the other camp" politically speaking. Ironic that Stalin killed tens of millions of people and couldn't finish off another dictator 😂
2
It had to fit into a 1 hour TV slot with adverts. That's why it's just over 45mins long 🙄
1
Brem. There is a reason it was known as "the war to end all wars". The most famous contemporary history was written by Churchill. But he's just one name we would call "famous" today. Of course there were tough economic times. Not just in Germany and Austria/Hungry. Both the BE and the French were in deep debt, mainly to America. But the idea of 'austerity' or was a minor annoyance to the public, when compared with over 4 years of deprivation and huge loss of life. The mood was positive (I read a lot of the papers from 1920 for university and in them you'd think sometimes that Christ had returned and proclaimed peace on earth).
1
@bremCZ that's how it was viewed. Of course they didn't expect an end to all war. Just between "civilised" nations. The people of the time had a very different outlook on the world compared to us today. None more so than politicians and historians (whom were often the same thing. Infact many statesman/politicians wrote their "history of the great war" as quickly as they could. Book sales and what not lol") Which is another good point. Many "history books" written just after the end of the war, were effectively memoirs in wider context. They were popular given the war took over everyone's lives for 4 years and of course censorship meant the public were kept in the dark as to the wider situation. Let alone specific events.
1
As I understand it, it wasn't a 'war' but a 'conflict' as it didn't escalate into GB attacking the A mainland? Could you clarify what you mean by AS detecting submarines? As I understood it, the AN didn't depoly submarines or have Nuclear powered boats. And no RN sub was attacked? Such a tragic waste of life that conflict.
1
@xenophon8958 yep. It evolved from BBC radio and was basically a public school accent (confusingly, public schools were places like Eton. Where people with money sent their kids). It was much more "posh" in the 40s/50s with radio. But many presenters still use a clear accent which has been taught in language lessons (forget the name of it). I definitely think it's a great thing for a documentary. The modern documentaries, especially American ones, just try and sound mega dramatic about everything. Really over the top. It's more like a movie trailer than learning about something. It makes them unwatchable for me. It was bad enough when the history channel went down this route. But the national geographic documentaries have started to go this way too. :( Makes me sad.
1
Thank the King for the BBC is all I can say. Or when this was made. Thank the Queen
1
Any idea who originally made it?
1
They aren't clips. This is a made for TV documentary from around the year 2000. It's just been uploaded as it was made.
1
It's probably down to this being converted from a made for TV documentary. And given how old it is, the production style then was very different. The comments on the issues don't seem to take that into consideration
1
I suppose that's both a mixture of propoganda and the metric by which you measure success. Stalin said that quantity had a quality all of its own. And the one thing they did well was churn out weapons en mass. I mean. You don't buy russian for the warranty. But still.....
1
@MacJaxonManOfAction the BE wasn't the only empire redrawing the maps of Europe. The French empire, and the American empire contributed also. Of course, this isn't anything new. It's been happening for 3 thousand years of recorded European history. No doubt it happened long before that, it happens now and will for a long time to come.
1
To think, this is what you'd get to watch on normal TV back when this documentary was made. Before the history channel was obsessed with alians.
1
Dan snow?
1
@ragingstauner6109 the more you know. Cheers. But.... He's not part of the documentary is he?
1
@ragingstauner6109 fair enough. Must admit I wouldn't have known who he was lol. I thought it was just some random youtuber or something lol Shame to miss out on these grand old documentaries like.
1
No, the ones not in service were broken for parts and recycled
1
Propaganda?
1