I was watching a show on the History Channel the other day called "Shootout." This episode was about D-Day and highlighted 4 different unit actions on June 6, 1944, including Easy Company at Brecourt Manor. So I thought "Great! I'll watch it." Was that a mistake.

I understand how some errors can be made - I made a few in my book, which I happily can say have been fixed in the upcoming paperback version. But the Brecourt segment made so many glaring mistakes it was amazing. For example, the most brazen was when Pvt. Lorraine, Sink's Jeep driver who went along with Easy on the mission, donned the brass knuckles handle from a trench knife and socked a German POW. In the "Shootout" version, Lorraine is "an American solider" who, after he hit the German, was told by Buck Compton that he was going to court martial him for cruelty. But, the narrator said, Compton was spared that because the GI was soon killed. I'm sure Gerald Lorraine would love to know he died at Brecourt. I hope someone told him.

A lesser error was when Lipton climbed the tree. In reality it was a young tree that did not afford much protection. In the TV show, the tree used in the "historical recreation" was so big that, compared to the real tree, it might as well have been a redwood.

Another was, just after Easy got into the trench, Winters shot and wounded two Germans who were setting up a machine gun. In the show, he killed them when, in fact, that did not happen until he was leaving the trench and saw the two trying to get to their machine gun again.

There were several other errors too, including putting Pvt. Hall, not only in the wrong company, but the wrong regiment.

There were 3 other segments after the show finished with Brecourt, but I turned it off. I figured if they made so many major errors in a segment that I was familiar with, how can I trust them to give me an accurate story on the other segments?

I really wish researchers doing work on documentaries for TV would work to get things right, rather than just slap something together in order to get it on TV.

And there are so many examples of this out there ......

Yup. They occur mostly because the folks putting these things together are creating a "product", not preserving history and they use as their source, not original documents or definitive eyewitness accounts told directly to them, but rather other bits and pieces of film and uncorroborated and unvetted "information" from sources that will now never be challenged because the legend has become the story.

I love my books. Thanks again for yours, Larry. BK

In world today,there is a problem that many peaople think,after reading 2 books they could write history!Same problem we have in Europe too!So many experts,my God!

I hope folks aren't writing history books based on other books or hollywood producers. I've been disappointed many times even our favorite BoB has its issues if you take the time to read Mark Bando's critique. The information needs to be put together from historical documents and if possible eye witness accounts.

For example from reading the book BoB and watching the HBO series I had no idea that the Brecourt assualt was at least 3 hours long homefront had to correct me on it in another post as a matter of fact. There are others but I have work to do. Have a good day all.

One of the reasons that you end up with situations like this, even on the History Channel, is the way that some of the production companies go about obtaining their "technical" advisors. I am speaking from personal experience, as I have done some work for a couple of these companies in the past. They want to get everything for nothing. They do not like to pay for experts to provide consulting services to them. They think that some face time on the program is enough to get people star-struck and lining up to share their information.

Without giving away names or places, I will give you an example of what I came across. I got a call from one of these companies. I apparently had been referred by a friend. They were looking for someone to assist them with information regarding WW2 British and US airborne operations. They needed someone to provide enough info to find appropriate locations in the US to simulate or recreate the locations of combat jumps in WW2. They were also looking for some reenactors to play the part for small reenactment segments which would be scattered throughout the show. I managed to come up with some location ideas for them. The response was that the locations were too far from their studios! (Not one of them was more than 50 miles from the studio) They also said that they couldn't afford the insurance requirement for a couple of the spots. Well, they kept tapping me for more information and more ideas. I consulted a friend in the business and he advised me that I should request a contract and compensation package from them as a technical advisor. I did so and was told that they didn't have enough money to pay me and that I should do it because of my interest in history. I asked them if they received payment for their services, or if they were a not for profit enterprise. At that point, I guess they decided that they didn't require my services anymore and I never heard from them again. When the finished product appeared, it wasn't quite up to snuff! I later found out who they had found to work as their "advisor" and it was someone who I wouldn't trust to teach anyone on the subject. I guess he worked cheap!

So it doesn't surprise me that there are inaccuracies in some of the programs.

See you on the DZ,

Brig

I guess what I have never understood about this kind of thing is that it would have been just as easy and no more expensive to tell the story correctly. The information is there, why didn't they use it? All they had to do was watch Episode 2 of BoB and the story is laid out for them. Anything else they would have needed in the way of information would have been easily obtainable.

I can certainly understand the frustration.

Paul

That is so deliciously politically correct...