BBC Television programmes  permalink

Strange Days - Cold War Britain

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 155
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Tuesday, 12th November 2013

    The BBC's current favourite, conservative historian and broadcaster, Dominic Sandbrook, is back presenting a new, three-part documentary series all about the Cold War.

    The first episode, entitled Red Dawn, actually commences this evening on BBC Two, at 21.00.

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    www.bbc.co.uk/mediac...

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peter (U15306870) on Tuesday, 12th November 2013

    There's some more information about the BBC Cold War season and links to some interesting BBC Online content here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    Do anyone of you remember those days? Be good to hear if you think the programme is accurate in its depiction of those heady times. And for those of you who weren't - did you find it insightful? Enjoyable? Thought-provoking?

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by NorthCareer (U14493588) on Tuesday, 12th November 2013

    I remember my dad, a TA soldier thru the Eighties telling me that he'd never live to see the Berlin Wall fall.....about 6 weeks later it fell.....that's Military "Intelligence" for you! He'd been in Germany that summer too.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I guess that the incredibly self-confident Dominac Sandbrook must be one of those academic historians / television presenters that you either really love or hate.

    In my considered opinion he always comes across as being far more important than the subject matter that he is actually talking about.

    Furthermore, he really does relish doing those numerous pieces to camera, often shot at some exotic or far-flung location.

    Nevertheless, the opening episode of this three-part documentary series did actually contain some rather good achieve film footage, and a few interesting facts.

    For instance, I never knew that it was actually the renowned writer / journalist, George Orwell, who first coined the term Cold War, in a 1945 article, printed in the Tribune publication.

    www.theguardian.com/...

    www.independent.co.u...

    www.telegraph.co.uk/...

    metro.co.uk/2013/11/...

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I really like Dominic Sandbrook's documentaries. In my opinion he has a breadth of vision and understanding about history that is lacking in many other presenters. Sandbrook never resorts to cliché. I thought these qualities were very evident in his account of the early years of the Cold War.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Jacobite (U15040963) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Agreed. I thought it was very good. Clear and intelligent. I was born in the 50's so although much of this was going on in my childhood I never took any notice ( you wouldn't would you?) and of course it wasn't taught as history at school.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I met some East Germans who lived in Berlin in 1990. East German news / radio didn't report that the wall was coming down. Apparently some neighbours knocked on their door and told them what was happening at the wall but they didn't believe them. So they missed it all.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Historians interpret the facts as they see them and therefore will be influenced by their world view.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by meldrewsrevenge (U13159010) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I thought it was very good. It had never occurred to me before that the welfare state was a deliberate slap to Stalin. Can't help feeling he overstretched his argument there.
    And I wish the BBC would set their flags properly so that the recorder didn't switch off before the end of the programme. Missed the last few sentences. (perhaps there is virtue in those docs that spend the first third saying I'm going to find out this and this and this, and the last 5 mins saying In next week's programme blah blah blah........

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    And Sandbrook definitely has a Conservative, right wing view of history. So I'm not sure how far I would trust his interpretation of the Cold War.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    And Sandbrook definitely has a Conservative, right wing view of history. So I'm not sure how far I would trust his interpretation of the Cold War.  

    I can't see how last night's documentary could be viewed as anything but objective. What do you want? Something about Stalin's cuddly side? smiley - biggrin

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    If you're going to be silly Portly.......

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Foxhead (U14308619) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    And Sandbrook definitely has a Conservative, right wing view of history. So I'm not sure how far I would trust his interpretation of the Cold War.  "........ Sandbrook definitely has a Conservative, right wing view of history"



    No he has not.

    As a life-long lefty and historian I believe his reportage and interprestation is refreshingly open and without agenda.

    (Or is this a wind-up?)

    smiley - erm

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Perhaps you'd prefer the BBC to try and revive Hobsbawm? I am watching this now as I didn't get chance last night and I think its very good, clear and quite neutral.

    This is not personal to you but I am getting heartily sick of some of the overtly politically biased posts (some descending into rants) on here. Actually, I am not sick of them, I am bored by them which explains why I don't bother with POV much now. I can't be the only one.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Someone disagrees with you and it has to be a windup? Get over yourself.

    This is the same fella that did the series on the 70s, yes? If I have the wrong historian, then my apologies. But it does look like him. Cos if so, he came across to me then as a Tory supporter. And I was around in the 70s so I know what he was talking about.

    I'm not saying he is a bad historian. I just wouldn't take his interpretation as truth.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    During the Cold War, many listeners would phone in to my local radio station Radio Merseyside, claiming that life was quite idyllic for the workers in the Soviet Bloc, and warning that we shouldn't believe the propaganda and lies that we heard from the capitalist Western media.

    The collapse of the Iron Curtain around 1989 pulled the rug of credibility out from under these people, but the reality couldn't completely change the beliefs they had cherished all their lives.

    Thus we still have a sort of background radiation that leads some viewers to allege that Sandbrook's pretty objective account of the Cold War was somehow "right-wing." smiley - smiley

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Oh dear......


    I have never been a Communist. I was not referring to Stalinism. I was talking about my previous experience with this particular historian.

    And I'm now leaving it here as this is getting a little silly.


    Mentioning no names Portly.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    smiley - ok

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by man-in-the-moon (U3655413) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I thought this was interesting showing Britains position in the early days of the cold war and how it wanted to be still seen as a player on the world stage.
    Looking forward to the next episode.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Baldinio (U2012448) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I met some East Germans who lived in Berlin in 1990. East German news / radio didn't report that the wall was coming down. Apparently some neighbours knocked on their door and told them what was happening at the wall but they didn't believe them. So they missed it all. 

    The people of Dresden didn't know it was coming down either, Dresden was situated in a TV blackspot, known as the 'valley of the clueless' and it was the only city in East Germany that couldn't receive West German TV broadcasts.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by average40 (U14458923) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I've not seen it yet but I like the presenter’s style and really enjoyed his 70's doc. I made my children watch it and it really helped with their school work on that time.

    As for the Cold War, it is really difficult to explain to young people how the world was in the late 70's and early 80's. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan was scary and then to be followed by a trigger happy US President in office could have led to the end of us all. Thank goodness for Mr Gorbachev.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by average40 (U14458923) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Oh dear......


    I have never been a Communist. I was not referring to Stalinism. I was talking about my previous experience with this particular historian.

    And I'm now leaving it here as this is getting a little silly.


    Mentioning no names Portly. 
    Would that you would Shelly, would that you would.......

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    The programme on 1989 will be interesting. The Germans who told me their story said that there had been rumours about the wall coming down but they had come to nothing hence why they didn't believe the neighbours.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by HoraceCoker (U14258478) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Someone disagrees with you and it has to be a windup? Get over yourself.

    This is the same fella that did the series on the 70s, yes? If I have the wrong historian, then my apologies. But it does look like him. Cos if so, he came across to me then as a Tory supporter. And I was around in the 70s so I know what he was talking about.

    I'm not saying he is a bad historian. I just wouldn't take his interpretation as truth. 
    ....who's interpretation of the truth would you prefer.....smiley - winkeye

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Baldinio (U2012448) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    The programme on 1989 will be interesting. The Germans who told me their story said that there had been rumours about the wall coming down but they had come to nothing hence why they didn't believe the neighbours. 

    There was a lot of 'intelligence' suggesting it was going to happen, I know a British Army captain who just happened to be present when the first lumps of concrete were chipped off, he keeps it on his desk to this day.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by leadedbee (U5555345) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    A mixed bag of a programme but mainly interesting I thought. Other posters have dubbed Sandbrook as a 'conservative' historian, whatever that means, but I thought he did well to expose the Stain apologist Hewlett Johnson for the utter idiot he was. If that makes him 'conservative' then so be it. I also liked the sound track, although some of the choices were a bit out of synch with the times he happened to be talking about at the time. I'll be watching again next week.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by lyall (U15817832) on Thursday, 14th November 2013

    STRANGE DAYS - COLD WAR BRITAIN – RED DAWN

    I must express my extreme disappointment in this first episode of the documentary.

    I lived in Britain throughout the second world war and the cold war.

    I am afraid Mr Sandbrook’s highly selective and poorly focussed version of events bears little resemblance to my own recollections.

    The cold war was virtually over by the time Mr Sandbrook studied his history.

    Thus he would have been well advised to seek advice from and to include interviews with some of the many thousands of British cold war survivors.

    These still include politicians, journalists and acknowledged military and scientific academics from across the spectrum.

    The total absence of such independent expertise in a serious BBC documentary is regrettable.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Thursday, 14th November 2013

    I am afraid Mr Sandbrook’s highly selective and poorly focussed version of events bears little resemblance to my own recollections.  

    Many millions of us "survived" the Cold War which would inevitably been a "Hot War" had we not been saved by the existence of the nuclear deterrent.

    I have been a witness to the Cold War just as you have, but I found Sandbrook made a pretty good fist of analysing that period of history.

    Perhaps you would give us a clue as to what you thought was wrong with it? smiley - smiley

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by lyall (U15817832) on Thursday, 14th November 2013

    I can fully agree with your own comment concerning the "nuclear deterrent".
    But this was neither explained nor expanded in the programme. Hence a good opportunity to raise this issue was missed probably because of the lack of expert input that I raise in my comment.

    With the exception of the Cuban missile crisis I cannot think of any part of the cold war when the British public could have felt directly or immediately threatened as implied by Mr. Sandbrook. Indeed the early cold war years led to a period of full employment and high aspiration which occupied much of the population.

    While it is true that George Orwell coined the expression "cold war", Orwell's real claim to fame is associated with fiction. This was quite generously addressed in the presentation - but forgive me if I express the view that fiction should have no place in a properly researched documentary.

    Charlie Chaplain suffered from the effects of "Macarthyism" or the "Reds under the Beds" syndrome. This was an American practice which (thank heaven) was neither adapted nor reflected to the best of my knowledge in "Cold War Britain".

    The Berlin airlift was probably the first major crises of the cold war which actually cost lives. It receives no mention in "Red Dawn" - again because of poor research.

    Messrs McClean and Burgess were clearly anti-establishment and anti-fascist. Only following their defection were they branded as "communist". The fact that Burgess was homosexual is completely irrelevant to "Cold War Britain".

    Hope these examples help you to understand my disappointment. The BBC has presented its viewers over the years with excellently researched documentaries of the highest quality. For example from the likes of the Dimbleby family and David Attenborough and even Fred Dibnah !!. I am afraid I have yet to be persuaded concerning Mr Sandbrooks quality of presentation.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Thursday, 14th November 2013

    Thanks for elaborating on what you disliked about the programme.

    I suppose any era of history that lasts some 45 years is too big a subject to be comprehensively analysed in the course of a few documentary programmes. Even if Sandbrook had presented us with a series of experts, they would come to it with their own points of view and axes to grind, so I doubt that this would have resulted in anything more definitive.

    I agree that during the period, it was only during the Cuban missile crisis that we were consciously anxious about the possibility of a nuclear holocaust. I was in the sixth form at the time and I remember we were all doodling mushroom clouds on our exercise books.

    However, I do think that the existence of the Cold War did have something of a subconscious effect on our thinking. It strikes me as significant that CND was strongest and most highly supported at times when the Soviet threat was greatest, i.e. the times when one would have thought that a nuclear deterrent was most necessary.

    I think that maybe Guy Burgess's homosexuality did deserve a mention, because at the time it was illegal and unpopular socially. Thus homosexuals tended to be targeted by intelligence services because they were very vulnerable to blackmail.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by NorthCareer (U14493588) on Thursday, 14th November 2013

    I can fully agree with your own comment concerning the "nuclear deterrent".
    But this was neither explained nor expanded in the programme. Hence a good opportunity to raise this issue was missed probably because of the lack of expert input that I raise in my comment.

    With the exception of the Cuban missile crisis I cannot think of any part of the cold war when the British public could have felt directly or immediately threatened as implied by Mr. Sandbrook. Indeed the early cold war years led to a period of full employment and high aspiration which occupied much of the population.

    While it is true that George Orwell coined the expression "cold war", Orwell's real claim to fame is associated with fiction. This was quite generously addressed in the presentation - but forgive me if I express the view that fiction should have no place in a properly researched documentary.

    Charlie Chaplain suffered from the effects of "Macarthyism" or the "Reds under the Beds" syndrome. This was an American practice which (thank heaven) was neither adapted nor reflected to the best of my knowledge in "Cold War Britain".

    The Berlin airlift was probably the first major crises of the cold war which actually cost lives. It receives no mention in "Red Dawn" - again because of poor research.

    Messrs McClean and Burgess were clearly anti-establishment and anti-fascist. Only following their defection were they branded as "communist". The fact that Burgess was homosexual is completely irrelevant to "Cold War Britain".

    Hope these examples help you to understand my disappointment. The BBC has presented its viewers over the years with excellently researched documentaries of the highest quality. For example from the likes of the Dimbleby family and David Attenborough and even Fred Dibnah !!. I am afraid I have yet to be persuaded concerning Mr Sandbrooks quality of presentation. 
    If I might adress the points where I feel relevant whislt keeping the post on-thread.

    I'm starting "With the exception"

    1) try telling that to the good people of Portsmouth (ships), Newcastle (tanks & ships), Chatham (ships) or London (everything) - even in the early days c. 1953. The UK was only ever a full-tank of fuel for early VVS bombers like the Tu-4 "Bull" (based on the B-29) away - yes a suicide mission in all but name but it was enough of a threat to create a massive employment spike in the defence industries - you only need see the creation of the Gloster Javelin & EE/BAC Lightning.

    2) Re: Berlin Airlift - to my knowledge the fatailities were accidents, perhaps caused by VVS interaction with the air-lift e.g. interceptions in poor visabiliy - were there not British fatalities in Greece post-1945 and of course Korea in 1950. I know there were fatalities for sure in Palestine and I suspect a few in Malaya in 1948 also - and one has to see those conflicts (certainly Malaya) as an adjunct of the Cold War.

    3) their anti-establisment views were framed probably by their homosexuality and therefore it is quite relevant - the key fact is they (the Cambridge spies) were all sw**e and deserved their bullet - sadly unlike so many Germans and Poles in Eastern Europe, the "five" didn't get theirs.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Pancho Wilkins (U1158194) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    i wanted to comment on this programme when it was aired but I was getting bored and distracted and at times forgot i was watching. All I knew was that I didn't get the point of the programme. So...

    I watched the whole programme again on iplayer and again started to lose focus half way through.

    I readily accept it was a historical account of life in Britain during the Cold War, but British People, in the main, were very unaware of life behind the Iron Curtain where the real Cold War was taking place.

    The Brtish Foreign Office, the embassies and the security services were obviously being tested on a daily basis as there was a lot of spying and infiltration going on, but I do not see how this programme can suggest that Britain was different during the Cold War period.

    Maybe the next episode will explain more but I genuinely welcome counter views as I want to make sure I am not missing something here?

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    I do not see how this programme can suggest that Britain was different during the Cold War period.  

    Fair point - in general we didn't go round worrying about the Cold War. One difference I can think of is that when East and West had vast batteries of nuclear missiles aimed at each other, there was quite a lot of support for CND including from some respectable public figures.

    I think it's a bit ironic that, now there is more danger from nuclear weapons as a result of proliferation and the missiles getting into the hands of unstable governments, the public interest in CND is now much less.

    I always felt that CND was more about appeasement of the Soviet Union on the basis of "better red than dead" than it was about the nuclear deterrent.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Hmm... you may not have gone around worrying about the Cold War but a lot of other people were going around worrying about a Nuclear War.

    It was something we learned to live with, same way people do with the terrorism threat now. You tried not to worry about it but it was always there in the background.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Baldinio (U2012448) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Hmm... you may not have gone around worrying about the Cold War but a lot of other people were going around worrying about a Nuclear War.

     


    Good point.

    It's worth noting that the first meeting of CND in early 1958 attracted 5,000 people and the first march attracted 60,000 and the second and third over 150,000 - that's huge by today's standards of political indifference.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Goodness, I remember the Cold - and the very real possibility of a Hot - War being an ever present reality at the time. Just some of the ways it impinged on my life at least were:
    Meeting Hungarian refugee children at my school.
    Blazing rows in my family and amongst my friends about 'the bomb'
    Consternation when I signed up for a school visit staying with a Yugoslav family, everyone thought that if and when I returned I would have been 'turned'. In fact I was in Slovenia which was the richest part of the country and found that there was an established and very pleasant middle class life style there.
    At dances and in coffee bars (!) the favourite chat up line was "And what should we do if the 4 minute warning sounded?"

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Pancho Wilkins (U1158194) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    I am hoping someone will explain the underlying enlightenment this programme was supposed to provide?

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    In fact I was in Slovenia which was the richest part of the country and found that there was an established and very pleasant middle class life style there.  

    I spent quite a lot of time with my then wife's family in Poland in the Communist times, and I agree that if you kept your head down and didn't do anything to upset the authorities, you could live a pretty normal family life.

    That's not to say that life was easy. If you managed to scrape enough money together to buy a car, you had to pay over your money and then wait for the car to become available. The wait was typically around 7 years! smiley - biggrin

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Whether or not Sandbrook is a "conservative", it is the case that histories of the Cold War are always partial (in both senses of the word).

    No mention, for example, that shortly after the revolution in Russia, the armies of 14 European countries invaded the place to try to reimpose the system that the people there had just overthrown.

    No mention that when soviet troops went into Afghanistan it was to defend a (far from perfect) government which was secular and upheld the rights of women. The less said about what became of the forces which the West supported and armed there the better......

    And what really gave CND a major shot in the arm in the early '80's was Reagan putting around the notion that it was possible to fight a tactical, "winnable" nuclear war in Europe (a nice long way away from him!)

    I didn't hear much of any of this in the programme.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    ....not forgetting that the price of the Cold War in Europe was paid by millions of people in the third world in a host of horrific, destructive and very "hot" proxy wars.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Pancho Wilkins (U1158194) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    I spent quite a lot of time with my then wife's family in Poland in the Communist times, and I agree that if you kept your head down and didn't do anything to upset the authorities, you could live a pretty normal family life. 
    There was nothing normal about life in the Soviet governed East European countries. The least affected were farmers. The most affected were those who thought for a living.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Baldinio (U2012448) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    I spent quite a lot of time with my then wife's family in Poland in the Communist times, and I agree that if you kept your head down and didn't do anything to upset the authorities, you could live a pretty normal family life. 
    There was nothing normal about life in the Soviet governed East European countries. The least affected were farmers. The most affected were those who thought for a living. 


    Old Polish joke. Why do Polish policeman walk around in threes? One to ask the questions, one to write down the answers and one to keep and eye on the two intellectuals.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Foxhead (U14308619) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Someone disagrees with you and it has to be a windup? Get over yourself.

    This is the same fella that did the series on the 70s, yes? If I have the wrong historian, then my apologies. But it does look like him. Cos if so, he came across to me then as a Tory supporter. And I was around in the 70s so I know what he was talking about.

    I'm not saying he is a bad historian. I just wouldn't take his interpretation as truth. 
    I thought it may be a wind-up because Sandbrook does not come across as a Tory supporter, unless perceived as so by a hard left commentator, perhaps.

    (And I was around in the 50s & 60s too, so mature enough to witness everything great and not so great during the 70s. I also suspect that anyone who uses the phrase 'get over yourself' these days may only have been no more than a toddler in that fun decade, ha!)

    smiley - laugh

    I repeat that Sandbrook has no obvious agenda - with this or any other survey. Its probably only the politically paranoid (right or left) who may take issue with him.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by NorthCareer (U14493588) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    I do not see how this programme can suggest that Britain was different during the Cold War period.  

    Fair point - in general we didn't go round worrying about the Cold War. One difference I can think of is that when East and West had vast batteries of nuclear missiles aimed at each other, there was quite a lot of support for CND including from some respectable public figures.

    I think it's a bit ironic that, now there is more danger from nuclear weapons as a result of proliferation and the missiles getting into the hands of unstable governments, the public interest in CND is now much less.

    I always felt that CND was more about appeasement of the Soviet Union on the basis of "better red than dead" than it was about the nuclear deterrent. 
    What I failed to see was the very real issue of post-war National Service, the fact that even during the so-called "Cold War" British servicemen were involved in the Ulster border wars and the fact that the UK was also until 1948 involved in Palestine - the latter being a hugely contentious issue then as it involved National Service soldiers. Unless quite simply this wasn't part of the mandate...I don't know if we're up to 1952 yet but if one is to mention Dinamo Moscow then surely one must also mention the Magic Magyrs of Puskas - beat Wolves about 7-1 I think....

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    re enough to witness everything great and not so great during the 70s. I also suspect that anyone who uses the phrase 'get over yourself' these days may only have been no more than a toddler in that fun decade, 

    This is too silly to bother arguing with so yeah, you won. I don't really care to argue with someone who decides a stranger's whole life history on the use of one word.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Foxhead (U14308619) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    re enough to witness everything great and not so great during the 70s. I also suspect that anyone who uses the phrase 'get over yourself' these days may only have been no more than a toddler in that fun decade, 

    This is too silly to bother arguing with so yeah, you won. I don't really care to argue with someone who decides a stranger's whole life history on the use of one word. 
    (......three words actually)

    Hey - this is only a bit of fun!

    Nobody 'wins' as you put it.


    smiley - hug

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Pancho Wilkins (U1158194) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Any chance of anyone letting me know what we were supposed to learn from this programme?

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Pancho Wilkins (U1158194) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Any chance of anyone letting me know what we were supposed to learn from this programme? 
    Anybody ? Dominic Sandbrook ? BBC commissioning editor?

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Sunday, 17th November 2013

    The first episode of this three-part documentary series was both reviewed and discussed on Radio 4's Saturday Review programme.

    Both Ekow Eshun and Miranda Sawyer criticised Dominac Sandbrook's television programme as being both bland and without an angle or personal point of view.

    I couldn't really agree with them more.

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Tuesday, 19th November 2013

    Just a quick reminder that part two of this three-part documentary series is actually on BBC Two this evening, commencing at 21.00.

    In the second episode, Dominic Sandbrook looks at the frontline of the conflict as a newly prosperous Britain of consumerism was pitched against the Soviet ideal of communism.

    primetime.unrealityt...

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.