BBC2 tonight Clarkson on Convoy PQ17

A hugely enjoyable and well presented programme which was a fitting tribute to the men and boys who made "the worst journey in the world". Totally agree with JC's succinct summary of the award of the Arctic Star:

"About Bloody time"

Quite.

 

It's because he gets excited about it and has passion and the utmost respect for those that served in WW2. You only had to see him on the Millies presenting an award to the Merchant Navy veterans of WW2 and what he said to know that.

 

I have just watched the documentary tonight , i also thought it was first class. I hope he makes more documentaries.

Steve

 

Really enjoyed it and thought the programme was very well produced. The veterans of course were the stars of the show and so pleased they managed to tell their stories.

Clarkson made some interesting comments on Twitter about it as well.

 

indeed
dam good job he did

 

More and more to be found on YouTube these days. Kuddo's to all the people recovering these.
- Albeit this is light weight documentary.

The Scattering Of Convoy PQ17 - Part 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRKyhEnO1HM

 

The Scattering Of Convoy PQ17 - Part 2 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLWD_HHJmQU

The Scattering Of Convoy PQ17 - Part 3 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWuaJwnCXQA

 

The often unsung Mercantile Marine - Murmansk:

https://archive.org/details/DestructionOfAlliedFleet

 

Captain Jack Broome sued Irving over his portrayal in this book and won. Subsequent editions had to be amended.

From that impeccable source Wikipedia:

In 1968, David Irving published a controversial book about PQ17. It concentrated on allied blunders and shortcomings, and in particular, alleged that Broome's decision to withdraw his destroyers was the primary cause of the disaster to the convoy. Broome mounted a libel action to defend his reputation. He was successful, winning £40,000 in damages and securing the withdrawal of all copies of the offending book from circulation (although it has since been republished, with corrections.) The damages payment (donated by Broome to charity) was the highest paid in legal history until Jeffery Archer's controversial action against The Sun newspaper.

A slightly more detailed one (but beware, parts of it are an Irving apologia)

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/PQ17Libel/

 

A great programme. An insight into something I knew nothing about. JC did a fantastic job, telling very human stories with feeling and authority.

 

I see that David Irving is threatening legal action relating to the the Clarkson'd documentary...accusation of using material without Irving's permission.....Irving quotes 14 passages which have been lifted from his work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10550874/Jeremy-Clarksons-BBC-show-in-battle-with-Nazi-historian.html

I think Irving's work is a good comprehensive account of of the convoy's destruction.that is outside its original work which had to be amended on account of Captain J E Broome successful libel action regarding Broome's professional performance.

Broome set out his case in his publication "Convoy is to Scatter" at the time of his libellous action against Irving.Further there are a number of sources where individuals have related personal accounts of the the passage of Convoy PQ 17

However from a personal view,I think Clarkson's documentary is what I can describe as shallow.Its a pity that the documentary could not have been enhanced in the frame time that was allocated to Clarkson "on ice and his backdrop of the Kremlin".To do so would have probably required further appreciation of Irving's work.

There were many dimensions to the arduous task of running the Arctic convoys, PQ 17 experienced the adversity of them at their peak,Clarkson's documentary did not reveal these as should have been done.

 

Couldn't agree more. I really enjoyed it.

Lesley

 

I would never ever read Irving. The man has no crediblity left as far as I'm concerned.

 

Clarkson set the scene perfectly. There was no better way to get the stories presented in the minds eye.

 

Adam,you misunderstand me...as I have said I cannot say I am drawn to Clarkson as a conduit for history....would rather read a a validated account rather than leave it to some documentaries...books even so, some fall short in reflecting a true account of history when subject to full scrutiny. Having said that,Clarkson would deliver the documentary as scripted for him...perhaps no different to a weather forecaster.

As regards Irving,I did not have to refer to Widipedi for information,I remember his publication in 1968 on PQ17 and the subsequent court case.I read the book, ex library,at the time and remembered the central issues outlined.

I am fully aware that Irving is no stranger to the courts and would not support his views on behalf of the Third Reich...let us say this,usually when you pick up a Irving publication you have an appreciation what you might run in to.....that is for the informed.

 

It came across as a programme for all to watch and as ever with this type of show you can take it as was or delve deeper and learn more.

 

Harry, Clarkson both wrote the script and presented it, and has been widely praised for that double feat.
Given the constraints that the programme had to be one hour and intelligible to a viewer knowing hardly anything about WW2 he did a marvellous job of writing and presenting IMO.

 

The part where Clarkson stood outside the IWM and showed the difference between shell sizes was rather neat.
It's on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKTLXwKJt5w, just after 20:00.

He didn't state the calibre of the apparently modest 'pea-shooter' shell, but said it was the largest any of the British ships had. If true, that would make it an 8-inch as fired by two of the British cruisers. But was it really that? Or was it a 6-inch? Just curious.