The World Wars

Just watched this new show on the USA history channel.... any of my American friends - watch out this does not go into the full details of WW1 in fact it gave 10secs about how ww1 breaks out (none of the months of before it breakout) - it takes a directors artistic license as what was happening to a younger Stalin,Hitler,Churchill,Paton as in what 'they'(director/writers) think what they were doing during the WW1 era... and not the real facts. if you watch it - beware it is annoying how they concentrate on future ww2 good/bad leaders - go watch 'The World At World' (BBC series instead - think it covers about 20 DVD's) which is pure facts not director's license. Sad this new show came out on memorial day in USA TV - bit miff as a history buff.

The show should be called - 'WW1 & WW2 - how leaders were shaped'. Don't Expect to learn history on this show - take it with a pinch of salt and not bible.

Paul

I've been enjoying the show, but you have to really know the true history and then make allowances for the "Cliff Notes version" (see http://www.cliffsnotes.com/) that this is. It's highlights and simplification.

Bear in mind that the "History" channel now includes a heavy dose of alien and UFO conspiracy theory, ghost hunting and religion bashing. Everything on History needs to be taken in the context of other sources or you will surely be mislead. I could fill a couple of pages with historical misstatements or omissions in this program, but it does add something to the overall story, so long as you don't take it as the single source! They portrayed the main German attack as coming through the Maginot line when in fact it was bypassed by attacking through the same Ardennes forest they later used in the Battle of the Bulge. Never mentioned was the 8th Army battle in North Africa, or the role of Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. No mention of the Battle of the Atlantic. Also ignored was the role that the Japanese war in China played in American - Japanese relations.

All in all, it is a good story which can be a good addition to the overall narrative, but you really need to already understand the entire context in order to not be mislead. Movies and mini-series can bring stories to life, but there is really no substitute to actually reading the many wonderful memoirs of the people who were actually there!

Having just watched it again, in addition to the omissions and over-simplifications, there are also glaring mis-statements of fact and factual error galore. It will suffice to point out just two: #1 they stated that Patton defeated Italy in six weeks, when he was actually NEVER involved in the Italian campaign which lasted nearly to the end of the war. He (and Field Marshall Montgomery) won the battle of Sicily. BTW How anyone can discuss Patton without discussing Montgomery as well is beyond anyone who knows the story. #2 they leave the impression that Patton was only called back to duty during the Battle of the Bulge, when in fact, it was Patton who led Operation Cobra, which created the breakout from the Normandy beachhead in August.

I was flipping channels and came across this dreck a little less than 1/2 way through. I started to watch and within seconds found myself saying, "How did that...?" " When did....?" "That's not right." "I'm not genius or expert, but WHAT THE....?" and so forth.

VERY few of the actors looked much like their characters as if the casting director simply said, "If they're white and male, feh, it works. Oh, but put a pair of glasses on that guy."

As other reviews have mentioned, poetic license is to be expected to some degree and honestly, with that much of a timespan to cover and all that material, one has to be realistic enough to know that you can't include every detail or you'd end up with a movie almost as long as the war itself. It's just not going to happen. But with that in mind, isn't it in everyone's best interest to get what you ARE covering more than a LITTLE right?

The History Channel has become a joke. What was once one of the most fascinating and informative channels for us history buffs has become a hodgepodge of reality crap shows. It's heartbreaking, but my anti-TV executive rants are common in my reviews, so, here's more evidence to back up my beliefs. When they DO an actual history show, I guess we shouldn't expect much more from them than this.

And this stinker is now 4 years old. Sheesh, now I'm starting to cry.

Do not watch this series expecting a comprehensive study of both World Wars a la Ken Burns's Civil War. It's not. However, it presents a cause-and-effect survey of how connected the two wars were.

First the negative: This program focuses on a few key figures yet totally omits any mention whatsoever of Eisenhower. How do you cover D-day without at least mentioning the name Eisenhower? Eisenhower was the ONLY 5 star general, yet two others in this program erroneously wore 5 star insignia.

Positive: Jeremy Renner did a great job narrating. The series is educational and worth watching. Although it's imperfect, I learned a few things from this series. I like how it treats both World Wars as one conflict because it was. The Treaty of Versailles wasn't a peace treaty at all and set the stage for resumption of fighting.

This series will leave you hungering for more, in depth programs that once were offered by The History Channel before they chose to waste our time on such nonsense as Pawn Wars.

This series can be commended for trying to tackle and combine WWI and WWII. Most historians agree that WWI directly led to WWII. However, this writers constant combining and oversimplification of important facts and events leads to inaccuracies and just straight falsehoods. If you are going to invest several hours watching World War 'history', your time would be much better spent watching "The World at War" series.