awesome. loved it. pretty true to fact as well.
It is OK but has some really obvious goofs such as showing American troops and German troops shooting Lee Enfields.
Also shows Patton chasing Mexicans on a car and (technically they didn’t say that is how he killed them but you clearly are meant to think so) despite the fact that he killed them with a pistol in a gunfight.
They show Churchill with what looks like a .45 auto. I can’t say for sure that he never had one but it would look a lot more authentic if he was using a broomhandle Mauser.
Quite a bit of similar errors tho the history over all may be OK.
I thought the early history of Hitler was interesting, if factual. That is the problem with anything anymore, TV, Internet, everything is open to “revisionism”.
I am enjoying it. I have my doubts about Hitler cutting his moustache with a knife due to it not allowing him to seal his gas mask during the attack.
I truly like the way they portrayed Neville Chamberlain as foolish for his persistent denial of Hitler’s movement throughout Europe. Reminds me of todays liberal and Al Qaeda. Head in the sand.
They left a few important things out. The biggest was the rescue at Dunkirk.
I clicked to another channel when they showed a German B-17 bombing Poland.
That’s bad even by History Channel standards...
I’ve been watching all day. Not bad. Not one once of bullshit that our government spews today.
If I’ve already watched “The World At War”, what do I gain from watching this?
I haven’t, but, was it aliens?
Could have done without that idiot McLame’s snide remarks about Patton...actually, could do without McLame and Panetta’s “commentary” altogether and that would bring the show up a notch or two.
Otherwise, quite informative...
The thing that gets on my nerves is the History Channel has taken to showing “rerun” scenes within the show. I saw the scene of Hitler trimming his mustache in the trench three times in the same episode. It’s almost like they didn’t have enough footage to fill out the show. Kind of like the old Batman episodes only they do the “refresher” to bring you up to speed after every commercial break.
Maybe that’s being picky but it’s annoying to me.
Pretty entertaining. Wish they showed more of a young Stalin.
I watched a good bit of it last night. Other than hardware inaccuracies, which every show will have, it’s a good series. They are giving short shrift to the changes in Japan that turned them from a democracy to a militaristic society. They also didn’t give enough attention to Stalin’s USSR, although I will admit they made no apologies for him.
It is a whitewash.
It opened with the false myth of a Wall street guy jumping out the window. Friedman and Schwartz long ago looked at the death rates and checked news paper reports and there is ZERO evidence of any more suicides or Wall Street types killing themselves due to the crash. Heck the NYTimes did not call the stock market crash one of the top stories of 1929 in its end of the year review that year.
Then they neglect the admiration the American left had for the national socialists in Italy and Germany.
The History Channel is fun to watch. But it is biased left wing history and always slanted.
It was good and we learned a few things that surprised us. Seemed to be factual. About 1/2 way in I was starting to see a bias towards liberal commentors (that includes Powell) then I saw Rusmsfeld. The intro by El-Presidente kind of made me want to puke, but other than that....
Some factual errors concerning Russia. In the episode one they stated that Lenin deposed the tzar. Actually, Lenin arrived in Russia after the tzar had already abdicated due to the February revolution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power with a coup in October and promptly killed Nicholas II and his family.
My thought was that the creators of the mini-series didn’t have the time or desire to explain all the details, so they went with a really short version. Otherwise I am getting ready to watch episode 3 tonight.
Very interesting details on the young Hitler. I wonder how the Brit that had him in his sights and let him go felt later, if factual?
I love it and learning a lot. However, how on earth did history know of the British officer who had Hitler in his sites - but let him go? They knew the Brit’s name, so I’m wondering how they came about this account.
It seems well made.
It has been ok. As another poster commented I could do without either McNutjob and Panetta’s commentary. Last night they showed for the initial invasion of France an apparent frontal assault on the Maginot line and then went to a map showing some imaginary penetration of the Alsace-Lorraine and not the drive to the sea that cut off the allies.
Did not realize that Churchill fought in front line WWI after Gallipoli. That was interesting.
It is misleading
Claims Wilson “kept us out of war” — the exact opposite was the case
Neglects to mention that both Hitler and Mussolini got public approval because they were stopping Bolsheviks from taking over German and Italy
Doesn’t mention that Churchill considered BOTH Nazism and Communism to be evil.
Doesn’t mention the plethora of Stalin admirers (and other Communist “fellow travelers”) in FDR’s administration.
Doesn’t mention that Lenin and Stalin were Communists