The World Wars - Wie zwei Kriege die Welt veränderten

The History Channel presents a miniseries of six hours on three nights as an overview of the concept that the beginnings of WW I and the events that occurred in that first World War were played out by the same set of characters and in doing so the series presents the backgrounds of each of the major world players in a manner that allows us to see them as individuals rather than historical tropes. Until Amazon makes this available this review is pictured by another series made two years ago with a bit of a different approach. But for those who may be deciding whether or not to catch the current series, hopefully this brief overview will assist.

As the description for the series state, 'The World Wars tells the story of three decades of war told through the eyes of various men who were its key players: Roosevelt, Hitler, Patton, Mussolini, Churchill, Tojo, DeGaulle and MacArthur. The series examines the two wars as one contiguous time line starting in 1914 and concluding in 1945 with these unique individuals coming of age in World War I before ultimately calling the shots in World War II.

Narrated by Jeremy Renner and with comments throughout the series from Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Leon Panetta, John McCain, John Major, Mario Monti and many historians and correspondents form the US and Britain, the series is a collage of battle scenes (some repetitive, but war is repetitive), but adding the young and old versions of Stalin (Jacopo Rampini /not listed), Mussolini (Nabil Vinas/Jonathan Hartman), MacArthur (Prescott Hathaway/not listed), DeGaulle (Michael Perrie. Jr./Don Meehan), Churchill (Tom Vickers/Ian Beyts), Hitler (Maximillian Klas/not listed ), Lenin (C Conrad Cady), Patton (Matt Dearman/Don Hartman), FDR (Kevin McKillip/not listed), and Tojo (not listed).

The series is directed by John Ealer and written by Chelsea Coates, Zachary Hartmann, Claire Lawton, Alec Michod, Jordan Rosenblum, and David White. No, it isn't all the information about he wars but it is a psychological study of the men who were at the helm of each country involved. It is disturbing but the series does provide insights we should appreciate. Grady Harp, May 14

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.

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 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.

There are numerous inaccuracies in this re-creation. Two of the most glaring are the singling out of MacArthurs and Patton, while General Eisenhower and Admiral Nimitz aren't even mentioned. The war in the Pacific was primarily a Naval war, and that effort was led by Nimitz. Even MacArthur's retaking of the Philippines was only possible because the Navy and Marines cleared the way across the Pacific. General Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and his contributions were the key to the victory in Europe. Patton was a superb battlefield commender, but lacked the judgment necessary for a position such as that held by Eisenhower. Patton is the kind of guy you want in the lead when you have to "go", but you never want him making the decision whether or not you should "go".