La Guerre selon Churchill

I'm interested in the real footage of the War and hearing the details of how Churchill lead Britain. I can do totally without the talking heads interrupting and giving completely pointless opinions, especially Boris Johnson and George W. Bush. Who thought that was a good idea?

Neither of those belong in any piece about Churchill.

I could do without any extras making statements about the obvious, it's a distraction and annoying. They should have had one narrator, seldom seen and it would have been much more tolerable. There are better documentaries but I would have found this one interesting if they'd left off the bad acting bits.

This is a brisk and thoroughly enjoyable summary of Churchill's achievements and failings, principally from the late 1930s to the end of the Second World War. The series doesn't shy away from Churchill's disastrous Gallipoli campaign, his enduring belief in the importance of the British Empire, his sidelining by Stalin and FDR and his controversial tactical decisions around the French naval fleet, but the overriding gist of the series is just how important the man was at a crucial point in world history.

We are left under no doubt about how different, were it not for Churchill's tenacity [stubbornness?], sense of duty and extraordinary level of self-belief, the outcome of the war might have been. A failure on the part of the UK to withstand the Nazi invasion of Europe, could have led to permanent widespread European fascism. The talking heads who focus on Churchill's racism, never manage to outweigh the arguments for the good that he did.

The format follows that of the BBC's superb (and superior) "The Rise of the Nazis", with a combination of reenactment and expert opinion. There are observations by a few big names like David Petraeus and George W Bush (...and Boris, obvs.), but where "The Rise of the Nazis" had insightful contributions by some of the world's leading academic experts on the subject, "Churchill at War" has generic telly-historian Dan Snow making points that could be picked up in a GCSE history book. We should be glad it wasn't Tony Robinson, I suppose.

One of the strangest aspects of the series is the use of AI to generate Churchill's written comments into his spoken voice. I'm still undecided how convincing I found this.

A shout-out really needs to go to actor Christian McKay, for playing Churchill in the reenactments; a perfectly judged performance mimicking the sound and behaviour of Churchill, without ever stepping over into pastiche.

The letters and speeches by Churchill are interesting. But crowbarring in actors and scripted segments takes away from this series. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if I want to watch a fictionalized movie/play about Churchill, I can do that. But I don't want a supposed documentary to include fictionalized scenes (especially badly acted ones).

There is so much to learn about Churchill and his motives from his speeches, letters, notes, etc, but it's completely worthless if you are including acted conversations based on a bad screenplay. I just don't understand why that is necessary.

Just give me the facts in an interesting way and make a bad movie with the other parts.

I enjoyed the series while also recognising that it isn't everything that it could have been.

In terms of narrative, it faithfully hits all the major plot points of the Second World War. Though the pundits and 'live action recreations' are sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss.

The recolourised archival footage is truly spectacular. It brings the war from the myth of history to a lived human experience.

This is particularly relevant now. Democratic decline is a rising tide. One that we are only beginning to wrestle with (even outside obvious examples). Appeasement in the face of imperialist aggression is spoken of as the lesser evil. These are dangerous waters and they are not new. History must be understood if it is not to be repeated.

This is why I forgive the show for it's inclusion of politicians. Even those who probably have no right to be there.

The link that it makes from the past to the present (aided through colour footage) is enough for me to view their inclusion as having value.

Is the show a masterpiece? No. Did I enjoy it as someone with an interest in history. I did indeed.

Until the line "UK gave time, USA gave money, Russia gave blood," I was quite fond of the series. The timeline of events was very new to me, and it's a very insightful way to think about such historical events.

In the documentary "Churchill at War," Russia is used interchangeably with the Soviet Union; it's equivalent to the other 14 republics.

It's 2024, and people who ignore 14 other republics and their sacrifices should not make documentaries.

Look at their Wikipedia numbers - World War II casualties of the Soviet Union, 16.3% of the Ukrainian population, 25.3% of Belarus - these are not Russian sacrifices, and joining them under the "Russia" umbrella is similar to declaring that New York State won civil war.