100 Days to Victory

Grantss said that the series is slanted to the Aussie Canadian viewpoint. I would not so far as to say that because I am not an expert.However, it does seem that everyone else is ignored. How did the other forces on the other fronts, especially the French, contribute? The Belgians were between the English and the sea, what did they do? It is not explained what the US forces contributed, though we well know they did? The last 100 days were decisive in holding then folding the German advance. So many questions come out that one suggests the series could have been longer (maybe three episodes) The mopre I think about it the more I devalue it fron 7 to 6. As a last detail I wish to comment on the use of symbols. This series uses the "Maple Flag" to denote the Canadians. Previous to the "Maple Flag" the Canadians used a flag with a portion devoted to the Union (British) Flag. In most reproductions of the era the original Canadian flag is used as is historically correct. Whether it be Canada or Germany or whatever country please respect the symbols of the day.!

The final 100 days of World War 1, showing how the Allies went on the offensive and secured the victory. The documentary centres on four key Allied leaders: Field Marshall Ferdinand Foch, Field Marshall Douglas Haig, General John Monash and General Arthur Currie.

Okay, but not great, documentary. Fairly standard documentary with not too many insights. My knowledge of WW1 is better than most but I am not an expert. However, there were very few details that made me think "Gee, that's interesting. I didn't know that".

The other problem is that the series is Australian and Canadian made and the producers slant the story in favour of their home countries. Generals Monash (Australian) and Currie (Canadian) are made out to be the saviours of the Allies, succeeding where nobody else can. While they are great Generals, and Monash particularly is one of the greatest Generals of WW1, and their contribution was great, this one-eyedness severely diminished the contributions of other forces towards the victory. The marketing of Monash and Currie is quite over-the-top and overt. (And I'm Australian!).

Still, not bad, just would have preferred a more balanced and engaging view.

The purpose of a documentary or docu-drama is to communicate information that was previously unknown to the viewer. This movie does that in spades. It's purpose is not to repeat stories of American and British documentaries that lump Canadian and Anzac armies into the BEF or Allies' activities. To expect it to also highlight what was happening in other sectors with other divisions misses the very premise of the film and reflects an preference for nationalism over information and facts. Akin to faulting Dunkirk for failing to show North Africa or Saving Private Ryan for not showing any allies at all. This film presents, in a dramatic way, information that is largely unknown to Canadians and Australians and certainly unknown to the rest of the world who apparently don't want to hear about it. It's a great film, showing new information about the most important battles of the end of the war and the main protagonists using facts not nationalism as it's premise.