Apocalypse: The Second World War (TV Mini-Series 2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
28 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The best documentary on WWII you'll ever watch!
stuka2410 January 2010
"Perfection is rare to find" is the favourite phrase of an aesthetic surgeon. This is just it.

The text is superb. Informative, NEUTRAL, without concessions for any party, and with a subtler enough message of hope. The images are really unbelievable. Also unusual. If you think you've seen them all and docus on wars bore you, think again. Kassovitz's voice is just what's needed for the job: enthusiastic and yet dry enough so you get "just the facts". If you ever look for a good music equipments, when you read reviews you'll find that one of the best compliments writers do is: "doesn't get in between you and the music". You don't "notice" the direction, editor, the "author" who made this monumental work. Even with touchy topics like the Holocaust, they just deliver the facts. Their involvement is obvious, but they always give us the facts first. Whether you are cramming for a general education examination or if you want to be a bit less ignorant on probably the most relevant topic of the XX century, you'll find no better documentary. Engaging, painful to watch at times, showing us the consequences on the peasants and the "little people" as well as the general's feats and whims, this saga strikes the right balance at everything. From the Blitzkreig to the V2, from Normandie to the unlikely allies the Nazis got from the dominated Slav countries (and how they mistreated them for "not being Aryan", everything is here, and more. Even Hitler's madness. Just one example: him calling Churchill and Roosevelt "jewizizing" after another military setback. Surely history is staggering enough: the Islamists were one of the unlikely willful allies of the Nazis, "combating the common Zionist enemy".

Words are not enough to describe the "thirst for nothingness" Hitler saw on the world, Japanese's pride, American altruism, British flame, the French way of failing so much, for so long, Italian's mistrust of government, Soviet power and blindness, German efficiency in devising the cruelest weapon (i.e. the mines with a "click") as the Berliner. performing yet another perfect rehearsal. If there's just one thing I'd have liked is less bias for the tiniest "heroic French action" completely irrelevant for the course of the war, and absent from any history manuals. Time being a scarce resource, it'd been useful to cover a bit more of the Pacific front, barely mentioned. It's also a bit Eurocentric in scope, but I suppose that's the price to pay. Nobody is perfect after all :(.

Whatever is to be learned from wars must be here. Whatever can be learned is never enough, never too late, never enough. Churchill's famous prose give this documentary two of the most memorable moments, in which it was difficult for me not to cry. People may not learn, again. Yes, a documentary on such hay-necked topic can still do that to you.
78 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
WWII explained with restored film archives
wakedph4 January 2010
I recently viewed this 6 part series on WWII and I was literally captivated. It aired on TV5 (French speaking network) twice and I finally managed to view all 6 episodes. The war is explained in detail with actual footage filmed by all sides in the conflict. The films are enhanced (coloured) and restored making them even more actual. The conflicts In North Africa, in the Pacific and in Europe are all explained with maps and troop movements. The hardship and suffering of the populations and soldiers are seen and felt by the viewer.

From the beginning of the German-Russian Nonaggression Pact to the surrender of Japan, all steps of the war are explained and shown with unbelievable detail. The complete DVD set is available but only in Europe for Zone 2 and Pal TV. However I think it should be made available everywhere, and all school children old enough to understand, should be shown this documentary.
47 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A revelation
Leofwine_draca5 February 2011
I watched this six-part documentary series when it was first shown on British television back in November 2010. I was absolutely blown away by it.

The main draw of this French-made series is the inclusion of colour film footage. The narration doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know about the war, but the colour footage, which plays constantly throughout the six hours, is tremendous and brings the era to life like never before.

Fairly wide-ranging in scope, this one covers the Nazi invasions, the Russian front, the British perspective and the War in the Pacific. I was moved, intrigued and came away feeling like I'd attended an extremely good history class on the subject.
31 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Maximum education about the WWII
engelbertfranssen13 November 2012
The second world war ensured tons of documentaries. The information about this topic is overwhelming, but of course you don't want to watch every documentary ever made. But if you don't have a clue where to start, or if you just want a very nice summery of the second world war, then this documentary is a must see in my opinion.

The documentary shows the development of the second world war in a chronological and interesting way. It is narrated from a very objective point of view and therefore the educational level is very high. And the amount of topics is very broad, so you get introduced with every aspect of this heinous period. Due this fact you can orientate what you find interesting and you can search for more documentaries about specific topics later.

The capture my opinion in a short sentence: "Please watch this amazing documentary"!
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Interesting Documentary WW2
nicholas.rhodes22 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A documentary potted history of WW2, the novelty here is that most of the film has been "colorized". The maker does not like to use this word and prefers to say "restored" but to all intents and purposes it is seeing the war in colour that makes it more gory and emotional. Explosions, bodies, speeches, ruins, bombs, it's all there and by the end of the sixth and last episode you are completely drained ! It is difficult to imagine how so much grief, damage disaster horror can be caused at the beginning by such a small number of people. Apparently, over 700 hours of film were examined before selecting the final product which is 6 x 52 minute episodes.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Best looking of its kind
wikipediacabal9 September 2013
The high resolution film scans look great. They are the main attraction here so be sure to watch it in HD. The colorizing is good too, making the footage more powerful for today's audience, although I can imagine that future improvements will eventually make it look dated.

The script repeats an old error about the Polish cavalry units in Ep. 1. A brief clip of men charging with sabers drawn is narrated "The Polish cavalry charges the German tanks, and is slaughtered." This is nonsense and insulting. World War I taught every cavalry officer that cavalry charges were a thing of the past. Polish cavalry c.1939 were not classic cavalry. The were highly mobile infantry units which used horses to move but then fought dismounted. They were highly effective in that role.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great WW2 films I haven't seen before
bttp10 March 2012
Maybe the story is not 100% complete, and maybe it gets a little confusing because so many things happen simultaneously throughout the world, so it's understandable that they didn't cover every single aspect and that it's a little too much "French biased", after all it is a French documentary. For example they didn't cover the Balkans at all, and there was one of the most complicated situations in the whole WW2. Maybe not the most important, but certainly interesting, especially in Yugoslavia, where there was in effect a three-way civil war under Nazi occupation, between royalists, communists and quislings going on simultaneously with the armed resistance to Nazis. So that in itself is a situation that would require it's own documentary, and I can see that the authors maybe did not wan't to get into explaining those difficult circumstances when it may take too much time. But the sheer amount of film material shown, that I've never seen before, is astonishing to say the least. I watched every episode eyes wide open. And it's that WW2 video material itself that makes this documentary worth having in one's collection.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
pleasant, but not perfect
djeezman7 April 2010
It is a France 2 documentary and as such very french biased.

Many french sensitive issues (Vichy.. only the top a disgrace, or whole french populations under Vichy a disgrace ?! ), liberation of France by active troops in terms of men, material..how much (or rather how little) was french, etc. are left under the carpet.

All the world-war issues are looked upon with french interest/viewpoint..if there isn't one, then there is no attention to it or only as a 5 second footnote (Fights in Norway? Holland ? Belgium ? Convoy war at Atlantic ? Balkan fights Tito resistance, Soviet fights in Balkan countries ? MarketGarden ? Japan's fights and occupation in china,New Guinea,etc).

However french issues which are marginal to the outside world are given broad attention (french ministers crisis 1940, negotiations Roosevelt with Gaulle en Vichy favoured representative in 1943, Bir Hakeim stand, LeClerc background (ahem Zjoekov's background ? Monty's Background? Alexander's background?), Indochine taken over by Japan, French resistance actions (no resistance elsewhere?), De Gaulle's return in France and focus on his political problems).

Like before-mentioned text: Many films have been aired before..only a few are rare (from French sources). All are coloured in, which gives it a special touch-but not all are coloured in thoroughly (only face one colour, one colour for uniform, one colour for bushes, one colour for ground).

It's nice to see, and it keeps you captivated...but it is not THE best documentary, and certainly not "neutral"(unbiased).
34 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A realistic view of World War II
RealLiveClaude8 November 2015
This series followed "Apocalypse: Hitler", and explains with sometimes very crude and brutal images, the events of World War II.

Narrated by Mathieu Kassovitz in French, it truly brings the war up to its exploits and its horrors. Some excerpts were shot by American directors John Ford and John Huston, right on the spot.

Thus maybe one flaw was the fact that it showed mostly the war on the European front, Hitler's wanting to rule the world, the Soviets fighting back with strong forces. Only the fourth episode shows the Pacific War with the Japanese using "Bushido" to stand up to its enemies, mostly the Americans. It took atomic bombs to end it all...

And in Europe, the crush on three sides: the Normandy Raid, the African defeats and the Soviet eastern push did end Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy dominations.

This is a documentary not to be missed. Warning: some images can be disturbing...
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It has its good and bad points.
jeffrey-nimmo-15 March 2010
I take exception to the statements that this is the greatest WW2 documentary ever made. It's a fairly standard history from a French viewpoint, with the additional gimmick of being colorized. Yes, colorized, not "restored," as the original was never in color in the first place. Some of the footage is new, but most has appeared in previous documentaries.

Black & white footage is not easily colorized, and can often appear fake, even surrealistic. So, while it sometimes works, making certain scenes more vivid and realistic, it often works counter to its purpose.

Much of the new footage has not appeared previously for a reason: it is extremely disturbing. Dead and decaying bodies abound. This is a war documentary and so is perfectly appropriate, but I would not allow small children to watch.

The commentary avoids controversy by being rather simplistic. WW2 Buffs will learn nothing new. I was impressed however, by the statement in one of the episodes, that the French communists didn't begin resisting the German occupation until after the invasion of the Soviet Union, a full year after the fall of France. This statement of course is absolutely true, but it couldn't have made the French leftists very happy.

In all, I would recommend this to WW2 and modern history buffs, only for the new footage, and to see what can and can't be done with colorization. However, for general viewers looking for a solid introduction to the war, I would recommend "World at War." For those sad souls who cannot watch b&w footage, there are series for the US, Great Britain, Japan and the Anzacs, all showing original, not colorized, color footage.
21 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
henrycoles920 June 2020
I watched this series when it came out over a decade ago and I just had an urge to watch it again. It certainly feels more chilling now than when I was a teenager and the brilliant colors of the Second World War will forever be seared on my mind.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The best WWII documentary I have ever seen
minister_of_silly_walks21 November 2018
A must watch for every history buff and any fan of documentaries. It has never before seen color footage from all of the action in WWII as well as stories form behind the scenes as well as every day life. It is fascinating, interesting and terrifying all at the same time.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Overly condensed; France misrepresented
chunkmeal28 July 2012
Six 45-minute episodes does no justice to what was truly the most devastating Apocalypse in human history. But yes this is pretty good given the very limiting length constraint.

I am writing this review however, mostly so I can rant about the disproportionate amount of time devoted (in this already extremely short documentary) to what the French did. France is often caricatured as having, in WW2, done little more than surrender immediately, ship out Jews while waiting to be liberated, and be forever angry at their liberators (especially for speaking English while in France).

This caricature is however probably closer to the truth than what this documentary suggests.

Example: one bit talked at length about the mythical French Resistance, then went on to show 3-second clips of resistance movements around the continent, e.g. in Yugoslavia, Norway, etc. This was quite risible, given that the Yugoslav Resistance successfully liberated Yugoslavia by themselves, while Albert Speer replied "What French Resistance?" when asked about it.

Example: The French Resistance and De Gaulle are depicted as having liberated Paris, but really they were (for lack of a common English expression) ribbon-cutters claiming the credit for work done by their true liberators---the English-speakers.

An astonishing fact cited by Andrew Roberts in The Storm of War is this: A greater number of Frenchmen bore arms for the Axis than for the Allies. A French schoolchild who watches this documentary will however get the wrong impression that France was nearly equal to Britain or even the US/USSR in the struggle against the Nazis.
17 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good documentary but biased and very French-centric
hypersonic899922 May 2016
This documentary series' strong point is the use of only WWII footage, often colorized. A lot of it is rarely seen in other documentaries, some of it none at all. So it's very interesting in that perspective.

However, it's a French documentary and it's very French-centric and usually very biased. On several occasions I've caught it omitting important information/context or bringing up wrong information. For a documentary claiming to cover the whole of WW2 (which it does claim to do so), it's not a very good effort. It will mention several side-topics that are important for France (e.g. the politics of France before the war), but doesn't bother with important parts of WW2 that France had nothing to do with, e.g. the war in the Balkans.

Most egregious is that it tries very heavily to paint the Soviets as bad or worse than the Nazis. It tries to paint Britain as the major obstacle to Germany and their main opponent. Just to be clear, ideally it shouldn't be biased at all for either side. It should be presenting history and commentary on the footage. Instead it sometimes uses footage to present a version of history that is favorable to the makers.

Still, in the parts that concern Western Europe, it does a very good job on educating its viewers on important details that are not known by many. It gives a very good perspective of the civilian population. The footage taking a primary role, instead of a tool to transition between interview scenes (this documentary doesn't have any such scenes) keeps things interesting.

I'd recommend watching it, but bearing in mind that it only does the rudimentary minimum for anything else aside from French and British affairs. As far as the Eastern Front goes and the War in the Pacific, you can find many better documentaries.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Excellent documentary more axed on the Europe operations theater.
Ilan_Voyager23 September 2012
Henri De Turenne and Daniel Costelle have a 40 years old record of documentaries about the WWII period. As it's made by French filmmakers for a French TV it seems normal that the documentary emphasizes on the French point of view. The excellent documentaries about the same subject by the BBC are also "biased"...No history work can pretend to be perfectly neutral, or it would be a long list of raw meaningless facts.

Another comment makes the assertion that "A greater number of Frenchmen bore arms for the Axis than for the Allies." Thats seems a pretty foolish assertion if you do very simple maths on the proved ciphers:

-Resistance; At least 220 000 people (the historian Paxton estimates the numbers between 200 000 and 400 000). Not all were bearing arms as the 100 000 FFI in 1944, but all worked against the Nazis. -Italy Campaign 1943 130 000 French soldiers (American statistics). -At the time of Normandy Invasion 500 000 French regular soldiers (plus the 100 000 FFI). In May 1945 not far from the million...

On the other side: - Milice (paramilitary organization) 25 000.(35 000 including part-time members and non-combatants). - In the Wehrmacht and later Waffen-SS; 7340 in 1944. Lets put at max 20 000 volunteers during all the war, and including the double entries with the Milice.

The Alsatian people were drafted in the Wermacht as they were considered as German by the Nazis. So most were not volunteers and cannot be included.

So how the pseudo historian has found that "A greater number of Frenchmen bore arms for the Axis than for the Allies."???
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Superbly constructed and very moving
harj-41-60709019 September 2019
This is a world war 2 documentary like no other. It contains a brilliant musical overture, often haunting but superbly executed. The narration is good, but the biggest plays is the colour footage which brings the war alive like no other documentary.

Inevitably, comparisons will be drawn with the masterpiece "The World at War". These are unfair comparisons. This documentary had its own angle and story and special way of telling it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stunted by narration in USA
Bill-1622 January 2019
I saw this originally with an Australian narration, could be English or NZ. Martin Sheen is a very intense guy when acting. I like that very much. BUT, his narration is pretty bad here when compared with other countries version. The series is awesome and cover many things not in other documentaries. The fact that it was mostly made by French artists really is obvious. Martin Sheen loves to come up with his own pronunciation of towns and places. Some are laughable. Try and watch the 25 part WWII series narrated by Laurence Olivier, that is the best. Most participants of the war are interviewed from all sides, even the losers got to speak.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Heavily Biased, Great Footage
mlynch518720 March 2014
If you are looking for an accurate overview of the events of World War II, look elsewhere. The series is more or less told from a French perspective and exaggerates the role of France. For example covering small battles of hundreds of men involving the French, while overlooking or glossing through massive battles of hundreds of thousands of men in Russia and the Pacific. I hold a degree in history and have something of a World War II buff for many years and It pains me to say that this documentary is one of the most overtly biased World War II documentaries I've ever seen. If you are interested in history and looking for an relatively accurate, detailed, and neutral portrayal of the war, I suggest you watch "World War II In Colour" and stay far away from this series.

On the other hand, if you are looking for interesting footage, look no further. The footage is some of the best you'll find. This isn't the same footage you see played over and over again on all the other documentaries. The footage refreshingly contains new, fresh images, that. Topics are wide and varied: civilian life, military battles, prisoners of war, the devastation of cities. All in all, the footage is the backbone of the documentary.
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Outstanding WW2 Documentary
astrakerpayne24 April 2021
An unfiltered view of WW 2 when compared to the many documentaries before it.

The true horror of war and the psychosis of humanity are captured in 6 captivating episodes.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
heisenberg125 January 2021
This is an addictive series that covers all of the major players, strategies, and events of World War II: how the war developed, unfolded, and progressed in every theatre and the world leaders who dealt with the perils, in addition to firsthand accounts of pilots and soldiers who survived major battled like Midway, Pearl Harbor, Bridge on the River Kwai connecting the Japanese army to India, Guadalcanal near Papa New Guinea, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Suez, and of course Europe and Japan. Not only is it excellent and wickedly informative, it's mesmerizing and beautifully depicted, narrated, and edited. It really makes you feel like you are there in these major battles like Midway, Stalingrad, Europe, and others with the actual footage converted into color from black and white.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
polish cavalry did fight mounted ,germans armored unit.
lataillade195712 October 2014
The Polish campaign of September 1939 counted fifteen significant cavalry actions Two were pure fast cavalry charges with spears and sabers, others were fought on foot. The Poles claimed twelve victories, including successful breakout attempts. The most striking Battle of Mokra pitted the Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade headlong against the 4th Panzer Division with 295 tanks. The Poles repelled waves of tank and infantry attacks for two days, giving the Germans "a bloody drubbing". although ,when in defensive position,polish cavalry,would fight dismounted,numerous charge where made against panzer,and,motorized unit,which themselves were taken by surprise,therefore ,fighting as infantry.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Absolutely shameful!
toqtaqiya225 November 2011
A coloured version of events was needed to draw in viewers. A rewriting of history if ever there was one. It is, on close inspection, a propaganda odd job (in this case from France). The quality is poor because the black & white film was crudely coloured. So the film is dominated by red, green and grey. The historical information is misleading, erroneous and terribly one-sided. This is a documentary for the West and, most of all, for the NEW EUROPE. The information is lame. Yes, lame. So much time is spent on misleading and erroneous bits of information that the viewer won't understand what the war was about. This is not a quality analysis, but another piece for Western propagandists. Europe joined under fascism before. I guess it's not surprising that Europe has joined under something similar again. The odd man out is once again Russia. In the United States this "documentary" was shown on conservative propaganda channels like National Geographic (owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch). The English dub sounds pathetic. It sounded like the narrator was joking instead of providing a serious performance. The score by Kenji Kawai is catchy, but it's suited for a pompous TV show and not for a documentary about World War II. The documentary's title isn't even suitable. The word 'apocalypse' can only describe the Eastern Front in World War II. The Eastern war was epic. But it's here that the documentary is obviously revealed to be propaganda and a rewriting of history. If someone tries to argue about World War II using "facts" from this documentary then someone like me, who has read plenty about 20th century history, can easily reveal that that person is an amateur. A campaign of rewriting history is under way in the West. Nasty books, movies and documentaries are being released. The enemy is, as always, the Russian bear and its Communism. This is propaganda for the new more imperialist and more authoritarian Europe and America (America's contribution and her war against Japan are also simplified and distorted).

All sorts of methods are used to falsify Russia's history. So, Adolf Hitler can't be portrayed in a bad way in this type of propaganda because he did invade Soviet Russia - the focus of Western propaganda for the last century. No, his successes in war and in politics have to be mentioned and exploited. Well, Hitler's policies resulted in the deaths of over 30 million people all over Europe but this can't be mentioned. I will, however, point out that Hitler was financed and put in power by Western oligarchs and by the British, and he carried out the plans of the globalist Western elites. I'm not a hater of the Germans and I don't think that the Germans are fully responsible for the genocide because the Nazis carried out these brutal policies mostly in the interests of the Western oligarchy (the monopoly capitalists and the financial capitalists). So the Germans shouldn't be blamed because the people who are really at fault are the oligarchs and the British. The Germans were victims of finance capital almost as much as the Russians. But you're not going to hear this information in this series. Hitler wasn't the completely crazy man that he's being portrayed as nowadays. The British were the ones who tricked the Germans into attacking the Soviet Union. It's not much different from how they tricked the Germans before World War I. After Hitler invaded Russia, and after he found out that the Red Army had better defenses than he was tricked into believing, he said that he would not have started the offensive. But there's no denying that a lot of anti-Russian propaganda is being released in Europe and America now. The Russians are being portrayed as savages and Joseph Stalin is being portrayed as the most evil man in history. This is truly sick. Stalin was the man who saved Russia and the world from the insanity of the conflicted Western oligarchy and he thwarted their globalist plans. This is why he's so hated by the Western elites. Do you think it's an accident that his name is being smeared now? Western propaganda is no different from Nazi propaganda because it portrays Russians as backward and wicked people. In this way Russia's enormous contribution to winning the war is ignored as much as possible, and the fact that the Americans and especially the British were the real culprits of World War II is also not mentioned. And the credit for winning the war should go to Stalin. Russia is much weaker now, because the Soviet Union was wrecked 20 years ago, so Russia can't oppose Western propaganda and imperialism much. Western propagandists can lie about how great this documentary series is, but these people are dupes. They've been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that Russia is bad bad bad. Thirty years ago this would not have been possible, but now all these fascist-minded characters in the West actually believe that Russia is truly awful and that Russia must be smashed. You might think that this concerns me but it doesn't. The West isn't in better shape than Russia.

People who want to know what's really going on should read books by American historian Carroll Quigley.
23 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent for the interested individual, but not spell binding for the knowledgeable historian.
s-hepper22 April 2015
A decent documentary series covering the combat of the Second World War (mainly in Europe), but not a detailed work; if you are looking for a great depth and point discussing all aspects of the war, nothing can compare to 'The World at War.' Saying that though, I did find it interesting and enjoyed watching a different series from the usual.

However, the titles of the episodes I found deceptive. I recently watched episode three (on the DVD box titled 'Origins of the Holocaust'). The episode neglected the origins of the Holocaust entirely. Simply a narrative primarily of the invasion of the USSR, with a minor part about the SS Einsatzgruppen. I felt severely mislead by the episode's title. Nevertheless, the episode was interesting though.

I would recommend the series for a casual watch, but lacks the depth perhaps sought after by the note-taking student.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Amazing footage and informative
Cocayine12 April 2013
The footage is extremely nice quality and not to mentioned with colors and everything. Sadly it has been made widescreen which means some of the footage has been cut off, rather than just preserving the 4:3 aspect ratio.

That aside, it's also a very informative documentary that manages to explain World War 2 pretty well despite just being 6 episodes. It may focus a lot on Europe but it still comes around the other theaters well.

However it's also blatantly obviously biased. I'm not a Nazi or communists but the documentary was obviously anti-soviet/Stalinist and didn't really maintain a very neutral look at the war, which documentaries should if you ask me. Non of the actions committed by Germans that are shown in the documentary is anything but "pure evil" and non of the western allies ever did anything wrong. A good example is the utter destruction of Germany just being seen as an absolute necessity from the documentaries point of view without putting the slightest critique towards the actions committed by the Allies. Every German soldier portrayed in the documentary is meant to look as evil and barbaric as possible.

The documentary even manages to sneak in the ridiculous claims about Germans making lampshades of human skin, shrinking heads and whatnot.

But this is what you can expect from documentaries like this, I suppose. I mainly just watched it for the nice visuals.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great footage, some interesting stories
bmbeck24 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Tl;dr-Decent coverage of Europe, great footage, some serious, head- scratching errors made in the already sparse coverage of the Pacific

Overall, a decent coverage of the high points of the war, especially in Europe, though it is by no means unbiased as some have suggested. The footage is great, with a good deal of it either not ever seen or rarely seen before. The color, while it can be a bit jarring since the originals were black and white, I think adds a sense of realness, that this horrible thing we call World War II actually happened in our world, and not in some other, colorless alternate universe. I watched the English version narrated by Martin Sheen on Netflix.

I did learn some interesting things about the war in Europe, especially about some of the events that happened in France and with the Free French Forces (which makes sense for a French documentary). But this is far from the best WWII documentary ever.

My main complaint is it's treatment of the war in the Pacific. Not just because it is so short (though it is, nothing is mentioned of the Pacific until the end of episode three of a six part series), but because of blatant factual errors made in both the text appearing on screen and in the narrative (and also because I tend to gravitate towards the Pacific theater, being the son of a naval aviator).

The two biggest that jumped out at me were first, when discussing the Battle of Midway, as the narrator begins talking about the Japanese launching their strike on Midway, on the screen "June 7th, 1942" flashes in big, white letters, while the actual assault on Midway began on June 3rd (Midway time). The episode also gets some of the sequence of events during the course of the battle wrong, but these errors are less noticeable.

Second, was in discussing the Guadalcanal campaign, the narrator refers the the first planes to land on Henderson Field as "the Black Sheep Squadron," while the assortment of Allied aircraft operating from Henderson field during the early parts of the battle for Guadalcanal were actually known as the "Cactus Air Force." While the VMF-214 Black Sheep were indeed a squadron that fought in the Solomon's Campaign, and even flew out of Guadalcanal for a short time (though they mostly flew out of airfields on other islands), they were not even formed until over a year after the original landings on Guadalcanal.

These are errors that could have been easily corrected by consulting with a historian of the Pacific war (or even with an amateur history buff with an interest in that theater). Why this simple step was not taken by an obviously professional group of documentary filmmakers is beyond me.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed