Even though I don't like it, I've had to come to accept the use of "dramatic license" in historically based movies. But, it should not be accepted in a historical documentary, even one containing some dramatizations.
I can understand the omission of major events and persons. This series takes the lives of several major figures of the Second World War, and shows how their experiences in the first war and the period between wars shaped their lives, and through them the second war. Events that didn't concern the chosen figures might be excluded, however major. But, you can't Re-write history just because the truth isn't the story you want to tell. And, that is what the producers of this series have done. And, the mis-information is not just minor details, either. It doesn't help that they added historically inaccurate footage in the background throughout, either.
To catalog all of the distortions and outright falsehoods would require me to torture myself by re-watching this disaster, and I just can't bring myself to do that. However I will point out some of the most glaring.
In the segment on Midway, Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo is given credit for the Japanese plan against Midway, not Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. And, to watch this show, one would believe that Roosevelt's code-breakers in Washington found out about the attack, reported it to the President, and he ordered that them to warn the Pacific Fleet. In fact, the code-breakers were in Honolulu, reporting to Admiral Nimitz, who reported to Washington. Nimitz made the decisions, and the President's main contribution was to not interfere much with his man on the spot. In addition, the description of the battle was just plain wrong, and included false statements like, "In under six minutes four of the carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor had been destroyed." (Three were badly damaged in under 6 minutes, and after damage control failed were eventually lost. The fourth carrier was damaged hours later, and not lost until the next day.)
In the series, we are told George Patton conquered Sicily, then went on to conquer Italy in six weeks. Then, he slapped a soldier with Battle Fatigue and got sidelined. Patton conquered Italy? Since when? He slapped that soldier in Sicily and was sidelined away from the Italian campaign. German forces in Italy didn't surrender until just a few days before the final German surrender a couple years later.
To hear this bunch tell it, Patton was finally re-instated and given battle command in order to save US forces during the battle of the bulge. In fact, Patton was given a command as soon after the D-Day landings and commanded for months before the Battle of the Bulge.
The Battle of Stalingrad was completely misrepresented as some egotistical conflict between Stalin and Hitler because of the city's name. It was also implied that Hitler diverted troops in the north practically on a whim. In fact, Hitler sent specifically assigned forces towards Stalingrad in order to secure the Caucuses oil fields, not to rob Stalin of his namesake. And, Stalin fought back to prevent that, not because of his ego.
Hitler was stopped during the battle of Stalingrad because of the surprise of the Russian winter? Really? The battle started in the summer AFTER the first Russian winter German troops had to endure.
Does History Channel have no historians working for them? Or, are they simply willing to throw away the facts in order to write what they think is a more entertaining story? ... or to avoid confusing their audience with the more complicated truth? I'll forgive MacArthur wearing five stars when he wasn't a five star general. I'll forgive American aircraft shown as Japanese bombers and American troops shown as Germans invading Poland. I'll even forgive lack of even a mention of incredibly important figures like Yamamoto, Montgomery, Rommel or Eisenhower, or important events like the Battle of the Atlantic. But, how can I forgive supposed EXPERTS simply getting the history itself wrong.
Note: Statements from figures like Dick Cheney and Colin Powell are included in this series. I doubt any of the interview subjects were aware of the context their statements would be placed in. Don't blame them for the misinformation.
The mini-series still gets 3 stars because, despite all of its flaws, it is at least entertaining fiction. If they'd gotten the history correct, it would have been wonderful. But, don't mistake this series as an accurate representation of what happened.
18 out of 23 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink