StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Robert J. Maxwell I'm surprised at the History Channel for producing this piece of biased, oversimplified, and inaccurate trash.I don't think it's worth much in the way of analysis. The value judgments and errors range from minor to major.Eg., minor. More than once, we are shown Hitler destroying cities, first in Poland then in England, with B-17s. All right. I'm not a military history freak but wouldn't it have been easy to avoid a wince-inducing problem like that? Eg., important. You know why World War II started in Europe? It was all Neville Chamberlain's fault. England's PM "did nothing" while Hitler trampled Europe. But Chamberlainm, as usual, gets a bad deal. He went to Munich to meet with Hitler and prevent war. He returned with a treaty signed by Hitler that would seek no more territory.Perhaps the worst thing Chamberlain ever did was wave that little piece of paper while the cameras rolled and declare "peace in our time." I doubt that a single pair of eyes in the civilized world hasn't seen that film clip repeatedly.Yet, Chamberlain had done exactly as much as the world could hope for. Lacking a crystal ball, what was he supposed to do at Munich -- prevent war by declaring war? At least it bought England some time to build up its military. And, after all, it was Chamberlain who followed through on his part with a declaration of war on . Chamberlain simply can't be said to have done "nothing." I won't go on but do you want to know why Japan started its part of World War II? They simply wanted to "expand their empire." That's it -- period.There are shots of talking heads who are experts on the subject, including Richard Cheney and John McCain, who certainly qualify as enthusiasts if not exactly experts.What was the History Channel thinking? Shame on them. The series is suitable, however, for high school kids who no longer know who fought whom in the war.

edgewood001 1) They compressed 30 years of history into 4 and a half hours. Things will get left out doing so. 2) This was never intended to be a doctorate-level course in European and American History. 3) It was entertainment! GOOD entertainment. Churchill's speech in Part II actually made me sit up a little straighter and sent chills down my spine. 4) Yes, there were equipment and armament inaccuracies. They also had a little thing called a BUDGET, keep that in mind that it wasn't an infinite one. 5) If you sat down to watch this with a checklist of every single event of World War I and II, you are missing the point. It painted the broad strokes very well. If it can get even ONE person interested in learning more about that era, then the producers did their job as far as I am concerned.

Christopher Heselton This "documentary" leans more towards a fictional alternative universe that conforms with some US-centric narrative, because it is rife with inaccuracies and seems to think that the US mattered more in these wars than any other country. As a historian of East Asia, I can down-right say that nearly everything said about Japan was inaccurate. These were not nit-picky mistakes. For example, in episode 2, the narrator claims that:"In 1937, the Emperor of Japan approves an invasion of Northeastern China. A dedicated soldier is chosen to lead the troops. His name is Hideki Tojo. … After overseeing a series of successful battles, Tojo is names Japan's Minister of War and is now responsible for the state of the Japanese military."I don't know where to begin: 1) The Japanese invasion of Northeastern China (Manchuria) was on September 18, 1931 and was completed by 1933. It was not July 7, 1937 as they stated. July 7, 1937 is the date of the Marco Polo Bridge incident, a bridge just outside Beijing (just down the street from where I live) where a small clash between a Chinese warlord and the Japanese Imperial Army occurred and quickly grew into a total-war between China and Japan. It is generally taken as the beginning of World War II in China.2) The Japanese emperor never approved of any invasion of northeastern China. The consensus is that the invasion was begun unapproved by anyone in the central government, and instead was undertaken by renegade officers in the colonial (not imperial) Kwantung Army – particularly Seishiro Itagaki and Kanji Ishiwara – and then taken further by Shigeru Honjo. In fact, the Minister of War, Jiro Minami, was trying to have Seishiro removed fearful that he would provoke a conflict. Once the invasion begun, however, the invasion proved to be popular with the public and politicians didn't want to it they couldn't control their own officers, so they retroactively (many months later) approved. 3) Hideki Tojo wasn't involved in the invasion of Northeastern China at all. He was a colonel in the 1st Regiment of the Imperial Japanese Army, which didn't see action then. It wasn't until 1935 he served as a Kempeitai officer in Manchukuo (the puppet state set up by the Japanese in northeastern China). The invasion of Manchuria was run by several officers, but Shigeru Honjo probably did more. Since there was no central plan, no one really was in control, so no one was leading it. It was often mid-ranking officers taking the initiative to gain promotions and celebrity status in the media – in fact, the central government was trying to contain the conflict.4) Tojo wasn't made the Minister of War until 1940, and of course he was Prime Minister a year later.These are mistakes that could be revealed with simple checks on Wikipedia. My undergraduate students do a better job than this on their mid-term papers, which shows the un-professional quality of the writing of this film.Not to mention: Why are John McCain, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney doing on a "history" program? They don't seem very knowledgeable on the subject. As far as I know, they didn't serve in any positions of leadership or witness any of the events they comment on. It also seems odd (and suspicious) that they only have these right-wing politicians – granted I don't think there are any politicians in a position to really be able to comment on this. You'd get just as accurate a response by pulling a random stranger off the street.

moi533 As many others have posted before me, there are far too many historical inaccuracies in this 2014 History Channel series. I urge all teachers who think they would use this series to help teach history to DON'T DO IT!My observations on the inaccuracies in this History Channel series are that for World War I and the Gallipoli Campaign, there was no mention that the British forces there really included not only United Kingdom(British troops), but French, Australian and New Zealand troops. The fact that I had an Australian relative who was in the combined Australian and New Zealand forces (ANZAC), who died of his wounds at Gallipoli, and the involvement of the Australians was not even mentioned, I feel is insulting to the memory of the many who died during that unfortunate campaign. There were so many major and minor errors in the series it is laughable. I feel it follows the Oliver Stone philosophy of presenting the reenactments of historical events - bend time lines, misrepresent facts, and produce an questionable product. Here are just a few "little" errors that made me very angry about this production: - the actors portraying the younger and older Franklin D. Roosevelt couldn't even give a reasonable version of his speech patterns - we have so many recordings of the real Franklin D. Roosevelt that his voice and manner of speaking are well known - both Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin stood around 5 feet 5 inches tall (historical facts), but in their supposed meeting when Lenin returned to Russia, the actor portraying the younger Josef Stalin stood much taller than Lenin, plus, I understand such a meeting between the two is a highly questionable event - during the World War II segments with Adolf Hitler meeting with some of his officers, the length of the hair of some of the actors playing officers was way too long to be acceptable in the German militaryBottom line: Please do not use this series to teach history!