ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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 Germany 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 Germany. 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.

manuel-collazo This review may contain Spoiler Alerts. I was expecting something more accurate given the 100 year anniversary of the first world war and the terrible toll that humanity paid not only in WWI but in WWII. The events are portrayed in a way that leaves much to be desired, and inaccurate in their representation. German officer uniforms are incomplete, specially some of the generals, their hair looks more like the Bee Gee's than a WWII general, (Spoiler Alert) Eva Braun and her relationship to Hitler completely ignored, even her suicide is missing, Hitler has the wrong weapon in his suicide attempt and he swallows the cyanide pill instead of crushing it which is how the poison was consumed, the toll paid by the Russia in the war is glanced over, only one concentration camp is mentioned, Buchenwald, no mention of Auschwitz-Birkenau (http://en.auschwitz.org/m/), the largest Nazi killing center, once gain very disappointing. Also not mentioned are how we remember the war, even Germany through the GDR has established monuments to those that died in the camps (http://www.buchenwald.de/en/69/) About the good things it does reflect the changes that WW I made in the leaders that fought WW II on both sides of the conflict.

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!

Seller7862 This gets a 10 from me. It connects the dots fairly accurately. It was a 31 year time-line that indeed looks like one war with a huge pause between the beginning and the end. More exposition about china/japan/India could've been included. The production values are excellent. I like the fact that the series focused on major personalities that affected the wars. Interesting that fascist Germany set not only Europe but Russia along the collectivist path during this time frame. IMDb's high-school drop-outs are obviously upset and have unfairly attacked this series. Don't listen to them. They all seem to have an IQ below plant-life and it's sad IMDb has embraced a business model that is driven by anti-American politics. Shame on them for rating highly emotional attack reviews as the "best" on IMDb.