The World Wars

:

Season 1
User Score
4.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 24 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 24
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 24
  3. Negative: 15 out of 24
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. irjebiv
    May 28, 2014
    2
    I signed up for an account just to have my say on this show. I had to turn it off during the second episode because it was just so wrong and full of outright falsehoods. I can't believe this is a History Channel production and it is really disturbing that the commercial authority on "history" would release this with so many errors and outright lies. I am now worried that this is whatI signed up for an account just to have my say on this show. I had to turn it off during the second episode because it was just so wrong and full of outright falsehoods. I can't believe this is a History Channel production and it is really disturbing that the commercial authority on "history" would release this with so many errors and outright lies. I am now worried that this is what people will actually begin to think is true.

    I am giving the show a 2 because it was pleasant to watch (at first). The WWI scenes were nicely depicted even though the tanks were wrong. The image of a young MacArthur casually walking across the battle field is exactly how I envisioned it. However, the gross negligent errors later will quickly put everything about this show in question, and the History Channel's credentials as well.

    This is not nitpicking. These are atrocious mistakes. The Germans really had B-17 bombers in the 1939 blitzkrieg of Poland? Did the Germans really have Soviet T-54s (a 1950/60's era tank) during the blitzkrieg of France in 1941? This show actually says the Germans attacked straight through the Maginot line and won because of "blitzkrieg"!!! No mention of bypassing static defenses and cutting off the BEF and mobile French forces that were NOT sitting in the impenetrable Maginot Line. This show didn't even mention the British and French pact to go to war with Germany should Poland be attacked. It made it look like Churchill pressured Chamberlain into declaring war after the fact! MacArthur was not a 5 star General during the 1930's depression! This isn't just nitpicking small details like "they got the wrong rifles", these are very substantial errors and my fear is people will think this is the truth! Now that I've seen this I have to question the History Channel's authority to release or publish anything on history at all. Their credibility is gone as far as I'm concerned.

    Dear American Public, please enjoy this show for it's art and cgi war scenes only as it is beautiful, and they got Churchill down to a tee, but do not accept any of this show as real facts. Indeed, if I were a teacher I'd assign this show for my class to discover each and every falsehood and outright lie, and for extra credit, for them to find any actual truth in the entire series.

    How could this get past editors, or even the guy who gets everyone coffee? How could this be published under the History Channel's name without anyone noticing these things? I guess this explains why the channel's format is dominated by Pawn Stars, moonshine runners and alligator hunters. Disgusting...    … Expand
  2. frank36695
    May 28, 2014
    3
    There are many historical errors, as pointed out by others It is quite unsatisfying and glossed over for anyone familiar with the period and the events portrayed.

    Hitler is often shown as a dwarf surrounded by subordinates that tower over him. He was 5'9", which was average for that time. This rather obvious misrepresentation is not necessary.

    Overall I found it tedious..
  3. Spedattack
    Nov 11, 2014
    2
    As someone who has spent all of his life learning about World War 2 I was incredibly dissatisfied with the lazily made pathetic excuse for a history program. Full of historical inaccuracies that are just plain insulting and far too America-centered. That is coming from someone who is a patriotic American who was angered by the fact our British, Russian, and Canadian comrades were left outAs someone who has spent all of his life learning about World War 2 I was incredibly dissatisfied with the lazily made pathetic excuse for a history program. Full of historical inaccuracies that are just plain insulting and far too America-centered. That is coming from someone who is a patriotic American who was angered by the fact our British, Russian, and Canadian comrades were left out so frequently during this program. Many key leaders were left out entirely which points to a very lazily made program.
    It is now apparent the History Channel is dead. Ancient Aliens and now this. This program was a disservice to the brave men and women of that war and to the channel this was made on.    … Expand
  4. nrn
    May 30, 2014
    0
    I did not watch the first two episodes, only the one on WWII. Perhaps the first two were better. I thought that the WWII segment was the absolute worst history I have ever seen. I would flunk a high school student who wrote such. I realize the challenge of telling the story of WWII in an hour or less, but this effort was over dramatized with imagined conversations, mentioning only twoI did not watch the first two episodes, only the one on WWII. Perhaps the first two were better. I thought that the WWII segment was the absolute worst history I have ever seen. I would flunk a high school student who wrote such. I realize the challenge of telling the story of WWII in an hour or less, but this effort was over dramatized with imagined conversations, mentioning only two U.S. generals - MacArthur and Patton - and making the war in Europe out to have been a personal contest between Patton and Hitler. From what I read elsewhere many of the film segments were inaccurate as well. It essentially discounts the war at sea and in the air - aside from Midway. It gives false impressions of how we (Patton) just marched up Italy and how until the Bulge we just advanced across France from the moment we landed in Normandy. I frankly think the WWII segment is so badly done that it is worse than nothing in terms of educating the public about WWII. The choice of commentators - including Cheney and Rumsfeld was truly curious. I wonder if Douglas Brinkley is not embarrassed that he took part in the program! I would give this program no stars - a definite thumbs down!… Expand
  5. Jack1961
    Jun 7, 2014
    0
    This is horrible nonsense. It's not just the misuse of props and uniforms, it's the absolute inaccuracies about the historical events, the causes of the wars and the misleading timelines regarding the main characters. Churchill did not realize his military courage in France because he had come under fire in three previous wars. Hitler did not decide to join the German army because theThis is horrible nonsense. It's not just the misuse of props and uniforms, it's the absolute inaccuracies about the historical events, the causes of the wars and the misleading timelines regarding the main characters. Churchill did not realize his military courage in France because he had come under fire in three previous wars. Hitler did not decide to join the German army because the Austrians rejected him because he had already moved to Munich. Please don't watch this thinking that you're going to learn history.… Expand
  6. caesar1
    Sep 22, 2014
    0
    Don't waste any time, is just an american/english propaganda. They talk lots about patton, mcarthur and the american participation in the war , always good way. I am ok with that, but not mentioning general Zhukov who won in moscu, stalingrad, leningrad and Berlin among others is just a crime, which I think can't be just ignorance, so that means is deliverate and dishonest, to serious forDon't waste any time, is just an american/english propaganda. They talk lots about patton, mcarthur and the american participation in the war , always good way. I am ok with that, but not mentioning general Zhukov who won in moscu, stalingrad, leningrad and Berlin among others is just a crime, which I think can't be just ignorance, so that means is deliverate and dishonest, to serious for a channel called "history channel".
    At the end of the last episode an american senator says "no one can deny the soviets helps us to defeat nazis, but is also true they had their eyes put in the post world war" !! hahahahaahahahha what is this, a joke??? where the americans had their eyes put??? americans entered into the war when they had no other option, and when the war was already won by the soviets, who did the dirty job!! I am not a fan of stalin, but the truth is the truth, americans helped soviets to win, no the other way, in fact they had won the war even without day D invasion. Don't waste time, just american propaganda.    … Expand
  7. brucefk
    Oct 15, 2014
    1
    This History Channel has no right to its name. Swamp rats and pawn sharks are not history. The World Wars is certainly not history either. It is especially bad with regards to WWI. There's no mention of the French at all. You never see a French soldier or civilian, which is strange since most of WWI was fought by the French in France. The series would have us believe that generalsThis History Channel has no right to its name. Swamp rats and pawn sharks are not history. The World Wars is certainly not history either. It is especially bad with regards to WWI. There's no mention of the French at all. You never see a French soldier or civilian, which is strange since most of WWI was fought by the French in France. The series would have us believe that generals MacArthur and Patton won WWI which is complete junk. The U.S. commander, General Pershing was never mentioned, but rather discarded with the entire French nation. Finally, at the treaty of Versailles it is alleged that the Japanese were badly treated which caused them to switch sides in WWII. This misses that the Japanese wanted an anti-racism clause which was rejected by the racist Americans and British. The entire series is designed to lie to Americans and make them think they saved the world twice and the biggest saviors were the two right wing generals. General Eisenhower is also not mentioned. He's put on the rubbish heap together with the French and General Pershing. We are supposed to watch this and worship Patton and MacArthur as the two military men who single-handedly saved the world twice, all alone with no French, no Eisenhower, no Pershing, nearly no British, no Canadians and no real history. It is really terrible stupid stuff.… Expand
  8. AlmostHistorian
    Jan 29, 2017
    0
    OK, OK, OK, OK. Where do I even start with History Channel's World Wars. It is so historically inaccurate, it cannot even be described. First of all, Churchill wasn't a fresh faced recruit. He was a veteran of the Anglo-Afghan War, the Anglo-Sudan War, and the Boer War. He was a Lt. Col. in the 6th Royal Scot Fusiliers. Second, when Galipolli failed, Churchill stepped down, he wasOK, OK, OK, OK. Where do I even start with History Channel's World Wars. It is so historically inaccurate, it cannot even be described. First of all, Churchill wasn't a fresh faced recruit. He was a veteran of the Anglo-Afghan War, the Anglo-Sudan War, and the Boer War. He was a Lt. Col. in the 6th Royal Scot Fusiliers. Second, when Galipolli failed, Churchill stepped down, he was not asked to resign. Third of all, M2 Light Tanks were not used in World War 1, the United States used French Renault FT17s. Fourth, the dialogue between Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton Jr. (not George S. Patton) never happened as the two didn't meet until the 30s. Also, if they did meet, Patton would have been a Major, as he was promoted to Lt. Col. before the war ended, not a Lt. He was a Lieutenant during the Pancho Villa Expedition. And this only the 1st Episode, I am not looking forward to the rest of the mini-series.… Expand
  9. racer67
    May 26, 2014
    7
    Correction to my earlier review. I watched Episode 1 again. The idea of following the key players and events that were involved in both wars is a good idea. Lots of money spent on the production but not enough research on the authenticity of the arms and equipment used. The use of British rifles by the German troops and the post-war German revolutionaries and the WWII rifles used by theCorrection to my earlier review. I watched Episode 1 again. The idea of following the key players and events that were involved in both wars is a good idea. Lots of money spent on the production but not enough research on the authenticity of the arms and equipment used. The use of British rifles by the German troops and the post-war German revolutionaries and the WWII rifles used by the German troops was wrong for WWI. I doubt that the American rifle used by Churchill in the British trenches was correct. Because of my correction I bumped up my rating by one.… Expand
  10. Brad676
    May 28, 2014
    3
    A well narrated show that does contain historical significance to the world wars. However the amount of errors in the show are uneasy to a person who knows history, in Ep 2 there is a C-130 Hercules shown dropping Fallshirmjager of Germany into a field, which is quite an error. When Blitzkrieg is explained a B-17 and US troops are shown. Many soldiers are carrying Lee-Enfield Rifles whenA well narrated show that does contain historical significance to the world wars. However the amount of errors in the show are uneasy to a person who knows history, in Ep 2 there is a C-130 Hercules shown dropping Fallshirmjager of Germany into a field, which is quite an error. When Blitzkrieg is explained a B-17 and US troops are shown. Many soldiers are carrying Lee-Enfield Rifles when they are not commonwealth soldiers. This shows visuals are quite concerning for a HISTORY production.… Expand
  11. zig16
    Jun 9, 2014
    9
    This is an excellent way to inform the unwashed what happened during that time. Most lower rung intelligence idiots have no idea the loss that occurred back then, and should be reminded of the facts. The upper rung intelligence snots who have disdain for anything that isn't produced by the BBC or HBO, also need to understand that not everyone is a queer thinker like they are.
    If this is    This is an excellent way to inform the unwashed what happened during that time. Most lower rung intelligence idiots have no idea the loss that occurred back then, and should be reminded of the facts. The upper rung intelligence snots who have disdain for anything that isn't produced by the BBC or HBO, also need to understand that not everyone is a queer thinker like they are.
    If this is the way to get people to realized that 100 million people died in a fruitless disaster then I call it a success.    … Expand
  12. MegsDad
    Jun 23, 2014
    1
    Hurrah,,, the US saves the World once more,, dear oh dear,, can you guys ever get off your rather rotten ivory tower?
    I guess one only has to see who funded the show to see how the bias plays such an important role in a show that should have been amazing.
    Such a shame,, this was a missed opportunity and The History channel seems to have become the latest Fox news,, so sad.
  13. coltsrevenge
    May 29, 2014
    1
    Signed up just to say almost exactly what irjebiv did. I thought I was disappointed in the HC for switching over to a mostly "reality series" based lineup, well they slapped me and other old school HC fans in the face on this one. And what was up with some of Hitler's generals? They looked like they could've been members of Pink Floyd! Here's a tune for your WW2 extras HistorySigned up just to say almost exactly what irjebiv did. I thought I was disappointed in the HC for switching over to a mostly "reality series" based lineup, well they slapped me and other old school HC fans in the face on this one. And what was up with some of Hitler's generals? They looked like they could've been members of Pink Floyd! Here's a tune for your WW2 extras History Channel...'Shave and a haircut, two bits!'… Expand
  14. Kiste233
    May 29, 2014
    2
    All you need to know about this "documentary" is that spends more time on a little anecdote about Patton mounting a gun on a car to chase Mexicans than it does on the entirety of the Russian revolution.
  15. HRonM
    May 29, 2014
    1
    I suppose the "great man" approach has merit when covering some topics, but the world wars cannot be adequately treated by following the few included in this miniseries. It seems to me that a whole lot less re-enactment with dramatic music and more facts would have been in order. There were a couple of things that were brought out that I did not already know. But, considering theI suppose the "great man" approach has merit when covering some topics, but the world wars cannot be adequately treated by following the few included in this miniseries. It seems to me that a whole lot less re-enactment with dramatic music and more facts would have been in order. There were a couple of things that were brought out that I did not already know. But, considering the inaccuracies that I noticed and the ones that other reviewers noted and that I didn't find, I had better check. It is surprising that the professional reviewers gave the program as high ratings as they did; maybe they are more interested in the "production values."… Expand
  16. BuckMulligan
    Jun 3, 2014
    2
    I found this series disappointing in that it reminded me more of the comedy series "Drunk History" than anything seriously academic. One could easily extrapolate Sacha Baron Cohen as Stalin, John Hamm as young Patton and Jack Black as young Churchill in this glib retelling of WW2.
  17. vkMariner
    Jun 2, 2016
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Disgusting one sided misinformation. History channel was my favorite channel, not anymore because of this grossly lying piece of WW1+2 interpretation. I fail to even understand how some other reviewers on here write that: "..this series contains errors.." Errors? This entire narrative is a lie and error. All of this is aimed at white-washing entire generations and rewriting history. Russia is mentioned about 1.5 times in three episodes, while the reality is that an ENTIRE western allied invasion throughout all of WW2 faced only less than 20 German divisions, and Patton is made a savior of entire WW2. All of this completely disregarding the facts that Russia (aka Soviet Union) faced 200 German divisions, and their soldiers were NOT treated by Geneva conventions like British, American and etc soldiers were. Russia/USSR had lost over 30 million of its people during the war, liberated most concentration camps and death camps such as Aushwitz, took over Berlin, Helped USA by attacking Japan from the East, while receiving less than 5% of the supplies for the war that was needed on the eastern front. Russia/Ukraine/Belarus had to evacuate 20 MILLION people from western parts to Siberia and rebuild factories from scratch to build and manufacture supplies needed to save their country from Nazis. None of this is mentioned in this show. Attack on Stalingrad had nothing to do with egos, it had to do with Baku oil fields as Germany needed to further attack deeper into Russia, while maintaining supply routes. No mention of siege of Leningrad, battle of Kursk etc. For all those interested in real history I suggest you avoid watching this show, and do your own research. Russia/USSR was not even invited for signing of Germany's unconditional surrender on May 7 1945, instead Russia organized their own signing the next day. ALL of these steps were made to glorify the West, and to put Russia in the back seat of History. Stalin pleaded with the allies to open the second front way back in 1942 while Nazis were burning and plowing thru Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian cities, literally burning village after village, and town after town. People were forced into barns and burned alive systematically. But thanks to History channel and this series we now know Gen Patton who single handedly won WW2.… Expand

Awards & Rankings

89
#89 Most Discussed TV Season of 2014
87
#87 Most Shared TV Season of 2014

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
62

Generally favorable reviews - based on 7 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 7
  3. Negative: 0 out of 7
  1. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    May 27, 2014
    60
    There is much to like and learn from the miniseries. Alas, executive producer Stephen David and his creative team seem intent on getting in their own way, cluttering up the inevitably fascinating narrative (offered here by Jeremy Renner) with all manner of clunky historical reenactments, hyperbolic characterizations and a soundtrack that should be shot for treason.
    Read full review
  2. The A.V. Club
    Reviewed by: Alasdair Wilkins
    May 27, 2014
    42
    This impulse for larger-than-life storytelling does mean that The World Wars is terminally superficial.
    Read full review
  3. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Alessandra Stanley
    May 27, 2014
    80
    It’s a smart, imaginatively made and unusually sweeping look at what happened to the world from Sarajevo in 1914 to Hiroshima in 1945, or as Churchill put it, “one story of a 30 years’ war.”
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »