The Boys’ Club Version of The World Wars: A Review of The History Channel’s 'The World Wars'
The World Wars is the 2014 instalment of The History Channel’s endeavour to repackage history as something palatable and engaging for a general public that has seemingly gone off the immense contributions of Ken Burns. In it, they attempt to tell the story of both World Wars, and the intervening years, in six hours and three episodes. The World Wars looks as ambitious as it sounds. With a large cast of actors, oftentimes overpowering orchestral soundtracks and interwoven original footage, the vast scope of the project is reflected in its production.
Premiering on 26th May 2014, one reviewer called it ‘fine Memorial Day viewing’. As it was released on one of the three commemorative days in the American calendar, a rather nostalgic, mythologised and heroic narrative of the World Wars was to be expected. This bears out in the show, with the opening sequence being an origin story for Hitler’s moustache. In a dramatic recreation of a gas attack, Hitler’s long, (almost Stalin-esque) moustache impedes the seal of his mask. In response, he trims it short, into the iconic ‘Hitler moustache’. With a piercing stare down the lens from the young Hitler, the scene ends, implying the presence of a seething malevolence and nascent ruthlessness that foreshadows who he would become.
It is this fascination with the individual figures, politicians, and leaders that drives the series. Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, among others, become the main protagonists and antagonists in the narrative. The World Wars are boiled down to the story of a select few, pivotal, figures with very little recognition or acknowledgement of the billions of other lives that were affected and the millions that were lost.
Indeed, the tagline for the show was: ‘Before history knew their names, they fought their own battles. World War 1: The world changed them. World War 2: They changed the world.’ This is the thematic thrust that ties the three-part mini series together. Attempting to cover the thirty-odd years from the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 to the end of the Second World War in 1945, is an ambitious goal for anyone, even Churchill, who claimed the ‘thirty-years war’ idea in his own history of the wars. By focussing on the individuals, it gives the series a vehicle by which to tell the larger narrative, and, at points, it is highly effective.
However, the mostly exclusive, at points banal, focus on these men lends itself to the idea that the World Wars were won, lost, and commanded by individuals alone. For example, there is no mention of any of the other members in the Nazi regime; not even those who, arguably, played a greater role in the creation and implementation of the Holocaust than Hitler did himself. There is no mention of the role of the common man or woman, the home fronts, the industries or the soldiers. This series would find a comfortable home in the ‘Great Man’ theory of history, a school of thought that has largely been discredited as not taking into account the wider sociocultural influences and forces that inform and shape the decisions not just of those great men, but also the largely voiceless, anonymous masses.
To compound the issue, the largest role a woman plays in the documentary is a scene of a ballet dancer giving a private performance to Joseph Stalin, with slow, tracking shots over her body, and a kind of strange fascination with the fit of her leotard. That’s it. There are no female experts employed among the many ‘talking heads’ and no female figures mentioned in the story of the Wars. Not only is this a grave mistake from the producers, but also a rather inaccurate portrayal of history. Women like Eva Braun, Emmeline Pankhurst, the countless female spies and codebreakers, nurses and factory workers played extensive roles in both World Wars (whether for good or for ill); a role that is entirely overlooked and ignored in the series.
It is symptomatic of the overall narrative of the show: a western, white, boy’s version of the War. It’s all about the army, the charismatic leaders, the fighting, the explosions, gunfire and tanks. So much so, that most of General George S. Patton’s story is less about him as a leader, and more about how much he loved tanks; how he had ‘waited twenty-five years’ for the moment to come when he could command a legion of tanks into battle.
‘But what makes this narrative white?’ is the logical question to ask. Just as there are no female experts included among the talking heads, so too are there no non-white experts. Except Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, the first African-American to hold the position, who is not a historian or expert on the World Wars. Having served in the US military, he does offer some truly engaging commentary, but the absence of non-white historians and experts is too obvious to miss. All the other talking heads are white, predominantly American, and of the older generations.
This is reflected in the story of the wars they tell. Most of the time is spent telling the stories of the western leaders, like Roosevelt, Churchill and Hitler, with Stalin and Hideki Tojo of Japan, only getting passing remarks when it suits the story of the other men. Where is the context and back story that was afforded to Hitler and Churchill, for Tojo and Stalin? Arguably, Stalin even had a better moustache than Hitler, and yet it was the Führer’s that got an origin story.
The History Channel’s seeming infatuation with Hitler and the Nazis has been a common criticism for a while, even gaining them the title ‘the Hitler Channel’ in the 1990s. The World Wars does not escape this obsession either, with it quickly becoming the story of Hitler’s World Wars. The actions of the American figures, Churchill, Stalin and even Mussolini and Tojo (Hitler’s allies), are viewed and presented in relation to Hitler’s goals and aims. For example, Stalin’s rise to power, his brutality and genocidal policies, and Mussolini’s atrocities and imperial endeavours are only discussed in terms of how they helped inspire Hitler and his policies; the role of the Soviet Union is sidelined until Stalin conveniently marches back into frame, just in time to sign the non-aggression pact with Hitler’s Germany. The result is, as one reviewer put it: ‘a documentary about Hitler masquerading as a documentary about World War II’s great men masquerading as a documentary about 30 years of European history.’
This love affair with Hitler is illustrative of the decline of a history channel that now, almost exclusively, shows pseudo-history and conspiracy programmes. Along with this comes their constant use of dramatised, and often fictionalised, cutscenes throughout the three episodes. While it does make the story engaging and highly visceral, it tends to lead the documentary astray - into the realm of inaccuracy or, even, falsehood. While it is safe to assume that most of the conversations had between the figures portrayed probably never happened, the issue comes to a head with a rather enthusiastic recreation of a Hitler speech. In one of the few, very rare, mentions of the Holocaust throughout the show, Hitler is seen to be giving a speech in which he effectively orders the Final Solution and lays out how it is to be implemented. Hitler never gave such a speech, but for the story of the documentary, it works well. The only reason debates surrounding the extent of Hitler’s involvement in the ordering and planning of the Holocaust can still rage, is precisely because he never gave such an explicit speech. The closest we have is a speech from before the outbreak of the Second World War, where Hitler stated that if the world were to be plunged into another World War, it would not end too well for the Jews. This is not the same as him giving a speech in which he announces the ‘complete annihilation of European Jewry’. While Hitler did have the intention to ‘deal with the Jewish question’, the suggestion that he ordered it in the way the show portrays, is inaccurate, if not, potentially, completely false. Other, smaller mistakes, like the wrong weapons being used, the wrong vehicles, or the repeating of clips from the First World War in a scene about the Second, serve to undermine the documentary’s credibility.
But, there are some positives to be found too. It’s highly engaging, effectively bringing to life the World Wars, and it’s a good, simplistic starting point for those who know only a little about the people, battles and events. It serves its purpose as a sweeping, vast, dramatic introduction to the two most catastrophic events in world history. However, at risk of sounding like an old historian’s cliché, it could have done with a little more nuance, and the actual events were far more complicated than just the stories of five or six powerful men.
