A review of these documentaries is difficult given their amateurish nature. This doesn't appear to be a revisionist interpretation but a more a simple attempt to make a quick buck from the demand for WWII documentaries.
1. It is evident that the narrator has little knowledge of this history as his pronunciation of the names of key people and places is embarrassing and often laughable.
2. Major key events were omitted causing the writers to create incorrect explanations. Ie. The North African Campaign: This production has you believing that the British attacked the Italians as a public relations gimmick to get the Brits minds off the Blitz. No mention was made about Mussolini’s directing his troops to take the Suez Canal and the Italians attacking first. There are numerous such examples.
3. Their researchers did find some little known details, but more often made up their own details to make sense of what they did know and incorporated into the work.
4. They took the bulk of this work from other documentaries such as film and sound clips. The background music often did not fit the current topic. "Russians on the March" from a Stalingrad documentary was not a good choice for the Japanese decision making process at Midway.
Overall, this piece appears to be a case of third world propaganda and an effort to villainize the U.S. and Great Britain given their Imperial aspirations.
I am not going to demand my money back. Instead, I wish to use these documentaries as an educational tool of what not to do for my future students. Besides, sifting through all the fiction to find the facts will reinforce their learning.
Walk through History