grantss The US involvement in World War 2, as seen through the inhabitants of four US towns. This includes some of the men who saw combat - in different branches, units and theatres of operations - plus the civilians at home.A superb documentary series from the master of the genre, Ken Burns. Uses a similar formula to his greatest work - The Civil War: through narration, a broad yet detailed coverage of the events plus stories of the people caught up in the conflict and how it affected them. By humanising the conflict it makes the series more engaging, while still informing us of the bigger picture.Quite emotional at times too, seeing how the war affected people. The conclusion of the series is very moving. Good use of archival film footage and stills by Burns. I have seen many WW2 documentaries and yet much of the footage was new to me.Good narration by Keith David. Doesn't quite have the gravitas or impact that David McCullough had in The Civil War but, then, nobody does.

jr-565-26366 I am not going to join the gush of positive comments about this documentary for two reasons: First, I come from a family with a strong military tradition. Members of my family have participated in every one of America's wars from WWI to the current War on Terror. We have a strong belief that it is honorable and right to serve in the defense of his great country of ours. Having said that you would probably be surprised that these words are written by a Mexican-American veteran. But American born Mexicans can be patriotic, too.And that is my problem with this documentary. All of my uncles served in WWII with the US Army, Navy and Marines. One of them, CPL Joseph Jose Soto US Army, was killed in action on 20 August 1943 during the Battle for Munda Field in the South Pacific. He was not even a citizen but immigrated to this country from Mexico, like many other Mexican Nationals did, to specifically join the US military in its time of need. My dad did not serve because he was too young, but he served in the Korean War. They and the family are proud to have served their country.So, the fact that Ken Burns did not feel it important to include the sacrifice of Hispanic veterans is a personal insult to all those who have served honorably during that war. Their sacrifice is equal to, if not more than the white and black veterans he chose to profile in this series. What is reprehensible was that he promised to add additional features as a "supplement" rather than re-edit his documentary, features that no one has seen or heard of. And PBS, who prides itself as being "inclusive", decided not to force the issue on the basis of "artistic freedom", or whatever that means. I guess "inclusive" is a elective state of being for PBS. By the way, most native born Mexican-Americans could care less about the fact that the premiere date was Mexican Independence Day. WE DO NOT CELEBRATE THAT DAY! WE CELEBRATE THE FOURTH OF JULY!And equally inexcusable is that he fails to mention the contributions of Native Americans to the war effort. Native Americans were recruited from their reservations, some of whom had never lived outside of, to provide invaluable service as code talkers. Their service was legendary and probably saved thousands of lives.My second problem with the series is that it is a prime example of how American-centric this country has become about its history. We did not fight WWII by ourselves. It was fought by an alliance of free nations that started two years before we even got involved. Yet, the American public, and Ken Burns seems to not know this. The only thing the public knows about WWII is Pearl Harbor, D-Day and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Maybe Iwo Jima. The public is not aware that the Russians killed more Germans than all of the Allies combined and lost more soldiers fighting in Poland in 1944 than the US lost in all of WWII.We as a nation have become so self centered that we have forgotten that it takes a coalition of nations to defeat threats to world peace just like it did in WWII.Compared to his excellent series about the the Civil War, this is a series I could not recommend based not only on his omissions, but the content and lack of context. I understand that he did not set out to produce a comprehensive history of WWII, but to produce a documentary of the war from the view of small town America. However, he failed to meet the low standards he set for himself by excluding a major contribution of some of its citizens. I guess in his eyes, Hispanics and Native Americans don't count.

Guy Let's start with the basics - this isn't 'the war', this is America's war. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the British Empire - let alone Poland or China - only get a look in, with most of the pre-1941 war barely mentioned at all. The series limits itself even further. This is the war as seen by a few small towns in the US (except when it isn't). This is the war as experience, with a bare- bones narrative to connect and (partially) contextualise the personal stories. This is history as emotion - telling each other sad stories without ever understanding the deeper currents of human existence.What's more, Ken Burns is really most interested in the home front and in particular the racial aspect of America in the 1940s - which means that you have to steel yourself for endless guff about American racism against blacks and the Japanese (with the Hispanics tacked on after Latino pressure groups made a stink). Sorry, but Manzanar and Jim Crow is hard to get worked up with in a war that saw the Burma-Thailand Railway and Belsen. In truth 90% of America was white at the time, blacks and Japanese saw almost no combat and played a very minor support role in the war. That isn't to take away from the bravery of the 442nd or to deny that the Red Ball Express was important, just that in context of the American war effort (let alone in context of the global war that was raging) they are pretty unimportant.The music and the interviewees and much of the footage is very good. But the history is appalling; bereft of insight, overview and comprehension. The structure is awkward, the writing clumsy, the narrative plodding, and the whole thing manages to feel tremendously pompous in that special PBS way. In comparison, THE WORLD AT WAR is over thirty years old, often badly shot, and with a much smaller budget. Yet it ascends intellectual and moral heights simply unknown to THE WAR. The sheer, gut-wrenching horror of THE WORLD AT WAR's quiet descriptions of evil are infinitely more powerful than the manufactured cathartic weepy moments of THE WAR. Any attempt to encapsulate the entire Second World War requires a genius, with immense organisational talents, great intellectual depth, and tremendous emotional feeling - Ken Burns isn't such a person. But the archive sure is pretty and the interviews are always interesting.

Blazer21 As a Canadian I found that "The War", as told through the eyes and lives of people from four USA cities, is nonetheless every bit as important a documentary,and should be required viewing, regardless of nationality. The approach taken by Ken Burns was perfect. This film gives the viewer, not only an intense and important history lesson of WWII, but provides the backdrop of American society during those times. The stories re-lived and told by veterans, their families, and of course, Al McIntosh, Rock County Star-Herald, are deeply moving and quite simply, so very interesting. The archival footage - film, photography, and print is an amazing collection that will bring you to tears. Thank you Ken Burns, Lynn Novick, and all the other collaborators. Outstanding work to be shared,hopefully, for generations to come.