Customer Reviews

World War II: Behind Closed Doors

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is 20th century history that we, as Americans, are by and large fairly ignorant of. Pearl Harbor, D-Day, and Battle of the Bulge have obscured our knowledge of the most devastating and in many ways more significant aspects of World War II on the eastern front. The dramatized sections are excellently produced and portrayed, which only the BBC seems to be able to do so well. It gives us a glimpse of the power dealing leading to some of the most violent and tragic consequences of the war. Highly recommended.

Brand new book on this topic: No Place to Call Home, The Memories of a Polish Survivor of the Soviet Gulag - incredible story,i,e., just when you thought you read it all. Polish suffering finally coming to the surface and recognized.

Should be in every library and school. The great documentary by Britsh historian Rees is a great tool for balancing all the preveous distortions of history, espacially about Poland, which deserves to be thanked and recognized as a nation that suffered os horribly and fought so bravely.

On the same theme, view Katyn about the 25,000 Polish officers Stalin had tied and shot. Also read: No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945

Rees' film is a great balancer and long overdue to portray history from a correct perspective.

Also related and superb: Gulag: A History by Anne Applebaum, "The Book," on gulags.

One more: Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939-1947

All worth it, if this era interests you. These are some of the best.

I would say that this is probably the first time I have seen a report on the vital role the Poles played in World War II and the first to give them the credit they have long deserved. It even intimates that Churchill does not go scot-free when it comes to the duplicitous role he played in turning them over from one tyranny to another. Add to that his refusal to allow them to participate in the victory parade in London.

I started my intense review of WWII in 2009. I have viewed several hundred DVDs by now. I spend last weekend looking at this series. It is everything it says it is. As a kid growing up in the 50s and 60s I knew virtually nothing about Russia's part in WWII. With this DVD set you will understand better the start of WWII in Europe. You will understand the deal that Germany worked out with Russia two weeks before the War began. You will understand the poor Polish people who were just pawns in German and Russian minds. You see how ruthless both of these countries were. I now understand the deep hate these countries had for each other during the war. We lost almost a half million men in WWII; Russia lost almost 30 million people!! This DVD set makes me thankful that WWII was never fought on the US continent. Most of us have no idea how much the peoples of Europe suffered during the war. This series will make you thankful you live in a democracy instead of a country ruled by dictators. Although the series was not about American involvement in the war, it opened my eyes to all that happened on the "Eastern Front". If you want to understand more about "why" the war started, this is a must DVD series.

I am hesitant to down-rate this to only three stars, because for what it reveals it is quite good. But it fails to discuss some critical facts, which reveal Stalin to be quite even more horrific than is already developed, and both Roosevelt and Churchill acting very much in understandable ways. Through those failures, the DVD reveals that either the author Rees or the producers (or both) had a personal or political axe to grind against the Western Allies. Here's the specifics.

Most centrally important, the entire presentation fails to present with any clarity how Stalin was ruthlessly and systematically slaughtering around 20 million of his own people, both before, during and after the Hitler-Stalin Pact. It is not an error to say the majority of the Whermacht was ground down by the fierce opposition of Soviet troops, for which the West could be grateful -- one can admire their tenacity and fury of the Russian soldier in that fight. But one also loses some measure of sympathy for the overall Soviet cause when realizing that once they liberated their own Soviet territory from Nazi hands, the liberated people were typically subjected to ruthless Red Terror, deportation to gulag death-camps, and Inquisitions about how much they were "contaminated" by mere contact with the Nazi occupation forces.

Churchill certainly knew some of this, and his tiny nation of England was nearly standing alone against Nazi power. America became their weapons' supplier, but only entered the war in full measure after Pearl Harbor. Hitler bungled the first cross-channel invasion, the Battle for Britain, and given time to recover his forces, would have eventually found a way to make a successful cross-channel crossing. England would then also have fallen to Hitlerism. So the desperation to enlist and keep Stalin in the fight against Hitler was intense. And it was also fully understandable that, as the fight neared conclusion, the West had to confront the fact that the Soviet Monster was quite capable of continuing its westward invasions.

Roosevelt on the other hand was quite the American socialist, and was surrounded by Soviet sympathizers. His running mate for the second term, Henry Wallace, was actually a Soviet mole, exposed only by the end of his third term, when he was replaced by Harry Truman. So Roosevelt was even more ignorant to the nature of Soviet duplicity and slaughter. He was no hard communist, but did seem to feel he could "cut a deal" with Stalin, without full appreciation it was a Dance with the Devil.

Each of these Western elected leaders were trying to protect the interests of their countrymen and of the remaining liberated West European nations. While it was a terrible that Poland and other East European nations slid under the Stalinist boot-heel, the realistic choices were stark and abysmal. But to somehow hint or suggest that the blame for that fell upon Churchill or Roosevelt, rather than directly upon Stalin and his henchmen, is outrageous. Stalin had many millions of Red Army troops, with masses of tanks and aircraft, all battle-hardened and ready for any new battle should the West decide to make a strong point about Polish freedom. They were not about to give up anything. The choice was, enter a stale-mate with the Soviets, or continue more bloody war for years to come. They chose stale-mate, and nearly 50 years of a nuclear-armed stand-off in the Cold War.

This point seemed lost in the DVD, which basically erased Stalin's horrific slaughter of his own people, and the massive size and capability of the Red Army starting in late 1944. It also gives too much theatrical attention to those things which might make Roosevelt and Churchill seem conniving and duplicitous. One could find more in their biographies of that period showing great personal courage by both leaders, even if, as imperfect human beings we can pick them apart years later, from the safety of our arm-chairs.

What is excellent, however, is the exposure of lesser-known elements of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and so if you know something of the historical period, it will be useful for the documentation on that. I would also recommend Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow, Harvest of Despair: The Unknown Holocaust and The Soviet Story as additional material relevant to this same ugly period of 20th Century history.

This fascinating dramatic documentary examines the personal relationships and secret meetings that shaped the course and outcome of World War II. While new revelations are few and hardly earth-shattering, the manner of presentation -'mixing archived films and interviews with dramatic interpretations of summit meetings and key events -'makes this an entertaining, engaging series.

Extremely compelling is the use of native actors (instead of Americans or Brits mangling foreign languages), led by the distinguished Russian actor Alexei Petrenko (who, over a 40-year career has played everyone from Svidri­gailov to Peter I to Rasputin) in the role of Stalin (pictured above). The dramatic renditions are all the more fascinating when heard in the original language, as in Churchill's exchange with Stalin:

Churchill:' What did you do with all the kulaks?
Stalin:''' ''My ikh perebili''''''''. (We terminated them.)

As with any serialized documentary Behind Closed Doors often suffers from repetition of scripts and imagery across episodes, but this is overshadowed by the well-drawn characterizations, be it Stalin's Georgian-accented Russian, Ribbentrop's contemptuous gaze, Churchill's inane analogies, or Roosevelt's yearning to be liked. (As reviewed in Russian Life)

I don't see much mentioned in the reviews here that this film incorporates information from Soviet files not available until the 1990s. One important outcome is a new and welcomed delineation of the lying duplicity of Churchill, his involvement in handing half of Europe to Stalin, sentencing the eastern bloc nations to half a century of Stalinist suffering. On the whole, the film presents a view of history distinct from that motorically habituated in the West. The dramatised scenes are theatrically believable, and serve a useful artifice to carry the piece toward that admirable end. Poland's crucifixion is always centerpiece, much of her wartime history well known, division by Germany and Russia etc. but the callous designs of the allied powers in that sacrifice are schooled in this piece with new cold clarity. An effort worthy on many counts, not least the service of history, and a substantive look at multiple faces of evil. Recommended for its severe accomplishment.

I was born in 1940 and always remembered how my Polish mother used to say how much she hated the Russians. Her parents fled Poland before all this began, and they were smart doing so.

While I have studied WW2 for 50 years, I must admit I never really knew how bad the Russians were toward Poland during WW2.
They were about the same as the Nazis, but Stalin, I think, was even more vicious than Hitler...if that's possible.

Well, now I know that my Mother was right. It was painful watching but superbly done.

PS Please don't write me and say that all the Russians were not as bad as Stalin like all the Germans were not like Hitler.
But, they surely loved what was happening when things were going their way! Watch the new films during that time

Though early reviews were very flattering, I sat down to watch this with a fair amount of caution. When I finished, my first reaction was: the reviews were not flattering enough! For many years I've taught college-level history, and have seen more disappointing documentaries and docu-dramas than I care to count. Usually, they're politically slanted, and frequently treat their subjects like cartoon characters. Not this time. The care that was taken to tell the truth, by presenting undistorted facts, is worth the price. Even the characterizations by the actors line up with their true life counterparts. And most important of all -- at least to me -- is that it was NOT politically correct! In short, I cannot recommend this highly enough.

This is a no holds barred, true story, about Stalin, WWII, and his interactions with Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, and his different generals.
No one comes out smelling like a rose in this honest portrayal of WWII. Russia, under Stalin, did the Lion`s share of the fighting required to defeat Nazi Germany. Never the less Stalin was a brutal dictator who cared not at all about the men and women he sacroffized to achieve that victory.
This factual account of WWII tells it like it was, not some whitewashed version geared to please American and British audiences. The betrayal of Poland throughout that war and after it`s end. Not that the Western Allies had much choice, they did not. The free Polish fought heroically with the Western Allies from 1939 until the end. They comprised 20% of the RAF during the battle of Britain and were the troops that took Monte Casino, not the Americans. Polish units lost more than 3,000 dead in that action alone.
It also makes note of the fact: That it was the Russian Army that first defeated the Japanese back in 1939 in Manchuria. A fact few historians seem to even be aware of. And that the Russian Army played a crucial role in the surrender of Japan by invading Manchuria in a very large force. The Japanese Army ran for their lives on that front when the Russian Army attacked them. No fight to the death stuff when facing the Russians. They got their butts kicked bigtime in 1939 and 1945 by the Russian Army.
The same Russian Army that made a practice of raping women in Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and the other Countries they occupied along with murdering so very many others. It really is hard to say who was the worst: Hitler or Stalin.
These are facts most American and British historians either choose to ignore or are unaware of. I appreciate on honest take on all that happened in WWII. You get that with this series.
Like I said, NO ONE comes out smelling like a rose in this series. ...Oscar