In Britain the seminal* World at War series has been repeated quite a few times on the digital channel, UKTV History. Even though it is still seen as a brilliant and ground-breaking history, it was very much a product of its time, constrained by contemporaneous research, the political climate and people’s sensibilities. Watching it again recently, I was struck by many things that disagree with current research. And views. Just two of the things that I found interesting were: 1) Ambrose was interviewed in the final episode (I think it was called “Who Won World War 2?”), and he seemed to show a rather poorly-disguised disdain for the British war effort (maybe I’m being over sensitive) 2) In the episode on the Nuremberg Trial, it was claimed that the idea of the trial was initially dismissed by STALIN, who wanted the defendants merely executed. However, it is now accepted that it was in fact CHURCHILL, who wanted them “lined up against a wall and shot”, and it was Stalin who pushed for the trial (partly as Stalin had great experience of the effectiveness of show trials). It seems to highlight Cold War sensibilities. Anyway, for those of you who have seen the series, have there been moments when you’ve thought “uuummm, no actually……”? * why am I always uneasy about using this word?!!