The World At War

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

The World At War

#1 Post by ando » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Image

I'm currently in the midst of watching this multidisc (26 episodes) set and I'm finding it fascinating. It's far more compelling than Burns' The War, which covers the personal day to day experiences of those involved with (directly or indirectly) World War II. The World at War provides much more of a third person overview but remains intriguing in a way that the Burns doc fails to do. (Curiously, Burns' Civil War, on the other hand, employing many of the techniques used in WAW practically rejuvenated the doc form.)

A good deal is left out of this English import, which originally aired as a British television series but I'm curious to see how many here have viewed the entire series and/or care to comment on it.

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#2 Post by Belmondo » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:04 pm

Without question, one of the very best documentaries on World War II, and I do not feel that "a good deal is left out", except in the sense that no documentary could possibly cover every aspect of the war.

Some of us, and I will certainly include myself, are American chauvinists who need to be reminded that the war started almost two years before Pearl Harbor, and would be won or lost in Russia.

Much of the actual footage (from The Imperial War Museum and other sources) is crystal clear and so many of the participants who survived the conflict were still alive alive in 1974 that I felt I got the most complete and widest possible view of the war.

I've heard that there are mixed opinions on Olivier's narration, but I thought it was terrific.

User avatar
fiddlesticks
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Borderlands

#3 Post by fiddlesticks » Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:45 am

This series had a shattering impact on me when I first watched it as a young teen in the 1970s. This was the one program that our family made sure to gather to watch when it aired (well, this and the Carol Burnett Show.:wink:) I recently purchased the set and re-watched the entire series, and it is truly excellent. Although I'm a well-educated, reasonably mature 40-something, it's still just as shattering as it was back in the day.

The series is heavily focused on the European (and African) war; its comparatively brief treatment of the Pacific war could be the cause of the charge that "a lot [is] left out." Also, the many extras in the set (four discs' worth) feel more like "extended and deleted scenes" than actual extras. But aside from these minor complaints, I am thrilled with this purchase and am proud to have it in my library.

User avatar
Antares
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Richmond, Rhode Island

#4 Post by Antares » Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:54 am

As far as WWII documentaries go, The World at War is the cream of the crop. But if you are seriously into documentaries on this war, then check these out if you have a region free DVD player.

The format is for people who want to know the order of battle and tactics used in each of the battles depicted. It's one of my favorite documentaries.
Last edited by Antares on Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

#5 Post by Person » Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:40 am

Seeing TWAW is a mandatory experience, I feel. It really is an astounding achievement in television history. Great narration from Larry. Stephen Ambrose's comments in the special programme entitled, "Who Won World War II ?" are very interesting. I have the original UK set (all-black packaging) and those discs have the most convoluted menus of all time and it was hell working out how to watch the programmes in order first time around.

I heartily recommend the BBC's First World War docu series, The Great War (1964). My views on that war were radically altered by the time I had experienced it. It is the austere interviews with survivors or the Somme and other battles that raises this one way above all other First World War documentaries, as most of them had passed away by the mid-1980s when interest in that war had waned.

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#6 Post by Belmondo » Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:50 pm

Thanks for the tip on the Stephen Ambrose comments which I will now check out.

I've been thinking about the earlier comment that the war in the Pacific is treated rather briefly compared to the war in Europe. Six of the twenty six episodes deal with Japan and the Pacific, and I'm including the hour on Burma which was a Japanese war front. This seems right to me for the following reason - even though Pearl Harbor brought us into the war, Churchill and Roosevelt quickly agreed that Germany was the greater threat and that it must be given priority over defeating Japan.
Although we suffered a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Japanese, we were able to go over to the offensive at the battle of Midway a mere six months after Pearl Harbor.
The island hopping operations which followed were comparitively small scale - no disrespect to the extremely brave Marines and Navy men who faced the horribly brutal Japanese and prevailed every time. And, they did it on a comparitive shoestring considering that the huge industrial might of America was being oriented towards Europe.

When I first watched "World at War" as a younger man, I wanted to see more of the Pacific campaign because it had more of what I wanted to see (aircraft carriers!, dive bombers!, battleships!, Marines storming ashore!), but now I feel that the emphasis remains correct throughout the series.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#7 Post by Polybius » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:34 am

Antares wrote:As far as WWII documentaries go, The World at War is the cream of the crop.
Person wrote:Seeing TWAW is a mandatory experience, I feel.
Agreed.

Incidentally, a non-recommendation from me: don't get sucked into the hype around CNN's similarly lengthy and supericially similar series on the Cold War. It wishes it could be as authoritative, but it suffers (IMHLWO) from a series of faulty assumptions and not very well hidden agendas. A shame, really.

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

#8 Post by ando » Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:39 pm

Belmondo said: Six of the twenty six episodes deal with Japan and the Pacific, and I'm including the hour on Burma which was a Japanese war front. This seems right to me for the following reason - even though Pearl Harbor brought us into the war, Churchill and Roosevelt quickly agreed that Germany was the greater threat and that it must be given priority over defeating Japan.
Is this a reason to direct the film narrative in such a way? No doubt, it partly explains the popularity of the series in the US. I doubt any Russian approach would yield the same results, even though it was a major player in World War II and took on the heaviest toll in terms of overall losses in the war. Soviet Russia was also directly engaged with Japan long before the US entered the scene - militarily.

The filmmakers' approach, as the producer, Jeremy Isaacs points out in The Making of segment of the box set, was to focus on 15 major military subjects but devote 12 segments on the social and political experience of the countries involved in the war. His initial concern, in fact, was to deliberately "leave out a great deal". Left out was any mention of Abyssinia, Syria, Dauchau, Yugoslavia, the fate of Europe's gypsies (millions of whom died in concentration camps), a close examination of Poland and particular regiments or divisions of either side. Hardly touched was the subject of the resistance in Europe, sea battles or night battles. There's no examination of the slow desegregation of the American Armed forces (or a close social/political examination of any inner-military operation). So the series has obvious omissions. But that doesn't prevent the narrative from being fascinating, nevertheless.

Another glaring omission is a crucual (to my mind) look at Hitler's particular psychology. I suppose no historical entertainment of this breadth could probe into the inner reaches of Hitler's mind, particularly his reasoning for marching headlong into Russia without any seeming realistic strategy for conquering the nation. Had he waited or abandoned altogether his march into Russia the war might have turned out very different, indeed. After watching the series, however, I'm still left with the question of why he made such a misguided attempt. As the WAW points out, Hitler warns of this very danger in his own work, Mein Kampf. Why did he insist on doing it? And why, when Moscow was directly in front of the German Eighth Army did he have them turn south to besiege Kiev?

Now, Soviet expert David M. Glantz says this: "Hitler began to seek targets that were still within reach before winter came and that would convince the world that Germany was in fact victorious. He was particularly anxious to seize Soviet industry and crop lands, as well as to push the defenders beyond bomber range of the precious Romanian oil fields. He therefore continued to insist that taking Moscow was far less important than securing the industry of Leningrad and the industrial and agricultural heartland in the Ukraine."

This development is discussed in the film, but not as the reason for Hitler directing his forces south to Kiev (though some may call it's a logical deduction). I'm left with the general impression that Hitler was more of a capricious madman and delusional than thoughtful military strategist (he was certainly not a savvy one unless you consider outright lying a savvy approach).

There is no real attempt to make comprehensive the inner workings of Hitler, the man, which I think is fairly important. We become familiar with his political views, his ideological beliefs and his powerful, mesmerizing harangues against the Jews and for the world domination of the Aryan race. But we're left, primarily, with this. When the subject of Ava Braun, his mistress, which he married at the eleventh hour, comes up it's more of a curiosity than anything else. And in the light of how Hitler and the atrocities for he was responsible are portrayed it seemed pointedly macabre. Smart as this series, however (after all, docs are still a dramatic form), I'm sure the effect is entirely intentional.

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#9 Post by Belmondo » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:26 pm

A number of historians take the position that Hitler invaded Russia (Operation Barbarossa), for the simple reason that he had nowhere else to go. His armies were victorious in all of Europe except for England where the Luftwaffe failed to gain air supremacy and the strong British Navy made a cross-Channel operation very risky.
So, what do you do when you have a hugely powerful and victorious army and a quick glance at the map shows that Russia is about the only target left?
His generals were initially appalled, but Hitler said "just kick in the door and the whole rotten Russian system will collapse". He was almost right, and the series does an excellent job of showing all that followed.

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

#10 Post by ando » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:19 pm

I don't see how Hitler was almost right. Nor did his generals. Nor does the series demonstrate this. The generals were appalled because of what was coming; namely a serious Soviet backlash and most of all, the Russian winter. Much of the territory that was initially gained by the German forces, as the series points out, was due to a massive Soviet retreat. The Soviet empire, though strained, was at no point during the war on the verge of collapse.

Is your question about what I'd do with a massive German army and nowhere to go an explanation (or justification) for Hitler's invasion of Soviet Russia? The series suggests that Hitler had always wanted to invade and was therefore duplicitous from the start, but it doesn't delve much deeper, particularly into the psychology behind Hitler's desires.

In contrast, Ken Burns The Civil War features the figure of Ulysses S. Grant portrayed with a distinct personality, including an examination of his upbringing and personal circumstances throughout the war. General Lee is given a similar treatment. We feel as though we know these great men. This (what shall I say - empathy) gives a scope to the series that places it above the typical war doc narrative- the audience becomes involved in the lives of the major figures enaged in history making events. But we only get brief sketches of the major personalities involved in World At War and this keeps many of the events (unless one is old enough to have been directly involved or affected) at a certain distance.

What is poignant, on the other hand, are the personal testimonies of German civilians, for example, who found themselves at moral crossroads when forced to make decisions that would inevitably determine the fate of their fellow Jewish countrymen. This is the sort of thing that makes the series memorable (to my mind, anyway).

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#11 Post by Belmondo » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:50 pm

My mind is getting fogged on what I learned from "World at War" or other sources, but you are right that Hitler always had his eye on Russia. He wanted "lebensraum" (living space) for the German people and intended to find it to the East by exterminating the Slavic peoples and using the land and raw materials for German expansion.
The Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and Russia in 1939 was merely Hitler's attempt to delay having to deal with Russia while he conquered the West.
When Hitler did attack Russia, the Soviet strategy was to "trade space for time". Factories were disassembled and moved ever further east, but Stalin foolishly refused to allow his armies to withdraw to good defensive positions and entire army groups were annihilated by brilliant German encircling movements.
However, the Germans were NOT prepared for the severe Russian winter and the Russians WERE facing defeat.
The unusually severe winter of 1941 stopped the Germans cold at the gates of Moscow. The civilian population of Germany had to donate winter clothing and far more soldiers froze to death than died in the fighting. The superior German mechanized units found their tanks and trucks would not function because the heavy lubricating oil had frozen up, whereas the Russians had learned to use lightweight oils in the winter.

Hitler was always impatient with his generals and thought he could defeat Russia quickly and easily. Since he had won so many victories in the West, no one dared challenge his decisions. Stalin was a fool who also refused to listen to his generals until millions of lives were wasted and it was almost too late. These two evil men would determine the outcome of World War II.

User avatar
vertovfan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:46 pm

War Documentaries

#12 Post by vertovfan » Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:42 pm

I recently found links to a couple documentaries I've been wanting to see: Vietnam: Land of Fire and Holiday on Sylt. Anyone know how I might get hold of these? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#13 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:59 am

Belmondo wrote:Without question, one of the very best documentaries on World War II, and I do not feel that "a good deal is left out", except in the sense that no documentary could possibly cover every aspect of the war.

Some of us, and I will certainly include myself, are American chauvinists who need to be reminded that the war started almost two years before Pearl Harbor, and would be won or lost in Russia.

Much of the actual footage (from The Imperial War Museum and other sources) is crystal clear and so many of the participants who survived the conflict were still alive alive in 1974 that I felt I got the most complete and widest possible view of the war.

I've heard that there are mixed opinions on Olivier's narration, but I thought it was terrific.
Great doc about WWII and I Olivier's narration is marvelous.

Very good post and I agree that there are a plethora of American chauvinists who think the war began when we entered it in '41, but your statement that the war "would be won or lost in Russia" is a bit misleading. It suggests that the Soviets won WWII on there own and indeed were the driving force in defeating Nazi Germany (9 out of 10 German soldiers that died fell on the Eastern front), but it's important to remember that the Soviet Union relied heavily in the early years on the war aide (weapons, food stuffs, etc..) from the United States and Britain. To such an extent that many historians contend the Soviet Union would've collapsed with out the crucial help of Lend-Lease. Without the US and Britain, it's unlikely that Nazi Germany would've been defeated. And, in the end, Eastern Europe had one brutal authoritarian dictatorship replaced by another, not-quite-as-brutal dictatorship and another 40 years of repression. It was a good thing Britain, Canada, and the US (among others) freed Western Europe before the Soviets got there.

Another point I wanted to make is that the Soviet Union had a very limited role in defeating the Japanese, who were scoring success after success against the Allies until the summer of '42 with the Battle of Midway. The carnage wreaked by the Japanese (especially in China) rivaled the horrors committed by the Germans (estimates vary but as many as 20 million Chinese may have perished and a million in French Indo-China). Sorry if this came off as a bit pedantic, but like the other posters in this thread I'm a bit of a WWII buff.

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

#14 Post by ando » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:39 pm

I do have a question to which there is (probably) an obvious answer, though it continually baffles me: who are the series of faces that appear amidst the flames during the initial credits of each episode? It's quite a powerful graphic introduction. They look like some of the German High Command but I can't make them out very clearly. They could just be a few of the many casualties during the war. Does anyone here know? (Also this info may be on the supplemental discs though I don't recall.)

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#15 Post by Belmondo » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:57 pm

ando wrote:I do have a question to which there is (probably) an obvious answer, though it continually baffles me: who are the series of faces that appear amidst the flames during the initial credits of each episode? It's quite a powerful graphic introduction. They look like some of the German High Command but I can't make them out very clearly. They could just be a few of the many casualties during the war. Does anyone here know? (Also this info may be on the supplemental discs though I don't recall.)
It's not an obvious answer; not to me anyway. We first see the faces after the introductory opening of the first episode showing the French village that was never re-built and remaining as a memorial to the "thousands of nameless victims" of the war. The faces in the flames which then introduce each episode could easily be Holocaust victims or any of the millions who perished in the flames of war.

User avatar
fiddlesticks
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Borderlands

#16 Post by fiddlesticks » Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:01 pm

To my eyes, there's a little boy, a young girl, an Asian man, and a German soldier, at least, in the montage. I've always assumed that they were nameless, evocative images, taken from period photos, intended to show that the war was horrible for everyone it touched--soldiers on both sides, children, holocaust victims, whoever. Very powerful, especially in conjunction with Carl Davis' haunting theme music.

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

#17 Post by ando » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:35 pm

Yes, Davis' score is unforgettable as well. Now that you mention music, however, I don't recall any mood or "scene-setting" music. For that matter, non-diegetic music throughout the series is noticeably absent. Aural dramatic emphasis is left to Olivier's delivery (or performance, some would say - especially when impersonating some of the German High Command). It's clearly a strength of the series.

I do seem to remember, though, that the creators would dub in sound for newsreel footage that lacked a soundtrack (bombs, engine sounds and the like). I suppose that sort of thing is necessary. But never, as the producer points out, are there any tacky recreations (like the innumerable embarrassments that fill the History Channel docs, among others).

We don't get to see any real bloodshed (as it happens), regrettably though, because much of the archival footage was edited for wider cinematic distribution. Not that I'm looking for blood, mind you, but we rarely see anyone actually take a hit. The few instances where we do see someone picked off are especially memorable because of it.

User avatar
alandau
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

#18 Post by alandau » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:10 am

I grew up with the World at War, however, lately the BBC Battlefield series has caught my attention (on youtube). It is more comprehensive and analytical than The World at War. Excellent.
Hitler's invasion of Russia was purely ideological, to eliminate (in his warped mind) the Jewish-Bolshevik threat to the Aryan race. His (and the SS hierarchy's plan) was to enslave (and to some degree exterminate, i.e siege of Leningrad, Einzatsgruppen) the population and use the Ukraine as the Reich's agricultural bread-basket.

The Wermacht was opposed to the invasion, even though it had recollections of the failed Soviet invasion of Prussia in WW1.

Germany was under no threat of Soviet invasion. Stalin and Molotov were content with the non-aggression pact.

The invasion was doomed to failure from the onset due to
- the vast area and extended supply lines
- substantial US support in armaments (the US did not want to be next).
- Gauletier's Koch's belligerent attitude to the Ukranians (who initially welcomed the Nazis)

In my opinion, Russia (Kursk, Stalingrad) did not decide WW2. It was the Luftwaffe's failure at Britain. This left Germany exposed to a two-front war.

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#19 Post by Belmondo » Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:57 pm

When I said earlier that the war would be "won or lost in Russia", what I meant was this:
If Hitler had honored the Non-Aggression pact with Russia and kept his armies in Western Europe, the Allies would have had an almost impossible task of re-conquering such a strongly held continent and could, conceivably, have been forced to make peace with Hitler.
After the fall of France, and before Pearl Harbor, Britian stood alone against Germany and was in no position to go on the offensive after the British Expeditionary Force barely made it back from Dunkirk leaving all their heavy weapons behind.
Even with the huge industrial might of the U.S., it would have been extremely difficult to invade Europe if all of Hitler's armies were available instead of being drained off to the Eastern Front in Russia.
The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that the German Army was as brilliant on defense as it was on offense. The campaign in Italy proves instructive here - even afer the Italians surrendered, and even after most key divisions were transferred from Italy to the Eastern Front, the German defense remained extremely potent and only ended when the war ended.
This last point is admittedly controversial and I mean no disrespect to any veteran alive or dead. (I'm a Vietnam Vet and both my late parents served in World War II). But, the truth is this - man to man, the German soldier was the best. After our difficulties in our first campaigns against the Germans in North Africa, our generals soon realized that our winning strategy would have to be one of overwhelming force applied against vulnerable German positions.
If Hitler had kept his armies in Western Europe, there would have been no vulnerable German positions and it is quite possible that we never could have mustered sufficient strength to overcome what would still today be a continent under German control. Note that Stephen Ambrose makes the brilliant point on the bonus doc that the war was essentially the final act in "hundreds of years of the European civil war", and it is a civil war that Germany could have ended up winning if Hitler had not squandered his strength in Russia.

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

#20 Post by ando » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:53 pm

Interesting point, Bel. Though, I think it's easier in retrospect, especially considering the current political situation, to consider WWII in any manner a kind of European Civil War. It seems unlikely that anyone in 1939 would have considered it as such.
In my opinion, Russia (Kursk, Stalingrad) did not decide WW2. It was the Luftwaffe's failure at Britain. This left Germany exposed to a two-front war.
Well, it's difficult to pinpoint any one tactical move that lead to the inevitable outcome of WWII (save, perhaps, the atom bomb). As the series points out, Hitler never intended a full assault on Britain. The bombing, despite Britain's heavy losses, seemed more of a provocative act showcasing Hitler's air muscle. But didn't war on the Western front with German fighting The Soviet Union simultaneously seem inevitable long before the Luftwaffe attacks?

Post Reply