MovieChat Forums > The World at War (1973) Discussion > What was lacking in this Series

What was lacking in this Series

posted 15 years ago by Stanley-6
45 replies | jump to latest

Although I love this series, and ranked it 10/10, I thought that there were a few deficiencies:

1) It kind of brushed off quite a few important naval engagements. THe Wolfpack episode focused only on U-boats. The sinking of HMS Hood, and the hunting of the Bismarck deserved some mention. The scuttling of the Graf Spee, the naval evacuation of Crete and the sinkings of HMS Barham, Scharnhorst and Tirpitz were never mentioned. There was a passing reference to the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales, but that was about it.

2. The war in China warranted its own episode but was only mentioned in passing in the episodes about Japan.

3. I think that Italy also warranted its own episode.

That's about it for me. I know that they were rather limited by time constraints, but the naval omissions seem especially glaring to me, and I find that the final two episodes, Reckoning and Remember, probably could have been edited into one episode.

[–] ib011f9545i 15 years ago

I will check about China but the Italian campaign did have its own episode,it was called "TOUGH OLD GUT" which came from Churchill's statement that the allies should attack Italy because it was the Axis soft underbelly.

Check the list of episodes,I agree that if the series was made CHINA might get an episode of its own but it must have been difficult to decide what to cover in each episode and I think the producers did a good job.

If the series was made today all the people interviewed would be dead or too old to remember anything,the use of sound effects on the film footage was a mistake but common when the series was made.

[–] Stanley-6 15 years ago

You are right about Italy. I had forgotten about Tough Old Gut. Not one of the more memorable episodes for me.

I didn't mind the sound effects as much. It was distracting, but not too badly done. I just remember that the same sound of a ricocheting bullet would get repeated quite often.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] santol321 15 years ago

You wrote that the scuttling of the Graf Spee wasn't mentioned. I just watched Episode 2 and, although only briefly, it was mentioned and footage was shown. It also mentioned that a few days later the captain ofthe Graf Spee committed suicide by shooting himself.

[–] sfk20 15 years ago

Crete was covered in the episode "Alone". Neither the Graf Spee or Crete were significant enough to warrant their own episode and so they were covered along with a number of other events that occurred at the same time. "Banzai" covers the Asian theatre from 1931-1942 and plenty of time is devoted to China. So it seems you are just incredibly unfamiliar with the series.

[–] Tashtago 15 years ago

On the first dvd there's a special feature with the former producer (Blatty?) Where he discusses the lack of available sea footage as an impedement to covering major sea battles. I agree that China could definitely be included but when considered against the scope of the history involved amount of film etc.the serious is bound to have some ommissions. I liked the sound effects- most of them sounded realistic to me . Not sure how they got it but there is definitley one sequence where the sound is genuine in disc 2 the Battle of Britain. A radio announcer is heard discribing a aerial battle over the English Channel and somehow the producers found the exact footage to match it. Truly amazing that even that exists.

[–] hbest 15 years ago

That part of the series with the announcer doing the play by play of the battle over the Channel is tremendous.

[–] fincorrigan 14 years ago

I think what was missing was a "what have we learned for the future?" episode. We keep hearing the term "history repeats itself".....

I watched it recently again and wonder will it's like ever be surpassed again

[–] Strazdamonas 12 years ago

More like "What have we forgotten". Looking at Vietnam and Iraq wars, it appears that for better or worse we have forgotten what "War" means. we sacrifice soldiers to save a couple enemy civilians, we take over the territory and pretend we won a war against guerrila fighters, we arent ready to take the steps necessary to beat the enemy into submision (the turning point for this was the horror of A-bombs i think, but thats just my opinion). For better or worse, we have a superior technology, but we dont know how to play war anymore. it is good as long as we are the people with big guns, but say one of the big guns remembered how to war, the rest would be in ruin.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] dannieboy20906 8 years ago

The first US/Coalition vs. Iraq war in 1992 was the most intense conflict fought by the United States since WW2. It barely equaled the North African campaign in scope and pales in comparison to the overall World War.

The US vs. North Vietnam conflict lasted ten years and compares to WW2 only in duration. In fact, had we approached North Vietnam with the kind of bombing that we inflicted on Germany or Japan, we would have crushed them in weeks if not days and the war would have ended decisively. Unfortunately, we did not.

Guerrilla forces have not been able to win a war and have not made a decisive difference in the outcome since the term "guerrilla" was invented (1806 by the Spanish during the Napoleonic War, just so you know).

The Quan Doi Nhan Zan, or People's Army, aka the NVA Regulars defeated the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, the ARVN, after the United States military withdrawal.

Every war is different, but they all have one thing in common. They are a continuation of politics, especially foreign policy by other (non-peaceful) means. Democratic republics like ours place domestic concerns over foreign policy concerns, especially certain political parties. We should seek to change that, but I am not confident that we will.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

[–] nickm2 15 years ago

Well as long as they don't re-release that propaganda piece from the 1970s, "The Unknown War/Forgotten War", that was narrated by Burt Lancaster...

NM

[–] sfk20 15 years ago

The Eastern Front deserves at least 8 episodes? That would constitute almost a third of the entire series devoted to a single topic. I completely appreciate the Russian front's significance in the war, but to devote that much time in a documentary that is focused on the entire war would be ridiculous. You have to realize that the aim of this documentary was to provide a comprehensive look at all the major events of the greatest conflict in history. It was no small undertaking and I give the series much credit for including/mentioning just about every important part of the war. All aspects of the war had to be given fairly equal coverage and I think that having three episodes focused solely on the war in the east was plenty. Stalingrad was given its own episode making it the only episode to focus on a single battle. It would be impossible to cover everything that happened in Russia without having to make a separate documentary.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sfk20 15 years ago

I'm not saying that the eastern front wasn't a third, if not more, of the war's importance, but that any documentary should give equal coverage of every aspect of something and should avoid focusing on one area. The Eastern front was certainly the majority of WWII, but I really don't think that justifies focusing the majority of the documentary on Russia. I believe the war against Japan got more episodes because it was more multifaceted. The war in China in the thirties, the war in Burma against the British, and the war against the Americans were all basically separate wars within themselves. I wouldn't say that Kursk was only "briefly" mentioned, the Red Star episode built up to it and with the help of several veterans' accounts proceeded to explain the battle. It essentially said that Kursk was the ultimate damnation of the Germans in the east, which it was. I agree that the 1943-45 period was brushed over, but I feel that was done because there was never any chance for German victory in Russia after Kursk. Kursk was the decisive battle, which is why it was mentioned, all the battles that followed were just a slow progression to the defeat of Germany. On the other hand, decisive battles were still occurring on the western front after 1943, if for nothing else than to liberate Europe from the Nazis and potentially the Soviets. In any case, I am in no way discrediting the significance of the Russian front, its actually my area of interest, but I think World At War managed to be such an unbiased and un-opinionated documentary because it gave fairly equal coverage of everything, which is to say that many things were left out from every topic and since Russia was perhaps the biggest topic, the most was left out of Russia.

[–] mhorowit 15 years ago

I think the episode content may have been influenced by the state of east/west relations when the series was made and a lack of access to available footage and people to interview.

A lot of footage and information wasn't declassified until 50 years after the war
other footage may have been blocked censorship rules.

[–] rjsbaldwin 14 years ago

More info on the V1 and V2 please.

[–] RogueCrewX 14 years ago

The World at War was centered around the 15 most important battles of WWII, plus 11 Euro-centric (it was after all a British series) stories like the occupation of the Netherlands, the fall of France, etc., which did not have great strategic significance, but were of great interest to the intended audience.

If they had included all the important engagements, the series would be running still. What is missing aren't deficiencies, but clear choices to pare WWII down to 26 episodes.

[–] rick-deckard45 12 years ago

The World at War was centered around the 15 most important battles of WWII, plus 11 Euro-centric (it was after all a British series) stories like the occupation of the Netherlands, the fall of France, etc., which did not have great strategic significance, but were of great interest to the intended audience.

uh, the fall of france was one of the most strategically significant parts of the war, dude.

baby can you dig your man?
he's a righteous man.

[–] SteveResin 14 years ago

Just watched this incredible series over 26 consecutive nights and I was amazed they didn't even mention the capture and execution of Mussolini. I was very surprised they didn't touch on this even if only briefly. Same goes for Hess's flight to Scotland and internment in the Tower Of London and the murder of Heydrich and it's massive consequences regarding the Holocaust.

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

[–] linop90 13 years ago

Most def More in Italy was needed.
They showed Kasserine pass, yet didnt mention the Italians who fought bravely there, praised by rommel.
Didnt mention the Decima Mas frogmen.
The Folgore in north Africa.
The Alpini on the Russian front.
When Italy got its good fighters.

truly lacking.

[–] Rob4001 13 years ago

They did mention both the execution of Mussolini and Hess.

Hess's mention was a blink and you miss bit but the Mussolini execution was clear.