The World at War

[piersa]

Was a docu series ever done for Vietnam? They'd have had more than enough footage.

yes it was. Vietnam, the 10,000 day war. very good.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

Can anybody think of a better documentary series?

I would ask anybody with kids interested in history to let them watch this. And as a tie in, a Brighton resident is absolutely superb as narrator. Never seen, just heard, but a class apart.

The opening scene when a soldier rides past Oradore-sur-Glane is harrowing

went up to visit the Normandy beaches about 5 years ago with my lad and on the way home visited Oradore aswell

he was genuinely very interested and to say it was a great trip is probably not the right word to use

I have the DVD box set,the music,Oliver et al are truely superb

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Can anybody think of a better documentary series?

I would ask anybody with kids interested in history to let them watch this. And as a tie in, a Brighton resident is absolutely superb as narrator. Never seen, just heard, but a class apart.

It was superb. I can remember my parents watching it avidly when it first came out.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

It's the best TV programme ever made. No question in my mind: it's unsurpassed. The fact that it was on ITV should make the nation think hard, if not weep.

The fact that it was put together at a time when so many of the protagonists were still alive to be interviewed - assuming they hadn't bought it in 1945 - makes it hugely valuable artifact for that reason alone. But everything about it is brilliant. I want the box set.

My father and uncle were both technicians for Thames television and both were involved in the making of The World at War. But that wasn't the only serious programming Thames made. There was a regular current affairs programme called This Week which they regularly worked on. It was that programme which made death on the rock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_on_the_Rock which they both believe led to Thames losing the weekday franchise for London. Back in the seventies and eighties ITV was producing some very good highbrow stuff.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

It was superb. I can remember my parents watching it avidly when it first came out.

I seem to recall it being aired on a Sunday afternoon,just before or after the 40 overs Cricket

Remember thinking some of the content was abit graphic for that time of day

back then it would of only been 30 years or so after it had all finished

like watching something on the Falklands now

must of been very fresh in the minds of many parents & grand parents at the time

 

[Goldstone1976]

There's a 56 Up now. Came out last year.

I missed that! I'll have to track it down. Thanks for the heads up...

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

The Body in Question - Dr Jonathan Miller, had a profound effect on me.

 

[moggy]

Had it on VHS then bought it once it was released on DVD
Definitely agree with op, best documentary ever made

 

[dannyboy]

another ww2 documentary i think is called world war 2 the apocalypse . it is much more modern , made only a few years ago i think.(2009) it is often on the history channel or something like that. there is a lot of unseen footage restored to colour and some pretty harrowing scenes. i actually think that was better than world at war

£13.55 on bluray for series at amamzon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalypse-World-War-Blu-ray-Import/dp/B004H0M2XM

 

[Dr NBC]

You're welcome.

They still think they saved the World in WWII by the way, ignoring their late late showing, Britain's tiny islands taking on the wave of fascism almost alone, and us declaring war on Japan before they allied with us v Germany and Italy (etc).

Vietnam has no glory, and all lessons have been ignored.

There are problems with this debate on the Second World War and it stems exclusively from national perspective(s). The US entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But, because of the menace of Hitler's Germany, many in Europe see American entry into the conflict differently, insofar as the Pacific theatre posed little threat to people or interests in Europe (outside of British interests in SE Asia). For the US, the Second World War was about the Pacific as it was a far bigger theatre of operations, required more men and resources and was a logistical and strategic nightmare. American preoccupation with the Pacific was a real concern for Churchill. The primary reason why he directed the War Cabinet to declare war on Imperial Japan so soon was to attempt to show solidarity with Roosevelt and curry favour with the US President. Churchill figured that if he could show interest in combating the Japanese, albeit eventually, then maybe he could persuade Roosevelt to throw the might of the US war machine against Hitler, Mussolini, et al. This was discussed between the two leaders at the First Washington Conference (ARCADIA) in late December 1941. At the time it was agreed on a Europe first strategy, whereby the Allies would counter the threat of Germany (and Italy) in Europe and attempt to halt Japanese progress in the Pacific. In reality, the US committed far more resources to the Pacific theatre than initially agreed upon and it wasn't until 1944 when they were able to commit a larger proportion of their military to the effort in Europe.

So from an American perspective, they fully entered the war in December 1941 with their declaration against Imperial Japan. It seems that perception of a late entry into the war is mainly a European perception due to the reasons outlined above. In reality, Britain and the US were allied prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor as the two great powers were "hammering out" strategy and goals for the post-war world as early as August 1941 when Churchill and FDR met in Newfoundland.

And I must say that I was happy to read the bit where you said that Britain took on "the wave of fascism almost alone." It is another popular (mainly British) misconception that the UK was singularly alone in its fight against Germany. This particularly rankles me as a Canadian. If it weren't for the gallant effort of the undersized, under-funded and poorly equipped servicemen of the Royal Canadian Navy, I shudder to think how the Battle of the Atlantic would have turned out, which from a historian's point of view, was the single most significant battle of the European theatre. Thank you for recognizing that.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

You're welcome.

They still think they saved the World in WWII by the way, ignoring their late late showing, Britain's tiny islands taking on the wave of fascism almost alone, and us declaring war on Japan before they allied with us v Germany and Italy (etc).

Vietnam has no glory, and all lessons have been ignored.

This, while being true in some respect,it does not tell the full story and what many people fail to notice is that we would NOT have won the war without them...we were fighting alone for two years before America had it's hand forced by 'Pearl Harbour 7th Dec 1941'.... Britain was starving,convoys were being destroyed,we did not have enough escort ships.The exchange of 50 WW1 destroyers in return for use of British West Indies bases was a godsend. The American pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain and the Poles,Slovacs, and Commenwealth men who came to fight...Norwegians....it was indeed of World War. The American bomber crews who bombed Germany....take a walk around their cemetary just outside Cambridge....ranging from 19 to 25 of age...a sad loss of life.
At my studies of military history I concetrated on WW1 as my Grandfather got killed at the Somme,my father wounded in France....first I studied Naval history then got immersed into the full picture. Have many books,tapes DVDs on WWI...WW2....American Civil War.
The World at War ...great series...although, because of time and editing a lot of the full story has been left out....'Sink the Bismarck' for example...but well worth a look if you like the subject.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Excellent riposte.


A couple of observations.

(outside of British interests in SE Asia). And Dutch and French.

It is another popular (mainly British) misconception that the UK was singularly alone in its fight against Germany. Absolutely. This particularly rankles me as a Canadian. If it weren't for the gallant effort of the undersized, under-funded and poorly equipped servicemen of the Royal Canadian Navy, I shudder to think how the Battle of the Atlantic would have turned out, which from a historian's point of view, was the single most significant battle of the European theatre. We also tend to forget the massive contribution from other Commonwealth countries, India, Australia, various African countries to name but a few, as well as the massive help from the Poles.

 

[jakarta]

What made the World at War so special was, as has already been mentioned, that they interviewed so many of the protagonists from all sides of the conflict. Moreover most of them were in late middle age and reasonably compos mentis, from infantrymen all the way up to senior military and politicians. From memory Speer and Doenitz were interviewed?

Visited Oradour-sur-Glane a couple of years back, a very sobering place although what happened there was an everyday experience in Eastern Europe.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

You're welcome.

They still think they saved the World in WWII by the way, ignoring their late late showing, Britain's tiny islands taking on the wave of fascism almost alone, and us declaring war on Japan before they allied with us v Germany and Italy (etc).

Almost alone?

Pretty sure you had a lot of support from the Commonwealth.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

There are problems with this debate on the Second World War and it stems exclusively from national perspective(s). The US entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But, because of the menace of Hitler's Germany, many in Europe see American entry into the conflict differently, insofar as the Pacific theatre posed little threat to people or interests in Europe (outside of British interests in SE Asia). For the US, the Second World War was about the Pacific as it was a far bigger theatre of operations, required more men and resources and was a logistical and strategic nightmare. American preoccupation with the Pacific was a real concern for Churchill. The primary reason why he directed the War Cabinet to declare war on Imperial Japan so soon was to attempt to show solidarity with Roosevelt and curry favour with the US President. Churchill figured that if he could show interest in combating the Japanese, albeit eventually, then maybe he could persuade Roosevelt to throw the might of the US war machine against Hitler, Mussolini, et al. This was discussed between the two leaders at the First Washington Conference (ARCADIA) in late December 1941. At the time it was agreed on a Europe first strategy, whereby the Allies would counter the threat of Germany (and Italy) in Europe and attempt to halt Japanese progress in the Pacific. In reality, the US committed far more resources to the Pacific theatre than initially agreed upon and it wasn't until 1944 when they were able to commit a larger proportion of their military to the effort in Europe.

So from an American perspective, they fully entered the war in December 1941 with their declaration against Imperial Japan. It seems that perception of a late entry into the war is mainly a European perception due to the reasons outlined above. In reality, Britain and the US were allied prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor as the two great powers were "hammering out" strategy and goals for the post-war world as early as August 1941 when Churchill and FDR met in Newfoundland.

And I must say that I was happy to read the bit where you said that Britain took on "the wave of fascism almost alone." It is another popular (mainly British) misconception that the UK was singularly alone in its fight against Germany. This particularly rankles me as a Canadian. If it weren't for the gallant effort of the undersized, under-funded and poorly equipped servicemen of the Royal Canadian Navy, I shudder to think how the Battle of the Atlantic would have turned out, which from a historian's point of view, was the single most significant battle of the European theatre. Thank you for recognizing that.

Now...that post is not only accurate it explains it a lot better than I could.
I remember the Canadian soldiers at Newhaven ,they took a lot of us kids ice skating down the Sports Stadium and gave us our first taste of chocolate. Later that week they sailed out to the ill fated Deippe raid...sadly very few came back.
Your mention of the RCN is worth a comment,they were undermanned small fleet yet still sunk one of the first nazi submarines...heroes all.
Also a mention must be made for the Merchant Navy....after...they were the target....I knew one that served through the war,got sunk twice....when he came ashore he got spat at because he was'nt in uniform.

 

[Dr NBC]

Excellent riposte.


A couple of observations.

You are right. I tend to overlook Dutch and French interests in SE Asia as they did not have the full capacity to defend them as the British did. But point taken.

 

[daveinprague]

Think the Russians actually won the war in Europe...Western allies part was significant with supplies, UK specifically for aerodromes for the bombing campagn (we lost 80,000 just in bomber crews), and caused the Germans to move a lot of reserve divisions to face the allies in the West after D-Day, but nothing compared to what the Soviets went through...think they lost something like 10 times as many killed as all the allies combined... Theres a good Russian made series on at the moment, although repeated...Storm in the East...

 

[Dr NBC]

Think the Russians actually won the war in Europe...Western allies part was significant with supplies, and caused the Germans to move a lot of reserve divisions to face the allies in the West, but nothing compared to what the Soviets went through...think they lost something like 10 times as many killed as all the allies combined... Theres a good Russian made series on at the moment, although repeated...Storm in the East...

Soviet losses had an awful lot to do with Soviet military doctrine at the time and the internal problems that Stalin's purges and show trials had on the effectiveness of Soviet forces. Sending untrained, ill-equipped boys up against SS, panzer and crack Wehrmacht troops was always going to result in an inordinately high death toll. Purging the majority of Field Marshals prior to the invasion was not a good idea either and left the Red Army woefully short of quality field commanders.

Oh and yes, the fighting in the East was particularly savage and brutal. Just ask anyone who is of Ukrainian descent.

 

[Trufflehound]

You are right. I tend to overlook Dutch and French interests in SE Asia as they did not have the full capacity to defend them as the British did. But point taken.

As an aside, the Dutch and French fought much harder than the British after WWII to hold onto their Asian empires. While it may have taken a few years for us to hand Malaysia, India etc back, the British did at least have the good sense to let go without it descending into all-out war.

It took a 3-year and very bloody revolutionary war for the Indonesians to finally rid themselves of the Dutch in the East Indies. And the French violent refusal to abandon Indochina led directly to the US involvement in Vietnam, and decades of misery for millions.

There was a famous arrogant quote attributed to some Frenchman in 1945, after Vietnam was 'liberated' from the Japanese. When the French authorities returned to Saigon, he allegedly said publicy "We have come to reclaim our inheritance." You can understand why that didn't go down so well with Ho Chi Minh and company.

 

[Goldstone1976]

There was a famous arrogant quote attributed to some Frenchman in 1945, after Vietnam was 'liberated' from the Japanese. When the French authorities returned to Saigon, he allegedly said publicy "We have come to reclaim our inheritance." Leclerc, I think.

You're right about the Brits not defending our Asian interests as hard as the Dutch and French, though I would argue that that was every bit as much to do with the economy being a total basket case as it was a result of well thought through policy. Indeed, Churchill famously was dead against Indian independence, for example.