Sparks Commentary: A review of “The World at War” (World War Two series)

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin Nevile Henderson handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock, that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, that a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country [Great Britain] is at war with Germany."

- British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, in a speech given from the Cabinet room at 10, Downing Street on 3 September 1939

World War II is a subject that continues to fascinate millions throughout the world. From people in the losing countries to people in the winning ones, everyone seems to be fascinated by World War II. Because of this, there continue to be media of all kinds about the subject, and a viewer interested in it has many options to choose from. Indeed, there almost seems to be a choice overload (a nice problem to have), and it's hard to know which ones are the best.

D-Day invasion at Omaha Beach - Normandy, 1944

This documentary depicts stories from all over the world, on both sides of the conflict

"Best" is a subjective term, and what is best in the eyes of one may not be best for another. But if asked my opinion on which documentary is the best, my vote would go to "The World at War," the classic British documentary from the 1970s. From the British and Americans to their reluctant Soviet allies, to the Axis powers of Germany and Japan, stories from all over the world are told, and woven together into a fascinating narrative about the events of World War II.

This documentary uses real footage, and sometimes uses period newsreels and films, too

I am a connoisseur of films about World War II, and I have enjoyed many Hollywood movies on the subject. If you have any to recommend, feel free to leave a comment below. But just as there are advantages to doing quality re-enactments, there are also advantages to the documentary format, particularly for modern subjects like this one. Chiefest among them is that you can show real footage of what happened. World War II is among the most photographed wars in world history, and there is thus a treasure trove of video footage taken during the war. Even the propaganda films and period newsreels can tell you a great deal about the period, and this documentary makes judicious use of them. But its greatest strength may lie in the real footage of its events. All they have to re-enact is the sound part - sound re-enactments which are very impressive for the time. They can let the visual part be told by the (sometimes brutal) honesty of impartial cameras.

American dead at Omaha Beach, Normandy 1944

American dead at Tarawa Beach, Pacific theater 1943

But the greatest strength is the interviews with eyewitnesses, from veterans to higher-ups ...

The other great strength of "The World at War" lies in its interviews. At the time that I write this, there are still people around to be interviewed about these times, but their numbers are small and, unfortunately, growing smaller. But in "The World at War," only 25 years had passed since World War II, so there were many more interview subjects to choose from. The documentary includes interviews with the regular people - like soldiers, sailors, airmen, and civilians. But what sets their interviews apart from others is their interviews with the higher-ups. They could interview top officials in the various governments, as well as generals and admirals from both sides. Whether they're interviewing a prestigious general on the Allied side, or a top Nazi like Albert Speer, it is clear that they took full advantage of their period's wealth of eyewitnesses. Nothing like it, I think, will ever be seen again.

Aftermath of German bombing raids on London, 1941

Stalingrad, 1942 - aftermath of a German bombing raid

... including in their coverage of how Hitler came to power

One of the most interesting parts of the film (for me, at least) was in their coverage of how the Nazis came to power in Germany. Others have done this topic well, of course, but "The World at War" again sets itself apart in their interviews with some of those who lived through it. These people put a more human face on what happened in Nazi Germany, and help you to understand how Hitler could ever have come to power in the way that he did - or at all, for that matter. Their coverage of Imperial Japan is not as extensive, unfortunately, and is therefore not as good in some ways. But it does have some good things to offer for what it does cover in this area. I would imagine that an American-made series would have focused more on what happened in the East (and in the Pacific, of course). But hearing a British perspective on this war is always enlightening for us Americans. And I am an American myself, as you may have guessed. Their increased focus on the European war certainly has its advantages, of course, because it's about as in-depth as anything that you'll ever see on this part of the war. And although they are not technically part of the European theater, I include within this the campaigns in North Africa, because they were part of the war involving Nazi Germany. This series is also good at delving into some of the earlier causes of the war, such as German expansionism in Europe. (More about that here.) And the brilliant narration of Laurence Olivier adds much to this series, since it's among the best that I've ever heard.

Hitler, Göring, Goebbels, and Rudolf Hess during a military parade in 1933

Nazi book-burning in Berlin (which included Jewish authors), 1933

This film also interviews both Holocaust survivors and concentration camp guards

Some other things that set this series apart from other media are its extensive coverage of the Russian front (virtually ignored in most English-speaking media), and its unique take on the Holocaust. Many documentaries have interviewed Holocaust survivors, and this one is no exception. But they also interview concentration camp guards, and even Heinrich Himmler's adjutant. Their coverage is, of course, unsympathetic, and sometimes very disturbing. But this fascinating look into the psychology of the war criminals is something that you're unlikely to find anywhere else. Their interviews with Holocaust survivors are also very compelling - no less than eight of them, from various countries in Europe. Their stories are depressing, but also moving, and a testimony about the truth of the Holocaust that needs to be remembered today.

Starving prisoners in Mauthausen, 1945 - shortly after its liberation by the Americans

Polish dead in Warsaw killed in the Holocaust, 1944

To me, this series gives the definitive coverage of the British perspective (among many other things)

"The World at War" would later find competition from another British series, calling itself the "BBC History of World War II." But this may be something of a misnomer. This is because the "BBC History of World War II" is more of a collection of several different World War II documentaries. Thus, the BBC goes into great depth on certain topics, and ignores many others. I personally prefer "The World at War" (made by Thames Television), because of its greater inclusiveness - although the "BBC History of World War II" is still quite good. I plan to discuss that series more in a future post on that subject. For now, let me just mention that "The World at War" may be even better at giving the British perspective. For example, "The World at War" covers a number of British campaigns that were later omitted by the BBC. Most importantly, they cover the Battle of Britain, in which the British defended their homeland against German air attacks. This was to prove one of the greatest turning points of the war. Even after the Battle of Britain, the British were still being bombed; but they were no longer in any serious danger of being invaded. Had the invasion of Britain been allowed to happen, it would have been disastrous for the entire world, including for nations across the Atlantic. Thus, we have reason to be glad that the Royal Air Force succeeded in stopping the Nazi advance in its tracks.

A German bomber flying over the East End of London, 1940

View of London from the roof of St Paul's Cathedral after a German bombing raid, 1941

Conclusion: This is the most comprehensive documentary ever made about World War II

I am not without my criticisms of "The World at War," but I think that it's still the best, most sweeping, and most comprehensive documentary ever made about World War II. If you want a visual history of what happened, this is the most in-depth history that you're likely to find. And with the dwindling supply of eyewitnesses about this time, there may never be anything like it again.

Footnote to this blog post:

There is controversy about the exact number of casualties in World War II. But one thing is clear: in terms of absolute numbers of casualties, it is easily the deadliest conflict in human history.

DVD at Amazon

Other posts about World War II

Related Hollywood movies:

"Sands of Iwo Jima" (1949 movie)

"The Dam Busters" (1955 movie)

"The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957 movie)

"Sink the Bismarck!" (1960 movie)

"The Longest Day" (1962 movie)

"Battle of the Bulge" (1965 movie)

"Battle of Britain" (1969 movie)

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" (1970 movie)

"Midway" (1976 movie)

"A Bridge Too Far" (1977 movie)