Sparks Commentary: A review of the “BBC History of World War II”

Note: This is a collection of several BBC documentaries about World War II. That is to say, it is not a unified history like “The World at War” is. Nonetheless, many of its documentaries are quite good, so I thought that I would review some of them here. I have reviewed the others elsewhere, in posts more focused on their respective topics.

I’ve actually reviewed five of the BBC’s installments elsewhere …

The “BBC History of World War II” contains ten different documentaries about various aspects of this conflict. I have reviewed a number of these documentaries in other blog posts. For example, I have reviewed “The Nazis: A Warning from History” here, “The Road to War” here, “War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin” here, “Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II” here, and “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’” here. To review these again in this post would risk being redundant. Thus, I will not attempt to duplicate much of that coverage in this blog post.

British Lancaster bomber over Hamburg, 1943

… so I will instead focus this post on reviewing the other five BBC installments of this series

But there are five other installments that I’ve waited until now to comment on. I will thus try to cover these five documentaries in this post. To me, these five films would seem to have a common theme – namely, that they’re all focused on the combat part of the war against Nazi Germany, as engaged in by the Western Allies – and, particularly, the British. These installments are as follows: “Dunkirk,” “Battle of the Atlantic,” “Battlefields,” “D-Day 6.6.1944” (also marketed as “D-Day: Reflections of Courage”), and “D-Day to Berlin.” As you might imagine, there’s plenty of material to talk about with these subjects, and with the way that the BBC covers them.

“Dunkirk”: A docudrama about the British evacuation from Dunkirk (3 episodes)

The first installment that I will be reviewing here is called “Dunkirk.” It is three episodes long. It is a docudrama, rather than a documentary. That is to say, it focuses primarily on doing re-enactments. Real footage is used somewhat sparingly here. The opening narration says that in this battle, the British came closer to losing World War II than at any other time. I agree with this assessment. It was, to put it simply, a disaster for the Allies. When the war began, the Germans invaded France, just as they had done in the last war. But things were different this time around, because the Nazis quickly overran France at the outset. The British and French armies were forced to retreat northward to the coastal town of Dunkirk. In order to survive, the army needed to be evacuated across the English Channel. But the Royal Navy did not have enough ships to evacuate everyone. Thus, the army did their best to hold on until deliverance came, and the navy (along with some confiscated civilian vessels) did their best to save everyone that they could at the departure site. It was a desperate moment, even more desperate than the Battle of Britain which soon followed it. So with a description of this battle complete, let me now comment on the way that the BBC depicted it here. I enjoyed all of the episodes, but some of them are better than others. This is mainly because the first two episodes are better at telling stories. But I found even the last episode to be good, since it’s good on the drama. The re-enactments are on a par with many Hollywood movies, despite the presumably limited nature of their budget. I particularly enjoyed the quality of the acting in this film, although I still prefer the documentary format over the docudrama format in some ways, and would not count this as my “favorite” installment of the series. Incidentally, the “BBC History of World War II” omits the larger Nazi invasion of France, the early British campaigns in Norway, the Battle of Britain, and the early defeats in Greece and Crete. All of these are subjects that “The World at War” covers better. Nonetheless, the “BBC History of World War II” still has some definite merit, especially in installments like the next one.

British soldiers at Dunkirk being bombed and strafed by German aircraft – France, 1940

“Battle of the Atlantic”: A documentary about the U-boat front (3 episodes)

Another film in this collection is called “Battle of the Atlantic.” In contrast to “Dunkirk,” this Atlantic film is a documentary, rather than a docudrama – albeit with some limited re-enactments. With that said, I will now comment on this film’s content. The Battle of the Atlantic was more important than many Americans realize. Of all of the various theaters of this war, this was the one that caused Winston Churchill to lose the most sleep. The other British operations all depended upon getting the needed supplies from North America, so it was a major priority for them. At the beginning of the war, the British Commonwealth was virtually alone in fighting the German U-boat threat. The campaign opened in South America (the site of some German espionage efforts), but also saw some fighting in the Caribbean, then-British Newfoundland, and Canada’s St. Lawrence River. There are interviews with British, American, and even German sailors. But unfortunately (and like “The World at War” before it), this film omits any discussion of the Canadian navy – part of the “British Commonwealth.” This was actually Canada’s only naval theater of the war, so all of their navy’s efforts were focused on this one theater. Thus, they contributed much to the campaign’s outcome. Nonetheless, the film is still good despite this omission.

German U-boat, after being attacked from the air – The Atlantic, 1943

The complicated American role in the Battle of the Atlantic

At the beginning of the war, the United States was still officially neutral, although it was nonetheless involved on a somewhat limited scale – even before Pearl Harbor. But the United States was reluctant to officially enter the distant European conflict at this time. After Pearl Harbor, though, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy both declared war on the United States, drawing the United States into the European theater of the war. This meant that the Americans were now officially involved in the Battle of the Atlantic as well. But initially, this was actually a setback to the British cause, because most of the American navy was instead sent to the Pacific theater – a prominent exception to FDR’s famous “Europe First” policy. Moreover, the Americans initially made a number of rookie mistakes. For example, they refused to black out their Atlantic coastline at night, making it easier for the U-boats to sink ships near our shores. And, most importantly, they initially refused to observe the convoy system. This was to be expected, given that they were newcomers to the war. But later on, the American industry went into high gear, and mass-produced ships for both the Atlantic and the Pacific. It was enough to make a difference in both campaigns.

Allied tanker Dixie Arrow, torpedoed by U-71, in 1942

Comments on the skillful filmmaking style of “Battle of the Atlantic”

Surprisingly for a documentary, this film makes some limited use of re-enactments. But thankfully, they seem only to re-enact the kinds of things for which no archival material is available. Real footage is used preferentially wherever possible. Moreover, the re-enactments are quite good, and are not dramatized. That is, the actors do not speak any lines. Mostly, they show the insides of ships on both sides, showing men and engines and other things – and, occasionally, explosions. They also dramatize the Admiralty’s headquarters in London, and the codebreaking efforts on both sides, which were to prove so influential on the final outcome of this campaign. Thankfully, this film is well-paced, and has an emphasis on the storytelling. The coverage of the BBC is superb in this regard, and helps to dramatize a part of the war that has not received the attention that it deserves. With three episodes, it’s far more in-depth than the corresponding coverage of “The World at War” (which is just one episode, entitled “Wolf Pack: U-Boats in the Atlantic”). Indeed, the BBC’s version of this story was one of the highlights of the series for me. A bonus episode about “Merchant Seamen” talks about the civilians who risked themselves in this conflict, to get the needed supplies to the British Isles. Their casualty rates were even higher than those of the navy sailors who were assigned to protect them. This episode needed better editing and better narration, but it was still quite good. For example, it makes good use of interview clips with the surviving merchant seamen. The full title of this episode (a bonus episode) is just “Forgotten Heroes: Merchant Seamen.”

British night artillery barrage, which opened the second Battle of El Alamein (1942)

“Battlefields” with Richard Holmes: Documentary about a few specific topics (4 episodes)

One of the other documentaries is simply entitled “Battlefields.” It is directed by the military historian Richard Holmes. It’s a miscellaneous assortment of topics, as shown by the four episode titles. The first episode is entitled “Alamein,” and covers the El Alamein part of the North African campaign. By contrast, certain episodes in “The World at War” cover the North African campaign more broadly. (In particular, the one entitled “The Desert: North Africa.”) The second “Battlefields” episode is called “Cassino,” and covers the Monte Cassino part of the Italian campaign. By contrast, one of the episodes in “The World at War” covers the Italian campaign more broadly. (That is to say, the episode entitled “Tough Old Gut: Italy.”) Next, the third “Battlefields” episode is entitled “Bomber,” and covers the British side of the Allied bombings of Germany. By contrast, certain episodes in “The World at War” – in particular, the one entitled “Whirlwind: Bombing Germany” – cover both the British and the Americans. And lastly, the fourth and final “Battlefields” episode is called “Arnhem.” It covers the infamous incident dramatized in the British movie “A Bridge Too Far” (released 1977). Again, one finds broader coverage of this campaign in “The World at War,” and in another BBC installment that I will mention shortly. However, neither of these two series really mentions the Canadians much, or many other Allied participants. I will thus let that suffice for my comparisons here. These “Battlefields” episodes are all quite good, even if somewhat focused on specific topics. They have good interviews with the British participants, although not all of the episodes interview people on the German side. Some do, while others don’t. And some episodes interview certain American participants, while (as mentioned earlier) others don’t. More importantly, Richard Holmes does a lot of battlefield archaeology here, by visiting (and even filming) the actual battle sites – or, in the case of the bombing, the surviving bomber planes and their targets. I tend to agree with Richard Holmes’ take on his chosen subjects, even though I am a critic of his American Revolution film (which I review here). On the subject of World War II, Mr. Holmes and I are agreed on every major point – and on many of the minor ones.

Battle of Monte Cassino – Italy, 1944

“D-Day 6.6.1944” (a docudrama), a.k.a. “D-Day: Reflections of Courage” (1 episode)

The next installment is a docudrama, marketed as “D-Day 6.6.1944.” It has also been titled “D-Day: Reflections of Courage.” This film consists entirely of one 90-minute episode. It first talks about the lead-up to the Allied invasion of Normandy, with some discussion of the Allied attempts to deceive the Germans about the planned location and starting date of the invasion. It also discusses Exercise Tiger, a training exercise that claimed more than 700 lives. Some were from friendly fire, while others were from the German navy. This was kept secret for more than four decades afterward. The film then talks about the efforts of Allied paratroopers to land behind enemy lines and capture bridges in France, which were needed for moving Allied tanks. And finally, the film depicts some of the Allied landings at target beaches. These helped to open another front against the Nazis, although fighting continued in the campaign from the previous year in Italy. Of course, fighting also continued in the Russian front as well, and in the bombing campaigns. As a drama, this D-Day film works well, partially because its re-enactments are of a higher quality than those for the “Dunkirk” docudrama. But I’ve seen plenty of other films that cover the Normandy invasion, and many of them are much better at covering big-picture stuff. This film has a lot of competition from other documentaries about D-Day to boot. This is still a good film – better than the “Dunkirk” installment, I think. But I personally prefer the documentary approach, and thus would not count this film as my “favorite” installment of the series.

Gold Beach, a British target beach at Normandy, on 7 June 1944 (the day after D-Day)

“D-Day to Berlin”: A docudrama about the final campaign in Western Europe (3 episodes)

And the last installment that I will cover here is another docudrama. It is simply entitled “D-Day to Berlin.” It focuses entirely on the final campaign in Western Europe, which started with that Normandy invasion. After the initial entry into France, there was a breakout from the landing sites, penetrating into places like Caen and Falaise. Some months afterward, the campaign would eventually go through Belgium and Holland. It even went beyond the Rhine River into the heartland of Germany itself. There is also mention here of the firebombing of Dresden, which was quite late in the war. (Hamburg is mentioned in the earlier “Bomber” episode by Richard Holmes, along with its own distinctive coverage of Dresden.) Amongst the Western Allied nations, this “D-Day to Berlin” campaign may be the most covered part of our common war against Nazi Germany. It’s true that there are many parts of this campaign which have not been covered much, but there are plenty of others which receive great popular attention, such as the Battle of the Bulge (covered by a separate PBS film). The BBC also covers it here, along with Operation Market Garden – covered in their aforementioned “Arnhem” episode by Richard Holmes. This campaign seems to be more-often-covered than the earlier campaign in North Africa, or the campaign in Italy that was still going on at that time. So with my description of this campaign concluded, let me now focus on reviewing “D-Day to Berlin” itself.

The grave of an unknown British soldier at Arnhem, photographed after its liberation in 1945

My criticisms of this “D-Day to Berlin” film, and the various emphases that it chooses

As mentioned earlier, this film is a docudrama, but it is somewhat closer to the documentary approach. That is to say, it’s more focused on big-picture stuff than some of the other films of this series. There are goofs in this series, and I feel that this topic has still been better-covered elsewhere. For example, they seem to overplay the conflict between Eisenhower and Montgomery here. They also chose a rather dumb-sounding actor for General Patton, which seems not to be an accurate reflection of the real general. And, most importantly, they make it sound like the war failed to realize its true purpose, because Eastern Europe (including East Germany) was now under Soviet control. It’s true that there were compromises with the Soviet Union, including in allowing them to take the German capital city of Berlin. But these kinds of compromises were (sadly) unavoidable. And despite all of these compromises, the war was still a great success for the Western Allies. The dream of freedom and democracy was indeed realized in Western Europe, including in West Germany. Thus, dismissing the Allied victory as a “dream that died” would seem a bit over-the-top. This film seems to have the wrong emphases. It seems like this film is trying hard (almost too hard) to set itself apart from the other films on this subject. Furthermore, they try in vain to have an “innovative” take, which sometimes ends up being a bit misleading instead. There is still some truth in certain parts of their take, but I still prefer the coverage of “The World at War,” and of the many other great documentaries on this subject. “D-Day to Berlin” is still good, but it could have been so much more.

Bodies in Dresden awaiting cremation – Germany, 1945

Conclusion: This series, sadly, omits a number of important topics …

There are many topics that are actually covered in “The World at War,” which are not covered in the “BBC History of World War II.” For example, “The World at War” covers some brief parts of the Nazi occupation (including the Holocaust), while this BBC collection covers only the Holocaust part – although it does go into greater detail on this unfortunate part. This BBC collection also omits much of the Pacific War, except for some of the Japanese atrocities covered in their installment entitled “Horror in the East” (which I review here). Thus, even though “The World at War” covers very little of the Pacific War, they still cover it better than this BBC collection does. In fairness, though, the BBC has two bonus episodes, which go into certain parts of this. One of them is entitled “The Indian Army” (a.k.a. “The Forgotten Volunteers”). This goes into the two Indian armies: one fighting on the British side, and the other on the Japanese side. After the war, only those who fought on the Japanese side were given pensions by the Indian government, even though there were 62 times more Indians who fought on the British side. This is because those who helped the Japanese were seen as “freedom fighters,” who were struggling to gain the independence of India. This is a subject omitted by “The World at War,” so the BBC deserves some credit for covering it here, however brief this coverage may be. The other bonus episode is called “Burma: The Forgotten War.” This is comparable in some ways to an episode in “The World at War,” called “It’s A Lovely Day Tomorrow: Burma.” Thus, these episodes cover certain parts of our common war with Japan quite well, but leave it to the Americans and the Australians to cover many of the other parts of this conflict. (Here and here, respectively.) The two series are comparable, though, in the areas of both Nazi Germany and the Russian front, and in their coverage of the war’s causes – all of which are covered in my other posts, about the other BBC installments. (See the links at the end of this blog post for further details.)

British troops marching through the jungle – Burma, 1944

… but has in-depth coverage of many others, and thus may still be worth having anyway

What’s covered here, though, is often better-covered than even “The World at War” can manage, because of the BBC being more in-depth on these specific topics. Thus, the “BBC History of World War II” still belongs on the shelf of most World War II buffs, particularly if one wants to hear a British perspective on these kinds of things. It supplements the coverage of “The World at War” with some analysis of its own, and will help one to arrive at a deeper understanding of certain areas within this massive conflict. Thus, it will remain a relevant resource for World War II buffs despite its many omissions. Moreover, it may enjoy a well-deserved influence on the way that future generations view the history itself – which is a worthy accomplishment in its own right.

Footnote to this blog post:

Earlier in this post, I noted that I would here be covering only five of the ten documentaries in this collection. For my reviews of the other five documentaries, see the links below.

DVD at Amazon

See also these other installments from the “BBC History of World War II”:

A review of “The Nazis: A Warning from History” (BBC)

A review of “The Road to War” (BBC)

A review of “War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin” (BBC)

A review of “Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II” (BBC)

A review of “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’” (BBC)

Also, if you liked this post, you might likewise enjoy:

A review of “Mussolini: The History of Italian Fascism”

Some comments on what fascism is (and why it stinks)

Winston Churchill: A comparison of two movies

A review of “ANZAC: Australians at War in World War II”