MovieChat Forums > The World at War (1973) Discussion > Interesting, but historically improbable

Interesting, but historically improbable

posted 12 years ago by stebsmeister
15 replies | jump to latest

I'll admit that this was well made, but who are the producers kidding?

Isn't a bit incredible to suggest that, within the space of a generation, the European powers would fight yet another catastrophic war?

Are we really meant to believe that the absurd dictator character - Hilter? Hister? - could have become elected, and imposed his barbaric dictatorship upon the German people, one of the most advanced civilisations in the world at that time? He's so obviously meant to be a dark, inverted reflection of Chaplin's Little Tramp that I found him utterly implausible.

That having enjoyed so much success in crushing his enemies in the West that Holter - Hilret? - would, and flying in the face of all reason, have launched an unprovoked strike upon his Soviet allies in the East, thereby having to fight a war on two fronts?

And is it really probable that the United States and the British Empire, with their frosty relations would have united in common cause?

It's an interesting speculative fantasy, but I'm afraid that's all it is. If you'll excuse me, I'll get back to watching real history, such as "Braveheart".

www.jumpedtheshark.co.uk

[–] indy_go_blue44 12 years ago

I have to agree with you. Although the premise was good, the painfully prolonged story about Russia was so redundant as to become downright boring:
1. In the 1941 episode, the Nazis sweep into the Soviet Union, crushing all in its path. But when all seems lost, not only do the Reds stop the Wermacht, THEN despite horrific losses in men and equipment, they're able to launch a counterattack.
2. In the 1942 episode, the Nazis sweep across the southern steppes and Caucasus, crushing all in its path. But when all seems lost, not only do the Reds stop the Wermacht, THEN despite horrific losses in men and equipment, they're able to launch a counterattack.
3. At least in the 1943 episode, the Nazis didn't get very far, but once again... you guessed it, the Reds launch ANOTHER counterattack.

That Midway chapter was a joke too. Japan's been kicking arse all across the Pacific, and suddenly we're able to sink 3 of their firstline carriers in just 5 minutes? Yeh, sure. Michael Bay directed that one, right?

Puleeze, get some writers with a little imagination before trying another epic film.

[–] CCRider01 12 years ago

I agree it was totally implausible. Any semi-literate student of history knows that Captain America and The Avengers were the ones who really crushed this little Chaplin wannabe named Hilter.

[–] Loincloth 12 years ago

Didn't Sherlock Holmes and The Thin Man help, too?

[–] jpowell180 12 years ago

Ummm....I think you meant Captain America and THE INVADERS (with Spitfire, Union Jack, the original, android Human Torch, and Namor, the Sub Mariner), as the Avengers were not formed until the early 1960's.....

[–] RevengeOfToonces3 12 years ago

That's the main problem I had with this movie. One man is going to turn his entire country into blood-thirsty monsters pretty much overnight and is going to throw the entire world into a tizzy? He gets two whole countries on his side and this conflict is supposed to last six years? Get real. It's a cool idea for a comic book movie or something, but if you want to depict war realistically, come the hell on. I rolled my eyes at least ten times while watching this. He wasn't even that charismatic.

The battle scenes were pretty cool, though. And the holicost scenes were admittedly effective. The basic plot was just pure nonsense.

I understand Hollywood needs to embellish a bit for entertainment's sake, but I just wish these producers would make a realistic war movie for a change.

"He makes me laugh, he'a always humping and pointing at Reese Witherspoon." - rebschucks

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] indy_go_blue44 11 years ago

Other than the little pins worn on the breasts of both the Nazis and modern American politicians, they (Americans) remind me more of the Russian politicos with their bald heads, bare unsmiling faces and tweedy looking suits.

Another thing: After being chased out of France, and losing well over a million soldiers in the East, Germany is going to launch a vicious assault on the Ardennes in the middle of the winter?

[–] DBloodnok 11 years ago

The A.Hitler character was derivative and a shameless rip-off of the far superior movie depiction in "The Great Dictator" by Charlie Chaplin. His moustache was also far less satisfactory.

And do they really think we'll fall for the idea that the French would only build part of a wall to defend itself? That's almost as unbelievable as James Cameron having us believe that the ship in his movie didn't have lifeboats for all the passengers.

For shame.

"Someone has been tampering with Hank's memories."

[–] dtmuller 9 years ago

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I have to mention the two most ridiculous moments, which everyone seems to have missed.

In 1940, the Germans are blowing right through every army in sight and have the British backed up against the channel. They're in perfect position to finish them off, and they stop for no reason at all, giving the British a chance to evacuate most of their army.

Then, in 1944, they do it again. The British and their allies invade, once again they're on the coast, once again the Germans are in perfect position to send up their armor to finish them off, and once again they hold back for no reason at all to give them a chance to get a good foothold. Oh wait! We're supposed to believe that they thought those thousands of ships and tens of thousands of troops were just a diversion?

Of course, if the writers had them do the only realistic thing and destroyed the British in 1940, there wouldn't have been much of a story left to tell. And if they'd done it in 1944, they wouldn't have been able to come up with a happy ending. But surely they could have come up with a plausible reason, instead of this nonsensical strategy! And the worst part is, they feed us the same absurdity twice!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ZevII 11 years ago

For me, the series lost believability when it cast Curly from the Three Stooges to play the Italian dictator.

[–] plkcsk 11 years ago

Ha ha - Good Thread people!!!!

Like it!

[–] Stanley-6 11 years ago

For me, the most improbable part was the whole "atom bomb" thing. Was this sci-fi? And Professor Xavier changing faces to masquerade as President Roosevelt was so far-fetched.

[–] stebsmeister 11 years ago

Stanley-6 wrote:

For me, the most improbable part was the whole "atom bomb" thing. Was this sci-fi? And Professor Xavier changing faces to masquerade as President Roosevelt was so far-fetched.

Agreed. As other posters have mentioned, there was no narrative justification for this "bomb" - it was deus ex machina at its very worst. Oh, and the "Doctor Who" regeneration rip-off is another good point.

What started off as in interesting and not wholly unsuccesful piece of drama became a mish-mash of bad sci-fi very, very quickly.

www.jumpedtheshark.co.uk

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]