Nazi Collaborators

The episode about Dutch Nazi collaborator Anton Mussert is very poorly researched and contains numerous errors - too many to list. Also several film fragments do not fit the actual spoken text. Just an example, the description of the prosecution of Dutch Jews by the Nazis is illustrated with early colour footage of fisherman from the Dutch village of Volendam in their traditional black clothing who are described as "Dutch Jews". This is just an example, the entire episode is riddled with errors and inaccuracies, beginning with the mispronunciation of Mussert's name as "Moossert". The episode about Dutch Nazi collaborator Anton Mussert is very poorly researched and contains numerous errors - too many to list. Also several film fragments do not fit the actual spoken text. Just an example, the description of the prosecution of Dutch Jews by the Nazis is illustrated with early colour footage of fisherman from the Dutch village of Volendam in their traditional black clothing who are described as "Dutch Jews". This is just an example, the entire episode is riddled with errors and inaccuracies, beginning with the mispronunciation of Mussert's name as "Moossert".

There is a lot of contemporary film shown throughout the series but it very often does not match at all with the narrative. For example, throughout the series, we frequently see film of Hitler, I believe, plotting 'operation citadel' while the narrator discusses something entirely different. This is not art where all we need is 'a feel' for the period. If this is history, we need evidence. If the film wants to discuss Latvian auxiliary units, then use film, photographs, interviews or documents of that. Showing us 'stock footage' of German soldiers somewhere on the Eastern Front is not good enough. I know this may seem pedantic, but this is where things can get very confusing. It is quite wrong to have a narrator telling us about Latvian or Ukrainian nationalists fighting with the SS or of the same killing communist commissars but then have film which showing something quite, quite different. This is profoundly undermining for what could have been far better. The 'World at War' series created a very high standard which viewers could trust and treat as history. 'Nazi collaborators' severely handicaps itself with such a slapdash approach. I am afraid that it may not be long before the discrepancy of film/narration will be held up as evidence that the events being discussed did not happen.

I agree with others that this series lacks in many ways but on the other hand, I learned a number of new (to me) facts and personalities that have not been discussed elsewhere. I watch many documentaries about this time period, being an ex-Austrian citizen, and believe we need to know our histories to better understand today's developments. Much of the authoritarian leadership in many countries today have lots in common with what happened in the past. This series covers a number of events that are missing in other shows about this period, so it is worth watching, despite the somewhat spotty photography and data that is missing.

The episode (#12) concerning Finland contains gross errors, misrepresents some subjects, grasps at straws at bewildering pace and, on the whole, seems tendentious, aimed at providing a biased view of the subject. It misses some very obvious points against the given view and interpretations of events, while providing a curious, single-threaded narrative that switches sides instead of providing objectivity using alternative explanations. This casts the whole series in a very suspicious light.

While the whole subject is definitely worth an objective look, I'm not sure this documentary series is up to the task.

British sold the Palestinians out so badly, not respecting, who they was as a ppl. with strong religious belief and strong heritage, plus they taking their land and pushing to the side. That's why when it came to the Jew and their plight, So there's a understanding why the Palestinians leader didn't have any feeling towards the Jews. This show was more out to look at this guy for just want to destroy the Jews, because of dislike and not what happening to his ppl.and there land. Palestinians didn't have any saying in what was going to happen to them. A Jewish, Zionist was in command of what was best for them. There should've been a little more understanding for his wanting to defeat the Jews, any means necessary. They left him with no choice, but to run the Hitler. And for Albert Spears, the show talked about how the media cuddled Spear in the approach in interviewing him, but Nazi Collaborators should've brought up how Spear still had painting and other artifact, which he was trying to sell after he got out of jail.