Global_Marketing_Pros I think this is an excellent film to document history. How can one culture dominate with a military might so briefly but so effectively. Taking human nature to the limits of ideologies. Does this documentary mirror socialist nations of singular culture such as Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Japan, and or China? When does the balance between singular nationalist government and cultural identity shift to where political power becomes a cast system under a singular ethnicity? This film documents that very question being exercised within the Prussian culture. Which I dare to say never really changed due to geo-graphical barriers that are leading walls to isolation with geo-cultural norms such as language, trade and commerce. These are the same barriers as can be seen for the United Kingdom, Japan, and China. The exceptions are Russia which chooses a nationalist direction and the United Kingdom which identifies commerce as bartering tool for bi-lateral communication to circumvent geo-cultural barriers.Thus, this film accurately documents the development of nationalist power shift in politics and undermining of a diverse Prussian ethnic demographics to harness full control to a singular ethnic class. The "Nazi" became what the design intended culturally and politically. The military science of "Nazi Germany" is detached from this documentary as needed to be a proper cultural document.

carly-51 this is a compelling documentary on a very emotive subject, as a historian i found this documentary to be of great interest and full of accurate and important information. I would highly recommend reading "Auschwitz" and the updated version of "Nazis : A Warning from History" (due out 2nd March) by Laurence Rees who played a big part in the making of the documentary. One of the things i found the most interesting about this documentary was the fact the they used a lot of primary sources including, rare film footage, pictures and they spoke to a lot of people involved in the Nazis regime. It was very interesting to hear how they felt about what they did under Hitlers regime nearly 60 years later.

Michael Wehle Six 45-minute episodes are arranged chronologically, from the NSDAP rise in the context of the social and political turmoil which followed the first world war to Hitler's suicide in April 1945, and arranged thematically, dealing with the origins of the party, the road to the Chancellery, Anschluss, resettlement in the East, the death camps, and finally the Reich's collapse.The first episode mentions the workers revolution that briefly took control of München, and shows how the number of Jews among the Communist leadership supported widespread theories of a Jewish-Communist alliance. Street-fighting between Communists and reactionaries is chronicled, explicating the German populace's understandable desire for law and order.Local operation of the Gestapo, the surprisingly low count of actual employees and the extent to which surveillance by neighbors led to non-conformant citizens' denunciation and imprisonment is illustrated through a brief look at a case in Nürnberg. The informant who sent her innocent neighbor to die in a camp is interviewed.The Wild East chapter illustrates the great variance in regional Nazi commanders' approach to Germanization of Poland and how Hitler's management style facilitated bureaucratic fiefdoms.Too often documentaries demonize the Nazis and assume individuals somehow sprang fully formed from the gates of hell. In contrast, each of the well-crafted installments of The Nazis: A Warning from History offers new insight into the development and functioning of the Nazi state and enables us to intelligently consider the lives of its supporters. In calling for a more sophisticated understanding of totalitarianism the warning is very much that of Resnais' Night and Fog.

Theo Robertson I first saw THE Nazis: A WARNING FROM HISTORY when it was originally broadcast on BBC 2 in 1997 but wasn't too struck by it . I found it somewhat dry and academic and unlike several documentaries dealing with the holocaust ( Most notably the episode from THE WORLD AT WAR ) it didn't leave much of an impact with me . I also noticed some irritation with the writing , for example the phrase " Ethnic cleansing " is used but this is both an anachronism and a misnomer . Anachronistic because the term wasn't used until 1991-92 during the Balkans conflict and a misnomer because what the Serbs , Croats and Bosniaks ( All sides used the technique and no one had a monopoly as perpetrator or victim ) were doing in the former Yugoslavia was fairly different from what the Nazis did in the occupied territories during the second world war . " Migratory genocide " is a phrase that came from the Soviet-Afghan war and can be said to be the precursor phrase to " Ethnic cleansing " and would be accurate to describe the tactics used in the former Yugoslavia . Nazi tactics from 1939 to 1945 were different and " Literal genocide " would be the most accurate phrase instead of " ethnic cleansing " I did catch the final episode when it was repeated a couple of weeks ago and I have to take issue with some of the points raised . For example Laurence Rees script argues that because the fascist policies of Italy were different from German Nazi racial policies , Nazi Germany couldn't sue for peace the way the Italians had done . This is a bizarre argument because whatever the ideology of Italy was during the second world war they had no real military success , even if Italy was led by someone as bloodthirsty and as racist as Hitler the Italian military had no military success as such , they'd captured very little territory . The Italian military leaders were incompetent and the average soldier in the fascist Italian army is still the butt of jokes today so it's totally irrelevant what the racial policies of Il Duce were . By a bitter irony the most serious critics of Hitler in Germany during were the Prussian aristocracy , the officer class whose generals conquered Western Europe and knocked on the gates of Moscow in 1941 . Without these officers who had little love of Hitler Nazi Germany wouldn't have been able to capture most of Europe and engage on a policy of industrialised murder It's also open to interpretation as to how much fighting spirit the Germans had in the final months of the war was down to the fear of being tried for their crimes against humanity or if it's down to the notorious German mentality . During the great war of 1914-18 Germany wasn't led by a genocidal madman or committed a policy of mass extermination but they still fought on when they realised they weren't going to win the war and the allies on the Western front were shocked by this attitude as the Germans fought until the final seconds before 11am November the 11th 1918 . Even today the Germans in sport are infamous as to their win at all costs mentality and there has always seemed to be something in the German psyche that doesn't allow them to know when they've been beaten Much of the selling point of the series - And the reason why it's so highly regarded by some critics - is that it interviews people who have innocent blood on their hands . One man tells of the time he was told to prosecute a farm worker who made a joke about the Nazis blowing up a bridge . The farm worker was found guilty of treason and hanged in the village square in front of his wife . The prosecutor in question was later found guilty of murder and sentenced to six years imprisonment . But what do we learn from these interviews ? That the Nazis murdered millions of innocent people ? I think we already knew that . That they're sorry for what they did ? That they're not sorry at all ? How can anyone prove or disprove that and what good would come out of it anyway ? Watching THE Nazis: A WARNING FROM HISTORY is a disappointment since it doesn't shed new light on a topic we already know about