Hitler et les nazis: Le procès du mal

Have taken a keen interest in the rise of Hitler in recent years and this documentry does a pretty decent job of showing how and why he rose to power.

As with most documenteries of this type some is very hard to watch- episode 5 with the death camps is extremely tough.

There is some glossing over in Britains part in the war but think thats the same for the USA and other Allies. After all it is showing the war from the German side

Some of the reconstructions are well done but the guy playing Hitler looked more like the guy from the group Sparks ! But that aside a good series that shows how WW2 came about.

And Germany WTF were you thinking ?

Did not need to watch the trial scenes while watching the footage from the original one. And the actors who do not resemble the original characters who appear constantly. This caused some confusion.

But overall a good series and historical scenes are indeed rare and well colored.

Also, the guests are from different specialties, which adds perspectives.

The acting scenes away from the trial are very good.

Theater as a decoration for dialogues. I did not understand its purpose.

Special thanks to the director of photography and the decorators and costume designers. I went back in time............

Overall, a pretty good account of the rise of Hitler and the reign of terror perpetrated by the Third Reich. I've watched a number of similar documentaries about Hitler and this one showed me a few things I had never known.

The documentary is certainly taken down a peg by the atrocious casting of Károly Kozma as Hitler. When it comes to physical likeness, on a scale of 10 Kozma is about a 6. The casting department could have chosen from hundreds of capable actors with much more similar physical characteristics. Kozma's poor likeness to Hitler is one thing, but his abysmal performance amounts to little more than scenes of hysteria - usually unwarranted - giving Hitler very little depth. Kosta's scenes are all pantomimed (there are no speaking parts) and most of them are poorly executed. To say the least, this was a critical role and they made an awful choice by going with Kosta. You also have to blame director Joe Berlinger for encouraging Kosta's ridiculous style of performance.

There are other things that are seemingly glossed over, including Hitler's terrible health and booming drug dependency. Hitler was prescribed over 90 medications through his life, suffered from numerous serious ailments, and regularly consumed amphetamines, barbiturates, opiates, and cocaine. Between his very poor health and easy access to drugs, little wonder that Hitler devolved into the madman that he surely was.

There's also short shrift given to Hitler's pact with Japan, the courage of the British military, and various other facets of World War II. But, after all, I still did award the documentary a 7 out of 10, indicating I did find it very watchable and illuminating. It shouldn't be the ONLY documentary you watch about Hitler, but it certainly belongs in the upper echelon.

Shirer's book written in the early 60's was far better and more inclusive. This skips over many relevant actions. I've read too many books about WW1 and WW2 and have always been more fascinated by the first war and how it started. The release of this documentary seems to be a not so subtle suggestion that Trump is the new Hitler. Going so far as to mention Hitler's mountain lair being the equivalent of Trump's Mar-A-Lago. Not sure how long this was in the works, but I would guess this was timed to come out before the election. It's still good but read the book instead if you want a better account of the times.

I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in 1961 when I was 13 years old. In my opinion it was and still is the definitive work on Nazi Germany. While this documentary drew on William Shirer's written materials and broadcasts it fell short in several areas.

Having lived and worked in the former Soviet Union as well as the former Soviet Bloc countries, it infuriates me to see how western historians gloss over the complicity of Stalin, Molotov and Beria for their part in starting WWII. While some mention was made to the Soviet invasion of Poland and the subsequent annexation of the eastern half. There was no time spent on the Soviet invasion of Finland and the Baltics. There was no mention of the vast amount of material aid provided to the Nazi regime by Stalin. Despite Poland's invasion by both Germany and the USSR, there was no mention of why the UK and France declared war on Germany but failed to declare war on the USSR.

A brief aside during the Nuremberg trials about the fact that the Soviets committed many of the same "crimes against peace " but were not only never "put in the dock" but were allowed to judge and then allowed to enslave all of eastern Europe despite agreements to allow free elections.

No mention of the fact that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least ten million civilians, that Molotov's signature was alongside Ribentroff's assuring the start of the war and finally not a word on the Soviet "concentration camps" (gulags) where civilians were starved, beaten and shot to death in the millions or the many Soviet public works projects constructed with forced labor.

One last comment, the comparison of Hitler's retreat to Mar a Lago was unnecessary and stain on the great historical work by Shirer.