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.
Review of Nazi Collaborators
