Talk:It Happened Here

Science Fiction categorisation

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction" Why ? It is not a science fiction film 80.229.222.48 11:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• What on Earth do you mean? It's an alternate history, certainly a classic subgenre of science fiction. In addition, a number of the individuals involved in its making (such as Bruce Burn, Pat Kearney, Jim Linwood and Pete Taylor) were members of the British science fiction fan community! --Orange Mike 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Alternative history a subgenre of science fiction" ?? I didnt see the Nazi's and Partisans in the film fighting each other with particle beams or enlisting the help of aliens ? And what "a number of the individuals involved in its making" might or might not have been involved in is hardly relevent either. 80.229.222.48 10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative history concerns alterantive versions of the past. Science fiction (generally) concerns alternative versions of the future. Beyond this there isint really much similarity ? 213.40.254.31 (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Speculative fiction is the genre of fiction that deals with milieux that don't exist and never have. These include milieux in the future, milieux that are impossible because they contradict the limits of reality as we understand them and milieux that are impossible because (as with It Happened Here) they are built on a history alternate to the real world. We could argue about which of speculative fiction's two broad subgenres alternate history falls under—science fiction or fantasy—but it does fall under speculative fiction, and has always been considered to do so. Snide remarks claiming something isn't science fiction without particle beams or aliens don't change that. Binabik80 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales ?

What about Scotland and Wales? Not even mentioned in this article- does the film just ignore them, or is there some mention in the plot? Badgerpatrol 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From my recollections, the situation in the country is only vaguely hinted at. So yes I do believe that they are just ignored. Jooler 15:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

At one point in the film a speech on the radio (in the background) is addressed at the "people of Britain" other than that there is no mention of Britain as a single entity -just "England". It is possible that the occupying forces have decided to govern Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (or the whole of Ireland) as seperate entities. Although given the actual wartime Nazi policy in other (Western) occupied countries of preserving existing government structures and institutions as much as possible this seems rather unlikely. 80.229.222.48 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at what they did in places like Yugoslavia. Perhaps there's a neutral Eire that has been allowed to reclaim the Six Counties in return for shutting up. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While the Nazi's did make attempts to generate support from disaffected nationalists (Flemish, Breton, Corsican, Ukrainan etc) in various countries they hoped to eventually occupy their record in fulfulling promises made to these groups was rather patchy. The situation in Yugoslavia (where a section of the Croat population were prepared to collaborate with most of the resistance coming from the Serbs) and to a lesser extent Czechslovakia was somewhat different. The following that William Joyce had among Irish nationalists was somewhat ironic. 80.229.222.48 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think puppet Scottish and, possibly, Welsh states could have been conceivable in a nazi-occupied Britain. The nazis always did their best to talk up ethnic and national differences -- a typical divide-and-rule tactic, isn't it? To this end, as part of their black propaganda effort, nazi Germany had a radio station called "Radio Caledonia" (http://www.clandestineradio.com/crw/news.php?id=240&stn=716&news=644) staffed by Scottish nazi sympathisers, calling on the Scottish people to "make a separate peace" with the nazis. In fact, some Scottish nationalists were very favorable toward the idea of collaboration with the nazis, such as Arthur Donaldson (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article587207.ece), who led the Scottish National Party in the 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troublemaker1949 (talk • contribs)

A map at the start of the film shows Nazi troops sweeping over England and Wales but doesnt show what happens to Scotland, Ireland (North or South) or even the Isle of Man. "Britain"(/British) gets mentioned a few times (once in part of a radio speech heard in the background, once at an IAO lecture and a couple of times in a cinema newsreel) so presumably Scotland is under some form of occupation as well. The constant references to "England" might suggest separate puppet governments in the rest of Britain (and possibly part/all of Ireland). but this is pure speculation. In real life the Nazi's tended to preserve as much of an occupied countries structures and institutions as practicable (At least in Western Europe) unless there were ideological or strategic reasons for doing otherwise. given the high regard that the Nazi leadership has for many aspects of the British establishment and institutions one would imagine that they would want to preserve as much of it as they could ? Interestingly the "Liberation" radio broadcast at the very end of the film tends to refer to "Britain" rather than "England" along with "crowds flocking to the union jack (sic)" where as flags/emblams used by the occupiers (particularly noticeable in the newsreel scene) seem to emphasise the St Georges cross. While the film is open to criticism for its Anglocentricity Ironically some scenes were actually filmed in Wales (according to HIHH) although they are depicted as being in England.86.112.89.88 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would the Americans bother landing in Britain ?

One possible flaw in the plot of an otherwise good film? If the Nazi's had successfully invaded and occupied Britain why would the US forces have undertaken a landing in Britain when in order to defeat the Nazi's it would almost certainly have been necessarily to subsequently undertake another landing (having lost the any advantage of surprise second time around) on the European continent (or failing that abandon the entire continent to the advancing Soviet forces). As such landings tend to be extremely costly in terms of casualties (military and civilian), equipment losses and destruction of infrastructure it would have made more sense for the Americans to land directly on the continent bypassing Britain for the time being until the war had been won. The fact that this is exactly what the British did in relation to the Channel Islands lends credence to such a scenario. In any case by late July 1945 undertaking a landing anywhere wouldnt have made a lot of sense in the light of other developments. 80.229.222.48 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the scriptwriters. Sentimental thinking, perhaps? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bypassing Britain when invading Europe from the sea would be very difficult - The UK & Ireland dominates the coast of Europe. Getting an invasion force round Scotland or through the Channel with hostile forces based in the UK would be pretty much impossible. For similar reasons, the Germans planned to invade Ireland - to deny the US a potential foothold in a future conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.212.91 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely there were places along the west coast of France where it would have been possible ? 86.112.61.137 (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, why would the Allies invade North Africa when they're obviously just going to have to invade mainland Europe to win the war? And then, having done that, invade Sicily? And then the Italian mainland? Why did the US waste it's time invading Guadalcanal, or Tarawa, or Iwo Jima or the Phillippines or Okinawa, didn't they realize they'd have to strike the mainland to win? 65.30.22.152 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Following an upsurge in partisan activity in her area in July 1945, she (Pauline) is forcibly evacuated from her village by the Nazis

The only reference to a precise date was (fairly late on in the film) a notice for funeral service for an assassinated member of the IAO dated 21st July 1945. Presumably therefore the evacuation of the villagers would have taken place a few months earlier (Most likely in the winter/early spring of 1944/45 given the early onset of darkness during the village scenes) although it still raises the question of why the Americans were landing in Britain in late July/Aug 1945 after the success of the Manhattan project ? 213.40.254.31 (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of real life British neo-nazi's

Did the film makers ever give any explanation for deciding to use Neo-nazi's like Colin Jordan ? Surely the parts could just as easily have been played by ordinary actors who wouldnt have aroused as much controversy. And what other neo-nazi's were used in the film ? 213.40.220.139 (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised when I found out but then again, what better typage? Crackpots they were but it wasn't as if they were abortionists ot Irish prod supremacists or the Metropolitan Police.Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just read the book "How it happened Here" by Kevin Brownlow In it he states that "two Nazi's and One Fascist" appear in the "discussion scene" (The "Fascist" isint named however The main speaker is named as Frank Bennett (name also appears in credits) the other Nazi is refereed to as "Thomas"*) Bennett appears in other scenes as well. A number of (German, Latvian and other) ex-Wehrmacht and ex-SS members appear in some battle and parade scenes (many of which didnt make it into the final edit). Colin Jordan isint mentioned as playing any part in the film (although he did turn up at one of the screenings). As a result I suspect that the article is mistaken in suggesting that Jordan appears in the film and that that Bennett has been mistaken for Jordan ? As for the question of why real Nazi's were used Brownlow asserts that by doing so he was both highlighting the fact that such people still existed in Britain (At one of the initial screening a former Partisan from the Dutch resistance had expressed doubts about this until Brownlow introduced him to Bennett who was present) and to allow the Nazi's to "bring their sickness out into the open" and therefore "condemn themselves out of their own mouths". Of course neither Bennett or the critics of the film (the Jewish Chronicle being among the most vociferous) saw it that way. Brownlow states that Bennett believed the film "presented the Nazi case accurately and objectively". Also worth mentioning that not all the IAO instructors in the film were played by actual Nazi's.

• (Film credits mention a "Bill Thomas" not sure if its the "Thomas" referred to)

86.112.82.162 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Colin Jordan (whose face I remember from contemporary newspaper articles) did not appear in the film. 79.69.193.29 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration

An interesting aspect of the film is the widely varying degree of enthusiasm among those collaborating with the occupying regime. Some characters appear to eagerly embrace the new order while others do so reluctantly seeing themselves as having little alternative or feeling that resistance is a lost cause and desperate for a return to some form of normality and order. Branding the central character as a collaborator seems somewhat harsh given how she was pressured into joining the IAO and was clearly unenthusiastic about the political aspects of the organisation she eventually fell fowl of ? 86.112.94.153 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Experience from occupied countries was that the definition of what constitutes collaboration is often pretty fuzzy and even the lines between collaboration and resistance can often be blurred. Members of the Dutch resistance for example often volunteered as air-raid wardens in order to obtain curfew passes. Staff in government offices helped the resistance by producing forged documents etc. The characters attempts to steal morphine for the injured partisan are a perfect example of this. 94.0.215.193 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Music

Volk ans Gewehr was played at introduction (title sequence) and Horst-Wessel-Lied was played during the newsreel and funeral scenes but the article doesnt mention what other music was used in the film ? 86.112.66.248 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Immediate Action Organisatin

Were there any organisations similar to the IAO established in real life Nazi-occupied territories and what were they called ? 86.112.48.48 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What was the IAO supposed to be

Is the IAO supposed to have been "a politicised paramilitary (???) responsible for policing" or (as described in previous edits) "a kind of quasi-paramilitary medical corps" The latter (i.e. "medical") description would seem to be more accurate given that in the film the antifascist doctor mentions having most of his house requisitioned on account of his refusal to join "that organisation which sounds like a laxative". I suspect the idea that they may also have been involved in policing came about from the riot scene where an ambulance crew appear on the scene alongside the (obviously also heavily paramilitarised) police. However there is nothing to suggest that the police were part of the same outfit ? 89.242.194.4 (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Name/makeup of ruling party

The article states that the IAO is "a kind of quasi-paramilitary medical corps of the ruling fascist party of England" while earlier stating that "England appears to be governed by the British Union of Fascists (the situation in the rest of the British Isles is unclear but presumably similar); the followers are referred to as "Blackshirts", wear uniforms with the Flash and Circle, and a framed portrait of Oswald Mosley appears in a government building, alongside one of Adolf Hitler."

In fact the film never mentions a "fascist party of England" (did such an outfit ever exist ?) It is implied (through a 1938 speech used in a radio broadcast) that Mosley is the leader but whether the "ruling party" is the BUF on its own. Or a newly created merger of the BUF, some (or all) fascist/national socialist parties and (very likely) some collaborationist/appeasementist former members of the mainstream pre-invasion parties is pure speculation. Other alternate histories on a similar theme envisage a government consisting of key members of the Conservative party such as Rothermere and Halifax. Even some ex-Labour figures could have been eligible given that Mosley himself was a former member of the ILP ! Incidentally is it Mosley's portrait hanging alongside Hitler in the IAO recruitment scene (at about 25:00) it doesnt really look like him ??? 86.112.89.3 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The portrait looks more like William Joyce. The lightning flash in a circle as worn by the IA in the film is identical to the insignia of the British Union of Fascists, which became the British Union Movement after the war. When the film was being made in the early 1960s, graffiti with the BUM sign could still be seen in London, giving the IA uniform an unpleasant familiarity to anyone in the audience with any political awareness,79.69.193.29 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated un-necessary insertion of a "See also" section to flog other alternate histories

We already have Category:World War II alternate histories; there's no reason for a "See also" section in this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sound Quality and Lighting

The audio quality (and lighting) on the opening reel is rather poor, which makes the dialog difficult to follow for the first few minutes. The book How it Happened Here gives an explanation for this. In the early stages of production the film makers through lack of experience made some errors in handling the sound recording equipment. Some of the master tapes were recorded at 4.75 cm/s (The slowest speed -economizing on tape but also giving the poorest audio quality) mistakes were also made with microphone placement. While the book doesn't mention the poor lighting in the village scenes presumably the explanation for this is similar. 94.0.215.193 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It Happened Here. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123030839/http://www.iffmh.de/1964/Films to http://www.iffmh.de/1964/Films

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)