Talk:Hitler: The Rise of Evil

message: The movie depicts hugely inflationary prices in 1929 and 1930, a time when the German government was no longer printing money and in fact was cutting spending under Chancellor Bruening, an unpopular move with the Social Democrats who wanted more unemployment insurance payments to workers. --24.80.120.179 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTA)
The first part of inaccuracies: "At the beginning of the film, Hitler's mother is shown addressing her husband as "Onkel Alois". Although Alois Hitler was Kara Pölzl's grand-uncle, such a form of address would be very unusual if not outright grotesque." Is not accurate- it is well-known that after their marriage Hitler's mother did indeed refer to her husband as 'Uncle'- presumably as their little joke. Cited references regarding this are in all the other wiki articles relating to Hitler's family.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.232.206 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Broader Historical Inaccuracies

message: The "criticism" section continues to violate the Neutral Point of View rule (e.g., "In reality, Hitler was very good looking...")  The sole reference to the imdb comment page  misquotes its source, and since when is an imdb user's opinion a reliable source for facts?  There needs to be a direct link to the author Ian Kershaw's criticism of the miniseries; otherwise, this criticism section should be removed completely. Firehorse44 (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The portrayal of Hitler being promoted to "corporal" is inaccurate. A common mistake, but still false. He never advanced over the rank of "Obergefreiter". --41.146.45.253 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is problematic 

message: The plot summary ends with stating "The film ends with Hitler becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and declaring the '1000-year Reich' [...]." This is incorrect, as it ends after the alleged "Röhm-Putsch" and the murder of Röhm by concentration camp guards. This places the end somewhere after July 1st 1934 (and not 1933). --Ephesos (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary ends faulty 

message: Following standard practice of putting the more important things earlier, I moved the "Inaccuracies" section to after the "Controversy" section.  I also cut the first paragraph of "Inaccuracies" as it completely misrepresented Ian Kershaw's biography being removed as a sole source of information for the film. It stated he quit due to his complaints about historical inaccuracies, based entirely on a poorly-worded headline at the scotsman.com.  The article actually said, "the author gave no detail on why he left the production," and quoted Kewshaw as saying, "I took the decision some months ago. I have not fallen out with the production company but have had no dealings with them since I withdrew."   Whether or not Kershaw left or was removed as primary source is itself debatable; Atlantis maintains that they decided to remove Kershaw's book as the sole source (and primary credit), due to their using other sources of information for the film.
I also removed "Criticism" from the header of the "Inaccuracies" section, as the section is really only concerned with very minor technical inaccuracies and exact timeline of events substitutions. The prior writers of the section appear to be trying to discredit the film by pointing out minor inaccuracies, missing the point that it is a dramatization and in the course of minor changes follows the literary dictum, "the lie that tells the truth".  The only "criticism" referenced was by no professional or known critic, or an academic in the field, but only a private blog. Alec the writer (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, seeing 'fact' tags all over the place in an article makes it look a mess. Toland's biography allowed me to quickly find references to 3 of the requested "citations needed" in the 'historical inaccuracies' section. Perhaps we should give the contributor the benefit of doubt and assume the entries are accurate and meticulously researched? I'll remove the remaining tags in a few weeks unless no-one objects. If anyone can demonstrate that the quoted inaccuracies are inaccurate, they can, of course with justification, remove them! (btw. Robert Carlyle makes a rubbish Hitler -he's too skinny and too short;))1812ahill (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited and moved Inaccuracies to after Controvery 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hitler: The Rise of Evil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829124526/http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Abroad/0,,2-1225-1243_1347906,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Abroad/0,,2-1225-1243_1347906,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Has this show actually been criticised by any reliable sources for historical inaccuracies? The entire, overly large, section doesn't contain a single source that mentions the show.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sufficient descriptions of the era in question in existance to prove that the makers took very considerable liberties with the truth. And whether the section is overly large is a matter of perspection. --Maxl (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical inaccuracies section 

message: Someone added a comment at the end of "Historical Inaccuracies" that the actors do not resemble the historical figures they portray in the film.  This is a nonsensical criticism; all of the portraits of Christopher Columbus were painted by people who could not possibly have met him in person.  The same goes with all portraits of Jesus Christ.  Has anyone criticized movies of Christopher Columbus on the basis that the actor who played Christopher Columbus does not look like Christopher Columbus?  Historical research suggests strongly that all of the pictures of Jesus are just dead wrong in their representation and represent more the wishful thinking of the artist.  The only issue with the actors vs. historical characters in Hitler:  The Rise of Evil is simply that of historical proximity and the availability of photographs.  Does that make it a valid criticism then to say the actors don't look like the historical characters?
:First, I believe you should have signed your comment. And secondly. the comparison with Chistopher Columbus is invalid. There are many photos and films that show the persons of Hitler's entourage while no ne of these exist of Columbus.--Maxl (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not valid content unless a WP:RS bothered to comment on it. And maybe not even then, it depends on the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-resemblance of actors to historical figures comment