Jump to content

Talk:It Happened Here: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Disputed dates (see talk page)
Dates: typo fix
Line 32: Line 32:
''Following an upsurge in partisan activity in her area in July 1945, she (Pauline) is forcibly evacuated from her village by the Nazis''
''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 date in the film was (fairly late on in he film) a notice for funeral service for an assinated member of the IA dated (25th IIRC) July 1945. Presumably therfore 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 [[Trinity (nuclear test)|Manhattan project]] ? [[Special:Contributions/213.40.254.31|213.40.254.31]] ([[User talk:213.40.254.31|talk]]) 11:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The only reference to a precise date was (fairly late on in the film) a notice for funeral service for an assinated member of the IAO dated (25th IIRC) July 1945. Presumably therfore 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 [[Trinity (nuclear test)|Manhattan project]] ? [[Special:Contributions/213.40.254.31|213.40.254.31]] ([[User talk:213.40.254.31|talk]]) 11:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


==Use of real life British neo-nazi's==
==Use of real life British neo-nazi's==

Revision as of 17:16, 16 November 2008

WikiProject iconFilm: British Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
WikiProject iconScience Fiction Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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 assinated member of the IAO dated (25th IIRC) July 1945. Presumably therfore 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)[reply]

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)[reply]