The film is primarily based on the memoirs of Traudl Junge (the main character of the film) and Albert Speer (Hitler's architect and Minister of War Production), as well as several secondary history books.

Junge was never an 'enthusiastic Nazi' and after the war went on to be a critic of the regime. Albert Speer - 'the Nazi who said sorry' - would also later speak out against the government of which he was a part. So these two memoirs, on which the film is based, are going to have a negative bias towards Hitler and what went on during those two weeks in Berlin. As historians, it's important to be aware of biases like this and to realise that they're going to give you a different version of events than, say, someone who is pro-Nazi.

Such is the case with all historical sources, we can never get an objectively 'accurate' version of events, but we can try to navigate what the sources tell us. All that said, Downfall sticks very closely to the version told by Junge and Speer.

There are a few portrayals in the film that we might consider problematic. Ernst-Günther Schenck - the doctor in the film who stays behind in Berlin to to treat the wounded - and Wilhelm Mohnke - the general who in the film expresses outrage at Goebbels' disregard for civilian lives - are both depicted in a rather heroic light. However, Schenck was previously involved in medical tests on prisoners in concentration camps and Mohnke was involved in several massacres.

This opens up a lot of questions about historical portrayals of characters because, on the one hand, what the film depicts of their actions during those two weeks in Berlin is - to the best of our knowledge - accurate. But on the other hand, they were involved in some terrible things earlier in the war. Does the film have an obligation to point that out, when it's trying to depict only those last two weeks?

Beyond these concerns, there are only a few minor points with regards to accuracy: a few incorrect uniforms here and there, but nothing major.

There are also questions about the nuances of "representation" in this film that are not strictly about factual accuracy.

For instance, if memory serves (it's been a few years since I've seen the film), the filmmaker makes us feel quite empathetic towards the poor generals who have to suffer through Hitler's bouts of wrath and insanity. Through subtle means, such as camera shots or facial close-ups, we are made to feel sympathy for these "professional" generals, who are chained, by their sense of honor and duty, to a madman.

However, by this late stage (1945), most (if not all) of the generals in Hitler's immediate circle were the die-hard Hitler fanatics. (all the nay-sayers and critics had long been purged.) Keitel and Jodl, in particular, come off pretty well in the film, seeming to be professionals struggling mightily just to do their job.

But Keitel and Jodl were both very much in the "cult" of the Führer, and true believers in his invincibility. I think that the film lets them off way too easily... but does so in subtle ways, that are not necessarily factually wrong.