WW1 and WW2 Documentaries Thread

Hi there!

I have always been a keen watcher of WW1 and WW2 documentaries. I have come across very interesting documentaries, but I am always looking for new ones. In this thread you can post any interesting or must watch WW1 or WW2 documentaries you found and think others would like as well!

My first submission is the documentary from 1987 called "Cavalry Of The Clouds". It is a documentary about WW1 pilots and their recollection of their time fighting in simple wooden biplanes. Very interesting to watch, since most of us never heard their stories.

another one!

Another one I really really like

If you haven't done so already everyone needs to be up to date with The Great War series on youtube. 10-12 minute episodes that follow the Great War week by week as events unfolded 100 years ago. New episodes come out on Thursdays.

It started last June and will continue to November 2018.

If you haven't done so already everyone needs to be up to date with The Great War series on youtube. 10-12 minute episodes that follow the Great War week by week as events unfolded 100 years ago. New episodes come out on Thursdays.

It started last June and will continue to November 2018.

Thanks! Is great!

No one ?

I'll share this interactive history page about WW1 told by 10 historians.
Concise and poignant statements.

http://www.lemonde.fr/centenaire-14-18/visuel_interactif/2014/07/23/l-histoire-d-un-conflit-international_4461481_3448834.html

This is a great documentary and a very moving story. Its about a British commando raid on St Nazaire, a heavily fortified submarine base in German occupied France.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXusKM5uX0s

Thank you guys, will check them out!

https://youtu.be/owM9rVYgl_o?list=PLWdsRnvM5uqn1ZSuXG630GcTI252Cx1sP

These are the German War Files documentaries about the various equipment the Wehrmacht used during the War.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned before, but as far as I'm concerned, the most comprehensive documentary about WW2.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071075/

It's nigh on impossible to find anything on film 'approved' for mainstream consumption that is either accurate or sufficiently impartial to present truth or fact by the time it is selectively edited and the narrative is applied. In the case of the Great War, this becomes almost comical due to the dearth of actual cinematic footage a function of the policy, practicality and technology of that time, necessitating acted 're-enactments' so removed from anthing resembling reality and pitched at a contemporary audience most of whom have never done national service who are so generationally distant and removed from the mores, so beleagured with the dross they have been fed, comprehension or understanding of the time represents an impossible objective for most.

Books lend themselve better to the retelling of truth, but an accurate picture still needs to be built up over time by proper investigative inquiry by the discriminating mind. Not everyone is capable of the latter, and most are too lazy to bother with the former. And oftimes, like art, a photograph does not encompass the all as an impressionist's painting might.

Of course, even books can still be tainted, especially those by authors who are plagurising 'historians' incapable of original research or sufficiently sly to not go against the tide knowing full well the punishment which awaits for those who dare do that.

The further the distance of time from the event, the greater the conflict of interest or there is to be gained from preserving the status quo of 'accepted history' of the event, the more distorted and one eyed the retelling and thus publically accepted view.

A sad indictment, but if you want to see the mentality of the planet today, go and view the absurdity of the number of hits on any of Nicky Minaj's trash like this (523 million ...WTF!) and you'll understand why most of the population can be duped most of the time. Compare the interest with the number of hits on this very important speech, and ask youself, which one is shaping history and which should people be interested in as it will affect their lives and the lives of others significantly. In a few years, even with access too it, the majority of Minaj viewing morons with not have viewed it and all too happily be spoon fed whatever nonsense the favourably scripted version retells.

Nevertheless there are some worthwhile reads around, most of those about the Great War and having been written long long ago by the actual participant combatants without a self serving axe to grind. The mass hysteria fed by constant Allied, yes Allied propaganda leading up to and during the second world war saw to it that little reliable in the way of truth or accuracy in the retelling of events of the second world war was or is available. Even Guy Gibson's retelling of his time with bomber command flying Hampdens elucidating that horror and stupidity was censored from his manuscript by the publishers never surfacing to see light of day until a unabridged edition quite recently. Whether it is still the full meat 'n taters or not one would not know as I have never sighted the original manuscript and we can't ask him. Even so, the submitted manuscript would still have been written with a view by himself as to what he could tell, or not, that which would be acceptable to his audience that they would be prepared to hear and accept it at the time. Here's a fact I'll bet few of you know which you won't find in "The World at War" or other usual sources. Generally reported as either KIA or MIA 'lost on operations', how many of you knew that Guy Gibson was actually shot down and killed by friendly fire a returning RAF bomber misidentifying his similarly homebound pathfinder Mosquito as a enemy Nachtjäger? FACT.

Here's another fact. Regardless the pretentious assignation of the genre title, there is nothing in the way of a 'documentary' made for commercial consumption that isn't compromised by either prejudice of the production team be it those paying the bill or director, the censorship by weight of going against the popular view, or some other conflict of interest whose self-interest the truth disserves ensuring attack or denial of distribution by the usual agencies.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned before, but as far as I'm concerned, the most comprehensive documentary about WW2.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071075/

Entertaining yes. Popular yes. But "The World at War's" perspective and narrative both are so biased, it is is not a 'documentary' other than in classification by genre. It resembles truth about as much as does the script and John Wayne's acting in "Sands of Iwo Jima".

P.S. My late step-brother's father was a US Marine who was in those landings on Iwo Jima. He was there. Severely wounded, he was one of the 'luckier' successfully evacuated to a hospital ship to be repatriated to the US where it took several years in a vet hospital before he was sufficiently recovered from his wounds to return to his former life civilian job as a NY police officer.

I agree to everything you've said. But I wouldn't go as far to say that it resembles truth as much as, before mentioned, John Wayne movie.

I mentioned it precisely because it has more depth then many other documentaries, and even some in this thread. And they pretty much all fall in the same category of being biased one way or the other.

I myself don't expect to get something that's science approved because it'd be pretty naive thinking on my part. And on top of that, even the modern historiography of today has considerable divergences of opinion on various interwar and ww2 era matters. Whether it's political, economic or social history related.
To satisfy the urge of getting something that has methodological backing of historical science, one studies history. Preferably in some institution that has good reputation. Not that i'm saying that formal education is a prerequisite for a discussion.
But to get back on the matter - I myself haven't encountered a doc that is completely unbiased, besides those that deal solely with technical issues. If you come across something like that, please point it out!

History is written by the victor.

Always remember this wise sequence of words people!

It's nigh on impossible to find anything on film 'approved' for mainstream consumption that is either accurate or sufficiently impartial to present truth or fact by the time it is selectively edited and the narrative is applied. In the case of the Great War, this becomes almost comical due to the dearth of actual cinematic footage a function of the policy, practicality and technology of that time, necessitating acted 're-enactments' so removed from anthing resembling reality and pitched at a contemporary audience most of whom have never done national service who are so generationally distant and removed from the mores, so beleagured with the dross they have been fed, comprehension or understanding of the time represents an impossible objective for most.

Books lend themselve better to the retelling of truth, but an accurate picture still needs to be built up over time by proper investigative inquiry by the discriminating mind. Not everyone is capable of the latter, and most are too lazy to bother with the former. And oftimes, like art, a photograph does not encompass the all as an impressionist's painting might.

Of course, even books can still be tainted, especially those by authors who are plagurising 'historians' incapable of original research or sufficiently sly to not go against the tide knowing full well the punishment which awaits for those who dare do that.

The further the distance of time from the event, the greater the conflict of interest or there is to be gained from preserving the status quo of 'accepted history' of the event, the more distorted and one eyed the retelling and thus publically accepted view.

A sad indictment, but if you want to see the mentality of the planet today, go and view the absurdity of the number of hits on any of Nicky Minaj's trash like this (523 million ...WTF!) and you'll understand why most of the population can be duped most of the time. Compare the interest with the number of hits on this very important speech, and ask youself, which one is shaping history and which should people be interested in as it will affect their lives and the lives of others significantly. In a few years, even with access too it, the majority of Minaj viewing morons with not have viewed it and all too happily be spoon fed whatever nonsense the favourably scripted version retells.

Nevertheless there are some worthwhile reads around, most of those about the Great War and having been written long long ago by the actual participant combatants without a self serving axe to grind. The mass hysteria fed by constant Allied, yes Allied propaganda leading up to and during the second world war saw to it that little reliable in the way of truth or accuracy in the retelling of events of the second world war was or is available. Even Guy Gibson's retelling of his time with bomber command flying Hampdens elucidating that horror and stupidity was censored from his manuscript by the publishers never surfacing to see light of day until a unabridged edition quite recently. Whether it is still the full meat 'n taters or not one would not know as I have never sighted the original manuscript and we can't ask him. Even so, the submitted manuscript would still have been written with a view by himself as to what he could tell, or not, that which would be acceptable to his audience that they would be prepared to hear and accept it at the time. Here's a fact I'll bet few of you know which you won't find in "The World at War" or other usual sources. Generally reported as either KIA or MIA 'lost on operations', how many of you knew that Guy Gibson was actually shot down and killed by friendly fire a returning RAF bomber misidentifying his similarly homebound pathfinder Mosquito as a enemy Nachtjäger? FACT.

Here's another fact. Regardless the pretentious assignation of the genre title, there is nothing in the way of a 'documentary' made for commercial consumption that isn't compromised by either prejudice of the production team be it those paying the bill or director, the censorship by weight of going against the popular view, or some other conflict of interest whose self-interest the truth disserves ensuring attack or denial of distribution by the usual agencies.

Putin's speech has about 870.000 views now, Obama's speech can't touch it. I have the idea that Putin is about the only politician that isn't a puppet nowadays.

The quest for perfect,"unbiased" sources is futile. That's why we rely on conflicts of evidence, rather than anointing some Chosen One as a reliable dispenser of Truth.