‘Apocalypse ’45’ Review: A Momentous Documentary Presents Never-Before-Seen Footage of the Grisly En

[Dante Fierro]

‘Apocalypse ’45’ Review: A Momentous Documentary Presents Never-Before-Seen Footage of the Grisly End of World War II

Review by Variety. This documentary came out today, August 14, 2020.
https://variety.com/2020/film/reviews/a ... 234735570/

Anyone who sees or has seen this documentary, I would be curious of what you thought of it.

Edit Add: here is the Trailer for the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER-UrUC7pxw

[geofflambert]

Give it to Mikey. He hates everything.

[BBfanboy]

What the article describes I have seen in countless other history films using real war footage. It may be new to the author of the article but for most of the old-timers on this forum it is not new nor a revelation. But if a few of the younger generations get an education from it - good. No one should be under any illusions about how brutal war is, and what it does to the mental and emotional health of the participants who survived it.

[Ian R]

They had all of that on the Thames TV series The World at War in about 1970. Narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier. Didn't they show that on American TV?

American soldiers blast their flamethrowers into caves, the oily fire whipping around like something out of a dragon’s mouth. We’re shown the bombing of Tokyo from a mile over the city, the bombs exploding like clusters of orange dots on the map-like green landscape below. On Okinawa, grenades burst into mounds of curling black smoke, and we see a Japanese woman on the Mariana Islands jump off a cliff rather than allow herself to be taken alive. As for the city of Hiroshima, filmed seven months after the atomic bomb was dropped there, it’s a flattened, debris-strewn hellscape of desolation that looks like it could have been filmed yesterday.

[Bo Rearguard]

Sounds like an interesting documentary I would like to see, but the reviewer makes it sound like the conventional silent B&W film of the era was some sort of conspiracy to hide the graphic nature of war.

Directed by Erik Nelson, the film was drawn from 700 reels of archival color footage, never before seen by the public, that have been sitting in a vault in the National Archives and have been digitally restored to 4K. Why is this material being released now? Just a guess, but my sense is that the graphic power of the footage is something the U.S. government was only too happy to keep a lid on. The standard black-and-white images that bored me as a child were a way of keeping the WWII narrative restricted to something stuffy and official.

Frankly, even color film processes from the 1940s usually look a little off and spotty compared to what was to come. Sure, you can digitally restore them now decades later. That sort of restoration is probably why they were kept in an archive.

[Dante Fierro]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

What the article describes I have seen in countless other history films using real war footage. It may be new to the author of the article but for most of the old-timers on this forum it is not new nor a revelation. But if a few of the younger generations get an education from it - good. No one should be under any illusions about how brutal war is, and what it does to the mental and emotional health of the participants who survived it.

Well apparently the footage is new, but obviously will be similar to what you've probably seen before especially if you are a World War II history buff. I am curious to see the new footage myself and what the 90 year old veterans will have to say.

[Dante Fierro]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Give it to Mikey. He hates everything.

I think 'Mikey likes it!' 0.0

[Dante Fierro]

Here is the Trailer for the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER-UrUC7pxw

[rustysi]

They had all of that on the Thames TV series The World at War in about 1970. Narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier. Didn't they show that on American TV?

Yes. I have it on DVD, but unfortunately a couple of the disks went bad.

never before seen by the public,

There were thousands of reels of film that were just shoved somewhere that were 'never seen by the public'.

Why is this material being released now?

Most of it was just never viewed by anyone. Not much was intentionally kept from being seen, at least after the war.

Just a guess, but my sense is that the graphic power of the footage is something the U.S. government was only too happy to keep a lid on.

Sometimes, as in the case of film from Tarawa. Deemed to disturbing when it happened. Later released to help buoy yet another war bond drive.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

Here is the Trailer for the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER-UrUC7pxw

I've seen at least 90% of those scenes. The one that always hits home is the one of the trembling little boy. He looks a bit like my one grandson.

[Dante Fierro]

I've seen at least 90% of those scenes. The one that always hits home is the one of the trembling little boy. He looks a bit like my one grandson.

Yes, that was a powerful few seconds. One of the bitter tragedies of WWII is how civilian populations were targeted. Was it really that necessary??
Couldn't the Allies have just stuck with military targets?

I also liked the opening of the trailer, the color, and speed of the frames and I believe added sound effects, really puts you right there.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

I've seen at least 90% of those scenes. The one that always hits home is the one of the trembling little boy. He looks a bit like my one grandson.

Yes, that was a powerful few seconds. One of the bitter tragedies of WWII is how civilian populations were targeted. Was it really that necessary??
Couldn't the Allies have just stuck with military targets?

I also liked the opening of the trailer, the color, and speed of the frames and I believe added sound effects, really puts you right there.

The answer to that is the allies did try to avoid, in most cases, civilian target. There are exceptions, but those are exceptions.
The axis tended to intentionally shield military targets with civilian knowing that it would give the allies pause in target selection ... and it frequently did.

night bombing in this era inherently had poor targeting, and both sides did a lot. Even if you mean to hit a military target, your bomb spread would be 1 km or larger at night ... that meant bombs NOT on target ...

I don't recall the allies declaring a unilateral civilian attack (certainly it happened: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, ...) but in each of those significant military targets were also included.

The Axis specifically targeted the civilian population of London in the BoB, I'm not aware of an allied equivalent. I could also use Stanlnigrad and Moscow amoung other examples.

So, to ask if the allies could have done less civilian targetting; certainly. But, while there was some clear retaliation, it is also apparent that surprising tolerance and control was largely exercised ...

PS: You also have to put yourself into the time and place ... which is very far removed from the "peaceful" lifestyle that most westerners now enjoy. Meaning, very few living in the west now have actually lived through a war and as such passing judgement on those that did is hardly accurate or fair.

[rustysi]

Was it really that necessary?? Couldn't the Allies have just stuck with military targets?

Unfortunately collateral damage has always been a part of war. It just gets worse as the weapons get bigger.

Today it may be controlled to a better degree, but nothing is perfect. Especially if your targeting is incorrect.

[rustysi]

The Axis specifically targeted the civilian population

So did Harris. And call it what you will so did the U.S., especially when it came to Japan. The technology of the time just didn't support any other way, as just about all combatants found out.

[RangerJoe]

A tin-foil hatted snowflake might melt, but the civilians were targets also because they worked in the war industries.

Pax, you forgot Guernica, Warsaw, and Rotterdam before London. Some German fighter pilots intentionally strafed civilian refugee columns.

[Dante Fierro]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


The answer to that is the allies did try to avoid, in most cases, civilian target. There are exceptions, but those are exceptions.
The axis tended to intentionally shield military targets with civilian knowing that it would give the allies pause in target selection ... and it frequently did.

night bombing in this era inherently had poor targeting, and both sides did a lot. Even if you mean to hit a military target, your bomb spread would be 1 km or larger at night ... that meant bombs NOT on target ...

I don't recall the allies declaring a unilateral civilian attack (certainly it happened: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, ...) but in each of those significant military targets were also included.

The Axis specifically targeted the civilian population of London in the BoB, I'm not aware of an allied equivalent. I could also use Stanlnigrad and Moscow amoung other examples.

So, to ask if the allies could have done less civilian targetting; certainly. But, while there was some clear retaliation, it is also apparent that surprising tolerance and control was largely exercised ...

PS: You also have to put yourself into the time and place ... which is very far removed from the "peaceful" lifestyle that most westerners now enjoy. Meaning, very few living in the west now have actually lived through a war and as such passing judgement on those that did is hardly accurate or fair.

Allies were pretty systematic when it came to the large German cities (from what I've read, I'm not a military expert however). And they also did the same with Japan in the late war. Many German cities were completely leveled. And if I recall from my reading on the subject, it was a bit of a controversy (even at the time) - whether it was valuable in ending the war effort or not i.e. targeting the 'manpower' of your enemy.

It is one of these moral gray spots in war. After all, the Japanese (and Germans) did start the wars, invading, were vicious/brutal toward the civilian populations. Had no qualms killing civilians for whatever purpose they felt necessary. The Japanese were particularly brutal toward the Chinese.

So the Allies returning the favor in 'war', is that any less morally offensive?? How can you label anything offensive when the point of war is to kill human beings and capture and subjugate your enemy??

I'm not trying to place any kind of moral judgement on what happened. And I agree, one needs to put oneself in that time and place. People always talk about how horrendous it was dropping the atomic bombs - and yet the Allies had been leveling cities throughout the war - using fire bombing technology - that was just as horrendous if not more horrendous (including Tokyo and Dresden). Yes, it took more bombs than the single atomic bomb - but the level of destruction was actually more prior to Hiroshima - it was just with lesser technology (more bombs) and took more time.

[Dante Fierro]

So did Harris. And call it what you will so did the U.S., especially when it came to Japan. The technology of the time just didn't support any other way, as just about all combatants found out.

Yes, this is also my take on the subject. The US and I believe Britain's air marshal was particularly Pro targeting German cities. There was a debate on how effective this would end up being, but it was done anyway. Part of the reasoning at the time (I believe) is that it would 'demoralize' the Germans from fighting further ...

[Platoonist]

In the later stages of the bombing campaign over Japan, leaflets would be dropped a day or two in advance of a raid, announcing the next target and advising civilians to flee to the countryside. It's unlikely this was greatly motivated by humanitarian concerns. It was more likely a form of psychological warfare, demonstrating to Japanese civilians that their government was impotent to protect them even when air raids were advertised in advance. There is some evidence that this form of psychological warfare was highly effective.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro



Yes, this is also my take on the subject. The US and I believe Britain's air marshal was particularly Pro targeting German cities. There was a debate on how effective this would end up being, but it was done anyway. Part of the reasoning at the time (I believe) is that it would 'demoralize' the Germans from fighting further ...

After the London Blitz moral qualms were largely abandoned in favor of an "if that's how they want to play the game ..." attitude. Sir Arthur Harris of Bomber Command voiced the opinion that the Axis, having sown the wind, were entitled to reap the whirlwind. Roosevelt also voiced this sentiment, stating that he wanted the Axis bombed "heavily and relentlessly ... they have asked for it and they are going to get it"

The military effectiveness of strategic bombing in Europe will always be as controversial as its morality. German production actually increased during the peak of the strategic bombing campaign, though most of the increased production was in occupied countries out of range of Allied bombers. The morale of the German people never cracked under bombardment, contrary to the expectations of Allied air commanders. Bomber casualties were heavy. This was particularly true among American bomber crews, since the U.S. Army Air Force overestimated the survivability of their strategic bombers on daylight raids.

Ironically, the decision to risk heavy casualties in daylight bombing was based on a belief in precision bombing, which would specifically target factories and communications rather than civilians. So in trying to formulate a bombing strategy to avoid civilian causalities, the US bombers and crews actually got more heavily shot up for their pains.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro



Yes, this is also my take on the subject. The US and I believe Britain's air marshal was particularly Pro targeting German cities. There was a debate on how effective this would end up being, but it was done anyway. Part of the reasoning at the time (I believe) is that it would 'demoralize' the Germans from fighting further ...

After the London Blitz moral qualms were largely abandoned in favor of an "if that's how they want to play the game ..." attitude. Sir Arthur Harris of Bomber Command voiced the opinion that the Axis, having sown the wind, were entitled to reap the whirlwind. Roosevelt also voiced this sentiment, stating that he wanted the Axis bombed "heavily and relentlessly ... they have asked for it and they are going to get it"

The military effectiveness of strategic bombing in Europe will always be as controversial as its morality. German production actually increased during the peak of the strategic bombing campaign, though most of the increased production was in occupied countries out of range of Allied bombers. The morale of the German people never cracked under bombardment, contrary to the expectations of Allied air commanders. Bomber casualties were heavy. This was particularly true among American bomber crews, since the U.S. Army Air Force overestimated the survivability of their strategic bombers on daylight raids.

Ironically, the decision to risk heavy casualties in daylight bombing was based on a belief in precision bombing, which would specifically target factories and communications rather than civilians. So in trying to formulate a bombing strategy to avoid civilian causalities, the US bombers and crews actually got more heavily shot up for their pains.

But it was demoralizing to the members of the Wehrmacht who heard of this, wondering what was happening to their families, or even going back home on leave.

But the Luftwaffe really got shot up later in the US bombing campaign. Some of the problems with the daylight raids was the lack of coordination which resulted in a strung out bomber formation.