I like to watch war documentaries but recently I've been nagged by a rather bothersome question.

I'm wondering how much of the footage is actual "in combat" footage and how much of it is propaganda footage.

What really sparked this question is while watching a recent batch of documentaries on the second world war (various theatres) I noticed a strange trend. There was what seemed to be a lacking of footage that showed both sides. Now initially I chalked this up simply to being because of the distances and low quality of the film that you couldn't see what they were firing entirely or that you can't ever really see your enemy in combat. But upon closer inspection I realized that a lot of the footage was after battle footage or footage of a side on view of troops or tanks firing and in some cases guns firing guns at hills that were clearly empty. Combine this with battle recreations being quite convincing at times (think Pancho Villa) and I was thoroughly miffed as to the real state of documentary footage.

While I certainly am not accusing documentary makers of being deceptive I'm wondering if anyone with close knowledge or ties to the documentary industry could tell me (1) how to distinguish good propaganda footage from genuine footage and (2) what are the practices involved in using footage? Are shots just thrown in where they fit or are they researched to make sure they are accurate?

Any help would be appreciated.

I claim no specialist knolledge in this field, but I believe the footage available to documentry makers is a finite ammount so it gets re used and re used.The more familiar you become with these documentries and their subject matter the more you realise how much is used out of context.
However by reading extensively around a chosen area of interest I have found invaluable in placing and judging the value of archive footage.
For example the famous shots of Soviet troops closing the encirclement around Stalingrad is well known to have been recreated after the actual event for national and global newsreels.
Where as there is some Nazi footage from Normandy which is exceptional in that it shows German tank hunters and Sherman tanks passing them by in the same shot.
The better documentries acknolledge their sources and place them in context (The World at War) but unfortunatly so much is inaccurate and of little merit when used to flesh out yet another rehash.
Cheers October

Almost all sides used propaganda and filming to their advantage. Like you said, most is recreated. Similarly, much of the footage is stock. That is, it gives a visual image for the viewer to a voiceover or someone being interviewed. It does not need to be completely accurate as the clips are so short that few notice the repetition and glaring faults. For example, every time I see footage of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I always see these two dive bombers in formation quickly nose down and drop their bombs. Upon examination, they would appear to be SBDs and not Vals (most notably the lack of fixed landing gear).

Another thing is that cameras and reporters are not what they are today. Cameras and most notably film were bulky and cumbersome (many a cameraman today would argue theirs isn't a feather pillow either, but that wouldn't help my point ). Also journalist teams then were more likely to be a reporter and a photographer. Some did radio reports, but filmers actually with the troops as they are today were much rarer than a photographer. Plus by the time the guy set up a tripod or some kind of stabilization, the action probably would be over or moved on, and to do so would put him at great risk. And even if a filmer did happen upon an actual battle, the quality of the footage wouldn't be great. There are exceptions to this. There is some interesting footage of a cameraman filming the destruction of a Panther from a building.

A third, more applicable reason is that much of the footage was lost or just hasn't been discovered by TV producers. General chaos ensues following wars. To the victors go the spoils, civilians taking whatever they can of value whether they know what it is or not, government broadcasting buildings (and thus archives) bombed, their contents destroyed, a lot of things happen in a war's aftermath. Numerous film reels have been uncovered recently, most notably in my mind is the color footage from multiple sides that the History channel revealed.

A last idea is a little more idealistic, take it or reject it at your leisure. When wars end, some would say that the winner's side is the one more commonly taught. An interesting idea I am wondering is if we were to look at a German produced documentary on the war, what would be said? How would the narrator describe the Americans, British, French? How would they describe their soldiers, the Japanese, the Italians? What kind of footage would they show? That would be something interesting to ask people from other countries. Well, look at it this way, Thiazi, when you see a World War II program produced by a Canadian company, with which country do they go in depth? Same to you October, do they focus on the British point of view? When the Axis lost, so did much of their side of the argument. This has recently started to change, at least here in America (I am not sure if the same is happening in other countries).

Sorry for the dissertation, I am rather bored and this just spilled out. If you think I'm wrong or have another take, let me know. And welcome to Armorama Thiazi.

Jeff

October is correct in respects to archival footage. Producers of the films are required to pay for linear feet or per frame. This can be rather expensive and tends to force film makers to re-use footage through out the documentary or series.

As an example, and this was for photographs, I purchased the usage of four photographs of B-29s and an air base for my work ; it cost me nearly two hundred dollars. That said, you can imagine the cost of film footage.

The way to avoid this is getting to know the veterans who might have photographs and yes, home movies, (B-29 crews often took home movies of some of the later missions...in color too!) thus avoiding the mugging by the archives. You didn't hear this from me....

I'm going to add not much here, because Jeff sums it up nicely.

But around the time of ww2, sound and film recording was indeed cumbersome. Film recording was somewhat portable, but operation of it was far from.

Someone who works for the Belgian WW2 research institute ones told me that about 90% of "action" photographs and films are made after the actual action. This especially true for German footage.

For part two of your question. Most of the archives have quite a good description of most pieces from their description . And they try to keep this as accurate as possible. But then again, even the best researched item can still be way of unless they have a very accurate multi witness account.

Kris

Thank you all very much this helps a great amount. I'll especially have to find some Pearl Harbour docs to see that footage of the SBD's that you mentioned, USNavy2534.

Again, thanks a ton.

The scenes mentioned are from the following film:

Pearl Harbor (DVD) December 7th, 1941 December 7th, 1941 was produced on behalf of the U.S Government and directed by noted director John Ford. Ford painstakingly recreates the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and even manages to build up suspense by staging several scenes of the unsuspecting military personnel at work, play and worship. So convincing were many of the attack scenes that they have since been excerpted in several documentaries.

As mentioned, they did used film clips of SBDs to "represent" the Japanese bombers.

Another interesting thing about the footage you always see of the Japanese planes taking off from the carriers on their way to attack Pearl Harbor. These were also shot after the fact, rather than on the morning of Dec 7th. Obviously the film was shot before the battle of Midway.

Tom

I think there's a simple rule of thumb here. The more grainy, shaky & jerky it is, the more likely it is to be genuine combat footage! The nice, clear, well set up shots tend to be either out-of-action or training films. Actually to be perfectly honest, I don't mind either way, so long as I can make out genuinely interesting subject matter or units involved. What really gets my goat is irrelevant or incorrect voice-overs.
Example: many years ago now, much to my surprise I saw a video in W.H.Smiths about the Waffen SS. I bought it, but when I got home & put it on I quickly realised why I'd found it so cheap! About 75% of the footage wasn't even of SS units - what I really got was a potted history of WW2 with a passing mention of the Waffen SS. It was all stock footage, & if I see the poor old Barham blow up again, I think I shall scream! This clip seems to be in every war video & programme made! To really crown the awfulness of this video, they hadn't even used the well known footage of HJ moving up through Caen!
The same applies to still photography. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the photo captions, even to books dealing with specialised subjects, are written by the photo editor, not the author (this may not be true in every case). Thus wrongly cationed shots that happened to be cheaper or more available, which in an otherwise authoritative volume can catch people out who are using it as a reference. For a long time, the SS were ignored in photo captions, now any German in camouflaged dress (of any pattern), or wearing a skull & crossbones anywhere on his uniform is an SS man!
There is some excellent photography out there (every time I hear what tough fighters the SS were, I think of that well known shot of a young panzergrenadier taken @ Kursk, laden down with ammo & his eyes wide open like a startled horse). Go & enjoy it!

I recently paid $20 for a 5 DVD set called "Complete History of WWII" from a local video store. 11 hours of footage! However, I was slightly disgusted seeing alot of the video used over and over again as well as the narrators' volume fluctuating quite a bit. Oh well, I cant complain I suppose. The footage of the Panther getting shot 3 times and the crew (some of them) escaping is what I was looking for, but alas was not there. Finding really good action footage is hard to come by and if anyone has a recommendation for a good video I'd be happy to hear about it. By the way, what knocked that Panther out?
Thanks
Ryan

I do believe it was a Sherman that knocked it out.

My best recommendation that would be to keep an eye out on the History Channel for a WWII program containing the footage you are looking for. You can then buy a video of that documentary.

Another good recommendation, just for the footage, is WWII in color by the History Channel. I am almost positive it won't have your Panther footage, but the color footage is great.

Jeff

Sumpfhund, if you are referring to the famous Cologne Panther footage, it was a Pershing that knocked out the Panther (which had just knocked out a Sherman). Check out this thread on Missing Links that appeared back in August 2004:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=47207&messageid=1092677170

I am no expert on war footage, but I know that in addition to the news reporters and photographers, the US military had photographers and film cameramen accompanying the fighting units. There is an excellent documentary, produced by Speilberg and narrated by Tom Hanks, called "Shooting War-World War II Combat Cameramen". I bought it from Amazon. It has a tremendous amount of footage, including some quite disturbing, as well as interviews with some of those cameramen. Not recommended for young viewers.

Keith

There was a new post on Missing Links with some details about the Cologne Pershing/Panther fight. Check this post:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=47208&messageid=1114540794

Keith

Yeppers!

They were part of the signal corps. I wish I could recall which film maker or studio exec it was, who was assigned to the signal corps and produced a considerable amount of color footage. Including the liberation of Dachau.

Thanks for mentioning the other viseo Keith, I'll see if I can purchase a copy as well

Best Wishes
Steve

My biggest gripe on history specials, when they talk about D-Day at Normandy, they always, ALWAYS show the Brits jumping off their landing craft at DIEPPE!