National Geographic channel broadcasts this powerful six-part serie in color image, which immerses us into the most murderous event in world History.
UK link : http://www.natgeochannel.co.uk/programmes/world-war-ii-the-apocalypse

http://www.ngcasia.com/Files/Programmes/302.Main.jpg


The documentary has been broadcasted on French TV in september. I've seen it and can tell you that it is amazingly powerful.

Before watching it, I've first thought that I already knew all about this war. But it's really the first time I see such a detailed chronological overview of the conflict as a whole, on all fronts.

The music, the colored-image and the comments are very efficient to bring us into that senseless and unstoppable run to total destruction.

----------------
EDIT: Nokmirt has found a link to show the whole serie online. There it is :
http://stagevu.com/search?for=Apocalypse%3A+WWII+&in=Videos&x=8&y=12
I don't know if it's because of my browser, but be sure to push the button "play" while the video is loading.

http://img3.immage.de/080989ee575topicapocalypse.jpg (http://stagevu.com/search?for=Apocalypse%3A+WWII+&in=Videos&x=8&y=12)

Sounds like something to see in the future.

How long is it?

Sounds like something to see in the future.

How long is it?6 episodes of 52 minutes.

It's more or less one year by episode from 1939 to 1945.

Here's a 10-minute extract to give you a feeling of the documentary serie:

AgiYhWQErU0

I've seen it. Recommended!

God damn, historical innacuraty one. They ignore Polish intervention in Monte Cassino..

God damn, historical innacuraty one. They ignore Polish intervention in Monte Cassino..Nope they didn't. They do mention that the troops which climbed Monte Cassino were made of North African and Polish regiments. It is told at exactly 3:20.

Probably they should have elaborated more, but they didn't ignore it. Watch the 6 episodes and afterwards I'll be glad to talk again about it.

Better than the "WORLD AT WAR"?

Better than the "WORLD AT WAR"?

Thats unpossible! :eek:

Nope they didn't. They do mention that the troops which climbed Monte Cassino were made of North African and Polish regiment. It is told at exactly 3:20.

Probably they should have elaborated more, but they didn't ignore it. Watch the 6 episodes and afterwards I'll be glad to talk again about it.

Well i'm basing it off the video.

Here people download crap illegally and sell it for like a buck or two, so I'm going to go on the closest Plaza and will see if one of those street vendors carry it.

I watched an intro vid and it looks really good. I do not currently get National Geographic Channel, so perhaps I can watch full episodes online. I really love how you see flashes of color, it really brings what happened there to life. I watched this 3 minute video with only partial color, but the ten minute video is really good. I love how they bring it to life.

See, I'd like to subscribe to the documentary channels on satellite, but I'm put off by the almost total lack of programmes about war in general and WW2 in particular. It's good to see that this glaring deficit is being made good.

[All right - turning off the sarcasm - what makes this series stand out from all the others?]

I really enjoyed the 10 minute clip, hope I get to see this.

See, I'd like to subscribe to the documentary channels on satellite, but I'm put off by the almost total lack of programmes about war in general and WW2 in particular. It's good to see that this glaring deficit is being made good.

[All right - turning off the sarcasm - what makes this series stand out from all the others?]


:lol: QFT.

Of course, while there are a trillion WW2 docos (most of them by the Rubbish "History" Channel), there is the occasional production which stands out. Though I've yet to find one that REALLY stands out.

:lol: QFT.

Of course, while there are a trillion WW2 docos (most of them by the Rubbish "History" Channel), there is the occasional production which stands out. Though I've yet to find one that REALLY stands out.

Maybe none would fit your godly scholarly values, we are only pee ons on this earth.

Maybe none would fit your godly scholarly values, we are only pee ons on this earth.
...what?

...what?
A few years ago nokmirt co-starred with R. Kelly in a certain video...

Maybe none would fit your godly scholarly values, we are only pee ons on this earth.

You're not a TeenInvestor DL are you?

Just don't like it when people do not even give things a chance, especially when they have not even watched the program.

You're not a TeenInvestor DL are you?

Are you, is that why you try to compare what you will get from a war documentary, compared to what you can get from a day of research at the library? When I watch a documentary on your rubbish "History Channel", at least I know that a documentary is only going to give you so much. I do agree with you about the History Channel because I don't care for the programming. I do not care about modern day truck convoys traveling through dangerous mountain passes. At one time you were able to watch the channel all day and the programming was at least decent. Now its not the same, not sure why they went in a different direction, but even alot of friends of mine complain about the same thing. I can see now why they don't have it in Germany.

Anyway, I did not mean any offense. I wish they would make better more in depth history documentaries. They have so much information out there. I read books all the time which would make very interesting documentaries if applied to that format. Something with much more meat, than the plain ordinary facts over and over. It's whats behind the facts that count, you have to spice history up. This particular series looks like it will be pretty good, however. The colors alone do alot to make history come alive, and history should come alive.

A few years ago nokmirt co-starred with R. Kelly in a certain video...

It was called, "Hitler's underwear were blue", and in the video the gestapo tried to send kelly there, to a concentration camp, but the a typical 80's Jamaican posse rescued him, so they could kill him themselves for the drug money he re-nigged on. But Martha Stewart saved the day and helped hide him in her mansion, where she taught him the intricacies of home decor. It was ok but I did not like the ending. At least he survived, but what tortue he must have felt to end up as her boy toy, my god!

Now can we please get back on Topic!

LOL! That's the first time I have ever seen R. Kelly brought into a History conversation, especially from Dachs, my goodness I am shocked Dachs. Good one nokmirt. :lol:

To stay on topic the video for this series looks pretty good.

Just don't like it when people do not even give things a chance, especially when they have not even watched the program.

When the market is saturated with a trillion other programmes on WW2, why should this one stand out more than the others? In a field of a trillion, only the real TALLEST flowers would be noticed.
The problem with that documentary is the question one asks all the time, "why should I watch this? Is it soo much better than the others that I'll actually pick up something significantly new that hasn't been rehashed by all the other WW2 documentaries which I've watched over the last ten years?"

I will bet you top dollar that a documentary about say, the history of the English language (or something rarely documented), with exactly the same production quality as this particular one recommended will earn top accolades while this one will wallow in the mudhole of ubiquity.

To have it stand out, I don't want the usual "Hitler bad, let's look into his mind" or "This is what happened over 6 years". I want NEW historiography. I want NEW points of view.

An example I could think of is John Keay's "China: A History". It talks about the very common topic of Chinese history. BUT, what it introduces is a decent summary of recent research, it is quite witty in its writing, and it pulls out fascinating anecdotes and reflects modern historiography (i.e. not the stuffy, old, Sinofaggish "China was teh awesomzorz for 6000 years oneoneone111!!!!)

In sum, if you want someone to try something that has been tried a million times, you have to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than everything else that's available on the market. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time. Like get into pointless arguments on the internet.

When the market is saturated with a trillion other programmes on WW2, why should this one stand out more than the others? In a field of a trillion, only the real TALLEST flowers would be noticed.
The problem with that documentary is the question one asks all the time, "why should I watch this? Is it soo much better than the others that I'll actually pick up something significantly new that hasn't been rehashed by all the other WW2 documentaries which I've watched over the last ten years?"

I will bet you top dollar that a documentary about say, the history of the English language (or something rarely documented), with exactly the same production quality as this particular one recommended will earn top accolades while this one will wallow in the mudhole of ubiquity.

To have it stand out, I don't want the usual "Hitler bad, let's look into his mind" or "This is what happened over 6 years". I want NEW historiography. I want NEW points of view.

An example I could think of is John Keay's "China: A History". It talks about the very common topic of Chinese history. BUT, what it introduces is a decent summary of recent research, it is quite witty in its writing, and it pulls out fascinating anecdotes and reflects modern historiography (i.e. not the stuffy, old, Sinofaggish "China was teh awesomzorz for 6000 years oneoneone111!!!!)

In sum, if you want someone to try something that has been tried a million times, you have to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than everything else that's available on the market. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time. Like get into pointless arguments on the internet.

I see your point, and I do hope this does have something new to offer. But to tell you the truth it would not be to hard to eclipse what has been previously done in a WW2 or any documentary relating to any war for that matter. Its just a simple matter of getting more in depth instead of just throwing the same old boring facts out there. From there several points of view will abound.

I will have to watch John Keay's "China: A History". I watched a decent one about Genghis Khan recently that covered alot of ground.

LOL! That's the first time I have ever seen R. Kelly brought into a History conversation, especially from Dachs, my goodness I am shocked Dachs.
If you're shocked you don't know me very well. What, you didn't think "pee on -> golden shower -> R. Kelly"?

Anyway, I'm kinda interested in the whole colorized footage - it's colorized, not actual color, right? - but I haven't the television to watch it. I expect I'll probably catch parts of it on YouTube if I remember. Talking about the documentary here, not child porn.

If you're shocked you don't know me very well. What, you didn't think "pee on -> golden shower -> R. Kelly"?

Anyway, I'm kinda interested in the whole colorized footage - it's colorized, not actual color, right? - but I haven't the television to watch it. I expect I'll probably catch parts of it on YouTube if I remember. Talking about the documentary here, not child porn.

Dachs you don't have a TV? I am not sure but someone will usually download the whole episode. Yeah and it's colorized, of course. I am sure Mr. R. Kelly will watch it. :lol:

Its just a simple matter of getting more in depth instead of just throwing the same old boring facts out there. From there several points of view will abound.

If it does do that, tell me :D

I will have to watch John Keay's "China: A History". I watched a decent onje about Genghis Khan recently that covered alot of ground.

John Keay's is a book. Apparently he also wrote "India: A History" and I'm thinking of going to get that.

An interesting doco with interesting new stuff is Simon Schama's "A History of Britain". It was one of the first docos on Britain I watched which didn't have the old Whiggish style of history - though that may be more about what I watch rather than actualy historiography. An interesting documentary nonetheless, and the book is just as good.

A few years ago nokmirt co-starred with R. Kelly in a certain video...
Dachs, have I ever mentioned that the world would be a much less wonderful place without you?

I watched a decent onje about Genghis Khan recently that covered alot of ground.

What was it called? The Mongols fascinate me.

Anyway, WW2 is severely overdone. Quadrillions of documentaries, books, video games, models, etc. have covered it. And yeah, the "History" Channel now only covers conspiracy theories and random things like trucks and paint. They even had a show called "Bathroom Tech"! At least when they had 24-hour coverage of WW2, they actually did history.

Anyway, WW2 is severely overdone.
What's so terrible about it is it's really only parts of WWII that are overdone.
There's a documentary in production that was mentioned on the bbc here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8201717.stm

Aparently someone thought to actually tell the story of Africans drafted into the Second World War by the British Army. An entire continent never discussed outside the context of Rommel.
Whole theatres, China, Burma, the war in the Middle East, Greece, Yugoslavia etc. are completely overlooked.
Entire methods of analysis like Diplomacy, Economics, Intellectual etc. are equally overlooked.

All we have is The Western Powers versus Germany, The Western Powers in North Africa and Italy, The United States versus Japan, and the Soviet Union versus Germany, and we have the bewildering array of choices between it being seen through classical military history and "New" military history.

If it does do that, tell me :D





Certainly

John Keay's is a book. Apparently he also wrote "India: A History" and I'm thinking of going to get that.

An interesting doco with interesting new stuff is Simon Schama's "A History of Britain". It was one of the first docos on Britain I watched which didn't have the old Whiggish style of history - though that may be more about what I watch rather than actualy historiography. An interesting documentary nonetheless, and the book is just as good.

I will look into these two books. I certainly love Indian History. Alot of interesting wars were fought in India, perhaps it will go a little more in depth about Wellington's campaigns there.

Did you ever watch Battlefield Britain? It was a good series.

What was it called? The Mongols fascinate me.



I found it at youtube, it is an older series but I enjoyed it. I am always on the lookout for something newer.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dynasties%3A+The+Mongol+Empir e-+Part+1%2F5&search_type=&aq=f

Check these out as well, one on Genghis, and one on Kublai.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Empire+Of+Khubilai+Khan+-+part+1%2F6&search_type=&aq=f



Anyway, WW2 is severely overdone. Quadrillions of documentaries, books, video games, models, etc. have covered it. And yeah, the "History" Channel now only covers conspiracy theories and random things like trucks and paint. They even had a show called "Bathroom Tech"! At least when they had 24-hour coverage of WW2, they actually did history.

Yes I agree with you, at one time I used to love Military Mondays, it was war all day long. They need to start dealing with more educational in depth shows about different eras of history. They should just create a new improved Military History Channel. Something that would blow these other historical channels out of the water.

What's so terrible about it is it's really only parts of WWII that are overdone.
There's a documentary in production that was mentioned on the bbc here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8201717.stm

Aparently someone thought to actually tell the story of Africans drafted into the Second World War by the British Army. An entire continent never discussed outside the context of Rommel.
Whole theatres, China, Burma, the war in the Middle East, Greece, Yugoslavia etc. are completely overlooked.
Entire methods of analysis like Diplomacy, Economics, Intellectual etc. are equally overlooked.

All we have is The Western Powers versus Germany, The Western Powers in North Africa and Italy, The United States versus Japan, and the Soviet Union versus Germany, and we have the bewildering array of choices between it being seen through classical military history and "New" military history.

I for one, would love a series on the war in China, that covered the invasion of Manchuria until the end of the war. Something in depth that told us about the equipment and tactics the Chinese used, and all facets of the conflict. And before that a good series about the Russo-Japanese war. The siege of Port Arthur was quite intense. I would love to learn more about it. Did you see this clip on the Battle of Tsushima, its from an old movie but pretty cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNj4Icwf9eI

I would also, like to see a full in depth look at the Italian invasion of Greece, and the subsequent invasion by Germany to bail Mussolini out of trouble, and a redo of the German invasion of Crete.

In sum, if you want someone to try something that has been tried a million times, you have to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than everything else that's available on the market. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time. Like get into pointless arguments on the internet.
Well, I may not be a WWII fanatic, but I have watched my share of WWII documentaries, and on several occasions there were facts in "Apocalypse" that just popped out as stuff I hadn't known/realised before. Apart from the fact that you usually recognise ALL the footage on the History Channel shows etc.

This one actually had footage I had never seen before.

As for new things I learned, of course we all know the basic story and situations, in some detail even, and it's not as if it's going to deviate wildly. But in the show about the war in the pacific things like the level of destruction wrought on Manilla, making it one of the most comprehensively flattened cities in all of WWII was something that popped out for me. Never knew that before.

And the crosscutting between the official artists accompanying the Japanese and US task forces steaming towards Midway was a new take on things for me. On the one side John Ford was keeping his camera rolling, and evoking kind of a pre-gunfight Western mode on the US carriers. On the other side there was footage of the Montparnasse painter Foujita painting in his capacity of official war-artist. Of course, it helps that the show is French, and people might actually know who Foujita was.

As for the island-hopping, I won't quickly forget the footage of a half-naked Japanese soldier, standing to his waist in water, apparently indicating his willingness to surrender, only to be unceremoniously offed by SMG fire by the US soldiers not willing to take any chances. It wasn't presented in any kind of gloating or incensed way either, just extremely matter of factly against the background of the bitterness of the fighting and nasty things like Japanese booby-traps etc. Which probably helped make the segment even more powerful.

All in all, it's a quality show.

Good post Verbose.

There's another aspect I find particularly great in this documentary series : it is the story telling. Now let me explain this.

1- World War 2 is such a huge conflict that its events are generally segmented in different categories (the war in Pacific, the Russian front, D-day, etc...). It is not so often that we see events appearing on all fronts in their real chronology, at the rythm they happened. This gives to the documentary a "news footage feel" which make us closer to the events.

2- That narration respecting chronology also make us understand better how decisions were made. Just to give an example, I never really realized that Adolf Hitler was seeking peace with Britain in 1941, and that he never really expected a "weak democracy" to be as determined to continue war untill final victory.

There are many more interesting things in this documentary: Norway, Sedan, Dunkirk, Darwin, Thailand, North Africa... the 5 hours and a half of the series are really dense.

Is there any place that has full episodes available to watch on-line? I don't have national geographic.

I've seen it. Recommended!

Seconded.

However as someone who's interested in facts, I was a bit disappointed. It tells nothing new, just the same old facts about who attacked whom and sometimes it irritatingly simplifies difficult matters.

But I guess facts are not a focus of this series, it's all about the footage and that looks great. But they should have colored the parts about Holocaust too.

There are many more interesting things in this documentary: Norway, Sedan, Dunkirk, Darwin, Thailand, North Africa... the 5 hours and a half of the series are really dense.

Good point, I have never heard of anything from any documentary detailing Norway. Or for that matter, anything Scandinavian, I haven't seen anything from the Russo-Finnish war either.

What about the battle of Hong Kong and Singapore to? Never seen those.

Here is the whole series.

http://stagevu.com/search?for=Apocalypse%3A+WWII+&in=Videos&x=8&y=12

Time to watch some before the world series comes on. GO YANKS!

Here is the whole series.

http://stagevu.com/search?for=Apocalypse%3A+WWII+&in=Videos&x=8&y=12

Time to watch some before the world series comes on. GO YANKS!Thanks for the link. I've added it to the opening post. :)

No problem, I am on part 5, it is really good so far. At first, I was thinking to myself, how are they going to cover everything, but they have done a great job. I love how it goes from one theater of conflict to another. You don't have a chance to get bored watching, and I have learned a few new things I did'nt know.

Well i'm basing it off the video.

Here people download crap illegally and sell it for like a buck or two, so I'm going to go on the closest Plaza and will see if one of those street vendors carry it.
Maybe if criminals like you actually PAID full value to the makers...... the producers would be able to hire better historians and writers to completely satisfy your requests :mischief:

Implying historians make money
You funny.

Maybe if criminals like you actually PAID full value to the makers...... the producers would be able to hire better historians and writers to completely satisfy your requests :mischief:

I'm still paying man, atleast 2 or 3 dollars US.

Besides, I don't really have much of a choice.