HISTORY in the FAKING

[1871]

Much of the Allied historical film footage of the 1939-1945 conflict in Europe, repeatedly shown to millions of avid viewers around the world, on respected documentary programmes, was faked.

Over-creative cameramen and film editors, combined with the desire and orders of political leaders to deliver celluloid representations of victories, were responsible for misleading the public in the authenticity of acclaimed war footage of key events. In some cases, battle scenes purporting to be genuine were stage-managed in film studios.

This is not new:

1) The Battle of Berlin. The often shown charge of the Soviet army on the steps of the Reichstag is false. The film was recorded days after the event. It is known that the Soviets had to remove their dead that lay seven deep on the approaches to the German parliament. It took some time and effort to clear their corpses.

2) El Alamein. An Oscar-winning film was made of this battle - called Desert Victory - and considered the best 'factual' film of the war. But it was produced for the British Ministry of Information by British Army and RAF film units. Much of the footage was recorded at Pinewood Studios, Buckinghamshire, England. Montgomery even arranged for 'action' sequences to be filmed far behind the front line and before the 1942 battle began.

3) D-Day. The celebrated footage of the D-Day landings were doctored. Most of the film scenes were from rehearsed invasion-training at Slapton Sands, Devon, England. The fierce resistance of the German soldiers made it impossible for American or British film-makers to record anything heroic. But the British Ministry of Information produced a package of training material that was believed to be authentic at the time and continues to be regarded as 'real' documentation to this day.

4) The Battle for Stalingrad 1942-43. Film of which was stage-managed after the battle by the Soviets in order to present a heroic myth which was readily accepted as truth by English documentary-makers.

The camera does lie. And the continued falsification and alteration of historical sequential events is still propagated as factual occurrence.

[Patrick]

You could also add the raising of the American flag at Iwo Jima, which had to be filmed twice. Several years ago the BBC had a series on combat photography/newsreels. Much footage is indeed staged or recreated and of course you would always want to show your own side victorious and the other side in defeat. Why demoralise your own population in the midst of war?? While there is certainly an element that would desire to manipulate the truth, that isn't always the motive.

The series showed the evolution of combat filming. At the turn of the 19th century, filming was done by war correspondants for sale to newspapers or theaters back home. The cameras used in the Spanish-American war and WWI were simply too bulky to be carried around and set up in the middle of a battle - not to mention the self-preservation instincts of the film crew who would probably prefer to dig a hole instead of run a camera. Camera angles had to be thought out and the footage filmed under proper lighting conditions, so it was simply more convenient to film behind the lines under controlled conditions without the risk of getting stronked by the enemy in the process. Cameras were a lot smaller by WWII, but there were limits as to what could be shown. When nations are fighting for their lives, the primary motive for making war newsreels was to maintain support for the war and motivate the population, not necessarily to establish an accurate historical record. After all, censors wouldn't allow newsreels of their own dead to be splashed on movie screens back home.

My conclusion would be: Don't rely on movies and newsreels for your facts. Read books.

[Bruno]

The first casualty in War is Truth, even in film.

as to "The Battle for Stalingrad 1942-43. Film of which was stage-managed after the battle by the Soviets in order to present a heroic myth which was readily accepted as truth by English documentary-makers. " Thet did use real tanks and explosives, real russian and real wehrmacht uniforms. And they used real German Pows as staged troops to have a glorious victory over.

[Achilles]

Much of the Allied historical film footage of the 1939-1945 conflict in Europe, repeatedly shown to millions of avid viewers around the world, on respected documentary programmes, was faked

As was the German...

[101stDoc]

You could also add the raising of the American flag at Iwo Jima, which had to be filmed twice. Several years ago the BBC had a series on combat photography/newsreels.

Hey Patrick.


There were photos taken of both of the Iwo flag raisings. One of the flag raisers lives nearby (well, he was living a couple years ago when I talked to him). Time not too long back put out a book on combat photography, which showed both of the flags being raised. The fact that both flags were raised doesn't mean it was propaganda in the sense that it was false. It was done shortly after the first one had been raised, so I think that the comparisons in this particular case are probably not all that important. Now...had the flag raising been done say...a week or two later, THAT is a diff story.

As to the poster's statement that there was essentially nothing "heroic" photographed/filmed during the D-Day landings, I say phooey. There are some surviving shots of the landings (that ARN'T staged), but it is true that there is not as much as there might be. Capa had many of his photos ruined during development...one of the most tragic events in WW2 combat journalism, as from what I've read and heard of...there were some great potential photos in there.

I wouldn't say books are any less the occasional tool for propaganda as well.

And the BBC? I won't go there.



The original poster's post was a bit one sided as well.

Doc

[Tom Houlihan]

You could also add the raising of the American flag at Iwo Jima, which had to be filmed twice.

Patrick, that statement, as Doc pointed out, is decidedly untrue. There were in fact, two flags raised over Suribachi. The first one was rather small, which prompted someone in the invasion fleet to send a larger one up the mountain. The second one is the one that was filmed, and became one of the most recognized images from the Pacific War. It wasn't staged, but the cameraman was alerted to what was happening.
I have seen a photo of the other flag, but I couldn't point you to it right now.

[r. burns]

One incident that comes to mind was a film made during and after a landing on one of the Pacific Islands(have forgotten which). The aftermath showed the bodies of young Marines bobbing in the surf. It was shown in the US and there was outrage. That was war too close....and it was some mother's son dead in the water. The War Department learned it's lesson

[101stDoc]

I think it was Buna Beach.

Doc

[Richard Murphy]

And the BBC? I won't go there.



The original poster's post was a bit one sided as well.

Doc

I've always thought the BBC's coverage of foreign affairs, particulalrly conflicts has been unmongst the most unbiased reporting (And camerwork, who can forget the pictures of a reporter doing a piece to camera in Kabul when an American bombs lands next to him?), any where.
Yes, they've been hard on the government, and for good reason, both in response to a laughably ineffective oppossition (Prior to Mr. Howard's taking over.) and an increasingly sceptical public, but, overall, I would say they've been as fair as can be expected.

Naturally, any government would like to have more control of the Media, but, it never works well, and simply leads to a varying degree of censcorship.


Regards from the Park,

Rich

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Why the surprise? Is it not common knowledge and common sense? The technology of the times dictated that there could be little live filming of ground combat.

There were no hand held movie cameras in those days so they could not easily keep up with the troops. Even still shots of combat are rare and genuine photos of the enemy are like hens' teeth. The nearest the BBC could get to live radio reporting in Normandy was to have reporters talk into portable record making machines. Hopefully the records could then be flown back to the UK for broadcast within the day. The limitations of contemporary technology restricted the immediacy of all the media, even without censorship and propaganda considerations.

The staging of newsreel film was a given of the times and is not of any great historical importance unless it purported to portray events that never occurred. As far as I am aware, the Russians DID storm the Reichstag, the British DID win at El Alamein, the Allies DID land successfully at D-Day and the Russian WERE heroic at Stalingrad, an American flage WAS raised on Iwo Jima, etc.

Thus the incidents of staged filming so far mentioned did not fake history, even though they were concocted themselves.

Can anyone think of proven examples of real pieces of faked filming that purported to show events and outomes that never occurred? This would be of far more significance.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

P.S. When I say that there were no hand held movie cameras in those days, I mean producing cinema quality film.

[r. burns]

The nearest the BBC could get to live radio reporting in Normandy was to have reporters talk into portable record making machines. Hopefully the records could then be flown back to the UK for broadcast within the day.

That's true...I have a recording made just that way when the Marines stormed Pelelieu. The reporter set up his machine in a foxhole on the beach. Gunfire can be heard and the reporter stresses how scared he is as the Japanese are everywhere but can't be seen. 24 hours later he is still awake, cold, as it had been raining all night, and he's exhausted. Sounds like he has marbles in his mouth. That was as close to "live" as they could get in those days.
Even the prepared studio based programs from around the country and the world fade in and out with atmospheric interference. Nothing like we have today.

[1871]

The significance belongs to the observer and to those involved.

Deliberate deception and the alteration of events shows a distinct absence of integrity within those that loudly claim to possess it. Dishonesty eliminates any claims to moral exactitude. To accept a lie is to be integral in the lie and therefore perpetuate the lie. And it seems to have been a common occurrence. The debased arrogance of those responsible is stunning.

Jerome Kuehl, a leading producer and writer who worked on the acclaimed World War II documentary series 'The World at War', (he wrote and produced the Stalingrad episode among others), and viewed by millions worldwide, admitted that even he was fooled by the fake footage. In order to redeem his reputation, he went on to conduct detailed research and write a book confirming his worst fear: that much of the Allied footage in the 'definitive' documentary series was in fact false re-enactments.

Nevertheless, the fake footage is still propagated as fact by contemporary film makers, without a shred of intellectual or professional relection.

The deliberate falsification of film footage, so casually and readily, and presenting it as 'evidence', is not a function of the professional researcher.
It is therefore correct and legitimate to ask the question: What other events and incidents have also been forged by the British Ministry of Information and their Soviet counterparts, in order to deceive and justify deeds committed in the last months of the war in Europe?

The European conflict ended 59 years ago, yet falsified film sequences persist in numerous programming described as 'factual' and without disclaimer. The contingencies of war are understood. But it is the duty of the impartial and objective historian to carefully question the prepared scripts of the prevailing order and not meekly accept what is allowed them.

To do so would be highly offensive.

[Richard Murphy]

But it is the duty of the impartial and objective historian to carefully question the prepared scripts of the prevailing order and not meekly accept what is allowed them.

To do so would be highly offensive.

With this, I agree 100%. As Historians, it is up to us to judge what is right or wrong. Of course, the further back you go in history, the harder it becomes to prove your thesis (Plural of thesis???), but, in the end, without interrogating survivors, both combatant and civilian, becomes a thankless task which is why we have Revisionists!

Going back to the subject at hand. News reporting now is a light year away from the days of Vietnam (The last properly televised war.) and brings the immediacy and destruction of innocent lives, either through natural or man made tragedies, straight into our homes. That is why we are so much more aware of it now. Hopefully, in turn, that would make more of us less likely to return to the mistakes of the past and encourage us to look for a constructive way forward.

Regards from the Park,

Rich

[sid guttridge]

Hi 1871,

I note that you failed to answer my essential question: Can you give proven examples of pieces of faked footage that purport to show events and outcomes that never happened?

I agree that in an ideal world all footage would be genuine reportage and all subsequent researchers and documentary makers would be diligent in placing it in its right context.

But in WWII the limits of contemporary technology made the filming of real battle footage technically difficult and downright dangerous. There is therefore understandably precious little of it. This being so, staging of action behind the lines was resorted to by all sides.

This only really matters if events or outcomes are substantively altered or invented. Does it really matter if a shot of a Crusader going up a sand dune was filmed on the battlefield of El Alamein or thirty miles behind the lines? Or that the Soviet film of the storming of the Reichstag was filmed several days after the event? Or that the men who actually landed in the same landing craft on D-Day were actually filmed earlier at Slapton? I would greatly admire anyone who took such shots live, but I am not going to demand that someone risks their life for the sake of satisfying my requirement for cosmetic accuracy when they can do a similar job safely in a different place and time.

I think your righteous indignation is massively overdone and should be reserved for genuine falsification of history. For example, the Soviet film of Katyn exhumations was patently used to falsify history and is a worthy subject for your venom. The German film of the happy existence of Jews in Theresienstadt is another example. However, the staging of real events with the real participants near the time and place of their real occurence accurately portraying what took place is not in the same category.

I ask again, can you give proven examples of pieces of faked footage that purport to show events and outcomes that never occurred? I have given you the Katyn and Theresienstadt examples of falsified film "evidence". Perhaps you could come up with some Anglo-American examples that are more than just cosmetic re-enactments? Do you, for example, have any reason to doubt the British Belsen footage?

Cheers,

Sid.