I'll start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b4g4ZZNC1E&list=PLYxy4la9w2tfotW1Xs-7oICGflf4dJtj5
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7UxEt2Fo_6ZG8o3XxPGWKf4Q8SyQNqXj
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3swxxj5afG8
History channel and pbs kino:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezP7Qv_9jl8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgB9qPz7Mz8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN8FM1NCOSkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpWSCX5M6JEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG726uamib0https://archive.org/details/ken.-burns.-the.-civil.-war.https://archive.org/details/ken-burns-the-war
>>16895054Wow an interesting thread for once.As a youngin I always loved the aircraft documentaries like wings of the redstar and wings of russia. Coldwar documentaries were always fun especially the latter as it was russian produced so it gave there views on thingsm I didnt know they called the cuban missile crisis the caribbean crisis. Small differences but fun.
>>16895054Some retard will inevitably post Ken burns.Reality is there are very few of decent quality. W@W is one, the Sandia National Lab on strat nuke policy in-house one is another good one, Korea the unknown war is okay, vietnam and ww1 lack decent passable ones, civil war ones are all shit as a rule, nam ones are shit also. Balkans one has a really good one by the bbc, forget the name.
>>16895312What's wrong with Ken Burns? I liked his Civil War series.
>>16895314>i have bad taste>what wrong with that?Nothing. You wouldn't get it anyway. lucky.
>>16895312Don't know who Ken Burns is, redpill me on him
>>16895314Not anon but here is my takeif you want an actual criticism he is that his style of a historic documentary is that he takes sources from people's opinions in interviews, writings, etc. Usually this is ok, but alot of the opinions of people are wrong and it shows a narrowminded view of a single person. You see these pop up in the Civil War documentary cause he just cites people who believed in lost cause narratives that were fed to them. It would be cool if he corrected them in a conclusion, but he never doesHe also, for some reason will skip/skim some important points of views that rounds out everything. In the vietnam one, he straight up skips the point of view from the South Vietnamese for some reason.All these kinda makes Ken Burns not really a historical documentary, but more of a historical opinion piece documentatry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWqnnUeD6cwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfEPvGnhgTg
>>16895688>>16895690Sir, this is the history documentary films thread, not the pseudo-historical powerfantasy shlockflick thread.
>>16895757ACASO HAS VISTO ALGUNO DE LOS DOS DOCUMENTALES?
>>16895486>In the vietnam one, he straight up skips the point of view from the South Vietnamese for some reason.The fuck are you talking about, it's one of the few vietnam war documentaries that bothers interviewing the south vietnamese rather than just focusing on the war ameriboomers fought
>>16895761No, I don't watch powerfantasy shlockflicks anymore than I do CONSOOM Marvel/DC capeshit or watch movies about POWERFUL black queenz or any of that kind of shit. Masturbatory self-insert fiction is BAD regardless of who makes it.>inb4 No, you gotta watch MY shitty movies made by a group of far-right ultra-nationalists because uh if you don't you're le anti-Iberian which makes you le racist or something
>>16895767>No[...]ENTONCES, NO OPINES.
>>16895775Suck my openis
Thames TV and the BBC made a great 3-hour one about the Korean War. They really went all-out with this one, it's the only doc on Korea i've found that interviews such a huge variety of people involved with the war, all the way from Dean Rusk to North Korean grunt veteranshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ01SCq_Rss&list=PL4DF1F71C59CA0C4D&pp=iAQB
