As everyone knows, modern documentaries are trash. Reduced to mere grout between advert breaks, with the same old stock footage repeated a hundred times, and the same old talking heads repeating conclusions that were debunked in the academic sphere decades ago.
This thread is for proper documentaries, from back before millennials killed the documentary industry corporate media ruined everything. A time when (especially immediately post war) some knowledge of military affairs could be expected from the audience, and veterans were still around to give interviews.
I'll start with The Silent Service: filmed in the late 50's, retelling true tales of heroism in the submarine branch of the US navy during WW2.
Season 1 playlist:
Season 2 playlist:
These are definitely a product of their time (the footage of the Japanese sailors is often entertaining for the wrong reasons), but still worth watching
I am, I must admit, a complete dilettante when it comes to military history. I know that there has been critical analysis of Guderian's autobiography, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten, or Panzer Leader in English, but other than that I am ignorant of it. Still, I found the book an interesting read, and at times amusing. Amusing, I think, for reasons old Heinz would not immediately have appreciated:
Production rationalization is haaarrrdd! Also, Guderian didn't even play World of Tanks and he knew that the aufklärungspanzer panther was a stupid idea.
Hitler cannot into tank tactics.
But just think of how dead it would kill a tank if it did hit!
You may also find this quiz to be helpful.
We shall start with Arianism. Hilariously, Wikipedia describes Arianism as a "heterodox" belief, which we all know is a polite substitution for "heretical," and they're not fooling anyone, just like swapping BCE and CE for BC and AD doesn't fool anyone. Really, Wikipedia? Is this the time for ecclesiastical relativism? Just call them heretics; it's not like any of them are left to get upset. Conceivably someone could get upset on their behalf, and demand you moderate your hurtful and judgmental words concerning theological controversies of the third and fourth centuries Anno Domini; and the technical term for someone who does that is "shitnosed little weasel."
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has a refreshingly literary description of Arianism, which explains in no uncertain terms that Arians were not merely mistaken, but unbelievers, and that the Catholic faith was always correct. As one would expect from something called the "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia."
What the Catholics are correct about is difficult for me to say. It is either because I lack the years of training in theology, or because David Stove is right and the entire thing represents human cogitation run so profoundly off the rails of rational thought that trying to analyse it is hopeless (NB: David Stove and the NACE are in fundamental agreement on this issue vis a vis trinitarian controversies).
But Arianism was not merely another largely academic debate about the precise nature of the Godhead. Arian Christianity was quite successful for a time and spread, not just among Nicene Christians but among the previously pagan Germanic tribes to the East. Many of the German tribes that moved westward and camped among the ruins of the Western Roman Empire in the Fifth Century Anno Domini had been Arian Christians for generations. Most notably both the Goths and the Vandals were Arian Christians. In areas with heavy influence by these tribes, like North Africa and parts of Spain, Arianism would hang on until the Seventh Century Anno Domini.