An Australian pediatrician gives a speech on the consequences of a nuclear war.An Australian pediatrician gives a speech on the consequences of a nuclear war.An Australian pediatrician gives a speech on the consequences of a nuclear war.
- Won 1 Oscar
- 3 wins total
Helen Caldicott
- Self
- (as Dr. Helen Caldicott)
Vannevar Bush
- Self - In front of map of Japan
- (archive footage)
Winston Churchill
- Self
- (archive footage)
Leslie Groves
- Self - In front of map of Japan
- (archive footage)
Ronald Reagan
- Self
- (archive footage)
Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Self
- (archive footage)
Richard Tolman
- Self - In front of map of Japan
- (archive footage)
Harry S. Truman
- Self
- (archive footage)
Clement Attlee
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Ernest Bevin
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
James Byrnes
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Ed Herlihy
- Universal Newsreel Narrator
- (archive footage)
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
Ernest O. Lawrence
- Self - with Cyclotron Controls
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
William D. Leahy
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Vyacheslav Molotov
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Joseph Stalin
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Featured review
It must be understood that this film was released in a particular historical context with a particular objective. It was part of a world-wide campaign to prevent NATO from deploying medium range nuclear missiles in Europe. The Soviet Union had deployed similar missiles in Eastern Europe in the 1970's and this was perceived as a danger to the people of Western Europe against which the missiles were directed. NATO then decided to deploy similar missiles in Western Europe directed at Eastern Europe.
At the time thousands of people were organized to try to prevent this. There were riots in West Berlin. There was a months-long campaign to try to prevent the deployment of Cruise Missiles in Britain. IN the Netherlands the parliament agonized over whether to go ahead with deployment. Cities world-wide declared themselves nuclear free zones. This film was released right into the middle of this uproar. Its purpose was clear.
When the missiles were ultimately deployed anyway the whole anti-nuclear campaign folded up its tents and disappeared. My opinion is that the Soviet funding evaporated once it was clear that NATO was not going to be deterred from countering the Soviet deployment by domestic political pressure. Today the same Helen Caldecott defends the Iranians' right to develop Uranium enrichment technology.
I would like to believe that the people responsible for this film were, like so many others at that time, unwitting dupes of the Soviet Union rather than actually being their paid agents. This was never about protecting humanity from nuclear weapons. None of these people ever complained about Soviet weapons. It was part of an effort to shift the balance of world power in favor of the Soviet Union. Fortunately it failed and even more fortunately the Soviet Union is no more.
The film is a good example of effective propaganda. It will frighten an uninformed viewer. As a more informed viewer, I was outraged by it rather than spurred to action, because I saw that the antinuclear campaign was only directed at missiles in the free world and not at those in the Soviet Union.
Watch it as a cautionary experience of the power of propaganda.
David in Ottawa
At the time thousands of people were organized to try to prevent this. There were riots in West Berlin. There was a months-long campaign to try to prevent the deployment of Cruise Missiles in Britain. IN the Netherlands the parliament agonized over whether to go ahead with deployment. Cities world-wide declared themselves nuclear free zones. This film was released right into the middle of this uproar. Its purpose was clear.
When the missiles were ultimately deployed anyway the whole anti-nuclear campaign folded up its tents and disappeared. My opinion is that the Soviet funding evaporated once it was clear that NATO was not going to be deterred from countering the Soviet deployment by domestic political pressure. Today the same Helen Caldecott defends the Iranians' right to develop Uranium enrichment technology.
I would like to believe that the people responsible for this film were, like so many others at that time, unwitting dupes of the Soviet Union rather than actually being their paid agents. This was never about protecting humanity from nuclear weapons. None of these people ever complained about Soviet weapons. It was part of an effort to shift the balance of world power in favor of the Soviet Union. Fortunately it failed and even more fortunately the Soviet Union is no more.
The film is a good example of effective propaganda. It will frighten an uninformed viewer. As a more informed viewer, I was outraged by it rather than spurred to action, because I saw that the antinuclear campaign was only directed at missiles in the free world and not at those in the Soviet Union.
Watch it as a cautionary experience of the power of propaganda.
David in Ottawa
- droytenberg
- Jan 5, 2008
- Permalink
Photos
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThis film was labeled "foreign political propaganda" by the United States' Justice Department in an attempt to limit its distribution. All distributors who sold a copy were required to give the purchaser's name to the Justice Department. This may have had the opposite effect from the suppression desired by the Reagan administration, as the negative label caused a rallying of support around the film from anti-censorship activists. During her Oscar acceptance speech director Terre Nash thanked the US Justice Department for their effective "advertisement" of her film.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Unfinished Business (1984)
Details
- Runtime26 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content