Heyoka Magazine says,

THE WAR GAME
is a 1965 television film on nuclear war. Written, directed, and produced by Peter Watkins for the BBC’s The Wednesday Play strand, its depiction of the impact of Soviet nuclear attack on Britain caused dismay within the BBC and in government and was banned for 20 years. It was scheduled for transmission on August 6, 1966 (the anniversary of the Hiroshima attack) but was not transmitted until 1985, the corporation publicly stating that “the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting”. It was widely viewed before its BBC debut on video and in art-house cinemas, often using prints provided by Watkins. The film won the Academy Award for Documentary Feature in 1966.

The War Game is available from Amazon, but you can watch it online right now. It’s horrifying and, unfortunately, a must-see. Calmly, without histrionics, it shows some of the various effects that, AT A MINIMUM, we should expect from a nuclear war–an event that, with the proliferation of nuclear capabilities, may actually be a greater danger now than it was during the Cold War.

The Amazon page shows clearly that the battle to silence such knowledge is far from over. “The War Game is a fictional, worst-case-scenario,” the supposedly neutral plot synopsis begins. Wrong and wrong. It is not a fiction at all, but an extrapolation of what might happen in the future should a nuclear war break out, as the narration makes clear throughout. It doesn’t follow any one person but shows a series of different events, all based on the impacts of firestorms in Europe and actual atomic bombs in Japan. Far from a worst-case scenario, it was probably an overoptimistic scenario, even back in 1966, when the bombs weren’t as powerful. The real-life firestorms it’s based on cannot compare to nuclear war. (Note: the plot synopsis for some reason does not always show up on the Amazon page; sometimes, sometimes not.)

Also, the Amazon reviewer’s comment, “Subtlety isn’t Watkins’s suit” is exceptionally idiotic–I suppose he was hoping for a film about the SUBTLE EFFECTS of nuclear war? This reviewer also refers to “the film’s blunt antiestablishment politics,” which isn’t entirely wrong, but isn’t entirely right, either. Apart from one moment in which survivors express the sentiment that the British civil defense system didn’t do any good, the politics of this film are essentially in the scientific facts and historical events on which it’s based. This is a bit like Bill O’Reilly: you can’t trust the facts, because they have an antiestablishment bias.

The real political stance of the film is sufficiently given in this: it refuses to twist facts to suit the Masters of War. “Do so,” say the hawks. “Do so, but to a moderate degree,” say the moderates. “Do so just enough to make support for the military clear,” say the pro-establishment doves. Only the “extremists” of the anti-war cause actually want the facts to be given straight.

If the position that facts speak for themselves without any politics involved is inadequate, it’s not just because some sort of framing structure is required to present and indeed comprehend facts–the framing structure required to arrive at this film’s position is basically the establishment’s own. More crucially, it’s because, in the face of massive, relentless, and predictable political pressure, only a strongly-held political position can cause you to hold on to the truth, no matter how clearly it may present itself. Only in this sense does this film, which stays faithfully within the format of its assignment and of the BBC’s style, take a political stand.

Documentaries that enact possible future (or past) scenarios are hardly unprecedented, yet Amazon’s plot synopsis reiterates, “Although it won an Oscar for Best Documentary, it is fiction.” The people who voted it the Oscar had better political judgment than whoever wrote that. I doubt, in fact, that its horrifying nature was the real reason it wasn’t aired. As Amazon’s reaction shows, the unwillingness to know the true magnitude of what the world faces should these weapons ever be used is alive and well today.

This film is soberly and unsensationalistically done, based on solid research. It’s a dry BBC documentary, and at the same time extremely powerful. The presentation is cool and relentless. It’s hard to watch, but watch it anyway, and arm yourself with knowledge. Only if enough people realize the danger we’re in is there much hope of doing something about it. Bush Sr. and Clinton did NOT take the steps they could have to rid the world of these weapons when the Cold War ended, and they are now in more hands than ever. The risk of all-out nuclear war may be less than during the Cold War, but the risk of a smaller one has never been higher. Even if a smaller one did not escalate into a larger one, the consequences would be unthinkable.

Confronted with the indefensibility of the established order, Amazon.com shows the same defensive reaction as the New York Times and other dyspeptic corporate media outlets, unable to cope with the unruly turn public discourse has taken over the past two years. Anyone who points out that the Emperor not only has no clothes but is revealed without them to be a bizarre and horrifying monster must have faulty eyesight and an ungenerous spirit. Such generosity, of course, is never required of those who point out faults of figures who could be suspected of “antiestablishment” proclivities.