Filmed for the BBC, but never aired, this is a sort of fake documentary (but certainly not a mockumentary) that uses actual accounts -- mostly from WWII -- to suppose what would happen in the event of a nuclear war in Britain. Using the information that was current at the time, the film points out that NATO troops may be the first to deploy nukes. In particular, this could happen with mobile tactical nukes sent into the field. If the troops become engaged, British troops were authorized to deploy the missiles if it became likely that they'd otherwise get captured. At that time, Russia had above-ground nuclear missiles that would similarly be deployed towards their targets if they came under attack.
Based on these Cold War premises, the film uses a newsreel style to depict what a future-war might be like for England. The time frame switches. Some of it is actors (but not professional actors) portraying then-modern people who are asked by the off screen interviewer/actor about what they knew about nuclear war (very little) and related questions. Some of it is staged as if the camera was showing footage of an ongoing nuclear war (say, in the 70s).
The camera jerks from here to there as chaos unfolds. The Draft is instated, and men are conscripted. Ration books are handed out. Women and children are moved from areas of likely attack. They are sheltered in homes whether the home owners want it or not. Supplies become scarce, and inflation goes up. The air raid sirens sound, and people take cover. A nuke flashes a white thirty times more bright than the sun. Some are blinded. The heat blast is so intense that some have their eyeballs melt from their sockets. Other can see, but have 3rd degree burns to more than 40% of their bodies. Then, the sound comes and the blast wave hits. Structures shake and fall. Firestorms begin from the spontaneous combustion of the heat wave and exploded fuel of the concussion blast. Using Dresden as model, the director predicts an eruption of firestorms in cities near impact sites. Fires grow and consume so much fuel that firefighters must contend with winds up to 100mph as the flames suck up oxygen. The heat may reach 800°C (about 1400°F). Firefighters cannot get close, and many succumb to the heat. Other fall to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide poisoning. While the information is being given as a voice over, the camera shows citizens lying on the ground choking, trying to breathe, soot-faced and helpless.
Through this, we've seen the pre-war characters being interviewed. Do you know what damage is caused by a nuclear war? The (staged) majority does not. Do you know what to do? Are you for the draft? If attacked should we retaliate? Should we inflict the same sort of damage as was done to us? The majority thinks we should. We are also given opinions from religious leaders (supposedly rewordings of actual statements put into the mouths of actors) that argue for why we must be ready to wage this sort of war.
Back to the aftermath. The immediate damage is over, and now the extended problems begin. The burnt and wounded are over crowding the hospitals. Radiation sickness begins to set in. Finding clean water becomes difficult. Doctors must choose which to treat, and which to let die. There aren't enough pain killers to go around, so those that won't live are left to their agony. The film has an extreme contrast so that victims look like they are nothing but a pale and deathly white covered by blisters, soot and burns of he darkest black. Their bodies are twisted and mangled -- too often beyond recognition. In a gesture of horrid sympathy, the camera follows police as they reluctantly approach a long row of 'lost causes', and fire bullets into their heads. These Officers are not pleased with their job -- they show stress and pain in their actions -- but we see the wrecked and tattered forms of innocent civilians, and we see that the Police trying to do the only thing that might reduce the suffering.
The country becomes a Police state. With supply lines shut, warehouses destroyed, and goods in high demand, the military and local police must control distribution of food and other necessities. A soldier tells the camera, "No photography in here". The crew asks about rumors that they're burning bodies within. A pained look crosses the soldier's face as he admits it is true. The narration explains that this was done in WWII to maintain sanitation. There were too many to bury. They're attempting to follow the previous war's example, and collecting wedding rings or any other remaining items that might bear an inscription or otherwise allow loved ones to know of the death. The camera then pans down to show a bucket full of rings.
I second the request for a source of a poem that scrolled across the screen. It went something like:
At the time, and with the imagery preceding and following this poetic break, the words struck a compelling and mournful chord. The footage that followed was more post-war disaster. The citizens begin food riots. Military/police personnel are getting enough to eat (so they can try to maintain peace when possible), and the masses object. The camera follows a gang as they attack a large truck, drag out the driver, kill him, and open the back. The truck is loaded with rifles which are quickly snatched up by the mob. One hostile teen stops for a moment, and the camera catches him mid frame, he chambers a round, notices the camera and gives the finger to the lens (English-style).
Up til now, the film has been riveting, but then comes the most melodramatic, least convincing and annoying bit. We see orphans. Narration describes their most meager prospects as the camera shows them lumped together in a dirty, clump of stillness. They don't smile. Their eyes remain downcast. The offscreen interviewer queries, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" The first boy says, "I don't want to be nothing". "Neither do I", say the next, and then the next few repeat similar lines.
It was working for me up to that point. I see the point of including the ploy, but this is a case where you don't need to exaggerate. The facts speak well enough for themselves. Still, it is always interesting to see a film that was kept from the public, so I'd recommend it.