Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works0 min ago
Sensitive Subject But I Think We Are Up To It.
136 Answers
http://
Is WW1 depicted fairly in the various comedic productions mentioned in this link?
For example Gove says:
"He added: "The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh, What a Lovely War!, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles - a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite.
"Even to this day there are left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths.""
Now I should point out that my own knowledge of the actual situations and events is limited so I'm trying to be neutral here.
Is WW1 depicted fairly in the various comedic productions mentioned in this link?
For example Gove says:
"He added: "The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh, What a Lovely War!, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles - a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite.
"Even to this day there are left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths.""
Now I should point out that my own knowledge of the actual situations and events is limited so I'm trying to be neutral here.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
emmie > as to how WW2 is depicted, how would you expect, those films were not made yesterday but a few years after the war ended, the knowledge of experience, and historical facts would likely make these films somewhat differently. Also you don't make films during war time, nor somewhat after showing the true reality of warfare,because that would be a demoralising <
they made some films during the second world war , here is a very well known one
> http://
they made some films during the second world war , here is a very well known one
> http://
and some will be totally anti British in their thinking, to anything we have ever done, in whatever conflict, Empire and all that, and it's not limited to this site. Many people's perception of WW1 is mainly of mass slaughter, buffoonery of the officer classes as monocled nitwits, and that has stuck all these years, sorry but many as i have said over and again died alongside the men, as i responded on another thread last week
the answer is don't go to war, and if you do be prepared it will be bloody and horrible.
the answer is don't go to war, and if you do be prepared it will be bloody and horrible.
actually it's not, its called in Which we Serve, the message is in the title
written and starring Noel Coward i believe. The point being that we were being bombed, that morale in Britain during early part of WW2 was very low, and the war office alongside the likes of Churchill came up with ways to get the people's morale moving, to dig for Britain, those slogans weren't just for show, it was necessary, it could so easily have turned on it's head.
written and starring Noel Coward i believe. The point being that we were being bombed, that morale in Britain during early part of WW2 was very low, and the war office alongside the likes of Churchill came up with ways to get the people's morale moving, to dig for Britain, those slogans weren't just for show, it was necessary, it could so easily have turned on it's head.
emmie
I understand that WW1 was inevitably going to be destructive giving the technological parity on both sides (the iconic stalemate in France did not manifest in East Europe, or in the middle east and Africa, where the war was much more mobile.) The rest of your post, I must confess, I find very hard to understand. How exactly (as Gove says) was WW1 a "just war"?
Was it a fight for survival? I find this very hard to imagine. British involvement in the war was largely a consequence of the elaborate network of alliances that became normal in the late C19.
Was it a fight for democracy? As Richard Evans points out, some 40% of British men did not have the vote, and neither did any women (at least not in national elections). We were also fighting alongside one of the most brutal autocracies in the world at the time - one considerably more vicious than Germany.
Gove's only justification is to say in his article that we should honour the patriotism of those who joined up - but isn't it a cautionary tale against blind patriotism and simply believing what the govt tells us? It isn't 'denigrating' as he puts it to say that they died for nothing - it's denigrating to the people who killed them.
I understand that WW1 was inevitably going to be destructive giving the technological parity on both sides (the iconic stalemate in France did not manifest in East Europe, or in the middle east and Africa, where the war was much more mobile.) The rest of your post, I must confess, I find very hard to understand. How exactly (as Gove says) was WW1 a "just war"?
Was it a fight for survival? I find this very hard to imagine. British involvement in the war was largely a consequence of the elaborate network of alliances that became normal in the late C19.
Was it a fight for democracy? As Richard Evans points out, some 40% of British men did not have the vote, and neither did any women (at least not in national elections). We were also fighting alongside one of the most brutal autocracies in the world at the time - one considerably more vicious than Germany.
Gove's only justification is to say in his article that we should honour the patriotism of those who joined up - but isn't it a cautionary tale against blind patriotism and simply believing what the govt tells us? It isn't 'denigrating' as he puts it to say that they died for nothing - it's denigrating to the people who killed them.
Too late to read through all this and make a useful contribution but for what it's worth:
I think comedies start to lose their comedy status when they start to try to make serious points, as the last scene of the Blackadder WWI 'over the top' did. They are not the only comedy series to fall foul of that pitfall, but this example was extreme.
I do not have the knowledge to know how incompetent the generals were at the time but I'm well aware that public opinion was that men were needlessly slaughtered in foolish attacks. I have no reason to consider the public view wrong.
Surely it is just to uphold an alliance made with a country that is subsequently attacked ? Or is our word worth nothing ?
I think comedies start to lose their comedy status when they start to try to make serious points, as the last scene of the Blackadder WWI 'over the top' did. They are not the only comedy series to fall foul of that pitfall, but this example was extreme.
I do not have the knowledge to know how incompetent the generals were at the time but I'm well aware that public opinion was that men were needlessly slaughtered in foolish attacks. I have no reason to consider the public view wrong.
Surely it is just to uphold an alliance made with a country that is subsequently attacked ? Or is our word worth nothing ?
"Surely it is just to uphold an alliance made with a country that is subsequently attacked ?"
Well.. France wasn't 'attacked'. If I remember right, they declared war because Russia declared war, and Russia declared war because Serbia was attacked by Austria. Germany declared war because of the declarations of war on Austria (so if anybody has right to claim they were just fighting to defend a neighbour, the Germans do).
Well.. France wasn't 'attacked'. If I remember right, they declared war because Russia declared war, and Russia declared war because Serbia was attacked by Austria. Germany declared war because of the declarations of war on Austria (so if anybody has right to claim they were just fighting to defend a neighbour, the Germans do).
peter //the only way you could find out whether your brother or father was dead was hop on a train to London and look at the noticeboards outside the War Office and Buckingham Palace. //
Not true ! Telegrammes were sent to the next of kin within hours of verification. What is more personal letters were sent by an officer whenever possible .
I've seen them and the telegrammes . My father fought on the Somme and told me many stories.
Not true ! Telegrammes were sent to the next of kin within hours of verification. What is more personal letters were sent by an officer whenever possible .
I've seen them and the telegrammes . My father fought on the Somme and told me many stories.
// I think comedies start to lose their comedy status when they start to try to make serious points, as the last scene of the Blackadder WWI 'over the top' did. //
All sorts of comedies successfully make serious points OG. If it's done well, it enhances the content without detracting at all from the comedy element. The 'over the top' scene you mention is a perfect example.
It would have been absurd to make a program about about WW1, even a comedy, without people being killed at some point, and it not being particularly funny.
All sorts of comedies successfully make serious points OG. If it's done well, it enhances the content without detracting at all from the comedy element. The 'over the top' scene you mention is a perfect example.
It would have been absurd to make a program about about WW1, even a comedy, without people being killed at some point, and it not being particularly funny.
Krom,
You are taking a too simplistic view.
Everybody knew there was going to be a war, the only issue was exactly when. Britain was probably the least prepared for it because at the time we were obsessed with home-rule for Ireland which looked very much like it would trigger a British civil war. Germany's main ambition was to smash Russia. Their plan for doing this required them to knock out France first (a sort of WW2 prequel). Austro-Hungary were encouraged to attack Serbia (who they intended to wipe of the map once and for all) by the Germans promising to support them if the Russians went to Serbia's aid - which they knew they would. Britain offered to chair a conference of the European powers to try and avoid the coming conflict but Germany weren't interested. When Germany attacked France they did so through Belgium who were a neutral country. We had a pact with Belgium to go to their aid if anyone attacked them and that was our official reason for getting involved.
There isn't any real doubt that Germany were the only ones who could have prevented the war - by reining in the Austro-Hungarians. Instead they gave them carte-blanche to start a war that they always planned to have.
You are taking a too simplistic view.
Everybody knew there was going to be a war, the only issue was exactly when. Britain was probably the least prepared for it because at the time we were obsessed with home-rule for Ireland which looked very much like it would trigger a British civil war. Germany's main ambition was to smash Russia. Their plan for doing this required them to knock out France first (a sort of WW2 prequel). Austro-Hungary were encouraged to attack Serbia (who they intended to wipe of the map once and for all) by the Germans promising to support them if the Russians went to Serbia's aid - which they knew they would. Britain offered to chair a conference of the European powers to try and avoid the coming conflict but Germany weren't interested. When Germany attacked France they did so through Belgium who were a neutral country. We had a pact with Belgium to go to their aid if anyone attacked them and that was our official reason for getting involved.
There isn't any real doubt that Germany were the only ones who could have prevented the war - by reining in the Austro-Hungarians. Instead they gave them carte-blanche to start a war that they always planned to have.
Thanks all, a good few thoughts there, for my own part I think Blackadder does the job of illustrating the total futilty of the war with some very clever satire but I often think that the portrayal of the leaders of the day as bumbling buffoons cannot really be accurate, can it, I mean however upperclass nitwit they may be sure they didn't just send them out to be slaughtered without some sort of reasoning/planning, ok I guess there was a lot of naivety and a lot of things went wrong, on both sides. What I cannot fathom though is how it became necessary I mean we where fighting Queen Victorias grandson! Yes I know Archie Duke shot an Ostrich cos he was hungry etc but why where both sides not able to negotiate this? Again I need to read more I guess so forgive me if I'm missing the obvious.
browntrout
Oddly enough I'd forgotten about Belgium completely (it's been a while since I read on this...)
I did qualify my post with "if I remember right", which as you've shown I obviously didn't. I concede your point and I'll check out your reccomendation at next convenience (at the moment I'm actually sitting in a library which rather annoyingly does not have it).
Oddly enough I'd forgotten about Belgium completely (it's been a while since I read on this...)
I did qualify my post with "if I remember right", which as you've shown I obviously didn't. I concede your point and I'll check out your reccomendation at next convenience (at the moment I'm actually sitting in a library which rather annoyingly does not have it).
It was a dance of empires. Millions of combatants -ordinary men, mostly- sacrificed on the altar of global political dominance.
As to the Lions led by Donkeys meme - Unflattering portrayal perhaps, not entirely true certainly. But 1000's upon 1000's of men lives spent, ground up and butchered by mechanised warfare because of techniques better suited to a bygone age.
The commanders learned alright - the introduction of poison gas, tanks, all the rest of it - but that learning curve came at a catastrophic human cost.
As to the Lions led by Donkeys meme - Unflattering portrayal perhaps, not entirely true certainly. But 1000's upon 1000's of men lives spent, ground up and butchered by mechanised warfare because of techniques better suited to a bygone age.
The commanders learned alright - the introduction of poison gas, tanks, all the rest of it - but that learning curve came at a catastrophic human cost.
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
