ChatterBank0 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 i will try for one last time , you're words from 08-36
emmie
> Also you don't make films during war time, nor somewhat after showing the true reality of warfare, because that would be a demoralising fact for the forces fighting,
08:36 Mon 06th Jan 2014 <
i was just pointing out that they did make some films
emmie
> Also you don't make films during war time, nor somewhat after showing the true reality of warfare, because that would be a demoralising fact for the forces fighting,
08:36 Mon 06th Jan 2014 <
i was just pointing out that they did make some films
DF apologies, i have already stated that Henry V with Olivier was made with the express purpose of being a gee up for the nation, i didn't mean they didn't make war films, i meant that they had to show things in a positive light, to make people feel a bit better about having bombs chucked at their heads, and seeing their loved ones die on some foreign field, or at sea.
The Americans and i am sure the Germans had propaganda films, its a way to get a message across, that we are doing our bit, now you must do yours.
The Americans and i am sure the Germans had propaganda films, its a way to get a message across, that we are doing our bit, now you must do yours.
and they didn't show the true nature of warfare, as in the ship sinking in In which we serve, is not quite on a par with knowing how the men really died. Its about bravery, hope, and not the brutality of it all,
The story lines were of ordinary families caught up in extraordinary times. There were plenty of those films made.
The story lines were of ordinary families caught up in extraordinary times. There were plenty of those films made.
The Spanish Flu is an irrelevance to the conversation.It was a natural, catastrophic and calamitous disaster, unavoidable. Indeed, at least some of the body count was probably attributable to WW1 itself, with the troop movements, and deprivation etc, although very difficult to prove categorically.
All wars are avoidable. Without any question. They are not inevitable.
In WW1 the burden of suffering was not equally shared. The bulk of the fighting forces on all sides were the working/lower/middle class and they were the ones who were killed,in their 1000s, many of whom had been conscripted, many of whom did not even have the vote at home.
Men were heedlessly lost on all sides, with the evolution of mechanised warfare and artillery bombardment, poison gas, tanks and everything else. An infantryman steadily advancing on an enemy position was not well suited to machine gun fire from protected positions. Battle of the Somme 60,000 British troops lost in 1 day! So at least at the start of the war, men were being led by commanders with little experience of modern warfare, if not actively inept.
All wars are avoidable. Without any question. They are not inevitable.
In WW1 the burden of suffering was not equally shared. The bulk of the fighting forces on all sides were the working/lower/middle class and they were the ones who were killed,in their 1000s, many of whom had been conscripted, many of whom did not even have the vote at home.
Men were heedlessly lost on all sides, with the evolution of mechanised warfare and artillery bombardment, poison gas, tanks and everything else. An infantryman steadily advancing on an enemy position was not well suited to machine gun fire from protected positions. Battle of the Somme 60,000 British troops lost in 1 day! So at least at the start of the war, men were being led by commanders with little experience of modern warfare, if not actively inept.
no one had experience of modern warfare, mechanisation, so how could anyone know what it would be like, that it wiped out millions is not in dispute, that many of those were officers, and if they were green, inept, it's because unless you are a professional soldier, with adequate training, on and off the battlefield, you won't be much use. That they went to war was out of a sense of duty, you don't have to take my word for it, but it was there, you were thought a funk, a coward if you didn't join up, and those men were the ones who led the tommies, the war to end all wars, not really
@Emmie I have acknowledged that fact, have I not? Yes, command on all sides would have been inexperienced with modern day warfare, but that does not, to me at least, excuse the scale of deaths. Even taking this inexperience into account though, you can find examples of incompetence or just plain "cannon fodder" mentality amongst the military top rank.
And yes, of the roughly 5 million men under arms in 1918, half were volunteers, and half were conscripted, and no doubt many who had been conscripted would have volunteered anyway , but that's neither here nor there really - At that stage of the game, you would have been fighting out a sense of honour, of duty, of camerarderie, out of a sense of obligation, out of pressure to avoid being seen as a coward, out of a need to support family and friends who were already involved, but that does not excuse the sheer senseless waste of millions of lives over a political dance of empires and the ambitions of an elite privileged few.
And yes, of the roughly 5 million men under arms in 1918, half were volunteers, and half were conscripted, and no doubt many who had been conscripted would have volunteered anyway , but that's neither here nor there really - At that stage of the game, you would have been fighting out a sense of honour, of duty, of camerarderie, out of a sense of obligation, out of pressure to avoid being seen as a coward, out of a need to support family and friends who were already involved, but that does not excuse the sheer senseless waste of millions of lives over a political dance of empires and the ambitions of an elite privileged few.
there are many on other sites of Royalty on the German side, but many from our own Royals, and landed gentry, the sons went off to war, Lords, Dukes, Earls, very few were spared, and they were in the minority population wise, so essentially statistically took the hardest hit, i am sure someone else said that on this thread or on another one...
http://
http://
it wasn't about an elite privileged few, and as i have pointed out again and again many of the young men from the upper classes lost their lives, and they did so out of the sense of duty that prevailed at that time. WW1 was mass slaughter and so was WW2, and so was any other conflict since that time.
from wiki
Although a resurgence of imperialism was an underlying cause, the immediate trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia,[14][15] and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon sp
Although a resurgence of imperialism was an underlying cause, the immediate trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia,[14][15] and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon sp
And from what ranks of society do you think those politicians and royalty who led the countries, those responsible for the resurgence of imperialism were drawn, emmie? Was it from the ranks of village lads and farmers, or the factor workers or mineworkers of the time?
No. it was not. The war could be viewed as a war between jealous royal cousins even, and for that, millions died.
No. it was not. The war could be viewed as a war between jealous royal cousins even, and for that, millions died.
suppose that Hitler had been in power then, suppose that this little corporal was the chancellor then, had overthrown the powers that be, as he essentially did in Germany time before WW2 came about, then you have a nobody causing a massive war, because of his views, ally yourself with like minded people, for your own ends then decide to march into Poland, because you don't like them, or want their land, to seek and conquer, it doesn't have to be Lord bloggs, or some royal who spoils the party, its about land, who has it, who wants it, and what will it cost to get it.
Why do you keep dragging irrelevancies into the conversation? We are talking about WW1 and its causes. What does Hitler have to do with it?
Those responsible for WW1 were the privileged, elite, minority, in many instances the royalty of the empires concerned. The deaths of millions are on their heads. They are the donkeys. The Lions are the poor bastards from all walks of life who were either conscripted of felt obliged to volunteer for the meat grinder.
Those responsible for WW1 were the privileged, elite, minority, in many instances the royalty of the empires concerned. The deaths of millions are on their heads. They are the donkeys. The Lions are the poor bastards from all walks of life who were either conscripted of felt obliged to volunteer for the meat grinder.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
News0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
(Official Websitebuy Now):-...
Body & Soul3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
