"They Shall Not Grow Old" Peter Jackson's WWI film
Discussion
The Spruce Goose said:
MC Bodge said:
They were fighting in a very outdated fashion.
Yes old military strategies led from the top, who were obviously out of touch wiith the realities of actual situations.Basically the Somme was won by s
t load of soldiers dying, Ergo Poem.PALS was disbanded, that was good.
Look at the "Modern Pentathlon" that we only see at every Olympics.
It strikes me that even when it was devised -a set of 18/19th century traditional gentlemanly skills required by a cavalry officer escaping from behind enemy lines- for the 1912 Olympics, it was outdated and two years later this was illustrated very clearly.
Edited by MC Bodge on Monday 15th November 15:06
A lot of footage from WW1 was re-enacted situations for the news reel at home . Would all be terrible quality now so was a lot of this included as there is loads of jolly japes hanging around footage in this.
Yes a lot of it is obviously real but still sanitized boys own adventure stuff.
Its funny how its all glorified more now than when there were 10s of thousands if not millions of participants to speak to in the past.
Easy to bask in the reflected glory without some old boy putting you straight.
No wonder the queen didn't show up for sundays ever growing event. A load of people who have never been in harms way showing off.
Yes a lot of it is obviously real but still sanitized boys own adventure stuff.
Its funny how its all glorified more now than when there were 10s of thousands if not millions of participants to speak to in the past.
Easy to bask in the reflected glory without some old boy putting you straight.
No wonder the queen didn't show up for sundays ever growing event. A load of people who have never been in harms way showing off.
The Spruce Goose said:
Schmed said:
It is very easy to subscribe to the The 'Lions led by donkeys' view as espoused by Blackadder since it is widespread. However more recent revisionist works have sought to challenge that analysis and vindicate the actions and leadership of commanders such as Haig et al.
The British put a regiment of cavalry on standby when the attack started British military faith was still being placed on cavalry attacks when they were clearly useless. British soldiers were not trained nor prepared for life on the battlefield, the majority were fresh conscripts.Anyway lets take a witness report.
Edited by The Spruce Goose on Monday 15th November 14:47
As with all history you can't really apply today's filter of what is / not acceptable. Well you can, but the result will always end up being a rather simplistic analysis.
I remember driving between Albert and Bapaume, through countryside rather like my native Yorkshire Wolds .If memory serves, we passed a sign showing the front line in July 1916 , and , a few short minutes later , another sign showing the line a few months later. All I felt was sorrow , then rage at such pointless slaughter for so very little . And as for Verdun ...Jesus .
GetCarter said:
Fixed that for you.Schmed said:
Watching his masterpiece I just can’t help but wonder what would happen if the same was asked of today’s millennials. Ok ok easy to criticise etc, and a different time but part of me visualises a bunch of pussies hiding away cradling their iPhones as shells fly by overhead. The older generation just strike me as being tougher. Well I guess they had no choice.
I'd like to think they'd all refuse. There was no real need for that scale of conflict.Schmed said:
A huge cost, I'd agree. But what interested me in addition to the eye witness accounts, which are certainly horrific, was trying to understand how such sacrifice was ever justified. Perhaps it was not as simple as massive command incompetence with no value placed on human life. The soldiers had limited experience but so too did the commanders who had never encountered a war fought under such conditions at such a scale before. Indeed it was only some time after the war had ended, and probably around the same time David Lloyd George published his memoirs, that public support began to wane and people finally became critical of Haig (which was long after his death.)
As with all history you can't really apply today's filter of what is / not acceptable. Well you can, but the result will always end up being a rather simplistic analysis.
This is always an emotive discussion. And suffers from over-simplification and modern context. The Great War Interviews provide some insight of the reality, both good and bad:As with all history you can't really apply today's filter of what is / not acceptable. Well you can, but the result will always end up being a rather simplistic analysis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p01tbkqk/th...
Filmed in the ‘60s and allowing participants to tell their stories. Very strong stuff and surprising in places.
Reviewing military tactics with a modern perspective, experience and hindsight is a very dangerous game. But it is worth remembering that the Germans played a mainly defensive war throughout, with some exceptions. Which meant that the Allies had to remove them from prepared locations, which requires significant overmatch in force. And emergent technology favoured defence initially, tanks and effective air support for mobile combined actions only came much later in the war.
To vastly over-simplify, you could divide WW1 into 3 phases. From 1914 it was fought from a 19century perspective, as that was all knew, look at the American Civil War. From 1916 the professional British army was born on significant scale with terrible birthing pains, the US forces made all the same mistakes despite being warned but the Brits and French when they arrived in 1917/18. Finally in the last phase of ‘17 onwards, the tactics are more recognisable of WW2 and later with integration of fires and technology that allowed support of the infantry to take and hold the ground. And in the last phase, casualty rates scaled are similar to later conflicts.
Maybe best to thank all those who sacrificed, learn the lessons and move on. Unfortunately, though, doing nothing when bad men, ISIS, Hitler, Galtieri etc, do things is a poor outcome in the long run.
GetCarter said:
That's beautiful and so emotiveric p said:
This is always an emotive discussion. And suffers from over-simplification and modern context. The Great War Interviews provide some insight of the reality, both good and bad:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p01tbkqk/th...
Filmed in the ‘60s and allowing participants to tell their stories. Very strong stuff and surprising in places.
Reviewing military tactics with a modern perspective, experience and hindsight is a very dangerous game. But it is worth remembering that the Germans played a mainly defensive war throughout, with some exceptions. Which meant that the Allies had to remove them from prepared locations, which requires significant overmatch in force. And emergent technology favoured defence initially, tanks and effective air support for mobile combined actions only came much later in the war.
To vastly over-simplify, you could divide WW1 into 3 phases. From 1914 it was fought from a 19century perspective, as that was all knew, look at the American Civil War. From 1916 the professional British army was born on significant scale with terrible birthing pains, the US forces made all the same mistakes despite being warned but the Brits and French when they arrived in 1917/18. Finally in the last phase of ‘17 onwards, the tactics are more recognisable of WW2 and later with integration of fires and technology that allowed support of the infantry to take and hold the ground. And in the last phase, casualty rates scaled are similar to later conflicts.
Maybe best to thank all those who sacrificed, learn the lessons and move on. Unfortunately, though, doing nothing when bad men, ISIS, Hitler, Galtieri etc, do things is a poor outcome in the long run.
Yes, agree with this analysis, it is really only since WW1 started passing into history that we get a more objective analysis of what was a period of change and innovation. The image has been skewed by the Alan Clark, Blackadder & war poets viewpoint. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p01tbkqk/th...
Filmed in the ‘60s and allowing participants to tell their stories. Very strong stuff and surprising in places.
Reviewing military tactics with a modern perspective, experience and hindsight is a very dangerous game. But it is worth remembering that the Germans played a mainly defensive war throughout, with some exceptions. Which meant that the Allies had to remove them from prepared locations, which requires significant overmatch in force. And emergent technology favoured defence initially, tanks and effective air support for mobile combined actions only came much later in the war.
To vastly over-simplify, you could divide WW1 into 3 phases. From 1914 it was fought from a 19century perspective, as that was all knew, look at the American Civil War. From 1916 the professional British army was born on significant scale with terrible birthing pains, the US forces made all the same mistakes despite being warned but the Brits and French when they arrived in 1917/18. Finally in the last phase of ‘17 onwards, the tactics are more recognisable of WW2 and later with integration of fires and technology that allowed support of the infantry to take and hold the ground. And in the last phase, casualty rates scaled are similar to later conflicts.
Maybe best to thank all those who sacrificed, learn the lessons and move on. Unfortunately, though, doing nothing when bad men, ISIS, Hitler, Galtieri etc, do things is a poor outcome in the long run.
Europe disregarded the lessons of the American Civil war and the industrialisation of killing - 'only colonials, what do they know about proper war' and started a 19th century conflict with 20th century arms and industry. As the war progressed there was experimentation with novel methods of warfare, aircraft by themselves and close support roles, tanks, rolling barrages, gas (however deplored it is now) and stormtrooper type infantry actions. Newer works give voice to this re-appraisal and are worth a read.
The Spruce Goose said:
I would sign up as a medic, chef etc. I don't think i could kill other people, but no issues helping people. Stretcher bearer anything really.
Thousands went down that road, either via not being fit enough for active service orrefusing to take up arms but opting for a non-combatant role.
All did their bit.
j4r4lly said:
GetCarter said:
That's beautiful and so emotive
The Spruce Goose said:
British soldiers were not trained nor prepared for life on the battlefield, the majority were fresh conscripts...
57k british died on the first day, not sure how recent anaylsis can change these facts. I've seen it mention the ear down strategy, but that is just saying the soldiers lives were disposable and could be used to bolster ineffective military campaigns.
By far the majority of British soldiers were volunteers, men who had responded to Kitchener's call in 1914/15. Hence why there were so many 'Pals Battalions' on the Somme - these were men who had lived and worked together and joined up together. Conscription only came in in early 1916 so few, if any, conscripts would have been on the Somme in July.57k british died on the first day, not sure how recent anaylsis can change these facts. I've seen it mention the ear down strategy, but that is just saying the soldiers lives were disposable and could be used to bolster ineffective military campaigns.
Your 'fact' about 1 July deaths is also wrong; there were 57,470 British casualties (killed, wounded and missing) of which 19,240 were killed. Still a terrible figure but if we are going to do justice to the memory of these men surely it's important to get these things right.
Mistakes were made undoubtedly, but one of the key driving forces behind the Somme was the need to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun, we had to support our allies. The British Army in November 1916 was very different to the one that started the campaign in July and the lessons learned would contribute to the great series of victories in the 100 days in 1918. It also signified the end of German hopes that they could win the war and from that point on they were simply trying to hang on to what they already had. One German officer called the Somme 'the muddy grave of the German Army'. The Somme was a tragedy but futile it most certainly was not.
DaffyT4 said:
Your 'fact' about 1 July deaths is also wrong; there were 57,470 British casualties (killed, wounded and missing) of which 19,240 were killed.
What really is remarkable is that we still get dewy eyed over something that ended a century ago .As a kid in the Sixties, we had Remembrance Sunday at the war memorial , often with old soldiers from WW1 , we had the silence and prayers and that was it. It was like that until the Nineties , when the great poppy wars started - who would sport one first? Until then , nothing happened at workplaces , nor supermarkets , let alone buses stopping at 11am on 11th nor the rest of the current grief fest. Wonder if we celebrated anniversary of the Napoleonic Wars with so much vigour in 1865 or 1915 ?
I wrote a few papers on the subject of the First World War associated with the centenary commemoration several years ago.
One thing to bear in mind with the early 20th century is that it needs to be viewed in context, something that is put across very well in Jackson's documentary. A lot of people who signed up to fight actually found army life, even on the Western Front preferable to life at home, especially working class people. Working conditions in many industries were pretty horrendous during this period, with long hours, low pay, often very dangerous working conditions, and no real welfare system or a pension scheme until after the war. We still had workhouses and childhood was the school of hard knocks intended to toughen them up for adulthood. One thing a lot of people said about military service was that for the first time in their lives they were treated with respect. Others spoke about the comradeship they never felt as strongly again in their lives.
I do slightly dislike the post 60s revisionism that has meant that these views are disregarded, or interpreted as service veterans putting a brave face on it. History is a very complex thing, and can't be simplified down or seen through only one point of view.
One thing to bear in mind with the early 20th century is that it needs to be viewed in context, something that is put across very well in Jackson's documentary. A lot of people who signed up to fight actually found army life, even on the Western Front preferable to life at home, especially working class people. Working conditions in many industries were pretty horrendous during this period, with long hours, low pay, often very dangerous working conditions, and no real welfare system or a pension scheme until after the war. We still had workhouses and childhood was the school of hard knocks intended to toughen them up for adulthood. One thing a lot of people said about military service was that for the first time in their lives they were treated with respect. Others spoke about the comradeship they never felt as strongly again in their lives.
I do slightly dislike the post 60s revisionism that has meant that these views are disregarded, or interpreted as service veterans putting a brave face on it. History is a very complex thing, and can't be simplified down or seen through only one point of view.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff