Nov 11, 2018, 100 Years of Remembrance

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by wireframe

Cinematheque Calgary screened the original version of All Quiet on the Western Front at the new library. I had never seen to before. Wow. What a powerful movie.

For those who haven't seen it, you should. It's about a group of German soldiers in WWI. Their teacher convinces them to sign up for the glory of war and it doesn't turn out too well for them.

The film did such a good job of showing that war sucks for everyone involved and that the people in town who aren't fighting really don't appreciate it. Apparently, many of the extras were actual veterans of the war who volunteered to be in the movie after reading the hugely popular novel, in order to show a realistic depiction of the horror of war.

Apparently there is a remake coming out in Dec 2018 I think.

[Matata]

WW1 happened because the ruling class wanted to try out their new industrialized armies on each other and that bankers love to fund a good war. Sending soldiers to die over grudges between the royal families was a long standing tradition in Europe. Without the fervor from the royal families and funding by the bankers, WW1 doesn't happen (at least nothing approaching the same level). WW2 was a direct result of the conditions that happened in the wake of WW1.


Hard to pinpoint the exact role the British royal family played in starting the wars, but they certainly participated in the madness that brought WW1 to fruition.

[OMG!WTF!]

I found something really cool while renovating a house in Sunnyside a few years ago. It was an old piece of paper with very neat writing on it, like a kid would do for a homework assignment. It was titled "My Pledge" at the top. It looked like a kid's writing, purposely neat and likely for a homework assignment. I remember it mostly word for word. It said, "I pledge to keep my body and mind healthy and strong so I can do everything I can to help the brave soldiers fighting to stop the evil man from taking over the world."


It was dated 1942. The name of the author, Dorothy. The name of the teacher I can't recall. And her grade. 6. Ouch.



Dad's pay stubs were there too. $3700 a year working for CP Rail. And a newspaper from Banff. 3 acres on Banff ave for 2k.

[Baron von Kriterium]

In a dugout in northern France, sometime in 1916, three British soldiers try to make sense of one of the most complicated questions of modern history:

Pte BALDRICK: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: how did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

Capt BLACKADDER: Do you mean, "How did the war start?"

Pte BALDRICK: Yeah. […] I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Capt BLACKADDER: …I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Pte BALDRICK: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.

Capt BLACKADDER: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war. […] You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Pte BALDRICK: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Capt BLACKADDER: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

Lt GEORGE: What was that, sir?

Capt BLACKADDER: It was bollocks.

(pause)

Pte BALDRICK: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.

—Richard Curtis & Ben Elton, Blackadder Goes Forth

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Matata

WW1 happened because the ruling class wanted to try out their new industrialized armies on each other and that bankers love to fund a good war. Sending soldiers to die over grudges between the royal families was a long standing tradition in Europe. Without the fervor from the royal families and funding by the bankers, WW1 doesn't happen (at least nothing approaching the same level). WW2 was a direct result of the conditions that happened in the wake of WW1.


Hard to pinpoint the exact role the British royal family played in starting the wars, but they certainly participated in the madness that brought WW1 to fruition.

Also, there was a situation in Europe where a balance of power was agreed upon, but then because of colonialism (and all the sick evils connected with it), empires like the British, French and Russia started to gain in power, while the Germans, Austrians and Ottomans were losing it (although the Ottomans were a colonial menace in their own right). This contributed greatly to the tensions and alliances in Europe at the time.

So yeah, the British and historical decisions made by the British royal family had direct consequences that led to the great wars. I don't think it's fair to mock Elizabeth personally as she isn't responsible for the sins of her ancestors, but personally I would prefer to abolish the monarchy one day soon.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by wireframe

Cinematheque Calgary screened the original version of All Quiet on the Western Front at the new library. I had never seen to before. Wow. What a powerful movie.

For those who haven't seen it, you should. It's about a group of German soldiers in WWI. Their teacher convinces them to sign up for the glory of war and it doesn't turn out too well for them.

The film did such a good job of showing that war sucks for everyone involved and that the people in town who aren't fighting really don't appreciate it. Apparently, many of the extras were actual veterans of the war who volunteered to be in the movie after reading the hugely popular novel, in order to show a realistic depiction of the horror of war.

Everyone should have to watch that movie. Its amazing and so well done.


Its funny because if you look at the movie Starship Trooper which was filmed almost like a facist propaganda movie, it touched on a lot of themes that you see in movies like All quiet on the Western Front.


The lecture in the classroom by the teacher to the Students where he was glorifying the concept of government service and war.


One of the best lines in that movie was during that scene

Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that.
[to Carmen]
Jean Rasczak: You.
Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
Jean Rasczak: Correct. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence doesn't solve anything, is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always die.

Also I loved this exchange

Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year we explored the failure of democracy. How our social scientists brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and established the stability that has lasted for generations since. You know these facts, but have I taught you anything of value this year?
[to a student]
Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

The final recruiting pitch is always based around free choice, even though in that world you had the choice of being a citizen or as such a person, or being a indentured member of society who's voice doesn't matter

Johnny Rico: I wanna join up. I think I got what it takes to be a Citizen.
Jean Rasczak: Good for you! Go find out...
Johnny Rico: Well... my parents are against it... and I know it's my choice. I was wondering. What would you do if you were me?
Jean Rasczak: Figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has. Use that freedom. Make up your own mind, Rico.

But the true brilliance of the movie is this. Even though the movie was interspersed with the "do you want to know more" propaganda pitches. They showed the concept of the not only horror of the battlefield, but the fact that the individual soldier was nothing but a disposable tool, and that the military had created theses perfect killing machines that were not only dangers to their enemies but to each other.


The book was even more blatant in its attempt to discuss a two tiered society.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Its informative, it is interesting and its heart wrenching to the point of tears at times. If you want to put WWI in perspective, this is about as good as it gets.





https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

This is amazing (and it's free). I haven't check out this series yet, listening to it now.

I love the discussion about the assassination of Ferdinand. A lot of people in the Balkans feel that the assassination was a set-up, but it doesn't get talked about in Western history books. There is a common belief that Ferdinand was seen by the Austrians as a fool and the Austrians knew there was a plot to assassinate him and let it happen to get rid of him and to cause a pretense for war. Exactly what is proposed in this series.

The timing, the place and motorcade route were all either a perfect storm of bad decisions, or it was a set-up. Either are plausible.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This is amazing (and it's free). I haven't check out this series yet, listening to it now.

I love the discussion about the assassination of Ferdinand. A lot of people in the Balkans feel that the assassination was a set-up, but it doesn't get talked about in Western history books. There is a common belief that Ferdinand was seen by the Austrians as a fool and the Austrians knew there was a plot to assassinate him and let it happen to get rid of him and to cause a pretense for war. Exactly what is proposed in this series.

The timing, the place and motorcade route were all either a perfect storm of bad decisions, or it was a set-up. Either are plausible.

Definitely one of the more interesting "what ifs" of history. Ferdinand also happened to be the one major voice in the Austro-Hungarian government who was against war with the Serbs.

Again I urge anyone who hasn't listened to it to check out the podcast. Like you said, it's one of his free ones, just search it on any podcast app. So good. I'm on episode 2 of listening to it again and even though I've heard it twice before it seems seems fresh and raw to me

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Everyone should have to watch that movie. Its amazing and so well done.


Its funny because if you look at the movie Starship Trooper which was filmed almost like a facist propaganda movie, it touched on a lot of themes that you see in movies like All quiet on the Western Front.


The lecture in the classroom by the teacher to the Students where he was glorifying the concept of government service and war.


One of the best lines in that movie was during that scene





Also I loved this exchange





The final recruiting pitch is always based around free choice, even though in that world you had the choice of being a citizen or as such a person, or being a indentured member of society who's voice doesn't matter





But the true brilliance of the movie is this. Even though the movie was interspersed with the "do you want to know more" propaganda pitches. They showed the concept of the not only horror of the battlefield, but the fact that the individual soldier was nothing but a disposable tool, and that the military had created theses perfect killing machines that were not only dangers to their enemies but to each other.


The book was even more blatant in its attempt to discuss a two tiered society.

I really want to see this. Maybe I will wait for the remake.

Not to get too personal, but I always respect your perspective on military matters and history. Out of any poster on this forum, you probably changed the way I think about a lot of things military related. I know you served (or serve?) in the military. Just going by your posting history, I gather that your decision was based a rational and honest desire to serve Canada and help people. Your posting history suggests that you have an academic interest in the military, that you support peace and diplomacy, and don't advocate for violence.

But when you joined, you obviously knew there would be a chance that you may face combat. Was the idea of experiencing combat a factor that made the decision harder, or was there a sense of adventure in it (like many young men in WWI had)? I think it's a normal masculine trait to romanticize combat and experience the brotherhood of fighting in a just war. I will admit it, I fantasized about it, especially the idea of liberating people and giving them care. I grew up with a realism indoctrinated in me from my parents though and they were graphically detailed about war, so the idea terrified me for the most part.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I really want to see this. Maybe I will wait for the remake.

Not to get too personal, but I always respect your perspective on military matters and history. Out of any poster on this forum, you probably changed the way I think about a lot of things military related. I know you served (or serve?) in the military. Just going by your posting history, I gather that your decision was based a rational and honest desire to serve Canada and help people. Your posting history suggests that you have an academic interest in the military, that you support peace and diplomacy, and don't advocate for violence.

Thanks for the kind post. I don't advocate violence or war, but there always has to be a balance between the concept of diplomacy and the ability to back up your efforts.


To me the great failed experiment has been the concept of peace keeping missions with out the willingness to move into the concept of peace enforcement. Some of the failures of Peace keeping have come from a inability to enforce the peace. Also because at times it feels like the UN honestly didn't take their missions seriously and left the men and woman serving in dangerously compromised positions.


War is a horrible thing. WW1 and WW2 represented a killing off of what would be called the greatest generation of their time, the young men who at the time represented the backbone of their nations, and the future of their society.


WW1 was an unnecessary war bought about by 18th century imperialist diplomacy and the overly confusing environment created by treaties and pacts.



If you look at the horrors that were caused by WW1, the rise of facists dictators, the rise of absolutely brutal regimes in Russia, WW1 was never worth the cost.


If you looked at that time, going to war was considered to be glorious and a necessary bloodying of a generation. When your talking about a war with the terms like "Home by Christmas" then you have a problem. Also the older generations that were willing to fight WW1, they still envisioned the glamor of the cavalry charge and steel against steel testing. They never envisioned the horrors of trench war far, poison gas, the machine gun, the tank. Out of all the wars that were fought, when I look at them, WW1 still ranks as the most brutal war with little gain. 1000's of men died to gain the length of a football field. Somehow men were convinced to rush into machine gun fire.



WW2 to me was a war that could be justified to fix the errors of WW1 and the peace that followed. Again the old school mentality of defeating and then destroying your enemy in the end lead to the rise of fascism, brutal racist governments, isolationism and a new form of revenge based colonialism. We also saw the final sweeping away of the concept of civility as a part of warfare. We saw the deliberate targeting of civilians, the mass slaughter of people because of their beliefs. While WW2 was brutal and nasty, it started the age of the scientific exploit of war, mankind became better and more efficient at killing in greater numbers. About the only thing that came out that was the least bit positive was the diplomatic progression at the end of the war. Instead of brutalizing the loser, the concept of foreign aid, and rebuilding nations and installing political institutions saved us from another WW 5 years later between the Soviet Union and the Western powers.


I don't like seeing young men and young woman being marched off to the death, but we also have to realize that at times its necessary and the only way to ensure that there is a chance at peace.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But when you joined, you obviously knew there would be a chance that you may face combat. Was the idea of experiencing combat a factor that made the decision harder, or was there a sense of adventure in it (like many young men in WWI had)? I think it's a normal masculine trait to romanticize combat and experience the brotherhood of fighting in a just war. I will admit it, I fantasized about it, especially the idea of liberating people and giving them care. I grew up with a realism indoctrinated in me from my parents though and they were graphically detailed about war, so the idea terrified me for the most part.

You make me sound so noble. But frankly I was young, without options, I was going through a lousy family situation, I wasn't at the time going to qualify for post secondary, and it was flipping burgers or working construction. I had always for some reason had an eye on the military, but I wasn't sure when it came time to decide. But I certainly needed some direction in my life, and I knew I wanted to do something different and maybe come out of it better.



I never fantasized about being like John Wayne, or Audie Murphy (represents to me one of the greatest men of all time). I wanted to do my part, and to an extent serve my country, even though at 18 or 19 or 20, nobody has any fricken clue of what it means.



I wasn't ever worried about fighting and dying. Young people are incredibly fatalistic and seem to be able to make that leap, I think people when they hit the age of 30 start thinking in terms of mortality or life span. Honestly I was more concerned about whether I could look through the sights of a rifle and see a kid my age and be able to pull the trigger. Or ram a knife into someones chest.



There's a great writer named Jack Granastein (and I'm sure that I've spelled his name wrong) but he debated the conflict between being a soldier and being a peacekeeper.



A soldier is trained to kill people and blow #### up because its the main hill that you have to get over to be a good soldier. the idea of giving care to people is almost a secondary consideration. I firmly believe that if you got into a war or battle and lose sight of the first part and think of either the global issues or giving care that you will probably either get yourself or your buddies killed.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You make me sound so noble. But frankly I was young, without options, I was going through a lousy family situation, I wasn't at the time going to qualify for post secondary, and it was flipping burgers or working construction. I had always for some reason had an eye on the military, but I wasn't sure when it came time to decide. But I certainly needed some direction in my life, and I knew I wanted to do something different and maybe come out of it better.


I never fantasized about being like John Wayne, or Audie Murphy (represents to me one of the greatest men of all time). I wanted to do my part, and to an extent serve my country, even though at 18 or 19 or 20, nobody has any fricken clue of what it means.



I wasn't ever worried about fighting and dying. Young people are incredibly fatalistic and seem to be able to make that leap, I think people when they hit the age of 30 start thinking in terms of mortality or life span. Honestly I was more concerned about whether I could look through the sights of a rifle and see a kid my age and be able to pull the trigger. Or ram a knife into someones chest.



There's a great writer named Jack Granastein (and I'm sure that I've spelled his name wrong) but he debated the conflict between being a soldier and being a peacekeeper.



A soldier is trained to kill people and blow #### up because its the main hill that you have to get over to be a good soldier. the idea of giving care to people is almost a secondary consideration. I firmly believe that if you got into a war or battle and lose sight of the first part and think of either the global issues or giving care that you will probably either get yourself or your buddies killed.

Good post, but you left out the LCF.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Everyone should have to watch that movie. Its amazing and so well done.


Its funny because if you look at the movie Starship Trooper ...(spoiler for length)

Spoiler!

which was filmed almost like a facist propaganda movie, it touched on a lot of themes that you see in movies like All quiet on the Western Front.


The lecture in the classroom by the teacher to the Students where he was glorifying the concept of government service and war.


One of the best lines in that movie was during that scene





Also I loved this exchange





The final recruiting pitch is always based around free choice, even though in that world you had the choice of being a citizen or as such a person, or being a indentured member of society who's voice doesn't matter





But the true brilliance of the movie is this. Even though the movie was interspersed with the "do you want to know more" propaganda pitches. They showed the concept of the not only horror of the battlefield, but the fact that the individual soldier was nothing but a disposable tool, and that the military had created theses perfect killing machines that were not only dangers to their enemies but to each other.


The book was even more blatant in its attempt to discuss a two tiered society.

You're absolutely right. I didn't notice the similarity between those films, but they are almost the same. Great movies.

I will continue my tradition of rewatching the originals when the remakes of both of the films come out.

[CaptainCrunch]

If you look at the opening mobile infantry propaganda ad in the movie where everyone is doing their part. Its a shot by shot recreation of the outdoor rally scene from Triumph of the Will made by german film maker Leni Reifenstahl

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Kaiser Willhelm II was Victoria's grandson and disliked his English mother. He feuded with his uncle, Edward VII (the Queen's great grandfather) and hated the British even though he was envious of their naval power and colonizing. This contributed to the North Sea naval arms race and other antagonistic policies which helped sway Britain into the war. Basically, 60 000 Canadians died because the Queen's cousin (three times removed) wanted to best the English side of his family.

That's all fine and nice but Queen Elizabeth II was born after WWI and wasn't Queen until after WWII. 5 generations of family hatred must be tough to deal with, does it end with her or do you wish Charles, Andrew, Edward and Anne the same fate? what about the next 2 generations?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

My Oath of Allegiance and Commission mean something to me. This is why:

God bless her.

I don't understand this. Are you saying you joined the army for the queen? That sounds like medieval subservience. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't understand this. Are you saying you joined the army for the queen?

No. I joined because I was out of work coming out of college.


Queen Elizabeth II gave me my commission; only she (or her successor) can take it away. My allegiance is to her. She is a leader who walks the walk. Many people are surprised to learn she is a veteran. Her husband served in WWII; a son served in the Falklands; and a grandson served in Afghanistan. Politicians? No such lead by example from them.



She has never shirked her duty - even at 92! She continues to demonstrate integrity and dignity. And while the photo is from 2002, it is not the only time she has shed tears at memorials.



Our dopey politicians can learn from her.