Comments by "milcoll73" (@thurin84) on "The Drinker Recommends... All Quiet On The Western Front" video.

not to sound too harsh, but if any country can convey the abject horror of war, it would be germany. now if only we could get the world to heed this message. on a separate side note mephisto is the name of the only surviving example of my favorite ww1 tank the german a7v.
10
id say even the 1979 version holds up well. not as good as the 1930, but good. and seeing the events in color made it all the more real.
9
yeah, ww2 may have introduced the world into unimagined depravity, bit for the regular foot soldier, ww1 has to rate as the most suffering induced.
4
id have to dispute that. the american civil war would be the 1st. ww1 just elevated it into an art form. and art form perpetrated upon lion by donkeys.
4
both are films about german warriors being destroyed by war.
3
@Icetea-2000 "whats the cost of a mile". well, with some exceptions. there was trench warfare on the eastern front. but luckily, many generals had learned the lessons of ww1. some the wrong message, but they learned. trench warfare was inevitable due to the industrialized nature of the killing. i think the biggest tragedy was america getting involved leading the entente to inflict a crushing defeat on the central powers. it wouldve been better for the world had the usa sat ww1 out and the combatants been forced into a negotiated peace not overly harsh on anyone but favorable to none.
3
you mean richard thomas portrayal in the 1979 one?
2
i figured itd be good. i just say an interview of him relating how in depth he went into researching and preparing for the role. nice to see actors who do more than phone it in again.
2
my grandfather on my dads side fought in ww1 with the canadian cavalry. i have no idea about what he went through though. i only recently found out from the only picture i have of him in his uniform on horseback.
2
@anFy81 i wish i could find out more. he became a psychiatrist after the war. and ive wondered since i found out about his service it it had any influence on his decisions.
2
@anFy81 im neither an expert but i do have a ba and as in psychology (ironically pursued before i knew of my grandfathers profession). and i can attest to that personally. i mean, i was always something of a "people watcher" largely because of my other grandparent, but trauma an understanding its causes and effects definitely played a part. its actually a known problem in the field where some people will try and self diagnose. well, i dont have to imagine such loss. but yes, times are much easier. too easy i think. thats so sad. dementia is a cruel fate. having to deal with it with my mom, especially over the last year. almost lost her to a cardiac arrest (her 8th cardiac event). she survived, but the process aged her probably 10 years in the last year. yes, ive known a lot of vets over the years. some better adjusted than others. but war always leaves it scars.
2
sadly the ones who need to see it the most wont.
2
@SwiftTrooper5 i agree completely, id have to rewatch both to remember what all the 1979 movie got better. i think in some ways the camaraderie between kat and paul. but yes, the color draining was very, i dont know, moving as most movies dont bother with such a detail.
2
The Stranger i didnt say it was in the same realm, i said it was the 1st industrialized massed slaughter of young men. massed charges into massed enemy fire. industrialized warfare. trench warfare. etc. and i also said ww1 elevated it into an artform. they had snipers during acw. no tanks, but ironclad ships. submarines. observation balloons. gatling guns. landmines, grenades, accurate rifled artillery. etc. just on a smaller scale than ww1. as i said; elevated it into an artform. the scale of slaughter during the civil war hadnt been seen up to that time either. which is my point. acw presages ww1. but no one listened. most certainly not the leadership.
2
@shooterqqqq but the earth itself was mutilated into a shield. to such an extent it led to stale mate for 4 years.
1
@taags lions led by donkeys.
1
@kingscrump no problem. its good in its own right as well.
1
back in the day i used to displays of militaria from ww1, once to a history class of 8th graders. the serrations on the sawback make a very distinct and disturbing noise when draw from the scabbard. everyone gasped.
1
@Icetea-2000 not really, certainly not at the beginning of the war. the internal combustion engine vehicle was maybe only 30 years old. not in its infancy, but maybe adolescence. and nobody really had any concept how to utilize it for mobile warfare. so they relied on what they already knew, horses, bicycles, and foot slogging. the technology just wasnt there yet and the killing power of machine guns and artillery had been perfected and was just to great to be resisted. hence digging into the earth. very true about the pace of war increasing. and ww1 was exponential. and in some ways unique in that it was a transition period of technology. as ive said to another commenter, the american civil war was really the 1st industrialized warfare. ww1 turned it into an art form. yes. because america wanted to more adhere to wilsons 14 points, but the other entente powers were hell bent on revenge at any cost. no, not at all. the usa absolutely decided ww1. not only did they support the entente almost exclusively prior to out involvement, but i think the morale boost knowing that america was in the war and that millions more fresh doughboys were on the way was the key element that allowed britian and france to absorb and survive the german 1918 offensive. given the manpower and morale problems the entente was facing in late 1917 and early 1918, i dont think they wouldve been able to hold on and wouldve caved to the negotiated peace that hindenburg and ludendorf were aiming for. and i think the world wouldve been better off with that instead of the harse treaty of versailles. i think they wouldve had to accept such a treaty as none of the combatants had the remaining wherewithal for anything else. in retorspect all sides should striven to avoid the damn war in the 1st place. but of course, thats wasnt an option, they all wanted war. just not the war they got. well, yeah. you could say ww1 had no winners. just lesser losers.
1
@Icetea-2000 very true. militarilly, americas contribution wasnt all that much. but it was timely, and the morale boost was immeasurable. i dont think the war wouldve gone on too much longer whatever the circumstances, too much general war weariness and disillusionment. thats why i think the combatants wouldve had to seek a negotiated peace. yes, and the entente only just avoided such things themselves. i think it couldve by forcing the entente to the negotiating table to avoid catastrophe themselves.
1
@SqueakingLion thank you for your service. and i really mean it, not just a platitude. a few years ago i read the book "The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell: An Accidental Soldier's Account of the War in Iraq" by john crawford. one thing that really got me was a story of how one day when they were trying to catch up on some sleep, the wind caught an empty pop can left on the window sill and it making a sound very much like a grenade. and how the author balled up at the base of the wall expecting the worst as he was the closest to it and didnt have time (so he thought) to do anything else. i remember thinking the more war changes, the more it stays the same. young men shedding blood for old mens designs.
1
@anFy81 thanks for the sentiments, but its never going to happen. no real positions in the field for only a ba and now im disabled with severe arthritis. so further schooling is unlikely. but i still have my interests. boy youre getting a workout these days then. at least your profession will be in demand for the foreseeable future. thank you for an interesting conversation!
1
yes pershing was pushing his generals to attack hard to build up "street cred" for american forces. despicable.
1
almost forgot anyone interested in reading about the day to day life in the trenches should read "eye deep in hell" by john elis.
1
and the way the high commanded acted was despicable. pershing, knowing the war would soon be over, pushed his generals to attack hard right up until the end to build "street cred" for american forces. at the cost of many lives. official sources say around 330 americans, but i believe this number is low as they actively back dated dates soldiers died to conceal the numbers. pershing even had to appear in front of congress because of it.
1
a agree. it doesnt quite have the, i guess synergy, of the 1930 one. but depicting the events in color definitely added a level of reality.
1
@mkeogh76 dont forget 1946s "the best years of our lives". yes the ptsd is somewhat sanitized for audiences but it was way more than audiences had seen to that date.
1
i was absolutely spellbound by the footage you were showing. i must see it. i was dreading it when i heard they were remaking it. even if they didnt stuff "the message' into it there still was plenty of opportunity to turn it into a formulaic, dime store, anti war movie that demonizes all participants and turns the "heros" into 2d live action cartoon characters. im glad they didnt. the previous "all quiet on the wester fronts" are some of my most watched movies. i cant say favorite because of the subject matter. its difficult seeing boys ground up and spit out of the war machine. but i do enjoy the cinematics of it all.
1
its a great movie capturing the futility of war. and the story of the futile diversionary attack it a true story. the british really were sitting on their asses drinking tea while the aussies were getting mown down by turkish machine guns.
1
@comradesam3382 yep. who is it that said the way to make money was selling europeans better ways to kill each other? john browning?
1
The Stranger true of gatling guns, but ironclads were actually quite prevalent. more than i even knew as i recently learned. yes. very true. but it presaged the slaughter of the devils paintbrush. so much so, as i pointed out in another conversation, its still in use. just electrically powered instead of hand cranked. also true. but massed single shot muskets at close range, to an enemy basically standing in the open will produce similar results as a machine gun. and those large, slower moving, big chunks of lead do horrible things to the human body. yes balloons were only for observation, but they were an aerial force multiplier for artillery that presaged the same thing, and observation aircraft of ww1. actually grenades had been in common use for around 200 years prior to the civil war. armies had whole regiments of grenadiers. mines were newer and mostly naval. but some were used on land and once again presaged ww1. but even during ww1 mines were rudimentary. the most effective were literal mines dug under enemy lines, stuffer with explosives and detonated prior to a "big push". scoped rifles were crude, yes. but they were used to good effect "headhunting". and even during ww1 sniping was in its infancy. the very name comes from british forestry "snipe hunters" impressed for sharpshooting (most often without even a scope!!!). it absolutely has to so with weaponry. the rifled bore vs the smoothbore tactics and the industrialization that put said rifles into so many hands absolutely had an effect. its what made the cw what it was. not true at all. snipers learning proper fieldcraft was a painful lesson taught by the enemy. the would call in entire artillery barrages to deal with a sniper. and counter battery fire was perfected by ww1. with aerial observation it made artillery duels a common occurrence. sorry for the book lol. had to use a lot of words to say what i wanted to lol.
1
@fusilier3029 yes, certainly true to a lesser extent. far from knowledgeable about it, but i believe it had more mobility and less massed industrialize slaughter. yes, they were crude. no most werent ocean going. but they were a new kind of warfare presaging what came later. which is my point. gatling guns were used, on a small scale. certainly insignificant to the outcome of the war. but they were used, and presaged things to come in ww1. grenades were used at least as early as the 1200s in china. and im pretty sure the romans and greeks had a hand fused version. man more "automatic" weapons were known. volly gun, puckle gun. billinghurst battery gun, pepperbox, chambers flintlock, cook volly gun, kalthoff repeater, cookson volitional repeater, belton flintlock, jennings rifle and girandoni air rifle. other then the volly gun and pepper box, none were widely used. but the technology was known. no not useless. still a threat in being to dissuade charges. the big differnece about ww1 was that all the technology im referring to was turned up to 11. and then armored, aerial, and chemical warfare was added liberally on top (though greek fire and other similar chemical weapons were well known). yes disease pestilence is always a companion to war. and will likely always be so. youre forgetting the american rail system which allowed amazing rapid troop movements. plus the force multiplier of telegraphy to put them where they were needed. and the pursuit of those quick decisive victories is what led to the slaughter of ww1.
1
The Stranger well, im having basically the same conversation with 2 people simultaneously sssoooooooo...... i realize my vernacular is a bit too archaic for some, so tap out if you cant handle it.
1