Definitely going to be checking this one out.
"They Shall Not Grow Old" - WW1 documentary by Peter Jackson
- Thread starter arobb
- Start date
I know it will never happen in the U.S., but I am glad the Great War is starting to have slightly more of a cultural impact compared to its later cousin.
I find the first much more influential, actually, and far more interesting.
WWII was over by 1942. WWI was up in the air until at least July 1918.
I find the first much more influential, actually, and far more interesting.
WWII was over by 1942. WWI was up in the air until at least July 1918.
And heart wrenching. And tragic. And entirely unnecessary.
The futility of it all only makes it the more fascinating to me. What motivated a young German, French, Russian, or any other man to charge a machine gun nest?
Or sit in a muddy, frozen trench for years, waiting to be vaporized by artillery fire?
What did they tell themselves? There was no Nazism or Japanese imperialism to motivate them. There were only a series of imperialist powers with a set of political objectives, each playing chess with the others, aiming for advantage, not to save the world.
The rah-rah, patriotic, "make the world safe for democracy," heroic meta-narrative about war we have from the World War seems so meek and wrong in comparison.
This is why little things, like changing November 11 from Armistice Day to Veterans' Day (when we already have a Memorial Day), annoy me.
It is like we want to bury the memory of this most wasteful of conflicts and not learn it lessons. Not realize war is always on some level tragic and futile.
Armistice Day is a celebration of peace and about learning the horror and uselessness of war. Not trying to wash it in a false patina of glory of heroism.
I hope little efforts like this to raise this conflict's profile helps with that.
Last edited:
People were still fighting and dying in WWII until 1945 though. The fall of the Axis may have been clear since 1942, assuming that's what you meant, but the war certainly wasn't "over." And the outcome of WWI may not have been clear until July 1918, but it was also over in November 1918.
There are far more "what ifs" with a conflict like the Great War that was not decided until its final summer compared to the World War, which was basically over after the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942. I find the second conflict just becomes the playing out of a brutal, violent script, but not one with the outcome ever in doubt for the next three years.
I hate to use an analogy like this, but a game where you know who is going to win in the second quarter is not as interesting as one that comes down to the last drive.
Close games are more interesting than beat-downs, even a beat-down on the scale of the Red Army grinding Germany into dust and Japan under a pair of mushroom clouds.
Gotcha. You must have been typing your post while I was typing my reply, cause that explained it. (Post #8)
Have you read 'Tribe' or anything by Sebastian Junger?
A main theme of the book is about the **** show that is the condition of western society, but there's some stuff in Tribe that gives a bit of insight as to why the bolded in your post happen.
For the most part, the gun at their back (more so in some countries than others) was more of a sure thing that what they were running into.
I agree with your sentiment and I was hoping there would be more hoopla surrounding the 100th anniversary of the armistice, but it came and went with little fanfare. I'm drawn to the small WW1 memorial off the National Mall, even if it is in disrepair and dedicated to District of Columbia veterans. I thought the Anniversary might bring a groundswell of support for constructing a proper WW1 memorial, but seemingly nobody remembers those veterans...
Two things:
1. Definitely go visit the WWI memorial in KC
2. Listen to Dan Carlin's podcast series "Blueprint for Armedggon"...amazing detailed account of WWI and what life was like from all angles.
To wonder what what have happened the last 100 years if Gavrilo Princip didn't pull that trigger....
1. Definitely go visit the WWI memorial in KC
2. Listen to Dan Carlin's podcast series "Blueprint for Armedggon"...amazing detailed account of WWI and what life was like from all angles.
To wonder what what have happened the last 100 years if Gavrilo Princip didn't pull that trigger....
As a veteran, I always cringe when I hear someone say we celebrate Memorial Day and Veteran's Day. We do not. We Commemorate them. There is a big and important difference.
The Junger books suggested are good at describing the dynamics at work in our all volunteer fighting forces. All quiet on the Western Front and Johnny Got his Gun would be more period specific works that describe what was used during times of conscription.
Basically leaders used whatever cultural values they could to lead them to the point where the individual choice was to stay loyal to the unit or be shot or hung for desertion. These are people caught up in events bigger than themselves and out of their control
I think a better question is what were the leaders thinking that led them to make the decisions they did to order what they ordered. And why did the people with power oppose those orders chose to go along with those orders.
WWI and WWII offer a unique historical period. Two very destructive wars that ended up in two completely different results. Historically, they occurred close enough together that many factors such as cultural and social norms, economic, and technology that lead to anachronisms can be addressed.
The Armistice was not a just peace to end all wars. It was just a pause that lead to another war and some of the worse genocides in human history.
We need to figure out what happened and why and follow those things that will prevent the next world war. Because right now we still have enough nuclear weapons that can literally destroy all life on this planet over a hundred times over and it can happen in less than an hour.
I apologize for the celebrate < commemorate distinction. Thank you.
I still think November 11 is properly Armistice Day, however.
We will never have another conflict like the Great War or the World War again, though. That era of total warfare, of trenches and heavy artillery, of nationalized economies and long, industrial wars of attrition that started with the American Civil War (depending on who you ask) ended in 1945. As you rightfully point out, all the major powers now have nuclear weapon, which likely makes any such conflict either contained or leading to quick and mutual annihilation.
That does lead to all sorts of indirect conflicts and proxy wars between great powers, however, from Korea then up through Yemen now, which are not *that* bad if you are American or Russian, but sure suck if you are Vietnamese or an Afghan.
If we could only get our president to understand the difference between those two words...
One thing history will teach you is that, over many eons, cultural norms may change but basic human nature, as enumerated in the seven deadly sins, has not.
I do not share your optimism about there never being another industrialized war of attrition. Mutual Assured Distruction may keep the nucs from flying but tryants needs an external enemy and threat to maintain control over their people. Just as in the book 1984, the continuing war was necessary not winning the war. Just like our continuing war in the middle east keeps us from questioning and opposing our rapid erosion of our freedoms and civil liberties. IMHO.
Memorial Day is a chance for the nation to commemorate and remember the cost of war in lost human lives. Veteran's Day is a chance to commemorate and remember the costs the living veterans bear in both physical, emotional, and mental scars and wounds.
If you are around anyone using these days to do hero worship and glorifying war, please remind them what these days are really about.
I am still trying to understand your instance on Armistice. Armistice is not peace. It is just an absence of fighting. The Armistice did not lead to a lasting peace. It was one of the root causes of the next war. It accomplished nothing. Calling it Veterans Day acknowledges the continuing cost and sacrifices from all of our veterans from all of our conflicts and wars.
I do not want to overly-politicize a thread that is about a documentary and the history surrounding it. I look forward to what Mr. Jackson has put together in his film.
I think this article summarizes my thoughts, though:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...armistice-day-more-comfortable-war-than-peace
The way you describe Memorial Day and Veterans' Day makes them functionally the same. I think you need two different concepts here -- one to commemorate service and sacrifice, and one to celebrate peace and learn the about horrors of war.
You dismiss Armistice Day because it was not the "war to end all wars" and it ultimately failed. We all know the long list of horrible conflicts that continued throughout the rest of the Twentieth Century and continue to this very moment.
But that is taking November 11, 1918 literally. That was not its spirit and its hope, even if the next generation of leaders (and, indeed, every one before it and after it) failed miserably holding up those ideals. The very fact that we have hopes and dreams to end the senseless slaughter and destruction -- that the ultimate hope here is for peace, for the end of a need for the heroism we commemorate on Memorial Day -- is entirely the point. Like you said, if there is ever another big war, the risk that it goes nuclear is very real, and it ends terribly for all.
Any conflict between Great Powers now (e.g., with Russia over the Baltic States, or with China in the Strait of Taiwan) needs to be brief and theater level, otherwise the chances for escalation and cooler heads losing control goes up way too fast.
Russia diving on Estonia or China attempting to invade Taiwan, and threatening tactical nuclear strikes to dissuade us from intervening with conventional forces, which then naturally means we have to threaten equally or greater back... not something I like to imagine. That kind of nuclear brinkmanship can get out of hand really fast. It almost did in 1962.
And in discussing Orwell, while I love 1984, remember that it was written in 1948 before modern thermonuclear weapons existed. The Soviets first got the bomb in 1949, and MAD was not the watchword of the day until the mid-1950s. His endless three-way war of attrition makes sense looking back at the World War, but there is no way in such a situation that Oceania, East Asia, or Eurasia would not use H-bombs, if they had them.
Hiroshima was terrible, but much of the city remained. The whole prefecture would be destroyed given what modern nuclear weapons can do.
No modern, industrialized nation survives that.
Last edited:
I'll add something that I picked up in my reading (I'm an avid history buff) as an explanation- after a while, I think men in combat pick up a fatalistic view. That they're already dead. Or at least that the line between life and death is entirely arbitrary. I think that psychological twist allows them to continue to push forward and function. It's also why the largely unmeasured (and vast) psychological damage of war continues to haunt people and societies long after the fighting has ended.
