The Old Lie: "Dulce et Decorum Est"

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Skell Dagger said:

That was one of the things I'm glad they included in this: the soldiers talking about the Germans that they'd captured, how many of the Germans had almost instantly volunteered to help with stretcher duty, and - especially towards the end of the war - how they knew the Germans were as sick of it as they were. There was a strange kinship among the front line soldiers on both sides (with the possible exception of the Prussians, as mentioned in it).

When I was very small, my Nan used to visit an old man who was - even back then - well into his eighties. I'd sometimes go with her to see 'Uncle Jimmy' as he was known to me. I've never forgotten how red, rheumy, and constantly-watering his eyes were, as I'd sit and eat a bit of cake while listening to him talking with my Nan. I knew that he'd lost his sight in one eye and had only limited vision in the other, but it was only years later after he'd died that I found out he'd been gassed as a young man in the trenches in the Great War and had carried the pain and constant reminder with him for the rest of his life.

Yet, gas is still used for war in some countries, even today. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 minutes ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

I watched this today, thinking of my grandfather who was shot through both thighs and taken prisoner.  He would never ever speak of the war, except to say that he didn't hate the German soldiers because they were just doing the same as the British soldiers.  He had his 21st birthday in the trenches.  He came home, married my grandma and lived into the 1970's.  I adored him, and miss him still.

My great grandfather served in the British Army in the Great War. He was shot through the head, but survived -- although my grandmother (and my mother has confirmed) have told me he was a bit "odd" after, perhaps because of it. It would hardly be surprising, I suppose. I think my mother has his medals somewhere.

I never met him. Odd or not, he was apparently a very kind man. I'm sorry I never had the chance.

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

The term/action "*plonk*" is what is often used by others to signify they are placing a particular user on Ignore.

From seeing it used here and elsewhere however it seems to be more used by those pretending to do so or as a means of getting in a dig (among other things) instead of simply placing a user on Ignore silently and moving on.

Reminds me a bit of “PLOP!”

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

@Skell DaggerI admit I do not like the colouration of the original material. Sure, it makes us percieve all the horrid details a lot better, but the pasttime historian in me does not stop screaming "FALSIFICATION OF SOURCES" in my head .

 

I get that, and am somewhat in agreement, although I think it depends much on the intended audience and purpose. You could say that it's like the editorial or analytical work people do on ancient manuscripts, statuary, and so on, to reconstruct as best they can what is missing?

[Skell Dagger]

4 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

@Skell DaggerI admit I do not like the colouration of the original material. Sure, it makes us percieve all the horrid details a lot better, but the pasttime historian in me does not stop screaming "FALSIFICATION OF SOURCES" in my head .

From an historical point of view, yes there is that, but there is also the counter-argument that black and white lends distance and a form of detachment. We, who are so accustomed to seeing colour, on the whole tend to identify far more with colour images of the past than we do with black and white, and especially so when the framerates of those old films were so slow (sometimes only 10 fps) that - when shown at our modern framerates, or even slowed down - they seem jerky and unnatural.

In an interview posted here earlier, one soldier from that time mentions that shooting someone and firing shells at them - both from a distance - lends an impersonalisation to the act of killing. Far different - for him at least - was the act of physically running his bayonet into the living body of a man right in front of him. Colour somehow brings home the immediacy of history, lends it something that is more familiar, more instantly shocking, and more identifiable to our eyes.

If nothing else, things like this bring to a new, and possibly younger audience - some of whom might have cast a glance at jerky old b&w footage, but little more - the full horror of what went on (as well, of course, as the camaraderie and larking about that also took place).

Another source that may be of interest to the thread is the Brazilian recolourist Marina Amaral. She has colourised many old photos and brought history to a modern audience. She first came to my notice with a series of colourisations of Holocaust victims' portraits that - somehow - arrested the eye far more than the distance of black and white offers. The black and white was sorrowful enough, but the colour was haunting. She now has a book published - The Colour of Time - with Dan Jones, which is well worth a read.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

I don't know if this thread is going to end up locked or not -- maybe that danger is passed, and it will be allowed to linger into a peaceful and nostalgic old age, as one might hope for the men and women whose lives it celebrates.

On the off-chance, however, that I can't say so later, I want to thank everyone who contributed meaningfully to this, and especially to @Skell Dagger, @Innula Zenovka, and @Selene Gregoire for contributing text and video that made me smile and, on a couple of occasions, tear up a bit.

(And if anyone does know if the Oxford Great War Poets sim is still around, or if there is anything similar, please let me know!)

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

Colour somehow brings home the immediacy of history, lends it something that is more familiar, more instantly shocking, and more identifiable to our eyes.

I think sometimes it can be valuable to remind modern audiences that, as they say, the past was a different country.

But there are definitely advantages, too, emphasizing our kinship with the past. The filter of grainy old photos and film footage sort of drops a veil between us and our own past, and insulates us comfortably from it. Sometimes removing that sense of distance and comfort is valuable.

[Skell Dagger]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The filter of grainy old photos and film footage sort of drops a veil between us and our own past, and insulates us comfortably from it. Sometimes removing that sense of distance and comfort is valuable.

Indeed. I watched the initial ten to fifteen minutes of black and white footage with interest, but the moment that it went widescreen and full-colour was what Hollywood has dubbed the Wizard of Oz moment, when Dorothy steps out of Kansas and into the vividness of Oz. I was watching the hashtag on Twitter for some time afterward - as several hundred tweets rolled in every few minutes - and at each reload of the page, what I saw was most of them commenting not only on the subject matter itself, but also on that moment when the colour kicked in and took their breath away, slamming them into the moment. It really hit home for a lot of people.

[Innula Zenovka]

44 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

@Skell DaggerI admit I do not like the colouration of the original material. Sure, it makes us percieve all the horrid details a lot better, but the pasttime historian in me does not stop screaming "FALSIFICATION OF SOURCES" in my head .

 

It was part of a project commissioned by the Imperial War Museums, who were presumably content with the way their archives were used.

The military historian Stuart Mitchell has some thoughtful criticisms of the way the material was presented:

 

Also, the historian Greg Jenner has a very good thread

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Innula Zenovka

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

The military historian Stuart Mitchell has some thoughtful criticisms of the way the material was presented

That seems a pretty valid criticism, I suppose. On the other hand, if the focus was on the experiences of those involved, the "grand narrative" might be less important? I say this, though, as someone who hasn't seen the doc (but is now absolutely desperate to watch it).

Also . . . I know a fair number of professional historians. They are, as a breed, a cranky and cantankerous lot. Sooooo . . . ?

[Fionalein]

...well it was Peter Jackson - that explains it all. He claimed to do a do a "true to the book" adaption of the Lord of the Rings as well, ROFL - we all know what became of that one.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Fionalein said:

...well it was Peter Jackson - that explains it all. He claimed to do a do a "true to the book" adaption of the Lord of the Rings as well, ROFL - we all know what became of that one.

Gollum was good.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Fionalein said:

...well it was Peter Jackson - that explains it all. He claimed to do a do a "true to the book" adaption of the Lord of the Rings as well, ROFL - we all know what became of that one.

Pfffft.

Perfectionist! He's an adorably cute, round little dwarf of a person. He gets a free pass from me!

[Skell Dagger]

17 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

...well it was Peter Jackson - that explains it all. He claimed to do a do a "true to the book" adaption of the Lord of the Rings as well, ROFL - we all know what became of that one.

44 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

It was part of a project commissioned by the Imperial War Museums, who were presumably content with the way their archives were used.

I've just finished watching the BBC What Artists Do All Day (UK only link) half hour programme that followed Peter Jackson through a small part of making the documentary. What I didn't know (but do now) is that he is one of the world's biggest Great War collectors and enthusiasts. He has a massive collection of uniforms, planes, vehicles, and other ephemera, all of which were used as visual aids when colourising. He has even put on his own exhibitions of those items. He devoted four years of his life, unpaid, to create this documentary, and if anyone is going to aim for as much accuracy as possible, it will be someone who has had a lifelong passion for it, to the point of collecting everything he can get his hands on with regard to it.

The programme also spoke to the Director-General of the Imperial War Museum (the owners of the original archive) as well as the Director of the 14-18 NOW project. Both of them were incredibly happy with what he'd done with the footage. His pitch to the IWM was simply "I'd really like to bring the First World War alive for fifteen year-olds".

"Because it's been restored so brilliantly, the faces of the people literally sing out to you. This is a human experience. It's not about grand narratives; it's a human experience. And I am used to looking at this material, but for me I had that kind of heartbeat moment where you think 'This is really extraordinary'."
--Diane Lees, Director-General, Imperial War Museum

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

16 hours ago, Skell Dagger said:

It will air on US television sometime in December.

Apparently it is showing in some US movie theaters now, thus folks will have to pay to see it here.  When it gets released to video will then depend on how well it does in the theater - and available to TV for airing will be a long time after that.

Or, for those of us that have access to non-US stations, we can watch it that way. I'll be poking through all of my various options to see how I can watch it without going to the theater or waiting for video release, if possible.

 

ETA:  The current showings are some special ones only.  It looks like it will actually be in most theaters across the US in mid-late Dec.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by LittleMe Jewell

[Selene Gregoire]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I don't know if this thread is going to end up locked or not -- maybe that danger is passed, and it will be allowed to linger into a peaceful and nostalgic old age, as one might hope for the men and women whose lives it celebrates.

On the off-chance, however, that I can't say so later, I want to thank everyone who contributed meaningfully to this, and especially to @Skell Dagger, @Innula Zenovka, and @Selene Gregoire for contributing text and video that made me smile and, on a couple of occasions, tear up a bit.

(And if anyone does know if the Oxford Great War Poets sim is still around, or if there is anything similar, please let me know!)

I could dig for more but I think the point was made. That point being it was not much different for both sides of the war, although the rebels weren't quite as well off due to lack of funding.

[ellestones]

2 hours ago, Fionalein said:

...well it was Peter Jackson - that explains it all. He claimed to do a do a "true to the book" adaption of the Lord of the Rings as well, ROFL - we all know what became of that one.

not to derail the thread any further but :

Peter Jackson is a great film maker for sure.  He did tho manage to extract 250 million dollars from the taxpayers and his own special legislation from the then government so that everybody who worked for him on his films could be treated as contractors and not employees as and when he chose

the then NZ government caved to his demands, when he told them that he would take his film productions elsewhere. Eastern europe as he mentioned at the time

the legislation (known locally as the Hobbit Law) is here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0120/latest/whole.html

the current NZ government is going to repeal this law, due to its provisions that treat people within the film industry differently to people in other industries

 

[ellestones]

i just add something else about why I mention Peter Jackson

while I get that this thread is about soldiers themselves,  what happened to them, what they went through, I find it difficult to separate out what happens to soldiers war and what the soldiers believe that they are fighting for

being from a military family which has sent many to fight in wars down the years then as far as my family goes then things like honor and patriotism and sacrifice aren't why we fight. We go fight because we can, and because we like the combat and because we are good at killing. My first cousin will be the next to go. Her pass out parade is in February. She will put her hand up and go to the next battle as soon as she can 

 

[Luna Bliss]

[Pamela Galli]

1 hour ago, ellestones said:

i just add something else about why I mention Peter Jackson

while I get that this thread is about soldiers themselves,  what happened to them, what they went through, I find it difficult to separate out what happens to soldiers war and what the soldiers believe that they are fighting for

being from a military family which has sent many to fight in wars down the years then as far as my family goes then things like honor and patriotism and sacrifice aren't why we fight. We go fight because we can, and because we like the combat and because we are good at killing. My first cousin will be the next to go. Her pass out parade is in February. She will put her hand up and go to the next battle as soon as she can 

 

Does that feel a bit surreal?

[ellestones]

7 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

Does that feel a bit surreal?

yes it can be

is why I said earlier that war is ineffective in itself to make a better world. Diplomacy (like working thru issues for as long as that takes, years if necessary) is far more effective to make a lasting better world

when the objective is to facilitate a regime change in another country then war is very attractive to people who have no idea about war and what is required when you win. Winning battles is not winning a war. When the last battle has been fought and won then the victors have to occupy the territory of the losing side. Then subjugate the people remaining for decades and raise their children as their own, instilling in them the values of the victors

the last time this happened was after WW2. The USA occupied Japan and changed the japanese people to embrace the values espoused by the USA. Same with West Germany. Decades later Germany and Japan are pretty much unrecognisable from what they were leading up to WW2, as are the children of these countries today

[Fionalein]

8 minutes ago, ellestones said:

Decades later Germany and Japan are pretty much unrecognisable from what they were leading up to WW2, as are the children of these countries today

Must have been a while since you visited Germany...

Austrian band STS wrote a song about the new rise of nationalsm and xenophobia ... 26 years ago.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Fionalein

[Robin Kiyori]

Don't forget the Irish soldiers of WW1 too,   There's an extra tragedy to them as  they were oft forgotten due to the Irish war of independence. Many of those who died and those who survived, where very patortic for the cause of a free Ireland. But Of course history often overlooks them due to serving under the british army.

 

As a once pacifist from Northern Ireland, I have very strong views on war and the aftermath, But remembering those lost is, well it's just the right thing to do isn't it?

[ellestones]

@Fionalein

there is always an amount of xenophobia in any population. The current state of Germany today is nothing like it was in the period between the World Wars. Can seem like the whole place is going to fall apart sometimes when view everything thru the breathless reporting of viral media. But the people of Germany (same with the current USA population with whats happening there) actually like democracy and when the fearmongers go to far then the population asserts itself.  The mid-terms in the USA are the latest example of that

Edited November 13, 2018 by ellestones
Aylin posted in between so @

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 hours ago, ellestones said:

i just add something else about why I mention Peter Jackson

while I get that this thread is about soldiers themselves,  what happened to them, what they went through, I find it difficult to separate out what happens to soldiers war and what the soldiers believe that they are fighting for

being from a military family which has sent many to fight in wars down the years then as far as my family goes then things like honor and patriotism and sacrifice aren't why we fight. We go fight because we can, and because we like the combat and because we are good at killing. My first cousin will be the next to go. Her pass out parade is in February. She will put her hand up and go to the next battle as soon as she can 

 

Thanks for this.

Your account is so alien, in most ways, to my own experience and way of thinking that it would be difficult for me to respond directly to it. But that, of course, really should be the point of the discussions we have here: they allow us to break out of our own little echo chambers sometimes, and be exposed to new, surprising, and challenging perspectives.

Your own story is really useful, too, in that it reminds us that there must have been (and continues to be) almost as many reasons for soldiers to fight as there are soldiers. In the great conscript armies of WWI and WWII there must have been many who didn't want to be there, but even in such cases the attitudes towards the fact that they were likely were hugely variant.

As for volunteers -- well, John McCrae was a fervent believer in the British Imperial enterprise, and had also volunteered to fight in the Boer War. Wilfred Owen seems not to have been so starry-eyed, but also volunteered for what he clearly see as a worthwhile cause: he was a poet and a truth-teller about war, but never, I think, a pacifist.

On the other hand, my own great grandfather lied about his age to enlist, and ended up a career soldier, the only one in my family. I suspect he enjoyed the life, but for a man of his class -- the labouring poor -- it must have provided not merely security but also a certain amount of social prestige and recognition (he retired a regimental sergeant major). It was a good job. But how many other reasons must there be to join up?