As much as I love Great War history, I don't know if I could sit through a film about that particular clusterfuck. Anybody who thinks war is a GOOD idea should be made to study Passchendaele.
I'm not sure if it's even being released in the States. However, it's a good film to watch if you are interested in World War I. I think it's one of the most realistic films about war that I've ever seen and, yet, I didn't find it grim and depressing. I definitely agree with you that anyone who thinks war is a good idea should study Passchendaele.
It looks fascinating. And yeah, we probably won't get it here in the States because Americans tend to forget that WW1 even happened. We entered into the conflict so late that we never saw the devastating casualties of folks like y'all who were there from the start. Hell, most Americans don't even know what the poppies we buy on Veteran's Day symbolize. In fact, the practice of selling or wearing poppies on Veteran's Day has all but died out in this country, as has the knowledge that 11 November began as Remembrance/Armistice Day.
It's always made me wonder what the US would be like if we *had* suffered the kind of losses the rest of y'all did during the Great War. Would we have the same militant, might-makes-right attitude as today? Or would we be more cautious?
It's always made me wonder what the US would be like if we *had* suffered the kind of losses the rest of y'all did during the Great War. Would we have the same militant, might-makes-right attitude as today? Or would we be more cautious?
Good question - I've wondered that myself more than once. Although we didn't learn much from WW1 or else there wouldn't have been WW2. In fact, if US president Wilson had had his way with his League of Nations, and if the British and French politicians hadn't been so eager to punish Germany as hard as possible (Wilson was against this), it would have been interesting to find out what would've happened instead in Europe.
The aftermath of WW1 always reminds me of the kind of trouble the US avoided after our Civil War. There were a lot of folks in the Union who wanted the South punished, and punished hard. But Lincoln was smart, and called for a "gentle peace." If he hadn't, the US likely would have faced a second, bloodier Civil War.
And that was the mistake that France and Britain made after the Armistice. By punishing Germany as harshly as they did, they doomed the Weimar Republic to failure and created the conditions that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to rise to power.
Well, it shows you how much I know. I just assumed that Americans didn't sell or wear poppies. I assumed it was mostly the practice of European and Commonwealth countries.
You bring up a very interesting question about what kind of effect WWI might have had on the US if they had suffered the same kind of losses as other countries. It's possible the US might be more cautious, but it's also possible that it would be even more militant. I mean, look at the reaction to 9/11. Another country might (and I say might) have ended any kind of military operations overseas. However, if anything, I think 9/11 caused the opposite to happen.
No, we used to wear poppies, but the practice has all but disappeared. I can remember as a teenager pleasing an old veteran enormously by both buying a poppy from him on Veteran's Day, and reciting the opening lines of "In Flanders Fields" to show that I understood its significance.
It's a shame that the practice of wearing poppies has all but disappeared in the US, especially as it does seem to please veterans. I love your anecdote about how happy you made that veteran by buying a poppy and reciting the opening lines of "In Flanders Fields". I'm sure it meant a lot to him that you did understand the poppy's significance.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's always made me wonder what the US would be like if we *had* suffered the kind of losses the rest of y'all did during the Great War. Would we have the same militant, might-makes-right attitude as today? Or would we be more cautious?
no subject
Good question - I've wondered that myself more than once. Although we didn't learn much from WW1 or else there wouldn't have been WW2. In fact, if US president Wilson had had his way with his League of Nations, and if the British and French politicians hadn't been so eager to punish Germany as hard as possible (Wilson was against this), it would have been interesting to find out what would've happened instead in Europe.
no subject
And that was the mistake that France and Britain made after the Armistice. By punishing Germany as harshly as they did, they doomed the Weimar Republic to failure and created the conditions that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to rise to power.
no subject
You bring up a very interesting question about what kind of effect WWI might have had on the US if they had suffered the same kind of losses as other countries. It's possible the US might be more cautious, but it's also possible that it would be even more militant. I mean, look at the reaction to 9/11. Another country might (and I say might) have ended any kind of military operations overseas. However, if anything, I think 9/11 caused the opposite to happen.
no subject
no subject