'They Shall Not Grow Old' by Peter Jackson is well worth a watch. It uses real footage from WW1 which has been re-colored and had audio added from BBC interviews with veterans in the 1960s.
It is a good one, if not actually a "movie", per se - I watched it on the plane on my way to the UK about four years ago. In my opinion, I think it got melded with and overshadowed by "1917", which was being produced and hyped at about the same time as "T.S.N.G.O.".
The treaty was signed at 5 AM saying cease-fire at 11 AM same day that’s why at the end the general sends the boys back out again because he still has few minutes left before the treaty actually starts, a real scumbag move
Nearly 11,000 troops died during the final hours of the war. There are various reasons why. One of them was the fear that the enemy would not abide by the armistice. Congress even investigated Gen. John J. Pershing for his role in the high number of casualties on the final day of the war. The very last person to die did so at the 11th hour. He was french and his name was Augustin Trebuchon. They put his gravestone to have the date of the 10th out of embarrassment.
And all so the date would be "memerable". Its disgusting. They didnt give two shits about the men dying while they were eating 6 course meals on a luxurious train.
Thats also why hitler became so indoctrinated and exteme. He saw all his fellow soilders being used as meat to soak up bullets and cost the other side money. Then after being fed all that ra ra patriotism, the german royalty essentially gave up, and sacraficed the next few generations of working class germans and austrians by destroying the economy, and letting inflation run away. This type of evil breeds more evil. People wonder how anyone could ever follow and support hitler, but at the time, he was one of the only voices of the average man, then they sent him to jail, which just made him a martyr.
The book written by Erich Maria Remarque was using his own experience as a soldier in the Imperial German Army. He wanted to tell everyone about the true horrors of war and the futility of war. This therefore makes it an antiwar novel making all of the film adaptations antiwar. I suggest reading the book and watching the other films. Have a great day and thank you for your service.
This is absolutely an anti-war movie, I think the part that they were confused about is that it isn’t at all an anti-soldier movie. Those aren’t the same thing.
@bLackstar Your derision of an internationally respected combat veteran and author is, in all likelihood, based off of a later Nazi propaganda campaign to discredit Remarque as "unpatriotic" in the lead up to WWII. The book has been internationally praised by veterans for close to a hundred years now. The man spent a month and half in the trenches and was wounded in combat. He saw plenty.
@@SuperBrahimos not really. As part of his recovery Remarque went around the different aid stations and hospitals and talked with other injured soldiers. He incorporated their stories in his book. There may not have literally been a Kat, Paul, or Tjaden but they were based on real people either from Remarque or other soldiers he talked with experiences. In the 1930 movie adaption the crew brought in a bunch of WWI veterans to give the movie a very authentic feel. One of those scenes was the 2 hands on the barbed wire. One of WWI vets serving as either a technical advisor or set artist mentioned one of his experiences of the war. He remembered seeing a soldier running towards his trench during an attack. That soldier had reached the barbed wire and was trying to get through when there was an explosion near that soldier. When the dust and smoke cleared the only thing left of that soldier were his hands still griping the barbed wire. The director made sure that scene made the movie for obvious reasons. The book is also a work of fiction and not a biography or autobiography. This movie of "All Quiet on the Western Front" didn't really have much in common with the book or earlier movies. So much was missing that, I felt anyways, the punch of the book and those previous movies was gone.
I feel as if this movie has to be strictly watched in German with English Subtitles if you're American. The whole point of the movie is to get you to sympathize with the enemy. By the end of the movie, if you really immerse yourself. You really feel for the main character, especially with that ending. And then you realize he was the "bad guy" the whole time. Just shows the true reality and brutality of war.
Weirdly was talking about this exact topic this morning way before watching this video. I recall as a kid watching the 80’s version of this movie and thinking that same thing that I was sympathizing with the “bad guy”. My dad was a veteran and told me that “there’s no bad guy, they are just soldiers doing their jobs just like we did”. Ww1 didn’t have that massive evil villain of Hitler and that “save the world” vibe it was this evil horror that simply destroyed unthinkable amount of lives. It’s easy to sympathize with any basic private soldier that’s sent into combat and is trying simply to kill just to stay alive. He views the opposing side as the bad guy and himself as the good guy. The whole concept was eye opening to me and very much shaped much of my thought as an adult
@@brianfondofbbq in the documentary "they shall not grow old" the British and German soldiers had a lot of respect for each other. They said at one point the the germans wished they would join them and fight against the Prussians together. Really good WW1 documentary produced by Peter Jackson.
11:39 The training in the Imperial German Army during the End of the First World War for the infantry lasted about 3 months. Then came specialist training, e.g. machine gunner. When the training was finished, it was transported by transport to a depot near the front, where the soldier was prepared for the respective front-line conditions (this took variously in some cases a few months, sometimes if you needed men it took only 2 weeks). Then you came to the corps depot for a few days and waited until the unit you belonged to had withdrawn from the front. Then the new soldiers practiced with their unit until the next frontline deployment.
The "Would you have picked this music?" is the exact thing I thought when I watched this for the first time, and then the movie really hammered home the industrialization of human life in the first world war.
The industrialization theme you mentioned is a great point, and certainly one of the enduring ironies of the Great War wherein the intersection of the chivalry, gallantry, and fighting in rank-and-file formations as in the wars in Europe before 1914 are laid starkly bare with the advances in weapons and technology that the 20th Century brought to that conflict.
I immediately thought after watching that this movie didn’t glorify war like some of my favorite war movies do. It showed the the horrors of war and young lives lost for the pride of greed of the old. When you said “ I wouldn’t want to be in this war” I thought that was the point, this was messed up and for what? They thought they were fighting for something but really just died for nothing.
What movie released in the past 20-30 years glorified war? Since saving private ryan every single movie I've seen shows the pointless death, destruction, and suffering
@@tylerblalack6684 Black Hawk Down, The Hurt Locker, Captain America, Battleship, Pearl Harbor, 12 Strong, Lone Survivor (Really, really dislike that one for a lot of reasons), Act of Valor (probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to glorifying war), The Patriot, etc. There are definitely a good many. These may not all be over the top, oorah, flag waving patriot films but I'd definitely say most of these paint war in a way more heroic and fist in the air kind of way, rather than something like Born on the 4th of July which is a pure anti-war film.
If you look at the 1979 movie they actually go through basic training before they see the front line. So you can see the training they received prior to heading to the front, and also their drill instructor the legendary Ian Holm.
31:45 - I found the German general to be a little bit over the top in terms of how his ego and callousness for his troops was portrayed, but it's not too far off from the delusion that some of the highest ranking officers had after the war ended. Even Erich Ludendorff, one of the leading German commanders, insisted for years that Germany did not lose the war fair and square, and kept perpetuating the "stab in the back" myth that Germany was subverted from within rather than defeated on the battlefield. It was a misguided notion that helped to give rise to Nazi ideology and propaganda in the build-up to WW2.
I kind of get it. It seems like the Germans were generally better in the war but overall they were like the underdog at the end in the grand scheme of things. They lost due to reasons other than their soldiers being effective and I can see that because of this the general develops that type of view.
absolutely and the harsh peace terms Germany was forced to accept caused universal resentment there they didn't feel they had caused the war or at least were not more more responsible than the Allied powers
@@chooseyouhandle what you wrote is true. From my understanding the Germans had better tactics and seemed to be more effective in general, and I was trying to put myself in the shoes of the generals who were thinking the same, and with their pride thinking that they could still fight on and win. However I think the reality in the end was what you wrote. I actually agree with your statements.
Also this was pre-nazi just for context on some of the comments. The Nazi party was formed after the Armistice and Germany's capitulation. If only the young Hitler who survived a gas attack in World War I took his mask off too early
This is probably one of the most eye opening perspectives of WW1. The original is pretty damn eerie that they used real war footage from the German POV. Thanks boys for this one! 🇺🇲🤘🏼
@@BustaShenanigans the new one. It made it seem like attacks were an everyday thing. In reality over the top attacks were pretty rare throughout the years. In addition, troops would spend only 1-2 days at the very front of the trenches before being rotated. At most 1-2 weeks at the front before an equal length break.
@@neoxyte the movie only covers a period of a few days. you see paul on his 1st and 2nd day in the trenches in 1917 ... then 18 months pass until november, 7th 1918 ... on november, 11th the war was over. i know it seems way longer, but it's actually just a week.
The most realistic part of this movie for me was shoving your hands in your pants to keep warm. It was 28 out, we’re soaking wet from a storm that drenched EVERYTHING at Benning, and we had no snivel gear. Hands went straight in the pants, and it helped us get through it.
I think it’s important to remember that this kind of warfare was new at the time. The squad tactics we have today have their origins in the first World War. And the run and drop technique could lead to unit being pinned down due to the sheer volume of machine gun fire that would rain down on you. Think of it like an amphibious assault where the best tactic is to get off the beach to avoid fire. The best way to get out off the enemy killzone is to get across that No Man’s Land to enemy trench. The Western Front lines by this point have been established for four years at this point, the tactics they are using are really the best they could do. The movie doesn’t show it that well, but they did develop a method called the creeping barrage. At coordinated times, the artillery fire would cover the infantry’s advance across No Man’s Land, once the infantry got close, the artillery would cease and the men would go in.
The Creeping Barrages, while effective for covering advancing troops, was also difficult and require proper planning and synchronization. This is because if the barrages ended too early, the troops get mowed down by the enemy because they would go back to their gunning positions. If its too early, the risk of friendly fire is high and stall the attack.
_Canada_ developed the Creeping Barrage to absolutely crush the German at Vimy Ridge after the French and British struggled for months at the time. Creeping barrages are extremely hard to pull off since the infantry needs to follow extremely close to the barrage, like, only minutes after the shell explodes the, even less. Canada was able to pull it off since they practiced _extensvly_ for weeks and weeks.
@ 26:39-Man, I'm a gamer, and I remember playing "Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad". I cleared a room with a bolt-action rifle. It felt so badass. What a great game that was.
At 7:40- When I went to basic 1979, a lot of our equipment was secondhand many of the guys had helmets with bullet or shrapnel dents in them. Pack frames older than us, ALL of our weapons systems were from fallen men etc. Even our C-Rats (MREs) were marked 1945!
@@kovacsnovak6745 is called being respectful not a nerd. Like calling someone who fought in ww1 is sure way to get yourself knocked out. Calling those germans in ww1 nazis is disrespect to the highest order. They had nothing to do with ww2 and the nazis so why should they be labeled as them? Those were REAL people that fought and died there is nothing you can nerd about when it comes to real history, you either be respectfull or remain a dipshit
The average German soldier got 450 hrs of basic training before going to the front. Americans apparently got six months total. My great grandfather was in the French army and was in the trenches for 4 years. I still have his metals and some of his paperwork documenting his service. He later went on to storing and hiding weapons for the French Resistance in WWII. You wouldn’t know it looking at his photos but he was a tough guy.
@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd yeah I heard that too. A lot of them were afraid of being labeled collaborators with the Nazis. There were quite a few of them too. My grandmother told me how the young women who slept with nazi soldiers would get harassed and their heads shaved forcefully. She was resistance too but she hated how people treated one another. It’s amazing what people will do to survive when they are desperate.
12:00 From reading the book, it was a couple of months of basic training with an emphasis on formalities (how do I dress correctly, how do I march correctly, how do I turn correctly, how do I make my bed correctly, how to go from which formation into which other formation, ...).
As a German with a very big family and several family members who fought in WW2 and WW1 (alone the grandfather of my dad had 11 brothers and 1 sister and 9 of his brothers died in WW2 - only he, his ister and one brother survived) - but also someone who has family and ancestry in the USA, Australia, Prussia and Poland - I always try to see historical stuff as objective as I can. I always try to understand every perspective. Great review of you guys. 2 weeks ago when my grandmother threw a party for her 85th birthday I took several photo albums with photos from the 1910s - 1960s home. Super interesting... but also very sad (because of many photos from tombs of family members). The family of my grandmother (my mothers side of the family) comes from Friesoythe, Barßel etc. in Northern Germany (just google Friesoythe WW2) and her husbands family came from Prussia and Poland - my grandfather (dad of my mum) flew during WW2 from the Russians AND the Germans.
that story about the honey packet reminded me of when I had to spend a holiday weekend in jail my cellmate shared everything he had with me from powdered juice mix to candy and I did the same it was awesome how unselfish he was it taught me something
Im pretty sure the tank scene was to show the first tanks that were ever used on the battlefield. So the infantry had no idea how to deal with them, and the tankers had no real tactics, just drive through them. Turns out in the early 1900s, just driving through them was a pretty effective plan.
30:30 Tourniquets were known during WW I. They were usually so thin that they produced irreversable tissue damage when applied and tighened. Lots of aputations had to be made not because of tourniquets being applied for too long a time but because of the tissue and nerve damage inflicted by the cutting by the thin tourniquets.
I would argue a movie that accurately portrays the senselessness .. the carnage, the him-and-not-me, the brutality - is an anti-war movie. Not politically, but philosophically. Maybe that’s the vibe they were going for, calling it that. Thanks for the video
if it talks about how the war started would be interested keep reading how some people contend the war was avoidable others say it was inevitable would really like to know the truth
@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd It goes into the comedy of errors that lead to the successful assassination of the Arch Duke which was the most immediate cause of the war. The fuse was lit by the competition between the great powers of Europe, it was only a matter of time before a war. No one could have known the industrial scale of the horror though. The Carlin podcast did go into early arms treaties that were an attempt to limit that. It is worth the listen!
As a Filipino-Japanese American, learning about the Bataan Death March in college was one of the most horrifying, eye-opening things I ever learned about. I know my Japanese grandparents were immigrants, and I never learned too much about my Filipino family members, but hearing just how evil and despicable Japan can be in wartime made me somewhat disgusted. And the fact that they never apologized for any war crimes kinda pisses me off.
The book and movie were originally made to discourage war by showing the reality, it was written by a veteran of the German side of the war; the first movie had real ww1 German soldiers advising the entire movie to get that point across 2:13
A great book about how infantry tactics evolved from linear warfare to maneuver warfare is "On Infantry" by John A. English and Bruce I. Gudmundsson. A bit of dry readying but it details how the Germans pioneered 'sturmtruppen' tactics in 1915 which formed the basis for the modern fire and maneuver tactics used today.
About the uniform recycling, by 1916 Germany's economy was so bad by the blockade that they were making paper clothes for civilians due the lack of cloth, uniforms needed to be reused all the time.
Gentlemen to answer your question about the training try watching the 1970s version of all quiet in the western front. It does show what kind of training they were kinda getting
Regarding the training these kids received by the end of the war was minimal, the army that marched into Belgium in 1914 was one of the best trained and equipped armies in history, but that didn’t last long on any side. The attrition rate was too high to keep a professional army, the strategy was to just send bodies and hope the other side is ground down enough to accept a favorable treaty. Also you mentioned if there were better tactics when crossing no man’s land. There really wasn’t with the extreme change in technology and the killing power it was capable of. The commanders weren’t ready or understood how much had changed so bayonet charges into machine guns continued. They did try creeping barrages with there own arty in front to slowly advance there troops while also destroying barb wire, but it rarely worked as planned.
i remember a professor from college saying that WWI was a 1900s army, in terms of having machine guns and tanks towards the end, fighting with 1800s tactics. Generals believed that the reason bayonet charges failed was due to lack of conviction/courage so the solution was send more men and tell them to be better essentially.
One thing to note is that the events in the book started in 1914. There was very much an enthusiasm for going to war on all sides at the start of the war. That vanished quickly however and the scene at the school would not have happened as it did in this movie in 1917. Also I believe that the war hadn't ended yet during the last attack. It was set to end on 1100 o'clock. Naturally it sometimes happened that commanders on all sides ordered attacks right before the armistice to gain that little extra piece of ground or to have a successful operation in their record. At that time however, the german enlisted men were starting to mutineer and it is doubtable that an attack on this scale happened.
@@AntonAdelson really? That’s why it was disappointing to you? The timeline mistakes that barely anybody but a history buff would notice? The movie is haunting, it showed the nastiest parts of war and how futile it is. But the timeline is what ruined it for you?
@@coiboyify Oh no, it's not just a minor timeline mistake! Have you read the book? It is very good at documenting the first excitement from the war. The patriotic fervor. And then how slowly, year after year, that excitement and patriotism turns into despair, depression, and pure trauma. The movie is just a gore porn. Anyone who's familiar with war will see how it's exaggerated. And death and gore is not even the worst part of wars. Worst part of wars is how politicians manipulate people to support wars. And also the pure trauma from living in such environment for 4 years is worse than 5000 people dying from 3 or 4 battles. The book showed very well how everyone in that war died long before their bodies died. We barely got to know the characters as well. That's why when they die it's nowhere as impactful as in the book. Look, let's make an experiment. Read the plot synopsis here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front and tell me how different it is.
@@AntonAdelson you seem to forget that a film is only 2 hours and in no way, shape or form can a film show absolutely everything described in a book. Because of that, things need to be compressed, changed, added to help it make sense for the average Netflix viewer. No film adaptation will ever come close to the book and trying to compare them as deeply as you are just does a disservice to both forms of media when they both have a different point to them
You asked about the tactics of covering that open ground between trenches, that was a smart catch. It was actually the exact origin of the small unit tactics you learned in basic. The germans pioneered “infiltration tactics” (per wikipedia) in that war, using small elite units with low-level command autonomy (“mission-style tactics” per wikipedia, a translation of the original german term) and what you now call bounding overwatch to recognize and immediately sieze opportunities and advance from cover to cover, leapfrogging until they were close enough to penetrate and start flanking. CQB was invented there as well, the same Germans who developed those infiltration tactics realized that what they needed most were short range weapons and explosives, shotguns and submachine guns and grenades. They called these infiltration and CQB soldiers “stormtroopers”. In fact those tactics made as big a difference in ending trench warfare as the tanks did. Combined arms didn’t exist yet so follow-up tended to fail. Artillery couldn’t move up to support successful breaches, and cavalry at the time wasn’t designed for deep strikes through such holes. That led the same Germans to later figure out mechanized and armored cavalry and combined arms, which combined with small unit tactics and low-level command led them to be so heinously effective in WWII, and while they were super on the wrong side of that, western militaries adapted the entire concept and are now designed completely around those doctrines. So this movie is an interesting case study in what all of your modern tactics are designed to overcome. And Special Forces exists because US, British, and Canadian innovators realized that all of this created a need for units that could operate effectively behind the enemy frontline, since the problem of reaching and penetrating that frontline was effectively solved. The inevitable endpoint of that progress is units that can bypass the contested areas entirely and strike directly at enemy strategic centers like capitols, which I suppose is part of where our tier one units like delta and SOAR, and special activities, came from. We no longer think in terms of trench warfare because tactical innovation has led us to a point where the smartest way to fight an army of 500,00 dudes with bayonets like on the beaches of Taiwan is to skip them entirely and instead fly a helicopter the size of a Volvo into downtown Beijing carrying a squad of CQB enthusiasts to capture the politburo. That all began in WWI with like-minded German enthusiasts seeing this trench nonsense and working the problem instead of just accepting it, exactly the way you guys started to. So, the real answer to how to cross that ground… turns out to be having the right mindset.
That's a hell of a write-up, and it was a damn good one. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I'm sure you are quite right in recognizing German innovation in warfare. Morality and ethical considerations aside, they implemented sound strategy and efficient tactics with cunning and aggressiveness - it's no surprise they were so effective, in retrospect. As you've said, it's all about mindset.
Also, I think Stalingrad would be a worse CQB situation because some of the guys are equipped with submachine guns, but the majority had bolt actions. Imagine clearing a hallway some German with an MP40 guarding it while your armed with a Mosin Nagant.
Fun fact: the original movie was banned from many theaters in Europe because it was seen as pro-German but the nazi party attacked theaters that played it in Germany because they saw it as anti-German. It was an incredibly controversial movie at the time (partially because there was a scene with a man and woman with sexual implications) mostly for how violent it was and how unpatriotic it was. Also some of the cast for the original movie were American ww1 vets which helped give it some authenticity.
The treaty was signed in the early morning, but the signors wanted the war to end exactly at 11:11 11/11/18 because Europeans love this poetic shit, so officially the war hasn't ended. That general wanted to "make the most" out of the time he has left with the boys.
Comment on the beards. Worked with a mechanic with a longe beard. His wife loved it and was not ever going to cut it. After a couple months it was short and tight. Upon the questions he was tired of washing the grease out of it. AND it stuck out too far from his welding helment. Caught on fire twice.
Originally written by a German WW1 veteran Eric Remarque, “All Quiet On The Western Front” was seen as an anti-war piece because of it’s realistic depiction of war. Most of the time, when people talked about war(back then), it was like those old guys at the beginning of the movie. The whole reason he wrote the book was because he wanted people to understand the seriousness of war. People say it’s “anti-war”, because there are no hero’s or villains created by the writer, just protagonists and antagonists. Remarque writes a prologue for his book, remarking “This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure” Hope that helps, great video 👍🔥🤘
I highly recommend watching the original 1930 black and white version by Louis Milestone AND read the novel by Erich Maria Remarque. Both are classics.
Guys, this is a WW1 movie. Nazis were in WW2. But that was pretty funny just the wrong war though. Also, have you guys done Inglorious Bastards? If not, I think you should, if anything just for the comedy. Although, there's a scene in the movie where there's a Nazi soldier, and he gets hit with the glove gun which was a real thing by the way. It was developed for the Office Of Strategic Service,O.S.S. which was the precursor of the CIA.
About the training with the gas mask: I have no clue what the actual training in 1917 was. But, I have been a soldier in Germany, twenty years ago. So, I can tell you how we were trained. As a german solder, you are carrying a ABC emergency reaction pack. That includes a sealed poncho, security gloves, sealing materials and that mask. In basic training we were drilled till each and every man could put on the complete gear, and perfectly seal it, in under four seconds. This training was due to the experience of the German soldiers, in WW1. ps. ABC = atomic (nuclear), biological and chemical
For the part about their being a better way for them to cross no man's land then just sprinting, they did have creeping barrages that were meant to clear no man's land and suppress enemy trenches ahead of advancing soldiers. Soldiers also took advantage of any terrain features such as shell holes.
yeah, but the enemy knew pretty well, what a creeping barrage was for. so, they fired their artillery as well to decimate the incoming infantry. in a way it sometimes was safer to not use your own artillery to surprise the enemy.
It's Hayden from Hesperia. Great video guys. I'm proud of you guys. I'm not the only one who made a good life for them selves who came from Hesperia. That place is crazy. Love you guys!
Huge congrats on the sponsor Buck! You love to see it. Also very happy to see Kurt back again - thank you guys (Abel included, clown-car driver he is) for the great entertainment! And Kurt's medic story had me actually laughing, the guy with the shovel busting open his buddy and the medics thinking "Hey we finally get to treat someone!"
My Grandfather died in this war. He passed away before my father was born. It was a very rough war, it was like two periods colliding. Horses moving guns, and then tanks and machine guns. Brutal.
The reason this story is described as an anti-war film is not just because it depicts the horror of war, but because it also depicts its futility: absolutely nothing was accomplished by all this sacrifice. Films/shows like "Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers", or "The Pacific" portray the horror of war, but there is also a sense that it was all worth it in the end. Evil regimes were defeated. The good guys won. Even in "Black Hawk Down", while the larger mission might have failed, the intentions were good. There was a worthwhile purpose. But in "All Quiet on the Western Front", it's just stupidity and ego. All the suffering of these men is ultimately pointless.
Man, it's funny how you said "..In a few short weeks we'll all be marching on Paris", because in the next war that's literally how long it took. Germany just pieced France up and bing-bang-boom.
@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd they broke through a forest the french didn't belive they could with fast light tanks. The french though the war would play out like it did in ww1 they did build the magiot line to stop the germans from breaking through. But what they didn't expect is the speed that the germans used. Like they had covered the border with belgium because they knew the germans would try the same tactic they used in ww1 with taking the lowlands and attacking france from the north. But they somehow broke through the ardennes with such speed that they could encircle vast armies before they even knew what was happening.
The original 1930s movie was and anti war movie made by a WW1 vet. It’s supposed to be about the young cats getting coerced into gladly fighting for their country while the old heads stay back safe and support more war. It was also made in the perspective of the Germans. Pretty ahead of it’s time nearing a 100 year old movie
One big thing with this movie, with the Peace Treaty, it was actually the other way around, the Germans where beat and morale was so low and supplies where so lacking they where not even capable of attacks like this at this point in the war. It was actually the other way around. The German negotiators where begging the French to have an armistice while the final peace was being negotiated but the Allies wanted to test out their new weapons before the war ended and even when the peace treaty was signed, the Allies insisted that it would only come into effect a few days later and all during this time they continued to order attacks.
You guys should compare this to the original 1929 German book this is based upon, and then the first movie made of this in 1930; then you'll understand why it's called an anti-war movie. There were so many killed in WWI that in the decade after they were referred to as the Lost Generation (those killed, and those who survived but forever changed and deeply cynical, which is the generation writers like Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Maugham came out of). There was a very famous and scandalous silent French movie made during the war (filmed on a lot of real battlefields) called J'Accuse that implicitly accuses the French generals of mass murder of the French soldiers with their mind-numbingly stupid tactics and refers to the very near total French Army mutiny in 1917. A lot of fascinating history in that period.
Thank you for sharing that great information. I hadn't considered that generation of writers being 'spawned' so to speak from the brutal reality of "modern warfare" (obviously not modern by our standards, but by theirs - with the developments in weapons technology) - but those authors are from that generations and indeed seem to collectively share a sense of deep cynicism. I'd also never heard of J'Accuse, looking forward to learning about it.
@@1blueeye J'Accuse, filmed at the time, was filmed with the cooperation of the French High Command because the filmmaker led them to believe he was filming a patriotic film to raise the morale. When the movie played in the theater houses it caused a great scandal, particularly in the final scene. In that scene the filmmaker had the use of a sizeable French unit that he had fall in to ranks, on the impression that the scene would stir the hearts of soldiers and civilians alike with the troops looking smart in uniformed ranks. However, as the filmmaker had the camera raise up on a boom and pull back from the ranks, the viewer could then see that the formation filled the screen spelling the phrase "J'Accuse" (a bitter condemnation in French, and hence the film title). It is a powerful scene, even a century later, directed at the French military leaders for their repeated suicidal tactics. It was probably 30 years ago that I watched it, but I still remember it clearly.
@oboogie2 wow. A powerful film indeed... I can understand how there would be incredibly mixed sentiments about a film like that, even decades later. Thank you again for teaching me about something quite interesting and for taking the time to elaborate!
Shout out to you guys for another great episode! When it comes to the training those soldiers would have received, they would have come with some generic basic training, by 1918 probably including some general lessons in trench warfare. In fact, trench warfare is something still being taught by the German military. Back in 2011, we have spend some hours attacking trenches and / or defending them. The tactics you described actually were there. By 1918, you would not have seen such mass attacks anymore. The German Army introduced around 1916/17 the so called "Stroßtrupptaktik", that means they were attacking using smaller squats, which had greater chances of survival out there. I can recommend to you guys the book by Ernst Jünger "In Stahlgewittern" (Storm of steel), where he talks in detail about his experiences being the officer in charge of such a squat. I can confirm that they would not just have been blindly running towards the enemy trenches, at least not that late in the conflict. The training scheme I went through (I suppose based on the war experiences) taught us to run from trench to hole 1 in the nature to tree 1, to hole 2 etc. in order to advance with as few casualties as possible towards the enemy position. Please refrain from calling a German First World War General a "Nazi", this is not just unhistorical, this is not cool and somewhat offensive. All in all, keep up the good work and cheers and praise for sharing the experiences of us veterans! Thank you for your service! Rgds Fabian DEU Air Force Ground Defense Squat Leader (ret.)
Dr. Egghead isn’t a Nazi. That party didn’t exist until some years later. The war wasn’t over until 11am on that day. There were several attacks right up until 11am. At the point of that attack the war was still very much active and all parties knew that. It’s considered anti war simply due to that humanity. The book was written in the 1920’s I believe so it was very soon after the wars end. This movie was great and brutal but of the remakes of this movie it really missed the opportunity to be true to the book. Paul in the book was simply killed on some random day in October and that’s where the real sadness of the whole thing came in simply because there wasn’t that “war is over thing” he just died on a random day during the last year of the war.
Will you ever react to the videos of that Easter Truce moment where both sides on the front said "fuck this war, it's Christmas" and the high command on both sides shit themselves because the infantry started to think for itself at how stupid this all was.
13:28 I had to come back a few hours after I watched this, because it occurred to me: What would this dude's casualty card be for training purposes?..lol
Ya gotta think too from their perspective with the Tank scene that like how they didn’t know about tourniquets and such, they probably have never seen or heard anything about a tank existing, let alone seeing a whole line of them advancing as an unstoppable rake. So on top of the obvious fears, you’re also getting the unimaginable fears portrayed as well. Terrifying!
the actors went through a several weeks long bootcamp where they did physical and weapons training. There's a making of video on youtube that shows them shooting with carbines and machine guns
Fear does weird things to man , when i was in a boot camp in Europe we had a base alert ( training ) in 5 in the morning and because we were sleeping in bunkable beds the guy above me just jumped off from his bed and started sprinting towards what he was thinking is the door and he just hit the wall and literally knock himself out by hitting the wall .Ill never forget that
Possibly one of the funniest beers & breakdowns yet! Looking forward to you guys keeping the Generation Kill, Band of Brothers, & Terminal list episodes coming. Any chance you guys gonna do the Pacific soon?
Try watching "The Lost Battalion" starring Rick Schroeder. Also "All Quiet On The Western Front" (1979). I'd also recommend taking a class in European history covering up to the 1920s. You'll have a greater understanding of World War I.
As a history nerd it’s crazy for me to think, war back then was seen as a way to prove patriotism though in reality everyone got to test these new little weapons on each other.
Have y’all reacted to 1917 yet? Amazing movie! Amazing cinematography! Love the reactions guys! As someone who wasn’t in the military but grew up with military movies (grandfather rip) it’s nice to see y’all share your stories and experience with each movie or show y’all review! I hope y’all keep it up!
Technically the tourniquet has been around since 1718 and was a French discovery. So these soldiers in 1918 would have had knowledge of those techniques. Excellent video, really loved listening to you guys! 30:27
That scene with the tanks pulling up, if I recall correctly, was when the British introduced the first tanks to the world. It'd make sense why the Germans were still firing at them; oblivious as to what they were.
Those were French tanks. Tanks had been around for three years at this point. The reason they were still shooting was to force the crew to button up and there was a chance they would be able to cause spalling inside the tank.
On the CQB scene: real soldiers in WW1 quickly learned that close trench combat using rifles with bayonets fixed was too clunky. A constant stream of grenades as you steadily moved up, combined with pistols and knives/clubs was found to be much better. There's some real medieval looking trench melee weapons from the time. A really unflinching war memoir from a German soldier (Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger) has some great descriptions of the running grenade battles. Also for context, all the stuff about food was very particular to the Germans - they really struggled with supplies (at home and on the frontlines) partly because of a huge continuous naval blockade by the British.
except for Kat. you can't even understand him as a native german speaker, since he speaks so 'mumbly' - partially because the actor wears fake yellowish dentures and partially because that's supposed to fit his 'lower class character'.
Damn!!! You guys are close to 200k!!! Makes me so happy seeing you guys get the love you deserve, your content is some of the best stuff on UA-cam right now! Cheers!😎🍻
All quiet along the Potomac tonight, except here and there a stray picket, is shot as he walks on his beat to and fro, by a rifleman hid in the thicket. T’is nothing a private or two now and then, will not count in the news of the battle. Not an officer lost only one of the men, moaning out all alone the death rattle-from the US Civil War poem and great song, “All Quiet Along the Potomac,”what many say was the original inspiration for the title of Remarque’s novel.
'They Shall Not Grow Old' by Peter Jackson is well worth a watch. It uses real footage from WW1 which has been re-colored and had audio added from BBC interviews with veterans in the 1960s.
It is a good one, if not actually a "movie", per se - I watched it on the plane on my way to the UK about four years ago. In my opinion, I think it got melded with and overshadowed by "1917", which was being produced and hyped at about the same time as "T.S.N.G.O.".
Yes
I agree with this. It broke my heart seeing how few people attended the theatrical release on November 11th.
@@timothyferguson4248 facts
@@timothyferguson4248 nice
The treaty was signed at 5 AM saying cease-fire at 11 AM same day that’s why at the end the general sends the boys back out again because he still has few minutes left before the treaty actually starts, a real scumbag move
Nearly 11,000 troops died during the final hours of the war. There are various reasons why. One of them was the fear that the enemy would not abide by the armistice. Congress even investigated Gen. John J. Pershing for his role in the high number of casualties on the final day of the war. The very last person to die did so at the 11th hour. He was french and his name was Augustin Trebuchon. They put his gravestone to have the date of the 10th out of embarrassment.
And all so the date would be "memerable". Its disgusting. They didnt give two shits about the men dying while they were eating 6 course meals on a luxurious train.
Thats also why hitler became so indoctrinated and exteme. He saw all his fellow soilders being used as meat to soak up bullets and cost the other side money. Then after being fed all that ra ra patriotism, the german royalty essentially gave up, and sacraficed the next few generations of working class germans and austrians by destroying the economy, and letting inflation run away. This type of evil breeds more evil. People wonder how anyone could ever follow and support hitler, but at the time, he was one of the only voices of the average man, then they sent him to jail, which just made him a martyr.
The book written by Erich Maria Remarque was using his own experience as a soldier in the Imperial German Army. He wanted to tell everyone about the true horrors of war and the futility of war. This therefore makes it an antiwar novel making all of the film adaptations antiwar. I suggest reading the book and watching the other films. Have a great day and thank you for your service.
This is absolutely an anti-war movie, I think the part that they were confused about is that it isn’t at all an anti-soldier movie.
Those aren’t the same thing.
@bLackstar Your derision of an internationally respected combat veteran and author is, in all likelihood, based off of a later Nazi propaganda campaign to discredit Remarque as "unpatriotic" in the lead up to WWII. The book has been internationally praised by veterans for close to a hundred years now.
The man spent a month and half in the trenches and was wounded in combat. He saw plenty.
The book is pretty brutal. I read it in highschool and that was over twenty years ago and it still gives me chills thinking about certain parts of it.
@@SuperBrahimos not really. As part of his recovery Remarque went around the different aid stations and hospitals and talked with other injured soldiers. He incorporated their stories in his book. There may not have literally been a Kat, Paul, or Tjaden but they were based on real people either from Remarque or other soldiers he talked with experiences. In the 1930 movie adaption the crew brought in a bunch of WWI veterans to give the movie a very authentic feel. One of those scenes was the 2 hands on the barbed wire. One of WWI vets serving as either a technical advisor or set artist mentioned one of his experiences of the war. He remembered seeing a soldier running towards his trench during an attack. That soldier had reached the barbed wire and was trying to get through when there was an explosion near that soldier. When the dust and smoke cleared the only thing left of that soldier were his hands still griping the barbed wire. The director made sure that scene made the movie for obvious reasons. The book is also a work of fiction and not a biography or autobiography. This movie of "All Quiet on the Western Front" didn't really have much in common with the book or earlier movies. So much was missing that, I felt anyways, the punch of the book and those previous movies was gone.
They had no choice. This was a drafted war. One of the reasons why the French just gave up on fighting Germans in WW2. The entire dissilusion of WW1.
I feel as if this movie has to be strictly watched in German with English Subtitles if you're American. The whole point of the movie is to get you to sympathize with the enemy. By the end of the movie, if you really immerse yourself. You really feel for the main character, especially with that ending. And then you realize he was the "bad guy" the whole time. Just shows the true reality and brutality of war.
Weirdly was talking about this exact topic this morning way before watching this video. I recall as a kid watching the 80’s version of this movie and thinking that same thing that I was sympathizing with the “bad guy”. My dad was a veteran and told me that “there’s no bad guy, they are just soldiers doing their jobs just like we did”. Ww1 didn’t have that massive evil villain of Hitler and that “save the world” vibe it was this evil horror that simply destroyed unthinkable amount of lives. It’s easy to sympathize with any basic private soldier that’s sent into combat and is trying simply to kill just to stay alive. He views the opposing side as the bad guy and himself as the good guy. The whole concept was eye opening to me and very much shaped much of my thought as an adult
That’s what I did. Much better experience in German with English subs
@@RpgRambo Absolutely. I switched it to German early on because it just seemed weird with them having British accents.
@@brianfondofbbq in the documentary "they shall not grow old" the British and German soldiers had a lot of respect for each other. They said at one point the the germans wished they would join them and fight against the Prussians together. Really good WW1 documentary produced by Peter Jackson.
The real bad guys of the movie are the commanders.
11:39 The training in the Imperial German Army during the End of the First World War for the infantry lasted about 3 months. Then came specialist training, e.g. machine gunner. When the training was finished, it was transported by transport to a depot near the front, where the soldier was prepared for the respective front-line conditions (this took variously in some cases a few months, sometimes if you needed men it took only 2 weeks). Then you came to the corps depot for a few days and waited until the unit you belonged to had withdrawn from the front. Then the new soldiers practiced with their unit until the next frontline deployment.
The "Would you have picked this music?" is the exact thing I thought when I watched this for the first time, and then the movie really hammered home the industrialization of human life in the first world war.
The industrialization theme you mentioned is a great point, and certainly one of the enduring ironies of the Great War wherein the intersection of the chivalry, gallantry, and fighting in rank-and-file formations as in the wars in Europe before 1914 are laid starkly bare with the advances in weapons and technology that the 20th Century brought to that conflict.
"Apocalypse ww1" is a very good series with real footage of all the armies involved during the conflict not just the English point of view
I immediately thought after watching that this movie didn’t glorify war like some of my favorite war movies do. It showed the the horrors of war and young lives lost for the pride of greed of the old. When you said “ I wouldn’t want to be in this war” I thought that was the point, this was messed up and for what? They thought they were fighting for something but really just died for nothing.
yes I'm far from being the first to say it but the whole thing was a pointless bloodbath that actually made the world worse
What movie released in the past 20-30 years glorified war? Since saving private ryan every single movie I've seen shows the pointless death, destruction, and suffering
@@tylerblalack6684 Black Hawk Down, The Hurt Locker, Captain America, Battleship, Pearl Harbor, 12 Strong, Lone Survivor (Really, really dislike that one for a lot of reasons), Act of Valor (probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to glorifying war), The Patriot, etc.
There are definitely a good many. These may not all be over the top, oorah, flag waving patriot films but I'd definitely say most of these paint war in a way more heroic and fist in the air kind of way, rather than something like Born on the 4th of July which is a pure anti-war film.
If you look at the 1979 movie they actually go through basic training before they see the front line. So you can see the training they received prior to heading to the front, and also their drill instructor the legendary Ian Holm.
31:45 - I found the German general to be a little bit over the top in terms of how his ego and callousness for his troops was portrayed, but it's not too far off from the delusion that some of the highest ranking officers had after the war ended. Even Erich Ludendorff, one of the leading German commanders, insisted for years that Germany did not lose the war fair and square, and kept perpetuating the "stab in the back" myth that Germany was subverted from within rather than defeated on the battlefield. It was a misguided notion that helped to give rise to Nazi ideology and propaganda in the build-up to WW2.
Same as every General I ever met...
I kind of get it. It seems like the Germans were generally better in the war but overall they were like the underdog at the end in the grand scheme of things. They lost due to reasons other than their soldiers being effective and I can see that because of this the general develops that type of view.
absolutely and the harsh peace terms Germany was forced to accept caused universal resentment there they didn't feel they had caused the war or at least were not more more responsible than the Allied powers
@@chooseyouhandle what you wrote is true. From my understanding the Germans had better tactics and seemed to be more effective in general, and I was trying to put myself in the shoes of the generals who were thinking the same, and with their pride thinking that they could still fight on and win. However I think the reality in the end was what you wrote. I actually agree with your statements.
Well, the tactics used afterwards have nothing to do with the fictional move by this general
Also this was pre-nazi just for context on some of the comments. The Nazi party was formed after the Armistice and Germany's capitulation. If only the young Hitler who survived a gas attack in World War I took his mask off too early
yes and what if he'd been killed in that car accident after the war and what if the bomb plot had succeeded haha
Yep and much more he survived I heard crazy
This is probably one of the most eye opening perspectives of WW1. The original is pretty damn eerie that they used real war footage from the German POV. Thanks boys for this one! 🇺🇲🤘🏼
@bLackstar yeah. The only problem is the historical accuracy. However the themes of the movie and the story out ways it for me.
@bLackstar which one was unrealistic, the original or the new one?
@@BustaShenanigans the new one. It made it seem like attacks were an everyday thing. In reality over the top attacks were pretty rare throughout the years. In addition, troops would spend only 1-2 days at the very front of the trenches before being rotated. At most 1-2 weeks at the front before an equal length break.
@@neoxyte the movie only covers a period of a few days. you see paul on his 1st and 2nd day in the trenches in 1917 ... then 18 months pass until november, 7th 1918 ... on november, 11th the war was over. i know it seems way longer, but it's actually just a week.
@@neoxyteReally? Oh, wow! How interesting!
The most realistic part of this movie for me was shoving your hands in your pants to keep warm. It was 28 out, we’re soaking wet from a storm that drenched EVERYTHING at Benning, and we had no snivel gear. Hands went straight in the pants, and it helped us get through it.
Oh, wow! So Kat’s method was actually legit!
Interesting!
I think it’s important to remember that this kind of warfare was new at the time. The squad tactics we have today have their origins in the first World War. And the run and drop technique could lead to unit being pinned down due to the sheer volume of machine gun fire that would rain down on you.
Think of it like an amphibious assault where the best tactic is to get off the beach to avoid fire. The best way to get out off the enemy killzone is to get across that No Man’s Land to enemy trench. The Western Front lines by this point have been established for four years at this point, the tactics they are using are really the best they could do.
The movie doesn’t show it that well, but they did develop a method called the creeping barrage. At coordinated times, the artillery fire would cover the infantry’s advance across No Man’s Land, once the infantry got close, the artillery would cease and the men would go in.
The Creeping Barrages, while effective for covering advancing troops, was also difficult and require proper planning and synchronization. This is because if the barrages ended too early, the troops get mowed down by the enemy because they would go back to their gunning positions. If its too early, the risk of friendly fire is high and stall the attack.
This was also the prime of the cult of the offensive, so that didn't help things either
_Canada_ developed the Creeping Barrage to absolutely crush the German at Vimy Ridge after the French and British struggled for months at the time. Creeping barrages are extremely hard to pull off since the infantry needs to follow extremely close to the barrage, like, only minutes after the shell explodes the, even less. Canada was able to pull it off since they practiced _extensvly_ for weeks and weeks.
@ 26:39-Man, I'm a gamer, and I remember playing "Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad". I cleared a room with a bolt-action rifle. It felt so badass. What a great game that was.
sure the game was much more fun than actual battle
At 7:40- When I went to basic 1979, a lot of our equipment was secondhand many of the guys had helmets with bullet or shrapnel dents in them. Pack frames older than us, ALL of our weapons systems were from fallen men etc. Even our C-Rats (MREs) were marked 1945!
yes understand late 70s was one of absolute low points for US military partly due to vietnam defeat luckily Old Mother Reagan changed all that
@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd AMEN!
The Sonic Connection was a brilliant observation...GENIOUS!! Great job guys.
@M&M yeah but i'd rather not get shoved in the locker room for the equivalent of being a nerd emoji.
@@kovacsnovak6745 is called being respectful not a nerd. Like calling someone who fought in ww1 is sure way to get yourself knocked out.
Calling those germans in ww1 nazis is disrespect to the highest order. They had nothing to do with ww2 and the nazis so why should they be labeled as them?
Those were REAL people that fought and died there is nothing you can nerd about when it comes to real history, you either be respectfull or remain a dipshit
The Field Marshall was Von Hindenburg…not a Nazi, but Field Marshall for the German Empire.
The average German soldier got 450 hrs of basic training before going to the front. Americans apparently got six months total. My great grandfather was in the French army and was in the trenches for 4 years. I still have his metals and some of his paperwork documenting his service. He later went on to storing and hiding weapons for the French Resistance in WWII. You wouldn’t know it looking at his photos but he was a tough guy.
don't doubt he was but heard after war half the french population claimed to have been in resistance NO not accusing beloved granddad of that
@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd yeah I heard that too. A lot of them were afraid of being labeled collaborators with the Nazis. There were quite a few of them too. My grandmother told me how the young women who slept with nazi soldiers would get harassed and their heads shaved forcefully. She was resistance too but she hated how people treated one another. It’s amazing what people will do to survive when they are desperate.
4:29 start of movie review
12:00 From reading the book, it was a couple of months of basic training with an emphasis on formalities (how do I dress correctly, how do I march correctly, how do I turn correctly, how do I make my bed correctly, how to go from which formation into which other formation, ...).
"Danger Close: the battle of long tan" is a good Aussie made Vietnam war movie to watch if you get bored, based on true events.
yes the youngems don't know about the role our Aussie mates payed in that war
As a German with a very big family and several family members who fought in WW2 and WW1 (alone the grandfather of my dad had 11 brothers and 1 sister and 9 of his brothers died in WW2 - only he, his ister and one brother survived) - but also someone who has family and ancestry in the USA, Australia, Prussia and Poland - I always try to see historical stuff as objective as I can. I always try to understand every perspective. Great review of you guys. 2 weeks ago when my grandmother threw a party for her 85th birthday I took several photo albums with photos from the 1910s - 1960s home. Super interesting... but also very sad (because of many photos from tombs of family members). The family of my grandmother (my mothers side of the family) comes from Friesoythe, Barßel etc. in Northern Germany (just google Friesoythe WW2) and her husbands family came from Prussia and Poland - my grandfather (dad of my mum) flew during WW2 from the Russians AND the Germans.
that story about the honey packet reminded me of when I had to spend a holiday weekend in jail my cellmate shared everything he had with me from powdered juice mix to candy and I did the same it was awesome how unselfish he was it taught me something
Hardship often bands people together. Luxury breeds selfishness
almost makes me want to do some time
I would have been a jerk and tossed that shit back to him.
Every prison channel on YT says you should never accept gifts.
Im pretty sure the tank scene was to show the first tanks that were ever used on the battlefield. So the infantry had no idea how to deal with them, and the tankers had no real tactics, just drive through them. Turns out in the early 1900s, just driving through them was a pretty effective plan.
No 3 second rush in an open field. I got reamed by an NCO at 2/75 for doing a 300 yard dash at Fort Lewis 😂
what exactly do you mean when you say he "reamed" you
30:30 Tourniquets were known during WW I. They were usually so thin that they produced irreversable tissue damage when applied and tighened. Lots of aputations had to be made not because of tourniquets being applied for too long a time but because of the tissue and nerve damage inflicted by the cutting by the thin tourniquets.
I would argue a movie that accurately portrays the senselessness .. the carnage, the him-and-not-me, the brutality - is an anti-war movie. Not politically, but philosophically. Maybe that’s the vibe they were going for, calling it that. Thanks for the video
"Blueprint for Armageddon" by Dan Carlin is incredible and worth a listen if you're a history buff
if it talks about how the war started would be interested keep reading how some people contend the war was avoidable others say it was inevitable would really like to know the truth
@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd It goes into the comedy of errors that lead to the successful assassination of the Arch Duke which was the most immediate cause of the war. The fuse was lit by the competition between the great powers of Europe, it was only a matter of time before a war. No one could have known the industrial scale of the horror though. The Carlin podcast did go into early arms treaties that were an attempt to limit that. It is worth the listen!
As a Filipino-Japanese American, learning about the Bataan Death March in college was one of the most horrifying, eye-opening things I ever learned about. I know my Japanese grandparents were immigrants, and I never learned too much about my Filipino family members, but hearing just how evil and despicable Japan can be in wartime made me somewhat disgusted. And the fact that they never apologized for any war crimes kinda pisses me off.
The book and movie were originally made to discourage war by showing the reality, it was written by a veteran of the German side of the war; the first movie had real ww1 German soldiers advising the entire movie to get that point across
2:13
A great book about how infantry tactics evolved from linear warfare to maneuver warfare is "On Infantry" by John A. English and Bruce I. Gudmundsson. A bit of dry readying but it details how the Germans pioneered 'sturmtruppen' tactics in 1915 which formed the basis for the modern fire and maneuver tactics used today.
About the uniform recycling, by 1916 Germany's economy was so bad by the blockade that they were making paper clothes for civilians due the lack of cloth, uniforms needed to be reused all the time.
Gentlemen to answer your question about the training try watching the 1970s version of all quiet in the western front. It does show what kind of training they were kinda getting
AQOTWF is brilliant movie. Watched it 4 times and it gets better each time. Best movie.
Regarding the training these kids received by the end of the war was minimal, the army that marched into Belgium in 1914 was one of the best trained and equipped armies in history, but that didn’t last long on any side. The attrition rate was too high to keep a professional army, the strategy was to just send bodies and hope the other side is ground down enough to accept a favorable treaty. Also you mentioned if there were better tactics when crossing no man’s land. There really wasn’t with the extreme change in technology and the killing power it was capable of. The commanders weren’t ready or understood how much had changed so bayonet charges into machine guns continued. They did try creeping barrages with there own arty in front to slowly advance there troops while also destroying barb wire, but it rarely worked as planned.
Essentially they reverted to Napoleonic Tactics until they realized that wasn’t working anymore with the age of machine guns.
i remember a professor from college saying that WWI was a 1900s army, in terms of having machine guns and tanks towards the end, fighting with 1800s tactics. Generals believed that the reason bayonet charges failed was due to lack of conviction/courage so the solution was send more men and tell them to be better essentially.
One thing to note is that the events in the book started in 1914. There was very much an enthusiasm for going to war on all sides at the start of the war. That vanished quickly however and the scene at the school would not have happened as it did in this movie in 1917. Also I believe that the war hadn't ended yet during the last attack. It was set to end on 1100 o'clock. Naturally it sometimes happened that commanders on all sides ordered attacks right before the armistice to gain that little extra piece of ground or to have a successful operation in their record. At that time however, the german enlisted men were starting to mutineer and it is doubtable that an attack on this scale happened.
Yep, the new movie was VERY disappointing to me! The book was waaay more realistic!
@@AntonAdelson really? That’s why it was disappointing to you? The timeline mistakes that barely anybody but a history buff would notice? The movie is haunting, it showed the nastiest parts of war and how futile it is. But the timeline is what ruined it for you?
Furthermore, the book does not mention this attack at all.
@@coiboyify Oh no, it's not just a minor timeline mistake! Have you read the book? It is very good at documenting the first excitement from the war. The patriotic fervor. And then how slowly, year after year, that excitement and patriotism turns into despair, depression, and pure trauma. The movie is just a gore porn. Anyone who's familiar with war will see how it's exaggerated. And death and gore is not even the worst part of wars. Worst part of wars is how politicians manipulate people to support wars. And also the pure trauma from living in such environment for 4 years is worse than 5000 people dying from 3 or 4 battles. The book showed very well how everyone in that war died long before their bodies died.
We barely got to know the characters as well. That's why when they die it's nowhere as impactful as in the book.
Look, let's make an experiment. Read the plot synopsis here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front and tell me how different it is.
@@AntonAdelson you seem to forget that a film is only 2 hours and in no way, shape or form can a film show absolutely everything described in a book. Because of that, things need to be compressed, changed, added to help it make sense for the average Netflix viewer. No film adaptation will ever come close to the book and trying to compare them as deeply as you are just does a disservice to both forms of media when they both have a different point to them
Someone recently pointed out that the survivors sons fought in ww2. I had never thought of it like that and that’s pretty heavy
You asked about the tactics of covering that open ground between trenches, that was a smart catch. It was actually the exact origin of the small unit tactics you learned in basic.
The germans pioneered “infiltration tactics” (per wikipedia) in that war, using small elite units with low-level command autonomy (“mission-style tactics” per wikipedia, a translation of the original german term) and what you now call bounding overwatch to recognize and immediately sieze opportunities and advance from cover to cover, leapfrogging until they were close enough to penetrate and start flanking.
CQB was invented there as well, the same Germans who developed those infiltration tactics realized that what they needed most were short range weapons and explosives, shotguns and submachine guns and grenades. They called these infiltration and CQB soldiers “stormtroopers”.
In fact those tactics made as big a difference in ending trench warfare as the tanks did.
Combined arms didn’t exist yet so follow-up tended to fail. Artillery couldn’t move up to support successful breaches, and cavalry at the time wasn’t designed for deep strikes through such holes.
That led the same Germans to later figure out mechanized and armored cavalry and combined arms, which combined with small unit tactics and low-level command led them to be so heinously effective in WWII, and while they were super on the wrong side of that, western militaries adapted the entire concept and are now designed completely around those doctrines.
So this movie is an interesting case study in what all of your modern tactics are designed to overcome.
And Special Forces exists because US, British, and Canadian innovators realized that all of this created a need for units that could operate effectively behind the enemy frontline, since the problem of reaching and penetrating that frontline was effectively solved.
The inevitable endpoint of that progress is units that can bypass the contested areas entirely and strike directly at enemy strategic centers like capitols, which I suppose is part of where our tier one units like delta and SOAR, and special activities, came from.
We no longer think in terms of trench warfare because tactical innovation has led us to a point where the smartest way to fight an army of 500,00 dudes with bayonets like on the beaches of Taiwan is to skip them entirely and instead fly a helicopter the size of a Volvo into downtown Beijing carrying a squad of CQB enthusiasts to capture the politburo.
That all began in WWI with like-minded German enthusiasts seeing this trench nonsense and working the problem instead of just accepting it, exactly the way you guys started to.
So, the real answer to how to cross that ground… turns out to be having the right mindset.
That's a hell of a write-up, and it was a damn good one. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I'm sure you are quite right in recognizing German innovation in warfare. Morality and ethical considerations aside, they implemented sound strategy and efficient tactics with cunning and aggressiveness - it's no surprise they were so effective, in retrospect. As you've said, it's all about mindset.
Well... trench warfare isn't over at all. Ukraine is a great example of this
I believe battle of Vicksburg was the one of the first instances of combined arms used by Grant wasn’t it?
Also, I think Stalingrad would be a worse CQB situation because some of the guys are equipped with submachine guns, but the majority had bolt actions. Imagine clearing a hallway some German with an MP40 guarding it while your armed with a Mosin Nagant.
Probably one of my favourite movies of all time is shot from the German perspective. Das Boot is an amazing film
I second that emotion though recommend seeing the shorter version it made the list of films that prove there's no God haha
One thing, there were no nazis in ww1. Ww1 was strange because it had no definitive 'bad guy'
You should've included the part where he shanks a French soldier in a trench and has to watch him die slowly and regret what he did.
Fun fact: the original movie was banned from many theaters in Europe because it was seen as pro-German but the nazi party attacked theaters that played it in Germany because they saw it as anti-German. It was an incredibly controversial movie at the time (partially because there was a scene with a man and woman with sexual implications) mostly for how violent it was and how unpatriotic it was. Also some of the cast for the original movie were American ww1 vets which helped give it some authenticity.
The treaty was signed in the early morning, but the signors wanted the war to end exactly at 11:11 11/11/18 because Europeans love this poetic shit, so officially the war hasn't ended. That general wanted to "make the most" out of the time he has left with the boys.
Comment on the beards. Worked with a mechanic with a longe beard. His wife loved it and was not ever going to cut it. After a couple months it was short and tight. Upon the questions he was tired of washing the grease out of it. AND it stuck out too far from his welding helment. Caught on fire twice.
Great episode guys. Fun and informative as always. Thanks for all the work you do to bring us these shows Shawn, Kurt and Able 👍
Much appreciated!
@@FNGACADEMY They shall never grow old
Originally written by a German WW1 veteran Eric Remarque, “All Quiet On The Western Front” was seen as an anti-war piece because of it’s realistic depiction of war.
Most of the time, when people talked about war(back then), it was like those old guys at the beginning of the movie.
The whole reason he wrote the book was because he wanted people to understand the seriousness of war. People say it’s “anti-war”, because there are no hero’s or villains created by the writer, just protagonists and antagonists.
Remarque writes a prologue for his book, remarking “This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure”
Hope that helps, great video 👍🔥🤘
About that running attack scene: the old SOP was to advance as fast as possible to get out of dropping artillery shells.
24:58 they used to walk the artillery in to give them some what of a chance.
I highly recommend watching the original 1930 black and white version by Louis Milestone AND read the novel by Erich Maria Remarque.
Both are classics.
in the original movie they did show the basic training. they cut it out this time around for more important scenes .
Guys, this is a WW1 movie. Nazis were in WW2. But that was pretty funny just the wrong war though. Also, have you guys done Inglorious Bastards? If not, I think you should, if anything just for the comedy. Although, there's a scene in the movie where there's a Nazi soldier, and he gets hit with the glove gun which was a real thing by the way. It was developed for the Office Of Strategic Service,O.S.S. which was the precursor of the CIA.
yeah heard OSS had all kinds of crazy stuff like that and now there's museum devoted to it
Did they seriously think that there where Nazis in World War 1?
About the training with the gas mask:
I have no clue what the actual training in 1917 was.
But, I have been a soldier in Germany, twenty years ago.
So, I can tell you how we were trained.
As a german solder, you are carrying a ABC emergency reaction pack.
That includes a sealed poncho, security gloves, sealing materials and that mask.
In basic training we were drilled till each and every man could put on the complete gear, and perfectly seal it, in under four seconds.
This training was due to the experience of the German soldiers, in WW1.
ps. ABC = atomic (nuclear), biological and chemical
For the part about their being a better way for them to cross no man's land then just sprinting, they did have creeping barrages that were meant to clear no man's land and suppress enemy trenches ahead of advancing soldiers. Soldiers also took advantage of any terrain features such as shell holes.
yeah, but the enemy knew pretty well, what a creeping barrage was for. so, they fired their artillery as well to decimate the incoming infantry. in a way it sometimes was safer to not use your own artillery to surprise the enemy.
Need to watch the 1928 All quite on the western front version. Follows the book and shows the horror of war.
It's Hayden from Hesperia. Great video guys. I'm proud of you guys. I'm not the only one who made a good life for them selves who came from Hesperia. That place is crazy. Love you guys!
Huge congrats on the sponsor Buck! You love to see it. Also very happy to see Kurt back again - thank you guys (Abel included, clown-car driver he is) for the great entertainment! And Kurt's medic story had me actually laughing, the guy with the shovel busting open his buddy and the medics thinking "Hey we finally get to treat someone!"
Very excited for the beard reclamation news! Thanks for spreading the good word, Buck.
My Grandfather died in this war.
He passed away before my father was born.
It was a very rough war, it was like two periods colliding. Horses moving guns, and then tanks and machine guns. Brutal.
I enjoy y’all’s commentary.
thank you!
@@FNGACADEMY Rules of Engagement, Basic , and the general Daughter. Classic post 9-11 military movies
The reason this story is described as an anti-war film is not just because it depicts the horror of war, but because it also depicts its futility: absolutely nothing was accomplished by all this sacrifice.
Films/shows like "Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers", or "The Pacific" portray the horror of war, but there is also a sense that it was all worth it in the end. Evil regimes were defeated. The good guys won. Even in "Black Hawk Down", while the larger mission might have failed, the intentions were good. There was a worthwhile purpose. But in "All Quiet on the Western Front", it's just stupidity and ego. All the suffering of these men is ultimately pointless.
Stoked you guys did this movie, awesome listening you guys talk about
Man, it's funny how you said "..In a few short weeks we'll all be marching on Paris", because in the next war that's literally how long it took. Germany just pieced France up and bing-bang-boom.
yes still can't understand how that happened not like the french didn't have enough men guns tanks etc
@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd they broke through a forest the french didn't belive they could with fast light tanks. The french though the war would play out like it did in ww1 they did build the magiot line to stop the germans from breaking through. But what they didn't expect is the speed that the germans used. Like they had covered the border with belgium because they knew the germans would try the same tactic they used in ww1 with taking the lowlands and attacking france from the north. But they somehow broke through the ardennes with such speed that they could encircle vast armies before they even knew what was happening.
I need this version on physical format, such a good movie.
Nice to see you again Kurt!!!! Thanks for the great content.
35:00 Yup, that's what I think when I'm thinking of Florida
@28:00 This was supposedly the first deployment of tanks in this area. They saw the tanks literally for the first time.
The original 1930s movie was and anti war movie made by a WW1 vet. It’s supposed to be about the young cats getting coerced into gladly fighting for their country while the old heads stay back safe and support more war. It was also made in the perspective of the Germans. Pretty ahead of it’s time nearing a 100 year old movie
One big thing with this movie, with the Peace Treaty, it was actually the other way around, the Germans where beat and morale was so low and supplies where so lacking they where not even capable of attacks like this at this point in the war. It was actually the other way around. The German negotiators where begging the French to have an armistice while the final peace was being negotiated but the Allies wanted to test out their new weapons before the war ended and even when the peace treaty was signed, the Allies insisted that it would only come into effect a few days later and all during this time they continued to order attacks.
yeah, but that's exactly what the movie shows.
The movie Stalingrad 1993 and Generation war are also great movies and has some realistic battles scenes
yes stalingrad was one of most incredible battles not just of war but all human history recall reading early history of it there are many more now
You guys should compare this to the original 1929 German book this is based upon, and then the first movie made of this in 1930; then you'll understand why it's called an anti-war movie. There were so many killed in WWI that in the decade after they were referred to as the Lost Generation (those killed, and those who survived but forever changed and deeply cynical, which is the generation writers like Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Maugham came out of). There was a very famous and scandalous silent French movie made during the war (filmed on a lot of real battlefields) called J'Accuse that implicitly accuses the French generals of mass murder of the French soldiers with their mind-numbingly stupid tactics and refers to the very near total French Army mutiny in 1917. A lot of fascinating history in that period.
Thank you for sharing that great information. I hadn't considered that generation of writers being 'spawned' so to speak from the brutal reality of "modern warfare" (obviously not modern by our standards, but by theirs - with the developments in weapons technology) - but those authors are from that generations and indeed seem to collectively share a sense of deep cynicism. I'd also never heard of J'Accuse, looking forward to learning about it.
@@1blueeye J'Accuse, filmed at the time, was filmed with the cooperation of the French High Command because the filmmaker led them to believe he was filming a patriotic film to raise the morale. When the movie played in the theater houses it caused a great scandal, particularly in the final scene. In that scene the filmmaker had the use of a sizeable French unit that he had fall in to ranks, on the impression that the scene would stir the hearts of soldiers and civilians alike with the troops looking smart in uniformed ranks. However, as the filmmaker had the camera raise up on a boom and pull back from the ranks, the viewer could then see that the formation filled the screen spelling the phrase "J'Accuse" (a bitter condemnation in French, and hence the film title). It is a powerful scene, even a century later, directed at the French military leaders for their repeated suicidal tactics. It was probably 30 years ago that I watched it, but I still remember it clearly.
@oboogie2 wow. A powerful film indeed... I can understand how there would be incredibly mixed sentiments about a film like that, even decades later. Thank you again for teaching me about something quite interesting and for taking the time to elaborate!
Shout out to you guys for another great episode!
When it comes to the training those soldiers would have received, they would have come with some generic basic training, by 1918 probably including some general lessons in trench warfare.
In fact, trench warfare is something still being taught by the German military. Back in 2011, we have spend some hours attacking trenches and / or defending them. The tactics you described actually were there. By 1918, you would not have seen such mass attacks anymore. The German Army introduced around 1916/17 the so called "Stroßtrupptaktik", that means they were attacking using smaller squats, which had greater chances of survival out there. I can recommend to you guys the book by Ernst Jünger "In Stahlgewittern" (Storm of steel), where he talks in detail about his experiences being the officer in charge of such a squat.
I can confirm that they would not just have been blindly running towards the enemy trenches, at least not that late in the conflict. The training scheme I went through (I suppose based on the war experiences) taught us to run from trench to hole 1 in the nature to tree 1, to hole 2 etc. in order to advance with as few casualties as possible towards the enemy position.
Please refrain from calling a German First World War General a "Nazi", this is not just unhistorical, this is not cool and somewhat offensive.
All in all, keep up the good work and cheers and praise for sharing the experiences of us veterans!
Thank you for your service!
Rgds
Fabian
DEU Air Force Ground Defense Squat Leader (ret.)
Dr. Egghead isn’t a Nazi. That party didn’t exist until some years later. The war wasn’t over until 11am on that day. There were several attacks right up until 11am. At the point of that attack the war was still very much active and all parties knew that.
It’s considered anti war simply due to that humanity. The book was written in the 1920’s I believe so it was very soon after the wars end. This movie was great and brutal but of the remakes of this movie it really missed the opportunity to be true to the book. Paul in the book was simply killed on some random day in October and that’s where the real sadness of the whole thing came in simply because there wasn’t that “war is over thing” he just died on a random day during the last year of the war.
They show thier basic training in the original movie. This was like the third version of the movie.
Will you ever react to the videos of that Easter Truce moment where both sides on the front said "fuck this war, it's Christmas" and the high command on both sides shit themselves because the infantry started to think for itself at how stupid this all was.
yes the Eastern Truce was a great opportunity lost as often happens in war and life
13:28 I had to come back a few hours after I watched this, because it occurred to me: What would this dude's casualty card be for training purposes?..lol
Now I'm 77. My grandfather was gassed in WW1 in Belgium. But his life-long injury was from the medical mistake made once he got to the army hospital.
I’m pretty sure the original movie used as many WWI vets they could find to get the reactions right.
Ya gotta think too from their perspective with the Tank scene that like how they didn’t know about tourniquets and such, they probably have never seen or heard anything about a tank existing, let alone seeing a whole line of them advancing as an unstoppable rake. So on top of the obvious fears, you’re also getting the unimaginable fears portrayed as well. Terrifying!
very
the actors went through a several weeks long bootcamp where they did physical and weapons training. There's a making of video on youtube that shows them shooting with carbines and machine guns
Fear does weird things to man , when i was in a boot camp in Europe we had a base alert ( training ) in 5 in the morning and because we were sleeping in bunkable beds the guy above me just jumped off from his bed and started sprinting towards what he was thinking is the door and he just hit the wall and literally knock himself out by hitting the wall .Ill never forget that
Possibly one of the funniest beers & breakdowns yet! Looking forward to you guys keeping the Generation Kill, Band of Brothers, & Terminal list episodes coming. Any chance you guys gonna do the Pacific soon?
Another great video!
Try watching "The Lost Battalion" starring Rick Schroeder. Also "All Quiet On The Western Front" (1979). I'd also recommend taking a class in European history covering up to the 1920s. You'll have a greater understanding of World War I.
as history major euro 20th century is my favorite era
I think it’s “anti war” because it shows the harsh truth of a soldier and the realities of war and those together make the viewer want no war anywhere
Precisely. Without glorifying and without any heroism, these are the essential points to make for an anti-war film...
As a history nerd it’s crazy for me to think, war back then was seen as a way to prove patriotism though in reality everyone got to test these new little weapons on each other.
Keep killin it!!! Much love from Oregon!!!!
This video just reminded me I could have switched the Audio to English! I've been watching it in German with English subtitles! 😂
you must be old like me I'm not tech savvy either
Have y’all reacted to 1917 yet? Amazing movie! Amazing cinematography! Love the reactions guys! As someone who wasn’t in the military but grew up with military movies (grandfather rip) it’s nice to see y’all share your stories and experience with each movie or show y’all review! I hope y’all keep it up!
haven't seen it yet and it got good reviews though the parts of it I have seen kind of look like a video game which I guess can happen with CGI
Technically the tourniquet has been around since 1718 and was a French discovery. So these soldiers in 1918 would have had knowledge of those techniques. Excellent video, really loved listening to you guys! 30:27
Great review....still holding out for Hamburger Hill
Yoooooooo Dope That You Are Doing This Movie
That scene with the tanks pulling up, if I recall correctly, was when the British introduced the first tanks to the world. It'd make sense why the Germans were still firing at them; oblivious as to what they were.
Those were French tanks. Tanks had been around for three years at this point.
The reason they were still shooting was to force the crew to button up and there was a chance they would be able to cause spalling inside the tank.
Hey, if you ever see this: I'm about to watch this for like the 4th time. I keep coming back to it. Banger movie, banger video.
i cant imagine what it was like back then but the film gives us just a tiny taste its crazy
On the CQB scene: real soldiers in WW1 quickly learned that close trench combat using rifles with bayonets fixed was too clunky. A constant stream of grenades as you steadily moved up, combined with pistols and knives/clubs was found to be much better. There's some real medieval looking trench melee weapons from the time. A really unflinching war memoir from a German soldier (Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger) has some great descriptions of the running grenade battles.
Also for context, all the stuff about food was very particular to the Germans - they really struggled with supplies (at home and on the frontlines) partly because of a huge continuous naval blockade by the British.
Just bought this movie. Definitely going to watch it in German. I took German in college and can understand it pretty well. Subtitles help lol.
except for Kat. you can't even understand him as a native german speaker, since he speaks so 'mumbly' - partially because the actor wears fake yellowish dentures and partially because that's supposed to fit his 'lower class character'.
This was a great video!
Damn!!! You guys are close to 200k!!! Makes me so happy seeing you guys get the love you deserve, your content is some of the best stuff on UA-cam right now! Cheers!😎🍻
All quiet along the Potomac tonight, except here and there a stray picket, is shot as he walks on his beat to and fro,
by a rifleman hid in the thicket. T’is nothing a private or two now and then, will not count in the news of the battle. Not an officer lost only one of the men, moaning out all alone the death rattle-from the US Civil War poem and great song, “All Quiet Along the Potomac,”what many say was the original inspiration for the title of Remarque’s novel.
I always learn something new when reading these comments