I once met my grand grand father when i was a kid. He fought in ww1 on the french side. He participated to an assault. A shied felt nerby him and knocked him out. He woke up in a hole in the ground in the no man's land between the french and the german. Half his foot was gone and a dead body was there with him. Each time he tried to leave the hole, a bullet was flying toward him. He spent almost a week there with a dead guy. Fortunately, the french took the german trench so he was safe. But he had some mental issues and one foot missing.
@@grahamnoble4887 As long as it rains, he'd have no shortage of water in a shell crater. If not, two canteens might be enough. Not eating for a week isn't healthy, but it's very unlikely to kill you. He presumably bandaged the injured foot, so that won't kill him either. It's definitely plausible. Much weirder things happened during the war.
What made ww1 and trench warfare so horrible is that they say it happened in a time when industry and technology surpassed mankind's ability to wage war. They were still using old tactics of massed infantry charging at enemy fortifications, but modern weapons like machine guns and quick firing artillery stopped all that instantly
@@jjrj8568 1915* Tactics were always evolving during the war, though not enough to break stalemate. They adopted the creeping barrage (used before in the balkan wars), all sides used infiltration tactics. Aerial warfare passed from pilots throwing rocks at each other to dogfights with machine guns and bombers. The entente introduced tanks, while both the French and Germans started using defense in depht tactics (extremely effective by the latter) All sides introduced steel helmets Gas Warfare was used by everyone and gas masks had to be given to every single soldier and even horses
The last stages of the American Civil War fully prefigured everything that would happen in WW1. But sadly, rather than taking any lesson from that, European observers just assumed that the trench warfare was a result of the incompetency of American generalship.
My father in law told a story about how his Grandfather was a veteran of WW1 and only spoke once about it saying "I had to bayonet another young boy my age...we were both horribly afraid."
I met a man who told me "I don't remember the first man I killed, I only remember the last man I killed. I saw a line of Germans in the fog and shot the last one in the back with a bazooka. To my horror a British officer ran forward said that they were prisoners. I went down and apologized to the other German prisoners."
You can see here the foolish tactics used by both sides. When General Monash took charge of the Australian troops, he planned attacks against the enemy with accuracy. A British General once asked him "how many men do you expect to loose in this battle " ?. Monash replied "none". The British General laughed and said "you have to expect to loose at least 20%". Monash replied back "And that's why you can't win this war".
@@will9605 And, despite his rather unsavoury nickname, the British under Marshal Haig. When you actually read up on him, the man had some revolutionary ideas for warfare.
The director using the device of running the same scene twice was a statement in itself. It demonstrated the futility of trench warfare and war in general.
The director's thoughts were more on saving money using a scene already shot that the audience wouldn't pick up on in the theater runs of the era. Now using multiple cameras at different places and angles was innovative And money saving.
@@constitution_8939 _"Now using multiple cameras at different places and angles was innovative And money saving."_ Should see Wings! from 1928, the Infantry battle scene was filmed with multiple cameras, so were the aerial dogfights. Multiple cameras is nothing new in movies.
WW1. My grandfather was there. He was born in 1887. Italian front, Alpini Fiamme Verdi. Only assaults almost every day. No words to explain. He has been a survivor but on that Battlefields has died a little piece of his soul. RIP. MV
"Let's see. They charged us and we slaughtered them on our barbed wire. So it's our turn to charge them and get slaughtered on their barbed wire." - Right... off we go...
@Johnny Wise All of that is no doubt true but the casualty figures are mind-numbingly astronomical and off the scale. The British had 60,000 casualties on the first day of The Somme with around 20,000 of them dead. Once we were in it it was impossible to get out of but those kind of casualty figures are just unbelievable, and they were not isolated. It just blows the mind to the modern man to look back at those times and wonder wtf were they thinking of when it all kicked off.
Yes, it holds up well against the original 1930 movie. Very impressive considering it was a TV movie made at a fraction of the cost of a big studio production.
@@notreallydavid Yes, the original version was made-for-TV. It was a short time later shortened for cinema release which is what you are thinking of. I have both the TV and cinema versions (the TV version is around 30 minutes longer).
I think the problem with the overall movement of all the extras and maybe even the professional actors is the lack of urgency. They are moving too casually. Look at Kat at 3:50 in the lower half of the screen. It seems like he thought it will be cut out or something.
Quick up front- haven't watched the movie. But dying a quick and pointless death really sums up WW1. Just death, no honor in it, just pointless... pointless death.
In real life you can die and fall in very awkward position or sometimes you don't die instantly, like for example if a bullet rip your arm off you will be in shock and that can result in a very dramatic scene or you can end up instantly blacking out and die out of blood in the meantime, but yes film of course need to exaggerate this it's completely normal.
I lost a great-uncle in May 1918. I was able to find the action report from his sergeant who said he was escorting him through the trenches to his position when a German artillery round landed close by and killed him instantly. He had only arrived on the front lines 2 days earlier. What's even sadder is that he was 26 years old, married with 2 children and had been drafted months earlier but Uncle Sam didn't care.
...LET'S REMEMBER THAT UNCLE SAM DIDN'T START THAT GODDAM WAR- AND THE U.S. WAS LITERALLY DRAGGED INTO THAT WAR!!! IF YOU WANT TO GET MAD AT SOMEONE- THEN GET MAD AT THE DAM KAISER!!!
@@captainamerica6525 ...GERMANY WAS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIGHTING ON THE WESTERN FRONT- AND THE KAISER LITERALLY COULD HAVE STOPPED WW1 BY SIMPLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN IT ANY FURTHER!!! AND IF GERMANY HAD UNILATERALLY PULLED OUT- WW1 WOULD HAVE GROUND TO A HALT!!!
All three are very good in their own way and you can watch them all and find differences without losing the basic tract of the story. Personally I'd put 1 - 1930, 2 - 1979 and 3 - 2022 but they are all excellent and everyone should watch them.
Even seeing the events, it's hard to imagine what it would have been like, and even harder to convey in a film the sheer desperate panic that these young men must have been faced with seeing a wave of the enemy rushing toward them.
I had several family members fight in the Great War. Two didn’t survive. One as a kid, we joked that he was “cuckoo” but I found out later it was what is now called PTSD. Two would not talk about it at all. Now I just cannot imagine the hell they went through. The futility of war
I was born in 1951 in the east end of Glasgow, in the old testaments, the old man through the wall from us had a single end ,out side toilet, he was gassed in 1917 ,as children growing up we heard the poor man coughing day and night, I saw him spitting up blood, the poor man never complained, he came home to a land fit for heroes, no he didn't, the houses were filled with mice, rats, fleas and lice, thay were not fit for human habitation, my own father was shot twice in Dunkirk, made it back to Britain, got better than sent to north Africa, he lost a good part of his left arm and left eye, when he returned home from the war he was given a small pension which was taxed, him and my mum raised 7 children in a room and kitchen, out side toilet, the same mice, rats fleas and lice as the old warrior from the first world war, so please stop and think, don't let your daughters and sons go to fight a rich man's war ,it's nothing to do with freedom, but to make the rich and upper class wealthier and keep making profits, please don't sacrifice another young generation to die for a government that doesn't have respect for the people who defend this country, let the government ministers and families go and fight, it will be a quick war ,protect our young, and let the rich fight their own battles, stay safe and God bless.
SPOT ON; IN MY COUNTRY WE HAVE A GOVERNING ELITE AS WELL., THEY MAKE PERSONAL FORTUNES WHILE THE COUNTRY SUFFERS AS A WHOLE. THE BUSH AND CHENEY FAMILIES, MITT ROMNEY AND THE COUNTRY CLUB REPUBLICANS. WAR PROFITEERS. ENOUGH SAID.
One of my uncles was in the 3rd wave hitting Juno Beach. The landing craft wee 100 yards apart. He got 50miles inland before catching a shell splinter in his leg. That sent him home.
I fought in three wars not for the government or my queen because when i left school i like my father could not find work anywhere so i enlisted like he did he lost two brothers.the war to end all wars what a crock of shit with that statement were still killing each other and why it is the only thing that WE ARE ANYTHING GOOD AT WE LIKE TO MUCH an ex ROYAL MARINE
@@totallynotacommie4767 IIRC, a British soldier was executed for disobeying an order in action when the issue was a nearby shell burst meant he couldn't actually hear it :(
I liked the final bits, when it was in slow motion to reflect on what had happened. Shows the world the horror and destruction of modern warfare, all affecting the lives of young men
according to hollywood the british and americans (15% of the allied soldiers) did everything while the french (85% of the front) were busy eating croissants
French and German high commanders kept on throwing the soldiers senseless in front of machine guns without any protection such as armor plates or shields. 😖
First of armor plates and shields would have weighed down the soldiers that artillery could easily pick them of. Second what you are describing is war. War is killing, killing your enemy period. The causes of war and its strategy may be debated but the former still stands. The only difference between ww1 and previous wars was size and scale.
You'd need a ridiculously heavy armor plate to stop just 1 8mm Mauser or French bullet at the average 100-200m fighting range. Wasn't very practical Germans tried some stuff of this kind. Lookup Sappenpazer or German WW1 armor.
While WWI was horrifying, High Command weren't just throwing soldiers around without care. They were constantly trying to figure out ways to break the stalemate. The Germans had Stormtrooper Tactics and the Allies soon developed Combined Arms and fast-firing Artillery to the point that the Germans couldn't defend anymore. They dug in, but the combined efforts of Tanks, Infantry, Artillery and Planes ensured that any defence merely prolonged the inevitable. The 100 Days Offensive is proof of it.
@@foreverblueclassics I know my great grandpa (he was the son of my would be great uncle) came back from the war and was so discussed with the Nazis he wouldn't say a word about the war.
One of the most accurate WW1 movies made, weapons, uniforms, context, all correct, Few movies WW1, ever get it right, The French in this Movie are shown to be stubborn, brave capable soldiers, which they were, the Germans were scared of the French.
The rifles used by the German soldiers in the film are model 1903 Turkish Mausers, in reality they would be using the German Mauser Gewehr 1898. The bayonet is also the Turkish 1903 pattern, which is distinctly different from the German model.
This was like a Hallmark movie. Bloodless deaths... Written histories and silent films as well as the graves of the fallen and the remaining shell holes and bunkers tell the real tale.
There is a lot of that. The book is incredibly graphic, especially considering the author was only at the front for about a month before being badly wounded. Can't really show on TV the bodies of men who have been blown out of their clothes and half into a tree (the other half was on the ground) by the blast of a trench mortar, though.
My great great grandfather was a shoeman for the horses and proved his worth at 18 on April 5, 4 days b4 the Germans invaded Norway. Not a lot of horses in the movie April 9th but Gustoff Carlson was in the background putting fresh shoes in record time on every horse they could find for the transport of civilians, and whatever necessary . This skill he had, shoeing all four feet in like 2 mins, including any shaping or medical with the hoofs kept him mostly away from the fighting . My grandfather said he and his 3 member crew put shoes on probably 25000 horses in 5 years. Civilians were moved constantly, he said they even put shoes on cows, but didn’t work to well. He was in ww2
A bit over-dramatic, the defending, Germans[after 1915] would never leave their trenches like that after repelling an enemy attack. You'd be, just like the movie scene depicts, running into the enemy's defensive fire and bombardment; they'd be serving you just like you served them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a counter attack be one of the better times to attack your enemy? They are currently retreating, there incredibly disorganized and they just lost quite a bit of their manpower attacking you.
This battle took place sometime between 1916-1918. The old style anti-saber German hats had been discarded and replaced by the Stahlhelm or steel helmet by this time.
You have the right idea, but I think you mean it takes place between 1914-1916. The Pickelhaube is being used here, and the Model M1916 Stahlhelm was mass-produced after mid-1916 replaced by the M1917 the following year and so on and so forth until M1918 which held until the M35 which was developed just prior to WW2. The designs for the Model 1916 were drawn up in September 1915. They also found upon the introduction of the Stahlhelm that head fatalities, especially those shell-related, were reduced up to 70%.
This was my favorite film version of All Quiet On the Western Front. I don’t know a lot about the specifics of the WW-I uniforms and weapons so can only assume they were a close representation. But the main point of the film, depicting the horrors of war, is done well. On a lighter note, I did feel for the actor Richard Thomas when he had to carry the massive Ernest Borgnine near the end of the movie.
They should give more credit to the camera men who risked their lives getting in the line of fire just to get these shots during the battle! My respect to them, they have balls of steel sheesh
This scene is pretty much perfect from what is seen, adding the human element and the denial of rapid movement, flat french fields: yes Accurate easy to make trenches: yes Singular hmg: yes Absence of curly spring wire: yes Most flaws movies have this does not, the only things i could think of are the defenders throwing more grenades but that is a minor detail which wasnt used as much with offensive grenades and the gewehr 98 sights being post war but tbf they probably couldn't get that many originals
It's a made-for-TV movie from the 70s and so not a big budget in comparison to a big movie company. I think they did it very well all things considered.
This was a remake of the original black & white “All Quiet on the Western Front” from I think the 1920’s or 30’s. Both films are excellent the combat scenes in the original B&W movie are very well done. The big difference was the color version. The blue French uniforms standout in the color version.
the amount of men charging in this illustraiton was just not enough for the weapons being used against them. They would need thousands to take the other trench effetively and to hold it, but at the cost of so much life, it is just hard to think that you would throw away life so easilly for a few meters of dirt.
The war became about attrition more than anything. The allies knew the Germans couldn't sustain the casualties the allies could. As long the casualty rate was about 1.25:1 it was a winning strategy. Not to mention the homefront in Germany was in shambles as people were starving due to the naval blockade
if an attack was strong enough to break through enemy lines, the loss of ten thousand men could be justified. Better to break through once with catastrophic losses than to harass the line a hundred times with more losses each time. Once you break through their line, you can catch ten thousand supply troops off guard, and you never have to worry about more trenches, unless the enemy has tons of reserves, or pushes you back.
I thought the same thing. This movie had to actually use hundreds of people to act as soldiers for these scenes with real explosions and firing blank rounds. No movie could even pull off something close to what this movie did without using CGI and green screens. That's why I like movies from the 70s and early 80s before using CGI was a standard thing to use in movies
@@rachaeldangelo1337 CGI is one of my pet hates, especially when it takes over a movie. You can't beat a good old Cecil B DeMille classic with thousands of extras 🙂
Great movie and I believe a remake is on the way from Netflix? Given the authenticity they can portray of the horrors etc (aka Saving Private Ryan) I'm sure it will hopefully be equally a great remake and somewhat sobering as in showing how terrible it must have been
Imagine becoming a soldier just to run forward and backwards in an open field 24/7, not knowing when you’ll die. Edit: this is mainly a stereotype joke, I’m aware this isn’t true.
You must not know how the war was fought. It wasn't constant charges and battle 24/7 as you pur it. Most battles depicted in the movies were part of a very large offensive which did not happen as often as one would think. Between each major battle there was a long silent lull in the conflict. Sure there was sniper fire, night raids, and shelling, but nothing like the video above, especially 24/7.
As Avian68tb said, it wasn't constant charges. In fact the final scene where Paul gets shot was a more typical day in the trenches, of course without the cold , the wet, and the smells of rotting flesh...
The poor murdering each other for the benefit of the rich is basically what this war was all about. It was a big fun game for the monarchies and nobles, lavish dinner parties every night and then to the map room to play war. For the little guy it was absolute hell. Thankfully it ended many monarchies when it concluded. Sadly millions had to die but some people got really wealthy from it so there is that.
high velocity rounds turn a human body into a sack of SHIT if a human is shot usually the first thing to relax are the bodys bladder+ bowels they wet them selfes and shit themselfes allthe body muscules relax
Imaigne how scary this would have been, running to your death alongside others, hoping that the commanding officer calls for a retreat to live another day
My great great grandfather who i think was in the irish rifles took his dog tag, put it in someone collecting bag when the war ended, he then took a boat to the US and abandond his family. I dont really see how to end this making it releveant but i thought its worth sharing
The low quality comes from it being a 1970s made-for-TV production so they didn't have one of the big movie studios behind them. Like you say, they did a pretty good job of depicting some idea of the madness of trench warfare nonetheless.
A brutal period in world history. Somewhat lacking the tactical sophistication that would largely define later conflicts, WWI was relatively simple in its tactics... see the enemy, charge their bunkered position, dine on heavy machine gun rounds, and retreat. Repeat until annihilated or the dead bodies become to much of an obstacle to maneuver around. WWi movies generally do a good job reenacting the mahem of the battles, as we see here. It's war at its core... a give-and-take that begins with a "CHARGE" (often signaled with the sounding of a bell), and concluding when either ammunition, men, or both are depleted. I've heard it was often difficult to determine a victor. Mostly because both sides got to experience the aforementioned give-and-take, and the body counts were calculator-worthy. Nice video... thanks for sharing it.
Glad you liked it mate! Yes, a crazy war, fought over a few hundred yards of mud with barely any progress one way or the other for 4 years. Such a waste.
Lmao, absolutely not true. Throughout 1914-18, the armies that went into the war came out of it incomparable. From creeping barrages and ever changing infantry tactics to the implementation of the tank and aircraft, it was hardly a matter of charging until the enemy ran out of bullets. This sort of ignorance of our past serves us nothing but to detriment our ancestors and is honestly just disrespectful...
Ah playing Red Rover, Red Rover back in 1916-1918 was loads of fun. You run across the broken ground while the other side shoots you and then you fall back and shoot the other side as they run at you. Then the next day you get to do it all over again.
That machine gun is actually the worst thing to kill a lot of brave men in a short time? Oh well that's what you call War time, either you kill him or maybe he will actually kill you instead. Hearing your buddies and your enemy screaming before he actually does is actually very extremely hard to believe and demoralizing tool against ones own ears and minds.
Apparently, when you died 100 years ago, it was incumbent upon you to throw up your hands in the air pause for an instant, and then dramatically fall forward😂
Let's see, Germans came quite close to Paris during late summer of 1914,got pushed back, didn't want to give away most of their positions so dug up trenches,after some later failed counterattacks by French and British they also dug up their own ones,there was even a famous race towards the sea where they just dug trenches in attempt to outflank one another,but it devolved into this hellhole.
So what was the alternative? Nobody is stupid to fight defensively without fortifications,and attackers quickly fell into defense,so there was no other option other than ending war with truce cause neither side was really strong enough to end war on their terms.
The battle scene we see at the beginning of All Quiet on the Western Front is likely the Battle of Verdun due to the Stallhelm helmet we see at 1:57. At the Battle of Verdun, the Germans did use them in small numbers.
The book ( Tittle ALL QUIET ON THE WESTER by ERIC MARÍA REMARQUE the author) and the movie: a great masterpieces The first world war with the german point of view.
My Grandfather fought in WW1 with the 90th Infantry Division at the Battle of St. Mihiel. . My Father said, he never talked about the War. However, during the Depression, a fellow crippled WW1 Army Buddy of my Grandfather would stop my father and buy him an Ice Cream Cone or give him a dime. My Dad asked him one time "Why" and the old vet said "Because your father dragged me on his stomach for 80 yards to a trench after I was shot."
Yes, this was a made-for-tv version and so a much smaller budget. But it was well made. Of course the 1930 version is also very good, and I like the 2022 one as well.
It's a made-for-TV movie from the 1970s that would have been on a much smaller budget than a big movie studio production. I think they did a pretty good depiction of the waste of war on both sides in this movie (and the other two of the same name). Surely that's the main thing, rather than picking out faults on uniforms and equipment? It would be nice if everything was perfect but they won't have had the money to do that.
The complete stupidity of this type of attack is appalling. Back & forth, men dying for nothing, attack & counterattack, battle finally ends, men back where they began. 1000’s of men lying dead for absolutely nothing. Sheer insanity.
In the film, Paul Baümer and his friends do not arrive on the Werstern front until the fall of 1915, because French soldiers only wear the Adrian helmet at the time. At the time of declaration of war, the latter wore the uniform of 1870, and not the horizon blue that we see in the film.
You can say alot about both modern and old movies, and 1917 was a great and spetacular movie, but to be honest… I would much rather watch this.
I agree. After all the hype I was a bit let down by '1917'. I think this is more impressive.
@@foreverblueclassics not just more impressive but more realistic. Modern movies are so obnoxious and pompous.
Is this from the movie all’s quite on the western front
@@GeoWool70 Yes, the 1979 TV movie version.
Yeah 1917s story was just a bit too far fetched for me
I once met my grand grand father when i was a kid. He fought in ww1 on the french side. He participated to an assault. A shied felt nerby him and knocked him out. He woke up in a hole in the ground in the no man's land between the french and the german. Half his foot was gone and a dead body was there with him. Each time he tried to leave the hole, a bullet was flying toward him. He spent almost a week there with a dead guy. Fortunately, the french took the german trench so he was safe. But he had some mental issues and one foot missing.
Horrific 🙁
Lest we forget 🌷🌷🌷 he is braver man than most. 🇬🇧
Sounds like bollocks to me.
@@grahamnoble4887 You'd be surprised just how long someone can survive with a missing limb or blood loss.
@@grahamnoble4887 As long as it rains, he'd have no shortage of water in a shell crater. If not, two canteens might be enough. Not eating for a week isn't healthy, but it's very unlikely to kill you. He presumably bandaged the injured foot, so that won't kill him either. It's definitely plausible. Much weirder things happened during the war.
What made ww1 and trench warfare so horrible is that they say it happened in a time when industry and technology surpassed mankind's ability to wage war. They were still using old tactics of massed infantry charging at enemy fortifications, but modern weapons like machine guns and quick firing artillery stopped all that instantly
They only learned the lesson in 1918
@@jjrj8568 1915*
Tactics were always evolving during the war, though not enough to break stalemate.
They adopted the creeping barrage (used before in the balkan wars), all sides used infiltration tactics.
Aerial warfare passed from pilots throwing rocks at each other to dogfights with machine guns and bombers.
The entente introduced tanks, while both the French and Germans started using defense in depht tactics (extremely effective by the latter)
All sides introduced steel helmets
Gas Warfare was used by everyone and gas masks had to be given to every single soldier and even horses
The last stages of the American Civil War fully prefigured everything that would happen in WW1. But sadly, rather than taking any lesson from that, European observers just assumed that the trench warfare was a result of the incompetency of American generalship.
It was the war where warfare grew up.
The tactics and equipment evolved rapidly as the war progressed. Generally, the defender had the advantage.
My father in law told a story about how his Grandfather was a veteran of WW1 and only spoke once about it saying "I had to bayonet another young boy my age...we were both horribly afraid."
war can do that to you
I met a man who told me "I don't remember the first man I killed, I only remember the last man I killed. I saw a line of Germans in the fog and shot the last one in the back with a bazooka. To my horror a British officer ran forward said that they were prisoners. I went down and apologized to the other German prisoners."
You can see here the foolish tactics used by both sides. When General Monash took charge of the Australian troops, he planned attacks against the enemy with accuracy. A British General once asked him "how many men do you expect to loose in this battle " ?. Monash replied "none". The British General laughed and said "you have to expect to loose at least 20%". Monash replied back "And that's why you can't win this war".
Likewise with the Canadians under General Currie.
@@will9605
And, despite his rather unsavoury nickname, the British under Marshal Haig.
When you actually read up on him, the man had some revolutionary ideas for warfare.
The combined arms tactics developed were ironically a major contribution to 'blitzkrieg' in May 1940.
Another reasonably good general was Currie who commanded the Canadian Corps.
most british generals: 🧠❌
most aussie and canadian generals: 🧠✅
The director using the device of running the same scene twice was a statement in itself. It demonstrated the futility of trench warfare and war in general.
It's not the futility of trench warfare, it's the futility of coming out of a trench under machine guns.
The director's thoughts were more on saving money using a scene already shot that the audience wouldn't pick up on in the theater runs of the era. Now using multiple cameras at different places and angles was innovative And money saving.
I believe it was just edited in after by the video publisher.
@@constitution_8939 _"Now using multiple cameras at different places and angles was innovative And money saving."_
Should see Wings! from 1928, the Infantry battle scene was filmed with multiple cameras, so were the aerial dogfights.
Multiple cameras is nothing new in movies.
JKTDDY
WW1. My grandfather was there. He was born in 1887. Italian front, Alpini Fiamme Verdi. Only assaults almost every day. No words to explain. He has been a survivor but on that Battlefields has died a little piece of his soul. RIP. MV
12th battle of isonzo will do that to you. Luigi cadorna is a butcher, not a general. He should face the firing line for incompetence.
hey you were in the comments of that one 2022 all quiet on the western front video
"Let's see. They charged us and we slaughtered them on our barbed wire. So it's our turn to charge them and get slaughtered on their barbed wire."
- Right... off we go...
That pretty much sums up WW1!
I thought "Surely someone would come up with better tactics"
@Johnny Wise It's more the scale of the slaughter rather than the meaning.
@@Angrybogan It was a meat grinder and it came down to whose will to fight went first.
@Johnny Wise All of that is no doubt true but the casualty figures are mind-numbingly astronomical and off the scale. The British had 60,000 casualties on the first day of The Somme with around 20,000 of them dead. Once we were in it it was impossible to get out of but those kind of casualty figures are just unbelievable, and they were not isolated. It just blows the mind to the modern man to look back at those times and wonder wtf were they thinking of when it all kicked off.
Pretty impressive considering this was a TV movie from what I remember. Erich Maria Remarque died only a few years before this came out.
Yes, it holds up well against the original 1930 movie. Very impressive considering it was a TV movie made at a fraction of the cost of a big studio production.
@@foreverblueclassics Was it made for TV, f? It had a UK cinema release when I was a kid
All best from Over Here
@@notreallydavid Yes, the original version was made-for-TV. It was a short time later shortened for cinema release which is what you are thinking of. I have both the TV and cinema versions (the TV version is around 30 minutes longer).
@@foreverblueclassics Thanks, f - grateful.
@@notreallydavid My pleasure 😉
The film is amazing, the way the actors all die literally in the same fashion does frustrate me to some degree. Outside of that, excellent.
I think the problem with the overall movement of all the extras and maybe even the professional actors is the lack of urgency. They are moving too casually. Look at Kat at 3:50 in the lower half of the screen. It seems like he thought it will be cut out or something.
And it looks like they cant hit anything over 25m.
Most of the combat deaths during the First World War were also caused by artillery, rather than by small arms fire.
Quick up front- haven't watched the movie. But dying a quick and pointless death really sums up WW1. Just death, no honor in it, just pointless... pointless death.
@@KBKriechbaum That's what happens when you hire actors to old for the part!
Funny how in old movies everyone dies flinging their arms in the air or doing some kind of dramatic death move
In real life you can die and fall in very awkward position or sometimes you don't die instantly, like for example if a bullet rip your arm off you will be in shock and that can result in a very dramatic scene or you can end up instantly blacking out and die out of blood in the meantime, but yes film of course need to exaggerate this it's completely normal.
it happens in real life because most of the time it hits a muscle which jolts that limb forward.
You drop like a blob of jello.
@@alfredpaquin3563I'll take your word for it.
That's how my friends and I always did it, so it looks right to me. Lol. By the way, you left out grabbing the bullet wound.
Thanks for this clip. Highlights the courage of the men who attacked in WWI.
Thank you. We should never forget them.
I lost a great-uncle in May 1918. I was able to find the action report from his sergeant who said he was escorting him through the trenches to his position when a German artillery round landed close by and killed him instantly. He had only arrived on the front lines 2 days earlier. What's even sadder is that he was 26 years old, married with 2 children and had been drafted months earlier but Uncle Sam didn't care.
Tragic. And sadly a tale replicated in millions of homes.
...LET'S REMEMBER THAT UNCLE SAM DIDN'T START THAT GODDAM WAR- AND THE U.S. WAS LITERALLY DRAGGED INTO THAT WAR!!! IF YOU WANT TO GET MAD AT SOMEONE- THEN GET MAD AT THE DAM KAISER!!!
Neither did the Kaiser.
@@captainamerica6525 ...GERMANY WAS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIGHTING ON THE WESTERN FRONT- AND THE KAISER LITERALLY COULD HAVE STOPPED WW1 BY SIMPLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN IT ANY FURTHER!!!
AND IF GERMANY HAD UNILATERALLY PULLED OUT- WW1 WOULD HAVE GROUND TO A HALT!!!
Next time let the leaders fight.
After watching one minute this is already the best WWI movie I ever seen
The 1979 John Boy version of All Quiet on the Western Front was always my favorite.
All three are very good in their own way and you can watch them all and find differences without losing the basic tract of the story. Personally I'd put 1 - 1930, 2 - 1979 and 3 - 2022 but they are all excellent and everyone should watch them.
try watching the orginal 1930 version that make the 1979 version like a M.O.D.training film and i have watched plenty in my time whilst serving
Even seeing the events, it's hard to imagine what it would have been like, and even harder to convey in a film the sheer desperate panic that these young men must have been faced with seeing a wave of the enemy rushing toward them.
4:05 I loved this part. The brotherhood dude.
I had several family members fight in the Great War. Two didn’t survive. One as a kid, we joked that he was “cuckoo” but I found out later it was what is now called PTSD. Two would not talk about it at all. Now I just cannot imagine the hell they went through. The futility of war
I was born in 1951 in the east end of Glasgow, in the old testaments, the old man through the wall from us had a single end ,out side toilet, he was gassed in 1917 ,as children growing up we heard the poor man coughing day and night, I saw him spitting up blood, the poor man never complained, he came home to a land fit for heroes, no he didn't, the houses were filled with mice, rats, fleas and lice, thay were not fit for human habitation, my own father was shot twice in Dunkirk, made it back to Britain, got better than sent to north Africa, he lost a good part of his left arm and left eye, when he returned home from the war he was given a small pension which was taxed, him and my mum raised 7 children in a room and kitchen, out side toilet, the same mice, rats fleas and lice as the old warrior from the first world war, so please stop and think, don't let your daughters and sons go to fight a rich man's war ,it's nothing to do with freedom, but to make the rich and upper class wealthier and keep making profits, please don't sacrifice another young generation to die for a government that doesn't have respect for the people who defend this country, let the government ministers and families go and fight, it will be a quick war ,protect our young, and let the rich fight their own battles, stay safe and God bless.
Your words are true
SPOT ON; IN MY COUNTRY WE HAVE A GOVERNING ELITE AS WELL., THEY MAKE PERSONAL FORTUNES WHILE THE COUNTRY SUFFERS AS A WHOLE.
THE BUSH AND CHENEY FAMILIES, MITT ROMNEY AND THE COUNTRY CLUB REPUBLICANS. WAR PROFITEERS. ENOUGH SAID.
One of my uncles was in the 3rd wave hitting Juno Beach. The landing craft wee 100 yards apart.
He got 50miles inland before catching a shell splinter in his leg. That sent him home.
I fought in three wars not for the government or my queen because when i left school i like my father could not find work anywhere so i enlisted like he did he lost two brothers.the war to end all wars what a crock of shit with that statement were still killing each other and why it is the only thing that WE ARE ANYTHING GOOD AT WE LIKE TO MUCH an ex ROYAL MARINE
With all the bombs going off and machine gun bullets flying in every direction, it's a wonder that any of those soldiers would be left alive.
It was slaughter on an industrial scale.
I'm more surprised at the fact that they didn't loose their hearing on day one
@@totallynotacommie4767 IIRC, a British soldier was executed for disobeying an order in action when the issue was a nearby shell burst meant he couldn't actually hear it :(
I've seen the original black and white version of all quiet on the western front and it demo strait the futility of war and mas slaughter
Yes, I have that too. It's quite strong for a movie made in 1930 and doesn't hold back on the horrors.
I liked the final bits, when it was in slow motion to reflect on what had happened. Shows the world the horror and destruction of modern warfare, all affecting the lives of young men
Freaking finally! I found a movie with Frenchmen and German main characters!
WW1 on American side was just french and British fight Germany and we eventually come in to help but we don't do shit like in WW2
according to hollywood the british and americans (15% of the allied soldiers) did everything while the french (85% of the front) were busy eating croissants
@@smal750Where did blud learn history 💀💀
French and German high commanders kept on throwing the soldiers senseless in front of machine guns without any protection such as armor plates or shields. 😖
WW1 seems such a terrible waste. Most wars are of course but that conflict had no real sense to it. Crazy.
First of armor plates and shields would have weighed down the soldiers that artillery could easily pick them of. Second what you are describing is war. War is killing, killing your enemy period. The causes of war and its strategy may be debated but the former still stands. The only difference between ww1 and previous wars was size and scale.
You'd need a ridiculously heavy armor plate to stop just 1 8mm Mauser or French bullet at the average 100-200m fighting range. Wasn't very practical Germans tried some stuff of this kind. Lookup Sappenpazer or German WW1 armor.
@@MrJP1300 or the Italian Verditti.
While WWI was horrifying, High Command weren't just throwing soldiers around without care.
They were constantly trying to figure out ways to break the stalemate. The Germans had Stormtrooper Tactics and the Allies soon developed Combined Arms and fast-firing Artillery to the point that the Germans couldn't defend anymore.
They dug in, but the combined efforts of Tanks, Infantry, Artillery and Planes ensured that any defence merely prolonged the inevitable. The 100 Days Offensive is proof of it.
I cant believe my great great grandpas from both sides had to go through this... Very surreal
Yes, it was slaughter.
@@foreverblueclassics same thing on the Second World War I have relatives from both sides, lost my would be great uncle to the American gun.
@@tristandoesstuff647 Sad ☹
@@foreverblueclassics I know my great grandpa (he was the son of my would be great uncle) came back from the war and was so discussed with the Nazis he wouldn't say a word about the war.
@@tristandoesstuff647 Few ever did talk of it after the war I think.
If this is a real depiction of how infantry maneuvered in WWI its amazing to see the difference from today's individual movement techniques.
One of the most accurate WW1 movies made, weapons, uniforms, context, all correct, Few movies WW1, ever get it right, The French in this Movie are shown to be stubborn, brave capable soldiers, which they were, the Germans were scared of the French.
Two things: The French had Adrian Helmets and the Germans had Pickelhaubes.
The German rifles are not German.
The rifles used by the German soldiers in the film are model 1903 Turkish Mausers, in reality they would be using the German Mauser Gewehr 1898. The bayonet is also the Turkish 1903 pattern, which is distinctly different from the German model.
@@AustroHungarianEmpire1867 the French did have steel helmets first.
@@AustroHungarianEmpire1867 The French started using the Adrian in 1915. The Germans didn't receive the Stahlhelm till 1916. So, it's still accurate.
This was like a Hallmark movie. Bloodless deaths... Written histories and silent films as well as the graves of the fallen and the remaining shell holes and bunkers tell the real tale.
True, but I still can't believe John-Boy Walton fought for the Germans!
@@pfdrtom me too
There is a lot of that. The book is incredibly graphic, especially considering the author was only at the front for about a month before being badly wounded. Can't really show on TV the bodies of men who have been blown out of their clothes and half into a tree (the other half was on the ground) by the blast of a trench mortar, though.
That potato masher scored a direct hit on that gun emplacement .
"Sin novedad en el frente" sin duda La mejor película bélica que ví en mi infancia 1980 en el Cine
👍
Good movie the full film is on UA-cam for free it’s called “all quiet on the western front”
Good upload :) I haven't seen this movie for years lol 😂
I watched it the other night and it's still great. And after that I've just got the extended original but haven't watched it yet.
@@foreverblueclassics Please let me know what the deleted scenes are 😎
@@tanktank3874 I don't think it's action scenes but will do.
My great great grandfather was a shoeman for the horses and proved his worth at 18 on April 5, 4 days b4 the Germans invaded Norway. Not a lot of horses in the movie April 9th but Gustoff Carlson was in the background putting fresh shoes in record time on every horse they could find for the transport of civilians, and whatever necessary . This skill he had, shoeing all four feet in like 2 mins, including any shaping or medical with the hoofs kept him mostly away from the fighting . My grandfather said he and his 3 member crew put shoes on probably 25000 horses in 5 years. Civilians were moved constantly, he said they even put shoes on cows, but didn’t work to well. He was in ww2
He was an unsung hero, like so many others. We should be grateful to them all and never forget.
A bit over-dramatic, the defending, Germans[after 1915] would never leave their trenches like that after repelling an enemy attack. You'd be, just like the movie scene depicts, running into the enemy's defensive fire and bombardment; they'd be serving you just like you served them.
Most accounts of WW1 in the trenches depict this mutual slaughter.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a counter attack be one of the better times to attack your enemy? They are currently retreating, there incredibly disorganized and they just lost quite a bit of their manpower attacking you.
It was written by a German soldier who fought in the war. He knew what he was talking about
There's also a suspicious lack of shellfire considering that it was the main killer in WWI...
@@jimmyrichardson67 Not bad for a film in 79 but it is pretty silly of a scene.
This battle took place sometime between 1916-1918. The old style anti-saber German hats had been discarded and replaced by the Stahlhelm or steel helmet by this time.
I think the movie starts in 1916.
You have the right idea, but I think you mean it takes place between 1914-1916. The Pickelhaube is being used here, and the Model M1916 Stahlhelm was mass-produced after mid-1916 replaced by the M1917 the following year and so on and so forth until M1918 which held until the M35 which was developed just prior to WW2. The designs for the Model 1916 were drawn up in September 1915. They also found upon the introduction of the Stahlhelm that head fatalities, especially those shell-related, were reduced up to 70%.
@@_warsp1te760 exactly, even in the Battle of Verdun pickelhaubes were seen in Feb-May
This was 1915
This is most likely 1915. Stalemate and trash tactics. Maybe be very early 1916.
Thanks you ❣️
🙂
This was my favorite film version of All Quiet On the Western Front. I don’t know a lot about the specifics of the WW-I uniforms and weapons so can only assume they were a close representation. But the main point of the film, depicting the horrors of war, is done well.
On a lighter note, I did feel for the actor Richard Thomas when he had to carry the massive Ernest Borgnine near the end of the movie.
The german rifles were incorrect, those are Swedish mausers.
I can point out some incorrect things but it's what they can do so it's no big deal real in my opinion
@@owllymannstein7113 the backpacks are Swiss too I think
They should give more credit to the camera men who risked their lives getting in the line of fire just to get these shots during the battle! My respect to them, they have balls of steel sheesh
This scene is pretty much perfect from what is seen, adding the human element and the denial of rapid movement, flat french fields: yes
Accurate easy to make trenches: yes
Singular hmg: yes
Absence of curly spring wire: yes
Most flaws movies have this does not, the only things i could think of are the defenders throwing more grenades but that is a minor detail which wasnt used as much with offensive grenades and the gewehr 98 sights being post war but tbf they probably couldn't get that many originals
It's a made-for-TV movie from the 70s and so not a big budget in comparison to a big movie company. I think they did it very well all things considered.
This was a remake of the original black & white “All Quiet on the Western Front” from I think the 1920’s or 30’s. Both films are excellent the combat scenes in the original B&W movie are very well done. The big difference was the color version. The blue French uniforms standout in the color version.
the amount of men charging in this illustraiton was just not enough for the weapons being used against them. They would need thousands to take the other trench effetively and to hold it, but at the cost of so much life, it is just hard to think that you would throw away life so easilly for a few meters of dirt.
The war became about attrition more than anything. The allies knew the Germans couldn't sustain the casualties the allies could. As long the casualty rate was about 1.25:1 it was a winning strategy. Not to mention the homefront in Germany was in shambles as people were starving due to the naval blockade
if an attack was strong enough to break through enemy lines, the loss of ten thousand men could be justified. Better to break through once with catastrophic losses than to harass the line a hundred times with more losses each time. Once you break through their line, you can catch ten thousand supply troops off guard, and you never have to worry about more trenches, unless the enemy has tons of reserves, or pushes you back.
Magnifique documentaire
I came here to "wash" my eyes from the new version of the movie..
🙂
No CGI no special affects, but looks more real than any of the shit out these days.
I hate movies where CGI takes over.
I thought the same thing. This movie had to actually use hundreds of people to act as soldiers for these scenes with real explosions and firing blank rounds. No movie could even pull off something close to what this movie did without using CGI and green screens. That's why I like movies from the 70s and early 80s before using CGI was a standard thing to use in movies
@@rachaeldangelo1337 CGI is one of my pet hates, especially when it takes over a movie. You can't beat a good old Cecil B DeMille classic with thousands of extras 🙂
3:55 Bottom, right. Soldier sick of running back and forwards. Instead, he's strolling along.
I like history. Nice film comrade.👍👍
This one scene that killed my 15 brain cells.
That one german soldier said "medic!" and "take it easy"
My grandfather was a survivor.
Rip.
They were a special generation.
I'm from the US and my Great Great Granduncle fought in WW1 died in the First Battle of the Aisne he was a German Soldier
May he RIP.
1:05 if you look at the people dying you can see someone dying and firing his gun accidentally great attention to detail
"War is where the young and stupid are being tricked by the old and bitter into killing each other." - Niko Bellic
I agree
I love this. The acting is a bit cheesy, but other than that it's *incredibly* well done
For a 1970s made-for-TV movie it's not bad at all.
@@foreverblueclassics absolutely
Forgive
Love all human predators and trees
Great movie and I believe a remake is on the way from Netflix? Given the authenticity they can portray of the horrors etc (aka Saving Private Ryan) I'm sure it will hopefully be equally a great remake and somewhat sobering as in showing how terrible it must have been
You could keep looping this video over and over and you might not even know
Imagine becoming a soldier just to run forward and backwards in an open field 24/7, not knowing when you’ll die.
Edit: this is mainly a stereotype joke, I’m aware this isn’t true.
You must not know how the war was fought. It wasn't constant charges and battle 24/7 as you pur it. Most battles depicted in the movies were part of a very large offensive which did not happen as often as one would think. Between each major battle there was a long silent lull in the conflict. Sure there was sniper fire, night raids, and shelling, but nothing like the video above, especially 24/7.
As Avian68tb said, it wasn't constant charges. In fact the final scene where Paul gets shot was a more typical day in the trenches, of course without the cold , the wet, and the smells of rotting flesh...
@@avian68tb it was a joke mainly, I understand the tactics.
@@Wailwulf it was a stereotype joke, I know how it works.
@Johnny Wise it was a stereotype joke, I know how the battles worked.
Everything dies!!!
And nobody wins...
Humanity is so intelligent!!!;)
Buona serata foreverblueclassics :)⭐ un altro bel video come sempre mi è piaciuto💯✔, molta azione ✨💥💥Grazie e complimenti 💖🍷
Buongiorno amico mio e grazie 😍 . Sei gentilissimo come sempre 🥂💜!
@@foreverblueclassics Ciao amico mio :)☺ vi auguro un buon Venerdì è un buon fine settimana 💖🍷 Aspetto il tuo prossimo bel video per divertirmi 😎🍺
@@rikaweimann6063 Ed ecco anche per te un grande venerdì 😎! Non ci vorrà molto fino al prossimo video, quindi continua a guardare 😍💙🍷!
@@foreverblueclassics ❤😍
@@rikaweimann6063 😍
It crazy that some people are like: What it wasn’t all just mud and night and darkness.
While it used to look like this.
Хороший фильм! Спасибо Ремарку!
In memory of my two grandfathers and grand uncles (french infantry) who defended us against the germans. ♥
There are so many heroes from that generation. I thank them all.
The poor murdering each other for the benefit of the rich is basically what this war was all about. It was a big fun game for the monarchies and nobles, lavish dinner parties every night and then to the map room to play war. For the little guy it was absolute hell. Thankfully it ended many monarchies when it concluded. Sadly millions had to die but some people got really wealthy from it so there is that.
It's still pretty much the same today, though the casualties are nowhere on this level.
The whole war is literally just a family affair, Kaiser Wilheim and King Geroge were queen Victoria’s grandsons
@@EmbeddedWithin And they were related to the Russian Royal Family, who in turn were related to...........and so it went on.
@@foreverblueclassics Tsar Nicholas the 2nd was the husband of one of her grandsons.., etc etc
@@EmbeddedWithin Yep.
Polyfield is a worldwar game and can create your own maps,play mutilplayer and go to community maps
Thank you.
When men are shot with high velocity bullets they very rarely fo the swan dive with their arms raised. They go down.
high velocity rounds turn a human body into a sack of SHIT if a human is shot usually the first thing to relax are the bodys bladder+ bowels they wet them selfes and shit themselfes allthe body muscules relax
Yeah i would also watch this it so cool
And the men who started the war are home, in comfort with full bellies, clean and not really caring about casualties.
Sadly true.
Even the guns are free and can make your own name
Imaigne how scary this would have been, running to your death alongside others, hoping that the commanding officer calls for a retreat to live another day
You can only guess.
まさしくww1の戦闘シーン、個人的に好きですね～
The camera man is so brave 😂😂
I'm sure he was rewarded posthumously 😁
@@foreverblueclassics
😂😂
My great great grandfather who i think was in the irish rifles took his dog tag, put it in someone collecting bag when the war ended, he then took a boat to the US and abandond his family. I dont really see how to end this making it releveant but i thought its worth sharing
The uniforms look similar in combat. Running back to your own trench could be an issue
This is intense
It's a very good version of the story. All three movies are.
If WW1 was judged on helmet design, Germany woulda won hands down
They'd have won both wars if had come down to just uniforms and weapons!
This movie was low quality...
But fortunately, the movie director made the trench warfare battle accurately...
The low quality comes from it being a 1970s made-for-TV production so they didn't have one of the big movie studios behind them. Like you say, they did a pretty good job of depicting some idea of the madness of trench warfare nonetheless.
3rd comment on the video. Good action btw
Cheers mate, glad you liked it!
A brutal period in world history. Somewhat lacking the tactical sophistication that would largely define later conflicts, WWI was relatively simple in its tactics... see the enemy, charge their bunkered position, dine on heavy machine gun rounds, and retreat. Repeat until annihilated or the dead bodies become to much of an obstacle to maneuver around.
WWi movies generally do a good job reenacting the mahem of the battles, as we see here. It's war at its core... a give-and-take that begins with a "CHARGE" (often signaled with the sounding of a bell), and concluding when either ammunition, men, or both are depleted.
I've heard it was often difficult to determine a victor. Mostly because both sides got to experience the aforementioned give-and-take, and the body counts were calculator-worthy.
Nice video... thanks for sharing it.
Glad you liked it mate! Yes, a crazy war, fought over a few hundred yards of mud with barely any progress one way or the other for 4 years. Such a waste.
@@foreverblueclassicsIt should have been a lesson to mankind... a war to end all wars... but it wasn't. We haven't seen that one yet I'm afraid.
Lmao, absolutely not true. Throughout 1914-18, the armies that went into the war came out of it incomparable. From creeping barrages and ever changing infantry tactics to the implementation of the tank and aircraft, it was hardly a matter of charging until the enemy ran out of bullets. This sort of ignorance of our past serves us nothing but to detriment our ancestors and is honestly just disrespectful...
Ruhe in Frieden. Beide Seiten
(Correct me if I’m wrong) Although this is a great video, I don’t think early war Germans fought late war Frenchmen with greatcoats and Adrian helmets
It's a 1970s made-for-TV version so I don't think they'd have been that bothered with that kind of accuracy I'm afraid.
@@foreverblueclassics well that does make sense.
The name of movies
All quiet on the weastern front
Let's all agree that if we have to go to war with each others, we will just be idle and not do crazy things to each others.
Or have the wars played out on computer games so no one is really hurt!
Don't worry, folks, cameramen survived on both sides!
Lol.
This is a far more realistic light and atmosphere than the ultra-dark, obscure and smokey used in today films.
Ah playing Red Rover, Red Rover back in 1916-1918 was loads of fun. You run across the broken ground while the other side shoots you and then you fall back and shoot the other side as they run at you. Then the next day you get to do it all over again.
That machine gun is actually the worst thing to kill a lot of brave men in a short time? Oh well that's what you call War time, either you kill him or maybe he will actually kill you instead. Hearing your buddies and your enemy screaming before he actually does is actually very extremely hard to believe and demoralizing tool against ones own ears and minds.
They industrialised killing.
Apparently, when you died 100 years ago, it was incumbent upon you to throw up your hands in the air
pause for an instant, and then dramatically fall forward😂
ww1 westren front 1914 invasion belgium
Indeed, though I think this is set a bit later in France.
That horizon blue gets me every time. Great uniform. The Germans also look excellent in their feld grau. Brave warriors on both sides.
👍
What genius thought up trench warfare?
You can be sure whoever it was was someone who didn't fight in one.
Let's see, Germans came quite close to Paris during late summer of 1914,got pushed back, didn't want to give away most of their positions so dug up trenches,after some later failed counterattacks by French and British they also dug up their own ones,there was even a famous race towards the sea where they just dug trenches in attempt to outflank one another,but it devolved into this hellhole.
So what was the alternative? Nobody is stupid to fight defensively without fortifications,and attackers quickly fell into defense,so there was no other option other than ending war with truce cause neither side was really strong enough to end war on their terms.
How would you have done it ?
The Romans
The battle scene we see at the beginning of All Quiet on the Western Front is likely the Battle of Verdun due to the Stallhelm helmet we see at 1:57. At the Battle of Verdun, the Germans did use them in small numbers.
The book ( Tittle ALL QUIET ON THE WESTER by ERIC MARÍA REMARQUE the author) and the movie: a great masterpieces
The first world war with the german point of view.
I would like to get the book one day.
This is the best AQOTWF. Sad how people only pay attention to the 2022 and 1930 ones.
It's certainly the largely forgotten version and it stands comparison with the other two. They are all excellent in their own way.
What is the name of this movie?
The 1979 version of 'All Quiet On The Western Front'.
My Grandfather fought in WW1 with the 90th Infantry Division at the Battle of St. Mihiel. . My Father said, he never talked about the War. However, during the Depression, a fellow crippled WW1 Army Buddy of my Grandfather would stop my father and buy him an Ice Cream Cone or give him a dime. My Dad asked him one time "Why" and the old vet said "Because your father dragged me on his stomach for 80 yards to a trench after I was shot."
They were such brave men and they all had stories to tell, yet few ever did. Thank you for a really touching story.
Trench warfare, such carnage and waste of human life.
Very much, a total tragedy.
This video would reach 1 milloin views i promise.
When the wounded and the dying screaming in agony and calling for his own mother is actually much more demoralizing and heart breaking? 💔🤔😰
Even though I personally like the 2022 version better, this is still a good world war one film
Yes, this was a made-for-tv version and so a much smaller budget. But it was well made. Of course the 1930 version is also very good, and I like the 2022 one as well.
The fighting looks so accurate but the innacurate thing is the french are wearing 1916 steel helmets, and the germans still wear the Pickelhaube
It's a made-for-TV movie from the 1970s that would have been on a much smaller budget than a big movie studio production. I think they did a pretty good depiction of the waste of war on both sides in this movie (and the other two of the same name). Surely that's the main thing, rather than picking out faults on uniforms and equipment? It would be nice if everything was perfect but they won't have had the money to do that.
The complete stupidity of this type of attack is appalling. Back & forth, men dying for nothing, attack & counterattack, battle finally ends, men back where they began. 1000’s of men lying dead for absolutely nothing. Sheer insanity.
All wars are a waste but WW1 must be up there was one of the most idiotic.
It is likely that we are going to see the 2022 version of this, sooner than later !
In the film, Paul Baümer and his friends do not arrive on the Werstern front until the fall of 1915, because French soldiers only wear the Adrian helmet at the time. At the time of declaration of war, the latter wore the uniform of 1870, and not the horizon blue that we see in the film.