I always like when war experts breakdown movies because they confirm my belief that there is no reason to falsely portray war in movies. The reality of war is already dramatic, sensational and insane so why not portray it as historical accurate as possible?
Historically accurate takes skill and knowledge about the subject matter that the film maker might not have. It's much harder to make it accurate than just winging it.
A really big thing which causes in accuracies is the elaborateness of real life tactics and strategy that to portray in film has so many moving parts it would be very hard to recreate in an understanding manner for an average film watcher. As someone in the military I don’t think a film could accurately portray an assault on a fixed position without confusing the audience because soldiers like us are confused in reality. It’s hectic and hard to see what’s going on. When it comes to certain aspects like details that just comes down to a price and timing thing
@@philly_lando_1853 I would say this is false, anyone can make a movie about trench warfare and just have it be frontal assaults and a few intermissions of a guy explaining why they need to go X direction. The directions of war is complicated for the leadership. Not so much for the guys on and sometimes in the dirt. Close and urban combat sure but modern war and action movies have actually done well, if not better than decades ago for being too fast paced.
@@markr46191930 one is better.Made all from ww1 vets. The new one is a real depiction of what some battles could go. Its just an unbiased depiction of death and suffering
The Netflix remake fell so short compared to the 1930 version and, honestly, even the 1979 version. So much focus on action, so little focus on the characters and their journeys, so much essential stuff cut out to make room for more gore and weird sideplots. It was so disappointing.
He is absolutely right about needing to properly portray any war shown in a movie with the most amount of historical accuracy as possible. If you are trying to show what soldiers went through it’s only right you make everything accurate. Still love All Quiet on the Western Front
i don’t know, i think about it like this - he criticizes All Quiet because the best chance of survival would’ve been to shoot a flair gun - but we literally know not all battles occurred exactly the same, nor their circumstances, and that’s a big reason some are won/loss, so one side having flaws is inherently apart of war and yet he’s criticizing it as being a flaw in the movie because they’re not being as “optimum as possible” based on information we only have looking back. If they’re portraying a specific war and not taking any creative liberties - sure, but the novel is fiction and took creative liberties, so did the movie.
One interesting thing in the original 1930 All Quiet On The Western Front is that most of the extras were Germans who had fought in WW1. The director(who was also a WW1 veteran) asked them how they would set up barbed wire for the scene where the characters do it in order to get it right. Also, the famous scene with the French soldier’s hands on the barbed wire was something that one of the German extras had witnessed.
This one is one of my favourites to date. He really got into it and gave us a proper examination of the movie specifically on its historical accuracy. Well done!
@Repent and believe in Jesus Christ I am not a religious person. That being said, I understand that there are no atheists in a war. And I understand why
There is another one from this series that is really worth watching. It's a retired US submarine commander rating submarine movies and the guy talks at length about submarine warfare and tell interesting stories about his time on submarines. If you can find it, it's fascinating!
I like how he effortlessly reminds us that people in history, and in this case WW1, weren't dumb like modern society likes to portray them. In fact, they quite ingeniously worked around problems, using the means that were available to them at the time.
Id argue most nowdays are more dumb especially IQ scores have fallen meanwhile college attendamce has increased in the US lol so thats quite astonishing
Necessity IS the mother of invention (or was that Zappa?), there's few necessities more...um, necessary than survival, and war challenged that fairly regularly.
This reminds me of a guy on a BF1 video I watched a long time ago who insisted that WWI weapons legitimately shot in all sort of directions because they're so old and they all just came like that because tech was too primitive and people weren't smart enough as they are today. Extremely ironic, isn't it?
This expert was great. I feel like he really understood what he was there for. His explanations were very real but very entertaining. More of him please.
He impressed me the most at 2:02. Any ordinary viewer would not even given any significance to the church tower, just a random feature in the background... But he has a trained eye that hones in on details that others would miss.
This guy seems like a fun dude. Gets very into the videos and explains what's great and what's not with a lot of excitement. I would love to have him do more videos
Good to see WWI finally getting some attention - and nobody better to do so than Alexander Watson! Hope to see him again on this channel soon, he's fantastic. My favourite part is about the Red Baron - he painted his aircraft "because he could". As a 19th century historian, I often see people overinterpreting the tiniest details, to the point it gets absolutely ridiculous. But often the answer, just like it is nowadays, is "they did it because they liked it", end of story.
I do think he liked it, but the best iteration I've read is he did it because, well, he's cocky. He's the best and he knew it. It's like a skin in a game, he wanted people to know who he is.
Exactly. It's like WW2 airmen painting pin up girls, sharks and eagles on the noses of their planes, or writing messages on the bombs. No practical use, but it looks cool, and people like to look cool.
"The Fortress" is a masterpiece. It brilliantly uses the fighting in Galicia as a microcosm of the great power conflict and the tragedy is was for those caught in between. The perfect companion to "Bloodlands".
I hope they continue this series for future films like 'Oppenheimer' its always so interesting to hear an educated opinion. The fact an individual can study something so extensively and gain so much knowledge about something, mainly because they can or want to, is just amazing to me!
@@catinthehat906 "realistic" no, they just said "WW1 Battles." He's ranking the realism of them but these aren't all realistic movies are you are claiming they are saying
@@johncartwright8154 Yeah I imagine filming it just a 15 years or so after the war helps nail down the realism! Never saw the one with John Boy from the waltons but I've heard good things
I just like how quickly and accurately he is able to break down a scene so it feels more like a breakdown than just him watching movie scenes and rating authenticity
It always amazes me that they are willing to spend millions on films but not hire a guy like this to point them in the right direction for kit and tactics of the time period.
It is more likely that they knew about the errors but decided to keep it more dramatical. As long as they don't advertise as "documentation piece" or "historically accurate", there is not much of a big problem. You really think they did not know that a tank cannot drive into a trench? Of course they knew, but a human being squished by it is incredibly bone chilling, so they went with that.
@@WhyAliasIdontNeedOne You realize they might've replied without even reading your comment first, right? Doesn't revolve around you - saying it's pointless isn't true
It's probably worth noting that a lot of movies seem to act as if WWI battles were all just a bunch of allied soldiers attacking a single German trench and somehow not being able to figure that out in four years, when the reality was a bit more complicated. Both sides typically constructed quite a few lines of trenches, with the expectation that the enemy would be able to take the first line or two in an attack, and instead relied on depth and reinforcements to repel attacks, especially towards the end of the war. This worked because, in an era before the invention of the portable radio, field telephone networks let defending forces in trenches communicate in real time but attacking forces typically had to rely on runners and messengers once they left their trenches. This meant that the attackers could plan their initial attack pretty well, suppressing the enemy's front lines with artillery and taking the trench with grenades, but after that their ability to call for reinforcements or artillery support, or coordinate with other units became almost nonexistent. The defender, meanwhile, could pick up a telephone and talk in real time to neighboring units, ask for artillery fire to hit attacking troops, and direct trainloads of reinforcements to swarm the attacker's position with counterattacks. It shouldn't be surprising that most offensives were quickly kicked back to their starting points within a few days or weeks. As the attacker, you could try to pre-plan every part of an offensive to make sure your attacking infantry had the support they needed, but inevitably something would go wrong and your infantry would find themselves unsupported and running out of supplies halfway through the enemy trenches, facing counterattacks by fresh enemy troops on three sides and the offensive would die out (along with many of its participants). The belligerents on the Western front tried literally every idea imaginable (including some that would have been better left on the drawing board) to solve this basic problem, and made some notable progress as the war went on, but never fully solved it.
I take it you have read Rommel's boom Infanterie Greift An (Infantry Attacks). In it he describes his experiences in France and Italy in WWI, one thing that amazed me was the sue of flying telephone linesmen to both set up forward bases and to guide follow on troops. At one stage at Caporetto he sent a squad forward to work a way around an enemy elevated defence, the group took a linesman with them who set up a telephone and called back what they saw in real time. Rommel then sent the rest of the company to attack, they followed the laid out telephone line to find where they had to go - genius !
@@Briggie aircraft capable of reconnaissance and ground attack existed, but the lack of portable radios made them less useful. It was common to use aerial photographs to plan operations and to use aircraft and balloons to adjust artillery fire, but it was nearly impossible for pilots to talk directly to troops on the ground.
Good points, although wireless radio did exist during WW1. They just weren't feasibly man-portable and mostly only viable on warships and, later on, some artillery spotter aircraft. It was still early technology at the time, and not terribly good.
I like how at the end he acknowledges that the significance of a film is not always in it's technical accuracy, even if it's an historical drama. It's a film after all, it's meant to engage and immerse us in a visceral, emotional experience first and foremost.
I like that he mentioned Journey’s End at the end. That film often gets overlooked or disregarded because it’s not very action heavy, but the acting, the story and the portrayal of the characters makes it well worth a watch.
Should have used the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front. That was significantly more accurate since they used German advisers who had been in WWI. I believe that the realism and grittiness reflected excellently in that movie.
@@Courierman6 one thing I will add is that I feel like the 2022 version cut a lot of character moments I like the battle scenes but ehh it doesn’t have the same impact I feel the older movies did a way better job at the source material
The tank scene in All Quiet was the first time I felt like I was seeing something new in war films since Saving Private Ryan. Upon first viewing, you could really feel the sheer terror of the German soldiers.
@@RainKoepke-ic3gfit was more about the individual soldiers however, while yes the Germans may have been fighting tanks before, the people you see in the film are fresh faced recruits, these aint seasoned veterans who have been there before In other words these soldiers have never seen a tank before The scene is ment to portray the terror and realization that war is not a fun adventure,
@@RainKoepke-ic3gf Hey bozo look at the comment absolutely slamming your entire argument. I hope you go to bed feeling stupid for making a comment about "unrealistic reaction" because they knew how to deal with tanks. But what your bozo brain forgot to remember is THEY ARE CHILDREN!!!! WHOAHHHHHHH?!?!!?!!! AND WHAT ARE CHILDREN GOING TO DO DURING A WAR????????? OMG THEY WILL BE SCARED!!!!!!! WHOAAAAAAA SO CRAZYYYYYY
His last comment about the scene in All Quiet on the Western Front not representing 1918 was my biggest issue with the movie as well. Especially the beginning where you see our characters with a very naive, 1914 outlook on war being a grand noble adventure before enlisting. No. In 1918 Germany was starving to death and they were melting down church bells to make bullets. No one would have had that same mentality that far into the war. The front was a death sentence and all of society knew it.
While I agree, I don't mind at all. The main point of the movie is to show the sheer terror that these soldiers had to go to while those who decide to go to war sit back and relax in comfort. That being said, they could have just said it was 1914 when they signed and had the movie spawn over the whole war.
I disagree .. even deep into the war many were oblivious and propaganda was very strong. WW2 is a prime example , even at the end of the war , kids were brainwashed into thinking the war was alive and well and that they could win.
I remember accounts of German troops being redeployed west in 1918 told point blank by some civilians they should desert. The returning German soldier was shocked by this. It would not have happened a year earlier.
I feel Paeschendaele and war horse portrayed ww1 pretty well. Paeschendaele for its brutalness and Warhorse near the start with the British charging on horses thinking it was the superior way only to be annihilated by the German machine guns - the horror on the British soldiers face at their realisation.
I have finished his book "Ring of Steel" lately. It's about Germany and Austria-Hungary in the First World War. Amazing detail and a third of the book is used to list his sources, that are overwhelmingly from the time period. Very informative and unbiased, something I value very much, since history needs to be seen like that to truly understand it. I recommend it to everyone interested in the topic.
Unbiased is a pretty laughable review of ring of steel. His portrayal of Moltke in the July crisis is ridiculous, he wasn't scared he was enthusiastic for the war and manoeuvred to bring it about. He gives rationals and explanations for central powers war crimes like the rape of Belgium/Serbia as being products of paranoia etc but doesnt lend the same analysis to Russian war crimes which he says were results of racism/antisemitism. Suddenly russian conscripts aren't scared teenagers unlike Germans but deeply indoctrinated despite widespread illiteracy
The 1930 original of All Quiet on the Western Front does a great job of depicting a World War I trench battle. Probably some of the best work ever done in a movie.
The thing I hate about war movies in general, and WW1 war movies are particularly bad about it, is how pervasive the drab color filter is. We really should see the bright colors in the areas the war doesn't reach. Keep the clear sky blue, and grass green away from the front. The contrast makes the horror of war more clear. As they are, it just looks like everything was brown/gray back then.
It's not just about war movies either, people assume WW2 was black and white, WW1 was drab and Victorian era was sepia-colored when it had the most gaudy color schemes in clothing and items as chemical dyes became commonplace. Also the opposite case of 80s when everything looks neon like Blade Runner or T1 club scene in movies, while real 1980s were brown and wood grain was everywhere.
@@KasumiRINA Yep, the worst are the medieval movies, my guess is that GOT succeeded really well with the grey vibes in Winterfell and the North, so directors of medieval movies just started implementing it to their own. Personally I vote for more Napoleonic War movies, arguably the most colorful wars in history, French wore blue, Russians wore green, British wore red, Austrians wore gray/Orange, Prussians wore black - every army had variations.
Love that battle scenes are what excited him the LEAST. You can see his obvious passion, but it is when he can tell that artists also deeply cared about what is being represented
I've read Watson's "The Fortress: The Siege of Przemysl" and listened to an hour plus lecture on the same subject by him via the Western Front Association's on-line lecture series. Very impressive (knowledgeable and engaging) historian. His books are worth a read.
I think that, in this context, the term "Aussie" was used more as a regional identifier than a national one. I'm sure this guy knows exactly how many Kiwis were at Gallipoli.
Very good analysis from Alex, one of the brightest and most respected historians of the Great War. If you are interested please read any of his three books which are all incredible.
All quiet gets a lot of the visual and visceral beats right, which I believe is what they were going for, and so I still think it's an excellent war film. But yes, the actual battles depicted are generally anachronistic (especially the tank battle). The film is primarily set on a solidly static battle line, which was basically non-existent by late 1918. Early tanks were visually scary, and could transport large weapons fairly well, but were extremely slow (walking speed slow), got stuck in mud and debris very easily, were extremely vulnerable to several forms of attack, and as a result, generally couldn't (as a primary tool anyways) break defensive lines. I believe the flamethrowers were used in the film to add, again, to the visual horror, which is reasonable. Though the way they're used doesn't make a lot of sense. They're deployment would have been a lot more surgical. Cutting off your own route for advancing (assuming that's the goal) is not generally a good idea. I believe the goal was to depict tanks and flamethrowers (which as sheer tools of war, are not anachronistic for a ww1 film) in a way that evokes shock and horror in the audience, like they might have for soldiers actually fighting 100 hundred years ago. However, to show these weapons more accurately, they may have come off as only mild inconveniences to a modern audience, and thus wouldn't have had the proper dramatic effect.
This guy was great. Would love to see him do more movies. He's very good at explaining himself and why the scenes are wrong. The British are brutal graders.
I've seen most of these movies (not the Indian one and Gallipoli) and as far as I was told by my grand father from one of his uncle who was in Hartmannswillerkopf and an 80+ neighbour in our village who lost an eye in Verdun and went to school in 1977 to tell us his war, I still think the closest to reality is that scene in Path of Glory when Kirk Douglass walks the trench, you can hear the shreeking of the shells passing above the trench, the explosion of German shells, the fear in the face of the soldiers ready to attack. These 2 veterans told us that the worse was always the shells, the noise, the ground trembling, the fear of being buried alive in the trench and above all having to get out of the trench, this was a fear they never again experienced in their life. Kubrick did an awesome movie portraying the horror millions of men went through.
@@dd52161 you have no idea what you’re talking about. This guy is one of the leading WWI historians in the world and has won the Wolfson Prize…this is why he is on UA-cam talking about history and you are on UA-cam making a fool of yourself 😂
I love these harsher critiques because while the films skip out on things for sake of budget or just to make the scene flow better. Its nice to have information pointed out how many details are actually missing that these soldiers really had to face.
There's just something special in listening to someone talking about something they're passionate about. Just look how much more happy he is at 4:50 because of the realistic representation of the French tanks rolling through the smoke.
..yes, but he forgets to mention that this type of tank was never used in attacking trenches.....as it couldn't cross one. They were relegated to use as mobile artillery in 1915.
Great video! WWI has always fascinated me, and as someone with 0 military background or knowledge, it's great to learn about tactics used and how they evolved. Definitely planning on checking out this guy's books.
The Great War is a series on UA-cam you might be interested in for some easy-to-digest information on WW1. It did a video per week starting in 2014 to cover the events of WW1 week-by-week for the 100th anniversary of the conflict. If that's too in-depth, they also did videos intermittently that covered important individuals as well as the equipment/tactics used.
As an Australian, I would like to add a detail about Gallipoli: ANZAC (at the time) stood for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Those boats didn't only have Australians in them, they had New Zealanders as well.
Personally I'd say 1917 is one of the most accurate ww1 films in recent years, it had some flaws and overall very little actual combat, but had on par emotional drama with classics like all quiet on the western front and War Horse, really want to see those covered next
The Flying Circus always makes me think of knights and heraldry. A lot of those men were from old cavalry families and nobility, it makes sense they would want to be dashing, recognizable and unique.
After seeing what Alexander said about the scene from All Quiet on the Western Front, I'm curious to learn more about what combat was like at the end of WW1.
I liked this one. Very informative, very to the point. Quite often in these videos you see people meandering and not really providing any actual data. They're still interesting but not as interesting as they could be.
16:21 Actually it was Australian, New Zealand, Niuean, Samoan, and other Pacific Island Nations who partook in Gallipolli, not just Australian Troops, therefore ANZAC. (Australia New Zealand Army Corps).
THANK YOU. I thought I was the only one who felt almost insulted by this lack of information and acknowledgement. Māori Battalions also served bravely. This is a bad look IMP. 😒
Everyone seems to forget the 350,000 British (including Indian and Newfoundland troops) and the 80,000 French, concentrating instead on the 50,000 Australian and 15,000 New Zealand troops that fought at Gallipoli. To some extent this is understandable, because of the part this campaign had in forging the national identity of the Anzac nations. However it has led to the common impression that the ANZACs were sent as cannon fodder in order to spare British troops. This does a great disservice to all those forgotten soldiers who fought and died in this ultimately fruitless campaign.
@@sarahsinai5381 ..meh..There was only ever ONE Maori battalion and they spent most of their time as Pioneers, behind the lines, digging trenches. Their casualty rate in WW1 was the lowest in the NZ Division as a result.
A detail he's omitting about All Quiet on the Western Front is that the trench is actually German, it was captured by the french before and is now being recaptured by the germans, that's why it's facing that way. I'm surprised no one actually mentioned that.
that's just blatantly incorrect, it's the complete opposite way around, and even if your situation was accurate, it still doesn't explain "why it's facing that way"
The 2022 version of _All Quiet on the Western Front_ may not be as iconic as the original 1930 film, but it is an admirable and relevant portrayal of the horror and tragedy of the First World War. With all the participants and witnesses of the First World War already passed away, it is important that the memories of the war and its aftermath are kept alive so that its lessons and significance could be preserved and not forgotten.
The 2022 version is brilliant in that it creates a story different from the original source material while retaining its core message. They could‘ve just copied the 1930 movie with modern effects but that wouldn’t do justice to the original movie and the book. As a result of their approach, we now have two movies that are both cinematic masterpieces in their own right without having one just copying the other. It should also be noted that there is more to history than just troop movements and correctly depicting the grey tone of german shovels. To this British historian it doesn’t make sense to depict the last days of the war since they are not as intensive as the Battle of the Somme for example. From a German perspective however, it makes perfect sense since these are some of the most important days in German history. At this point, the German revolution has already begun, the Kaiser has abdicated and over 1000 years of German monarchy have just abrubtly ended. The movie shows the real time collapse of prussian militarist rule and its inability to cope with it. The general is the perfect embodiment of this prussian arrogance, blaming others for their own mistakes and sending men into certain death to save some of their honor. The lies that the general spouts about the war outcome also serve as an early version of the „Dolchstoßlegende“, one of the lies that Hitler will later use in his rise to power. The movie doesn’t only show the horrors of war but also some of reasons why they happened. In that respect it is more political than the original work, at the same time it matches more recent accounts of historians on Germany in WW1. But hey I guess thats all not as interesting as knowing whether a St Chamond stops or not while firing🤷♂️
@@salzwassersamunddiesoljank5573 Sorry but thats just BS, the movie has almost nothing to do with the book, not even the core message. Its just gore p0rn without much story or realism, for people who slow down on the highway, causing a traffic jam, to watch and film an accident on the opposite lane.
lmao you have interpreted his complaint exactly backwards. His point was that it’s dishonest to pretend that the last days of the war were as intense as the Somme, and it obscures the true ending of the war. yes, Germany was collapsing. so was the army. no German general could’ve ordered an assault on November 11th - his own men might’ve shot him. there’s an extremely interesting story to tell about German soldiers trying to survive the last months of the war and the disintegration of the army, the pursuit east, etc. but All Quiet (2022) relies on generic tropes of trench warfare instead
@@justherefox7 If it were, then I think the title of the fight would have been called "The Wartime of the Bonfires". And yes that would be almost as disturbing as the Brussias lethal gas attack against the Russians.
I would love to hear his opinion on Wings. It was remarkable for its time, of course, and had the benefit of multiple cast and crew who had in fact served in WWI, but I would be curious to see how it has held up in general.
I can already anticipate what he might say, and it's the same reason I thought the movie ridiculous. Phone and telegraph lines exist to deliver messages! And messenger pigeons as well if you want to get into it. It makes no sense sending a single messenger X number of miles to call off an attack. At the very least, he could have been given a horse to ride parallel behind the British lines...
It was also to rescue an oddly small number of men. 1917 as a story is more in line with the times of the Napoleonic Wars, for reasons already explained.
@@jonathanslater5643 I mean, a horse is certainly valid. In line with whats being said in the movie, the germans retreated a long distance to their new defensive lines. I'm not sure if telephone / telegram lines would be realistic to fully set up in the time between them chasing the "retreating" germans or if the advance was so fast they hadnt set up their lines of communications. I'm more curious about the realism aspect of the trenches / means of attack then the realism of two runners being sent out on such an important mission.
The Red Baron had an occasional scene that worked, but the flying in it was way too fast, as well as, the maneuvering too much like a WWII plane. Things were a lot slower, a better example would be the Blue Max--both for the flying and the story. We seriously need a good, strong, and respectful movie on von Richtofen and crew. I've read enough, and have flown many hours in Rise of Flight and IL-2 (and older WWI combat sims) to know that the Observation balloons were one per sector, not 30 crammed into a hectare. ;-)
I really enjoyed Alexander Watson's explanation and overall approach, calm, measured, against the cinematic bombast and you come away with some solid, useful info about WWI tactics. Hope we get the chance to watch him again in the future.
Fantastic review. Watching that tank scene was painful once you got past the initial cinematic awesome. I did appreciate that they made a really solid effort at portraying the St Chamonds. But then they had them roll in way faster than they could have moved on their best day and completely separated from the infantry that would have prevented their destruction by the method shown. Also, the Germans in the trench firing the mortar at the Indian troops, is it just me or does it look like they are wearing WWII Fallschrimjager helmets?
16:15 I've never seen this film. I am Australian - 25th of April is known as ANZAC day here and in New Zealand (ANZAC standing for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). ANZAC Day is a huge ordeal. It's a Public Holiday, thousands gather at War Memorials across the country for Dawn Services, hundreds travel to Gallipoli to this exact beach every year. Moving and emotional tributes to the ANZACs (of all wars, not just the First World War) are presented before the AFL matches on ANZAC Day and ANZAC Day eve. We have biscuits called ANZAC Biscuits that we make and eat this time of year, made from honey and oats which were a common food item during the War. This day is so special to us Australians that even disrespecting the biscuit is a crime - It's unlawful to call them ANZAC cookies, and you cannot use the word ANZAC to describe a food that isn't a real ANZAC biscuit (eg ANZAC Cheesecake is against regulations). Thanks for including this particular battle - it's a very prominent moment in Australian Culture
Interesting, well explained video. Was hoping for some older films though, such as Paths of Glory and the 1931 version of All Quiet on the Western Front.
16:15 not just Australians, but also New Zealanders. Its ANZAC after all, it’s not fair they get forgotten when they sacrificed just as much as we Australians did.
I enjoyed the video , but I have to say that ANZAC stands for Australia (and) New Zealand Army Corps. Throughout the section of the video that mentions the Anzacs they are refered to as just Australians, but New Zealand was also a part.
Fun facts. During WWI the Brighton Pavilion was turned into a military hospital for Indian troops as it was felt that the architecture would help the wounded by them being in a somewhat familiar surrounding. Also, the British government changed the law to allow open air cremations. The Chattri still stands up on the downs as a memorial with the cremation stones still in place and a plaque bearing the names of those who died of their wounds and were cremated there. Worth a visit if you are ever travelling the South Downs way, though it is a mile or so South from Clayton Hill the SDW. It's easy to find on Google Earth at 50,53, 03 N 0, 08, 49 W
It's good to see a WWI historian torch 2022 version of "All Quiet on the Western Front". In spite of its popularity, Netflix adaptation of AQOTWF is historically inaccurate apart from being extremely unfaithful to Erich Maria Remarque's novel.
I am a huge fan of the original book and the movie was a disgrace. Of course it looked and sounded good. But thats nothing special in 2022. It lacked everything i felt after reading remarque for the first time....and thats the feelings we need in 2023
@@weybye91 might be the most stupid thing I've heard in a while. You can't know you dislike a film until you've watched it, especially when most reviews were positive
He mistaken on his critic of the trench facing the wrong way, that trench was originally German, they got it back from the french after a counter offensive. Maybe next time he can watch the movie instead of trying to pin-point innacuracies, the movie never tried to be a full realistic interpretation of how WW1 went, it had a really great anti-war message and criticism at how soldiers are only numbers to leadership to a modern audience.
This was an amazing video and no criticism is meant at all, obviously portraying the horrors of direct combat is important. But it would have been interesting to see him analyze some scenes of nurses, civilians, and other people affected besides the troops on the front. Again, fantastic video, this guy is clearly not only knowledgeable but passionate which is the most important thing.
How about reviewing the 1981 Australian movie "Gallipoli", and the later TV series "Anzacs" from 1985? I've studied Australian actions during the First World War, and as far as I can tell, the movie and mini-series took few liberties when it came to depicting the experiences of our soldiers.
I watched Gallipoli with my mum back in the 80's as a wee nipper, maybe 6 or 7. I have always remembered the mantra about the protagonists legs being steel springs which will pump him down the track. Stuck with me for some reason. Good movie.
When the Australians troops trashed the guys shop because he thought they sold him a souvenir too expensively - and it was played for comedic relief in the film. Yeah, thats just racism, and should be called out. Hundreds of thousands of Kiwis and Aussies have gone to Turkey for ANZAC day, as a rite of passage almost. Many get pissed and make a mess, but always Turkey lets them in. Remeber, Australia and NZ invaded Turkey as enemies. Compare that to how Australians complain when the Japanese families of those who were killed in Darwin, wanted to make a small monument up in Darwin.
Should have shown clips from Journey's End Trench raid scene, Passchendaele (2007) mud scene AKA BF1 opening scene, Lawrence of Arabia Aqabah scene, 1917 Trench run scene and much more. WW1 does not get much as attention as WW2.
Lol full of propaganda Trenches wrong Rescue first a pilot and then be stabbed Walking with hopnails on a steel bridge Boobytrap a duggout Children at the frontline Germans were drunk Its rubbish and foolish movie Even veterans will turn in their grave of shame of what this bs movie is representing
The Lost Battalion is an underrated WWI movie. It is fairly accurate to what happened and portrays a certain type of WWI warfare accurately (i.e. not trench warfare)
the best thing about these very knowledgeable experts is that they don't try to shove an agenda down one's throat but rather are just very interested in historical accuracy. Love it!
ANZAC at Gallipoli included New Zealanders and Australians, not just the Australians you mentioned. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps
I always like when war experts breakdown movies because they confirm my belief that there is no reason to falsely portray war in movies. The reality of war is already dramatic, sensational and insane so why not portray it as historical accurate as possible?
I’ll say what I think Mel Gibson said or whoever directed we were soldiers “this is a movie not a documentary”
Historically accurate takes skill and knowledge about the subject matter that the film maker might not have.
It's much harder to make it accurate than just winging it.
@Curiosity Truth, you spend more time playing with yourself bored shitless
A really big thing which causes in accuracies is the elaborateness of real life tactics and strategy that to portray in film has so many moving parts it would be very hard to recreate in an understanding manner for an average film watcher. As someone in the military I don’t think a film could accurately portray an assault on a fixed position without confusing the audience because soldiers like us are confused in reality. It’s hectic and hard to see what’s going on. When it comes to certain aspects like details that just comes down to a price and timing thing
@@philly_lando_1853 I would say this is false, anyone can make a movie about trench warfare and just have it be frontal assaults and a few intermissions of a guy explaining why they need to go X direction. The directions of war is complicated for the leadership. Not so much for the guys on and sometimes in the dirt. Close and urban combat sure but modern war and action movies have actually done well, if not better than decades ago for being too fast paced.
All Quiet On The Western Front was freaking intense. One of the most intense war movies I’ve ever seen.
are you talking about the 1930 one or the remake?
@@markr46191930 one is better.Made all from ww1 vets. The new one is a real depiction of what some battles could go. Its just an unbiased depiction of death and suffering
Nothing can compare to the 1930’s, the original, All Quiet on the Western Front. That movie was bone chilling!! Phenomenal movie in my opinion
The Netflix remake fell so short compared to the 1930 version and, honestly, even the 1979 version. So much focus on action, so little focus on the characters and their journeys, so much essential stuff cut out to make room for more gore and weird sideplots. It was so disappointing.
Was rubbish IMO - and acting was clearly acting. Shouldn't be able to eat popcorn in a war movie. Watch Come and See and grow up.
He is absolutely right about needing to properly portray any war shown in a movie with the most amount of historical accuracy as possible. If you are trying to show what soldiers went through it’s only right you make everything accurate. Still love All Quiet on the Western Front
An artist job isn’t to portray things accurately. It’s to tell a story.
If you want an accurate portrayal l watch a documentary.
@@Somethingawefulit is if you’re basing your art on real people’s real experienced
It is impossible to show what soldiers went through because no matter what they are observers that are not in danger
@@Taykorjg it’s also impossible to stop all crime. Does that mean we should stop enforcing laws? No, you get as close as you possibly can.
i don’t know, i think about it like this - he criticizes All Quiet because the best chance of survival would’ve been to shoot a flair gun - but we literally know not all battles occurred exactly the same, nor their circumstances, and that’s a big reason some are won/loss, so one side having flaws is inherently apart of war and yet he’s criticizing it as being a flaw in the movie because they’re not being as “optimum as possible” based on information we only have looking back. If they’re portraying a specific war and not taking any creative liberties - sure, but the novel is fiction and took creative liberties, so did the movie.
One interesting thing in the original 1930 All Quiet On The Western Front is that most of the extras were Germans who had fought in WW1. The director(who was also a WW1 veteran) asked them how they would set up barbed wire for the scene where the characters do it in order to get it right. Also, the famous scene with the French soldier’s hands on the barbed wire was something that one of the German extras had witnessed.
Finally, somebody who acknowledges the old AQOTWF movies. That 1930 one was nightmare fuel, not really much to say about the 1979 one however.
@@Verdun16You mean 1979.
@@TheMetalus1 yeah my bad
@hawkeye0378 average wendigoon viewer.
That battle scene in the 1930 version was the most intense I have ever seen, though it didnt give me nightmares like the bridge.
This one is one of my favourites to date. He really got into it and gave us a proper examination of the movie specifically on its historical accuracy. Well done!
“the guns in 1915 were actually light brown not dark brown” 1/10
I like how you can tell he gets excited when they do things right, and is groaning when they do something silly
The medieval war expert is also a favorite. These guys have the same vibe. Love it.
@Repent and believe in Jesus Christ I am not a religious person. That being said, I understand that there are no atheists in a war. And I understand why
There is another one from this series that is really worth watching. It's a retired US submarine commander rating submarine movies and the guy talks at length about submarine warfare and tell interesting stories about his time on submarines. If you can find it, it's fascinating!
I like how he effortlessly reminds us that people in history, and in this case WW1, weren't dumb like modern society likes to portray them. In fact, they quite ingeniously worked around problems, using the means that were available to them at the time.
Id argue most nowdays are more dumb especially IQ scores have fallen meanwhile college attendamce has increased in the US lol so thats quite astonishing
Necessity IS the mother of invention (or was that Zappa?), there's few necessities more...um, necessary than survival, and war challenged that fairly regularly.
Hollywood is way too obsessed with war it’s so weird. There are documentaries out there for a reason
This reminds me of a guy on a BF1 video I watched a long time ago who insisted that WWI weapons legitimately shot in all sort of directions because they're so old and they all just came like that because tech was too primitive and people weren't smart enough as they are today. Extremely ironic, isn't it?
Genius, sadist engineers.
The tank scene from All Quiet was actually scary. The build up and the reveal was awesome.
The tank battle from "Company of Heroes" (2013 ) was the bomb!
@@TellySavalas-or5hf for a minute I thought you were talking about the video game lolz. But thanks, I’m gonna watch it
Fury tank scene is better!
@@TellySavalas-or5hf fury sucks
@@taistelusammakko5088 a lot of people disagree with you. It’s called opinions, bud.
This expert was great. I feel like he really understood what he was there for. His explanations were very real but very entertaining. More of him please.
He has been here before.. twice or something famously known as the trench guy
2 Cor 4:4, repent- Heil GOD
giant mistake bringin german pow over to camps in america feedin em an housing.....big mistake.....
@@GeBaker god is dead because i killed him
@@GeBakerYou should say hail God not heil. Heil is a Nazi thing. God Bless.
He impressed me the most at 2:02. Any ordinary viewer would not even given any significance to the church tower, just a random feature in the background... But he has a trained eye that hones in on details that others would miss.
yeah that’s why he is there he is no ordinary viewer
This guy seems like a fun dude. Gets very into the videos and explains what's great and what's not with a lot of excitement. I would love to have him do more videos
im curious of what his thoughts would be on games like Battlefield 1 on how ww1 was portrayed
@@phiwveyprobably hate it.
2 Cor 4:4, repent- Heil GOD
@@phiwveyBattlefield 1 is egregious with it's inaccuracies, terrible game
History geeks when the Battle of the Somme in a movie doesn't show 1 soldier named Bartholomew Shart the 3rd@@masrr3678
Good to see WWI finally getting some attention - and nobody better to do so than Alexander Watson! Hope to see him again on this channel soon, he's fantastic. My favourite part is about the Red Baron - he painted his aircraft "because he could". As a 19th century historian, I often see people overinterpreting the tiniest details, to the point it gets absolutely ridiculous. But often the answer, just like it is nowadays, is "they did it because they liked it", end of story.
I do think he liked it, but the best iteration I've read is he did it because, well, he's cocky. He's the best and he knew it. It's like a skin in a game, he wanted people to know who he is.
@@anhduc0913 And honestly eventually once he is infamous, that red plane WOULD absolutely terrify the enemies.
Exactly. It's like WW2 airmen painting pin up girls, sharks and eagles on the noses of their planes, or writing messages on the bombs. No practical use, but it looks cool, and people like to look cool.
"The Fortress" is a masterpiece. It brilliantly uses the fighting in Galicia as a microcosm of the great power conflict and the tragedy is was for those caught in between. The perfect companion to "Bloodlands".
Well I mean if you're called the Red Baron of course you'll end up painting your airplane red... right?
I hope they continue this series for future films like 'Oppenheimer' its always so interesting to hear an educated opinion. The fact an individual can study something so extensively and gain so much knowledge about something, mainly because they can or want to, is just amazing to me!
necromanced Oppenheimer rates the accuracy of film "Oppenheimer"
Loved this guy. Sooo informative. As a history buff myself I love to learn more about the small details
Lets review realistic War movies- first off the bat Wonder Woman???
@@catinthehat906 "realistic" no, they just said "WW1 Battles." He's ranking the realism of them but these aren't all realistic movies are you are claiming they are saying
@@poopshiestyreal I was hoping he might review a scene in '1917'.
bit creepy though 😒
@@catinthehat906 Ok 👍
Let's hope there's a second video that covers 1917, and maybe the original All Quiet on the Western Front. This one was great.
The 1931 version was much more authentic, even the 1979 version was better than the latest version!
Just letting you know there’s a second video
@@johncartwright8154 Yeah I imagine filming it just a 15 years or so after the war helps nail down the realism! Never saw the one with John Boy from the waltons but I've heard good things
@@dorklyasmr6017 I'm pretty sure they also used a bunch of WW1 vets for the movie, making it even more accurate
Hoping for him to cover Blackadder Goes Forth next 😛
I just like how quickly and accurately he is able to break down a scene so it feels more like a breakdown than just him watching movie scenes and rating authenticity
My Oldest Great Grandpa served in World War One. Henry Otto Grill Private First Class United States Army 1895-1979.
Waiting for part 2 featuring 1917, War Horse, Fly Boys, and Lawrence of Arabia.
It would be great if he can review Our World War
And the King Man
@Yabusaki Ao Our World War was so good! Shame more people haven’t seen it.
You forgot Paths of Glory.
Don't forget Blackadder!
I'm sometimes skeptical of the "expert" videos but this guy definitely nails it and is deserving of the title.
And has citations, good stuff.
Well, he's an actual historian with academic publications, conversely to self proclaimed experts
@@barnowl3835 Sadly "academic" doesn't mean much these days with all the "social studies" experts. :/
@@CrazyNikel I'd rather have social studies experts platformed than tankie linguists like Chomsky or other Kissingers.
@@KasumiRINA Hey so you're saying Nobel prize winners are bullshit? *I'm right there with you* 😊
It always amazes me that they are willing to spend millions on films but not hire a guy like this to point them in the right direction for kit and tactics of the time period.
It is more likely that they knew about the errors but decided to keep it more dramatical. As long as they don't advertise as "documentation piece" or "historically accurate", there is not much of a big problem. You really think they did not know that a tank cannot drive into a trench? Of course they knew, but a human being squished by it is incredibly bone chilling, so they went with that.
Most of them do, they just prefer sacrificing realism over a better looking film, aqotwf isn’t that accurate but it’s an amazing movie
@@ultimatestuff7111 i wrote the exact same thing, your comment is pointless
@@WhyAliasIdontNeedOne You realize they might've replied without even reading your comment first, right? Doesn't revolve around you - saying it's pointless isn't true
@@racheldiane7856 he just repeated pints i did
Ancient & Medieval warfare guy: Ditches, ditches, ditches! WW1 warfare guy: hold my beer
I love this comment
@@Welcometotheclipshow me too
Trenches are a bit like ditches.
@@tizziejames9040 Trenches are ditches badass son
"forget about ditches, don't bother with anything, you die quickly, horribly"
It's probably worth noting that a lot of movies seem to act as if WWI battles were all just a bunch of allied soldiers attacking a single German trench and somehow not being able to figure that out in four years, when the reality was a bit more complicated.
Both sides typically constructed quite a few lines of trenches, with the expectation that the enemy would be able to take the first line or two in an attack, and instead relied on depth and reinforcements to repel attacks, especially towards the end of the war.
This worked because, in an era before the invention of the portable radio, field telephone networks let defending forces in trenches communicate in real time but attacking forces typically had to rely on runners and messengers once they left their trenches.
This meant that the attackers could plan their initial attack pretty well, suppressing the enemy's front lines with artillery and taking the trench with grenades, but after that their ability to call for reinforcements or artillery support, or coordinate with other units became almost nonexistent.
The defender, meanwhile, could pick up a telephone and talk in real time to neighboring units, ask for artillery fire to hit attacking troops, and direct trainloads of reinforcements to swarm the attacker's position with counterattacks. It shouldn't be surprising that most offensives were quickly kicked back to their starting points within a few days or weeks.
As the attacker, you could try to pre-plan every part of an offensive to make sure your attacking infantry had the support they needed, but inevitably something would go wrong and your infantry would find themselves unsupported and running out of supplies halfway through the enemy trenches, facing counterattacks by fresh enemy troops on three sides and the offensive would die out (along with many of its participants).
The belligerents on the Western front tried literally every idea imaginable (including some that would have been better left on the drawing board) to solve this basic problem, and made some notable progress as the war went on, but never fully solved it.
I take it you have read Rommel's boom Infanterie Greift An (Infantry Attacks). In it he describes his experiences in France and Italy in WWI, one thing that amazed me was the sue of flying telephone linesmen to both set up forward bases and to guide follow on troops. At one stage at Caporetto he sent a squad forward to work a way around an enemy elevated defence, the group took a linesman with them who set up a telephone and called back what they saw in real time. Rommel then sent the rest of the company to attack, they followed the laid out telephone line to find where they had to go - genius !
That’s really interesting! One of those things I’ve often wondered but never sought out to learn, thanks!
Also of course in those days having no air support doesn’t help.
@@Briggie aircraft capable of reconnaissance and ground attack existed, but the lack of portable radios made them less useful.
It was common to use aerial photographs to plan operations and to use aircraft and balloons to adjust artillery fire, but it was nearly impossible for pilots to talk directly to troops on the ground.
Good points, although wireless radio did exist during WW1. They just weren't feasibly man-portable and mostly only viable on warships and, later on, some artillery spotter aircraft. It was still early technology at the time, and not terribly good.
I like how at the end he acknowledges that the significance of a film is not always in it's technical accuracy, even if it's an historical drama. It's a film after all, it's meant to engage and immerse us in a visceral, emotional experience first and foremost.
I like that he mentioned Journey’s End at the end. That film often gets overlooked or disregarded because it’s not very action heavy, but the acting, the story and the portrayal of the characters makes it well worth a watch.
Should have used the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front. That was significantly more accurate since they used German advisers who had been in WWI. I believe that the realism and grittiness reflected excellently in that movie.
eh i still liked the 2022 verison but ofc that's just mo
@@Courierman6 one thing I will add is that I feel like the 2022 version cut a lot of character moments I like the battle scenes but ehh it doesn’t have the same impact I feel the older movies did a way better job at the source material
@wesleymcbride8084 that's fair but still the 2022 will probably be my favorite out of the three.
@@Courierman6 Why? It's not like your opinion was "I think 'The Pest' should've won an Oscar."
@@Courierman6 But why should anyone "hate you" for that opinion. You like a different movie better than another person. Nothing to hate about that.
The tank scene in All Quiet was the first time I felt like I was seeing something new in war films since Saving Private Ryan. Upon first viewing, you could really feel the sheer terror of the German soldiers.
Hollywood is way too obsessed with war it’s so weird. There are documentaries out there for a reason
But it wasn't accurate because it's 1918 the Germans have been fighting tanks for 2 years and had weapons and tactics to stop them
Granted - but this is a movie we are talking about, not a history book. @@RainKoepke-ic3gf
@@RainKoepke-ic3gfit was more about the individual soldiers however, while yes the Germans may have been fighting tanks before, the people you see in the film are fresh faced recruits, these aint seasoned veterans who have been there before
In other words these soldiers have never seen a tank before
The scene is ment to portray the terror and realization that war is not a fun adventure,
@@RainKoepke-ic3gf Hey bozo look at the comment absolutely slamming your entire argument. I hope you go to bed feeling stupid for making a comment about "unrealistic reaction" because they knew how to deal with tanks. But what your bozo brain forgot to remember is THEY ARE CHILDREN!!!! WHOAHHHHHHH?!?!!?!!! AND WHAT ARE CHILDREN GOING TO DO DURING A WAR????????? OMG THEY WILL BE SCARED!!!!!!! WHOAAAAAAA SO CRAZYYYYYY
Might not be the most accurate, but All Quiet On The Western Front was heartbreaking in its own way.
For me it was heartbreaking in terms of quality and realism, both lacking.
If the lack of realism took you out of the movie you weren't really watching it
@@dan-kn3dmew gross you’re that guy
@@TheDogGoesWoof69 huh?
The book and the 1930 movie were already heartbreaking
I love how excited he is when he's reciting history. It maintains interest in his subjects.
His last comment about the scene in All Quiet on the Western Front not representing 1918 was my biggest issue with the movie as well. Especially the beginning where you see our characters with a very naive, 1914 outlook on war being a grand noble adventure before enlisting. No. In 1918 Germany was starving to death and they were melting down church bells to make bullets. No one would have had that same mentality that far into the war. The front was a death sentence and all of society knew it.
While I agree, I don't mind at all. The main point of the movie is to show the sheer terror that these soldiers had to go to while those who decide to go to war sit back and relax in comfort. That being said, they could have just said it was 1914 when they signed and had the movie spawn over the whole war.
I disagree .. even deep into the war many were oblivious and propaganda was very strong. WW2 is a prime example , even at the end of the war , kids were brainwashed into thinking the war was alive and well and that they could win.
I remember accounts of German troops being redeployed west in 1918 told point blank by some civilians they should desert. The returning German soldier was shocked by this. It would not have happened a year earlier.
Some other movies to cover: 1917, Warhorse, Passchendaele, Legends of The Fall, My Boy Jack, Flyboys, The Trench
Man Passchendaele was absolute wank. I’d love to see someone rip that apart.
Un long dimanche de fiançailles
I feel Paeschendaele and war horse portrayed ww1 pretty well. Paeschendaele for its brutalness and Warhorse near the start with the British charging on horses thinking it was the superior way only to be annihilated by the German machine guns - the horror on the British soldiers face at their realisation.
I have finished his book "Ring of Steel" lately. It's about Germany and Austria-Hungary in the First World War. Amazing detail and a third of the book is used to list his sources, that are overwhelmingly from the time period. Very informative and unbiased, something I value very much, since history needs to be seen like that to truly understand it. I recommend it to everyone interested in the topic.
Unbiased is a pretty laughable review of ring of steel. His portrayal of Moltke in the July crisis is ridiculous, he wasn't scared he was enthusiastic for the war and manoeuvred to bring it about. He gives rationals and explanations for central powers war crimes like the rape of Belgium/Serbia as being products of paranoia etc but doesnt lend the same analysis to Russian war crimes which he says were results of racism/antisemitism. Suddenly russian conscripts aren't scared teenagers unlike Germans but deeply indoctrinated despite widespread illiteracy
I love his enthusiasm. We need a sequel of him
The 1930 original of All Quiet on the Western Front does a great job of depicting a World War I trench battle. Probably some of the best work ever done in a movie.
The thing I hate about war movies in general, and WW1 war movies are particularly bad about it, is how pervasive the drab color filter is. We really should see the bright colors in the areas the war doesn't reach. Keep the clear sky blue, and grass green away from the front. The contrast makes the horror of war more clear. As they are, it just looks like everything was brown/gray back then.
It's not just about war movies either, people assume WW2 was black and white, WW1 was drab and Victorian era was sepia-colored when it had the most gaudy color schemes in clothing and items as chemical dyes became commonplace. Also the opposite case of 80s when everything looks neon like Blade Runner or T1 club scene in movies, while real 1980s were brown and wood grain was everywhere.
@@KasumiRINA Yep, the worst are the medieval movies, my guess is that GOT succeeded really well with the grey vibes in Winterfell and the North, so directors of medieval movies just started implementing it to their own. Personally I vote for more Napoleonic War movies, arguably the most colorful wars in history, French wore blue, Russians wore green, British wore red, Austrians wore gray/Orange, Prussians wore black - every army had variations.
@@KasumiRINAok you’re making things up. No adult believes the world was black and white.
Love that battle scenes are what excited him the LEAST. You can see his obvious passion, but it is when he can tell that artists also deeply cared about what is being represented
Would love to hear him rate Westfront 1918, Wooden Crosses, all quiet on the western front (1930), Grand Illusion, and paths of glory
Add Gallipolli (Peter Weir) and Lawrence of Arabia and we are there.
I've read Watson's "The Fortress: The Siege of Przemysl" and listened to an hour plus lecture on the same subject by him via the Western Front Association's on-line lecture series. Very impressive (knowledgeable and engaging) historian. His books are worth a read.
I love these videos. A quiet, confident expert speaking about something he knows inside out, it's so calming (even if the subject is horrible haha)
As a Kiwi, the implication that there were only Australian troops at Gallipoli pisses me off.
That makes two of us
NZ should have made more movies about it....
Also the losses were 2000 men...
As an Aussie I totally agree with my Kiwi cousin !
I think that, in this context, the term "Aussie" was used more as a regional identifier than a national one.
I'm sure this guy knows exactly how many Kiwis were at Gallipoli.
Very good analysis from Alex, one of the brightest and most respected historians of the Great War. If you are interested please read any of his three books which are all incredible.
All quiet gets a lot of the visual and visceral beats right, which I believe is what they were going for, and so I still think it's an excellent war film. But yes, the actual battles depicted are generally anachronistic (especially the tank battle).
The film is primarily set on a solidly static battle line, which was basically non-existent by late 1918.
Early tanks were visually scary, and could transport large weapons fairly well, but were extremely slow (walking speed slow), got stuck in mud and debris very easily, were extremely vulnerable to several forms of attack, and as a result, generally couldn't (as a primary tool anyways) break defensive lines.
I believe the flamethrowers were used in the film to add, again, to the visual horror, which is reasonable. Though the way they're used doesn't make a lot of sense. They're deployment would have been a lot more surgical. Cutting off your own route for advancing (assuming that's the goal) is not generally a good idea.
I believe the goal was to depict tanks and flamethrowers (which as sheer tools of war, are not anachronistic for a ww1 film) in a way that evokes shock and horror in the audience, like they might have for soldiers actually fighting 100 hundred years ago. However, to show these weapons more accurately, they may have come off as only mild inconveniences to a modern audience, and thus wouldn't have had the proper dramatic effect.
I love how he speaks so smoothly about such a violent war.
This guy restors my faith in humanity. I have learnt a lot, hope to see more of him.
It's that you're the one who was never really interested in the subject to have regained faith in humanity with this video
Except learn how to spell apparently. It's "learned" not "learnt".
This Commentator is very charismatic and incredibly interesting to listen to.
One of the best the channel had so far.
This guy was great. Would love to see him do more movies. He's very good at explaining himself and why the scenes are wrong. The British are brutal graders.
Really enjoyed this one. Plenty of interesting info. Hope for a part 2.
The original “all quiet on the western front” movie was my favourite rendition of it ever, no remake will ever surpass it
I've seen most of these movies (not the Indian one and Gallipoli) and as far as I was told by my grand father from one of his uncle who was in Hartmannswillerkopf and an 80+ neighbour in our village who lost an eye in Verdun and went to school in 1977 to tell us his war, I still think the closest to reality is that scene in Path of Glory when Kirk Douglass walks the trench, you can hear the shreeking of the shells passing above the trench, the explosion of German shells, the fear in the face of the soldiers ready to attack. These 2 veterans told us that the worse was always the shells, the noise, the ground trembling, the fear of being buried alive in the trench and above all having to get out of the trench, this was a fear they never again experienced in their life. Kubrick did an awesome movie portraying the horror millions of men went through.
This guy is exactly right for this series… smart, articulate and appropriately outraged when it gets really bad.
New Zealand fought alongside Australia in Gallipoli. That is why it is called ANZAC - Australia New Zealand Army Corps
Very informative and well presented. Would like to see more from him
he has been kicked out of multiple universities...
@@dd52161 why
@@dd52161 you have no idea what you’re talking about. This guy is one of the leading WWI historians in the world and has won the Wolfson Prize…this is why he is on UA-cam talking about history and you are on UA-cam making a fool of yourself 😂
@@Tom-hy9br who are you, his boyfriend ? get out of here
Haha no but I appreciate the underlying homophobia in your comment 😂 enjoy your trolling
I love these harsher critiques because while the films skip out on things for sake of budget or just to make the scene flow better. Its nice to have information pointed out how many details are actually missing that these soldiers really had to face.
There's just something special in listening to someone talking about something they're passionate about. Just look how much more happy he is at 4:50 because of the realistic representation of the French tanks rolling through the smoke.
..yes, but he forgets to mention that this type of tank was never used in attacking trenches.....as it couldn't cross one. They were relegated to use as mobile artillery in 1915.
@@louisavondart9178 The Saint-Chamond didn't even exist in 1915. The were first built in 1916, and absolutely used in assaults on trenches.
Great video! WWI has always fascinated me, and as someone with 0 military background or knowledge, it's great to learn about tactics used and how they evolved. Definitely planning on checking out this guy's books.
Join the Western Front Association. You'll fit right in.
The Great War is a series on UA-cam you might be interested in for some easy-to-digest information on WW1. It did a video per week starting in 2014 to cover the events of WW1 week-by-week for the 100th anniversary of the conflict. If that's too in-depth, they also did videos intermittently that covered important individuals as well as the equipment/tactics used.
As an Australian, I would like to add a detail about Gallipoli: ANZAC (at the time) stood for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Those boats didn't only have Australians in them, they had New Zealanders as well.
Personally I'd say 1917 is one of the most accurate ww1 films in recent years, it had some flaws and overall very little actual combat, but had on par emotional drama with classics like all quiet on the western front and War Horse, really want to see those covered next
It's the one of the most accurate of the last year because the level was really not very high
Stalingrad from 1993 was the most accurate one!
@@TellySavalas-or5hf Stalingrad is WW2 🤦♂️
@@TellySavalas-or5hf ww2
Lmfao its us drama heroic movie
Its nothing like reality
The Flying Circus always makes me think of knights and heraldry. A lot of those men were from old cavalry families and nobility, it makes sense they would want to be dashing, recognizable and unique.
After seeing what Alexander said about the scene from All Quiet on the Western Front, I'm curious to learn more about what combat was like at the end of WW1.
Me too
I would like to see part 2 with "The Lost Battalion", "1917" and "Beneath Hill 60". Great video!
I’ll give you an analysis for those movies - crap ,crap, and crap.
@@garybates5505 nah 1917 is great!
@@garybates5505 The Lost Battalion was a great movie, the other 2 were ok.
I liked this one. Very informative, very to the point. Quite often in these videos you see people meandering and not really providing any actual data. They're still interesting but not as interesting as they could be.
Very true
ANZAC refers to Australian and New Zealand troops, who fought together at Gallipoli.
16:21 Actually it was Australian, New Zealand, Niuean, Samoan, and other Pacific Island Nations who partook in Gallipolli, not just Australian Troops, therefore ANZAC. (Australia New Zealand Army Corps).
THANK YOU. I thought I was the only one who felt almost insulted by this lack of information and acknowledgement. Māori Battalions also served bravely. This is a bad look IMP. 😒
You read my mind!!
Everyone seems to forget the 350,000 British (including Indian and Newfoundland troops) and the 80,000 French, concentrating instead on the 50,000 Australian and 15,000 New Zealand troops that fought at Gallipoli. To some extent this is understandable, because of the part this campaign had in forging the national identity of the Anzac nations. However it has led to the common impression that the ANZACs were sent as cannon fodder in order to spare British troops. This does a great disservice to all those forgotten soldiers who fought and died in this ultimately fruitless campaign.
@@sarahsinai5381 ..meh..There was only ever ONE Maori battalion and they spent most of their time as Pioneers, behind the lines, digging trenches. Their casualty rate in WW1 was the lowest in the NZ Division as a result.
I really like how in depth his explanations were. We could see how passionate he is and that's really nice
He just got SO into it, I love it. He was great, I would love to see more of him.
A detail he's omitting about All Quiet on the Western Front is that the trench is actually German, it was captured by the french before and is now being recaptured by the germans, that's why it's facing that way. I'm surprised no one actually mentioned that.
Big oof by the expert then. I guess he maybe didn't watch the movie and was only shown the clip?
that's just blatantly incorrect, it's the complete opposite way around, and even if your situation was accurate, it still doesn't explain "why it's facing that way"
His point still stands though.
@@blackmantis3130 HIS* point.
He's point= He is point
Is his name point? No, right? So pls don't confuse his and he's cos it's just confusing.
@@gtc239 oh my bad. Fixed it 👍
I love that the intro is basically “Don’t just burn them, use grenades!”
The 2022 version of _All Quiet on the Western Front_ may not be as iconic as the original 1930 film, but it is an admirable and relevant portrayal of the horror and tragedy of the First World War. With all the participants and witnesses of the First World War already passed away, it is important that the memories of the war and its aftermath are kept alive so that its lessons and significance could be preserved and not forgotten.
The 2022 version is brilliant in that it creates a story different from the original source material while retaining its core message. They could‘ve just copied the 1930 movie with modern effects but that wouldn’t do justice to the original movie and the book. As a result of their approach, we now have two movies that are both cinematic masterpieces in their own right without having one just copying the other.
It should also be noted that there is more to history than just troop movements and correctly depicting the grey tone of german shovels. To this British historian it doesn’t make sense to depict the last days of the war since they are not as intensive as the Battle of the Somme for example. From a German perspective however, it makes perfect sense since these are some of the most important days in German history. At this point, the German revolution has already begun, the Kaiser has abdicated and over 1000 years of German monarchy have just abrubtly ended. The movie shows the real time collapse of prussian militarist rule and its inability to cope with it. The general is the perfect embodiment of this prussian arrogance, blaming others for their own mistakes and sending men into certain death to save some of their honor. The lies that the general spouts about the war outcome also serve as an early version of the „Dolchstoßlegende“, one of the lies that Hitler will later use in his rise to power. The movie doesn’t only show the horrors of war but also some of reasons why they happened. In that respect it is more political than the original work, at the same time it matches more recent accounts of historians on Germany in WW1.
But hey I guess thats all not as interesting as knowing whether a St Chamond stops or not while firing🤷♂️
@@salzwassersamunddiesoljank5573 Sorry but thats just BS, the movie has almost nothing to do with the book, not even the core message.
Its just gore p0rn without much story or realism, for people who slow down on the highway, causing a traffic jam, to watch and film an accident on the opposite lane.
@@wolf310ii lol Calling this movie gore porn is like calling the war paintings of Otto Dix deviant art.
lmao you have interpreted his complaint exactly backwards. His point was that it’s dishonest to pretend that the last days of the war were as intense as the Somme, and it obscures the true ending of the war. yes, Germany was collapsing. so was the army. no German general could’ve ordered an assault on November 11th - his own men might’ve shot him.
there’s an extremely interesting story to tell about German soldiers trying to survive the last months of the war and the disintegration of the army, the pursuit east, etc. but All Quiet (2022) relies on generic tropes of trench warfare instead
It is precisely because the protagonists are dead that we manage today to praise these films without being lectured
We seriouslky need a combo video with Ditch guy and Trench guy together!!
When Alexander called out "What are they doing?!" when the flamethrowers in "All quiet in the Western Front" flared the bunkers made me laugh.
Could you imagine if that had been a realistic portrayal. Can't imagine the horror you'd be feeling and seeing as a soldier
@@justherefox7 If it were, then I think the title of the fight would have been called "The Wartime of the Bonfires".
And yes that would be almost as disturbing as the Brussias lethal gas attack against the Russians.
I would love to hear his opinion on Wings. It was remarkable for its time, of course, and had the benefit of multiple cast and crew who had in fact served in WWI, but I would be curious to see how it has held up in general.
I like it when the experts are picky and explain why. Bring him back!
I just appreciate tjat he gives us the POV of all nations involved instead of the portrayal of the "good guy"
I really liked the tank scene in BBC's series Our World War, hope to see it in part 2
I'd love to see this man break down my favorite WW1 movie, The Lost Battalion. This was a great one
The Red Baron I always thought was one of the most historically accurate movies of the period. Such an underrated movie.
Kinda expected 1917 to be featured, maybe for part 2 :)
I can already anticipate what he might say, and it's the same reason I thought the movie ridiculous. Phone and telegraph lines exist to deliver messages! And messenger pigeons as well if you want to get into it. It makes no sense sending a single messenger X number of miles to call off an attack. At the very least, he could have been given a horse to ride parallel behind the British lines...
It was also to rescue an oddly small number of men. 1917 as a story is more in line with the times of the Napoleonic Wars, for reasons already explained.
@@jonathanslater5643 I mean, a horse is certainly valid. In line with whats being said in the movie, the germans retreated a long distance to their new defensive lines. I'm not sure if telephone / telegram lines would be realistic to fully set up in the time between them chasing the "retreating" germans or if the advance was so fast they hadnt set up their lines of communications.
I'm more curious about the realism aspect of the trenches / means of attack then the realism of two runners being sent out on such an important mission.
The Red Baron had an occasional scene that worked, but the flying in it was way too fast, as well as, the maneuvering too much like a WWII plane. Things were a lot slower, a better example would be the Blue Max--both for the flying and the story. We seriously need a good, strong, and respectful movie on von Richtofen and crew. I've read enough, and have flown many hours in Rise of Flight and IL-2 (and older WWI combat sims) to know that the Observation balloons were one per sector, not 30 crammed into a hectare. ;-)
Lettow Vorbeck would make for a better story than Richthofen, IMO.
@@ddc2957 I was strictly talking WWI aviation history, nothing more.
@@ddc2957 Or even the SMS Emden
HE'S FLYING TOO FAST AND HE'S FLYING TOO HIGH
Painting your plane red makes you 3 times as fast as everyone else, I thought we established than in Gundam, no?
I really enjoyed Alexander Watson's explanation and overall approach, calm, measured, against the cinematic bombast and you come away with some solid, useful info about WWI tactics. Hope we get the chance to watch him again in the future.
Fantastic review. Watching that tank scene was painful once you got past the initial cinematic awesome. I did appreciate that they made a really solid effort at portraying the St Chamonds. But then they had them roll in way faster than they could have moved on their best day and completely separated from the infantry that would have prevented their destruction by the method shown.
Also, the Germans in the trench firing the mortar at the Indian troops, is it just me or does it look like they are wearing WWII Fallschrimjager helmets?
16:15 I've never seen this film. I am Australian - 25th of April is known as ANZAC day here and in New Zealand (ANZAC standing for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). ANZAC Day is a huge ordeal. It's a Public Holiday, thousands gather at War Memorials across the country for Dawn Services, hundreds travel to Gallipoli to this exact beach every year. Moving and emotional tributes to the ANZACs (of all wars, not just the First World War) are presented before the AFL matches on ANZAC Day and ANZAC Day eve. We have biscuits called ANZAC Biscuits that we make and eat this time of year, made from honey and oats which were a common food item during the War. This day is so special to us Australians that even disrespecting the biscuit is a crime - It's unlawful to call them ANZAC cookies, and you cannot use the word ANZAC to describe a food that isn't a real ANZAC biscuit (eg ANZAC Cheesecake is against regulations).
Thanks for including this particular battle - it's a very prominent moment in Australian Culture
Interesting, well explained video. Was hoping for some older films though, such as Paths of Glory and the 1931 version of All Quiet on the Western Front.
5:03 The German Tank Museum in Münster explained this scene to be correct. They have a UA-cam Channel.
I remember reading Alexander Watson’s books in college. Very well done books.
16:15 not just Australians, but also New Zealanders. Its ANZAC after all, it’s not fair they get forgotten when they sacrificed just as much as we Australians did.
I enjoyed the video , but I have to say that ANZAC stands for Australia (and) New Zealand Army Corps. Throughout the section of the video that mentions the Anzacs they are refered to as just Australians, but New Zealand was also a part.
🙌
Fun facts. During WWI the Brighton Pavilion was turned into a military hospital for Indian troops as it was felt that the architecture would help the wounded by them being in a somewhat familiar surrounding. Also, the British government changed the law to allow open air cremations. The Chattri still stands up on the downs as a memorial with the cremation stones still in place and a plaque bearing the names of those who died of their wounds and were cremated there. Worth a visit if you are ever travelling the South Downs way, though it is a mile or so South from Clayton Hill the SDW. It's easy to find on Google Earth at 50,53, 03 N 0, 08, 49 W
I'd like to see the Lost Battalion included next time. Such a hidden gem.
It's good to see a WWI historian torch 2022 version of "All Quiet on the Western Front".
In spite of its popularity, Netflix adaptation of AQOTWF is historically inaccurate apart from being extremely unfaithful to Erich Maria Remarque's novel.
I am a huge fan of the original book and the movie was a disgrace. Of course it looked and sounded good. But thats nothing special in 2022. It lacked everything i felt after reading remarque for the first time....and thats the feelings we need in 2023
if you dont like the movie dont watch it
It was still a good movie in its own right.
@@weybye91 might be the most stupid thing I've heard in a while. You can't know you dislike a film until you've watched it, especially when most reviews were positive
He mistaken on his critic of the trench facing the wrong way, that trench was originally German, they got it back from the french after a counter offensive. Maybe next time he can watch the movie instead of trying to pin-point innacuracies, the movie never tried to be a full realistic interpretation of how WW1 went, it had a really great anti-war message and criticism at how soldiers are only numbers to leadership to a modern audience.
This was an amazing video and no criticism is meant at all, obviously portraying the horrors of direct combat is important. But it would have been interesting to see him analyze some scenes of nurses, civilians, and other people affected besides the troops on the front. Again, fantastic video, this guy is clearly not only knowledgeable but passionate which is the most important thing.
How about reviewing the 1981 Australian movie "Gallipoli", and the later TV series "Anzacs" from 1985? I've studied Australian actions during the First World War, and as far as I can tell, the movie and mini-series took few liberties when it came to depicting the experiences of our soldiers.
It was Churchill who did you in.
I watched Gallipoli with my mum back in the 80's as a wee nipper, maybe 6 or 7. I have always remembered the mantra about the protagonists legs being steel springs which will pump him down the track. Stuck with me for some reason. Good movie.
This is as close to an immaculate, classic film as I've ever seen.
Looks like it is available on UA-cam.
When the Australians troops trashed the guys shop because he thought they sold him a souvenir too expensively - and it was played for comedic relief in the film. Yeah, thats just racism, and should be called out. Hundreds of thousands of Kiwis and Aussies have gone to Turkey for ANZAC day, as a rite of passage almost. Many get pissed and make a mess, but always Turkey lets them in. Remeber, Australia and NZ invaded Turkey as enemies. Compare that to how Australians complain when the Japanese families of those who were killed in Darwin, wanted to make a small monument up in Darwin.
Should have shown clips from Journey's End Trench raid scene, Passchendaele (2007) mud scene AKA BF1 opening scene, Lawrence of Arabia Aqabah scene, 1917 Trench run scene and much more.
WW1 does not get much as attention as WW2.
and BBC Our World War
Great to see somebody so passionate and knowledgeable
I'm surprise they didn't have him react to 1917. One of the best movies I've ever seen.
Lol full of propaganda
Trenches wrong
Rescue first a pilot and then be stabbed
Walking with hopnails on a steel bridge
Boobytrap a duggout
Children at the frontline
Germans were drunk
Its rubbish and foolish movie
Even veterans will turn in their grave of shame of what this bs movie is representing
LOL
He does on another video
Blech.
I would love to see him dissect the original All Quiet on the Western Front movie. Since it was made with actual WW1 Veterans from all over Europe
The Lost Battalion is an underrated WWI movie. It is fairly accurate to what happened and portrays a certain type of WWI warfare accurately (i.e. not trench warfare)
9:53 Everyone knows that any red color vehicles (especially mobile suits) are 3 times faster than non-red ones. 😂
Especially in the universal century and Gundam 00 with trans-am. 😉
If I were a director making a film about WWI, this historian guy would have to be on my set all day...
For a time one of the best depictions of WW1 was the Young Indiana Jones, would be great to add it to part 2.
the best thing about these very knowledgeable experts is that they don't try to shove an agenda down one's throat but rather are just very interested in historical accuracy. Love it!
Massive respect for adding the source to information in the video
ANZAC at Gallipoli included New Zealanders and Australians, not just the Australians you mentioned. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps
Saw prof Watson holding a French helmet in the thumbnail and was disappointed to not see it make an appearance in the video :(