The cold arrogance of Mireau, the manipulative scheming of Broulard and the passionate humanity of Dax. These traits make this one of the best movies ever made!
Yeah, Dax and Mireau are complete opposites in terms of personality, but both are completely 100% devoted to their beliefs, while Broulard plays both sides. He has all the power here and is playing both men. He could have easily put an end to this travesty right here.
This film was produced in 1957. Several European countries banned the showing of this film when it was released. The US military banned it from being shown on any military establishment.
I think the main reason is, that the Army as an establishment don't want to take responsability for things happening in war or otherwise. Like in Scandinavia, where we mostly have mandatory service. IF something negative happens, it is always the soldier's fault, not the staff. We even had court cases here with the same result. For instance if a recruit dies of a heart attack on the training field.. Guess who gets the blame?
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently criticized the film-and its portrayal of the French Army-after it was released in Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European distributor) not to release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in 1975 when social attitudes had changed. In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining relations with France; it was not shown until two years after its US release. In Spain, the right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death. The film was banned by Switzerland as "incontestably offensive" to France, her judicial system and her army, until 1970.[45] The film was banned in all United States military establishments, both at home and overseas, due to its content
@@bell2007 "Souain corporals affair" i dont know, they killed 4 factually innocent People to "raise the Moral" instead of 3 so you could argue is was underexxaggerated but leading in the right direction. you sound pretty underinformed and ignorant about this...
@@bell2007 In what ways ...? (And bare in mind this was set during WWI, and thus reflected how it was then, and not of the Western militaries of the 1950's, when it was released ... a massive difference ...)
@@drlong08 No.. we have to let the Germans do that part. Not very sporting if we do it for them is it? This sounds like bad comedy and yet it was the reality and will be again ..
I like how Dax offers himself up, both to protect his men and to imply that it is those in charge who are the problem. His comment that the most logical decision is to hold the officer in charge responsible is a pointed remark at Moreau. But Broulard immediately shuts that down. Only soldiers can be blamed. Never officers. The idea that they could be held responsible cannot even be countenanced.
@@LoudaroundLincoln This is what happens when mortals assume the power of gods. They put the lives of others just like them in peril, yet refuse any responsibility for their actions in making the decisions that did so.
Many generals, including in the French army, were sent to lesser posts, withdrawn from field command, or even cashiered or forced to resign for their failures during the war. Alas, that's probably what Mireau is trying to avoid. If he says the attack was impossible, he gets canned by his superiors and the same things carry on anyway. 6 of 1. It has its nuts side insofar as attacks with poor planning and resourcing will fail and leaders will fail to see how to fix it. But you still have to try at least some of time if you're not ready to surrender.
One of the greatest anti-war films of all-time. Vividly depicts the insanity of war. The performances are uniformally superb. One of Kubrick's 2 best films (the other of course, is "Dr. Strangelove or...").
“That’s the reddest milk I have ever seen” that line chokes me up in a way because Colonial Dax doesn’t want his men to be killed and understands better then any general what his men are going through that also his men aren’t just machines and realizes this pointless war is playing with lives, He just knows his words are going to fall on deaf ears anyways and that’s a sad thought
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently criticized the film-and its portrayal of the French Army-after it was released in Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European distributor) not to release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in 1975 when social attitudes had changed. In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining relations with France it was not shown until two years after its US release. In Spain, the right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.[ The film was banned by Switzerland as "incontestably offensive" to France, her judicial system and her army, until 1970. The film was banned in all United States military establishments, both at home and overseas, due to its content
@@Bradgilliswhammyman thanks for reminding me of the term. I think it only came out quite a bit later that this was going on. I read a great book in the late 80's - Nam by Mark Baker - and I don't think that there was a single reference to fragging in the book.
By the end of the war, the US Army was mutineering. It was covered up. The Army was using extreme discipline, actually torture to handle insubordination. They put men in sweatboxes like in the movie Cool Hand Luke. See John Pilger. NCOs could be and were physically attacked for trying to enforce military grooming standards. The US could not continue the war.
One of the best films ever made? The combat scenes are totally realistic despite the fact that this is a very old film. It's amazing and I think we all hate that French general, but boy what an actor he is, it's quite amazing. Classic Kubrick.
Just watched it on internet Archive for free for the first time since 1965 I think . What a magnificent film , what acting . Never realized the German woman at the end was kubricks wife .
I didn't watch any of the weekly awards shows that are so prolific these days. However watching some of the clips on the news and the interviews with the participants. I am convinced that there isn't an actor in Hollywood that could perform any one of these three roles half as good as these three men did.
This film is a masterpiece! George Macready made me despise Mireau so very much, he was so good in the part. I have never cared for Douglas' politics, but the man could act so very well. His portrayal of Dax was magnificent. Ralph Meeker....what can I say, the anger and sympathy I felt for his character is incredible, based entirely on his performance. The contempt I feel for General Broulard, played by Adolphe Menjou is so very great, seeing him playing behind the scenes, to make himself look better. I am a huge fan of Kubrick films. This one is only topped (for me) by Dr. Strangelove.
I agree except that I think Paths of Glory is a much better film than Dr. Strangelove because Paths of Glory is a realistic portrayal of monstrous political corruption in contrast to the "humor" of the crude caricature of it in Dr. Strangelove.
Also don't forget Tim Carrey's performance. It was great, especially when he looks at the cockroach and smashes it, saying to Meeker, in essence, now you do not have to worry about him.
This film holds up, even today. Men in power have no real idea about bravery. They would see every soldier in their command be sent to their deaths but be slighted if they don't smile while facing their end.
This is the kind of man that is best used as a human shield, so that his vanity, and feckless, cruel idiocy can be used as an excuse to save the lives of others! A truly unfeeling monster!
This is what happens when the technology, weapons and tactics of war 'evolve' faster than the senior commanding officers who lead men into battle. Mireau is completely out of his depth and past his time of usefulness. Trying to fight a modern industrialized war with internal magazine bolt action rifles, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, rapid fire artillery, radio communication and poison gas believing that national pride and zeal of action will carry the day by fighting in the manner and style of his younger days with saber, bayonet, horse calvary, and maybe single shot breech loader rifles. I'm shocked he didn't try to order the men into line and square formations of the Napoleonic era and march on mass at the enemy positions. You see this same problem a generation earlier with the British army during the Crimean War, best exemplified with the idiotic and pointless 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. Past their prime, antiquated geriatric officers who belong in a rocking chair, not in the field. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SENDS A FORCE OF CALVARY IN A HEADLONG FRONTAL ASSUALT CHARGE AGAINST A PREPARED ARTILLERY POSITION ACROSS BARREN OPEN GROUND. Colonel Dax has seen this new era of warfare up close and personally, he's both young enough to change his way of thinking and old enough to understand the difference between the lives of soldiers spent in battle and lives of men wasted in foley.
The Light Brigade was intended to stop Russians from seizing captured guns in an entirely different section of the battlefield; their disastrous charge wasn’t an intentional assault ordered by officers but the result of a catastrophic miscommunication.
I like this scene. In a first thinking, mostly everyone sees Mireau as a Daemon. But the most inhuman person is Broulard, one can see this later in film...
Adolphe Menjou wasn't just an actor playing an army officer in a WW1 movie. He was an army officer in that war in real life. He served as an American Army Captain of the Ambulance Corps at the front lines in France.
@@davidw.2791 - the actor with the large scar across his right cheek is George Macready - he was the one in the car accident - not Menjou - makeup toned the scar down in his other performances - but makeup seems to have exaggerated it in this movie
This scene echos the old Republic Roman army policy of "decimation"; (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") a form of Roman military discipline in which every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort. The discipline was used by senior commanders in the Roman Army to punish units or large groups guilty of capital offenses, such as cowardice, mutiny, desertion, and insubordination, and for pacification of rebellious legions. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth". The procedure was a pragmatic attempt to balance the need to punish serious offenses with the realities of managing a large group of offenders. In 1914, in France during World War I, there was a indeed case in which a company of Tunisian tirailleurs (colonial Arab soldiers) refused an order to attack a German position and was ordered decimated by the divisional commander. This involved the execution of ten men. Also, during the 1942-43 Battle of Stalingrad, during World War II, many Soviet Army officers were recorded using decimation as a punishment for soldiers who retreated while still carrying weapons and ammunition.
General Luigi Cadorna, the commander of the Italian army in the Great War was addicted to this murderous style of "discipline." Italian units were routinely subjected to mass executions to motivate them to fight. If you're interested, check out Mark Thompson's The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front 1915-1919. The book is absolutely heartbreaking.
Yes the Russian Secret police KVD, did shoot soldiers who were retreating. A lot of the these were prisoners from the Gulags who were sent charging into battle without weapons and were told to pick up the weapons of fallen soldiers. Parenthetically, Stalin made the joke that it took courage to be a coward in the Soviet Army.
@@coleparker That doesn't surprise me one bit ... ... After all, there is that famous quote often attributed to Stalin, which, paraphrased goes "one man's death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic ..." ... From what I read - and I wish I knew where from - those conscript troops were pared up: one man had the rifle, the other, the ammunition, but neither had both ... If that was Stalin's plan, then the objective was to prevent any uprising as they simply didn't have the means ... but made the charges towards the German lines almost suicidal, meaning 50% had to die, in order that the other 50% was fully equipped ... ... madness ...
Since the days of Squad Leader, and Up Front all game designers have incorporated a ‘Commissar Dottski’ rule for Soviet forces. Motivation method 7.62/7.65/9
Probably the greatest anti-war film ever made. Kirk Douglas is excellent as the humanitarian, George Macready is total slime, and Adolphe Menjou--slime in real life--is simply slimy. Both of them show the incompetence and foolhardiness of war and some of its commanders. Kubrick's handling of the camera, esp. during the battle scenes, is simply superb. Probably the greatest technician of his day, and maybe his second-best film, the first being, IMO, Dr. Strangelove.
Menjou was well liked you are just upset because he rightly called out Americans in film who were taking payoffs from the Soviets. What's funny is when the wall fell and we got a hold of the KGB files almost every person who's career was ruined for being a communist was in fact working for the KGB
@@patricktalbot8980 Menjou was well liked among people who believed as he did. He wasn't well liked by a lot of others. As for those who took payoffs from the Soviets, true, some got some money, but they were not in the position to alter Hollywood's thinking on how to make movies or what messages to put in them. Moreover, the assertion that almost all of them were working for the KGB is ludicrous...unless you count being a member of the Amer. Communist Party working for the KGB, and that's a stretch. Sure, some were dyed-in-the-wool Reds...look at the history more closely. Most quit the party for one reason or another, and McCarthy held prior association and membership--even if it was only for a day or a month or whatever--against them. In the long run, nothing changed in Hollywood except that a number of lives got ruined by paranoia, fear, and bigotry. Don't get me wrong. I despise communism, but 'vetting' it as McCarthy did, screwing up people's lives...it was all for nothing. Thanks for playing, though. Better luck next time.
@@jessfrankel5212 In contemporary times, it is considered right and proper for businesses to fire or not hire people for professing values hateful to the majority of Americans or to have had connections, even not fully aware connections, with Russian intelligence services. Those times were the same. It's just that exactly whose ox is getting gored is different.
Also note that at that point Broulard snapped at Colonel Dax that he was overwrought. When you analyze the scene more closely, one realizes that Broulard was the officer in the room most responsible since he was the one who manipulated Mireau into accepting the plan to launch the futile attack.
One thing I have always been curious about was George McCready's scar.I have seen him in other movies with that that scar which is barely noticeable but in this movie it is really more like a gash.When I first saw this movie that was one thing that impressed me .It really gave him an air of a villain.
"While in college, Macready sustained a permanent scar on his right cheek after being thrust through the windshield of a Ford Model T when the vehicle skidded on an icy road and hit a telephone pole. He was stitched up by a veterinarian, but he caught scarlet fever during the ordeal. "
@@alonzocalvillo6702 I wonder if they enhanced the scar in this movie to make it stand out even more than in other movies 🤔 That would certainly be a great choice for artistic and character development purposes.
Originally, having a scar like that would mark you out as a Hero, not a Villain. It would be a mark of "leading from the front" and actually fighting among your men, not standing far behind them, where it is safe. It became extremely popular among Prussian, and later German army officers ... and as they were painted as the "bad guys" in various forms of media, having a scar became associated with Villains, rather than Heroes.
All it takes for the wars to stop is men refusing to fight . The generals would not fight. They have brown nosed their way to the top. If any movie shows this point it is this one.
clèm it was only a half snide remark . french army surrendered en mass in June July 40. There are reports of tank officers pushing for counterattack shot by their men who were absolutely terrorized to counter the coming panzers. You can find sources in the mastery book by Andrew Roberts on the Second World War. In the first ww there have been quite some mutinies but localized and successfully countered. France held on ww1
@@saa82vik That is no mutiny so again that is not true. Andrew Roberts ? lol... English historian, Royalist and close with liberal side come on... that is your sources ?
clèm wow so many labels. Wasn’t eleanor Roosevelt that said first rate people talk about ideas... and third rate people talk about other people? Roberts is one of the foremost military historians and his books are well researched lo You can look up his sources if you are interested about facts and ideas, instead of labels and national mythology.
That make me think of the decimation in the ancient roman Legion where every tenth man was sentenced to death for the failure of the troop.In fact the french Army hat a very cynical aproach to war tactics in WW1.Attack by any means,No matter how many men die. I think the other Countries had the same Ideas, that's obviously why this great Movie was banned in several Countries.
I remember reading of an Italian senior officer who was so appalled at his mens lack of courage in the face of relentless machine gun fire, that he had a company draw lots as to who would be executed afterwards. Classy, and highly inspiring…..
Luigi Cadorna, I'm guessing? Six percent of Italian troops under his command faced a disciplinary charge during the war, and 61% of those charged were found guilty. Not only was he ruthless to his men, he oversaw the disaster that was the Battles of the Isonzo, twelve battles over two years that saw nearly a million Italians casualties, before he was finally relieved of command.
@@simonandsimbagaming You've been fed pure bs by the ex-Allied historiography and pacifist hacks. 1) Cadorna's successor Diaz killed more men than his former. All in all the number of dead by capital punishment in our army was 750. Compare the French number, 1160, and the Austro-Hungarian number, 1150. 2) The tactics used by Cadorna were not particularly "démodé" when looked at in perspective with his peers from other armies. Cadorna himself was responsible for writing a tactical combat manual, his "red book". The red book would soon inspire the creation of the Arditi, the Italian assault infantry (comparable to the Sturmtruppen). 3) The attacks on the Isonzo river were the *only* possible way to smash the Austrians, and everybody including the Austrians themselves, knew this. Not only was the valley excruciating to attack because of it's mountainous terrain, the S shaped river formed a brutal corridor which made even Austro-Hungarian counter-attacks risky. In relation to these "slaughterous and old fashioned attacks", Italy, overall in the Great War, lost 10% of it's mobilized troop. Austro-Hungary lost 12% and France (for sake of comparison) lost 16%. Cadorna was not a bad general, far from it. His reputation has been sullied by those idiots who ran our parliament after the war. Cadorna was esteemed by his Central Powers respectives (Krauss and von Bojna come to mind) and in-fact, something that isn't even known by many of us Italians, the reason Cadorna was enshrined as "Marshal of Italy" was a decision brought upon WW1 veterans, not Mussolini.
The sadest fact is that this is by no means exaggerated! The film based on Reality. In WW l normal soldiers, privates, had no rights and had to obey any abstruse orders of their Commander. General Mireau is a typical character of his time and of the French Army. Light Years away from their poor men, better slaves , in the Frontline!
Don't forget the French mutiny. They had enough.They were spent.Although there were some executions, the Generals did pay attention. The French Armee would not fight another offensive battle until the Summer of 1918,when the US would tip the scales with it's manpower. I am amazed that the Germans did not find out about until after the war.
As heartless as this movie may seem, harsher measure were taken in war in the past than what's shown in the film. Toward the end of WW1, the sides were killing more of their own men than the enemy due to mutinies and demonstrations. yet it's arguably less severe than the old Roman practice of decimation, literally making the army execute one tenth of their own comrades. It's not easy. At times, you do need a strong military to defend your way of life and a strong military needs unwavering loyalty especially in the heat of battle, but morale and loyalty is a two way street. Good leaders generate unwavering loyalty without needing to resort to drastic measures. If you're a terrible commander making terrible decisions, even the most loyal, brave, and dedicated soldiers will turn on you no matter how much fear you attempt to instill.
What are you talking about ? There was just 612 French soldiers who were executed for insubordination, most them were at the beginning of the war when things were really heated and soldiers were freshly conscripted. In 1918, there was only 12 executions. I think you said that because you took the movie too literally lol. It's a dramatisation, it never happened like that.
Difference between the 1804 France and the 1914 France is this : Marshal Oudinot entered in Moscou in 1812 he had 34 wounds, Marshal Lannes totaled 12 wounds when he died in 1809, Marshal Ney had five horses killed under him during Waterloo. Most Generals and Marshals during first WW sat under their ass, had little to no strategic knowledge, gave impossible orders and commanded some infantry men to be executed for being "coward". One France submitted all Europe under the command of the greatest man that ever lived, the other France struggled to win a four years war. "I fear not an army of Lion commanded by a sheep, I fear an army of sheep commanded by a lion".
To some extent, though, that was an inevitable result of the technological changes that transformed warfare in the century between Waterloo and 1914. John Keegan’s ‘The Mask of Command’ offers a great exploration of this.
@@MrPancake777 He realised the final step of the Spirit on earth, and was called "the world-soul on horseback" ("die Weltseele zu Pferde") by Hegel. You can read what Kojève said about him. Besides, what have people to complain with death ? Here is what Napoleon did for most of the soldiers of the Great army, they would have been poor guys and would have worked as farmers, smith, or other crap but by being involved in the Great army they fought for one of the greatest leaders if not the greatest leader in term of military genius that ever walked. A lot of soldiers went to receive his ashes, people who have fought countless of battle could not restrain crying when thinking about the good old times and what they have accomplished under his command. Those men, even those who died, have truly lived their life. Sure they lived an hard life but they lived a far greater life than the one they would have lived is Napoleon had not lead them. As he told them after Austerlitz : you will only have to say "I was at Austerlitz" for people to answer "here is a brave". Besides that, war is evil but a necessary evil, read Hegel if you want to understand the role of great man and how the negative is the motor of the world. Sincerely.
Apparently about 1500 general officers, that is to say brigadiers commanding a brigade of about 5,000 men, or higher ranks, served in the British Empire armies in WW1. 78 were listed killed in action. Just over 5%. Apparently combat deaths of all ranks was more like 950k out of just over 5 million, so more like 15-18% depending on precise figures. So way more. OTOH, there were only 1500 generals on every front, they tended to be older, and as you moved away from brigade command your proper place was farther behind the line where the phone lines might actually work. Above brigadier, and even actually at that level, you were not doing the job if you spent too much time going over the top and running across no man's land. I haven't so readily found French figures, but I can only assume comparable, and for the same reasons. In the Napoleonic wars, battles were fought mostly in a day within telescope or eyesight or could best be understood by riding around to get around smoke. And even then generals mostly were exposed to shell fire. Leading an infantry or cavalry charge under all but the most extreme circumstances was a waste of their time.
I've never even heard of this movie, but this is the second clip I've seen today. I need to watch the whole thing. It's too bad they don't know how to make this kind of film any more.
@@johnLennon255 There are a handful, Lincoln, Dunkirk, Downfall, and The King's Speech all come to mind. The only one of those Netflix is streaming is The King's Speech. They used to have Downfall, and Valkyrie, but not any more. It's interesting that all of those are historical epics. They can't make a truly great movie any more based on an original story.
Oh you don't just find them in army uniforms. You can find such as these in many, many, many other professions. Seems odd to me that people like that should rise to positions of authority.
It is actually not a given he got such in combat back in those days. Go search up Nazi scaring. Yeah, they did it to themselves in order to portray street cred like a freaking poser! LoL
@@Lobos222 I'm not the one who's uneducated here you hack. They did NOT make fake scars. Maybe some did, but that was vastly the minority. Most got them from dueling, such as Diels, Skorzeny, Röhm, Kaltenbrunner, among many many others.
You never see a German soldier during the entire film. Just about the first half is the same scene played by different actors: General Broulard pushes General Mireau into an attack he knows will fail with a promise of another Star - General Mireau goes to Col. Dax who knows the outcome in advance - Col. Dax is threatened into compliance. We the unwilling must to the impossible for the incompetent....
It's arrogant crap like this that incited the mutiny around 1916 by some French soldiers who were fed up with being looked on as cannon fodder by their high command sent into suicidal meaningless attacks that cost tens of thousands of lives.
I had a CO once who was overly feisty but I would follow her to hell and back without question. If anyone badmouthed her command like that, she'd of ended up at USDB. Col Dax is the epitome of self discipline throughout this film - but if looks could kill....
Whether in business or the military, the powerful always arrange for the rank and file to take the fall. Unless the powerful are targeted by another powerful rival. Or there is a full-on revolution, in which case all the officers' heads roll, lol.
Its interesting how he really likes showing that scar on his cheek, he could perhaps try to make it lighter with some make up but its obvious he likes to show it as onstentanous as possible to show it as a symbol of heroism.
It's seems such a pity that Hollywood lacks the skill and ability to make films like this today. It makes you wonder why they continually fill our screens with meaningless CGI filled crap.
In addition to my comment: Paths of Glory based on a real happening of 1915. General Mireau was General Géraud François Gustave Réveilhac of the French Army in these Days. He gave order to fire with artillery on his own troops cause they won't fight anymore against a superior enemy. A week later, four, not three privates were sentenced to Death due cowardness in face of the enemy and got executed! I really do understand why France banned this masterpiece of Anti-war-film such a long time...
France seemed to have a lot of trouble winning wars against its equally matched European adversaries before and after Napoleon. No less than three notable disastrous defeats were at the hands of the same enemy, Germany. First, was the Franco-Prussian war of 1871. Then, WWI, in which Germany occupied parts of France for the duration and needed assistance from allies to dislodge them. Finally, WWll in which the Germans marched on Paris and occupied the country. Once again, they needed the help of allies to remove the Germans.
@@abc64pan What a bunch of bollocks. The French army marched on and took Berlin in 2 weeks under Napoleon - on foot. The French army of WWI held 80% of the Western frontline and accounted for nearly 70% of German combat deaths during the entire war. The French army turned the tide of the war when it won the most decisive battle of 1918, the Second Battle of the Marne, where with minimal support from the allies, they inflicted a devastating defeat to the Germans by stopping a German major Offensive and launching a massive counter-attack and encircling 3 German armies as well as recapturing the area taken by the Germans in May 1918. That battle turned the tide of the war. They bore the brunt of the Western Front during WWI, and the war would never have been won without them.
@@uncle7215 Ha, no way that France would have defeated Germany without assistance from their British Entente buddies with their massive naval fleet and the intervention of the US with its almost unlimited industrial capacity. Germany on the other hand, was dealing with them plus Russia almost alone as Austria and Turkey were so weak that they needed Germany more than Germany needed them. Still, It took 4 long, bloody, destructive years of industrial scale slaughter to bring Germany to its knees. WWll was pretty much the same only that then, Germany was tethered to weaker Italy and Japan was too far to provide significance assistance so they had to go at it practically alone and still proved to be a tough nut to crack.
@@abc64pan Britain needed France more than France needed Britain. The French army fielding over 100 Infantry Divisions by 1918, of which 60 divisions fought at the decisive second battle of the Marne, whilst the British only fielded 4 Divisions in that sector proves my point. Stats don’t lie.
The cold arrogance of Mireau, the manipulative scheming of Broulard and the passionate humanity of Dax. These traits make this one of the best movies ever made!
@mike bond And you are a white man, and honestly you make me ashamed to be a white man.
@@winstondelaurier8239 300 hundred bars all over the world for millennia but it's always they bartender's fault ey
I agree in every point!
Yeah, Dax and Mireau are complete opposites in terms of personality, but both are completely 100% devoted to their beliefs, while Broulard plays both sides. He has all the power here and is playing both men. He could have easily put an end to this travesty right here.
You want to travel back in time in pop that snake.
This film was produced in 1957. Several European countries banned the showing of this film when it was released. The US military banned it from being shown on any military establishment.
I think the main reason is, that the Army as an establishment don't want to take responsability for things happening in war or otherwise. Like in Scandinavia, where we mostly have mandatory service. IF something negative happens, it is always the soldier's fault, not the staff. We even had court cases here with the same result. For instance if a recruit dies of a heart attack on the training field.. Guess who gets the blame?
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently criticized the film-and its portrayal of the French Army-after it was released in Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European distributor) not to release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in 1975 when social attitudes had changed.
In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining relations with France; it was not shown until two years after its US release.
In Spain, the right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.
The film was banned by Switzerland as "incontestably offensive" to France, her judicial system and her army, until 1970.[45]
The film was banned in all United States military establishments, both at home and overseas, due to its content
Because the portrayal of western militaries in this film was enormously exaggerated and misleading.
@@bell2007 "Souain corporals affair"
i dont know, they killed 4 factually innocent People to "raise the Moral" instead of 3 so you could argue is was underexxaggerated but leading in the right direction.
you sound pretty underinformed and ignorant about this...
@@bell2007
In what ways ...?
(And bare in mind this was set during WWI, and thus reflected how it was then, and not of the Western militaries of the 1950's, when it was released ... a massive difference ...)
2:10 "The logical choice.. is the officer most responsible for the attack." Looking at Mireau. Who can't meet his gaze. Brilliant.
“Why not shoot the entire regiment?” LMAO gets me every time
and don't forget the general's reply, "Well we don't want to slaughter the entire French Army!" Funny, seems you're doing just that.....
@@drlong08 No.. we have to let the Germans do that part. Not very sporting if we do it for them is it?
This sounds like bad comedy and yet it was the reality and will be again ..
Same.
Oh, the officers are never at fault. I wonder why.
As for what they cynically think in a way or in another only soldiers can be sacrified just like that.
"We have investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong!"
''It is a bad shepherd who blames his flock.'' Rings very true to this type of behaviour.
@@unrealassasination "A bad rower blames the oar!"
"They're scum, colonel. The whole rotten regiment" Wow what a jerk xD
You mean colossal prick
I think this is one of Douglas' best performances.
That's because this is the best movie (together with "Ace in the Hole") Douglas took part in.
I like how Dax offers himself up, both to protect his men and to imply that it is those in charge who are the problem. His comment that the most logical decision is to hold the officer in charge responsible is a pointed remark at Moreau. But Broulard immediately shuts that down. Only soldiers can be blamed. Never officers. The idea that they could be held responsible cannot even be countenanced.
Do you have a Problem with that?
@@jurgschupbach3059 Do I have a problem with people in charge not taking responsibility? Yes.
@@jurgschupbach3059 it's humanity's problem. It goes beyond battlefields. Those with power avoid the responsibility that should come with it.
@@LoudaroundLincoln This is what happens when mortals assume the power of gods. They put the lives of others just like them in peril, yet refuse any responsibility for their actions in making the decisions that did so.
Many generals, including in the French army, were sent to lesser posts, withdrawn from field command, or even cashiered or forced to resign for their failures during the war. Alas, that's probably what Mireau is trying to avoid. If he says the attack was impossible, he gets canned by his superiors and the same things carry on anyway. 6 of 1. It has its nuts side insofar as attacks with poor planning and resourcing will fail and leaders will fail to see how to fix it. But you still have to try at least some of time if you're not ready to surrender.
One of the greatest anti-war films of all-time. Vividly depicts the insanity of war. The performances are uniformally superb. One of Kubrick's 2 best films (the other of course, is "Dr. Strangelove or...").
It's not insane. War is the lowest common denominator. It's the last, final way to settle something until the next disagreement comes along.
@@bobwoods1302 It's almost never the final way to settle anything. If anything all it does is help guarantee there will be more violence later.
@@purplefood1 I said until the next disagreement comes along.
@@bobwoods1302 that's what I mean it's usually the same thing people are disagreeing about.
Trying to remain peaceful while war is the only option, is insane
George Macready, born in Providence ,R.I; was just splendid in this awesome film...Although enhanced for the movie, his facial scar was very real...
“That’s the reddest milk I have ever seen” that line chokes me up in a way because Colonial Dax doesn’t want his men to be killed and understands better then any general what his men are going through that also his men aren’t just machines and realizes this pointless war is playing with lives, He just knows his words are going to fall on deaf ears anyways and that’s a sad thought
It was not a pointless war, not this one.
@@mulapare2593 All wars are pointless
@@CannibalWHORE22 That wasn't
@@mulapare2593 WW1 was pointless it was the cumulation of decades jingoism and military dick measurements
@@CannibalWHORE22 The concentration camp survivors would disagree.
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently criticized the film-and its portrayal of the French Army-after it was released in Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European distributor) not to release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in 1975 when social attitudes had changed.
In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining relations with France it was not shown until two years after its US release.
In Spain, the right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.[
The film was banned by Switzerland as "incontestably offensive" to France, her judicial system and her army, until 1970.
The film was banned in all United States military establishments, both at home and overseas, due to its content
That says it all really, about the message.
Ironically though this was still filmed in West Germany. You know, the nation that has Sole War Guilt for wwi. ;)
@@davidw.2791 You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
Many thanks for these insights.
Hmm, I guess governments don’t like people seeing the truth, do they.
Kubrick must have had a ball writing the Generals.
La mejor película de Kirk Douglas.
In Vietnam it was not unknown for soldiers to kill their commanding officer if he was suggesting a suicidal mission.
yea he would have been fragged in short order, esp around 1972.
@@Bradgilliswhammyman thanks for reminding me of the term. I think it only came out quite a bit later that this was going on. I read a great book in the late 80's - Nam by Mark Baker - and I don't think that there was a single reference to fragging in the book.
By the end of the war, the US Army was mutineering. It was covered up. The Army was using extreme discipline, actually torture to handle insubordination. They put men in sweatboxes like in the movie Cool Hand Luke. See John Pilger. NCOs could be and were physically attacked for trying to enforce military grooming standards. The US could not continue the war.
About 20% of the officers and senior NCO's who died in Vietnam were killed by their own men.
@@fazole yup…the quiet mutiny I think they called it.
The French army actually did execute their own soldiers when they were randomly deemed to be "cowardly." It's messed up.
Like all armies.
2:03 My God, we don't want to hold an OFFICER accountable!
One of the best films ever made? The combat scenes are totally realistic despite the fact that this is a very old film. It's amazing and I think we all hate that French general, but boy what an actor he is, it's quite amazing. Classic Kubrick.
Lovely closeups of facial muscles and eye movements!
General french here is George Macready, same actor that played Bulin Mundson in Gilda! (1946)
Just watched it on internet Archive for free for the first time since 1965 I think . What a magnificent film , what acting . Never realized the German woman at the end was kubricks wife .
This movie is amazing. You really can’t compare this to other movies. From start to finish it satisfies on many levels.
I didn't watch any of the weekly awards shows that are so prolific these days. However watching some of the clips on the news and the interviews with the participants. I am convinced that there isn't an actor in Hollywood that could perform any one of these three roles half as good as these three men did.
love this movie, from start to finish a true classic
This film is a masterpiece! George Macready made me despise Mireau so very much, he was so good in the part. I have never cared for Douglas' politics, but the man could act so very well. His portrayal of Dax was magnificent. Ralph Meeker....what can I say, the anger and sympathy I felt for his character is incredible, based entirely on his performance. The contempt I feel for General Broulard, played by Adolphe Menjou is so very great, seeing him playing behind the scenes, to make himself look better. I am a huge fan of Kubrick films. This one is only topped (for me) by Dr. Strangelove.
His finest, IMO...
I agree except that I think Paths of Glory is a much better film than Dr. Strangelove because Paths of Glory is a realistic portrayal of monstrous political corruption in contrast to the "humor" of the crude caricature of it in Dr. Strangelove.
Also don't forget Tim Carrey's performance. It was great, especially when he looks at the cockroach and smashes it, saying to Meeker, in essence, now you do not have to worry about him.
Another great film, President Muffley=Joe Biden.😆
@@coleparker Yeah, and General Jack D. Ripper = Donald J. Trump
This was such a great movie. I try to catch it every time it comes on.
I love how Dax does not take his eye off the general as he salutes and clicks his heels and grabs his hat.
This is a highly romanticised view of army leadership and honour.
We've all had a boss like Mireau at some point in our lives. Some of them reading this know who they are
"This is not a question of officers!" WW1 in a nutshell
This film holds up, even today. Men in power have no real idea about bravery. They would see every soldier in their command be sent to their deaths but be slighted if they don't smile while facing their end.
Power and privilege - the classic story and unending theme.
There's a general that's just begging for a fragging.
NM, this is gold , why have I not heard of this?
Lol. He wants to execute 100men like it’s nothing. What a character
Name of the film is "Paths of Glory"
George MacCready's (0.03) face was scarred in a real-life auto accident, but he turned it to good use in his role as General Assolant.
When I get job interviews and they ask me the "What do you think a boss should be like ?" question.
I answer them "Have you seen Paths of Glory ?"
So how much does unemployment pay these days?
are you saying bosses should be like the french officers - or should learn from the movie not to be like them
@@johneyon5257 I’m saying you should protect the people under you rather than “Yes boss” their superiors when they ask to do unrealistic shit.
This is the kind of man that is best used as a human shield, so that his vanity, and feckless, cruel idiocy can be used as an excuse to save the lives of others! A truly unfeeling monster!
This is what happens when the technology, weapons and tactics of war 'evolve' faster than the senior commanding officers who lead men into battle. Mireau is completely out of his depth and past his time of usefulness. Trying to fight a modern industrialized war with internal magazine bolt action rifles, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, rapid fire artillery, radio communication and poison gas believing that national pride and zeal of action will carry the day by fighting in the manner and style of his younger days with saber, bayonet, horse calvary, and maybe single shot breech loader rifles. I'm shocked he didn't try to order the men into line and square formations of the Napoleonic era and march on mass at the enemy positions. You see this same problem a generation earlier with the British army during the Crimean War, best exemplified with the idiotic and pointless 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. Past their prime, antiquated geriatric officers who belong in a rocking chair, not in the field. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SENDS A FORCE OF CALVARY IN A HEADLONG FRONTAL ASSUALT CHARGE AGAINST A PREPARED ARTILLERY POSITION ACROSS BARREN OPEN GROUND. Colonel Dax has seen this new era of warfare up close and personally, he's both young enough to change his way of thinking and old enough to understand the difference between the lives of soldiers spent in battle and lives of men wasted in foley.
i found your comment very insightful and informative! thank you!
The Light Brigade was intended to stop Russians from seizing captured guns in an entirely different section of the battlefield; their disastrous charge wasn’t an intentional assault ordered by officers but the result of a catastrophic miscommunication.
Good to see nothing has changed since
All three of these men were great actors. I think the old man that played the head general was the coolest.
I like this scene. In a first thinking, mostly everyone sees Mireau as a Daemon. But the most inhuman person is Broulard, one can see this later in film...
"This not a question of officers."
@@johnburns8660 I miss that point? What do you mean?
@@HolyHeinz Quoting Broulard @ 2 min 18 s. It would be contrary to his purposes if the officers responsible were to be held to account.
@@johnburns8660 Yes, perfect!
THX 🧡🧡🧡
What a great movie . This really did happen .
Adolphe Menjou wasn't just an actor playing an army officer in a WW1 movie. He was an army officer in that war in real life. He served as an American Army Captain of the Ambulance Corps at the front lines in France.
BUT, the real scar on his face was from a traffic accident, not from fighting.
@@davidw.2791 - the actor with the large scar across his right cheek is George Macready - he was the one in the car accident - not Menjou - makeup toned the scar down in his other performances - but makeup seems to have exaggerated it in this movie
@@johneyon5257 Thanks!
'Cast in the ROLE of the defense"...nice play of words there...SHOW TRIAL!
Ce film est une merveille.
Great film
Paths of Glory is a great movie and Kirk Douglas's best.
This scene echos the old Republic Roman army policy of "decimation"; (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") a form of Roman military discipline in which every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort. The discipline was used by senior commanders in the Roman Army to punish units or large groups guilty of capital offenses, such as cowardice, mutiny, desertion, and insubordination, and for pacification of rebellious legions. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth". The procedure was a pragmatic attempt to balance the need to punish serious offenses with the realities of managing a large group of offenders. In 1914, in France during World War I, there was a indeed case in which a company of Tunisian tirailleurs (colonial Arab soldiers) refused an order to attack a German position and was ordered decimated by the divisional commander. This involved the execution of ten men. Also, during the 1942-43 Battle of Stalingrad, during World War II, many Soviet Army officers were recorded using decimation as a punishment for soldiers who retreated while still carrying weapons and ammunition.
General Luigi Cadorna, the commander of the Italian army in the Great War was addicted to this murderous style of "discipline." Italian units were routinely subjected to mass executions to motivate them to fight. If you're interested, check out Mark Thompson's
The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front 1915-1919. The book is absolutely heartbreaking.
I know there was a large execution of French Soldiers during WWI, but I thought they were regular French troops, who had revolted against the army.
Yes the Russian Secret police KVD, did shoot soldiers who were retreating. A lot of the these were prisoners from the Gulags who were sent charging into battle without weapons and were told to pick up the weapons of fallen soldiers. Parenthetically, Stalin made the joke that it took courage to be a coward in the Soviet Army.
@@coleparker
That doesn't surprise me one bit ...
... After all, there is that famous quote often attributed to Stalin, which, paraphrased goes "one man's death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic ..." ...
From what I read - and I wish I knew where from - those conscript troops were pared up: one man had the rifle, the other, the ammunition, but neither had both ...
If that was Stalin's plan, then the objective was to prevent any uprising as they simply didn't have the means ... but made the charges towards the German lines almost suicidal, meaning 50% had to die, in order that the other 50% was fully equipped ...
... madness ...
Since the days of Squad Leader, and Up Front all game designers have incorporated a ‘Commissar Dottski’ rule for Soviet forces. Motivation method 7.62/7.65/9
Excellent dialogue and acting.
1:44 even broulard is cringing at mireau's craziness.
@David Vance noble act..but I'm sure the war would have continued-
An incredible movie.
A classic!!
One of the greatest war movie ever made.
The nefariousness of military leaders sends chills down one’s back. The way they do it so matter of factly is just harrowing. Kudos to the director.
@Jacob Culliver He's talking about the characters in this film.
@Jacob Culliver just cause you can say something, doesn’t always mean you should.
EINER DER BESTEN FILME
Probably the greatest anti-war film ever made. Kirk Douglas is excellent as the humanitarian, George Macready is total slime, and Adolphe Menjou--slime in real life--is simply slimy. Both of them show the incompetence and foolhardiness of war and some of its commanders. Kubrick's handling of the camera, esp. during the battle scenes, is simply superb. Probably the greatest technician of his day, and maybe his second-best film, the first being, IMO, Dr. Strangelove.
Menjou was well liked you are just upset because he rightly called out Americans in film who were taking payoffs from the Soviets. What's funny is when the wall fell and we got a hold of the KGB files almost every person who's career was ruined for being a communist was in fact working for the KGB
@@patricktalbot8980 Menjou was well liked among people who believed as he did. He wasn't well liked by a lot of others. As for those who took payoffs from the Soviets, true, some got some money, but they were not in the position to alter Hollywood's thinking on how to make movies or what messages to put in them.
Moreover, the assertion that almost all of them were working for the KGB is ludicrous...unless you count being a member of the Amer. Communist Party working for the KGB, and that's a stretch. Sure, some were dyed-in-the-wool Reds...look at the history more closely. Most quit the party for one reason or another, and McCarthy held prior association and membership--even if it was only for a day or a month or whatever--against them.
In the long run, nothing changed in Hollywood except that a number of lives got ruined by paranoia, fear, and bigotry. Don't get me wrong. I despise communism, but 'vetting' it as McCarthy did, screwing up people's lives...it was all for nothing. Thanks for playing, though. Better luck next time.
@@jessfrankel5212 In contemporary times, it is considered right and proper for businesses to fire or not hire people for professing values hateful to the majority of Americans or to have had connections, even not fully aware connections, with Russian intelligence services. Those times were the same. It's just that exactly whose ox is getting gored is different.
You US Americans are so weird.
All Quiet on the Western Front.
Really torn between this and full Metal Jacket .
I love that look he gives the general when he says "the one most responsible for the attack"
Also note that at that point Broulard snapped at Colonel Dax that he was overwrought. When you analyze the scene more closely, one realizes that Broulard was the officer in the room most responsible since he was the one who manipulated Mireau into accepting the plan to launch the futile attack.
Amazing acting.
epic scene greatest war movie ever
One thing I have always been curious about was George McCready's scar.I have seen him in other movies with that that scar which is barely noticeable but in this movie it is really more like a gash.When I first saw this movie that was one thing that impressed me .It really gave him an air of a villain.
"While in college, Macready sustained a permanent scar on his right cheek after being thrust through the windshield of a Ford Model T when the vehicle skidded on an icy road and hit a telephone pole. He was stitched up by a veterinarian, but he caught scarlet fever during the ordeal. "
@@halnywiatr Thank you for the info!
@@alonzocalvillo6702 I wonder if they enhanced the scar in this movie to make it stand out even more than in other movies 🤔 That would certainly be a great choice for artistic and character development purposes.
Originally, having a scar like that would mark you out as a Hero, not a Villain. It would be a mark of "leading from the front" and actually fighting among your men, not standing far behind them, where it is safe.
It became extremely popular among Prussian, and later German army officers ... and as they were painted as the "bad guys" in various forms of media, having a scar became associated with Villains, rather than Heroes.
@@halnywiatr
And I thought it might be a duelling scar!
All it takes for the wars to stop is men refusing to fight . The generals would not fight. They have brown nosed their way to the top. If any movie shows this point it is this one.
No wonder the French mutiny in WW1
That mostly happened on the second one...
@@saa82vik where did you learn that ? that's not true.
clèm it was only a half snide remark . french army surrendered en mass in June July 40. There are reports of tank officers pushing for counterattack shot by their men who were absolutely terrorized to counter the coming panzers. You can find sources in the mastery book by Andrew Roberts on the Second World War.
In the first ww there have been quite some mutinies but localized and successfully countered. France held on ww1
@@saa82vik That is no mutiny so again that is not true. Andrew Roberts ? lol... English historian, Royalist and close with liberal side come on... that is your sources ?
clèm wow so many labels. Wasn’t eleanor Roosevelt that said first rate people talk about ideas... and third rate people talk about other people? Roberts is one of the foremost military historians and his books are well researched lo You can look up his sources if you are interested about facts and ideas, instead of labels and national mythology.
Cold-blooded and real.
That make me think of the decimation in the ancient roman Legion where every tenth man was sentenced to death for the failure of the troop.In fact the french Army hat a very cynical aproach to war tactics in WW1.Attack by any means,No matter how many men die. I think the other Countries had the same Ideas, that's obviously why this great Movie was banned in several Countries.
The movie is Paths of Glory (1957)
Thank you, much appreciated^^
I remember reading of an Italian senior officer who was so appalled at his mens lack of courage in the face of relentless machine gun fire, that he had a company draw lots as to who would be executed afterwards.
Classy, and highly inspiring…..
When the SPQR turned into the Holy Roman Empire Italy stopped winning wars.
Luigi Cadorna, I'm guessing? Six percent of Italian troops under his command faced a disciplinary charge during the war, and 61% of those charged were found guilty. Not only was he ruthless to his men, he oversaw the disaster that was the Battles of the Isonzo, twelve battles over two years that saw nearly a million Italians casualties, before he was finally relieved of command.
@@simonandsimbagaming well he would have broken the line if only he was allowed to do a 13 attack on the isonzo
@@simonandsimbagaming
You've been fed pure bs by the ex-Allied historiography and pacifist hacks.
1) Cadorna's successor Diaz killed more men than his former. All in all the number of dead by capital punishment in our army was 750. Compare the French number, 1160, and the Austro-Hungarian number, 1150.
2) The tactics used by Cadorna were not particularly "démodé" when looked at in perspective with his peers from other armies. Cadorna himself was responsible for writing a tactical combat manual, his "red book". The red book would soon inspire the creation of the Arditi, the Italian assault infantry (comparable to the Sturmtruppen).
3) The attacks on the Isonzo river were the *only* possible way to smash the Austrians, and everybody including the Austrians themselves, knew this. Not only was the valley excruciating to attack because of it's mountainous terrain, the S shaped river formed a brutal corridor which made even Austro-Hungarian counter-attacks risky. In relation to these "slaughterous and old fashioned attacks", Italy, overall in the Great War, lost 10% of it's mobilized troop. Austro-Hungary lost 12% and France (for sake of comparison) lost 16%.
Cadorna was not a bad general, far from it. His reputation has been sullied by those idiots who ran our parliament after the war. Cadorna was esteemed by his Central Powers respectives (Krauss and von Bojna come to mind) and in-fact, something that isn't even known by many of us Italians, the reason Cadorna was enshrined as "Marshal of Italy" was a decision brought upon WW1 veterans, not Mussolini.
Authentic accents there...
A soldier's nightmare is a poor commander.
And likely only equalled by inadequate supply lines ...
... which a poor Commander will also wreck ...
For those of you wondering what this film is called: "Paths of Glory".
thank you
Thank you, this is much appreciated.
Mieraue has never stood before a Maxim Reply
Never noticed till now that when he says why not shoot he officer in charge and how much that changed their attitudes about what to do
Easy for him to say; it's not his ass on the line, in the trenches.
"I was talking of a hundred men. Now we're down to twelve?"
Italian generals in WW1 be like: You were only talking a hundred?
The sadest fact is that this is by no means exaggerated! The film based on Reality. In WW l normal soldiers, privates, had no rights and had to obey any abstruse orders of their Commander. General Mireau is a typical character of his time and of the French Army. Light Years away from their poor men, better slaves , in the Frontline!
Don't forget the French mutiny. They had enough.They were spent.Although there were some executions, the Generals did pay attention. The French Armee would not fight another offensive battle until the Summer of 1918,when the US would tip the scales with it's manpower. I am amazed that the Germans did not find out about until after the war.
Nice handshake 🤝 😉
Paths of Glory.
Since everyone just annoyingly refers to it as “the movie” for some reason.
Awesome movie, officers TOTALLY out of touch with reality....like Gallipoli!
Generals, not officers
@@Damo2690 Yes....Thank You! Although, my own experience was with officers that were also quite out of touch with what was really going on! (Vietnam)
As heartless as this movie may seem, harsher measure were taken in war in the past than what's shown in the film. Toward the end of WW1, the sides were killing more of their own men than the enemy due to mutinies and demonstrations. yet it's arguably less severe than the old Roman practice of decimation, literally making the army execute one tenth of their own comrades.
It's not easy. At times, you do need a strong military to defend your way of life and a strong military needs unwavering loyalty especially in the heat of battle, but morale and loyalty is a two way street. Good leaders generate unwavering loyalty without needing to resort to drastic measures. If you're a terrible commander making terrible decisions, even the most loyal, brave, and dedicated soldiers will turn on you no matter how much fear you attempt to instill.
Killing more of their own men than the enemy. Source?
And what justifies the way of life? What justifies the elitist monarchies of Europe to send the poor to die over pointless war?
What are you talking about ?
There was just 612 French soldiers who were executed for insubordination, most them were at the beginning of the war when things were really heated and soldiers were freshly conscripted. In 1918, there was only 12 executions.
I think you said that because you took the movie too literally lol. It's a dramatisation, it never happened like that.
Difference between the 1804 France and the 1914 France is this :
Marshal Oudinot entered in Moscou in 1812 he had 34 wounds, Marshal Lannes totaled 12 wounds when he died in 1809, Marshal Ney had five horses killed under him during Waterloo.
Most Generals and Marshals during first WW sat under their ass, had little to no strategic knowledge, gave impossible orders and commanded some infantry men to be executed for being "coward".
One France submitted all Europe under the command of the greatest man that ever lived, the other France struggled to win a four years war.
"I fear not an army of Lion commanded by a sheep, I fear an army of sheep commanded by a lion".
"The greatest man" Napoleon got a million people killed, his empire in shambles, the Enlightenment betrayed, France never again the Great Power.
To some extent, though, that was an inevitable result of the technological changes that transformed warfare in the century between Waterloo and 1914. John Keegan’s ‘The Mask of Command’ offers a great exploration of this.
Conrad Marbourg how is it that the man who was the cause of millions of deaths and suffering is called the greatest man that ever lived?
@@MrPancake777 He realised the final step of the Spirit on earth, and was called "the world-soul on horseback" ("die Weltseele zu Pferde") by Hegel. You can read what Kojève said about him.
Besides, what have people to complain with death ? Here is what Napoleon did for most of the soldiers of the Great army, they would have been poor guys and would have worked as farmers, smith, or other crap but by being involved in the Great army they fought for one of the greatest leaders if not the greatest leader in term of military genius that ever walked.
A lot of soldiers went to receive his ashes, people who have fought countless of battle could not restrain crying when thinking about the good old times and what they have accomplished under his command.
Those men, even those who died, have truly lived their life. Sure they lived an hard life but they lived a far greater life than the one they would have lived is Napoleon had not lead them. As he told them after Austerlitz : you will only have to say "I was at Austerlitz" for people to answer "here is a brave".
Besides that, war is evil but a necessary evil, read Hegel if you want to understand the role of great man and how the negative is the motor of the world.
Sincerely.
Apparently about 1500 general officers, that is to say brigadiers commanding a brigade of about 5,000 men, or higher ranks, served in the British Empire armies in WW1. 78 were listed killed in action. Just over 5%. Apparently combat deaths of all ranks was more like 950k out of just over 5 million, so more like 15-18% depending on precise figures. So way more. OTOH, there were only 1500 generals on every front, they tended to be older, and as you moved away from brigade command your proper place was farther behind the line where the phone lines might actually work. Above brigadier, and even actually at that level, you were not doing the job if you spent too much time going over the top and running across no man's land.
I haven't so readily found French figures, but I can only assume comparable, and for the same reasons.
In the Napoleonic wars, battles were fought mostly in a day within telescope or eyesight or could best be understood by riding around to get around smoke. And even then generals mostly were exposed to shell fire. Leading an infantry or cavalry charge under all but the most extreme circumstances was a waste of their time.
I've never even heard of this movie, but this is the second clip I've seen today. I need to watch the whole thing. It's too bad they don't know how to make this kind of film any more.
This was made by Stanley Kubrick. There never have been many directors of his caliber.
There are many great films from recent years Dont be a fool
@@johnLennon255 There are a handful, Lincoln, Dunkirk, Downfall, and The King's Speech all come to mind. The only one of those Netflix is streaming is The King's Speech. They used to have Downfall, and Valkyrie, but not any more. It's interesting that all of those are historical epics. They can't make a truly great movie any more based on an original story.
@@odysseusrex5908 the Irishman just came out
@@johnLennon255 And I bet Netflix will never stream it.
I have met a whole lot of officers like this guy. That kind of officer gets people killed.
Oh you don't just find them in army uniforms. You can find such as these in many, many, many other professions.
Seems odd to me that people like that should rise to positions of authority.
And from time to time to get killed by their own men
With reference to comment below I believe several AFBs banned the showing of Dr Strangelove. LOL
MACREADY rocking a dueling scar on his face.. 🗡️🗡️🗡️🗡️ awesome..
he dueled a car windshield when he was younger
It is actually not a given he got such in combat back in those days. Go search up Nazi scaring. Yeah, they did it to themselves in order to portray street cred like a freaking poser! LoL
@@Lobos222 Is it really posing if you duel with real swords? Haha you fucken muppet
@@onlinecommentator2616 Nazis didnt duel with real swords. They made FAKE combat SCARS. You uneducated fool. Learn to read.
@@Lobos222 I'm not the one who's uneducated here you hack. They did NOT make fake scars. Maybe some did, but that was vastly the minority. Most got them from dueling, such as Diels, Skorzeny, Röhm, Kaltenbrunner, among many many others.
You never see a German soldier during the entire film. Just about the first half is the same scene played by different actors: General Broulard pushes General Mireau into an attack he knows will fail with a promise of another Star - General Mireau goes to Col. Dax who knows the outcome in advance - Col. Dax is threatened into compliance. We the unwilling must to the impossible for the incompetent....
Who needs Germans, when the French are self mutilating so successfully?!
It's arrogant crap like this that incited the mutiny around 1916 by some French soldiers who were fed up with being looked on as cannon fodder by their high command sent into suicidal meaningless attacks that cost tens of thousands of lives.
I had a CO once who was overly feisty but I would follow her to hell and back without question. If anyone badmouthed her command like that, she'd of ended up at USDB. Col Dax is the epitome of self discipline throughout this film - but if looks could kill....
The bujwaagh at work!
Whether in business or the military, the powerful always arrange for the rank and file to take the fall. Unless the powerful are targeted by another powerful rival. Or there is a full-on revolution, in which case all the officers' heads roll, lol.
Its interesting how he really likes showing that scar on his cheek, he could perhaps try to make it lighter with some make up but its obvious he likes to show it as onstentanous as possible to show it as a symbol of heroism.
It's seems such a pity that Hollywood lacks the skill and ability to make films like this today. It makes you wonder why they continually fill our screens with meaningless CGI filled crap.
They have to keep their Chinese Communist overlords happy!
Why bother, when the audience are looking at their phones and can't concentrate anyway?
WWI high officers were the worst.
George Mcready is such a great villian
Excellent movie….amazing how much hatred I have for the generals! Most evil-great acting.
Absolutely Kino
I wonder what Dax did in the Second World War.
He would probably be too old
The French couldn't defeat another army so the turned on their own for a victory.
The real bastard is the smiling one.
We don't want to slaughter the French just set an example too bad for the poor 3 selected!🤨😠🇫🇷
Let us not forgot while shooting the movie,
Kubrick find his future wife
In addition to my comment: Paths of Glory based on a real happening of 1915. General Mireau was General Géraud François Gustave Réveilhac of the French Army in these Days. He gave order to fire with artillery on his own troops cause they won't fight anymore against a superior enemy. A week later, four, not three privates were sentenced to Death due cowardness in face of the enemy and got executed!
I really do understand why France banned this masterpiece of Anti-war-film such a long time...
France seemed to have a lot of trouble winning wars against its equally matched European adversaries before and after Napoleon. No less than three notable disastrous defeats were at the hands of the same enemy, Germany. First, was the Franco-Prussian war of 1871. Then, WWI, in which Germany occupied parts of France for the duration and needed assistance from allies to dislodge them. Finally, WWll in which the Germans marched on Paris and occupied the country. Once again, they needed the help of allies to remove the Germans.
@@abc64pan What a bunch of bollocks. The French army marched on and took Berlin in 2 weeks under Napoleon - on foot.
The French army of WWI held 80% of the Western frontline and accounted for nearly 70% of German combat deaths during the entire war. The French army turned the tide of the war when it won the most decisive battle of 1918, the Second Battle of the Marne, where with minimal support from the allies, they inflicted a devastating defeat to the Germans by stopping a German major Offensive and launching a massive counter-attack and encircling 3 German armies as well as recapturing the area taken by the Germans in May 1918. That battle turned the tide of the war. They bore the brunt of the Western Front during WWI, and the war would never have been won without them.
@@uncle7215 Ha, no way that France would have defeated Germany without assistance from their British Entente buddies with their massive naval fleet and the intervention of the US with its almost unlimited industrial capacity. Germany on the other hand, was dealing with them plus Russia almost alone as Austria and Turkey were so weak that they needed Germany more than Germany needed them. Still, It took 4 long, bloody, destructive years of industrial scale slaughter to bring Germany to its knees. WWll was pretty much the same only that then, Germany was tethered to weaker Italy and Japan was too far to provide significance assistance so they had to go at it practically alone and still proved to be a tough nut to crack.
@@abc64pan Britain needed France more than France needed Britain. The French army fielding over 100 Infantry Divisions by 1918, of which 60 divisions fought at the decisive second battle of the Marne, whilst the British only fielded 4 Divisions in that sector proves my point. Stats don’t lie.
@@abc64pan Ridiculous american stooge.