Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
weapon2010

Looks like Many WW2 Movies Coming!

Recommended Posts

I dont know why. It seems a human problem though, history repeats itself quite often. I think part of the problem is the way history is taught in schools. Two big problems with that - first the reliance on specific dates turns people off because they have to remember so many dates, and in doing so the why of the history is diminished some. And that's more important than what year it was. The second, bigger problem, is that until college in American schools history courses are survey level. And theres no set system to progressively teach more and more really in the same way as say math. So what happens is starting in 7th grade (around 12 years old) every year you have history that tries to cover all of human history in a school year. It never happens, everything is glossed over except the teacher's favorite and nearly every year only gets to MAYBE the US civil war, if that. Then they run out of time. Even then the specifics of any one subject are basically lost, in the need to cover hundreds of years per 1 hour session. To compound the problem, as I said theres no specific system or division of history, so every year the process just begins all over again. Even beginning level college courses here are 'survey' courses. I.E. World History I and II. Useless to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When did people start thinking the past -- even recent past -- meant nothing to them? Having no awareness of how much they're saying and doing now are so shaped by the past?

Even worse is that their idea of the future does not extend beyond lunch. They fail to grasp that what they do in the present will have consequences in the future and that they, or someone, will have to deal with those consequences. It's like they are sure that the laws of cause and effect have been suspended.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are like lightning; they choose the path of least resistance. In this age of vast prosperity it's very easy to live without consideration of anything beyond the immediate. Learning about history requires a lot of effort, and there's not much practical reward for it.

[/soapbox]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Learning about history requires a lot of effort, and there's not much practical reward for it.

IMHO there might be considerable practical reward if people would use it to avoid repeating the mistakes of earlier generations or alternately reinventing the wheel. Or as I like to say, why keep repeating the same old, tired, shopworn mistakes when we could be discovering fresh, new, exciting mistakes?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only upside is things like if Hitler really had gotten his history right (because he wasnt entirely ignorant of history, he just warped it to his own deluded worldview and selectively ignored whole bits) he may have won WW2. Im glad he repeated Napoleon's mistakes, the Kaiser's mistakes, and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting fact. WW2 was as far away in history to the boys going to vietnam, as vietnam was to the boys going to the first gulf war. A generation forgets quickly. I am 40 and in my last 20 yrs I have seen the WW2 vets go from a a strong presence and remembrance day to just a few old codgers in wheelchairs.

Life goes fast and many, if not most, do not have much interest in the past.

What I have been finding is that the old adage that one must remember the past so as not to make the same mistakes is not always relevant. Those fellows who made the mistakes were sometimes unlucky, sometimes they did not try hard enough, and other times they were just stupid. Surprisingly the exact same tactics sometimes work now. This is what I find in my business. I have spent sometimes too much time studying the past instead of just trying something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only upside is things like if Hitler really had gotten his history right (because he wasnt entirely ignorant of history, he just warped it to his own deluded worldview and selectively ignored whole bits) he may have won WW2.

More likely he wouldn't have started a war at all.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History and Tradition are what cements a people together.

Once you ignore your history you are likely to have a country composed of many special interest "communities", without any commonalities of tradition or belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, how many people in other countries know a lot about historical figures of their own land? Let alone of a different country?

WWII? Here that would be Hitler and maybe Göring or Goebbels. From the military Rommel and maybe Paulus. Other nations: Churchill, Stalin and maybe Mussolini. That's it from names.

The Third Reich in history is mostly about the Holocaust. The actual war is like: Poland, Russia & Stalingrad, 20. July, end. All done in one lesson.

No one is interested in the war but the effects are still felt in many places. One is that the Bundeswehr now has problems with getting recruits since they dropped conscription.

That is probably the difference that loosing one or two wars makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting observations here. On British TV programmes like, 'Secrets of World War Two' etc etc are endlessly re-run (I don't mind). I'm guessing someone must watch 'em. The truth is that most people I come across in 'normal' life have little or no understanding or interest in history, often because of it being taught to them poorly in the first instance. I would say though that war and WW2 in particular gets a lot more airtime and focus than other history by a long chalk. Again, certainly in the UK there is mass coverage of every Remembrance Day as well as specific anniversaries.

On a positive note my son who went to a regular state school in London had WW2 as a specific 'project' and indeed he was able to focus on it further in sixth form (ages 16/18 for those not familiar with UK schools). Not saying he was biased by his dad or the bookshelves full of reference :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that here we have a significant portion of the population that still doesn't get that our President really is an American citizen, but is also a christian it is not surprising to see how little they know about events and leaders from 70 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering that here we have a significant portion of the population that still doesn't get that our President really is an American citizen, but is also a christian it is not surprising to see how little they know about events and leaders from 70 years ago.

Thats really stretching the point, don't you think?

I wouldn't say a significant portion of the population has these opinions. Donald Trump made a big deal about the President's birth certificate, but most people I know didnt think much of his ravings.

The Muslim thing was also a tempest in a teapot, not many reliable sources latched on to that either.

There are a lot of folks in this country that just don't plain like Obama and his policies, but what that has to do with the neglect of history is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats really stretching the point, don't you think?

I wouldn't say a significant portion of the population has these opinions. Donald Trump made a big deal about the President's birth certificate, but most people I know didnt think much of his ravings.

The Muslim thing was also a tempest in a teapot, not many reliable sources latched on to that either.

There are a lot of folks in this country that just don't plain like Obama and his policies, but what that has to do with the neglect of history is beyond me.

True good points, but the fact that it got as much attention as it did was to me an indication that people don't really care to educate themselves if it interferes with their preferred beliefs. That goes for all sides of the political spectrum. Maybe just human nature, but annoying nevertheless. Okay enough political rant, sorry to sidetrack things. Please return to your regularly scheduled grognard discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've missed this titanic thread (but I've not read it all, I admit)!

Going back to SPR I overall liked the movie, and it was a milestone in the war gender movies: what really got me annoyed, now and then was the too simplistic choices the Production and Director made: for a start the beach landing and the confusion of battle in the way is depicted was amazing but they should have added that the HMG bunkers on Omaha were firing enfilade fire, hidden from view from the front beach; this would have added a mistery on how the men got hit when finally got ashore. A minor fault.

As for accuracy, I believe it's the bait to lure us history buffs into following the story, no matter if it may develop into something far from reality: a squad of Elite Rangers sent to rescue a single Paratrooper? I'm OK with that, eventually. Why a complete corporal from rear echelons should join them? To be able to freeze in action and have the brave guys die, but not before he can walk along chatting as in a picnic while on the move beyond enemy lines (while the rest of the squad is doing just the same?).

What about Steamboat Willie? Do you remember that ferocious SS trooper manning the HMG that so cleverly was attacked frontally (and of course the Corpsman out in front to get killed): he got smokes, was close to be shot, but saved by the complete corporal just to be able to join his lot of Nazi Skins (why all them had shaved heads?) and kill Tom Hanks? Should I say more?

This is why I like accurate war movies, but I don't care about a faked Tiger tank, if at least looks alike, seemingly.

Of course Spielberg & co. redeemed themselves with the Greatest WWII movie BoB and the Pacific: two very different subjects, but I loved them both.

Cannot stand crap like Pearl Harbor: two Fighter jockeys that can do maneuvers against the nimblest Zeros with their P-40s that none dreamed of in reality else you got shot down very quickly; but wait a minute: the next day they can join the most skillful Bomber Crews and are able to take off from a Carrier on a B-25 none had done before. And the final scene: I hate melodrama! I mean I like Tragedy (Go And See), or Drama (Ivan's Childhood) and even Comedy (Situation Hopeless... But Not Serious) in war movies, but not melodrama!

I appreciate when in a War movie there is attention to details to convey an interesting story: A Bridge At Remagen was the first movie where you actually see German HT and not the ubiquitous M3 with crosses painted. Burma with Erroll Flinn was just amazing, and a great story telling.

Das Boot was magnificent and I also liked Stalingrad and the Downfall, made by the Germans.

In small productions I appreciated A Midnight Clear, The Long Day's Dying, Attack!: this last is also quite interesting if you like to consider the subject 'chain of command' as mentioned in this thread; other excellent examples on this same matter are Twelve O' Clock High and I also like to mention The Gallant Hours.

Flags Of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima I consider them as one Great war movie, but I also liked immensely the visionary depiction and introspection in The Thin Red Line.

I saw Saints and Soldiers but I wasn't enthusiast about it: for me the big let down was the comic striped sergeant that actually had (like in comics) the three bars painted on the front of his helmet; a poor woman living in the Ardennes' forest makes bred with white flower, and of 'course in her isolated house she has aluminum thin foils... What? In the '40s during a World Wide War? That turn me off completely. Possibly I also suffer from a little OCD but as I said: either the story is very compelling or there should be a very great attention to details.

As for films books' inspired, the greatest delusion came with Enemy At The Gate: such a great book, with so many stories and battles, you could have made a huge series out of it, but instead they hire a director that cares nothing about the book and build a story on two single characters that in the book are not even mentioned being completely fictional. I know, they can always say it was inspired by the book! But why not title it High Noon In Stalingrad?

Pity, since the production and FSX were good enough, as well as the cast: a lost occasion.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...