All Quiet on the Western Front

[The Legendary Shark]

As Sergeant Harper explained, "There's killin' officers and there's murderin' officers. Killin' officers get you killed by mistake, murderin' officers get you killed on purpose."

Which doesn't really add to the conversation much but it is a pretty cool observation.

[JohnW]

No help at all Sharky, but welcome all the same.
Here's to Patrick Augustine Harper. The like of him will not be there again.

[The Legendary Shark]

Aye, a proper bastard. Here's to 'im.

[Funt Solo]

Anyway, I'm a student of history, and sweeping generalisations are the enemy of study. No one here actually made any such generalisation. However, the film veers close to it by playing loose with history.

I should take the time to watch the movie. I'm (like a lot of others, I assume) well-versed in the history of WW2, but have a lesser knowledge of WW1. I got a bit turned off that aspect of history because of a sort of unremitting bleakness - which I blame partly on an English unit in school on WW1 poetry.

[JohnW]

There may well be something in what you said regarding blinkers and mirrors, but you could probably say as much for any of us who hold strong views about anything.
I could go on forever if this argument dragged on into specifics. You've got Luigi Cadorna on your side. I've got Alexei Brusilov on mine. We could fight over who gets Henry Rawlinson, but I don't wanna.

The book is superb (and was pretty much the foundation stone for anti-war literature). Read it. It's short.
Make up your own mind about the film.

I leave Waldo Dobbs to sign off for me below.

[Jim_Campbell]

The book is superb

It is. It really is. Profound and affecting (also, short ) and well worth reading.

[Art]

Impressive achievement of the film to make the French terrifying.

[JohnW]

Impressive achievement of the film to make the French terrifying.

Now, now. Don't start me off again about lazy stereotypes.
On les aura!

[Proudhuff]

Interesting and polite discourse, with points well made on all sides.

IMHO, they never learnt much and would have gone on, and on and on if the working classes across Europe/Russia hadn't threaten the whole system.
Not sure that's relevant to the book/film debate, but its what brought that sudden and agreed end to the whole stramash.

[JohnW]

I disagree, but not strongly enough to start something over it.

The whole sorry business came to an end because a starving Germany threw in the towel while there was still a towel to throw in. They'd run out of military options in the summer and had been steadily beaten in the field from August onwards.
Their decision to end it all was entirely unilateral, rather than the result of some tacit understanding with their opposite numbers over the Red Menace.
Yes – there was a revolution in Germany, but that was a contributing rather than a deciding factor. (To my mind, the revolution/armistice was more of a chicken-and-egg deal than a straightforward cause-and-effect.)

Also, the western powers weren't seriously threatened by revolution. The French managed to keep the lid on things when it all got iffy in 1917, and the UK held the Irish problem in check until the war was over. With Uncle Sam on their side, they were all confidant that they had enough juice left for 1919 and even 1920.

If it doesn't count as cultural appropriation, I will now be using the word 'stramash' as often as I can get away with.