MovieChat Forums > Un long dimanche de fiançailles (2005) Discussion > The pointlessness of WW1

The pointlessness of WW1

posted 10 years ago by haggar
10 replies | jump to latest

This movie reminded me of my doubts about the whole point of WW1. It was basically a war of one bunch of aristocratic a-holes against another bunch of aristocratic a-holes, and the poor people sent to the slaughter. If I had lived in that period, whichever side I'd be born at (French, British, Prussian, Austro-Hungarian or Russian) I'd run with my family, or without, to any country or place where I could be safe.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ed in MO 10 years ago

If you lived in that time you would have the mind of that time. You would be much more nationalistic and proud and dutiful and honorable, and it is doubtful that you would desert your nation in its time of need. Very few Frenchmen deserted until the mutiny of 1917.

[–] Kawada_Kira 10 years ago

If you lived in that time you would have the mind of that time. You would be much more nationalistic and proud and dutiful and honorable, and it is doubtful that you would desert your nation in its time of need. Very few Frenchmen deserted until the mutiny of 1917.

The mind of that time? At the time the poor of the world generally felt that World War I was a rich man's war and that the people had nothing to gain from it. Sure there were some who mindlessly danced to the tune of "patriotism", but most had a less rosy-eyed view of the war. The people of Russia hated the war so much it turned out to be the trigger for a full-scale social revolution there. And there were multiple other revolutionary uprisings around Europe, though only Russia's was successful.

 Sig under construction 

[–] Ed in MO 10 years ago

Well the events you speak of did not happen until the war was three years old. The poor went to war just as eagerly as the rich. Just look at the newsreel footage of crowds cheering and bands playing as the troops went off to fight at the front in 1914.

I think the best description of why men fought in WWI came from Erik Marie Remarque, the author of "All Quiet on the Western Front":

"The bombs go off behind you; an artillery shell blasts nearby and sends bits of metal and soil and flesh scattering all around you; a machine gun on the other side sends bullets to kill you. The mechanics of death surround you. And yet you hold your post. Why not run screaming from your position like any sensible animal would, to safety in the rear? Because something is holding you to your place. Honor, duty, an obligation to the men of your company to perform your task....all of these things remain unspoken yet inside of you. So you maintain your place at the front, with the idea and hope and fantasy that death is not meant for you but for the other soldier."

[–] Kawada_Kira 10 years ago

All wars are pointless in the end.

Not really. The American Civil War ended chattel slavery. World War II ended German Nazism and stopped the Holocaust. And there have been many wars of rebellion that have overthrown either particular governments or entire social systems so as to improve the conditions of the people for the better, such as the Chinese civil war, the Nicaraguan Sandinista uprising, the Cuban revolutionary war, the Haitian revolution, and many others.

World War I wasn't like those wars because it was an inter-imperialist conflict over which particular factions of global capitalism get to monopolize the resources and wealth of the world. It was millions of poor people sent to slaughter each other over whose masters get to concentrate the greatest proportion of the world's wealth in their hands. From the point of view of the poor it was utterly pointless and wasteful. From the point of view of the rich the war itself was enormously profitable and its aftermath was much more so for the faction that won.

 Sig under construction 

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 9 years ago

Not really. The American Civil War ended chattel slavery. World War II ended German Nazism and stopped the Holocaust.

Neither is a good example:

-- The United States was not the aggressor in the American Civil War, the Confederacy was. If it hadn't been for the determination of the "slaveocracy" to start a counterrevolution, posing as a revolution, for the sake of protecting chattel slavery, and propagating slavery into the new territories as well as, they hoped, the free states (Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott decision), there would have been no secession, no firing on Fort Sumter, no war. Therefore, that war was pointless, because chattel slavery was not a just cause. The Johnny Rebs were on the wrong side of history.

-- The Nazis were clearly the aggressor in World War II. Though they did have one or two legitimate gripes-- the excesses of the Versailles treaty, chiefly-- those could have and should have been addressed by peaceful means. Again, a hideously pointless aggression.

And there have been many wars of rebellion that have overthrown either particular governments or entire social systems so as to improve the conditions of the people for the better...

You're on much more solid ground here. I certainly wouldn't want to take back the American Revolution, even if our Founding Fathers didn't have nearly as solid a case against George III as, say, the slaves in Haiti did. It's difficult to imagine how the Haitian revolution could have been accomplished without any violence, but as you know the rest of the world has been punishing the Haitians ever since, 'cause, like, they're the wrong color and all, know what I mean? (Please excuse my cynicism.)

I would however, point to the establishment of modern India as an example of a revolution that was accomplished almost entirely by means of nonviolent resistance. At least in some times and places, it can be done. The fall of the Soviet Union was also done with very little violence. As for secessions, which are arguably sometimes necessary and just, the splitting of Czechoslovakia was conducted by referendum. By comparison, a violent secession by either Czechs or Slovaks would then be viewable by us as pointless, because it obviously could have been done without bloodshed.

...Which brings us back to World War I, the subject of the present film. Franz Joseph and the Austro-Hungarian military wanted to add Serbia to their collection. So they issued an ultimatum that they knew the Serbians would have to be crazy to agree with. Look what happened. Pointless, pointless, pointless.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] enigma-lake 10 years ago

Was going to post the same
In the end, yes
While the suits are directing pawns they sure try to make it sound reasonable somehow.

[–] agracier-574-436194 10 years ago

If you had been a Frenchman or a Belgian in 1914, you would have been utterly outraged at the unprovoked and brutal invasion of your country as well as by the indiscriminate murder and rape of civilians as well as by the wholesale destruction of property of all kinds. Not to mention German theft of food and industrial goods.

Imagine an invasion of the US by a foreign nation - let's say by China on the west coast - and I dare you to find any American not willing to go to war to settle the question then and now.

The same can be said for WWII, which brought even greater horrors of murder and genocide to the occupied countries. The war upon Nazism and fascism settled that question quite decisively. And Europe better off for it.

When people talk about the pointlessness of the Great War, they are usually referring to the reason why it started in the first place as well as the results of the outcome.

Why it started is still being debated with no real consensus reached yet amongst historians. The result of the Great War was an inconclusive peace - either too lenient or too harsh - that set the stage for a rematch some 25 years later. That is the pointlessness of the Great War.

[–] gss2 9 years ago

It was pointless. Lenin and company exposed the allies as being just as imperialistic as the Central Powers when they released copies of the secret treaties made at the wars outset. Germany didn't start the war anymore than France did. The war did a lot to discredit royalty and the old order. It allowed for the rise of modern democracy in Europe, which would only really take root after the Second World War in the west and after the fall of communism in the east.