Sunday, August 3, 2014

Paths of Glory: Stanley Kubrick


  1. More the media image of the war than what it really was.

    While there was plenty of stupidity, both sides spent 4 years trying to find a way to break through until the tank came along and the Limeys, more than the others, invented combined-arms warfare.

    The Hun revolutionized infantry (in many ways, a back to the future exercise) and the Frawgs rethought artillery, but it was the Limeys who put it all together after a really lackluster performance for most of the time.

    1. If you read the history of WWI and what really happened, it was pretty close to what was depicted in that film. The French Army did that. It is a war that shouldn't have been fought in the first place and once engaged none of the sides could back down. What tipped it was the U.S. involvement in the war which shifted the balance of power from stalemate. It was an extremely bloody conflict for all involved.

    2. As I said, there was plenty of stupidity, but, as the war dragged on, the ones who were wedded to tradition had to give way to the ones who looked for new ways to win.

      It was the Kirk Douglases, not the Adolphe Menjous, who were motivated to figure out a short bombardment that didn't make the ground impassable but left the enemy stunned was better than days of bombardment.

      As for wars that shouldn't have been fought, isn't that just about all of them?

    3. I agree. The learning curve with WWI was especially slow (at a cost to the cannon fodder they ordered out of the trenches). There were similar mistakes in the early days of WWII, but the learning curve was fortunately much faster (at least for the USA).

      But as wars go, WWI really made no sense at all (which is why the number of casualties was so appalling).


I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.