Why is there so little WW1 kino out there lads?

kubrick's Paths of Glory is excellent WWI kino, really ahead of its time

>God Tier
The Grand Illusion
Joyeux Noel
Gallipoli
Paths of Glory
Lawrence of Arabia
All Quiet On The Western Front (1930)

Wonder Woman still demonized the Germans and basically turned them into borderline Nazi's. Not that the German army in WWI was entirely innocent, but WW takes it really far

world war two was not an ideological war

Attached: Wings_poster.jpg (990x1500, 222K)

>expecting anything from capeshit

Attached: The_Big_Parade_(1925)_poster.jpg (1120x1705, 438K)

The French "A Very Long Engagement" is fantastic.

fair point. capeshit is capeshit.

>tfw you will never experience glorious death on the battlefield

My niggas

Why not? elaborate.

Hurts bro

Anywhere can be a battlefield, just pick up your gun and walk outside

I watched The Trench with Daniel Craig recently, it was alright.
This user lists pure kino.

It was a war between democracy and autocracy/absolute monarchy

The Netflix TV series called "Road to Calvary" is absolutely great. It's about the Russian revolution and civil war really, but the subject matter overlaps so much.

It was a world war. do you care more about Arabs fighting Turks? How about Indians fighting Turks? Moroccans fighting Germans? like, how stupid could you really be to actually make this comment.

>WW1 wasn't an ideological war
Not to the extent of WW2 but it was still broadly a conflict of autocratic monarchy vs liberal democracy. The democracies won and after WW1 the only monarchies in Europe were either neutral nations or long standing constitutional/parliamentary monarchies like the UK.

How could I forget this Howard Hughes classic?

Attached: hells angels.jpg (520x393, 74K)

with the wild card of total social revolution thrown in to turn everything on its head as a third option.

Only betas kill random people in public.

Attached: 1520042869839.gif (390x373, 2.54M)

it was simply the unfinished business of the first - the question of "germany or russia" still hadn't been answered, and had to be
the western powers were secondary to the core conflict

Attached: TheyShallNotGrowOld.jpg (1280x720, 126K)

It's not as cinematic to see thousands of men die in a trench fighting over literal inches at a time when compared to D-Day or the Battle of the Bulge

Battle of Gallipoli is pretty good, and there's a great movie about it

The fuck? Only Russia and the Ottoman Empire among the Great or regional powers were not Constitutional Monarchies during WWI. Why the fuck do Brits love rewriting history so much?

ultimately what causes a war? the underlying social and material reality was that the fate of Eastern Europe had to be decided

Paths of Glory and All Quiet On the Wrsten Front are some of the greatest war movies of all time.

>it was simply the unfinished business of the first
While the aftermath of WW1 played an undeniable role the ideological aspect of the conflict is also quite evident. NatSoc had core tenants like Lebensraum which made war inevitable. Germany even made some pretty irrational decisions during the war that a much less ideologically motivated country like Germany in WW1 would not have made. The role ideology played was much greater in the Second World War

>The fuck? Only Russia and the Ottoman Empire among the Great or regional powers were not Constitutional Monarchies during WWI. Why the fuck do Brits love rewriting history so much?
Germany and A-H were not true absolute monarchies like Russia but they weren't really democracies like the UK, despite having Constitutions. If Willy was just a figurehead for his parliament then WW1 might not have even happened.

German Empire had a constitution brainlet that makes it automatically not autocracy/absolute monarchy.

What this user said but the exact opposite. THe real there are so many ww2 movies is because America played a larger part.

Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit.
>WWI might not have happened
You're a god damn brainlet.

All taxpayers had the right to vote retard, that makes it automatically a democracy. Just not the same system we have now.

Really great question. There is so much untapped kino potential. Imagine if anything like link related was in WWI kino.

youtu.be/k4Pd527GN48

Attached: 43669130_600678060405114_4300143951362392064_n.png (504x765, 787K)

He didn't demonize German soldiers in "War Horse" you dumb faggot.

Much greater, sure, but it still wasn't the root of the inevitable conflict. Lebensraum or not, weak neighbours with lots of land are an irresistible temptation in a pre-nuclear world.

Apocalypse is pure kino
youtu.be/xO8uhme0o3Y?t=1922
youtu.be/1GGtbjrstBw?t=2533
>tfw

Because WW1 wad exclusively trench warfare. You can only make one story off of it.

What babby tier history books have you been reading? I’m honestly curious if you have something to back this up or if you’re just pulling random bs out of your ass

>weak neighbours with lots of land are an irresistible temptation in a pre-nuclear world.
I'd argue though that NatSoc played the largest role in Germany making a move against Russia. I can't imagine a liberal democracy like Britain or France deciding to wage aggressive war in the same way Germany did if put in their position. Their ideological leanings undeniably made the invasion much more likely.

America only came in at the end and contributed very little. Very hard to sell a war story to Amerifats that isn't "USA SAVES THE DAY".

J'accuse (1919) is literally 100 years old but it's so good. One of my fave movies ever.

>Because WW1 wad exclusively trench warfare.
That's not true the fighting in the Eastern Front was almost entirely a war of movement

The Long Way Home is pure kino.

There IS a good amount of WWI kino, the difference is that most of it was made in European countries and therefore isn't very well known internationally.

Attached: hh9hovx291c11.jpg (1744x909, 303K)

WWI was much, much bigger than the Western Front.

heard this was kino lit.

Attached: storm-steel_qdgo4m[1].jpg (300x444, 39K)

I'm feeling in the mood for some. Any good tear jerkers you could recommend?

>spooky red filter and ambient playing over footage
wow real impressive. You could do that with Korea or Vietnam or any war.

A very long engagement

I'm talking about showing the actual non watered down horrors of WWI you nigger.

"We automatically mounted the machine gun for action. Then like animals we burrowed into the earth as if trying to find protection deep in its bosom. Something struck my back where I carried my gas mask, but I did not pay attention to it. A steel splinter broke the handle of my spade and another knocked the remains out of my hand. I kept digging with my bare hands, ducking my head every time a shell exploded nearby. A boy to my side was hit in the arm and cried out for help. I crawled over to him, ripped the sleeves of his coat and shirt open and started to bind the bleeding part. The gas was so thick now I could hardly discern what I was doing. My eyes began to water and I felt as if I would choke. I reached for my gas mask, pulled it out of its container – then noticed to my horror that a splinter had gone through it leaving a large hole. I had seen death thousands of times, stared it in the face, but never experienced the fear I felt then. Immediately I reverted to the primitive. I felt like an animal cornered by hunters. With the instinct of self-preservations uppermost, my eyes fell on the boy whose arm I had bandaged. Somehow he had managed to put the gas mask on his face with his one good arm. I leapt at him and in the next moment had ripped the gas mask from his face. With a feeble gesture he tried to wrench it from my grasp; then fell back exhausted. The last thing I saw before putting on the mask were his pleading eyes". - Peter Hart.

Attached: 1550538326006.jpg (750x725, 76K)

Watch War Horse

Stoßtrupp 1917 is not a tear jerker but it's good. Post-war Germany made a lot of WWI films and later on Nazi Germany also made some great historic films like Kolberg (1945)

Damn Anglos can't even trust their own.

WW2 was way worse than WW1.

gurkha a CUTE!

There’s a lot of Great War kino, it’s just not recent shit

>There’s a lot of Great War kino
name 1

On what criteria or which point of view? Both were fucking awful.

fucking scroll up in the thread you troglodyte

WW1 wasn't CONSTANT conflict. It wasn't continuous mobile offensive warfare like WW2 was. Trenches had quiet sectors, sides would often not raid eachothers trenches unless the brass made them do so. Sure the major offensives like Verdun or the Somme were awful but WW2's casualties were much higher and the action was constant.

just 1 name 1

Multiple were named you cretin.

That's the worst thing, I'd rather move my ass continuously than sitting on a trench surrounded by corpses and brain matter like some memoirs recall.

O N E

N

E

>I'd rather move my ass continuously
is there really a big difference between sitting in a fox hole and getting shelled vs sitting in a trench? If anything mobile warfare is much more likely to kill you

Saving Private Ryan

Not to mention the other side constantly using your trench as a testing ground for their newest weapons.

lmao what u sayin white boy? nigga i dont care bout this shit. dumb ass nigga

World War 2 took the spotlight. Many don't know any details to WW1.

this, based and hoodpilled

Some lesser known ones.
Regeneration - probably most underrated, slower and about men with shell shock
Beneath Hill 60 - about the miners/engineers digging beneath the trenches to plant mines
The Trench - good low budget film
Forbidden Ground - low budget but good story of a raid, some hard feels
Passchendaele - long time ago, but remember it being good
The Great War - 1960s BBC series, excellent
The Somme: From Both Sides of the Wire - one of the best war documentaries I've ever seen, from a historian's perspective and objective

With WW1's static trench warfare there were fixed supply lines and lines of communication. All of that was thrown out the window when mobile warfare and elastic defense became the norm.

Encirclement warfare, continuous offensives, more effective artillery and aerial strafing were far worse on the psychology of a soldier in WW2 than WW1, on top of the much higher casualty rate. WW1 had been oversensationalized by the post-war generation and it downplays how much worse WW2 was than 1.

apocalypse now

Under the German constitution the Kaiser had a lot of power over foreign policy and was the sole appointee of the members of the war council in the Bundesrat. Previous Kaisers had left most of these roles to Bismark, but Wilhelm II was more adamant about his role as monarch and pursued a more aggressive foreign policy. He also was the commander in chief of Germany's armed forces and the general staff answered to him. It would basically be like if the President of the US was a hereditary title instead of being elected.

In ww1 the reason they were fighting was convoluted and most of the war consisted of soldiers napping in trenches.

Oh yeah
Legends of the Fall - major feels
Deathwatch - low-budget horror but pretty good

could you imagine something more cringier than some 16-year old pretending to be a hoodrat on an anonymous forum?

no worse than any larper I've seen

You can get your fix when Tolkein comes out

This. Only WW1 movie from the 30s I genuinely enjoyed.

>Deathwatch
I watched that when I was a kid and thought it a masterpiece. I don't want to watch it now because I'll probably look like shit.

It's not that simple. Mobilised warfare started in WWI. Imagine enduring thousands of shells over a few days and seeing small villages and towns destroyed, having to watch men drown in mud and gas, retreating for hundreds of miles of smouldering countryside and towns.
This may not have been Stalingrad, but it was spread out over a large area. It is really only 55 million deaths compared to 40 million, so the destruction is certainly overstated. This is mostly do to the general focus on the war, and the narrative centered around civilians. In reality it would be ridiculous to try and say one war was so much worse.
WWII was also 6 years as opposed to 4.

Reminder that "realistic" war movies suck
>some things are so horrific that truth aren't sufficient for the truth the only way to convey it is with fiction so outlandish that it approximates the absurdity of true horror
pic related is the best WW1 film. When they first arrive into combat and they march shoulder to shoulder through the woods, completely wrong historically, with each bombastic drumbeat in the soundtrack marking a soldier dropping out of the line dead until the main character is alone conveys more then 100 modern "gritty" european films ever could.

Attached: The Big Parade.jpg (666x1007, 210K)

>Why would people want war in their war films?

>"Where have you been then? Working nights?"

Attached: 6EB0CE29-A8A5-49C9-B9FB-736D27079785.jpg (683x683, 68K)

>can't imagine a liberal democracy like Britain or France deciding to wage aggressive war in the same way Germany did if put in their position
You can't imagine that the global British EMPIRE or the global French EMPIRE would engage in military conquests? The French spent decades after WW2 butchering Algerians and Vietnamese just so they could keep their empire. And that's just two examples. This is not to defend the natsoc (bunch of psychos), yet what they wanted for Germany was something both the French and British empires had already achieved decades beforehand. Self reliance (oil, metals, foodstuffs ect) so that no other nation could control their market aka "lebensraum". Which is why WW1 is much more of a greyzone. Germany wanted what the British and French empires had and the existing empires wouldn't/couldn't allow that.

Tfw a British supermarket makes the best ww1 film.
youtu.be/NWF2JBb1bvM

Attached: Salisbury's1914.jpg (1035x789, 343K)

There's nothing tragic about Germans getting rekt

That's what it ended up being, but it didn't start out that way. Certainly not like WW2 where Hitler's entire sales pitch from the beginning was DUDE CRUSH JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM LMAO

>You can't imagine that the global British EMPIRE or the global French EMPIRE would engage in military conquests?
I can picture them pursuing colonial military conquests but it's quite hard to imagine a country as timid as Britain or France after WW1 attempting to invade the entirety of Russia.

>yet what they wanted for Germany was something both the French and British empires had already achieved decades beforehand
Can you give me anything even approaching a Generalplan Ost?

>Self reliance (oil, metals, foodstuffs ect) so that no other nation could control their market aka "lebensraum"
Source? I know Autarky was one of the main goals of the Germans but I've never heard the same about the French or British

>You can't imagine that the global British EMPIRE or the global French EMPIRE would engage in military conquests?
Building an empire in Europe by conquest was viewed differently than doing the same overseas at the time. The idea that European nations should have self-determination had become popular and Britain and France generally tried to support that, moreso than the Austrian Empire or Nazi Germany at least.

was not expecting these feels

Attached: 1529673244572.jpg (480x480, 24K)

>a world without frogs

I would argue that Germany's move against Russia had more to do with the loss of resource procurement from the Africa routes. Wars are seldom about pure ideology. Ideology is more often developed as a core propagandized philosophy to move for war.

There's a sort-of WW1 movie in theaters right spankin now
youtube.com/watch?v=iV-LRlyI2dQ

It's ok they're manly tears user

imagine thinking wars are fought over ideas just lmao.

Reminder that France, and France alone, started the war.

>Wars are seldom about pure ideology
Of course Germany had practical reasons for invading but ideology played a lot larger role than it should have.

How do you go back to fighting the next day?Or ever really.

IIRC the soldiers had to be disciplined because they would intentionally miss when ordered to fire upon the enemy. Must be a hell of a thing killing a man

>should have
Maybe, but how much of that is simply because of how effective the propaganda was? I mean it is always a chicken and egg sort of conundrum at some point. Morale and fighting effectiveness is not a meme correlation, of course with a lot of other factors to consider.

being bombarded permanently really makes you want to kill the guy in the opposit trench after a while.
That's why no similar events was recorded for the 3 next christmas.

It must have been fucking hellish, being in the trenches.

>but how much of that is simply because of how effective the propaganda was?
Honestly probably less than you'd think. Hitler had strong convictions about the Bolsheviks and Germany's future in the East. There were practical reasons for Germany choosing to invade when it did but the intention to launch the war itself I think stemmed largely from Hitler's own ideology. As crazy as it sounds I think Germany and the Soviet Union could have co-existed peacefully for much longer.

I'd like a 2001 A Space Odyssey style film about it ending with the soldier's descent into hallucinations as the blackness of no man's land swallows him. A film where humanity slowly recedes from the picture as mechanical slaughter takes over and everything that made sense at the start is thrown into disarray.

You get shot by your officers if you refuse to fight.

Sounds fucking metal. I'd like a film just like that with Jacob's Ladder as the main inspiration. Could make a hell of a horror film

Being under artillery fire alone must be fucking terrifying. My dad told me there is no greater fear then getting shelled. WW1 had rolling drum-fire that lasted hours as well it's theorized that the impact from all the shells actual led to neurological damage to the brain.

the war was britain trying to prevent german domination of the continent, exactly the same reasons as ww1. its treatment has since been retroactively revised by propagandist historians in order to portray it as an ideological war. in reality there were no real ideological differences between Hitler and Churchill, both would be considered ethnocentric supremacists by today's standards.

I cried during War Horse.

Actually it was about pan-Slavic nationalism and French Revanchisme. The British got in on it because they felt a growing Kriegsmarine threatened their status as big nigger of the sea.

there's a small part of a WWI battle in the lost city of Z, great movie

This And you must understand this was in Christmas 1914, that exact Christmas the Kaiser promised the war would end. After a while everyone realized they were into this shit for real.

White man's war. The modern media hates celebrating white men.

Great doc in They Shall Not Grow Old
youtube.com/watch?v=IrabKK9Bhds

>the war was britain trying to prevent german domination of the continent, exactly the same reasons as ww1.
I don't think they were necessarily at fault though. Germany before WW2 violated a number of treaties and paid no respect to the sovereignty of neighboring countries. It was only after appeasement failed was the decision to go to war made. Also the ideological war in which people speak of most often refers to the Eastern Front. Fascism vs Communism was a conflict 2 decades in the making

your comment mentions ideology during the war, and on the part of germany. you have given no mention to the motivations behind the people who actually started and declared the war, britain and france. their motivations were based on self interest and retroactive undermining of a growing superpower, not on ideology.

It wasn't just Hitler that wanted to go east. When the Germans pushed back the Russian offensives in WW1 and counter-attacked deep into the Russian Empire they found huge swathes of farmland that was sparsely populated that went "unused" in the eyes of the Germans. These experiences defined that generation.

The NSDAP was very much an agrarian ideology and Germany didn't have enough ariable land to feed its gigantic population as the starvations of 1917-1918 proved so Germany became very much obsessed with the concept of colonizing Ukraine so they would be able to feed themselves and achieve self-sufficiency.

Wages of Destruction goes into this and I highly recommend it.

WW1 is interesting but it's been mostly pigeonholed as misery-porn due to the post-war malaise and disaffection more than anything.
These threads are mostly the same thing over and over. Endless gabbing about how awful, tragic, mistaken, gruesome and horrible it was, which says more about the memory and public perception of the war than the war itself.

For many, Americans especially, the Great War was a jolly good time. It was a real life adventure, the kind most people hope to have once in a lifetime. Most of the diaries, letters and writing of Americans who went overseas are positively glowing.

>in reality there were no real ideological differences between Hitler and Churchill, both would be considered ethnocentric supremacists by today's standards
Churchill was more nationalistic and violent than any modern British PM (except maybe Thatcher) but he actually obeyed the rules of his democracy and didn't make himself a dictator like Hitler did. That alone puts him in a way different camp.

And if you were shell shocked no one cared. No such thing as PTSD a hundred years ago. You were a man, just shrug it off.

>you have given no mention to the motivations behind the people who actually started and declared the war, britain and france
I think France and Britain were mostly reacting to German aggression on the continent. I very much doubt either country had the stomach for another war had it not been for blatant German expansionism

based /his/ bro wages is a great book it dispelled the German economic miracle meme for me

>I would argue that Germany's move against Russia had more to do with the loss of resource procurement from the Africa routes
You mean colonial times Africa? During WWII Germany got none, or at least almost none, of its resources from Africa.

>Germany before WW2 violated a number of treaties and paid no respect to the sovereignty of neighboring countries.
sure, but they were rejecting the conditions imposed on them at Versailles, Germany didn't begin in 1918.

if people vote for you to be a dictator, who are you to say no? wouldn't it be "un-democratic" to object to them?

WW1 and WW2 and the Napoleonic Wars and the Great Game between Britain and Russia stems from the concepts of Land and Sea Empires always being at conflict. Hell, even the Peleponnesian War goes into this.

Sparta/Germany/Russia are land powers and Athens/Britain/United States are maritime powers. A unified Eurasian continent is a major threat to a transatlantic thalassocracy like the British or American Empires were/are.

So yes WW1 was very much an ideological war but not in the sense of "democracy vs monarchy" but "is power derived from control of the land or control of the sea?"

americans had basically no role to play in ww1

WW1's Western front was way worse than WW2's Western front. Every single day was like the Normandy landings, and more Brits actually died during WW1 (and more Frenchmen too since they surrendered the second time around), which is why WW1 is remembered more solemnly and cynically in Anglo-Franco aligned countries compared to how we remember WW2.

Eastern front of WW2, and everything involving the Pacific, was obviously much worse.

same. Hitler ruined Germany forever. The end result of Germany drifting to America's sphere of influence was inevitable.

Its okay when the soviets invades poland, bessarabia, the baltics and finland though, right?

I think so too, and I think Hitler would have been fine with drawing lines in the sand if it were not for his need for resources. His ambitions were huge, though, so I don't know how long he would be willing to hold those lines in the end. I think he would have kept pushing, for sure, but I don't think he would have invaded Russia nearly so soon if it wasn't for his losses in Africa. Even if the ideology was pre-cast (I am uncertain as to how much of it was before the actual decisions were made), any half-way successful leader in war must be somewhat pragmatic about resources and decisions on where and how to acquire them. Africa must have seemed like the lower hanging fruit. Denied that, he was forced to devote more resources than it would have been worth, or to move eastward with a lot more resources with higher risk/reward.

Germany got fuckall from its colonies during WW1 and before. Colonies weren't worth the cost of administration at all. India was always a huge drain on Britain.

>Colonies weren't worth the cost of administration at all. India was always a huge drain on Britain.
This is true for shithole African colonies but India was extremely wealthy and a huge boon to the Empire during the 19th century

I never said that. The Allies had offensive plans in mind against the Soviet Union until Germany invaded them as well

Don't forget that African colonies weren't just about the colonies. It was about trade route control and stabilization for said routes. The suez canal was all up in pre and post WWI events, and not the only route.

>sure, but they were rejecting the conditions imposed on them at Versailles, Germany didn't begin in 1918.
Germany didn't just break agreements from the Versailles treaty friend it was far more than that

Was it really though? New England was obviously worth it, Shanghai was worth it, Hong Kong was worth it Singapore/Malaya was extremely worth it but the british poured most of their time and money into India and got very little to show from it today.

India didn't produce anything that the British needed, China was always the ultimate goal for British trade and the Chinese goods ended up almost bankrupting the Empire because of the silver bullion trade deficit.

there's still wars going on, just travel to Ukraine or Syria and walk in front of a bullet

This is like asking why Americans don't watch soccer.

>if people vote for you to be a dictator, who are you to say no? wouldn't it be "un-democratic" to object to them?
Hitler was elected chancellor and abused emergency powers and the NSDAP's extensive paramilitary abilities to deconstruct the Weimar republic and enforce a police state. He wasn't elected to be a dictator.

Drang nach Osten predates both Hitler and 'Ober Ost,' the process of Eastern colonization had been ongoing since the middle ages. Hitler was attempting to revive the frontier whose pressures had created the strong Prussian martial culture that the Reich was built upon. It's sad that America prevented the German people from fully realizing what was their version of Manifest Destiny.

>still subscribing to entente propaganda more than 100 years after the war

protip: the russian empire was considered among the most despotic states in Europe and they were on the "democratic" side

i recommend this, its great

Attached: 918RNBE3U0L.jpg (1530x2339, 759K)

why dont americans watch soccer?

Germans should've focused exclusively on that over trying to go toe-to-toe with the british in the North Sea or set up African and South-Pacific colonies. You're either a land power or a naval power, you can't be both.

That's not entirely true. There were gold reserves in some places but the biggest resource was really free land for cash crop. Some African colonies were partially self-sufficient and definitely useful. The War in the East had nothing to do with African colonies though, that's just a really strange opinion. It was based on a need for resources but also general political consideration, which had little to do with Nazism-Communism, that simply continued the very old Russian-German rivalry. The "Ideological war" was a mere justification.

post-American Civil War newly freed slaves had higher literacy rates and opportunities for social mobility than russian serfs. Russia was and always will be a miserable shithole.

lel this level of revisionism.

>He wasn't elected to be a dictator
he made his intentions and his opposition to democracy clear from the beginning, and nobody tried to stop him and nobody really complained.

Now you're moving goalposts. The point is he was never ellected dictator. Also he made it clear that he was against democracy but never once revealed his intention to be the appoint himself in a role so powerful.

>It's sad that America prevented the German people from fully realizing what was their version of Manifest Destiny.
Unlike the Native Americans who were devestated by disease and outbred by white settlers, Russia was very much a functional civilization. Calling for the extermination of the slavic people is on a totally different level of genocide.

Many felt the same in either Reich, Bismarck himself even.

>Some African colonies were partially self-sufficient
Like what? They weren't building roads, schools and hospitals on their own.

>nobody tried to stop him and nobody really complained
Except for all the brownshirts the SS killed?

you're just splitting hairs. the guy who says he hates democracy and would happily end it gets massively elected twice and then does what he said he would do. and you say this is somehow against the rules of democracy. i put it to you that people have a right to change their form of government if they so wish.

> Russia was very much a functional civilization.
It was a miserable, inefficient slave-empire ruled by german aristocrats.

yea but that doesn't count

commie propaganda

see
Life in Imperial Russia would've been as miserable as life in Imperial China.

>you're just splitting hairs.
No I'm really not you made a very specific statement and backtracked when confronted on it. Hitler was never elected dictator hell he wasn't even elected chancellor.

>and you say this is somehow against the rules of democracy.
No I didn't. I never said that

Man imagine instead of capeshit, we got a WW1 and eventually WW2 cinematic universe. A dedicated movie for each major engagement with in depth stories from every participating nation.

That would be sick. A Verdun movie, a Stalingrad movie, a Kursk movie. Plus they can do like an interwar TV show about the politics in that period.

I don't see any difference between the wars we waged winning the West and conflict that arose between German settlers, Balts, and Slavs. Conflict between two established, industrial 20th century nation-states is definitely much more complicated and difficult, if that's what you meant, but I see no moral difference.

>Hitler was never elected dictator
how can you continue to be this pedantic and autistic

genocides only bad when its against other white people is what he's trying to say.

I understand what you are saying. Hitler made his disdain of democracy well known, I understand this. However he never specified what system he'd replace this democracy with. Some speculated he would even bring back the Monarchy. I don't think Hitler would've received as much support as he did if he made it clear he intended to dissolve parliament and combine the roles of chancellor and president into one.

Pure unbridled autism always has the answer. I found this link years ago on Yea Forums

vernonjohns.org/snuffy1186/movies.html#X

>Conflict between two established, industrial 20th century nation-states is definitely much more complicated and difficult, if that's what you meant
I meant the Nazi invasion and generalplan ost because the US didn't exist when the original knightly orders colonized the baltic coast. That early settlement was much more like the colonial settlement of North America and much less genocidal than what the Nazis wanted. If the USA decided to invade Mexico in 1940 and kill all mestizos and replace them with anglo Americans you might have something comparable.

>but I see no moral difference.
You don't see the difference between disease wiping out Native Americans and the Germans intention to purposefully depopulate and subjugate eastern slavic lands?

killin nazis is way more fun to watch

Storm of Steel has a very plain, dry, "matter of fact" writing style as it largely reads like Ernst Junger's journal. He was very well read though and wrote with clarity and precision.

Despite containing zero intentional "gore porn" the book is fucking horrifying as he mentions the people in his unit by name, often tracking conversations with them over the course of years, and they're just dropping like flies all around him constantly. Junger regularly had people exploding into hamburger or getting brained right next to him constantly. If you're interested in history and learning how combat was actually fought, as well as the logistical side of fighting in the largest war in human history (at the time), it's an absolute must read.

He entered into combat in 1915 and I don't think there was still a single original member of his unit still alive by the end of 1918.

Attached: WWI Italian Soldier.jpg (502x804, 114K)

because it was the most gruesome and nonsensical. many countries went to war with each other to test their weapons and chemicals out. literally speaking, they were like "Hey we have this newly discovered, freshly synthesized gas and a couple of big guns and experimental weapons. let's see what happens if we use them." This war was used to measure the amount of destruction that can be caused by humans. there is nothing more fucked up than that. no one want's to make a kino because it MAY cause a lot of uproar.

>If the USA decided to invade Mexico in 1940 and kill all mestizos and replace them with anglo Americans you might have something comparable.
Sign me up.

>disease wiping out Native Americans
yeah all those battles against them resulting in their murder and subjugation never happened, americans dindu nuffin it was the evil diseases

>This war was used to measure the amount of destruction that can be caused by humans
That's every war since the first hominid picked up a rock and dashed the other hominids head in.

Indirect fire and Machine guns weren't new toys.

it was mostly the diseases even if that upsets you

Because there's nothing remotely poetic about it
It's just a lot of young men dying over and over

Can you stop strawmanning everything I say? Of course the were was intent on the part of the American government to take over these lands however this occurred only after upwards of 90% of the Native American population had been wiped out by disease. While the Indian Wars were brutal and the treatments of the Natives harsh the American Government had no intention to enslave and wipe them all out like in Generplan Ost. I think we can acknowledge there were differences without completely misrepresenting what the other is saying

Gallipoli was embarrassingly terrible, like everything Peter Weir has ever touched.

The point is that the disease weakened the native cultures so much that it was inevitable they would be replaced. They were primitive and defunct and the US could justify expanding to rule the whole continent. You can't make that case in the Germany vs USSR conflict because the USSR fought off the brunt of the Germany invasion in a total war scenario. They proved they were a society on the same level as Germany and not "untermenschen"

like his penis

Do you think we will get to fight in a world war? God I need a purpose..

Attached: 1513810608513.jpg (374x393, 25K)

Dreariness, death, and pestilence can totally be poetic. Some of the most famous war poems come from WWI.

americans hate being reminded of the fact that their ancestors genocided the natives and took their land

I hope not. Life may feel aimless sometimes but believe me we are much better off than dying in a foxhole. People take the beauty and comfort of modern life for granted

The historical Ostsiedlung and our Westward Expansion were similarly organic, but if it had been successful then Generalplan Ost would have just been considered another step in that historical process of frontier building. It's not as if we didn't at various times and in various places remove native tribes from land to make way for settlers, waging several dozen "Indian Wars" as we pushed West, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I think Generalplan Ost is seen as less organic than earlier Ostsiedlung/Manifest Destiny because it was unsuccessful.

ww3 will be over in a few hours in the air but on the ground it'll be dudes driving around in honda technicals for years and years.

Attached: Q_21st_Soldier.jpg (801x690, 82K)

The treatment of the Native Americans is a core part of America's history what are you talking about?

I don't understand what you mean? Germany is mostly a land power because of its geography but this does not mean that you can't also extend beyond that and build for different requirements. Germany is not a self-sufficient country and while we do have resources, and made use of them in the correct way, we obviously lack oil and gas in relevant quantities.
The German Empire did not "go toe-to-toe" with the British Empire. Germany and Britain were on great terms before WWI and during the African colonization cooperated many times. Generally speaking, British colonies and German colonies were considered to be the shining, prime examples of European colonies in Africa. Building a fleet that lets Germany defend its merchant fleet, just like Britain did, is not a controversial thing that came along because Germany tried to compete with Britain but because it was necessary. Now, you can argue whether or not things like the Baghdad railroad were "necessary" or "unfair" but from which viewpoint? Nations pursue their national interest after all and who exactly can say that Germany should not try to look for alternative measures in order to optimize its own trading.

Wasn't me by the way

Why is genocide for the tens of thousands of years before the mid-19th century justifiable but when people try to do it after that arbitrary deadline its suddenly the worst thing ever? We aren't any different or superior mentally or physically.

Look at China. Why do they get a free pass for ongoingly genociding the Manchurians and Uyghurs and Mongols but Americans are still guilted for Native Americans and Germans are still guilted for the attempted genocide of slavs/jews.

>literally hundreds of films about it
>"like, it's so unexplored!"

Why are film embryos so boisterous yet simultaneously so uninterested in any modicum of research?

> You can't make that case in the Germany vs USSR conflict because the USSR fought off the brunt of the Germany invasion in a total war scenario.
I think we fundamentally agree here and it may be a semantical difference.

You can't have multiple naval powers. There can only be 1. The UK didn't want Germany making boats and the Germans decided to make boats.

>You can't have multiple naval powers. There can only be 1.
But both the US and UK were major naval powers during that period?

I hope so. I just want the cruise the wastes with the boys looking for guzzoline and women to breed.

Attached: 1526463871853.jpg (500x500, 53K)

>Why is genocide for the tens of thousands of years before the mid-19th century justifiable
According to who? I've never heard people try justifying the millions killed by the Mongols or the genocide of the Irish

>Look at China. Why do they get a free pass for ongoingly genociding the Manchurians and Uyghurs and Mongols
Source? I know that many are placed into reeducation camps but I've never heard of outright genocide

>Germans are still guilted for the attempted genocide of slavs/jews.
One due to the fact it is still in living memory and two the industrial murder methods they used in these genocides

post a picture of your body

From the western perspective at least, people today just think that we should know better than to commit genocide. We've seen and studied it over the ages and decided its wrong and should be avoided. This conclusion comes from ideas of national determination and secular humanism established over centuries of conflict and political upheaval in Europe.

Western powers (especially recently) have done less to hold other peoples to this standard, seemingly because they are too focused on feeling guilty themselves, but that's more of a problem with the current political climate than an inherent question about genocide. It's obviously wrong when Chinese or Rwandans or anyone else does it, but we have trouble calling those groups out because they were so recently oppressed by European nations.

the US and the UK were basically one and the same since America assumed the mantle of the world policing, free-trade enforcing thassalocracy after WW2 when the UK went broke.

It would be like if China tried to lay down 12 Ford class Aircraft-Carriers tomorrow, it wouldn't fly. Fortunately the Chinese have wisened up to history and not tried to engage in another Dreadnought race with us.

Germany was a continental land empire hemmed in by hostile countries and it tried to engage in a naval arms race with the dominant naval power in the world. The British were more than willing to ally with Germany against the British or Russians before the Germans thought they could engage in overseas adventures and naval aspirations.

What? Japan was a naval power in WWII, so was Britain and so was the US? Hell, so was Italy in the Med.
What the UK wants and does not want is not really important unless they can actually force their will on Germany. Also, what you say is not correct. It's not like the UK didn't want "Germany making boats". It wanted to prevent Germany from dominating continental Europe and pursued the status-quo.
The issue is that Germany's destiny is being a dominant European nation and the fact that Germany as a colonial nation would always seek to improve its methods due to increasing demands and requirements.

(((They))) want you to forget about WW1. (((History books))) say there was no singular definitive cause of WW1, and say Franz Ferdinand's assassination was probably what kickstarted it.

(((They))) want you to think Germany in WW1 were just nazis, or proto-nazis. (((They))) don't want you to know about the German Revolution of 1918 and (((who))) caused it. (((They))) wont make a film adaptation of the amazing WW1 memoir "Storm of Steel" (which you should read, by the way) because the German commander was a goddamn hero who was so well respected the nazis refused to touch him even after he refused to endorse the 3rd Reich. (((They))) wont make films about WW1 because (((they))) can't pretend to be victims of it.

Attached: we have a t-rex.webm (1280x534, 1.85M)

>Source? I know that many are placed into reeducation camps but I've never heard of outright genocide

Definition of genocide

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Reeducation camps are genocidal.

>(((They))) want you to think Germany in WW1 were just nazis, or proto-nazis.
Who? I mean specifically. Can you give me any names? Whenever people talk about ((them)) it's always in vague terms.

k

Attached: anon body.jpg (1575x2100, 432K)

That depends what the reeducation camps are used for no? Whose to say it's not entirely a political reeducation rather than an outright attempt to destroy a people.

I'm talking, of course, about the goddamn Amish.

You're too soft I wouldn't be looking forward to WW3 if I were you. My dad, someone whose actually been through a war, has told me only the foolish desire it.

Japan was an ally of the British in WW1. The Americans forced the British to end their alliance with Japan during the 1920s.

There was no guarantee of Italy siding with Hitler either in the 30s because Mussolini was very annoyed at Hitler annexing Austria.

Regardless, the Dreadnought arms race completely soured Anglo-German relations and it could've been avoided entirely by a savvier German foreign policy.

wasn't the same guy that wanted to fight in the war but fair enough

>it could've been avoided entirely by a savvier German foreign policy.
That's pretty much German history post Bismark until WW2 in a nutshell.

lol why would you respond to a comment requesting a picture of body that wasn't even directed at you?

Forcing Uyghur-Muslims to take Chinese names, forcing Uyghur women to marry Han Chinese non-Muslim men is an act of genocide. You don't have to split hairs over this shit, it's blatant and ongoing. The Soviets did the same with all the little ethnic groups that're gone now like the Volga germans.

The attempt to replace a foreign culture with your own is an act of genocide, it isn't all just herding people into gas chambers. It's teaching them that their history is wrong and that they should act like their suzerain.

Reminder
>“If he laughs,” said an English statesman who knew him, “which he is sure to do a good many times, he will laugh with absolute abandonment, throwing back his head, opening his mouth to the fullest extent possible, shaking his whole body and often stamping with one foot to show his excessive enjoyment of any joke.”
>"At seven, the company sat down to dinner, where the kaiser drank only orange juice sipped from a silver goblet."

Attached: image.png (1200x1732, 1.75M)

it's looking like it might happen, everyone hates each other and isn't willing to compromise, we'll see what happens in 2020

Fair enough user I wasn't really familiar with the camps. Thank you for the information, it seems like people are much less willing to condemn China because it is the manufacturing capital of the world

That has absolutely nothing to do with the previous posts?
The claim
>You can't have multiple naval powers.
The truth
>Multiple naval power did in fact exist all throughout history.

>could've been avoided entirely by a savvier German foreign policy.
Wrong as the naval arms race was only one important reason as to why the relations between Germany and Great Britain deteriorated. This is a ridiculous thing to say anyways as it basically implies all nations need to follow the examples and rules the British have set.

you mean toyota technicals right

whoever asked for it replied to me, i assumed it was to do with the mad max shit.

Paths of Glory is the best war film ever made

2020's is gonna be a kino decade

Attached: 1507730315884.jpg (746x982, 146K)

Not that guy but Germany knew the diplomatic consequences that would result from a naval arms race. They did so regardless you can't blame the British for the straining of relations alone. They had their own self interests just as Germany had theirs

People aren't willing to condemn China because it would fall on deaf ears. Chinese don't give a shit at all, they've been doing this for thousands of years.

Same reason we don't get mad at China and India for pollution, they don't care.

Posted my collection of WWI webms.

Attached: WWI - They Shall Not Grow Old.jpg (750x445, 70K)

Italy: friendly power to rival france in the mediterranean
America: no conflicting interests in either the pacific or atlantic
Japan: ally against Russia

These three "naval powers" were all either allied or on friendly relations with the British in the years leading up to WW1.

Germany: land ally against Russia or France. There was no purpose served in Germany needing a fleet since Russia and France were both potential enemies for the British. Germany knew this and exploited this to diplomatically isolate Russia and France but knowingly decided to pursue colonial aspirations and engaged in an unneccessary naval race with the British.

Germany was a land power and did not need to become a naval one. Germany did everything wrong that they possibly could've in the 20 years leading up to WW1.

No, that's exactly my point.
Britain wanted to keep the status-quo and did not realize that this was not possible. Germany had to consider alternative options and could never allow itself to keep that status-quo as rising demands required a different approach to things. Both absolutely followed their own national interest and neither wanted to make big concessions. Both decided on naval treaties and agreements, or territorial exchanges in Africa, in order to move away from saber rattling. You could argue Germany could have just given in, play a backseat role and continue to move its ships through the British controlled Suez. You could argue Britain could have moved away from its policy of keeping European powers in check. It's a game of national interests, not one laws which are set into stone. Neither nation could realistically speaking give in, that's why it is ingorant to say that "one side should have just not done thing x"

i hope its a decade of +1000 yangbux

>Britain wanted to keep the status-quo and did not realize that this was not possible.
You can just as easily spin this the other way and say Germany wanted to be a naval and land power but didn't realize it was not possible. It wasn't the Brits alone against escalation of German power. The Germans knew this too which is why they were preparing for war long before WW1 broke out.

>and could never allow itself to keep that status-quo as rising demands required a different approach to things.
What do you mean? Even at the status quo they were the largest economy in Europe. What rising demands in particular?

>You could argue Germany could have just given in, play a backseat role
See I don't think Germany was in the backseat by any means they were the most powerful country in Europe even at the status quo. Germany was already quite powerful there really was no practical reason to pursue such an aggressive naval build up. It needlessly antagonized the Brits

I don't understand what you're arguing about. This is your claim
>You can't have multiple naval powers.
and it is wrong.
>There was no purpose served in Germany needing a fleet
>Germany was a land power and did not need to become a naval one.
What is this ridiculous terminology? "did not need"? "no purpose"?
Yes, there was a clear NEED and PURPOSE to have a fleet which can defend the German merchant fleet.
Yes, there was a clear need and purpose to have overseas territories as Germany is not a self-sufficient country and the demands of the German heavy industry and society drastically increased?
Both Germany and Britain actively worked together in order to not compete with another in terms of ship building.

Not that user but I think what he means is that Germany's naval ambitions were not absolutely critical for the survival of the nation. Sure it did serve a purpose but was that purpose really so important that it was worth alienating the greatest naval power on earth? Did Germany need an expanded navy so badly that it was worth pushing the UK into the arms of France? When framed in this context I'd say no

It really is, it's the best war book I've ever read.

>Advancing to the front for the first time
>Stop in some woods for the night
>Everyone goes to sleep underneath the trees
>Wake up in the morning
>Can smell something sweet like flowers
>Realise the whole regiment has been asleep amongst frozen French corpses all night

Great stuff

>You can just as easily spin this the other way and say Germany wanted to be a naval and land power but didn't realize it was not possible
A nation's policy making isn't based on "wanting to be" something but based on what is required. The reason why Britain could not keep the status-quo was because it did not realize that Germany as a united nation would always dominate continental European affairs. British policy for continental Europe was very much based on not letting anyone become to powerful.
>What rising demands in particular?
A rising and modern population and heavy industry. You need to be able to feed your own population, just like you need gas and oil in order to keep your ships and industry running. As Germany grew, demands started to naturally grow.
>Germany was already quite powerful there really was no practical reason to pursue such an aggressive naval build up.
Which is exactly why both Britain and Germany agreed to limit this build-up and only build based on what they needed in order to protect their own merchant marine. Once again, the German naval build-up is incredibly overstated as "a sole" issue that negatively impacted the relationship between both nations. I'm not saying it's not important BUT that it was just one important thing in a series of events and decisions by both nations. Germany not wanting to be dependent on British trade and the Suez canal was another big reason.

>I'm not saying it's not important BUT that it was just one important thing in a series of events and decisions by both nations. Germany not wanting to be dependent on British trade and the Suez canal was another big reason.

Also the Kaiser's interview with the daily telegraph where he sperged out played another big step in the deterioration of relations

Wilhelm's most damaging personal blunder cost him much of his prestige and power and had a far greater impact in Germany than overseas.[48] The Daily Telegraph Affair of 1908 involved the publication in Germany of an interview with a British daily newspaper that included wild statements and diplomatically damaging remarks. Wilhelm had seen the interview as an opportunity to promote his views and ideas on Anglo-German friendship, but due to his emotional outbursts during the course of the interview, he ended up further alienating not only the British, but also the French, Russians, and Japanese. He implied, among other things, that the Germans cared nothing for the British; that the French and Russians had attempted to incite Germany to intervene in the Second Boer War; and that the German naval buildup was targeted against the Japanese, not Britain. One memorable quotation from the interview was, "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares."[49] The effect in Germany was quite significant, with serious calls for his abdication. Wilhelm kept a very low profile for many months after the Daily Telegraph fiasco, but later exacted his revenge by forcing the resignation of the chancellor, Prince Bülow, who had abandoned the Emperor to public scorn by not having the transcript edited before its German publication.[50][51] The Daily Telegraph crisis deeply wounded Wilhelm's previously unimpaired self-confidence, and he soon suffered a severe bout of depression from which he never fully recovered. He lost much of the influence he had previously exercised in domestic and foreign policy.[52]

It depends.
I don't think Britain was pushed into the arms of France because of this particular issue but mostly because of the British policy of keeping a balance of power in continental Europe. Britain would have sided with France regardless of the naval build-up of Germany because France was already unable to compete with Germany in many ways. Was the build-up a factor? Yes. Was it the number one reason? No, it was one of many factors that made Britain realize that if France falls Germany controls continental Europe.

that's alpha as fuck not autistic

>I don't think Britain was pushed into the arms of France because of this particular issue but mostly because of the British policy of keeping a balance of power in continental Europe.
Kaiser Wilhelm was infamously autistic and German foreign policy went to shit after he dismissed Bismarck. I'd argue that Germany played just a big a role if not more so in straining relations

>Britain would have sided with France regardless of the naval build-up of Germany
That's just one of those alternate history scenarios which we can never fully confirm nor debunk. I think if Germany made a bigger effort to keep the Brits as a close ally they may have been just fine in violating Belgium sovereignty in WW1 and having Britain stay on the sidelines.

>Was it the number one reason? No,
What do you think is the main reason?

Yeah well he was prone to saying idiotic things later in life. The loss of confidence was pretty important actually, Bismarck already told him earlier that the trust of the army was a key factor. Wilhelm's role in WWI is very insignificant in that regard, it was really a war fought mostly by the generals of the Army. They did not care much about what he had to say and he consequently did not involve himself all that much either.

>Kaiser Wilhelm was infamously autistic
His role is not as important as many foreigners always claim. The German Army's influence was much greater, Bismarck knew this and told him that. Other than that I agree, foreign policy was worse but Wilhelm had little to do with it. Outside of some dumb stunts.
>That's just one of those alternate history scenarios
What? It's literally British history. Keeping the balance of power in Europe was one of their main goals in regards to foreign policy. Letting Germany march through Belgium is a big pipe dream dude. It would have let to the fall of France and directly to Germany dominating European affairs. Absolutely unthinkable.
>What do you think is the main reason?
There is no one reason. It's a combination of many things that happened because two Great Powers with different national interests clashed. Germany grew very quickly and looked for ways to not be dependent on Britain. Britain wanted Germany to keep being dependent on its trade and keep the overall balance of power in Europe. I'm not judging this by the way, it's simply a game of national interest and who manages to push through. At the end of the day, many factors that were not related to Britain and Germany came together and the combination ended up leading to WWI. That is what happens when multiple Great Powers clash.

>Bismark works to groom Wilhelm into a perfect little protege to subvert his father's liberal leanings
>Freddy III unexpectedly dies of cancer after being Kaiser for less than a year
>Wilhelm wants to be the big man in charge just like uncle Otto taught him
>naturally this requires dismissing Bismark himself and replacing him with a series of ineffective chancellors
>Willy's unfettered autism leads the German Empire into WW1 and its eventual destruction, undoing everything Bismark worked to create
pottery

the sad part here is that willy actually tried to be in good terms with the british. He dropped the reinsurance treaty with the russians in order to not antagonize the brits but to his surprise UK worked against germany in the moroccan crisis and worked with its rivals. That mustve hurt him a lot and probably served as further motivation for the anglo-german naval race.

Watch Journey's End

i still want a ww1 horror where a massive winged creature appears during mass slaughter and joins in

ideology forms after geopolitics

Based Derrida poster

There was never a genocide attempt on jews, the ”holocaust” is a fabrication by the USSR and the Allies to demonize National Socialism, which is a much more viable ideology than both Capitalism and Communism

Germany was literally on the same level as Great Britain in terms of democracy at the time.