Warfare in the movies: The suicide charge.

[SaiGirl]

18th century warfare according to Stanley Kubrick:



19th century warfare according to Hollywood:



I’ve always had a problem with the obvious insanity of UNSHIELDED uniformed soldiers simply marching into the line of fire, flag unfurled, to the music of fifes and drums.

With all the dust and smoke generated by muskets and cannon, the charge would likely have been completely BLIND.
So maybe that made it somehow easier for these marching cannon fodder?

But what about the glorious cavalry charge in those dashing uniforms?



Does the legendary cavalry "Charge of the Light Brigade" (on horseback) action seem any more plausible?

Horses and swords charging against cannon?
Dashing, glorious suicide.



"Pickett's Charge" at Gettysburg seems inconceivably stupid to me:



==============================================

20th century warfare according to Hollywood:

Here is a presentation of Australian and New Zealand troops in WW I, coming up out of the trenches and charging into Turkish machine guns.
At least they had the option of wearing steel helmets if they chose.
But it still looks suicidal to me.



The landing at Gallipoli was considered such an unmitigated disaster that everyone confidently predicted it would be the end of Churchill’s public career.
Since the whole failed campaign had been his idea.

Who could have predicted that Churchill would emerge barely two decades later to “lead” the British Empire into WW II ?

[pasterno]

I’ve always had a problem with the obvious insanity of UNSHIELDED uniformed soldiers simply marching into the line of fire, flag unfurled, to the music of fifes and drums.

I think you are spot on.

I have the same with computergames, where 1 guy shoots 100s of other because of his "navy" seal tricks and where you "respawn" and "autoheal".

It has nothing to do with reality. It's fantasy. 1 torn ligament in your knee, will be painful for the rest of your life.

I think war is a scam. "give us money so we can keep you safe; we need to work together to beat the enemy; if we don't protect ourselves they will

.....

It seems so logical.

And then what are you going to do if you won as the soldier? You killed one man and then what? You are in a village somewhere with a gun. And now what?

Also the celebrations after "war". We are always told the people celebrate when they are "freed". But what do we see?

How manipulated are the masses? Freed from who? Those that control the propaganda, control who is the "liberator"?

I think "war' is collectivist propaganda. To make us a "we" shaped by the desires of the ruler.

Nowadays I find it sad to see people giving their energy to political parties, or football clubs, or countries.

[SaiGirl]

[/quote]
I think war is a scam. "give us money so we can keep you safe; we need to work together to beat the enemy; if we don't protect ourselves they will

.....

It seems so logical.

And then what are you going to do if you won as the soldier? You killed one man and then what? You are in a village somewhere with a gun. And now what?

Also the celebrations after "war". We are always told the people celebrate when they are "freed". But what do we see?

How manipulated are the masses? Freed from who? Those that control the propaganda, control who is the "liberator"?

I think "war' is collectivist propaganda. To make us a "we" shaped by the desires of the ruler.

Nowadays I find it sad to see people giving their energy to political parties, or football clubs, or countries.
[/quote]

"War"as a shakedown "protection" racket ?

Here's what "decorated hero" Gen. Smedley Butler had to say about that:

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[pasterno]

"War"as a shakedown "protection" racket ?

Here's what "decorated hero" Gen. Smedley Butler had to say about that:

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Interesting.

While General Butler makes a compelling case about war being a racket, it's also important to consider that war has unifying and diversionary qualities that he doesn't address. And that war is also a weaponisation of the leaders which they can use in other ways; e.g. the war fleet of the US is the largest in the world, which means that the US rules the waves and rules international trade.

In war in general the bankers get rich, the leaders get loved and the people come together under them.

It's fascinating how I'm reading so many old thing lately (pre 1930) and the quality of the thinking I see. Cool read thanks!

[SaiGirl]

Recommended viewing:

Antonio Banderas stars in this alleged true story of the real-life Mexican revolutionary who starred in Hollywood's first action epic.



Here's a free version at a Russian movie site:

https://ok.ru/video/2985331657249

I rate this film as reasonably accurate and a fairly authentic representation of the actual events portrayed.
Antonio Banderas plays Pancho Villa quite believably.

The Mexican Revolution (1910-1917) was the first to utilize the following new technologies in warfare:

1) Machine guns
The Gatling had first appeared at the end of the American “Civil War”, but Mexico was the first place that modern machine guns were employed on a grand scale in warfare during the 20th century.

2) Railroad transport of troops and cavalry.
This had also started during the American “Civil War”.
But in Mexico it became a major strategic asset to Pancho Villa’s. “Army of the North”.
Founder of the Soviet "Red Army" Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovitch Bronstein) was greatly influenced by the Mexican revolution, and adopted the use of rail to transport cavalry during the Russian civil war of 1918-1921.

3) The movies. This was the golden age of silent film.
The movie released mixed dramatic performances with actual footage of some major battles.
Most of the bloodshed, death and destruction in this footage was authentic.
It was the longest feature-length commercial film to be produced and shown In theaters up to that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Starr ... as_Himself

D.W. Griffith's spectacular "Birth of a Nation" was very much inspired by the box office success of "The Life of General Villa".

Both films were pioneers in the representation of warfare on the big screen.

But it was the "Vietnam War" that was the first to bring warfare to the "TV news" screen in the late 1960s.

[aSHIFT.]

Interesting, I had never heard of that movie, but it's for television, so maybe that's why.

I thought it was a funny coincidence (?) that one of the writers for this movie

1 - was also behind M*A*S*H, Vietnam "war" promotion
2 - died on the 9th anniversary of 9/11 at age 81 (9)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Gelbart

His family later moved to Los Angeles and he attended Fairfax High School. Drafted into the United States Army shortly after World War II, Gelbart worked for the Armed Forces Radio Service in Los Angeles. Attaining the rank of sergeant, Gelbart was honorably discharged after serving 1 year and 11 days. Those last 11 days prevented Gelbart from being drafted for service during the Korean War.

Died September 11, 2009 (aged 81)
Beverly Hills, California, U.S

[SaiGirl]

(Paging Jan Erik on the special role of the cult of Yehudah. Does this also often demand death faking in staged assassinations?)

Another Milestone in Mexico: Its First Jewish President
Claudia Sheinbaum was born to Jewish parents, but she has played down her heritage on the campaign trail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/03/worl ... ident.html

Formerly mayor of Mexico City.
She is also mainly a professional “climate scientist”.
Is it possible to convince anyone that Mexicans really “voted” for this choice?

Now consider the two dozen “political assassinations” we are told proliferated in this last election season.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/americas ... index.html

Is this now the preferred way to “retire” a professional career?
Are these real people to begin with?
Or just corporate entities like “Jessie Ventura” (James Janos)?

[SaiGirl]

Why does Shakespeare repeatedly refer to “cannon” in siege warfare within the script of his “historical play” called “The Life and Death of King John”?

We don’t see primitive cannon used experimentally in warfare until the late 14th century.
Certainly it is highly unlikely that King John (Plantagenet) ever saw or used cannon or gunpowder.
He was forced to sign “Magna Carta” at Runnymeade in 1215.

Siege engines existed (rams, towers, trebuchets, catapults) but not even primitive artillery or firearms had been developed in Europe by 1215.

Could Shakespeare’s audience really have believed that cannon were around in the era of King John ?
In the early 13th century?


QUOTE
=================================
Bear mine to him, and so depart in peace:
Be thou as lightning in the eyes of France; For ere thou canst report I will be there,
The thunder of my cannon shall be heard:
=======================================
Well then, to work: our cannon shall be bent
Against the brows of this resisting town.
=======================================
For our advantage; therefore hear us first.
These flags of France, that are advanced here
Before the eye and prospect of your town,
Have hither march'd to your endamagement:
The cannons have their bowels full of wrath,
And ready mounted are they to spit forth
Their iron indignation 'gainst your walls:
=========================================
Our cannons' malice vainly shall be spent
Against the invulnerable clouds of heaven;
And with a blessed and unvex'd retire,
With unhack'd swords and helmets all unbruised,
We will bear home that lusty blood again
=============================================
By east and west let France and England mount
Their battering cannon charged to the mouths,
Till their soul-fearing clamours have brawl'd down
The flinty ribs of this contemptuous city:
=============================================
What cannoneer begot this lusty blood?
He speaks plain cannon fire, and smoke and bounce;
=================================================
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/john/full.html