-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 14579)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/hi/ - History and Culture
  • Supported file types are: JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 519 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Historian 15/04/17(Fri)20:37 No. 14579
14579

File 142929584441.jpg - (207.63KB , 791x578 , Return_of_Napoleon.jpg )

When did war stop being glorious?

In the past people joined the war with intention of gaining honor.

I reckon it was the Civil war that really ended the glory of war. I think it has something to do when warring countries ceased to respect eachother.


>>
Historian 15/04/17(Fri)22:40 No. 14580

>>14579
I don't know when it "first" ended to be glorious, but for most people, opinion changed by the end of the First World War.
The trenches and the war being a "total war" with participation not from just the professional military, but civilians as well, terrible pandemics like the Spanish flu, colonial weariness, etc; basically hammered the last nail in the coffin of romanticism. (but humans are forgetful idiots, and easily swayed)


>>
Historian 15/04/18(Sat)20:18 No. 14581

World War 1.

At the beginning of that war, everyone worth a shit rushed in to join together to fight for God & country. Once they experienced the reality of tens of thousands of people at a time getting mowed down senselessly by machinery without even having the chance to put up a fight, they realized there was no glory to be had. ...a lesson reiterated in every war since, making war much more unlikely & proportional.

The US, however, has found a way around this, even after the disasters of its war efforts in Korea, South America, and Vietnam by not requiring compulsory military service, separating the decision to go to war from the people who will actually go to war, thus ensuring a continual state of more and crazier wars until it is destroyed.


>>
Historian 15/05/04(Mon)01:34 No. 14603

>>14585
>I should also mention that in early gun battles shooting to miss was as common as it was in WW1, turns out that without an extreme propaganda system people don't like killing each other for fear of personal safety and distaste
It wasn't the propaganda system that made people shoot each other (though it did make them want to shoot each other). It was when the British came up with the great idea of shaping their targets like actual people rather than using the traditional round bullseye every other country was using that helped make their recruits less sensitive to the experience. Until then the only recorded humanoid targets used were by generally nerfarious people using prisoners (initially live) for a combination of training, indoctrination and instilling fear in their own troops.


>>
Anonymous 15/05/12(Tue)07:59 No. 14607

War was never truly glorious to begin with. Generally power-hungry people, with a lot of influence and money, are able to paint war as being glorious. By doing this, they can get more people to use as pawns to fight wars for them.


>>
Historian 16/04/22(Fri)06:03 No. 14851

I think the Crimean war can also be seen as the end of these glory days. Following the war Russia could no longer use religion as an excuse to invade the Balkans, so war is going to be solely for political gain if they choose to invade. Also, the letters and propaganda that returned home from the soldiers/journalists was mostly criticizing the organizations of their respective army, as well as their leadership in general. Most people began to see the atrocities of warfare at this point and knew that war wasn't as romantic as many made it out to be.


>>
Historian 16/06/16(Thu)10:20 No. 14874

>>14871

Oh boy, your just all over this board now shitting it up with meaningless, out of context, god squad posts.

Can you please confine these shitastic posts to your own topics please?


>>
Lithad 20/12/25(Fri)09:17 No. 15427

I have always been attracted to this topic and I can tell a lot, as I constantly read about World War 2 and I was interested in an article about how Poland can ask Germany for more than 900 billion dollars in reparations. More details can be found here https://kafkadesk.org/2019/04/09/poland-could-ask-germany-for-over-900-billion-in-world-war-ii-reparations/, as a long-standing thorn in Polish-German relations, the topic of war reparations will not disappear anytime soon. Agree that this is a very complex issue that requires worthy attention.


>>
Historian 20/12/26(Sat)03:26 No. 15428

>>14579
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER


>>
Historian 20/12/26(Sat)03:53 No. 15429

I'm still in the war of 1776 ama


>>
Historian 21/01/16(Sat)15:22 No. 15434

something like 20,000 turks running into a single machine gun nest and losing.

got kinda gay when the machines were the heroes.


>>
Historian 21/01/19(Tue)05:04 No. 15437

Verdun.
It was only ever glorious for morons with no other accomplishments to speak of in their life, but the industrialized mass killing of thousands of hapless plebs per hour, day in & day out for absolutely no purpose but bc generals were idiots & kept mindlessly feeding their ranks into the meatgrinder hoping to impress an enemy by outspending them, wasn’t actually glorious, it was just a raw waste of manpower, and everyone could see that.


>>
Historian 21/01/19(Tue)09:00 No. 15440

>When did war stop being glorious?
When video killed the radio stars.

With printed media it was normal to sensationalise. headlines and leads sold war as a glorious thing everyone could be proud of partaking in as it was personal sacrifice for the greater good, if you said otherwise it wouldn't get past the censors and it wouldn't be published. There was also a speculation aspect, there was delay between prints which allowed people to speculate what was happening on a week to week basis. People got invested in the story of war.

Radio carried on this tradition, but struggled, whilst the state controlled the broadcaster the ability to provide regular updates and lack of headlines and leads it became more of a daily affair rather than a highlight of the week reading about the war effort. Rather the sensational stories were being shown as newsreels in movie theatres.

TV has ultimately taken away the glory, the daily sensationalise of news stories has reduced the impact, everyone can now "see" and get updates on wars on a daily basis.


>>
Historian 21/04/13(Tue)23:32 No. 15520

I agree with those who say that war was never glorious. We glorify warriors because of the horrors they are willing to face. Whether you are an Assyrian archer, a Greek hoplite, a Frankish heavy cavalryman, or a Navy SEAL, there is nothing glorious about war. Glory comes from surviving long enough to convince yourself that it WAS glorious; while you're drinking a pint at your local. There is not a man...at least a 'non-progressive' man...who does not look at the horrors of battle and question if he has the courage to face them.

Read the Anglo-Saxon poem fragment 'The Battle of Maldon', and J.R.R. Tolkien's superb treatise on it. Damn little that is 'glorious' to be found there...which leads me to agree with the authorities who maintain that the author was there when the spears were shivering, and who therefore KNEW what war really was.


>>
Historian 22/08/23(Tue)13:56 No. 15592

Youtube  What is war good for?



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]



Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason