interested in WW1 politics ? (uk)

so im just done watching "37 days"...and, if you like "political drama" i thought it was rather good and well played...

so here's the heads up...all 3 parts are on iPlayer atm afaik but ofc won't be there for ever...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01pf7pt/37_Days_One_Month_in_Summer/

iplayer is ofc region locked to the UK...but i sure if anyone from outside the UK has an interest in BBC programming they've probably worked out how to get around that already ;)

anyway that's all.

watched it all, thought it was good, thought i'd flag it for others.

hey, i saw that too. really interesting and indeed well made!

Kathinka:

Curse you, I was going to post that too!

As for the WW1 politics, well, yeah I do find it a rather interesting period. Now I've not yet seen the video because of region lock and all, will see if there's any other place I can watch it.

For now I'll just say that I hope France and Germany never start hating each other's guts again. Might ring in again after I've watched the video to comment on it.

Just watched it. I really enjoyed it as drama. I don't feel qualified to talk about it's accuracy, since I've not studied that period since high school.

I did notice that Britain gets a generally sympathetic treatment, and we are shown those German parties who share a lot of the responsibility for the calamity, but not those of Russia, which is presented as something of a monolith. I don't think this is intentional bias really, as I think it reflects the viewpoint of a majority of British historians that blame lays heavily with Imperial germany. But it is a British broadcaster, during a time when government ministers have 'condemned' 'handwringing' over British failings in the period (although most criticisms tend to be of military strategy than the pre war diplomacy) and coinciding with a centenary of an event certain elements of British conservatism seem determined to celebrate rather than mourn. Which makes me wary of my instinctive emotional response to the programme being to root for the British guys.

I'm probably being incredibly unfair.

Sleekit:
so im just done watching "37 days"...and, if you like "political drama" i thought it was rather good and well played...

so here's the heads up...all 3 parts are on iPlayer atm afaik but ofc won't be there for ever...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01pf7pt/37_Days_One_Month_in_Summer/

iplayer is ofc region locked to the UK...but i sure if anyone from outside the UK has an interest in BBC programming they've probably worked out how to get around that already ;)

anyway that's all.

watched it all, thought it was good, thought i'd flag it for others.

Is there anyway to bypass the watch stuff that has been region locked?

ClockworkPenguin:
Just watched it. I really enjoyed it as drama. I don't feel qualified to talk about it's accuracy, since I've not studied that period since high school.

I did notice that Britain gets a generally sympathetic treatment, and we are shown those German parties who share a lot of the responsibility for the calamity, but not those of Russia, which is presented as something of a monolith. I don't think this is intentional bias really, as I think it reflects the viewpoint of a majority of British historians that blame lays heavily with Imperial germany. But it is a British broadcaster, during a time when government ministers have 'condemned' 'handwringing' over British failings in the period (although most criticisms tend to be of military strategy than the pre war diplomacy) and coinciding with a centenary of an event certain elements of British conservatism seem determined to celebrate rather than mourn. Which makes me wary of my instinctive emotional response to the programme being to root for the British guys.

I'm probably being incredibly unfair.

I've only watched parts 1 & 2, but so far it seems fairly balanced to me (Brit, but reasonably non-partisan about history).
The Kaiser seems a bit overdone (particularly the rather loaded comment about racial superiority in Ep1), but apart from that the portrayal seems somewhat reasonable - he was rather... spontaneous, and even Bismark distrusted the man.
The program does show the dissent that existed within the civilian and essentially non-Prussian elements of the German government, which is something that more partisan historians sometimes neglect in favour of general condemnation.

I thought that Gray and the other British generally came off quite badly - rather sanguine and hypocritical, which rather fits with the historical narrative. Churchill gets epic praise of course, but then in fairness to him it's one thing he was unwavering about (and I'm generally rather critical of Churchill).
The Russians were a bit neglected, but then it is written from the German and British perspective, so that's kind of understandable.
I'd have said that so far the French have probably come off the best purely because they're consistent and standing with their alliances. Like I said though, I haven't seen part 3.

Dan Carlin on his Hardcore History podcast is two parts into a multiple part series on WWI called Blueprint for Armageddon. Worth checking out if you're into podcasts.

Can't see it here in the states, too bad. I'm sure its very well done.

There was a wonderful BBC serial drama of the principle players of WWI done in the 1970s called "Fall of Eagles". It starts off quite a bit back to help explain the origins of the conflict. Very well done and true to the history. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the period.

I'd recommend the movie "Reds" with Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton. Its mainly about the 1917 Russian revolution and the American radical journalists covering it but there's a good deal of discussion on the nature and consequences of the war.

OneCatch :

I thought that Gray and the other British generally came off quite badly - rather sanguine and hypocritical, which rather fits with the historical narrative. Churchill gets epic praise of course, but then in fairness to him it's one thing he was unwavering about (and I'm generally rather critical of Churchill).
The Russians were a bit neglected, but then it is written from the German and British perspective, so that's kind of understandable.
I'd have said that so far the French have probably come off the best purely because they're consistent and standing with their alliances. Like I said though, I haven't seen part 3.

The problem with the Russian point of view is paucity of sources. Most of the formal meetings would have been minuted at the time and the documents still exist. Also most of the participants in the informal meetings have written memoirs. In the case of Russia those that close to the Tsar to known in close detail the thinking among ministers did not survive the coming of the communists and visits from the Cheka. I just watched part 3 today and its worth watching the full story.

albino boo:
The problem with the Russian point of view is paucity of sources. Most of the formal meetings would have been minuted at the time and the documents still exist. Also most of the participants in the informal meetings have written memoirs. In the case of Russia those that close to the Tsar to known in close detail the thinking among ministers did not survive the coming of the communists and visits from the Cheka. I just watched part 3 today and its worth watching the full story.

The only reason I've not yet watched part 3 is that I've not had the time to sit down and pay it attention! But yeah, I agree. What evidence remains of the Tsar's deliberations is either lost, or remains in some Russian archive, either by accident or by design. And the program did fairly faithfully represent the Russian actions themselves.

I actually can't wait until I can take a look. I've been playing Victoria 2 lately, and I like to see WW1 as the ultimate "boiling over" of all the pent up sexual tension that was built over the previous century. For those interested, Victoria 2 is a grand strategy game where you passive-aggressively mumble insults at other European countries, while occasionally un-zipping to compare sizes. The contest then decides who gets to drag their balls over Africa first.

Its a really good series, it shows the final death blow to the "Concert of Europe". It's times like this that the old saying of History being stranger than fiction are so true, One guy with a gun causes a chain of events that would reshape the world. I'm sure it would of happened eventually but one does have to wonder "what if". I'm sure for some their Lost Idealism was a bitter pill to shallow once they got a taste of the reality of the world.

Also in an odd way makes me miss American isolationism.

Watched the first two episodes the other night, thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree with Clockwork Penguin that it does portray Britain in quite a sympathetic light, in the sense that its main interest is to prevent war whereas all the other powers use the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as an excuse to further their own interests. However, I imagine the British government genuinely did want to avoid a war in Europe because the current status quo favoured its own interests. In the end though Britain had to become involved to prevent continental Europe becoming dominated by Germany.

Clowndoe:
I actually can't wait until I can take a look. I've been playing Victoria 2 lately, and I like to see WW1 as the ultimate "boiling over" of all the pent up sexual tension that was built over the previous century. For those interested, Victoria 2 is a grand strategy game where you passive-aggressively mumble insults at other European countries, while occasionally un-zipping to compare sizes. The contest then decides who gets to drag their balls over Africa first.

I used to play the crap out of a game called "Guns of August" by Maxtrix Games. The graphic are pretty basic but it has a lot of cool strategic elements, and it lets you play a lot of "what if" scenarios. Moltke the elder was correct: defend in the west and attack first in the east.

Here's one from Horrible Histories.

WWI was an accident of sorts due to a mishmash of alliances, imperialism and arms races. Europe stumbled into this war.

Nickolai77:
Watched the first two episodes the other night, thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree with Clockwork Penguin that it does portray Britain in quite a sympathetic light, in the sense that its main interest is to prevent war whereas all the other powers use the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as an excuse to further their own interests. However, I imagine the British government genuinely did want to avoid a war in Europe because the current status quo favoured its own interests. In the end though Britain had to become involved to prevent continental Europe becoming dominated by Germany.

Hmm. Britain also didn't like the idea that Germany was becoming so powerful and the fact that Germany was building a navy capable of competing with the British Navy. They were hardly noble or altruistic in that regard. It was a way for them to bump of a competitor.

Not that I'm saying that they were "bad" either. Their reason was better than the blind nationalism that afflicted the French. The whole mess was confusing and I don't think there's anyone who came out clean out of WWI.

Kathinka:
hey, i saw that too. really interesting and indeed well made!

This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks, and yet, it all makes sense!
"Russia gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change" OMG I laughed so hard.
Thank you for this.

Kathinka:
hey, i saw that too. really interesting and indeed well made!

That was rather accurate actually. Thanks for linking it!

Frission:

Kathinka:
hey, i saw that too. really interesting and indeed well made!

That was rather accurate actually. Thanks for linking it!

Accurate? Not really. Like most bar fights it stared with a beautiful woman,in this case a certain Madame Bosnia-Herzegovina. She's not even mentioned. And other problems.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked