|
|
Post by germanwunderkind on Oct 20, 2005 17:46:16 GMT 1
why we always talk about the 2nd one and only sometimes about the 1st one
is it because of the nazis?
the higher technology?
i think the 1st one is at least same interesting
so why ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Oct 20, 2005 17:49:13 GMT 1
why we always talk about the 2nd one and only sometimes about the 1st one is it because of the nazis? the higher technology? i think the 1st one is at least same interesting so why  Well for starters, i study history, and we focus as much on WWI as we do on WWII ...the only reason WWII is "focused" on more is because there was a series of treaties after the first wolrd war, which affected the 2nd world war. All that happened, or most that happened, during and after the First World War, had an impact on the Second World War. It is very long and complicated, and it would take me a long length of time to explain it all to you, and that is somthing i do not have at my disposal. |
|
|
|
Post by Zecristo on Oct 21, 2005 16:01:49 GMT 1
Here is proof that GWK can make questions of some relevance.
And he even starts to answer himself with some relevance too.
The nazi (political) issue and the (more advanced) war technology issue are probably two of the factors leading to more focus on the 2nd World War rather than on the 1st.
But for me it is quite plain to see that the phenomenon arises more from the evolution of image recording technology throughout the given period.
We have very few examples of film from WWI and just slightly more of still photos whereas we have tons of film and photos from WWII.
Being the nowadays world one on which "The Image" carries a very great importance it is only normal that an event that can scarcely be visualized fades out of memory and out of interest for the masses.
One other cause may be the sheer time distance.
WWI began almost a century ago... and to backtrack there we have to first hit WWII...
|
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Oct 21, 2005 19:33:21 GMT 1
I think that because there are survivors all over the world who fought and went through WWII they want to focus on telling their story to everyone to make sure they are forgotten. Once that significance goes, i'm sure WWI will be studied more, just there are walking and talking "information" available from the survivors...
If they do not start to take WWI as seroiusly as WWII then i shall be very disapointed, it is as important as the second, and if not more interesting!
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Nov 11, 2005 9:43:59 GMT 1
why we always talk about the 2nd one and only sometimes about the 1st one is it because of the nazis? the higher technology? i think the 1st one is at least same interesting so why ? ? ? well the answer for me is simple, we were nutral and didnt fight in world war 1, but the english call world war 1 the big war because of the high rate of casualties.. and maybe it is because most people that fought in world war 1 are dead... + the fact that all the war movies made are almost always about world war 2.. |
|
|
|
Post by JNK on Jan 25, 2006 18:21:04 GMT 1
"All quiet in the Western front", is movie about WWI German side.
|
|
|
|
Post by revanor on May 7, 2006 13:51:29 GMT 1
So why not prehistoric wars?  Do you imagine it? You are caveman and need to defend fire from stealing by enemy  You can use fists, small bows, spears, stones and others... And what about prehistoric panzerfaust  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by germanwunderkind on Jul 17, 2006 21:01:56 GMT 1
was this a joke or serious post? if it was a serious one : This is really simple, we just know tooo less about any prehistoric wars. we dont even know if there were any.  |
|
|
|
Post by revanor on Aug 9, 2006 18:08:34 GMT 1
was this a joke or serious post? if it was a serious one : This is really simple, we just know tooo less about any prehistoric wars. we dont even know if there were any. But why not try to use our imagination |
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Sept 8, 2006 3:46:43 GMT 1
So why not prehistoric wars? Do you imagine it? You are caveman and need to defend fire from stealing by enemy You can use fists, small bows, spears, stones and others... And what about prehistoric panzerfaust ;D there is a movie about pre historic caveman fightign about fire, it is called quest for firein that whole movie is no one talking just snorting and grawling... 2 cavemen tribes fight about fire...  It is perhaps unfortunate, given Jean-Jacques Annaud's painstaking research and devotion to scientific accuracy, that Quest For Fire, his 1981 Oscar-winning examination of primitive man, is remembered less as an ode to humanity and more as the slightly silly caveman romp that discovered Ron Perlman. The Ulam tribe are numerous and strong thanks to their possession of the gift of fire. However, one morning their life becomes infinitely more complicated when another tribe's attack leaves many of them dead and their fire extinguished. Unable to light a fire themselves, they send off three hunters to find more fire and bring it back to the tribe. After blundering around the wilderness, they happen across a tribe of cannibals. Risking their lives they manage to steal some fire and liberate a female who turns out to come from a far more advanced tribe. By the time the hunters return home they not only have fire but something far more valuable; the gift of knowledge. Due to its lack of dialogue, Quest For Fire doesn't really function as a drama. While the film has character arcs, Annaud is clearly less interested in these characters as individuals than he is in their symbolic role as exemplars of the early human condition. This leaves the characters rather thin with the onus of the performance placed clearly on expressing the fact that despite being ultimately human, primitive men were really nothing more than animals. Indeed, it's easy to see this film with the characters as little more than ballast as Annaud runs them through a series of set-pieces, each more unique and spectacular than the last seeing the film's mood shift from primal terror to sentimentality to broad humour as incredibly graphic fight scenes give way to intimate scenes of lovemaking to people getting their genitals bitten in a fight. Indeed, the strength of the performances here is in their scientific veracity and the sheer physicality demanded of the actors as they take on board renowned primateologist Desmond Morris' observations about primate gestures and grunt their way through 'dialogue' written by Anthony Burgess, who came up with the pidgin-Russian in A Clockwork Orange. Beautifully shot in Scotland, Kenya and Canada, Quest For Fire is a feast for the eyes - but great design, performances and direction give it real intellectual substance as, by sacrificing the chance to make a film about human characters, Annaud manages to make a film about the human story itself. Despite such rich intellectual credibility, the film is never ponderous or heavy going and that lightness of tone is perhaps why the film's reputation and popularity has dimmed with age; its crime is not only being intelligent and rigorous, but it does so in a light-hearted and accessible manner. The DVD also boasts extensive commentary tracks by the director and the cast and an interview with Annaud in which he tells a number of truly fantastic anecdotes about how difficult it is to shoot 14 mammoths charging down a hill and his commentary track is interesting too, if a little dry and perhaps redundant given the energy and the detail in the interview. Nonetheless, this is an excellent DVD and it's a film that all true lovers of film need to see sooner or later. |
|
|
|
Post by revanor on Sept 30, 2006 15:34:24 GMT 1
I didnt saw this movie yet, and dont want to see it  but I think that world war I was very interesting - ppl there because no weapons were using everything, like saws and even this guns that you need ages to reload EVEN BOWS LOL and some swords or sth like this this was freaky ;D And.. do you want to see masses fighting with fists?! |
|
|
|
Post by gespstylo on Jan 10, 2007 21:03:06 GMT 1
why is it about WWII? good question with a very long answer i guess.
i selfstudy (not on school but just for myself in books and internet) WWI an WWII and i think it is partly because:
We knew what the germans could do (WWI) and they did it once more in WWII, that makes it very interesting, even when germany couldnt do much because of bad economy -> bad military -> bad warfare ( the thing germany had to deal with after WWI)
But hitler did it, he united the country and if u know only 10% of the german people voted for the nazis
those nazis could get the germans so far that hitler had almost all germans in his grip, all the ones that could or would stand up against him were liquidated without anyone asking for them, in the beginning they didnt do all what hitler wanted, but more and more they began to "see" like him, his ideas... ( there is a movie about a professor that did the same thing to his students because they couldnt understand that all germans let hitler do without even knowing what he really was doing. name: the wave )
the germans ( when they were prepared) just stood up out nowhere and attacked europe in notime.
this is my opinion about america in his part of the war: America just didnt want europe to be united under one banner (they could stand up against the americans) so they made an alliace with the remaining free countrys and got D-day and all those things, and this is the reason why they came so late on european front, they had to deal with the japs firs, after the defeat in pearl harbor they had to do lots of things (like getting preparations for the assault of japan etc)
cya
gesp stylo
|
|
