Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't know whether they're "misconceptions" so much as the fact that our "modern memory" (to quote Fussell) of the Great War is colored by the trenchantly anti-war art & literature that came out it. HOwever, I agree that many people today seem to forget how much popular support there was for fighting WWI (in the same way that people forget how much dissension & division existed during WWII). As to photography during WWI, to bring things sort of back on-topic, were there many cameras & films available @ the time that could have captured battlefield action? I'm thinking that much of the available equipment was too big & cumbersome & the films (or plates) too slow. Chris - -------------- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:59:56 -0500 From: Johnny Deadman <lists@johnbrownlow.com> Subject: Re: [Leica] Embedded Brit journalists will receive Iraq Campaignmedal Message-ID: <04DE61F3-6704-11D8-B6F3-000393AC0E1A@johnbrownlow.com> References: <LNBBLBNFHNEHGFKFMALGIEPJJOAB.timatherton@theedge.ca> I think there are plenty of misconceptions about WWI. I think we will see some revisionism before the centenary. The slaughter was undoubtedly horrific and the mode of warfare, transitional between cavalry and mechanics, diabolical, but it wasn't senseless nor, arguably, unnecessary. A war would have come sooner or later once the immoveable object of the British Empire met the irresistible force of German expansionism. Sarajevo lit the powder keg but the sparks would have kept on coming. After WWI the cry that went up was for social reform at home, and for an international political settlement that would prevent another war like it. The voices that said the whole thing had been a terrible mistake were almost silent, as far as I am aware from my own reading. As for film and photography of WWI, there is actually lots of archive footage of horrible things behind the lines (I've seen most of it) but little battle footage for the simple reason that cameras generally required hand winding and to poke your head above the parapet during action would be suicide. There are fragments of battle footage shot from just above the trench wall but not much. Most of the rest of it is staged. I do think people were aware, by late 1916 at least, of the level of casualties simply because so many families had lost sons, husbands and fathers. There continued to be an extremely strong belief, in GB anyway, that the war was justified and that it was a man's duty to go and fight. It's not the case that there was a sudden realization afterwards of how many people had died. On Feb 24, 2004, at 9:47 AM, Tim Atherton wrote: > >> As to WWI, reporting and photography were heavily censored; had they >> not >> been, and had folks at home been aware of the utterly senseless, >> unnecessary slaughter of that particular war, it is likely there would >> have been major resistance to the war in the Allied nations. > > What's interesting about WWI is that the work of the official "War > Artists" - especially British & Canadian, while generally not seen > until > somewhat later, probably gave (and still gives) a much more accurate > account > of what was happening and the reality of the situation "in the > trenches" > > tim __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html