PowerSwitch

Home bound I rented 1917 on pay per view today.
I thought it did a good job of showing to the uneducated the carnage that was WW1. Not sure if it followed any real event or is a composite of several different events.
My nit picker side found a couple of things that did not ring true but my knowledge is Americanized and incomplete on the British side of things.
One question I have for you is were units from the UK in 1917 segregated by race? There is a scene near the end panning a group of soldiers waiting to be the second wave and there is one lone black soldier in the shot. Not possible in the American army at that time but perhaps in yours.

vtsnowedin wrote:Home bound I rented 1917 on pay per view today.
I thought it did a good job of showing to the uneducated the carnage that was WW1. Not sure if it followed any real event or is a composite of several different events.
My nit picker side found a couple of things that did not ring true but my knowledge is Americanized and incomplete on the British side of things.
One question I have for you is were units from the UK in 1917 segregated by race? There is a scene near the end panning a group of soldiers waiting to be the second wave and there is one lone black soldier in the shot. Not possible in the American army at that time but perhaps in yours.

Yes they were segregated by race. There were certainly a few non British regiments, from what I understand, that fought on the British side such as, for example, the Sikh one.

Would these regiments have come into contact with each other? Possibly yes.

Would those regiments have mixed socially? Probably not.

Would they have fought directly alongside each other. Probably not.

Would a Sikh soldier have been stationed inside a non Sikh Regiment? Highly unlikely.

There was also a lone Sikh ridding in a truck in the film. Perhaps just artistic license trying to show how many were involved.

Sikhs

Known afterwards as the Lions of the Great War, during the war they were often called the Black Lions.[1] Sikhs were allowed to use traditional Sikh weapons such as chakrams and talwar swords, and it was not uncommon to see the Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, being carried before a marching Sikh battalion or even on the front lines among the battling Sikh troops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs_in_ ... ndian_Army

Gurkhas

During World War I (1914–1918) more than 200,000 Gurkhas served in the British Army, suffering approximately 20,000 casualties and receiving almost 2,000 gallantry awards.[21] The number of Gurkha battalions was increased to 33, and Gurkha units were placed at the disposal of the British high command by the Gurkha government for service on all fronts. Many Gurkha volunteers served in non-combatant roles, serving in units such as the Army Bearer Corps and the labour battalions.

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

And in modern times:

Today, Gurkha veterans and their families (around 27,000 total) continue their struggle against the UK government for their indifferent attitude and policy. After years of protests and struggles, the UK government has increased the pension scheme for Gurkhas up to 37 percent for those who joined the service prior to 2007. But to the Gurkha’s dismay, the announcement proved to be worthless. It was rejected by the former British Gurkhas who termed it unequal compared to what other British army men receive

https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/britain ... r-justice/

Little John wrote:
There were certainly a few non British regiments, from what I understand, that fought on the British side such as, for example, the Sikh one.

Oh yes always a mere "few" non Brits...... you sometimes can get the anglo centric impression that the UK prevailed in WWI and WWII more or less single handed with the aid of maybe a "few" others.

Potemkin Villager wrote:

Little John wrote:
There were certainly a few non British regiments, from what I understand, that fought on the British side such as, for example, the Sikh one.

Oh yes always a mere "few" non Brits...... you sometimes can get the anglo centric impression that the UK prevailed in WWI and WWII more or less single handed with the aid of maybe a "few" others.

Yes the Lion called in the Cubs. My fathers unit had French on their left and Canadians on their right. By that time( 1918) the French were down to old men and boys and would come out after breakfast and fire a few shells and call it a day. The Canadians were then hardened Veterans and were counted on.
Wiki has this. I believe the Australian figures are similar.

The highpoints of Canadian military achievement during the Great War came during the Somme, Vimy, and Passchendaele battles and what later became known as "Canada's Hundred Days".[5] Canada's total casualties stood at the end of the war at 67,000 killed and 173,000 wounded, out of an expeditionary force of 620,000 people mobilized (39% of mobilized were casualties).[6]

Both my grandfathers served with thousands of other Irishmen in WWI. One at the Somme disaster and the other in Churchills arrogantly misconceived and particularly disastrous Dardanelles "campaign" at Suvla Bay. Neither were the same when they came back. At least they came back.

What did Churchill have to do with WW1?

He was a war corresondant

Potemkin Villager wrote:

Little John wrote:
There were certainly a few non British regiments, from what I understand, that fought on the British side such as, for example, the Sikh one.

Oh yes always a mere "few" non Brits...... you sometimes can get the anglo centric impression that the UK prevailed in WWI and WWII more or less single handed with the aid of maybe a "few" others.

Stop implying meaning not present in my words. It's pathetic. But, then, you were a Remainer, so that figures.

PS_RalphW wrote:He was a war corresondant

Churchill was also a government minister in WW1 who was responsible for promoting the Dardanelles campaign. He also took much of the blame for the incompetence of the generals in charge of that campaign who didn't ensure their troops got off the beaches as soon as they landed. This allowed the Turks to reinforce their defences so that when Allied troops did try to advance they encountered very stiff opposition and suffered very heavy losses.

His experience in WW1 was part of the reason why D Day in WW2 was such a success as he wouldn't allow it to go ahead until the Allies had sufficient strength to overwhelm the German defenders much to Stalin's disgust.