Of course they do but this is what I posted: WW1 was a tragic loss of life and marked the end of 99 years of peace in Europe
1832-1876 (intermittently) - Carlist Wars
1848-1866 (intermittently) - Italian War of Independence
1870 - Franco-Prussian War
edit: and probably a whole load more, those are the ones I know of off the top of my head.
I see the point but still found it moving
..just as long as that movement is in the general direction of sainsbury's....
[img] 
[/img]
Tesco could go with [i]"Every little advance helps"[/i].
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will commercialise them.
The ad is tasteless, if nothing else.
You also forgot the Crimean War (1853-56, 350-375000 dead), Austro-Prussian War (1866, ~108000 dead or wounded) & the Balkan Wars (1912-1913, ~490000 dead or wounded).
Europe has never had 99 years of peace.
[url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe ]I'll just leave this here.[/url]
Whilst i agree that the commercialisation thing is a little tasteless, i think we need to be careful; it would be very easy to build a counter agrument about Blackadder, 'Allo 'Allo, Dad's Army or any other TV show / film related to war (clearly excepting those created purely for scholarity reasons). After all, TV shows and films are created to make money.
After all, TV shows and films are created to make money.
Absolutely.
Where do you draw the line? It's a tricky one.
The World at War documentary is a fantastic TV series but it has made a lot of money.
You could argue that Black Adder is a lot worst as it is widely inaccurate (despite being used to teach kids in schools but that's another thread) and that they also laughed about WW1.
I find it pretty tasteless, and it seems recently we get remembrance shoved down our throats 365 days a year atm..
While I agree that it's a very important part of history that should indeed be remembered with due reverence, I find this whole cult of remembrance doesn't really seem to offer very much that's particularly constructive to society..
I feel that at least some of the energy that goes into this mournful and macabre spectacle could surely be channelled into something more beneficial
it would be very easy to build a counter agrument about Blackadder, 'Allo 'Allo, Dad's Army or any other TV show / film related to war
It wouldn't easy at all to build a counter argument about Blackadder and 'Allo 'Allo. You could try of course, but most people would reject it as nonsense.
If you can't understand the difference between poking harmless fun and exploiting the nation's centenary commemorations for commercial purposes then most people with commonsense can.
Of course, adverts can be done that deal with the commemoration of wartime events in a classy and respectful manner
I find it pretty tasteless, and it seems recently we get remembrance shoved down our throats 365 days a year atm..While I agree that it's a very important part of history that should indeed be remembered with due reverence, I find this whole cult of remembrance doesn't really seem to offer very much that's particularly constructive to society..
Bang on the money there mate!
It doesn't seem to stop us making the same mistakes again. The most vocal supporters of remembrance seem to also be supporters of the war in Iraq and Afganistan
The most vocal supporters of remembrance seem to also be supporters of the war in Iraq and Afganistan
remembrance has turned into something very ugly and something that i no longer really want to be involved in. i always bought a poppy as a small token to help those that fought against (german/italian) fascism. now i wouldn't wear one as it feels like i might as well be 'liking' britain first on facebook.
what disturbs me all the more as the 100 years commemoration continues is the nonsense that we should be thankful for the sacrifices made in ww1. where did that come from ? it's like history has been re-written and ww1 and ww2 are the same thing ( though i agree that there are many connections). don't get me wrong, it was an enormous tragedy but why should gratitude and not sorrow be the overriding emotion ? were we under threat from invasion ? no. was germany any greater an evil than imperial britain ? no. did our soldiers come from a more democratic or welfare enabled society than those in germany ? no.
our soldiers went to war in ww1 to preserve the status quo for the capitalist industrialists in uk, france and russia. an enormous number volunteered to do so because they wanted to fight, for adventure, to escape the reality of their poverty. luckily for capitalism most of the people of europe directed their energy fighting each other, not the things that were really harming them.
to me, the soldiers of ww1 aren't heroes, they're tragic victims. if we start thinking of them in that way, we might actually start to think of war as a bad thing rather than something proud, noble and heroic.
Feel pretty despondent after watching that ad.
By all probability every soldier there was dead within the year, fighting a "war to end war" - when, of course, in reality, politicians everywhere learnt nothing from it, nor from the countless subsequent wars.
That's f****** Christmassy. It's even worse to appropriate one of the few tiny slices of humanity from that awful period and beat it with the retail stick, and I will remember this, Sainsburys.
What they should have done was not branded it at all. Just leave it as a poignant reminder that those who make life-changing decisions for us are often not best placed to do so. And that applies as much today as it did a century ago.
Saw the ad last night, it's a crass, ugly and cynical piece of marketing. Regardless of the rights, wrongs or accuracy of the events portrayed, they're attempting to benefit from the deaths of thousands of men and boys a century ago, and that's pretty shameful stuff.
By all probability every soldier there was dead within the year
The British mortality rate for the whole of the Great War was a little over 10 percent. For context, the mortality rate for the RAF Bomber Command over World War 2 was more like 45 percent.
I reckon they should do a New Years ad that shows terrified soldiers fixing bayonets and being machine gunned to death or buried alive by artillery fire in the trenches.
They can intersperse this with cuts to the war industrialist's New Years Eve party where they are dining on Sainsbury's finest meats and Champagnes.
The British mortality rate for the whole of the Great War was a little over 10 percent. For context, the mortality rate for the RAF Bomber Command over World War 2 was more like 45 percent.
Duffer - I know what point you're trying to make but you are not comparing like with like.
The mortality rate for Bomber Command was nowhere near 45%, the air crew mortality rate was 45%.
The mortality rate in WW1 for Front Line Infantry was a lot higher than 10%.
Another stat, the attrition rate in the Battle of Normandy in 1944 was higher than the Battle of the Somme.
A bunch of ad men sat round a table and thought "how can we piss all over the memory of men who gave their lives for us.......oh I know, we can use them to sell our overpriced crap"
****s
I'd agree with what a lot of trailmonkey says. I don't have a problem with remembrance as such, and I do have respect for the people that lived through the wars.
I think there's a lot of revisionism going on though and it's often pretty much implied that somehow we wouldn't be here now if people hadn't gone to the trenches. That sort of thing makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it's substituting a clear-eyed appraisal of what happened for a cult of remembrance (as somebody said above) and I think we need more of the former and less of the latter.
men who gave their lives for us......
Again I think this sort of thing implies that the young men who went off to war did so after making a conscious decision to selflessly risk or lose their lives so that people a few generations on could have a better life.
While there were maybe exceptions I suspect a lot of people actually joined the army for much the same reasons people do now, and I don't think that's so they can give their lives for their country. On top of that people probably had no idea what was coming with the advent of mechanized warfare.
Hopefully it's obvious though that that's not to knock or disrespect the people who went or what they endured, or the people left at home and what [i]they[/i] endured. I hope I never have to experience anything like it myself.
Agree with trailmonkey
The mortality rate in WW1 for Front Line Infantry was a lot higher than 10%
but that still doesn't really help to give an accurate picture of the risks faced at the front and the likelyhood that everyone would be dead within a year. the greatest lethality in ww1 occurred in the years 1914 and 1918 - both years where lots of time was spent outside of the trenches. that's quite an astounding stat given the huge set piece battles thyat took place in the years in between. trench warfare was comparatively safe - that's why both sides dug trenches.
I find this advert truly disgusting but I'm not at all surprised. As someone said the rememberance brand is "hot" right now and of course there's an advertising "creative" low enough to steal other peoples work wholesale and use it to sell turkeys in the most disrespectful way imaginable.
I'm thinking of a five letter word starting with C.
but that still doesn't really help to give an accurate picture of the risks faced at the front and the likelyhood that everyone would be dead within a year
trench warfare was comparatively safe - that's why both sides dug trenches.
Not sure what your saying here? The advert is set in Christmas 1914, in the trenches.
The trenches were started to be dug in 1914 as the Schlieffen Plan failed and the war of maneuver ground to a halt.
Since when has advertising been about a fair reflection of anything?
If highlights the futility of war - that's (almost) enough for me.
Not sure what your saying here? The advert is set in Christmas 1914, in the trenches.
in response to:
By all probability every soldier there was dead within the year
i'm saying in all likelyhood, most were still alive 12 months after xmas 1914 as they were in a trench.
teamhurtmore - MemberSince when has advertising been about a fair reflection of anything?
If highlights the futility of war - that's (almost) enough for me.
Well first of all it is perfectly reasonable to expect that advertising should be fair in every respect THM, that's why there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions.
And secondly the topic being discussed is the Sainsbury's TV Christmas ad - have you seen it ? If you have then you will be aware that it doesn't "highlight the futility of war".
In fact if your only knowledge of WW1 was based on the Sainsbury advert you could be forgiven for thinking that war, specially at Christmas time, was a bit of a laugh.....a bit of a kick about, chocolate, singing Christmas carols, lots of smiling and shaking hands with your enemy.
Because, according to the slogan of the Sainsbury's Christmas ad, "Christmas is for sharing".
There was an excellent history on ww1 on BBC4 last night. Part of it's conclusions was that our view of ww1 is based upon the outpouring of literature created at the battle of the somme by the men who fought in it. as a result in the national psyche the conditions of the somme have become indicative of the whole campaign.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04pw01r/war-of-words-soldierpoets-of-the-somme ]War of words: soldier poets of the somme[/url]
ernie_lynch - Member
Well first of all it is perfectly reasonable to expect that advertising should be fair in every respect THM
Agreed.
that's why there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions.
Hmmm, I don't share you confidence there Ernie.
Funnily enough I have seen it yes (and you say that others are patronising!) and have my own interpretation thanks. Yes, it does remind me of the futility of war. I doubt anyone uses an ad as the basis of their understanding of history though. That really would be patronising.
that's why there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions.Hmmm, I don't share you confidence there Ernie.
Yes I am perfectly confident that there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions, it's a fact, even if you don't share my confidence.
Funnily enough I have seen it yes (and you say that others are patronising!)
I have never claimed that "others" are patronizing, the only person I have ever accused of being patronizing is you. And I am certainly not alone in accusing you of being patronizing it's an accusation leveled at you by several people over a considerable period of time.
And explain why you think this comment is patronizing
[i] the topic being discussed is the Sainsbury's TV Christmas ad - have you seen it ? If you have then you will be aware that it doesn't "highlight the futility of war"[/i]
There are laws to stop bankers transgressing too....advertising lives and dies by distortion, laws and regulation hardly prevent that.
Yes right - "have you seen it" - was meant in what way exactly? No need to answer, the tactic is as cliched as it is understood. Appears most days in fact.
Christmas Ads even have Santa and churches and we know how much of this is to be believed!
Anyway off to sports direct now. Apparently there are laws and standards that make some confident that their staff are well protected.
advertising lives and dies by distortion, laws and regulation hardly prevent that.
So now you're saying that laws governing advertising have no discernible effect, fair enough, you are entitled to that opinion even if you are unlikely to find many who might agree with you.
And let's remember what you suggested was that advertising is never "a fair reflection of anything"
Yes right - "have you seen it" - was meant in what way exactly?
In the only way it could have been meant, ie, "have you seen it".
Well good luck believing what you see in adverts.
Well I'm just a simple person THM, I expect adverts to be fair. Unlike you who is clearly far too clever to be taken in by adverts.
What were you going to buy in Sports Direct btw, something that's caught your eye ? You said you were going.
Not sure the historical accuracy or otherwise of this ad is relevant. The men who died during the first world war were victims of a cynical and sustained campaign by the have's to use the have not's as machine gun fodder. There were heroic actions on both sides I'm sure and exceptional bravery but for most participants the war was frightening, brutal and short.
I'm rarely truly shocked, the internet has seen to that but this advert is truly disgusting.
Thanks Ernie, based on your earlier advice I will take the last post at face value then 😉
Yes replacement studs and tennis balls. As I said earlier, SD is tolerable (just) for some things. Toodle pip.....
I'm not sure about everything else but the ad's a bit long.
It's using the great war as an allegory for the supermarket war.
Just as the British and German empires went to war over Europe, Sainsbury and Tesco are at war over the high streets and out of town shopping centres.
While British and German civilians got conscripted in to one army or the other, purely by accident of birth, and got sent to fight each other, despite the fact that they had more in common with the men in the trenches facing them than they did with the officers behind them, so the staff of the major supermarkets are recruited by whichever one happens to have a vacancy at the time and are expected to show loyalty to their employer, when they would be better off joining forces with their rival's employees and rising up against their capitalist overlords.
MidlandTrailquestsGraham - MemberIt's using the great war as an allegory for the supermarket war.
Aldi to win on penalties.
Aldi to win on the house champagne too....a bargain!
Aldi to win on penalties.
if anything illustrates the futility of ww1 and ww2 it's this.
our sole reason for engaging in both conflicts was the vain hope to limit german hegemony in europe.
we won the wars but lost the battle.
Just watched it, I can't understand why the British Legion agreed to it, and I think it's very poor taste for Sainsbury to exploit WW1 to get Christmas sales.
Taking the pee IMO
And yet Sainsbury's are reported to still be going ahead with a new store in Bristol that will demolish the Memorial Stadium (that was built to remember 300 fallen sportsmen).
