^ What he said.

As I recall there was quite a bit of research that went into Blackadder Goes Forth – I cannot speak for stuff like ‘Oh What A Lovely War’ or ‘The Monocled Mutineer’ since I haveqw2q not seen them.
The point I was trying to make was that, in Blackadder at least, the basic history was correct – there were no flights of fancy, which is more than can be said for Braveheart which my eldest had to watch a few years back…

“Ooooooooooooohhhh– PRETTY! I cannot resist. Oooooh!

Actually, that was my connection with it to religion.

Alternatively there are a few ex-military members on the forum who might assist with your question, but (with reference to a news story of not so long ago) what some may believe and what are actually covered by rules and regulations can be totally different. Same with punishment; might be interesting to compare the military with civvy streets punishments.

The outside world are goading the Chinese?

Gove is a complete prat. Remember the expensive ‘personalised’ bibles he wanted to present to every school in Britain to celebrate the Queens jubilee? Last I heard they were still in a warehouse somewhere – never did hear who was to pay for them after the government refused…

But ignoring the ‘silly’ representations of WWI like ‘Oh What A Lovely War’ it must be admitted that Blackadder had elements that were closer to the truth than those in command at the time would have liked, had they been around to witness their war being reduced to six funny but poignant half hour episodes.
Did thousands of men go over the top with the aim of swarming the German trenches but instead were needlessly slaughtered?
Were the commanding officers positioned a fair distance behind the front lines?
Were the commanding officers – especially in the first years of the war – stuck in the ways of a cavalry war, and unwilling to take on the new ideas that came about with new technology?
The food was awful and some regiments did eat rat – and cat, and dog, and horse, donkey, etc, or whatever they could scrounge up. Is it wrong to mention that?

For Gove to say that ‘entertainment’ histories of WWI are wrong is a little rich.

Discuss…

How about this:

Japanese lawmakers demand removal of California WWII memorial
on December 22, 2013 at 22:45

A statue of a lone woman in traditional Korean dress that commemorates women sexually exploited during World War II drew the ire of Japanese lawmakers visiting Southern California this week — amid signs that many in Japanese society are weary of making reparations for crimes perpetrated during the war…

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/japanese-lawmakers-demand-removal-california-wwii-memorial.html

Couple that with the recent visit by Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe to Tokyo’s Yasukuni War Shrine and you start to wonder if the Japanese really suffered enough for their involvement in World War II.
It is well known that Japanese schools teach very little about the war, apparently with nothing to indicate the level of inhumane treatment dealt out to those who surrendered or were defeated by them.
But to demand the removal of a monument to the victims of their depravity is going a bit too far.

I’m getting a little angered about the way people are now ganging up on Michael Gove for saying what needed to be said about ‘entertainment’ portrayals of WW1.

Can’t find that thread, not sure if I should start making comments here…

I have slight admiration for RpR, and his dogged, solitary defense, a triumph of tenacity over rationality.

Rather like a moth to a light bulb, wouldn’t you say?

Picture or it didn’t happen…;o)