The Most Brutal/Incompetent Generals from Each Major Fighting WW1 Country [Pt. 2]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- Throughout history, war and tragedy have always been inseparable. But no conflict showcased this grim reality quite like the First World War. Machine guns, explosives, gas, and more transformed the battlefield into a nightmarish landscape.
Yet, despite these advancements, some generals failed to adapt their tactics. In this two-part video series, we shine a light on the most brutal and incompetent leaders from each major fighting force in World War I. Their lack of skill, indifference to human life, and refusal to adapt contributed to the staggering number of casualties.
Join us in this second part, as we delve into the shocking stories of these generals and explore the tragic consequences of their incompetence on the battlefield.
Buy us a KoFi to help support the channel & team! 🎭
•ko-fi.com/thefront
Check out some of the music we use in our videos!🎶
•bit.ly/RelaxJackYT
Join other history buffs on our Discord!📚
• / discord
🎬Video Credits:
Narrator - Cam
Editors - Kshitiz, Shantanu koli
Researcher - Daniel
Intro music - / 16bitrecordsofficial
#TheFront #History
For business inquiries and to learn about our team check out our website🌐:
•frontiermediaco.com
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
0:28 Austria-Hungary - General Conrad von Hötzendorf
3:51 USA - John J. Pershing
9:22 France - General Robert Nivelle
14:11 Russia - General Samsonov
18:59 Four More Tales of Error and Incompetence
![The Most Brutal/Incompetent Generals from Each Major Fighting WW1 Country [Pt. 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OBQ8lFrXvzM/mqdefault.jpg)
There is an Austrian joke, calling von Hötzendorf the best General the Italians had in WW1
Hötzendorf was also Russia and Serbia’s best General
i have the genune belief
That Hötzendorf and Cadorna changed minds just when the war broke out
Like they tryed to overbid eachouther with incompitance
Lol
The italians have inversed it around with cadorna
Honestly I hate to say it but I do think Cadorna was better for the Italians than Hotzendorff was. And Cadorna was NOT good - practically or morally - but he wasn't quite the brainless moron he's often pointed out to be, since he won something like half of the campaigns he fought (though not decisively) and also understood attrition on the attack much better than Falkenhayn. He was still NOT a good man who even had some of his most notable successes backfire on him (such as the gap opening up that led to the Caporetto battle) but he didn't botch a war effort quite as thoroughly as Hoetzendorff.
One thing that also proves Hötzendorf’s idiocy in the start of the war is that for organizational and coordination purposes, he ordered all Austro-Hungarian trains in the Empire invading Serbia to move at the speed of the slowest train… at the speed of a bicycle. The guy was both intensely energetic and incredibly stupid, making him one of the most dangerous types of Generals.
Austria Hungary had a shitty and complex railroad network
it's not that he was dumb it is that they ahd to make the train go at the speed of teh slowest train to not risk collision.
I think someone who worse than Hötzendorf is their Foreign Minister who start the idea to declare war on Serbia without consulted with anyone.
In his biography "About Face", Col. Hackworth quotes Napolean. "There are four qualities of an officer: smart, stupid, lazy and industrious. Every officer has a combination of two. For example, a smart and industrious officer is a pain to work with, but attention to details saves lives. A smart/lazy officer is great because he will find ways to do his job without the complicating folderol that lowers morale. A stupid/lazy officer is great because you can run rings around him, and as long as he is not bothered. The stupid/industrious officer is the worst as he will find ways to complicate the simplest tasks, breeding inefficiency and destroying cohesion.
Kurt von Hammerstein is the author of the quotation, I think.
You took the test too ? @@hansulrichboning8551
I got out in 2010, and I had NCOs draw up a 2x2 square with "smart/stupid" adown one side, and "active/passive across the top. Just as useful today as it was back then 👍
Your attack on Pershing is unfounded and wrong. He had direct orders not to allow Americans to serve outside their own Army. He violated this in the Spring of 1918. He was never rattled. It was not about glory.
In defense of Pershing, he was tasked with organizing, training, and forming an Army to cross the Atlantic and operate in Europe. He was great a logistics, something the arriving American army desperately needed. For not putting the Americans in French hands, Pershing did not want the US troops to be used as cannon fodder and to be needlessly wasted as both sides had done since 1914. I’m not saying Pershing did nothing wrong, I’m just saying he deserves more credit than I think he’s been given. He was not the most brutal or incompetent American General of WW1.
Same. He was actually a pretty good general and the losses endured by his men were actually about 1/3 of the French losses despite about equal man power during the same offensive.
He also knew the importance of armoires warfare and had asked the British and the French for tanks
Yet he ordered attacks up till the last minute so he was using troops as cannon fodder anyway. He was a butcher and does not deserve his rank. Just because you can handle logistics doesn’t mean your a good leader or general he was as useless as George B. McClellan in the civil war as a leader.
You make a good point. I don't think he was particularly bad. But I don't think he was particularly great either. He was okay as a commander. Which given the sheer incompetency that existed in WWI. Its a step up.
He did indeed have a hell of a job on his hands more than you realise. But he really was tactical inept
My problem with Pershing is that like many generals on both sides, on the day of the Armistice he allowed his subordinates to conduct offensive operations, even though the fighting was supposed to stop at 11:00 am. It resulted in needless casualties for no good reason. Only one American general refused to send his men into battle on that day. He said it would be "madness" to continue the fighting with peace so close. Many young American doughboys and German soldiers owed their lives to his courage, decency, and compassion.
It was an armistice, not a peace. It was not very clear at the moment if the conflict could continue. Attacking at the last moment can take the ennemy by surprise and secure valuable ground that can be consolidate at wish. It appear now as a waste of life but at the moment with a pure strategic mind it that made some sense.
One of Pershing's worst decisions is he tried to withdraw US troops from Australian command for the battle of Amien, Aust Gen Monash had idea of putting raw US platoons side by side with battle hardened Aust troops who would teach them the craft of battle, crucially how to survive during an attack to take the enemy trenches. Fortunately it was too late to withdraw half the US regiments & attack was huge success, US soldiers distinguishing themselves & valuable lessons learnt.
I think they knew, they just ignored him
Pershing's intervention meant that six of the ten American companied planned to take part were withdrawn.
It's quite evident Pershing didn't believe in learning. He insisted on repeating the mistakes the others had made 1914-1916 all over again, never mind that they had actually adapted.
For a future entry in the next version, I’d recommend Austro-Hungarian general Oskar Potiorek, whose three different invasions of Serbia all ended in disaster.
He was also the one who botched Franz Ferdinand’s security on that fateful visit to Sarajevo.
Damn, meaning he's partially responsible for the war AND lost a war against a weaker foe? I think we have the contender for the worst here...
@edwardhahm7730
Oh yeah, just look up the Battle of Cer at the start of the war, and you’ll see what I mean.
Austria's attacks on Serbia were so disastrous and cost the lives of tens of thousands of experienced soldiers. In the end Germany had to bail out Austria repeatedly and only overwhelmed Serbia with considerable help from Germany and Bulgaria. Though its soldiers did fight bravely, its leadership was stunningly incompetent and outdated. Austria's performance in the war was truly abysmal for what was supposed to be a great power.
@@sirreepicheeprules7443 The major problem with Austria was that it was outnumbered on nearly all fronts. The battles in Serbia were fought with nearly equal troop strength and as attacker thats desastrous. But for military perfomance AH actually had more success than Germany considering it was fighting more enemy troops and frontlines.
Potiorek had order to attack in the wort front though.
I disagree with Pershings portayal as an incompetent general. The costly battle that he endured was at the behest of Foch. He had less experienced soldiers, attacking through thick forested areas and gain less ground compared to the french army that didnt have and natural barriers to encounter. It was infact Pershings plan to avoid the strong points initially to force rhe Germans to retreat from them by flanking them. However due to this not being the main offensive, Pershing was unable to properly equip his troops and had to rely on exhausted veterans and inexperienced men. Safe to say his plan didnt go to plan, but if he didn't keep attacking the forces the german forces would be rerouted to the other fronts. If you look at the offensive as a whole, despite Pershing fielding about an equal number of men to his French and British counterparts his losses were about 1/3 of theirs.
The only reason he is here is because he is the only high command officer the US had. (By high command I mean in charge of the overall force)
Yeah I think this is another preposterous "FAIR AND BALANCED" exercise. The viddie maker just had to pick an American from WWI, and now we have to suck it up? BOTH SIDES-ISM does not a rational video make.
Pershing had an ego problem, he was not alone. Ordering attacks when peace is imminent in order to gain more glory shows a callous disregard for his men.
@@androidbox3571 What amazing 20-20 Hindsight you have. Please don't forget to provide your peer-reviewed reference to back up your comment "Ordering attacks when peace is imminent..." Gee, it's amazing Pershing (and Foch, who directed Pershing) weren't court marshalled for it.
Oh, or maybe you're just another McGoo that doesn't care about facts? You must be trying to get America to become isolationist again? Let's see, I am finding a lot of Pro-Russian, Pro-Iranian, Pro-Hamas and Anti-American comments out there right now. Where do you hail from?
@@androidbox3571 unfortunately in that time the reality of war was that the better positioned you were the more favor the terms of the wars end gave you. It also forces the issue of a truce. Sadly, if the war had gone on longer there is a chance the second war wouldn't have occurred due to either a better German position, or the loss of far more German boys. One would give better terms to Germany preventing it's destabilization and hyper inflation leading to the rise of the Nazi party, the other would cause more disillusionment in warfare amongst the German people as well potentially resulting in Hitler's death.
I think you gave Pershing a little too much stick here, he actually didn’t fall under French command because French General Joffre advised him not to. Also the nature of the western front was that their was no way to avoid or manoeuvre around the barbed wire and machine guns.
Indeed, Pershing was also given orders that American troops must remain under American command by President Wilson from the very beginning.
I think that Pershing was added so there would be a high-ranking American figure. In truth, Pershing did a pretty admirable job.
My grandfather (sergeant in the engineers) was in the AEF and fought at St.Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne, and he admired the general.
Pershing believed the Allies were too timid. The Germans did not like facing the AEF.
Makes me wish that the guy who made this video tried to find maybe a lesser known American commander who would fit the incompetence or brutal category. To be educational maybe
I just find it so badass that Pershing fought alongside Teddy Roosevelt in the Spanish American War
The treatment of Pershing is unduly harsh. He was simply mediocre not incompetent in tactics and strategy. However, he was strong in organization. Perhaps, he is shoehorned in here due to being the only "big" American name?
I'd say being mediocre when you have 100,000 lives in yours hands is incompetence
@@Johnny-JosephMy God, where is this coming from? Literally another Brit Nationalist?
@@ejt3708 Not British kid 🤣 If you view historical criticism of intragenerational technological adaptability as a national critique then you're operating at a pretty low brain frequency
@ejt3708 the Brits sure do love acting high and mighty despite their country continuing to decline
@@ejt3708What does being British have to do with it? We have no idea where my correspondent is from and it is irrelevant to his remark. As one American to another, tone down your own nationalism before jumping on another poster for supposed nationalism.
It always amazes me that it took so long for the generals to finally start adapting to the changing warfare. To me there is no excuse why it took so long and cost so many lives.
It was four years, four years of massive technology and tactical changes so there wasn't a lot of time to adapt to things or an easy way to spread new information.
Pershing was a darn good general who had to fight with an army built virtually from scratch
While also having to deal with the Brits and French trying to get American troops put under their command instead. Pershing did his best to make a strong, independent American Army in a very short period of time and I'd say he did a damn good job.
The 26000 dead because he refused to listen to the more experienced people would disagree but you make up your own opinion because " MERICA".
@@deadon4847 You mean people died in a war, WOW didn't know that
No, Nivelle was not incompetent. He was even considered like an excellent general. He was the one who finished the good job that Petain began
for the liberation of Verdun.
But everybody remind her bad offensive of 1917 and forget his victories.....
Foch et Joffre étaient de mauvais généraux.
Castelnaux et Pétain étaient bons.
Haig était nul.
@@MrJeepsters D'accord à 100 pour 100.
Pershing is the only American general from WWI that most persons can name. He is simultaneously the best and worst Americal general of the Great War. It isn't saying much either way.
I disagree with your opinion on Pershing. He used the only strategy the US forces were capable of at the time, following the massive increase in size after war was declared.
Most of the US army was inexperienced, and none were experienced in modern Trench warfare. Many of the tactics and strategies were used simply because the Army, lacking practical experience, was unable to manage anything more complex.
Honestly this series seems like it is largely The Front shooting its foot off, between Haig in the First Episode and Pershing and to a lesser degree Nivelle (who for all of his flaws was one of the driving forces behind Verdun, objected to most of the parts of Chemin des Dames that made it such a disaster but was politically overruled, and helped salvage the situation caused by the Chemin des Dames debacle at La Malmaison before being thrown to the wolves).
Hello Erick
@@juanpabloibanez1538 Hey again, and sorry for the lack of contact juan. How have you been?
I might have a few ideas on contact, if you are interested. Though I forgot how you proposed we do so, and I'd be all ears on that.
@@vandeheyeric Friend, just tell me your suggestions. I tried to send you a message to respond and RUclips deleted it with the excuse of Spam
Hello Erick?
@@vandeheyeric hello?
Just discovered your channel. Enjoyable and informative. Maybe best generals of WW1?
Konrad Hötzendorf.
Franz aFerdiinsnd actually opposed Hotzendorf's desire to go to war with Russia. He advised Cron Prinz Joseph do not listen to Hotzendorf, that he'd do whatever he could to avoid such a war. He was also open to idea of more extended autonomy for slavic regions under empire rule. His murder in Sarajevo would end all this.
My grandfather was in the Easter Battle of Arras in the line. The initial phase of that battle was actually very successful and caught the German forces if not unaware, then at least with much lowered readyness due to the weeklong bombardment with explosives and gas. The going was excellent from 9th to 11th of April, so much so that a halt was ordered to consolidate the gains, which gave the Germans the time to get their most capable defensive expert, Oberst Fritz von Loßberg, to the scene and shake lose some divisions, which he put to very good effect. Incidentally, this was a colonel who could order generals and fieldmarshals around. The resulting battle was more of a grinding down into standstill, with exception of the northern sector, where the Canadians perform admirably, driving the line up to Lens.
The Battle of Bullecourt was a sideshow, actually, since the British high command wanted to test the new Siegfriedstellung that the Operation Alberich, the withdrawal of the Germans from the Somme salient, had revealed, and they wanted to test their new, improved tank forces. They, too, performed well, taking the only part of the Siegfriedstellung up to the Battle of Cambrai. Operation Alberich incidentally provided the extra divisions neded to stop both the advance of the British forces and the attack at the Chemin des Dames, where Nivelle switched his offensive to when Alberich deprived him of the frontline he wanted to attack. It was on his insistance that the two-prong offensive took place after most of the objectives vanished, it was supposed to pinch off the salient and possibly achieve envelopment of the German forces in the line. His callousness during the offensive has earned him this place.
The memoirs of my grandfather of the battle are pretty harrowing, he lost most of his platoon in the line and was wounded in the neck when he made his way to safety. Incidentally, fate is ironic, he as an infantry man survived while the greatgranduncle of my wife, who was an artillery officer, whose battery was suposed to cover the sector of the line in front of my grandfather's position, died in the battle.
Always glad to see this notification!
Incompetence, ignorance, unreliability, inexperience, incapable of adapting and to learn.........are lethal combinations that cost millions their lives.
If you do a part 3. Please include that British General who led the Mesopotamian campaign and botched it this place called Kut.
Great video! Despite Perishing being good at logistics, the US was not remotely prepared for what they faced in WW1. Not to mention glad gave their segregated units (the minorities) away to the French and others, so they themselves would not have to deal with them. This of course was the US shooting themselves in foot.
The only thing the US shot was the damn Germans. You're full of manure!
Djemal Pasha and the Battle of Sakamis has always seemed particularly tragic. What the hell was he thinking.
Oh gosh I meant of course Enver Pasha
Conrad was a disaster to be reckoned with.
Do really Austro- Hungarian army did not got any good staff general or Feldmarschall in own millitary circle, like Germans do? Like Ludendorff or von Hindenburg? Please, let me know?! Bye for now!
Here when 23k views in 5 days. Very underrated
in defense of General Pershing, there is a little reported "detail":
the "format" and equipment of the American army when the president decided to send the army to fight in France
the American troops have gone in less than a year from an "1864 type army" to a "1917 type army" that they have succeeded in such a short time is in itself a great feat which is not sufficiently praised.
that the general has some small shortcomings (certainly very costly in American blood) is not surprising! ; he too had to make this leap in time of 53 years in the art of waging war
This is part 2, graphic says part one. At 00:13 you show WWII graphic.
Hotzendorf is controversially considered by Other Generals at the time and even Soviet Writer/Military Theorist Boris Shaposhinkov, writer of Mozg Armii, to be a great general.
I think the saying is, Hotzendorf could do very little given the army he was handed. Also that he tried to be everywhere at once but couldn’t. Truly an enigma of a General.
He is now remembered for the desastrous carpathian winter offensive, but many forget he was also involved in the greatest Austrian victory of gorlice-tarnow.
I believe Samsanov was given a raw deal. He was assured that Rennenkamp would support his flank. For some reason. however, Rennenkampf seemed to have it out for Samsonov. He disobeyed orders, delayed his advance and allowed Samsonov to run straight into the German trap. As for not sending official radio traffic in code, my understanding is that the entire Russian Army had no codes. All Russian Armies sent their radio traffic in the clear.
I really liked this video but I disagree that Pershing was a Brutal/Incompetent general.
Pershing was a good commander for the relatively short period that the United States fought in World War I . He entered a war that looked like it was lost by his allies and he was able to not only work with those allies (despite numerous disagreements concerning strategy and tactics) but he was able to demonstrate the effectiveness of US forces who were essentially raw recruits in less than a year of fighting. Pershing also led some of the most mercurial temperaments around, many of whom became "stars" in the next war (including Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall, Patton, etc.).
Also American casualties were light in the few battles they fought in compared to the French, British and German losses in the first five months of the war in 1914 the armies on the Western Front had suffered nearly two million casualties, including half a million deaths.
Compared to that, the American troops did alright.
Comparing 1914 to 1917 is not really comparable. There were different levels of intensity all around.
@@kazak8926 what I meant was the Americans were raw recruits just like the soldiers during the first few months in 1914. In the few months of battles the Americans fought they suffered fewer losses compared to their allies.
For example looking at the Hundred Days offensive the French and British suffered 531,000 and 412,000 casualties respectively, while the US suffered 127,000 casualties and US casualties were this high due to inexperience but compared to our allies and the Germans, we did good.
@@brandonarmienti6875 True true, hey I don't want to act like the Americans were bad or anything, nor did I mean to imply that. I think that they did good enough too, I just don't want to disparage the other Entente and the Central Powers.
It did not help that Samsonov and Rennenkampf were parts of rival factions in the Russian Army and did not like each other.
To be a little bit fair to Samsonov, he was continually ordered to advance by Jilinsky despite knowing that Samsanov's army was woefully undersupplied for offensive operations.
My thoughts exactly. Did Samsonov make a massive mistake by spreading his line so thin? Yes. But does he deserve the lion’s share of the blame for the disaster? No, not really.
In Pershing's defense President Wilson absolutely refused to send military observers during the beginning of the war, because "It would lead to war" bogus, so by the time Pershing got to Europe he was going in blind and hit with three years worth of learning and not a lot of time to learn it. Yes Pershing made blunders, all generals do one time or another some more than most, but honestly I want to see anyone fight properly after being kept in the dark for three years.
Also refuseing to let American troops be gap fillers for the British and French is respectable,I don't exactly see the problem, would it be a problem if the situation was reversed?
If anyone believes me wrong then please present facts that may sway my opinion.
Gap filling wasn't really the goal. It was more about putting the green US troops with veteran units. I only know of those that worked with Australian troops and they did well and learnt a lot. But I agree that Pershing wasn't that bad of a general given he made his army from scratch.
@@somebloke3869It was most definitely the idea. The British were keeping reinforcements from Haig by keeping them in England, and were hoping to fill their ranks with American troops. They also refused to ship anything but American infantry - keeping all the heavy equipment and support stuff back. The French were desperate for men. Pershing had his directions to be a co-belligerent, but not an ally. Technically, The US did not fight WW1 as an Allied power. It would have cratered support for the war if American soldiers were under foreign command and took virtually any level of casualties.
“It’s not hard to be funny. One need only tell the truth.”
-Mark Twain
Nivelle was a good commander, vive la France 🇨🇵
Perishing was using Grant's playbook? Cold Harbor?
Very cool video
Most of those generals weren't bad at their job in the first part.
Nivelle had seen vctory
Samsonv had a good reputation and the offensive of Rennenkampf showed success
Pershing as some american point ouy had orders and was a good military leader.
in all fairness they aren't bad generals but they failed/ fail to show major success in their enterprise.
I agree with you! Most of those generals were not bad. But, ww1 was a mass and new tactics and strategies were made in that time. The progress of that tactics and strategies would be used in advantage way in ww2, during the battles on fronts in Europa, Asia, North Africa and even on the Pacific ocean. So, it was not at all that in ww1 for nothing!
Does anyone know what the music that plays during the Russia segment is?
A wonderful historical coverage video and wonderful introduction...thank you respectful ( the front) channel......maybe military commanding naturally forcible commander's becoming brutal/ incompetent generals
Pershing seems pretty alright actually. Weird.
Here is an idea you can promote other people to the position experience isn’t everything especially if your in a transitional period like then generals still using were using The cult of the offensive Sometimes you need younger minds in power adapt faster than the older minds. “I can make a General in five minutes, but a good horse is hard to replace”- Abraham Lincoln my point is you can give the rank of genreal in 5 minute. But replace a good horse with a good horse with like good young officer those are hard to come by
Conrad Von Hotzendord,
Indy's favorite person.
You know you are a terrible commander when you've been sacked multiple times and an allied nation is essentially propping you up due to repeated blunders and miscalculations.
Thats's BS Franz Ferdinand wanted to get rid of Conrad. Conrad wasn't one of his favorites.
It was unfortunate for any commander of troops to show success in a war where nothing was right. Weapons that were developed to be so fierce they would proscribe implementation, were employed in the slaughter predicted. It's a sad fact that every soldier was in "over their heads", however regrettable.
The Brits, the Commonwealth soldiers and the French had learned the hard way. The first day of the Somme would not be repeated. They had fought for three years and had adapted their tactics and equipment with that the experience to succeed. . Pershing had his troops 'well-trained' before they arrived, but they, and he, had no idea, training or experience about trench warfare. The Spanish-American War and the small bush wars after did not involve trench warfare. However, being Pershing, he knew better than anyone else. They were ill-equipped having no light machine guns and no organised MMG support, essential for the Western Front. The M1903 rifles proved unreliable in the trenches and were gradually replaced by M1917 rifles - a British design. Their adopted LMG was the French Chauchat, which replaced the far more effective Lewis gun used by the USMC, with much protest from them. The US Army and USMC fought for just 6 months in France. The 100-days Offensive cost them 122,000 casulties with 26,00 killed. At the same time, further North, the British and Commonwealth forces lost just 22,000 and the French 24,000. Judge for yourself.
You explain that very well! And American army continue to learning too during ww2 on experience of ww1 in Europa. But, I got few questions for you. Why US army use M1903 rifles on the beginning of ww2 and not M1917, if its are better rifles for war in Europa and rest of the world. I just know that M1903 is really good sniper rifle. Maybe the best of that kinds of guns in ww1 and ww2. Thank you for all! Bye for now!
18:52 This is incorrect! The next years, the sector of East Prussia was cleared between Februrary and April 15, and after that, the Gorlice-Tarnów Offensive kicked off and pushed the front deep into Lithuania, White Russia and Ukraine. There that the front solidified, which was in the interest of the Central Powers, until the Brusilow-Offensive in Summer 1916.
My grandfather was in that sector until August 1915, when he was wounded at Kaunas by Machinegun fire.
Samsonov wasn't incompetent. Samsonov was screwed over by von Rennenkampf.
At 10;36 when you say '...Meanwhile In the UK, Prime Minister David Lloyd George...' and show a shot of Carlisle Bridge and Sackville street(Now 'O'Connell Bridge' and 'O'Connell Street') in Dublin Ireland (OK, so it was in the UK at the time.)
Also, I was once told by a staff officer that senior officers have to have a touch of sociopathy in them, or programmed into them in staff college as 'Humane' Generals get men killed and lose battles as they dither (he went on to cite the retreat from Kabul 1842 and the fall of Singapore almost a century later in 1942 as examples.)
IF the French & British were so Efficient, why did the British & French loose so many thousands of Troops within hours? HELL! The French were facing Mutinies!
The US had faced Trench Warfare in the American Civil War... Which the Europeans didn't learn from!
Your lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion...
We were completely unequipped for a war in Europe, but we sure learned and adapted faster than the Brits and French did
Trench warfare was being used ever since there was a reason to dig in
The only reason why the American Civil War was overlooked was because it was essentially two groups of rabble smacking at each other , instead of an actual professional army ( in European Standards )
And funnily enough , Prussian Observers basically saw the war as comfirmation that their army was the best
There was a certain amount of trench warfare in the American Civil War (and also in the Crimean War), but not very much of it. Most battles were battles of movement - even famously so, such as Pickett's Charge or the Battle of Chancellorsville. And the American's didn't learn very much from the Civil War, because they continued to use (for example) cavalry charges and colorful uniforms for decades afterwards. The British and French (and Germans, Austrians, Russians and Italians) lost so many men because they were compelled to attack fixed positions that were defended by machine guns and heavy artillery at a time when aircraft and tanks were in their infancy. By 1918, however, the British, in particular, were able to co-ordinate infantry, artillery, tanks and airpower in what became known as a "combined arms operation", thereby leading to the collapse of German forces in the West. When you bear in mind that WW1 only started in mid-1914, the technological and military advances were actually quite impressive and occurred over a fairly short timescale. It's probably truest to say that the allies did learn from their mistakes, and did so rapidly, but their options were incredibly limited until the technology of "offensive operations" had caught up with that of "defensive operations".
My man! The Trench Warfare was present in Europa even in wars during 1850s and 1860s. The Europeans know about what is a trench. They just foolishly thinking that ww1 will be over in just of one or two months, in 1914. So, they thinking that they do not needed that.😂
Surprised no one pointing out the wrong part is in the title
You do not win the medal of honour. It’s awarded in specific circumstances but it’s not something you go out and win.
Out of all of his numerous military campaigns, General Pershing’s leadership of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I was his greatest accomplishment. The introduction of the AEF troops helped end World War I, and without the American soldiers, the European allies would have faced an uncertain outcome. Or this too American for the narrator?
With great mustache comes great responsibility.
French Admiral Guepratte could be part of a third opus: his plan to charge the Dardanelles Strait with his ships as a cavalry officer would have done was not a wise idea
I don't disagree with your points, but I will also state this was the first time that most of these countries faced the beginning of what we know as modern warfare.
I agree with you! ww1 was just of the beginning of that what we know like as modern warfare. So, that guys and "bad generals" were just learning. The military tactics and strategies would never progressed like today, if never happened ww1 on that way. Way full of errors, mistakes and terrible blunders.
16:13 Should I be concerned that that line made me immediately brace for a Nord VPN advertisement?
Pt2
Names it pt1
You know nothing of John Pershing.
Why did they call him "Black" Jack Pershing? That wasn't the nickname given him by his fellow officers.
Most of these generals were pretty bad. It might be better to choose who was less bad.
In the British sitcom, called The Black adder, British generals were presented people like maniacs and complete idiots. Even Field marshal Douglas Haig too. But, It was he really so bad general? What you think about that? Thanks!
@@DaliborPerkovic-sw8mh---I've seen it.
@@brokenbridge6316 OK!
Pershing was awesome when it came to terrorism.stopped rerrosm in the Phillipines for 50 years with one act.
We have the numbers an attrition we can do but sir that's not a good strategy we will see
I get that this is the worst general from each army, and that doesn't mean they're bad generals. You generally can't become a general if you're bad at it, even in monarchial systems.
Screw the medal if i'm cut to pieces by machine gun or explosives
Yeah! The medals are for naive and brave fools. It is better to be alive coward than dead hero full of medals. Simple as that! And cowards were making a lots of babies after ww1 and ww2.🤣
Pershing was following orders. The American public would never let American troops be commanded by foreign generals. Also, the French were more than willing to sacrifice American soldiers to save their own. Do better research.
a small detail of personality perhaps allows us to better understand the actions of General Hotzendorff.
before the war, the general (albeit already married) fell madly in love with a young girl 30 years younger than him!
in the mind of the general (very chivalrous and romantic) only a victorious general can win the heart of his "sweet friend".....
which seems to explain the general's relentless attack
for General Nivelle his plan had some merit, (make the Germans suffer what the French suffered in Verdun) the very big problem is in the execution and also the location of the attack
the majority of the preparation of the attack (concentration of forces and heavy equipment) took place before the eyes of the Germans, who were able to strengthen themselves (surprise level = 0.00%), as for the attack locations the site of the "Chemin des Dames" (iconic of this battle) has a difference in altitude of more than 200 meters, passing it nowadays is complicated so imagine with German machine guns in full attac
There are a few things...
1. Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf was NOT a favorite of Franz Ferdinand. In fact, the Austrian Chief of Staff had often been debated into backing out of his pushes for war with Serbia or Russia by Franz Ferdinand who wanted to find a way to avoid squabbles with Serbia in the Balkans... and particularly to avoid a fight with Russia, which might use Austria's multiethnic empire against them. In this, had Franz Ferdinand had actual authority in the military command structure, Hotzendorf probably wouldn't have kept his post and thus negated the pressures for war with Serbia within Austria. In this, I'd say it was probably more Franz Joseph that Hotzendorf had the support of, and since the emperor supported him... he couldn't be removed.
2. While Nivelle better understood the need for artillery than other French commanders... he really wasn't too different from the rest of the French officer corps that favored the policy of Attaque à Outrance (Attack to Excess). It was a line of thought in French military thinking that figured that France had lost in 1870 because its commanders and troops had been timid and thus ceded the initiative to the Germans. Thus, by moving quickly and attacking to excess, the French would overwhelm foes they expected to either surprise or shock with their audacity. However, France lacked the industry for it in 1914 and lacked the heavy guns for it until 1916, by which point the war was more than a year old.
Now, in contrast to officers like Joffre, Nivelle was far more competent with the use of artillery, and this did help with the counter attacks around Verdun at the end of 1916... the fact that Nivelle belled in that policy of attack to excess, really lowers how effective he was. The "stabilization" of the line around Verdun by the middle of 1916 was really more Petain, who was rotating troops in and out of the Verdun sector and largely fighting a defensive war and only counterattacking when absolutely necessary... and not wasting troops. Petain was also rejecting the transfer of French troops to the Somme front in order to favor the continuation of the war that Petain was actually winning against Falkenhayn at Verdun.
Joffre, however, needed the room for the offensive and thus promoted Petain to command the army sector and put Nivelle in command of the army at Verdun... by which point the line had largely stabilized. The surprise from the first days was gone and the French were getting enough artillery that as the Germans advanced south, the French actually gained the artillery advantage. But Nivelle pushed for attacks to reclaim Fort Douaumont, which increased French losses and actually made it possible for Falkenhayn to resume the advance toward Verdun because Nivelle had essentially thrown so many men away trying to retake a fort the Germans had taken early in the fighting... and while, yes, this set Nivelle up for the line, "ils ne passeront pas!" (they shall not pass), That wasn't because of any brilliance by Nivelle... but rather that the Germans had also reached the end of what they could support.
What ultimately won the Battle of Verdun was when Nivelle and Petain worked together for the counterattacks at the end of the year and weren't essentially trying to undermine each other... though, because Nivelle was in direct command of the forces that won the fight at Verdun and was the more offensive minded officer, he became the natural choice to succeeded Joffre who was promoted out of command at the end of 1916... And there, Nivelle took the same issues that gave him problems at Verdun into the 1917 offensive.
Arguably, it did better than French offensives in 1914 or 1915 and it didn't last as long as Verdun... but in many ways, Nivelle, as an offensive minded general carried many of the same sorts of demeanor that the French soldiers didn't like with their officers. He had more guns in 1917 than in 1916, and the basic theory behind the attack was better than in 1916... but the French were still recovering from Verdun and really didn't want lost a lot of men for a few yards of ground, only to go back to canteens that were of very poor quality. Thus, when the 1917 only gained limited ground and took relatively heavy losses... the French mutiny began... because while Nivelle could claim to have advanced, it wasn't the great breakthrough he promised.
3. And with Pershing... much his issues with the British and French and "advisors" was likely on the basis of what he and many neutral observers had followed of the war. In 1914, the Germans pushed to just outside Paris and the French lost around a million men in that year alone. In 1915, the French attacked at various points along the line and largely failed to advance far, and the same was true for the British. In 1916, while the French had held Verdun and the British had advanced on the Somme, both had taken heavy losses to do so, and then came the Nivelle Offensive and then the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, which again bloodied the French and British armies...
To Pershing, when British and French officers would try to provide instructions on what would need to be done, there would be the natural response to say, "ya tried it yer way for three years, and lost 2 million men dead and advanced a mile. I think I'll try it MY way and not copy yer lead." The great irony in this, is that the French and British learned from their experiences in 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917 and what they wanted to impart to Pershing was on how to avoid the mistakes that were made in 1914 and 1915 (especially). And to a great degree, things showed improvement as the war progressed. For as bad as the Nivelle Offensive seemed... Verdun the year before was WORSE, and the fighting in Champagne the year before that was even worse than Verdun, and so on. Thus, Pershing essentially repeated many of the same things that other Entente commanders had done in 1914 and 1915... though, by this point the Germans had been so ground down by attrition, that they weren't going to be able to stop the American attacks.
The Battle of Tannenburg was really the Battle of Allenstein...but the Germans renamed it by posing it as revenge for a a Po-Lith alliance beating the Teutonic Knights in the same area 500 years earlier.
And later, Russians ( Soviets ) were doing a revenge for the Battle of Tannenberg when they entered to East Prussia in January, 1945. They destroyed the Tannenberg Memorial and than annexed half of that territory and today that is Kaliningrad enclave, separated from other Russian territory.
a minor hint: it is pronounced entent, not en-ten-tai.
A few bad takes with Nevelle and Pershing. What is it with Front videos becoming more commercial and abandoning actual history?
Where is luigi cadorna ?
The title still pt1 😂😂😂
WHAT ABOUT THE SOUTH AFRICAN DIVISION AND THE BATTLE OF DELVILLE W
OOD
Two points, the French and British forces remained under the command of their respective generals. Assigning US divisions to French generals politically made the US the subordinate partner. Second, French generals did not have the best record to present to the Americans and would have been using US forces in the same old mass attacks that had the Frech army on the brink of rebellion.
Hey narrator, how about giving General Pershing more credit than what you gave him 😕
Where is your list of references?
Does this sound like a doctoral thesis?
@@insaniam_convertunt_scientiam Any epistemic (factual) claim, no matter how trivial, if presented as such requires citation for it to be validated. Just because a news report or a RUclips video isn't as rigorous as a scientific paper does not mean it's epistemic claims are not subject to the same rule.
Otherwise there is no reason to grasp the analysis of a video like this, since we don't know where the author is getting his information from nor do we know whether or not he is accurately reporting on what he is speaking on.
For all I know he could be completely wrong about the generals he is speaking about, and unless he provides a source of his knowledge on this historical topic I can't take anything of what he says as more than speculation.
Right. These hyperbolic, careless vids and comments are stirring up a lot of trouble in the US with the Trumpers that want to pull funding from Ukraine, NATO, Taiwan, the Western Pacific...
Isonzo isonzo isonzo isonzo isonzo isonzo isonzo isonzo
Normally, you do good stuff. The take on Pershing is a little off. I do admit that I am an American, so take what I say with a grain of salt. He did make mistakes, he did a TON right. I am unsure you understand the political ramifications of using US troops as replacements in Allied divisions. This would have been stupid. European generals had not exactly covered themselves in glory so far. Even in 1918, there were few that really understood the new ways. He was having enough troubles keeping US forces supplied in France, other theatres would have been worse.
"Rattled him?" Every commander in the Western front was rattled, and for good reason. He brought US divisions on the line in cooperation with Foch.
It's widely noted that Pershing's tactics were outdated by 1918.
Nivelle is the kind of mad man who could have make us loose our army and the war .(i'm french)
he lead so many men to death for no reason.. he was an outdated, ignorant and stubborn mind who nearly pushed his own army to collapse
Ca aurait quand même du être lui le héro de Verdun,
plutot que de rester planquer et de refuser d'attaquer.
j'ai rien conjtre pétain mais on voit bien que sa posture anti aggresion l'ont mené en 1940 à faire la paix.
est ce que Nivelle l'aurait fait j'en doute.
Nivelle avait la même doctrine que le Maréchal Foch, l'offensive a outrance visant a attaquer l'ennemi en continue.
cette tactique n'est efficace que llorsque l'on attaque l'ennemi sur tout le front, comme l'a prouvé Foch durant l'offensive de 1917.
And the Italians would shout to the Austro-Hungarian troops "You are not our enemy, Cardona is!"
And that is a good joke too! And even close to truth!? Or not? What you think about that? Thanks! I still learning about ww1 generals.
Probably Ludendorff did not need even an interpreter,because he spoke fluent russian.
Truth! Ludendorff was a real fox in that crucial battle of ww1 on the Eastern front. And that was good for German Imperial Army. And bad for Russians! But, they never forget that defeat at Tannenberg.
Where is enver pasha
Serbia: Damjan Popović
Combined with his pre-war-actions (comitting Oberst Redl to suicide as a coverup for his espionage-actions) and due to his pressure für the war against Serbia, which led to the declaration Hötzendorff is the far worst commander of WWI. But Austrias Army was second-rate at best. In comparasion to what he had at hand Haig is the worst commander in the field.
Pershing, I believe, was incompetent but not a horrible general for the war he found himself in. If Pershing had more time to expend men into the war I think he would have not been as contested in this list. He was stubborn on how he wanted many things, which could've been more detrimental to his legacy if, again, the war dragged on. On the other hand, he was in such a unique position. The first American General in charge of forces massing in Europe, which hadn't been done before. Not to mention the fact the American forces were inexperienced, as from what I've been able to ascertain. They suffered about as what could be expected as being on the offensive, which Pershing's strategy of warfare was mainly responsible for. Pershing did well in some areas and shown he was skilled in aspects, then there were others areas which left much to be desired. Yet, since he was only apart of one major offensive I believe he is given more slack than others, barring the uniqueness of his command. I believe he deserves to be on this list, even if his impact wasn't as prevalent as the others listed.
I am not very researched in this topic, and I hope my words cause more people to look into Pershing and the American Expeditionary Forces of World War 1.
I hope you have a lovely day!
...This is a pretty iffy video, in terms of research... The Front generally does better. And with all the mistakes in various ways... This video seems SUPER rushed and aiming to bait people. Kinda sad, really.
While Pershing resisted attempts to place US troops under European commanders, he did sllow all black "Harlem Hellfighters" infantry to fight under french command. Ironic to me as Pershing had commanded black troops in past & was known to be highly suppotive of them. Their story in France has only become better known in recent years😮!
Putting Pershing in the incompetent bucket is flat wrong. Pershing fielded the only capable army of 1918 and crushed the Germans in the Saint-Mihiel offensive. This superb fighting army would not have been in place had the American soldiers been piecemealed to the French and British as you advocate. Further, WW2 could have been avoided had Pershing had his way. He
presciently demanded no armistice. Per Black Jack, Germany must be shown it had lost and defeated in Germany, across the Rhine. If followed, Hitler's foundational lies of Germany being stabbed-in-the-back and its army never being defeated would never have worked. Instead of this YT clickbait nonsense, suggest reading "The Myth of the Great War" by John Mosier.
I still don't get why the II and I armies didn't advanced at the same time on East Prussia the Germans would've been outnumbered and be forced to retreat causing pressure on the Eastern front Russia had the chance to end the war quicker if the Generals were better with the exception of (Burislov) Russia's finest in WW1
I think that Germans were well informed what Russian Imperial Army wanted to doing in East Prussia territory. They were inferior in numbers of soldiers, but still they attacking Russians soldiers on proper places of the battle and they won. I really do not know much more of that battle from you, but you got on line good presentations of that important battle of ww1, on Eastern front. Bye the way, i agree with you! I think too that Brusilov was the best Russian Imperial ground general. On the sea that was Admiral Kolčak. I was watched the movie "Admiral" and I am impressed with that Russian great military leader. Even he was the White forces, during Civil war, 1917 to 1920.
Excellent and accurate historic revelations
One thing omitted was the last hours of WWI and Gen. John J Pershing committing 2000 American soldiers to their death for absolutely no reason other than [His] glory.
There were Senate Hearings on this incident
One of Pershing’s main reasons for doing so was that he believed the Germans were not going to actually surrender in November 11th. He thought it was an elaborate ploy to catch Entente forces napping.
We see again that marvelous 20-20 Hindsight.
whats this on-ton-tay he keeps mentioning? Is it some faux-entente I've never heard of?
Pershing should not be on this list. No American General does.
he ordered attacks up till the last minute so he wasting was good US Troops lives and using them as cannon fodder. If you call that brilliant i think you need to look up the definition of brilliant. He was a butcher and does not deserve his rank. Just because you can handle logistics or other parts of the army doesn’t mean your a good leader or general he was as useless as George B. McClellan in the civil war as a leader. Yes i’m aware other US officers and Allied forces did that as well but the buck stops with him when when it comes to US troops he gave no instructions to his commanders to suspend any new offensive action during the remaining hours until 11am. This is coming from a american btw
It's a shame that the Milner group caused this conflict.
They didn't. Even a cursory look at Austro-Hungarian and German policies show that.
@@vandeheyeric
"This society has been known at various times as Milner's Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set. ... I have chosen to call it the Milner group. Those persons who have used the other terms, or heard them used, have not generally been aware that all these various terms referred to the same Group...this Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century."
Carroll Quigley (1981). The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden
@vandeheyeric
"The Cliveden Set was a 1930s right-wing, upper class group of prominent individuals who were politically influential in Britain during the interwar period. The group’s members included notable politicians, journalist, and aristocrats such as Nancy Astor, Geoffrey Dawson, Philip Kerr, Edward Wood, and Robert Brand. The term ‘Cliveden Set,’ meant as a pejorative term, was coined by journalist Claud Cockburn who wrote for the newspaper The Week. Though initially considered to be a scapegoat for pre-World War two anxieties, the Cliveden Set surreptitiously formulated and enforced a British foreign policy that supported Hitler’s rearmament and the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Their goal in doing so was to preserve British Imperial rule and unification of their dominions. By applying the formula of imperial unification that was demonstrated by Alfred Milner during South African reconstruction, and by adopting the template of imperial preservation exercised by Milner’s Kindergarten, The Cliveden Set’s role in the developments that led to World War II proves substantial "
MPERIAL GLORY OR APPEASEMENT? THE CLIVEDEN SET’S INFLUENCE ON BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE INTER-WAR PERIOD
@@vandeheyericvandeheyeric
"This society has been known at various times as Milner's Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set. ... I have chosen to call it the Milner group. Those persons who have used the other terms, or heard them used, have not generally been aware that all these various terms referred to the same Group...this Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century."
Carroll Quigley (1981). The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden
@vandeheyeric
"The Cliveden Set was a 1930s right-wing, upper class group of prominent individuals who were politically influential in Britain during the interwar period. The group’s members included notable politicians, journalist, and aristocrats such as Nancy Astor, Geoffrey Dawson, Philip Kerr, Edward Wood, and Robert Brand. The term ‘Cliveden Set,’ meant as a pejorative term, was coined by journalist Claud Cockburn who wrote for the newspaper The Week. Though initially considered to be a scapegoat for pre-World War two anxieties, the Cliveden Set surreptitiously formulated and enforced a British foreign policy that supported Hitler’s rearmament and the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Their goal in doing so was to preserve British Imperial rule and unification of their dominions. By applying the formula of imperial unification that was demonstrated by Alfred Milner during South African reconstruction, and by adopting the template of imperial preservation exercised by Milner’s Kindergarten, The Cliveden Set’s role in the developments that led to World War II proves substantial "
MPERIAL GLORY OR APPEASEMENT? THE CLIVEDEN SET’S INFLUENCE ON BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE INTER-WAR PERIOD
My comments is shadow banned. Essentially, Carroll Quigley and others have demonstrated in was the Empirical British doctrine and the Mckinder thesis which caused the war. Germany was not a beligrant seeking war which is shown by her economic policy. No nation exports gold on the brink of a war.
🫢👍