Support us and get 40% off Nebula: go.nebula.tv/the-great-war Watch 16 Days in Berlin on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-berlin-01-prologue-the-beginning-of-the-end?ref=the-great-war
Excellent series! Can you please discuss the occupation of Russian empire lands by the central powers from the December 1917 armistice to the departure of German troops in 1919? Thank you!
I'm sincerely in awe at the creativity the German military leadership deployed in both world wars to find excuses to blame anything and everything but themselves for the defeats.
@@Tethloach1 Then why were Germany able to outperform their adversaries throughout the entire war, despite them having less men, less resources, less firepower, were fighting 4 empires on two fronts, and apparently had 'less competent' military leaders?
@@toadtheparakeet8541 They didn’t outperform the other great powers, nor did he call them ‘incompetent’. He just pointed out that the Germans got beat, which is objectively true.
One quote from a historian whose name I forget has stuck with me: “The German Army of the first half of the 20th century was tactically brilliant, operationally deficient, and strategically bankrupt.”
I would ask that historian if the German army ALONE had those deficiencies and not the German army+her Allies because in my view, how could Germany alone take France, Britain, Russia, Italy and even Romania? Germany send troops all over the fronts except in the Middle East plus the deficiencies mentioned here. If left by itself, I would say the German armies would have won probably alone but we must take those things into consideration
@@leonardoespino9780 All of the sides had terrible deficiencies so its a mistake to single out the Germans. The French and Russians blundered many early offensives. Britain opened up the moronic gallipoli campaign. Ottomans and Austrian tried winter offensives in the mountains. Italians enthusiastically bashed their head against mountain defenses for years. The Entente was mostly saved by British tanks and ships. Ships weakened Germany's home front. Tanks broke the front line. Without both, Germany flat out can't lose.
@@leonardoespino9780 I think Germany fighting enemies in nearly every direction was the strategic bankruptcy. There were political failings too but war against everyone rarely turns out well.
and again, the british save the entente... the british army, in the beginning of the war was nothing (100 000 mens) , what you say is true for the war on sea but the british tanks were useless when the french tanks were more impactful. @@pax6833
Brilliant doco but you have missed a key piece of information about Sir John Monash, an Australian commander, whose tactics he devised at the Battle of Hamel early in 1918 that became the template for Allied victories culminating in the Armistice in November 1918. Monash was knighted in the field, the last one to be so by a British Monarch, and the first in two centuries, by King George V, when he visited Australian Field headquarters in August 1918. The Battle of Hamel in World War I was a small-scale, brilliantly successful attack made by elements of the Australian Corps and United States (US) troops with British tanks and air support. It was the first set-piece operation planned by Monash since taking command of the Australian Corps the previous month. Under Monash's strategy, infantry, tanks, artillery and air support worked together on the battlefield for the first time under Australian command. In just 93 minutes, the Allies captured 1,600 enemy soldiers, and whereas territory wins were measured in yards up to this point, Monash's troops pushed on for 24 hours and had to halt after 20 milex because of exhaustion and supply lines couldn't keep up. Around 1,380 Australian and US personnel were killed or wounded in the battle. It was the first time that Australians and Americans fought together on a battlefield. The planned attack became a model for innovative tactics, which the Allies repeated on larger-scale advances from 8 August and helped to end the war in November 1918. Monash wasn't regarded by the British Military Establishment because he wasn't a "professional soldier" (he was a very successful civil engineer based in Melbourne), he was from "the colonies" with Australia having only become an independent country less than 15 years prior to the War, and most tellingly, he was Jewish. Another story about Monash was that Rupert Murdoch's father, Keith Murdoch, teamed with the official Australian War Historian, CW Bean, to have Monash removed from his command. But the Australian Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, visited Monash in the field to guage the mettle of the man and garner the opinions of his fellow officers. Those under the command of Monash loved him because he dought to protect his men by implementing the latest military technology. Unlike British Generals tactic to use "over the top" waves of men being sent out to no-man's land only to be mowed down by machine guns and artillery, Monash used aerial surveillance, then a curtain of creeping artillery, followed by tanks then the soldiers behind them. He even organised for hot meals to be delivered to troops at the front lines, such was the depth of his planning and regard for the lives of his troops. When Monash died, 300.000 people lined the streets of Melbourne as his hirse drawn casket made the journey padt the unfinished Shrine of Remembrance, which Monash was largely responsible for, to his resting place in Brighton cemetery in a modest grave. He aldo headed up the State Electricity Commission that wired the state of Victoria, was a founding member of Rotary and a key figure in the Boy Scout movement. Monash is one of the truly great Australians.
Excellent episode! Thanks! I'm especially grateful that you posted this today because I am currently reading a book about Germany between the wars, so this backstory is super useful! Thanks again!
8:51 " In October , Lundendorff told Berlin to ask for an armistice since the war was lost . " Yet , it was Lundendorff who claimed that Germany was never defeated on the Battlefield and gave credibility to the myth that Germany had been stabbed in the back by politicians in Berlin . He was a bit of a nut case .
Oh no, that was on _purpose._ It was orchestrated so that the new government would sign Versailles, instead of the Monarchy. That way, the people would blame the Republic for such a humiliating defeat.
Thank you for highlighting several key factors leading Germany to seek an armistice that I hadn't previously heard about. These include the Bulgarian collapse, Germany's inability to replace casualties from its own and Allied offensives, and the large-scale surrenders by German soldiers in the last three months of the war (basically, during the late-war Allied offensives).
Lmao 30.000 surrenders in a 13 million army is not bad, the allies were surrendering more relative to their army size and relative to the fact that they had new fresh soldiers.
@@toadtheparakeet8541the context of the surrenders is the issue, these weren’t surrounded German units doomed to destruction, these were frontline troops surrendering en masse when attacked without giving major opposition. Even without the surrenders the western front was collapsing for the Germans with the Entente making massive advances ahead of their wildest dreams for what could have been achieved in 1918(the plan was for a major offensive in 1919 with 10,000+ tanks)
15:46 My grandfather was born in 1914. I believe he spent his childhood in Frankfurt. Before his family immigrated to the United States. But one thing he did mention about his childhood was that there was never anything to eat. I don't know any further details. All I know was he was fluent in both English and German.
One of the greatest things about getting old, is the feeling of constantly learning new stuff and thusly, becoming a little smarter than yesterday. Videos like this helps out. I've read and watched a ton of stuff on the world wars, mainly the European theatre. But there is so much ahead to learn. I envy me.
One key point that was missed: the strangulation of Germany by blockade. This became even worse after April 1917 when all chance of shipping from the US ( via the Netherlands despite British searches ) stopped. The Turnip Winter of 1916-1917 was just the start of acute shortages in Germany ( and that was before the US joined in!)
The blockade was mentioned, but so was the simple fact that economic warfare, on both sides, was not solely responsible for the domestic situations that developed within all the belligerent nations. Domestic management and/or mismanagement played a significant role in the shortages and crises that the nations would have to contend with on the home front.
Definitely one of the major reasons Germany lost. If it weren’t for the fresh American troops pouring in each week and their idea of depth charges that stopped my ancestors from destroying the naval blockade, Germany would’ve most likely won.
@@prussianangler Germany correctly calculated that the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare would provoke America into entering the war, but they severely underestimated America's ability to mobilise and overestimated their own ability to a) starve Britain out of the war before America could mobilise, and b) prevent American intervention by sinking Atlantic troop transports.
There were millions of former German soldiers who knew damn well that they had been beaten in 1918. But when Hitler's stab-in-the-back myth became popular, they kept quiet and went along with it. I think it's fair to say that they were ashamed that in 1918 they had lost their patriotic fervor.
HItler didn't create the myth it was the German high command who made it up during the war also they still had a chance of victory until the Ottomans lost
Bad strategy that doomed them to failure. There are points when a war is won and lost, but it still needs to be fought to its conclusion. You think it looks cool holding out like that, I think it makes them look stupid because their military and political leaders got them into a loser's situation and were too proud to say, "Enough, we lost, let's talk." Instead millions upon millions had to die while the guys that were responsible for the whole thing get to live on.
One country vastly superior demographically, 68 millions for Germany, 52 million for Austro-Hungary vs 39,5 in France and 46 for Britain (not counting the whole empires ofc), with most of the forces being French.
@@Wed562but germany fought in Russia, Italy and romania too and helped the ottomans while France only had 1 front and needed UK and USA to win that 1 front
@@petergregor9991 With a powerful highly populated ally, the Austro-Hungarian empire, Italy being neutral until 1915. France basically did all the job with the help of the British on its northern front because it obviously had not the same reserve of men that Germany had, and still they managed to withstand their assaults and push forward to some degree. The USA intervened way later in 1917, to give the small push that was needed to pass the status quo because the situation was stale. France remains tremendously uncredited for its prowess, something that USA/UK WW1 movies never put forward, for some reason. It is also worth mentioning that it is the allies who stopped the French from going to Berlin, something that could have been salutary for what was to come later on. You probably do not get the measure of the trauma that was WW1 in France, I let you check the casualties.
t's fascinating to see how strategic, political, and social factors intertwined, leading to the downfall of a nation thought to be at the pinnacle of its power. As a historian, I appreciate the rigorous attention to primary sources and the effort to portray the complexity of historical events. A must-watch for anyone interested in the real stories behind the history books!
Great content as always! Suggestion for a future video: a more detailed narrative on the first battle of the Marne, which could be argued is the first chapter on this topic!
Thank you for this video. Germany had the best military in the world-except for its logistics and strategy. Of course, that's like saying "strawberry lipstick is delicious, except for its taste".
Tactically I believe it was much more sophisticated, especially when considering the German Pioneer units, like von Mudra used them in the Argonne, but logistics and simple numbers is what killed them overall.
@@JB-yb4wnHonestly he probably did more damage to the allied war effort by tying down troops than he could've hoped to achieve on the western front. 😅
This is an incredible play by play of "on the field" issues but not one iota on the deeper causes for the loss of the war and that is ingenious storytelling.
On a high......oh these wars...total high. We won. We won....gaza. Ukraine? All of this could have been a voided.....nothingnlearned........oh these. Gormans.....
I remember a documentary on the Great War, ''Le bruit et la fureur'', narrated by Alexandre Astier. He mentioned ''En matière de guerre, faut dire, 14-18 était une sacrée pionnière. Elle a tout inventé ; tout sauf le moyen d'en finir.
My highest respect for the narrator. I have never seen an english documentary in which non-english names of people, regions or cities have been pronounced that accurate. Almost without any accent. Great work! Thank you!
I really enjoyed this story about the Germans in WW1. Would be able to do a story similar on the Austrian/ Hungarians at the same time period with who they were fighting on what fronts. This theatre of the war gets looked over mostly.
Anecdotally, my grandfather drove ammunition trucks in WW1 and was still around during the German offensive of 1918. The feedback from the captured Germans was that when they over-ran the allied trenches and rear areas there was just overwhelming amounts of materials, supplies and foodstuff, that were just abandoned, most of which the Germans had not seen since 1916. Their families at home were basically deprived of everything, so they all realised they had no simply no hope of winning, even after 4 years of titanic struggle and their hearts went out of the fight and they ceased.
This is such a fascinating video, y'all should think about expanding it into a multi-part, possibly years-long and maybe week-by-week in real-time, video series to get as much detail as possible.
What I understand after watching documentaries on WW1, is that the second OHL (Great General Staff) under Falkenhayn was the most successful throughout the war. Many blame Falkenhayn for the defeat at Verdun, but even so Germany campaigned victorious on all fronts in 1914-1916, even the Western front where the germans forced a string of defeats against the allies before Verdun. Hindenburg and Ludendorff excelled on the East but ultimately they failed as chief staff officers.
They also massively sabotaged the German war effort economically. The turnip winter was more caused by Hindenburg's mismanagement than the blockade. While Falkenheyn had been steadily ramping up industrial output, Hindenburg thought he could massively increase it all at once. By building a lot of factories, taking a million soldiers off the front, and putting as much resources into it without actually thinking. Which is to say, he kneecapped the army, the civilian front, and reduced industrial output all at the same time, leading to so much coal being wasted, and taxing the rail network so much, that many German civilians starved to death.
Great episode. What a brilliant summary, again. It 's fantastic. You bring new insights, not by piling up ever more details, but by providing overview and connections. Thank you so much!
After the Russian collapse and the Treaty of Brest Litovsk in late 1917 and early 1918, Imperial Germany went for a complete victory instead of negotiated settlement that would have given her most of what she wanted in Eastern Europe at the expanse of withdrawal from NW France and most of Belgium. Better three quarters of a loaf than no loaf at all? This is why it's better to leave politics to the civilians and not the generals.
It's hard to say whether the Germans would have managed a negotiated peace in the West after Brest-Litovsk. After seeing what a land grab the Germans made in the East, a lot of Western public opinion got the impression that no negotiated peace with Germany would be worthwhile since it would probably be based on maximalist terms, which would be unacceptable, especially with the knowledge that the Americans were coming and they just had to hold on.
False there were 2 plans: Halder's and Hitler's. Hitler knew the reality of the war and wanted to push for tesources in Ukraine and Caucasus. Halder prepared the offensive on the campaign of France. When Hitler noticed the plan was in fact going for the big cities, he ordered a turn into Ukraine that led to the famous stall on the north in August and the encirclement of Kiev. At that point the campaign was already lost. The push for the caucasus with Fall blau was supposed to happen 1 year prior with 1 army group more...
Both world wars demonstrated the institutional limitation of the German high command. Two glaring weaknesses: Not enough personnel and resources allocated to handle intel and logistics. This had a lot to do with Germany's desire for quick campaigns--i.e., knock out the enemies before German intel and logistical weaknesses kick in. Germany knew damn well that it could not afford drawn out wars of annihilation. But what if Germany end up stumbling into such an all-out war? Germany had no Plan B. Germany had no answers to this strategic dilemma. I think the Barbarossa was by far the most blatant case: (a) Clueless about the size of reservists the Soviets could muster (which turned out to be around 14 million in 1941 which played a big role in preventing the Soviet collapse is 1941-42); (b) clueless about which sector the Soviets prioritized prior to the initial German onslaught (which turned out to be Ukraine, not Belarus); (c) reliance on shoestring logistics (inadequate rail capacity, very high attrition rates incurred by trucks and horses); (d) too much wishful thinking (assumed that the Soviets would collapse in a 6 ~ 8 week high-intensity campaign, misinterpreting the reasons behind the string of early Soviet battlefield defeats which led to confirmation bias, too much fixation on Moscow in 1941). While surviving German generals readily blamed Hitler for Germany's defeat, they were worse than Hitler at the strategic level (i.e., where military, economic, and diplomatic considerations converge). What these generals excelled at were in the tactical-operational scale of war.
@@umjackd well germany doesn´t have the geographical luxury to have only to defend one side as they are literally in central europe surrounded by enemies
@@annoyingbstard9407 The old "German bad guys"-analysis. Germany did indeed want to become a world power, as, frankly, they deserved. Germany had the strongest army on the planet and had the largest economy in Europe. Russia wanted land grabs in the Balkans and were the first nation to order a full mobilization and the first to attack Germany. France wanted revenge for 1870 and to keep Germany down, and they had a secret agreement with Russia. Britain also wanted to keep Germany down to avoid competition and never made it clear that they would support France. Serbia was extremely reckless and wanted a Greater Serbia that could collapse the Austro-Hungarian empire, etc. Many nations were to blame, and it was fueled by the competition for markets, colonies and resources: imperialism.
"I teach you all our production methods" RTH. The only RUclips channel to teach you how to make video editors work faster than an artillery crew told to end the war by christmas.
Is it not true that part of the reason that the German army morale collapsed was when they broke through British lines 1918 they saw the vast amount of stores available to the allied forces. They had been told that the allies are on the brink of collapse because they were running out of war material, they found that this was not the case and knew that they've been lied to. Was that affect her?
I agree. The quantities of leather boots, a lot of brass equipment accessories, vast stocks of foods not seen in Germany for years, and especially the chance to get drunk on French wines and spirits. All this demoralised men, who realised they had been told lies by their commanders and politicians.
The devastation was similarly felt by British and French troops that broke through the fortifications surrounding their CO's tent and wept at the extravagance and richness of consumables
This is a fantastic overview and a great resource to share for anyone who needs a brief but in-depth explanation, thanks! And I find it quite entertaining that there are already comments saying "But actually it was this other thing" haha
Would be interesting to know what would have been the peace treaty like if Germany asks for an armistice with the Entente after defeating Russia in late 1917.
It's a non starter as a scenario, George Clemencaue wouldn't accept Germanies demands for peace and Germanies demands would include keeping Belgium, unacceptable for britian
@@williamthebonquerer9181 Yeah but if the german high command just accepted reality and said okay let's just white peace out and like Germany keeps the new east possessions and that's it. Would that work?
No, the Allies could not have accepted such terms given the political implications domestically. How would they have explained the sacrifices then, with Germany much stronger than before? @@kerotomas1
they'd never accept. The Germans could not win once the Americans were involved, it took time, but the Allies won with just a fraction of America's potential material and man power strength in 1918. Worst case for the Allies was steamrolling the Germans all the way to Berlin in 1919
In my opinion, the Germans lost the war at the battle of the Marne in 1914: The Schlieffen plan (predictably) failed, and after that it was just a siege. The Germans still fought brilliantly, and sending Lenin to Russia was a masterstroke, but even that didn't prevent the inevitable.
@@mark-o-man6603 I like the analogy of Lenin to a bacillus. If by "short-term" you mean not losing the war they were losing, then I think it is pretty unrealistic to expect them to plan past that.
Excellently produced video as usual guys. I would say that I think the greatest blame should be placed in the lack of clear goals defined by the German high command and the inability to accept the need for a limited peace deal. It's possible the war could've been ended sooner on a compromise. In fact, the Great War may not have even needed to happen. The christmas truce could've been formalized and negotiations for some kind of multilateral end to the fighting could've spared so many people so much suffering.
Remember, no war plan survives 1st contact with the Enemy. After the desstruction of the 1st 2 weeks(Marne), there was no chance of peace from the French side. Have you read the letters from the 1st 2 German chiefs of staff in the 1st 4 years(Moltke and Falkehayn)? They have been released from the Prussian archives in the last 10 years and both of them wrote letters asking the Kaiser to sue for peace, because they have the mentality that they would definitely lose the war. The German high command were very pessimistic at the outset, collapsing into complete disillusionment as the war went on. The Kaiser deliberately ignored the letters and dismissed them, "Probably" because he knew that the French would dismantle Germany in any reckoning, which would have been a lot worse than the Treaty of Versailles.Ultimately, the German people should praise the Kaiser for his decision because Woodrow Wilson's eventual Involvement split the decision-making 3 ways, which was enough to save Germany from destruction, as only Lloyd George was not livid with bloodthirst with regards to Germany, Other than Wilson after this war
This video brings me questioning about peace efforts since germans knew, very early in the war, they were at disadvantage and couldnt achieve a quick victory in 1914.. ¿Is there any video on the channel that talks about seeking peace from both sides? Also, any reference at the quote in 19:37 about making peace with the allies in 1916? Thank you for the great content over the years. This channel its a pleasure to watch.
"No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" ...or a more simplified version I heard during my time in the service "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" or as Mike Tyson has put it, "Everyone has a strategy until they get punched in the face".
The Schlieffen plan was the best chance for German victory, but it failed due to decisions of two men. 1 is Von Moltke younger, he was too cautious about defense against Russia so he weakened the offense in France. 2 is Prinz Ruppreht, who with Bavarian troops did invade through Franco- German border pushing French divisions back, so Northern and Eastern French armies made a united front at Marne river. Also German army failed to cut and encircle any Entente army.
Prinz Rupprecht was actually heavily defeated at the battle of the Trouée de Charmes, and consequently, the reinforcements that were planned for the East were taken from the right wing of the German army instead of its left wing, which was a direct cause of the German defeat at the Marne.
The plan for Germany was always to withdraw the majority of its army in the west after the initial battles put the French off balance and transfer them East. Moltke's problem is that he only sent a few divisions. If he had sent a full army corps, then historians generally agree that Germany could've captured Poland that Winter and liberated Galicia. This would have taken much pressure off the Austrians and averted the disasterous carpathian offensives. Additionally, Moltke extended offensive operations in the west, rather than go onto the defensive and consolidate their gains, allowing for the dangerous over extension of Von Kluck.
The Schlieffen plan only failed because France refused it to work, quite simple, no need to be like the N-germans that will follow and put the blame on others than themselves, because again Versailles treaty was the same treaty on the money part to what they asked France just 40 years before ww1 and France paid the Equivalent in gold to today 2023 1700 billions $ in gold. And they paid it all in 2 years doing all sacrifices required instead of becoming Na%is genoc/daI pos
Doesn't this channel learn you and everyone who upvotes this anything ? The complexities of why the schlieffen plan failed can't be summarised in two small bullet points. Especially namedropping moltke. Like the complexities of moltkes role is one of the first thing that is talked about in serious schlieffen plan discussions.
"The only history channel to not mention the word "Isonzo" when naming disastrous allied offensives." - I kid. You guys are the best, but I had to say it.
Great episode. Any chance you can do an episode to expand on this one in re the economic impacts to the central powers of the blockade and what part that had in their ultimate defeat.
My grandfather served in the US Army and according to my father he was over there in Europe in WWI (he was a maintenance mechanic in a medical outfit) I was watching the picture Seargent York (I had seen the picture many times and of course read about York's wartime accomplishments). I mentioned to my father that due to this being late in the war that York's accomplishments of capturing so many German prisoners was also due to the fact that the German soldiers had had enough of the fighting, and they would just surrender and live rather than die for a lost cause. My dad told me that my grandfather (who naturally did not speak a word of German) would just motion to the German soldiers who came up to surrender where they could go and surrender. My grandfather never talked about his service in the Army. When the picture "Seargent York" would be shown on TV he would make me turn it off. Why I could only guess, but if he did indeed serve over there in Europe and was in a medical outfit I am sure he witnessed a lot of casualties of the war.
Wasn't every country/army affected by the Spanish Flu? It is believed that the disease origined in the US, and the American army brought it to Europe. Maybe irrelevant, but Donald Trumps paternal grandfather died as a victim of the flu.
For some reason people believe if Germany kept fighting for a couple more months then they would get better peace terms, despite the fact Germany would have a worse negotiating situation the longer the armistice process lasted as Germany lost more territory
Not to mention having to fight communist insurgencies in addition to the Allies while everyone is slowly starving. Not sure how that would have resulted in better terms
@@williamthebonquerer9181 True. And apologize and Reparations to Belgian But have the reparation spaced out more Keep an army(especially to absorb all the ptsd. It was social chaos) No occupied Ruhr. No Danzig corridor that just a receipt for a future war Give Poland access to the sea by Russian lands We where promised nations could self determine. Lots of Land inhabited by majority 🇩🇪 where just given away without a referendum Bring Austra🇩🇪 in as a federal state
Same for Austria-Hungary, United Kingdom, Russia, and even America. They all lost very prosperous empires and their cultural significance - America lost 110,000+ young men and its position as a neutral, overseas country that didn’t meddle in stupid wars abroad.
@@johnallen6254 The old joke. Churchill 1940 receives a phone call at Downing street. You can hear someone ranting over the phone. Churchill responds. Yes, yes I know, but it is only fair, after all Adolph we had the Italians the last war.
As mentioned in the video as well, Germany wasn't a very supportive ally, and failed in terms of leadership. Sure it was the strongest power of the alliance but they were barely an alliance. It feels like people always look at this as if Germany would have been better off without allies, which makes no sense at all, since Germany always lacked the ability to threaten real strategic objectives without their allies. The quote in the video is important: even if you capture certain objectives, does that guarantee victory? It's not a video game with clear victory requirements.
@@umjackd haha, well said friend. I’m fully aware, just making light. That being said, Germany really did carry the entire Central Power war effort on their back, however they failed to do it effectively, obvious from Austria trying to make a separate peace treaty, and Ottoman clashes with German forces in the Caucuses in 1918. Germany’s biggest failing in ww1 in my opinion was diplomatic: they failed to hold their Allie’s together effectively and they managed to consistently bring new enemies to bear against them as the war progressed
From what I know the biggest problem with the Schlieffen plan was that he took no account in the troops becoming exhausted and unable to keep to the timetable. So as they advance German troops we less and less able to keep to the timetable. The problem with the German Spring Offensive of Erich Ludendorff was that they he was an excellent tactician he he had no ideas about strategy. He planned battles with great insight but these battles did not lead to an end goal because he had no idea what the end goal was or how to get there, The British 4th Army which took part in the 100 Days Campaign was made up of four division with each division made up of two corps. That is two British corps, two Canadian corps, two ANZAC corps and two American corps. The American troops were taught how to fight like the British and Commonwealth troops to help them fit in better. The army was led by Australian General Montash who was the one came up with the All Armies idea of fighting. Part of the Royal Air Force was dedicated to ground attack and their aircraft were fitted with armour to help them to survive better. When Kaiser Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, Bismarck's last words to Wilhelm was never fight England (Britain) as he would lose. Those words came back to haunt Wilhelm.
Is that correct re makeup of british 4th army ? I thought 5 australian divisions, 4 canadian divisions , 2 more or less double strength american divisions and 2 british divisions. The canadians and australians were very experienced. The anericans did get some training with the Australians but not really that much. Im not sure the Australians or canadians had as you say 2 corps.
You don't mention the flu. You say that by July 1918 German losses in the offensives were 900k. But in addition some 1000k German troops were permanently reported flu sick for at least 6-7 critical weeks in the summer of 1918. Fever up to 40°C, stomach disorder, horrible weakness, not really much of a fighter. So, facing British and American troops pouring to France at the same time by hundreds of thousands each month, Ludendorff might have had his reason to panic. And as to the German occupation army which stayed in the east after treaty of Brest, they largely consisted (exceptions: Baltic division in Finland and Bavarian gebirgsjäger in Transcaucasia) of long served Landwehr veterans mainly with battle wounds, unfit for the west. They could not even crush the peasantry revolt and extract food, you mentioned in the video. Germany has clearly overstretched it's capacities.
You're right. It's a bit surprising that he didn't mention that little deadly surprise that the Americans (most likely) brought with them and that reduced war readiness of all European sides by quite a bit.
To say that the war was "never a numbers game" is something that is in error, largely because of the political factors that you mention in the video. Those things MADE the war a numbers game and created the very situation that assured German defeat following the defeat on the Marne in 1914. Now, the exact nature of the political shifts within Germany changed from 1914 to 1918, but they all carried many of the same sorts of problems. Wilhelm II was brash and carried a lot of bluster that in the years before the war created a sort of diplomatic position that left the Germans with few real options, particularly as the alliances in Europe began to form between 1890 and 1910. It's something that created a window for the army into politics because of the needs that Germany found itself under in trying to cover the policies searching for a "place in the sun." And once the war began the trap was sprung... For while the defeat on the Marne wasn't completely crushing in that the German army was destroyed, it did cement a rather static line that would all but assure a long war, and one that the manpower and material numbers would never benefit Germany, and to a great degree, the German generals and politicians both knew this in 1914, but had the hope that because the British army was small and that they had shown they lacked the heavy artillery to deal with fortified positions that something major would come up that may change the situation. And this allowed for the German government to begin putting together a list of things that they wanted should they somehow win the war... what would become the "September Program." And much of this would only be truly possible if Germany won the war outright and didn't really offer much of a "negotiated settlement" for the war as an off ramp. And in this, from the Marne to the Second Battle of Ypres in 1915, the German government would not only accept many of the tenants of the September Program... but would be pulled ever more into the concept of "total war," and became something that then demanded "total victory." One could argue that a "negotiated peace" was an option... and Wilson even tried to set it up prior to America coming into the war in 1917, but Germany, like the French and British had become firmly committed by that point to total victory, which it was never going to gain one way or the other. And so long as that held... anything short of total victory would feel like defeat. And a lot of that mindset was there in Germany even earlier in the war when they were not as desperate as things would be by 1917 to 1918. Thus, when the army took over at the end of 1916, the German government had already accepted a stance that wasn't really looking to negotiate. It isn't as though Hindenburg and Ludendorff stormed the Reichstag and arrested a bunch of guys trying to get peace... those who would have wanted that in Germany were essentially rendered irrelevant in 1914 when the Kaiser associated the war with all Germany and demanded national unity in the name of victory. And many of those who may have turned away from the war by 1916-1917 were feeling the effects of the Entente's blockade to where they would either be easily arrested or remained loyal because of the nature of the fact that the hardships were hitting EVERY German. And as such... there really was no "honest broker" that could have sought a negotiated peace to avoid total defeat... And this all turned the war into a numbers game that the Germans could never win.
Also on a high as ENGLISCH speaker. Love ya for leave us....peace please...old England aas vicious I. Worlwar l. And the son had to follow...peace please
Russia may have lost against Germany in WW1 but their contribution to the Allied victory was immense they were actually victorious in the Balkan front and mostly successful in the Caucasus front as a result they managed to cripple Germany's two major allies the Austrians and the Ottomans in fact the entente would've never won if Russia remained neutral and even when the Bolsheviks took over they also remained neutral which may seemed as a relief to the Germans due to them not having to fight in two fronts any more but it in reality was very detrimental to them given the state they were in at the end of WW1
There are many speculations as to what happens if Germany wins. KaiserRiech does it well but the point is all up to speculation. We may never know what would've happened.
Your channel is a great and legitimate source of knowledge. Thank you for this video and all your content! I wonder if you have anything on the Great War from the Polish perspective. I admit that I am very curious to hear this story from your point of view.
@@alainprostbis Does it matter? French fighting, Brits blockading, US money and material...any of these missing and the result would have been different. Useless to discuss which contribution was more effective, when it only was succesfull because it was a joined effort. And germany fighting against russia at the same time, can't forget that.
@@renehartung8877 of course it does matter. the greatest contribution was from France in WW1 and say otherwise or that "anyway it does not matter" is ridiculous. for your information Russia removed itself from the battle in 1917 with its revolution. Russia was essential in 1945. not in 1918...
Refering to the quote about Germany being superb at tactics and abysmal at strategy in the first half of the 20th century (1900-1950), what was the reason for this lack of strategic foresight/planning? Was it a matter of the wrong people in the wrong place or a deeper institutional failure? Considering the strategic success of Bismarck's policies, if that is indeed true, then Germany recently had had strategically capable leadership. Might Frederick III, Wilhelm II's father have been more adapt? A different military leadership more strategic? Were there strategically competent voices who were simply not heard or sidelined?
Because you do WW1, can you please talk about the story of the 4 BEF soldiers hiding in Villeret, Hargicourt? The book "the Englishman's daughter" tells all about them being in German-occupied Northern France. The battle of Mons is when it all began
Germany’s irony is that it was such a technologically advanced military, yet couldn’t see the advantage of having a fully-mechanized army moved by motor vehicles in both wars. They were still using horses to move much of their supplies in World War II. That’s just unbelievable to me.
50 percent of the Wehrmacht in the invasion of France was not equipped up to ww1 standards. Don’t forget, germany was (and is) a mere US State in Size, and was dependent on imported food. It had just lost a world war, social unrest, it was falling apart. The fact that this little country that united in 1871 challenged the literal world hegemony twice is absolutely insane. They simply didn’t have the resources to keep the entire army running on trucks.
That’s ridiculous to claim Germany couldn’t see the advantage of fully mechanized army moved by motor vehicles. The obvious answer is they had no oil so they couldn’t gas their trucks. The US was the most mechanized because they had the most oil and the most raw material and they gave the Soviet’s hundreds of thousands of them but it’s not like the Germans didn’t realize how penalizing that was for them. Especially when their most effective tactics necessitated mobility.
@Ccity93749 the soviets were able to mechanized even without the help of the u.s since lense lease only made up 13% of all soviet logistics including factory materials
Perhaps Germany shouldve sought peace after the Brest Livostk agreement? They couldve gotten terms more suitable I think. Russia was out of the war and that freed up troops to move to the Western Front.
The Allies saw how much of a land grab Germany made in the East, and that helped them decide that a negotiated peace wouldn't be in their interest since that's what they would expect if the Germany negotiated from a position of relative strength.
This is my educated guess not saying if right or wrong but okay I think it has to do with the AH empire wasn’t going to act without Germany approval and backing they KNEW that Russia would fight and defend the Serbians if they attacked and they were either scared or unwilling to fight Russia alone so for had Germany said NO we’re not going to get involved or help or whatever the war would of been either avoided or it would of been a Balkan war with Serbian and russian vs AH so I’m sure that’s why people blame Germany because they allowed and or back AH who wouldn’t act without them and Germany is also blamed by the west because they invaded Belgium who was neutral and just wanted to avoid any war and they were hoping to either conquer it make part of Belgium Germany of use it as long as they needed to so that they could fight France
@@POPE_FRANC1S Really? Russia mobilizing was a bigger factor imo. If Russia didn't back Serbia, it would have been only a conflict between A-H and Serbia over the assassination of Prince Ferdinant, wich would most likely have endet with Serbia accepting A-H's demands of compensation without a war breaking out. And even if it came down to war, it would have only involveld A-H and Serbia.
It seems, at least to me, that it is this disintegration of the German Army that truly brought about the persistent and far more relentless defense in the 2nd World War. Many of these soldiers surrendered expecting a peace, where the world would return to what it was and what they'd always thought of as normalcy. Instead, for the next 5 years or so, they'd see economic catastrophe, unpunished abuses, particularly by the French in the Rhineland and a constant string of hardships. I imagine that for these people, the price of peace was paid and it was quite simply, not worth it. The defeat in the Great War for Germany was not quite total enough to justify the hardships its people suffered in the following peace and thus, when the time came, they made a different choice. A harsher choice. And there is both irony and unceasing tragedy in it.
They only very briefly held a numerical advantage in the West, due to Lloyd George keeping 650,000 British troops in England to discourage any new offensives by Haig. Most of these troops however would get transferred to France as the Kaiserschalcht progressed.
@@jessealexander2695 Yep, got deeper in the vid and saw a couple references. Do you guys have country breakdowns of the allied rifle strength in September?? Would love to know what that figure is for the Americans.
That made no sense for Britain's interests at the time (naval threat from German fleet, balance of power in Europe would have been upset with dominant Germany, German commerce and industry competing with Britain's, German threat to Belgian and French channel ports, etc), which is why Britain sided with its entente partners. @@Mercian-Lad
@@jessealexander2695 because I feel no kinship to the french and belgians. We are not brothers. Eng/Fra: 800 years of war as bitter enemies, then die together in 1st world war? You think the average Englishman cared about the neutrality of Belgium? No. Germans didn't either, just a way of by-passing French fortified border. Small piece of land: Flanders, swallowed 500k+ British men. Britain defeated itself ww1.
Support us and get 40% off Nebula: go.nebula.tv/the-great-war
Watch 16 Days in Berlin on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-berlin-01-prologue-the-beginning-of-the-end?ref=the-great-war
This is one great n informative video
My new book Trench 1915: The Dawn of Modern warfare is out. Set in World War I from a German's perspective. Available at any stores that sell books
Excellent analysis. As it went on, it struck me how exactly Russia today in its Ukraine landgrab is repeating the mistakes of Germany in WWI.
Excellent series! Can you please discuss the occupation of Russian empire lands by the central powers from the December 1917 armistice to the departure of German troops in 1919? Thank you!
I'm sincerely in awe at the creativity the German military leadership deployed in both world wars to find excuses to blame anything and everything but themselves for the defeats.
You're not wrong, but most people in positions of power who do a poor job blame others. That's not limited to just German generals.
They don't want to admit that they got beat. Germany is stronger than France but not other great powers.
you can't sell a memoir by calling yourself a failure xD
@@Tethloach1 Then why were Germany able to outperform their adversaries throughout the entire war, despite them having less men, less resources, less firepower, were fighting 4 empires on two fronts, and apparently had 'less competent' military leaders?
@@toadtheparakeet8541
They didn’t outperform the other great powers, nor did he call them ‘incompetent’. He just pointed out that the Germans got beat, which is objectively true.
One quote from a historian whose name I forget has stuck with me: “The German Army of the first half of the 20th century was tactically brilliant, operationally deficient, and strategically bankrupt.”
I would ask that historian if the German army ALONE had those deficiencies and not the German army+her Allies because in my view, how could Germany alone take France, Britain, Russia, Italy and even Romania? Germany send troops all over the fronts except in the Middle East plus the deficiencies mentioned here. If left by itself, I would say the German armies would have won probably alone but we must take those things into consideration
@@leonardoespino9780 All of the sides had terrible deficiencies so its a mistake to single out the Germans. The French and Russians blundered many early offensives. Britain opened up the moronic gallipoli campaign. Ottomans and Austrian tried winter offensives in the mountains. Italians enthusiastically bashed their head against mountain defenses for years.
The Entente was mostly saved by British tanks and ships. Ships weakened Germany's home front. Tanks broke the front line. Without both, Germany flat out can't lose.
@@leonardoespino9780 I think Germany fighting enemies in nearly every direction was the strategic bankruptcy. There were political failings too but war against everyone rarely turns out well.
and again, the british save the entente... the british army, in the beginning of the war was nothing (100 000 mens) , what you say is true for the war on sea but the british tanks were useless when the french tanks were more impactful. @@pax6833
@@pax6833tanks didn't break trench stalemate. Mass tank assaults only happened a couple times in 1918.
Thank you for posting this overview of the German dilemma in WW I. Your contributions in Nebula as well as here are much anticipated and appreciated
Brilliant doco but you have missed a key piece of information about Sir John Monash, an Australian commander, whose tactics he devised at the Battle of Hamel early in 1918 that became the template for Allied victories culminating in the Armistice in November 1918. Monash was knighted in the field, the last one to be so by a British Monarch, and the first in two centuries, by King George V, when he visited Australian Field headquarters in August 1918.
The Battle of Hamel in World War I was a small-scale, brilliantly successful attack made by elements of the Australian Corps and United States (US) troops with British tanks and air support.
It was the first set-piece operation planned by Monash since taking command of the Australian Corps the previous month. Under Monash's strategy, infantry, tanks, artillery and air support worked together on the battlefield for the first time under Australian command.
In just 93 minutes, the Allies captured 1,600 enemy soldiers, and whereas territory wins were measured in yards up to this point, Monash's troops pushed on for 24 hours and had to halt after 20 milex because of exhaustion and supply lines couldn't keep up.
Around 1,380 Australian and US personnel were killed or wounded in the battle. It was the first time that Australians and Americans fought together on a battlefield.
The planned attack became a model for innovative tactics, which the Allies repeated on larger-scale advances from 8 August and helped to end the war in November 1918.
Monash wasn't regarded by the British Military Establishment because he wasn't a "professional soldier" (he was a very successful civil engineer based in Melbourne), he was from "the colonies" with Australia having only become an independent country less than 15 years prior to the War, and most tellingly, he was Jewish.
Another story about Monash was that Rupert Murdoch's father, Keith Murdoch, teamed with the official Australian War Historian, CW Bean, to have Monash removed from his command. But the Australian Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, visited Monash in the field to guage the mettle of the man and garner the opinions of his fellow officers. Those under the command of Monash loved him because he dought to protect his men by implementing the latest military technology. Unlike British Generals tactic to use "over the top" waves of men being sent out to no-man's land only to be mowed down by machine guns and artillery, Monash used aerial surveillance, then a curtain of creeping artillery, followed by tanks then the soldiers behind them. He even organised for hot meals to be delivered to troops at the front lines, such was the depth of his planning and regard for the lives of his troops.
When Monash died, 300.000 people lined the streets of Melbourne as his hirse drawn casket made the journey padt the unfinished Shrine of Remembrance, which Monash was largely responsible for, to his resting place in Brighton cemetery in a modest grave. He aldo headed up the State Electricity Commission that wired the state of Victoria, was a founding member of Rotary and a key figure in the Boy Scout movement. Monash is one of the truly great Australians.
Excellent episode! Thanks! I'm especially grateful that you posted this today because I am currently reading a book about Germany between the wars, so this backstory is super useful! Thanks again!
Now you re on a high.....just love my country
8:51 " In October , Lundendorff told Berlin to ask for an armistice since the war was lost . "
Yet , it was Lundendorff who claimed that Germany was never defeated on the Battlefield
and gave credibility to the myth that Germany had been stabbed in the back by politicians in Berlin .
He was a bit of a nut case .
Oh no, that was on _purpose._
It was orchestrated so that the new government would sign Versailles, instead of the Monarchy. That way, the people would blame the Republic for such a humiliating defeat.
He couldn't delegate and when frustrated by set backs he would throw himself on the floor and scream like a two year old. Nutcase indeed.
Look at his new pal in Munich
Hitler's 1934 closing speech in Munich show clear signs of a narcissist who was impressed by his great plan to annex and conquer and brutalize.
Germany was stabbed in the back.
Thank you for highlighting several key factors leading Germany to seek an armistice that I hadn't previously heard about. These include the Bulgarian collapse, Germany's inability to replace casualties from its own and Allied offensives, and the large-scale surrenders by German soldiers in the last three months of the war (basically, during the late-war Allied offensives).
Glad you learned something new.
Lmao 30.000 surrenders in a 13 million army is not bad, the allies were surrendering more relative to their army size and relative to the fact that they had new fresh soldiers.
The allies should have kept pushing into Germany.
@@toadtheparakeet8541the context of the surrenders is the issue, these weren’t surrounded German units doomed to destruction, these were frontline troops surrendering en masse when attacked without giving major opposition. Even without the surrenders the western front was collapsing for the Germans with the Entente making massive advances ahead of their wildest dreams for what could have been achieved in 1918(the plan was for a major offensive in 1919 with 10,000+ tanks)
@@deeznoots6241 Except this is vastly exagerrated, and downright lies too
Thank you Great War, for your extensive and dedicated commitment to sharing the history of the great war with us!
No mention of zionist or communist revolutions.
This page is hot garabge. Don't thank them for half truths and gatekeeping zion propaganda.
15:46
My grandfather was born in 1914. I believe he spent his childhood in Frankfurt. Before his family immigrated to the United States.
But one thing he did mention about his childhood was that there was never anything to eat.
I don't know any further details. All I know was he was fluent in both English and German.
they had nothing to eat because the navy blocked the sea for ships
Europe always depended on food import. Because of climate. WW1 started in August but by October the food supplies were already empty.
Gruß aus Frankfurt.
Apparently he did eat because he lived lol
@@zacharylong7717 ..up to one million German civilians died of starvation in 1919. Mostly the old and very young. Things weren't a laughing matter.
One of the greatest things about getting old, is the feeling of constantly learning new stuff and thusly, becoming a little smarter than yesterday.
Videos like this helps out.
I've read and watched a ton of stuff on the world wars, mainly the European theatre. But there is so much ahead to learn. I envy me.
1:40
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face"
-Helmuth von Tyson
"Or get their ear bit off"
Friedrich Holyfielder
@@guidodelgiudice5 🤣😂🤣😂
One key point that was missed: the strangulation of Germany by blockade. This became even worse after April 1917 when all chance of shipping from the US ( via the Netherlands despite British searches ) stopped. The Turnip Winter of 1916-1917 was just the start of acute shortages in Germany ( and that was before the US joined in!)
The blockade was mentioned, but so was the simple fact that economic warfare, on both sides, was not solely responsible for the domestic situations that developed within all the belligerent nations. Domestic management and/or mismanagement played a significant role in the shortages and crises that the nations would have to contend with on the home front.
that doesn't focus enough on germans being le bad and dumb, so it didn't get included.
Definitely one of the major reasons Germany lost. If it weren’t for the fresh American troops pouring in each week and their idea of depth charges that stopped my ancestors from destroying the naval blockade, Germany would’ve most likely won.
@@levitatingoctahedron922ignorance, just believing entente propaganda. The war was a close call, and history is written by the victorious.
@@prussianangler Germany correctly calculated that the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare would provoke America into entering the war, but they severely underestimated America's ability to mobilise and overestimated their own ability to a) starve Britain out of the war before America could mobilise, and b) prevent American intervention by sinking Atlantic troop transports.
There were millions of former German soldiers who knew damn well that they had been beaten in 1918. But when Hitler's stab-in-the-back myth became popular, they kept quiet and went along with it. I think it's fair to say that they were ashamed that in 1918 they had lost their patriotic fervor.
*That they got the patriotic fervor taken.
That myth became popular way before Hitler.
HItler didn't create the myth it was the German high command who made it up during the war also they still had a chance of victory until the Ottomans lost
🤡
It was Ludendorff, circa WW1, who publicized the "stab in the back" construct, not Hitler in post WW1 Germany.
It's still fascinating that (MAINLY) one country was able to hold a line for 4 years WHILE fighting a second front
Bad strategy that doomed them to failure. There are points when a war is won and lost, but it still needs to be fought to its conclusion. You think it looks cool holding out like that, I think it makes them look stupid because their military and political leaders got them into a loser's situation and were too proud to say, "Enough, we lost, let's talk." Instead millions upon millions had to die while the guys that were responsible for the whole thing get to live on.
*Deutschland* ✨
One country vastly superior demographically, 68 millions for Germany, 52 million for Austro-Hungary vs 39,5 in France and 46 for Britain (not counting the whole empires ofc), with most of the forces being French.
@@Wed562but germany fought in Russia, Italy and romania too and helped the ottomans while France only had 1 front and needed UK and USA to win that 1 front
@@petergregor9991 With a powerful highly populated ally, the Austro-Hungarian empire, Italy being neutral until 1915. France basically did all the job with the help of the British on its northern front because it obviously had not the same reserve of men that Germany had, and still they managed to withstand their assaults and push forward to some degree.
The USA intervened way later in 1917, to give the small push that was needed to pass the status quo because the situation was stale. France remains tremendously uncredited for its prowess, something that USA/UK WW1 movies never put forward, for some reason. It is also worth mentioning that it is the allies who stopped the French from going to Berlin, something that could have been salutary for what was to come later on.
You probably do not get the measure of the trauma that was WW1 in France, I let you check the casualties.
Thanks!
Props to the narrator for accurate pronunciation of place names in this and other documentaries from this content provider!
Not entirely accurate he said that the United States came into the war in 1917 but they were the ones that started it
This is the best youtube channel. Period. I love your content so much. Thank you Jesse and team for your awesome work.
Thank you Jesse (and team) :) great work.
I appreciate it a lot.
Thanks!
t's fascinating to see how strategic, political, and social factors intertwined, leading to the downfall of a nation thought to be at the pinnacle of its power. As a historian, I appreciate the rigorous attention to primary sources and the effort to portray the complexity of historical events. A must-watch for anyone interested in the real stories behind the history books!
Great content as always! Suggestion for a future video: a more detailed narrative on the first battle of the Marne, which could be argued is the first chapter on this topic!
Thank you love the channel
Thank you for this video. Germany had the best military in the world-except for its logistics and strategy. Of course, that's like saying "strawberry lipstick is delicious, except for its taste".
Tactically I believe it was much more sophisticated, especially when considering the German Pioneer units, like von Mudra used them in the Argonne, but logistics and simple numbers is what killed them overall.
@@jarroddivens8339
They should have pulled Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, out of German East Africa, he was easily one of the best generals they had.
@@JB-yb4wnHonestly he probably did more damage to the allied war effort by tying down troops than he could've hoped to achieve on the western front. 😅
it's called Ersatz lipstick with forrest berry flavor Ersatz
@@TheDJGrandPa
You make an excellent point. Maybe that was his forte, tying down thousands of troops in a fluid war zone.
This is an incredible play by play of "on the field" issues but not one iota on the deeper causes for the loss of the war and that is ingenious storytelling.
Always happy when there's a new video. I'd like to hear more from Ottomans and Bulgaria perspective.
in December we'll have a new video about the middle east in WW1
On a high......oh these wars...total high. We won. We won....gaza. Ukraine? All of this could have been a voided.....nothingnlearned........oh these. Gormans.....
I remember a documentary on the Great War, ''Le bruit et la fureur'', narrated by Alexandre Astier. He mentioned ''En matière de guerre, faut dire, 14-18 était une sacrée pionnière. Elle a tout inventé ; tout sauf le moyen d'en finir.
My highest respect for the narrator. I have never seen an english documentary in which non-english names of people, regions or cities have been pronounced that accurate. Almost without any accent. Great work! Thank you!
This is an extremely well researched and produced series. Always fascinating!
I really enjoyed this story about the Germans in WW1. Would be able to do a story similar on the Austrian/ Hungarians at the same time period with who they were fighting on what fronts. This theatre of the war gets looked over mostly.
Anecdotally, my grandfather drove ammunition trucks in WW1 and was still around during the German offensive of 1918. The feedback from the captured Germans was that when they over-ran the allied trenches and rear areas there was just overwhelming amounts of materials, supplies and foodstuff, that were just abandoned, most of which the Germans had not seen since 1916. Their families at home were basically deprived of everything, so they all realised they had no simply no hope of winning, even after 4 years of titanic struggle and their hearts went out of the fight and they ceased.
This is such a fascinating video, y'all should think about expanding it into a multi-part, possibly years-long and maybe week-by-week in real-time, video series to get as much detail as possible.
😂😎
What I understand after watching documentaries on WW1, is that the second OHL (Great General Staff) under Falkenhayn was the most successful throughout the war. Many blame Falkenhayn for the defeat at Verdun, but even so Germany campaigned victorious on all fronts in 1914-1916, even the Western front where the germans forced a string of defeats against the allies before Verdun. Hindenburg and Ludendorff excelled on the East but ultimately they failed as chief staff officers.
Exactly. They failed in the West.
The war should never have taken place. Like Gaza and ukraine......and please give me beloved home county rest
You know they lost, right?
They also massively sabotaged the German war effort economically. The turnip winter was more caused by Hindenburg's mismanagement than the blockade. While Falkenheyn had been steadily ramping up industrial output, Hindenburg thought he could massively increase it all at once. By building a lot of factories, taking a million soldiers off the front, and putting as much resources into it without actually thinking. Which is to say, he kneecapped the army, the civilian front, and reduced industrial output all at the same time, leading to so much coal being wasted, and taxing the rail network so much, that many German civilians starved to death.
@@annoyingbstard9407 well, you don't say.
Great episode. What a brilliant summary, again. It 's fantastic. You bring new insights, not by piling up ever more details, but by providing overview and connections. Thank you so much!
Thank you Jessse and the Great War team for an excellent video.
:)
After the Russian collapse and the Treaty of Brest Litovsk in late 1917 and early 1918, Imperial Germany went for a complete victory instead of negotiated settlement that would have given her most of what she wanted in Eastern Europe at the expanse of withdrawal from NW France and most of Belgium. Better three quarters of a loaf than no loaf at all? This is why it's better to leave politics to the civilians and not the generals.
It's hard to say whether the Germans would have managed a negotiated peace in the West after Brest-Litovsk. After seeing what a land grab the Germans made in the East, a lot of Western public opinion got the impression that no negotiated peace with Germany would be worthwhile since it would probably be based on maximalist terms, which would be unacceptable, especially with the knowledge that the Americans were coming and they just had to hold on.
@@umjackdIt would've been a negotiating asset. Give up most of the land grab for favourable peace terms.
The french would never accept a white peace. They'd demand AT LEAST Alsace back, they had lost too much
It was left to the civilians. A negotiated peace for various reasons was not wanted.
@@chrisbuesnell3428I didnt know there were public referendums telling the PM's and Presidents and their various governments and diplomats what to do
Outstanding work! BRAVO!!!
7:25 Interesting that Ludendorff's "intermediate objective, then decide" was the basic problem with Barbarossa - it didn't plan beyond Smolensk.
It didn't? I thought they planned to go to Astrakan
They drew a line on the map, but didn't do the homework @@leonpaelinck
False there were 2 plans: Halder's and Hitler's. Hitler knew the reality of the war and wanted to push for tesources in Ukraine and Caucasus. Halder prepared the offensive on the campaign of France. When Hitler noticed the plan was in fact going for the big cities, he ordered a turn into Ukraine that led to the famous stall on the north in August and the encirclement of Kiev. At that point the campaign was already lost. The push for the caucasus with Fall blau was supposed to happen 1 year prior with 1 army group more...
Both world wars demonstrated the institutional limitation of the German high command. Two glaring weaknesses: Not enough personnel and resources allocated to handle intel and logistics. This had a lot to do with Germany's desire for quick campaigns--i.e., knock out the enemies before German intel and logistical weaknesses kick in. Germany knew damn well that it could not afford drawn out wars of annihilation. But what if Germany end up stumbling into such an all-out war? Germany had no Plan B. Germany had no answers to this strategic dilemma.
I think the Barbarossa was by far the most blatant case: (a) Clueless about the size of reservists the Soviets could muster (which turned out to be around 14 million in 1941 which played a big role in preventing the Soviet collapse is 1941-42); (b) clueless about which sector the Soviets prioritized prior to the initial German onslaught (which turned out to be Ukraine, not Belarus); (c) reliance on shoestring logistics (inadequate rail capacity, very high attrition rates incurred by trucks and horses); (d) too much wishful thinking (assumed that the Soviets would collapse in a 6 ~ 8 week high-intensity campaign, misinterpreting the reasons behind the string of early Soviet battlefield defeats which led to confirmation bias, too much fixation on Moscow in 1941).
While surviving German generals readily blamed Hitler for Germany's defeat, they were worse than Hitler at the strategic level (i.e., where military, economic, and diplomatic considerations converge). What these generals excelled at were in the tactical-operational scale of war.
Too many enemies to defeat.
Germany had a tendency to try and avoid two front wars by starting even more fronts.
@@umjackd well germany doesn´t have the geographical luxury to have only to defend one side as they are literally in central europe surrounded by enemies
@@Humbulla93facts.
@@Humbulla93. A strange attitude to take….everyone is an enemy. Maybe they should stop invading their neighbours and reduce the number of enemies
@@annoyingbstard9407 The old "German bad guys"-analysis. Germany did indeed want to become a world power, as, frankly, they deserved. Germany had the strongest army on the planet and had the largest economy in Europe. Russia wanted land grabs in the Balkans and were the first nation to order a full mobilization and the first to attack Germany. France wanted revenge for 1870 and to keep Germany down, and they had a secret agreement with Russia. Britain also wanted to keep Germany down to avoid competition and never made it clear that they would support France. Serbia was extremely reckless and wanted a Greater Serbia that could collapse the Austro-Hungarian empire, etc.
Many nations were to blame, and it was fueled by the competition for markets, colonies and resources: imperialism.
that footage is spectacular. Thanks for posting.
"I teach you all our production methods"
RTH. The only RUclips channel to teach you how to make video editors work faster than an artillery crew told to end the war by christmas.
Great video, once again. Thank you.
Thanks!
Is it not true that part of the reason that the German army morale collapsed was when they broke through British lines 1918 they saw the vast amount of stores available to the allied forces. They had been told that the allies are on the brink of collapse because they were running out of war material, they found that this was not the case and knew that they've been lied to. Was that affect her?
I agree. The quantities of leather boots, a lot of brass equipment accessories, vast stocks of foods not seen in Germany for years, and especially the chance to get drunk on French wines and spirits. All this demoralised men, who realised they had been told lies by their commanders and politicians.
The devastation was similarly felt by British and French troops that broke through the fortifications surrounding their CO's tent and wept at the extravagance and richness of consumables
Outstanding video and comment. Well done!
This is a fantastic overview and a great resource to share for anyone who needs a brief but in-depth explanation, thanks!
And I find it quite entertaining that there are already comments saying "But actually it was this other thing" haha
yeah also already people commenting that the German army wasn't actually beaten. 🙄
Would be interesting to know what would have been the peace treaty like if Germany asks for an armistice with the Entente after defeating Russia in late 1917.
It's a non starter as a scenario, George Clemencaue wouldn't accept Germanies demands for peace and Germanies demands would include keeping Belgium, unacceptable for britian
@@williamthebonquerer9181 Yeah but if the german high command just accepted reality and said okay let's just white peace out and like Germany keeps the new east possessions and that's it. Would that work?
No, the Allies could not have accepted such terms given the political implications domestically. How would they have explained the sacrifices then, with Germany much stronger than before? @@kerotomas1
they'd never accept. The Germans could not win once the Americans were involved, it took time, but the Allies won with just a fraction of America's potential material and man power strength in 1918. Worst case for the Allies was steamrolling the Germans all the way to Berlin in 1919
Germany demanded to keep its taken lands which was unacceptable for the Allies. In 1915 such talks went back and forth
In my opinion, the Germans lost the war at the battle of the Marne in 1914: The Schlieffen plan (predictably) failed, and after that it was just a siege. The Germans still fought brilliantly, and sending Lenin to Russia was a masterstroke, but even that didn't prevent the inevitable.
Sending Lenin to Russia was the equivalent of sending a zombie to Russia...I'm not so sure if you can call short-term solutions a masterstroke
@@mark-o-man6603 I like the analogy of Lenin to a bacillus. If by "short-term" you mean not losing the war they were losing, then I think it is pretty unrealistic to expect them to plan past that.
Excellently produced video as usual guys. I would say that I think the greatest blame should be placed in the lack of clear goals defined by the German high command and the inability to accept the need for a limited peace deal. It's possible the war could've been ended sooner on a compromise. In fact, the Great War may not have even needed to happen. The christmas truce could've been formalized and negotiations for some kind of multilateral end to the fighting could've spared so many people so much suffering.
Remember, no war plan survives 1st contact with the Enemy. After the desstruction of the 1st 2 weeks(Marne), there was no chance of peace from the French side. Have you read the letters from the 1st 2 German chiefs of staff in the 1st 4 years(Moltke and Falkehayn)? They have been released from the Prussian archives in the last 10 years and both of them wrote letters asking the Kaiser to sue for peace, because they have the mentality that they would definitely lose the war. The German high command were very pessimistic at the outset, collapsing into complete disillusionment as the war went on.
The Kaiser deliberately ignored the letters and dismissed them, "Probably" because he knew that the French would dismantle Germany in any reckoning, which would have been a lot worse than the Treaty of Versailles.Ultimately, the German people should praise the Kaiser for his decision because Woodrow Wilson's eventual Involvement split the decision-making 3 ways, which was enough to save Germany from destruction, as only Lloyd George was not livid with bloodthirst with regards to Germany, Other than Wilson after this war
You must be joking
So little has changed.
Actually, they still have not learnt, while the others have unlearnt.
England could not stand Germany saw the hate propaganda. Eating baby's. Etc....vicious...victor writes history....
This video brings me questioning about peace efforts since germans knew, very early in the war, they were at disadvantage and couldnt achieve a quick victory in 1914.. ¿Is there any video on the channel that talks about seeking peace from both sides? Also, any reference at the quote in 19:37 about making peace with the allies in 1916? Thank you for the great content over the years. This channel its a pleasure to watch.
The BEST history-focused channel here
"No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength"
...or a more simplified version I heard during my time in the service
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy"
or as Mike Tyson has put it,
"Everyone has a strategy until they get punched in the face".
The Schlieffen plan was the best chance for German victory, but it failed due to decisions of two men. 1 is Von Moltke younger, he was too cautious about defense against Russia so he weakened the offense in France. 2 is Prinz Ruppreht, who with Bavarian troops did invade through Franco- German border pushing French divisions back, so Northern and Eastern French armies made a united front at Marne river.
Also German army failed to cut and encircle any Entente army.
What about Von Kluck's famous "left turn"?
Prinz Rupprecht was actually heavily defeated at the battle of the Trouée de Charmes, and consequently, the reinforcements that were planned for the East were taken from the right wing of the German army instead of its left wing, which was a direct cause of the German defeat at the Marne.
The plan for Germany was always to withdraw the majority of its army in the west after the initial battles put the French off balance and transfer them East. Moltke's problem is that he only sent a few divisions. If he had sent a full army corps, then historians generally agree that Germany could've captured Poland that Winter and liberated Galicia. This would have taken much pressure off the Austrians and averted the disasterous carpathian offensives. Additionally, Moltke extended offensive operations in the west, rather than go onto the defensive and consolidate their gains, allowing for the dangerous over extension of Von Kluck.
The Schlieffen plan only failed because France refused it to work, quite simple, no need to be like the N-germans that will follow and put the blame on others than themselves, because again Versailles treaty was the same treaty on the money part to what they asked France just 40 years before ww1 and France paid the Equivalent in gold to today 2023 1700 billions $ in gold. And they paid it all in 2 years doing all sacrifices required instead of becoming Na%is genoc/daI pos
Doesn't this channel learn you and everyone who upvotes this anything ? The complexities of why the schlieffen plan failed can't be summarised in two small bullet points. Especially namedropping moltke. Like the complexities of moltkes role is one of the first thing that is talked about in serious schlieffen plan discussions.
"The only history channel to not mention the word "Isonzo" when naming disastrous allied offensives." - I kid. You guys are the best, but I had to say it.
Great episode. Any chance you can do an episode to expand on this one in re the economic impacts to the central powers of the blockade and what part that had in their ultimate defeat.
I would like to see a documentary about how the Americans sold the Germans all the equipment to start the war
For the algorithm thank you for the great video very informative and important.
No one cares
You’re a member, the algorithm didn’t do anything, you pay for this already. What did you expect?
@@djcoinlaundryfor real what a weirdo
you can read pawns in the game book !
All hail the algorithm 🙄
My grandfather served in the US Army and according to my father he was over there in Europe in WWI (he was a maintenance mechanic in a medical outfit) I was watching the picture Seargent York (I had seen the picture many times and of course read about York's wartime accomplishments). I mentioned to my father that due to this being late in the war that York's accomplishments of capturing so many German prisoners was also due to the fact that the German soldiers had had enough of the fighting, and they would just surrender and live rather than die for a lost cause. My dad told me that my grandfather (who naturally did not speak a word of German) would just motion to the German soldiers who came up to surrender where they could go and surrender. My grandfather never talked about his service in the Army. When the picture "Seargent York" would be shown on TV he would make me turn it off. Why I could only guess, but if he did indeed serve over there in Europe and was in a medical outfit I am sure he witnessed a lot of casualties of the war.
Also the first wave of the Spanish Influenza played a role in the German defeat.
Wasn't every country/army affected by the Spanish Flu?
It is believed that the disease origined in the US, and the American army brought it to Europe.
Maybe irrelevant, but Donald Trumps paternal grandfather died as a victim of the flu.
It didn’t affect the allied armies then?
@@annoyingbstard9407 It did. But when you're already not doing great anymore, it afflicts the troops moral even stronger.
Thank you for temporarily giving my something to live for, for another 25 minutes!
hope you're okay homie
Please take care you are precious
@@josiptito9412 Yeah, I appreciate it
For some reason people believe if Germany kept fighting for a couple more months then they would get better peace terms, despite the fact Germany would have a worse negotiating situation the longer the armistice process lasted as Germany lost more territory
Indeed.
We had lost long before surrendering
If we had motivated the troops we could have gotten better terms
We surrendered in France
Not to mention having to fight communist insurgencies in addition to the Allies while everyone is slowly starving. Not sure how that would have resulted in better terms
@@KonradvonHotzendorf what would these better terms be? Germany would never be allowed to keep any of its spoils in the east
@@williamthebonquerer9181 True. And apologize and Reparations to Belgian
But have the reparation spaced out more
Keep an army(especially to absorb all the ptsd. It was social chaos)
No occupied Ruhr.
No Danzig corridor that just a receipt for a future war
Give Poland access to the sea by Russian lands
We where promised nations could self determine. Lots of Land inhabited by majority 🇩🇪 where just given away without a referendum
Bring Austra🇩🇪 in as a federal state
Another great documentary from Jesse and the team!
Germany didn't have to fight either war. What a waste.
So many young men wasted
Look at how many millions died in the war of The Federation vs The Cardassians
Same for Austria-Hungary, United Kingdom, Russia, and even America. They all lost very prosperous empires and their cultural significance - America lost 110,000+ young men and its position as a neutral, overseas country that didn’t meddle in stupid wars abroad.
Germany had to go to war if it wanted to continue being a great power Russia was industrialising while Germany's allies seemed to be getting weaker
@@-NovaRoma. Germany still is a great power at half of its previous size. It was a colossal waste of life.
Germany was that player completely carrying their whole team on their back
Germany had no chance, they had to fight Italy who, after the 93rd battle of the Isonzo, had finally bored the Central Powers to death.
@@WackyIraqi777 ah poor Italy, on different sides in both world wars but with an almost equally dismal record
@@johnallen6254 The old joke. Churchill 1940 receives a phone call at Downing street. You can hear someone ranting over the phone. Churchill responds. Yes, yes I know, but it is only fair, after all Adolph we had the Italians the last war.
As mentioned in the video as well, Germany wasn't a very supportive ally, and failed in terms of leadership. Sure it was the strongest power of the alliance but they were barely an alliance. It feels like people always look at this as if Germany would have been better off without allies, which makes no sense at all, since Germany always lacked the ability to threaten real strategic objectives without their allies. The quote in the video is important: even if you capture certain objectives, does that guarantee victory? It's not a video game with clear victory requirements.
@@umjackd haha, well said friend. I’m fully aware, just making light. That being said, Germany really did carry the entire Central Power war effort on their back, however they failed to do it effectively, obvious from Austria trying to make a separate peace treaty, and Ottoman clashes with German forces in the Caucuses in 1918. Germany’s biggest failing in ww1 in my opinion was diplomatic: they failed to hold their Allie’s together effectively and they managed to consistently bring new enemies to bear against them as the war progressed
Yess love your channel ❤
Glad you mentioned the large effect the somme had on the germans. People have a ridiculously simplistic view of that battle
From what I know the biggest problem with the Schlieffen plan was that he took no account in the troops becoming exhausted and unable to keep to the timetable. So as they advance German troops we less and less able to keep to the timetable.
The problem with the German Spring Offensive of Erich Ludendorff was that they he was an excellent tactician he he had no ideas about strategy. He planned battles with great insight but these battles did not lead to an end goal because he had no idea what the end goal was or how to get there,
The British 4th Army which took part in the 100 Days Campaign was made up of four division with each division made up of two corps. That is two British corps, two Canadian corps, two ANZAC corps and two American corps. The American troops were taught how to fight like the British and Commonwealth troops to help them fit in better. The army was led by Australian General Montash who was the one came up with the All Armies idea of fighting. Part of the Royal Air Force was dedicated to ground attack and their aircraft were fitted with armour to help them to survive better.
When Kaiser Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, Bismarck's last words to Wilhelm was never fight England (Britain) as he would lose. Those words came back to haunt Wilhelm.
Is that correct re makeup of british 4th army ?
I thought 5 australian divisions, 4 canadian divisions , 2 more or less double strength american divisions and 2 british divisions. The canadians and australians were very experienced. The anericans did get some training with the Australians but not really that much. Im not sure the Australians or canadians had as you say 2 corps.
@@chrisbuesnell3428no hes talking utter nonsense, i dont really know why. Not lead by Monash at all either.
By demons be driven, war is evil, no one wins, everyone loses.
You don't mention the flu. You say that by July 1918 German losses in the offensives were 900k. But in addition some 1000k German troops were permanently reported flu sick for at least 6-7 critical weeks in the summer of 1918. Fever up to 40°C, stomach disorder, horrible weakness, not really much of a fighter. So, facing British and American troops pouring to France at the same time by hundreds of thousands each month, Ludendorff might have had his reason to panic.
And as to the German occupation army which stayed in the east after treaty of Brest, they largely consisted (exceptions: Baltic division in Finland and Bavarian gebirgsjäger in Transcaucasia) of long served Landwehr veterans mainly with battle wounds, unfit for the west. They could not even crush the peasantry revolt and extract food, you mentioned in the video. Germany has clearly overstretched it's capacities.
That flu became the last major plague to affect the world: 20 million people died.
Whats 1000k
@@xancypillosi9497 a thousand kilomen. Same as a million
You're right. It's a bit surprising that he didn't mention that little deadly surprise that the Americans (most likely) brought with them and that reduced war readiness of all European sides by quite a bit.
Hindsight is everything.
To say that the war was "never a numbers game" is something that is in error, largely because of the political factors that you mention in the video. Those things MADE the war a numbers game and created the very situation that assured German defeat following the defeat on the Marne in 1914.
Now, the exact nature of the political shifts within Germany changed from 1914 to 1918, but they all carried many of the same sorts of problems. Wilhelm II was brash and carried a lot of bluster that in the years before the war created a sort of diplomatic position that left the Germans with few real options, particularly as the alliances in Europe began to form between 1890 and 1910. It's something that created a window for the army into politics because of the needs that Germany found itself under in trying to cover the policies searching for a "place in the sun." And once the war began the trap was sprung...
For while the defeat on the Marne wasn't completely crushing in that the German army was destroyed, it did cement a rather static line that would all but assure a long war, and one that the manpower and material numbers would never benefit Germany, and to a great degree, the German generals and politicians both knew this in 1914, but had the hope that because the British army was small and that they had shown they lacked the heavy artillery to deal with fortified positions that something major would come up that may change the situation. And this allowed for the German government to begin putting together a list of things that they wanted should they somehow win the war... what would become the "September Program." And much of this would only be truly possible if Germany won the war outright and didn't really offer much of a "negotiated settlement" for the war as an off ramp.
And in this, from the Marne to the Second Battle of Ypres in 1915, the German government would not only accept many of the tenants of the September Program... but would be pulled ever more into the concept of "total war," and became something that then demanded "total victory." One could argue that a "negotiated peace" was an option... and Wilson even tried to set it up prior to America coming into the war in 1917, but Germany, like the French and British had become firmly committed by that point to total victory, which it was never going to gain one way or the other. And so long as that held... anything short of total victory would feel like defeat. And a lot of that mindset was there in Germany even earlier in the war when they were not as desperate as things would be by 1917 to 1918.
Thus, when the army took over at the end of 1916, the German government had already accepted a stance that wasn't really looking to negotiate. It isn't as though Hindenburg and Ludendorff stormed the Reichstag and arrested a bunch of guys trying to get peace... those who would have wanted that in Germany were essentially rendered irrelevant in 1914 when the Kaiser associated the war with all Germany and demanded national unity in the name of victory. And many of those who may have turned away from the war by 1916-1917 were feeling the effects of the Entente's blockade to where they would either be easily arrested or remained loyal because of the nature of the fact that the hardships were hitting EVERY German. And as such... there really was no "honest broker" that could have sought a negotiated peace to avoid total defeat...
And this all turned the war into a numbers game that the Germans could never win.
Also on a high as ENGLISCH speaker. Love ya for leave us....peace please...old England aas vicious I. Worlwar l. And the son had to follow...peace please
I love your work. It's brilliantly told and well analysed.
Thx !👍
P.s: toujours un plaisir de t'entendre parler français !😁
Merci!
Russia may have lost against Germany in WW1 but their contribution to the Allied victory was immense they were actually victorious in the Balkan front and mostly successful in the Caucasus front as a result they managed to cripple Germany's two major allies the Austrians and the Ottomans in fact the entente would've never won if Russia remained neutral and even when the Bolsheviks took over they also remained neutral which may seemed as a relief to the Germans due to them not having to fight in two fronts any more but it in reality was very detrimental to them given the state they were in at the end of WW1
If Russia remained neutral, the great war would not have happened at all. It would have been Austria against Serbia, and nothing more.
@@renehartung8877 No Austria and Germany were the ones who made their move and declared war on Russia
Cut with the Russophobic bs
Not to mention, lots of soldiers were tied up in the east.
Incredible documentary!
Thanks!
Read “Storm of Steel,” by Ernst Junger and you will understand. The best WWI combat level war book by an incredible soldier. Ala “With the Old Breed.”
Thank u for another interesting video sir
There are many speculations as to what happens if Germany wins. KaiserRiech does it well but the point is all up to speculation. We may never know what would've happened.
We will never know
Well we do know that there would be no world war 2, at least not the way it happened.
Very well done document …Accurate well Narrarated
Two questions- what were the aims of Germany in 1914 and preferred outcomes? And what was the effect of influenza in 1918 on German Army?
Septemberprogramm
Thar was an excellent episode an as always presented in the most informative way with the actual accountd
I almost started my daily workout session and then you dropped this h-bomb WW1 video. Seems today will be rest day 😅
Workout after video no more excuses
Oops! :)
watch the video while doing cardio. Steel mind and body.
Great stuff.
Carlin's Blueprint For Armageddon is my fav presentation on this - last episode
Great documentary
Thanks!
Love everything these guys produce!
Thx for the video, I'm really into WW1 at the moment :)
Your channel is a great and legitimate source of knowledge. Thank you for this video and all your content!
I wonder if you have anything on the Great War from the Polish perspective. I admit that I am very curious to hear this story from your point of view.
Thank you for this great video.
IMHO, the biggest single factor in Germany's defeat was the Royal Navy's blockade.
no it was the French fighting and incredible sacrifice that proved there was no way out.
@@alainprostbis Does it matter? French fighting, Brits blockading, US money and material...any of these missing and the result would have been different. Useless to discuss which contribution was more effective, when it only was succesfull because it was a joined effort. And germany fighting against russia at the same time, can't forget that.
@@renehartung8877 of course it does matter. the greatest contribution was from France in WW1 and say otherwise or that "anyway it does not matter" is ridiculous.
for your information Russia removed itself from the battle in 1917 with its revolution.
Russia was essential in 1945. not in 1918...
Excellent video
Refering to the quote about Germany being superb at tactics and abysmal at strategy in the first half of the 20th century (1900-1950), what was the reason for this lack of strategic foresight/planning? Was it a matter of the wrong people in the wrong place or a deeper institutional failure? Considering the strategic success of Bismarck's policies, if that is indeed true, then Germany recently had had strategically capable leadership. Might Frederick III, Wilhelm II's father have been more adapt? A different military leadership more strategic? Were there strategically competent voices who were simply not heard or sidelined?
Dude i love the video but how many ads can you fit into a video
Because you do WW1, can you please talk about the story of the 4 BEF soldiers hiding in Villeret, Hargicourt? The book "the Englishman's daughter" tells all about them being in German-occupied Northern France. The battle of Mons is when it all began
Germany’s irony is that it was such a technologically advanced military, yet couldn’t see the advantage of having a fully-mechanized army moved by motor vehicles in both wars. They were still using horses to move much of their supplies in World War II. That’s just unbelievable to me.
50 percent of the Wehrmacht in the invasion of France was not equipped up to ww1 standards. Don’t forget, germany was (and is) a mere US State in Size, and was dependent on imported food. It had just lost a world war, social unrest, it was falling apart. The fact that this little country that united in 1871 challenged the literal world hegemony twice is absolutely insane. They simply didn’t have the resources to keep the entire army running on trucks.
They lost the supply chain battle.
That’s ridiculous to claim Germany couldn’t see the advantage of fully mechanized army moved by motor vehicles. The obvious answer is they had no oil so they couldn’t gas their trucks. The US was the most mechanized because they had the most oil and the most raw material and they gave the Soviet’s hundreds of thousands of them but it’s not like the Germans didn’t realize how penalizing that was for them. Especially when their most effective tactics necessitated mobility.
@Ccity93749 the soviets were able to mechanized even without the help of the u.s since lense lease only made up 13% of all soviet logistics including factory materials
I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Perhaps Germany shouldve sought peace after the Brest Livostk agreement? They couldve gotten terms more suitable I think. Russia was out of the war and that freed up troops to move to the Western Front.
The Allies were not interested at that stage (and neither were the Germans, since they thought they could win).
The Allies saw how much of a land grab Germany made in the East, and that helped them decide that a negotiated peace wouldn't be in their interest since that's what they would expect if the Germany negotiated from a position of relative strength.
Thank you for preserving history
One thing I've never understood is how the Germans didn't start ww1 but got blamed for it. I guess i need to study more.
This is my educated guess not saying if right or wrong but okay I think it has to do with the AH empire wasn’t going to act without Germany approval and backing they KNEW that Russia would fight and defend the Serbians if they attacked and they were either scared or unwilling to fight Russia alone so for had Germany said NO we’re not going to get involved or help or whatever the war would of been either avoided or it would of been a Balkan war with Serbian and russian vs AH so I’m sure that’s why people blame Germany because they allowed and or back AH who wouldn’t act without them and Germany is also blamed by the west because they invaded Belgium who was neutral and just wanted to avoid any war and they were hoping to either conquer it make part of Belgium Germany of use it as long as they needed to so that they could fight France
Germany was the biggest reason for ww1 starting
@@POPE_FRANC1S Really? Russia mobilizing was a bigger factor imo. If Russia didn't back Serbia, it would have been only a conflict between A-H and Serbia over the assassination of Prince Ferdinant, wich would most likely have endet with Serbia accepting A-H's demands of compensation without a war breaking out. And even if it came down to war, it would have only involveld A-H and Serbia.
@@renehartung8877 germany pressured Austria into invading serbia despite knowing that they would be backed by russia
XLNT video!
That story at 10:00 though.
Another super wonderful episode shared by an amazing ( RTH) channel....allot thanks for sharing
It seems, at least to me, that it is this disintegration of the German Army that truly brought about the persistent and far more relentless defense in the 2nd World War. Many of these soldiers surrendered expecting a peace, where the world would return to what it was and what they'd always thought of as normalcy. Instead, for the next 5 years or so, they'd see economic catastrophe, unpunished abuses, particularly by the French in the Rhineland and a constant string of hardships. I imagine that for these people, the price of peace was paid and it was quite simply, not worth it. The defeat in the Great War for Germany was not quite total enough to justify the hardships its people suffered in the following peace and thus, when the time came, they made a different choice. A harsher choice. And there is both irony and unceasing tragedy in it.
They knew the Soviets intended to pay them back triple for the eastern atrocities. 🤷
Great video!
They only very briefly held a numerical advantage in the West, due to Lloyd George keeping 650,000 British troops in England to discourage any new offensives by Haig. Most of these troops however would get transferred to France as the Kaiserschalcht progressed.
As we explain in the video.
@@jessealexander2695 Yep, got deeper in the vid and saw a couple references. Do you guys have country breakdowns of the allied rifle strength in September?? Would love to know what that figure is for the Americans.
We Brits should have sided with the Germans
That made no sense for Britain's interests at the time (naval threat from German fleet, balance of power in Europe would have been upset with dominant Germany, German commerce and industry competing with Britain's, German threat to Belgian and French channel ports, etc), which is why Britain sided with its entente partners. @@Mercian-Lad
@@jessealexander2695 because I feel no kinship to the french and belgians. We are not brothers. Eng/Fra: 800 years of war as bitter enemies, then die together in 1st world war? You think the average Englishman cared about the neutrality of Belgium? No. Germans didn't either, just a way of by-passing French fortified border. Small piece of land: Flanders, swallowed 500k+ British men. Britain defeated itself ww1.
Thanks for sharing 😊