Why Germany Lost the First World War (Documentary)
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 11. 2023
- 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-b...
Germany's defeat in the First World War has been blamed on all kinds of factors or has even been denied outright as part of the stab in the back myth. But why did Germany actually lose?
» SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Patreon: / realtimehistory
Nebula: nebula.tv/the-great-war
» THANKS TO OUR CO-PRODUCERS
Raymond Martin, Konstantin Bredyuk, Lisa Anderson, Brad Durbin, Jeremy K Jones, Murray Godfrey, John Ozment, Stephen Parker, Mavrides, Kristina Colburn, Stefan Jackowski, Cardboard, William Kincade, William Wallace, Daniel L Garza, Chris Daley, Malcolm Swan, Christoph Wolf, Simen Røste, Jim F Barlow, Taylor Allen, Adam Smith, James Giliberto, Albert B. Knapp MD, Tobias Wildenblanck, Richard L Benkin, Marco Kuhnert, Matt Barnes, Ramon Rijkhoek, Jan, Scott Deederly, gsporie, Kekoa, Bruce G. Hearns, Hans Broberg, Fogeltje
» SOURCES
Leonard P. Ayers, ed. The war with Germany: a statistical summary. 1919.
Stevenson, David. With Our Backs to the Wall. Victory and Defeat in 1918. 2011.
Stevenson, David. 1914-1918. The History of the First World War. 2012.
Ferguson, Niall. The Pity of War. Explaining World War I. 1999.
Hart, Peter. The Great War 1914-1918. 2013.
Watson, Alexander. Ring of Steel. Germany and Austria Hungary at War. 2014.
Zroka, Ryan. “If Only This War Would End:” German Soldiers in the Last Year of the First World War. PhD Dissertation, University of California San Diego, 2013.
Afflerbach, Holger. Auf Messers Schneide. Wie das Deutsche Reich den Ersten Weltkrieg verlor. 2018.
Tunstall, Grayden. „The Military Collapse of the Central Powers.” encyclopedia.1914-1918-online...
Goya, Michel. Les Vainqueurs: Comment la France a gagné la Grande Guerre. 2018.
Keegan, John. The First World War. 2000.
» OUR SISTER CHANNEL
/ realtimehistory
»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Jesse Alexander
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Director of Photography: Toni Steller
Sound: Toni Steller
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Philipp Appelt
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: above-zero.com
Research by: Jesse Alexander
Fact checking: Florian Wittig
Channel Design: Yves Thimian
Contains licensed material by getty images and AP Archive
Maps: MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors & GEOlayers3
All rights reserved - Real Time History GmbH 2023
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.
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 .
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
1:40
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face"
-Helmuth von Tyson
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.
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!
This is the best youtube channel. Period. I love your content so much. Thank you Jesse and team for your awesome work.
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.....
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.
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.
Thank you Jesse (and team) :) great work.
I appreciate it a lot.
Thanks!
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.
Outstanding work! BRAVO!!!
Outstanding video and comment. Well done!
The German people were starving because of the British naval blockade. That's the problem with mass armies. They consume everything but produce nothing. This is why modern 1st world nations generally keep defence spending to as small a percentage of GDP as they can. Because to put it bluntly it's a waste of money and resources that would be better spent on more socially beneficial projects. A national insurance premium we would rather not pay but try to keep to a minimum because were stuck with it.
wait until bro finds out about the military industrial complex
Do you really think what Ukraine spent on their military was a waste?
It's looking to turn out that way
@@brucenorman8904 This is a bit disingenuous. Military spending is like hiring security at a business. Most of the time you don't really need it except as a deterrent, but when you need it you reaaaally need it.
@@brucenorman8904 A Waste? that pointless conflict has removed an entire generation of young men from Ukraine. Make what you will of that fact.
Thank you Jessse and the Great War team for an excellent video.
:)
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.
😂😎
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.
Props to the narrator for accurate pronunciation of place names in this and other documentaries from this content provider!
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
Thank you love the channel
Thar was an excellent episode an as always presented in the most informative way with the actual accountd
Another super wonderful episode shared by an amazing ( RTH) channel....allot thanks for sharing
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
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!
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
Great video, once again. Thank you.
Thanks!
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. 🙄
Fantastic video. Thank you. Germany did SO many things well, but choosing allies wasn't one of them. But their choices were limited.
Germany was also a pretty bad ally. In both world wars, really. They never really got the hang of coalition warfare at the leadership level, even if local commanders did their best.
Germans supported Indian revolutionaries to bring armed revolution in India but due to treason of 1 man Kirpal Singh the first attempt in 1915 February but even december plan failed, hindhu German conspiracy also failed had ghadar plan went as planned British should shift Indian forces to India this would weaken British
I'd like to argue that their society also left them extremely deficient in terms of minds to solve problems. Their head of state was on a boat during the July days, listening to a seminar about the US Civil War while his generals were trying to start a war without keeping him in the loop.
Monarchy bad nationalism bad
We Brits should have sided with the Germans.
@@Mercian-LadCringe
Great stuff.
Carlin's Blueprint For Armageddon is my fav presentation on this - last episode
Love everything these guys produce!
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.
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
Thank you for preserving history
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?
jesse back again to bless us with content
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....
Yess love your channel ❤
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.
"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.
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 !
The BEST history-focused channel here
Excellent video
Which leads to the obvious question - what will be the CZcams comment of the day.
:) Time will tell...
@@jessealexander2695agreed
This one.
Mine......
Thx for the video, I'm really into WW1 at the moment :)
I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Great video!
Glad you mentioned the large effect the somme had on the germans. People have a ridiculously simplistic view of that battle
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.
Another great documentary from Jesse and the team!
I love your work. It's brilliantly told and well analysed.
Thx !👍
P.s: toujours un plaisir de t'entendre parler français !😁
Merci!
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.
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.
Excellent series.
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
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.
I’d definitely like more detail on these defeats following to there loss
Incredible documentary!
Thanks!
We were fighting on 3 fonts! You think the french could have survived Verdun without the Russians and Britons?😂
Copium
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?
Great vid
The best channel on CZcams. Period.
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
"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".
Simply great documentation that give an comprehensive view on the 1. WW
Hindsight is everything.
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
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.
Dude i love the video but how many ads can you fit into a video
"I teach you all our production methods"
RTH. The only CZcams channel to teach you how to make video editors work faster than an artillery crew told to end the war by christmas.
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...
Great documentary
Thanks!
Reminded me of the Sebastian Haffner book. He used similar arguments.
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
When the German spring offensive failed and the US troops were added to the Allies it was over for Germany in everything but name. There was no stab in the back because Germany was falling apart and had to end the war. Perhaps it would have been better if the Allies had actually marched all the way to Berlin because the inconclusive nature of the ending was used by the fascists as a rallying point in the 30's and after.
I agree.
I can see the logic behind it, but it's hard to say how that would have turned out as well. It completely changes the dynamic and people at the time wouldn't have known what would happen afterwards and behave accordingly to counter what we see as a threat today, since at the time they were much more concerned with Communism.
That's why the treaty of Versaille wasn't that harsh, since the German militarism was always intact.
@@tibsky1396 It actually wasn't. Germany had to very blatantly violate the treaty to rebuild it's military into a fighting force.
@@timokohler6631if it was adequately harsh, they wouldn't have been able to build any military whatsoever.
They made their terrible decisions and got smoked again by the countries that actually respect human kind and human rights.
I feels like it finally worked. Germany is wonderful. It just made some very bad decisions.
Thanks!
You are the best history documentarian on CZcams.
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. 🤷
That story at 10:00 though.
Schwindel youtube indeed. (Adverts were on this in case they still have you demonetised btw) . . . . Excellent work on this channel thanks.
4:01 Fritz Haber, the man who invented the way to create fertilizer artificially will also create early chemical weapons.
Superb documentary as usual! I wonder if the German word "schwindler" is the origin of the English word 'swindle' meaning some sort of scam or fraud?
Interesting - I'd wager they have a common Germanic language family origin, since both languages are from the same family after all.
Schwindler translates as fraudster, so yes the words are linked somewhere in history.
It comes from yiddish, of which there is a lot in english due to jewish immigration to Britain.
Germany lost because of 3 reasons.
1 they should forced Austria to get Italy to join their side by any means necessary
2. Not invade Belgium in order to prevent Britain from joining
3. Should of not provoked the US to join the entente
Knock out Russia while beeing on the defence with France and Britain?
Go through Switzerland and via lake Geneva?
Sure you won't defeat the Swiss army because it will keep holding the alps, but between Basel and Geneva there aren't any high mountains.
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.”
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.
"No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" - Peter Hart
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face" - Mike Tyson
No plan of operations extends....... a quote of Moltke in Hart`s book
Does anyone know the name of the track that starts playing around 10:00