My self & a buddy went to the Somme last year, in fact went twice because it was just such a powerful & sobering place to be .. Fricourt, mametz, la boisselle, ovillers, thiepval, beautmont hammel names i had never heard of befor but are quite engrained on our memory... A great book "The somme" by peter barton, allows you stand in the same places & see what it was like nearly a hundred years ago...It amazing quite how little the lanscape has changed .. Everyone should do a trip one day !
@zulfitareen because t wasnt invented by that time and if your thiking of putting a mediavl suit on, think again bullets travel alot quicker than swords my friend
@zulfitareen There were plenty of experiments but they were all very bulky and reduced mobility greatly. One of the problems at the Somme is that Haig had no confidence in the "Pals" Batalions (who were to advance in parade order) and was convinced that the preperatory barrage would so reduce the German positions thwey would simply walk across the battlefield. No so, the bnarrage was completely ineffective as the wrong ammunition was used, that German wire and positions were largely intact.
the war casued plenty of damage to the world. it pains me when i see the death and destruction on both sides caused by this war. it was nothing less than the slaughter of innocent soldiers.
but the good part is that it made anglo-american culture and language dominate the world.
@zulfitareen No, this was before bullet proof material was invented, thin metal would have not stopped a lead bullet travelling at 300mph, and nor would it stop head or leg shots, or being blown to pieces by artillery. Heavier iron/steel vests were simply far too heavy, and made progress so slow that soldiers became a sitting target. Govts obviously did not want to suffer casualties because they obviously wanted to win the war - the losses were not deliberate.
@zulfitareen If your familiar with the impact that a .303 bullet ( or German, French and US Equivalents) you would know that the thickness of metal would by far exceed the capacity of a human to actually wear. Also modern materials that are currently used as bullet proof vests cannot stop most rifles and machine gun bullets of 1914-1918 at the short ranges that were the common experience of the Great War. Finally the materials currently used by 'some rare' forces were not available in 1916.
@zulfitareen Plates of iron to be used as a shield as the soldiers crawled forward was thought of and tried but it didn't work well enough to last. The human mind didn't work any differently back then as it does now, there was no shortage of ideas and tactics used.
war is hell no matter whatever the cause, whether you fight for a right or wrong reason. i wish some cool minds had done something to stop this human tragedy. it is heart wrenching to see human lives being wasted like this.
@zulfitareen i dont need a cool mind to stop war .all u need to do is dont fukkin fight the fukkin war u fukkin idiot!!!!!!!!! anyway to explain ur dumb ass how it is if faggots would quit joining the army there will be nobody there to fight the war u get it?DO YOU GET IT NOW?DID I MAKE MY SELF CLEAR ENOUGH? DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH GOOD BRAIN CELLS LEFT IN THERE TO UNDERSTAND THIS?NO ARMY = NO WAR !!! NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR ! ! ! ! ! !
@zulfitareen Is a war of self-defence (e.g. to prevent a foreign power taking your land, home, raping your women, killing your people) justified? Or in those circumstances should the other side just roll over and accept defeat?
@DaimyoNovagawa Admittedly, the starting of a war can usually be prevented, but if you don't fight the war then your country will just be conquered. If a country decides not to raise an army that doesn't mean the enemy won't...
I've visited the Somme several times and even after all these years it still exudes that melancholy and sad atmosphere, especially at night. The close proximity of cemeteries to the remnants of actual trenches, craters etc. places you right in the middle of where the tragic events of 1916 took place. A sobering but ultimately worthwhile experience.
I Hate people who use they're countries as a patriotic insult when really every country fought, every country lost we should remember every brave man whatever country they were from.
When they ask why we died, tell them cause our fathers lied... There is nothing honorable about this, it was slaughter, do not be proud do not say bravery, these mens were forced on the threat of death to walk into this misguided mismanaged class protecting slaughter. Its history, one we should never forget lest we repeat it.
@randommoody That's not actually true, as many of the personal testomonies show from the soldiers who fought. They were patriotic, proud and wanted to do their bit. We look on this from today's perspective with confusion and our liberal, post-war sensitivities. The vast majority of the divisions on the Somme were volunteer units, and they continued to advance despite appalling casualties. Yes, the generals were largely inept (esp Haig and Rawlinson), but don't let Blackadder get to you.
My grandfather fought on the somme aged 17. Aged 19 he collected multiple shrapnel wounds. All but 2 of his friends were killed. He was the kindest of human beings. After the war he never went to church, except on rememberance Sunday. A quarter of all Englishmen aged between 18-24 at the outbreak of war in 1914 were dead by 1918.
I don't really get the thinking behind line formations of battle from the american civil war to wold war 1. I mean, honestly, just duck and cover, hit and run, how hard is that?
@cuzcatlan36 they can't, imagine what would happen when only a few men reach the trenches at a time. the only way they could take the trenches was with numbers.
my grandfather (an irishman) was a sniper at the somme. he survived thank god. would have loved to hear some of his stories. alas i was too young when he died.
@jonlscott The goal of this documentary is not an entire re-creation of the somme, that could take a whole documentary series. The goal is to study what went wrong on the first day and then what tactical and operational innovation came out of it that led to final victory. Its an analysis not a narrative documentary, if it were the latter then you couild have cause for complaint.
@jonlscott there weren't many canadian soldiers at the somme compared to the british and the fact is, the 'canadians' were fighting in the british army, canada was not a soveriegn state at this time
@TheStandofTheLastGuy Oh my god dude, that is exactly what I am saying, I didnt say ONLY the brittish are biased did I? I said whoever is telling the story tends to be a bit nationalistic. and if you would read the other comments before going around calling people idiots you would see that I had admitted getting this video confused with one that I had watched before this, so, absent minded? Yes. But I think idiot is a bit extreme and unnecessary, try to keep in mind that the person on the other
@Krandolph17 end of your post is a human being with feelings and not just text for you to judge and show contempt at will. You could try to act like a mature thinking man, rather than a child.
Good war document, WWI and WWII was a lot years ago, since this time we don't have a war in Europe. Now there is too much people in Europe and a whole world too and the Germans don't have places to life. Third war will start soon.
I find it almost sick how our (british) officers in WW1 hoped to lead their men to victory with just a pistol and a stick. Two years ago, i went to Pashendale (sorry bout the spelling) and saw a replica trench from WW1. It stank of mud, rust, and rain water. Horrible conditions. May our future generations take note, lest we all suffer the same conditions. I see why Wilfred Owen talks about "The old Lie: Dulce et Decorum est
My self & a buddy went to the Somme this year, in fact went twice because it was just such a powerful & sobering place to be .. Fricourt, mametz, la boisselle, ovillers, thiepval, beautmont hammel names i had never heard of befor but are quite engrained on our memory... A great book "The somme" by peter barton, allows you stand in the same places & see what it was like nearly a hundred years ago...It amazing quite how little the lanscape has changed .. Everyone should do a trip one day !
My self & a buddy went to the Somme this year, in fact went twice because it was just such a powerful & sobering place to be .. Fricourt, mametz, la boisselle, ovillers, thiepval, beautmont hammel names i had never heard of befor but are quite engrained on our memory... A great book "The somme" by peter barton, allows you stand in the same places & see what it was like nearly a hundred years ago...It amazing quite how little the lanscape has changed .. Everyone should do a trip one day !
wow i got alot of thumbs up for posting british war documentories are better than american ones. i got like 50 thumbs up almost.
by the way my favorite is called "the century of warfare," it actually has many episodes from 1900-1910 wars, wwi, ww2, even vietnam war. so you will most likely find your favorite war on it unless your favorite war is before the year 1899. it is hosted by a guy with british accent so its probably british documentay. I HIGHLY RECCOMEND IT.
MAXIMUM Respect to these "Lads". I thank you ALL from the bottom of my Heart, for your sacrifices and hardships.....AN ETERNAL 'THANK YOU' to you. "Our Lads".
THIS is why the BBC is possibly the best and most reliable source of information. American documentaries are dramatizations of what a soldier MIGHT have seen and experienced. In the BBC, it's all what soldiers DID experience, and DID see.
@spinynorman230 DUH And/Or HELLO. All of the segments of the soldiers playing sports are dramatizations of what they soldiers "MIGHT" have been doing. Do you actually think all of that color footage of German troops speaking 20th century German with 21st century accents was original?
Particularly what kind of American documentaries are you talking about? The ones made by that fat tub of lard Michael Moore?
BBC Reliable? Yeah as a mouthpiece for left wing socialists. Give me a break.
@kinglijah they were pretty much told it would be a simple walk over due to the massive bombardment. Problem was most of the artillery were duds and to small to do much damage at all. I think also because these troops were very new, so (not sure though) as to not have them over reach themselves they were told to walk. Plus they had a ton of gear on their backs. Like 60+ pounds
@Gtaivownz The Germans launched the war for territory whilst France was defending itself. Lets see the British entered the war to protect Belgium and Russia to protect Serbia. The USA entered the war because Woodrow Wilson wanted to get into the war to launch the United States as a major Geo-political player through democratic liberal internationalism (similar to elements of the neo-conservative idea of the world).
Lions led by Donkeys! How could you waste the lives of men so brave that they would walk into machinegun fire? We will not see a generation of men like these again, and their commanders threw them away. We will NEVER again have men like these. Shame on all of us. We arent men, were soft little shits to sit watching this.
I agree.This is one of the first war documentaries I've seen where you feel like you actually there experiencing it with the troops not jus watching on the sidelines.Also,I think both us and the British make two kic ass allies.We both played parts in the victory.Didnt your coach ever tell you there no I in team.
I don't think the Battle of the Somme was decisive. The major reason for the collapse of the German army in 1918 was the inability of the German economy to keep up with that of the Entente nations. In my opinion the blockade of the German sea ports had more decisive impact than anything on the battlefield. With the two opponents being likewise well fed and supplied the war would have lasted forever.
@lilbrothaaa i completly agree about the blockades but without the constant cannon fodder (british and french infantrieman) putting pressure on the german lines the germans could have concentrated their resources and men against the eastern front so as cruel and sencless as it sounds the causualties that ran head long into sure death did have a porpous as horrible of one it was.
Of course the British had to do something to relieve Verdun and the Russians couldn't do it alone and they achieved. But the opportunity for the Entente to win the war didn't arise on the battlefield as much as it did in the factories and shipments of suppies to Britain and France from elsewhere in the world. The Germans of course hardly ever had the chance to win lacking a sufficient source for supplying and replacing casualties.
@lilbrothaaa In 1918 the German army was thrashed by the Anglo-French forces in the 100 days. Also the Germans really had alot of their military threat taken out of them during 1917. The British and French secured a military victory over the Germans. Had the war continued to 1919 that may have appeared more obvious to modern observers, the German High Command did not want Germany to be invaded
@fp470 That's exactly what I keep on telling people who say that the German army wasn't defeated by the end of the war but it has nothing to do with what I wrote here. My point was that I object to the documentary's statement that the Somme was decisive because the Britons would have develloped new tactics. The Entente would have won with or without these tactics because of the differences in the opponents' economical strength and ability to replace losses in euqipment and manpower.
@lilbrothaaa I should make myself clear here. I fully believe that the new and innovative tactics developed by the Entente were war winning. No amount of abilty to replace yourself would overcome the erronous performance of 1915 and the Somme which in many ways was a massive backwards step for British tactics. The value of the Somme is that it was a real watershed for the old doctrines.
@lilbrothaaa I dont mean to decry the French. THey did change too, but were slower to change. They had alot of men with pre-war military service experience. However as a result of Verdun alot of their divisions became conscript and volunteer. As a result of their changing army they changed. Britain's army was alway mostly volunteer so had to change sooner than the French or Germans.
@gasdfw5 What weapons did the British get from the US to help them win the battle against the luftwaffe? Spitfires, Hurricanes, radar? There were no pilots or weapons either sold or leased to Britain that changed the outcome of the battle of Britain
Actually some Americains did join the RAF guring the Battle of Britain, These men wanted to go to war than wait for the States to declare war, It is true that the Brits received no planes or munitions from the states but instead recieved most of their supplies from us Canadians, Eh
@wannahuckaloogy5 Yes, some Amerikains did join the RAF. Some joined the RCAF and got to the UK that way. There were pilots from about a dozen countries that went to the UK to help and some US pilots also went so yes, those Americans are entitiled to equal acknowledgement .
@overopensights US pilots that did any fighting in the Battle of Britain flew with the RAF or other air forces. The first Eagle squadron didn't form until Sept. 1940 and didn't see any action in the Battle of Britain.
Ascoop, Yes I agree with that and incidently with 99% of your posts here! Well done! The word 'Saving asses is the biggest over statement ever. Britain lost more horses in WW1 than the Americans lost men
@overopensights 'They were called the 'Eagle Squadron' Google it!' - there were SEVEN american pilots who were in the Battle of Britain. SEVEN. There were 2353 british pilots. There were 135 pilots from NEW ZEALAND which only had a population of 1.6 million. Scaled for population, New Zealand contributed 1591 times as many pilots per capita as the USA. There were even more german refugees flying in the RAF than americans during the BoB.
By 1944 the Soviets had Germany on the ropes and would have won without the western front.
Without Overlord the French would be speaking Russian today.
Operation Zitadelle or Kursk took place in July 1943, the allies didnt land in Italy until September so its safe to say that Zitadelle would have failed regardless.
Jacob303 If it wasnt for lend lease Russia would have lost in 1942? British and Canadian aid to Russia in 1941 and 1942 was not called lend lease. The British started to give war supplies to Russia first and in 1942 US and UK war supplies to USSR was still equal. The Russians said the most crucial supplies, even though small, came early in the war. Given the determination of the Soviets to continue regardless of losses it is not a sure thing they would have lost.
@gasdfw5 Even if they tacticall overwhelmed them, if it wasn't for Lend-lease, Russia would've lost during the summer of 1942; Operation Bagration would've failed w/o Overlord, Operation Zitedelle would've been a success if it wasnt for the invasion of Italy. The allies played a sometimes indirect, but essentially crucial role that is missed by sophmoric "radicals" who believe that zerg-rushes really succeed on their own merits.
@gasdfw5 'not true we sent the weapons so they could fight the luftwaffe'. No, you SOLD them the weapons. That's hardly helping them out, is it? You made big money on th deal. The important parts in the Battle of Britain - the aircraft, radar, pilots and so on were british. Oh wait, there were SEVEN americans in the battle of britain. Well done. They made all the difference, no doubt.
@1798Greenflag1916 this wins my award for most relevant and insightful YT comment ever. Oh the irony! Furthermore, its juxtiposed with the typical irrelevant (possibly automated) comment about America adjacent to yours.
I feel sorry for these poor men who didn't have the power of the radio, television, internet or other means to explain our situation (the people) who are all pawns!
We don't fight for country, We don't fight for King and country!
We fight for what we believe is right and what is good for OUR families
As bad as the generalship (for lack of a better term) was, could any later general with the weapons then available, have done any better (besides ignoring their political leaders' orders to attack and then getting fired)?
Well you have one thing to blame for the view that the Russians won ww2 in europe.
Its called Call of Duty 5: World at War. I am consantly saying, yes the Soviets really helped but on their own they would have lost.
Also where do you think they got all those spiffy trucks, money, advanced aircraft engines and even those precisous Katyusha rockets (stalin's pipe organ trucks).
I totally agree with you sir, I am just saying its annoying that people do forget about the later victories and the fact that we won the Somme campaign. Also I find it an insult in some light that we only remember the parts of the war we like to focus on.
Yep, chec the counter. People only watch the first day of the Somme and think they are an expert on tactics and technology of 1916 and assume there was no difference between 1914 tactics and 1918.
Worst problem with this video, is that there is a 30,000 discrepency between part 1 and part 7.
Why? People only think the Somme went for one day and only watch to the end of the day. They post a smart ass remark about Brits and/or tactics and dont come back.
Watch all parts of this documentary. It shows the tactical brilliance that came from such a disaster of 1 July.
World War One is a confusing mix of Napoleonic tactics mixed with terrifying artillery and machine guns. The walking towards the enemy is just crazy. Military thinking was certainly behind the times
Yeah, they (American) tend to be patriotic ones, and more often then not, it's only one perspective:The USA or if it's not there war, the country they supported.Although there are some good ones
@fredd21ful That's because American ones focus to much on Patriotism and other things other than accounts and other cool things that are more interesting
Your slanted yourself, against the U.S. All things U.S. are hollow, yeah, even war documentaries. Blah, blah, blah... Jealous of American predominance? Or nostalgic of past glories? Get a grip!
"yes, US war docs can be somewhat hollow..some of the best i have seen are actually Russian.volvo4377 2 months ago"; "The american ones are usually biased and glorify allied troops, english ones try to use accounts from both sides. AchidMelch 2 months ago"
Your slanted yourselves, against the U.S. All things U.S. are hollow, yeah, even war documentaries. Blah, blah, blah... Jealous of American predominance? Or nostalgic of past glories? Get a grip!
@aris20598 How is this documentary not biased, one of the first lines was the female narrator calling the somme the greatest battle of The Great War, despite the fact that Verdun was by far larger, costlier, and more decisive than the Somme. Essentially whoever makes the documentary will make themselves out to be the greatest.
@Krandolph17 that statement by the narrator is better interpreted to mean the biggest battle for the british, not the allies as a whole. Bias factors into how the documentary portrays the german side, this one gives them a more than fair account.
@Krandolph17 It is a man's voice to begin with! The exact phrase is 'On these fields one of the greatest battles of the First World War was fought...' Not 'one of' does not mean, the absolute most. It is saying, hey there were alot of big battles and this is 'one of' them. Furthermore since it is followed up by '...the worst disaster in British military history...' I think that you cant say its being biased given that it is a British production.
@fp470 Hmm, I see what you mean about the narrator gender, must have had it confused with a previous video I watched lol. I'm not trying to say anything about the british in particular, I was just saying that there is alot of nationalist bias in any war documentary by the people that made it.
@Krandolph17 Well this documentary has little to no nationalist agenda. It has bias towards the British battle of the somme but it discloses this so there is no agenda beyond a study of how GB faired in the battle!
its bad in my little town of 1000,600 men went and are now on the war memorial,The great war left 400,out of 1000 in my little english town,not including hte second world war
Britain made the mistake of abandoning the policy of splendid isolation. If Germany had not built their High Seas fleet and engaged in a naval arms race with Britian, then Britian would have not become involved in WWI. As it turns out, both Germany and Britain had one thing in common, they were both dragged into a war by their weak allies.
That is entirely false. Neither side was dragged into war by allies. Infact modern scholarship rejects the allies draged us into war thesis-which is a product of Cold War scholarship not a balanced appreciation of the times at hand.
The Germans were always on the offensive, always going to declare war. Britain new that it would probably have to fight the war not to save its allies but to save itself. An aggresive German hegemony in europe would be too dangerous for Britain.
Actualy Germans wouldnt be more agressive than Britain was WW1 was battle of super powers all wanted more power and influence no one actualy star it it just exploded after years of militarazatiion that super powers of Europe had all tougth that they would be victours by the end of the first week
My comment was in context of Grand strategy rather than strategy of the Great war.
Britain had been consolidating her empire, and at home the Labor party and some elements of the conservatives were advocating for colonial cutback. Eg. In the lead up to 1900; Canda, Australia, New Zealand were allowed to Federate thus freeing British power. South Africa was semi-independant and Rhodesia not far beind.
Germany was uon the way up and would embark on a program of empire building in europe
The colonial cutback lasted long then haha xD I didnt saw indians receiving any federalism neither did Malasya Myanmar Hong Kong etc What I see is that federalism was for the british colonizers austrlains new zelanders south afrikans (white) British Rodesians etc because the local peoples still were enslaved and represed so GB has no moral basisc to see that their war was just agaisnt Germany Germany was going to do what GB did for centuries
Exactly. Britain's empire had gotten too large and she had to cutback. So she federated those sections most loyal to her and of course their is a white preference. You could only trust the white Christian nations when federated to follow you strongly. Its realist politics, not the warm fluffy stuff of the de-colonialisation period.
Cutback =/= decolonisaltion.
What is wrong with going for power interests?> A german empire was bad for Britain and most western world.
It is incorrect to assume that I was suggesting that Germany wasnt part of teh western world. You are inserting the assumption in no way did I imply German was part of the 'other'
This has been flagged as spam show
My self & a buddy went to the Somme last year, in fact went twice because it was just such a powerful & sobering place to be .. Fricourt, mametz, la boisselle, ovillers, thiepval, beautmont hammel names i had never heard of befor but are quite engrained on our memory... A great book "The somme" by peter barton, allows you stand in the same places & see what it was like nearly a hundred years ago...It amazing quite how little the lanscape has changed .. Everyone should do a trip one day !
luvpump1 1 month ago 2
why in the name of god the soldiers were not issued bullet proof vests.
Even in the ancient times the knights used armours to protect themsleves.
how come the modern nations never considered using it.
zulfitareen 2 months ago
@zulfitareen because t wasnt invented by that time and if your thiking of putting a mediavl suit on, think again bullets travel alot quicker than swords my friend
MrGamerTrainer 2 months ago
@MrGamerTrainer
i totally agree with you that it was not invented. but they could have used thin iron sheets to protect the vital organs.
i think govts did not care if you lived or died. that was the main reason.
zulfitareen 2 months ago
@zulfitareen There were plenty of experiments but they were all very bulky and reduced mobility greatly. One of the problems at the Somme is that Haig had no confidence in the "Pals" Batalions (who were to advance in parade order) and was convinced that the preperatory barrage would so reduce the German positions thwey would simply walk across the battlefield. No so, the bnarrage was completely ineffective as the wrong ammunition was used, that German wire and positions were largely intact.
Coulterr 2 months ago
Comment removed
zulfitareen 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Coulterr
ue. i totally agree with you.
the war casued plenty of damage to the world. it pains me when i see the death and destruction on both sides caused by this war. it was nothing less than the slaughter of innocent soldiers.
but the good part is that it made anglo-american culture and language dominate the world.
this is one thing i am happy about.
zulfitareen 2 months ago
@zulfitareen No, this was before bullet proof material was invented, thin metal would have not stopped a lead bullet travelling at 300mph, and nor would it stop head or leg shots, or being blown to pieces by artillery. Heavier iron/steel vests were simply far too heavy, and made progress so slow that soldiers became a sitting target. Govts obviously did not want to suffer casualties because they obviously wanted to win the war - the losses were not deliberate.
THthefirst 4 weeks ago
@THthefirst
thank you very much for the inforamtion.
i was curious.
zulfitareen 4 weeks ago
@zulfitareen If your familiar with the impact that a .303 bullet ( or German, French and US Equivalents) you would know that the thickness of metal would by far exceed the capacity of a human to actually wear. Also modern materials that are currently used as bullet proof vests cannot stop most rifles and machine gun bullets of 1914-1918 at the short ranges that were the common experience of the Great War. Finally the materials currently used by 'some rare' forces were not available in 1916.
fp470 2 months ago
@fp470
thank you for the information.
zulfitareen 2 months ago
@zulfitareen Plates of iron to be used as a shield as the soldiers crawled forward was thought of and tried but it didn't work well enough to last. The human mind didn't work any differently back then as it does now, there was no shortage of ideas and tactics used.
1Dougy85 2 months ago
@1Dougy85
i totally agree with you.
man has suffered a lot through-out the history.
war is hell no matter whatever the cause, whether you fight for a right or wrong reason. i wish some cool minds had done something to stop this human tragedy. it is heart wrenching to see human lives being wasted like this.
zulfitareen 2 months ago
@zulfitareen i dont need a cool mind to stop war .all u need to do is dont fukkin fight the fukkin war u fukkin idiot!!!!!!!!! anyway to explain ur dumb ass how it is if faggots would quit joining the army there will be nobody there to fight the war u get it?DO YOU GET IT NOW?DID I MAKE MY SELF CLEAR ENOUGH? DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH GOOD BRAIN CELLS LEFT IN THERE TO UNDERSTAND THIS?NO ARMY = NO WAR !!! NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR NO ARMY NO WAR ! ! ! ! ! !
DaimyoNovagawa 1 month ago in playlist The Battle Of The Somme - The True Story
Comment removed
zulfitareen 1 month ago
@zulfitareen Is a war of self-defence (e.g. to prevent a foreign power taking your land, home, raping your women, killing your people) justified? Or in those circumstances should the other side just roll over and accept defeat?
THthefirst 4 weeks ago
@DaimyoNovagawa Admittedly, the starting of a war can usually be prevented, but if you don't fight the war then your country will just be conquered. If a country decides not to raise an army that doesn't mean the enemy won't...
Pivoteer435 1 month ago
I was took some sharpnel at the Battle of the Somme, I am feeling much better now.
Sept11Discovery 2 months ago
I've visited the Somme several times and even after all these years it still exudes that melancholy and sad atmosphere, especially at night. The close proximity of cemeteries to the remnants of actual trenches, craters etc. places you right in the middle of where the tragic events of 1916 took place. A sobering but ultimately worthwhile experience.
stoutie13 3 months ago
BBC does definitely put a lot of effort into their docs. works of art.
108Dax 3 months ago
"all drama scenes in this film are based on historical sources" and then is seen soldiers playing football
ThePrisoner12345 4 months ago
Comment removed
jed371 4 months ago
I Hate people who use they're countries as a patriotic insult when really every country fought, every country lost we should remember every brave man whatever country they were from.
TheToxicPenguin 4 months ago 2
WTF ABOUT THE NEWFOUNLDLANDER CANADIAN UNIT
roth00140 5 months ago
@roth00140 This is a british program ....
TheToxicPenguin 4 months ago
@roth00140 Yah! What about the Newfoundland boys!
1988scottcarey 4 months ago
@1988scottcarey YEAH
roth00140 4 months ago
@Qualetie Hi, yes i hope to go to normandy next yeah :)
luvpump1 5 months ago
phyrric victory = 2 words that describe 90% of british victories
HandzarMitraljezac 5 months ago
The real story! Haha!
Debakel99 6 months ago
When they ask why we died, tell them cause our fathers lied... There is nothing honorable about this, it was slaughter, do not be proud do not say bravery, these mens were forced on the threat of death to walk into this misguided mismanaged class protecting slaughter. Its history, one we should never forget lest we repeat it.
randommoody 7 months ago
@randommoody That's not actually true, as many of the personal testomonies show from the soldiers who fought. They were patriotic, proud and wanted to do their bit. We look on this from today's perspective with confusion and our liberal, post-war sensitivities. The vast majority of the divisions on the Somme were volunteer units, and they continued to advance despite appalling casualties. Yes, the generals were largely inept (esp Haig and Rawlinson), but don't let Blackadder get to you.
THthefirst 4 months ago
My grandfather fought on the somme aged 17. Aged 19 he collected multiple shrapnel wounds. All but 2 of his friends were killed. He was the kindest of human beings. After the war he never went to church, except on rememberance Sunday. A quarter of all Englishmen aged between 18-24 at the outbreak of war in 1914 were dead by 1918.
christopher87qc 7 months ago
I don't really get the thinking behind line formations of battle from the american civil war to wold war 1. I mean, honestly, just duck and cover, hit and run, how hard is that?
cuzcatlan36 9 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 they can't, imagine what would happen when only a few men reach the trenches at a time. the only way they could take the trenches was with numbers.
Josh44Tube 6 months ago
"Give em' beans" - Now thats a good one, lol.
TaZ101SAGA 9 months ago
@ULTIMASC Yeah so did I a couple of years ago, good documentary. I recognized it so i think i'll watch it again cause i remember it was good.
TaZ101SAGA 9 months ago
Lee-Enfield wins :)
TaZ101SAGA 9 months ago
Watched this in history today and I am SOOOO happy that you have posted this!
pokemonumbreon1 10 months ago
i dont like the 5 people who disliked this video
OfficialBiscuit 10 months ago
my grandfather (an irishman) was a sniper at the somme. he survived thank god. would have loved to hear some of his stories. alas i was too young when he died.
foxyjoe44 10 months ago
My great Grandfather died here . I saw his grave. My grandpa cried really hard. he never talks about it at all.
BiioMatriix 10 months ago
lions led by donkeys
youngotakubwoy 11 months ago
and they never mention the canadian soldiers
fuckers
jonlscott 1 year ago
@jonlscott why would they? this is the BBC for British TV.
BommyBum13 1 year ago
@jonlscott The goal of this documentary is not an entire re-creation of the somme, that could take a whole documentary series. The goal is to study what went wrong on the first day and then what tactical and operational innovation came out of it that led to final victory. Its an analysis not a narrative documentary, if it were the latter then you couild have cause for complaint.
fp470 1 year ago
@jonlscott Weren't they folded in with the rest of the British Army? Probably just happens to be British accounts here and no Canadian ones D:
Shadowfang3000 10 months ago
@jonlscott there weren't many canadian soldiers at the somme compared to the british and the fact is, the 'canadians' were fighting in the british army, canada was not a soveriegn state at this time
677222 10 months ago
@jonlscott the canadians were part of the British empire at this time also this part is about an english batalion
dutyofgears1 7 months ago
The Somme was serious fucking business man
cunt3d 1 year ago
you guys should checkout albert jacka he sums up ww1
Henza9218 1 year ago
@TheStandofTheLastGuy Oh my god dude, that is exactly what I am saying, I didnt say ONLY the brittish are biased did I? I said whoever is telling the story tends to be a bit nationalistic. and if you would read the other comments before going around calling people idiots you would see that I had admitted getting this video confused with one that I had watched before this, so, absent minded? Yes. But I think idiot is a bit extreme and unnecessary, try to keep in mind that the person on the other
Krandolph17 1 year ago
@Krandolph17 end of your post is a human being with feelings and not just text for you to judge and show contempt at will. You could try to act like a mature thinking man, rather than a child.
Krandolph17 1 year ago
Everyone needs to go. My family and I went and we were stunned. Heartbroken and determined that their story should never be forgotten.
memphishorns 1 year ago
Damnit, what a mess, a waste, awful behaviour! Humanity, you need to grow up and get a real job, you'll be 300,000 next year for goodness sake!
stig781 1 year ago
Good war document, WWI and WWII was a lot years ago, since this time we don't have a war in Europe. Now there is too much people in Europe and a whole world too and the Germans don't have places to life. Third war will start soon.
lukasvip7 1 year ago
@lukasvip7 you sir are a retard
96joed 1 year ago
I find it almost sick how our (british) officers in WW1 hoped to lead their men to victory with just a pistol and a stick. Two years ago, i went to Pashendale (sorry bout the spelling) and saw a replica trench from WW1. It stank of mud, rust, and rain water. Horrible conditions. May our future generations take note, lest we all suffer the same conditions. I see why Wilfred Owen talks about "The old Lie: Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori."
heatedpete 1 year ago
06:38 Ha, so a Deng aber au. :-(
jcmangan 1 year ago
Happy Armistice Day. Beg God that this generation doesn't suffer the same fate.
CrystalHunter1989 1 year ago
i went to the somme ver recently.
Eloise672 1 year ago
this looks good
ryukan10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My self & a buddy went to the Somme this year, in fact went twice because it was just such a powerful & sobering place to be .. Fricourt, mametz, la boisselle, ovillers, thiepval, beautmont hammel names i had never heard of befor but are quite engrained on our memory... A great book "The somme" by peter barton, allows you stand in the same places & see what it was like nearly a hundred years ago...It amazing quite how little the lanscape has changed .. Everyone should do a trip one day !
luvpump1 1 year ago
My self & a buddy went to the Somme this year, in fact went twice because it was just such a powerful & sobering place to be .. Fricourt, mametz, la boisselle, ovillers, thiepval, beautmont hammel names i had never heard of befor but are quite engrained on our memory... A great book "The somme" by peter barton, allows you stand in the same places & see what it was like nearly a hundred years ago...It amazing quite how little the lanscape has changed .. Everyone should do a trip one day !
luvpump1 1 year ago 35
the chinese make the best war documentories actually. it is cheaply made and mass produced resulting into cheaper prices for consumers.
fredd21ful 1 year ago
wow i got alot of thumbs up for posting british war documentories are better than american ones. i got like 50 thumbs up almost.
by the way my favorite is called "the century of warfare," it actually has many episodes from 1900-1910 wars, wwi, ww2, even vietnam war. so you will most likely find your favorite war on it unless your favorite war is before the year 1899. it is hosted by a guy with british accent so its probably british documentay. I HIGHLY RECCOMEND IT.
fredd21ful 1 year ago
MAXIMUM Respect to these "Lads". I thank you ALL from the bottom of my Heart, for your sacrifices and hardships.....AN ETERNAL 'THANK YOU' to you. "Our Lads".
ronzzzzz81 1 year ago 3
THIS is why the BBC is possibly the best and most reliable source of information. American documentaries are dramatizations of what a soldier MIGHT have seen and experienced. In the BBC, it's all what soldiers DID experience, and DID see.
spinynorman230 1 year ago 30
@spinynorman230 Not only that but the production values and actors for the BBC reenactments are so much more interesting and well versed.
muffinmanxxx321 11 months ago
@spinynorman230 DUH And/Or HELLO. All of the segments of the soldiers playing sports are dramatizations of what they soldiers "MIGHT" have been doing. Do you actually think all of that color footage of German troops speaking 20th century German with 21st century accents was original?
Particularly what kind of American documentaries are you talking about? The ones made by that fat tub of lard Michael Moore?
BBC Reliable? Yeah as a mouthpiece for left wing socialists. Give me a break.
horriehomepage 11 months ago
@spinynorman230
here, here!
samosammo123 8 months ago
@spinynorman230 i wouldn't go that far, they've made some good documentaries but their news is quite biased when it wants to be.
pigeonpsycho 6 months ago
@spinynorman230
u mad?
OfficialDartanian 6 months ago
@spinynorman230 I agree
MonolithSlasher 4 months ago
why th freakin'heck did they just walk/march in th field while under fire most of th time????!!!!!!!.........
kinglijah 1 year ago
@kinglijah they were pretty much told it would be a simple walk over due to the massive bombardment. Problem was most of the artillery were duds and to small to do much damage at all. I think also because these troops were very new, so (not sure though) as to not have them over reach themselves they were told to walk. Plus they had a ton of gear on their backs. Like 60+ pounds
Dekar41 1 year ago
@kinglijah That's WWI, a mixture of "Modern Warfare" and Napoleonic
ahkoifish 1 year ago
Best docudrama ever made?
Tux3d0 1 year ago
both sides were fighting for power only the usa fought for democracy so there weren't good guys or bad guys
Gtaivownz 1 year ago
@Gtaivownz The Germans launched the war for territory whilst France was defending itself. Lets see the British entered the war to protect Belgium and Russia to protect Serbia. The USA entered the war because Woodrow Wilson wanted to get into the war to launch the United States as a major Geo-political player through democratic liberal internationalism (similar to elements of the neo-conservative idea of the world).
fp470 1 year ago
3 million shells. wow.
RoCkErX285 1 year ago
Comment removed
LuxterTT 1 year ago
in reality they had no choice but to walk to get across the poor souls for one
.they couldn't run across they where tired to begin with.
.they couldn't crawl because artillery would have decimated them.
.plus the French had to focus at Verdun with means a lot of soldiers where missing.
TheWELSHGUARD 1 year ago
Lions led by Donkeys! How could you waste the lives of men so brave that they would walk into machinegun fire? We will not see a generation of men like these again, and their commanders threw them away. We will NEVER again have men like these. Shame on all of us. We arent men, were soft little shits to sit watching this.
bigblindguy 1 year ago
@bigblindguy 1. Watch the whole doucmentary
2. No one knew better, but this war taught us how to fight and organise a modern army.
3. Comparatively ww2 had a worse causalty rate
4. The rate of junior and mid-level officers combat deaths in ww1 is higher than any war ever
fp470 1 year ago
@bigblindguy They were still thinking about Napoleonic Warfare and only a little "modern warfare"
ahkoifish 1 year ago
I agree.This is one of the first war documentaries I've seen where you feel like you actually there experiencing it with the troops not jus watching on the sidelines.Also,I think both us and the British make two kic ass allies.We both played parts in the victory.Didnt your coach ever tell you there no I in team.
BryceNdaPitt 1 year ago
Are these the same guys that made that really great documentary on Waterloo?
solodatemaru 1 year ago
I don't think the Battle of the Somme was decisive. The major reason for the collapse of the German army in 1918 was the inability of the German economy to keep up with that of the Entente nations. In my opinion the blockade of the German sea ports had more decisive impact than anything on the battlefield. With the two opponents being likewise well fed and supplied the war would have lasted forever.
lilbrothaaa 1 year ago
@lilbrothaaa i completly agree about the blockades but without the constant cannon fodder (british and french infantrieman) putting pressure on the german lines the germans could have concentrated their resources and men against the eastern front so as cruel and sencless as it sounds the causualties that ran head long into sure death did have a porpous as horrible of one it was.
soundhitman 1 year ago
@soundhitman
Of course the British had to do something to relieve Verdun and the Russians couldn't do it alone and they achieved. But the opportunity for the Entente to win the war didn't arise on the battlefield as much as it did in the factories and shipments of suppies to Britain and France from elsewhere in the world. The Germans of course hardly ever had the chance to win lacking a sufficient source for supplying and replacing casualties.
lilbrothaaa 1 year ago
@lilbrothaaa In 1918 the German army was thrashed by the Anglo-French forces in the 100 days. Also the Germans really had alot of their military threat taken out of them during 1917. The British and French secured a military victory over the Germans. Had the war continued to 1919 that may have appeared more obvious to modern observers, the German High Command did not want Germany to be invaded
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 That's exactly what I keep on telling people who say that the German army wasn't defeated by the end of the war but it has nothing to do with what I wrote here. My point was that I object to the documentary's statement that the Somme was decisive because the Britons would have develloped new tactics. The Entente would have won with or without these tactics because of the differences in the opponents' economical strength and ability to replace losses in euqipment and manpower.
lilbrothaaa 1 year ago
@lilbrothaaa I should make myself clear here. I fully believe that the new and innovative tactics developed by the Entente were war winning. No amount of abilty to replace yourself would overcome the erronous performance of 1915 and the Somme which in many ways was a massive backwards step for British tactics. The value of the Somme is that it was a real watershed for the old doctrines.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470
Well, you're probably right since the French losses seem to be significantly higher in relation to the German's than the British after the Somme.
lilbrothaaa 1 year ago
@lilbrothaaa I dont mean to decry the French. THey did change too, but were slower to change. They had alot of men with pre-war military service experience. However as a result of Verdun alot of their divisions became conscript and volunteer. As a result of their changing army they changed. Britain's army was alway mostly volunteer so had to change sooner than the French or Germans.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 you decried the french! it is easy living on uss great britain?
kilomeister 1 year ago
@kilomeister I did not in anyway seek to insult the French!
fp470 1 year ago
why do all the generals have pistols?
MSdwerr 1 year ago
@MSdwerr Self defence
fp470 1 year ago
slipknoter92 means 6:45
gus23a 1 year ago
Zwanzig mal mehr Männer. So it's 20 times more instead of 6 times more.
Its BBC stupid as ever
slipknoter92 1 year ago
@slipknoter92: What point are you making?
overopensights 1 year ago
Eccles Pals. True heroes RIP chaps..
mistral55 1 year ago
@gasdfw5 What weapons did the British get from the US to help them win the battle against the luftwaffe? Spitfires, Hurricanes, radar? There were no pilots or weapons either sold or leased to Britain that changed the outcome of the battle of Britain
ascoop22 1 year ago
Actually some Americains did join the RAF guring the Battle of Britain, These men wanted to go to war than wait for the States to declare war, It is true that the Brits received no planes or munitions from the states but instead recieved most of their supplies from us Canadians, Eh
wannahuckaloogy5 1 year ago
@wannahuckaloogy5 Yes, some Amerikains did join the RAF. Some joined the RCAF and got to the UK that way. There were pilots from about a dozen countries that went to the UK to help and some US pilots also went so yes, those Americans are entitiled to equal acknowledgement .
ascoop22 1 year ago
Ascoop: They were called the 'Eagle Squadron' Google it!
overopensights 1 year ago
@overopensights US pilots that did any fighting in the Battle of Britain flew with the RAF or other air forces. The first Eagle squadron didn't form until Sept. 1940 and didn't see any action in the Battle of Britain.
ascoop22 1 year ago
Ascoop, Yes I agree with that and incidently with 99% of your posts here! Well done! The word 'Saving asses is the biggest over statement ever. Britain lost more horses in WW1 than the Americans lost men
overopensights 1 year ago
@overopensights 'They were called the 'Eagle Squadron' Google it!' - there were SEVEN american pilots who were in the Battle of Britain. SEVEN. There were 2353 british pilots. There were 135 pilots from NEW ZEALAND which only had a population of 1.6 million. Scaled for population, New Zealand contributed 1591 times as many pilots per capita as the USA. There were even more german refugees flying in the RAF than americans during the BoB.
maureenOWW 8 months ago
@maureenOWW: I agree and we owe them all a big thank you!
overopensights 8 months ago
Wannahuck; Grateful yes! But we also had a bit if kit of our own!
overopensights 1 year ago
By 1944 the Soviets had Germany on the ropes and would have won without the western front.
Without Overlord the French would be speaking Russian today.
Operation Zitadelle or Kursk took place in July 1943, the allies didnt land in Italy until September so its safe to say that Zitadelle would have failed regardless.
zerg-rushes? Too many movies I presume
ascoop22 1 year ago
Jacob303 If it wasnt for lend lease Russia would have lost in 1942? British and Canadian aid to Russia in 1941 and 1942 was not called lend lease. The British started to give war supplies to Russia first and in 1942 US and UK war supplies to USSR was still equal. The Russians said the most crucial supplies, even though small, came early in the war. Given the determination of the Soviets to continue regardless of losses it is not a sure thing they would have lost.
ascoop22 1 year ago
@gasdfw5 Even if they tacticall overwhelmed them, if it wasn't for Lend-lease, Russia would've lost during the summer of 1942; Operation Bagration would've failed w/o Overlord, Operation Zitedelle would've been a success if it wasnt for the invasion of Italy. The allies played a sometimes indirect, but essentially crucial role that is missed by sophmoric "radicals" who believe that zerg-rushes really succeed on their own merits.
jacob303 1 year ago
@gasdfw5 'not true we sent the weapons so they could fight the luftwaffe'. No, you SOLD them the weapons. That's hardly helping them out, is it? You made big money on th deal. The important parts in the Battle of Britain - the aircraft, radar, pilots and so on were british. Oh wait, there were SEVEN americans in the battle of britain. Well done. They made all the difference, no doubt.
FactualTruthProvider 2 years ago
The Somme is a Celtic Gaelic word it means Peace or tranquility
1798Greenflag1916 2 years ago
@1798Greenflag1916 this wins my award for most relevant and insightful YT comment ever. Oh the irony! Furthermore, its juxtiposed with the typical irrelevant (possibly automated) comment about America adjacent to yours.
jacob303 1 year ago
I feel sorry for these poor men who didn't have the power of the radio, television, internet or other means to explain our situation (the people) who are all pawns!
We don't fight for country, We don't fight for King and country!
We fight for what we believe is right and what is good for OUR families
Propoganda is a great tool in the right hands!
How many times will it be used again?
Dossermac 2 years ago
As bad as the generalship (for lack of a better term) was, could any later general with the weapons then available, have done any better (besides ignoring their political leaders' orders to attack and then getting fired)?
hoosieryank1967 2 years ago
Well you have one thing to blame for the view that the Russians won ww2 in europe.
Its called Call of Duty 5: World at War. I am consantly saying, yes the Soviets really helped but on their own they would have lost.
Also where do you think they got all those spiffy trucks, money, advanced aircraft engines and even those precisous Katyusha rockets (stalin's pipe organ trucks).
fp470 2 years ago
I totally agree with you sir, I am just saying its annoying that people do forget about the later victories and the fact that we won the Somme campaign. Also I find it an insult in some light that we only remember the parts of the war we like to focus on.
fp470 2 years ago
Yep, chec the counter. People only watch the first day of the Somme and think they are an expert on tactics and technology of 1916 and assume there was no difference between 1914 tactics and 1918.
fp470 2 years ago
Worst problem with this video, is that there is a 30,000 discrepency between part 1 and part 7.
Why? People only think the Somme went for one day and only watch to the end of the day. They post a smart ass remark about Brits and/or tactics and dont come back.
Watch all parts of this documentary. It shows the tactical brilliance that came from such a disaster of 1 July.
fp470 2 years ago
This BBC documentary is propoganda P!sh,
Hail the EX British Empire!
Dossermac 2 years ago
World War One is a confusing mix of Napoleonic tactics mixed with terrifying artillery and machine guns. The walking towards the enemy is just crazy. Military thinking was certainly behind the times
dblancer 2 years ago
Forget all the arguments what about the massive loss of life:(
BAZULTRA 2 years ago
poor brits
34ytrhtrghrf 2 years ago
BBC documetarys are great! i got the one about dunquirk. Awesome quality and no "hidden propaganda" like in the US doc.
bodypowr 2 years ago 2
the british make good war documentaries. american war documentaries are good but not as good as the british ones
fredd21ful 2 years ago 64
Yeah, they (American) tend to be patriotic ones, and more often then not, it's only one perspective:The USA or if it's not there war, the country they supported.Although there are some good ones
colbertLOTR91 2 years ago
Their war not there war
badgerattoadhall 1 year ago
Their war, not there war
colbertLOTR91 1 year ago
@fredd21ful
Yes - The World at War is what I consider to be the best war documentary, if not the best documentary, of all time.
meinLiebsterFeind 1 year ago
@fredd21ful No. The English just tend to exaggerate what they did. The Americans stick to the truth.
swanningaround 1 year ago
@swanningaround LOL the americans exaggerate everything they do...the brits are pretty down to earth
Ccaven 1 year ago
@fredd21ful i agree with got a lot of action hehe
Electrode22 1 year ago
@fredd21ful because they show from both sides, no good guys vs bad guys bullshit
hatemf23 1 year ago
@fredd21ful That's because American ones focus to much on Patriotism and other things other than accounts and other cool things that are more interesting
ahkoifish 1 year ago
@fredd21ful yes, US war docs can be somewhat hollow..some of the best i have seen are actually Russian.
volvo4377 1 year ago
@volvo4377
Your slanted yourself, against the U.S. All things U.S. are hollow, yeah, even war documentaries. Blah, blah, blah... Jealous of American predominance? Or nostalgic of past glories? Get a grip!
oyongski1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"yes, US war docs can be somewhat hollow..some of the best i have seen are actually Russian.volvo4377 2 months ago"; "The american ones are usually biased and glorify allied troops, english ones try to use accounts from both sides. AchidMelch 2 months ago"
Your slanted yourselves, against the U.S. All things U.S. are hollow, yeah, even war documentaries. Blah, blah, blah... Jealous of American predominance? Or nostalgic of past glories? Get a grip!
oyongski1 1 year ago
@fredd21ful The american ones are usually biased and glorify allied troops, english ones try to use accounts from both sides
AchidMelch 1 year ago
@AchidMelch
bfl33 1 year ago
@fredd21ful true that, plus american documentaries always come off as biased
aris20598 1 year ago
@aris20598 How is this documentary not biased, one of the first lines was the female narrator calling the somme the greatest battle of The Great War, despite the fact that Verdun was by far larger, costlier, and more decisive than the Somme. Essentially whoever makes the documentary will make themselves out to be the greatest.
Krandolph17 1 year ago
@Krandolph17 that statement by the narrator is better interpreted to mean the biggest battle for the british, not the allies as a whole. Bias factors into how the documentary portrays the german side, this one gives them a more than fair account.
aris20598 1 year ago
@Krandolph17 It is a man's voice to begin with! The exact phrase is 'On these fields one of the greatest battles of the First World War was fought...' Not 'one of' does not mean, the absolute most. It is saying, hey there were alot of big battles and this is 'one of' them. Furthermore since it is followed up by '...the worst disaster in British military history...' I think that you cant say its being biased given that it is a British production.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 Hmm, I see what you mean about the narrator gender, must have had it confused with a previous video I watched lol. I'm not trying to say anything about the british in particular, I was just saying that there is alot of nationalist bias in any war documentary by the people that made it.
Krandolph17 1 year ago
@Krandolph17 Well this documentary has little to no nationalist agenda. It has bias towards the British battle of the somme but it discloses this so there is no agenda beyond a study of how GB faired in the battle!
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 At 1:12 he talks about how they are going to do it in the view of the british AND german soilders
DaMadHamster 1 year ago
The Somme - From Profits for the Banks to Profits for Heavy Industry, is what this should be called. RIP Uncle Fred, Ireland forever.
pythag123 2 years ago
my mothers grandfather was in the war. he fought in the battle of la lys
from 120 men that went out of the city he lived in, only him and other returned, a terrible story indeed
dpsantos1994 2 years ago
its bad in my little town of 1000,600 men went and are now on the war memorial,The great war left 400,out of 1000 in my little english town,not including hte second world war
ccclllsport 2 years ago
my great grandfather was in all this. he was an officer.
TheCDvids 2 years ago
how old are you?
iLove2JacketXD 2 years ago
general haig ftl
givemethelotion 2 years ago
thank you for posting this video
judeseamus 2 years ago
Reading your back and forth is so funny, Can you spot the idiots who are wrong?
I can
FlashLightKnifeFight 2 years ago
Britain made the mistake of abandoning the policy of splendid isolation. If Germany had not built their High Seas fleet and engaged in a naval arms race with Britian, then Britian would have not become involved in WWI. As it turns out, both Germany and Britain had one thing in common, they were both dragged into a war by their weak allies.
willconq 2 years ago
That is entirely false. Neither side was dragged into war by allies. Infact modern scholarship rejects the allies draged us into war thesis-which is a product of Cold War scholarship not a balanced appreciation of the times at hand.
The Germans were always on the offensive, always going to declare war. Britain new that it would probably have to fight the war not to save its allies but to save itself. An aggresive German hegemony in europe would be too dangerous for Britain.
fp470 2 years ago
Actualy Germans wouldnt be more agressive than Britain was WW1 was battle of super powers all wanted more power and influence no one actualy star it it just exploded after years of militarazatiion that super powers of Europe had all tougth that they would be victours by the end of the first week
ImperialGuard9001 2 years ago
My comment was in context of Grand strategy rather than strategy of the Great war.
Britain had been consolidating her empire, and at home the Labor party and some elements of the conservatives were advocating for colonial cutback. Eg. In the lead up to 1900; Canda, Australia, New Zealand were allowed to Federate thus freeing British power. South Africa was semi-independant and Rhodesia not far beind.
Germany was uon the way up and would embark on a program of empire building in europe
fp470 2 years ago
The colonial cutback lasted long then haha xD I didnt saw indians receiving any federalism neither did Malasya Myanmar Hong Kong etc What I see is that federalism was for the british colonizers austrlains new zelanders south afrikans (white) British Rodesians etc because the local peoples still were enslaved and represed so GB has no moral basisc to see that their war was just agaisnt Germany Germany was going to do what GB did for centuries
ImperialGuard9001 2 years ago
Exactly. Britain's empire had gotten too large and she had to cutback. So she federated those sections most loyal to her and of course their is a white preference. You could only trust the white Christian nations when federated to follow you strongly. Its realist politics, not the warm fluffy stuff of the de-colonialisation period.
Cutback =/= decolonisaltion.
What is wrong with going for power interests?> A german empire was bad for Britain and most western world.
Britain
fp470 2 years ago
The German Empire was part of Western World or the Western World is only GB and USA? Hahah
ImperialGuard9001 2 years ago
It is incorrect to assume that I was suggesting that Germany wasnt part of teh western world. You are inserting the assumption in no way did I imply German was part of the 'other'
fp470 2 years ago
actually the austroian-hungarian heir was assassinated and was how ww1 was sparked
dardraa 2 years ago
That was just casus belli xD
ImperialGuard9001 2 years ago
???
dardraa 2 years ago
Casus Belli is a justification for a declaration of war a reason for the star of war you understand?
The assissaniation of Heir was the Casus Belli that star all declarations of war that made WW1
ImperialGuard9001 2 years ago
huh?!?! wtf r u talking about
dardraa 2 years ago
Forget it mate ;)
ImperialGuard9001 2 years ago
well make sense next time
dardraa 2 years ago