What a waste of humanity. That whole damned war. There was no purpose for it and nothing resulted from it, except millions of allied and german soldiers dead for nothing.
@fp470 As history has shown the only way Germany contributed to starting the war was "promising its full support" behind Austria-Hungary after the assassination...after that the alliance system in place turned Europe into a complete warzone
@beyonddisturbed History also accepts that germany was looking for an opportunity to start a war while they had more powers than their neighbors (a situation that was not meant to last forever). Germany simply grabbed the momentum to launch war, sent ultimatums to Russia against mobilization and refused to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium because it already planned to invade from there.
As an American we chalk it all up to Europe's tried and true fighting styles, we also never understood why the Brits would wear red and stand in a line. Its just the way they've been doing things for hundreds of years. In Soviet Russia the Brit tactics would seem normal, but the officers would be shot if the battle was lost. I wonder if people 97 years from now are gonna look at our current wars and consider us callus barbarians, wait half the world thinks that about the USA already.
@thegoof171 Red is the traditional uniform of the British army, it's been that way for hundreds of years. Americans probably find European countries pretty confusing. We've been shaped over 1000s of years by culture & ancient traditions. America doesn't have that, being only 300 years old. I suppose you go for practicallity,
@TheLiberalKnight yup, its just a tradition that was never questioned until the time it didn't work. Just like Trench Warfare, commonly used to hunker down and defend the taken ground, never questioned until it fails and new tactics are born. what tactics do we use today that will be obsolete in the future
It is very apparent, that if not for Germany at the turn of the 1900s and the Hitler WW2
there would be no SAUDI ARABIA, AFRICANS would own no real estate, then there goes (FRENCH" FOOT IN THE DOOR" "CHINA") Vietnam, & then China.
Once Africa had fallen to the west, CHINA & the Soviet Union would to then be stepping stones. That's why the Soviets supported the Vietnamese , Then the Africans.
@MonsterPianos Generally flanks had up until this point in history had been at the brigade level or as a major part of an operation. The strongpoints had been apparenlty 'destroyed.' The difficulty in flanking the position was more complicated, but yes it could have been achieved with some lost. Also previous operations had suffered loss when volunteer troops 'got mixed up' with other troops and this made a good target for Germans...he was implementing his experience.
Seems like the British Command treated the front like 'lawn chess'? I'm glad by the time history can be taught at military academies, most front line officers tend to react to 'tactical' conditions and leave theater planning for logistics and causality evacuation. I was never a fan of 'War by Attrition': but, it really takes a change in Politics to advance a battlefield. And I wonder what the point is.... filling cemeteries to keep the national doctrine enforced?
@granddad2002 Necessary evil I a afraid. The war would be determined at the strategic and logistical level since technology at the time did not permit tactical scenes we see today. The production of the platoon tactics and improved artillery fascilitated by better hard wired communication helped the British gain the edge. It was an isse of technology and supply and demand rather than a calous disregard for human life. Haig becomes the largest humanitarian for ex-soliders after the war.
@EXTREMEPOPE my great grandfather killed 15 people before he umm died :'( its sad but he got shot 4 times 1 in the leg one in the leg 1 in the arm 1 in the face 1 in chest he was in second wave too he was a leiutenent i beliave i think i don't remember he died half way to the trenches....
@Kris393 If you look at a chronology of events no Germany did not take the first hostile action, unlike in say ww2, but the did cause the war. They caused the war by manipulating other countries to declare war- much like in the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian war- technically they did not 'start' the war but they did cause it. The Germans were trying to build a European Empire and WW1 was their attempt at that.
@dawnrun911 He could not be any closer could he? What would it acheive despite putting him closer to mortal danger and at the same time further away from the reserve troops, communications and supply. The fact is given the technology of the time trying to handle armies larger than had ever been dreamed it was a necessity to be back that far.
Your mean you Great grandad fought for the Imperial German Army (Kaiserliche Deutsche Armee). The "Wehrmacht" (what means translated directly: Defence Force) was the name, the German army had during the Nazi-time.
@DJsharp707 it's funny that you so blatantly stupid. The word wehrmacht existed before the nazis rose to power. And it would fit the german forces defending germany.
@DJsharp707 'Wehrmacht' translates as 'Armed Forces' and they are still around today! The only part of the German army which does not remain is the Schutzstaffel or SS. Hitler's protection squad. The Wehrmacht is not, has never been and never will be a Nazi organisation, they may have served the Nazi cause, but this does not make them Nazis.
man, haig was such a twat! he saw the walls of dead and he kept making the troops advance at walking speed. if the english had run instead of walked, they might have avoided so many casualties.
Haig had a hard job. He was told by teh British Government...win! Good luck, let us know when it is done. The French were screaming at him all the time to attack. The fact is Kitchener did not want to commit to the field till 1917 but the German danger meant by 1915 the British army was getting into the thick of it and by 1916 was becoming a major player. It is not that he was a twat, but had a hard job and had touse an outdate military aparatus
@fp470 yeah, but he's a twat for not realising that he should have changed strategies when the soldiers started being mown down. the german officers could use their initiative and do what they had to do. it wasn't like that fo the english. they had to advance as they had been told, regardless of the dangers.
@themanfromhell24 You seem confused. There is a difference between strategy and tactics. You can not blame Haig for every small fire-fight mishap. You need to evaluate him at the planning, resources, implementation, supervision and response phase of any military operations. It is the major, captain and lt. aspect that is the tactical leve. .....
There were no easy victories for the USMC in ww1. The Marines had a hard time but did well. They were not actually superior troops,it took months of training to get the majority of US forces up to scratch. Even then by the end of 1918 many of the US servicemen still had poor equipment and Pershing actually retarded the development of the US army.
The US were for much of WW1, when they finally joined, quiet green troops.
@fp470 Pershing was regarded as the greatest general of WW1, as was Patton in WW2. The quality of the US troops in WW1 was evident in the high number of Medals of Honor awarded, even though they came in during 1917. In both WW1 and WW2, the US troops were considered far superior to any other nation's. The same applies even today.
Self recommendation is no reward. It would be hard for Pershing to be recognised as the best General of the war since men like, Plumber, Megill, Rawlinson, Foch, Nievelle, Ludendorff, Allenby and Kemal dwarf the puny Pershing. The conversation is on WW1, not WW2.
@swanningaround US troops were by and large poor quality. That is not to say that a number of divisions did do well and were quiet good troops by the end of the war. But the best troops of the US were the marines, a small, pre-war formation with combat experience. Not the volunteeers, aka, the majority of US commitment.
@swanningaround bullshit americans are terrible fighters they cant even beat a bunch of incestuous Muslims with akas same with nam walking in the jungle with radios blaring high as fuck on bud
I couldn't go to war like this. I couldn't kill a man who has a wife at home and children...i dont know if those men are evil or not. There is no reason to fight as a country, not like it was done in WW1.
You could and would if you had to. If I were a belgian I would sign up for the freedom of my country and freedom from German oppression. Or a Russian, a Serbian, A Bosnian or a Frenchmen.
Or a british man who realises that if England's greatest fear ever came true and one Country conquere most of Europe then they could face a new Napoleon and might not win next time
@fp470 No. I do not accept nor share the national identities created in the last 2 centuries, i create my own identity and it is individual. My heritage derives from english and german, and also ultimately from the vikings around the Jarl Rollo from Normandy, and the vikings from norway. So my identity is not pure that of a german or an englishman, i would only fight if i am in need and such wars as were fought back then aren't financially manageable anymore, and i dont accept them anyway.
National identities to some small extent have always existed, mostly as a means to exclude others than a concept to rally around however. Our ancestors centuries ago had the dots of their own ethnic/family backgrounds but never truly connected these dots until the 1700s.
Most people associate with their community.
War in ww1 messed up the economy at the time which was highly interdependant and fragile. War always finds a way.
@fp470 Yes i fully agree with you. Identities are constructed by differenciating, in the means of "they are not like us, they have weird ways", you can trace this to the word "deutsch" (from teutons) which in english is "german". "Deutsch" actually just means "part of out tribes/country" or "able to speak our language" but the thing is, people used to have meetings called Things, where wise people and warriors decided if they need fight. You didnt just step in as a mere soldier.
Why not continue with the artillery barrage while marching forwards? I mean, it was obvious that the Jerries would get to cover while under artillery fire...
@Gaylian4536 Not it was the French who first flirted with a limited version of it and the regular British army that taught it to the British Army's Canadian Corps.
It was used in 1915, however it was on small frontages where the troops at the front could have some communication with those manning the guns. On this scale it would be far too dangerous. Also these troops were very bad quality and did were not trained how to use such tactics.
cause communication was kinda slow back then still, not like second to second like we have now, regardless of the british reaching the german lines the artillery still would continue firing until the order was ceased
@PesiCool the british could not do it cause they had bad timing, and timing was everything. The canadians did a simillar strategy and caputed Vimy Ridge:)
Also in 1915 the CP were like a besieged fortress that was going to fall much sooner if it hadn't been for the fall of Serbia which A-H was powerless to accomplish alone by the way.
And by the way the Entente also had artillery in the Middle east, Macedonia etc which if it hadn't been needed there you can guess where it would have been fighting(Western Front).
well you have to fight back but i think that it could be resolved a better way i think that every person alive would prefer not to fight war's and it is completely pointless because all it brings is nothing but death and destruction
well its what these guys were doing, fighting back against German expansionism and their dictatorial system. German wanted to invade territory and take it of other countries. Its not like they wanted to war, but when we do go to war it helps to be good at it.
I dont make any pretence to be a soldier. But if Australia was invaded I would assist in any capacity I could. As should everybody if their country was threatened.
Actually I believe it started because of the system of alliances and European nationalism and imperialism. Gavrilo Princep killed Franz Ferdinand. Austria demanded reparations from Serbia who went running to Russia for help. Russia backed Serbia and declared war on Austria, thus dragging the Trinple Entente to war against teh Triple alliance. At first, the war was hailed as a great adventure. All the nations were imperialistic and desired to expand, not just Germany.
fp470: There you go. Blaming the Germans for everything. Both the French and the English declared war on Germany. All the governments had built up their Alliances and arms for this war and all wanted to expand their empires.
Guess what. If you actually read some of the new revisionist history out there, including by German historians, then you would realise that the Germans were largely responsible for the war.
I feel bad for you and for many who recieve nothing but biased accounts by soviet sympathisers writing in the 1950s. This 1950s generation of history has irreperably damaged the history of the Great War.
The same for your other comment in regards to how the Germans didnt loose the war on the field.
Go read Franz Fischer , a german Historian who using sources made avaliable from E. Germany found out that the Germans played a large hand in starting the war, much larger than others.
How can you say that when the majority of the world's countries (especially Britain and France) were doing the exact same thing before the first world war.
I dont deny that Britain and France were the kings at colonisation. However the Germans were on a system of colonisation that would not only endager the well being of Britain, France and eventually the United States. Thus the war was crucial for the prospeity of 'our side'
Yeah crucial.Thanks.with this your "side" accept that they want war.These are war crimes.Finally.After 80-90 years a ignoring the facts you finally giving out the true.England and france want the end of the german empire at the time.
This docu didnt speak about the people of the empire the non germanic military members.Who are forced to wage a war wich wasnt theres.Algerians indians.When the british empire going to say sorry?
For the more general point of view, the Prussian militarism of Germany was aimed at de-stabilising the whole international system for their own benefit. Realisng they couldnt match the big players overseas they decided to attack the lynchpiun of global stablity to gain territory. Germany 1914-1918 in modern terms would be deemed as a rogue state today- its agenda aimed at de-stabilising the entire world. Indeed there was much instability after ww1 itwould habve been 10x in German victory.
thats absolutely bullshit, everybody in the world was not green to each other by that time neither americans or british or french ( americans still had plans to invade canada in 1920's).
Germany was the biggest european industrial nation by that time and outcompeted britain in late 19th century.
fp470: So when British, French and American Imperialism ruled the World it was good, but when Germany tried to do the same it was bad and Germany had to be crushed ?
@Finn001abd At least the Germans would have used N*ggers for Cannon Fodder prior to The death of German soldiers.That would have made many less for today!
@Finn001abd germany in ww1 was no different then the usa, they had conflicting intrests, thats what started the war, there wa no good and no evil in ww1, but in ww2 the nazi party was undoubtably evil, and they needed to be stopped, but ww1 is just 1 really long sad story
@Finn001abd Rules of war dictate the winner should usually write the story not the loser. World War 1 mainly started because of foreign relations between Austria and Serbia such as the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. This caused war between the two nations. Russia which was Serbia's ally went to war with Austria and Germany which was Austria's ally went to war with Russia. Russia has an alliacne with France so they declared war on Germany and Austria.
@Finn001abd In WW1, there was no 'evil' force from Germany. The main reason Germany had so many enemies in WW1 was because they were disrupting the balance of power in Europe, trying to take France & Russia, instead of finding colonies of black people who were considered 2nd class. In WW2, Germany was clearly in the wrong, no explanation needed.
The German Empire did have the resources to inflict a military defeat on the Entente.
The Issue was that the long war was waged in such a way by Germany that meant from mid 1917 on victory was unlikely.
Issues of failed strategies which i will BREIFLY summariese made their issues with a long war problematic. ( This will require some background knowledge)
1. The Schlieffen Plan and Prussian Expansionism.- An ambitious plan which German had the military resources to succeed in yet (con't)
Fp Look i remember that our history bokke describe the situation like this: When German troops conqerd a part of the british trench the see a lot of bullet and weapons and food.
You know the war weakest part is the Habsburg empire.Because in it nobody wanted to fight a world war.Germany have a lot of thing at the time but lacked the resource.This is why it was deemed the losing side in every in the future.
The morale impact of the food imbalance only came toward teh end of the war. Also the Germans had alot of food, but it was sitting in depots between the German backlines and the German forward lines. Simply they advanced too far in the 1918 offensives to be sustained in food and munitions (not to mention advancing in the wrong places).
Germany actively planned and pursued to bring about a General European war. Go read something other than a 7th Grade History reader
... their execution of the strategy was problematic. The plan argued to knock out France and have a long war with Russia. 1915/early 16 proved that Russia was on the verge. Prussian expansionist policy continued a war in Russia and dabbled in regime change to gain territory that was of little profit to a war economy and they did not have the manpower to garrison. They rejected an early peace with Russia in favour of more land.
3. By going in for the kill on Russia the Germans had to adopt a policy of defence on the W.Front. The resources, money and manpower spent on the Hindenburg line was strategically highly questionable but tactically brilliant. The Hindenburg line was supposed to be temporary whilset they Germans knocked out Russia but as the Russian policy expanded the Hindenburgy line went from a contiengency to a cornerstone of strategy.
4. Allies- German squandered gold, manpower and war materials on...
supporting allies that would not win the war. (Dont worry the Entente did it too but the Entente could always beat them at this game). The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria were two allies that actually cost Germany more than what they gained. Support for the Austro-Hungarians was necessary however, had German support stopped there things would have been better. It was a failed strategy to get the Ottomans and the Bulgarians on the German side.
Actually in Bulgaria's case it was the key to the speedy defeat of Serbia and latter took a key part in the defeat of Romania.After all in 1917-1918 there were 600 000 - 700 000 Entente troops in Macedonia and in different circumstances they could have been on the Western front. It is true that Germany had to supply both Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire but to say that Germany would to better without its Allies is quite unrealistic.
@vasil21 Whilst the contribution of the A-H Empire was quiet substantial the Balkans Imbroglio was not as beneficial to the Central Powers as it was to the Entente. The Ottomans Alone required the assistance of at least 4 German Divisions over the course of the war (not full divisions I will admit), numberous artillery pieces which was aproblem when the entente gained artillery parody in 17.
5. The Navy- The German High Seas Fleet was capable of taking out its opponent, Great Britain. They didnt have to conqure the world, without the British navy the French would have folded under the power of the German Dreadnaughts (the French possesed none in 1914 and even by 1918 only had outdated and lightweight ships). However the Germans spread their pre-war navy too far from Germany and could only ever acheive parity with the British navy. Too risky to pursue an agressive capital ship policy
same basics are still there.. to be quick and decisive and waver enemy morale with intimidation and terror.. but i think the most important aspect is to be as ruthless as possible
They weren't just told to walk, they were told not to load their rifles either! 'nothing up the spout' they were told, in case they shot any of their mates in front of them, ( and of course they expected no resistence) they were made to walk in 25 lines of 1000 men in waves, i should know, my grandfather was one of the lucky ones to come back from the somme, i have several bravery awards of my grandfathers in my posetion, he came back, but with four machine gun bullet holes in his legs!
@jamestaylor94b hey man we are all people on this Earth,we all think the same ways and for just being that, in my mind there is no difference between countries, its just a difference in the political minds that ruins the lives of everyone elses.
When did the germans attack polen in 1914? At that time Polen was part of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary. The Partitions of Poland was in 1772, 1793 and 1795. Are you refering to the Poland from 1815, tought it was ruled by Russia. Poland, as Poland (sounds bad...) was rebuild in 1918 after WW1. Well... 1939 is a chapter German history we don't like, but it's a fact...
And what do you try to say with "when again"? I doubt that Germany start another war...
When did the germans attack polen in 1914? At that time Polen was part of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary. The Partitions of Poland was in 1772, 1793 and 1795. Are you refering to the Poland from 1815, tought it was ruled by Russia. Poland, as Poland (sounds bad...) was rebuild in 1918 after WW1. Well... 1939 is a chapter German history we don't like, but it's a fact...
And what do you try to say with "when again"? I doubt that Germany start another war...
Well unfortunatley we had to have the Somme to learn how to fight a modern war. Bayonet charges in the 19th century with muksts it was a pain to reload with a bayonet on and it carried through into doctrine. One shot rifles made being empty also practicle.
Also if they have bullets in the gun they might stop the advance and get shelled. There is some merit in it but the reality was that it wasnt always a good idea.
from what i heard they had so much kit thy could not move very quick anyway...also the brits vere not very well trained so mabye by moving slowly their oficers had more control
British soldiers didn't run cos they couldn't , the generals made the avarage soldier carry 4 stone worth of equiptment ontop of their normal equiptment because the generals thought the artillary bombardment (which had been going on for quite some weeks none stop) had destroyed the germans. they're "before the battle" picture was that of british/canadian and french soldiers walking over no mans land into the german treanches , setting up defences and moving the frontline onwards without fighting
I can't believe not one of the soldiers took any intiative if I was the CO in the field I'd just tell them to run to the trench it wouldn't have been insubordination
European generals tend to execute a lot of people for disagreeing them during that time period, so even if u do succeed, for disobeying them, they would have you executed for insubordination.
It was an order from Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, he told them to walk across no mans land. Claimed the superior british morale would overwhelm the german defenders.
WTF do you have against the Newfoundland regiment? The Blue Putties suffered some of the heavy percentage losses that day. 190 went over the top, 8 returned alive...
What was it the a German said afterwards: "They were Lions led by Donkeys"
And They were English Lions. And Irish Lions, Scottish and Welsh.
Most of Britain's young men annihilated in just a few years.
jonnyb192 6 days ago
@jonnyb192
There were also 200.000 French casualties at the Somme.
Freez57fr 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a special place in Hell for the staff offficers from the Somme
mikeliko01 2 weeks ago
Good soldiers badly lead....
monsmoy1 1 month ago
LMAO! I just love the way those guys are trying to speak German xD
LegionaryCohort480 1 month ago in playlist Weitere Videos von Kettch23
What a waste of humanity. That whole damned war. There was no purpose for it and nothing resulted from it, except millions of allied and german soldiers dead for nothing.
dilligafst 2 months ago
1:08 he says BITCH! xDD
EmperorWasas 3 months ago
Thank god my family didn't have to fight in this pointless war.
dutyofgears1 3 months ago
BBC's documentaries are superb.
MonolithSlasher 4 months ago 4
çok güzel.
MegaAntep 4 months ago
They gave the Germans a nice Schwaben Dialect.
ThePerfectRed 5 months ago
@ThePerfectRed
yeah, they are so cute
GiasingaSTRIZZI 3 months ago
thank you men for uploading the series
apoman1996 6 months ago
@fp470 As history has shown the only way Germany contributed to starting the war was "promising its full support" behind Austria-Hungary after the assassination...after that the alliance system in place turned Europe into a complete warzone
beyonddisturbed 6 months ago
@beyonddisturbed History also accepts that germany was looking for an opportunity to start a war while they had more powers than their neighbors (a situation that was not meant to last forever). Germany simply grabbed the momentum to launch war, sent ultimatums to Russia against mobilization and refused to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium because it already planned to invade from there.
CacaLauncher23 6 months ago
As an American we chalk it all up to Europe's tried and true fighting styles, we also never understood why the Brits would wear red and stand in a line. Its just the way they've been doing things for hundreds of years. In Soviet Russia the Brit tactics would seem normal, but the officers would be shot if the battle was lost. I wonder if people 97 years from now are gonna look at our current wars and consider us callus barbarians, wait half the world thinks that about the USA already.
thegoof171 6 months ago
@thegoof171 Red is the traditional uniform of the British army, it's been that way for hundreds of years. Americans probably find European countries pretty confusing. We've been shaped over 1000s of years by culture & ancient traditions. America doesn't have that, being only 300 years old. I suppose you go for practicallity,
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight yup, its just a tradition that was never questioned until the time it didn't work. Just like Trench Warfare, commonly used to hunker down and defend the taken ground, never questioned until it fails and new tactics are born. what tactics do we use today that will be obsolete in the future
thegoof171 6 months ago
@thegoof171 people 97 years from now will be to busy killing each other to care.
qwertyuiopm250 6 months ago
@thegoof171 er, british forces wore khaki in world war one!
THthefirst 5 months ago
@THthefirst I was refering to the Revolutionary war, Dick
thegoof171 4 months ago
@thegoof171 Don't blame me if you lack the ability to make yourself understood, dick
THthefirst 4 months ago
It is very apparent, that if not for Germany at the turn of the 1900s and the Hitler WW2
there would be no SAUDI ARABIA, AFRICANS would own no real estate, then there goes (FRENCH" FOOT IN THE DOOR" "CHINA") Vietnam, & then China.
Once Africa had fallen to the west, CHINA & the Soviet Union would to then be stepping stones. That's why the Soviets supported the Vietnamese , Then the Africans.
jor99912 7 months ago
No strategic plan survives initial contact with the enemy.
hero1naka 8 months ago
Fuck those officers that made those plans. Playing with people like its nothing.
HawK047 9 months ago
sin really makes men's actions silly and wasteful
cuzcatlan36 9 months ago
haha schwaoba und badenzer, koi wonder dass d tommies ond franzagga dao so viele tode hend!
hiltibrandt 1 year ago
There is a special place in Hell for the British Generals. Regarded as brave and gallant, yet still sent their men walking into German MG's.
danrox127 1 year ago
at 3:00. Wtf... someone explain why the general didnt flank the germans... that is like a basic military tactic =.=
MonsterPianos 1 year ago
@MonsterPianos how to doy flank a perfect line of defense.
TheMchuquillanqui 1 year ago
@MonsterPianos sorry didn't see your time mark. Yes the general missed a big chance to complete victory.
TheMchuquillanqui 1 year ago
@MonsterPianos Generally flanks had up until this point in history had been at the brigade level or as a major part of an operation. The strongpoints had been apparenlty 'destroyed.' The difficulty in flanking the position was more complicated, but yes it could have been achieved with some lost. Also previous operations had suffered loss when volunteer troops 'got mixed up' with other troops and this made a good target for Germans...he was implementing his experience.
fp470 1 year ago
What does he say at 2:36, Ulsterman? How do you spell it?
MessieXgirl3 1 year ago
Lol n00b commander. He only knows one tactic: The Zergling Rush.
Halobenzene 1 year ago
God save Ulster!
SuperQuiller 1 year ago
Seems like the British Command treated the front like 'lawn chess'? I'm glad by the time history can be taught at military academies, most front line officers tend to react to 'tactical' conditions and leave theater planning for logistics and causality evacuation. I was never a fan of 'War by Attrition': but, it really takes a change in Politics to advance a battlefield. And I wonder what the point is.... filling cemeteries to keep the national doctrine enforced?
granddad2002 1 year ago
@granddad2002 Necessary evil I a afraid. The war would be determined at the strategic and logistical level since technology at the time did not permit tactical scenes we see today. The production of the platoon tactics and improved artillery fascilitated by better hard wired communication helped the British gain the edge. It was an isse of technology and supply and demand rather than a calous disregard for human life. Haig becomes the largest humanitarian for ex-soliders after the war.
fp470 1 year ago
is everyone history nerds no offence guys but i know this history stuff but dont talk about it so much
jamesschaller 1 year ago
@jamesschaller im a history nerd
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
my great grandfather fought in the second wave and was shot in the kneecap as soon as he left the trench
EXTREMEPOPE 1 year ago
@EXTREMEPOPE My great grandfather killed 14 people before dieing he was in the second wave also...
jamesschaller 1 year ago
@EXTREMEPOPE my great grandfather killed 15 people before he umm died :'( its sad but he got shot 4 times 1 in the leg one in the leg 1 in the arm 1 in the face 1 in chest he was in second wave too he was a leiutenent i beliave i think i don't remember he died half way to the trenches....
jamesschaller 1 year ago
I'm not too sure on my facts but it wasn't actually Germany who started WWI was it?
Kris393 1 year ago
@Kris393 If you look at a chronology of events no Germany did not take the first hostile action, unlike in say ww2, but the did cause the war. They caused the war by manipulating other countries to declare war- much like in the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian war- technically they did not 'start' the war but they did cause it. The Germans were trying to build a European Empire and WW1 was their attempt at that.
fp470 1 year ago
"three miles from the battlefield" that says it all really.
dawnrun911 1 year ago
@dawnrun911 He could not be any closer could he? What would it acheive despite putting him closer to mortal danger and at the same time further away from the reserve troops, communications and supply. The fact is given the technology of the time trying to handle armies larger than had ever been dreamed it was a necessity to be back that far.
fp470 1 year ago
My great grandad (mums side) fought for the Brits. Great grandad (dads side) for the wehrmacht, it's so strange when I hear the different accounts.
MrAthos3 1 year ago 12
@MrAthos3 and you now live in australia? LOL strange
hatemf23 1 year ago
@MrAthos3
Your mean you Great grandad fought for the Imperial German Army (Kaiserliche Deutsche Armee). The "Wehrmacht" (what means translated directly: Defence Force) was the name, the German army had during the Nazi-time.
GreyKnight2k11 6 months ago
@MrAthos3 its funny because there was no wehrmacht in ww1, that was nazis, so try again you fucking lier.
DJsharp707 2 months ago
@DJsharp707 it's funny that you so blatantly stupid. The word wehrmacht existed before the nazis rose to power. And it would fit the german forces defending germany.
tristbjorn 2 months ago
@tristbjorn its funny because thats like saying the word plane existed prior to planes being invented dumbass look up werhmacht its 1939-1945
DJsharp707 2 months ago
@DJsharp707 'Wehrmacht' translates as 'Armed Forces' and they are still around today! The only part of the German army which does not remain is the Schutzstaffel or SS. Hitler's protection squad. The Wehrmacht is not, has never been and never will be a Nazi organisation, they may have served the Nazi cause, but this does not make them Nazis.
bbathtub101 1 month ago
@bbathtub101 doesnt it translate as defense force?
elvee88 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAthos3 The fuck are you talking about?
FuckTheUK12 2 months ago
both armies shood shoot their generals and go home
kokosz33 1 year ago
man, haig was such a twat! he saw the walls of dead and he kept making the troops advance at walking speed. if the english had run instead of walked, they might have avoided so many casualties.
themanfromhell24 1 year ago
Haig had a hard job. He was told by teh British Government...win! Good luck, let us know when it is done. The French were screaming at him all the time to attack. The fact is Kitchener did not want to commit to the field till 1917 but the German danger meant by 1915 the British army was getting into the thick of it and by 1916 was becoming a major player. It is not that he was a twat, but had a hard job and had touse an outdate military aparatus
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 yeah, but he's a twat for not realising that he should have changed strategies when the soldiers started being mown down. the german officers could use their initiative and do what they had to do. it wasn't like that fo the english. they had to advance as they had been told, regardless of the dangers.
themanfromhell24 1 year ago
@themanfromhell24 You seem confused. There is a difference between strategy and tactics. You can not blame Haig for every small fire-fight mishap. You need to evaluate him at the planning, resources, implementation, supervision and response phase of any military operations. It is the major, captain and lt. aspect that is the tactical leve. .....
fp470 1 year ago
@themanfromhell24 ....Haig only should be assessed in terms of
a. Continuing the operation
b. Not developing a new doctrine and training scheme (which he later did)
c. Not permitting a more open and friendly commuinication between divisional commanders and him
fp470 1 year ago
There were no easy victories for the USMC in ww1. The Marines had a hard time but did well. They were not actually superior troops,it took months of training to get the majority of US forces up to scratch. Even then by the end of 1918 many of the US servicemen still had poor equipment and Pershing actually retarded the development of the US army.
The US were for much of WW1, when they finally joined, quiet green troops.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 Pershing was regarded as the greatest general of WW1, as was Patton in WW2. The quality of the US troops in WW1 was evident in the high number of Medals of Honor awarded, even though they came in during 1917. In both WW1 and WW2, the US troops were considered far superior to any other nation's. The same applies even today.
swanningaround 1 year ago
Self recommendation is no reward. It would be hard for Pershing to be recognised as the best General of the war since men like, Plumber, Megill, Rawlinson, Foch, Nievelle, Ludendorff, Allenby and Kemal dwarf the puny Pershing. The conversation is on WW1, not WW2.
fp470 1 year ago
@swanningaround US troops were by and large poor quality. That is not to say that a number of divisions did do well and were quiet good troops by the end of the war. But the best troops of the US were the marines, a small, pre-war formation with combat experience. Not the volunteeers, aka, the majority of US commitment.
fp470 1 year ago
@swanningaround Hey Swanny!
It's been a while..
Pershing was regarded as the blah blah blah
For gods sake man.
They were- and still are- considered far superior to any other nations troops.
BY AMERICANS! AND NO ONE ELSE!~
muzlinkage 1 year ago
Not outside of America they weren't.
gunninlinguist 1 year ago
@swanningaround bullshit americans are terrible fighters they cant even beat a bunch of incestuous Muslims with akas same with nam walking in the jungle with radios blaring high as fuck on bud
Henza9218 1 year ago
I couldn't go to war like this. I couldn't kill a man who has a wife at home and children...i dont know if those men are evil or not. There is no reason to fight as a country, not like it was done in WW1.
Samael16661 1 year ago
You could and would if you had to. If I were a belgian I would sign up for the freedom of my country and freedom from German oppression. Or a Russian, a Serbian, A Bosnian or a Frenchmen.
Or a british man who realises that if England's greatest fear ever came true and one Country conquere most of Europe then they could face a new Napoleon and might not win next time
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 No. I do not accept nor share the national identities created in the last 2 centuries, i create my own identity and it is individual. My heritage derives from english and german, and also ultimately from the vikings around the Jarl Rollo from Normandy, and the vikings from norway. So my identity is not pure that of a german or an englishman, i would only fight if i am in need and such wars as were fought back then aren't financially manageable anymore, and i dont accept them anyway.
Samael16661 1 year ago
National identities to some small extent have always existed, mostly as a means to exclude others than a concept to rally around however. Our ancestors centuries ago had the dots of their own ethnic/family backgrounds but never truly connected these dots until the 1700s.
Most people associate with their community.
War in ww1 messed up the economy at the time which was highly interdependant and fragile. War always finds a way.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 Yes i fully agree with you. Identities are constructed by differenciating, in the means of "they are not like us, they have weird ways", you can trace this to the word "deutsch" (from teutons) which in english is "german". "Deutsch" actually just means "part of out tribes/country" or "able to speak our language" but the thing is, people used to have meetings called Things, where wise people and warriors decided if they need fight. You didnt just step in as a mere soldier.
Samael16661 1 year ago
Why not continue with the artillery barrage while marching forwards? I mean, it was obvious that the Jerries would get to cover while under artillery fire...
PesiCool 1 year ago
That was something that was developed later in the war. I believe by the Germans(?).....Called the creeping barrage.
RizzMB30 1 year ago
@RizzMB30 it was the canadiens who first started using the creeping barrage.
Gaylian4536 1 year ago
@Gaylian4536 Not it was the French who first flirted with a limited version of it and the regular British army that taught it to the British Army's Canadian Corps.
fp470 1 year ago
It was used in 1915, however it was on small frontages where the troops at the front could have some communication with those manning the guns. On this scale it would be far too dangerous. Also these troops were very bad quality and did were not trained how to use such tactics.
fp470 1 year ago
cause communication was kinda slow back then still, not like second to second like we have now, regardless of the british reaching the german lines the artillery still would continue firing until the order was ceased
SepticProductions 1 year ago
@PesiCool the british could not do it cause they had bad timing, and timing was everything. The canadians did a simillar strategy and caputed Vimy Ridge:)
sirtom1995 1 year ago
Jesus Christ!!!!! the British are anal on changing the tactics and attacking from the North.
wannahuckaloogy5 1 year ago
The British had actually not a bad tactical doctrine within itself, however using such green troops is unforgiveable.
The remainder of this documentary demonstrates that after the Somme new and very effective tactics were pioneered.
The first one was to make the platoon based firepower the key to their tactics rather than the brigade.
fp470 1 year ago
towards the end is that charley boorman on the voiceover??
aprilcrook96 1 year ago
Pause at 7.14
Gotta love the fake rifles.
TheBelva85 2 years ago
Also in 1915 the CP were like a besieged fortress that was going to fall much sooner if it hadn't been for the fall of Serbia which A-H was powerless to accomplish alone by the way.
And by the way the Entente also had artillery in the Middle east, Macedonia etc which if it hadn't been needed there you can guess where it would have been fighting(Western Front).
vasil21 2 years ago
War Will Never change its will always be a waste of life ,bloody,horrible,and completely POINTLESS
penguinzrule12 2 years ago
Next time your country gets invaded I hope you remember that you shouldnt fight back
fp470 2 years ago
well you have to fight back but i think that it could be resolved a better way i think that every person alive would prefer not to fight war's and it is completely pointless because all it brings is nothing but death and destruction
penguinzrule12 2 years ago
well its what these guys were doing, fighting back against German expansionism and their dictatorial system. German wanted to invade territory and take it of other countries. Its not like they wanted to war, but when we do go to war it helps to be good at it.
fp470 2 years ago
Are you good at war?
sketchmeister 2 years ago
I dont make any pretence to be a soldier. But if Australia was invaded I would assist in any capacity I could. As should everybody if their country was threatened.
fp470 2 years ago
Actually I believe it started because of the system of alliances and European nationalism and imperialism. Gavrilo Princep killed Franz Ferdinand. Austria demanded reparations from Serbia who went running to Russia for help. Russia backed Serbia and declared war on Austria, thus dragging the Trinple Entente to war against teh Triple alliance. At first, the war was hailed as a great adventure. All the nations were imperialistic and desired to expand, not just Germany.
spetznaz1337 2 years ago 13
no they the war started wen the kroon pins of austria was assassinated by a serb
and every country had a pack like the west vs usser
alex4800 2 years ago
fp470: There you go. Blaming the Germans for everything. Both the French and the English declared war on Germany. All the governments had built up their Alliances and arms for this war and all wanted to expand their empires.
Finn001abd 2 years ago
Guess what. If you actually read some of the new revisionist history out there, including by German historians, then you would realise that the Germans were largely responsible for the war.
I feel bad for you and for many who recieve nothing but biased accounts by soviet sympathisers writing in the 1950s. This 1950s generation of history has irreperably damaged the history of the Great War.
The same for your other comment in regards to how the Germans didnt loose the war on the field.
fp470 2 years ago
fp470: Don't make claims. Just give the facts what would support your claims.
Finn001abd 2 years ago
Go read Franz Fischer , a german Historian who using sources made avaliable from E. Germany found out that the Germans played a large hand in starting the war, much larger than others.
fp470 2 years ago
fp470: What were his main points ?
Finn001abd 2 years ago
How can you say that when the majority of the world's countries (especially Britain and France) were doing the exact same thing before the first world war.
LlamasOnAcid 2 years ago
I dont deny that Britain and France were the kings at colonisation. However the Germans were on a system of colonisation that would not only endager the well being of Britain, France and eventually the United States. Thus the war was crucial for the prospeity of 'our side'
fp470 2 years ago
Yeah crucial.Thanks.with this your "side" accept that they want war.These are war crimes.Finally.After 80-90 years a ignoring the facts you finally giving out the true.England and france want the end of the german empire at the time.
This docu didnt speak about the people of the empire the non germanic military members.Who are forced to wage a war wich wasnt theres.Algerians indians.When the british empire going to say sorry?
gun844 2 years ago
For the more general point of view, the Prussian militarism of Germany was aimed at de-stabilising the whole international system for their own benefit. Realisng they couldnt match the big players overseas they decided to attack the lynchpiun of global stablity to gain territory. Germany 1914-1918 in modern terms would be deemed as a rogue state today- its agenda aimed at de-stabilising the entire world. Indeed there was much instability after ww1 itwould habve been 10x in German victory.
fp470 2 years ago
thats absolutely bullshit, everybody in the world was not green to each other by that time neither americans or british or french ( americans still had plans to invade canada in 1920's).
Germany was the biggest european industrial nation by that time and outcompeted britain in late 19th century.
GinTonicdrink 2 years ago
fp470: So when British, French and American Imperialism ruled the World it was good, but when Germany tried to do the same it was bad and Germany had to be crushed ?
Finn001abd 2 years ago 27
good?It wasnt good.
Germans just killing the other nations.
If you are really a finn think to russia.
Did you know that that its weapon industry first was created be germany?
And of course dutch helped them a lot too.
So.We continue this later.
gun844 2 years ago
gun844: Oh, so we should blame Germany also for the wars Russia has done. I get it. :)
Finn001abd 2 years ago
@Finn001abd lol exactly
Baldwynmayhem 1 year ago
@Finn001abd History is written by the victor.- Captain Price
sooo yes ^_^
BloodEquinox 1 year ago 16
@BloodEquinox I'm pretty sure thats quoted from some Greek general :/
But indeed, I know exactly what you mean :D
Shadowfang3000 10 months ago
@BloodEquinox it is not captain price that said that ^^ but yes that is correct
Tehbarrel 8 months ago
@BloodEquinox no
he didn't say that
fuck
fuck
fuck
PoissonLihp 3 months ago
@BloodEquinox captain price didnt say that you fucking idiot, winston chruchill said it, god fucking video game faggots
DJsharp707 2 months ago
@Finn001abd Nazism and Imperialism are two quite different foods for the stomach.
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 1 year ago
@Finn001abd When did the American rule the world?
overopensights 1 year ago
@Finn001abd At least the Germans would have used N*ggers for Cannon Fodder prior to The death of German soldiers.That would have made many less for today!
walleyrt69 1 year ago
@Finn001abd germany in ww1 was no different then the usa, they had conflicting intrests, thats what started the war, there wa no good and no evil in ww1, but in ww2 the nazi party was undoubtably evil, and they needed to be stopped, but ww1 is just 1 really long sad story
jonlscott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Finn001abd history is written by the victors :(
panzerelite195 8 months ago
@Finn001abd people don't like it when they take over land do they?
RIDONKulousify 8 months ago
@Finn001abd Rules of war dictate the winner should usually write the story not the loser. World War 1 mainly started because of foreign relations between Austria and Serbia such as the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. This caused war between the two nations. Russia which was Serbia's ally went to war with Austria and Germany which was Austria's ally went to war with Russia. Russia has an alliacne with France so they declared war on Germany and Austria.
1Historygenius 7 months ago
@Finn001abd In WW1, there was no 'evil' force from Germany. The main reason Germany had so many enemies in WW1 was because they were disrupting the balance of power in Europe, trying to take France & Russia, instead of finding colonies of black people who were considered 2nd class. In WW2, Germany was clearly in the wrong, no explanation needed.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@fp470 prussia prussia prussia!!!!!!!!!!
34ytrhtrghrf 2 years ago
German empire at the time didnt have the resources to win a long and costly war.
gun844 2 years ago
The German Empire did have the resources to inflict a military defeat on the Entente.
The Issue was that the long war was waged in such a way by Germany that meant from mid 1917 on victory was unlikely.
Issues of failed strategies which i will BREIFLY summariese made their issues with a long war problematic. ( This will require some background knowledge)
1. The Schlieffen Plan and Prussian Expansionism.- An ambitious plan which German had the military resources to succeed in yet (con't)
fp470 2 years ago
No they didnt.
Fp Look i remember that our history bokke describe the situation like this: When German troops conqerd a part of the british trench the see a lot of bullet and weapons and food.
You know the war weakest part is the Habsburg empire.Because in it nobody wanted to fight a world war.Germany have a lot of thing at the time but lacked the resource.This is why it was deemed the losing side in every in the future.
gun844 2 years ago
No they didn't what?
The morale impact of the food imbalance only came toward teh end of the war. Also the Germans had alot of food, but it was sitting in depots between the German backlines and the German forward lines. Simply they advanced too far in the 1918 offensives to be sustained in food and munitions (not to mention advancing in the wrong places).
Germany actively planned and pursued to bring about a General European war. Go read something other than a 7th Grade History reader
fp470 2 years ago
... their execution of the strategy was problematic. The plan argued to knock out France and have a long war with Russia. 1915/early 16 proved that Russia was on the verge. Prussian expansionist policy continued a war in Russia and dabbled in regime change to gain territory that was of little profit to a war economy and they did not have the manpower to garrison. They rejected an early peace with Russia in favour of more land.
fp470 2 years ago
Russia yeah.12 million solider but lakced the working people.
And they fight the austria-hungarian kingdom duo.The monarchie have only 8 million.
Allies won the italians to there side and they have at time a few million troops to.
Plus romanians with 600,000 troopers.
How german empire have the power to win?They dont have.
I personally think that the continuation of the war is the old germans falt.
They remianed from 1871.The generals are very old.
gun844 2 years ago
3. By going in for the kill on Russia the Germans had to adopt a policy of defence on the W.Front. The resources, money and manpower spent on the Hindenburg line was strategically highly questionable but tactically brilliant. The Hindenburg line was supposed to be temporary whilset they Germans knocked out Russia but as the Russian policy expanded the Hindenburgy line went from a contiengency to a cornerstone of strategy.
4. Allies- German squandered gold, manpower and war materials on...
fp470 2 years ago
supporting allies that would not win the war. (Dont worry the Entente did it too but the Entente could always beat them at this game). The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria were two allies that actually cost Germany more than what they gained. Support for the Austro-Hungarians was necessary however, had German support stopped there things would have been better. It was a failed strategy to get the Ottomans and the Bulgarians on the German side.
fp470 2 years ago
Actually in Bulgaria's case it was the key to the speedy defeat of Serbia and latter took a key part in the defeat of Romania.After all in 1917-1918 there were 600 000 - 700 000 Entente troops in Macedonia and in different circumstances they could have been on the Western front. It is true that Germany had to supply both Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire but to say that Germany would to better without its Allies is quite unrealistic.
vasil21 2 years ago
@vasil21 Whilst the contribution of the A-H Empire was quiet substantial the Balkans Imbroglio was not as beneficial to the Central Powers as it was to the Entente. The Ottomans Alone required the assistance of at least 4 German Divisions over the course of the war (not full divisions I will admit), numberous artillery pieces which was aproblem when the entente gained artillery parody in 17.
fp470 2 years ago
The A-H contribution was mainly in quantity not in quality and if anything they needed far more propping up from the Germans then Bulgaria or Turkey.
vasil21 2 years ago
5. The Navy- The German High Seas Fleet was capable of taking out its opponent, Great Britain. They didnt have to conqure the world, without the British navy the French would have folded under the power of the German Dreadnaughts (the French possesed none in 1914 and even by 1918 only had outdated and lightweight ships). However the Germans spread their pre-war navy too far from Germany and could only ever acheive parity with the British navy. Too risky to pursue an agressive capital ship policy
fp470 2 years ago
yeah.. only logical operation would be to organize a sightseeing tour with cold drinks and 5% reduced cost on public crappers
doippa123 2 years ago
from sticks and stones to swords and arrows to rifles and canonns to modern machine guns and technology. war has changed...
lemondorkhead 2 years ago
ah, you forgot the most deadly. Nuclear Warheads.
dardraa 2 years ago
You should be a general.
sketchmeister 2 years ago
same basics are still there.. to be quick and decisive and waver enemy morale with intimidation and terror.. but i think the most important aspect is to be as ruthless as possible
doippa123 2 years ago
war, has changed...
lemondorkhead 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
War, war never changes...
falls0ft 2 years ago
Their like "STAY!!!!!!!!" Lol
RobloxFreak122 2 years ago
They weren't just told to walk, they were told not to load their rifles either! 'nothing up the spout' they were told, in case they shot any of their mates in front of them, ( and of course they expected no resistence) they were made to walk in 25 lines of 1000 men in waves, i should know, my grandfather was one of the lucky ones to come back from the somme, i have several bravery awards of my grandfathers in my posetion, he came back, but with four machine gun bullet holes in his legs!
roonus1 2 years ago 14
respect for your grandfather!
tthhoommaa300 2 years ago 4
on every side of the fighting countrys:
im german and i respect the british soldiers,
who fought at that time against us.
today there is peace between our countries
and i hope it will never change
jamestaylor94b 2 years ago 36
i hope so too
tthhoommaa300 2 years ago
@jamestaylor94b hey man we are all people on this Earth,we all think the same ways and for just being that, in my mind there is no difference between countries, its just a difference in the political minds that ruins the lives of everyone elses.
dkstryker 1 year ago
@jamestaylor94b I'm british and I respect the german Soldiers.
bluesabar 1 year ago
@jamestaylor94b it did change after 20 years
MegaCrazydutchman 1 year ago
@MegaCrazydutchman unfortunatly you are right, sorry, my mistake
jamestaylor94b 1 year ago
@jamestaylor94b Amen to that, from America.
CrystalHunter1989 1 year ago
@jamestaylor94b im amercian to i respect germans sept nazis amen
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
@jamestaylor94b Im from Poland, the Germany always attacked my country and they killed a lot of people. That was in 1914 and 1939 when again?????
lukasvip7 1 year ago
@lukasvip7
When did the germans attack polen in 1914? At that time Polen was part of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary. The Partitions of Poland was in 1772, 1793 and 1795. Are you refering to the Poland from 1815, tought it was ruled by Russia. Poland, as Poland (sounds bad...) was rebuild in 1918 after WW1. Well... 1939 is a chapter German history we don't like, but it's a fact...
And what do you try to say with "when again"? I doubt that Germany start another war...
Syryktam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lukasvip7
When did the germans attack polen in 1914? At that time Polen was part of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary. The Partitions of Poland was in 1772, 1793 and 1795. Are you refering to the Poland from 1815, tought it was ruled by Russia. Poland, as Poland (sounds bad...) was rebuild in 1918 after WW1. Well... 1939 is a chapter German history we don't like, but it's a fact...
And what do you try to say with "when again"? I doubt that Germany start another war...
Syryktam 1 year ago
amen to that....our generation is not worthy of these old heroes
janak19771977 2 years ago
Well unfortunatley we had to have the Somme to learn how to fight a modern war. Bayonet charges in the 19th century with muksts it was a pain to reload with a bayonet on and it carried through into doctrine. One shot rifles made being empty also practicle.
Also if they have bullets in the gun they might stop the advance and get shelled. There is some merit in it but the reality was that it wasnt always a good idea.
fp470 2 years ago
Yeah my great grandad was in this too and he got shot in the arm and got carried back to a trench. He got medals too. Must have been terrifying.
himself000 2 years ago
from what i heard they had so much kit thy could not move very quick anyway...also the brits vere not very well trained so mabye by moving slowly their oficers had more control
either way respect to them
janak19771977 2 years ago
jesus christ.... 4 rounds in the leg....did he lose the leg?
if it hit him in the kneecap, they would have to cut it off.
BroadCastTuber 2 years ago
@roonus1 cool story bro!
sorry, i had to do it
ExOfficerJimLahey 1 year ago
@roonus1 wow
CoolKat566 1 year ago
@roonus1 youre father served in the British army??? The British army and the German army were the best!
PattonZIPPO 1 year ago
hahahaha tree house!
WeakedWeak 2 years ago
British soldiers didn't run cos they couldn't , the generals made the avarage soldier carry 4 stone worth of equiptment ontop of their normal equiptment because the generals thought the artillary bombardment (which had been going on for quite some weeks none stop) had destroyed the germans. they're "before the battle" picture was that of british/canadian and french soldiers walking over no mans land into the german treanches , setting up defences and moving the frontline onwards without fighting
JoshRatts 2 years ago 3
I can't believe not one of the soldiers took any intiative if I was the CO in the field I'd just tell them to run to the trench it wouldn't have been insubordination
Justiceforall1958 2 years ago 2
European generals tend to execute a lot of people for disagreeing them during that time period, so even if u do succeed, for disobeying them, they would have you executed for insubordination.
detectiveperson123 2 years ago
through the commanders over the top
TeRRoRx503 2 years ago
haigh the troop killers so sad so many young men slaughtered
englishman2000 2 years ago
fucken tree house????
BaconBeast11 2 years ago
i got a question why does the british soldiers go walking instead of running?????????
CoChOz1994 2 years ago 4
because if they ran, they would get split up (it was thought)
Also, there was no real expectation that there would be any opposition.
Also, war footage was often 'recreated' later on!
anthonythirteen 2 years ago 2
It was an order from Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, he told them to walk across no mans land. Claimed the superior british morale would overwhelm the german defenders.
tevyethemad 2 years ago 3
They should have been shooting at Haig.
BonesTheCat 2 years ago 3
they were walking because they thought that the constant shelling in the previous days would have taken out most of the Germans defence and men.
sociopath10 2 years ago
WTF do you have against the Newfoundland regiment? The Blue Putties suffered some of the heavy percentage losses that day. 190 went over the top, 8 returned alive...
TehAppleSauceMan 2 years ago