acr08807: plus if they did make a nuke the material they have is not pure enough for said use nor do they have the ability to do so. Hell they asked the americans to do the Purifing state side and then ship it over to them, but that would make to much sense to the americans. know if they did find a way to make the device would be small in effect as they would be learning from scratch. N.Korea's 1st bomb was a failure it was 1/3 the strength of the americans first bomb.
acr08807: its more if they wanted a bomb they in theary could have one, but I will point out that they have no means of delivering it and would be suicide if they did. All they want is the same ability that most of the west has is to power there country with nuclear energy. (on the china point) China is there allie and are quite content to let them be UNLESS the USA or Britton or Isreal Attacks them, then you will see the shit hit the fan...
boss180888: Just blame the corporations as they where the ones holding the purse strings. Republican and Demacrat are nothing more the Symbols for the Symbol minded ment to distract from what is going on behind them. In MY mind JFK was the last elected Presidant untill Lindan Johnson had him Assassinated ( because he was going to shut down the Federal Reserve which would have been bad for the Corporations ), every one else have been bought and paid for by the big corporations
And for those of your with a brain check this out compare what Nazi Germany was doing BEFORE WW2 (ignore his Genicide Plan) and then compare what the USA has been doing in the last 10 or twenty (the USA works a bit slower then Har Hitler)
unfortunatly you may all see the rise of WW3, if the USA, Brittian, Isreal attack Iran. While the great danger does not come from Iran, but from China (major nuclear power) and Russia (major nuclear power) maybe even Pakistand. this is a conflict that we all should be worried about. As Iran as NO nukes it as the potential to make them down the road but at this time they are still trying to figure out how to make fuel rodes (which is only 20-30% urinium) for nuclear power plants.
@Nmccarville Let me guess--they're five years away, right? Everyone's always five years away until they actually test a nuclear weapon. But you make a great point--why don't we just encourage China to invade Iran? They can get rid of the nuclear program and keep the oil, and we'll stay the hell out of it all.
the Governments should strip those officers of any awards given during these times. Later they got their acts together, but their failure to recognise loses for nothing ! ! is shameful. Even the Government of the time, they all should be named an shamed ! !
Napoleonic era walking assault tactics against modern artillery and machine guns was nothing less than criminal. Commanders who asked men to attack in those situations should have faced firing squads.
wars are fought by fools and started by greedy people..as usual..it aint always religion...thats used as a smokescreen..greed greed greed...and thats why there will always be wars, cos there will always be greedy people and fools...it really is as simple as that..greed is the most evil of sicknesses..today its called capatilism.
Britain should have stayed out of the war in 1914. Ergo, Canada, N.Z., Australia, S.A, and all the rest of the empire would have stayed out. Japan would have been out. America wouldn't have entered in 1917. The war would have been over by the fall. Germany would have marginally improved its position and status in central Europe. It would have been much, much better for everybody. Stupid British bastards, especially Grey and Churchill.
@breezeman199 The french alone wouldnt have been able to stop the German army. I agree. If Britain stayed out then Germany would have won, maybe taken a small region or two of france and all would have gone back to their empires.
@Pawluk44 Millions of lives would have been saved. Europe would have been spared the chaos of the post-war period. Russia would have been spared Lenin, Stalin, etc, No Hitler, WW2, etc. It would have been much better for everyone. As for the empires, they would have been eventually wound down, probably in a slower and more organized way.
@breezeman199 the business end of your crack pipe must be hot to the touch. Stop howling at the moon! Had Britain stayed out theres a very strong chance Germany would have gained control of the ports along the Belgian and Dutch coasts plus those in Northern France thus improving their position not only in central Europe but also Western. Such an eventuality then gives Germany easy access to Britains life lines a la the Battle of the Atlantic. Youre looking at it though modern eyes.
@NotoriousMannk I disagree. Germany might have taken possession of the channel ports but this doesn't mean much. First it would be occupying hostile territory it would have to hold down by force. Then, Germany's navy was much weaker then Britain's. It would still have to deal with an even more embittered France and Russia was also a problem. Germany had no reliable allies. Italy abandoned ship immediately and the Habsburg empire was moribund. The U.K. fought a hugely costly and pointless war.
@breezeman199 true, but youve described the situation that unfolded after 1940 and the Germans still nearly starved the UK then. Had we sat back in 1914 to wait and see if they then turned on us we would have been in a vastly more difficult situation. Subs not a "Navy" was all Germany needed. By 1917 shipping losses to subs was the British High Commands greatest concern and LG had been told the UK would be unable to continue in 1918 if losses continued. It would have been much worse.
@NotoriousMannk Actually shipping losses declined dramatically after the convoy sytem was introduced. It was Germany that really suffered starvation from the British blockade. In any case Germany didn't need the French channel ports in 1917 for its U-boats. Britain made a FATAL geopolitical strategic mistake with its senseless decision to go to war with the central powers in 1914. It would have been far better off if it had stayed out of it.
@breezeman199 only eventually & with limited ports. Britain's fear in 1914 was a dominant Germany with access to Atlantic ports, why else have a treaty with Belgium? Such an eventuality would've put the UK at the mercy of Germany and thus threatened the Empire which is why at the time it was one of Britains 3 main global strategies that no major Euro power control the Dutch and Belgium coastline. Invading Belgium made it the UKs problem! U dont let 1.5m aggressive soldiers play in your moat!
@NotoriousMannk Britain didn't have a treaty with Belgium. The treaty of Ghent, 1839, was a holy relic at best. There was nothing in the treaty that said Britain had to send troops to the continent or make war on any power that violated Belgium's borders. You overestimate the power and reach of the German forces. Germany had virtually zero sealift capacity. Nor is the long term occupation of a foreign country an easy matter.
@breezeman199 The Treaty of "London" (not Ghent ???) 1839 determined that Belgium stay neutral in the event of war & that the great euro powers respect & protect it in case any power violated it. Whether obliged or not the UK used it as an excuse to avoid Germany having access to said ports. In 1914 the naval arms race was still on and the pace of German naval growth, though not yet equal, showed clear intentions. The British weren't going to sit around to see what happened in a few years.
@NotoriousMannk Belgium was a "neutral" country in name only. Note how the chain of forts blocked its border with Germany. There were no defenses along its border with France. Again you overestimate German capabilities and intentions. From 1940-45 Germany was in possession of all these ports and was unable to invade. Germany had no reliable allies and numerous countries were hostile to her. Britain drained itself beyond repair in a needless war which could have been avoided.
@breezeman199 Surely a country can be neutral and still prepare to defend itself, you cant attack a neighbour with a fort! The Swiss have armed forces but are they not neutral? Youre suggesting that the UK should have stayed out of the war on the off chance the French won. The French were ready to mutiny by 1916, the Germans could have finished them off if not before then after Verdun. The French had just under 9 million against the Germans 13m +!
@NotoriousMannk Britain should have stayed neutral because the war was ruinous to her. And Europe too. The war would have ended in short order with a moderate German victory. It would have been better for everybody. The next best alternative would have been a negotiated peace in 1917 which was ruined when America unwisely intervened. Major-General J.F.C. Fuller calls this the black day of Europe and he was right.
@breezeman199 Do you really think the Germans would have stopped at France? Encouraged by their victory they would've undoubtedly carried on. We were only defending Belgian neutrality anyway. That was their ultimatum and they violated it.
@aspiringdrummer17 Britain was under no legal or political obligation to defend Belgium's very nominal 'neutrality'. Didn't the U.K. and France violate Greece's neutrality in the 1915 Dardenelles campaign? I don't think a long-term occupation of France would have been anymore successful or profitable for Germany then Britain's of Northern Ireland. Germany had no means to invade England and no reliable allies on the continent. The war was a huge and very costly mistake for Britain.
@aspiringdrummer17 Not to be trite, but was it really hindsight? Couldn't British statesmen have realized what was going to happen? Why throw in your lot with France (an enemy since 1066) and Czarist Russia (the least free country in Europe at that time)? Why not retain the policy of "splendid isolation"? Why tie yourself to a ponderous alliance with countries with interests so different from your own and lose your freedom to operate independently? Edward Grey was a disaster for the U.K.
@breezeman199 On the contrary, we had been fairly close allies with the French since the Crimean War and our interests weren't too disimmilar to theirs. Our alliance with Russia could possibly be explained by the fact that we were well aware of the ambitions of the Germans in Europe and the rest of the world and also how threatening an alliance between them and the Austro-Hungarians could be. Russia's intense dislike of the Austro-Hungarians made them a valuable ally.
@aspiringdrummer17 I disagree. Germany had no strong or reliable allies. Italy defected and soon became an enemy. As for A.H. it was a moribund empire that was overdue for dissolution & began to collpase almost at once. Overestimating the threat of Germany seems to be a common theme here. Britian should have avoided continental alliances and retained the freedom of action that being a non-aligned country would have allowed. Getting into bed with Czarist Russia in particular, was a bad risk.
@aspiringdrummer17 I disagree. Germany had no strong or reliable allies. Italy defected and soon became an enemy. As for A.H. it was a moribund empire that was overdue for dissolution & began to collpase almost at once. Overestimating the threat of Germany seems to be a common theme here. Britian should have avoided continental alliances and retained the freedom of action that being a non-aligned country would have allowed. Getting into bed with Czarist Russia in particular, was a bad risk.
@breezeman199 Britain couldn't have allowed Germany to have taken the channel ports and have had control of the Atlantic/English channel area, given that Britain was an island and entirely dependent on sea trade. In addiiton, the massive economic wealth of France added to Germany would have been catastrophic for britain, who was already coming under threat from Germany in the arms/naval race etc.
@THthefirst A long-term German occupation of northern France was pretty much unfeasible. It would have been ruinous for Germany. Look at the problems you have in much smaller Northern Ireland. Germany's naval strength was much less then Britain's too. The "danger" was much exaggerated. Britain had numerous options other then war, but failed to consider them because of the negation of statemenship by its leaders.
@breezeman199 Germany wouldn't have need to have occupied France, just merely negotiated control of certain key ports, a sympathetic French government (as with Vichy in WW2), control of France's navy (as almost happened in WW2) and control of the huge economic regions/industry in e.g. Alsace-Lorraine. That was all that was needed to overtake Britain in terms of economic production and naval supremacy, hence why the british govt were v worried - read the war cabinet minutes, it's there in print
@THthefirst What made Vichy Sympathetic? Churchill's decision - against the advice of just about everyone - to attack the French navy at Mers-el-Kebir. An attack that killed more French then Americans at Pearl Harbor. It was a catastrophic mistake. And the French navy NEVER did fall into German hands. Germany had no real naval tradition, and was severely handicapped by geography. Controlling the whole Atlantic coast of France in WW2 didn't do it any good. British statemenship pre-1914 was inept.
@breezeman199 I don't agree with your summary of that particular episode - Churchill did not act alone, he took a decision he had to take, to prevent the French fleet falling into German hands. The reason it didn't is because it was destroyed. The French could have simply handed it over to Britain in the first place. What on earth justified their refusal, in the context of Europe in 1940?
Germany wanted colonies and had a massive naval programme in the 1900s. I disagree with you entirely
@THthefirst Churchill DID ACT ALONE. He frequently made decisions like this. Remember he was both P.M. AND defense minister too. Also with a single government of national unity, he didn't need to worry about the opposition. The admiral responsible called it a "beastly operation, a lousy job and the biggest political blunder of modern times". For the truth about the context of 1940, see the book 1940 myth and reality. Germany was not a threat to Britain in 1914 and the war was too costly.
@breezeman199 You are using hindsight, which is always 20/20 vision. Any fool (and I am not suggesting you are one!) can be wise after the fact. If Britain knew she would lose 1million dead and be nearly bankrupt, of course the political leaders would not have gone to war. But they didn't know this, in fact most believed it would be a swift war of movement, like the Franco-Prussian war, to reduce German plans for expansion (which you fail to recognise for some reason) in the colonies
@THthefirst Is it hindsight? By the end of 1914, it should have been obvious the war would be long and costly. How about by the end of 1915? Surely after the shattering failure of the Somme, it should have been clear that only some compromise peace was feasible. Perhaps peace would have broken out in 1917, if America had just stayed out. This was Churchill's own opinion. Ironically had the U.K. stayed out in 1914 the war would have been short and not too harmful for Europe.
@breezeman199 Britain simply could not pull out of a war having committed itself fully. It would have been utterly disastrous for British interests around the world. Read the War Council minutes. Lord Curzon for instance knew that british dominance in India depended on britain being perceived as a strong, all-powerful nation. Not to mention that Germany would have won the war and defeated France without british intervention, so we are back to where we started in this interesting discussion.
@THthefirst That is where you are wrong. Britain hadn't committed itself fully. Had it done so there might never have been a war in the first place. Since Britain (very unwisely in my view) chose to abandon 'splendid isolation' it should have openly announced a formal alliance with France and Tsarist Russia. If Germany had known right from the get-go that any war would involve the whole British empire against it, it would possibly have been deterred. Sir Edward Grey was a disaster to the U.K.
@breezeman199 We are at cross purposes. You are referring to 1914. I am referring to the Somme. Even in 1914, Germany knew that invading belgium would bring britain into the war, but ignored the threat and regarded britain as irrelevant. German thinking was of course that even if britain could mobilise a large army, it would take 2 years to put it into the field, and in that time G felt it could defeat France and Russia in any event.
@THthefirst Actually the Kaiser asked Moltke to stop the invasion to prevent a U.K. war declaration and to turn the army east towards Russia. Moltke refused and said it couldn't be done (which was not true). Also there was nothing in the treat of 1839 that said England had to make war on any country that violated Belgium's borders. In 1914 Britain was a great power, the center of global commerce and in just 5 years the whole enormous edifice had crashed to earth. The U.K. should have stayed out.
@breezeman199 Britain's fall from grace was inevitable in any event, regardless of WW1, and given that WW1 (despite the human tragedy) led to massive social and political change within the following decade, arguably it also had positive consequences. Your point about britain not needing to wage war to protect Belgium is, with respect, misguided. How was britain to protect Belgium from German invasion without declaring war? As I say, your judgment is with hindsight, inevitably.
@THthefirst WW1 had "positive consequences"? It led to Lenin, Stalin and communism in Czarist Russia where tens of millions perished. It led to Fascism in Italy. In Germany it led to Hitler, the Nazis, holocaust and WW2. I don't think Wilhelmine Germany desired or intended or was even capable of, a permanent long-term occupation of the low countries and northern France. Such actions are very costly - look at northern Ireland. In any case the cure was worse then the disease.
@breezeman199 You can't take a black and white, one answer view of complex historical processes. All major wars are powerful dynamics. WW1 saw huge strides in medicine. It also directly led to the Franchise Act 1918 which opened up the british vote from 7m to 21m, including many of the soldiers who had fought. It also created massive social change in britain - or speeded up the underlying process. These are positives. That is not to say it was not also hugely destructive, as you suggest.
@THthefirst Whatever benefits that came from the war, none of them intentional, were more then outweighed by the costs. Britain could and should have stayed out of it and remained a "free agent" in European affairs. Britain could also have taken a different diplomatic approach to Germany in the 20 odd years beofre the war began. The war was not inevitable, or even pre-determined. It came about because of choices and decisions that were made, especially by British statesmen.
@breezeman199 Ah, so you are backtracking now because you do concede that there were benefits, whereas before you dismissed these completely. Whether the benefits were intentional is not the point, the issue is that WW1 brought a number of major social and political improvements. You keep making value judgments with hindsight - I am sure british politicans would agree with you if they knew what the war would cost, but they thought - as everyone did - it would be over quickly and cheaply.
@THthefirst I'm not backtracking. Whatever benefits accrued were just a result of the laws of unintended consequences. One could argue that Israel would not have been created without the holocaust. But was it worth it? Nor do I accept that it was really hindsight. Although it was commonly believed, there was no rational reason to assume the war would be short. Defeating a country like Germany would require a lot of time, money and blood. Especially after the Somme, this should have been obvious.
@breezeman199 In terms of whether britain could have pulled out of a war in 1915 or 1916, that suggestion completely fails to appreciate the political realities - and public opinion - at the time. Again, you are imposing a view with hindsight. Britain in 1916 was completely different to the country now. The public were still in support of the war, even with the losses. It was unthinkable britain could simply drop out when the going got tough, it would have been equally diastrous for britain.
@THthefirst You've fallen victim here to the sunken costs fallacy. In any case the war was disastrous for Britain - period. The fact that the draft had to be introduced after 1916 suggests the public wasn't as enthused as you think. Romania and Russia both withdrew from the war unilaterally. Germany was prepared to offer France Alsace-Lorraine in 1917. J.F.C. Fuller believes that would have bought France out of the war.
@breezeman199 Even on the basis that you are correct in that britain would have been better served either not having entered the war, or pulling out in say 1916, the point you miss is that british public opinion was consistently and firmly in support of the war, in marked contract to eg. Iraq in 2003. There was no support for pulling out of the war. Falling volunteers is quite different to an anti-war movement. I agree with your analysis but you are judging decisions with hindsight, as I say.
@THthefirst Perhaps the British public was doggedly determined to carry on? Perhaps? But I can't help but wonder if a visionary and bold British statemen had negotiated a separate peace, if the British Sheeple (that word is not a misspelling) wouldn't have accepted it. Speaking of hindsight, with the centenary of the war soon upon us I wonder how Britons will try to spin it? Will we see a modern version of the Wellington House drivel?
@breezeman199 Having been at the Somme last month with my father, my feelings on it are that it was a human tragedy and poignant beyond words. In terms of the objective/historical analysis, it is not controversial to argue that WW1 was pretty much a disaster for Britain for the reasons you outline. The issue is whether, knowing what the leaders knew (and didn't) at the time, they should have done it differently. Given that no one thought so at the time, even the public, it's not clear cut.
@THthefirst All wars are tragic. The objective should be to build a better peace. For example the U.S. civil war ended slavery. Did the treaty of Versailles lead to a better Europe? I believe it made the continent more dysfunctional then ever and almost certainly guaranteed another war, as many commentators stated at the time. Since any U.K. choice to wage war meant war for Canada, N.Z., Australia, etc, it was especially irresponsible for British leaders to enter into it so casually.
@breezeman199 To claim that the US Civil War ended slavery, without any further qualification, is a rather glib statement, if I may say so, given that 100 years later the country was still so divided by race that Federal troops had to be used to protect black people from racial hatred at a state governmental level.
There is also clearly a discrepancy in your descriptions of the british people as being "Sheeple" and yet also displaying "dogged determination" to carry it on at the same time.
@THthefirst Well the U.S. civil war DID end slavery. That can't be denied. In that sense the war led to a better peace. I didn't mean to imply that it ended racial tensions or problems. But it did end slavery. I don't think slavery could have ended any other way, since it was so entrenched and profitable for the slaveowners. What if the south had agreed to end the conflict and rejoin the union on the condition it keep slavery? A war-weary union accepts. Would that have been bettter?
@breezeman199 Your point was that wars should result in a better peace, and it is difficult to argue that the US Civil War solved the racial problems in the states. Whilst it ended slavery, as you say, it is hard to maintain that it directly built a better peace given that even 100 years later there were chronic problems linked to the civil war.
It is interesting that Britain abolished slavery in 1807.
@THthefirst I actually think 'sheeple' and 'dogged determination' are synonymous. Why did they display such dogged determination? Because they were sheeple; poorly educated, inculcated into a class system way of life, a lack of social mobility, a 'brainwashed' (for lack of a better term) view of Britain and the world. The top 2% of the British population controlled 98% of its wealth in 1914, (and liked it that way) while the British people lived crammed into some of the worst slums in Europe.
@breezeman199 In fact the points you make about the uk that these people lived in are all examples I alluded to when I suggested that the first world war caused massive social change - in 1918 the franchise was extended to 21m, the labour govt rose to prominence, the war shattered the social system you describe. My view really is that it took the war - on a catacylsmic scale - to break this pattern. If britain had avoided war, as you say, it would surely have taken longer to bring this change.
@THthefirst I beg to differ. Britain and Germany were on the winning and losing sides respectively of TWO world wars. But Germany today is far better off then Britain in just about every way, in my opinion. Whatever beneficial societal changes that were brought about in Britain following the war were simply due to the law of unintended consequences and were obtained at too high a price.
Whilst I appreciate this is not the ideal format to expand ideas, it is far too glib a statement to claim Germany is "far better of than Britain in just about every way". You don't even attempt to define what you mean or give any evidence.
I completely agree the consequnces were not intended. The point is that without the war, the britain you desribe and criticise ("sheeple") would have continued for longer, so the war had an unintended positive outcome, which has been my point throughout
@breezeman199 On the Germany point, what evidence do you rely on? Economically both countries are similar at the forefront of the EU. But Britain for example has a far larger workd financial centre. On the world stage, Britain punches above its weight, and (for historical reasons) has a greater influence in world affairs than Germany, being a permanent member of the security council. Culturally, it is hard to suggest british culture doesn't extend further, and London is a world city. ??
Germans resolved the problem of breaking positional defence in 1917. (Riga) & 1918. (spring ofensives). They did not have reserves to exploit them but huge gaps were made in enemy defence. At the start of ofensive at least 3:1 in soldiers and artilery, shorter artilery preparation but with great use of gas grenades, local supremacy in planes and courage behind bayonets. Some sort of progress makes this carnage more meaningfull. Even tactical progress. But that dont mean anything to the dead.
One problem with Britain is that it had a small standing army, meanwhile France and Germany had large standing armies, sending fresh recruits to the slaughter fields of the Western Front brought horrible casualties for the British.
fresh recruits wasnt the reason for the slauter at the somme. the were (to quote a german general talking about british soldiers) ''lions led by donkeys.''
@oortiz915 Yea Britain alone had a pretty small army, I read somewhere that it numbered a mere 400,000 at the start of the war, but I mean with the help of its colonies like East India, Australia, Canada etc that boosted their numbers a bit as well.
The Generals on all sides should have been castrated and burned alive for using millions of young men as pure cannon fodder. How idiotic can you be to tell men to repeatedly charge face front at artillery and machine guns; over and over with nothing more than bolt action rifles....? At least World War II had real tacticians, like Rommel, Guderian, Patton with the exception of the Russians.
@theone1087 Yea I like your point, I don't know what it is but it seemed like Generals in WW2 actually based their tactics with the main purpose being to keep casualties at a minimum and they seemed more passionate about the preservation of their mens lives, perfect example like you said being Guderian.
Oh my god I just had a nostalagic rush this was best series in all history of the History Channel XD they should return to this stuff realy history instead of monster trucks in ice or men cuting wood -_-
@ImperialGuard9001 blame the republicans and corporations, it's counter-productive and little profiting for them for the general population being informed. that way they can manipulate them better and estabilise their position of power!!!
Ive noticed that 9 out of 10 WWII documentaries that include the British tend to revolve around the phrase "British intelligence severely underestimated the Germans in the area".
Nice to see this documentary start out of the same way.
@Ezeekiel349 "British intelligence"? Isn't that like an oxymoron? Just kidding :-) Now seriously. Front in the Balkans was different and greatly underestimated. In the Balkans, especially in 1914 and 1915, the war was fought in Napoleonic manner - Mobility and is far more interesting than Western Front. But you don't see many documentaries about it and that's sad.
@SmokeDimi lol seriously, I meant to type WW1 but it got jacked up. But its true though. You watch WW1 and 2 docs about the English army and most all of them really revolve around that phrase. Id like to see a doc about the Balkans. If you could rattle one off the top of your head ill check it out.
@Ezeekiel349 I found this one /watch?v=5eODLtDz4IM There you can find some info about battles of Cer (first allied victory in WWI) and battle of Kolubara (great counterattack of Serbian army). It's not great documentary but that's what I said - there are not many good documentaries that cover Balkan front.
@Ultimatepanzer Wow, my fellow Australian, dont get angry at the religion, get angry at the person, that indian pig, might be hindu or muslim or christian.
The one thing that has always bothered me about World War I is this if the tactics the generals were using didn't work the first time they tried it what made them think they would work the next 10,000 times and as for Kitchener's Army did Kitchener even consider that allowing people from the same towns to serve together was a recipie for disaster I mean at the Somme whole towns were reduced to little more then ghost towns
@snakes3425 yeah. the military leading was idealistic back then. but soon germans inveted the diea of small tactical units, and had upper hand bechose of them. soon allies too made their own tactical units and the whole thing started all over again.
@snakes3425 It is not true at all that "whole towns were reduced to little more than Ghost towns" - eg. 1,000 or so casualties in Leeds, a city then of 150,000, was hardly causing it to be a ghost town. I am not suggesting the losses were not appalling, but get real about the effects.
As for the tactics, again, pls do some research/learning - the tactics did evolve and change over time. But ultimately, how do you take enemy trenches, without aircraft or tanks?
The point I was making was the decision to allow people from the same town to serve together devistated those towns, since the men sent to the front where the young and strong, the back bones of the economies. As for the tactics, yes they did evolve, but it took too long for the Generals to realise they were fighting a 20th Century War with 1870-71 tactics. Had European Generals studied the American Civil War things might have been different
@snakes3425 The problem is that hindsight is always perfect vision. We know now that those tactics didn't work because we have the advantage of almost 100 years. However, at the time, ALL generals of ALL countries struggled with the concept of the industrial war. It wasn't as if they were simply missing better tactics because without tanks and aircraft, how could you take trenches other than by assaulting with infantry? They thought the Somme would genuinely be a breakthrough.
@snakes3425 Because the tactics did change with time. Tanks were developed in 1916 and used in 1917/18. On 14 July a night attack, with a more concentrated bombardment on the German front line, took 6000 yards in one go.
Your point about "ghost towns" is wrong and myth, I am afraid. Take the Grimsby Pals - 2000 men - about 5% of the population. In total, 700,000 killed in UK, about 4% of the whole population, and about 15% of male population.
Nobody ewer talks about Soča front (fight around Enzio river) in Slovenian Alps... Like it never happned - and yet there also was over one millon death... Why?
@triglavsvarun because slovenia is a small country and i guess they dont really care waht happened there (if ur slovenian (triglav..) : nobenga ne briga kva se je pri nas dogajal ker smo premal pomebni pa nismo dost uglašval. Ta pomembni in zmagovalci pišejo zgodovino)
"A British soldier is a gentleman he doesnt run into battle!! He walks into battle like a gentlemen with his head up high he has no fear of the enemy he is british and one must do his duty for crown and country"
@sardukars Yes they were very brave some just age 14 it was a honour to die for king and country and the british empire. Everybody wanted to do there bit. The British were told to show no fear of the enemy he was told not to run but walk with his head up high! As a gentlemen doesnt run he walks. Even when the British were on the retreat they were told never to run like cowards walk like gentlemen. Very brave men with balls of steel they were gentlemen they were brave british.
"Even when the British were on the retreat they were told never to run" ... when you see movies or pictures taken during World War 1 they all run like chickens. German, French, ... and British troops.
Your comment is quite racist by the way. Why would there be a difference between a "brave British", a "brave French" - or a "brave German"? There was bravery on all sides - as well as cowardice.
@tristanlstein Most of time when British forces got out there trenches they would walk at there enemy not RUN! Yeah it was foolish and stupid and millions died daily from it.
@martynrobin121 If you run at the enemy you get tired, and can no longer hold the strength to fight the enemy if and when you got to the other side. Are you 9 years old or something?
@LordWellington15 Its harder to hit a moving target, And the soldiers should be fit otherwise they are dead from day 1. The Germans said it was like shooting rabbits. The Germas would run and had speed, Was it no wonder they became the great forces the world had ever seen. Blitzreig, Whitch the U.S and U.K copied off.
@kylenbk And if you run, you will still have that chance of getting shot. You will become tired, many had to walk across 1000 yards of mud. Would you run that far, get to the enemies trench and then be to tired to fight the men in the enemy trench? You march so that you do not get tired.
@Teranex What the hell? 'British don't even know basic history'....perhaps you should just reassess that and realise that maybe it was like that for a certain contextual reason, or that even if it is an error, then that small thing on this single documentary made for an obscure tv channel, doesn't sum up 100% of British Historical knowledge. Oh and by the way, Britain is the most richly historical nation in the world. Without Britain, the world would be a darker place, bereft of true civility.
@ThePalaeontologist Seriously if someone perfected the art of winners history then it was Britain.
"Britain is the most richly historical nation in the world. Without Britain, the world would be a darker place, bereft of true civility"-Ya you wished. By which criteria? Subjective opinion of someone who cant asses things without strong NATIONAL feelings. lol. Its because of people like you such "errors (Which they are not, they are made it on purpose)" happen.
@Teranex Winners History.....so you attack the fact that Britain has a military history that is largely prestigious and extensive? Also, if this is your stance, then EVERY nation or political faction on Earth in any time would be corrupt - history is always dubious. thats the point, real intellectuals have to deduce the truth. Oh and are you right in the head? Ooo Britains conspiracy of making the maps different - you are mad. I suppose you are an American misrepresentative...just off the tone.
@ThePalaeontologist "so you attack the fact that Britain has a military history that is largely prestigious and extensive"-Yes we seen how prestigious you were in the second world war, first world war and Napoleonic wars where Russians did ALL THE WORK. And you were stuck on your island like a bunch of pussies.
"Britains conspiracy of making the maps different"-Seriously you are retarded if you cant detect the magnitude of the error. Which means you don't really don't know history.
@Teranex You are wrong, and just precotiously speech-marking lines of my answers ALL the time in your responses is just foolish. You are by doing that, assuming superiority and talking down to me....the truth is however, I am not at all fazed and know full well actual British Military history, and as it happens most of the people we have ever fought agaisnt, surprisingly enough lost - but kept their own war records on the matter, showing (unless the really hated us) to be noble adversaries.
"I don't give a damn about the maps"-Well i do and anyone who cares about history does. And im not the first complaning obout the historical "errors" shown here.
"soldiers to pour onto the western front after the collapse"-Was it not for the Russians France would get steamrolled like in WW2. Where French+UK+Netherlands+Belgian army got destroyed. While the USSR alone defeated Germany. That says everything.
@Teranex *frustrated....Anyway, no, I am not, I am just finding you laughable. What is your obsession with the USSR? I see it a lot, people quite rightly respect and praise the Russians for the massive part they played in the Second World War...but then go too far and make out the Russians were the only force worth noting that stood against Nazi Germany. Right, Russia only just survived and even then after sadistically barbaric blood letting, versus just one part of Hitlers army.
@ThePalaeontologist In a hypothetical scenario that you have made me create, ok then, lets imagine Russia Versus the ENTIRE Axis Powers. All of the millions of Nazis, all of the Italians, all of the Japanese (a fanciful addition though to be fair they were carving out an empire on the mainland and had conflictious history with the russians such as at Tsushima 1905) and Finland, Romania, collaborators etc Russia needed us as much as we needed them - thats the point of a war of fighting alliances.
@ThePalaeontologist "In a hypothetical"-It was no hypothetical scenario USSR fought ALONE against the European axis till virtually 1943/44 and defeated them. Thats a historical fact. Over 80% of all the casualties on the axis were inflicted by the Russians. And in the operation august Strom Manchuria and half of Korea has fallen in virtually no time. USSR didn't need you at all. And yea Monty (AKA UK best general) got credit for being there, not actually doing anything significant.
@ThePalaeontologist "just one part of Hitlers army"-One part of the Hitlers army? Where was the other part (And how big was it)? Certainly not in Africa. Operation Barbarossa was the greatest land invasion in human history. With over 4.5 million men invading the USSR. It took only a minimal of people to hold the occupied European territories and the majority of the war in Africa was conducted by the Italians, which were led by Rommel.
@Teranex Certainly not in Africa!!! Haha....hmm, ever heard of ROMMELS AFRIKA KORPS??? Or the Luftwaffe force stationed in North Africa? Or anything of the Paratroopers of the Germans in Sicily? You have so little idea. Germans were in Greece, Italy and Africa for instance. Oh and as for size - QUALITY is more important in any battle campaign, and the Afrika Corps were numerous and man for man superior to their countrymen in Russia. The British defeated Rommel under Montgomery. End of.
@ThePalaeontologist "ever heard of ROMMELS AFRIKA"-I indeed did. So how many many Germans did participate in those operations a few thousands ? And the best equipment went to the eastern front thats why Rommel received the tiger tank as one of the last commanders. Because north Africa was of secondary importance. If there was any innovation those in the eastern front got it first. FACT.
"British defeated Rommel"-I cant recall Monty every beating Rommel lol. Mind refreshing my memory?
@Teranex Rommel and Montgomery were gentlemanly adversaries. They both respected each other, and Rommel was not of the Nazi stock as it were, believing much more in the old Prussian ideals of the arts of war and the chivalrous limits of strategy. Rommel was honoured by the British when Hitler had him killed and he was regarded in high esteem by the British public...he was not villified, he was merely affectionately known as 'The Desert Fox'. Monty was one of the most successful Allied generals.
@ThePalaeontologist "Monty was one of the most successful Allied generals."-He was one of the worst allied generals. Most of the operations he was part of failed or succeeded thanks to the Americans. He didn't actually do anything significant (Unless you know something i don't). And the most successful general of WW2 was general Zhukov (From the USSR). And yes it was so gentlemanly from you British that you wanted assassinate Rommel. Which is a very unhonorable way to lead war.
@ThePalaeontologist "We didn't have to but it was"-It was part of the lend-lease which was primary American and not British. You yourself received help worth 30 Bil pounds.
"That is not how war should work - so you would have it all factions took 20 million dead to level the tab? Are you a psychopath? What country in their right minds would?"-So you acknowledge the massive loss of the USSR but you don't acknowledge that they won the war pretty much singlehandedly. You are such a hypocrite.
@Teranex Right, I cba answering all of your impertintent replies again,as you are not getting the subtly of my points or what I mean by them. I am not making sweeping generalisations unlike you. And the speech marking thing is just childish. I can only imagine your age, but I wonder if you are just a bitter old man. I was just saying that I think its massively unfair to say the Russians could have done without us - fact. Also, as I have asked, do you have any qualifications to speak so boldy?
@ThePalaeontologist "massively unfair to say the Russians could have done without us"-Its very fair. 80% of all the axis casualties in the war happened on the eastern front while you got mopped up in France even tho you had almost one year to get ready. The same happened in the Napoleonic wars and semi-same in WW1.
"I cba answering all of your"-Lol all you can do is troll? You sure are a frustrated Brit, you spend more time insulting people then trying to defend an argument.
@ThePalaeontologist " Russians could have done without us - fact."-I don't see any facts. In fact you don't present any arguments to contradict my statement. Thus i remain right, even if you deny everything, which doesn't help you. In case you didn't notice you dont present any information which would support your view, you simply claim something without backing it up with empirical information. Yes of course there were Germans in Africa but in comparison to the eastern front not really.
@ThePalaeontologist "do you have any qualifications to speak so boldy?"-All information i have given to you is historical fact, which i supported with additional information which you can check up on. All you did is to give me statments like:
-Are you a psychopath
-were gentlemanly adversaries
-Stalingrad was 9/10 German
In what way does that contradict me? Are you denying that 80% of all axis casualties happened in Russia or that Napoleons grade army got destroyed in RUSSIA?
@ThePalaeontologist "actual British Military"-Yes like in waterloo where per official UK records most of the Army was British (And not Dutch) and the Prussians had no part in it. So all credit goes to UK. Sure Britain won wars, if someone else did most of the fighting for you. In most of the wars you won someone else took the blunt of the conflict, while the most of the wars you lost were fought mostly by your forces.
"You are wrong"-Writing stuff like this shows your low level.
@Teranex Were are you making this stuff up? It is well known that the British, Dutch and Germans - Germans in particular whom had been shipped to England as they sought refuge from the French Empire as it overran the Germanic states. The British public would have been aware of this, something like that cannot be avoided. Britain allowed others to take most of the *brunt of the conflict???? Britain has won MANY wars, campaigns and battles alone, and if with others the biggest player at arms.
@ThePalaeontologist "others the biggest player at arm"-So you are saying Britain allowed to take refuge to some people and that makes her a significant player in the war lol? In the meantime (Different coalitions) Prussia, Sweden, Russia, Austria took the blunt of the Napoleonic wars, while you didn't do anything except to fight in Portugal till the very end, when Napoleon got already beaten. Where was your army in 1892?
"frustrated"-For finding this so laughable your pretty emotional on it.
@ThePalaeontologist "What is your obsession with the USSR?"-Russia is the perfect historical example WW1, WW2 and Napoleonic wars which takes the majority of the conflict (2 times also singlehandedly defeats the aggressor invading it) while UK sits back in its island and waits it out, till the main enemy is significantly worn down so you can go for the final stab in the back, after that you proclaim how much of a significant part of the war you were.
@Teranex You are a troll with no life. End of. You are just one of those people who will never understand reason and logic, and simply deflect it with mock imitations of it - doubtlessly, as you have done all the time so far, you shall just speech mark things I type and paraphrase whatever you think you can twist around and make seem supportive of yourself. You are so arrogant its intolerable. You have no real arguments, just a potted history with unfair views. Do you have any qualifications?
@ThePalaeontologist "You are a troll with no life."-Wow you really are furstraded lol. And seriously saying that i got no arguments is called denial and it doesnt contradict me in anyway.
Let see some of the battle record of Monty:
-El Alamein- won due superiority in material and men and Rommel was on sick leave at that time.
-North Africa- he didn't mange to destroy Rommel's army and Americans landed starting operation torch under Eisenhower
@Teranex Russia was hanging by a thread. Stalingrad was 9/10 German at one point, and if it had fallen then so would have Russia, its oilfields and industry plundered and the wide plains left to be mopped up by the germans. You just try and tell your thoughts to British or American, Polish or Australian etc Veterans. Look into to their faces and wonder whether you are just being an obnoxious armchair general who has no idea of the minutiae of war, the respect between allies forged in blood.
@ThePalaeontologist "Russia was hanging by a thread"-That doesnt change the fact that A)Russia won ALONE B)Russia took the blunt of the conflict while you sat back and did nothing.
"British or American"-Why dont you look at the 20 million dead in russia, whicht TOOK THE BLUNT of the conflict.
@Teranex That is not how war should work - so you would have it all factions took 20 million dead to level the tab? Are you a psychopath? What country in their right minds would? 15% of the entire population of Russia died in WW2. That is beyond all reason and all sanity. Oh, and try telling your ideas to the British North Sea and Baltic Convoys of Merchant Ships and that suffered appalling sacrifices to supply Leningrad and the Russians fighting there. We didn't have to but it was a noble act.
@ThePalaeontologist Also thats not the first time i detected that error, i have seen it often on history channel also, where Germany in WW1 and WW2 was shown in its moder day borders. So you either sux at history or want to rewrite it. Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows how subjective you are about the matter (All French and Russian documentaries show Germany in its correct borders, since they don't have to rewrite history to be have something to be proud of).
@Teranex What is your problem (besides deep psychological ones) you dim wit? To be quite honest, I don't give a damn about the maps on tv, the important truth is this truth, that Britain and Germany were the two real and CONSISTENT big players in WW1 - Russia got its ass kicked and thus allowed 3 million german empire soldiers to pour onto the western front after the collapse of the russian empire and its eastern front. If not for the British, the French fops would have lost flanders in a year.
We fought with Britain when she was striped bare of all allies in Europe. When she stood up high on the pedastel of defeat with the world reigning against her, with so few allies and so little hope. The sons of Canada came to the Empire's aid, the sons of Canada answered the call. In her greatest hour of need Canada stood by Britain. No matter the year be it 1914 or 1939, We will never forget where our loyalty is and where it will always be.
@illegalbadgerbaiting I remember the British used the creeping barrage again with great effect at Cambrai to camoflauge their tanks. Amazingly after all the ground the British controlled was quickly lost by the German's countrerattack by Georg von der Marwitz. At least Cambrai proved the tank's future worth even though most of the tanks had broken or bogged down at the Somme.
acr08807: plus if they did make a nuke the material they have is not pure enough for said use nor do they have the ability to do so. Hell they asked the americans to do the Purifing state side and then ship it over to them, but that would make to much sense to the americans. know if they did find a way to make the device would be small in effect as they would be learning from scratch. N.Korea's 1st bomb was a failure it was 1/3 the strength of the americans first bomb.
Nmccarville 2 weeks ago
acr08807: its more if they wanted a bomb they in theary could have one, but I will point out that they have no means of delivering it and would be suicide if they did. All they want is the same ability that most of the west has is to power there country with nuclear energy. (on the china point) China is there allie and are quite content to let them be UNLESS the USA or Britton or Isreal Attacks them, then you will see the shit hit the fan...
Nmccarville 2 weeks ago
boss180888: Just blame the corporations as they where the ones holding the purse strings. Republican and Demacrat are nothing more the Symbols for the Symbol minded ment to distract from what is going on behind them. In MY mind JFK was the last elected Presidant untill Lindan Johnson had him Assassinated ( because he was going to shut down the Federal Reserve which would have been bad for the Corporations ), every one else have been bought and paid for by the big corporations
Nmccarville 1 month ago in playlist WW 1
@Nmccarville I hate Lindan Johnson.
acr08807 2 weeks ago
And for those of your with a brain check this out compare what Nazi Germany was doing BEFORE WW2 (ignore his Genicide Plan) and then compare what the USA has been doing in the last 10 or twenty (the USA works a bit slower then Har Hitler)
Nmccarville 1 month ago in playlist WW 1
unfortunatly you may all see the rise of WW3, if the USA, Brittian, Isreal attack Iran. While the great danger does not come from Iran, but from China (major nuclear power) and Russia (major nuclear power) maybe even Pakistand. this is a conflict that we all should be worried about. As Iran as NO nukes it as the potential to make them down the road but at this time they are still trying to figure out how to make fuel rodes (which is only 20-30% urinium) for nuclear power plants.
Nmccarville 1 month ago in playlist WW 1
@Nmccarville Let me guess--they're five years away, right? Everyone's always five years away until they actually test a nuclear weapon. But you make a great point--why don't we just encourage China to invade Iran? They can get rid of the nuclear program and keep the oil, and we'll stay the hell out of it all.
acr08807 2 weeks ago
the Governments should strip those officers of any awards given during these times. Later they got their acts together, but their failure to recognise loses for nothing ! ! is shameful. Even the Government of the time, they all should be named an shamed ! !
churdude 1 month ago
Never Again.
wahaya2 1 month ago
1.2 million wounded or dead . . . simply insanity . . .
Jarjarjar21 2 months ago
Napoleonic era walking assault tactics against modern artillery and machine guns was nothing less than criminal. Commanders who asked men to attack in those situations should have faced firing squads.
realityright 3 months ago 10
@realityright I agree 100%
sterry02 2 months ago
@realityright General Douglas Haig especially
GSPatton89 2 months ago
For the neocon war mongers, it is always, 1939;
For the anti-imperialists, it is always 1914, or at least 1938 when WW2 in Europe anyway could have been prevented.
RPenta 3 months ago
wars are fought by fools and started by greedy people..as usual..it aint always religion...thats used as a smokescreen..greed greed greed...and thats why there will always be wars, cos there will always be greedy people and fools...it really is as simple as that..greed is the most evil of sicknesses..today its called capatilism.
andrewkenworthy 3 months ago
like if u r watching this beacuse u have a history test coming up.....
jenny34531 5 months ago
If the poor fools only knew.
Cytacon 5 months ago
This war was the greatest example of epicly idiotic generals.
cavaleer 5 months ago
Britain should have stayed out of the war in 1914. Ergo, Canada, N.Z., Australia, S.A, and all the rest of the empire would have stayed out. Japan would have been out. America wouldn't have entered in 1917. The war would have been over by the fall. Germany would have marginally improved its position and status in central Europe. It would have been much, much better for everybody. Stupid British bastards, especially Grey and Churchill.
breezeman199 7 months ago
@breezeman199 We wouldn't have had the horror WWII or the evils of Communism. I totally agree.
langescg 6 months ago
@breezeman199 The french alone wouldnt have been able to stop the German army. I agree. If Britain stayed out then Germany would have won, maybe taken a small region or two of france and all would have gone back to their empires.
Pawluk44 6 months ago
@Pawluk44 Millions of lives would have been saved. Europe would have been spared the chaos of the post-war period. Russia would have been spared Lenin, Stalin, etc, No Hitler, WW2, etc. It would have been much better for everyone. As for the empires, they would have been eventually wound down, probably in a slower and more organized way.
breezeman199 6 months ago
@breezeman199 the business end of your crack pipe must be hot to the touch. Stop howling at the moon! Had Britain stayed out theres a very strong chance Germany would have gained control of the ports along the Belgian and Dutch coasts plus those in Northern France thus improving their position not only in central Europe but also Western. Such an eventuality then gives Germany easy access to Britains life lines a la the Battle of the Atlantic. Youre looking at it though modern eyes.
NotoriousMannk 6 months ago
@NotoriousMannk I disagree. Germany might have taken possession of the channel ports but this doesn't mean much. First it would be occupying hostile territory it would have to hold down by force. Then, Germany's navy was much weaker then Britain's. It would still have to deal with an even more embittered France and Russia was also a problem. Germany had no reliable allies. Italy abandoned ship immediately and the Habsburg empire was moribund. The U.K. fought a hugely costly and pointless war.
breezeman199 6 months ago
@breezeman199 true, but youve described the situation that unfolded after 1940 and the Germans still nearly starved the UK then. Had we sat back in 1914 to wait and see if they then turned on us we would have been in a vastly more difficult situation. Subs not a "Navy" was all Germany needed. By 1917 shipping losses to subs was the British High Commands greatest concern and LG had been told the UK would be unable to continue in 1918 if losses continued. It would have been much worse.
NotoriousMannk 6 months ago
@NotoriousMannk Actually shipping losses declined dramatically after the convoy sytem was introduced. It was Germany that really suffered starvation from the British blockade. In any case Germany didn't need the French channel ports in 1917 for its U-boats. Britain made a FATAL geopolitical strategic mistake with its senseless decision to go to war with the central powers in 1914. It would have been far better off if it had stayed out of it.
breezeman199 6 months ago
@breezeman199 only eventually & with limited ports. Britain's fear in 1914 was a dominant Germany with access to Atlantic ports, why else have a treaty with Belgium? Such an eventuality would've put the UK at the mercy of Germany and thus threatened the Empire which is why at the time it was one of Britains 3 main global strategies that no major Euro power control the Dutch and Belgium coastline. Invading Belgium made it the UKs problem! U dont let 1.5m aggressive soldiers play in your moat!
NotoriousMannk 6 months ago
@NotoriousMannk Britain didn't have a treaty with Belgium. The treaty of Ghent, 1839, was a holy relic at best. There was nothing in the treaty that said Britain had to send troops to the continent or make war on any power that violated Belgium's borders. You overestimate the power and reach of the German forces. Germany had virtually zero sealift capacity. Nor is the long term occupation of a foreign country an easy matter.
breezeman199 6 months ago
@breezeman199 The Treaty of "London" (not Ghent ???) 1839 determined that Belgium stay neutral in the event of war & that the great euro powers respect & protect it in case any power violated it. Whether obliged or not the UK used it as an excuse to avoid Germany having access to said ports. In 1914 the naval arms race was still on and the pace of German naval growth, though not yet equal, showed clear intentions. The British weren't going to sit around to see what happened in a few years.
NotoriousMannk 6 months ago
@NotoriousMannk Belgium was a "neutral" country in name only. Note how the chain of forts blocked its border with Germany. There were no defenses along its border with France. Again you overestimate German capabilities and intentions. From 1940-45 Germany was in possession of all these ports and was unable to invade. Germany had no reliable allies and numerous countries were hostile to her. Britain drained itself beyond repair in a needless war which could have been avoided.
breezeman199 6 months ago
@breezeman199 Surely a country can be neutral and still prepare to defend itself, you cant attack a neighbour with a fort! The Swiss have armed forces but are they not neutral? Youre suggesting that the UK should have stayed out of the war on the off chance the French won. The French were ready to mutiny by 1916, the Germans could have finished them off if not before then after Verdun. The French had just under 9 million against the Germans 13m +!
NotoriousMannk 6 months ago
@NotoriousMannk Britain should have stayed neutral because the war was ruinous to her. And Europe too. The war would have ended in short order with a moderate German victory. It would have been better for everybody. The next best alternative would have been a negotiated peace in 1917 which was ruined when America unwisely intervened. Major-General J.F.C. Fuller calls this the black day of Europe and he was right.
breezeman199 6 months ago
@breezeman199 Do you really think the Germans would have stopped at France? Encouraged by their victory they would've undoubtedly carried on. We were only defending Belgian neutrality anyway. That was their ultimatum and they violated it.
aspiringdrummer17 5 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Britain was under no legal or political obligation to defend Belgium's very nominal 'neutrality'. Didn't the U.K. and France violate Greece's neutrality in the 1915 Dardenelles campaign? I don't think a long-term occupation of France would have been anymore successful or profitable for Germany then Britain's of Northern Ireland. Germany had no means to invade England and no reliable allies on the continent. The war was a huge and very costly mistake for Britain.
breezeman199 5 months ago
@breezeman199 Yes you're right in some ways but the gift of hindsight is a wonderful thing
aspiringdrummer17 5 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Not to be trite, but was it really hindsight? Couldn't British statesmen have realized what was going to happen? Why throw in your lot with France (an enemy since 1066) and Czarist Russia (the least free country in Europe at that time)? Why not retain the policy of "splendid isolation"? Why tie yourself to a ponderous alliance with countries with interests so different from your own and lose your freedom to operate independently? Edward Grey was a disaster for the U.K.
breezeman199 5 months ago
@breezeman199 On the contrary, we had been fairly close allies with the French since the Crimean War and our interests weren't too disimmilar to theirs. Our alliance with Russia could possibly be explained by the fact that we were well aware of the ambitions of the Germans in Europe and the rest of the world and also how threatening an alliance between them and the Austro-Hungarians could be. Russia's intense dislike of the Austro-Hungarians made them a valuable ally.
aspiringdrummer17 5 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 I disagree. Germany had no strong or reliable allies. Italy defected and soon became an enemy. As for A.H. it was a moribund empire that was overdue for dissolution & began to collpase almost at once. Overestimating the threat of Germany seems to be a common theme here. Britian should have avoided continental alliances and retained the freedom of action that being a non-aligned country would have allowed. Getting into bed with Czarist Russia in particular, was a bad risk.
breezeman199 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aspiringdrummer17 I disagree. Germany had no strong or reliable allies. Italy defected and soon became an enemy. As for A.H. it was a moribund empire that was overdue for dissolution & began to collpase almost at once. Overestimating the threat of Germany seems to be a common theme here. Britian should have avoided continental alliances and retained the freedom of action that being a non-aligned country would have allowed. Getting into bed with Czarist Russia in particular, was a bad risk.
breezeman199 5 months ago
@breezeman199 Britain couldn't have allowed Germany to have taken the channel ports and have had control of the Atlantic/English channel area, given that Britain was an island and entirely dependent on sea trade. In addiiton, the massive economic wealth of France added to Germany would have been catastrophic for britain, who was already coming under threat from Germany in the arms/naval race etc.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst A long-term German occupation of northern France was pretty much unfeasible. It would have been ruinous for Germany. Look at the problems you have in much smaller Northern Ireland. Germany's naval strength was much less then Britain's too. The "danger" was much exaggerated. Britain had numerous options other then war, but failed to consider them because of the negation of statemenship by its leaders.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 Germany wouldn't have need to have occupied France, just merely negotiated control of certain key ports, a sympathetic French government (as with Vichy in WW2), control of France's navy (as almost happened in WW2) and control of the huge economic regions/industry in e.g. Alsace-Lorraine. That was all that was needed to overtake Britain in terms of economic production and naval supremacy, hence why the british govt were v worried - read the war cabinet minutes, it's there in print
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst What made Vichy Sympathetic? Churchill's decision - against the advice of just about everyone - to attack the French navy at Mers-el-Kebir. An attack that killed more French then Americans at Pearl Harbor. It was a catastrophic mistake. And the French navy NEVER did fall into German hands. Germany had no real naval tradition, and was severely handicapped by geography. Controlling the whole Atlantic coast of France in WW2 didn't do it any good. British statemenship pre-1914 was inept.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 I don't agree with your summary of that particular episode - Churchill did not act alone, he took a decision he had to take, to prevent the French fleet falling into German hands. The reason it didn't is because it was destroyed. The French could have simply handed it over to Britain in the first place. What on earth justified their refusal, in the context of Europe in 1940?
Germany wanted colonies and had a massive naval programme in the 1900s. I disagree with you entirely
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst Churchill DID ACT ALONE. He frequently made decisions like this. Remember he was both P.M. AND defense minister too. Also with a single government of national unity, he didn't need to worry about the opposition. The admiral responsible called it a "beastly operation, a lousy job and the biggest political blunder of modern times". For the truth about the context of 1940, see the book 1940 myth and reality. Germany was not a threat to Britain in 1914 and the war was too costly.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 You are using hindsight, which is always 20/20 vision. Any fool (and I am not suggesting you are one!) can be wise after the fact. If Britain knew she would lose 1million dead and be nearly bankrupt, of course the political leaders would not have gone to war. But they didn't know this, in fact most believed it would be a swift war of movement, like the Franco-Prussian war, to reduce German plans for expansion (which you fail to recognise for some reason) in the colonies
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst Is it hindsight? By the end of 1914, it should have been obvious the war would be long and costly. How about by the end of 1915? Surely after the shattering failure of the Somme, it should have been clear that only some compromise peace was feasible. Perhaps peace would have broken out in 1917, if America had just stayed out. This was Churchill's own opinion. Ironically had the U.K. stayed out in 1914 the war would have been short and not too harmful for Europe.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 Britain simply could not pull out of a war having committed itself fully. It would have been utterly disastrous for British interests around the world. Read the War Council minutes. Lord Curzon for instance knew that british dominance in India depended on britain being perceived as a strong, all-powerful nation. Not to mention that Germany would have won the war and defeated France without british intervention, so we are back to where we started in this interesting discussion.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst That is where you are wrong. Britain hadn't committed itself fully. Had it done so there might never have been a war in the first place. Since Britain (very unwisely in my view) chose to abandon 'splendid isolation' it should have openly announced a formal alliance with France and Tsarist Russia. If Germany had known right from the get-go that any war would involve the whole British empire against it, it would possibly have been deterred. Sir Edward Grey was a disaster to the U.K.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 We are at cross purposes. You are referring to 1914. I am referring to the Somme. Even in 1914, Germany knew that invading belgium would bring britain into the war, but ignored the threat and regarded britain as irrelevant. German thinking was of course that even if britain could mobilise a large army, it would take 2 years to put it into the field, and in that time G felt it could defeat France and Russia in any event.
As I say, hindsight is always 20/20 vision.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst Actually the Kaiser asked Moltke to stop the invasion to prevent a U.K. war declaration and to turn the army east towards Russia. Moltke refused and said it couldn't be done (which was not true). Also there was nothing in the treat of 1839 that said England had to make war on any country that violated Belgium's borders. In 1914 Britain was a great power, the center of global commerce and in just 5 years the whole enormous edifice had crashed to earth. The U.K. should have stayed out.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 Britain's fall from grace was inevitable in any event, regardless of WW1, and given that WW1 (despite the human tragedy) led to massive social and political change within the following decade, arguably it also had positive consequences. Your point about britain not needing to wage war to protect Belgium is, with respect, misguided. How was britain to protect Belgium from German invasion without declaring war? As I say, your judgment is with hindsight, inevitably.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst WW1 had "positive consequences"? It led to Lenin, Stalin and communism in Czarist Russia where tens of millions perished. It led to Fascism in Italy. In Germany it led to Hitler, the Nazis, holocaust and WW2. I don't think Wilhelmine Germany desired or intended or was even capable of, a permanent long-term occupation of the low countries and northern France. Such actions are very costly - look at northern Ireland. In any case the cure was worse then the disease.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 You can't take a black and white, one answer view of complex historical processes. All major wars are powerful dynamics. WW1 saw huge strides in medicine. It also directly led to the Franchise Act 1918 which opened up the british vote from 7m to 21m, including many of the soldiers who had fought. It also created massive social change in britain - or speeded up the underlying process. These are positives. That is not to say it was not also hugely destructive, as you suggest.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst Whatever benefits that came from the war, none of them intentional, were more then outweighed by the costs. Britain could and should have stayed out of it and remained a "free agent" in European affairs. Britain could also have taken a different diplomatic approach to Germany in the 20 odd years beofre the war began. The war was not inevitable, or even pre-determined. It came about because of choices and decisions that were made, especially by British statesmen.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 Ah, so you are backtracking now because you do concede that there were benefits, whereas before you dismissed these completely. Whether the benefits were intentional is not the point, the issue is that WW1 brought a number of major social and political improvements. You keep making value judgments with hindsight - I am sure british politicans would agree with you if they knew what the war would cost, but they thought - as everyone did - it would be over quickly and cheaply.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst I'm not backtracking. Whatever benefits accrued were just a result of the laws of unintended consequences. One could argue that Israel would not have been created without the holocaust. But was it worth it? Nor do I accept that it was really hindsight. Although it was commonly believed, there was no rational reason to assume the war would be short. Defeating a country like Germany would require a lot of time, money and blood. Especially after the Somme, this should have been obvious.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 In terms of whether britain could have pulled out of a war in 1915 or 1916, that suggestion completely fails to appreciate the political realities - and public opinion - at the time. Again, you are imposing a view with hindsight. Britain in 1916 was completely different to the country now. The public were still in support of the war, even with the losses. It was unthinkable britain could simply drop out when the going got tough, it would have been equally diastrous for britain.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst You've fallen victim here to the sunken costs fallacy. In any case the war was disastrous for Britain - period. The fact that the draft had to be introduced after 1916 suggests the public wasn't as enthused as you think. Romania and Russia both withdrew from the war unilaterally. Germany was prepared to offer France Alsace-Lorraine in 1917. J.F.C. Fuller believes that would have bought France out of the war.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 Even on the basis that you are correct in that britain would have been better served either not having entered the war, or pulling out in say 1916, the point you miss is that british public opinion was consistently and firmly in support of the war, in marked contract to eg. Iraq in 2003. There was no support for pulling out of the war. Falling volunteers is quite different to an anti-war movement. I agree with your analysis but you are judging decisions with hindsight, as I say.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst Perhaps the British public was doggedly determined to carry on? Perhaps? But I can't help but wonder if a visionary and bold British statemen had negotiated a separate peace, if the British Sheeple (that word is not a misspelling) wouldn't have accepted it. Speaking of hindsight, with the centenary of the war soon upon us I wonder how Britons will try to spin it? Will we see a modern version of the Wellington House drivel?
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 Having been at the Somme last month with my father, my feelings on it are that it was a human tragedy and poignant beyond words. In terms of the objective/historical analysis, it is not controversial to argue that WW1 was pretty much a disaster for Britain for the reasons you outline. The issue is whether, knowing what the leaders knew (and didn't) at the time, they should have done it differently. Given that no one thought so at the time, even the public, it's not clear cut.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst All wars are tragic. The objective should be to build a better peace. For example the U.S. civil war ended slavery. Did the treaty of Versailles lead to a better Europe? I believe it made the continent more dysfunctional then ever and almost certainly guaranteed another war, as many commentators stated at the time. Since any U.K. choice to wage war meant war for Canada, N.Z., Australia, etc, it was especially irresponsible for British leaders to enter into it so casually.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 To claim that the US Civil War ended slavery, without any further qualification, is a rather glib statement, if I may say so, given that 100 years later the country was still so divided by race that Federal troops had to be used to protect black people from racial hatred at a state governmental level.
There is also clearly a discrepancy in your descriptions of the british people as being "Sheeple" and yet also displaying "dogged determination" to carry it on at the same time.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst Well the U.S. civil war DID end slavery. That can't be denied. In that sense the war led to a better peace. I didn't mean to imply that it ended racial tensions or problems. But it did end slavery. I don't think slavery could have ended any other way, since it was so entrenched and profitable for the slaveowners. What if the south had agreed to end the conflict and rejoin the union on the condition it keep slavery? A war-weary union accepts. Would that have been bettter?
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 Your point was that wars should result in a better peace, and it is difficult to argue that the US Civil War solved the racial problems in the states. Whilst it ended slavery, as you say, it is hard to maintain that it directly built a better peace given that even 100 years later there were chronic problems linked to the civil war.
It is interesting that Britain abolished slavery in 1807.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst I actually think 'sheeple' and 'dogged determination' are synonymous. Why did they display such dogged determination? Because they were sheeple; poorly educated, inculcated into a class system way of life, a lack of social mobility, a 'brainwashed' (for lack of a better term) view of Britain and the world. The top 2% of the British population controlled 98% of its wealth in 1914, (and liked it that way) while the British people lived crammed into some of the worst slums in Europe.
breezeman199 4 months ago
@breezeman199 What's your point? Why were the British people you describe at the time any different to those in Berlin, Paris, Madrid and Moscow?
THthefirst 4 months ago
@breezeman199 In fact the points you make about the uk that these people lived in are all examples I alluded to when I suggested that the first world war caused massive social change - in 1918 the franchise was extended to 21m, the labour govt rose to prominence, the war shattered the social system you describe. My view really is that it took the war - on a catacylsmic scale - to break this pattern. If britain had avoided war, as you say, it would surely have taken longer to bring this change.
THthefirst 4 months ago
@THthefirst I beg to differ. Britain and Germany were on the winning and losing sides respectively of TWO world wars. But Germany today is far better off then Britain in just about every way, in my opinion. Whatever beneficial societal changes that were brought about in Britain following the war were simply due to the law of unintended consequences and were obtained at too high a price.
breezeman199 4 months ago
Whilst I appreciate this is not the ideal format to expand ideas, it is far too glib a statement to claim Germany is "far better of than Britain in just about every way". You don't even attempt to define what you mean or give any evidence.
I completely agree the consequnces were not intended. The point is that without the war, the britain you desribe and criticise ("sheeple") would have continued for longer, so the war had an unintended positive outcome, which has been my point throughout
THthefirst 4 months ago
@breezeman199 On the Germany point, what evidence do you rely on? Economically both countries are similar at the forefront of the EU. But Britain for example has a far larger workd financial centre. On the world stage, Britain punches above its weight, and (for historical reasons) has a greater influence in world affairs than Germany, being a permanent member of the security council. Culturally, it is hard to suggest british culture doesn't extend further, and London is a world city. ??
THthefirst 4 months ago
Germans resolved the problem of breaking positional defence in 1917. (Riga) & 1918. (spring ofensives). They did not have reserves to exploit them but huge gaps were made in enemy defence. At the start of ofensive at least 3:1 in soldiers and artilery, shorter artilery preparation but with great use of gas grenades, local supremacy in planes and courage behind bayonets. Some sort of progress makes this carnage more meaningfull. Even tactical progress. But that dont mean anything to the dead.
FilmRomMusDrawingWar 7 months ago
WTF Is that map in 4:57 ?!
SoTexDesign 7 months ago
One problem with Britain is that it had a small standing army, meanwhile France and Germany had large standing armies, sending fresh recruits to the slaughter fields of the Western Front brought horrible casualties for the British.
oortiz915 7 months ago
@oortiz915
fresh recruits wasnt the reason for the slauter at the somme. the were (to quote a german general talking about british soldiers) ''lions led by donkeys.''
ManicMammoth 7 months ago
@oortiz915 Yea Britain alone had a pretty small army, I read somewhere that it numbered a mere 400,000 at the start of the war, but I mean with the help of its colonies like East India, Australia, Canada etc that boosted their numbers a bit as well.
thedicklick1 7 months ago
The Generals on all sides should have been castrated and burned alive for using millions of young men as pure cannon fodder. How idiotic can you be to tell men to repeatedly charge face front at artillery and machine guns; over and over with nothing more than bolt action rifles....? At least World War II had real tacticians, like Rommel, Guderian, Patton with the exception of the Russians.
theone1087 8 months ago
@theone1087 Yea I like your point, I don't know what it is but it seemed like Generals in WW2 actually based their tactics with the main purpose being to keep casualties at a minimum and they seemed more passionate about the preservation of their mens lives, perfect example like you said being Guderian.
thedicklick1 7 months ago
Oh my god I just had a nostalagic rush this was best series in all history of the History Channel XD they should return to this stuff realy history instead of monster trucks in ice or men cuting wood -_-
ImperialGuard9001 9 months ago 42
@ImperialGuard9001 blame the republicans and corporations, it's counter-productive and little profiting for them for the general population being informed. that way they can manipulate them better and estabilise their position of power!!!
boss180888 4 months ago
Ive noticed that 9 out of 10 WWII documentaries that include the British tend to revolve around the phrase "British intelligence severely underestimated the Germans in the area".
Nice to see this documentary start out of the same way.
Ezeekiel349 9 months ago
@Ezeekiel349 "British intelligence"? Isn't that like an oxymoron? Just kidding :-) Now seriously. Front in the Balkans was different and greatly underestimated. In the Balkans, especially in 1914 and 1915, the war was fought in Napoleonic manner - Mobility and is far more interesting than Western Front. But you don't see many documentaries about it and that's sad.
SmokeDimi 8 months ago
@SmokeDimi lol seriously, I meant to type WW1 but it got jacked up. But its true though. You watch WW1 and 2 docs about the English army and most all of them really revolve around that phrase. Id like to see a doc about the Balkans. If you could rattle one off the top of your head ill check it out.
Ezeekiel349 8 months ago
@Ezeekiel349 I found this one /watch?v=5eODLtDz4IM There you can find some info about battles of Cer (first allied victory in WWI) and battle of Kolubara (great counterattack of Serbian army). It's not great documentary but that's what I said - there are not many good documentaries that cover Balkan front.
SmokeDimi 8 months ago
? these comments r not about the battle of the sum lol
slaneslau 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@INDIANGURU69 I'm from Australia so i'm already more valued than you in world society.
UMAD COZ OSAMA'S DEAD?!
COZ HE GOT RAPED JUST LIKE YOUR PARENTS?
MAD COZ I HAVE A HOUSE AND NOT A SHITTY INDIAN SLUM?
MAD COZ YOU'RE A POORFAG AND I'M RICH?
Ultimatepanzer 9 months ago
@Ultimatepanzer Wow, my fellow Australian, dont get angry at the religion, get angry at the person, that indian pig, might be hindu or muslim or christian.
hehehe929 9 months ago
@hehehe929 It's the best way to get to him though :)
Ultimatepanzer 9 months ago
@INDIANGURU69 You mad coz I eat cow?
Ultimatepanzer 9 months ago
@l4dmaster100 6 hehe
sirbestnameever 10 months ago
The command structure obviously didn't place a whole lot of value on human life.
Zyworski 11 months ago
even thou this was moral defeat. the results of this battle was tactical and stragetic victory to allies.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
The one thing that has always bothered me about World War I is this if the tactics the generals were using didn't work the first time they tried it what made them think they would work the next 10,000 times and as for Kitchener's Army did Kitchener even consider that allowing people from the same towns to serve together was a recipie for disaster I mean at the Somme whole towns were reduced to little more then ghost towns
snakes3425 11 months ago 5
@snakes3425 yeah. the military leading was idealistic back then. but soon germans inveted the diea of small tactical units, and had upper hand bechose of them. soon allies too made their own tactical units and the whole thing started all over again.
gooddarkjedi 11 months ago
@snakes3425 It is not true at all that "whole towns were reduced to little more than Ghost towns" - eg. 1,000 or so casualties in Leeds, a city then of 150,000, was hardly causing it to be a ghost town. I am not suggesting the losses were not appalling, but get real about the effects.
As for the tactics, again, pls do some research/learning - the tactics did evolve and change over time. But ultimately, how do you take enemy trenches, without aircraft or tanks?
THthefirst 6 months ago
@THthefirst
The point I was making was the decision to allow people from the same town to serve together devistated those towns, since the men sent to the front where the young and strong, the back bones of the economies. As for the tactics, yes they did evolve, but it took too long for the Generals to realise they were fighting a 20th Century War with 1870-71 tactics. Had European Generals studied the American Civil War things might have been different
snakes3425 6 months ago
@snakes3425 The problem is that hindsight is always perfect vision. We know now that those tactics didn't work because we have the advantage of almost 100 years. However, at the time, ALL generals of ALL countries struggled with the concept of the industrial war. It wasn't as if they were simply missing better tactics because without tanks and aircraft, how could you take trenches other than by assaulting with infantry? They thought the Somme would genuinely be a breakthrough.
THthefirst 6 months ago
@snakes3425 you need to read more
NotoriousMannk 6 months ago
@snakes3425 Because the tactics did change with time. Tanks were developed in 1916 and used in 1917/18. On 14 July a night attack, with a more concentrated bombardment on the German front line, took 6000 yards in one go.
Your point about "ghost towns" is wrong and myth, I am afraid. Take the Grimsby Pals - 2000 men - about 5% of the population. In total, 700,000 killed in UK, about 4% of the whole population, and about 15% of male population.
Don't rely on lazy myths.
THthefirst 5 months ago
Nobody ewer talks about Soča front (fight around Enzio river) in Slovenian Alps... Like it never happned - and yet there also was over one millon death... Why?
triglavsvarun 1 year ago
@triglavsvarun because slovenia is a small country and i guess they dont really care waht happened there (if ur slovenian (triglav..) : nobenga ne briga kva se je pri nas dogajal ker smo premal pomebni pa nismo dost uglašval. Ta pomembni in zmagovalci pišejo zgodovino)
kylenbk 11 months ago
"A British soldier is a gentleman he doesnt run into battle!! He walks into battle like a gentlemen with his head up high he has no fear of the enemy he is british and one must do his duty for crown and country"
martynrobin121 1 year ago
@martynrobin121 right ,live like a gentleman die like one
sardukars 1 year ago
@sardukars Yes they were very brave some just age 14 it was a honour to die for king and country and the british empire. Everybody wanted to do there bit. The British were told to show no fear of the enemy he was told not to run but walk with his head up high! As a gentlemen doesnt run he walks. Even when the British were on the retreat they were told never to run like cowards walk like gentlemen. Very brave men with balls of steel they were gentlemen they were brave british.
martynrobin121 1 year ago
@martynrobin121 :
"Even when the British were on the retreat they were told never to run" ... when you see movies or pictures taken during World War 1 they all run like chickens. German, French, ... and British troops.
Your comment is quite racist by the way. Why would there be a difference between a "brave British", a "brave French" - or a "brave German"? There was bravery on all sides - as well as cowardice.
tristanlstein 1 year ago
@tristanlstein Most of time when British forces got out there trenches they would walk at there enemy not RUN! Yeah it was foolish and stupid and millions died daily from it.
martynrobin121 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martynrobin121 "millions died daily" ??? Total losses of the Allies in WW1 was 5,525,000.
tristanlstein 1 year ago
@martynrobin121 If you run at the enemy you get tired, and can no longer hold the strength to fight the enemy if and when you got to the other side. Are you 9 years old or something?
LordWellington15 11 months ago
@LordWellington15 Its harder to hit a moving target, And the soldiers should be fit otherwise they are dead from day 1. The Germans said it was like shooting rabbits. The Germas would run and had speed, Was it no wonder they became the great forces the world had ever seen. Blitzreig, Whitch the U.S and U.K copied off.
martynrobin121 11 months ago
@LordWellington15 but if u walk u die nearly for sure
kylenbk 11 months ago
@kylenbk And if you run, you will still have that chance of getting shot. You will become tired, many had to walk across 1000 yards of mud. Would you run that far, get to the enemies trench and then be to tired to fight the men in the enemy trench? You march so that you do not get tired.
LordWellington15 11 months ago
@kylenbk Blitzkrieg was in WW2 Not WW1 FYI
TheNaanbread 10 months ago
it makes me remember the Motörhead's song called "1916"
Coldgin94 1 year ago
holy shite, 24 november is my bday. never again will it be the same
AngryLlamaz 1 year ago
Why is Germany shown in its modern borders? British don't even know basic history...
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex What the hell? 'British don't even know basic history'....perhaps you should just reassess that and realise that maybe it was like that for a certain contextual reason, or that even if it is an error, then that small thing on this single documentary made for an obscure tv channel, doesn't sum up 100% of British Historical knowledge. Oh and by the way, Britain is the most richly historical nation in the world. Without Britain, the world would be a darker place, bereft of true civility.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist Seriously if someone perfected the art of winners history then it was Britain.
"Britain is the most richly historical nation in the world. Without Britain, the world would be a darker place, bereft of true civility"-Ya you wished. By which criteria? Subjective opinion of someone who cant asses things without strong NATIONAL feelings. lol. Its because of people like you such "errors (Which they are not, they are made it on purpose)" happen.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Winners History.....so you attack the fact that Britain has a military history that is largely prestigious and extensive? Also, if this is your stance, then EVERY nation or political faction on Earth in any time would be corrupt - history is always dubious. thats the point, real intellectuals have to deduce the truth. Oh and are you right in the head? Ooo Britains conspiracy of making the maps different - you are mad. I suppose you are an American misrepresentative...just off the tone.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "so you attack the fact that Britain has a military history that is largely prestigious and extensive"-Yes we seen how prestigious you were in the second world war, first world war and Napoleonic wars where Russians did ALL THE WORK. And you were stuck on your island like a bunch of pussies.
"Britains conspiracy of making the maps different"-Seriously you are retarded if you cant detect the magnitude of the error. Which means you don't really don't know history.
Teranex 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@Teranex You are wrong, and just precotiously speech-marking lines of my answers ALL the time in your responses is just foolish. You are by doing that, assuming superiority and talking down to me....the truth is however, I am not at all fazed and know full well actual British Military history, and as it happens most of the people we have ever fought agaisnt, surprisingly enough lost - but kept their own war records on the matter, showing (unless the really hated us) to be noble adversaries.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "you dim wit"-Lol frustraded brit has problems.
"I don't give a damn about the maps"-Well i do and anyone who cares about history does. And im not the first complaning obout the historical "errors" shown here.
"soldiers to pour onto the western front after the collapse"-Was it not for the Russians France would get steamrolled like in WW2. Where French+UK+Netherlands+Belgian army got destroyed. While the USSR alone defeated Germany. That says everything.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex *frustrated....Anyway, no, I am not, I am just finding you laughable. What is your obsession with the USSR? I see it a lot, people quite rightly respect and praise the Russians for the massive part they played in the Second World War...but then go too far and make out the Russians were the only force worth noting that stood against Nazi Germany. Right, Russia only just survived and even then after sadistically barbaric blood letting, versus just one part of Hitlers army.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist In a hypothetical scenario that you have made me create, ok then, lets imagine Russia Versus the ENTIRE Axis Powers. All of the millions of Nazis, all of the Italians, all of the Japanese (a fanciful addition though to be fair they were carving out an empire on the mainland and had conflictious history with the russians such as at Tsushima 1905) and Finland, Romania, collaborators etc Russia needed us as much as we needed them - thats the point of a war of fighting alliances.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "In a hypothetical"-It was no hypothetical scenario USSR fought ALONE against the European axis till virtually 1943/44 and defeated them. Thats a historical fact. Over 80% of all the casualties on the axis were inflicted by the Russians. And in the operation august Strom Manchuria and half of Korea has fallen in virtually no time. USSR didn't need you at all. And yea Monty (AKA UK best general) got credit for being there, not actually doing anything significant.
Teranex 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "just one part of Hitlers army"-One part of the Hitlers army? Where was the other part (And how big was it)? Certainly not in Africa. Operation Barbarossa was the greatest land invasion in human history. With over 4.5 million men invading the USSR. It took only a minimal of people to hold the occupied European territories and the majority of the war in Africa was conducted by the Italians, which were led by Rommel.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Certainly not in Africa!!! Haha....hmm, ever heard of ROMMELS AFRIKA KORPS??? Or the Luftwaffe force stationed in North Africa? Or anything of the Paratroopers of the Germans in Sicily? You have so little idea. Germans were in Greece, Italy and Africa for instance. Oh and as for size - QUALITY is more important in any battle campaign, and the Afrika Corps were numerous and man for man superior to their countrymen in Russia. The British defeated Rommel under Montgomery. End of.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "ever heard of ROMMELS AFRIKA"-I indeed did. So how many many Germans did participate in those operations a few thousands ? And the best equipment went to the eastern front thats why Rommel received the tiger tank as one of the last commanders. Because north Africa was of secondary importance. If there was any innovation those in the eastern front got it first. FACT.
"British defeated Rommel"-I cant recall Monty every beating Rommel lol. Mind refreshing my memory?
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Rommel and Montgomery were gentlemanly adversaries. They both respected each other, and Rommel was not of the Nazi stock as it were, believing much more in the old Prussian ideals of the arts of war and the chivalrous limits of strategy. Rommel was honoured by the British when Hitler had him killed and he was regarded in high esteem by the British public...he was not villified, he was merely affectionately known as 'The Desert Fox'. Monty was one of the most successful Allied generals.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "Monty was one of the most successful Allied generals."-He was one of the worst allied generals. Most of the operations he was part of failed or succeeded thanks to the Americans. He didn't actually do anything significant (Unless you know something i don't). And the most successful general of WW2 was general Zhukov (From the USSR). And yes it was so gentlemanly from you British that you wanted assassinate Rommel. Which is a very unhonorable way to lead war.
Teranex 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "We didn't have to but it was"-It was part of the lend-lease which was primary American and not British. You yourself received help worth 30 Bil pounds.
"That is not how war should work - so you would have it all factions took 20 million dead to level the tab? Are you a psychopath? What country in their right minds would?"-So you acknowledge the massive loss of the USSR but you don't acknowledge that they won the war pretty much singlehandedly. You are such a hypocrite.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Right, I cba answering all of your impertintent replies again,as you are not getting the subtly of my points or what I mean by them. I am not making sweeping generalisations unlike you. And the speech marking thing is just childish. I can only imagine your age, but I wonder if you are just a bitter old man. I was just saying that I think its massively unfair to say the Russians could have done without us - fact. Also, as I have asked, do you have any qualifications to speak so boldy?
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "massively unfair to say the Russians could have done without us"-Its very fair. 80% of all the axis casualties in the war happened on the eastern front while you got mopped up in France even tho you had almost one year to get ready. The same happened in the Napoleonic wars and semi-same in WW1.
"I cba answering all of your"-Lol all you can do is troll? You sure are a frustrated Brit, you spend more time insulting people then trying to defend an argument.
Teranex 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist " Russians could have done without us - fact."-I don't see any facts. In fact you don't present any arguments to contradict my statement. Thus i remain right, even if you deny everything, which doesn't help you. In case you didn't notice you dont present any information which would support your view, you simply claim something without backing it up with empirical information. Yes of course there were Germans in Africa but in comparison to the eastern front not really.
Teranex 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "do you have any qualifications to speak so boldy?"-All information i have given to you is historical fact, which i supported with additional information which you can check up on. All you did is to give me statments like:
-Are you a psychopath
-were gentlemanly adversaries
-Stalingrad was 9/10 German
In what way does that contradict me? Are you denying that 80% of all axis casualties happened in Russia or that Napoleons grade army got destroyed in RUSSIA?
Teranex 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist What your subjective opinion is I CARE NOT. Either present information favoring your argumentation, or stop wasting our time.
Teranex 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "actual British Military"-Yes like in waterloo where per official UK records most of the Army was British (And not Dutch) and the Prussians had no part in it. So all credit goes to UK. Sure Britain won wars, if someone else did most of the fighting for you. In most of the wars you won someone else took the blunt of the conflict, while the most of the wars you lost were fought mostly by your forces.
"You are wrong"-Writing stuff like this shows your low level.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Were are you making this stuff up? It is well known that the British, Dutch and Germans - Germans in particular whom had been shipped to England as they sought refuge from the French Empire as it overran the Germanic states. The British public would have been aware of this, something like that cannot be avoided. Britain allowed others to take most of the *brunt of the conflict???? Britain has won MANY wars, campaigns and battles alone, and if with others the biggest player at arms.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "others the biggest player at arm"-So you are saying Britain allowed to take refuge to some people and that makes her a significant player in the war lol? In the meantime (Different coalitions) Prussia, Sweden, Russia, Austria took the blunt of the Napoleonic wars, while you didn't do anything except to fight in Portugal till the very end, when Napoleon got already beaten. Where was your army in 1892?
"frustrated"-For finding this so laughable your pretty emotional on it.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex How very inaccurate of you.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "What is your obsession with the USSR?"-Russia is the perfect historical example WW1, WW2 and Napoleonic wars which takes the majority of the conflict (2 times also singlehandedly defeats the aggressor invading it) while UK sits back in its island and waits it out, till the main enemy is significantly worn down so you can go for the final stab in the back, after that you proclaim how much of a significant part of the war you were.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex You are a troll with no life. End of. You are just one of those people who will never understand reason and logic, and simply deflect it with mock imitations of it - doubtlessly, as you have done all the time so far, you shall just speech mark things I type and paraphrase whatever you think you can twist around and make seem supportive of yourself. You are so arrogant its intolerable. You have no real arguments, just a potted history with unfair views. Do you have any qualifications?
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "You are a troll with no life."-Wow you really are furstraded lol. And seriously saying that i got no arguments is called denial and it doesnt contradict me in anyway.
Let see some of the battle record of Monty:
-El Alamein- won due superiority in material and men and Rommel was on sick leave at that time.
-North Africa- he didn't mange to destroy Rommel's army and Americans landed starting operation torch under Eisenhower
-Market garden- fail.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Russia was hanging by a thread. Stalingrad was 9/10 German at one point, and if it had fallen then so would have Russia, its oilfields and industry plundered and the wide plains left to be mopped up by the germans. You just try and tell your thoughts to British or American, Polish or Australian etc Veterans. Look into to their faces and wonder whether you are just being an obnoxious armchair general who has no idea of the minutiae of war, the respect between allies forged in blood.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist "Russia was hanging by a thread"-That doesnt change the fact that A)Russia won ALONE B)Russia took the blunt of the conflict while you sat back and did nothing.
"British or American"-Why dont you look at the 20 million dead in russia, whicht TOOK THE BLUNT of the conflict.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex That is not how war should work - so you would have it all factions took 20 million dead to level the tab? Are you a psychopath? What country in their right minds would? 15% of the entire population of Russia died in WW2. That is beyond all reason and all sanity. Oh, and try telling your ideas to the British North Sea and Baltic Convoys of Merchant Ships and that suffered appalling sacrifices to supply Leningrad and the Russians fighting there. We didn't have to but it was a noble act.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@ThePalaeontologist Also thats not the first time i detected that error, i have seen it often on history channel also, where Germany in WW1 and WW2 was shown in its moder day borders. So you either sux at history or want to rewrite it. Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows how subjective you are about the matter (All French and Russian documentaries show Germany in its correct borders, since they don't have to rewrite history to be have something to be proud of).
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex What is your problem (besides deep psychological ones) you dim wit? To be quite honest, I don't give a damn about the maps on tv, the important truth is this truth, that Britain and Germany were the two real and CONSISTENT big players in WW1 - Russia got its ass kicked and thus allowed 3 million german empire soldiers to pour onto the western front after the collapse of the russian empire and its eastern front. If not for the British, the French fops would have lost flanders in a year.
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago
@Teranex Who cares? Britain is fu**ed anyway. All that's left is their banking "industry". They can't even feed themselves.
tristanlstein 1 year ago
We fought with Britain when she was striped bare of all allies in Europe. When she stood up high on the pedastel of defeat with the world reigning against her, with so few allies and so little hope. The sons of Canada came to the Empire's aid, the sons of Canada answered the call. In her greatest hour of need Canada stood by Britain. No matter the year be it 1914 or 1939, We will never forget where our loyalty is and where it will always be.
FourDollarDoobie 1 year ago
@FourDollarDoobie
Canada has indeed been incredibly loyal- as has Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Dominions.
An lets not forget India- the Indian army of WW2 was 2.5 million strong (The largest all volunteer army ever raised)
Many in Britain still hold a special liking for these places.
Azog150 1 year ago
if verdunn fell to the germans the french would have most likeley surrender
b69gangster 1 year ago
@illegalbadgerbaiting I remember the British used the creeping barrage again with great effect at Cambrai to camoflauge their tanks. Amazingly after all the ground the British controlled was quickly lost by the German's countrerattack by Georg von der Marwitz. At least Cambrai proved the tank's future worth even though most of the tanks had broken or bogged down at the Somme.
GSPatton89 1 year ago
@neymoura That's cause Isreal RIGHTFULLY does not fuck around.
coolierex 1 year ago
What TV series is this from?
1Historygenius 1 year ago
@1Historygenius
Line of Fire
The33times 1 year ago
a large part of the british troops in ww1 were Canadain
sasktank 1 year ago