I can't remember where or when, but in the past I watched a programme, where they discussed the Schlieffen Plan. During this programme they agreed with nearly all said in this original video shown. But the also expanded on one point, the replacements/recruits where not as fit and so couldn't march as far or as fast, as the Regular Army could. And the Schlieffen plan time table, was all based on the marching speed of the Regular Army, not the replacements. The plan did take it to consideration the wrecking of the rail systems. So after the initial push in to Belgium, the time scale was all on foot. P.S. cant believe how big this channel has got now, Good job man. Keep the great content up. Yours as ever Ewen from Speybay, Scotland.

@rikterandersson3568

2 жыл бұрын

That was the history channel, it had a special on ww1 where it had a big segment on just that where they took up that it was the extremely and meticolously planned but that the staff planners calculated on the wrong marching speed. Funny how a comment in 2022 awakens the most vague memory from like 15 years back. I would however take that it with a grain of salt, history channel - even back then - isn't really known for its rigor. Especially as the Schlieffen plan has during the last 10 years had new light shined on it. I recommend Elhert's ''International perspectives on the Schlieffen plan'' for a comprehensive book on the Schlieffen plan. Imperial Germany and War 1871-1918 by dinardo for how the German army and especially its staff work (which planned and dictated all plans of operations) developed from moltke the elder through Schlieffen to moltke the younger.

Can we just appreciate how wholesome the History loving community we have here is! I'm so glad this side of the internet exists..

Funnily the sentence quotet by you: "No plan survives the first contact with the enemy" or in the original German: "Kein Plan überlebt den ersten Feindkontakt." is by Helmuth von Moltke. But not the one from this video, but his uncle, Helmuth von Moltke the older, who was Prussia's chief of staff during the Franco-Prussian war.

@gamelandmaster3680

2 жыл бұрын

I heard that many historians call the WWI Molke, Molke the Younger. I am a strong advocate to stop calling the WWI Moltke just Melmuth Von Moltke and to add, "The Younger" to differentiate the two men. If we ignore that for a moment, this comment is true. I think people really don't look into the Elder as much as they should (though it is true I know nothing about the Younger).

@richeybaumann1755

2 жыл бұрын

We saw this in the EC series he did on Bismarck. They talk about Moltke the Elder, who was a military genius, and his nephew, who was... not so much.

It’s interesting to point out when the German bavarians refused to goto the eastern front it makes me think about why the US made sure not to have state regiments. The US made sure after the civil war that units would be diverse instead of for example one regiment made up of New Yorkers. The US instead made units comprised of random states. Like example a US regiment made up of people from New York, Kansas, Rhode Island. The tactic behind this is to make sure there’s no state loyalty so in a state of emergency a diverse regiment would easily follow orders rather then have state loyalty. This was shown in ww1 especially when US troops were not in state units anymore. They wanted to make sure there was no state bias in battle. They wanted unity of a country rather then state, they didn’t want Robert E Lee’s or Stone wall Jackson’s. They wanted George H Thomas type people in US military loyal to a country rather then state and that’s why they broke up state units especially in ww1

@abradolflincler9500

2 жыл бұрын

You are however loosing cohesion with this organisation. For example, one reason why the Wehrmacht fought until the end is that its units (up to the division) had a strong cohesion and the men kept fighting for their comrades, their NCO, their Lieutenant and so on. On the other hand, the people from a region won’t be that happy if an entire division gets annihilated.

@user-oh6eg4ny3h

2 жыл бұрын

@@abradolflincler9500 true you are right. The thing with the US mindset was they were scared of state loyalty. They didn’t want guys like Robert E Lee or stonewall Jackson loyal to a state instead of a country so there mindset is they want to dismantle any idea of state loyalty especially since state loyalty played a part in why the civil war happened. Your right with lack of cohesion but that’s the point. The US wanted to make country cohesion rather then state cohesion

@robertortiz-wilson1588

2 жыл бұрын

Correct.

@maank2146

2 жыл бұрын

Your right about that but you also have to consider that it was a bit of a diffrent political and cultural situation in Germany that would have made such a thing virtually impossible. Political: While Germany was united under the Empire there were still some of the old political structure present under it. For example Bavaria was still the Kingdom of Bavaria with its own King and political structure. That was also because it was the second biggest state in the Empire so that it could get some special autonomy rights like its own army, diplomats, postal service and so on. During the war for example Ludwig III, the bavarian King at the time, really hoped to annex some land after the war. Not for the Empire itself but for Bavaria especially which he could do. But that also bit him in the End because after the support for the War began to plummel people began to see him as a militant war hawk which also led for the popularity of the monarchie to take a nose dive which led to its abolishment. Cultural: It should be noted that Bavaria is also a bit of a special case here (but similar things also existed elsewhere like in Würrtemberg, Saxony (also both Kingdoms) or Hesse (Grand Duchy)) because they were really protective of their beforementioned special rights and were not really as thrilled about being part of Germany under the Prussians (something you still see today to some extend). And while the Bavarians are a extreme case of this it showcases the usual situation in Germany back then and to some extend even today again. While Germany was united on a geographical and political level to a extend it was still rather deeply divided on a cultural one not unlike a less intense version of the British Isles. You had massive diffrences in confessions (Catholic in the South, Protestant in the North and east) traditions and even in the Language with dialects being far more common back then than today. And all this made forming mixed regiments rather difficult if not impossible in Germany because telling a Bavarian for example to fight alongside a Saupreiß and a Saxon who speaks heretical gibberish in his ears would drasticlly reduced effectiveness while in the US those barries where far less intense because the US didnt had about 1000 years of history that mostly consistet out of wanting to kill each other. There were and are some barriers of course but those could be more easily corrected or overlooked than it was the case in Germany or most of Europe to be honest.

@wulfschmidt7420

2 жыл бұрын

It seems to me more likely, that the decision to not go to the east was made by the higher officers noot the fighting soldiers. I don't know if mixed regiments would have helped with that, assuming the officers during the civil war were not as much mixed as the regular soldiers. It seems to me more likely that the order to go to the east didn't even make it to the regulars, since these would have first send to the bavarian high command.

14:39 Ironically, it was Moltke's uncle, Moltke the Elder, who said that.

People should remember that the Belgian neutrality was guaranteed in the London Treaty of 1839. Article VII of that treaty required Belgium to remain perpetually neutral. If Belgium would have allowed military access through their lands for the German troops marching France then Belgium would have chosen side and violated that treaty.

I would HIGHLY recommend listening to Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon if you haven't already. Maybe it'll be a good listen for your trip. Easily best WWI media I've consumed, and it's what got me interested in the great war in the first place.

Honestly, while Schlieffen came up with the basic strategy, it was Moltke as his successor who worked out all the Details, Moltke who weakened the right wing in the west to strengthen the east and the left wing (inside Germany). It should really have been called the Moltke-Plan. Apparently Schlieffen was already somewhat aware that Germany didn't have the manpower to pull of his plan, that no one tried to come up with a better idea after he left office is weird, though might be another symptom of the "cult of the offensive" you mentioned, since running into the French fortress line would probably have been suicidal (or at least viewed as such) and attacking in Russia probably wasn't appealing either.

@rikterandersson3568

2 жыл бұрын

Cult of the offensive catches both sides but to go in depth the German more had a ''cult of the maneuver''. There were plenty of better plans but they were all in relation to, with roots all the way back to Clauzewitz ideas on warfare, forcing a mobile war where the enemy army can be annihilating or cut-off. The idea to attack the fortress line was on the table, with advances into nancy, but no one was really keen on siege warfare. Russia WAS appealing, there were several proponents to go against Russia. With Moltke the elder as one of the first who planned for that. There were tons of iterations of plans, the thing is that the plans were continuously needed to be updated due to changing circumstances. It was never a given that Britain would be the enemy, or Russia, or Italy, etc. Moltke's entire job was to make amendments to the Schlieffen plan because the changing political and military realities. While Moltke-plan is apt it is still Schlieffen's framework which worked on the idea to a) go on the offensive b) deal the first blow in the west by going north of the French fortress line rather than partaking in slow siege warfare, and c) using Belgium and Holland as transport routes into France. Moltke changed details and most importantly cut-off Holland from the plan but the Schlieffen plan (a,b,c) generally remains fully intact. It is worthwhile to remember that you had about 5 roads to press all your troops through if you try to squeeze the northern tip of France. Which would cause extreme delays. Belgian railroads, roads, land etc, all facilitated a proper infrastructure to allow rapid maneuver in France. The big problem is, which Schlieffen was worried about, was that France would successfully retreat and absorb the german thrust. Which it did. If it did come to that point then the Schlieffen plan would still not have failed, remember that the focus on Paris in these videos gives a false impression. The idea wasn't to take Paris at all costs to knock out France, it was to cut-off the French fortress line so they had to attack German positions without proper lines of communications. The schlieffen plan didn't meet all its targets but it was just a starting plan, what more facilitated failure (from my reading of contemporary scholarly works on the subject) is that the general staff, the key to German successes since Moltke the elder, couldn't wrest themselves from the idea of a battle of maneuver & annihilating the enemy's combat ability to instead think in terms of a war of attrition. This culminated in 1918 when german general staff, with Ludendorff at the head of it, sacrificed the German army's strength in the Kaiserschlacht's in hope to again create the opportunity for a battle of maneuver. Children have the biggest of troubles to break out of the habits they adopted from their parents. So too can general staffs, enjoying success after success, have the biggest of troubles to break out of the habits that have given them so much victory, but now so much anguish.

So pumped with your content coming up and i hope all goes well so it can happen with your travels. Also gotta love The Great War Channel and indie👍

I’ve now watched the first 155 videos on The Great War channel! (Currently watching 5-15 videos each day). I cannot believe how much I’ve learned already in just a few weeks!

Love the content you pump out daily. Keep it up!

@mitchellhedden1978

2 жыл бұрын

Daily content is one of the things that makes this channel great.

Hi Chris I would just like to say that I am very glad that ive found your channel. You are doing a great job in the commentary of the videos aswell as in engaging with your community. Wish you the best of luck, keep spreading the love for history. Ive been watching your videos daily lately, thank you very much for the entertainment. Much love from Czech Republic!

@VloggingThroughHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, Petr! Glad you're here.

If you haven’t before, I’d love to see a video on Otto Skorzeny and Operation Greif.

Coming home from work, making some food and sitting down to see an Upload. One of the best parts of my days.

I'd love you to do summit on the naval battles of ww1, love the channel keep it up mate! And Happy New Year!

This is a great video. Looking forward to your reaction. Edit: In Bavaria "Saupreiß" (pig Prussian) is a popular insult for pretty much everyone who comes from outside of Bavaria even to this day.

Man I just love this channel !

I love The Great War Channel! Please keep these reaction videos going!

The Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial at the Somme is worth a visit if it isn't on your list.

@VloggingThroughHistory

2 жыл бұрын

It's definitely on the itinerary!

I recently found your channel and I absolutely love it! I would love to see a video of you reacting to some of Scorpo's videos! They are quite short and jokey videos about history

Great video. Can't wait for your France videos soon.

Love this channel and I love Indy so a great reaction combo

So the other day I ran across a History Matters video about the League of Three Emperors - something I'd never heard of - and why it failed. Considering it was Bismarck's attempt to prevent the eventual two-front war, it might be worth bringing up....

I absolutely love to study WWI, I find it to be one of the most important wars in our recent history(past 300-500 years). Also really enjoy your commentary! BTW I know that the American Civil War is one of your favourite subjects, you should check out a channel named Warhawk. He does in depth over views of many battles down to the regimental level in his animations. I just watched the battle of Kernstown where Stonewall got one of his few losses handed to him by a fairly fresh colonel no less!

As a Belgian, thank you for taking the time to say that the belgian army did something on this war, for both wars (first and second world war) Belgium don't get much consideration (we are not on the victorious side on the treaty of Versaille for example) and it always pain me to hear that the war as been won because of the French, the Britains or the USA without sometimes even talking about the Belgian army. Same for world war 2 where we slowed down the Germans for more than 2 days in the Ardennes. So thanks for that, loved that video

@willevensen7130

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you on WW1 but WW2? Eh..

@armyboy1207

2 жыл бұрын

I mean really? All you European countries folded like cowards hardly fought for your own countries. I'm not sure how you can even ask for credentials. The war was ultimately won by the same powers you mentioned.

@singelynbaptiste770

2 жыл бұрын

@@willevensen7130 well, the Belgians fought for 18 days and hold back the germans in the ardennes for 2 days so the french had time to reorganise, the belgians only stop fighting when the british left them to go to dunkirk without even inform the king and the high command of Belgium so i would say that we did pretty much a good job, plus even tho we weren't informed that they would retreat, we cover them. The french are on the winning side which, when you think about it is pretty much the same than belgian except that our king never agreed to collaborate ;)

@singelynbaptiste770

2 жыл бұрын

@@armyboy1207 with all the respect i may have for you, saying that all europeans folded like coward and waited for the mighty USA to save us all is pretty irrespectful for the millions who died during the first world war. The Belgian army fought until 1918 and the USA entered only in 1917, like he said, if the belgian army was not there and fought, maybe the Schlieffen plan would have actully worked so yeah i think we can ask for credentials

@Ru6e11POll3t3

2 жыл бұрын

@@singelynbaptiste770 I agree. The Belgians fought very well during WW1 and were instrumental in the failure of the Schlieffen plan. As a Belgian myself, it pains me to say that things didn't go as well during WW2. Yes, some forces, like the Chasseurs Ardennais fought valiently during the 18 days campaign, but overall it was a disaster. ​ @Zach Bruns To say that European countries folded like cowards is ridiculous. The allies were tactically and strategically outmanoeuvred by Germany and were in no position to fight on after Dunkirk. It would have been a slaughter and Germany could have won were it not for the French who fought on during operation Dynamo to cover the retreat of the British. It is thanks to the English Channel that the UK was not overrun by the German Blitzkrieg. It's easy to criticize the French, but they had no channel and insane Royal Navy to retreat behind whilst waiting for the US. The contribution of the US and UK during WW2 was huge and we will always see them as our liberators, but let's not forget the massive sacrifices of the Soviets, who killed 80% of the Germans who fell during the war (4 million men) and sacrificed so much blood for the victory in which it's importance is often understated and overshadowed by the other allies because of cold war era and modern politics.

YES YES Time Ghost Army videos thank god!!! I get to watch Indy and Vlogging Through History great deal!

I remember when I subscribed in 2020,cause I really like your reactions, I subbed on reaction of ww2 oversimplified, keep up the work.

@TheMasonK

2 жыл бұрын

Same for me!

@richeybaumann1755

2 жыл бұрын

I was quite drunk when I subscribed in mid 2021. I'm very glad that this channel has held up while sober.

@TheMasonK

2 жыл бұрын

@@richeybaumann1755 VTH while Drunk > Drunk History any day! 😂

@richeybaumann1755

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheMasonK Especially the Atun-Shei Lincolnites videos- they're so bizarre that they're funny.

so stoked you get to go to Europe, hope it's a fun journey

Thanks for the revisit, love Indy's voice, often listen to him like an audiobook! 🙂 Just noticed: 14:03 that's Franz Joseph probably at a Bad Ischl hunting gathering, isn't it? Not Wilhelm II. Wrong Kaiser ;-)

@VloggingThroughHistory

2 жыл бұрын

I almost commented on that. Definitely Franz Joseph there.

There is a new alternate history channel called “The iron channel”. I think its alternate history of an axis victory and fallout of it goes into far more depth and realism then I think any other alternate history channel has done and goes decades in the future. Worth a check if you want more perspectives of alternate history.

11:45 in the last few years before the war France sank millions into beefing up rail lines in the Western parts of the Russian empire, not hard to see why and this probably affected the Russian mobilization times relative to German expectations.

This was vary interesting and I definitely learned a lot.

This is great! Love more great war cover if able.

You should cover the topic of Czechoslovak legion. Even if you are gonna be focusing on the western front on your trip there are places where Czechs and Slovaks fought and died for the hope of having their own independent country. Two places which you shoud visit are Arras, where company Nazdar (the first CS unit in France) was almost wipped out in May 1915, and Terron where now full strenght legion fought alone and won a battle against German army in 1918. Also important figure in France was Milan Rastislav Štefánik, one of three fathers of Czechoslovakia. He had pretty succesfull career in French army before and during the war so he could be someone you should look more into.

Your point about adjusting brought me straight back to the zulu series lol. The battle where Shaka had his men hold the hill and had planned for a multiple day standoff should the enemy decide not to engage shows how much truly relies on these great generals especially when contrasted to the enemy in that zulu sceneraio who intillialy disregarded taking the extra steps thinking the zulu would be an inferior force.

@DankSwegSkuxxXhayel

2 жыл бұрын

I'm a big fan of combat sports and this is very true in fighting also, usually whenever a great champion underestimates their opponent they lose through sheer physiological shutdown and through simply not being ready. Happened very recently to the universally recognised greatest female fighter of all time in Amanda Nunes losing to an almost to the biggest statistical underdog in the history of the sport lol. If I remember someone bet 300,000 grand to earn maybe 10k and ended up losing it all

I think it might have worked if the Austro-Hungarian military could've just held off the Russians without German support, because I think in that situation the western army that marched toward Paris might have been able to overcome the French defenders. It nearly worked as is, but due to some specific failures and underestimation, it failed.

Oh, there are so many aspects ... E.g., a lot of troops simply were exhausted from marching hundreds of kilometers, supplies not being possible, the railways in Germany and France/Belgium using different rail systems so it was not possible to use the trains of one side on the other nets ... And then, a lot of Generals simply didn`t take commands. They simply blocked each other on the roads multiple times ...

Speaking of Hannibal, you should definitely react to HistoryMarche's (ongoing) Hannibal series.

A source that I read and then saw in a documentary said that Germany still had ample opportunity to take Paris after the Battle of the Frontiers, was that at the last moment the Germans changed their direction of attack, instead of following Paris, the The Germans turned south in an attempt to encircle the French armies in the south and this opened them to an Anglo-French counterattack on the Marne River which culminated in the First Battle of the Marne.

I think a reaction/video on Francis Pegahmagabow, The Great War's greatest sniper, would be interesting.

12:37 “You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” - Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

You also have to check out the Angel and Snake episodes over at The Great War channel. Very important historic documents...

Best reaction channel for history channels. One of the reason is that like us, you watch all of it too if you can. 😂

Maybe you could do a video about the battles in Belgium or the role of king Albert I, as The Great War channel also does a couple of videos about these subjects.

It's weird to think that the Great War channel is almost a decade old

The main reason why the Schlieffen Plan failed because the United Kingdom was drafted into the war. If Belgium actually allowed German troops to push through, France might fall way earlier and Germany could have probably won WWI.

@leonpaelinck

Жыл бұрын

No way Belgium would have allowed that. That's basically allowing your country to be occupied.

@Mr.Archduke

2 ай бұрын

Have you heard of the siege of Leigé

Of course the german empire was under Wilhelm I. not Bismarck. But allegedly he himself said once something like "It's not easy being emperor under Bismarck".

It seems the failure of the Schlieffen plan mostly came down to the stalemate of trench warfare.

@johnhenry4844

2 жыл бұрын

With our without trenches, not adequately training or equipping you’re reserves, 90% of the German army kinda doomed the whole plan

Awesome

I heard that the desert storm plan by Schwarzkopf in 1991 was also inspired by Hannibal's tactics.

I want you to do everything about world war 1 can’t wait for your trip going to be good stuff coming up soon hopefully lol

5:00 I can't stop staring at the 'Elastic Man' ads spammed across the right side of the screen.. lmfao why is this an ad?

Another good day it is!

Just learned this in school about 3 weeks ago

I’d love to hear your opinion on the Nuremberg Trial video by History Scope

Its really strange how a little country could have so much impact on one of the biggest war ever.

I'd say that Schlieffen plan had two issues that, when combined, often result in disaster. First, it was inflexible - there was not much room for a plan B, or massive change of scope. Also, because of the technology and complexity of its logistics it could not have been altered easily, anyway. Second, it had to succed at 100%, otherwise it would have been a smaller or a larger failure as it aimed at nothing less than knocking France out of war before Russia managed to utilize its potential. This is a problem as there are many pieces of this plan that absolutely HAD to go according to plan: - mobilization. That one was relatively easy to cover - mobilization of transport, and moving the army according to pre prepared timetables. That one required following the plan meticulously, and only somehow worked. - French Army on the Franco German border being unable to counter German attack, nor being able to push into Germany. This mostly worked, the battle of the borders was mostly victorious for the Germans - Begium allowing safe passage of the troops, or getting overwhelmed quickly. This did NOT happen. - Belgian and French railways being captured not too damaged. This, again, did NOT happen and was a rather optimistic assumption. - French and British army unable to defend Paris. Again, much depended on the battle of the frontiers and the French reaction to the assault through Belgium. Risky assumption, Paris had some fortifications and in the war of 1870/71 actually required a prolonged siege. A problem, because: - The plan called for France surrendering after losing Paris and around 42 days after the start of the war. Now that was problematic as it's far from certain Paris would have fallen quickly, even if all other pieces of the plan had worked so far. Also, loss of Paris would make further defence of France difficult given how important political, industrial and transportation hub it was, BUT... what if France did not surrender? What then? Even if the German Army was on the offensive it would still require a lot of manpower to keep marching on. The logistics wouldn't be getting any easier. The French and the British would have it easier and could possibly start throwing in the reserves. The German Army would have quite a territory to control to avoid potential Entente counterattack. Keep in mind, that as the battle of the Marne was starting the German Army was already quite tired, had expelled quite a lot of ammunition and suffered significant losses. Taking Paris and fighting further would have exacerbated the problems it has been facing already. Lastly: - The Russian army couldn't become a threat before surrender of France. As we know it did not happen, and it's debatable France would have surrendered that easily. Come to think of it, I can't shake off the feeling it had similar issues with Market Garden. Inflexible, optimistic in many points and required literally every piece of plan to work as it should have to have actually been successful. I'm pretty positive same can be said about many more plans throughout history, military and otherwise.

A quick expansion on the point about the federal character of the German Empire and the regional animosities the affected the Schlieffen Plan. These were of course based on the historical rivalries between the German states prior to unification as well as religious and cultural differences between regions. Since unification was achieved through force - Bismarck’s famous “Blood and Iron” - those various factors were not really resolved through it; so they created political problems in the new German Empire. I have Catholic Bavarian ancestors who left Germany for the USA after unification precisely because they didn’t trust the Protestant Prussian Kaiser and didn’t want to see their sons conscripted into his army - or at least that’s the family tradition. And given Bismarck’s persecution of Catholics in the 1870s-80s those views were not without reason. Bismarck had a strong tendency to “divide and rule” domestically, in contrast to his more accommodating instincts in foreign affairs. Also to your reference to the European Balance of Power; in the run-up to WWI it was more an issue of that balance breaking down with the lapse of the Russo-German reinsurance treaty and the end of the League of the Three Emperors combined with increased German-British tensions that caused the problem. You probably know all this but your comments in the video made it sound like the pursuit of a balance of power was a reason for the war, when it was more that the European great powers either stopped trying to achieve a balance or pursued it in maladroit ways that backfired on them. Germany, for example, pursued a big navy in part to try to intimidate the Brits into an alliance but this ended up convincing them that Germany was a more aggressive power than either Russia or France, Britain’s traditional rivals.

In my opinion this is one of those times in history where something works in theory(taking into account the Franco Prussian war and the cult of the offensive as VTH mentioned) but when put in action it doesn’t work just like Germanys invasion of the Soviet Union during WW2

@golagiswatchingyou2966

2 жыл бұрын

There were a lot of mistakes in both plans, for starters in both cases Germany failed to measure the enemies ability to deploy and adapt, that from the start makes everything else become much more difficult, if you don't have proper information you can't make a well adjusted counter, ironically if Germany in ww1 focused on Russia first with speed like planned for France while attempting to hold and defend against France, by the time they beat Russia they could focus on France, though they probably thought they could take France quickly like they did in the Franco-Prussian war. In ww2 they basicaly rushed into the USSR with little coördination with Italy and Japan, while the UK and USA were supplying the USSR and keeping forces at the western front and occupied Europe, had the axis powers worked together and avoided the USA they would have performed much better, not sure if they would have won but much better chances.

@patrickrobinson7541

2 жыл бұрын

@@golagiswatchingyou2966 yeah that’s what I’m talking about…it works on paper because on paper you can never calculate every possible scenario also if I remember correctly the Japanese wasn’t a part of operation Barbarossa but yea I see what you mean

Will you react to atun shei’s video about his favorite movie based on the southern prospective or other videos from him?

14:42 Ironically, it was Moltke's uncle who famously said it.

pretty sure Moltke would have laughed at how inflexible the Schlieffen plan was!

Carrier pigeons were even still used in WW2. Details if interested.

I think reaction to armchair's historian video on Stalingrad would be a good

First to the scene, he is a lethal machine It's bloody April and the tide is turning Fire at will, it is the thrill of the kill Four in a day shot down with engines burning Embrace the fame, red squadron leader ...

“The strongest defence is a swift and decisive offence.”

Great and informative vide as always, sir! I have very little knowledge about WWI than WWII. I know this might not be your area of expertise, but I hope you could check some of Biographic's content. They got some interesting range of videos about the life of some of the personalities throughout history, such as James Bucanan and Alexander Hamilton. If you have some time, I hope you could take a look about Marshall Applewhite - the Leader of "Heaven's Gate" cult

You should do a reacting to The Great Wars Top 11 stupid moves of the war

There's an interesting conversation to be had that the success Bismark had in the 19th century gave the subsequent Germans an example they wanted to follow but were unable to, causing the hubris resulting in a war plan which couldn't succeed.

Barbara Tuchman presents a slightly different perspective about the troop transportation and logistics aspect: it wasn't that it would have to be improvised and therefore impossible. It was, again, the combination of the cult of the offensive, faith in the Schlieffen plan, and inertia. She points out that the Imperial German Army, in order to prepare for war and keeping with the mentality that the best remedy for the fog of war is relentless training of their officer corps and professional soldiers, had already planned and trained to mobilize in pretty much any direction, and to remobilize in case of an emergency. The Train corps had some of the best officers available, trained exquisitely, and with an unbelievable knowledge of the system, the machines, and the facilities. They could have actually redeployed to the East, but the whole Staff was too focused in crushing France, considering it almost manifest destiny, and we're deeply afraid of deviations. The Train corps could have handled the job, as the redeployment of those two divisions to the East proved(two whole wartime-strenght divisions, like 40-50k men, plus equipment, horses, and supplies). They were sending 40k men Eastwards, while the whole 500-600k remaining ones, alongside their logistics train, was flowing Westwards, and did it with exquisite timing and speed. So, I call bullshit(just like Ms Tuchman) on Moltke's argument...

Cant wait for all the WW1 videos you will make. Hope covid doesnt screw it up.

love Indy and the time ghost team

A bit early, but speaking of the Great War, are you going to react to the rest of Sabaton’s Great War album in the lead up to their follow up?

4:34 In Germany we say: Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung. Which means:An attack ist the defence

No mention of the German 1st Army near Paris disobeying orders and leaving the German flank towards Paris open, just to hurry back to block an unexpected French attack there and leaving the front open for the BEF to strike in between the 1st and 2nd armies unopposed, ushering the German retreat from the Marne in general. Secondly, the Schlieffen Plan had the option of enveloping Paris or bypassing it during the encirclement phase. Ultimately, the latter was done, so capturing Paris was not an objective of the Plan in its actual execution.

@VloggingThroughHistory When can you react to Simon Whistler’s videos?

"The french could retreat much more efficiently" That gave me a good laugh.

Another big factor in holding the Germans was the artificial flooding of the Ijzer (river which flows from Diksmuide to the North Sea) by the Belgians. This tactic was used to hold the German advance, which gave the French reinforcements time to mobilise. The plan was to flood the polder between the Ijzer and the Nieuwpoort-Diksmuide railroad. The Germans underestimated the potential impact of these floodings because they didn't acknowledge the importance of the lock complex and the possibilities of inundation. They only recognised it when the land became an untraversable water surface and the German troops located south and west from the Ijzer were stuck. ( nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inundatie_van_de_IJzervlakte ) You'll need to translate it from Dutch to English because it only exists in the Dutch version.

What you need is a good ol Xanatos Gambit

Moltke lied to the Kaiser when he said they couldn't go East. The staff in charge of setting up rail movement, like all good staffs had multiple plans, like war with Italy or Russia or even Austria Hungary. They just pulled out the plans from the files and issue new movement plans to the Regiments. While Moltke was talking to the Kaiser, outside in the hallway was his staff including the guy in charge of rail movement. After the war he said that it would have been pretty simple to change directions from West to East, but no one at the meeting even asked. Moltke had his plan and he was going to carry it out. Great what if scenario, if Germany had gone East instead of West. Even during Schlieffen's time as chief of staff, they had gamed out war first against Russia. Moltke was always under the shadow of Schlieffen and the older Moltke and wanted to prove his own greatness.

12:24 huh reminds me of the new hearts of iron 4 dlc. Its really great if you havent tried it yet.

If you want an in-depth analysis of all of this listen to Hardcore History’s Blueprint For Armageddon.

Do one video on iran crisis 1946 plz or middle east in cold war

I feel like the main problem was it took to many risk Ie The Belgians letting them march through unopposed and then if they did fight back Britain wouldn't intervene

"1. Make the plan. 2. Execute the plan. 3. Expect the plan to go off the rails. 4. Throw away the plan." - Captain Cold.

That sounds like a good alternate history to do, I agree. How much you wanna bet he uses Belgium not resisting as the reason it works?

@VloggingThroughHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Haven’t seen it yet but that would be my diverging event if I were making the alternate history

@mitchellhedden1978

2 жыл бұрын

@@VloggingThroughHistory I think you called it.

Y u no turn on subtitles on some of these videos?

Can you answer why in a war that was advantage to the defender that the defender lost as many men as the attacker in most battles? Seems to me the attacker should have lost many more men than defender.

Hey can you plz react to kings and general battle of palassey? It's talk about British conquest of india.

These pretzels are making me thirsty

If you want some information for your trip, just hit me up, been there a few times

Lol…”the best defense is a good offense”…that it seems in line with the cult of the offense.

14:39 hah yup that was Moltke, was that intentional?

Not so much inflexibility of the plan, but inflexibility of the general staff to deviate from the plan. The plan is just a piece of paper, per se. it by itself cannot command anything. It was the unwillingness members of the general staff to deviate from the plan too much.

Hope omicron situation doesn't affect your visit to France. Safe travels and God bless

Balance of power shifts is always what determines war especially in Europe.

I think that if germany had done the reverse schlieffenplan( defending the france border and attaking Russia first) They would have won the war because brittan would have enterd the war much later because they wouldn't have invaded Belguim and theycould have defeated Russia because They won against Russia in a 2 front war so if all focus would go to the eastern front russia would have most likely collapesd in 1916 and germany could attack france in 1917 and most likely would have won by 1918

@Jose.AFT.Saddul

2 жыл бұрын

Logistically I believe an invasion of Russia would be much harder than an invasion of France. as Russia is much bigger meaning that you supply lines would be stretched much thinner. If the Germans want a quick victory I think a push to capture Paris would be much easier than a push for Moscow. or St Petersburg

these are all factors but the largest part was failure to follow major elements of the plan. The plan was designed to spread out and outmanuver the French army at the strategic level. The majority of German forces sweeping West through Belgium into France, then to turn south to encircle Paris and the heart of France. The supporting elements of this plan were to engage the main French defenses on the German border. Their mission was to occupy the French generale attention and to hold the largest French forces in place, and hopefully get the French researves called south.. This was required so the major part of the German Army would face minimal resistance while sweeping in through Belgium to encircle Paris. The German generals on the southern flank supporting effort engaged the French and put them in disarray. This called down most French researves with their own border threatened. Great up to this point for the Germans. The problem was that the German generals on the southern flank went off the plan and followed up. This attack pushed the French back on the southern flank. This breaks the entire plan as the French are setting up a new line of defense closer to París, when the plan requires them to be sending researves to their border with Germany away from Paris. This breaks the Germans grand strategy.

@britts9215

2 жыл бұрын

This disrupts the whole plan three ways and cuases it to fail. First it shortens the French line of defence, when lengthening it is a major pillar of the plan. Secondo and probably more important it concentrates French defenses closer to Paris, when the plan requires them to be out of possition and engaged along the German border, not dirrectly in the way of the German main effort. Third and most importantly, and becuase of these first to reasons, the German main effort concentrated more of its effort to their left, southern elementi and shortened the Swing of the main effort so that is sweep no longer encompassed Paris and other critical efforts. This change was made with lots of objections. Basically hoping it would be good enoigh, even if they did not capture Paris and other key areas in the center of the country. It was not so plan failed. All these other things mentioned amount to fiction. The failure of the plan was mostly the result of not following the plan and altering it so that it no longer achieved the objective.

Ah the necessary reactions to the idiocy of Wilhelm. Dropping Bismark's aid to Russia (where France happily stepped in) and his feeling the need to start the Naval Cold War with GB (which until then was very happy to consider the Germany navy an ally and little brother-where every franc spent on the army was one not spent on the navy and visa versa). Plus his support our fellow Germanic brothers of the AH Empire..... Put his General Staff in a corner from the start.

Indy has another channel called ww2 there great content on there