There was one huge omission on this video. The worst WW1 Army to Fight in was without a doubt the Italian Army. They sent their soldiers to their deaths time after time during the Battles of the Isonzo. There was no strategy, no new tactics, just blunt frontal assault time and time again. In the end there was a grand total of 12 battles; wasted battles which harvested only thousands of Italian corpses for nothing, a literal carnage for which Italy didn't get anything in return.
The video is on major army’s those were considered more minor for example even though the United States participated they were in the war for less than a year
In my opinion, it’s Austria-Hungary unless you’re on the Italian Front. In that case fighting under Cadorna sucks more. However freezing to death as an Ottoman soldier on the Caucuses Front because Enver Pasha forgot winter clothes for the army is definitely less than ideal.
The Italian front truly was an exception thanks to Svetozar Borojevic von Bojna who was actually a decent general, although he himself knew how doomed A-H was from the start.
@@lqs1w68 yes there and at Kut but im not sure anywhere else. They literally sent tens of thousands of men to die not even with proper footwear marching into the caucusus in the cold.
The turks avoided most of the no man's land deadlock, the war in gallipoli eventually ended earlier, the turks were then freeed up, the anzac troops had go to France and continue fight in the trenches. No, the turks kinder avoided the worst, they kept out of it.
British soldiers were generally rotated out of the front line trenches after 7 days, where ever possible. Also, Haig is an interesting general to research. A man caught between old and modern war. The disaster of the first Somme charge was as a result of Haig giving the order to go over the top, only after he was assured that the weeks shelling had done its job. Interestingly Haig was known to visit hospitals of returned soldier and it affected him badly. To the point where his minders stopped him from going. After the war he dedicated himself to returned soldiers.
@@dutch9357 Australians have been taught for decades to see British military officer as stuffy, inept and slow. While they are taught all ANZAC's were built like Greek gods. Interestingly Aussie soldiers were on average bigger than their British counterpart. Due more to better living standards at the time. The other myth is that Aussies were all crack shots. Which is rubbish as over 90% of volunteers came from the cities and never fired a gun.
Haig should have been charged with War Crimes ... he was a failure on multiple levels. Arthur Currie was head and tails above Haig in talent and performance but would have never gotten the nod because he was from the Colonials.
The only correct answer is the Italian one. Imagine fighting for a general who thinks a 12th attempt at a frontal assault will finally be the one that works. Combined with a severe shortage of supplies, clothing, and being underpaid, and it's shocking to me the Italian troops only mutinied after the 10th Battle of Isonzo. Haig may have lost more men than Cadorna but even he tried to change up his tactics.
At least you could likely read. The Russian imperial army was far worse than the Italian one. Not to say the Italian military leadership is worthy of any praise lol.
I've noticed a lot of comments suggesting (as I did as well) that the Italian army should have at least been on the list of contenders for "worst army to be in."
No haig actually lost fewer than the italians in total. True the losses are worse in first battle of somme. But after that it wasnt as bad for the british.
@@Judaism44 this is likely a ridiculous observation, but one could argue that Germany, Italy, and Russia where definitely of the top worst armies to be in as these three armies would end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin as their leaders going into and throughout WWII. 😦😉😄
Reminds me of that Blackadder episode where Captain Blackadder guesses to Gen. Melchett the ''top secret'' plan of Field Marshal Haig. It was a plan used 18 times in a row.
Being a British soldier in WW1, your chances of survival would depend on which army and commander you were assigned to. Not all generals were donkeys leading lions. There were a few exceptions like British generals Herbert Plumer, Julian Byng and Henry Horne as well as Australian commander John Monash and Canadian commander Arthur Currie who were among the best generals of WW1 and took great care in planning and not wasting lives in pointless frontal assaults - sometimes even refusing to obey incompetent superiors like Douglas Haig and Hugh Gough.
I agree with you. British army was very slow to understood how to face German army. They did so bad mistake that French had to help/save their front. They suffer same problems than France in 1914, but lot of british officers were too proud to change their tactics. This is just about tactics but british soldier had very good equipement compare to french soldier.
Luckily for Britain the King realised how hopeless Haig and his command were so Monash was given the opportunity of leading the August Offensive. Result; armistice.
my great grandfather Charlie was part of the BEF in WW1, he survived the whole war and later went on to fight in ww2. he was around 18-20 in WW1 and his mid 40’s in WW2, sadly i never got to meet him as he died in the mid 80’s however i would have loved to meet a man who could have lived through nearly 10 years of war in his life and continue to live a good life after it all, he’s a true hero of mine.
It's crazy to think that nations such as Germany and France had such well-trained and strong armies in the world, only to end up with armies that were barely functioning by the end of the first year alone.
Does not matter how good your army is. High intensity warfare bretween equal matched opponents, that can not outflank, envelope or encircle the other, will end in a head on clash. A Pyrrhic Victory at best. A slaughter at worst.
My grandfather conscripted into the Austrian-Hungarian army. Once he got back home after the war, he bundled up his family including my mother and left Europe for the USA.
My grandfather was born in the US but, his brothers were born in Germany. Seeing the war coming they family moved to the United States. When the US entered the war the oldest was drafted but, he told my grandfather he didn't move to America so he could fight his family back in Europe and he took off. The family never knew or at the least said they didn't know where he went. Evidence says Colorado as from time-to-time he would go to Glenwood Colorado without my grandmother or any other family member and never really said why he went. Anyone in the family that knew for sure took the secret to the grave.
My paternal great grandfather also fought for Austria Hungary ironically my maternal one fought for Italy. Our families are originally from Trieste and the allegiance was split.
My great great grandfather enlisted in 1918 and was sent to the front lines of Europe he did survive thankfully (forgot to say this was the US army he joined
My great uncle was a French soldier who was part of the French expeditionary force sent to help the Serbian army by campaigning in Greece and Macedonia. He was shot between the eyes by a Bulgarian sniper outside of Salonika.
Mine was a machine gunner there too. He earned the serbian white eagle for gallantry in 1918. He stayed in the region until late 1919, making him one of the longest serving soldiers of the french army, having enlisted in 1914, he took part in the battles on the western front, gallipolli, and the battles in greece, bulgaria and serbia. He came home after more than 5 years of service, and was again enlisted in 1939 (although he caught pneumonia during the phoney war and was discharged).
The Italian army was a pretty bad army to be in, too, with a commander that insisted on extremely costly attacks - one after another. And warfare in the mountains was not for the faint-hearted. However, the top spot probably goes to the Russians. One important lesson the Germans learnt from their failed Marne offensive, was that they needed a relatively small number of highly trained elite units as a spearhead that could keep up the momentum, instead of having 100+ divisions with roughly similar capability. Combat fatigue was a major reason for the early setback at Marne.
@@Liv1nMohawk yep a minor unit, but 710 dead out of 800 at the Battle of the Somme, any way you want to rationalize it with "oh they were under British command" is moot. the human destruction was magnified because of the small population of people and the high percentage of males who volunteered... and then all those males are gone.
@@beepboop204 I somehow suspect the British called their Commonwealth comrades for "shock troops" or "elite units" just to have an excuse to use them against especially tough opposition instead of British troops. Like the French used their colonial troops against the toughest parts of the German defence.
Russian army did face major supply issues, but NOT when it came to boots and clothing. Russian boots were considered some of the best in WWI and often Austrian soldiers would take trophy boots of Russian dead and prisoners. Russian army did lack ammunition, artillery, medical staff and later had major food shortages. Overall, it's probably the worst army to fight for because it all crumbled and turned into a Civil War that was even bloodier than WW1 for them.
a major issue they had at Tannenberg was they hadn't really fully developed usable gas masks getting a bunch from the Brits or French the few they did make by then had been sent to areas less effective than they could have been (Osowiec for instance)
@Nikola S. I disagree that "Russians were poor soldiers". There was nothing wrong with the soldiers but everything wrong with senior commanders and planning and logistics. Senior commanders would just throw Russian soldiers into a meat grinder by massing large amount of troops at narrow front point. It was just perfect for Austro-Hungarians to take them out with cross-firing machine guns and artillery. But, under Brusilov they attempted a radically different strategy by attacking a very wide front line looking for weaknesses and breaking through in those spots, which resulted in key victories. But, of course, poor Russian logistics eventually slowed it down. But this idea was later developed by Tuchachevsky into a modern warfare concept by using armor and aviation. It was key to Soviet victories in 1944-1945 (when after executing Tuhachevsky they finally adopted his tactics). Russia always had poor leadership, not poor soldiers.
Anglo-French forces vs. Ottomans on Gallipoli: fail. Russians vs. Ottomans 1914-1917: win-win-win (Sarykamysh-Erserum-Trapesund). It says more than everything about a meaning "Russian army is probably the worst army to fight for"
In our high school history class, we were given a chart of casualty statistics for each nation's army in the war. Austria-Hungary was at 90%. It was too ludicrous to believe.
@@rrwholloway I’d suggest “Ring of Steel” by Alexander Watson. If you haven’t read Chris Clark’s “Sleepwalkers”, I’d recommend that too. I read that book maybe 7 years ago and I am STILL in awe of how brilliant it was. It does not focus exclusively on Germany or Austria Hungary, but it is so excellent that, if you haven’t read it, give it to yourself for the holidays. I promise that your understanding of the war will be greatly enhanced and expanded.
One thing about the French army is that after the mutinies, the conditions improve a lot. After those events, soldiers were relieved regularly and had permissions, when in other armies units were replaced only once thay had too suffer to fight. Also their rations improve, and offensives were carried with attention to limit the number of death. (for example, systematic use of tanks helped to prevent too much loses) But there were still no parachutes for pilots as for the British. One of the most difficult to face would have been the extreme lack of food for the central powers soldiers at the end of the war because of the blocus. In 1918 German offensives were losing momentum because soldiers stopped when they stumbled upon cellars full of food. They were famished. So I would say that during the two first years the german army was the better to be in, next it was the French army, because the conditions of the French soldier improve and the german one was less and less fed. The worst to be a soldier in would be the Russian one I think.
If we only look at the armies in the video, I think you're spot on. But if we also look at the Italians and the Ottomans, I would argue both are worse than all the others. Being an Italian Soldier under Luigi Cadorna is probably the worst place to be in WW1.
French improvements were effective until mid 1917 onwards, when Petain was made overall commander. So for almost 3 years the poilus had to endure some the aforementioned harshnesses.
@@danrooc you would have to combine Pétain and Foch to make it work in my opinion : Pétain made the french army coherent, harnessing the new tech, building up again the divisions and improving morale and endurance, but it needed the impetus of Foch, who better coordinated allied armies.
@@gnarkgnarkgnarkgnark1933 Yes, it seems Pétain was considred a bit too "pesimistic" by the French government (cautios I'd say). Though, I made my comment on regards of the time frame for Pétain's improvements. They took place after 3 years of war, not 2. Greetings.
@@danrooc oh yes, I didn't disagree, I was merely expanding the discussion. I am not neither a Foch or Pétain fan If I have to point this out. Both had terrible flaws, the later revealing them in a catastrophic fashion for the Republic...
IIRC, British troops actually spent very little time in their trenches - two weeks was the norm I believe, with two further weeks in support trenches then 4 in the rear. There was also the strategy of their respective High Commands - the Germans built solid structures because they intended to keep them, the British and French were more temporary because they were supposed to push the Germans back
It's true that individuals didn't spend as long as people are led to believe they did, I think your numbers are right. But the trenches were in bad condition, and two weeks is a long time to spend in an exposed, muddy, shelled trench. A lot of the soldiers got trench foot from the flooding in them, and because not all were reinforced, when it did rain, the mud sides of the trenches became really weak. the Germans were a lot better protected (It's partly why the bombardment before the Somme Offensive was so ineffective, although the other reason was that a lot of shells were duds)
Surprised Italy and General Cadorna didn't make the list. His solution to not breaking the Austro-Hungarian line was pretty much "We will do the same thing again!" and that in a loop.
Cadorna was a bad general that worked with 19th century strategies but Italy didn’t fight that bad like a lot of people think. Half of the battles of Isonzo were successful and after the 11th battle Italy was just some kilometers near Trieste and the end of the war. But thanks to Germany’s help in the 12th battle of Isonzo (the famous Caporetto battle) Austria managed to defend themselves for another year. Those battles have the same name but were fought in different zones, someone south near the sea, someone up north
Which half of the battles were successful, would you say? The goal was to advance to Ljubljana and from there to Vienna and Budapest (A-H expected Italians in Vienna within 3 months at most and actually considered fighting the Italians in Ljubljana, and around Klagenfurt, not on Isonzo). They started the war just a few kilometers from Trieste and even if they had caputred it, it was just a political goal - much like Gorizia, whose capture simply moved the frontline from just infront of the town to just behind it. Likewise, Austria-Hungary didn't just "manage to defend itself for another year", it was on the offensive in the summer of 1918, too. The offensive failed, but the fact it was planned and executed shows they had more to give. They gave in when the Empire fell apart. However, it is true that he didn't do "the same thing" and he didn't just "attack frontally" and quite frankly, the only reason the Italian army didn't win a major breakthrough is that their army often ran out of steam just as they were making a good progress. That is, they lacked mobility to exploit success, which is exactly the same problem that everyone else had.
@@vezist AH thought the italians would have advanced faster because they didnt know how the alpine front would be, that is why the germans alpine force were deployed here even before Germany was at war with Italy to help AH logistics After the front went in a stale mate Italy would have slowly won. Cadorna thought Germans would try to avoid this at all cost, so he defended the mount near Venezia. This actually happen and as planned they stopped the offensive in the mounts near Venice, without even the intervention of allied troops This was the end of ah, their Plan was to take Venice, It failed an now the British and France were closing on the front
What is crazy is that we germans only executed 45 soldiers and 25 for cowardness while the british alone executed more than 300. There is a story from a man who got injured, had home leave and saw his daughter, then had to return. At some point he snapped and went to the field medic because he basically burned out. The field medic then proceeded to sign his death warrant and he got shot shortly after very unspectaculary. Crazy to think about that. Imagine you go to your doctor and then they pull you from the waiting room and just shoot you outside...
@@mutantgamer5559 There were many cases but they did not execute them for cowardness in the sense of burnout but only for more direct cases like causing harm to your comrades because you disobey an order. Going to the doctor for help and getting executed is a whole different level and the only comparable situation where a doctor does cause harm i knew before reading into WW1 was nazi germany doctors experimenting and killing people.
@Robert Stallard how do you know it is nonsense? Instead of accusing me of making this up while not providing any argument or sources yourself you could have just researched the topic. You wont find people linking anything here because youtube does not allows URLs in comments - but you could also google it (with the quotes): "A remembrance they’d rather forget: WWI’s executed soldiers" Actually the Brits killed 306 soldiers, that is more than 300 in the math I learned at school.
The British, out of 306 executions, only 18 were for cowardice. A medic couldn't sign a death warrant, as one could only be given after a court martial.
I am a middle aged German. As a very young boy i had some few years with my grandgrandfather who survived WWI as a Artillery Gunner for nearly three years. But he was close to deff because even the concept of sound protection for artillery crews did not exist. That is just one little detail who miserable WWI was for soldiers of every nation
I'm a middle aged Brit. 5 relatives from Newcastle are buried on The Somme, Ypres and Pas De Calais. I'm with you, extreme misery for all the poor sods no matter what flag you were under x
In 1917, the convictions concerned collective behavior of the famous Chemin des Dames mutinies, which remain etched in our memories both for their exceptional nature and for the repression that followed after the bloody assaults on the Craonne plateau commanded by General Nivel, known as "the butcher of Craonne." 30,000 French soldiers were killed in just 10 days and more than 100,000 were wounded. 30,000 unnecessary deaths because of the simple ambitions of a moron of a general who had no respect for human life and who led a worldly and debauched life in Paris while 30,000 soldiers were killed at the front.
And to add to Germany, it’s army was an effective meat-grinder during Falkenhayn’s stay as Commander in Chief. His relentless and unyielding defensive strategy on the Western Front had worn the German Army down to a shadow of its former self by the end of 1916. Falkenhayn’s idea that any ground lost was to be regained proved to be more harmful than good for the soldiers of the Kaiser’s Army. And we can see this well during the Battle of Verdun, where German units were practically destroyed as they were forced to counterattack French positions over and over again, to which they weren’t even given time to rest.
The Front: "Which was the worst?" Italians on their way to do the exact same frontal assault on the exact same place for the 13th time: "Yeah good question"
World War I is an interesting case study of what happens when outdated understandings and values clash with new realities and cruelties. Many armies still approached the way with tactics and mindset that served them well in the 19th century, only to realize too late that newer, even more brutal technology has rendered them moot and far more costly. The concept of a full-scale, mechanized war fought with gas-powered war machines, automatic weapons, and other horrifying weapons left people who were so used to bayonet charges and massive armies unprepared, not to mention that factories and logistics in general weren't prepared to supply armies and equipment on such an unprecedented scale. WWII basically is when the world finally adapted to the reality of a new kind of war.
Some mistakes here. The one bothering me the most being the Nivelle offensive. Charles Pietan put down the French mutinies by instituting many reforms that were favorable to the soldiers. Out of the thousands of soldiers arrested maybe around 50 were executed (many more would have been if Pietan wasn’t in charge)
Of the 30 to 40,000 soldiers who mutinied, 4,000 were tried in a "Conseil de Guerre", 694 were condemned to death, and 75 actually executed, those considered as leaders in the movement and those who had attacked or killed their commanding officer.
@@seanhartigan2003 Marshall Petain is the general in charge of French forces on the last year of WW1, and because of that respect when France was defeated by Germany in 1940 even as communist and fascist elements were agitating to overthrow the Third Republic He was chosen as Leader of Vichy France as the last candidate they had left. Had He chosen to fight in 1940 rather than try to spare his people the French army and especially the Navy would have played a far larger role in WW2
I think you accurately portrayed the French army in 1914 and 1915 but not afterwards. Many reforms were made and the French learned from their mistakes. Better uniforms, food, rotations, weaponries and tactics in general. The massive casualties is also due to the fact that the French did the bulk of the fight on the western front from the beginning till the end of the war (with all due respect to our allies in which victory wouldn't have been possible).
@@Cryptorabbi69Thats because its the US. Here in Australia we are taught about the whole western front but focus on the invasion of the ottomans, and the eastern front is just completely left out.
Even though some consider Serbia a "minor" player in WW1, I think the Serbian army should've been mentioned since they lost 58% of their main military force.
Serbia, unlike any other Entente country, was almost surrounded by the Central powers in 1915. It had little in the way of arms industry and, being compelled to mobilize a huge % of the population just to have a fighting chance against the forces facing it, meant that most of everything the country needed had to be imported. Yet, the gallant survivors of the whole ordeal, and perhaps the most seasoned veterans of 1918 - many of whom have seen almost uninterrupted WW1-style action since 1912. played quite a significant role in knocking Bulgaria, and later Austria Hungary out of the war (and indirectly the other Central powers as well).
Why would someone consider it as a “minor player”? That’s where the war started and we were pretty successful during the beginning. I mean, we beat all of their invasion attempts. Only when Bulgaria entered did we lose.
Well, Serbia could have been on this list just for the losses suffered. However, that was almost entirely caused by the might and sheer numbers of enemy forces that descended on Serbia. Unlike the armies mentioned in the video, it didn't suffer from much of internal problems. It had extremely capable officers, motivated and seasoned soldiers, including conscripts, while the government and the people rallied behind it to supply it with pretty much anything they could scrape. Fun fact: After all ordeals of Balkan wars and WWI 1912-1918, all 51 regimental banners issues by the King in 1911, had been returned to their respective regimental HQs in 1918. Not a single one had ever been captured.
Russia had the worst logistics France had the worst morale (by 1916) Austria-Hungary had the worst communications UK had the worst regard for soldiers Germany had the worst strategy (trying to eliminate 2 major powers in secession) Ottoman Turkey had the worst weather adaption (especially in winter) USA had the worst regard for modern weapons Italy had the worst tactics and generals
Respect to all the fallen of WW1 whether German, French, etc. They all fought for their countries doing their duty and shaped the world as we see it today.
I don’t think they’d be happy with the world they see today. Poor blokes were brainwashed by their nations to sacrifice their lives for nothing. At least their bravery and human spirit will stand strong as a relic of the past. That’s honestly really all the good those millions of young innocent men have to offer. What preceded them, would shock them to cardiac arrest. Thankful they are not here to witness it. RIP
@@DonRoyalX les lavages de cerveaux sont encore d'actualité en Russie , et même au Etats Unis en 2003 avec la fameuse guerre en Irak ou il y avait soit-disans des armes de destructions massives et chimiques phrase infantilisante de Condoleezza Rice : pardonné a la Russie "et pour cause" ignorer l'Allemagne et punir la France
I would imagine one of the worst roles anyone could be assigned to was tunnel digging for either side, in a black hole filled with explosive which you could be sent back down to re-ignite more than once, but a pilot was much worse in WW1 I'd imagine than most, in a canvas box which was as likely to be shot down by your own side than the side you were fighting, as plenty of times they were unaware of the planes markings on the ground!
Have you seen the War below? pretty good film on netflix. Because the soldiers couldnt effectively dig the tunnels, they brought in miners. and i also learned they were fighting down there. counter tunneling meant that u could suddenly find an enemy tunnel and be thrust into a brutal, in the dark, melee fight. Truly a terrible role
@@Suspicious_Trabant Didn't see it, thanks for the suggest, but I heard of fights below ground at Paschendale, etc. alright, hence how they recruited in the UK from Welshmen who were miners and in the US from Kentuckians, etc who were miners
My great grandfather was a tunneller, he survived the war and when he returned to Sheffield, the Labour exchange told him that due to his age he was on the scrap heap. Bear in mind he’d done four years in the war, lost one son in action and had another son serving in the tank corp,so in disgust he threw his medals into the river don, “land fit for hero’s, my arse!
Looking at the details, it wasn't so much that commanders were all incompetent, cruel and obtuse, than the fact there wasn't much they could do on a linear and static front, beyond tweaking the next (doomed) offensive. The French general staff, despite the reputation, had a fast turnover and experimented with everything. Not that it mattered to the average soldier when the 4738392th attempt failed.
Good point. The generals tried everything they could think of to give their guys a better shot (no pun). The French worked on what kind of artillery attack was best, the Hun developed a lot of new weapons and reinvigorated light infantry tactics (Hutier), but the Limeys were the ones with the way to cut across no man's land - the tank. I've always felt the whole "incompetent" thing was a lot of Leftist newspapermen trying to create a villain.
As I believe he said in the video, largely the French problem was an obsession with offensive action. Once they figured out ship convoys, they could just starve out the Central Powers. Only issue was the Turks, though they were on their last leg when they started, same as the Austro-Hungarians.
Probably the most balanced take, the last "modern" war that had been fought was the American civil war so that's where European officers had taken their notes, no army was prepared for the reality of war on the scale of the 1st World War, and trench warfare. The ability to defend greatly exceeded the ability to attack and it took years for new ideas to be developed and tried, and for weapons to reach a point where trench lines could be reliably broken. Its popular to blame generals of the era, with the benefit of modern hindsight but they were all products of their era and experience, thrust into a new, modern form of warfare for which there was limited precedent
A very large percentage of young British men died in the war. This demographic change was so big that they were known as "the lost generation". Furthermore, a large percentage of the survivors returned with "shell shock", which today is called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Quite a few were blinded by gas warfare, or had permanent lung damage. Although I don't know all of the details, being on the losing side of the war could have been even worse.
France did not stop the war in 1917. It was the country that created the largest air force and artillery reserve, able to change sector in 2 weeks to crush German opposition in successive offensive. After Nivelle's failure, it also adopted the gun - tank - infantry combination (with numerous agile tanks suited to trench warfare), training the infantry to limit risk by using small sections progressing from cover to cover. Also, instead of the German method of grouping the best soldiers in assault forces that did not last long, French kept all divisions on par, to be able to spare men by a rotation on front duty and having an effective reserve to counter-attack. French hold two third of the West front, plus the Balkan front which was decisive into pushing Austrians out of the war. The CinC of the Allies on west front was French, and devised the strategy that repelled the Germans to their frontier. So something is lacking in the description.
Yes, it is lacking that Germany, apart from fighting the British Empire and the French Empire and the US on the Western front, she had to sustain *all* its allies on *all* other fronts, endured a total blockade of its naval supplies...and defeated Russia nonetheless.
Mmmh, Germany did not defeat Russia. Unless you consider letting Lenin go through Germany to Russia as the Germans did a German military action, and Lenin as a German agent. The Bolcheviks did cause Russian defeat, from the inside.
@@yann4601 Well, wars are often won or lost by single traitors or sabotage. So you are implying that Lenin would have been able to return to a victorious Russia on its march to Berlin and overthrow the Tsarist regime? 😊
@@yann4601 I would speak of a Russian defeat by Germany. First Germans and Austrians repulsed every Russian offensive, at high cost for the Russians. Then the power in Russia crumbled, and the Douma took the lead, without clear war strategy. This created the political opportunity to send Lenin to Russia, to provoke a total collapse of the state and army, resulting in a ceasefire that gave Germany the resources of Ukrain, and the opportunity to shift armies to the West. So a military strategical advantage turned into a decisive victory through a political operation.
@@yann4601 i mean germany "won". cause russia gave up with the fall of their leaders. sure it was no win on the military side but still germany got out as succsessor on this front. imagine now some high tier ukrainian guy would go and stab the president to archive a win for russia and it ends up working, it still would be a win for russia aint it.
Just to complete France chapter: French army was stuck in the past at the beginning of the war and later in the conflict, their motto was "L'offensive avant tout" Offensive above all", this startegy was used by really olds generals and marechals and like you said, was really uneffective. But its It's France who caught up in the first, by producing very more tanks than the other belligerents, and its France who invented the very well working offensive strategy who make working infantry, artillery, tanks and planes together to give the advantage to the attackers and not to the defensers, this strategy was used in part by the Wermacht during ww2 and still a little today. But that's too late and after too much death the french general staff used this strategy.
@@urosmarjanovic663 It's false, just false, this is an "urban legend". To say it prooves one thing: You never read those books. Because if you did you wouldn't say such false thing. There is nothing in de Gaulle's book that permit someone to build a tank unit. De Gaulle book is supperficial, romantic, not technical and not accurate. For more, the main point in Guderian's theory is the link between planes and tanks. In de Gaulle's book, planes are just inexistants. De Gaulle *totally passed by* the role of airforce in mechanic warfare. All in de Gaulle's book have been already written by Fuller and Hobbard. But Fuller was dry and technical to read, de Gaulle is smooth and romatic to read... Being smotth is not the main argument to state that de Gaulle were the voice to listen. Guderian couldn't use de Gaulle's book, because it's unaccurate, romatic and not complete.
@@BFVK If his book inspired Guderian, it is enough. American admiral sank one of his ships to prove to the Navy that airplanes will be main maritime weapon, not battleships.
There's one other reason the war went so badly for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Prior to the war, their military intelligence chief Col. Alfred Redl became a double agent. He was caught and forced to commit suicide before the shooting started, but not before he gave the Russians every military secret the Empire had. Troop strength, materiel strength, battle plans, the locations of military bases and strategic targets--there was nothing the Russians didn't know.
Worst to be fighting for would be for sure the Italian army on the Isonzo/Alpine front, followed by the Ottoman Army, then the Russian Army, and then the French on the western front.
You forgot to mention the French uniforms. They were bright and colourful, and basically could be seen by everyone, unlike the grey German uniforms or the green British/American ones.
my grandmother had an older sister whose husband fought in ww1 for america. i met him a few times in the early 70s as a little kid. he was a really big stong guy even then. when i got older my gramps told me stories that "uncle forest" was a trench fighter who would jump in trenches with a few pistols and knuckle knife. savage to think about..my gramps was a vet of omaha beach and said, i saw and did terrible things but i have no idea how a man could do that and come out alive. says it all...
It seems that no power in WW1 had any concept of what modern warfare entailed. Logistics were poor, production did not keep pace with the volume of supplies and ammunition expended, armies starved due to lack of proper food supplies, etc. They all seemed to be prepared to fight a colonial style campaign in the Industrial Age. WW1 seems to have been horrific for the common soldiers of any army.
To be fair technological progress had been so rapid in the two decades before the war that very few leaders- military and civilian- appreciated or even comprehended their seismic effect. Most of the senior generals had attended military academies in the 1870s and 1880s, and all of the theoretical work they were exposed to consisted of tactics and doctrines that dated back to the Napoleonic era, and mechanization of the battlefield was still in the future. Moreover there did not exist in any national military an overall plan or central authority to oversee the introduction and integration of new technologies, and therefore modernization was a piecemeal process usually delegated to a small number of army officers passionate about a particular innovative technology, but the overriding commanders and general staffs were largely isolated or ignorant about the implications of their mass deployment upon a battlefield. Quite simply put commanders and politicians with pre-industrial mindsets were in command of an industrial war.
People like Currie and Monash, and to be fair, the UK High Command had a good grasp on fighting the war in the later part. Had the war continued to 1919, there would have been no way the Germans could blame betrayal for losing the war.
I think the issue is, none of them expected the war to last very long because a lot of the military conflicts in europe in the century before that had been rather short-lived. Logistics wouldn't have become such an issue if, as most at the time seem to have expected, the war would only have lasted a few months.
I would say you nailed it. My grandfather was a junior officer in the Austro-Hungarian army. He was captured at the battle of the Priapet Marshes (I think) and spent 7 YEARS!!!! as a prisoner in Siberia.
I'd go with the Italians under Cadorna It must have been soul destroying to go out again on the same battlefield for the tenth time or more - sometimes as little as 2 weeks since the previous one - when huge casualties had been suffered for no substantial gain
In reality after the 11th battle the Italians were just some kilometers away from Trieste and near the end of the war, but thanks to Germany’s help in the 12th battle (the famous Caporetto) the Italians had to retreat. I think that if it wasn’t for Germany, Italy would have won the war in 1917
@@nicola.innocenti Ehh more like a winter holiday compared to people drowning in mud on other fronts. Ether way ww1 was no fun time for anyone. Its like choosing which type of stage 4 cancer is the least bad.
A note about the "Cult of the Offensive": WWI generals have been maligned for their tactic of charging ever since WWI ended, and indeed during it as well. But few people point out these tactics were THE way to win wars for the entirety of previous firearm history. That was finally not true, and the generals spent three years and thousands of lives figuring out how to fight war in a way that didn't just waste lives for no gain again. And they mostly figured it out, with modern infantry tactics born in the german infantry tactics of 1918 and modern combined arms born on the western front in 1918. Both of which tactics are "Of the Offensive"
A few of my ancestors were Russian officers in the WWI. One of them remembered his time as a POW as the best time of his life (the conditions for officers were often really good because of all those ideas of honour and gentlemanly solidarity or something like that).
I'd say the worst army of WWI to be in was the Italian one. Fighting at high altitude, having to pull guns and other heavy equipment across mountanious terrain, and forced to attack eleven times on the same spot, looks like the worst deal of all. And while russian soldiers had to endure extremely miserable conditions, at least they got to shoot their own brass at the end.
@@iamconsomateur3832 Yes. Or visit those battlefield areas of France and see all the cemeteries of neat crosses, showing how many soldiers died. It seems everywhere you go, there's a cemetery, one horrible one after another.
@@merryrose6788 My mom’s from the « haut de France », there’s cimetry and monument for deaths everywhere, I hope you saw the « forest » of the ancient no man’s land with the weird non natural espaced trees, if you read the soldiers letters and watch the death score hided by the army you understand the butchery Man talk about fights in beautiful mountains when in French lines you lived feets on cold mud full of dead corpses, only for Verdun 37 millions shells was shoot, even the continual shellfire turn you mad These areas population sacrifice herself in Coal exploitation it was the France industrial area (Germinal - Zola). Take WW1 on them and the received the prize from french government a closing of all theses industries leaving them without job. That’s why theses area are so depressing and alcoholic
@@iamconsomateur3832 Wrote a reply, but can't find it. Mostly, your post really sums up the terrible results of this war in particular, on not only the soldiers, but on the entire society: people who were in the middle of the fighting, supporting the defense, and then losing their jobs, and seeing only despair. The city of Amiens looks cheerful with lots of shops and restaurants, quaint lodgings. There's horseback riding on the battlefields. So, I hope things can get better, but definitely for another trip, I'll try to see the unnaturally planted trees you mentioned, and appreciate the continuing bad effects of the war on these areas. Really, until I visited, I did not understand how much the war(s) have left marks on the land and the people.
I'd say each country had its own weird gimmick: 1. UK - drown in the place which name you can't pronounce. 2. Germany - they pull you out of Verdun just to throw under a Russian offence. 3. France - have you seen million people dying? Just watch. And then do it again. 4. Russia - sorry, boys, we're out of ammo. Again. 5. Austro-Hungary - if soldiers can't understand their officers, you know which army it is... 6. Italy - my father died here, my brothers died here so I will too. At the very same spot. 7. Turkey - sorry, boys, we're out of everything. Don't ask why the hell we're fighting. 8. Serbia - if you think it can't get any worse, just wait a bit. 9. Romania - how to lose your country in six months.
After reading 'A farewell to arms ' I think the Italian army deserves an honorable mention. They started shooting their own soldiers after they retreated.
A particularly egregious example was a general visiting the frontlines and having a soldier shot by firing squad on the spot for "retreating" when he was actually granted leave to visit his wife.
@anthonyeaton5153 Indeed, it was. However, Hemingway wrote fictionalized accounts of his own experiences. Hemingway served as a volunteer ambulance driver for the Italian army. Indeed, the Italian army shot some of its own soldiers.
One important detail concerning the French army: The "cult of the offensive" was indeed the dominant doctrine in the French army at the beginning of the war, but that was not at all the case for the whole duration of the war. Doctrine and tactics evolved constantly throughout the war and the French army of 1914 was very different from the French army of 1915, which in turn was very different from that of 1916 and so on. So much much so that the French army of 1918 has absolutely nothing in common with that of 1914, in terms of doctrine, tactics, organisation, logistics etc. From the Autumn of 1914, Joffre created a special Bureau dedicated to collecting and centralizing all reports of tactical initiatives, combat techniques and manoeuvres coming from the front, in order to adapt the doctrine, the tactics and provide more suited equipment to the men. This went on throughout the war until the end. So it is wrong to say that the French army was "stuck in the past". Just like any other army, it went though a learning curve, admitedly sometimes hindered by some stubborn commanders who refused to implement the newest tactics and stuck to the "old ways", which lead to unnecessary loss of lives. Concerning the executions, the vast majority took place during the first year of the war, and the executions following the 1917 mutinies amount to 75 out of the 700 soldiers condemned to death among the 30 to 40,000 soldiers who took part in the mutinies, soldiers identified as "leaders" in the movement, and others who had attacked or killed their commanding officer.
@@bobbyjoe1111 i wouldn't say he's "just another anglo repeating tired clichés", as his videos are usually quite good, at least much better than this one. He has never taken a simplistic or prejudiced stance on the French, so I think he just oversimplified and tried to deal with an issue far too complex to be presented accurately in a few minutes.
It's the stories you don't hear on TH-cam that bring chills to your skin. Had a friend tell me about the farmers of ww1 and the crazy weapons they used to fight with in hand to hand combat. I vaguely remember some stories and can't seem to find them online. Mabye their true, mabye not but the mystery is amazing.
This is an impossibly complicated question because it heavily depends on where and when the fighting occurred. I'd probably say that my worst place would be the French army around Verdun, specifically the fighting for Mort Homme; the Mill on the Meuse was, I think, justly infamous.
@@RedouaneRebat Possibly. It is difficult to say the German Army at the time was on the offensive, which, in some ways, was easier, more dynamic, and less passive. Also, the lack of rotation meant some units faired worse, but the army as a whole faired better. Finally, the German Army was likely (at the time) a 'nicer' army to serve in, generally better officers and better supplied. Arguably, I think the German's horror time was Passchendaele/3rd Ypres; that battle was hideous, the Germans were largely passive, and the homefront situation was much worse. I suspect that it was the long-term consequences of Verdun and 3rd Ypres that eventually led to the 1918 German collapse. After the horrifying bloodletting and failure of the Kaiser Offensive in 1918, the 'best' German troops were either dead or exhausted, and the remainder (after the horrors of 1916-17) were simply unable to go on. Much like the French in 1917 after the Chemin De Dames - but the French were lucky; the British did not break at that moment. Then, the British nearly broke (following their collective horrors in 1916-17) during the Kaiser Offensive, but the French and US troops did enough to bolster. Turns out allies are the thing. But I will acknowledge that Verdun has a special mythology for both the Germans and the French. It is noteworthy that the Wehrmacht called Stalingrad Verdun on the Volga. So, you could be right.
Italy should've been on the list for reintroducing the old Roman practice of decimation, and routinely having soldiers shot for minor offenses, as in one example when a soldier neglected to take his pipe out of his mouth while saluting.
decimation was used only once with the "Catanzaro" Brigade, and out of all contenders, the Italian Army was the one that had the fewest soldiers sent to the firing squad (5000) whereas the French for example shot more than 60k soldiers,
My great great grandfather invented the bullet which the British used to take out the German zeppelins. He died in the Zeebrugge raid charging off HMS Vindictive with a naval cutlass and getting into melee combat with a German officer. Respect to your grandfather for fighting for their country in a moment of madness.
The italian one was horrendous in the beginning because of their top general Luigi Cadorna. Among his blunders were the 11!!! Battles of the Isonzo river and his refusal to give the soldiers leave because he feared what the soldiers would tell the people at home if they got the chance.
I’m from the UK and my great great uncle fought in the third battle of Ypres. He got wounded in the battle and was sent to a frontline hospital tent to heal. But a rogue shell struck his tent, killing him and everyone inside
It’s important to note that many of the issues facing the british army at the beginning and middle of the war were no longer an issue by 1917. After the german navy was beaten back to port, for example, the royal navy could focus much more on supplies, despite the annoyance of uboats, but they were in their infancy then and nothing like the issue they were in ww2.
U saying that until u boats reach there highest amount of ships sunk in 1917 and 1918 I would be terrified of traveling on a merchant ship to the uk with how many boats they sank
Meanwhile the Belgian Army had a commander in chief - the King - concerned about his soldiers, the army tried to keep the casualties down (as their manpower was limited) by 'holding the fort" and avoiding to engage in large, murderous offensives such as the Somme. And the Queen helped as a nurse.
Also to note, he FOUGHT ALONGSIDE THEM. He wasnt in the backlines, dude was in the tren hes with his boys fighting right there with them. And he has earned his title, The Soldier King, Albert I of belgium
I personally would have said Italy. But since watching your argument for Austrian-Hungarian empire, and seeing some people saying the Ottoman empire, I think I've changed my mind
For me it's either the Ottomans, or the Italians under Cadorna, he attacked 12 TIMES ON THE ISONZO only because he won some battles there, suffering tremendous losses and with severe ammo and food shortage (without talking about disease and cold) and when the Germans came at Caporetto it was a disaster, fortunately immediately after Caporetto he got fired and replaced by Diaz
The British in Gallipoli was a nightmare. The only semi-successful thing was the retreat. Disease and death were everywhere and the mines in the water were incredibly dangerous.
yes that was a disaster. The Turks did pretty well there, although they lost heaps of men too. But there were a series of mistakes that took the Allies out of there, despite the troops doing their best. Landings at wrong beaches, no water, nowhere to safely take a break. Stationed on and around beaches while the Turks had the high ground. Not a good place to be for both sides. Kemal Ataturk was the Turkish commander, and very soon after he was the Leader of the Turkish State.... a very interesting and talented person.
The Austro-Hungarian army wasnt really one army per se, but three seperate ones. Both the austrian landwehr and the hungarian Honved wre largely equipped with equipment that was for the most part produced within their respective part of the empire, from small things like belt buckles (which there were around 7 or 8 different models handed out of, depending on the area where the unit was recruited from) up to gigantic siege howitzers (which the Honved for the most part lacked for the entirety of the war and forced them to make due with older models from the previous century), while the Common Army, the third entity within the austro-hungarian land forces, had to basically settle for whatever was left, which often included older equipment that had been left in storage for decades. Now add to that the (based on some reports, occasionally literal) fighting over aircraft engines by the army and the navy and its a wonder that they were able to keep their units supplied enough to hold out until the end of the war
Austro-Hungarian army in ww1 is a bit like Ferrari at F1. At first, you wonder how such an institution could do so badly. Then you see the insides and start to wonder how, given all the chaos, disadvantages and mismanagement, they actually managed to perform so well. While the army was not exactly something to brag about, the sheer fact that it managed to hold three fronts against much stronger foes while having the army basically annihilated TWICE and having non-functioning interior for the last two years, is nothing short of amazing. Being in a situation of the AH-army, French army would have rioted three times over. Austrians just somehow made it work.
@@BenKenobi92 Your first paragraph analogy is superb. Only thing I'll chime in with is: That it was another..... (typical Hapsburg operation) = (Failure without going completely to zero & utter collapse). Even the Spanish Hapsburgs.
Austria-Hungary Armies Commander-In-Chief Conrad von Hotzendorf had a very good strategic plan to end the stalemate at the Western front’s trench lines. He proposed an offensive S.W. from Slovenia ( then part of A-H) against the relatively weaker Italian front. A mobile breakthrough would then proceed S. of the Alps across the flat Po Valley of Northern Italy, around the S.W. Swiss border and into France well S. of where the Western Front defenses were. This outflanking the Allies right flank would be like a “Napoleon in reverse” as Bonaparte had avoided large enemy forces on France’s Eastern frontier by marching S. of the Alps, winning a big victory at Marengo by this unexpected march, and going N. through the Ljubljana Gap in Slovenia and on to capture Vienna. Conrad knew his troops needed German help to have enough strength to succeed. The German Command turned down his request to transfer troops to the A-H/Italy front and the plan died. On a smaller scale later the A-H’s did an offensive that sent the Italian army reeling in chaotic retreat from the battle of Capporetto ( Karfreit in German) that showed Conrad’s strategy had a lot of merit to it. Despite deficiencies, at the end of the war the A-H army everywhere stood on foreign soil. They did O.K. all things considered.
I returned to the town that my grandfather left at the dawn of the 20th century. That town is Bedonia, in the Province of Parma, Region of Emilia- Romagna in Northern Italy. The year that I returned was 2017, the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Caporetto. I was stunned on how beautiful Bedonia is. Why would anyone want to leave this paradise in the Appeninne Mts. Then, my wife and I went to the City Hall where there is a monument to those who lost their lives in the Great War. Almost 25% of the village men were killed, mostly at the 12 Battles of the Isonzo the last being Caporetto, present day Koborid, Slovenia. True, Codorna was bad, as the Italian troops fell back to only a few miles from Venice, to the Fiume Piave (river). But, adio Codorna, and in was Diaz. Italy got Trieste and the South Tyrol for their "efforts". Yes that sucked... But, then there was the Ottoman Army. Whose probably only major victory was at Gallipoli . The Turks lost more men than the Allied Army in holding that front. Also, someone told of the Caucasus Campaign where thousands froze to death. These poor souls in the Turkish Army never even had helmets. Their Empire was decimated and even fought another war for two years against the Greeks & Italians after that armistice & the Treaty of Sevres . That's my choice for the award of being the worst army to be in. Pity that the only choice was the 5 listed. Italy, Turkey, should be included as major nations. Lest not forget all of the men and women that served their nations. There must be a way to halt these damned wars.
Yes and no. France got highly effective hosptals, and we "recycled" our wounded in civilian or military support life, quite often succesfully. Still, the scar burnt Franc eofrever (and explined the Nation's refusal to fight in WW2) Yet if you were cosncripted fo Frenc infantry, odds of sever injury were VERY high
@@mertroll1 cardona won 3 battles put the austrians to their test and there wa snot other option to charge in the izonso the austrians were entrenched everywhere there was not other option to atack the izonso and the austrians were well entrenched there so it was a masacre but he caused so much austrian deads that the austrians never dared to do another offensive when austria receibed germany division they atacked the sectors where austria atacked where hold by the italians but the places were germany atacked were totally lost cardonas was not a genius but a lot better general than hötzendorf what history chanells fail to explain is that cardona had no other option but to atack the izonso and most of the battles of the izonso were italian victories with hight casualties so yes cardona was a lot better than hötzendorf
Ref. parachutes for the RFC, it also has to be remembered that parachutes at the time were far too bulky to be stowed in an aircraft and deployed successfully by the aircrew. Such parachutes were restricted to observation balloons and were stowed outside the basket because of their size. The observer then simply jumped out of the basket with the parachute being deployed automatically by the ripcord which was already attached to the observer.
What about Italy? During retreat after the Battle of Caporetto, Carbineri were set up at bridges to execute retreating Italian Army Officers for cowardice. Max Hastings - The White War, Ernest Hemmingway wrote about it in Farewell to Arms.
Very good point. The British top brass had a almost sadist view of conducting war. Not giving pilots parachutes rather let them die in accidents rather than consider the safety of the pilots
Can you provide a factual link for that statement? Why don't you actually research the subject? The Germans didn't have parachutes until almost the end of the war. The American pilots didn't have parachutes either. The top Brass must have liked balloon observers more as they had parachutes.
Why is there a photo included in this video at 3:47 which obviously is from WWII -- NOT WWI? The German overseeing the French African POWs is clearly a Wehrmacht soldier wearing a Nazi uniform totally different than German uniforms during WWI. You couldn't find a single proper photo of a German in WWI overseeing French POWs?
@@vaclavmacgregor2464 The US was committed to 'armed neutrality' and Woodrow Wilson won election for keeping the US out of the war. The US Army had 130,000 troops, at the start of our involvement, and had to ramp up in a very short time. Which means, they wasted the 3 years of the war and paid for it. The US lost 116,000 dead. One has to ask if that could have been lessened with better preparation. Yes, our entering the war swung the tide, but that was balanced by the fact that the Russian army fell apart late in the war.
I'm sorry, but the French army was one of the most modernised armies to fight in by 1918, having mastered the conduct of combined arms warfare capable of defeating Germany's mastery of defending in depth. Traditionalist attitudes were largely resolved by Joffre and Pétain between 1914-1916, and the French army had mastered the conduct of trench warfare by the 2nd and 3rd Battles of Artois... the failure of nivelle's offensive had nothing to do with traditionalism and the offensive à outrance. The French also weren't the ones to execute the most soldiers, it was the Italians
Imagine trying to lead your troops in a war that is radically different than any before it, trying new tactics every day to figure out what works, only to be called incompetent for not being able to figure out perfectly how to use or fight massively impactful technology the first time
My vote goes to the Austro-Hungarian army. Crappy equipment if it was there in the first place and some of the most incompetent generals of all time, like Conrad von Hötzendorf, who commanded the military until 1917 and is a good candidate for worst general of all time. Tied in the second spot would be Russia and Italy. Both had terrible problems with supplies and equipment and incompetent generals. Russia's army was too large and diverse to be really trained well, so they mostly relied on human wave tactics. The Italian army was led by Luigi Cadorna. No further explanation needed. Out of those three, the Italian army managed to better itself at the end of the war, thanks to Cadorna being fired and getting help from Britain and France, while the Austro-Hungarian und Russian militaries just kept getting worse, because of the terrible situation and constant defeats and finally collapsed.
Well, Italy just had one front to fight, while Austria-Hungary had to fight on two more. This, in addition to the terrible communication within a multi-ethnic army, added to their performance ...
For me, it's France, with their "attack over and over again until they get exhausted" sending thousands of men into a meat grinder, and worse, the mutinies executed 918 men which weakend France even more.
I believe the purpose of the French Foreign Legion is to be the rearguard that holds the line behind retreating troops, and when that is done, get slaughtered themselves.
Rather "Attaque à outrance" (Attack to excess). If you really want to learn about this topic, download and translate this article: L'armée française et la révolution militaire de la Première Guerre mondiale, Michel Goya. Even wikipedia is a good place to start.
And the money for everything would come out of his pockets...... "Helmets, don't be a whimp !!" A standing army of 5 Million x helmet price, would have worked out as a good incentive to keep his spending down. The Tsar lasted only another 2 or 3 years..... then they had a change of management during the Russian Revolution.
so hypersonic strike capability like kinzhals, s300/400/550 air defense systems, development of armor and artillery use, nuclear submarines with ICBMs... ...all that doesn't count as development of doctrine and learning from past mistakes?
Ottoman Army. Not because of poor tactics or living conditions where others were nominated for, It is because you didn't have a replacement (Ottomans had a really really low population, one of the main reasons for its late industrialisation and falling back of Europe) so you ended up serving mostly without any rest and moving between many fronts for the full duration of the war, you were not allowed to leave and this resulted in mass defections from the army in the last 2-3 years of the war, and when you were free from the war, you probably didn't have a home now or your family was killed unless you were from central Anatolia. Edit: I have seen people talking about Enver pasha and him forgetting winter clothing... Simply to put it down, this is not real. Ottomans at that time had two options of clothing for the regions, winter and summer, (thus we have photos of modified clothing from Sina/Amare and other Arabian fronts because even the summer clothing was too thick for there) So no, he didn't forget winter clothing, and no, Ottomans didn't lose 90k soldiers in "Sarıkamış" that's just made up. His army group didn't even have 75k, let alone 90k "dead". A renowned Turkish historian Murat Bardakçı puts his own estimate at max of 40k, this number is combined result of bad management (by Hafız Hakkı Paşa), Typhus and Russian army. Biggest reason of deaths was widespread Typhus in the army The reason why 90k number surfaced is because of the Ottoman censorship over the movement, thus the new Turkish Republic and its people dramatised this event in early 1920s (first ever news about Sarıkamış was written in 1922)
To his credit there was no ither option only the izonso was the place that they could atack and they were extremely well entrenched there it was a masacre but nobody could do any other thing neither him plus he put the austro hungarians to thier test and causes so much death to the austro hungarians that they never dared to do another offensive only when germany send divisions to austria them the caporetto ofensive began and the places were austria atacked were hold by italy but the palces were germany atacked they loss
I know that by WW2 France had really low morale and was very apprehensive about war and trying to avoid it at all costs. With this, i cant blame them. I feel like the first world war was so traumatic for them that those scars rippled into the following generation.
True for many of the British who survived the trenches. We were not there, but can you really blame the British and especially the French for wanting to punish the Germans after 1918. The biggest mistake the allies made was to allow the German Army to march back to Germany. Instead, the French and British should have marched into Germany with the German army as POWs, and occupied the country for a decade.
My grandad was in the Canadian army in the first world war. He was hospitalised 5 times over the course of the war. Mostly due to disease, and even lost a lung. He survived and returned home to raise his family. HIs records are all on line in Canada and you can search them, which is cool. I even had his Cdn army WW1 training manual.
Technically speaking Serbia would have been the worst Army to fight for while they initially scored victories over Austria-Hungary they eventually suffered a defeat that left them in full retreat and by the end of the war something like one in every four Serbian soldiers was a casualty.
The Serbs were heavily outnumbered, and they still lasted almost until late 1915. German General August von Mackensen found them to be so fanatical in the defense of their country he called them "soldiers from fairytale."
Bearing in mind the losses they suffered due to being outnumbered, lack of logistics, famine and retreating through Albania in the winter of 1916, the Serbian army was perhaps the worst to fight in. But in terms of battlefield performance, experience, military leadership and morale, it was perhaps the best army in WW1.
@@petergray7576 Bro, the Serbian army lasted all the time even though Serbia was overrun in 1915/1916. The Serbs retreated through Albania and opened a new front in Thessaloniki together with the French. After the breakthrough of the Thessaloniki front in 1918, a domino effect began in which one by one the Axis countries signed the capitulation, and in 1918 the Serbian cavalry reached the edges of Vienna. The very point why the Serbian army (and Serbia in general) had so many losses is that they did not want to sign the capitulation during the entire war.
I would suggest some research of the size and supply of the Serbian army vs the opponents. Serbia also fought two wars before WW1 and were already exhausted. There is no army I would suggest to fight in as they all ended up going thou hell.
As a Hungarian, I only know. but the very structure of the state also hindered the army. for example, when the Austrians tried to modernize, the Hungarians prevented this.
Very overexaggerated points, citing details as more major than they appear on the span of 4 years. The British army at the Somme for example was of course torn apart, mostly due to Haig and his staff, that later became one of the best generals of the war with his 1918 attacks. Same for France, citing Nivelle, which is one of the worst generals of the war, without recounting his success at Verdun, and his quick sacking, and better generals such as Foch, Petain, Mangin. Although the offensive spirit was one of Nivelle's defining traits, generals like Petain and Joffre were more cautious and less bloodthirsty than Nivelle. Finally, the mass charges and bright uniforms were them too quickly changed as they had proven disastrous, although much damage had been done. You also underestimate how badly equipped Russia was, considering they were in mountainous territories, in the Caucasus and in Galicia. The only competent generals could not get other generals to respect their orders, similarly to Germany. Without question, Austria Hungary was the worst major power of the war though, as not only their generals were bad, but their army defected to Russia due to its multi ethnic army.
1 surgeon for every 10,000 men in Russia?! Sent to the front lines with almost no weapons and equipment. No telling how many people died waiting on a surgeon that never showed up.
My greatfather made the greatest idiocy of his life when returned in Italy to fight in WWI from the States, here he had a good job, so he throw away EVERYTHING for a war totally useless. Sadly every nation was totally ill-provided for such a war , expecially in mentality, they were stuck in the wrong century, everyone tought that the old ways would've won: The russians reputed that the old method of trow endless conscript would've worked as against Napoleon; The french were obsessed by the "Elan", attack until the enemy is broken; UK tought that a little, professional army and their mighty fleet would've won, again as in 1815; And Germany tried the same trick that had worked in 1870, but times and technology weren't the same, plus made the (madornal) mistake to invade Belgium, a neutral country, mistake carefully avoided by Bismarck.
Thats what I find so fascinating about WW1, where outdated ideas and modes of thinking abruptly meet the harsh technological realities of the 20th Century and you get one of the most devastating wars in human history. Politicians fighting to prop up the same political systems that had been around for centuries and generals using the same tactics from wars fought as long as a century prior, and none of it survived.
The Germans seemed to think that the French were morons incapable of learning from the mistakes they committed during the 1870-71 war, and were content to fight in a similar manner in 1914. And then they discovered that contrary to their assumptions, the French weren't imbeciles at all.
@@petergray7576 Well, effectively the French army made a LOT of mistakes in 1940, such as lack of training and radioes for their AFVs, or an antiquate air force, plus an incompetent leadership, either military AND political.
I have 2 great great grandfathers that served in WW1 Reginald Duffield-enlisted in early 1918 and served in the RFC in southern England till the end of the war. And Alfred Cutts who enlisted in early 1915 and was deployed in Salonika on the Macedonian front from 1916 till the end of the war
Would hate to think our Bulgarian friends are feeling left out of all the roasting so how about a) You joined the wrong side - wrong as in the side you joined lost b) You were slow to defeat the Serbs when only faced by one man and his dog as most of the Serbian Army in North fighting Austria and c) When you finally tried to retreat on the Salonika front it turned into a rout.
@@stuartbailey9287yes the serbs handled gallantry the Bulgarian and German cock. What are you talking about we beat the British in Doiran, we beat the Romanian, capture their capital and helped Germany annihilate you.
Bulgaria joined the war to grab some land from Serbia when it was in the most dire state. It's not that terrible motivation, but surely my (and not only mine) sympathies are on the Serbian side. Also fighting against Russia which granted Bulgarian independence in the first place. Although Bulgarian army was poorly equipped, nobody says anything bad of it's performance.
@@mind-blowing_tumbleweed Russia declared war on Bulgaria during WW1. Also expecting Bulgaria to conduct diplomacy on the basis of sentimentality during the age of realpolitik is ridiculous.
![The Most Brutal/Incompetent Generals from Each Major Fighting WW1 Country [Pt. 1]](/img/n.gif)
Be sure to check out the first video of our new channel about Finance, Business & Global Geopolitics! - th-cam.com/video/imhe8Mf5e60/w-d-xo.html
if you insist 🤣
You forgot to mention Italy in this video and Japan too.
Just wanted to point out that you made a mistake at 3:52, the picture you provide there is from ww2 not ww1.
There was one huge omission on this video. The worst WW1 Army to Fight in was without a doubt the Italian Army. They sent their soldiers to their deaths time after time during the Battles of the Isonzo. There was no strategy, no new tactics, just blunt frontal assault time and time again. In the end there was a grand total of 12 battles; wasted battles which harvested only thousands of Italian corpses for nothing, a literal carnage for which Italy didn't get anything in return.
The video is on major army’s those were considered more minor for example even though the United States participated they were in the war for less than a year
In my opinion, it’s Austria-Hungary unless you’re on the Italian Front. In that case fighting under Cadorna sucks more. However freezing to death as an Ottoman soldier on the Caucuses Front because Enver Pasha forgot winter clothes for the army is definitely less than ideal.
The Italian front truly was an exception thanks to Svetozar Borojevic von Bojna who was actually a decent general, although he himself knew how doomed A-H was from the start.
@@coulochonou6376 facts
Amen to all that Indy.
@@coulochonou6376 that and the Italians were led by Luigi Cadorna, one of the worst generals in WW1.
@@brandonarmienti7734 True, as soon as Armando Diaz came in, the Italian army, although it was super damaged, held its ground and became a model army
I'd add the ottoman empire up for debate as a top contender.
@@lqs1w68 yes there and at Kut but im not sure anywhere else. They literally sent tens of thousands of men to die not even with proper footwear marching into the caucusus in the cold.
@@AlexC-ou4ju they were pretty horrible, but there were worse examples.
Have to remember in all the fronts in whole war this was least important to the allies and it showed in its commanders....who still beat the turks
@@rac4687 well you cant really call gallipoli the least important
The turks avoided most of the no man's land deadlock, the war in gallipoli eventually ended earlier, the turks were then freeed up, the anzac troops had go to France and continue fight in the trenches.
No, the turks kinder avoided the worst, they kept out of it.
British soldiers were generally rotated out of the front line trenches after 7 days, where ever possible. Also, Haig is an interesting general to research. A man caught between old and modern war. The disaster of the first Somme charge was as a result of Haig giving the order to go over the top, only after he was assured that the weeks shelling had done its job. Interestingly Haig was known to visit hospitals of returned soldier and it affected him badly. To the point where his minders stopped him from going. After the war he dedicated himself to returned soldiers.
Yes it's easy to criticise General Haigh as many do, but let's be honest, there were Many other leaders who were a lot worse.
By the end of the war, he was one of the greatest commanders in it. I think this video takes a pretty juvenile take on the war.
@@dutch9357 Australians have been taught for decades to see British military officer as stuffy, inept and slow. While they are taught all ANZAC's were built like Greek gods. Interestingly Aussie soldiers were on average bigger than their British counterpart. Due more to better living standards at the time. The other myth is that Aussies were all crack shots. Which is rubbish as over 90% of volunteers came from the cities and never fired a gun.
Haig should have been charged with War Crimes ... he was a failure on multiple levels. Arthur Currie was head and tails above Haig in talent and performance but would have never gotten the nod because he was from the Colonials.
@@huebdoo aah yes the victim colonials, always the victim.
The only correct answer is the Italian one. Imagine fighting for a general who thinks a 12th attempt at a frontal assault will finally be the one that works. Combined with a severe shortage of supplies, clothing, and being underpaid, and it's shocking to me the Italian troops only mutinied after the 10th Battle of Isonzo. Haig may have lost more men than Cadorna but even he tried to change up his tactics.
At least you could likely read. The Russian imperial army was far worse than the Italian one. Not to say the Italian military leadership is worthy of any praise lol.
I've noticed a lot of comments suggesting (as I did as well) that the Italian army should have at least been on the list of contenders for "worst army to be in."
No haig actually lost fewer than the italians in total. True the losses are worse in first battle of somme. But after that it wasnt as bad for the british.
@@Judaism44 this is likely a ridiculous observation, but one could argue that Germany, Italy, and Russia where definitely of the top worst armies to be in as these three armies would end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin as their leaders going into and throughout WWII. 😦😉😄
Reminds me of that Blackadder episode where Captain Blackadder guesses to Gen. Melchett the ''top secret'' plan of Field Marshal Haig. It was a plan used 18 times in a row.
Being a British soldier in WW1, your chances of survival would depend on which army and commander you were assigned to. Not all generals were donkeys leading lions. There were a few exceptions like British generals Herbert Plumer, Julian Byng and Henry Horne as well as Australian commander John Monash and Canadian commander Arthur Currie who were among the best generals of WW1 and took great care in planning and not wasting lives in pointless frontal assaults - sometimes even refusing to obey incompetent superiors like Douglas Haig and Hugh Gough.
I agree with you. British army was very slow to understood how to face German army. They did so bad mistake that French had to help/save their front.
They suffer same problems than France in 1914, but lot of british officers were too proud to change their tactics.
This is just about tactics but british soldier had very good equipement compare to french soldier.
Luckily for Britain the King realised how hopeless Haig and his command were so Monash was given the opportunity of leading the August Offensive. Result; armistice.
Currie was nicknamed the "the butcher" for his high losses.
@@rangergxi I believe that was haig
If you were a Newfoundlander on July 1st 1916 you had a 93% casualty rate.
my great grandfather Charlie was part of the BEF in WW1, he survived the whole war and later went on to fight in ww2. he was around 18-20 in WW1 and his mid 40’s in WW2, sadly i never got to meet him as he died in the mid 80’s however i would have loved to meet a man who could have lived through nearly 10 years of war in his life and continue to live a good life after it all, he’s a true hero of mine.
He's one bad ass Great Grandfather. Fought two world war's and live to talk about it. He's a hero in my book. My He Rest In Peace.✝🪖
Same but mines german
wow some ppl survived two wars. that is a strong man not just physically but also in the spirit
Thanks for sharing your family story.
Amen & Amen...
It's crazy to think that nations such as Germany and France had such well-trained and strong armies in the world, only to end up with armies that were barely functioning by the end of the first year alone.
when tactics dont keep up with technology armies suffer
@@reform-revolution, constant warfare in what is probably some of the worst conditions doesn’t help either.
Does not matter how good your army is. High intensity warfare bretween equal matched opponents, that can not outflank, envelope or encircle the other, will end in a head on clash. A Pyrrhic Victory at best. A slaughter at worst.
Well, if you smack the two armies with the most firepower into each other repeatedly, that's sure to leave a mark
@@ChickenLiver911 JFK why did you escalate the war in Vietnam
My grandfather conscripted into the Austrian-Hungarian army. Once he got back home after the war, he bundled up his family including my mother and left Europe for the USA.
My great grandpa was a volunteer in the american army. After the war he moved home to Sweden, where his parents came from.
My grandfather was born in the US but, his brothers were born in Germany. Seeing the war coming they family moved to the United States.
When the US entered the war the oldest was drafted but, he told my grandfather he didn't move to America so he could fight his family back in Europe and he took off.
The family never knew or at the least said they didn't know where he went. Evidence says Colorado as from time-to-time he would go to Glenwood Colorado without my grandmother or any other family member and never really said why he went.
Anyone in the family that knew for sure took the secret to the grave.
My paternal great grandfather also fought for Austria Hungary ironically my maternal one fought for Italy. Our families are originally from Trieste and the allegiance was split.
Good move.
My great great grandfather enlisted in 1918 and was sent to the front lines of Europe he did survive thankfully (forgot to say this was the US army he joined
My great uncle was a French soldier who was part of the French expeditionary force sent to help the Serbian army by campaigning in Greece and Macedonia. He was shot between the eyes by a Bulgarian sniper outside of Salonika.
Thank you and your family for his sacrifice. May he Rest in Peace. From a grateful Serb.
May he rest in peace, much love from Serbia. Neka mu je vecna slava!
Mine was a machine gunner there too. He earned the serbian white eagle for gallantry in 1918. He stayed in the region until late 1919, making him one of the longest serving soldiers of the french army, having enlisted in 1914, he took part in the battles on the western front, gallipolli, and the battles in greece, bulgaria and serbia. He came home after more than 5 years of service, and was again enlisted in 1939 (although he caught pneumonia during the phoney war and was discharged).
@@thibaudduhamel2581 That's insane. A brave human. He must have seen so much, but what a person.
comment vous savez qu'il a été tuer d'une balles entre les deux yeux par un tireur d'élite Bulgare
The Italian army was a pretty bad army to be in, too, with a commander that insisted on extremely costly attacks - one after another. And warfare in the mountains was not for the faint-hearted. However, the top spot probably goes to the Russians.
One important lesson the Germans learnt from their failed Marne offensive, was that they needed a relatively small number of highly trained elite units as a spearhead that could keep up the momentum, instead of having 100+ divisions with roughly similar capability. Combat fatigue was a major reason for the early setback at Marne.
the Royal Newfound Regiment ceased to exist, they were minor but it messed up Newfoundland history and led to it joining Canada. messed up
@@beepboop204 they were in the British military technically
@@Liv1nMohawk yep a minor unit, but 710 dead out of 800 at the Battle of the Somme, any way you want to rationalize it with "oh they were under British command" is moot. the human destruction was magnified because of the small population of people and the high percentage of males who volunteered... and then all those males are gone.
@@beepboop204 I somehow suspect the British called their Commonwealth comrades for "shock troops" or "elite units" just to have an excuse to use them against especially tough opposition instead of British troops. Like the French used their colonial troops against the toughest parts of the German defence.
@@TTTT-oc4eb the Canadians and ANZACs tend to agree, im sure it was even less fun for the colonial Indian or others
Russian army did face major supply issues, but NOT when it came to boots and clothing. Russian boots were considered some of the best in WWI and often Austrian soldiers would take trophy boots of Russian dead and prisoners. Russian army did lack ammunition, artillery, medical staff and later had major food shortages. Overall, it's probably the worst army to fight for because it all crumbled and turned into a Civil War that was even bloodier than WW1 for them.
a major issue they had at Tannenberg was they hadn't really fully developed usable gas masks getting a bunch from the Brits or French the few they did make by then had been sent to areas less effective than they could have been (Osowiec for instance)
@Nikola S. I disagree that "Russians were poor soldiers". There was nothing wrong with the soldiers but everything wrong with senior commanders and planning and logistics. Senior commanders would just throw Russian soldiers into a meat grinder by massing large amount of troops at narrow front point. It was just perfect for Austro-Hungarians to take them out with cross-firing machine guns and artillery. But, under Brusilov they attempted a radically different strategy by attacking a very wide front line looking for weaknesses and breaking through in those spots, which resulted in key victories. But, of course, poor Russian logistics eventually slowed it down. But this idea was later developed by Tuchachevsky into a modern warfare concept by using armor and aviation. It was key to Soviet victories in 1944-1945 (when after executing Tuhachevsky they finally adopted his tactics). Russia always had poor leadership, not poor soldiers.
Don’t forget, the Russians never had helmets in WWI…..ever.
@@SanSooSiFuEsqUSMC34 WWI scoffed at them but they were a big difference makers in trench warfare and saved countless lives.
Anglo-French forces vs. Ottomans on Gallipoli: fail. Russians vs. Ottomans 1914-1917: win-win-win (Sarykamysh-Erserum-Trapesund). It says more than everything about a meaning "Russian army is probably the worst army to fight for"
In our high school history class, we were given a chart of casualty statistics for each nation's army in the war. Austria-Hungary was at 90%. It was too ludicrous to believe.
Keep in mind a casualty does not equal KIA
@@davestier6247still 90% of tge army was killed or injured
@@benjaminsconroy...or captured
Well that’s because the entire army left before they surrendered since the country collapsed into nothing. Missing in action still is a casualty
@lazykabang3198 Or deserted.
Austria-Hungary’s Conrad was one of the worst generals in the war. His inability to grasp logistics was truly incredible to read about.
My boi conrad was the definition of incompetence 😂
Is there a good book you can recommend on the Austro-Hungarian front? So many WW1 histories only focus on the Western front of the war.
@@rrwholloway I’d suggest “Ring of Steel” by Alexander Watson. If you haven’t read Chris Clark’s “Sleepwalkers”, I’d recommend that too.
I read that book maybe 7 years ago and I am STILL in awe of how brilliant it was.
It does not focus exclusively on Germany or Austria Hungary, but it is so excellent that, if you haven’t read it, give it to yourself for the holidays.
I promise that your understanding of the war will be greatly enhanced and expanded.
@@michaelschlitzer8742 thanks! Great to get some good solid book recommendations.
@@michaelschlitzer8742 Nick Lloyd’s Hundred Days and Passchendale were very good as well as Dan Carlin’s Blueprint for Armageddon Podcast.
One thing about the French army is that after the mutinies, the conditions improve a lot. After those events, soldiers were relieved regularly and had permissions, when in other armies units were replaced only once thay had too suffer to fight. Also their rations improve, and offensives were carried with attention to limit the number of death. (for example, systematic use of tanks helped to prevent too much loses) But there were still no parachutes for pilots as for the British.
One of the most difficult to face would have been the extreme lack of food for the central powers soldiers at the end of the war because of the blocus. In 1918 German offensives were losing momentum because soldiers stopped when they stumbled upon cellars full of food. They were famished.
So I would say that during the two first years the german army was the better to be in, next it was the French army, because the conditions of the French soldier improve and the german one was less and less fed.
The worst to be a soldier in would be the Russian one I think.
If we only look at the armies in the video, I think you're spot on. But if we also look at the Italians and the Ottomans, I would argue both are worse than all the others. Being an Italian Soldier under Luigi Cadorna is probably the worst place to be in WW1.
French improvements were effective until mid 1917 onwards, when Petain was made overall commander. So for almost 3 years the poilus had to endure some the aforementioned harshnesses.
@@danrooc you would have to combine Pétain and Foch to make it work in my opinion : Pétain made the french army coherent, harnessing the new tech, building up again the divisions and improving morale and endurance, but it needed the impetus of Foch, who better coordinated allied armies.
@@gnarkgnarkgnarkgnark1933 Yes, it seems Pétain was considred a bit too "pesimistic" by the French government (cautios I'd say). Though, I made my comment on regards of the time frame for Pétain's improvements. They took place after 3 years of war, not 2. Greetings.
@@danrooc oh yes, I didn't disagree, I was merely expanding the discussion. I am not neither a Foch or Pétain fan If I have to point this out. Both had terrible flaws, the later revealing them in a catastrophic fashion for the Republic...
IIRC, British troops actually spent very little time in their trenches - two weeks was the norm I believe, with two further weeks in support trenches then 4 in the rear. There was also the strategy of their respective High Commands - the Germans built solid structures because they intended to keep them, the British and French were more temporary because they were supposed to push the Germans back
It's true that individuals didn't spend as long as people are led to believe they did, I think your numbers are right. But the trenches were in bad condition, and two weeks is a long time to spend in an exposed, muddy, shelled trench. A lot of the soldiers got trench foot from the flooding in them, and because not all were reinforced, when it did rain, the mud sides of the trenches became really weak. the Germans were a lot better protected (It's partly why the bombardment before the Somme Offensive was so ineffective, although the other reason was that a lot of shells were duds)
Surprised Italy and General Cadorna didn't make the list. His solution to not breaking the Austro-Hungarian line was pretty much "We will do the same thing again!" and that in a loop.
Well there wasn't anything else viable
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
-Albert Einstein
Cadorna was a bad general that worked with 19th century strategies but Italy didn’t fight that bad like a lot of people think. Half of the battles of Isonzo were successful and after the 11th battle Italy was just some kilometers near Trieste and the end of the war. But thanks to Germany’s help in the 12th battle of Isonzo (the famous Caporetto battle) Austria managed to defend themselves for another year. Those battles have the same name but were fought in different zones, someone south near the sea, someone up north
Which half of the battles were successful, would you say? The goal was to advance to Ljubljana and from there to Vienna and Budapest (A-H expected Italians in Vienna within 3 months at most and actually considered fighting the Italians in Ljubljana, and around Klagenfurt, not on Isonzo).
They started the war just a few kilometers from Trieste and even if they had caputred it, it was just a political goal - much like Gorizia, whose capture simply moved the frontline from just infront of the town to just behind it.
Likewise, Austria-Hungary didn't just "manage to defend itself for another year", it was on the offensive in the summer of 1918, too. The offensive failed, but the fact it was planned and executed shows they had more to give. They gave in when the Empire fell apart.
However, it is true that he didn't do "the same thing" and he didn't just "attack frontally" and quite frankly, the only reason the Italian army didn't win a major breakthrough is that their army often ran out of steam just as they were making a good progress. That is, they lacked mobility to exploit success, which is exactly the same problem that everyone else had.
@@vezist AH thought the italians would have advanced faster because they didnt know how the alpine front would be, that is why the germans alpine force were deployed here even before Germany was at war with Italy to help AH logistics
After the front went in a stale mate Italy would have slowly won.
Cadorna thought Germans would try to avoid this at all cost, so he defended the mount near Venezia.
This actually happen and as planned they stopped the offensive in the mounts near Venice, without even the intervention of allied troops
This was the end of ah, their Plan was to take Venice, It failed an now the British and France were closing on the front
What is crazy is that we germans only executed 45 soldiers and 25 for cowardness while the british alone executed more than 300. There is a story from a man who got injured, had home leave and saw his daughter, then had to return. At some point he snapped and went to the field medic because he basically burned out. The field medic then proceeded to sign his death warrant and he got shot shortly after very unspectaculary. Crazy to think about that. Imagine you go to your doctor and then they pull you from the waiting room and just shoot you outside...
nice doctors indeed
@@mutantgamer5559 There were many cases but they did not execute them for cowardness in the sense of burnout but only for more direct cases like causing harm to your comrades because you disobey an order.
Going to the doctor for help and getting executed is a whole different level and the only comparable situation where a doctor does cause harm i knew before reading into WW1 was nazi germany doctors experimenting and killing people.
@Robert Stallard how do you know it is nonsense? Instead of accusing me of making this up while not providing any argument or sources yourself you could have just researched the topic.
You wont find people linking anything here because youtube does not allows URLs in comments - but you could also google it (with the quotes):
"A remembrance they’d rather forget: WWI’s executed soldiers"
Actually the Brits killed 306 soldiers, that is more than 300 in the math I learned at school.
@Robert Stallard or to quote "In World War One, the executions of 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers took place." - historylearningsite couk
The British, out of 306 executions, only 18 were for cowardice. A medic couldn't sign a death warrant, as one could only be given after a court martial.
I am a middle aged German. As a very young boy i had some few years with my grandgrandfather who survived WWI as a Artillery Gunner for nearly three years. But he was close to deff because even the concept of sound protection for artillery crews did not exist. That is just one little detail who miserable WWI was for soldiers of every nation
Danke für den Dienst deines Urgroßvaters!
I'm a middle aged Brit. 5 relatives from Newcastle are buried on The Somme, Ypres and Pas De Calais. I'm with you, extreme misery for all the poor sods no matter what flag you were under x
In 1917, the convictions concerned collective behavior of the famous Chemin des Dames mutinies, which remain etched in our memories both for their exceptional nature and for the repression that followed after the bloody assaults on the Craonne plateau commanded by General Nivel, known as "the butcher of Craonne." 30,000 French soldiers were killed in just 10 days and more than 100,000 were wounded. 30,000 unnecessary deaths because of the simple ambitions of a moron of a general who had no respect for human life and who led a worldly and debauched life in Paris while 30,000 soldiers were killed at the front.
And to add to Germany, it’s army was an effective meat-grinder during Falkenhayn’s stay as Commander in Chief. His relentless and unyielding defensive strategy on the Western Front had worn the German Army down to a shadow of its former self by the end of 1916. Falkenhayn’s idea that any ground lost was to be regained proved to be more harmful than good for the soldiers of the Kaiser’s Army. And we can see this well during the Battle of Verdun, where German units were practically destroyed as they were forced to counterattack French positions over and over again, to which they weren’t even given time to rest.
The Front: "Which was the worst?"
Italians on their way to do the exact same frontal assault on the exact same place for the 13th time: "Yeah good question"
The Italians at Caporetto charging with their bright green helmetless uniforms like its 1860
@@CommonwealthCreations2287the Italians weren’t the ones charging at Caporetto…
World War I is an interesting case study of what happens when outdated understandings and values clash with new realities and cruelties. Many armies still approached the way with tactics and mindset that served them well in the 19th century, only to realize too late that newer, even more brutal technology has rendered them moot and far more costly. The concept of a full-scale, mechanized war fought with gas-powered war machines, automatic weapons, and other horrifying weapons left people who were so used to bayonet charges and massive armies unprepared, not to mention that factories and logistics in general weren't prepared to supply armies and equipment on such an unprecedented scale. WWII basically is when the world finally adapted to the reality of a new kind of war.
Some mistakes here. The one bothering me the most being the Nivelle offensive. Charles Pietan put down the French mutinies by instituting many reforms that were favorable to the soldiers. Out of the thousands of soldiers arrested maybe around 50 were executed (many more would have been if Pietan wasn’t in charge)
Of the 30 to 40,000 soldiers who mutinied, 4,000 were tried in a "Conseil de Guerre", 694 were condemned to death, and 75 actually executed, those considered as leaders in the movement and those who had attacked or killed their commanding officer.
who tf is charles pietan
@@seanhartigan2003 I was gonna ask the same thing lmao
@@seanhartigan2003 Marshall Petain is the general in charge of French forces on the last year of WW1, and because of that respect when France was defeated by Germany in 1940 even as communist and fascist elements were agitating to overthrow the Third Republic He was chosen as Leader of Vichy France as the last candidate they had left. Had He chosen to fight in 1940 rather than try to spare his people the French army and especially the Navy would have played a far larger role in WW2
@@josephbeyerlein1381 I think they were confused over the spelling error
“The sequel no one asked for” is probably the most humorous way I’ve heard WW2 summarized, and I didn’t know I needed it up until this moment.
I think you accurately portrayed the French army in 1914 and 1915 but not afterwards. Many reforms were made and the French learned from their mistakes. Better uniforms, food, rotations, weaponries and tactics in general. The massive casualties is also due to the fact that the French did the bulk of the fight on the western front from the beginning till the end of the war (with all due respect to our allies in which victory wouldn't have been possible).
Us highschools will teach us that the french did nothing in ww1 and the us carried and did all the work btw
Lol
US came only at the end of the War WTF
WWI was not about US
@@Cryptorabbi69Thats because its the US. Here in Australia we are taught about the whole western front but focus on the invasion of the ottomans, and the eastern front is just completely left out.
The French army left the burden of almost all offensive action to the British from 1917 after the disastrous Nivelle offensive
@@Cryptorabbi69 Saying that the french did nothing in WW1 is like saying the US did nothing in WW2
Even though some consider Serbia a "minor" player in WW1, I think the Serbian army should've been mentioned since they lost 58% of their main military force.
Serbia, unlike any other Entente country, was almost surrounded by the Central powers in 1915. It had little in the way of arms industry and, being compelled to mobilize a huge % of the population just to have a fighting chance against the forces facing it, meant that most of everything the country needed had to be imported. Yet, the gallant survivors of the whole ordeal, and perhaps the most seasoned veterans of 1918 - many of whom have seen almost uninterrupted WW1-style action since 1912. played quite a significant role in knocking Bulgaria, and later Austria Hungary out of the war (and indirectly the other Central powers as well).
Why would someone consider it as a “minor player”? That’s where the war started and we were pretty successful during the beginning. I mean, we beat all of their invasion attempts. Only when Bulgaria entered did we lose.
Well, Serbia could have been on this list just for the losses suffered. However, that was almost entirely caused by the might and sheer numbers of enemy forces that descended on Serbia. Unlike the armies mentioned in the video, it didn't suffer from much of internal problems. It had extremely capable officers, motivated and seasoned soldiers, including conscripts, while the government and the people rallied behind it to supply it with pretty much anything they could scrape.
Fun fact: After all ordeals of Balkan wars and WWI 1912-1918, all 51 regimental banners issues by the King in 1911, had been returned to their respective regimental HQs in 1918. Not a single one had ever been captured.
I believe they held up quite good considering their size.
Sebia lost 36% of its entire population in WW1
Russia had the worst logistics
France had the worst morale (by 1916)
Austria-Hungary had the worst communications
UK had the worst regard for soldiers
Germany had the worst strategy (trying to eliminate 2 major powers in secession)
Ottoman Turkey had the worst weather adaption (especially in winter)
USA had the worst regard for modern weapons
Italy had the worst tactics and generals
Serbia had highest casualties.
As a % of manpower.
@@1986tessie true that
Its like trying to choose your least favourite type of cancer...
USA also had the worst tactics and I don't think the UK had the worst regard for soldiers, USA also didn't care much there
Happy to see the Romanian army had only good things
Respect to all the fallen of WW1 whether German, French, etc. They all fought for their countries doing their duty and shaped the world as we see it today.
I don’t think they’d be happy with the world they see today. Poor blokes were brainwashed by their nations to sacrifice their lives for nothing. At least their bravery and human spirit will stand strong as a relic of the past. That’s honestly really all the good those millions of young innocent men have to offer. What preceded them, would shock them to cardiac arrest. Thankful they are not here to witness it. RIP
@@DonRoyalX les lavages de cerveaux sont encore d'actualité en Russie , et même au Etats Unis en 2003 avec la fameuse guerre en Irak ou il y avait soit-disans des armes de destructions massives et chimiques phrase infantilisante de Condoleezza Rice : pardonné a la Russie "et pour cause" ignorer l'Allemagne et punir la France
I would imagine one of the worst roles anyone could be assigned to was tunnel digging for either side, in a black hole filled with explosive which you could be sent back down to re-ignite more than once, but a pilot was much worse in WW1 I'd imagine than most, in a canvas box which was as likely to be shot down by your own side than the side you were fighting, as plenty of times they were unaware of the planes markings on the ground!
Have you seen the War below? pretty good film on netflix. Because the soldiers couldnt effectively dig the tunnels, they brought in miners. and i also learned they were fighting down there. counter tunneling meant that u could suddenly find an enemy tunnel and be thrust into a brutal, in the dark, melee fight. Truly a terrible role
@@Suspicious_Trabant Didn't see it, thanks for the suggest, but I heard of fights below ground at Paschendale, etc. alright, hence how they recruited in the UK from Welshmen who were miners and in the US from Kentuckians, etc who were miners
My great grandfather was a tunneller, he survived the war and when he returned to Sheffield, the Labour exchange told him that due to his age he was on the scrap heap. Bear in mind he’d done four years in the war, lost one son in action and had another son serving in the tank corp,so in disgust he threw his medals into the river don, “land fit for hero’s, my arse!
@@gooderspitman8052 God Bless him, and his sons and their great service and sacrifice
Tommy Shelby would agree with you.
Looking at the details, it wasn't so much that commanders were all incompetent, cruel and obtuse, than the fact there wasn't much they could do on a linear and static front, beyond tweaking the next (doomed) offensive. The French general staff, despite the reputation, had a fast turnover and experimented with everything.
Not that it mattered to the average soldier when the 4738392th attempt failed.
Good point. The generals tried everything they could think of to give their guys a better shot (no pun). The French worked on what kind of artillery attack was best, the Hun developed a lot of new weapons and reinvigorated light infantry tactics (Hutier), but the Limeys were the ones with the way to cut across no man's land - the tank. I've always felt the whole "incompetent" thing was a lot of Leftist newspapermen trying to create a villain.
As I believe he said in the video, largely the French problem was an obsession with offensive action. Once they figured out ship convoys, they could just starve out the Central Powers. Only issue was the Turks, though they were on their last leg when they started, same as the Austro-Hungarians.
Probably the most balanced take, the last "modern" war that had been fought was the American civil war so that's where European officers had taken their notes, no army was prepared for the reality of war on the scale of the 1st World War, and trench warfare. The ability to defend greatly exceeded the ability to attack and it took years for new ideas to be developed and tried, and for weapons to reach a point where trench lines could be reliably broken.
Its popular to blame generals of the era, with the benefit of modern hindsight but they were all products of their era and experience, thrust into a new, modern form of warfare for which there was limited precedent
A very large percentage of young British men died in the war. This demographic change was so big that they were known as "the lost generation". Furthermore, a large percentage of the survivors returned with "shell shock", which today is called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Quite a few were blinded by gas warfare, or had permanent lung damage.
Although I don't know all of the details, being on the losing side of the war could have been even worse.
France did not stop the war in 1917. It was the country that created the largest air force and artillery reserve, able to change sector in 2 weeks to crush German opposition in successive offensive. After Nivelle's failure, it also adopted the gun - tank - infantry combination (with numerous agile tanks suited to trench warfare), training the infantry to limit risk by using small sections progressing from cover to cover. Also, instead of the German method of grouping the best soldiers in assault forces that did not last long, French kept all divisions on par, to be able to spare men by a rotation on front duty and having an effective reserve to counter-attack.
French hold two third of the West front, plus the Balkan front which was decisive into pushing Austrians out of the war. The CinC of the Allies on west front was French, and devised the strategy that repelled the Germans to their frontier.
So something is lacking in the description.
Yes, it is lacking that Germany, apart from fighting the British Empire and the French Empire and the US on the Western front, she had to sustain *all* its allies on *all* other fronts, endured a total blockade of its naval supplies...and defeated Russia nonetheless.
Mmmh, Germany did not defeat Russia. Unless you consider letting Lenin go through Germany to Russia as the Germans did a German military action, and Lenin as a German agent. The Bolcheviks did cause Russian defeat, from the inside.
@@yann4601 Well, wars are often won or lost by single traitors or sabotage. So you are implying that Lenin would have been able to return to a victorious Russia on its march to Berlin and overthrow the Tsarist regime? 😊
@@yann4601 I would speak of a Russian defeat by Germany. First Germans and Austrians repulsed every Russian offensive, at high cost for the Russians. Then the power in Russia crumbled, and the Douma took the lead, without clear war strategy. This created the political opportunity to send Lenin to Russia, to provoke a total collapse of the state and army, resulting in a ceasefire that gave Germany the resources of Ukrain, and the opportunity to shift armies to the West. So a military strategical advantage turned into a decisive victory through a political operation.
@@yann4601 i mean germany "won". cause russia gave up with the fall of their leaders.
sure it was no win on the military side but still germany got out as succsessor on this front.
imagine now some high tier ukrainian guy would go and stab the president to archive a win for russia and it ends up working, it still would be a win for russia aint it.
Just to complete France chapter: French army was stuck in the past at the beginning of the war and later in the conflict, their motto was "L'offensive avant tout" Offensive above all", this startegy was used by really olds generals and marechals and like you said, was really uneffective. But its It's France who caught up in the first, by producing very more tanks than the other belligerents, and its France who invented the very well working offensive strategy who make working infantry, artillery, tanks and planes together to give the advantage to the attackers and not to the defensers, this strategy was used in part by the Wermacht during ww2 and still a little today. But that's too late and after too much death the french general staff used this strategy.
L'économie de guerre ! Du génie. Mobilisation générale
The treatise Guderian used in his "Achtung! Panzern" was written by lesser known Frenchman called Charles DeGaulle.
@@urosmarjanovic663 It's false, just false, this is an "urban legend". To say it prooves one thing: You never read those books. Because if you did you wouldn't say such false thing.
There is nothing in de Gaulle's book that permit someone to build a tank unit. De Gaulle book is supperficial, romantic, not technical and not accurate.
For more, the main point in Guderian's theory is the link between planes and tanks. In de Gaulle's book, planes are just inexistants. De Gaulle *totally passed by* the role of airforce in mechanic warfare.
All in de Gaulle's book have been already written by Fuller and Hobbard. But Fuller was dry and technical to read, de Gaulle is smooth and romatic to read... Being smotth is not the main argument to state that de Gaulle were the voice to listen. Guderian couldn't use de Gaulle's book, because it's unaccurate, romatic and not complete.
@@BFVK If his book inspired Guderian, it is enough.
American admiral sank one of his ships to prove to the Navy that airplanes will be main maritime weapon, not battleships.
@@urosmarjanovic663 What did you don't understand in "This book *DID NOT* inspired Guderian" ?
There's one other reason the war went so badly for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Prior to the war, their military intelligence chief Col. Alfred Redl became a double agent. He was caught and forced to commit suicide before the shooting started, but not before he gave the Russians every military secret the Empire had. Troop strength, materiel strength, battle plans, the locations of military bases and strategic targets--there was nothing the Russians didn't know.
Worst to be fighting for would be for sure the Italian army on the Isonzo/Alpine front, followed by the Ottoman Army, then the Russian Army, and then the French on the western front.
Replace French with Austro-Hungary like when they failed to invade Serbia and Montenegro
More WW1 stories please. There’s so many great ones.
You forgot to mention the French uniforms. They were bright and colourful, and basically could be seen by everyone, unlike the grey German uniforms or the green British/American ones.
my grandmother had an older sister whose husband fought in ww1 for america. i met him a few times in the early 70s as a little kid. he was a really big stong guy even then. when i got older my gramps told me stories that "uncle forest" was a trench fighter who would jump in trenches with a few pistols and knuckle knife. savage to think about..my gramps was a vet of omaha beach and said, i saw and did terrible things but i have no idea how a man could do that and come out alive. says it all...
It seems that no power in WW1 had any concept of what modern warfare entailed. Logistics were poor, production did not keep pace with the volume of supplies and ammunition expended, armies starved due to lack of proper food supplies, etc. They all seemed to be prepared to fight a colonial style campaign in the Industrial Age. WW1 seems to have been horrific for the common soldiers of any army.
To be fair technological progress had been so rapid in the two decades before the war that very few leaders- military and civilian- appreciated or even comprehended their seismic effect. Most of the senior generals had attended military academies in the 1870s and 1880s, and all of the theoretical work they were exposed to consisted of tactics and doctrines that dated back to the Napoleonic era, and mechanization of the battlefield was still in the future. Moreover there did not exist in any national military an overall plan or central authority to oversee the introduction and integration of new technologies, and therefore modernization was a piecemeal process usually delegated to a small number of army officers passionate about a particular innovative technology, but the overriding commanders and general staffs were largely isolated or ignorant about the implications of their mass deployment upon a battlefield. Quite simply put commanders and politicians with pre-industrial mindsets were in command of an industrial war.
@@petergray7576
👍👍👍👍👍
People like Currie and Monash, and to be fair, the UK High Command had a good grasp on fighting the war in the later part. Had the war continued to 1919, there would have been no way the Germans could blame betrayal for losing the war.
Well there’s a reason for they. None of them had fought a war like WWI before.
I think the issue is, none of them expected the war to last very long because a lot of the military conflicts in europe in the century before that had been rather short-lived.
Logistics wouldn't have become such an issue if, as most at the time seem to have expected, the war would only have lasted a few months.
I would say you nailed it. My grandfather was a junior officer in the Austro-Hungarian army. He was captured at the battle of the Priapet Marshes (I think) and spent 7 YEARS!!!! as a prisoner in Siberia.
Believe it or not, he was probably lucky. The number of deaths in the AH Empire was staggering.
I'd go with the Italians under Cadorna
It must have been soul destroying to go out again on the same battlefield for the tenth time or more - sometimes as little as 2 weeks since the previous one - when huge casualties had been suffered for no substantial gain
In reality after the 11th battle the Italians were just some kilometers away from Trieste and near the end of the war, but thanks to Germany’s help in the 12th battle (the famous Caporetto) the Italians had to retreat. I think that if it wasn’t for Germany, Italy would have won the war in 1917
Thing is at least italy was sunny. Imagine all that in the rain and cold woth no supploes. I vote russia
@@StudSnob that’s true but in Italy they fought in the mountains, and it was cold and snowy during the winters
@@nicola.innocenti Ehh more like a winter holiday compared to people drowning in mud on other fronts.
Ether way ww1 was no fun time for anyone.
Its like choosing which type of stage 4 cancer is the least bad.
A note about the "Cult of the Offensive": WWI generals have been maligned for their tactic of charging ever since WWI ended, and indeed during it as well. But few people point out these tactics were THE way to win wars for the entirety of previous firearm history. That was finally not true, and the generals spent three years and thousands of lives figuring out how to fight war in a way that didn't just waste lives for no gain again. And they mostly figured it out, with modern infantry tactics born in the german infantry tactics of 1918 and modern combined arms born on the western front in 1918. Both of which tactics are "Of the Offensive"
A few of my ancestors were Russian officers in the WWI. One of them remembered his time as a POW as the best time of his life (the conditions for officers were often really good because of all those ideas of honour and gentlemanly solidarity or something like that).
I feel like everyone suffered greatly here no matter which one you fight for
I'd say the worst army of WWI to be in was the Italian one. Fighting at high altitude, having to pull guns and other heavy equipment across mountanious terrain, and forced to attack eleven times on the same spot, looks like the worst deal of all. And while russian soldiers had to endure extremely miserable conditions, at least they got to shoot their own brass at the end.
Well, I wouldn't know, English and French were bad as well, bad food, attacking the same line over and over like at Verdun and Somme...
Are you really going to forget the trenches in France ? Open a book
@@iamconsomateur3832 Yes. Or visit those battlefield areas of France and see all the cemeteries of neat crosses, showing how many soldiers died. It seems everywhere you go, there's a cemetery, one horrible one after another.
@@merryrose6788 My mom’s from the « haut de France », there’s cimetry and monument for deaths everywhere, I hope you saw the « forest » of the ancient no man’s land with the weird non natural espaced trees, if you read the soldiers letters and watch the death score hided by the army you understand the butchery
Man talk about fights in beautiful mountains when in French lines you lived feets on cold mud full of dead corpses, only for Verdun 37 millions shells was shoot, even the continual shellfire turn you mad
These areas population sacrifice herself in Coal exploitation it was the France industrial area (Germinal - Zola). Take WW1 on them and the received the prize from french government a closing of all theses industries leaving them without job.
That’s why theses area are so depressing and alcoholic
@@iamconsomateur3832 Wrote a reply, but can't find it. Mostly, your post really sums up the terrible results of this war in particular, on not only the soldiers, but on the entire society: people who were in the middle of the fighting, supporting the defense, and then losing their jobs, and seeing only despair. The city of Amiens looks cheerful with lots of shops and restaurants, quaint lodgings. There's horseback riding on the battlefields. So, I hope things can get better, but definitely for another trip, I'll try to see the unnaturally planted trees you mentioned, and appreciate the continuing bad effects of the war on these areas. Really, until I visited, I did not understand how much the war(s) have left marks on the land and the people.
I'd say each country had its own weird gimmick:
1. UK - drown in the place which name you can't pronounce.
2. Germany - they pull you out of Verdun just to throw under a Russian offence.
3. France - have you seen million people dying? Just watch. And then do it again.
4. Russia - sorry, boys, we're out of ammo. Again.
5. Austro-Hungary - if soldiers can't understand their officers, you know which army it is...
6. Italy - my father died here, my brothers died here so I will too. At the very same spot.
7. Turkey - sorry, boys, we're out of everything. Don't ask why the hell we're fighting.
8. Serbia - if you think it can't get any worse, just wait a bit.
9. Romania - how to lose your country in six months.
After reading 'A farewell to arms ' I think the Italian army deserves an honorable mention. They started shooting their own soldiers after they retreated.
A particularly egregious example was a general visiting the frontlines and having a soldier shot by firing squad on the spot for "retreating" when he was actually granted leave to visit his wife.
That book was fiction.
@anthonyeaton5153 Indeed, it was. However, Hemingway wrote fictionalized accounts of his own experiences. Hemingway served as a volunteer ambulance driver for the Italian army. Indeed, the Italian army shot some of its own soldiers.
I mean, they were decimating regiments too; but to be fair, the French army did the same, if I remember correctly.
One important detail concerning the French army:
The "cult of the offensive" was indeed the dominant doctrine in the French army at the beginning of the war, but that was not at all the case for the whole duration of the war. Doctrine and tactics evolved constantly throughout the war and the French army of 1914 was very different from the French army of 1915, which in turn was very different from that of 1916 and so on.
So much much so that the French army of 1918 has absolutely nothing in common with that of 1914, in terms of doctrine, tactics, organisation, logistics etc.
From the Autumn of 1914, Joffre created a special Bureau dedicated to collecting and centralizing all reports of tactical initiatives, combat techniques and manoeuvres coming from the front, in order to adapt the doctrine, the tactics and provide more suited equipment to the men. This went on throughout the war until the end.
So it is wrong to say that the French army was "stuck in the past".
Just like any other army, it went though a learning curve, admitedly sometimes hindered by some stubborn commanders who refused to implement the newest tactics and stuck to the "old ways", which lead to unnecessary loss of lives.
Concerning the executions, the vast majority took place during the first year of the war, and the executions following the 1917 mutinies amount to 75 out of the 700 soldiers condemned to death among the 30 to 40,000 soldiers who took part in the mutinies, soldiers identified as "leaders" in the movement, and others who had attacked or killed their commanding officer.
Just another anglo repeating tired cliches about the French army, even though he got ww1 and ww2 mixed up here
@@bobbyjoe1111 i wouldn't say he's "just another anglo repeating tired clichés", as his videos are usually quite good, at least much better than this one.
He has never taken a simplistic or prejudiced stance on the French, so I think he just oversimplified and tried to deal with an issue far too complex to be presented accurately in a few minutes.
It's the stories you don't hear on TH-cam that bring chills to your skin. Had a friend tell me about the farmers of ww1 and the crazy weapons they used to fight with in hand to hand combat. I vaguely remember some stories and can't seem to find them online. Mabye their true, mabye not but the mystery is amazing.
This is an impossibly complicated question because it heavily depends on where and when the fighting occurred. I'd probably say that my worst place would be the French army around Verdun, specifically the fighting for Mort Homme; the Mill on the Meuse was, I think, justly infamous.
The Germans had it even worse at Verdun since they rotated their troops much less often than the French.
Verdun was called "hell" by the Germans.
@@RedouaneRebat Possibly. It is difficult to say the German Army at the time was on the offensive, which, in some ways, was easier, more dynamic, and less passive. Also, the lack of rotation meant some units faired worse, but the army as a whole faired better. Finally, the German Army was likely (at the time) a 'nicer' army to serve in, generally better officers and better supplied. Arguably, I think the German's horror time was Passchendaele/3rd Ypres; that battle was hideous, the Germans were largely passive, and the homefront situation was much worse. I suspect that it was the long-term consequences of Verdun and 3rd Ypres that eventually led to the 1918 German collapse. After the horrifying bloodletting and failure of the Kaiser Offensive in 1918, the 'best' German troops were either dead or exhausted, and the remainder (after the horrors of 1916-17) were simply unable to go on. Much like the French in 1917 after the Chemin De Dames - but the French were lucky; the British did not break at that moment. Then, the British nearly broke (following their collective horrors in 1916-17) during the Kaiser Offensive, but the French and US troops did enough to bolster. Turns out allies are the thing.
But I will acknowledge that Verdun has a special mythology for both the Germans and the French. It is noteworthy that the Wehrmacht called Stalingrad Verdun on the Volga. So, you could be right.
Italy should've been on the list for reintroducing the old Roman practice of decimation, and routinely having soldiers shot for minor offenses, as in one example when a soldier neglected to take his pipe out of his mouth while saluting.
France also used decimation once in ww2 on a group of their colonial soldiers for refusing a order
@@crd-hp6zo Thats normal since its classed as desertion/treason
decimation was used only once with the "Catanzaro" Brigade, and out of all contenders, the Italian Army was the one that had the fewest soldiers sent to the firing squad (5000) whereas the French for example shot more than 60k soldiers,
Remember 99% of Italian generals give up on izanzo just before winning.
jajaja
My great grandfather fought for Germany in WW1, I have a new found respect for him now.
Hi. My grandfather and his three brothers fought in the Spanish Blue División, in the Russian front during WW II.
Very cool! My great grandfather was a medic for the Russian white army, he requested no sidearm.
My great grandfather found alongside the white army in the Siberian expeditionary force
My great great grandfather invented the bullet which the British used to take out the German zeppelins. He died in the Zeebrugge raid charging off HMS Vindictive with a naval cutlass and getting into melee combat with a German officer. Respect to your grandfather for fighting for their country in a moment of madness.
The italian one was horrendous in the beginning because of their top general Luigi Cadorna. Among his blunders were the 11!!! Battles of the Isonzo river and his refusal to give the soldiers leave because he feared what the soldiers would tell the people at home if they got the chance.
Most of which were victories though.
Yes he was bad but other Generals attacked the same spot over and over
I’m from the UK and my great great uncle fought in the third battle of Ypres. He got wounded in the battle and was sent to a frontline hospital tent to heal. But a rogue shell struck his tent, killing him and everyone inside
It’s important to note that many of the issues facing the british army at the beginning and middle of the war were no longer an issue by 1917. After the german navy was beaten back to port, for example, the royal navy could focus much more on supplies, despite the annoyance of uboats, but they were in their infancy then and nothing like the issue they were in ww2.
U saying that until u boats reach there highest amount of ships sunk in 1917 and 1918
I would be terrified of traveling on a merchant ship to the uk with how many boats they sank
Meanwhile the Belgian Army had a commander in chief - the King - concerned about his soldiers, the army tried to keep the casualties down (as their manpower was limited) by 'holding the fort" and avoiding to engage in large, murderous offensives such as the Somme. And the Queen helped as a nurse.
Also to note, he FOUGHT ALONGSIDE THEM. He wasnt in the backlines, dude was in the tren hes with his boys fighting right there with them. And he has earned his title, The Soldier King, Albert I of belgium
I learnt more from this one video than my entire WW1 history unit that took 3 weeks to finish in school.
I personally would have said Italy. But since watching your argument for Austrian-Hungarian empire, and seeing some people saying the Ottoman empire, I think I've changed my mind
For me it's either the Ottomans, or the Italians under Cadorna, he attacked 12 TIMES ON THE ISONZO only because he won some battles there, suffering tremendous losses and with severe ammo and food shortage (without talking about disease and cold) and when the Germans came at Caporetto it was a disaster, fortunately immediately after Caporetto he got fired and replaced by Diaz
The British in Gallipoli was a nightmare. The only semi-successful thing was the retreat. Disease and death were everywhere and the mines in the water were incredibly dangerous.
yes that was a disaster. The Turks did pretty well there, although they lost heaps of men too. But there were a series of mistakes that took the Allies out of there, despite the troops doing their best. Landings at wrong beaches, no water, nowhere to safely take a break. Stationed on and around beaches while the Turks had the high ground. Not a good place to be for both sides.
Kemal Ataturk was the Turkish commander, and very soon after he was the Leader of the Turkish State.... a very interesting and talented person.
The Austro-Hungarian army wasnt really one army per se, but three seperate ones. Both the austrian landwehr and the hungarian Honved wre largely equipped with equipment that was for the most part produced within their respective part of the empire, from small things like belt buckles (which there were around 7 or 8 different models handed out of, depending on the area where the unit was recruited from) up to gigantic siege howitzers (which the Honved for the most part lacked for the entirety of the war and forced them to make due with older models from the previous century), while the Common Army, the third entity within the austro-hungarian land forces, had to basically settle for whatever was left, which often included older equipment that had been left in storage for decades. Now add to that the (based on some reports, occasionally literal) fighting over aircraft engines by the army and the navy and its a wonder that they were able to keep their units supplied enough to hold out until the end of the war
Austro-Hungarian army in ww1 is a bit like Ferrari at F1. At first, you wonder how such an institution could do so badly. Then you see the insides and start to wonder how, given all the chaos, disadvantages and mismanagement, they actually managed to perform so well.
While the army was not exactly something to brag about, the sheer fact that it managed to hold three fronts against much stronger foes while having the army basically annihilated TWICE and having non-functioning interior for the last two years, is nothing short of amazing. Being in a situation of the AH-army, French army would have rioted three times over. Austrians just somehow made it work.
@@BenKenobi92 Your first paragraph analogy is superb. Only thing I'll chime in with is: That it was another..... (typical Hapsburg operation) = (Failure without going completely to zero & utter collapse).
Even the Spanish Hapsburgs.
Austria-Hungary Armies Commander-In-Chief Conrad von Hotzendorf had a very good strategic plan to end the stalemate at the Western front’s trench lines. He proposed an offensive S.W. from Slovenia ( then part of A-H) against the relatively weaker Italian front. A mobile breakthrough would then proceed S. of the Alps across the flat Po Valley of Northern Italy, around the S.W. Swiss border and into France well S. of where the Western Front defenses were. This outflanking the Allies right flank would be like a “Napoleon in reverse” as Bonaparte had avoided large enemy forces on France’s Eastern frontier by marching S. of the Alps, winning a big victory at Marengo by this unexpected march, and going N. through the Ljubljana Gap in Slovenia and on to capture Vienna. Conrad knew his troops needed German help to have enough strength to succeed. The German Command turned down his request to transfer troops to the A-H/Italy front and the plan died. On a smaller scale later the A-H’s did an offensive that sent the Italian army reeling in chaotic retreat from the battle of Capporetto ( Karfreit in German) that showed Conrad’s strategy had a lot of merit to it. Despite deficiencies, at the end of the war the A-H army everywhere stood on foreign soil. They did O.K. all things considered.
I returned to the town that my grandfather left at the dawn of the 20th century. That town is Bedonia, in the Province of Parma, Region of Emilia- Romagna in Northern Italy. The year that I returned was 2017, the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Caporetto. I was stunned on how beautiful Bedonia is. Why would anyone want to leave this paradise in the Appeninne Mts. Then, my wife and I went to the City Hall where there is a monument to those who lost their lives in the Great War. Almost 25% of the village men were killed, mostly at the 12 Battles of the Isonzo the last being Caporetto, present day Koborid, Slovenia. True, Codorna was bad, as the Italian troops fell back to only a few miles from Venice, to the Fiume Piave (river). But, adio Codorna, and in was Diaz. Italy got Trieste and the South Tyrol for their "efforts". Yes that sucked... But, then there was the Ottoman Army. Whose probably only major victory was at Gallipoli . The Turks lost more men than the Allied Army in holding that front. Also, someone told of the Caucasus Campaign where thousands froze to death. These poor souls in the Turkish Army never even had helmets. Their Empire was decimated and even fought another war for two years against the Greeks & Italians after that armistice & the Treaty of Sevres . That's my choice for the award of being the worst army to be in. Pity that the only choice was the 5 listed. Italy, Turkey, should be included as major nations. Lest not forget all of the men and women that served their nations. There must be a way to halt these damned wars.
The casualties of the French army was severe. I have the impression that the odds of surviving the war was the lowest in this army.
Yes and no. France got highly effective hosptals, and we "recycled" our wounded in civilian or military support life, quite often succesfully.
Still, the scar burnt Franc eofrever (and explined the Nation's refusal to fight in WW2)
Yet if you were cosncripted fo Frenc infantry, odds of sever injury were VERY high
Austria Hungary, Italy or the Ottoman Empire the list is Long.
3.Italy
2.AUH
1.Ottoman Empire
From better to Bad.
Let's not forget that Austria-Hungary had Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf. Probably the most incompetent of all WW1 leaders.
More incompetent that cadorna ?
@@mertroll1 cardona won 3 battles put the austrians to their test and there wa snot other option to charge in the izonso the austrians were entrenched everywhere there was not other option to atack the izonso and the austrians were well entrenched there so it was a masacre but he caused so much austrian deads that the austrians never dared to do another offensive when austria receibed germany division they atacked the sectors where austria atacked where hold by the italians but the places were germany atacked were totally lost cardonas was not a genius but a lot better general than hötzendorf what history chanells fail to explain is that cardona had no other option but to atack the izonso and most of the battles of the izonso were italian victories with hight casualties so yes cardona was a lot better than hötzendorf
Ref. parachutes for the RFC, it also has to be remembered that parachutes at the time were far too bulky to be stowed in an aircraft and deployed successfully by the aircrew. Such parachutes were restricted to observation balloons and were stowed outside the basket because of their size. The observer then simply jumped out of the basket with the parachute being deployed automatically by the ripcord which was already attached to the observer.
What about Italy? During retreat after the Battle of Caporetto, Carbineri were set up at bridges to execute retreating Italian Army Officers for cowardice. Max Hastings - The White War, Ernest Hemmingway wrote about it in Farewell to Arms.
You cant blame the soldiers , what kind of dumbass thinks that it is a good idea to attack the same place 11 times.
Very good point. The British top brass had a almost sadist view of conducting war. Not giving pilots parachutes rather let them die in accidents rather than consider the safety of the pilots
Can you provide a factual link for that statement? Why don't you actually research the subject? The Germans didn't have parachutes until almost the end of the war. The American pilots didn't have parachutes either. The top Brass must have liked balloon observers more as they had parachutes.
Why is there a photo included in this video at 3:47 which obviously is from WWII -- NOT WWI? The German overseeing the French African POWs is clearly a Wehrmacht soldier wearing a Nazi uniform totally different than German uniforms during WWI. You couldn't find a single proper photo of a German in WWI overseeing French POWs?
American, Italian and Turkey definitely needed mentions
WHY WHAT WAS WRONG WITH US?(I understand Italy(though a lot of there army didnt see action,Turkey absolutely(Though again many didnt see combat).
@@vaclavmacgregor2464 The US was committed to 'armed neutrality' and Woodrow Wilson won election for keeping the US out of the war. The US Army had 130,000 troops, at the start of our involvement, and had to ramp up in a very short time. Which means, they wasted the 3 years of the war and paid for it. The US lost 116,000 dead. One has to ask if that could have been lessened with better preparation. Yes, our entering the war swung the tide, but that was balanced by the fact that the Russian army fell apart late in the war.
@@durgan5668 for WW1 that’s not a lot of total wartime casualties. There were numerous battles where the French and British lost that many soldiers.
I'm sorry, but the French army was one of the most modernised armies to fight in by 1918, having mastered the conduct of combined arms warfare capable of defeating Germany's mastery of defending in depth.
Traditionalist attitudes were largely resolved by Joffre and Pétain between 1914-1916, and the French army had mastered the conduct of trench warfare by the 2nd and 3rd Battles of Artois... the failure of nivelle's offensive had nothing to do with traditionalism and the offensive à outrance.
The French also weren't the ones to execute the most soldiers, it was the Italians
Imagine trying to lead your troops in a war that is radically different than any before it, trying new tactics every day to figure out what works, only to be called incompetent for not being able to figure out perfectly how to use or fight massively impactful technology the first time
My vote goes to the Austro-Hungarian army. Crappy equipment if it was there in the first place and some of the most incompetent generals of all time, like Conrad von Hötzendorf, who commanded the military until 1917 and is a good candidate for worst general of all time.
Tied in the second spot would be Russia and Italy. Both had terrible problems with supplies and equipment and incompetent generals. Russia's army was too large and diverse to be really trained well, so they mostly relied on human wave tactics. The Italian army was led by Luigi Cadorna. No further explanation needed.
Out of those three, the Italian army managed to better itself at the end of the war, thanks to Cadorna being fired and getting help from Britain and France, while the Austro-Hungarian und Russian militaries just kept getting worse, because of the terrible situation and constant defeats and finally collapsed.
Well, Italy just had one front to fight, while Austria-Hungary had to fight on two more. This, in addition to the terrible communication within a multi-ethnic army, added to their performance ...
Italy didn't have much help, it did mostly alone
@@ingenearnot by 1916 they didn't
@@NoName-hg6cc who didn't what?
@@ingenear AH didn't have many enemies left
For me, it's France, with their "attack over and over again until they get exhausted" sending thousands of men into a meat grinder, and worse, the mutinies executed 918 men which weakend France even more.
The French Foreign Legion in WW1, as in any historic war would be nothing short of horrific I'd say
I believe the purpose of the French Foreign Legion is to be the rearguard that holds the line behind retreating troops, and when that is done, get slaughtered themselves.
@@LezDentz And theres nothing fucking excusable about that
@@LezDentz wtf are you talking about
Interesting fact about the French Foreign Legion. Historically, it has had more soldiers die IN TRAINING (ratio) than any other army.
@@nikolaitesla And thats not a statistic to be proud of for any commander
The French started out with the concept of "Elan" and the bayonet charge against machine guns.
Rather "Attaque à outrance" (Attack to excess). If you really want to learn about this topic, download and translate this article: L'armée française et la révolution militaire de la Première Guerre mondiale, Michel Goya. Even wikipedia is a good place to start.
Russian soldiers weren't supplied helmets because the Tsar thought they looked more intimidating without.
And the money for everything would come out of his pockets...... "Helmets, don't be a whimp !!"
A standing army of 5 Million x helmet price, would have worked out as a good incentive to keep his spending down. The Tsar lasted only another 2 or 3 years..... then they had a change of management during the Russian Revolution.
I find it interesting that the Russian military doctrine hasn't changed in over 100 years. You'd think they'd learn from their mistakes...
it's quite the opposite now actually, their manpower problems are bigger than equipment and logistics issues nowadays
@@_argurios8253 Modern armies are quite expensive compared to a traditional WW2 structure.
@@_argurios8253 thwy are using 200k+ the 300k mobalized they dont lack manpower just not using all of it
so hypersonic strike capability like kinzhals, s300/400/550 air defense systems, development of armor and artillery use, nuclear submarines with ICBMs... ...all that doesn't count as development of doctrine and learning from past mistakes?
@@nvonliph And are they using any of those? No. They're doing what they did in the 2nd world war...
Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire
Ottoman Army.
Not because of poor tactics or living conditions where others were nominated for,
It is because you didn't have a replacement (Ottomans had a really really low population, one of the main reasons for its late industrialisation and falling back of Europe) so you ended up serving mostly without any rest and moving between many fronts for the full duration of the war, you were not allowed to leave and this resulted in mass defections from the army in the last 2-3 years of the war, and when you were free from the war, you probably didn't have a home now or your family was killed unless you were from central Anatolia.
Edit: I have seen people talking about Enver pasha and him forgetting winter clothing...
Simply to put it down, this is not real.
Ottomans at that time had two options of clothing for the regions, winter and summer, (thus we have photos of modified clothing from Sina/Amare and other Arabian fronts because even the summer clothing was too thick for there)
So no, he didn't forget winter clothing, and no, Ottomans didn't lose 90k soldiers in "Sarıkamış" that's just made up.
His army group didn't even have 75k, let alone 90k "dead". A renowned Turkish historian Murat Bardakçı puts his own estimate at max of 40k, this number is combined result of bad management (by Hafız Hakkı Paşa), Typhus and Russian army. Biggest reason of deaths was widespread Typhus in the army
The reason why 90k number surfaced is because of the Ottoman censorship over the movement, thus the new Turkish Republic and its people dramatised this event in early 1920s (first ever news about Sarıkamış was written in 1922)
The ww1 Italian Army under Cadorna was pretty terrible honestly
To his credit there was no ither option only the izonso was the place that they could atack and they were extremely well entrenched there it was a masacre but nobody could do any other thing neither him plus he put the austro hungarians to thier test and causes so much death to the austro hungarians that they never dared to do another offensive only when germany send divisions to austria them the caporetto ofensive began and the places were austria atacked were hold by italy but the palces were germany atacked they loss
Cardona was not a genius but neither a 1700s butcher people say he was
I know that by WW2 France had really low morale and was very apprehensive about war and trying to avoid it at all costs. With this, i cant blame them. I feel like the first world war was so traumatic for them that those scars rippled into the following generation.
True for many of the British who survived the trenches. We were not there, but can you really blame the British and especially the French for wanting to punish the Germans after 1918. The biggest mistake the allies made was to allow the German Army to march back to Germany. Instead, the French and British should have marched into Germany with the German army as POWs, and occupied the country for a decade.
@@davidforbes7772 I think that you have a point there
I love your narrative voice. It sounds like this one starwars lore channel I watch
Hard to believe the Italians didn't make this list as least as an honorable mention.
4:55 - so you're saying not much has changed with the Russian Army between early WWI and today's current war...
That’s their MO. Throw people at the enemy at all costs. The great Russian hope is that Russia has more men than the enemy has rounds
@@samuelculper4231 except they don't anymore.
My grandad was in the Canadian army in the first world war. He was hospitalised 5 times over the course of the war. Mostly due to disease, and even lost a lung. He survived and returned home to raise his family. HIs records are all on line in Canada and you can search them, which is cool. I even had his Cdn army WW1 training manual.
Technically speaking Serbia would have been the worst Army to fight for while they initially scored victories over Austria-Hungary they eventually suffered a defeat that left them in full retreat and by the end of the war something like one in every four Serbian soldiers was a casualty.
The Serbs were heavily outnumbered, and they still lasted almost until late 1915. German General August von Mackensen found them to be so fanatical in the defense of their country he called them "soldiers from fairytale."
Yes, they had yo retreat through the Albanian mountains,many casualties came from that retreat.
Bearing in mind the losses they suffered due to being outnumbered, lack of logistics, famine and retreating through Albania in the winter of 1916, the Serbian army was perhaps the worst to fight in. But in terms of battlefield performance, experience, military leadership and morale, it was perhaps the best army in WW1.
@@petergray7576 Bro, the Serbian army lasted all the time even though Serbia was overrun in 1915/1916. The Serbs retreated through Albania and opened a new front in Thessaloniki together with the French. After the breakthrough of the Thessaloniki front in 1918, a domino effect began in which one by one the Axis countries signed the capitulation, and in 1918 the Serbian cavalry reached the edges of Vienna. The very point why the Serbian army (and Serbia in general) had so many losses is that they did not want to sign the capitulation during the entire war.
I would suggest some research of the size and supply of the Serbian army vs the opponents. Serbia also fought two wars before WW1 and were already exhausted.
There is no army I would suggest to fight in as they all ended up going thou hell.
The US Army was the best to fight in because you only have to turn up for the last year of the war after the real fighting has been done!
Exactly. They were the freshest, everyone was already exhausted.
As a Hungarian, I only know. but the very structure of the state also hindered the army. for example, when the Austrians tried to modernize, the Hungarians prevented this.
Honestly, asking this question is like asking someone which Saw scenario they'd rather be in. No matter what, they're gonna come out badly 😟
Very overexaggerated points, citing details as more major than they appear on the span of 4 years. The British army at the Somme for example was of course torn apart, mostly due to Haig and his staff, that later became one of the best generals of the war with his 1918 attacks. Same for France, citing Nivelle, which is one of the worst generals of the war, without recounting his success at Verdun, and his quick sacking, and better generals such as Foch, Petain, Mangin. Although the offensive spirit was one of Nivelle's defining traits, generals like Petain and Joffre were more cautious and less bloodthirsty than Nivelle. Finally, the mass charges and bright uniforms were them too quickly changed as they had proven disastrous, although much damage had been done.
You also underestimate how badly equipped Russia was, considering they were in mountainous territories, in the Caucasus and in Galicia. The only competent generals could not get other generals to respect their orders, similarly to Germany.
Without question, Austria Hungary was the worst major power of the war though, as not only their generals were bad, but their army defected to Russia due to its multi ethnic army.
1 surgeon for every 10,000 men in Russia?! Sent to the front lines with almost no weapons and equipment. No telling how many people died waiting on a surgeon that never showed up.
Would love a video on captured Allied and occupied countries in Axis hands and vice versa please?
Wrong War - WW II is the Axis.
@@allanfifield8256 I know, I'm just making a suggestion for a future vid, if you agree please leave a like
Oh yeah baby a new video
Hey, I want some ice cream !
Bruh
My g.g grandfather had it really rough in WW1. He spent six months stateside in a camp and was discharged due to the Treaty of Versailles.
My greatfather made the greatest idiocy of his life when returned in Italy to fight in WWI from the States, here he had a good job, so he throw away EVERYTHING for a war totally useless. Sadly every nation was totally ill-provided for such a war , expecially in mentality, they were stuck in the wrong century, everyone tought that the old ways would've won:
The russians reputed that the old method of trow endless conscript would've worked as against Napoleon;
The french were obsessed by the "Elan", attack until the enemy is broken;
UK tought that a little, professional army and their mighty fleet would've won, again as in 1815;
And Germany tried the same trick that had worked in 1870, but times and technology weren't the same, plus made the (madornal) mistake to invade Belgium, a neutral country, mistake carefully avoided by Bismarck.
Thats what I find so fascinating about WW1, where outdated ideas and modes of thinking abruptly meet the harsh technological realities of the 20th Century and you get one of the most devastating wars in human history. Politicians fighting to prop up the same political systems that had been around for centuries and generals using the same tactics from wars fought as long as a century prior, and none of it survived.
The Germans seemed to think that the French were morons incapable of learning from the mistakes they committed during the 1870-71 war, and were content to fight in a similar manner in 1914. And then they discovered that contrary to their assumptions, the French weren't imbeciles at all.
@@petergray7576 Well, effectively the French army made a LOT of mistakes in 1940, such as lack of training and radioes for their AFVs, or an antiquate air force, plus an incompetent leadership, either military AND political.
@@anveryperson7329 Yes, he was wounded (lightly), and after the war remained in Italy, just for seeing another, more foolish one.
Sometimes you do that for your country
I have 2 great great grandfathers that served in WW1
Reginald Duffield-enlisted in early 1918 and served in the RFC in southern England till the end of the war.
And Alfred Cutts who enlisted in early 1915 and was deployed in Salonika on the Macedonian front from 1916 till the end of the war
As a bulgarian I like how nobody says anything bad about Bulgarian performance in ww1
Would hate to think our Bulgarian friends are feeling left out of all the roasting so how about a) You joined the wrong side - wrong as in the side you joined lost b) You were slow to defeat the Serbs when only faced by one man and his dog as most of the Serbian Army in North fighting Austria and c) When you finally tried to retreat on the Salonika front it turned into a rout.
I usually see a few serbs and greeks moaning about us in ww1 vid comments sections.
@@stuartbailey9287yes the serbs handled gallantry the Bulgarian and German cock. What are you talking about we beat the British in Doiran, we beat the Romanian, capture their capital and helped Germany annihilate you.
Bulgaria joined the war to grab some land from Serbia when it was in the most dire state. It's not that terrible motivation, but surely my (and not only mine) sympathies are on the Serbian side. Also fighting against Russia which granted Bulgarian independence in the first place.
Although Bulgarian army was poorly equipped, nobody says anything bad of it's performance.
@@mind-blowing_tumbleweed Russia declared war on Bulgaria during WW1. Also expecting Bulgaria to conduct diplomacy on the basis of sentimentality during the age of realpolitik is ridiculous.
I think it was awful to fight in every army in ww1 as all sides suffered losses
Major Losses