Not five. They covered Greco-Turkish War, Russian Civil War and Irish Independence War as direct continuations of WWI. We're technically still in final phases of timeline of original series.
It's just a shame what they did to the man who created the channel, created its tone and signature style (Indy Nidell). He made this channel... and he doesn't get anything from it.
@@carlpolen7437 I remember him leaving and doing new stuff and basically handing it off I thought? Are they snubbing him or something? He gets nothing? I can still hear him say, "I'm indy nidell, welcome to the great war" in my head lol. I hope you're wrong but knowing how the world is I'm not assuming you are
I would love to see a video that explains how Russian soldiers were tired of war, mutinied, escaped, etc in 1917 but in a very short time there were many soldiers fighting for the Red Army, White Army, Anarchists, etc. Were they the same soldiers?
What the video misses is that the provisional government not just promised to continue the war, but specifically until the capture of the Dardanelles Islands. Which killed all illusions about the war goals and truth character of new government. Long story short, the soldiers were not against fighting, but for the right cause.
@@Dragoot That isn't any "long story short." And I doubt that very many private soldiers knew the difference between a Dardanelle and a Constantine or a Constitution. Some of them probably thought it was a machine that made bread. As Chris pointed out in his question, half or perhaps more of the people fighting after the collapse of the Tsarist government in Moscow were fighting for the Whites, or for a variety of local warlords. I don't think you are likely to think of as any of them "the right cause." Again, maybe they thought a Kolchak was a machine for making loaves of bread.
@@Dragoot You are simplifying an extraordinarily complex situation. As the Imperial institution and army disintegrated, it left a vacuum where every person made a personal decision on what to do and whom to support. Even when they were press-ganged by the various factions, they could and did desert or sandbag. The provisional government and army leaderships greatest failure was in not getting ahead of the revolutionaries and in not having leaders with the charisma and right mindset to motivate the rank and file. For too long they clung to the old way aristocratic assumptions that troops would just do what they were told.
Thank you for continuing these documentaries, even after November of 1918. I don't know how much of your team has changed, but I love Jesse's (and crew) presentations as much as Indy's (and crew) Thank you, for keeping the History flowing
It makes me sad that we rarely get a picture of the micropolitics going on. How many times have divisions collapsed because morale was lost specifically in response to the actions of one commander, and it goes down in history as just one army being better?
If the Russian Civil War is interesting to you I suggest you learn about the series of Chinese Civil Wars(1911-1949). I find the general situation to be somewhat similar with an abundance of local warlords and an eventual Communist takeover. The individual soldiers typically didn't know what was happening and were fighting for the age old cause of getting something to eat.
@@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 I'm actually very interested in that, as well, but my knowledge on the topic is very superficial. If you have a book or video series on that to recommend, I'd be grateful.
That's actually normal. Both historians and military trainers will tell you that winners often think they are failing until it's over, because they are just marginally competent, but keep it together and stay less incompetent than their enemy in a chaotic situation. Usually they are surprised they eon. Look up the "Dunning-Krueger" effect. It is about students, but it applies very much to military units.
21:44 a noteworthy picture: the Russian soldiers are armed with Japanese Arisaka rifles. Due to a staggering deficit of small arms early in the war, Russia was forced to purchase all rifles they could get. From modern Japanese Type 30 and Type 38 Arisakas to old, black powder rifles like the Italian Vetterli-Vitalis and French Gras. The Japanese rifles were brought in in largest numbers, with the Arisakas becoming a second standard in the Russian army, and later the Red Army, along with the 6.5mm Japanese cartridge. They also ordered new rifles in the USA, with Remington manufacturing new Mosin-Nagants (most of which were never delivered due to issues with Russian quality control officers, and ended up in the American Expeditionary Corps to Russia) and Winchester redesigning their lever action M1895 into the M1915, made to Russian specs. What remains of those hectic purchases is a surprising variety on the Eastern European antique firearms collectors market.
That’s a sad commentary in it of itself, the fact that the giant Russian empire couldn’t even produce enough homegrown weapons for their soldiers and instead had to rely on other countries is sad. The US had the biggest domestic arms industry in the world and it wasn’t even 150 years old.
@@gloverfox9135 It's not just a case of lacking manufacturing capacity, but also of abysmal planning and lack of foresight. Once the production of Mosin-Nagant rifles was up and running in Russia, they were making a huge amount of rifles to equip their standing army and stockpile the mobilization reserve, as every country did, and when this was accomplished, production was significantly slowed down. The amount they stockpiled was quickly verified as painflully small, when at the end of 1914 they had an army of 6.5 million men and only 4.5 million rifles. In summer of that year, the General Staff estimated that they needed about 100 000 new rifles delivered per month just to keep up with the losses (so not taking into account the needs of newly formed units), and their industry could deliver some 42 000 in their best months. They calculated that if the war were to last three years, they'd need some 11-12 million rifles, almost thrice as many as they managed to make between 1891 and 1914. When in 1915 the British suffered a shell crisis, the Russians were suffering a general munitions crisis, where they lacked not only artillery shells, but plain rifle ammunition too.
They were not the only ones. The British also had a shortage of rifles for their rapidly growing army, and Japanese Arisakas were also sent to Britain, though as far as I know they were only used in training or behind the lines. A British soldier recorded in his memoirs using one in training. He said it was necessary to spread a blanket under the rifle because if you turned a metal rose on the side of it the whole rifle would come apart and there was a danger of a vital piece going missing.
Huzzah!! Back to the Eastern Front of WW1. Gonna be honest, I was worried we wouldn't get more Great War vids but as always, Jesse and co never fail to drop more hits.
@@TheGreatWarno sooner do I think, what can the possibly tell me that I have not heard? You simply rise to the challenge and surpass my expectations. 👏!
I think it has more to do with terrible policy by the provisional government. France also has massive mutinies who refused to do offensives but France executed hundreds of mutiniers and promised to not do any major offensives in 1917. Only doing a small one in Verdun in August and another in October
1915 had been the worst year for the Russians - Russian Poland was given up after the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive by the Germans and A-H, one of the most obscure events of WW1 for Westerners but far-reaching. 1914 had seen defeats by Germany but victories over A-H, and in 1916 Brusilov nearly knocked A-H out of the war altogether. But victories as well as defeats took a toll.
@@billyosullivan3192france was under attack in their core territory and memories were still fresh when germans marched to Paris taking Alsace-Lorraine with them. Same way the broken italian army regrouped and held after being pushed from the advanced line back to the Piave river. Patriotic slogans were true (to some extent). Russians were fighting a war in Lithuania, Ukraine and Romania, hundreds of kilometres from their home
Nicolas did try to avoid war, German declared war on Russia on August 1st, Austria declared war on Russia on August 6th. Russia only sent a declaration of war to the ottomans after they attacked the black sea bases
@@billyosullivan3192 Germany declared war on Russija after it began to mobilize for war, had Russija not mobilized but merely tried to save Serbija diplomatically, nobody would declare war on them cos who wants to fight Russija when they dont have to.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Russia tried diplomacy but on July 26th Germany and Austria said they wouldn't accept any mediation. Russia also pressured Serbia to accept the ultimatum
Also, the destruction of the Guard Corps in 1916 was the death knell of the Czars. The Corps itself symbolised Russia in the arrogance of the officer corp and the loyalty of the ordinary soldier. They died in senseless frontal attacks because 'the Guard does not go in the back door' i.e. manoeuvre to limit casualties. If Petrograd had these 60,000 men the whole outcome might have been different in an alternative history type of way.
I think what's lost in the impact of the Russian Revolution, is that the war was exceptionally stressful and multiple belligerents cracked up under the pressure, which isn't the same as a military defeat. For example, Belgium was decisively defeated in the field, until the end, but actually didn't crackup. The same was true of Serbia and Romania, which had to exit the war because Russia cracked up. A crackup is where the armies have not suffered decisive defeat, but the empire or nation bails on the war (and there is more than one way a crackup can happen). Britain and Germany were relatively resilient, but the blockade drove all the Central Powers toward crackup. The United States effectively was immune to crackup under the circumstances, though there was some chance that domestic support for belligerency could end. Arguably, though Germany absolutely was defeated in the west in 1918, the defeat would not have been decisive if it plus the blockade didn't drive crackup. Daily food privation is stressful, at the front and at home. Bulgarian crackup in September 1918 ended the war. The reason was that Bulgaria had achieved all of its war aims, but could not exit because this was not Balkan War 3, it was World War 1. Bulgaria had to continue to endure the stresses, privations, and casualties of war, on top of those of the two Balkan Wars because Bulgaria had leveraged outside allies to triumph in the Balkans but the Bulgarian army and people no longer were willing to go along with, and pay the open-ended price of, the terms of that deal. The first belligerent to approach crackup was France, during the Nivelle Offensive, but France pulled back from the brink. Curiously, part of the reason was that the United States had entered, creating huge expectations which were dashed when France, which had suffered much, realized just how LONG it would take (about 4 to 6 calendar quarters) for the United States to bring meaningful force to bear in France. Caporetto threatened Italian crackup but the geography and pace of advance didn't catalyze fast enough and Italy recovered, though it did shift to a passive strategy until near the end. Austria-Hungary lived with the crackup threat for the whole war, but managed it partly out of habit. When crackup came in September and October 1918, the war already was lost. Turkey suffered rebellion, but did not crack up. The Turkish core held, and held throughout defeat and through postwar war. And Russia, a known fragile state before the war, and where war entry papered over that fragility in the 1914 patriotic wave, actually cracked up. Though it suffered military defeats, these defeats were not decisive against Russia's size and resources. Losing Poland and Lithuania itself did not send Russia over the edge. The Russian soldiers simply were not willing to continue the war, they were not motivated and they had an alternative means of organization with which they destroyed the authority binding them to the war. (They did not destroy authority or war, such as communist ideologues falsely preach is possible, but they did destroy the specific authority at the time binding them to the specific war at hand, and that always is possible).
Crackup can have more than one fracture line. The stresses of war, for example, the death toll and food privation, eventually radically democratized formerly authoritarian Germany because the German people had paid such a massive price. France, by contrast, was defending itself, so motivation ordinarily was not a question. A German people rock-solidly behind the war in 1914, with no questions or doubts, wanted answers by 1918. They demanded accountability from their warlords. Moms who lad lost husbands and sons, wanted to know when their young kids would eat enough. Where was the victory dividend from the East, the Polish and Ukrainian and Romanian food? (Answer: amid the wreckage of war, the mobilization of the eastern enemies' farming populations, and the late revolutionary chaos in the region, there was no short term dividend). And why had that dividend, whatever its value, been negated when you fools made a lunatic offer to the unstable regime in Mexico? The number of American troops didn't really matter, and the German people had confidence in their army, but what was the plan for making the United States quit? Now our U-boats are fighting all of the world's strongest navies combined? Their President of all their immigrants is going to promise independence to - How is the war to be won? It can't be won anymore, can it? (True) And so our millions will have died for nothing?! (True) The angry, unanswerable questions were inescapable.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 True. Also, Belgians fought in Ukraine! Did you know? Look up the Belgian Expeditionary Corps of Armoured Cars in Russia (Corps Expeditionnaire des Autos-Canons-Mitrailleuses Belges en Russie).
The question of crackup is linked to the impact of American entry. (FD: I am American) I lived and worked in Britain for years, and speak French fluently and have lived in and visited France and some of its former colonies. British people largely seem to be of the opinion that America played no meaningful role in WW1. ...I understand why they think this, and part of the reason they think this is that the war's stress level, though very painful for Britain, was probably lowest for Britain of all the EUROPEAN belligerents. However, though Britannia ruled the waves in WW1, America had a large navy and being able to deploy it fully helped Britain (and France and Italy) be more food secure, or help moot the U-Boat war. The stress level for France was much higher for obvious reasons and French people believe American entry was important. First, it was important mentally, because it enabled French people to see a light at the end of this very dark tunnel. Second, eventually, from 2Q to 4Q 1918, American might mattered militarily. There by then really were enough trained American troops at the front to give the Entente a durable advantage. The American troops also were fresh and completely lacked war weariness, and their numbers were only going up. American entry's impact on crackup was pivotal because American entry repurposed the war. As long as the war was just a big clash of empires, Austria-Hungary for example was quite safe. Once America enters, Austria-Hungary's days are numbered, also for an obvious reason. There is no need for many American troops to fight in Italy for the stress level on the Habsburg war effort to severely ramp simply because of what President Wilson started publicly promising. The Poles, Czechs, South Slavs, and others except Germans and Magyars, immediately will start asking themselves some questions about what their motivations really are. And they will ask these questions to each other, quietly, in their own languages. Given some time and development, what happens next is what actually happened next, and anyone could predict that. As for Germany, the stress level also ramped. The U-boat war now was lost, the Entente suddenly had abundant food, and there was no credible answer to American entry. There was no way anyone could think of, for Germany to defeat America, strategically. Sure, tactically, German forces could win battles against American forces. But strategically, forcing America to quit was about as realistic as forcing Mars to quit if Martians sided with France. And anyone can do the math that the quantity of American troops in France was only going to rise. The answer the German leaders had for the people was that clearly the war had to be won fast in a decisive hammer blow (Operation Michael, etc.), which, impressive though German Western Front gains in Spring 1918 were, just isn't a very inspiring answer under the grueling circumstances. Once the German people (much less the war lords) can't figure out how the war can be won, the full weight of the colossal but pointless, and indeed counterproductive (!), human and material sacrifice starts to sink in, and pretty soon... The irony here, is that when Italy entered in May 1915, German officials bitterly castigated Habsburg officials for their "idiocy" in "allowing that to happen." History does not well record how Habsburg officials responded when they learned that Germany's foreign minister officially had promised to give three American states to Carranza or Zapata or Pancho Villa or Huerta or who cares. It turned out that the crucial military decision came in September 1918 in the Balkans where no American forces were fighting, but, none of that invalidates the impact.
@@Brian----- Germany was decisively defeated in the field. Only after the army asked for an armestice in October did ten home front fall apart. Blockades did far more to harm Russia than Germany. Stab in the back myth permeates so much of ww1 discussions you don't realise untill you take a step back
The provisional government made some of the worst decisions that could be made in such a frail situation. They refused to sign an armistice and give up imperial ambitions well after entire divisions deserted or went rogue. The men just wanted to go home and I don’t blame them, since they never asked to be thrown into the worst war a soldier could be thrown in, in the first place
It was only a dirty Imperialist war to the Russian, German, and British soldiers. For the Belgians, the war was entire justified. Their country had been invaded because it was merely in the way. The Belgian memory of WW1 is much more positive and patriotic than many of the other nations who don't know exact why they are fighting. It is all about perspective.
What he didn't mention was that some parts of the Provisional Government were SR's who wanted to keep fighting the war believing they could spread the revolution and/or its ideals to Europe who would then rise up with them and do the same, thus leading to a European wide Socialist Revolution. It didn't work at all, even after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920, and a lot of the people who initially supported it falling into group think had it later used against them by Stalin as "continued support for Imperialist ambitions"
@@genericyoutubeaccount579 If we're talking imperialistic warmongering, nobody comes even close to France, that started WW1 out of a sheer hunger for territory and bloodshed, since they were so upset at being defeated in their 1870 invasion of the German States.
My great-gramps fought in the Russian Army as a Cossack cadet in 1917 - he was about 18 years old then. Early in the year, he was accepted to Platov Cossack Military Academy in St. Petersburg - right after the February 1917 revolution. His admission paper read: "For your admission, please be so kind to pay -5- *50* roubles to the -treasury- *treasurer*", with words in bold being written with a pen over a printed text. On the summer, the cadets were sent to the "practical exercises". He managed to see the Austrian trenches once, reporting on those being comfortable like apartments. Soon, though, he's got a concussion and was out of action. Eventually, in order to survive, he joined the red army as a cook. His characteristics read "no physical handicaps" - while in fact he almost loss his hearing and half of his buttocks due to the explosion that caused the concussion, "analphabet" - he actually spoke 5 languages.
I think the "Finnish units" discussed here refer to Russian military units stationed in Finland during peacetime or units named after those that fought in the Finnish War of 1808-09 because the Grand Duchy of Finland didn't have conscription at the time. Russians didn't see Finns as reliable subjects after 1902-04 draft strikes and their resistance to Russification, instead forcing the Duchy to pay for their military occupation by Russians.
This is the Guards Finnish Reserve Regiment of the Russian Army. It was a regular russian unit that had just the name "Finnish" because legacy reasons.
Yea, I had to google this because I was pretty sure only Finnish officers were serving in WW1 in the imperial army. But this kind of discredits this youtube historia. If he is referring that there are finns on the frontline, what other things is he presenting as fact? Problem with badly qualified historians is that they often miss things like this when they read documents literally.
"Germany" didn't send Lenin, "German Zionists" did, from Switzerland. "ZIONISM" ? ! ? ! How does that have anything to do with Russia ??? Dunno. That's what Marx was. Lenin was. All but TWO members of the 1917 politburo were. ALL the leaders of the Cheka and then the NKVD were. Don't see Zion anywhere . .
Short-term indeed. Although no one could have predicted that less than three decades later the mans' portrait would be in office buildings and his statues in all the cities it what must have been half the pre-WW I country. He didn't do it himself, but he did enable people like Stalin to take power.
What if the Provisional Government did not launch the disastrous Kerensky Offensive in July 1917? Did the Provisional Government have any alternatives to a summer offensive in 1917? What if they had simply stayed on the defensive?
I think that attack was seen as needed because they wanted to prove to the Allies that they were still alive and well and if they didn’t attack the army was gonna disband itself since there was no reason to keep them armed and not attacked at least in men’s minds ( also they wanted a great military victory to unite them and give them hope and courage that they could still win) but I agree Russian could gone another way had they stopped the earn brought the men back under hood order cause before the attack the men WERE willing to defend the government but after the attack many lost heart and also the war could also gone another way had the tzar done so many things I’m more of the opinion that had the tsar stayed in power Russian could become a wonderful ally and things in the region would never of gotten so screwed up
There were no units consisting of Finnish soldiers since even before the First Russian Revolution of 1905. Of course there were troops in Finland, but that a completely different matter than what you're purporting. The last Finnish troops were disbanded in 1902. When using Russian language sources, you must differentiate between Native Finnish troops (Финcкий = Finskiy) and Финляндский = Finlandskiy, meaning Russian Imperial troops placed in Finland.
I want to thank you for putting the ad at the end. I even watched it becuase you guys deserve it. Thank you for making such great content and continuing to do so.
The written speech at 2.50 could have been written by any soldier at the front, east-west, allied or central powers. In 1917 the heels nearly came off in so many places as they had burned through, literally, their resources of manpower and production.
I feel like any time that the Imperial Russian Army of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is described as one of the most powerful in the world, it needs a dozens asteriks next to it. It was so hindered by lack of supplies, lack of effective leadership, lack of railways, lack of training. I wouldn't quite call it a 'paper tiger', but maybe a cardboard one?
@@jonathanwilliams1065 Modern Russia is plauged by a different problem one is corruption and everything else is a by product doesn't matter what they call it
My grandfather (mothers father) was poisoned by gases At night coughed violently Meanwhile worked in the mine in Donbass Died in 1968 From what country You are?
two things: 1.) This video is very well done and exposes the confusion that occurred there. 2.) It underscores to psalm: "Do not put your trust in Nobles or the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs". It shows how important it is to be neutral in today's politics and of course, wars.
I mean, that's exactly what it was, though. You can argue whether the soldiers were justified in doing so, but them being rebels causing rebellions is an entirely accurate view of what happened.
I see a big mistake in the map at 0:55 , in the south there was a Romanian army, not Russian. So, the 4th Russian Army is in fact the 4th Romanian Army (general Constantin Prezan).
Conscripted peasants never been happy to fight for the tsar. Since officers died in mass, a newely formed forces were not able to keep the army under control. My greatgrandfather was conscripted in 1914, in 1917 he joined the bolsheviks, since 1918 he served in Lenin's security guard for 1 year.
14:40 It may sound better in Russian, but I was not inspired - and I haven't been fighting for 3 years. 18:50 You have just been listening to a press release from The Ministry Of No Bloody Surprises. Thank you for the lesson. It answered my question as to whether the Provisional Army, could have kept fighting if Lenin, had been arrested in July of 1917.
This is quite new for me. So the so called "October revolution" was actually rather a second military mutiny of 1917. Thank you for this important information!
@@jessealexander2695True. The bolshevic rule was never popular nor spontaneously emerging from the people, contrary to the communist pretense. According to their own ideological doctrine, the communist revolution should not even have happened in Russia, but rather in industrialized countries such as the UK.
The Bolsheviks had some support amongst factory workers, but not amongst the majority of the rest. Although many peasants for a brief period (1918-1920) tolerated them as a better alternative to the land owners. @@herptek
@@jessealexander2695 Communism was an ideology of serfs and factory workers in the early twentieth century. Free peasantry was the great enemy to them.
@@jessealexander2695 The bolsheviks had the majority in all the Soviets by October. The Slogan All Power to the Soviets began in Petrograd and the Red Guards arrested the traitorous Kerensky who was communicating with the counter revolution Army General Kornilov who would have drowned the revolution in blood. The mensheviks walked out after the vote after which Trotsky told them to go walk into the dustbin of history.
Sound overview. In hindsight, Kerensky should never have ordered an offensive in the summer of 1917. Part of the problem, though, was that many people saw the French Revolution as the the template for all revolutions. They hoped that the February Revolution (in March) would create citizen soldiers the same way that the French Revolution had with the Levee en masse of 1793. They also counted on the American entry into the war on the side of the Allies in March 1917. With Russia, the US, France and Britain all in one vast coalition, the defeat of the Central Powers was inevitable, so it made sense on a grand strategic level to continue fighting. The difference, of course, was that Russia was far more war weary in 1917 than France was in 1793. And the average Russia peasant soldier didn't care about grand strategy. In this context, Lenin's slogan, "Peace, Bread, Land" was one of the most effective political programs of all time, because it appealed to most Russians. The great tragedy, of course, was that the disintegration of Russia in 1917 led to the even worse October Revolution and the Russian Civil War.
@@matthewmatt5285 That sounds very doubtful. Why would any leader want an offensive to fail on their watch? Why would the Russian generals agree to such an operation? Why would Kerensky want his own government to be overthrown?
@@roberthanks1636 It wouldn't over throw the government,. It would aid in ending the war,..Why else would you issue it? lol There was still tons of fighting done to consolidate political power at home. > Kerensky's father was the teacher of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) and had even secured him acceptance into the University of Kazan~ Kerensky was Bank-Rolled by outside Zionists like Jacob Schiff,.. This is Encyclopedia Brittanica : --->>>>on March 15, 1917, Milyukov wanted to preserve the monarchy as a stabilizing force to coniue the war but found little support. The revolutionary tide was now running strongly against him. In the liberal provisional government under Prince Georgy Lvov, which Milyukov helped to constitute, he towered intellectually over his colleagues but was soon Outmaneuvered by the Socialist leader Aleksandr Kerensky, >>>>>> who Favoured a policy of Concessions to popular demands, -->>> NOTABLY on the question of taking Immediate Steps toward a negotiated PEACE. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The military heavily criticised Kerensky for his liberal policies, which included stripping officers of their mandates and handing over control to revolutionary-inclined "soldier committees" (Russian: romanized: soldatskie komitety) instead; abolition of the death penalty; and allowing revolutionary agitators to be Present at the Front. Many officers jokingly referred to commander-in-chief Kerensky as the "persuader-in-chief".
It sounds like the Russian republic did not take time to reorganize before taking on this huge new offensive, or solidified power, though Lenin ofc didn’t make that easy.
Yes, it was a grave mistake. Just keeping the frontline could give them overall victory, USA already joined the war... With German troops busy in the East there won't be German spring offensive, and probably with faster defeat there won't be Stab- In- The- Back myth.
@@alexzero3736 "also Canadians and Anzacs" So british... "but reinforcements from USA gave them operational freedom." I think they boosted morale more than anything.
Among the tragedies of the Great War perhaps the worst is that in August, 1914 Russia was the fastest growing country in Europe. And the war destroyed all that and left the legacy of the Russian Civil War won by the Soviets and the 70+ year nightmare of the USSR that included the destruction and death of The Great Patriotic War.
@@DanielGarcia-kw4ep I triple-dog DARE you to say that in eastern Europe anywhere besides Russia. Try saying it to a Pole or a Ukranian, see what they think of that `tragedy`.
Add to this the collectivisation and kulak genocide. Destroying the willingness to work in the population, ceizing the most productive people's land and killing them. We did the same in France when the edict of Nantes was repealed, all the protestants left, they were the merchant, artisan and birthing industrial class. The eceonomic hit as huge and its consequences in term of social attitude is still vivid today.
@thegreatwar where did you find references to Finnish units in the Russian army? Finns were exempted from Russian conscription in 1900 and to my best knowledge Finnish volunteers in the imperial army served in Russian units, with no nationality-based Finnish unit ever existing during WW1.
I feel like the old series leaned too much into Austria-Hungary's shortcomings (perhaps even exagerated them) while it also failed to give credit to the Dual Monarchy when it was due (mostly writing up a great deal of the Central Powers' joint successes solely to the Germans). It would be nice to see some counterbalancing concerning this matter. On this note, would you consider making a documentary about either Gorlice-Tarnow or Caporetto? Or maybe about the Austro-Hungarian homefronts, war production, or Hungary's wartime electoral suffrage debates?
I would still like a more thorough examination of Mackensen’s 1915 offensive pretty please. It was covered well in the main series but that is disjointed by the episodic nature
Merci Jesse, j'aime beaucoup le contenu que vous et l'équipe proposez gratuitement sur TH-cam. J'espère que vous aller continuer. En effet, espérons qu'une autre armée russe retournera chez elle.
The russians showed great resilience in the war whereas when they saw their great strategy of charging into gunfire failed, they changed things up drastically and charged even more men into gunfire in the hope that the Germans would run out of bullets. Charge was a great great strategy.
@@mikehurt3290 I think it's because although charging led to a great slaughter, these attacks were not without merit. They did manage to kill many thousands of the defenders. Tactics continued to evolve too, right from the beginning, so there was always hope that this time it would be a significant or decisive attack.
Спасибо американский мальчик,что объяснил нам-Дикарям с востока,что Русская императорская армия воевала путём того,что просто безостановочно бежала на артиллерийские снаряды. Просто нам в наших лживых школах рассказывают,что Российская Империя в основном опиралась на массивный артиллерийский огонь и быстрые маневры,которые к сожалению привели к нехватке снарядов,но слава Богу ты всё объяснил
As early as September 1914, Eastern Front events showed that even in small numbers, Germany was capable of inflicting heavy losses to Russia. Actually, after suffering two consecutive defeats in Eastern Prussia - Tannemberg and Masurian Lakes -, Russias morale was severely affected, so much so that, between the Russian offensive in 1914 and the evacuation of Poland in 1916, the collapse of Russia was truly eminent, had not Italy joined the Allied side in 1915, forcing Germany and Austria - Hungary to place more troops in this Southern front. So basically, the death of the Russian Army had already begun in the autumn of 1914, when it attacked Gernany. To give an idea of how strong was Germany, even in 1918: when the Germans had realized that the Russians were delaying the negotiations, they decided to attack Riga, in the Baltic coast, in a violent and fast operation that made the city surrender in only three days...
The Tsar should have sued for peace in 1916 and let Germany win. It would've been the best course for all of europe and i doubt that the peace would've cost more than brest litovsk
Ohh he wouldn't have had to give up near as much,.The Bolsheviks wanted the war to end tso they could consolidate power,.It still was a nasty 7-4 vote with the 4 AGAINST signing it at odds pretty much with the rest of the Revolutionaries afterwards,.Of course there was tons of backstabbing, assassinations, and changing of allegiances in the years to come,.But they knew they couldn't fight the Germans and the White Army adversaries at the same time to take control and make Russia a Communist Regime,. This video goes into NONE of that stuff,.It's pretty pathetic and a 4th grade version of the real events which took place~ It's Deliberate~
Indeed, by 1916 (Austro-) German armies, only militarily occupied adjacent (Lithuania &) Napoleon's LANDLOCKED Warsaw-centric Congress Poland Brest-Litovsk declared Eastern Europe's Cordon Sanitaire largely defining Proto-Soviet Russia's WESTERN borders for another century Lest we forget the THREE of Continental Europe's largest (linguistically defined) territorial states FORMALLY recognised by (Imperial) Russia's WWI Allies at Versailles are NATO's "useful troublemaker"s
If you compare the grain situation of Russia with Britain of Germany you will understand that the "food shortage" and grain crash of Russia in 1916 is overrated. It just enough to note that bread stores had some shortages in 1917 due to railroad overload. But bread stores didn't even exist in Germany by that time.
Doesn't matter if you can't transport the food or make it the effect is the same the people will starve and get angry maybe even revolt or riot if they are forced to long enough.
The offensive was only partially successful. It badly damaged the Austrians but many Russian troops were disappointed the war continued and hat there wa no decisive strategic victory.
That was the reason Provisional Government issued Order Number One,. To destroy the heirarchy and discipline of the Russian army,. They couldn't get the masses on their side if the Army was doing well and winning victories~ Leo Trotsy was even quoted as saying Order Number One was """the Only worthwhile Document of THE February Revolution,". This video is garbage to be kind~ it avoids multiple other circumstances that were at play during this tumutuous period,. If you have any more questions let me know,. I'm a Public Historian ALSO,..lol~
Another wonderful video, thank you for making this... what was the original series? I read a comment about it. I get so much out of these videos. I remember studying this in university, under an expert on Admiral Kolchak.
Мой прадед воевал с 1914 на Северо-Западном фронте против немцев. Побывал в окружении в армии ген Самсонова, но вышел из него. Вернулся с фронта в деревню в Тамбовскую губернию в 1917, совершенно больным, из-за чего его даже в красную армию не мобилизовали... А в 1918 он уже умер от чахотки, оставив вдову с четырьмя детьми. Он вернулся с фронта в дождливую ночь и постучал в окно, чем перепугал всех.... Может он пришел просто попрощаться?
Get a 2-year NordVPN plan plus 4 additional months with a HUGE discount: nordvpn.com/thegreatwar
Kept you waiting, huh? We will have monthly TGW uploads again after our summer break.
Moscow ulus was (is) badly outdated
Small correction: the map around 20:00 shows artificial lakes on the Dnieper which were created by Soviet-era dams.
@@TheGreatWar😊😊
Can't watch this show no longer. Just to to much TH-cam ads. A real crime and horror to watch and fallow.
Here before Conrad Von Hötzendorf can be relieved of command
You again?!
Hötzi is still in full attires when I clicked this video
Best general of ww1 😂
But Luigi Cadorna's in command, no need to relieve a genius of command
That might be a while
Five years AFTER the end of the main series and you're still making excellent content. I hope you all make enough money off of these to make a living
Not five. They covered Greco-Turkish War, Russian Civil War and Irish Independence War as direct continuations of WWI. We're technically still in final phases of timeline of original series.
i feel the same, they are amazing
Excellent
It's just a shame what they did to the man who created the channel, created its tone and signature style (Indy Nidell). He made this channel... and he doesn't get anything from it.
@@carlpolen7437 I remember him leaving and doing new stuff and basically handing it off I thought? Are they snubbing him or something? He gets nothing? I can still hear him say, "I'm indy nidell, welcome to the great war" in my head lol. I hope you're wrong but knowing how the world is I'm not assuming you are
"Finally, when they could stand it no longer, they began doing what every army dreamed of doing-they began to go home."
And then got engulfed in a brutal Civil War afterwards
I would love to see a video that explains how Russian soldiers were tired of war, mutinied, escaped, etc in 1917 but in a very short time there were many soldiers fighting for the Red Army, White Army, Anarchists, etc. Were they the same soldiers?
What the video misses is that the provisional government not just promised to continue the war, but specifically until the capture of the Dardanelles Islands. Which killed all illusions about the war goals and truth character of new government.
Long story short, the soldiers were not against fighting, but for the right cause.
@@Dragoot
That isn't any "long story short." And I doubt that very many private soldiers knew the difference between a Dardanelle and a Constantine or a Constitution. Some of them probably thought it was a machine that made bread.
As Chris pointed out in his question, half or perhaps more of the people fighting after the collapse of the Tsarist government in Moscow were fighting for the Whites, or for a variety of local warlords. I don't think you are likely to think of as any of them "the right cause." Again, maybe they thought a Kolchak was a machine for making loaves of bread.
@@TheDavidlloydjones It was explained to them by the Bolsheviks.
And all the warlords had proud pro-tsarist or pro-democratic slogans
@@Dragoot You are simplifying an extraordinarily complex situation. As the Imperial institution and army disintegrated, it left a vacuum where every person made a personal decision on what to do and whom to support. Even when they were press-ganged by the various factions, they could and did desert or sandbag.
The provisional government and army leaderships greatest failure was in not getting ahead of the revolutionaries and in not having leaders with the charisma and right mindset to motivate the rank and file. For too long they clung to the old way aristocratic assumptions that troops would just do what they were told.
Real Time History and The Great War have many videos that go into depth about this period and the civil war.
Thank you for continuing these documentaries, even after November of 1918. I don't know how much of your team has changed, but I love Jesse's (and crew) presentations as much as Indy's (and crew)
Thank you, for keeping the History flowing
Same. I sub to both channels and both are some of the best history on TH-cam (on anywhere, really). Bravo bois
The Russian Army collapsed for the same reason it is collapsing now in 2023.
@@handsomeman-pm9vy This is already funny. And what happened to the Russian army in 2023?
@@handsomeman-pm9vyI don't see any signs of a Russian Army collapse coming very soon
@@handsomeman-pm9vyUkranian collapse is more likely if you follow the actual truth not propaganda
It makes me sad that we rarely get a picture of the micropolitics going on. How many times have divisions collapsed because morale was lost specifically in response to the actions of one commander, and it goes down in history as just one army being better?
Or in modern terms, oversimplified makes a meme out of it
They did?
If the Russian Civil War is interesting to you I suggest you learn about the series of Chinese Civil Wars(1911-1949). I find the general situation to be somewhat similar with an abundance of local warlords and an eventual Communist takeover. The individual soldiers typically didn't know what was happening and were fighting for the age old cause of getting something to eat.
@@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 I'm actually very interested in that, as well, but my knowledge on the topic is very superficial. If you have a book or video series on that to recommend, I'd be grateful.
That's actually normal. Both historians and military trainers will tell you that winners often think they are failing until it's over, because they are just marginally competent, but keep it together and stay less incompetent than their enemy in a chaotic situation. Usually they are surprised they eon. Look up the "Dunning-Krueger" effect. It is about students, but it applies very much to military units.
21:44 a noteworthy picture: the Russian soldiers are armed with Japanese Arisaka rifles. Due to a staggering deficit of small arms early in the war, Russia was forced to purchase all rifles they could get. From modern Japanese Type 30 and Type 38 Arisakas to old, black powder rifles like the Italian Vetterli-Vitalis and French Gras. The Japanese rifles were brought in in largest numbers, with the Arisakas becoming a second standard in the Russian army, and later the Red Army, along with the 6.5mm Japanese cartridge. They also ordered new rifles in the USA, with Remington manufacturing new Mosin-Nagants (most of which were never delivered due to issues with Russian quality control officers, and ended up in the American Expeditionary Corps to Russia) and Winchester redesigning their lever action M1895 into the M1915, made to Russian specs. What remains of those hectic purchases is a surprising variety on the Eastern European antique firearms collectors market.
Latvian Riflemen units, formed in 1915, were armed with Winchesters since day one.
That’s a sad commentary in it of itself, the fact that the giant Russian empire couldn’t even produce enough homegrown weapons for their soldiers and instead had to rely on other countries is sad. The US had the biggest domestic arms industry in the world and it wasn’t even 150 years old.
@@gloverfox9135 It's not just a case of lacking manufacturing capacity, but also of abysmal planning and lack of foresight. Once the production of Mosin-Nagant rifles was up and running in Russia, they were making a huge amount of rifles to equip their standing army and stockpile the mobilization reserve, as every country did, and when this was accomplished, production was significantly slowed down. The amount they stockpiled was quickly verified as painflully small, when at the end of 1914 they had an army of 6.5 million men and only 4.5 million rifles. In summer of that year, the General Staff estimated that they needed about 100 000 new rifles delivered per month just to keep up with the losses (so not taking into account the needs of newly formed units), and their industry could deliver some 42 000 in their best months. They calculated that if the war were to last three years, they'd need some 11-12 million rifles, almost thrice as many as they managed to make between 1891 and 1914. When in 1915 the British suffered a shell crisis, the Russians were suffering a general munitions crisis, where they lacked not only artillery shells, but plain rifle ammunition too.
I've handled a deactivated Remington-made Mosin-Nagant in a play about the Finnish Civil War. It was clearly a quality gun.
They were not the only ones. The British also had a shortage of rifles for their rapidly growing army, and Japanese Arisakas were also sent to Britain, though as far as I know they were only used in training or behind the lines. A British soldier recorded in his memoirs using one in training. He said it was necessary to spread a blanket under the rifle because if you turned a metal rose on the side of it the whole rifle would come apart and there was a danger of a vital piece going missing.
Huzzah!! Back to the Eastern Front of WW1. Gonna be honest, I was worried we wouldn't get more Great War vids but as always, Jesse and co never fail to drop more hits.
more ww1 videos incoming
@@TheGreatWar Can't wait!!!😄😄😄
@@TheGreatWarno sooner do I think, what can the possibly tell me that I have not heard? You simply rise to the challenge and surpass my expectations. 👏!
Glad to see Jesse is still doing this channel. Truly a gem and a treasure of the internet, I hope these episodes remain on the web forever.
Ohh,. it's revisionist history so it isn't going ANYWHERE,.lol~
it really shows you how demoralised the army was that it collapsed so quickly
I think it has more to do with terrible policy by the provisional government.
France also has massive mutinies who refused to do offensives but France executed hundreds of mutiniers and promised to not do any major offensives in 1917. Only doing a small one in Verdun in August and another in October
true@@billyosullivan3192
Coming again soon
1915 had been the worst year for the Russians - Russian Poland was given up after the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive by the Germans and A-H, one of the most obscure events of WW1 for Westerners but far-reaching. 1914 had seen defeats by Germany but victories over A-H, and in 1916 Brusilov nearly knocked A-H out of the war altogether. But victories as well as defeats took a toll.
@@billyosullivan3192france was under attack in their core territory and memories were still fresh when germans marched to Paris taking Alsace-Lorraine with them. Same way the broken italian army regrouped and held after being pushed from the advanced line back to the Piave river. Patriotic slogans were true (to some extent). Russians were fighting a war in Lithuania, Ukraine and Romania, hundreds of kilometres from their home
After Russo Japanese War, Nicolas should have avoided any war until military reforms had been successfully implemented.
The Russian General Staff felt they'd be ready by 1916...
Nicolas did try to avoid war, German declared war on Russia on August 1st, Austria declared war on Russia on August 6th. Russia only sent a declaration of war to the ottomans after they attacked the black sea bases
@@billyosullivan3192 Germany declared war on Russija after it began to mobilize for war, had Russija not mobilized but merely tried to save Serbija diplomatically, nobody would declare war on them cos who wants to fight Russija when they dont have to.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Russia tried diplomacy but on July 26th Germany and Austria said they wouldn't accept any mediation. Russia also pressured Serbia to accept the ultimatum
@@billyosullivan3192 So keep trying diplomacy. Its not Russija thats getting invaded.
Also, the destruction of the Guard Corps in 1916 was the death knell of the Czars. The Corps itself symbolised Russia in the arrogance of the officer corp and the loyalty of the ordinary soldier. They died in senseless frontal attacks because 'the Guard does not go in the back door' i.e. manoeuvre to limit casualties. If Petrograd had these 60,000 men the whole outcome might have been different in an alternative history type of way.
Love the in-depth WW1 content you guys produce
Thanks!
Really nice to see you guys upload on this channel again :-)
Either im hallucinating or Great War remembered password after 4 months
Luigi Cadorna locked them out while planning another Isonzo River offensive
Good things come to those who wait...
I think what's lost in the impact of the Russian Revolution, is that the war was exceptionally stressful and multiple belligerents cracked up under the pressure, which isn't the same as a military defeat. For example, Belgium was decisively defeated in the field, until the end, but actually didn't crackup. The same was true of Serbia and Romania, which had to exit the war because Russia cracked up. A crackup is where the armies have not suffered decisive defeat, but the empire or nation bails on the war (and there is more than one way a crackup can happen).
Britain and Germany were relatively resilient, but the blockade drove all the Central Powers toward crackup. The United States effectively was immune to crackup under the circumstances, though there was some chance that domestic support for belligerency could end. Arguably, though Germany absolutely was defeated in the west in 1918, the defeat would not have been decisive if it plus the blockade didn't drive crackup. Daily food privation is stressful, at the front and at home.
Bulgarian crackup in September 1918 ended the war. The reason was that Bulgaria had achieved all of its war aims, but could not exit because this was not Balkan War 3, it was World War 1. Bulgaria had to continue to endure the stresses, privations, and casualties of war, on top of those of the two Balkan Wars because Bulgaria had leveraged outside allies to triumph in the Balkans but the Bulgarian army and people no longer were willing to go along with, and pay the open-ended price of, the terms of that deal.
The first belligerent to approach crackup was France, during the Nivelle Offensive, but France pulled back from the brink. Curiously, part of the reason was that the United States had entered, creating huge expectations which were dashed when France, which had suffered much, realized just how LONG it would take (about 4 to 6 calendar quarters) for the United States to bring meaningful force to bear in France.
Caporetto threatened Italian crackup but the geography and pace of advance didn't catalyze fast enough and Italy recovered, though it did shift to a passive strategy until near the end.
Austria-Hungary lived with the crackup threat for the whole war, but managed it partly out of habit. When crackup came in September and October 1918, the war already was lost.
Turkey suffered rebellion, but did not crack up. The Turkish core held, and held throughout defeat and through postwar war.
And Russia, a known fragile state before the war, and where war entry papered over that fragility in the 1914 patriotic wave, actually cracked up. Though it suffered military defeats, these defeats were not decisive against Russia's size and resources. Losing Poland and Lithuania itself did not send Russia over the edge. The Russian soldiers simply were not willing to continue the war, they were not motivated and they had an alternative means of organization with which they destroyed the authority binding them to the war. (They did not destroy authority or war, such as communist ideologues falsely preach is possible, but they did destroy the specific authority at the time binding them to the specific war at hand, and that always is possible).
Crackup can have more than one fracture line. The stresses of war, for example, the death toll and food privation, eventually radically democratized formerly authoritarian Germany because the German people had paid such a massive price. France, by contrast, was defending itself, so motivation ordinarily was not a question. A German people rock-solidly behind the war in 1914, with no questions or doubts, wanted answers by 1918. They demanded accountability from their warlords. Moms who lad lost husbands and sons, wanted to know when their young kids would eat enough. Where was the victory dividend from the East, the Polish and Ukrainian and Romanian food? (Answer: amid the wreckage of war, the mobilization of the eastern enemies' farming populations, and the late revolutionary chaos in the region, there was no short term dividend). And why had that dividend, whatever its value, been negated when you fools made a lunatic offer to the unstable regime in Mexico? The number of American troops didn't really matter, and the German people had confidence in their army, but what was the plan for making the United States quit? Now our U-boats are fighting all of the world's strongest navies combined? Their President of all their immigrants is going to promise independence to - How is the war to be won? It can't be won anymore, can it? (True) And so our millions will have died for nothing?! (True) The angry, unanswerable questions were inescapable.
Belgium had a significant army in the field from 1914 to 1918
@@Ukraineaissance2014 True. Also, Belgians fought in Ukraine! Did you know? Look up the Belgian Expeditionary Corps of Armoured Cars in Russia (Corps Expeditionnaire des Autos-Canons-Mitrailleuses Belges en Russie).
The question of crackup is linked to the impact of American entry. (FD: I am American)
I lived and worked in Britain for years, and speak French fluently and have lived in and visited France and some of its former colonies.
British people largely seem to be of the opinion that America played no meaningful role in WW1. ...I understand why they think this, and part of the reason they think this is that the war's stress level, though very painful for Britain, was probably lowest for Britain of all the EUROPEAN belligerents. However, though Britannia ruled the waves in WW1, America had a large navy and being able to deploy it fully helped Britain (and France and Italy) be more food secure, or help moot the U-Boat war.
The stress level for France was much higher for obvious reasons and French people believe American entry was important. First, it was important mentally, because it enabled French people to see a light at the end of this very dark tunnel. Second, eventually, from 2Q to 4Q 1918, American might mattered militarily. There by then really were enough trained American troops at the front to give the Entente a durable advantage. The American troops also were fresh and completely lacked war weariness, and their numbers were only going up.
American entry's impact on crackup was pivotal because American entry repurposed the war.
As long as the war was just a big clash of empires, Austria-Hungary for example was quite safe. Once America enters, Austria-Hungary's days are numbered, also for an obvious reason. There is no need for many American troops to fight in Italy for the stress level on the Habsburg war effort to severely ramp simply because of what President Wilson started publicly promising. The Poles, Czechs, South Slavs, and others except Germans and Magyars, immediately will start asking themselves some questions about what their motivations really are. And they will ask these questions to each other, quietly, in their own languages. Given some time and development, what happens next is what actually happened next, and anyone could predict that.
As for Germany, the stress level also ramped. The U-boat war now was lost, the Entente suddenly had abundant food, and there was no credible answer to American entry. There was no way anyone could think of, for Germany to defeat America, strategically. Sure, tactically, German forces could win battles against American forces. But strategically, forcing America to quit was about as realistic as forcing Mars to quit if Martians sided with France. And anyone can do the math that the quantity of American troops in France was only going to rise. The answer the German leaders had for the people was that clearly the war had to be won fast in a decisive hammer blow (Operation Michael, etc.), which, impressive though German Western Front gains in Spring 1918 were, just isn't a very inspiring answer under the grueling circumstances. Once the German people (much less the war lords) can't figure out how the war can be won, the full weight of the colossal but pointless, and indeed counterproductive (!), human and material sacrifice starts to sink in, and pretty soon...
The irony here, is that when Italy entered in May 1915, German officials bitterly castigated Habsburg officials for their "idiocy" in "allowing that to happen." History does not well record how Habsburg officials responded when they learned that Germany's foreign minister officially had promised to give three American states to Carranza or Zapata or Pancho Villa or Huerta or who cares.
It turned out that the crucial military decision came in September 1918 in the Balkans where no American forces were fighting, but, none of that invalidates the impact.
@@Brian----- Germany was decisively defeated in the field. Only after the army asked for an armestice in October did ten home front fall apart.
Blockades did far more to harm Russia than Germany.
Stab in the back myth permeates so much of ww1 discussions you don't realise untill you take a step back
Please talk about the Russian General who tried to be Genghis Khan.
Ah yes, Baron von Ungern Sternberg. They did a Who did what in WW1 episode about him a few years ago
he's a wonderful character@@indianajones4321
The provisional government made some of the worst decisions that could be made in such a frail situation. They refused to sign an armistice and give up imperial ambitions well after entire divisions deserted or went rogue. The men just wanted to go home and I don’t blame them, since they never asked to be thrown into the worst war a soldier could be thrown in, in the first place
It was only a dirty Imperialist war to the Russian, German, and British soldiers. For the Belgians, the war was entire justified. Their country had been invaded because it was merely in the way. The Belgian memory of WW1 is much more positive and patriotic than many of the other nations who don't know exact why they are fighting. It is all about perspective.
Especially when they promised to pull out of the war at the beginning and when they didn't they lost the people trust literally right away
What he didn't mention was that some parts of the Provisional Government were SR's who wanted to keep fighting the war believing they could spread the revolution and/or its ideals to Europe who would then rise up with them and do the same, thus leading to a European wide Socialist Revolution. It didn't work at all, even after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920, and a lot of the people who initially supported it falling into group think had it later used against them by Stalin as "continued support for Imperialist ambitions"
@@genericyoutubeaccount579
If we're talking imperialistic warmongering, nobody comes even close to France, that started WW1 out of a sheer hunger for territory and bloodshed, since they were so upset at being defeated in their 1870 invasion of the German States.
The centerleft of the entire European continent was exceptionally thick regarding ww1. It opened the way for extremists
My great-gramps fought in the Russian Army as a Cossack cadet in 1917 - he was about 18 years old then. Early in the year, he was accepted to Platov Cossack Military Academy in St. Petersburg - right after the February 1917 revolution. His admission paper read: "For your admission, please be so kind to pay -5- *50* roubles to the -treasury- *treasurer*", with words in bold being written with a pen over a printed text.
On the summer, the cadets were sent to the "practical exercises". He managed to see the Austrian trenches once, reporting on those being comfortable like apartments. Soon, though, he's got a concussion and was out of action. Eventually, in order to survive, he joined the red army as a cook. His characteristics read "no physical handicaps" - while in fact he almost loss his hearing and half of his buttocks due to the explosion that caused the concussion, "analphabet" - he actually spoke 5 languages.
Great to see you guys back! Been missing you!
:)
Excellent video thank you love the attention to detail.
Lack of detail ,.Completely and utterlly,.
Do your OWN reserch and then Re-watch the video~
I think the "Finnish units" discussed here refer to Russian military units stationed in Finland during peacetime or units named after those that fought in the Finnish War of 1808-09 because the Grand Duchy of Finland didn't have conscription at the time. Russians didn't see Finns as reliable subjects after 1902-04 draft strikes and their resistance to Russification, instead forcing the Duchy to pay for their military occupation by Russians.
This is the Guards Finnish Reserve Regiment of the Russian Army. It was a regular russian unit that had just the name "Finnish" because legacy reasons.
Yea, I had to google this because I was pretty sure only Finnish officers were serving in WW1 in the imperial army. But this kind of discredits this youtube historia. If he is referring that there are finns on the frontline, what other things is he presenting as fact? Problem with badly qualified historians is that they often miss things like this when they read documents literally.
Why would they not draft Finnish people? Also didn’t Chechens fight for the Red army?
This is a great program. I wish there were more long time episodes.
Don't forget there was Russian troops fighting in the Western front fighting well into 1918 alongside the Allies
That's before they were brainwashed by the Soviets
Two Russian brigades in France and one brigade on Balcan front In France fight Rodion Malinovsky future Marshal of Soviet Union
Yes I’ve been eating forever for this video, thank you Jessie❤
Well, Germany certainly succeeded with their goal of having Lenin create chaos. A perfect example of short-term thinking with vast consequences.
Lenin gave huge territory and super terms to Germany when he surrendered
Had Germany not lost Lenin gambit would have badly backfired for him
@@KonradvonHotzendorfdevil takes care of his own
"Germany" didn't send Lenin, "German Zionists" did, from Switzerland.
"ZIONISM" ? ! ? ! How does that have anything to do with Russia ???
Dunno. That's what Marx was. Lenin was. All but TWO members of the 1917 politburo were. ALL the leaders of the Cheka and then the NKVD were. Don't see Zion anywhere . .
Short-term indeed. Although no one could have predicted that less than three decades later the mans' portrait would be in office buildings and his statues in all the cities it what must have been half the pre-WW I country. He didn't do it himself, but he did enable people like Stalin to take power.
If this no sense continues in GB,Germany,France Ireland etc. It will all be Russian
What if the Provisional Government did not launch the disastrous Kerensky Offensive in July 1917? Did the Provisional Government have any alternatives to a summer offensive in 1917? What if they had simply stayed on the defensive?
I for one think it was too late. There was no order in Russija anymore.
I think that attack was seen as needed because they wanted to prove to the Allies that they were still alive and well and if they didn’t attack the army was gonna disband itself since there was no reason to keep them armed and not attacked at least in men’s minds ( also they wanted a great military victory to unite them and give them hope and courage that they could still win) but I agree Russian could gone another way had they stopped the earn brought the men back under hood order cause before the attack the men WERE willing to defend the government but after the attack many lost heart and also the war could also gone another way had the tzar done so many things I’m more of the opinion that had the tsar stayed in power Russian could become a wonderful ally and things in the region would never of gotten so screwed up
There were no units consisting of Finnish soldiers since even before the First Russian Revolution of 1905. Of course there were troops in Finland, but that a completely different matter than what you're purporting. The last Finnish troops were disbanded in 1902. When using Russian language sources, you must differentiate between Native Finnish troops (Финcкий = Finskiy) and Финляндский = Finlandskiy, meaning Russian Imperial troops placed in Finland.
I’d imagine they would of got people from Poland and Finland to fight in the red army? Also what about Chechens? They are technically not Russian.
Wow. "The Great War" is also on Nebula. Thank you. Great video.
Thanks a lot to the team for another excellent video! Great as always. Greetings to the team!
I want to thank you for putting the ad at the end. I even watched it becuase you guys deserve it. Thank you for making such great content and continuing to do so.
The written speech at 2.50 could have been written by any soldier at the front, east-west, allied or central powers. In 1917 the heels nearly came off in so many places as they had burned through, literally, their resources of manpower and production.
I feel like any time that the Imperial Russian Army of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is described as one of the most powerful in the world, it needs a dozens asteriks next to it. It was so hindered by lack of supplies, lack of effective leadership, lack of railways, lack of training. I wouldn't quite call it a 'paper tiger', but maybe a cardboard one?
Much like the modern Russian army
With the exception of ww2
@@bertrecht913 and know they can't even take a punch of potato farmers
@@potato88872 Stalinist USSR isn't imperial Russia
@@jonathanwilliams1065 Modern Russia is plauged by a different problem one is corruption and everything else is a by product doesn't matter what they call it
My grandfather lost his leg in WWI. He returned from the front when he was 18 years old. ….
My grandfather (mothers father) was poisoned by gases At night coughed violently Meanwhile worked in the mine in Donbass Died in 1968 From what country You are?
two things: 1.) This video is very well done and exposes the confusion that occurred there. 2.) It underscores to psalm: "Do not put your trust in Nobles or the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs". It shows how important it is to be neutral in today's politics and of course, wars.
Amazing as always!
Thanks!
@@jessealexander2695please cover the African campaigns of WWI
The last line hits hard!
A most useful historical perspective.
And-Hi Flo!
I'm sorry when I saw the title I thought you were talking about this morning. Then I saw the picture of Nicholas II.
0:12 That's one of the tallest guys in the world, the czar look so small next to him.
That would be Grand Duke Nikolai, cousin of Czar Nikky. He was 6'6".
They should have kept him.
So sad.
I always found it sadly ironic that the men most likely to remian loyal to the Czar had died in 1914-16.
He never was really popular (justly or not).
Guard units and Cossacks, traditionally mainstays of Tsarism, did suffer especially heavy casualties.
Können Sie mal ein video über Belarus 🇧🇾 machen von 1918 bis 1921 ?
We need more content about Belarus!
Lucky you, living in Vienna. Great & informative video.
I did not realize the problem was officers treating the soldiers as rebels causing rebellions.
I mean, that's exactly what it was, though. You can argue whether the soldiers were justified in doing so, but them being rebels causing rebellions is an entirely accurate view of what happened.
That was not the problem. The problem was them not doing what would have to be done to make them go back to being seen as heroes of the empire.
Paranoia is one of THE most toxic emotions that can poison an army.
@@paulsillanpaa8268 Completely breaks down regimental spirit and interunit cooperation.
It was more than that. Life is not black and white. Be less primitive
Another great video from The Great War creates. Learning about Russia's part in the first world war is refreshing. Well done 👍
Another great collaboration with Sofia Shirogorova, keep doing that!
She is great!
*valery zaluzhny furiously taking notes*
Alexey Navalny bingeing in prison...
Evgeny Prigozhin six feet under
too late @@Gorboduc
This is real documentary making- thanks Dr Alexander
An excellent explanation
Thanks!
Linde's story sounds like that scene from Dr. Zhivago and the deserters killing the officer trying his best to convince them to fight on.
I see a big mistake in the map at 0:55 , in the south there was a Romanian army, not Russian. So, the 4th Russian Army is in fact the 4th Romanian Army (general Constantin Prezan).
Conscripted peasants never been happy to fight for the tsar. Since officers died in mass, a newely formed forces were not able to keep the army under control.
My greatgrandfather was conscripted in 1914, in 1917 he joined the bolsheviks, since 1918 he served in Lenin's security guard for 1 year.
14:40 It may sound better in Russian, but I was not inspired - and I haven't been fighting for 3 years.
18:50 You have just been listening to a press release from The Ministry Of No Bloody Surprises.
Thank you for the lesson. It answered my question as to whether the Provisional Army, could have kept fighting if Lenin, had been arrested in July of 1917.
Great work on this video! Keep up the great content!!
It’s super ironic that I just got done reading the WW1 section of “A People’s Tragedy” by Orlando Figes. Really depressing stuff.
Indeed.
Informative video. Nice work!
This is quite new for me. So the so called "October revolution" was actually rather a second military mutiny of 1917. Thank you for this important information!
More of a political coup at the top, amidst a parallel and partly (but not fully) related continued military mutiny in the ranks, if you will.
@@jessealexander2695True. The bolshevic rule was never popular nor spontaneously emerging from the people, contrary to the communist pretense. According to their own ideological doctrine, the communist revolution should not even have happened in Russia, but rather in industrialized countries such as the UK.
The Bolsheviks had some support amongst factory workers, but not amongst the majority of the rest. Although many peasants for a brief period (1918-1920) tolerated them as a better alternative to the land owners. @@herptek
@@jessealexander2695 Communism was an ideology of serfs and factory workers in the early twentieth century. Free peasantry was the great enemy to them.
@@jessealexander2695 The bolsheviks had the majority in all the Soviets by October. The Slogan All Power to the Soviets began in Petrograd and the Red Guards arrested the traitorous Kerensky who was communicating with the counter revolution Army General Kornilov who would have drowned the revolution in blood. The mensheviks walked out after the vote after which Trotsky told them to go walk into the dustbin of history.
Never knew the details of this time, thanks for the history lesson.
You still don't~
Sound overview. In hindsight, Kerensky should never have ordered an offensive in the summer of 1917. Part of the problem, though, was that many people saw the French Revolution as the the template for all revolutions. They hoped that the February Revolution (in March) would create citizen soldiers the same way that the French Revolution had with the Levee en masse of 1793. They also counted on the American entry into the war on the side of the Allies in March 1917. With Russia, the US, France and Britain all in one vast coalition, the defeat of the Central Powers was inevitable, so it made sense on a grand strategic level to continue fighting. The difference, of course, was that Russia was far more war weary in 1917 than France was in 1793. And the average Russia peasant soldier didn't care about grand strategy. In this context, Lenin's slogan, "Peace, Bread, Land" was one of the most effective political programs of all time, because it appealed to most Russians. The great tragedy, of course, was that the disintegration of Russia in 1917 led to the even worse October Revolution and the Russian Civil War.
Kerensky issued the offensive because he wanted it to Fail,.
They couldn't overthrow the government if the army kept having success~
@@matthewmatt5285 That sounds very doubtful. Why would any leader want an offensive to fail on their watch? Why would the Russian generals agree to such an operation? Why would Kerensky want his own government to be overthrown?
@@roberthanks1636 It wouldn't over throw the government,.
It would aid in ending the war,..Why else would you issue it? lol
There was still tons of fighting done to consolidate political power at home.
> Kerensky's father was the teacher of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) and had even secured him acceptance into the University of Kazan~
Kerensky was Bank-Rolled by outside Zionists like Jacob Schiff,..
This is Encyclopedia Brittanica :
--->>>>on March 15, 1917, Milyukov wanted to preserve the monarchy as a stabilizing force to coniue the war but found little support. The revolutionary tide was now running strongly against him. In the liberal provisional government under Prince Georgy Lvov, which Milyukov helped to constitute, he towered intellectually over his colleagues but was soon Outmaneuvered by the Socialist leader Aleksandr Kerensky, >>>>>> who Favoured a policy of Concessions to popular demands, -->>> NOTABLY on the question of taking Immediate Steps toward a negotiated PEACE.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The military heavily criticised Kerensky for his liberal policies, which included stripping officers of their mandates and handing over control to revolutionary-inclined "soldier committees" (Russian: romanized: soldatskie komitety) instead; abolition of the death penalty; and allowing revolutionary agitators to be Present at the Front. Many officers jokingly referred to commander-in-chief Kerensky as the "persuader-in-chief".
Excellent video!
It sounds like the Russian republic did not take time to reorganize before taking on this huge new offensive, or solidified power, though Lenin ofc didn’t make that easy.
Yes, it was a grave mistake. Just keeping the frontline could give them overall victory, USA already joined the war...
With German troops busy in the East there won't be German spring offensive, and probably with faster defeat there won't be Stab- In- The- Back myth.
And now imagine Germany had actually won in the west.
@@alexzero3736 USA joining the war didnt do much. It was still the battlehardened british and french that pushed in to Germany.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 also Canadians and Anzacs, but reinforcements from USA gave them operational freedom.
@@alexzero3736 "also Canadians and Anzacs" So british...
"but reinforcements from USA gave them operational freedom." I think they boosted morale more than anything.
Among the tragedies of the Great War perhaps the worst is that in August, 1914 Russia was the fastest growing country in Europe. And the war destroyed all that and left the legacy of the Russian Civil War won by the Soviets and the 70+ year nightmare of the USSR that included the destruction and death of The Great Patriotic War.
The biggest tragedy is the USSR collapse
@@DanielGarcia-kw4ep I triple-dog DARE you to say that in eastern Europe anywhere besides Russia. Try saying it to a Pole or a Ukranian, see what they think of that `tragedy`.
Add to this the collectivisation and kulak genocide. Destroying the willingness to work in the population, ceizing the most productive people's land and killing them.
We did the same in France when the edict of Nantes was repealed, all the protestants left, they were the merchant, artisan and birthing industrial class. The eceonomic hit as huge and its consequences in term of social attitude is still vivid today.
The Tzar and his cronies did have to go
But what replaced them 🥴
@@DanielGarcia-kw4epKGB Colonel Putin concurs with you.
@thegreatwar where did you find references to Finnish units in the Russian army? Finns were exempted from Russian conscription in 1900 and to my best knowledge Finnish volunteers in the imperial army served in Russian units, with no nationality-based Finnish unit ever existing during WW1.
Fabulous ending thank you! And another fabulous video 😀
I feel like the old series leaned too much into Austria-Hungary's shortcomings (perhaps even exagerated them) while it also failed to give credit to the Dual Monarchy when it was due (mostly writing up a great deal of the Central Powers' joint successes solely to the Germans). It would be nice to see some counterbalancing concerning this matter.
On this note, would you consider making a documentary about either Gorlice-Tarnow or Caporetto? Or maybe about the Austro-Hungarian homefronts, war production, or Hungary's wartime electoral suffrage debates?
An interesting request, and that would be something I'd watch.
I would still like a more thorough examination of Mackensen’s 1915 offensive pretty please. It was covered well in the main series but that is disjointed by the episodic nature
Merci Jesse, j'aime beaucoup le contenu que vous et l'équipe proposez gratuitement sur TH-cam. J'espère que vous aller continuer.
En effet, espérons qu'une autre armée russe retournera chez elle.
Bien dit!
Gardons espoir et entretemps, faut soutenir les ukrainiens.
Excellent video, informative, insightful and well explained. Too bad TH-cam has to shove ads every three minutes mid sentence.
Weird to think that this year was almost the Second Russian Civil War
Great Stuff.
This was an organized revolution, people on their own dont just decide to disobey orders in mass.
Yes they do. Often Happened.
Excellent presentation!
The russians showed great resilience in the war whereas when they saw their great strategy of charging into gunfire failed, they changed things up drastically and charged even more men into gunfire in the hope that the Germans would run out of bullets. Charge was a great great strategy.
I honestly don't understand why it took all the nations so long to figure that out
@@mikehurt3290 I think it's because although charging led to a great slaughter, these attacks were not without merit. They did manage to kill many thousands of the defenders. Tactics continued to evolve too, right from the beginning, so there was always hope that this time it would be a significant or decisive attack.
Спасибо американский мальчик,что объяснил нам-Дикарям с востока,что Русская императорская армия воевала путём того,что просто безостановочно бежала на артиллерийские снаряды.
Просто нам в наших лживых школах рассказывают,что Российская Империя в основном опиралась на массивный артиллерийский огонь и быстрые маневры,которые к сожалению привели к нехватке снарядов,но слава Богу ты всё объяснил
Informative, thanks
Fascinating.
Great video, well explained!
As early as September 1914, Eastern Front events showed that even in small numbers, Germany was capable of inflicting heavy losses to Russia. Actually, after suffering two consecutive defeats in Eastern Prussia - Tannemberg and Masurian Lakes -, Russias morale was severely affected, so much so that, between the Russian offensive in 1914 and the evacuation of Poland in 1916, the collapse of Russia was truly eminent, had not Italy joined the Allied side in 1915, forcing Germany and Austria - Hungary to place more troops in this Southern front.
So basically, the death of the Russian Army had already begun in the autumn of 1914, when it attacked Gernany.
To give an idea of how strong was Germany, even in 1918: when the Germans had realized that the Russians were delaying the negotiations, they decided to attack Riga, in the Baltic coast, in a violent and fast operation that made the city surrender in only three days...
Thank you.
The video clearly explained how order #1 destroyed the army and sewed chaos in the ranks.
It didn't explain WHY it was issued though,.
Which is HUGE in understanding what happened afterwards~
@@matthewmatt5285 Well, Why it was issued would be a very interesting topic.
@@williewonka6694 If you look up my comments which are NEW it will Begin to TELL YOU,..
This guy is a schill and you know what his tribe is hiding~
Revisionist history is his game~
Soo many comments here saying what a guud video this is,.
Do your OWN research bro~
You said it, Jessie!🌻
". . . creation of units based on nationality . . . ." Yeah, that worked so well for the Austrians. /snark
Honestly a brilliant video!
Thanks!
The Tsar should have sued for peace in 1916 and let Germany win. It would've been the best course for all of europe and i doubt that the peace would've cost more than brest litovsk
Ohh he wouldn't have had to give up near as much,.The Bolsheviks wanted the war to end tso they could consolidate power,.It still was a nasty 7-4 vote with the 4 AGAINST signing it at odds pretty much with the rest of the Revolutionaries afterwards,.Of course there was tons of backstabbing, assassinations, and changing of allegiances in the years to come,.But they knew they couldn't fight the Germans and the White Army adversaries at the same time to take control and make Russia a Communist Regime,.
This video goes into NONE of that stuff,.It's pretty pathetic and a 4th grade version of the real events which took place~
It's Deliberate~
Indeed, by 1916 (Austro-) German armies, only militarily occupied adjacent (Lithuania &) Napoleon's LANDLOCKED Warsaw-centric Congress Poland
Brest-Litovsk declared Eastern Europe's Cordon Sanitaire largely defining Proto-Soviet Russia's WESTERN borders for another century
Lest we forget the THREE of Continental Europe's largest (linguistically defined) territorial states FORMALLY recognised by (Imperial) Russia's WWI Allies at Versailles are NATO's "useful troublemaker"s
Great presentations thanks so much
Nice!
Very nice Video and intersting topic.
If you compare the grain situation of Russia with Britain of Germany you will understand that the "food shortage" and grain crash of Russia in 1916 is overrated.
It just enough to note that bread stores had some shortages in 1917 due to railroad overload. But bread stores didn't even exist in Germany by that time.
Doesn't matter if you can't transport the food or make it the effect is the same the people will starve and get angry maybe even revolt or riot if they are forced to long enough.
@@abdiabdi3225 Он вероятнее всего хотел сказать, что во время войны в России вовсе не было голода, как в той же Германии.
Thumbs up for pronounciation of Gorlice-Tarnów from a Polish person, you really pulled it off 🙂
The blockade of russian ports did far more to defeat russia than the blockade did to defeat Germany
And Russian industrialists have done even more for this.
Not really. The German economy was in at least as bad a shape as the Russian one was and the Austrian-Hungarian economy was even worse.
I'm surprised that morale was low at the end of 1916 after the success of the Brusilov offensive. Usually army morale tracks closely with victories.
The offensive was only partially successful. It badly damaged the Austrians but many Russian troops were disappointed the war continued and hat there wa no decisive strategic victory.
That was the reason Provisional Government issued Order Number One,.
To destroy the heirarchy and discipline of the Russian army,.
They couldn't get the masses on their side if the Army was doing well and winning victories~
Leo Trotsy was even quoted as saying Order Number One was """the Only worthwhile Document of THE February Revolution,".
This video is garbage to be kind~
it avoids multiple other circumstances that were at play during this tumutuous period,.
If you have any more questions let me know,.
I'm a Public Historian ALSO,..lol~
Not like this could ever happen again
right....
Lets hope so!
Another wonderful video, thank you for making this... what was the original series? I read a comment about it. I get so much out of these videos. I remember studying this in university, under an expert on Admiral Kolchak.
just look on our channel and sort the videos by oldest and start watching. that's our old ww1 documentary series
Very informative, as always, but like so many other sources, rather one-sided when it comes to Russian noble officers who fought in the Great War...
Fantastic video
communication is the key
Can you do a video on the Corfu incident it would be 100 years ago at the end of September?
I'm tired of these 20-minute commercials on TH-cam I'm downloading every single time I see anything over 1 minute on the commercials
Мой прадед воевал с 1914 на Северо-Западном фронте против немцев. Побывал в окружении в армии ген Самсонова, но вышел из него. Вернулся с фронта в деревню в Тамбовскую губернию в 1917, совершенно больным, из-за чего его даже в красную армию не мобилизовали... А в 1918 он уже умер от чахотки, оставив вдову с четырьмя детьми. Он вернулся с фронта в дождливую ночь и постучал в окно, чем перепугал всех.... Может он пришел просто попрощаться?
Such a sad story...
this channel rocks