Okay, I don’t want to be one of those people who constantly recommend a single channel but to be fair, Eastory’s video on Germany’s plan to win WWI goes farther than just 1914 and shows the mindset in that beautiful map style.
The technology really let them down due to how both advanced for the time, but yet slow some of the technology was e.g. Tanks, Planes etc. Also having the French, British AND Belgians fighting you together, no wonder both the Germans and the Western Allies dug trenches and started Trench warfare during the Great War.
Funnily enough the "No plan survives contact with the enemy" was said by the Elder General Moltke, the uncle of the Moltke who came up with the Schlieffen plan.
"I wouldn't say there was a fatal flaw in the Schlieffen Plan...The fatal flaw in the Schlieffen Plan was its inflexibility." The problem the German General Staff had in both World Wars was that they never had a particularly coherent strategy. They did Operations and Tactics as well or better than everyone else, but often relied on strategic gambles that rarely paid off. They managed to defeat the weakest great power opponent in each war, but never had anything like a serious strategy to end the wars on anything resembling favorable terms - despite starting both off with spectacular gains.
This is the same problem the confederates had. Big flashy maneuvers and tactical victories in service of ???????? strategic goals. The Union would be busy taking strategic supply lines and positions while the confederate generals were busy achieving "Stunning" tactical victories over the super important ... empty field.
@@jaypandya7441 You mean like the "Scythe" plan of Fall Gelb, 1940? Or do you mean they should have stayed on the defensive in the west and concentrated on Russia (as they wound up doing anyway from late 1914-17)?
11:50 To add on, Frances geography is both a blessing and a curse. Outwards it has basically perfect geography: Two large bodies of water, Mountains, thick forests. There is one main problem, and that would be part of the belgian border. Inwards it has relatively flat terrain, which is *perfect* for a country, as it can more easily moove goods/people around. However once an enemy passes into that part (which gets more Common past paris) its game over.
I found your channel a few days ago, and I absolutely love your content. You have one of the few channels where I would watch every single video no matter what, regardless if I'm interested in the content of the video or not. I love your input that you provide during each and every video, and I definitely learn something new each time. Props to you, you deserve way way more viewers then you have. Keep up the hard work, you just earned a subscriber!
People usually don't talk much about Austria-Hungary in WW1, i recommend to check an Armchair Historian video about it's army and why it wasn't a strong force. The main reason for me is not that it was poorly supplied with ammunition and etc., but cause of the multicultural compound of it.
@@Peregrin3 Yea, i experienced that in Hoi 4 Great War Redux when i played them. That system is really good, you can't just spam strong divisions cause of the supply depots, really makes you spend your resourses more carefully.
Not even to mention the Austria-Hungarian Arch-Traitor guy that was head of their intelligence that was feeding Russia information about basically everything from 1903-1913, just before the war. This led to Russia basically knowing a lot of Austria-Hungary's plans before they even implemented them.
@@serwall4700 Didn't know about that thx for the info. About their plans, Conrad von Hötzendorf was i charge of Russian front, he was a conservative commander with a poor knowledge of modern battlefield. The guy thought that his army(while being devided) would be able to compete with huge russian army, all he had to do was to stay in complete deffensive positions, but he chose to attack them)
@@ivkobear5291 you are contradicting yourself there sir, the modern war mentality at that time was that even on the defensive you have attack/counter-attack, even if you are outnumbered.
If you’re still looking for WWI-related videos leading up to your trip to Europe, check out the “Collapse of Austria-Hungary and the Almost Anschluss” series over on the Wayback history channel, going over the events of collapse day-by-day and mapping all the collapsing and short-lives states of the era.
Now, I might be way off on this, but wouldn’t America, and even Great Britain, not entering the war drastically affect the economy of the US? Possibly to the point that the Roaring Twenties would be very different from what we know.
It's kind of ironic: The USA became a truly great power because the UK and France were at war and the US made a killing off of trade with them. Without the UK in the war, the US economy would've been weaker, and without US intervention, they wouldn't have gotten the world staus that they did because they were a part of the war.
I see it as a massive "transfer of wealth" from the nations and empires of old to the indusreial rising power of the USA. Britain financed the war for a lot of the smaller contenders and paid in cash reserves and then gold and then finally absolutely massive loans. 100 years of saved up wealth vanishing in 2 or 3 years. So, I believe Great Britain remains significant for far longer and prolongs its colonial holds and America just does have as straightforward of a rise.
@@DarthAxolotl almost certainly. Germany wouldn't have imposed nearly as harsh of a treaty on the Entente as the Entente ended up imposing on them. They were only fighting for their allies, not for personal reasons.( Bismarck would've been horrified at the war, although he did predict it 30 years before, in 1888. Also predicted Wilhelm's abdication 20 years and 4 months ahead of time.)
@@richeybaumann1755 i wonder what bismarck would have thought of the time from 1914 to 1945, the steady demise of the empire he so carefully built. from the greatest power in europe, to being occupied and split between east and west for nearly half a century, and being the center stage to the cold war.
I always understood that a mixture of Von Kluck and Von Below's failure to work in unison and the fact that both were unsure of where French and British forces were in relation to their own units was the final nail in the coffin for the Schlieffen Plan.
I’ve always been really interested in ww2 history, I used to watch the military channel in middle school pretty religiously. Following you has made me interested in basically anything you discuss. It would be awesome if you could get some of these creators in a collab where you review their video and there’s an open dialogue on why y’all disagree or agree.
So first things is that Schlieffen knew that he wouldn't have battlefield information before a war started so lowly divisional commanders were given authority to deviate to fit the situation, so rather than a plan, it was more like a set of guidelines. Then the entire plan was based on the assumption that Britain wouldn't care about Belgium. But despite these flaws, it might have been a bit closer to succeeding than you think. The Germans sent 3 corps to the East at the last minute, and it was still a close fight. How could it be a close fight if the German plan sucked? Well, the French had a plan nearly as dumb.
@@DarthAxolotl To be fair this was a new era, and a major war between all the major European powers hadn't happen in quite some time. Nobody knew at the start of the war, warfare had changed so drastically. Even at the beginning of the war Germans were marching in lines(which they quickly ditched.)
I came across a couple of books you may be interested in about WWI. They are called The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark and Lunch with the Kaiser: Why Europe went to war in 19 by Michael Bennett.
Hi Chris! Just thought that based on my recent foray into the Bismarck Extra History series I could offer this: Much like how Bismarck couldn’t see a world without him, the loss of leadership from him basically caused Germany to lose everything, so did Hitler’s vision of Armageddon following Germany’s failure in WW2. I thought there’s quite a lot of rhyming history
I wonder what could have happened if the German priority was Russia. In my mind they could have easily transformed Alsace and the Belgian border into a sea of trenches making France unable to cross while focusing on the eastern front. Russia being attacked by Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans at the same time couldn't have lasted long. France remaining lonely in the war would probably surrender
Something I want to add about the US is at the start of the war the US had a very large German population that still had their culture and traditions. This lead to a large surge of support for Germany that only stopped when the British propaganda against Germany began with the invasion of Belgium and a wave of anti-German sentiment swept the US. So in this timeline the US would be more Germanic without forcing the German population to assimilate within the country it also might of influenced American trade with Germany.
Hey just wanted to post some info about a new variant in France right now, B.1.640.2. From what I can see it's only got a few cases, mainly in Marseille just want you to stay safe when you go on you trip!
Another outcome for the United States would have been continued royalties payments on the Springfield 1903. It was found to be a copyright infringement of the Mauser Rifle, The United States had captured a bunch of Spanish Mausers during the Spanish-American War and Springfield was tasked with designing what would be known as the 1903. US ordinance agreed to pay and about $200,000 was paid out before the payments were canceled due to the US entering World War 1.
The picture Cody uses to intro the US is of the British. The Americans used the Brodie Helmet and their uniforms looked similar, especially in black and white, but that's a British No1 Mk3 Enfield, which the US never used or made. Also, on the family identity, my dads family has a German sounding name, and has called themselves German for a long time. Come to find out, they're mostly French, but they identified themselves as German when they came to the US
I entirely agree....The only way I see this working is if the Belgian's open the door to the German's, such the the British Empire says its not our problem....there is therefore no immediate blockade of Germany by the RN in 1914 nor is the B.E.F. in Northern France assisting the French defend Paris.
Just a thought but I think you shoulf react to "The world of Kaiserreich" made by Cody as well, I think it'd be fairly interesting for you to experience a new world
I remember reading in grad school that in 1900 something like 30% of all Americans had either been born in Germany themselves, or else at least one of their parents (if not both) had been born in Germany. Germany-immigrants, and their first and second generation German-American descendants, made up a comparatively enormous minority of the US population when World War I broke out, and it's kind of mind-boggling.
Albertini points out that Italy and A-H had a number of disputes, and A-H stood firm on all of them, so Italy thought that it could get more from the Allies. The other main threat that Italy saw was its vulnerability to British sea power.
My Great Grandfather Immigrated about 20 years before ww1. He says he was Slovak (yet Czecholslovakia wasn't officially a country yet) so he identified as Austrian on the census instead of Hungarian. From my research he was drafted into WW1 as a translator in his 40s. I wish I had more of his thoughts (Journals etc) from that time period to see what he really thought. My grandfather (his son) said we were slovak. Refused to say from where (my mom's side is from the carpathian's so the line from Ghostbusters 2 "Only a carpathian would come back now and choose NY... Yes my family went through NY) that only we were slovak and not German/Austrian/Hungarian. Even going back to the earliest census data I can find (1910) My Great Grandfather lists as Austrian (for nationality) and in 1920 Slovak. From a DNA standpoint we are eastern european without a stitch of german (Russian, Ukraine, with deep emphasis on Slovakia, Romainia and the Caucuses).
Please check out the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin. He does some amazing work and he did a seies on WW1 called Blueprint for Armageddon. Before listening to it I thought of WW1 as being "boring" to study and learn about because I thought it was just 4 long years of static warfare but listening to its scope and destruction really changed my views.
Its interesting on the map that the only "American" self indentified is Tennessee / Kentucky and areas of the South and almost the entire Union identifies with German over American in the 20:42 graph (I googled it to see key data)
Another general channel you could check out is John D. Ruddy's "Manny man does history" videos. There are some videos where he is more opinionated but his history videos are pretty solid in my opinion.
When I was a kid growing up in New England, I had no concept of heritage other than being an American. With each generation, our background became more diverse. I had to do research to find out anything about us. I think that my grandmother's "New Amsterdam" Dutch background mixing with the English and Scottish opened up her view of marrying a man of Bavarian background. And those immigrants disavowed their allegiance to King Maxmillian Wittelsbach II of Bavaria in the 1840's and 1850's, not a country. They emigrated from the Paletinate., same area as the "Hessian" soldiers were drafted from, and the Amish emigrated from as well.
Hey Chris, love your content. Would you react to a video called ''How the founding fathers would see us today'' by Fire of learning. I think it would be very interesting to see your take on that subject.
I can only disagree in one point. I think the main reason why the Schlieffen plan failed was not that the British jumped in. The Main reason in my regard was that von Moltke was a very unsecure and inflexible Head of the Army. He did not come up with own ideas, or at least with alteration to the original plan from 1904. He even used the exact same numbers of troops Schlieffen had writen. With this Moltke ignored the fact that both armys, the german and the french where much bigger in 1914 then in 1904. So in the end it was Moltke that made the plan fail, because if Moltke would have added the additional troops the combined french and british troops would have lost at the Marne.
War is like what Mike Tyson said - Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth And then it breaks down to who can adapt the best as you said yesterday
I find this intresting personally I think the crazy thing about the great war Bismark on his death bed made a prediction not quoted a big conflict will start from the most foolish thing. Again not quoted but he was only 1 year off from when the great war started
I may be wrong but I was tought that Belgium did allow Germany to pass through but they get concerned because they didn't expect so many troops to pass throught so they thought it was an invasion of their land and started to attack.
From my, admittedly armature, studies it does seem like The Great War was inevitable. It seems like from the creation of Germany and the Franco-Prussian War that a desire for payback was present in the European theatre. After all, the whole Concert of Europe was enacted to try and prevent this inevitable conflict from arising. But that same research led me to believe that it was mostly military command that wanted the war to happen while also drastically underestimating the technology available at the time. Trench Warfare was used in some of the key sieges of the American Civil War and the casualties were shown in that conflict. The idea that Russia would not be able to mobilize as fast seems to fly directly in the face of how Prussia was able to mobilize so quickly in the Franco-Russian War. That said, I think the biggest factor in The Great War is if Austria-Hungary had pushed their war against Serbia sooner like the Germans had wanted them to do so, things may have gone differently. If I recall, the Russians were one of the first powers to start mobilizing. If Austria-Hungary had acted quicker, Serbia may have capitulated OR the war in the west may have kicked off sooner granting the Central Powers the time they needed
With the Schlieffen plan being fundamentally flawed, seems like the best strategy for Germany would've been to do absolutely nothing, save defend its western border. Italy would've likey joined the central powers, and (less likely) Britain as well, what with their German royal family and all.
I do think a more interesting thought experiment is what if Germany had abandoned the Schlieffen Plan before say 1912. If someone had the insight into the basic situation Germany faced in 1914 the edits would probably be defend the border with France with a sufficient force, some prebuilt trenches and Italian forces (since Germany doesn't crash into Belgium) while you work with Austria-Hungary defeat Russia. Then you can either settle with France having expanded German power at Russia's expense or realistically defeat them with the combined forces.
It would probably have been a better plan as the actual plan failed obviously - therefore I agree. But let's not forget that the french wanted revenge for 1871 and the region of elsass back. The industrial heart of Germany was in the west. So it could have been a disaster if the french attack would have gone through the defenses.
I know you watched the battle of Midway already but if you get the chance there is one from the Japanese perspective that is really 👍🏼👍🏼. Love your videos and go blue!🤣😂
I probably need to look a t Part 2 to fully develop this, but there’s another significant change in the US that doesn’t happen. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s - 1960s. Two key things led to that. The significant industrialization of the Northern cities was hastened by war related industry. Though that probably would have happened anyway it would have slowed so the Great Migration of the teens and 20s that was heavily driven by automobiles and urban industrial jobs would have happened differently. Second, a large part of the movement grew out of African American exposure to European sensibilities regarding race. If WW II doesn’t happen in a way that leads to a similar mass mobilization into Europe people like Medgar Evers (who was at D Day) don’t have the exposure that motivates the Movement to move forward when they did. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen in some form, DuBois and others had been working towards change since the turn of the 20th century, but it’s hard to see the huge organized movement that led to what it did being successful without the vision that came from Europe in the teens and twenties and that requires US involvement in WWI.
I think the Schlieffen Plan was doomed from the beginning. It was built on assumptions which weren't even true as it was devised, much less a decade later. Actually Germany had lost WW I in 1904 (if not earlier) by alienating the United Kingdom, failing to built a new alliance with Russia and being surprised by the Entente Cordiale between France and Great Britain. Bismarck's policy had been to isolate the humiliated France internationally and creating alliances and partnerships with the other powers, but Wilhelm's II erratic foreign policy led to a factual isolation of Germany and Austria-Hungary instead. The battle of Tannenberg was a great defeat for Russia, but the war in the East was in the end not decided by the military, but in the first place by the German secret service transferring Lenin from Switzerland through Sweden and Finnland to St. Petersburg. That said - the idea to defeat France first and Russia second could have worked if they had not stuck to the idea to attack via Belgium and if they had abstained from conquering every French fort on their way to Paris. Maybe it could also have worked the other way around: A quick victory in the East (without attacking Moscow or any of the Russian core regions, only taking Poland and the Baltic provinces, giving them independence as well as some of the Prussian-occupied regions back and making them buffer states) and then going west. But Italy fighting at the Allies' side was also a problem, binding German and Austrian troops in the Alps and at the same time protecting the French South. The losses in the mountain war were for both sides huge and made the war effectively a not winnable war on 3 fronts for Germany and Austria.
Some really interesting points here. Firstly, I think that the not fighting Britain was decisive. I don't decry the courage and sacrifice of the Belgians who fought long and hard but without Britain there the war is fundamentally different. The BEF fignting at Mons and the retreat at Le Cateau slowed down the spearpoint of the German First Army. The effects of the "Mad Minute" firing convinced German commanders they were walking into Battalions of Machine guns not rifles and those losses and the chaos caused by the fear of that possibility bogged down the German advance at a time where there was no allowance for delay, it also allowed time for the French to get their forces to the Marne. The Royal Navy would not have cut the telegraph line and the US Germans would have had it easier lobbyiing politicians against France (France and the USA have had an ungrateful history even in our reality). The Russians would pulverise the Austrians in either reality before taking lheavy defeats against the Germans. Perhaps if Russia could kick the Austrians out of Serbia they would make peace with Germany in early 1915 as the French have lost and they would have gained the reason for fighting? Germany would probably have been happy to talk.
I was wondering what your opinion on Gustav Stresemann is as I have heard people either think he made germany great / far better or just 'covered over the cracks'
You mentioned the cult of offense last video, meaning that the general idea at the time was that attacking was far better than defending. But then why was Germany so concerned at the French border defenses that they rather risked fighting Belgium and the UK right away than attack those forts? Seems odd to me
Dutch Lane has nothing to do with the Dutch in the Netherlands. It refers to Pennsylvania Dutch, which has nothing to do with the Netherlands, its German. That's why they changed it.
I'm still not sure this would work out that way. When France capitulated in the napoleonic wars and the war of 1870 the french military was already beaten. If it would work out by moving arround there would still be some military capacaties to do war or at least some kind of resistance movement if Germany occupies France, what the propably would have done. The british also wouldn't sit idly by and do nothing when their rival takes over Europe. They just might start to support Russia, support the french resistance or even join themselves.
In 1914, France wouldn't have surrender after the fall of Paris, the governement had already flee the capital and was ready to hold on at all cost, in 1814, It was different since France was exhausted after 20 years of nearly only wars, in 1871, France surrendered because the exhaustion of the country, but Paris had not fall, there was a fear of a revolution (the commune), and in 1940, France surrendered after the fall of the entire country, Paris was just a step in that plan
The reason France falls when Paris is captured is because Paris is the heart for all of France. Everything from railways to communication lines have to run through Paris, so capturing it effectively ends the possibility of organized resistance from the French.
The main problem with the Schlieffen Plan was that they underestimated the speed of Russia's mobilization. Russia wasn't ready at all for this in 1905 (when the plan was created), after they lost against Japan.
Any chance you could look at the Armchair Historian's video on WW1 from the Austro-Hungarian perspective? I feel like Austra-Hungary and why they were so ineffective always gets skipped over in WW1 discussions
If the Ottoman Empire still breaks up I really don’t see Britain sitting aside, I think they’d scoop up lots of territory in puppets or protectorates. With Britain not even being in the war it would be easy for them. Plus germany would allow Britian to go to was with the ottomans if to stay out of the European war.
Been looking forward to this since yesterday’s video. Loving the content
Same.
Okay, I don’t want to be one of those people who constantly recommend a single channel but to be fair, Eastory’s video on Germany’s plan to win WWI goes farther than just 1914 and shows the mindset in that beautiful map style.
Eastory does wonderful maps and animations, I would also highly recommend them. Not to mention they also work with WW2 in real time.
When you go to France I pray you visit Napoleon’s Tomb. That’s a wishlist location for me for sure.
I visited it once. It's quite interesting. :)
its well worth it. Les Invalides is amazimg
The technology really let them down due to how both advanced for the time, but yet slow some of the technology was e.g. Tanks, Planes etc. Also having the French, British AND Belgians fighting you together, no wonder both the Germans and the Western Allies dug trenches and started Trench warfare during the Great War.
Funnily enough the "No plan survives contact with the enemy" was said by the Elder General Moltke, the uncle of the Moltke who came up with the Schlieffen plan.
"I wouldn't say there was a fatal flaw in the Schlieffen Plan...The fatal flaw in the Schlieffen Plan was its inflexibility."
The problem the German General Staff had in both World Wars was that they never had a particularly coherent strategy. They did Operations and Tactics as well or better than everyone else, but often relied on strategic gambles that rarely paid off. They managed to defeat the weakest great power opponent in each war, but never had anything like a serious strategy to end the wars on anything resembling favorable terms - despite starting both off with spectacular gains.
The most basic thing is that if the German high command had implemented an inverse of the Schleiffen plan, they would have won
This is the same problem the confederates had. Big flashy maneuvers and tactical victories in service of ???????? strategic goals. The Union would be busy taking strategic supply lines and positions while the confederate generals were busy achieving "Stunning" tactical victories over the super important ... empty field.
@@jaypandya7441 You mean like the "Scythe" plan of Fall Gelb, 1940? Or do you mean they should have stayed on the defensive in the west and concentrated on Russia (as they wound up doing anyway from late 1914-17)?
11:50
To add on, Frances geography is both a blessing and a curse. Outwards it has basically perfect geography: Two large bodies of water, Mountains, thick forests. There is one main problem, and that would be part of the belgian border. Inwards it has relatively flat terrain, which is *perfect* for a country, as it can more easily moove goods/people around. However once an enemy passes into that part (which gets more Common past paris) its game over.
I found your channel a few days ago, and I absolutely love your content. You have one of the few channels where I would watch every single video no matter what, regardless if I'm interested in the content of the video or not. I love your input that you provide during each and every video, and I definitely learn something new each time. Props to you, you deserve way way more viewers then you have. Keep up the hard work, you just earned a subscriber!
People usually don't talk much about Austria-Hungary in WW1, i recommend to check an Armchair Historian video about it's army and why it wasn't a strong force. The main reason for me is not that it was poorly supplied with ammunition and etc., but cause of the multicultural compound of it.
It's because they didn't level up their railways and supply depots. (A little HOI4 humor)😅
@@Peregrin3 Yea, i experienced that in Hoi 4 Great War Redux when i played them. That system is really good, you can't just spam strong divisions cause of the supply depots, really makes you spend your resourses more carefully.
Not even to mention the Austria-Hungarian Arch-Traitor guy that was head of their intelligence that was feeding Russia information about basically everything from 1903-1913, just before the war. This led to Russia basically knowing a lot of Austria-Hungary's plans before they even implemented them.
@@serwall4700 Didn't know about that thx for the info. About their plans, Conrad von Hötzendorf was i charge of Russian front, he was a conservative commander with a poor knowledge of modern battlefield. The guy thought that his army(while being devided) would be able to compete with huge russian army, all he had to do was to stay in complete deffensive positions, but he chose to attack them)
@@ivkobear5291 you are contradicting yourself there sir, the modern war mentality at that time was that even on the defensive you have attack/counter-attack, even if you are outnumbered.
If you’re still looking for WWI-related videos leading up to your trip to Europe, check out the “Collapse of Austria-Hungary and the Almost Anschluss” series over on the Wayback history channel, going over the events of collapse day-by-day and mapping all the collapsing and short-lives states of the era.
Now, I might be way off on this, but wouldn’t America, and even Great Britain, not entering the war drastically affect the economy of the US? Possibly to the point that the Roaring Twenties would be very different from what we know.
It's kind of ironic: The USA became a truly great power because the UK and France were at war and the US made a killing off of trade with them. Without the UK in the war, the US economy would've been weaker, and without US intervention, they wouldn't have gotten the world staus that they did because they were a part of the war.
I see it as a massive "transfer of wealth" from the nations and empires of old to the indusreial rising power of the USA. Britain financed the war for a lot of the smaller contenders and paid in cash reserves and then gold and then finally absolutely massive loans. 100 years of saved up wealth vanishing in 2 or 3 years. So, I believe Great Britain remains significant for far longer and prolongs its colonial holds and America just does have as straightforward of a rise.
@@richeybaumann1755 ironically, if the plan worked Britian probably would still be the major world power along side Germany.
@@DarthAxolotl almost certainly. Germany wouldn't have imposed nearly as harsh of a treaty on the Entente as the Entente ended up imposing on them. They were only fighting for their allies, not for personal reasons.( Bismarck would've been horrified at the war, although he did predict it 30 years before, in 1888. Also predicted Wilhelm's abdication 20 years and 4 months ahead of time.)
@@richeybaumann1755
i wonder what bismarck would have thought of the time from 1914 to 1945, the steady demise of the empire he so carefully built.
from the greatest power in europe, to being occupied and split between east and west for nearly half a century, and being the center stage to the cold war.
I always understood that a mixture of Von Kluck and Von Below's failure to work in unison and the fact that both were unsure of where French and British forces were in relation to their own units was the final nail in the coffin for the Schlieffen Plan.
I’ve always been really interested in ww2 history, I used to watch the military channel in middle school pretty religiously. Following you has made me interested in basically anything you discuss.
It would be awesome if you could get some of these creators in a collab where you review their video and there’s an open dialogue on why y’all disagree or agree.
I was excited for this one 👍 keep up the good work Chris.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
So first things is that Schlieffen knew that he wouldn't have battlefield information before a war started so lowly divisional commanders were given authority to deviate to fit the situation, so rather than a plan, it was more like a set of guidelines. Then the entire plan was based on the assumption that Britain wouldn't care about Belgium. But despite these flaws, it might have been a bit closer to succeeding than you think. The Germans sent 3 corps to the East at the last minute, and it was still a close fight. How could it be a close fight if the German plan sucked? Well, the French had a plan nearly as dumb.
Oh and a fancy red and blue uniform that offered no protection and worked like an anti camo. You do you France.
@@DarthAxolotl To be fair this was a new era, and a major war between all the major European powers hadn't happen in quite some time. Nobody knew at the start of the war, warfare had changed so drastically. Even at the beginning of the war Germans were marching in lines(which they quickly ditched.)
Man I have been a subscriber for almost a year now and I just absolutely love your channel. If my friends were just as interested in history.
I came across a couple of books you may be interested in about WWI. They are called The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark and Lunch with the Kaiser: Why Europe went to war in 19 by Michael Bennett.
Love the videos!
My two favorite Buckeyes! I love both of these channels.
Very interesting. Thank you!
Good luck with your trip to France!
Hi Chris! Just thought that based on my recent foray into the Bismarck Extra History series I could offer this: Much like how Bismarck couldn’t see a world without him, the loss of leadership from him basically caused Germany to lose everything, so did Hitler’s vision of Armageddon following Germany’s failure in WW2. I thought there’s quite a lot of rhyming history
Cody also has a video on Kaiserreich, which is a Hoi4 mod covering a what if Germany Won I'd recommend.
Literally just finished watching the previous video, perfect timing!
I wonder what could have happened if the German priority was Russia. In my mind they could have easily transformed Alsace and the Belgian border into a sea of trenches making France unable to cross while focusing on the eastern front. Russia being attacked by Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans at the same time couldn't have lasted long. France remaining lonely in the war would probably surrender
Your videos make me stay an extra 30 min on the toilet. Eventually my cheeks are gonna fuse to the seat. Great video, VTH!
That’s a solid compliment
I love watching your videos most I'm already subscribed to and have seen already enjoy your added commentary
Something I want to add about the US is at the start of the war the US had a very large German population that still had their culture and traditions. This lead to a large surge of support for Germany that only stopped when the British propaganda against Germany began with the invasion of Belgium and a wave of anti-German sentiment swept the US. So in this timeline the US would be more Germanic without forcing the German population to assimilate within the country it also might of influenced American trade with Germany.
I love these bc of the endless possibilities to discuss and think of
Gotta say, even though it’s only for like 3 seconds, I love the Christopher Nolan sounding music in the intro
Hey just wanted to post some info about a new variant in France right now,
B.1.640.2.
From what I can see it's only got a few cases, mainly in Marseille just want you to stay safe when you go on you trip!
Another outcome for the United States would have been continued royalties payments on the Springfield 1903. It was found to be a copyright infringement of the Mauser Rifle, The United States had captured a bunch of Spanish Mausers during the Spanish-American War and Springfield was tasked with designing what would be known as the 1903. US ordinance agreed to pay and about $200,000 was paid out before the payments were canceled due to the US entering World War 1.
Great channels one of the best on TH-cam when are you going to do one on what if Lincoln had not been assassinated thanks great have a great day
The picture Cody uses to intro the US is of the British. The Americans used the Brodie Helmet and their uniforms looked similar, especially in black and white, but that's a British No1 Mk3 Enfield, which the US never used or made. Also, on the family identity, my dads family has a German sounding name, and has called themselves German for a long time. Come to find out, they're mostly French, but they identified themselves as German when they came to the US
I entirely agree....The only way I see this working is if the Belgian's open the door to the German's, such the the British Empire says its not our problem....there is therefore no immediate blockade of Germany by the RN in 1914 nor is the B.E.F. in Northern France assisting the French defend Paris.
Just a thought but I think you shoulf react to "The world of Kaiserreich" made by Cody as well, I think it'd be fairly interesting for you to experience a new world
In Sheboygan, WI, Lutheran Churches had primarily German speaking services until the 1960's WW1 didn't change that city much.
vloging thru history u ar my favorite youtubes
I remember reading in grad school that in 1900 something like 30% of all Americans had either been born in Germany themselves, or else at least one of their parents (if not both) had been born in Germany. Germany-immigrants, and their first and second generation German-American descendants, made up a comparatively enormous minority of the US population when World War I broke out, and it's kind of mind-boggling.
Albertini points out that Italy and A-H had a number of disputes, and A-H stood firm on all of them, so Italy thought that it could get more from the Allies. The other main threat that Italy saw was its vulnerability to British sea power.
My Great Grandfather Immigrated about 20 years before ww1. He says he was Slovak (yet Czecholslovakia wasn't officially a country yet) so he identified as Austrian on the census instead of Hungarian. From my research he was drafted into WW1 as a translator in his 40s. I wish I had more of his thoughts (Journals etc) from that time period to see what he really thought. My grandfather (his son) said we were slovak. Refused to say from where (my mom's side is from the carpathian's so the line from Ghostbusters 2 "Only a carpathian would come back now and choose NY... Yes my family went through NY) that only we were slovak and not German/Austrian/Hungarian. Even going back to the earliest census data I can find (1910) My Great Grandfather lists as Austrian (for nationality) and in 1920 Slovak. From a DNA standpoint we are eastern european without a stitch of german (Russian, Ukraine, with deep emphasis on Slovakia, Romainia and the Caucuses).
Please check out the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin. He does some amazing work and he did a seies on WW1 called Blueprint for Armageddon. Before listening to it I thought of WW1 as being "boring" to study and learn about because I thought it was just 4 long years of static warfare but listening to its scope and destruction really changed my views.
Would love to see another whatifalthist reaction
Great stuff, thanks 👍👍
I have A question for anyone which story do you like more: Southern Victory Series or Kaiserreich ?
Its interesting on the map that the only "American" self indentified is Tennessee / Kentucky and areas of the South and almost the entire Union identifies with German over American in the 20:42 graph (I googled it to see key data)
WWI has to be the most fun alternative history topic to ponder. I'm full of ideas rn
Have you got any videos in the conflict in Vietnam? Id like to hear what you say about it.
Another general channel you could check out is John D. Ruddy's "Manny man does history" videos. There are some videos where he is more opinionated but his history videos are pretty solid in my opinion.
Youve probably been told this a lot, but Sabaton is about to release another song, "Soldier of Heaven" in less than a day
When I was a kid growing up in New England, I had no concept of heritage other than being an American. With each generation, our background became more diverse. I had to do research to find out anything about us. I think that my grandmother's "New Amsterdam" Dutch background mixing with the English and Scottish opened up her view of marrying a man of Bavarian background. And those immigrants disavowed their allegiance to King Maxmillian Wittelsbach II of Bavaria in the 1840's and 1850's, not a country. They emigrated from the Paletinate., same area as the "Hessian" soldiers were drafted from, and the Amish emigrated from as well.
I grew up in Northeastern Ohio is a town called North Canton. It was called New Berlin prior to World War I.
Off topic, just curious: why would a city in Ohio be called Canton?
Love the channel and your videos, just commenting to pay my tax to the algorithm
Hey Chris, love your content. Would you react to a video called ''How the founding fathers would see us today'' by Fire of learning. I think it would be very interesting to see your take on that subject.
I can only disagree in one point. I think the main reason why the Schlieffen plan failed was not that the British jumped in.
The Main reason in my regard was that von Moltke was a very unsecure and inflexible Head of the Army. He did not come up with own ideas, or at least with alteration to the original plan from 1904. He even used the exact same numbers of troops Schlieffen had writen. With this Moltke ignored the fact that both armys, the german and the french where much bigger in 1914 then in 1904.
So in the end it was Moltke that made the plan fail, because if Moltke would have added the additional troops the combined french and british troops would have lost at the Marne.
The Schlieffen plan did not have a shut off mechanism, once the plan started it was extremely difficult or impossible to stop.
War is like what Mike Tyson said - Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth
And then it breaks down to who can adapt the best as you said yesterday
Vlogging though history: alternativehistoryhub did a 27 minute video going in depth about Germany winning ww1 called kaiserreich lore.
We pretty much saw what would happen if the plan worked. What we would have had was WWII but without the technology or UN model afterwords
I find this intresting personally I think the crazy thing about the great war Bismark on his death bed made a prediction not quoted a big conflict will start from the most foolish thing. Again not quoted but he was only 1 year off from when the great war started
I may be wrong but I was tought that Belgium did allow Germany to pass through but they get concerned because they didn't expect so many troops to pass throught so they thought it was an invasion of their land and started to attack.
Erie has a German St but as far as I know they never changed the name to Liberty. Mainly because we already had a Liberty St.
My favorite alt history scenario is what if the Soviet Union joined the Axis
From my, admittedly armature, studies it does seem like The Great War was inevitable. It seems like from the creation of Germany and the Franco-Prussian War that a desire for payback was present in the European theatre. After all, the whole Concert of Europe was enacted to try and prevent this inevitable conflict from arising. But that same research led me to believe that it was mostly military command that wanted the war to happen while also drastically underestimating the technology available at the time. Trench Warfare was used in some of the key sieges of the American Civil War and the casualties were shown in that conflict. The idea that Russia would not be able to mobilize as fast seems to fly directly in the face of how Prussia was able to mobilize so quickly in the Franco-Russian War.
That said, I think the biggest factor in The Great War is if Austria-Hungary had pushed their war against Serbia sooner like the Germans had wanted them to do so, things may have gone differently. If I recall, the Russians were one of the first powers to start mobilizing. If Austria-Hungary had acted quicker, Serbia may have capitulated OR the war in the west may have kicked off sooner granting the Central Powers the time they needed
With the Schlieffen plan being fundamentally flawed, seems like the best strategy for Germany would've been to do absolutely nothing, save defend its western border. Italy would've likey joined the central powers, and (less likely) Britain as well, what with their German royal family and all.
Not really. Even the Russians were related to the English monarchy.
Britain made the entente in-part because britain worried of a united germany rising in power rapidly.
Defend small border of france. That will take care of britain not joining tbe war. Attack russia while they are mobilising
It's kinda weird to watch this video from the early days of Cody's channel again
I do think a more interesting thought experiment is what if Germany had abandoned the Schlieffen Plan before say 1912. If someone had the insight into the basic situation Germany faced in 1914 the edits would probably be defend the border with France with a sufficient force, some prebuilt trenches and Italian forces (since Germany doesn't crash into Belgium) while you work with Austria-Hungary defeat Russia. Then you can either settle with France having expanded German power at Russia's expense or realistically defeat them with the combined forces.
It would probably have been a better plan as the actual plan failed obviously - therefore I agree.
But let's not forget that the french wanted revenge for 1871 and the region of elsass back. The industrial heart of Germany was in the west. So it could have been a disaster if the french attack would have gone through the defenses.
Hope you have a great time in Europe in the coming weeks! i’ve no doubt you’ll make the most of it 😅
Can you definitely do both Marne battles.
I know you watched the battle of Midway already but if you get the chance there is one from the Japanese perspective that is really 👍🏼👍🏼. Love your videos and go blue!🤣😂
Please react to the video with Cody exploring the universe of Kaiserreich!
You must react to extra credits great loot series, its all about the carving up of the middle east by Britain and France
I probably need to look a t Part 2 to fully develop this, but there’s another significant change in the US that doesn’t happen. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s - 1960s. Two key things led to that. The significant industrialization of the Northern cities was hastened by war related industry. Though that probably would have happened anyway it would have slowed so the Great Migration of the teens and 20s that was heavily driven by automobiles and urban industrial jobs would have happened differently. Second, a large part of the movement grew out of African American exposure to European sensibilities regarding race. If WW II doesn’t happen in a way that leads to a similar mass mobilization into Europe people like Medgar Evers (who was at D Day) don’t have the exposure that motivates the Movement to move forward when they did. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen in some form, DuBois and others had been working towards change since the turn of the 20th century, but it’s hard to see the huge organized movement that led to what it did being successful without the vision that came from Europe in the teens and twenties and that requires US involvement in WWI.
My family lives in Berlin OH and there is a lot of Amish people that live their that speak Dutch… my ancestors are Swiss and German
I get that Dutch is similar to Deutsch, but, the word, as far as I know, comes from ''Dietse'', which was a word for a person from the Netherlands.
From a very, very old proto-German word meaning "people" -- so clearly an endonym.
My now retired coworker is one of the last generation of Tex-German speakers
I think the Schlieffen Plan was doomed from the beginning. It was built on assumptions which weren't even true as it was devised, much less a decade later. Actually Germany had lost WW I in 1904 (if not earlier) by alienating the United Kingdom, failing to built a new alliance with Russia and being surprised by the Entente Cordiale between France and Great Britain. Bismarck's policy had been to isolate the humiliated France internationally and creating alliances and partnerships with the other powers, but Wilhelm's II erratic foreign policy led to a factual isolation of Germany and Austria-Hungary instead.
The battle of Tannenberg was a great defeat for Russia, but the war in the East was in the end not decided by the military, but in the first place by the German secret service transferring Lenin from Switzerland through Sweden and Finnland to St. Petersburg.
That said - the idea to defeat France first and Russia second could have worked if they had not stuck to the idea to attack via Belgium and if they had abstained from conquering every French fort on their way to Paris. Maybe it could also have worked the other way around: A quick victory in the East (without attacking Moscow or any of the Russian core regions, only taking Poland and the Baltic provinces, giving them independence as well as some of the Prussian-occupied regions back and making them buffer states) and then going west.
But Italy fighting at the Allies' side was also a problem, binding German and Austrian troops in the Alps and at the same time protecting the French South. The losses in the mountain war were for both sides huge and made the war effectively a not winnable war on 3 fronts for Germany and Austria.
Some really interesting points here. Firstly, I think that the not fighting Britain was decisive. I don't decry the courage and sacrifice of the Belgians who fought long and hard but without Britain there the war is fundamentally different. The BEF fignting at Mons and the retreat at Le Cateau slowed down the spearpoint of the German First Army. The effects of the "Mad Minute" firing convinced German commanders they were walking into Battalions of Machine guns not rifles and those losses and the chaos caused by the fear of that possibility bogged down the German advance at a time where there was no allowance for delay, it also allowed time for the French to get their forces to the Marne. The Royal Navy would not have cut the telegraph line and the US Germans would have had it easier lobbyiing politicians against France (France and the USA have had an ungrateful history even in our reality). The Russians would pulverise the Austrians in either reality before taking lheavy defeats against the Germans. Perhaps if Russia could kick the Austrians out of Serbia they would make peace with Germany in early 1915 as the French have lost and they would have gained the reason for fighting? Germany would probably have been happy to talk.
Can you react to the World of Kaiserreich by Alternate History Hub as well?
Keep up the great work and Peace. ✌🏻
P.S. Every Man A King!
That’s funny I live in a town called Berlin Massachusetts
Best alternate szenario: No great war at all.
I was wondering what your opinion on Gustav Stresemann is as I have heard people either think he made germany great / far better or just 'covered over the cracks'
You mentioned the cult of offense last video, meaning that the general idea at the time was that attacking was far better than defending. But then why was Germany so concerned at the French border defenses that they rather risked fighting Belgium and the UK right away than attack those forts? Seems odd to me
Dutch actually is the native language of the Netherlands. Dutch lane would have no ties to German if you look at it this way
Dutch Lane has nothing to do with the Dutch in the Netherlands. It refers to Pennsylvania Dutch, which has nothing to do with the Netherlands, its German. That's why they changed it.
I'm still not sure this would work out that way. When France capitulated in the napoleonic wars and the war of 1870 the french military was already beaten. If it would work out by moving arround there would still be some military capacaties to do war or at least some kind of resistance movement if Germany occupies France, what the propably would have done.
The british also wouldn't sit idly by and do nothing when their rival takes over Europe. They just might start to support Russia, support the french resistance or even join themselves.
In 1914, France wouldn't have surrender after the fall of Paris, the governement had already flee the capital and was ready to hold on at all cost, in 1814, It was different since France was exhausted after 20 years of nearly only wars, in 1871, France surrendered because the exhaustion of the country, but Paris had not fall, there was a fear of a revolution (the commune), and in 1940, France surrendered after the fall of the entire country, Paris was just a step in that plan
The reason France falls when Paris is captured is because Paris is the heart for all of France. Everything from railways to communication lines have to run through Paris, so capturing it effectively ends the possibility of organized resistance from the French.
Sabaton is relesing a new music video at 6 pm
11:46 Actually it continued for a while, though the French kept losing again and again.
The main problem with the Schlieffen Plan was that they underestimated the speed of Russia's mobilization. Russia wasn't ready at all for this in 1905 (when the plan was created), after they lost against Japan.
Haha! Liege being a major train hub, resistance "completely derailled the plan"
#DadJoke
Are there any videos on what if Italy had stayed with the Central Powers and joined the war?
Any chance you could look at the Armchair Historian's video on WW1 from the Austro-Hungarian perspective?
I feel like Austra-Hungary and why they were so ineffective always gets skipped over in WW1 discussions
British helmets were used by the USA since the USA hadn't produced their own yet.
one thing that is not spoken of in this (or nerly any ww1 vid), The Spanish Flu. how would that have changed?
If the Ottoman Empire still breaks up I really don’t see Britain sitting aside, I think they’d scoop up lots of territory in puppets or protectorates. With Britain not even being in the war it would be easy for them. Plus germany would allow Britian to go to was with the ottomans if to stay out of the European war.
Great take 👏🏼
Hope your jabs are up to date
Mandatory comment for TH-cam algorithm.
Ottoman Empire wouldnt disbanded but it would became constitunoal monarchy they would probably annexed islands of greece and maybe caucasus
Yo I watched the original video a while ago