Wow mate relegating one of the most important players role in the war to useless is something I habe not heard anywhere. F*ck the 2 million men that died fighting the germans and the Austrians they did nothing of values right ?
@@Silver_Prussian They were completely out of their depth and tried to take the opportunity to gobble up territory, just like they are doing now. Indeed, the parallels between the "great patriotic war" and the Russo-Ukrainian special military war are very obvious to outside observers.
@@JM-ym8mm it wasnt about territory at all. Tsar nicholas despite not being the best ruler had a lot of compassion in his heart, he literally proposed the hague convention in 1899 to promote disarmament and solution of international problems through peaceful means infact he put out a Rescript for peace to the international community an year prior. He defended serbia because it was a fellow slave orthodox nation the he saw as being bullied by the Austrians
@@Silver_Prussian ah yes, he was so compassionate that he sent literally millions of unarmed soldiers into a firefight. He dismissed any general who wouldn't reason in the same way that he reasoned, which was impossible because he wanted to oversee the entire war effort without any military experience. Need I remind you that anti-jewish Pogroms absolutely did happen under the good old Tsar? Such a fair ruler! Yes, such a great guy! Putin is his carbon copy, he's a good dude too. 💀 Go to bed Russian Chucky troll. Go learn some real history, the one where Russia was in bed with the Nazis during the outset of ww2.
@@JM-ym8mm Yes he was and it was a hard choice to no enter a war against the germans again Serbia very existence was on the line and russia was in an alliance with france they couldnt simply bail on both parties and an aggressive anti-russian germany winning another war that cements it as the hegemon of europe would have been disastrous for russia in latter times. He oversaw it but didnt make any of the bad decisions that caused the failures of the russian army in certain places yet he tool the blame. Its the same story time and time again if x dumb leader had listened to his brilliant generals the war would have been won, akin to the fairy tails germans generals would write in their memoirs about the decision making and the constant strife with h*tler they had, the same narrative that if only he had listened to them the war would have been won. When infact his generals were wrong a lot of the times and he was right.
I am Uzbek and I have known several Uzbek elders serving in the Soviet Army and even had ancestors served in the Tsarist Army. They said just how Russian troops struggled to even get basic rations and their logistics were terrible. They only beat Austria and Ottoman Empire, which were equally bad. Germany was another story.
The Russians act like they're a great military power because they have so many victories against so many other people that are weaker than them. All of their great victories gave simply been because they retreated into winter and their enemies suffered massive losses of men and supplies trying to pursue them. They then throw their massive population into a mass wave attack and overwhelm them with immense losses. Any time they've been the aggressor against an equal power they've gotten their ass handed to them. Their strategy shows their complete lack of concern for human life, even of their own kind.
When the Communists took Russia out of the War, the Western powers had all the extra troops to deal with. We desparately needed the Americans to provide extra troops on the Western Front. From mid 1916 the Germans were on the defencive but were still formidable.
When I lived in Crimea my friends showed me a valley where 60,000 Russian troops starved to death during the early 1800's because their logistics broke down.
@@allanfifield8256 Good question, as I understand / remember it was between 1790 to 1820. During the period of time soon after Catherine the Great took over Crimea. The location of this event as I recall is in the mouintains between Simferopol and the coast.
Samsonov and von Rennenkampf communicated extremely well. The slight problem was the only thing they communicated so extremely well was the utter contempt and disdain they felt for each other.
@@intelligenthorsemanshipwit1330 Ha ha ha! 😆 I should have seen that myself but I'm glad you did. Had me laughing out loud on a Monday morning, something that came as a bit of a surprise to me. Well done mate. 😁❤
" *History* is a *_LlE_* agreed upon. " " The *TRUTH* is precious a thing, that it must be surrounded by a *_Bodyguard_*_ of _*_LlES. "_* ~ Winston Churchill
I don’t think useless is the right word for the Russian Army in WW1 The faster than expected Russian mobilization placed pressure on Germany, and was a great relief to the Western front. The push into Galacia, and the eastern front in general tied up millions of Austrian-Hungarian and German forces that could’ve been used against Italy and France respectively. Its armies put constant pressure on the ottomans too. Indeed without Russia, I would say it’s incredibly unlikely France and Britain would’ve been able to win. I would more so ask: “Why did the Russian Army ‘struggle’ so much in WW1?” While Russia did make some successful offensives, it was hampered by supply issues (at times food literally arrive spoiled to the front), having less railway than the Germans, and so on. The Russian army was useful, incredibly so, but its issues ran deep, and they would eventually breed resentful soldiers, leading to two revolutions.
Well put- Pretty much what I was going to write... Tsarist Russia gave far more than could have been reasonably expected and it cost them dearly. Being on the "winning side", and yet they lost...
@@eugenlitwin5887 th-cam.com/video/SgHWSJBlnas/w-d-xo.html Defeating Napoleon & Hitler. One of the very few nations to reach Berlin. The Brits got their asses handed to them during invasion of France of WW2. i would give credits to the Yanks who did most of the work in the Western front & Pacific Ocean But they joined the war after the Nazis and the Soviets had beaten up each other badly. The same in WW1 when the Yanks joined near the end of WW1. The Yanks were just opportunistic, not really that heroic.
@MrCristianposso I don't know if it's 'hate bait' I do think it was one dimensional though regardless of motivation. I think there is an interesting story to be told about the Russian/Soviet army's performance over time, but that person's comment wasn't really it.
Russia being badly equipped and supplied. The soldiers ordered to charge trenches are from Russia's rural lower class and ethnic minorities. The officers are from Russia's upper class and they have a habit treating the foot soldiers badly. Things still have not changed.
@@Admin-gm3lc "general frost" Was invented by Bolsheviks to hide the truth about Polish underground in WW2, as Moscow did not fall into Germaan hands only because German trains, tracks and trains bridges were blown up by Polish Home Army and Stalin wanted to capture Poland for himself and make it communist and Home Army was full of soldiers that won with Stalin and other Bolsheviks leaders in 1920. That lie aabout General frost was also repeated by the West because it was excusse to not help Poland that was fighting in all fronts of WW2 including Battle of Britain, at the sea(Bismarck was intercpepted first by ORP Piorun) and even in Africa...
The war started too early for Russia. One reason the german general staff kept pushing for a conflict with Russia was their analysis of their kriegsspiele. They came to the conclusion that if Russian development of their railway system and industrial power continued, Russia would've been unbeatable by 1918 -1920. They had unlimited manpower and resources but lacked the logistics to use it.
Russia would have been unbeatable by 1918-20? Which is why Russia decisively defeated Poland in that time period. Wait a minute - that didn't happen. Actually the Battle of Warsaw was a decisive defeat for Russia.
@@geofflepper3207It‘s implied that Russia would’ve been at peace until 1918 and continued it’s increasing modernization and industrialization as it did from 1905 onwards. Russia was even predicted to become the biggest economy in Europe by the late 1920s, but that was all under the condition that ww1 and the revolutions wouldn’t happen.
@@geofflepper3207 the idea is that had WWI started in 1918 or later the central powers wouldn't have stood a chance fighting a two-front war because of improvements in Russian infrastructure, changes to its military service, etc. Poland defeated Soviet troops but this was after Russia's army had already collapsed in 1917 following years of fighting. Moreover, civil war had been raging in the former Russian empire since 1918 so things only got worse. The Battle of Warsaw was in 1920, so after 2 years of this devastation. Poland actually wasn't innocent in the invasion either. It had tried to take advantage of the civil war to capture disputed territories in the fray. It had pushed towards Kiev deep into Ukraine. The Red Army offensive against Warsaw was a response to this. Essentially Poland won the Battle of Warsaw against a much weakened force.
@@wisemysticaltree8120 Sounds like T-14 Armata, Su-57 and the best in the world Anty Air systems like S-400 an Rd Pantsir... Russia was using 19th century tactics in 1914-1918 and Russia was doing the same in War in Ukraine. In whole 20th century Russia build whole ZERO kilometers of highways... Similr story with Germany, they were inventing fake reasons for the public in 1914, in 1939 and they did the same to build North Stream 1 and 2... for 10 years German media were constantly writing that Polish politicians that are saying that this pipe gonna destabilize central Europe are doing so because they are Russophobic -> and just now the same media are claiming that Poland is somehow responsible for that disaster...
My grandmother’s companion, who was basically my extended family member/grandfather until he died in 2007, was Russian. His father fought for Russia in WWI so I used to hear some wild stories about the Russian military then. He said Russian mobilization was very slow. When Alex’s father finally made it to the front, he was given nothing more than a small bag of mismatched ammunition and considered himself lucky. He was permanently disabled after being mustard gassed in the trenches. I can’t remember exactly what Alex told me, but I believe he said his dad’s vision and vocal chords were partially damaged and he walked with a limp of some sort as a result of the gas poisoning. Sort of like partial paralysis. He emigrated to America in the 1920s and his last name was changed at Ellis Island from Ansowick to Osowick as an effort to Americanize his last name. He moved to upstate NY and had Alex when he was older, I believe in his 40s, and he died I believe when Alex was 15 or 16 years old in 1954-1955ish. I was only 17 when Alex died, of course I knew almost nothing about WWI when he was alive. I wish I could have another conversation with him about it.
This is like.... alsmost a 1 to 1 recreation of Russia Ukraine war. Lack of supplies, Officers who treat soldiers poorly and soldiers who have no motivation to fight to begin with, unable to buy things from other countries for munitions, conscription in central asia. Wild
Every general that ever existed complained of a lack of supplies. There are good and bad officers in every army. Russia can buy whatever they want from BRICS countries (3/4 of the world's population now), there is no conscription in Russia, it's illegal. And if your motivation is to fight and kill, you are a psychopath who needs locking up
The Russians had their flaws for sure (like all the other powers), but as a French, I am really glad they fought on our side. They forced Germany to fight on two fronts, with troops that the Germans cruelly needed on the Western Front. Had it not been for Russia, it is safe to assume that we would not have been able to stop the Germans from taking Paris in 1914.
@@kevindvl8417 nah. Cavalry division and 2 infantry corps won't be enough to tip the balance. Schlieffen plan relied on speed, and it was already dead after siege of Liege.
An ancestor came to US from Poland about 1890: when asked at Ellis Island what country he came from, answer was "don't know, but a subject of the Czar". Russia owned Poland at the time.
the battle of the marne was in september and the first battle russia had was in august. not to mention it was france supporting russia, so if anything its france who forced the 2 front war instead of letting russia fight germany and austro-hungary alone.
I was a soldier and for the past decade or so, I've been a college history professor. One of my fields is Military History and Russian is one of the languages I speak/read in my research. Thanks for taking the trouble to make this video. While I take your general point here (the Russian Army underperformed---in some cases (Tannenburg/Masurian Lakes etc.) vastly), your title reflects a view which is incredibly oversimplified. What about the Brusilov Offensive, for example? Most professional military officers/historians would agree that was a rather effective campaign. Further, the Russian war effort---which tied down millions of German/Austro-Hungarian troops for three years (1914-1917) not to mention Turkish forces in the Caucasus region (where the Russian generally WON) really only collapsed in 1917---not to military ineptitude but to social revolution spurred by Lenin's Bolsheviks. Your assertion that Russia was useless in World War One is the logical equivalent of saying that Britain was "useless" in World War One because of Gallipoli, the results of the first day of the Somme, and the incomplete nature of the Jutland victory, or that the U.S. was "useless" because we weren't even in the war until 1917. You're certainly free to think/say what you want, but you should devote some effort towards more critical thought analysis when dealing with serious historical topics like this. In all honesty, this seems like a grade-school attempt to slam Russian performance in World War I, with what goal, who knows...maybe slamming Russia which is so prevalently popular in some shortsighted Western circles at present?
Titles like that encourages engagement, either from those like yourself which point out the oversimplification and others that finds comfort in complex probelms being simplified to something the average person can wrap thier minds around.
"Ruzzian bot payed by poutin him" what you say is incredibly true the Bursilov offensive likely prevented a entante collapse at Verdun. The war would likely not been possible with out Russia while Russia it self preformed poorly in the objectives it wanted to achieve and was mixed military to say it was anything less that crucial in the war effort is ridiculous
@@rc59191 actually son , you’re out of your league, stay with your video games .. A no still makes zero sense in a military history context ., Try again , little cowboy, and think harder ..
Because they fought a 20th-century war with Napoleonic weapons and tactics. No matter how skilled or brave you are, you are fighting with both hands tied behind your back.
Agreed. Russia had men, and even an impressive number of rifles [although not enough] but when combating a wall of bullets from German machine guns it was never going to be an even fight. It was going to be a slaughter. The introductory synopsis also fails to mention how the Germans not only delivered Lenin back to Russia in a move to undermine the Tsarist Government, they were also bankrolling his efforts. Sinister but brilliant from a German point of view.
@@landiahillfarm6590 Sinister, and extremely short-sighted! Lenin was a deadly threat to the whole world, not just the Tsar. That alone was the worst mistake the Germans ever made! It cost them half their country for 50 years. I would not call it brilliant!
WW1 was the first helmeted war where the armies involved went from soft caps and leather pickelhaubes to steel helmets, except for Russia and some of the Eastern Slavic armies. Russia pretty much kept soft cover Ushankas on their troops until they surrendered.
Russia actually ordered some adrian helmets from france, but when they got them emperor nicolas forbid issuing them to soldiers, because "giving soldiers protection would turn them into cowards".
There was no ushankas in WW1. Adrian helmet was introduced in 1915 in France and implemented in April 1916 in Russia. About Nikolaus II refusal it's looks like hoax - there is no single document about it, only some memoirs.
A fascinating documentary of Russia's roll in WW1. I was gripped by it all the way through. Although Russia's war effort was doomed by incompetence, it did effectively divert German forces away from the western front until the US entered the war. Without Russia's part, the war in the west would have developed rather differently.
@@TedShatner10 They inflicted almost as much (The Russians lost about a Million more if we consider the max estimate for both sides), the Austro Hungarian army was decimated on the eastern Front.
My great great uncle was John O'Rear and was the ambassador to Bolivia during WW1 and he personally convinced three South American countries to get involved in the war. Mostly providing funds and materials.
They demolished the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman Empires so definetly not useless. They could not stand against Germany but there was no army in the world that could do so at the time
.. . Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
The Russian military was in reality a feudal army pretending to be a modern one, so it never stood a chance against the Germans, who in 1914 had the most advanced army in Europe.
Wouldn't have said most advanced. Central and western Europe had different doctrines of warfare that at times stumped the other side. I mean, at the time Germany and France had military service while britain had the only pure voluntary professional army in europe. Britains troops could work independently from officers in groups while Germany and France used full on numbers to fight. So other than maybe arguing training I'm not sure there was a most advanced country.
@@bigenglishmonkey They had a very effective training system, they had some good guns and they had excellent cohesion. Their logistics were also pretty good, though they should have had more trucks. The Generals were quite professional, unlike some of their British, French and Russian counterparts. The biggest problem was probably the German leadership, which unfortunately was too cocky and eager to take risks.
Useless?! Russia almost knocked Austria-Hungary out of the war and did a lot of damage to the Turkish army. During the first half of 1918 it became clear how badly the Allies had needed Russia.
Allies in France managed to repel the German Spring offensive and Italy defeated Austro-Hungary at the Piave River in the first half of 1918. "Allies badly needing Russia" is just not true.
Yeah, now imagine these German reinforcements arriving in France in 1914. And without Russia Italy wouldn't have declared war on A-H in the first place. Nice try though.
@@marknieuweboer8099 "During the first half of 1918 it became clear how badly the Allies had needed Russia." That is what you've quoted. You didn't say anything about 1914 or the start of the war. This is just you moving the goalpost.
You didn’t understand what the video is saying. Russia underperformed massively relative to its size. I think it came down to one reason - lack of private enterprises. When you don’t have material power, it’s hard to feel patriotic or brave or to have discipline. All other causes in the video wouldn’t have been an issue if Russia had that.
They Russian Serf Army got annihilate by Germanys Warrior Army. Look at Russia in Ukraine. You can't raise them as Peasants and Expect them to be Warriors
Not so useless to France during the height of the War. Austria-Hungary were bled white during the Brusilov offensive and Germany was constantly having to bail out its failing Allie’s because of Russia.
I think thats more a matter of Germany having poor choice of allies than it is of Russia being competent. No doubt they saved the French, but it was more of the fact that they existed than it was of them doing anything strategically well. Not until 1917 at least
@@Zilliguy That's right. I forgot. It wasn't until 1917 that the Russian Imperial Army's failures had an strategic impact on the war. The Battles of Galicia in 1914, Operation Sarikamish in 1915, The Erezum Offensive in 1916, or the Brusilov offensive in 1916. None of those Russian operational successes had any positive affect for the Allied War effort.
5:30 is pretty funny, didn't know the russians were that well versed in dutch. The banners that I could read were: "Oorlog aan den oorlog" = war against war and "kapitalisme brengt den dood" = kapitalism brings death. I'm nitpicking here, but now i'm really curious as to where and when this protest was. The discipline of those protesters staying on one side of the road 4 abreast is quite impressive tbh. Due to the clothing etc, I guess that it was during the korean war.
@@donkeyslayer9879 Partly. Regulated capitalism combined with social democracy has gotten me the lifestyle that i have. Capitalism on it's own doesn't improve the lifestile of ppl, except a very very small percentage of the population. It is a system based on exploitation of resources (that includes ppl) to maximise profits. And in capitalism only profits matter. That's why socialism was born in the first place. There once was a time of unregulated capitalism. It's called the industrial revolution. Where virtually everyone was poor, uneducated and working 16hrs a day, 6 days a week, for just enough money to pay for bread and rent (which of course they both needed to get from the boss, so complaining meant getting fired, homeless and starving. And your kids, yep, as soon as they can stand without tumbling over, you guessed it, they also get to work stupidly long hours because without the wages of your 6 kids you won't even be able to pay the rent and food from your boss with the wages that your boss give you. Wanna learn about why socialism started? Watch the movie "Daens", which offers one of the most comprehensive insights into life during the industrial revolution. So no, it's not capitalism that gave us our lifestyle, it's in fact the social revolution that did, be demanding dignity, fair wages etc, instead of ppl being almost enslaved into capitalism. Capitalism in itself is simply unfettered exploitation when left to itself. It is however needed as it's something that pushes society forwards technologicaly, however it constantly threatens to push our freedoms and lifestyle back at the same time. So balance is needed. Saying capitalism is great/bad is as stupid as saying socialism is great/bad. Both keep eachother in balance. And it's that balance that gives us our lifestyle.
capusvacans....... this video combines historical footage from newsreels with scenes from various movie re-enactments. So I'm guessing you saw a scene from a Dutch movie or TV show.
@capusvacans Where did you get all this senseless babble? Your Marxist professors who wouldn't tell you the truth if their life depended on it. You just get enough of this vomit and go back for more. There, I will not credit what you sau Capitolism then, Capitalism now CAPITALISM FOREVER
The revolution did not start with the workers strike, but with the "women day" manifestation. At the end of the day, the women did not go home. The next days, factory workers joined them in the streets. Then the police and the Cossack had to charge the manifestations. The Cossack charge the police... And that was that. Good-by tzar.
I would imagine the situation differently. Given the level of industrial development of Russia (which was significantly inferior to Germany, Britain or France), given that Russia had to fight on the vast expanse of the eastern front alone + the Caucasian Front against Turkey and given Russia's logistical problems, Russia just proved to be quite good. Considering all of this factors, plus the lack of competent tactics, aircraft, tanks and training of soldiers, Russia even showed very good results. In such a situation, it was not necessary to expect such successes as the Battle of Galicia, the Battle of Lodz or the Brusilov offensive. Russian russians were able to achieve this, however, not least thanks to such commanders as Brusilov and the general steadfastness of the Russian soldiers.
Though for the most part Russia's officer corps were incompetent and complacent, they were far from useless (at least, no more useless than pretty much every other belligerent in WW1 was) and had a few bright spots during WW1. The Brusilov Offensive devastated Austria-Hungary and forced Germany to siphon even more resources from the Western Front to the East in preparation for the Battle of the Somme shortly after, and the Kerensky Offensive also had some small success. Russia's incompetence just seemed more apparent than most others due to the prevalent myth of the "Russian Steamroller" going around at the time, and when Russia underperformed to those expectations, everyone pointed their fingers at them to hide their own incompetence and blunders (particularly "Papa" Joffre's meatgrinder tactics on the Western Front and persistent refusal to learn from his mistakes would make Shoigu look Humanitarian in comparison). But the main central success that Russia accomplished was fulfilling its obligations to its allies in England and France for as long as it did (contrast this, for example, with Italy's constant side-switching during BOTH World Wars), and above all else, Russia's mobilization despite its military weakness threw another big wrench into the Schlieffen Plan by forcing crucial divisions to be diverted away from the West when Germany needed all of them. By just ruining the Schlieffen Plan and bogging down the Germans from mobile warfare AND keeping France in a two-front war against them, Russia had more or less defeated Germany from the very offset and guaranteed the Entente would win WW1 in the first place.
Question: Why would you even mobilize millions of soldiers if you don´t have the rifles or ammunition for them to use? They are basically dead weight on the battle field that need to be supplied, and they are not availible as workforce at home. So why would they do it?
You sound exactly like that minister who was fired by cryca because his opinions made too much sense... Mybe these extra soldiers were as a reserve for the expected large losses... it is also possible that they were optimistically assuming that they would capture the enemy's warehouses, Russia used similar crabs as the Germans... It is very hard to say what the plans were of the mindless morons who took the position only because they had noble descent.
By Russian logic, they are not dead weight, since, as extra bodies, they absorb bullets in a charge and, anyhow, can still dig trenches or carry stuff.
Russian military in WW1 and WW2 can be described as "brave", but led by mostly incompetent leaders. While there were capable Generals like Alexei Brusilov or Georgi Zhukov, the Russian Army was beset by inadequate military training and programs. Simultaneously, Austria and Turkey at WW1 were simply even worse than Russia as the majority of their Generals were terrible.
In 2024, one can find many pictures of Russian soldiers (typically militiamen not tasked with frontline duty) equipped with those Mosin Nagant rifles, so at least ~110 years later they seemed to have solved that particular problem! Now, if they could only equip their soldiers with rifles that were manufactured in this century, that would be a sign of major progress being made.
An ignorant post. Those Mosin Nagant rifles were used by reservists of the DNR/LNR. Not the Russian Army with the exception of a few instances. Why? They're not bad rifles for sniping long distances in the static warfare they were fighting. They also serve as good rear area assets for security ect. You look phucking stupid, STFU.
They are not actual Russian soldiers, these are units from DPR and LPR. Some of these people probably have fought with these weapons and now that they are no longer at the front lines they just kept using them. I don't think Russia has any shortage of AKs.
@@Slav4o911 I'm pretty sure that I said they were militia, and not regular infantry, in my regular post. But, indeed, my understanding of the comports with what you've stated here.
@Slav4o911 One doesn't use an Ak for every type of soldier, though that was the idea when it was invented. Carbines are better than battle rifles if you have to get in and out of a vehicle, and each squad of light infantry needs a guy with a belt-fed machine gun to lay down cover fire to let the assaulting elements maneuver easier. Even an Ak74u is generally inferior to one of the uzi variants if your fighting tunnels or other cramped earthworks, whereas an auto shotty like the SPAS-12 rules the trenches once your guys emerge from underground/inside and into those winding mazes both sides have been constructing at a furious pace ever since the so-called "great counter-offensive" fell apart. But yeah, the Moist Nugget, or "Trash Rod" if you prefer, should really be sold in the states where they could get enough money to turn around and buy a cheap but good enough (better than what they're using now that's for sure) used AR-15 clone, or get a good used Springfield M1A or H&K MR556 if you add a few hundred on top.
Russia has all equipment,it just doesnt bother giving it to dpr,since they thought ukraine war will be bliezkrieg.When it happens to be long war,Russia quickly fixed all rifle problems.There were 1-2 photos of mosin nagan in use,just like 1-3 T-54 only been used in ukraine,yet west think that half of the Russian army fight with mosins,I mean april 2022 was the last time I saw mosin in battle
millions of German, Turkish and Austro-Hungarian soldiers died fighting aganist Russia, even the unsuccesfull russian campains resulted in major critical situations and lack of manpower for the central powers. Russia internal situation was unstable since 1905, this is why they let AH invade Bosnia and challenge Serbia's interests in the region. Germany assumed Russia would not intervene in a major war in order to avoid put more stress on the russians already crippled trust toward the Tsar.
@@edgarhilbert4797 then they should have kept Poland as a buffer state and they shouldn't have recognized AH's claims over Bosnia and Serbia that were Russia's closest allies... keeping Russia neutral should have been a priority over having an already collapsing AH empire as an ally.
Majority of the soldiers were peasants and were sometimes treated badly by the officers who were mostly from the upper class, the Tsar just thought that his army would be loyal, you have to also take in the fact that Russia is at war and they have to ration stuff, people like peasants are going to feel it more than anyone, so imagine you’re solider and your family is barely surviving back home, why would you want to keep fighting for a country where your family can’t survive. Also Russia should have invested more into their military equipment, to me it’s the Battle Of Port Arthur that ignited the downfall of Russian Imperial Army, the Japanese had defeated the Russians in no time because they had the latest ships while Russian Navy at time had older ships, never underestimate your opponent and the czar did with Japan.
I doubt the demonstration he shows at 24:53 is in Russia. The banners are in Dutch. They say: "capitalism brings death" and "war on the war". The Netherlands were neutral in WWI, but the war did cause economic difficulties.
Henry Stewart History, I hope you make more battles in the Spanish American Wars of Independence that would be more awesome to see and also the Brazilian War of Independence it happen in the same time. Battles on the Spanish American Wars of Independence. Battle of Chacabuco 1817 Battle of Maipu 1818 Battle of Boyaca 1819 Battle of Pichincha 1822 Battle of Lake Maracaibo 1823
Fascinating and great video. I never understood the true depth of incompetence of the Tsarist regime during WWII and how they led Russia’s military to its demise.
True, Serbia would have steamrolled Austria and that would have been that. Naturally im now going to be told that this is not true. But the Serbian army did not lose a single battle to the Austrian one. The first time a loss happened was when both Germany and Bulgaria along with Austria attacked together. The reality was that Serbia was very battle hardened and experienced with war. Unlike Austria whos main experience was actually diplomacy. Buuut... none of this could happen, since Germany wanted a War with Russia as soon as possible. You have historic letters between Kaiser Wilhelm and Franz Joseph which easily prove this. In reality the Austrians also did not really want war, but the conditions set were so insulting that Serbia could never accept them.
@@Hasmasnafg It is always the same... more land for Germans... They started to push East hard over thousand of years before and never stoped. Berlin name have Polabian orgins -> there is no Polabian people nowdays and the language is dead, the same story with Prussians as they were both part of Baltic-Slavic family of languages...
Cold War myth. Germany was going to invade Luxembourg, Belgium, France regardless of Russian response. In the very beginning of the war UK position was unclear it was not in rush to join the war, so Kaiser Wilhelm asked Von Moltke to invade Russia instead of France, Von Moltke replied it's not possible, troops already deployed for the west. The Schlieffen plan never had the Russian part.
Leo Tolstoy died in 1910. I do not know when he wrote this but it absolutely applied to the Russian military during the war. We have no army, we have a horde of slaves cowed by discipline, ordered about by thieves and slave traders. This horde is not an army because it possesses neither any real loyalty to faith, tsar and fatherland - words that have been so much misused! - nor valor nor military dignity. All it possesses are, on the one hand, passive patience and repressed discontent, and on the other, cruelty, servitude and corruption.
Ushanka is simply the Russian word for hat, so the association with it being only applied to the traditional Cossack headgear is in error. Even though the French Adrian helmet was issued in the Czarist Army in April 1916, it was in limited numbers, much like rifles and ammunition were. So the greater amount of Russian soldiers still retained soft headgear. Italy also used the Adrian helmet after switching sides in 1915.
Something worth noting is that mechanization of farming (or LACK of mechanization of farming) greatly affected how the various powers could handle multiple years of war. When you take a huge number of working-age men out of the workforce to go fight, they can't farm. Do that long enough, or on a big enough scale, or both, and you start getting starvation. It happened to most of the major powers in WW1 and to a lesser degree in WW2 (because of more machinery being available). Russia was one of the worst affected, followed by Germany.
Russia performed well early on in the war. Where other countries were able to quell mutinies (like France,England) Russia did not. A couple bad loses and the Russian military did begin to crumble. So yes later on it did become useless.
Russia was the only nation that was able to penetrate into germany (they controlled east prussia even for a while), meanwhile US, france and britain could not even when it was 3v1. The brusilov offensive was the millitary operation that made hightest gains iin terms of distance in the whole war and it was 2 empires vs one. A little biased. Imagine the reinforcements instead going to fight against russia it would go to the western front.
To be fair, Russia pushed into Germany because Germany was hyper focused on the west in early 1914, and then they got their butt kicked once they started focusing on the east. Also in 1918 we would’ve reached into Germany but they read the room and clocked out
So, despite outnumbering Germany (focused on France) and Austrohungary (a joke) 2 times, they only managed to partially defeat the weakest Austrohungary, and then capitulate? Is that what you mean?
I'd argue things have gotten much worse under Putin. Even during the worst of times Russia was still respected as a military/world power, no matter how much of a lie it was. Putin has not only destroyed that image for decades to come, but also lost incredibly important allies to Russia, killed their geopolitical relations and economy for decades to come.
It wasn’t useless for the other countries in the allied forces. It was just useless in the sense that had Russia not join the war. Most likely the Russian Empire would have survived. Well maybe not necessarily survived but they definitely may have survived for a few more years. By the czar leaving Russia to join the front line was a monumental mistake. Russia could’ve been still around for a few more years had they not really were heavily involved in the war. And focused on their own problems at home.
Counting cartridges instead of soldiers. The Russian army always worked a little bit different. But I remember that book by an Englishman who found himself on the eastern front when WWI started. Instead of traveling home, he fought the Germans, paying for his own expenses, it seemed. So, he was actively fighting but he was not an official part of the Russian army. Anyway, he mostly described "battles" as something like knifework, or words hinting to blades and close combat. I am not sure how long that dude fought - it might only have been half a year. He mentioned running out of money at the end.
@@vitaliysilchenko8949 No Russian soldiers who have surrendered. It is also difficult to pretend to be anything but incompetent when the equipment does not work, food is out of date, ammunition is imported from 1960s stocks and blows up early to kill crews, troops are untrained, and as soon as they meet a determined force just run away.
@mbak7801 How can you be so naive and think like a child? 98% of those who surrendered in cursk region was conscripts. And 90% of what POW say anywhere in the world is what they were told to say.
I think we overlook the minor military reform after the Russo-Japanese war. Those reform was great in theory since it adapted the army into the early modern warfare. It proved during the early engagement, but they never fixed the logistics.
Ah bad title, imagine if undisturbed Austro-Hungary direct large number of troops worthy of hundred thousand to Western Front of France, thing would have change a lot. Since the combine of French and British can barely reach stalemate against Germany, the arrival of large number of Austro-Hungary troops could possibly break that stalemate a lot.
@@theodorsebastian4272 Without Russia, which distracted and destroyed the vast majority of Austria-Hungary's army, Serbia would be forced to fight a war of attrition (unlike in real life where A-H & Serbian forces were roughly the same size), and the Serbs would never be able to handle so much pressure (not even mentioning a Bulgarian entry). Also, once Serbia is knocked out with the superior Austro-Hungarian manpower and industry, and Bulgarian entry, France would be also forced to face Austro-Hungarian troops if they didn't capitulate yet.
@@theodorsebastian4272 WW I would have happened in one form or another anyway, it wasn't about Serbia or Austria, it was about weapon oversaturation, militarism and colonial disputes
@Henry_the_Eighth_ Aside from Serbia/Austria contention there weren't any Hotspot that could trigger the great war anywhere else Colonial dispute like the Moroccan crisis or the Kaiser supporting the Boer have too many wriggling room Serbia/Austria is a perfect storm where the great power status of Austria and Russia(After the defeat at the hand of Japan) was on the line And there was a lot of nationalism surge and instability after Austria annexation of Bosnia,Italo Turkish war and two Balkan war And Germany and France was confusedly pulled in
Good video, good calling out the success of the Brusilov offensive, but missed the part where the Brusilov offensive was hampered by other jealous officers who didn't like his reforms. Would have played well into some of the conflict within the high command of Russia you highlighted. I hit subscribe.
Even today, in 2024, 25% of all Russians have no indoor plumbing. HALF of rural Russians still use out houses. In America, it is less than one-half of one percent.
BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS! IT TURNS OUT THAT, the U.S. has only gotten this far because of slavery that lasted 400 years! wow america is perfect!!!!!
Oh comeon man, its BS. They have paved ways everywhere, even in Kamchatka, while Americans dont have paved ways in most of Alaska. Go to ggogle maps and check it, you wont find a single dirtroad north of the arctic there.
I personally think the Italians performed the poorest (they didn't do the best in the WW2 either), not only did they technically betray their allies and got caught fighting in the mountains, but there were casualties we're also horrendous and they gained little to nothing to show for it (Italy received very little when the war ended, which had been their main motivation for joining in the first place). Despite the Russian Empire's issues on the battlefield and in its command structure, they were definitely effective when it came to the overall outcome of the war. Imagine if Russia had not fought at all. All of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops that were occupied fighting them on the Eastern front would have been free to pressure on the west. We saw the benefits of this when the Russians actually did pull out of the conflict as the Germans were able to launch several successful offensives before running out of steam in the West. They could have arguably done a lot more if they had the entire Austro-Hungarian Army assisting them as well, as their participation on the Western front was extremely limited. Russia (with assistance from Romania) was also able to inflict heavy losses on all major Alliance power, including the German Empire (800,000 KIA/MIA / 1,150,000 WIA and 250,000 POWs ), Austria-Hungary (1,150,000+ KIA/MIA / 3,200,000 WIA and 2,200,000 POWs), and the Ottoman Empire (120,000+ KIA / 300,000 WIA and 80,000+ POWs). Without those casualties being committed by the Russians on Central Alliance forces I can't say that I know how well the Triple Entente would fare. That is a lot of men that would be free to fight.
@@Bialy_1 I teach history for a living, I'm well aware of what the Russian Empire lost.. I'm not at work though, I should be able to make a comment without going into extreme detail about every aspect of history. The statistics that I provided above are literally from the beginning of this video... I mentioned that Russia's contribution regardless of their actual performance on the battlefield was absolutely vital to the outcome of the war. And it was. That is a fact. If they had not participated things would have almost certainly been much worse for those on the Western front. Russia was able to inflict heavy losses on all Alliance powers, that is also a fact. My comment above didn't depict anything about Russia winning at all. All I said is despite their inadequate leadership and failures on the battlefield that they were able to cause major damage during the war. Again that is a fact. Thank you for your comment though.
@@Bialy_1 and also my comment wasn't about who lost what in all really, it was about who performed the poorest but contributed the most. Yes Russia did perform poorly and lost greatly in the end, her nation plunged into revolution and her people starved. It was then embroidered in a deadly Civil War. But in the end it still did more to contribute to allied victory then Italy did. Yes the Italians were able to hold down substantial numbers of Austro-Hungarian forces, but their efforts were nothing when compared to even the Brusilov offensive. For the Russians it was a costly offensive but the damage that they were able to inflict on the Germans and Austro-Hungarians is a well known fact. Just that offensive alone cost more than Italy was able to inflict in the entire conflict. Regardless it's just a straight-up fact that both performed badly but Italy literally gained nothing and contributed moderately little when compared to Russia.
My two reasons, in addition to the ones stated in this excellent video: 1) Not only the incompetence, but the corruption of Sukomlinov, the minister of armaments. His wife shopped in Paris while Russian artillerymen were under the threat of court martial if they fired more than three shells per day, and men waited for their comrades to die so that they could have a rifle. 2) In addition to the lack of a proper manufacturing base, Russia had very little in the way of railway lines. Nowhere near enough to keep an army supplied.
@@Scrat335Definitely WW1, Russia not being able to take Kyiv given their massive advantages in basically every aspect of warfare just shows how hopelessly incompetent they are. Even if they do win eventually, the war itself has already become an embarrassment.
i’d be very curious to know what movie clips you used in this? because they look interesting and i want to watch them. anyways, also consider citing sources in the description. It’s all fair use and the fair use principle can save you from unnecessary copyright strikes. Even though shenanigans like that do still happen anyway
Russia sent armies into Germany in 1914 before Russia itself was fully mobilized, in order to relieve pressure on France being invaded by Germany. If not for Russian invasion of East Prussia and German panic reaction to shift multiple divisions from West Front to East Front, the German Schlieffen Plan might have succeeded in August 1914, Paris might have fallen like in WW2 and Franco-Prussian War, and France would have surrendered just like in the other two occasions when Russia played no active role in fighting, and Germany would have won the war. Despite not being fully monilized, Russia nearly knocked Austro-Hungary out of the war in 1914, 1915 and 1916, each time necessitating massive German troops to save Austro-Hungary, thereby reducing German pressure on the Western Front. Even then French soldiers were on the verge of mutinying by the end of 1917 and early 1918, only the arrival of US troops and British tanks gave heart to Western Allies and enabed them to advance pushing back the Germans.
True, feudalism had only ended approximately 60 years before, and most people were still subsistence farmers. Russian was 100 years behind everyone else socially. Ive heard from a russian friend that even today its not uncommon to see soviet flags in more rural parts of Russia.
@@InterrogatorchaplainAsmodaiwhat's so strange about seeing red flags? I think you can still see Confederate flags in southern states in the US, even though it's been almost 200 years
Gavrilo Princip is arguably the single most important assassin in the history of the world. That 19 year old boy changed everything! Literally everything!
Russia was done in when London arranged Lenin a rail track tripnbackntonrusdia and bishievek thought infiltrating the lower ranks of the Russian infantry at front Russia was not only fighting Germany but internal forces which in end forced Russia out of war and created the most disastrous era of duma under Kerensky perhaps worst leader in Russian / kievan- rus history that goes back a ways. Was one the numerous troubles times.
Russia has underperformed in war since the middle ages there are many exampeles of this. Its greatests strenght has always been its enormous territory and its willingness to let its people suffer.
5:30 this old footage is from a Dutch protest: "oorlog aan den oorlog" is not Russian. they do have anti-capitalist and anti-war banners so close enough
Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics - Napoleon. You don’t generally out fight an opponent in a long war you out produce them. We out produced Germany and Japan. Particularly in fuel. Russia did not have the economy to defeat Germany in the first war. Stalin settled that in the second.
Polish underground destroyed German logistic and USA and UK fixed Soviet logistics... Stalin influence was execution of 40 000 of officers just before Germans invaded and lets not forget that after he invaded Poland with Germans as its brothers in arms he ordered to dismantle old defensive lines... Polish partisants made over 13000 documented attacks on German train infrastructure. USA privided 400 000 trucks and jeeps -> and go and check how many trains USSR produced after invasion and how many USA provided to them...
@@Bialy_1 I never said Stalin was the only reason for the USSRs success, the US was the economic and logistical engine for WWII. Certainly Stalin was as evil or perhaps more evil a leader as Hitler was, but he ruthlessly pushed for industrialization in the USSR and during the war the USSR out produced the Germans in Tanks, Artillery, planes, guns and as important - oil.
5:29 that scene seems to be correct, women holding russian signs. However the next shot saying it's 8 March 2017 women protest supposedly in Russia that can't be right. The signs aren't Russian at all. The signs are Dutch, one reads "Oorlog aan den Oorlog" which kinda doesn't make much sense but translates to "war to the war". The other sign in front reads "Katpitalisme Brengt den Dood" which means "capitalism brings death". Whatever this is is, it's not Russia but that has to be some protest in the Netherlands or perhaps northern Belgium in the Dutch speaking Flemish regions.
@@roghider319 well, Georgia was beaten, Chechnya was a mess, but in the end - Russia did better in Chechnya than US in any muslim region overrun by extremists, maybe not from the military standpoint, but socially - now it has a loyal leader, no civil war and a semblance of a law. Ukraine - yes, it's much closer to an equal war with modern weapons on the both sides than anything any European country experienced since WWII
Interesting/informative/entertaining. Excellent still-motion photography pictures/maps. Enabling viewers to better understand what the orator is describing. The Czar should have kept out of the military planing.
2:25 Why is Ottoman Empire ignored in that map? It is not like they are irrelevant to this story either. It is because of Ottoman victory at Gallipoli, where Mustafa Kemal, the founder of modern Turkey, was the commander, that British failed at sending aid to Russia, resulting in its collapse. So, Ottomans are very much relevant to this story but they are not even shown on the map.
@Chungus581 LOL. I'm the furthest from a nationalist. I'm a communist. And I'm not even born in Turkey, dummy. Do you always jump to conclusions like that, thinking you know it all?
22:03 while the Germans didn't march an actual army into the Russian capital, they did help orchestrate the collapse of the Russian state. The protests were disorganized with many factions having many different agendas, the German government got in contact with various Bolshevik leaders in exile throughout Europe after failed revolution attempts in the past, they provided them with support and transported back to Russia on special trains so they could take control of the protests and absorb the different factions. After the Tsar abdicated and the provisional government was formed, things still might have been very different if the Bolshevik leaders hadn't have been there at the right time, the Tsar and his family might have lived, might even remained a token figurehead, the Russian war effort might have continued longer though largely reduced, etc. In effect, Germany did get an army to invade the Russian capital, but it was an army of Russians.
Without Russia, Serbia would face the full might of the Austro-Hungarian army and lose the war of attrition. Without Russia, France would suffer an early defeat against the Germans. Without Russia, the Italians wouldn't have been able to repel the Austro-Hungarian Asiago offensive. The Russian army was certainly flawed, but without them the other Entente would be never able to beat the Central Powers. Not to mention that Russia's successes made Austria-Hungary completely dependent on Germany.
The Serbians faced more of the Austro-Hungarian army than russia did in the first year, and the trench warfare stalemate stared over a month before the Russians started fighting. Don't know much about the third point, but give the first 2 are wrong I'll say that one is too.
Putin considers him self a student of history. He should watch this documentary and hopefully understand what happened to the last Russian leader with absolut power
Hi everyone, I am currently looking for scriptwriters to help with future videos. If you are interested please email me at henrystewartvideo@gmail.com
Wow mate relegating one of the most important players role in the war to useless is something I habe not heard anywhere. F*ck the 2 million men that died fighting the germans and the Austrians they did nothing of values right ?
@@Silver_Prussian They were completely out of their depth and tried to take the opportunity to gobble up territory, just like they are doing now. Indeed, the parallels between the "great patriotic war" and the Russo-Ukrainian special military war are very obvious to outside observers.
@@JM-ym8mm it wasnt about territory at all.
Tsar nicholas despite not being the best ruler had a lot of compassion in his heart, he literally proposed the hague convention in 1899 to promote disarmament and solution of international problems through peaceful means infact he put out a Rescript for peace to the international community an year prior.
He defended serbia because it was a fellow slave orthodox nation the he saw as being bullied by the Austrians
@@Silver_Prussian ah yes, he was so compassionate that he sent literally millions of unarmed soldiers into a firefight.
He dismissed any general who wouldn't reason in the same way that he reasoned, which was impossible because he wanted to oversee the entire war effort without any military experience.
Need I remind you that anti-jewish Pogroms absolutely did happen under the good old Tsar? Such a fair ruler!
Yes, such a great guy! Putin is his carbon copy, he's a good dude too. 💀
Go to bed Russian Chucky troll. Go learn some real history, the one where Russia was in bed with the Nazis during the outset of ww2.
@@JM-ym8mm Yes he was and it was a hard choice to no enter a war against the germans again Serbia very existence was on the line and russia was in an alliance with france they couldnt simply bail on both parties and an aggressive anti-russian germany winning another war that cements it as the hegemon of europe would have been disastrous for russia in latter times.
He oversaw it but didnt make any of the bad decisions that caused the failures of the russian army in certain places yet he tool the blame.
Its the same story time and time again if x dumb leader had listened to his brilliant generals the war would have been won, akin to the fairy tails germans generals would write in their memoirs about the decision making and the constant strife with h*tler they had, the same narrative that if only he had listened to them the war would have been won. When infact his generals were wrong a lot of the times and he was right.
I am Uzbek and I have known several Uzbek elders serving in the Soviet Army and even had ancestors served in the Tsarist Army. They said just how Russian troops struggled to even get basic rations and their logistics were terrible.
They only beat Austria and Ottoman Empire, which were equally bad. Germany was another story.
The Russians act like they're a great military power because they have so many victories against so many other people that are weaker than them. All of their great victories gave simply been because they retreated into winter and their enemies suffered massive losses of men and supplies trying to pursue them. They then throw their massive population into a mass wave attack and overwhelm them with immense losses. Any time they've been the aggressor against an equal power they've gotten their ass handed to them. Their strategy shows their complete lack of concern for human life, even of their own kind.
@@jotarokujo9164 The Russians are not much better now.
When the Communists took Russia out of the War, the Western powers had all the extra troops to deal with. We desparately needed the Americans to provide extra troops on the Western Front. From mid 1916 the Germans were on the defencive but were still formidable.
@@1stSuper_babyha, ha, ha.
@@1stSuper_baby I was thinking the exact same thing, it's the same nowadays.
When I lived in Crimea my friends showed me a valley where 60,000 Russian troops starved to death during the early 1800's because their logistics broke down.
Makes sense! An army marches on their stomach.
Do you mean during the Crimea War during the 1850's?
@@allanfifield8256 Good question, as I understand / remember it was between 1790 to 1820. During the period of time soon after Catherine the Great took over Crimea. The location of this event as I recall is in the mouintains between Simferopol and the coast.
Must have been during Napoleon's invasion in 1812.@@MichaelMarsh-dc4ww
@@allanfifield8256any kind of proof besides ,,my friends" ?
Samsonov and von Rennenkampf communicated extremely well. The slight problem was the only thing they communicated so extremely well was the utter contempt and disdain they felt for each other.
They also communicated extremely well with the Germans, who read their uncyphered communiqué’s
@@intelligenthorsemanshipwit1330 Ha ha ha! 😆
I should have seen that myself but I'm glad you did. Had me laughing out loud on a Monday morning, something that came as a bit of a surprise to me.
Well done mate. 😁❤
" *History* is a *_LlE_* agreed upon. " " The *TRUTH* is precious a thing, that it must be surrounded by a *_Bodyguard_*_ of _*_LlES. "_* ~ Winston Churchill
I don’t think useless is the right word for the Russian Army in WW1
The faster than expected Russian mobilization placed pressure on Germany, and was a great relief to the Western front. The push into Galacia, and the eastern front in general tied up millions of Austrian-Hungarian and German forces that could’ve been used against Italy and France respectively. Its armies put constant pressure on the ottomans too.
Indeed without Russia, I would say it’s incredibly unlikely France and Britain would’ve been able to win.
I would more so ask: “Why did the Russian Army ‘struggle’ so much in WW1?” While Russia did make some successful offensives, it was hampered by supply issues (at times food literally arrive spoiled to the front), having less railway than the Germans, and so on. The Russian army was useful, incredibly so, but its issues ran deep, and they would eventually breed resentful soldiers, leading to two revolutions.
Yep. Holding millions of German & Austro Hungarian troops occupied in the East
Well put- Pretty much what I was going to write... Tsarist Russia gave far more than could have been reasonably expected and it cost them dearly. Being on the "winning side", and yet they lost...
@@eugenlitwin5887 th-cam.com/video/SgHWSJBlnas/w-d-xo.html Defeating Napoleon & Hitler. One of the very few nations to reach Berlin. The Brits got their asses handed to them during invasion of France of WW2. i would give credits to the Yanks who did most of the work in the Western front & Pacific Ocean But they joined the war after the Nazis and the Soviets had beaten up each other badly. The same in WW1 when the Yanks joined near the end of WW1. The Yanks were just opportunistic, not really that heroic.
@@eugenlitwin5887Incorrect in so many points I won't even bother correcting this hate bait.
@MrCristianposso I don't know if it's 'hate bait' I do think it was one dimensional though regardless of motivation. I think there is an interesting story to be told about the Russian/Soviet army's performance over time, but that person's comment wasn't really it.
Russia being badly equipped and supplied. The soldiers ordered to charge trenches are from Russia's rural lower class and ethnic minorities. The officers are from Russia's upper class and they have a habit treating the foot soldiers badly. Things still have not changed.
You forgot general frost and barrier troops lol
Sounds like today
And the middle class I suppose was an insignifficant minority?
It's vastly different.
@@Admin-gm3lc "general frost" Was invented by Bolsheviks to hide the truth about Polish underground in WW2, as Moscow did not fall into Germaan hands only because German trains, tracks and trains bridges were blown up by Polish Home Army and Stalin wanted to capture Poland for himself and make it communist and Home Army was full of soldiers that won with Stalin and other Bolsheviks leaders in 1920.
That lie aabout General frost was also repeated by the West because it was excusse to not help Poland that was fighting in all fronts of WW2 including Battle of Britain, at the sea(Bismarck was intercpepted first by ORP Piorun) and even in Africa...
The war started too early for Russia.
One reason the german general staff kept pushing for a conflict with Russia was their analysis of their kriegsspiele.
They came to the conclusion that if Russian development of their railway system and industrial power continued, Russia would've been unbeatable by 1918 -1920.
They had unlimited manpower and resources but lacked the logistics to use it.
Pretty sure russia mobilized and Germany begged for Russia to avoid conflict in the first place
Russia would have been unbeatable by 1918-20?
Which is why Russia decisively defeated Poland in that time period.
Wait a minute - that didn't happen.
Actually the Battle of Warsaw was a decisive defeat for Russia.
@@geofflepper3207It‘s implied that Russia would’ve been at peace until 1918 and continued it’s increasing modernization and industrialization as it did from 1905 onwards. Russia was even predicted to become the biggest economy in Europe by the late 1920s, but that was all under the condition that ww1 and the revolutions wouldn’t happen.
@@geofflepper3207 the idea is that had WWI started in 1918 or later the central powers wouldn't have stood a chance fighting a two-front war because of improvements in Russian infrastructure, changes to its military service, etc. Poland defeated Soviet troops but this was after Russia's army had already collapsed in 1917 following years of fighting. Moreover, civil war had been raging in the former Russian empire since 1918 so things only got worse. The Battle of Warsaw was in 1920, so after 2 years of this devastation. Poland actually wasn't innocent in the invasion either. It had tried to take advantage of the civil war to capture disputed territories in the fray. It had pushed towards Kiev deep into Ukraine. The Red Army offensive against Warsaw was a response to this. Essentially Poland won the Battle of Warsaw against a much weakened force.
@@wisemysticaltree8120 Sounds like T-14 Armata, Su-57 and the best in the world Anty Air systems like S-400 an Rd Pantsir... Russia was using 19th century tactics in 1914-1918 and Russia was doing the same in War in Ukraine.
In whole 20th century Russia build whole ZERO kilometers of highways...
Similr story with Germany, they were inventing fake reasons for the public in 1914, in 1939 and they did the same to build North Stream 1 and 2... for 10 years German media were constantly writing that Polish politicians that are saying that this pipe gonna destabilize central Europe are doing so because they are Russophobic -> and just now the same media are claiming that Poland is somehow responsible for that disaster...
My grandmother’s companion, who was basically my extended family member/grandfather until he died in 2007, was Russian. His father fought for Russia in WWI so I used to hear some wild stories about the Russian military then. He said Russian mobilization was very slow. When Alex’s father finally made it to the front, he was given nothing more than a small bag of mismatched ammunition and considered himself lucky. He was permanently disabled after being mustard gassed in the trenches. I can’t remember exactly what Alex told me, but I believe he said his dad’s vision and vocal chords were partially damaged and he walked with a limp of some sort as a result of the gas poisoning. Sort of like partial paralysis. He emigrated to America in the 1920s and his last name was changed at Ellis Island from Ansowick to Osowick as an effort to Americanize his last name. He moved to upstate NY and had Alex when he was older, I believe in his 40s, and he died I believe when Alex was 15 or 16 years old in 1954-1955ish. I was only 17 when Alex died, of course I knew almost nothing about WWI when he was alive. I wish I could have another conversation with him about it.
This is like.... alsmost a 1 to 1 recreation of Russia Ukraine war. Lack of supplies, Officers who treat soldiers poorly and soldiers who have no motivation to fight to begin with, unable to buy things from other countries for munitions, conscription in central asia. Wild
History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes
Every general that ever existed complained of a lack of supplies. There are good and bad officers in every army. Russia can buy whatever they want from BRICS countries (3/4 of the world's population now), there is no conscription in Russia, it's illegal. And if your motivation is to fight and kill, you are a psychopath who needs locking up
The Russians had their flaws for sure (like all the other powers), but as a French, I am really glad they fought on our side. They forced Germany to fight on two fronts, with troops that the Germans cruelly needed on the Western Front. Had it not been for Russia, it is safe to assume that we would not have been able to stop the Germans from taking Paris in 1914.
@@kevindvl8417 nah. Cavalry division and 2 infantry corps won't be enough to tip the balance. Schlieffen plan relied on speed, and it was already dead after siege of Liege.
Why were the British so useless in WWI.
Embedded election ad for Flump: "we will make America great again." I remember the last time you tried: no way! Kamala!
An ancestor came to US from Poland about 1890: when asked at Ellis Island what country he came from, answer was "don't know, but a subject of the Czar". Russia owned Poland at the time.
the battle of the marne was in september and the first battle russia had was in august.
not to mention it was france supporting russia, so if anything its france who forced the 2 front war instead of letting russia fight germany and austro-hungary alone.
Because of the same reason today.
The leader could not care less for the well being of their soldiers.
Russian elites stay the same, even 110 years later.
What are you yapping about?
@
Oh dear. Never heard of Putin?
@@Ubique2927 Russian elites never care about the well being of their soldiers, even 110 years later
You don't know what you are talking about.
There are so many similarities between the Russian military then and the Russian military now that it's ridiculous.
Russia's military Doctrine barely changed between the end of Zarist Russia and today
@@Gravity_studioss Yeah, they had T72 tanks and FPV drones during "Zarist Russia" .... nothing has changed... 🤣
@@Slav4o911he said doctrine not equipment. Learn the difference.
@@metalfuk1 as if the doctrine doesn't reflect the modern equipment
I frankly think their military structure is medieval. I mean that in a literal sense, not a mocking one.
I was a soldier and for the past decade or so, I've been a college history professor. One of my fields is Military History and Russian is one of the languages I speak/read in my research. Thanks for taking the trouble to make this video. While I take your general point here (the Russian Army underperformed---in some cases (Tannenburg/Masurian Lakes etc.) vastly), your title reflects a view which is incredibly oversimplified. What about the Brusilov Offensive, for example? Most professional military officers/historians would agree that was a rather effective campaign. Further, the Russian war effort---which tied down millions of German/Austro-Hungarian troops for three years (1914-1917) not to mention Turkish forces in the Caucasus region (where the Russian generally WON) really only collapsed in 1917---not to military ineptitude but to social revolution spurred by Lenin's Bolsheviks. Your assertion that Russia was useless in World War One is the logical equivalent of saying that Britain was "useless" in World War One because of Gallipoli, the results of the first day of the Somme, and the incomplete nature of the Jutland victory, or that the U.S. was "useless" because we weren't even in the war until 1917. You're certainly free to think/say what you want, but you should devote some effort towards more critical thought analysis when dealing with serious historical topics like this. In all honesty, this seems like a grade-school attempt to slam Russian performance in World War I, with what goal, who knows...maybe slamming Russia which is so prevalently popular in some shortsighted Western circles at present?
Titles like that encourages engagement, either from those like yourself which point out the oversimplification and others that finds comfort in complex probelms being simplified to something the average person can wrap thier minds around.
Your comment makes zero sense at multiple levels.. try again.
"Ruzzian bot payed by poutin him" what you say is incredibly true the Bursilov offensive likely prevented a entante collapse at Verdun.
The war would likely not been possible with out Russia while Russia it self preformed poorly in the objectives it wanted to achieve and was mixed military to say it was anything less that crucial in the war effort is ridiculous
@reserva120 it makes a lot of sense would you like him to provide you with pop up pictures and big colorful letters so you can understand it?
@@rc59191 actually son , you’re out of your league, stay with your video games .. A no still makes zero sense in a military history context ., Try again , little cowboy, and think harder ..
Because they fought a 20th-century war with Napoleonic weapons and tactics. No matter how skilled or brave you are, you are fighting with both hands tied behind your back.
Agreed. Russia had men, and even an impressive number of rifles [although not enough] but when combating a wall of bullets from German machine guns it was never going to be an even fight. It was going to be a slaughter. The introductory synopsis also fails to mention how the Germans not only delivered Lenin back to Russia in a move to undermine the Tsarist Government, they were also bankrolling his efforts. Sinister but brilliant from a German point of view.
@@landiahillfarm6590 Sinister, and extremely short-sighted! Lenin was a deadly threat to the whole world, not just the Tsar. That alone was the worst mistake the Germans ever made! It cost them half their country for 50 years. I would not call it brilliant!
I thought Napoleon achieved his victories with his superior artillery.
They used muskets and linear warfare?
@@Duck_Man4that's internet experts for you
WW1 was the first helmeted war where the armies involved went from soft caps and leather pickelhaubes to steel helmets, except for Russia and some of the Eastern Slavic armies. Russia pretty much kept soft cover Ushankas on their troops until they surrendered.
Russia actually ordered some adrian helmets from france, but when they got them emperor nicolas forbid issuing them to soldiers, because "giving soldiers protection would turn them into cowards".
There was no ushankas in WW1. Adrian helmet was introduced in 1915 in France and implemented in April 1916 in Russia. About Nikolaus II refusal it's looks like hoax - there is no single document about it, only some memoirs.
A fascinating documentary of Russia's roll in WW1. I was gripped by it all the way through.
Although Russia's war effort was doomed by incompetence, it did effectively divert German forces away from the western front until the US entered the war. Without Russia's part, the war in the west would have developed rather differently.
They won battles and held for multiple years, but at horrific, unsustainable cost.
@@TedShatner10 They inflicted almost as much (The Russians lost about a Million more if we consider the max estimate for both sides), the Austro Hungarian army was decimated on the eastern Front.
My great great uncle was John O'Rear and was the ambassador to Bolivia during WW1 and he personally convinced three South American countries to get involved in the war. Mostly providing funds and materials.
My great great grandpa was David Lloyd George and he won ww1 for us
@@nopedope454 David Lloyd George was a hack. This, you are a hack.
@@nopedope454 my great great grand all-father was Trainy McTrainface and he transformed the economy all over the world
So he convinced them to betray a friend.
They demolished the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman Empires so definetly not useless. They could not stand against Germany but there was no army in the world that could do so at the time
the mongolians could but they are trapped in anartica to this day cause they have behavioral problems.....rhats why you cant go there lol
.. .
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
The austro hungarian empire was extremely weak and the Ottoman Empire was called the sick man of Europe. Not getting your point there
@@achmadhabibihidayatullah3355 They were still useful is the point. Russia effectively was a counter-balance to two of Germany's major allies.
Austria surrendered 2years later after the Russian empire collapsed. So it means A-H Empire survived the collapse of the Russian Empire.
The Russian military was in reality a feudal army pretending to be a modern one, so it never stood a chance against the Germans, who in 1914 had the most advanced army in Europe.
Wouldn't have said most advanced.
Central and western Europe had different doctrines of warfare that at times stumped the other side.
I mean, at the time Germany and France had military service while britain had the only pure voluntary professional army in europe.
Britains troops could work independently from officers in groups while Germany and France used full on numbers to fight.
So other than maybe arguing training I'm not sure there was a most advanced country.
@@bigenglishmonkey They had a very effective training system, they had some good guns and they had excellent cohesion. Their logistics were also pretty good, though they should have had more trucks. The Generals were quite professional, unlike some of their British, French and Russian counterparts. The biggest problem was probably the German leadership, which unfortunately was too cocky and eager to take risks.
Useless?! Russia almost knocked Austria-Hungary out of the war and did a lot of damage to the Turkish army. During the first half of 1918 it became clear how badly the Allies had needed Russia.
Allies in France managed to repel the German Spring offensive and Italy defeated Austro-Hungary at the Piave River in the first half of 1918. "Allies badly needing Russia" is just not true.
Yeah, now imagine these German reinforcements arriving in France in 1914. And without Russia Italy wouldn't have declared war on A-H in the first place. Nice try though.
@@marknieuweboer8099 "During the first half of 1918 it became clear how badly the Allies had needed Russia."
That is what you've quoted. You didn't say anything about 1914 or the start of the war. This is just you moving the goalpost.
You didn’t understand what the video is saying. Russia underperformed massively relative to its size.
I think it came down to one reason - lack of private enterprises. When you don’t have material power, it’s hard to feel patriotic or brave or to have discipline. All other causes in the video wouldn’t have been an issue if Russia had that.
They Russian Serf Army got annihilate by Germanys Warrior Army. Look at Russia in Ukraine. You can't raise them as Peasants and Expect them to be Warriors
Not so useless to France during the height of the War. Austria-Hungary were bled white during the Brusilov offensive and Germany was constantly having to bail out its failing Allie’s because of Russia.
I😢😢😢😮😢7 13😅😮😮😅😮:09 😊ed e er😢😅t😢ree😅😊efetui😮weet 13:0😮9 rrttgy BB😅 13:09 K Brhatt r 13:yyw09 y😮😮 😮13:09 😅😮ty😅wt😮yy😢 13:09 13:09 by😢rrt😮😮 13:09 ĥ jo😅e🎉😮 13:😮09 🎉eft y 13:09 ty8ege😢ty 13:09 😢7r 13 😢g😢
I think thats more a matter of Germany having poor choice of allies than it is of Russia being competent. No doubt they saved the French, but it was more of the fact that they existed than it was of them doing anything strategically well. Not until 1917 at least
@@Zilliguy That's right. I forgot. It wasn't until 1917 that the Russian Imperial Army's failures had an strategic impact on the war. The Battles of Galicia in 1914, Operation Sarikamish in 1915, The Erezum Offensive in 1916, or the Brusilov offensive in 1916. None of those Russian operational successes had any positive affect for the Allied War effort.
5:30 is pretty funny, didn't know the russians were that well versed in dutch. The banners that I could read were: "Oorlog aan den oorlog" = war against war and "kapitalisme brengt den dood" = kapitalism brings death.
I'm nitpicking here, but now i'm really curious as to where and when this protest was. The discipline of those protesters staying on one side of the road 4 abreast is quite impressive tbh. Due to the clothing etc, I guess that it was during the korean war.
Capitalism has brought your wonderful lifestyle to you.
@@donkeyslayer9879 Partly. Regulated capitalism combined with social democracy has gotten me the lifestyle that i have.
Capitalism on it's own doesn't improve the lifestile of ppl, except a very very small percentage of the population. It is a system based on exploitation of resources (that includes ppl) to maximise profits. And in capitalism only profits matter. That's why socialism was born in the first place.
There once was a time of unregulated capitalism. It's called the industrial revolution. Where virtually everyone was poor, uneducated and working 16hrs a day, 6 days a week, for just enough money to pay for bread and rent (which of course they both needed to get from the boss, so complaining meant getting fired, homeless and starving. And your kids, yep, as soon as they can stand without tumbling over, you guessed it, they also get to work stupidly long hours because without the wages of your 6 kids you won't even be able to pay the rent and food from your boss with the wages that your boss give you.
Wanna learn about why socialism started? Watch the movie "Daens", which offers one of the most comprehensive insights into life during the industrial revolution.
So no, it's not capitalism that gave us our lifestyle, it's in fact the social revolution that did, be demanding dignity, fair wages etc, instead of ppl being almost enslaved into capitalism.
Capitalism in itself is simply unfettered exploitation when left to itself. It is however needed as it's something that pushes society forwards technologicaly, however it constantly threatens to push our freedoms and lifestyle back at the same time. So balance is needed.
Saying capitalism is great/bad is as stupid as saying socialism is great/bad. Both keep eachother in balance. And it's that balance that gives us our lifestyle.
capusvacans....... this video combines historical footage from newsreels with scenes from various movie re-enactments. So I'm guessing you saw a scene from a Dutch movie or TV show.
@capusvacans Where did you get all this senseless babble? Your Marxist professors who wouldn't tell you the truth if their life depended on it. You just get enough of this vomit and go back for more. There, I will not credit what you sau Capitolism then, Capitalism now
CAPITALISM FOREVER
Germany: "Russia won't be ready for war."
Russia: "We're ready!"
Germany: "Oh? Well, okay..."
Germany: "They weren't ready."
The revolution did not start with the workers strike, but with the "women day" manifestation. At the end of the day, the women did not go home. The next days, factory workers joined them in the streets.
Then the police and the Cossack had to charge the manifestations.
The Cossack charge the police... And that was that. Good-by tzar.
Hello, Tragical Misery Tour. For the next 72 years,
I would imagine the situation differently. Given the level of industrial development of Russia (which was significantly inferior to Germany, Britain or France), given that Russia had to fight on the vast expanse of the eastern front alone + the Caucasian Front against Turkey and given Russia's logistical problems, Russia just proved to be quite good. Considering all of this factors, plus the lack of competent tactics, aircraft, tanks and training of soldiers, Russia even showed very good results. In such a situation, it was not necessary to expect such successes as the Battle of Galicia, the Battle of Lodz or the Brusilov offensive. Russian russians were able to achieve this, however, not least thanks to such commanders as Brusilov and the general steadfastness of the Russian soldiers.
In other words, nothing has changed in Russia.
I was about to say that.
Well, the lack of stocks of rifles and ammunition certainly changed after decades of Soviet manufacturing.
@@matiasyannuzzi9655except that they produced, but didn’t account for and maintain. So the stuff wasn’t necessarily available when it was needed.
Big things are hard to manage and nothing is bigger than Russia.
In other words, you have no idea where Russia even is, let alone the state of it's military.
Though for the most part Russia's officer corps were incompetent and complacent, they were far from useless (at least, no more useless than pretty much every other belligerent in WW1 was) and had a few bright spots during WW1. The Brusilov Offensive devastated Austria-Hungary and forced Germany to siphon even more resources from the Western Front to the East in preparation for the Battle of the Somme shortly after, and the Kerensky Offensive also had some small success. Russia's incompetence just seemed more apparent than most others due to the prevalent myth of the "Russian Steamroller" going around at the time, and when Russia underperformed to those expectations, everyone pointed their fingers at them to hide their own incompetence and blunders (particularly "Papa" Joffre's meatgrinder tactics on the Western Front and persistent refusal to learn from his mistakes would make Shoigu look Humanitarian in comparison).
But the main central success that Russia accomplished was fulfilling its obligations to its allies in England and France for as long as it did (contrast this, for example, with Italy's constant side-switching during BOTH World Wars), and above all else, Russia's mobilization despite its military weakness threw another big wrench into the Schlieffen Plan by forcing crucial divisions to be diverted away from the West when Germany needed all of them. By just ruining the Schlieffen Plan and bogging down the Germans from mobile warfare AND keeping France in a two-front war against them, Russia had more or less defeated Germany from the very offset and guaranteed the Entente would win WW1 in the first place.
Question: Why would you even mobilize millions of soldiers if you don´t have the rifles or ammunition for them to use? They are basically dead weight on the battle field that need to be supplied, and they are not availible as workforce at home. So why would they do it?
You sound exactly like that minister who was fired by cryca because his opinions made too much sense...
Mybe these extra soldiers were as a reserve for the expected large losses... it is also possible that they were optimistically assuming that they would capture the enemy's warehouses, Russia used similar crabs as the Germans...
It is very hard to say what the plans were of the mindless morons who took the position only because they had noble descent.
By Russian logic, they are not dead weight, since, as extra bodies, they absorb bullets in a charge and, anyhow, can still dig trenches or carry stuff.
Russian military in WW1 and WW2 can be described as "brave", but led by mostly incompetent leaders. While there were capable Generals like Alexei Brusilov or Georgi Zhukov, the Russian Army was beset by inadequate military training and programs.
Simultaneously, Austria and Turkey at WW1 were simply even worse than Russia as the majority of their Generals were terrible.
Yup….absurdly inefficient.
Conrad 😮
A-H Empire survived the collapse of the Russian Empire
Glad to see that has changed since then
Zhukov was just a mere cavalry officer during I WW, noone important
In 2024, one can find many pictures of Russian soldiers (typically militiamen not tasked with frontline duty) equipped with those Mosin Nagant rifles, so at least ~110 years later they seemed to have solved that particular problem! Now, if they could only equip their soldiers with rifles that were manufactured in this century, that would be a sign of major progress being made.
An ignorant post. Those Mosin Nagant rifles were used by reservists of the DNR/LNR. Not the Russian Army with the exception of a few instances. Why? They're not bad rifles for sniping long distances in the static warfare they were fighting. They also serve as good rear area assets for security ect. You look phucking stupid, STFU.
They are not actual Russian soldiers, these are units from DPR and LPR. Some of these people probably have fought with these weapons and now that they are no longer at the front lines they just kept using them. I don't think Russia has any shortage of AKs.
@@Slav4o911 I'm pretty sure that I said they were militia, and not regular infantry, in my regular post. But, indeed, my understanding of the comports with what you've stated here.
@Slav4o911 One doesn't use an Ak for every type of soldier, though that was the idea when it was invented. Carbines are better than battle rifles if you have to get in and out of a vehicle, and each squad of light infantry needs a guy with a belt-fed machine gun to lay down cover fire to let the assaulting elements maneuver easier. Even an Ak74u is generally inferior to one of the uzi variants if your fighting tunnels or other cramped earthworks, whereas an auto shotty like the SPAS-12 rules the trenches once your guys emerge from underground/inside and into those winding mazes both sides have been constructing at a furious pace ever since the so-called "great counter-offensive" fell apart. But yeah, the Moist Nugget, or "Trash Rod" if you prefer, should really be sold in the states where they could get enough money to turn around and buy a cheap but good enough (better than what they're using now that's for sure) used AR-15 clone, or get a good used Springfield M1A or H&K MR556 if you add a few hundred on top.
Russia has all equipment,it just doesnt bother giving it to dpr,since they thought ukraine war will be bliezkrieg.When it happens to be long war,Russia quickly fixed all rifle problems.There were 1-2 photos of mosin nagan in use,just like 1-3 T-54 only been used in ukraine,yet west think that half of the Russian army fight with mosins,I mean april 2022 was the last time I saw mosin in battle
Imagine a Tsar who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight?
millions of German, Turkish and Austro-Hungarian soldiers died fighting aganist Russia, even the unsuccesfull russian campains resulted in major critical situations and lack of manpower for the central powers.
Russia internal situation was unstable since 1905, this is why they let AH invade Bosnia and challenge Serbia's interests in the region. Germany assumed Russia would not intervene in a major war in order to avoid put more stress on the russians already crippled trust toward the Tsar.
The Germans are the kings of intrigue...
who always trip over their own feet...
and nothing changes in either Russia or Germany.
@@Bialy_1that's a weird way of spelling British
Wrong. The Kaiser wanted to avoid war regardless of how were the situation in Russia.
@@edgarhilbert4797 then they should have kept Poland as a buffer state and they shouldn't have recognized AH's claims over Bosnia and Serbia that were Russia's closest allies... keeping Russia neutral should have been a priority over having an already collapsing AH empire as an ally.
“Many of whom who wanted independence”
Still a valid quote 110 years later
Majority of the soldiers were peasants and were sometimes treated badly by the officers who were mostly from the upper class, the Tsar just thought that his army would be loyal, you have to also take in the fact that Russia is at war and they have to ration stuff, people like peasants are going to feel it more than anyone, so imagine you’re solider and your family is barely surviving back home, why would you want to keep fighting for a country where your family can’t survive. Also Russia should have invested more into their military equipment, to me it’s the Battle Of Port Arthur that ignited the downfall of Russian Imperial Army, the Japanese had defeated the Russians in no time because they had the latest ships while Russian Navy at time had older ships, never underestimate your opponent and the czar did with Japan.
Japan was equipt from US.
I doubt the demonstration he shows at 24:53 is in Russia. The banners are in Dutch. They say: "capitalism brings death" and "war on the war". The Netherlands were neutral in WWI, but the war did cause economic difficulties.
Henry Stewart History, I hope you make more battles in the Spanish American Wars of Independence that would be more awesome to see and also the Brazilian War of Independence it happen in the same time.
Battles on the Spanish American Wars of Independence.
Battle of Chacabuco 1817
Battle of Maipu 1818
Battle of Boyaca 1819
Battle of Pichincha 1822
Battle of Lake Maracaibo 1823
Battle of Marlboro
Excellent! Thank you! Eager to see the Nicky II doc.
Fascinating and great video. I never understood the true depth of incompetence of the Tsarist regime during WWII and how they led Russia’s military to its demise.
The brusilov offensive was the first offensive of the war to actually manage to break theough a dug in enemy defense.
After the Austria hit Serbia, it was the Russia who actually started the WWI. Without Russia declaring war on Austria WWI wouldn't happen at all.
True, Serbia would have steamrolled Austria and that would have been that. Naturally im now going to be told that this is not true. But the Serbian army did not lose a single battle to the Austrian one. The first time a loss happened was when both Germany and Bulgaria along with Austria attacked together.
The reality was that Serbia was very battle hardened and experienced with war. Unlike Austria whos main experience was actually diplomacy.
Buuut... none of this could happen, since Germany wanted a War with Russia as soon as possible. You have historic letters between Kaiser Wilhelm and Franz Joseph which easily prove this. In reality the Austrians also did not really want war, but the conditions set were so insulting that Serbia could never accept them.
@@easycake3251 what was the reason for Deutsches Reich to fight Russia?
@@Hasmasnafg It is always the same... more land for Germans... They started to push East hard over thousand of years before and never stoped. Berlin name have Polabian orgins -> there is no Polabian people nowdays and the language is dead, the same story with Prussians as they were both part of Baltic-Slavic family of languages...
@@Bialy_1 But now, Slavs reign supreme
Cold War myth. Germany was going to invade Luxembourg, Belgium, France regardless of Russian response.
In the very beginning of the war UK position was unclear it was not in rush to join the war, so Kaiser Wilhelm asked Von Moltke to invade Russia instead of France, Von Moltke replied it's not possible, troops already deployed for the west. The Schlieffen plan never had the Russian part.
It would be great if you could share the movies or documentaries from which you get the clops you use.
Leo Tolstoy died in 1910. I do not know when he wrote this but it absolutely applied to the Russian military during the war.
We have no army, we have a horde of slaves cowed by discipline, ordered about by thieves and slave traders. This horde is not an army because it possesses neither any real loyalty to faith, tsar and fatherland - words that have been so much misused! - nor valor nor military dignity. All it possesses are, on the one hand, passive patience and repressed discontent, and on the other, cruelty, servitude and corruption.
And it seems to barely have changed throughout the years. Interesting how he predicted the course of the entire 20th century without even seeing WW1
Doesn’t sound much different than the Russian Army today!
there's no evidence tolstoy ever said this, I see it frequently touted by redditors and midwits but there's no source.
Ushanka is simply the Russian word for hat, so the association with it being only applied to the traditional Cossack headgear is in error. Even though the French Adrian helmet was issued in the Czarist Army in April 1916, it was in limited numbers, much like rifles and ammunition were. So the greater amount of Russian soldiers still retained soft headgear. Italy also used the Adrian helmet after switching sides in 1915.
Something worth noting is that mechanization of farming (or LACK of mechanization of farming) greatly affected how the various powers could handle multiple years of war. When you take a huge number of working-age men out of the workforce to go fight, they can't farm. Do that long enough, or on a big enough scale, or both, and you start getting starvation. It happened to most of the major powers in WW1 and to a lesser degree in WW2 (because of more machinery being available). Russia was one of the worst affected, followed by Germany.
Russia performed well early on in the war. Where other countries were able to quell mutinies (like France,England) Russia did not. A couple bad loses and the Russian military did begin to crumble. So yes later on it did become useless.
Mutinies?
Last I checked britain had none.
Unless you want to count the irish in ireland taking a chance at independence?
"Princip died on 28 April 1918 from tuberculosis exacerbated by poor prison conditions which had already caused one of his arms to be amputated."
Russia was the only nation that was able to penetrate into germany (they controlled east prussia even for a while), meanwhile US, france and britain could not even when it was 3v1. The brusilov offensive was the millitary operation that made hightest gains iin terms of distance in the whole war and it was 2 empires vs one. A little biased. Imagine the reinforcements instead going to fight against russia it would go to the western front.
To be fair, Russia pushed into Germany because Germany was hyper focused on the west in early 1914, and then they got their butt kicked once they started focusing on the east. Also in 1918 we would’ve reached into Germany but they read the room and clocked out
Don't put US in this. lol . When US entered the war, they were pushing Germany. Adding US don't help your narrative.
So, despite outnumbering Germany (focused on France) and Austrohungary (a joke) 2 times, they only managed to partially defeat the weakest Austrohungary, and then capitulate? Is that what you mean?
The Eastern front of ww1 was also seeing early maneuver warfare. The Western Front were stalemates of trench after trench.
russia was useless keep coping
Many British soldiers were not issued with rifles, they were told to pick up rifles from the fallen.
Not much changed under Putin.
I'd argue things have gotten much worse under Putin. Even during the worst of times Russia was still respected as a military/world power, no matter how much of a lie it was. Putin has not only destroyed that image for decades to come, but also lost incredibly important allies to Russia, killed their geopolitical relations and economy for decades to come.
@@Stealth86651 that is nonsense
Sending a soldier to war without.a rifle is basically telling them to go out there to die.
It wasn’t useless for the other countries in the allied forces. It was just useless in the sense that had Russia not join the war. Most likely the Russian Empire would have survived. Well maybe not necessarily survived but they definitely may have survived for a few more years. By the czar leaving Russia to join the front line was a monumental mistake. Russia could’ve been still around for a few more years had they not really were heavily involved in the war. And focused on their own problems at home.
Counting cartridges instead of soldiers.
The Russian army always worked a little bit different.
But I remember that book by an Englishman who found himself on the eastern front when WWI started. Instead of traveling home, he fought the Germans, paying for his own expenses, it seemed. So, he was actively fighting but he was not an official part of the Russian army.
Anyway, he mostly described "battles" as something like knifework, or words hinting to blades and close combat.
I am not sure how long that dude fought - it might only have been half a year. He mentioned running out of money at the end.
Fast forward 100 years, and not much had changed. They can't even beat a smaller and lesser equipped country.
And ho told you that? Western media 😂😂😂😂
@NathanRyan08 Here is the truth, they take it easy. They don't go full force to preserve the human lives on their end, and that's why it's so slow.
@@vitaliysilchenko8949unbelievable russoid cope coming from a country that just lost a fifth of a Russian state in 3 days.
@@vitaliysilchenko8949 No Russian soldiers who have surrendered. It is also difficult to pretend to be anything but incompetent when the equipment does not work, food is out of date, ammunition is imported from 1960s stocks and blows up early to kill crews, troops are untrained, and as soon as they meet a determined force just run away.
@mbak7801 How can you be so naive and think like a child? 98% of those who surrendered in cursk region was conscripts. And 90% of what POW say anywhere in the world is what they were told to say.
I think we overlook the minor military reform after the Russo-Japanese war. Those reform was great in theory since it adapted the army into the early modern warfare. It proved during the early engagement, but they never fixed the logistics.
2024. A century later , nothing much has changed for Russia.
Hope you talking about those who spent trillion dollars in 20 years, to replace the taliban with the taliban. 😂
2 trillion and 20 years, replacing taliban with taliban
@@dailyinternettrends1180 your mom
@@dailyinternettrends1180remind me of American casualties there for 20 years
And then russian ones for 1 year
@@eg310seriously. And I would be surprised if Russia has only spent a few trillion on the war so far.
Well done Cato! What a fun and very interesting film. You did a great job😊
Ah bad title, imagine if undisturbed Austro-Hungary direct large number of troops worthy of hundred thousand to Western Front of France, thing would have change a lot. Since the combine of French and British can barely reach stalemate against Germany, the arrival of large number of Austro-Hungary troops could possibly break that stalemate a lot.
Which is an impossible scenario anyway since the war started with Serbia and France wouldn't have care about it if Russia didn't
@@theodorsebastian4272 Without Russia, which distracted and destroyed the vast majority of Austria-Hungary's army, Serbia would be forced to fight a war of attrition (unlike in real life where A-H & Serbian forces were roughly the same size), and the Serbs would never be able to handle so much pressure (not even mentioning a Bulgarian entry). Also, once Serbia is knocked out with the superior Austro-Hungarian manpower and industry, and Bulgarian entry, France would be also forced to face Austro-Hungarian troops if they didn't capitulate yet.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 Without Russia France would not be obliged to defend Serbia thus no WWI
@@theodorsebastian4272 WW I would have happened in one form or another anyway, it wasn't about Serbia or Austria, it was about weapon oversaturation, militarism and colonial disputes
@Henry_the_Eighth_ Aside from Serbia/Austria contention there weren't any Hotspot that could trigger the great war anywhere else
Colonial dispute like the Moroccan crisis or the Kaiser supporting the Boer have too many wriggling room
Serbia/Austria is a perfect storm where the great power status of Austria and Russia(After the defeat at the hand of Japan) was on the line
And there was a lot of nationalism surge and instability after Austria annexation of Bosnia,Italo Turkish war and two Balkan war
And Germany and France was confusedly pulled in
Good video, good calling out the success of the Brusilov offensive, but missed the part where the Brusilov offensive was hampered by other jealous officers who didn't like his reforms. Would have played well into some of the conflict within the high command of Russia you highlighted. I hit subscribe.
Even today, in 2024, 25% of all Russians have no indoor plumbing.
HALF of rural Russians still use out houses.
In America, it is less than one-half of one percent.
BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS! IT TURNS OUT THAT, the U.S. has only gotten this far because of slavery that lasted 400 years! wow america is perfect!!!!!
Oh comeon man, its BS. They have paved ways everywhere, even in Kamchatka, while Americans dont have paved ways in most of Alaska. Go to ggogle maps and check it, you wont find a single dirtroad north of the arctic there.
"Even today, in 2024, 25% of all Russians have no indoor plumbing."
are you sure about that? probably you translated something wrong.
Yes-Yes, we also eat raw meat and heat houses with coal (AND THAT'S IF WE'RE LUCKY)
The USA HAS NOT EXISTED FOR 400 YEARS. GO READ A BOOK.@@TQsquad
9:00 Fun fact: Right before the war order for automobiles was signed with Daimler company ( Austro- Hungarian).
I personally think the Italians performed the poorest (they didn't do the best in the WW2 either), not only did they technically betray their allies and got caught fighting in the mountains, but there were casualties we're also horrendous and they gained little to nothing to show for it (Italy received very little when the war ended, which had been their main motivation for joining in the first place). Despite the Russian Empire's issues on the battlefield and in its command structure, they were definitely effective when it came to the overall outcome of the war. Imagine if Russia had not fought at all. All of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops that were occupied fighting them on the Eastern front would have been free to pressure on the west. We saw the benefits of this when the Russians actually did pull out of the conflict as the Germans were able to launch several successful offensives before running out of steam in the West. They could have arguably done a lot more if they had the entire Austro-Hungarian Army assisting them as well, as their participation on the Western front was extremely limited.
Russia (with assistance from Romania) was also able to inflict heavy losses on all major Alliance power, including the German Empire (800,000 KIA/MIA / 1,150,000 WIA and 250,000 POWs ), Austria-Hungary (1,150,000+ KIA/MIA / 3,200,000 WIA and 2,200,000 POWs), and the Ottoman Empire (120,000+ KIA / 300,000 WIA and 80,000+ POWs). Without those casualties being committed by the Russians on Central Alliance forces I can't say that I know how well the Triple Entente would fare. That is a lot of men that would be free to fight.
Ironically Mussolinis rise to power was by claiming Italy had been betrayed.
Sounds that you have ZERO knowledge about central Europe and what Russia lost there...
@@Bialy_1 Lmfao 🤣. "Sounds that you have" it sounds as if you have issues speaking English...
@@Bialy_1 I teach history for a living, I'm well aware of what the Russian Empire lost.. I'm not at work though, I should be able to make a comment without going into extreme detail about every aspect of history. The statistics that I provided above are literally from the beginning of this video... I mentioned that Russia's contribution regardless of their actual performance on the battlefield was absolutely vital to the outcome of the war. And it was. That is a fact. If they had not participated things would have almost certainly been much worse for those on the Western front. Russia was able to inflict heavy losses on all Alliance powers, that is also a fact. My comment above didn't depict anything about Russia winning at all. All I said is despite their inadequate leadership and failures on the battlefield that they were able to cause major damage during the war. Again that is a fact. Thank you for your comment though.
@@Bialy_1 and also my comment wasn't about who lost what in all really, it was about who performed the poorest but contributed the most. Yes Russia did perform poorly and lost greatly in the end, her nation plunged into revolution and her people starved. It was then embroidered in a deadly Civil War. But in the end it still did more to contribute to allied victory then Italy did. Yes the Italians were able to hold down substantial numbers of Austro-Hungarian forces, but their efforts were nothing when compared to even the Brusilov offensive. For the Russians it was a costly offensive but the damage that they were able to inflict on the Germans and Austro-Hungarians is a well known fact. Just that offensive alone cost more than Italy was able to inflict in the entire conflict. Regardless it's just a straight-up fact that both performed badly but Italy literally gained nothing and contributed moderately little when compared to Russia.
My two reasons, in addition to the ones stated in this excellent video:
1) Not only the incompetence, but the corruption of Sukomlinov, the minister of armaments.
His wife shopped in Paris while Russian artillerymen were under the threat of court martial if they fired more than three shells per day, and men waited for their comrades to die so that they could have a rifle.
2) In addition to the lack of a proper manufacturing base, Russia had very little in the way of railway lines. Nowhere near enough to keep an army supplied.
History repeats itself in the Ukraine
The history of which war? WWI or the GPW? Tis the question.
@@Scrat335Definitely WW1, Russia not being able to take Kyiv given their massive advantages in basically every aspect of warfare just shows how hopelessly incompetent they are. Even if they do win eventually, the war itself has already become an embarrassment.
Russia was Useless in WW1? Italy in WW2: Hold my beer..
i’d be very curious to know what movie clips you used in this? because they look interesting and i want to watch them. anyways, also consider citing sources in the description. It’s all fair use and the fair use principle can save you from unnecessary copyright strikes. Even though shenanigans like that do still happen anyway
What is the film in the very beginning?
Russia sent armies into Germany in 1914 before Russia itself was fully mobilized, in order to relieve pressure on France being invaded by Germany. If not for Russian invasion of East Prussia and German panic reaction to shift multiple divisions from West Front to East Front, the German Schlieffen Plan might have succeeded in August 1914, Paris might have fallen like in WW2 and Franco-Prussian War, and France would have surrendered just like in the other two occasions when Russia played no active role in fighting, and Germany would have won the war. Despite not being fully monilized, Russia nearly knocked Austro-Hungary out of the war in 1914, 1915 and 1916, each time necessitating massive German troops to save Austro-Hungary, thereby reducing German pressure on the Western Front. Even then French soldiers were on the verge of mutinying by the end of 1917 and early 1918, only the arrival of US troops and British tanks gave heart to Western Allies and enabed them to advance pushing back the Germans.
Can you list the movie clips you used?
Battle of Galicia? Siege of Premzyl? Brusilive offensive?
4 millions💀
GREAT DETAIL!
You make a very good point that most people do not know or do not understand; which is this... The Russian Imperial Empire was not a capitalistic.
True, feudalism had only ended approximately 60 years before, and most people were still subsistence farmers. Russian was 100 years behind everyone else socially. Ive heard from a russian friend that even today its not uncommon to see soviet flags in more rural parts of Russia.
@@InterrogatorchaplainAsmodaiwhat's so strange about seeing red flags? I think you can still see Confederate flags in southern states in the US, even though it's been almost 200 years
Gavrilo Princip is arguably the single most important assassin in the history of the world. That 19 year old boy changed everything! Literally everything!
Yes. Seems to me there should be more explicit emphasis that US support for Ukraine is a national security issue, not a “foreign aid” issue.
Russia was done in when London arranged Lenin a rail track tripnbackntonrusdia and bishievek thought infiltrating the lower ranks of the Russian infantry at front Russia was not only fighting Germany but internal forces which in end forced Russia out of war and created the most disastrous era of duma under Kerensky perhaps worst leader in Russian / kievan- rus history that goes back a ways. Was one the numerous troubles times.
Russia has underperformed in war since the middle ages there are many exampeles of this. Its greatests strenght has always been its enormous territory and its willingness to let its people suffer.
5:30 this old footage is from a Dutch protest: "oorlog aan den oorlog" is not Russian. they do have anti-capitalist and anti-war banners so close enough
THE CZAR WAS TOTALLY USELESS
Man, history is so full of "Russia should have absolutely kicked everyone's asses here, but instead they didn't."
Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics - Napoleon. You don’t generally out fight an opponent in a long war you out produce them. We out produced Germany and Japan. Particularly in fuel. Russia did not have the economy to defeat Germany in the first war. Stalin settled that in the second.
Polish underground destroyed German logistic and USA and UK fixed Soviet logistics...
Stalin influence was execution of 40 000 of officers just before Germans invaded and lets not forget that after he invaded Poland with Germans as its brothers in arms he ordered to dismantle old defensive lines...
Polish partisants made over 13000 documented attacks on German train infrastructure.
USA privided 400 000 trucks and jeeps -> and go and check how many trains USSR produced after invasion and how many USA provided to them...
@@Bialy_1 I never said Stalin was the only reason for the USSRs success, the US was the economic and logistical engine for WWII. Certainly Stalin was as evil or perhaps more evil a leader as Hitler was, but he ruthlessly pushed for industrialization in the USSR and during the war the USSR out produced the Germans in Tanks, Artillery, planes, guns and as important - oil.
5:29 that scene seems to be correct, women holding russian signs. However the next shot saying it's 8 March 2017 women protest supposedly in Russia that can't be right. The signs aren't Russian at all. The signs are Dutch, one reads "Oorlog aan den Oorlog" which kinda doesn't make much sense but translates to "war to the war". The other sign in front reads "Katpitalisme Brengt den Dood" which means "capitalism brings death". Whatever this is is, it's not Russia but that has to be some protest in the Netherlands or perhaps northern Belgium in the Dutch speaking Flemish regions.
I recommend everyone to read Norman Stone "Eastern Front 1914-1917" dispels alot of myth of the underequipped Russian Army, etc
best way to explain. it is what it is. great thing to learn
Russia needs (and has always needed) ten men to win a fight against a one-armed man
US hadn't fought an equal war in how many years?
@@АлександрОрлов-п9ч As opposed to Russia's "near peer" adversaries: Georgia, Ukraine and Chechnya
@@roghider319 well, Georgia was beaten, Chechnya was a mess, but in the end - Russia did better in Chechnya than US in any muslim region overrun by extremists, maybe not from the military standpoint, but socially - now it has a loyal leader, no civil war and a semblance of a law.
Ukraine - yes, it's much closer to an equal war with modern weapons on the both sides than anything any European country experienced since WWII
Interesting/informative/entertaining. Excellent still-motion photography pictures/maps. Enabling viewers to better understand what the orator is describing. The Czar should have kept out of the military planing.
2:25 Why is Ottoman Empire ignored in that map? It is not like they are irrelevant to this story either. It is because of Ottoman victory at Gallipoli, where Mustafa Kemal, the founder of modern Turkey, was the commander, that British failed at sending aid to Russia, resulting in its collapse. So, Ottomans are very much relevant to this story but they are not even shown on the map.
Least fragile Turkish nationalist lmao
@Chungus581 LOL. I'm the furthest from a nationalist. I'm a communist. And I'm not even born in Turkey, dummy. Do you always jump to conclusions like that, thinking you know it all?
The ottoman empire wasn't involved at the beginning of the war, he does talk about the effect of the ottoman empire later in the video.
Sounds a lot like modern russia
Modern Russia is up against Nato in Ukraine
"Russia would vastly underperform"
This seems to be a running theme throughout history, all the way up to the present day.
13:42 .. The problems during WW1 for the Russian Army?? .. Sound strikingly similar to the problems NOW in the battle against Ukraine ...and at 14:35
22:03 while the Germans didn't march an actual army into the Russian capital, they did help orchestrate the collapse of the Russian state. The protests were disorganized with many factions having many different agendas, the German government got in contact with various Bolshevik leaders in exile throughout Europe after failed revolution attempts in the past, they provided them with support and transported back to Russia on special trains so they could take control of the protests and absorb the different factions. After the Tsar abdicated and the provisional government was formed, things still might have been very different if the Bolshevik leaders hadn't have been there at the right time, the Tsar and his family might have lived, might even remained a token figurehead, the Russian war effort might have continued longer though largely reduced, etc.
In effect, Germany did get an army to invade the Russian capital, but it was an army of Russians.
Without Russia, Serbia would face the full might of the Austro-Hungarian army and lose the war of attrition.
Without Russia, France would suffer an early defeat against the Germans.
Without Russia, the Italians wouldn't have been able to repel the Austro-Hungarian Asiago offensive.
The Russian army was certainly flawed, but without them the other Entente would be never able to beat the Central Powers. Not to mention that Russia's successes made Austria-Hungary completely dependent on Germany.
The Serbians faced more of the Austro-Hungarian army than russia did in the first year, and the trench warfare stalemate stared over a month before the Russians started fighting.
Don't know much about the third point, but give the first 2 are wrong I'll say that one is too.
"Why was Russia so useless in World War I?" "Do you see torpedo boats?" 😅
The most Reddit thing I've seen in a while
The assassination was an excuse; but it was not the cause.
Putin considers him self a student of history. He should watch this documentary and hopefully understand what happened to the last Russian leader with absolut power
my grandfather told me Russia had modern arms in WWI and Austria was fighting back with military musicians
Bro how did russia get so big theyre terrible at war lately?? 😂
Russians terrible at war ? in WW2 they smashed the Germans.
I believe one emminent military historian described Shummolnikov the War Minisyer (forgive the spelling) as " a military fossil", sums it up nicely.
No AI voice is what we are looking for my friend. I’m immediately subscribing to your channel. Nobody admires laziness.
Amén!!!
So technically, nothing has changed since ww1 in Russia until now.
You’re delusion. They’re winning and it’s obvious
@@baseballworldwide9439 cool got me a russian bot! that is OBVIOUS.
Because it's Russia. That suffices for an explanation.