Not to mention that britain can blockade the sea so germany can slowly dying because german only have alot of coal where as britain can invade germany colony and milk them along with india
If I have learned something about Britain is that they love do dig on old papers. The Guarantee of Belgium was signed in 1830 and it was supposed to keep Belgium independent from the Dutch, Prussians/Germans and French who would maybe try to reconquer the Benelux and the Portuguese entry in ww1 where the British dug out a half millenium old document to convince the Portuguese to fight in Africa.
@@petartoshkov2076 The Dutch weren't the most important reason for this treaty. You see, when Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated, the British created the UK of the Netherlands to balance out the powers in Europe. They don't wanted either France and Prussia of getting too powerful. When Belgium got independent, France wanted to annex a part of Belgium and so wanted Prussia. This would have destroyed the intentions behind the UK of the Netherlands entirely. So that's why the British signed this guarantee with Belgium. It has always been in the interest of Great Britain to revive the UK of the Netherlands. Proof of this is when they forced the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourgish governments in exile during WWII to form the Benelux. Benelux doesn't make any sense for the Netherlands and Belgium except for the UK (and Luxembourg), because the Benelux countries are three separate countries that over the time have split up due to too big cultural differences between the Dutch and the French and the Luxembourgians for not accepting a woman as king. The Benelux is just there to continue Dutch rule over Belgium and Luxembourg as originally intended albeit in a weaker form.
NCR Trooper it could have been possible. The British had refused to recognize Belgian control over the Congo. The only reason they did after a while, is that Belgium started to get friendly with Germany, which would allow the Germans to send troops through Belgium to flank the French.
@@galiarecinos132 Britain and Germany were already in an arms race of sorts. Both sides were rapidly expanding their navies for example. The "no invading Belgium" thing was just their best excuse to join in on the fighting.
"Germany would basically use the same plan in 20 years except with tanks and war crimes" Yeah, there were some war crimes committed the first time too unfortunately.
Patavinity Yes, but if you compare them to England and France, you can see that both sides are not innocent. In fact, he said that Germany only committed the usual number of war crimes. Well, war crimes are war crimes nonetheless.
Patavinity If you mostly in Belgium, yes, ok there you have a point, even if most of the accused points have been completely exaggerated for war propaganda.
@Fabian Kirchgessner 1. What does "in general, no" mean ? You seem to be dismissing this fact because it 'only' happened in Belgium, as if that weren't bad enough. Murdering Belgian civilians is very much worthy of intense shame, actually. It's not even true anyway: German armed forces committed several other war crimes proscribed at the Hague Convention, namely the use of banned chemical weapons, the murder of British and French civilians with bombing and shelling campaigns, and the use of unrestricted submarine warfare. 2. The death of German civilians due to malnourishment is simply not morally equivalent to the deliberate murder of civilians with weapons of war. Furthermore, the food shortages were largely the fault of the German military dictatorship, who both mismanaged the food supply in Germany, and directed most of it to soldiers at the front. Hindenburg and Ludendorff carry a greater share of responsibility for those deaths than the Royal Navy does.
@Fabian Kirchgessner It doesn't matter if it was exaggerated in the propaganda. It happened. People died. That's all that matters. Also, the blockade didn't target food supplies, it targeted the war economy. Again, the German government deliberately underfed the population for the sake of providing more for the army. That's no one else's fault.
As a Belgian I approve this video 🇧🇪 also I just discovered this Chanel and I really love it. Keep it up. Maybe you could do a video on our disturbing history in the Congo.
Yes they burned down the university of Löwen but they did nopt rape or as the British propaganda claimed hacked of the hands of Belgium children ... Belgiums did that in the Congo Colony. Both side committed war crimes .. the british blockade starved german children to death but as they won it was no crime and USA/Britian have never been accused of war crimes they had done in their history as media is controlled by them and they are always the good guys.
my history teacher opened this video in the classroom (when going to school was a thing) and everyone loved it....just wanted to say this coz this video needs more love.
You forgot to mention that the British empire entered the war on France's side and the British army helped to slow the Germans down during the invasion of France.
Hitler's attack on France was initially planned as an imitation of the Schlieffen plan but changed at the last minute to shift the armor spearhead to an army opposite the Ardennes with the mission of splitting the Allied army in half in drive to Channel coast. The Allies unfortunately executed a perfect counter to the Schlieffen plan leaving them completely open to Von Manstein's gambit.
@@HistoryHouseProductions I have watched that and it's a decent summary that notes that the French went "all in" to implement a plan that was perfectly designed to counter a Schlieffen style offensive by Germany but left them vulnerable to the German strike through the Ardennes. The French were not wrong about the defensive nature of the Ardennes as the US proved when the Germans tried it a second time. There were only a few roads through and they could be blocked by a relatively small forces if they could be moved there in time. The French commanders were expecting the pace of WWI and assumed they would have days to find out and address any surprises. They did not respond like Eisenhower did when he decided to re-allocate 500,000 troops within 24 hours of the commencement of Battle of the Bulge. The biggest mistake of the French was the restriction on reconnaissance flights over German territory that would have spotted the unusually long columns (50 miles is what I recall) of German tank and mechanized units lined up for their assault on Belgium/Luxembourg. This was a political decision that, if it had been otherwise, would have certainly resulted in realignment of the French forces and might have allowed the French to successfully execute the plan described by Eastory. Much misery might have been averted. Good Luck with your channel!
Yeah. I totally agree with you about the lack reconnaissance flights and the weird political reasons for the lack of action. The Allies were wrong to think that they could negotiate with Hitler. Thanks for the support!
I heard the Allies intercepted their last-minute change of plans, but they thought it was misinformation. But even still, it was probably too late anyway.
The allies messed up in 1940: 1) Rushing to help the Benelux, spending all reserves in the process 2) Not using the air force to scout (how do you miss so much tank units?)
Thank you so much for making this video. I have a super short attention span and am a master procrastinator so these snappy fun videos keep me focused. I actually learned something!
Did you know that the Germans actually never conquered Belggium, the Belgians flooded a river so they had a defensive they kept fighting till the war was over.
Yes, but did you know they didn't try to conquer Belgium, they just passed trough to get to france. Only when the Schlieffenplan failed and the Race to the sea started, then they conquered more ground in Flanders. And yes, then the Belgian army managed to retreat North and hold their ground.
I am stunned that you made a video about the Schlieffen plan without giving a word of the western allies, mostly French aided by a few British divisions, that gallantly repelled the Germans at the battle of the Marne river preventing Germany from obtaining the quick victory over France it wanted. Also in the long term, invading Belgium meant the British Empire entered the war so Germany now had three ennemies not just two. Doomed from the start.
They should have done the opposite, hold off the french on the relatevily short border (belgium was constitutionally neutral, so them and britain wouldnt join or britain would join but later) and have the bigger force advance as far as possible into russia before they mobilise and negotiate a favorable peace deal with them, then turn back on the french
That plan was probably going to be more effective. Problem was, it would result in a long war. While the Schlieffenplan (if succeeded) would cause a quick victory.
thank u for this video! my professor linked us to two different videos and a powerpoint and i still had no idea what happened with the schlieffen plan. until now!
One point you forgot; Austria-Hungary. They were supposed to have prepared a strong army against Russia, but the Serbians won against the initial invasions, and therefore Austria-Hungary had less men and incompetent commanders (Hotzendorf) for the Galician campaign. The Russians capitalized on this, defeated the Austrians, which forced Germany to send more troops to stabilize the Eastern front. If it wasn't for the battle of Tannesburg, the Central powers could have lost by 1916. I may have mentioned him already, but Hotzendorf really let the Central Powers down during the war, so he is another point worth mentioning.
To be fair the Germans came up with a new plan in 1940. They feigned another attempt at Schlieffen and caused the Allies to rush into Belgium. Then they attacked through the Ardennes, raced to the coast and encircled the best French and British units in Belgium.
Where ever you live awesome videos i forgot this channal in a while while watching other thangs until i found you channel again and i clicked the video and went to your videos section
I thought the key reason for the failure is that army group 1 ultimately decided to go east of Paris instead of West, and there are already heaps of French troops east of Paris and ready to head on. Have they going west of Paris and encircled them I think it probably a different story.
Germany’s invasion of France in WWII was NOT a repeat of the Schlieffen plan. In fact, that’s what the Allies were expecting, and that’s why The Battle of France was so one-sided.
Germany learned its first big lesson on wartime propaganda when they invaded Belgium. They tried to make an example of any Belgians that put up a resistance but that gave their enemies ammunition to basically turn the entire world against them and drag Britain into the war.
Correction... the Germans used a very different plan in WWII. Instead of rolling through the easier terrain of central Belgium and wheeling south, they feigned making the same manuever. The French and British took the trap and flooded north into central and western Belgium, while the main thrust of the German attack crashed through the Ardennes in the southeast and cut the Allies off. The only similarity in plans is that they both went through Belgium.
And that they defeated France in one quick desicive blow. The only difference is that they went south (through the ardennes) while the allies went north instead of the Franco-German Border. And they were encircled in Dunkirk instead of in Paris.
The problem mainly was because Bavarian prince Ruprecht in Lothringen attacked to early and by that he created a clear front and didn’t encircle the enemy like planned
US hardly done anything beside taking part of the final phase of the war. uk and France did the most of the western front. the US was more inclined to side with Germany early in the war because of the huge commerce and cultural sharing, huge german immigration in the second half 19th century and hostile relations towards British interest in America. all the British did was to threatened to sink the US navy if it aligns with Germany. Europe would be a lot more different
@@jean-philippelefebvre1000 What i mean is that there were too many enemies for Germany to fight. Though Americans did participate much later in the war they still did a lot of damage. The brits did play major role too. Belgium also managed to hold of the Germans for a long enough for the french to plan and prepare counter measures. Considering all of the foes and lack of resources Germany had, it was impossible to win. It would have been so much better for Germany if they found a more peaceful solution. Still considering all of those factors Germany did give a good fight. 1v1 Germany would probably be able beat any member of the allied powers in my opinion of course.
Giving credit to germany in world war 1, they did hold there own against both of the french and british. and Did defeat russia not fullybecuase of the revotion stuff but still impresive.
Tbh, as a Belgian, I can say we're pretty proud to make France and Germany lives harder, unfortunately enough we did make the germans so paranoid about Franc-tireur that they just keep shooting on civilians on the Meuse River. At least we didn't loose all Belgium, and we just defend our position while not attacking the germans because we refuse to be part of the allied command for *Neutrality's sake*, while grabbing some sweet colonies in Africa. Sweet times PS : After WW1, we grabbed a 3rd language by annexing Eupen-Malmedy, because why not
There was little chance for the Schlieffen Plan to succeed, though the Germans gave it a good run. They knew they could not allocate enough troops to overwhelm the French quickly even if all went well, which for the most part things did. They used Austrian 305mm artillery to quickly destroy the forts at Liege and Namur ensuring that the Belgians, despite their bravery, were minimal interference with their progress. Unfortunately, the advance was overwhelmingly on foot with artillery and supplies drawn by horses as the Belgians damaged the railways in their retreat. In WWI Germans made minimal use of trucks because they did not have a large fleet nor the gas to supply them (the situation was not a whole lot better in WWII). The German outer corp had over 140 miles to cover just to get to the French border and the crisis in the East caused them to withdraw divisions that might have helped them advance to Paris but ended up in transit playing no part in the annihilation of the Russians at Tannenberg.
Actually Germany at 1914: This will probably work Germany at 1914: Were fucked. The moment they failed to take Paris quickly the war was lost for Germany. There was no reason to keep fighting.
WW2, Germany wasn't in war with Russia.... And during Schlieffen plan, the 1st group has to withdraw to aspire the French army, but the french were so ineffective that the German army (1st group) didn't withdraw....
@@leonpaelinck Russia is too big to fall quickly. And german high command don't take votre of the supply problème of their offensive. You can't win without ammo.
in all these "why it failed" videos on the plan, it never actually addressed why the plan itself failed. no mention that in the 10 years interval, the new German commander utterly failed to understand the subtleties of the plan, and continuosuly tampered with it resulting in its failure.
You also forgot to mention that Belgium's independence was guaranteed by Britain, so by invading Belgium Germany made another powerful enemy.
That is true!
Not to mention that britain can blockade the sea so germany can slowly dying because german only have alot of coal where as britain can invade germany colony and milk them along with india
If I have learned something about Britain is that they love do dig on old papers. The Guarantee of Belgium was signed in 1830 and it was supposed to keep Belgium independent from the Dutch, Prussians/Germans and French who would maybe try to reconquer the Benelux and the Portuguese entry in ww1 where the British dug out a half millenium old document to convince the Portuguese to fight in Africa.
@@Sky_Eden And that's why germany lost ww2
@@petartoshkov2076 The Dutch weren't the most important reason for this treaty. You see, when Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated, the British created the UK of the Netherlands to balance out the powers in Europe. They don't wanted either France and Prussia of getting too powerful. When Belgium got independent, France wanted to annex a part of Belgium and so wanted Prussia. This would have destroyed the intentions behind the UK of the Netherlands entirely. So that's why the British signed this guarantee with Belgium.
It has always been in the interest of Great Britain to revive the UK of the Netherlands. Proof of this is when they forced the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourgish governments in exile during WWII to form the Benelux. Benelux doesn't make any sense for the Netherlands and Belgium except for the UK (and Luxembourg), because the Benelux countries are three separate countries that over the time have split up due to too big cultural differences between the Dutch and the French and the Luxembourgians for not accepting a woman as king. The Benelux is just there to continue Dutch rule over Belgium and Luxembourg as originally intended albeit in a weaker form.
WW2 was when germany loaded its saved game to have another go at it
LMFAO
So ww3 will be germans third save game?
Marcus Hodgson I mean, third times the charm i guess
@@marcushodgson6908 probably
Raymoun17 but with the mass genocide expansion pack
My teacher decided to show this to our class. (We are learning this) it was blast! Really funny and educative!
That’s really cool! I actually made this video specifically to cover some of the first year IB history content.
Our teacher did the same
Awesome! Never thought that random teachers would show this stuff. XD
Same
X2
Imagine if Germany instead allied with Belgium instead of invading
That would’ve changed the equation for sure!
And then America exists
NCR Trooper and then France doesn’t exist
They tried, Belgium denied them access though.
NCR Trooper it could have been possible. The British had refused to recognize Belgian control over the Congo. The only reason they did after a while, is that Belgium started to get friendly with Germany, which would allow the Germans to send troops through Belgium to flank the French.
I literally saw this today in my history class
That’s awesome! Are you taking IB history?
@@HistoryHouseProductions Can you do A video about how Germany was made
Looks like you need to spend a little longer in English class
Britain: “we’ll be friendly with you unless you invade our friend Belgium.”
Germany: “sorry I didn’t hear that.”
That wasnt really true
@@noone3272 ?
@@galiarecinos132 Britain and Germany were already in an arms race of sorts. Both sides were rapidly expanding their navies for example. The "no invading Belgium" thing was just their best excuse to join in on the fighting.
Closed in our homes because of the corona, we were assigned to watch this and answer some comprehension on it: pretty good history class
Really?! That’s crazy. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
You explained it to me perfectly in just 3:51 minutes. While my teacher couldn’t do that in 2 months. Thank you very much, hope you will keep going!
"Germany would basically use the same plan in 20 years except with tanks and war crimes"
Yeah, there were some war crimes committed the first time too unfortunately.
Patavinity Yes, but if you compare them to England and France, you can see that both sides are not innocent. In fact, he said that Germany only committed the usual number of war crimes. Well, war crimes are war crimes nonetheless.
@@vonKraehe That doesn't really refute my point. Regardless, there were certainly more war crimes committed by the Germans than the British or French.
Patavinity If you mostly in Belgium, yes, ok there you have a point, even if most of the accused points have been completely exaggerated for war propaganda.
@Fabian Kirchgessner 1. What does "in general, no" mean ? You seem to be dismissing this fact because it 'only' happened in Belgium, as if that weren't bad enough. Murdering Belgian civilians is very much worthy of intense shame, actually. It's not even true anyway: German armed forces committed several other war crimes proscribed at the Hague Convention, namely the use of banned chemical weapons, the murder of British and French civilians with bombing and shelling campaigns, and the use of unrestricted submarine warfare.
2. The death of German civilians due to malnourishment is simply not morally equivalent to the deliberate murder of civilians with weapons of war. Furthermore, the food shortages were largely the fault of the German military dictatorship, who both mismanaged the food supply in Germany, and directed most of it to soldiers at the front. Hindenburg and Ludendorff carry a greater share of responsibility for those deaths than the Royal Navy does.
@Fabian Kirchgessner It doesn't matter if it was exaggerated in the propaganda. It happened. People died. That's all that matters.
Also, the blockade didn't target food supplies, it targeted the war economy. Again, the German government deliberately underfed the population for the sake of providing more for the army. That's no one else's fault.
bro just taught me more history in 3 minutes than my teacher did in 3 months
As a Belgian I approve this video 🇧🇪 also I just discovered this Chanel and I really love it.
Keep it up.
Maybe you could do a video on our disturbing history in the Congo.
Thank you! Maybe some day!
Pre-Scandal or after?
@@Valandix I guess both
He did it by now lol
This helped so much with my revision and it’s hilarious! 😂
Awesome! I’m glad I could help!
History House Productions 👌🏻
The Germans also committed war crimes in Belgium during ww1
That is true, but to a far lesser extent than ww2
Wdym? It's not like they burned down a university's library with its entire ancient collection.
Yes they burned down the university of Löwen but they did nopt rape or as the British propaganda claimed hacked of the hands of Belgium children ... Belgiums did that in the Congo Colony. Both side committed war crimes .. the british blockade starved german children to death but as they won it was no crime and USA/Britian have never been accused of war crimes they had done in their history as media is controlled by them and they are always the good guys.
German War crimes during ww1: tactic
German War crimes in ww2: literally a ritual and a religion to them
My history teacher gave us this video for homework and I gotta admit this makes history a whole lot funner 😄
Haha! That's great!
Your channel is the best shit I have see in months. Good job dude. Keep up the good works
Thank you so much!
Thanks im watching this an hour before a big test and it helped a lot
Awesome! I’m glad I could help! I hope it went well!
same
@@HistoryHouseProductions it went well thanks, I graduated
Me: *gets ad for WWII German Relics*
Also me: Sure I’d just love to get 50 swasticas in my American house. Sure. I’d love that.
Why not?
No.
Lol
my history teacher opened this video in the classroom (when going to school was a thing) and everyone loved it....just wanted to say this coz this video needs more love.
Aya Yaseein that’s really cool! I’m glad you liked it!
You forgot to mention that the British empire entered the war on France's side and the British army helped to slow the Germans down during the invasion of France.
The BEF’s contribution is almost negligible until 1916.
You forgot to mention how Germany would just present it's flank to Paris and hope the French didn't just attack.
Which flank ?
@@pierren___ The left wing. In the original schlieffen plan there would be an extra army in the left wing.
Hitler's attack on France was initially planned as an imitation of the Schlieffen plan but changed at the last minute to shift the armor spearhead to an army opposite the Ardennes with the mission of splitting the Allied army in half in drive to Channel coast. The Allies unfortunately executed a perfect counter to the Schlieffen plan leaving them completely open to Von Manstein's gambit.
Indeed. Eastory has a good video that goes more in depth on why the French plan wasn’t as bad as people always think.
@@HistoryHouseProductions I have watched that and it's a decent summary that notes that the French went "all in" to implement a plan that was perfectly designed to counter a Schlieffen style offensive by Germany but left them vulnerable to the German strike through the Ardennes. The French were not wrong about the defensive nature of the Ardennes as the US proved when the Germans tried it a second time. There were only a few roads through and they could be blocked by a relatively small forces if they could be moved there in time.
The French commanders were expecting the pace of WWI and assumed they would have days to find out and address any surprises. They did not respond like Eisenhower did when he decided to re-allocate 500,000 troops within 24 hours of the commencement of Battle of the Bulge.
The biggest mistake of the French was the restriction on reconnaissance flights over German territory that would have spotted the unusually long columns (50 miles is what I recall) of German tank and mechanized units lined up for their assault on Belgium/Luxembourg. This was a political decision that, if it had been otherwise, would have certainly resulted in realignment of the French forces and might have allowed the French to successfully execute the plan described by Eastory. Much misery might have been averted.
Good Luck with your channel!
Yeah. I totally agree with you about the lack reconnaissance flights and the weird political reasons for the lack of action. The Allies were wrong to think that they could negotiate with Hitler. Thanks for the support!
I heard the Allies intercepted their last-minute change of plans, but they thought it was misinformation. But even still, it was probably too late anyway.
The allies messed up in 1940:
1) Rushing to help the Benelux, spending all reserves in the process
2) Not using the air force to scout (how do you miss so much tank units?)
Thank you so much for making this video. I have a super short attention span and am a master procrastinator so these snappy fun videos keep me focused. I actually learned something!
You're welcome! I'm glad that I could help!
Our teacher showed us this today in class, 4 years later still a W video
History House Productions asks it's audiences the best questions.
I’m glad you like them! TH-cam is discontinuing the feature though, so I won’t be able to do them in the future.
@@HistoryHouseProductions That's too bad I will definitely miss them.
Did you know that the Germans actually never conquered Belggium, the Belgians flooded a river so they had a defensive they kept fighting till the war was over.
Yes, but did you know they didn't try to conquer Belgium, they just passed trough to get to france. Only when the Schlieffenplan failed and the Race to the sea started, then they conquered more ground in Flanders. And yes, then the Belgian army managed to retreat North and hold their ground.
Congrats on 1k views (I know I’m late)
You have a good style and sense of humor to keep things interesting!
Most underrated TH-cam channel
I am stunned that you made a video about the Schlieffen plan without giving a word of the western allies, mostly French aided by a few British divisions, that gallantly repelled the Germans at the battle of the Marne river preventing Germany from obtaining the quick victory over France it wanted. Also in the long term, invading Belgium meant the British Empire entered the war so Germany now had three ennemies not just two. Doomed from the start.
Even though I'm not a native English speaker (I'm a German. Hi there!) this video kinda helped me with my history homework. Thank you🙂
Glad it helped!
"What could possibly go wrong?"
*"everything"*
I love this so much! Got the point across but in a comedic and simple way. Keep it up!
Thank you! I’m planning on it!
They should have done the opposite, hold off the french on the relatevily short border (belgium was constitutionally neutral, so them and britain wouldnt join or britain would join but later) and have the bigger force advance as far as possible into russia before they mobilise and negotiate a favorable peace deal with them, then turn back on the french
That plan was probably going to be more effective. Problem was, it would result in a long war. While the Schlieffenplan (if succeeded) would cause a quick victory.
Most fun history lesson ever
Thanks!
I had to write 5 pages of the Schliefen plan
Thanks
Glad I could help!
thank u for this video! my professor linked us to two different videos and a powerpoint and i still had no idea what happened with the schlieffen plan. until now!
That’s really cool! I never thought that my stuff would get shown in class! :)
one hell of a nice video, thanks
I’m glad you liked it!
One point you forgot; Austria-Hungary. They were supposed to have prepared a strong army against Russia, but the Serbians won against the initial invasions, and therefore Austria-Hungary had less men and incompetent commanders (Hotzendorf) for the Galician campaign. The Russians capitalized on this, defeated the Austrians, which forced Germany to send more troops to stabilize the Eastern front. If it wasn't for the battle of Tannesburg, the Central powers could have lost by 1916.
I may have mentioned him already, but Hotzendorf really let the Central Powers down during the war, so he is another point worth mentioning.
How did AH fail to invade a country that's at least 4 times smaller?
watched this for revision, helped a lot. Thanks!
:)
Glad it was helpful!
Thank u that wasn't boring at all
I love the quizzes in the upper right corner. They add much to the video. How many of your viewers participate in them?
Thanks! Usually between 20 and 30
Quizzes?
History House Productions next time you should make it known in the end card or something so people can understand that they are there.
I’ll keep that in mind.
To be fair the Germans came up with a new plan in 1940. They feigned another attempt at Schlieffen and caused the Allies to rush into Belgium. Then they attacked through the Ardennes, raced to the coast and encircled the best French and British units in Belgium.
Where ever you live awesome videos i forgot this channal in a while while watching other thangs until i found you channel again and i clicked the video and went to your videos section
Glad you like them!
I thought the key reason for the failure is that army group 1 ultimately decided to go east of Paris instead of West, and there are already heaps of French troops east of Paris and ready to head on. Have they going west of Paris and encircled them I think it probably a different story.
i have my exams in a few days this really helped thank youuu
This is beautifully funny!
Thank you so much! I’m glad you found it entertaining!
2:28 Not all! For example, many Poles fought against Russia
Thay fort that was a good plan
Germany’s invasion of France in WWII was NOT a repeat of the Schlieffen plan.
In fact, that’s what the Allies were expecting, and that’s why The Battle of France was so one-sided.
Germany learned its first big lesson on wartime propaganda when they invaded Belgium. They tried to make an example of any Belgians that put up a resistance but that gave their enemies ammunition to basically turn the entire world against them and drag Britain into the war.
Jup. Invading Belgium was the first of many reasons the U.S. started to antagonise the Germans.
2:08 WW2 called, he says your going to need to take that back.
Correction... the Germans used a very different plan in WWII. Instead of rolling through the easier terrain of central Belgium and wheeling south, they feigned making the same manuever. The French and British took the trap and flooded north into central and western Belgium, while the main thrust of the German attack crashed through the Ardennes in the southeast and cut the Allies off. The only similarity in plans is that they both went through Belgium.
And that they defeated France in one quick desicive blow. The only difference is that they went south (through the ardennes) while the allies went north instead of the Franco-German Border. And they were encircled in Dunkirk instead of in Paris.
Another one is the technology they force to retreat when they see the tanks
The problem mainly was because Bavarian prince Ruprecht in Lothringen attacked to early and by that he created a clear front and didn’t encircle the enemy like planned
One reason is that German General Mohnke had several reduced the forces that General Schliffen (who died in 1912) had intended.
if you can surround your opponents than you are winning if you are surrounded by your opponents than you are losing.
Stable video👍
Tbf the Germans did fight the brits and the Americans as well
If the brits and the Americans stayed out of the war Germany could have won.
@MaChaiTea *possibly*
US hardly done anything beside taking part of the final phase of the war. uk and France did the most of the western front.
the US was more inclined to side with Germany early in the war because of the huge commerce and cultural sharing, huge german immigration in the second half 19th century and hostile relations towards British interest in America.
all the British did was to threatened to sink the US navy if it aligns with Germany.
Europe would be a lot more different
@@jean-philippelefebvre1000 What i mean is that there were too many enemies for Germany to fight.
Though Americans did participate much later in the war they still did a lot of damage.
The brits did play major role too.
Belgium also managed to hold of the Germans for a long enough for the french to plan and prepare counter measures.
Considering all of the foes and lack of resources Germany had, it was impossible to win. It would have been so much better for Germany if they found a more peaceful solution.
Still considering all of those factors Germany did give a good fight.
1v1 Germany would probably be able beat any member of the allied powers in my opinion of course.
@@calebtimes453 they miss armored vehicles from the start as WWII
Good music
Good video History House! What soundtracks did you use? :)
Thanks! TH-cam curates a list of free music that you can download and use, so I just downloaded some of those.
I’m dutch
Giving credit to germany in world war 1, they did hold there own against both of the french and british. and Did defeat russia not fullybecuase of the revotion stuff but still impresive.
They carried the entire Central Powers for 4 years.
Is he still hearting comments though🤔
Maybe
With Tanks and Air Power and mobility plus NAP with Russia in WW2, they were finally able to pull it off with quite astounding success as well
Tbh, as a Belgian, I can say we're pretty proud to make France and Germany lives harder, unfortunately enough we did make the germans so paranoid about Franc-tireur that they just keep shooting on civilians on the Meuse River.
At least we didn't loose all Belgium, and we just defend our position while not attacking the germans because we refuse to be part of the allied command for *Neutrality's sake*, while grabbing some sweet colonies in Africa.
Sweet times
PS : After WW1, we grabbed a 3rd language by annexing Eupen-Malmedy, because why not
Tbh as a German, I'm proud to say that we will annex the EU soon
@@supremeleader4909 *We
@@Valandix *Wir
@@supremeleader4909 *Onze
1:44 luxembourg ;(
Wait where's jimmy?
There wasn’t quite enough room in the video to include a bit with him. He’ll be back though!
(UNSUBBED AND REPORTED)
Good video thou
Thank you!
Germany saved it's game
So when it's 1939 the can reload with Austria and czechia and take Poland, fail to invade Russia
The problem was Germany asking to pass through Belgium instead of go invading.
0:14
People in 2019 Thinking about 2020
There was little chance for the Schlieffen Plan to succeed, though the Germans gave it a good run. They knew they could not allocate enough troops to overwhelm the French quickly even if all went well, which for the most part things did. They used Austrian 305mm artillery to quickly destroy the forts at Liege and Namur ensuring that the Belgians, despite their bravery, were minimal interference with their progress.
Unfortunately, the advance was overwhelmingly on foot with artillery and supplies drawn by horses as the Belgians damaged the railways in their retreat. In WWI Germans made minimal use of trucks because they did not have a large fleet nor the gas to supply them (the situation was not a whole lot better in WWII). The German outer corp had over 140 miles to cover just to get to the French border and the crisis in the East caused them to withdraw divisions that might have helped them advance to Paris but ended up in transit playing no part in the annihilation of the Russians at Tannenberg.
Yeah, there were some holdouts in Belgium that lasted for quite a while though.
There was actually also very little chance the Blitzkrieg would succeed either, but the Germans went all in and got lucky.
the narrator sounds like Gordon Gano: "The Violent Femmes, brough all their equipment on the bus, and you can't....."
Good
I liked it!
Thanks!
Could you possibly go to my channel Hud Conman? and sub plz
With tanks and war crimes. Well aside from the war crimes in WWI, in 1940 Nazi Germany and the USSR were still kinda working together
Doese anyone know anything about the guy that made that plan. Schliffen?
All plans are flawless until first contact.
They tried it twice in wwii
I had to pause the vid at 0:18 seconds because I thought that was Hitler holding the puppers in the trench......ugh
Silly, but thank you
Germany at 1914: This Will Probably work.
Germany at 1918:Were screwed.
Actually
Germany at 1914: This will probably work
Germany at 1914: Were fucked.
The moment they failed to take Paris quickly the war was lost for Germany. There was no reason to keep fighting.
eh, the music is fine
noice!
Solid dude
Anyone who know where i can find the plan for attack or defense from the alliance? im trying to find it but i cant.
WW2, Germany wasn't in war with Russia.... And during Schlieffen plan, the 1st group has to withdraw to aspire the French army, but the french were so ineffective that the German army (1st group) didn't withdraw....
lol imagine losing a battle because your enemy is too ineffective. They really should have gone for Russia first.
@@leonpaelinck
Russia is too big to fall quickly.
And german high command don't take votre of the supply problème of their offensive.
You can't win without ammo.
Luxembourg’s sad noises
in all these "why it failed" videos on the plan, it never actually addressed why the plan itself failed. no mention that in the 10 years interval, the new German commander utterly failed to understand the subtleties of the plan, and continuosuly tampered with it resulting in its failure.
Ricola
epik music bro
Thanks
@@HistoryHouseProductions btw you should blitz your german tanks trough bulgaria so you can save musoliny's ass
Where is Luxembourg?😕
Belgium never surrenderd to Germany in ww1...
Indeed, they did not.
Leopold III in WW2: Okay we're surrounded but I have a plan!
*Belgium has left the chat*
Germany rage quits the war
Don’t forget about the plan bringing in the war winning power: the British
They were joining sooner or later.
(Trench warfare intensifies)
I’m watching this for fun lmao not for knowledge
57 people did not respect Belgium neutrality
F for Luxembourg 🇱🇺
Music in background???
Where's Luxembourg ?
Since the video plays for me now,at least they don't have a revolution right?
I mean Germany was absolutely perfect and no one fought right?
RIGHT!?!
Not quite. They weren’t as bad off as Russia though.