An excellent and succinct account of the Great Retreat with an interesting reading list at their end. Regarding the latter why does the cover of the book about the retreat show British soldiers wearing steel helmets, ie 1916 onwards, when there are plenty of photographs available covering the period of the retreat in 1914?
True. Really wish someone would make a comprehensive documentary on the battle of the frontiers. Something modern. I’ve read guns of August twice now, such an amazing book.
Next to that, it's important to note that the 12 forts around Liège were NOT the strongest and best fortresses in Western-Europe and were made up completely out of unreinforced concrete walls. This 12 forts, comprising of 6 small and 6 bigger forts, were constructed between 1888 and 1892 and were for that time good fortresses because they could withstood the then biggest guncallibre at the time, 210mm. By 1914, the forts were heavily outdated because Germany had already built guns with a calibre twice as big, the Big Bertha's with a callibre of 420mm. Nevertheless the forts put up a good fight cause German high command was initially convinced that the forts would fall after a bombardment with 210mm-guns and a massive infantery attack, which resulted in heavy German casualties during the first days of the battle. Only one fort, the fort of Barchon could be taken this way. So that's why German high command decided to bring 2 big bertha's who were stationed in the german town of Essen, with them and so they could shoot the forts to pieces one by one untill the last one, the fort of Loncin, was blown up on the 15th of august. In 1914 there were quite a lot of fortresses who were actually better equipped and better armed in Western Europe: for example the second ring of fortresses around Antwerp, finished in 1905, were constructed with thicker steel turrets ans reinforced steel and so were the forts around the french city of Verdun.
Very interesting video but a mistake has been made. The changes von Moltke made in 1914 by deciding to not pass throught the Netherlands, had actually no repercussions on the succes of the plan itself. This is because when the Schlieffenplan was drawn in 1905, Schlieffen himself knew that he needed an additional 100 000 troops to succesfully encircle the French armies and destroy them. He knew getting those additional troops was just not possible because of the opposition within German politics. And even if they managed somehow to scramble those so desperately needed troops, it was just not possible to transport them quick and efficiently to the Belgian front because the Belgian railwaysystem was inadaquate for such large numbers. von Schlieffen knew the shortcommings of his own plan but never found a solution to it. von Moltkes decision in 1914 to not pass through the Netherlands was actually beneficial for the German army because the harbors of the Dutch could not be used against Germany for suplies and they did not need to take on the dutch army as well. When von Moltke resigned shortly after the battle of the Marne, at the beginning of october 1914, he came to the conclusion that the war for Germany was lost as the encirclement failed and wrote this to the Kaiser. He was shortly after relieved of his command and thus was the ultimate scape goat for the failing of the Schlieffenplan. That's why it's a common misconception in the historiography of the First World War. Greetings from a young historian from Belgium :))
Not disagreeing with you, but didn't Moltke also "tinker" with the plan by sending troops to the eastern front, thus underpowering the west? (I'm not a historian, not even an amateur one lol.)
Important to mention, the overextended German right flank at the Marne was exploited by British forces which led to the Germans to retreat north. However 2 divisions were pulled from the German line, and sent east where they were expected to be needed against 2 massive Russian armies, the gap they left ultimately cost Germany the battle. Sadly if you’re a pro German t*at like me, these divisions weren’t even needed against Russia, as Tannenberg was over before they arrived!
You could be right but I doubt you are. 2 divisions were supposed to hold the gap? No one was supposed to hold the gap because the gap wasn't known to the Germans for some days. Klucks first amry was pushing back the French 6th army north of Paris. He was acting on his own innititive trying to capture Paris. The German 2nd army's commander Bulow hated Kluck and didn't communicate. Kluck moved west pushing the 6th army while refuseing to establish contact with Bulow. Meanwhile the French 5th army Pushed Bukows right widening the gap which the B.E.F and French 5th army pour through
I feel as though a short video doesn't do justice to the complexity of the situation in August 1914, and at points the presentation leaned towards a kind of historicity. For example, to say that changes to the schlieffen plan would undermine a German victory seems to me to be an oversimplification of the issue. On the positive, it was a fascinating collection of footage.
On September 5, 1914, Generalissimo Joseph Joffre wrote an order of the day: “At the moment when a battle begins on which the fate of the country depends, […]. A troop that can no longer advance must, at all costs, keep the ground it has won and **be killed on the spot rather than retreat** […] »
Nice vid but it talks more about the 1914 retreat before the battle than of the actual battle of the Marne itself. A different title for the vid would make sense.
Interestingly, the Von Schlieffen Plan may have been intended as a strategically defensive plan, rather than offensive. Based on the Logistics and manpower required for the plan, Germany would have required 1.36 million troops at a minimum, rather than the 970,000 Germany actually went to war with, and this alternative plan would have encircled the French as they thrust into Alsace-Lorraine; a lure-them-in strategy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan#1990s%E2%80%93present
Poor Belgium. The Belgians should have realized what they were in the middle of, as far as I know the germans seem to have pretty much massacred some towns that attacked the german military while they were traversing.
Yes around 6000 Belgians were executed in response to civilian snipers. Germany used collective punishments to put down revolts leading to many innocents being killed. However for context, it is important to note when Russia occupied east Prussia and Galicia, they killed a similar number of Germans in a shorter period of time, and burned down a larger number of villages. In Galicia there were many cases of rapes, farm burnings and executions committed by the Russians. The Austrian army also killed many Serbian civilians and torched some villages in their invasion. Bottom line is, occupation in a world war is brutal, and every side acted similar when interacting with civilian populace, not just the Germans, also the German crimes were lavishly published and overblown, and the allied crimes essentially forgotten and ignored. In the grand scope of war crimes in ww1, Germany’s atrocities in Belgium are on the lesser end of the spectrum, compared to Britain’s post war starvation blockade for instance.
@@rhysnichols8608 Already the first day of the German invasion, 127 civilians were executed by the Germans, ... not one German was wounded/killed at that moment. Civilian snipers ? Nope....
And no one was allowed im belgium befor the german's attackt belgium that is part of the treaty of londen no one can claim belgium and go true or put there army on belgian soil thats why the belgian's stood on there own the first days and the belgian's needed to cover all border's. Not only the german border but the french and to the sea for GB and to the nederland's because of that treaty that says no one can go true belgium
That is correct. France came very close to being beaten right at the beginning. The combination of the crazy French all out offensive doctrine, the superiority of German heavy artillery, machineguns, demographics and industrial output made for a pretty catastrophic start for the French. Without the operational mistake made by the Germans on the Marne river, things may well have turned out as another 1870...
The British contribution was wearing out the German army chasing Sir French's craven retreat. Kluck's unexplained hard turn offering his flank and Galieni's (recognition) amazing attack did in the German offensive. Had the British attacked the gap between the first and second German army with urgency it would have been an allied route.
Had Kluck not first ran in front of the 2nd Army and then just ran away from it...there never would have been a gap. His orders were to cover the flank of 2nd army in echelon. Still amazing how he got his men to match these distances and then still fighting and nearly beating French 6th Army. There is a nice TV documentary about it. From the 80s and in German language. "Die Schlacht an der Marne".
GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs. Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in *any* continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent. Of course, London already knew this. That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem: Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900). *And so "poor little Belgium" was born.* Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"... France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war. *The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)* "Friends" one day. "Enemies" the next... Right or wrong? London didn't care. The policy came first. Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals. It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up. Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights". It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
And don't say for france again'st germany because they own e big border and the maginol line was not build yet so germany could enter france on that border so.
"It takes 15,000 casualties to train a Major-General".
- Ferdinand Foch
Excellent video at just the right level of depth. I understand many things which were sketchy to me before.
Excellent presentation
I will gladly add your books to my extensive WW1 library. This conflict continues to captivate me and I now have additional material to peruse.
Great Video!
An excellent and succinct account of the Great Retreat with an interesting reading list at their end. Regarding the latter why does the cover of the book about the retreat show British soldiers wearing steel helmets, ie 1916 onwards, when there are plenty of photographs available covering the period of the retreat in 1914?
Answer: Why does it even matter?
Brilliant doc video 📹👌well researched and presented, immediate sub, thank you
Lyn Macdonald produces a great book called 1914
Great read, great historian
I must have missed Von Kluck's turn that left the German right wing ripe for Gallieni's counterattack.
True. Really wish someone would make a comprehensive documentary on the battle of the frontiers. Something modern. I’ve read guns of August twice now, such an amazing book.
Yes the first turn. The second turn brought him frontal against French both Army and that left the gap for BEF and left wing of French 5th
Galliani's efforts and protests had very much to do with the counterattack, as I recall.
The French did the job.
All accounts and casualties numbers prove it
Next to that, it's important to note that the 12 forts around Liège were NOT the strongest and best fortresses in Western-Europe and were made up completely out of unreinforced concrete walls. This 12 forts, comprising of 6 small and 6 bigger forts, were constructed between 1888 and 1892 and were for that time good fortresses because they could withstood the then biggest guncallibre at the time, 210mm. By 1914, the forts were heavily outdated because Germany had already built guns with a calibre twice as big, the Big Bertha's with a callibre of 420mm. Nevertheless the forts put up a good fight cause German high command was initially convinced that the forts would fall after a bombardment with 210mm-guns and a massive infantery attack, which resulted in heavy German casualties during the first days of the battle. Only one fort, the fort of Barchon could be taken this way. So that's why German high command decided to bring 2 big bertha's who were stationed in the german town of Essen, with them and so they could shoot the forts to pieces one by one untill the last one, the fort of Loncin, was blown up on the 15th of august. In 1914 there were quite a lot of fortresses who were actually better equipped and better armed in Western Europe: for example the second ring of fortresses around Antwerp, finished in 1905, were constructed with thicker steel turrets ans reinforced steel and so were the forts around the french city of Verdun.
Interesting find, where can I read more? How’d you find this information?
I enjoy really enjoy your presentation, it is excellent. Thank you.
I didn’t realise that Gen Joffre’s chauffeur was Stephen Fry. That man gets everywhere.
This is great 👏 I'll subscribe and like 👍.
Very interesting video but a mistake has been made. The changes von Moltke made in 1914 by deciding to not pass throught the Netherlands, had actually no repercussions on the succes of the plan itself. This is because when the Schlieffenplan was drawn in 1905, Schlieffen himself knew that he needed an additional 100 000 troops to succesfully encircle the French armies and destroy them. He knew getting those additional troops was just not possible because of the opposition within German politics. And even if they managed somehow to scramble those so desperately needed troops, it was just not possible to transport them quick and efficiently to the Belgian front because the Belgian railwaysystem was inadaquate for such large numbers. von Schlieffen knew the shortcommings of his own plan but never found a solution to it. von Moltkes decision in 1914 to not pass through the Netherlands was actually beneficial for the German army because the harbors of the Dutch could not be used against Germany for suplies and they did not need to take on the dutch army as well. When von Moltke resigned shortly after the battle of the Marne, at the beginning of october 1914, he came to the conclusion that the war for Germany was lost as the encirclement failed and wrote this to the Kaiser. He was shortly after relieved of his command and thus was the ultimate scape goat for the failing of the Schlieffenplan. That's why it's a common misconception in the historiography of the First World War. Greetings from a young historian from Belgium :))
Not disagreeing with you, but didn't Moltke also "tinker" with the plan by sending troops to the eastern front, thus underpowering the west? (I'm not a historian, not even an amateur one lol.)
Vive la France🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
Fabulous. My Grandfather was there! It was a miracle and the the red taxis helped!
4:40 even then would the plan worked without the tinkering?
Fix the subtitles!!!!
Best teacher/presentor ever.
Excellent
Alfred von Schlieffen, not Albert.
Important to mention, the overextended German right flank at the Marne was exploited by British forces which led to the Germans to retreat north. However 2 divisions were pulled from the German line, and sent east where they were expected to be needed against 2 massive Russian armies, the gap they left ultimately cost Germany the battle. Sadly if you’re a pro German t*at like me, these divisions weren’t even needed against Russia, as Tannenberg was over before they arrived!
You could be right but I doubt you are. 2 divisions were supposed to hold the gap? No one was supposed to hold the gap because the gap wasn't known to the Germans for some days. Klucks first amry was pushing back the French 6th army north of Paris. He was acting on his own innititive trying to capture Paris. The German 2nd army's commander Bulow hated Kluck and didn't communicate. Kluck moved west pushing the 6th army while refuseing to establish contact with Bulow. Meanwhile the French 5th army Pushed Bukows right widening the gap which the B.E.F and French 5th army pour through
The 8th of September being a crucial date.
Today it's 106 years ago that ww1 started , never forget them 😔
I would not all the British Army in 1914 "elite" - they were veterans, at least most of them, but elite? No.
I feel as though a short video doesn't do justice to the complexity of the situation in August 1914, and at points the presentation leaned towards a kind of historicity. For example, to say that changes to the schlieffen plan would undermine a German victory seems to me to be an oversimplification of the issue. On the positive, it was a fascinating collection of footage.
Von Moltke:" Your Majesty, we have lost the war"
Joffre: "I don't know who won the battle of the Marne.
But I do know who would have lost it.
On September 5, 1914, Generalissimo Joseph Joffre wrote an order of the day: “At the moment when a battle begins on which the fate of the country depends, […]. A troop that can no longer advance must, at all costs, keep the ground it has won and **be killed on the spot rather than retreat** […] »
Nice vid but it talks more about the 1914 retreat before the battle than of the actual battle of the Marne itself. A different title for the vid would make sense.
7:55. 8:10
Thinking of playing Avalon Hill's 1914. France's Plan 17 vs Schlieffen's plan with the strongest right wing possible. Whatta game!!!
It takes 15000 casualties to train a Major General.
why you copying top comment stfu
Why tell him to stfu and yes it is the top comment captain obvious
Interestingly, the Von Schlieffen Plan may have been intended as a strategically defensive plan, rather than offensive. Based on the Logistics and manpower required for the plan, Germany would have required 1.36 million troops at a minimum, rather than the 970,000 Germany actually went to war with, and this alternative plan would have encircled the French as they thrust into Alsace-Lorraine; a lure-them-in strategy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan#1990s%E2%80%93present
I know im late by 2 years but uve peeked my curiosity can u explain it more
The Schliffen plan was a pure idiocy. Even a simple frontal attack over the Rhine would have been a better plan.
Poor Belgium. The Belgians should have realized what they were in the middle of, as far as I know the germans seem to have pretty much massacred some towns that attacked the german military while they were traversing.
Yes around 6000 Belgians were executed in response to civilian snipers. Germany used collective punishments to put down revolts leading to many innocents being killed. However for context, it is important to note when Russia occupied east Prussia and Galicia, they killed a similar number of Germans in a shorter period of time, and burned down a larger number of villages. In Galicia there were many cases of rapes, farm burnings and executions committed by the Russians. The Austrian army also killed many Serbian civilians and torched some villages in their invasion.
Bottom line is, occupation in a world war is brutal, and every side acted similar when interacting with civilian populace, not just the Germans, also the German crimes were lavishly published and overblown, and the allied crimes essentially forgotten and ignored. In the grand scope of war crimes in ww1, Germany’s atrocities in Belgium are on the lesser end of the spectrum, compared to Britain’s post war starvation blockade for instance.
@@rhysnichols8608 Already the first day of the German invasion, 127 civilians were executed by the Germans, ... not one German was wounded/killed at that moment. Civilian snipers ? Nope....
And no one was allowed im belgium befor the german's attackt belgium that is part of the treaty of londen no one can claim belgium and go true or put there army on belgian soil thats why the belgian's stood on there own the first days and the belgian's needed to cover all border's. Not only the german border but the french and to the sea for GB and to the nederland's because of that treaty that says no one can go true belgium
Not only GB Treaty of londen GB Russia france the nederland's and pruissia
Great. But: 'hung by the slenderest of margins'? !
That is correct. France came very close to being beaten right at the beginning. The combination of the crazy French all out offensive doctrine, the superiority of German heavy artillery, machineguns, demographics and industrial output made for a pretty catastrophic start for the French. Without the operational mistake made by the Germans on the Marne river, things may well have turned out as another 1870...
✳️Numbers ✳️ ?? !!
Judging by this video no research was done before the making of this video
Good vids but I had to unsubscibe after you turned off the comments on another video. You blocked an interesting discussion I was having!
was it about religion or current politics?
@@DimBeam1 I honestly cant remember, I think it was pretty relevant to the topic.
@@TheA8lee other discussion in there might have though
The British contribution was wearing out the German army chasing Sir French's craven retreat. Kluck's unexplained hard turn offering his flank and Galieni's (recognition) amazing attack did in the German offensive. Had the British attacked the gap between the first and second German army with urgency it would have been an allied route.
Had Kluck not first ran in front of the 2nd Army and then just ran away from it...there never would have been a gap. His orders were to cover the flank of 2nd army in echelon. Still amazing how he got his men to match these distances and then still fighting and nearly beating French 6th Army. There is a nice TV documentary about it. From the 80s and in German language. "Die Schlacht an der Marne".
@@Dilley_G45 Thank you. Agree somewhat. "Guns of August" Tuchman, "The First W. W." Keegan.
I am from the West Midlands. My great-great-grandfather, North Staffordshire regiment. He had a French girlfriend 🤮
We should have sided with the Kaiser! Makes me sick we had to save the French and Belgians
Lol the 'French population' in what were always German areas until forced migration in the mid 20th century
british propaganda
This is american history come no now😃😃😃😄😄😄😎😎😎😌😌😏😏👵👵👵👭👭👭
💟💟💞💞💟💟💞💞👏👏✋✌✊👌👍👍👐👐
Where is my reply. Russian people and people who hail them are morons where have u been for the last 75 yrs
GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in *any* continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
*And so "poor little Belgium" was born.*
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
*The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)*
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
Nope we were part of the united kingdom of the nederland's after napolion and then the belgian revolt happend.
@@commando2113 Not for London strategists.
For London, "sovereign Belgium" was a barrier state.
@@ralphbernhard1757 lol realy again'st who luxembourg the french can go over the water yust like the german's can so? .
And don't say for france again'st germany because they own e big border and the maginol line was not build yet so germany could enter france on that border so.
Wait i yust read it you say belgium is there because some attack from france again'st germany realy