I have been fascinated by the early (and later) Eastern Front campaigns of the Great War. It seems more history works have been produced lately on the subject. This talk was very illuminating. Thanks!
I mean except Schlieffen explicitly did not want a large circling offensive in the event of a Franco Russian alliance and it was von Moltke who came up with using Schlieffen's Aufmarsch I, designed for a Franco German war, in a 2 front war....
What a ridiculous conclusion “Tannenberg was not decisive” I don’t understand how one can come to that summary. YES the Russians were back in east Prussia within a few weeks, but by the second invasion the Germans had much more stable footing on the eastern front and appropriate forces to count them. The whole reason Tannenberg was so important is because at the start of the war the Russians had over a double numerical superiority and rapidly deployed catching them Germans somewhat off guard, had anything less than a decisive battle taken place it’s likely Russia could’ve dealt a serious blow to Germany in August and September 1914. The victory at Tannenberg swung momentum decisively away from the Russians, saved east Prussia from probably occupation AND effectively stopped the Russian war plans, whilst also ensuring significant resources didn’t need to be transferred to the east from the west, can you imagine if Tannenberg never happened? And the Russians used their numbers to occupy east Prussia and Konigsberg? Way more than 2 divisions would have to be diverted from the west. Tannenberg changed the direction of the war quite decisively, the destruction of an entire army certainly put a wrench in the plans of the entente. For sure the Russians made up the losses within a few weeks, but by this time the window of opportunity was much more narrow. Russia had its chance to overwhelm and surprised Germany in August 1914, and they had the real potential to fully take Prussia and threaten Berlin, anything less than a decisive victory wouldn’t have stopped this, at least without needing major reinforcements. By the time the Russians were back in east Prussia they had no where near the surprise, shock or numerical advantage they enjoyed in august. My point is august 1914 was Germany’s most precarious situation and Russias best situation in regards to an attack on Germany. Tannenberg halted this and by the time Russia was back it lost much of its advantages such as surprise, overwhelming numbers and moral was also massively dampened. While Tannenberg certainly wasn’t a war winning glorious Austerlitz V2, it certainly was decisive enough to change the course of the war, and one could argue fumbled russias best chance of an early victory. Of course it was decisive.
Hard to now "what if". Reiforcements was transferred from the west already. But as you say when outnumbered and on the backfoot it must have ben great for morale. Not least as the west did not bring the sought after quick decicive victory. For Austria-Hungary it sure was very important? The main war was in the west though and Russia was far from broken 1914.
lucid discussion of early events on the EF. Samsonov and von Rennenkampf, according to some sources, accidently met at a RR station sometime before the war. They had an animated discussion of outstanding issues, then a fistfight. Not....a good omen. In a play on his name, the Germans referred to von R. as "always running, never fighting".
Samsonov was crushed because he was running into the arms of the Germans, whereas he believed he was sweeping them away and when he realized the danger, It had become too late to sound retreat. The late rescue of Rennenkampf from the Capital of East Prussia saved him, because he was falling into the same trap in which Samsonov had fallen prey but as I already said in Advance his slow March prevented him to destroy his First army and While Samsonov Lost 90.000 prisoners at least, the order of retreat of Rennenkampf over the boundary entailed the loss of half the Number of prisoners for the Russians (45000) even if his retreat neither prevented his defeat, nor the saving of Samsonov's army, nor avoided the failure of the Invasion. And they weren't even the last defeats of Russians against the Germans, because there would be Gorlice and Novogeorgievsk
They didn’t “accidentally” meet at a railroad station they were in the far east during the Russo Japanese War and in the aftermath of a battle that the Russians lost got into their fist fight it had a firmer basis in how the commanders perceived each other from that war
The problem with Cannae and the concept of a Super-Cannae is that even that battle was not decisive in terms of the conflict between Rome and Carthage - it is, after all, the remaining buildings of Ancient Rome we visit today and the destruction and salting of Carthage which we read about. It would be interesting to see that parallel universe in which Prittwitz doesn't drop his bundle and/or Moltke the Younger takes the Eastern Front reserves from his LEFT wing.
Well, a super-Cannae indeed exists. Operation Bagration, eastern Front, 1944. It destroyed a whole German army group, almost a third of Germany's remaining power in total. But we don't speak about the successful battles as much as about the what-ifs ;)
@@rhysnichols8608 No, it didn't. The Second Punic War dragged on for another 15 years after Cannae and ended with Rome dictating terms to Carthaginians after Zama.
@@boycotgugle3040 no it wasn't. It came AFTER Stalingrad, Kursk, El Alamein, Tunis, D-Day, Big Week Air offensive and around the time of the breakthrough at Avranches. All these were decisive. Whereas Gorlice Tarnow WAS war winning in the long run
Germany killed 6000 Belgiums in response to snipers, and the world goes crazy. Worse things happen under the Russians on the eastern front and no one bats an eye. It’s almost like despite the facade of ‘impartiality’ the view of the war is very bias toward the victors narrative to this day. And people always conveniently forget the British starvation blockade (which illegally continued until 1919) killed 723,000 German civilians. Both sides did terrible things, but one side is lavishly indulged in and the other granted immunity. It is clear history is indeed written by the victors
unfortunately, there's a strong trend among german historians into revisionism. And the best way to do it is to villainize "ze Russians" - and this man seems to be no exeption. Believe me, I do speak german so I know how they talk when no foreigner is listening.
@@JosipRadnik1 the Kraut rocker Holger Czuskay speaking of Germany in 50s and 60s said the place was utterly schizophrenic for younger Germans . Much of the older generation were privately pro Hitler in a publicly pacifist FDR where the war and the Nazis was a taboo subject.
@@liamhackett513 It's very much schizophrenic till today - but so is most of the world to be honest - but that's another matter. Concerning Germany, let me highlight some major characteristics of "historical schizophrenia" (for lack of better words) - as far as I see them: Most germans clearly condemn the holocaust, Nazi racial Idology etc, yet many of them still feel culturally superior to their european neighbours, Many still think the "Wirtschaftswunder" was mainly due to german culture, organisation and work ethics and europe would be a better place if everyone would speak german. While almost all (exept for a few nutters) rightfully condemn the genocide against Jews, Gypsies and other forms of "unworthy human life", many tend to either ignore or belittle attrocities against other people, especially if those acts of crimes were not related to Nazis in particular but rather to "normal" germans and/or commited in other instances than the 2nd World War (like the so called "rape of Belgium" in WWI). Another issue is german militarism and the responsability of starting the two most desastrous wars in history which seemingly isn't very popular today, yet, a damn many are in the same time very proud of "german engeneering", their marvellous wonder weapons, their military victories, their aces and war heroes etc. and there is a clear tendency to paint other nations (with the exeption of the US) as inferior warriors. Although it clearly isn't official policy there seems to be a clear tendency to demonize not only the Soviet Union but the Russians per se. Some go even as far as portraying especially the war in the east as somehow justified and while everyone (exept the handfull of nutters) hates Hitler, many hate him not for starting the war but for loosing it. Said portrait depicted above adresses prominent views in the traditional national conservative side of german society. Yet, there has emerged a more modern, more "liberal" and "humanistic" form of cultural superiority which - especially in recent years - has somehow adopted quite a lot of those traditional views towards "culturally inferior eastern untermenschen" in even more schizophrenic ways (which is quite something) but which I don't want to address in detail because it not only hurts my brain but my heart as well to be honest. Let me just say that there is a strong tendency in large parts of society to rewrite history in regard to eastern Europe and Russia in particular in a very dishonest way. Maybe I am a little bit blinded by prejudice myself but I must say that the way those claims were made by the young historian in this video, the context of it and the source he mentions just ring a few alarm bells. For example: He mentions various historians but dismisses all but one which he claims was the only one that made a thorough study. Yet the one he referrs to only had one (german) source at hand, at least so it seems, But dont worry, that source is "astonishingly objective" (so there were also "good" Russians? Who knew...) Also the connection to the so called "rape of belgium" isn't very fair to say the least. Belgium was a neutral country that tried to stay out of the conflict but was more or less invaded without warning. The german general staff was eager to get through belgium as fast as possible to get around the french flank before the BEF could come to their aid so they likely not only tolerated atrocities, there is strong indication that they encouraged it in order to subdue any belgian resistance as quick as possible.. About 6000 belgian civilans were shot, many by firing sqads lead by senior officers (not to talk of later crimes like deportation of forced labour etc) - in contrast there are 1600 civilan deaths mentioned in east prussia by this "only reliable" source and far less deportations (about a tenth of the number in belgium). Marauding cossacks certainly were a real thing and they didn't get their bad reputation out of nothing (even Michail Sholokhov depicts rape and killing of prisoners at the hands of cossacks in his novel "The Silent Don"). But I think things have to be put in perspective here. Looting and pillaging are a sad but normal occurance in any campaign where a foreign army occupies enemy territory (sometimes it also happens in neutral, allied or even friendly territory too). There is no reason to doubt that there was widespread looting. Question is, to what degree was it systemic and/or even sanctioned by upper echellons. The russian army tried to live of the land, as it still was custom in that part of the world at that time due to a lack of infrastructure that would ensure a constant stream of supply from the hinterland. In the same token, German gernerall staff decided to "carry all grain and cattle back behind the weichsel" after the battle of gumbinnen (at least that's what I learned) causing a great stream of refugees heading west. How many deaths were caused by that panic alone? The city of Domnau had about 1900 inhabitants in 1900 and was destroyed to about two thirds by russian troops following the said battle. Yet it was on the axis of retreat of the german troops - so it can likely have happened due to conventional military actions rather than an assault aimed on the civilian population (unfortunately I don't have any sources so I don't know exactly, but it sounds reasonable). The population of said town was about 2700 in 1933 by the way. So to me, highlighting Russian atrocities (which certainly occured to some degree) in such a way and comparing it to german actions in Belgium seems a bit flawed and has a certain "Gschmaeckle" as the svabians would say. But as I said, maybe it's just my personal bias so I'll leave it at that.
Considering the Germans as an army of losers, as many Italians Also state, Is ridiculous , because their armies trod the enemy soil everywhere, and their collapse was caused by inner factors of starvation. Yes they didn't achieve anything on the italian front, where they letto small portions of their troops to be defeated by the out troops and It was a gross mistake, but apart from the despondency of not taking Paris,likened to the conquest of 1871, the behaviour of English and French of considering themselves the only winners, While America was the true Victor turned out to be the sleepy and slumbering mistake, from which they bitterly woke up in 1940, besides not realizing the Axis success in supporting their ideological Allied in Spain.
I have been fascinated by the early (and later) Eastern Front campaigns of the Great War. It seems more history works have been produced lately on the subject. This talk was very illuminating. Thanks!
I mean except Schlieffen explicitly did not want a large circling offensive in the event of a Franco Russian alliance and it was von Moltke who came up with using Schlieffen's Aufmarsch I, designed for a Franco German war, in a 2 front war....
Does Dr. Peter have a Twitter account or any social media?
What a ridiculous conclusion “Tannenberg was not decisive” I don’t understand how one can come to that summary. YES the Russians were back in east Prussia within a few weeks, but by the second invasion the Germans had much more stable footing on the eastern front and appropriate forces to count them. The whole reason Tannenberg was so important is because at the start of the war the Russians had over a double numerical superiority and rapidly deployed catching them Germans somewhat off guard, had anything less than a decisive battle taken place it’s likely Russia could’ve dealt a serious blow to Germany in August and September 1914. The victory at Tannenberg swung momentum decisively away from the Russians, saved east Prussia from probably occupation AND effectively stopped the Russian war plans, whilst also ensuring significant resources didn’t need to be transferred to the east from the west, can you imagine if Tannenberg never happened? And the Russians used their numbers to occupy east Prussia and Konigsberg? Way more than 2 divisions would have to be diverted from the west. Tannenberg changed the direction of the war quite decisively, the destruction of an entire army certainly put a wrench in the plans of the entente. For sure the Russians made up the losses within a few weeks, but by this time the window of opportunity was much more narrow. Russia had its chance to overwhelm and surprised Germany in August 1914, and they had the real potential to fully take Prussia and threaten Berlin, anything less than a decisive victory wouldn’t have stopped this, at least without needing major reinforcements. By the time the Russians were back in east Prussia they had no where near the surprise, shock or numerical advantage they enjoyed in august. My point is august 1914 was Germany’s most precarious situation and Russias best situation in regards to an attack on Germany. Tannenberg halted this and by the time Russia was back it lost much of its advantages such as surprise, overwhelming numbers and moral was also massively dampened. While Tannenberg certainly wasn’t a war winning glorious Austerlitz V2, it certainly was decisive enough to change the course of the war, and one could argue fumbled russias best chance of an early victory. Of course it was decisive.
Hard to now "what if". Reiforcements was transferred from the west already. But as you say when outnumbered and on the backfoot it must have ben great for morale. Not least as the west did not bring the sought after quick decicive victory. For Austria-Hungary it sure was very important? The main war was in the west though and Russia was far from broken 1914.
lucid discussion of early events on the EF. Samsonov and von Rennenkampf, according to some sources, accidently met at a RR station sometime before the war. They had an animated discussion of outstanding issues, then a fistfight. Not....a good omen. In a play on his name, the Germans referred to von R. as "always running, never fighting".
Samsonov was crushed because he was running into the arms of the Germans, whereas he believed he was sweeping them away and when he realized the danger, It had become too late to sound retreat. The late rescue of Rennenkampf from the Capital of East Prussia saved him, because he was falling into the same trap in which Samsonov had fallen prey but as I already said in Advance his slow March prevented him to destroy his First army and While Samsonov Lost 90.000 prisoners at least, the order of retreat of Rennenkampf over the boundary entailed the loss of half the Number of prisoners for the Russians (45000) even if his retreat neither prevented his defeat, nor the saving of Samsonov's army, nor avoided the failure of the Invasion. And they weren't even the last defeats of Russians against the Germans, because there would be Gorlice and Novogeorgievsk
They didn’t “accidentally” meet at a railroad station they were in the far east during the Russo Japanese War and in the aftermath of a battle that the Russians lost got into their fist fight it had a firmer basis in how the commanders perceived each other from that war
The problem with Cannae and the concept of a Super-Cannae is that even that battle was not decisive in terms of the conflict between Rome and Carthage - it is, after all, the remaining buildings of Ancient Rome we visit today and the destruction and salting of Carthage which we read about.
It would be interesting to see that parallel universe in which Prittwitz doesn't drop his bundle and/or Moltke the Younger takes the Eastern Front reserves from his LEFT wing.
Well, a super-Cannae indeed exists. Operation Bagration, eastern Front, 1944. It destroyed a whole German army group, almost a third of Germany's remaining power in total. But we don't speak about the successful battles as much as about the what-ifs ;)
Anyway Cannae was a tactical victory, the Republic teard down Carthago.
@@boycotgugle3040 Sedan as well was a bit of a super Cannae, a war-winning encirclement.
@@rhysnichols8608 No, it didn't. The Second Punic War dragged on for another 15 years after Cannae and ended with Rome dictating terms to Carthaginians after Zama.
@@boycotgugle3040 no it wasn't. It came AFTER Stalingrad, Kursk, El Alamein, Tunis, D-Day, Big Week Air offensive and around the time of the breakthrough at Avranches. All these were decisive. Whereas Gorlice Tarnow WAS war winning in the long run
Germany killed 6000 Belgiums in response to snipers, and the world goes crazy. Worse things happen under the Russians on the eastern front and no one bats an eye.
It’s almost like despite the facade of ‘impartiality’ the view of the war is very bias toward the victors narrative to this day.
And people always conveniently forget the British starvation blockade (which illegally continued until 1919) killed 723,000 German civilians.
Both sides did terrible things, but one side is lavishly indulged in and the other granted immunity.
It is clear history is indeed written by the victors
unfortunately, there's a strong trend among german historians into revisionism. And the best way to do it is to villainize "ze Russians" - and this man seems to be no exeption. Believe me, I do speak german so I know how they talk when no foreigner is listening.
@@JosipRadnik1 the Kraut rocker Holger Czuskay speaking of Germany in 50s and 60s said the place was utterly schizophrenic for younger Germans . Much of the older generation were privately pro Hitler in a publicly pacifist FDR where the war and the Nazis was a taboo subject.
@@liamhackett513
It's very much schizophrenic till today - but so is most of the world to be honest - but that's another matter.
Concerning Germany, let me highlight some major characteristics of "historical schizophrenia" (for lack of better words) - as far as I see them:
Most germans clearly condemn the holocaust, Nazi racial Idology etc, yet many of them still feel culturally superior to their european neighbours, Many still think the "Wirtschaftswunder" was mainly due to german culture, organisation and work ethics and europe would be a better place if everyone would speak german. While almost all (exept for a few nutters) rightfully condemn the genocide against Jews, Gypsies and other forms of "unworthy human life", many tend to either ignore or belittle attrocities against other people, especially if those acts of crimes were not related to Nazis in particular but rather to "normal" germans and/or commited in other instances than the 2nd World War (like the so called "rape of Belgium" in WWI). Another issue is german militarism and the responsability of starting the two most desastrous wars in history which seemingly isn't very popular today, yet, a damn many are in the same time very proud of "german engeneering", their marvellous wonder weapons, their military victories, their aces and war heroes etc. and there is a clear tendency to paint other nations (with the exeption of the US) as inferior warriors. Although it clearly isn't official policy there seems to be a clear tendency to demonize not only the Soviet Union but the Russians per se. Some go even as far as portraying especially the war in the east as somehow justified and while everyone (exept the handfull of nutters) hates Hitler, many hate him not for starting the war but for loosing it.
Said portrait depicted above adresses prominent views in the traditional national conservative side of german society. Yet, there has emerged a more modern, more "liberal" and "humanistic" form of cultural superiority which - especially in recent years - has somehow adopted quite a lot of those traditional views towards "culturally inferior eastern untermenschen" in even more schizophrenic ways (which is quite something) but which I don't want to address in detail because it not only hurts my brain but my heart as well to be honest. Let me just say that there is a strong tendency in large parts of society to rewrite history in regard to eastern Europe and Russia in particular in a very dishonest way.
Maybe I am a little bit blinded by prejudice myself but I must say that the way those claims were made by the young historian in this video, the context of it and the source he mentions just ring a few alarm bells. For example: He mentions various historians but dismisses all but one which he claims was the only one that made a thorough study. Yet the one he referrs to only had one (german) source at hand, at least so it seems, But dont worry, that source is "astonishingly objective" (so there were also "good" Russians? Who knew...) Also the connection to the so called "rape of belgium" isn't very fair to say the least. Belgium was a neutral country that tried to stay out of the conflict but was more or less invaded without warning. The german general staff was eager to get through belgium as fast as possible to get around the french flank before the BEF could come to their aid so they likely not only tolerated atrocities, there is strong indication that they encouraged it in order to subdue any belgian resistance as quick as possible.. About 6000 belgian civilans were shot, many by firing sqads lead by senior officers (not to talk of later crimes like deportation of forced labour etc) - in contrast there are 1600 civilan deaths mentioned in east prussia by this "only reliable" source and far less deportations (about a tenth of the number in belgium). Marauding cossacks certainly were a real thing and they didn't get their bad reputation out of nothing (even Michail Sholokhov depicts rape and killing of prisoners at the hands of cossacks in his novel "The Silent Don"). But I think things have to be put in perspective here. Looting and pillaging are a sad but normal occurance in any campaign where a foreign army occupies enemy territory (sometimes it also happens in neutral, allied or even friendly territory too). There is no reason to doubt that there was widespread looting. Question is, to what degree was it systemic and/or even sanctioned by upper echellons. The russian army tried to live of the land, as it still was custom in that part of the world at that time due to a lack of infrastructure that would ensure a constant stream of supply from the hinterland. In the same token, German gernerall staff decided to "carry all grain and cattle back behind the weichsel" after the battle of gumbinnen (at least that's what I learned) causing a great stream of refugees heading west. How many deaths were caused by that panic alone? The city of Domnau had about 1900 inhabitants in 1900 and was destroyed to about two thirds by russian troops following the said battle. Yet it was on the axis of retreat of the german troops - so it can likely have happened due to conventional military actions rather than an assault aimed on the civilian population (unfortunately I don't have any sources so I don't know exactly, but it sounds reasonable). The population of said town was about 2700 in 1933 by the way. So to me, highlighting Russian atrocities (which certainly occured to some degree) in such a way and comparing it to german actions in Belgium seems a bit flawed and has a certain "Gschmaeckle" as the svabians would say. But as I said, maybe it's just my personal bias so I'll leave it at that.
The Armistice signed provided for the naval blockade of Germany. The Huns agreed to it then
Considering the Germans as an army of losers, as many Italians Also state, Is ridiculous , because their armies trod the enemy soil everywhere, and their collapse was caused by inner factors of starvation. Yes they didn't achieve anything on the italian front, where they letto small portions of their troops to be defeated by the out troops and It was a gross mistake, but apart from the despondency of not taking Paris,likened to the conquest of 1871, the behaviour of English and French of considering themselves the only winners, While America was the true Victor turned out to be the sleepy and slumbering mistake, from which they bitterly woke up in 1940, besides not realizing the Axis success in supporting their ideological Allied in Spain.
Anderson Michelle Gonzalez Sandra Anderson Jennifer
Nothing new here, no new research or angles! Why would you have paid to go and see this?
It was quite good but I wouldn’t pay if the info is available for free online soon after