Excellent presentation from a great historian. Thanks for mentioning the third attack by the BEF, 15 to 25 May thought to be 'a matter of persistence'.
Around 6:30 this was interesting to me, the idea of the BEF being sent elsewhere other than France actually makes good sense…..imagine if after the French front was stabilised in autumn 14 the bulk of the BEF went to Serbia and helped with a counter offensive against Austria, the terrain and type of combat in balkans in the early war was much more suited to the British army, a highly trained force alongside the Serbs who were well experienced may have done serious harm to Austria Hungary at the time, especially since they were also on the back foot against the Russians at this time. The strategic affect of potentially crippling Austria early could’ve drastically changed the course of the war…. However it is questionable if the British would have sufficient numbers to decisively beat the Austro Hungarian armies, however they would’ve been an easier foe than Germany and the terrain was better suited to the BEF. This of course would leave France vulnerable as holding Germany alone was unlikely, but it’s a fun thought experiment
My Great Grandad was in the North Staff's before the war began. He was ultimately then in the BEf at the start of the war. He must have been either a great soldier or the luckiest man of the time. He survived the whole war unlike most of his pals that he fought with in 1914 who mostly became casualties. I will never forget what these men, no boys, sacrificed for us all, so we could be free.
Whilst I thank men like your Great Grandfather as I too, had relatives who fought in the Boer war, WW1,and Ww2. World War one, fought by us or not would not have affected our freedom. As I age, I realise what a great waste bordering on criminal the loss of all those young lives is.
You have a dangerous belief, that these wars are fought for ‘freedom’ so when the lying scheming corrupt governments again send us to the slaughter, people like you will believe the rhetoric of ‘freedom’ and ‘spreading democracy’ etc. The reality of why these wars were really fought is much less romantic and quite evil. No ones freedom was threatened, but ironically taken by politicians over the decades who instigated these wars
I watched a US lecturer not long ago pretty much saying the same sort of thing about the AEF in 1917, that the US army went from 98 odd thousand men in early 1917 to an Officer corps of 200 or so thousand by late 1917.... The effect on training was, as you can imagine, catastrophic.
to be fair they had to learn just like the brits and french did , problem is the germans werent exactly an unmoving monolith either , ergo the obnoxious american experience
@@mcsmash4905 Pershing failed to learn from the French and British experiences and that is one of the reasons the AEF made the same mistakes. Maj. Gen. (Rtd) David T. Zabecki and Col. (Rtd)Douglas V. Mastriano, in their book "Pershing’s Lieutenants: American Military Leadership in World War I" note that Pershing’s focus had been on “American rifle marksmanship, ‘self-reliant infantry,’ and ‘open warfare,’” rather than learning the lessons from the previous three years of Allied fighting.
I'm baffled why, even at that time, that no one in either (especially) France or even England took the time to really evaluate their alleged steam roller ally - until it was too late. Russia was a steam roller alright, but without steam and a flat roller.
Russia had a great deal of success against the Austro-Hungarians, the problem lied in the fact that the Russian military was outclassed by Germany while not having the benefit of its allies right next to them, like the BEF had with the French Army. A saying in 1916 in both left and right wing political groups in Russia was that Britain would fight until the last drop of Russian blood.
There’s a book called the Darkest Days that mentions the objections of the majority of people opposing going to war as to why we are allying ourselves to a despotic czarist Russia (which we had opposed up until this point) and that if Germany is defeated then that state will be right in the heart of Europe. That stupid war was centred in the East not the west The real bafflement is why Britain got involved in the first place and why it didn’t use its neutrality to signal it wasn’t going to support either side which maybe would have cooled of the minority that wanted war. It’s a pity we didn’t have a Palmerston as pm instead of that wet rag Asquith. It’s also interesting that Britain’s Government hardly spoke with Russia at all before war broke out.
@@TheSunderingSea The reality is Germany was indeed a cut above the rest militarily during this war, and it showed against Russia even tho Russia outnumbered Germany and Austria Hungary, but as the comment above rightly states the French and the British armies had each other for support and this evened the playing field. Germany was facing 2 different style armies in 1 front and later 3, not to mention huge colonial forces too. Had the Russian army sent a British sized army to France hypothetically, the situation probably would be the same as it played out.
The claim that British high command was AWARE the BEF was not prepared for trench warfare, is contradicted by the fact that no one anticipated the continuous front.
Before hand yes, but after a few months of trench stalemate the leadership quite rightly retrospectively assessed that the army as it stood wasn’t that well suited for trench warfare. British army was designed for light, fast moving woodland combat, not static siege warfare, the Germans were better suited to this due to their superiority in artillery for instance. So it’s completely reasonable assessment
And if it wasn't for the Women and the Americans we would have lost the Great war and this brings Me to the People's Representation act of 1918 which was Passed on Wednesday February 6th 1918 where I disagreed with that act was the Voting age which gave all Men over 21 and Women over 30 the Right to Vote and in My view it should have been 21 for both Men and Women which was Put right in 1928 when the Voting age of Women was lowered to 21 the same as the Men and that amendment was Passed on Monday July 2nd 1928
Unfortunately you cant throw a boulder up a mountain, you have to push it in stages. Completely rebuilding the political balance and its affect on party structure would have been difficult for a conservative political generation, better to make changes, let them settle in then push for the rest when its shown to work or at least not destroy the world as they knew it.
@@martincook318 @Martin Cook i meant conservative in the sense of not liking change or the cost of instant change being too high. You can't just go from jailing people for being gay to church weddings you have to ease people in, deciminalise, publicise, make people comfortable with the idea then partnership and by the end the people who didnt want change think it was normal and probably their idea all along. Power is in the hands of a few aristocrats and Barons, then it gets expanded to landowners, then to the industrialists and the middle class, then to certain women and the working class and finally to everyone. A few new people move into the ruling/governing class, the local parties readjust their messaging and their candidate selection or new parties move into parlaiment and suddenly theres a labour party and society moves on. Germany and Russia tried the sudden change method, it didnt turn out so well.
And I still think that the Voting age in the 1918 People's Representation act was unfair in Regards to the Voting age and I Read your comment which to Reply to Mine and to be honest I think you are talking Rubbish in one Respect as the Ruling class had the upper hand which was Sopose to have broken down by the end of World war two but oh no it still went on and it's still going on today
the americans came right at the end of the war when germany as a millitary force was all but spent , all the americans added was sheer mass of bodies , their help was welcome but dont get ahead of yourself , everyone piggybacked on the french and the brits (french taking more of the weight up until 1917)
The British not only could but they should have stayed out of it but, since they were the organizers behind it all, they first used little Belgium, towards which they had no obligations whatsoever, simply because the general population would never have agreed to fight in defense of France, the traditional enemy. So, Sir Edward Grey lied to the world, and only told the rest of the cabinet about a secret entente with France two days before the war began, which almost led to half the deputies and ministers to resign in indignation. That war had been planned for quite a while, Germany's industrial and commercial lightning fast growth could not be tolerated and a traditional capitalist 'may the better win' commercial war was out of the question so the only possibility left was the destruction of the main competition by associating with the minor continental powers and get them to fight for Britain under pretenses of honor and obligations, all false and in the end, all meant to benefit and protect the old and tired European empires from any and all dangers. The one danger that had escaped the ideologs behind it all was how expensive holding on to such imperatives would amount to, Britain only finished paying her WW1 debt in 2015 wich brings out the same old question again: Was it worth it? No, certainly not.
I would like to hear or see the moral, political or strategic imperative arguments that the speaker uses so glibly as justification for the education of senior officers, the carnage and loss of life that was BEF 1915
Around 6:30 this was interesting to me, the idea of the BEF being sent elsewhere other than France actually makes good sense…..imagine if after the French front was stabilised in autumn 14 the bulk of the BEF went to Serbia and helped with a counter offensive against Austria, the terrain and type of combat in balkans in the early war was much more suited to the British army, a highly trained force alongside the Serbs who were well experienced may have done serious harm to Austria Hungary at the time, especially since they were also on the back foot against the Russians at this time. The strategic affect of potentially crippling Austria early could’ve drastically changed the course of the war…. However it is questionable if the British would have sufficient numbers to decisively beat the Austro Hungarian armies, however they would’ve been an easier foe than Germany and the terrain was better suited to the BEF. This of course would leave France vulnerable as holding Germany alone was unlikely, but it’s a fun thought experiment
Or let’s put an Army not designed for fighting a Continental War Britain should never have gotten involved in that stupidity! A Russian German War centred on the Balkans
Henry Wilson, the British French liaison officer, had a prewar agreement with the French High Command that the BEF would fight on the left flank. This decision led to the BEF having to fight the battle of Mons.
Spencer Jones is in a league of his own when it comes to WW1 lectures. Best presenter out there, no question.
One of the few lectures I have watched where the presenter does not use the words um and ah.
Well done. A very professional presentation.
Too many 'of' phrases.
*ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACTING LIKE SELF-HATING GERMAN TRYING TO PASS AS LATIN INTENSIFIES*
Indeed.
Great lecture, not a word wasted.
Excellent presentation from a great historian. Thanks for mentioning the third attack by the BEF, 15 to 25 May thought to be 'a matter of persistence'.
Wonderful presentation and very informative
Great upload, without oh or ahhhhh he is telling you the truth fluently with a pleasure, thanks for sharing.
Around 6:30 this was interesting to me, the idea of the BEF being sent elsewhere other than France actually makes good sense…..imagine if after the French front was stabilised in autumn 14 the bulk of the BEF went to Serbia and helped with a counter offensive against Austria, the terrain and type of combat in balkans in the early war was much more suited to the British army, a highly trained force alongside the Serbs who were well experienced may have done serious harm to Austria Hungary at the time, especially since they were also on the back foot against the Russians at this time.
The strategic affect of potentially crippling Austria early could’ve drastically changed the course of the war….
However it is questionable if the British would have sufficient numbers to decisively beat the Austro Hungarian armies, however they would’ve been an easier foe than Germany and the terrain was better suited to the BEF.
This of course would leave France vulnerable as holding Germany alone was unlikely, but it’s a fun thought experiment
My Great Grandad was in the North Staff's before the war began. He was ultimately then in the BEf at the start of the war. He must have been either a great soldier or the luckiest man of the time. He survived the whole war unlike most of his pals that he fought with in 1914 who mostly became casualties.
I will never forget what these men, no boys, sacrificed for us all, so we could be free.
Whilst I thank men like your Great Grandfather as I too, had relatives who fought in the Boer war, WW1,and Ww2. World War one, fought by us or not would not have affected our freedom. As I age, I realise what a great waste bordering on criminal the loss of all those young lives is.
You have a dangerous belief, that these wars are fought for ‘freedom’ so when the lying scheming corrupt governments again send us to the slaughter, people like you will believe the rhetoric of ‘freedom’ and ‘spreading democracy’ etc. The reality of why these wars were really fought is much less romantic and quite evil. No ones freedom was threatened, but ironically taken by politicians over the decades who instigated these wars
another very good lecture.
A thoroughly professional, informative, educational and entertaining talk.
Excellent well done
1915
1915
‘Mother’, of course, wasn’t a 15cm howitzer - she was a 9.2” piece, deployed in October 1914. Just to clarify…
I watched a US lecturer not long ago pretty much saying the same sort of thing about the AEF in 1917, that the US army went from 98 odd thousand men in early 1917 to an Officer corps of 200 or so thousand by late 1917....
The effect on training was, as you can imagine, catastrophic.
And General Pershing repeated many of the msitakes made by the British in 1915.
to be fair they had to learn just like the brits and french did , problem is the germans werent exactly an unmoving monolith either , ergo the obnoxious american experience
@@mcsmash4905 Pershing failed to learn from the French and British experiences and that is one of the reasons the AEF made the same mistakes.
Maj. Gen. (Rtd) David T. Zabecki and Col. (Rtd)Douglas V. Mastriano, in their book "Pershing’s Lieutenants: American Military Leadership in World War I" note that Pershing’s focus had been on “American rifle marksmanship, ‘self-reliant infantry,’ and ‘open warfare,’” rather than learning the lessons from the previous three years of Allied fighting.
R.I.P.
Cpt.Cyril Holland
RFA
09.05.1915
What about Andrew Lambert's Baltic strategy? Maybe the British navy should have blocked the German ports?
Did this guy contribute to “The Great War in Numbers” ? I swear I recognize his face
I'm baffled why, even at that time, that no one in either (especially) France or even England took the time to really evaluate their alleged steam roller ally - until it was too late. Russia was a steam roller alright, but without steam and a flat roller.
Russia had a great deal of success against the Austro-Hungarians, the problem lied in the fact that the Russian military was outclassed by Germany while not having the benefit of its allies right next to them, like the BEF had with the French Army. A saying in 1916 in both left and right wing political groups in Russia was that Britain would fight until the last drop of Russian blood.
There’s a book called the Darkest Days that mentions the objections of the majority of people opposing going to war as to why we are allying ourselves to a despotic czarist Russia (which we had opposed up until this point) and that if Germany is defeated then that state will be right in the heart of Europe.
That stupid war was centred in the East not the west
The real bafflement is why Britain got involved in the first place and why it didn’t use its neutrality to signal it wasn’t going to support either side which maybe would have cooled of the minority that wanted war.
It’s a pity we didn’t have a Palmerston as pm instead of that wet rag Asquith.
It’s also interesting that Britain’s Government hardly spoke with Russia at all before war broke out.
@@TheSunderingSea
The reality is Germany was indeed a cut above the rest militarily during this war, and it showed against Russia even tho Russia outnumbered Germany and Austria Hungary, but as the comment above rightly states the French and the British armies had each other for support and this evened the playing field. Germany was facing 2 different style armies in 1 front and later 3, not to mention huge colonial forces too. Had the Russian army sent a British sized army to France hypothetically, the situation probably would be the same as it played out.
Well done Spencer, I'm ten minutes in and have not heard the words um or ahh once!
Too many 'of' phrases.
*ENGLISH ACTING LIKE SELF-HATING GERMAN TRYING TO PASS AS LATIN INTENSIFIES*
How is it possible that you have a history of WWI and hardly use German resources.
The claim that British high command was AWARE the BEF was not prepared for trench warfare, is contradicted by the fact that no one anticipated the continuous front.
Before hand yes, but after a few months of trench stalemate the leadership quite rightly retrospectively assessed that the army as it stood wasn’t that well suited for trench warfare. British army was designed for light, fast moving woodland combat, not static siege warfare, the Germans were better suited to this due to their superiority in artillery for instance. So it’s completely reasonable assessment
Is he trying to convince himself?
And if it wasn't for the Women and the Americans we would have lost the Great war and this brings Me to the People's Representation act of 1918 which was Passed on Wednesday February 6th 1918 where I disagreed with that act was the Voting age which gave all Men over 21 and Women over 30 the Right to Vote and in My view it should have been 21 for both Men and Women which was Put right in 1928 when the Voting age of Women was lowered to 21 the same as the Men and that amendment was Passed on Monday July 2nd 1928
Unfortunately you cant throw a boulder up a mountain, you have to push it in stages.
Completely rebuilding the political balance and its affect on party structure would have been difficult for a conservative political generation, better to make changes, let them settle in then push for the rest when its shown to work or at least not destroy the world as they knew it.
Do I take it that you are a Conservative voter which I'm not
@@martincook318 @Martin Cook i meant conservative in the sense of not liking change or the cost of instant change being too high.
You can't just go from jailing people for being gay to church weddings you have to ease people in, deciminalise, publicise, make people comfortable with the idea then partnership and by the end the people who didnt want change think it was normal and probably their idea all along.
Power is in the hands of a few aristocrats and Barons, then it gets expanded to landowners, then to the industrialists and the middle class, then to certain women and the working class and finally to everyone.
A few new people move into the ruling/governing class, the local parties readjust their messaging and their candidate selection or new parties move into parlaiment and suddenly theres a labour party and society moves on.
Germany and Russia tried the sudden change method, it didnt turn out so well.
And I still think that the Voting age in the 1918 People's Representation act was unfair in Regards to the Voting age and I Read your comment which to Reply to Mine and to be honest I think you are talking Rubbish in one Respect as the Ruling class had the upper hand which was Sopose to have broken down by the end of World war two but oh no it still went on and it's still going on today
the americans came right at the end of the war when germany as a millitary force was all but spent , all the americans added was sheer mass of bodies , their help was welcome but dont get ahead of yourself , everyone piggybacked on the french and the brits (french taking more of the weight up until 1917)
So the war council wanted to sit in the trenches in France and do nothing. Wasn't that 1915.
The British not only could but they should have stayed out of it but, since they were the organizers behind it all, they first used little Belgium, towards which they had no obligations whatsoever, simply because the general population would never have agreed to fight in defense of France, the traditional enemy. So, Sir Edward Grey lied to the world, and only told the rest of the cabinet about a secret entente with France two days before the war began, which almost led to half the deputies and ministers to resign in indignation.
That war had been planned for quite a while, Germany's industrial and commercial lightning fast growth could not be tolerated and a traditional capitalist 'may the better win' commercial war was out of the question so the only possibility left was the destruction of the main competition by associating with the minor continental powers and get them to fight for Britain under pretenses of honor and obligations, all false and in the end, all meant to benefit and protect the old and tired European empires from any and all dangers.
The one danger that had escaped the ideologs behind it all was how expensive holding on to such imperatives would amount to, Britain only finished paying her WW1 debt in 2015 wich brings out the same old question again: Was it worth it? No, certainly not.
Interesting assessment I agree mate
I would like to hear or see the moral, political or strategic imperative arguments that the speaker uses so glibly as justification for the education of senior officers, the carnage and loss of life that was BEF 1915
@Phillus Kissus It was expected that the German Army would come through Belgium
Around 6:30 this was interesting to me, the idea of the BEF being sent elsewhere other than France actually makes good sense…..imagine if after the French front was stabilised in autumn 14 the bulk of the BEF went to Serbia and helped with a counter offensive against Austria, the terrain and type of combat in balkans in the early war was much more suited to the British army, a highly trained force alongside the Serbs who were well experienced may have done serious harm to Austria Hungary at the time, especially since they were also on the back foot against the Russians at this time.
The strategic affect of potentially crippling Austria early could’ve drastically changed the course of the war….
However it is questionable if the British would have sufficient numbers to decisively beat the Austro Hungarian armies, however they would’ve been an easier foe than Germany and the terrain was better suited to the BEF.
This of course would leave France vulnerable as holding Germany alone was unlikely, but it’s a fun thought experiment
greatest idea of 1914: let's place the army on the extreme left of the French, right off the Belgian border, the quietest spot of the front!
Or let’s get involved in a Russian German War in the first place
Or let’s put an Army not designed for fighting a Continental War
Britain should never have gotten involved in that stupidity!
A Russian German War centred on the Balkans
Henry Wilson, the British French liaison officer, had a prewar agreement with the French High Command that the BEF would fight on the left flank. This decision led to the BEF having to fight the battle of Mons.