Just one tiny correction. When the video says that new regiments were raised what it should have said was regimental sizes were increased as new battalions were raised
It’s a shame how Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians from the commonwealth are considered British forces. I do hope part two makes that distinction because Canada sent 10% of its population to fight at Somme, V. Ridge. It was rarely actual British soldiers taking hold of these meat grinder positions.
The history UA-camr Brandon Fisichella has done some very interesting videos on WW1, that would be worth checking out. He tries to explain why the tactics and strategies were not necessarily as dumb as people, in hindsight, often believe. It really helped me view things in a different, less judgmental, perspective. One of his videos is this: ua-cam.com/video/vxgSwqXGzbQ/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Great video again! Check this out: Taistelukenttä 2020 | Slagfält 2020 | Battlefield 2020. Nice subtitled video about how a war could start in Finland, and how Finland is prepared for the situation.
Good take on the geopolitical reality of Britain's motivation for going to war. Not keen on the take re Generals' sending men over the top and so on. Everything was new to these people, comms were limited, military theory was obsolete, technology constantly changing. Kitchener's contribution in the early war was immensely helpful later when the organisational foundations he laid bore fruit. "More artillery" was never a plan that had played out "over and over and over". This was it, this was round one. There was no prior failed example of this kind of artillery prelude. Case in point, your American army annihilated the Iraqi army in the gulf war through artillery and air power, not combined arms and manoeuvre warfare.
When in the war do you draw the line? This is really where my argument sits. I understand the newness of almost everything in this war. The uniforms armies are marching into this war with tell that story clearly. They have no idea what they’re about to get into. But at some point after years of warfare, there seems to be a “digging of heels” in by some military leaders. So at some point of the conflict, and I’m not even sure where exactly, I start to feel more like callousness is being shown with soldiers lives by continuous offensives when there has been a pretty clear pattern of defense=good and offense=bad in this new warfare. But I’m not one sided on this. I get that there has to be some trial and error to be able to figure anything out. There is just some point of the conflict where it starts to seem redundant and reductive to me.
Another Brandon Fisichella video on WW1 you might find interesting, delving into the interplay of infantry and artillery tactics: ua-cam.com/video/TfbPOU8S5dE/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
The reason Britain went to war was because Germany broke Belgian neutrality. The British govt sent an ultimatum to Germany, which was promptly refused, leading to the British empire honoring their alliances with belgium, and also technically France and Russia. Britain was apart of the alliance with France and Russia tentatively prior to this event. France at this point we’re probably too confident in their armed forces and alliance to even think about going through Belgium. You have to realize, they had Germany in a two front war, something that they really weren’t able to deal with at the time, even with Austrian “help”
That’s definitely the most stated reason in most sources. Rarely is that not the most mentioned reason for the war. But there is just something about the situation as a whole that makes me question it’s validity. The fact that Germany has burst onto the global scene and is becoming a major power, threatening Britain’s place in Europe and certainly threatening their place amongst the mainland European powers. The fact that Germany is rapidly building a navy to attempt to rival Britain’s sea dominance. I wonder a lot about whether Britain would have made this move if literally anybody else would have broken Belgium’s neutrality. Because if they wouldn’t then it’s something specific to Germany.
@@rayceofhistory I think a lot of people agree that Belgium was the excuse that Britain needed to enter the war. The cabinet was quite divided on this, but once Belgium neutrality had bee violated, the pro war elements had their casus belli
I am not sure why you are not convinced of the reason the UK joined the war was to protect Belgium as the UK has guaranteed Belgian independence since the treaty of London was signed in 1839. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
Because I don’t think they do it if France needs to march through Belgium to get to the Netherlands or anywhere they would invade where they would need to just march through Belgium. I have almost zero faith in the idea that if France had violated Belgium’s neutrality first that Britain would in turn start attacking France. I think Britain’s reaction is specific to Germany.
@@rayceofhistory I think you are correct, Germany was causing quite a few strategic problems for the British well before the war. France and the UK both had very deeply rooted reasons to wanna fight it out with the Germans (keeping naval supremacy for UK and revenge for 1870 for France) on top of other issues from economic hegemonies and colonial conflicts and all that. They had much less reasons to fight each other as their respective spheres of influence were pretty well established between them by the 20th century.
Just one tiny correction. When the video says that new regiments were raised what it should have said was regimental sizes were increased as new battalions were raised
We will enjoy this one!! Pleasure meeting your wife today. ! Keep up the great work. !!!
I appreciate it! Y’all have fun down here, we’re glad to have y’all.
While the British had a million shells for the Somme, the French had 20,000 shells fired at Waterloo. Lot of firepower.
It’s a shame how Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians from the commonwealth are considered British forces. I do hope part two makes that distinction because Canada sent 10% of its population to fight at Somme, V. Ridge. It was rarely actual British soldiers taking hold of these meat grinder positions.
The history UA-camr Brandon Fisichella has done some very interesting videos on WW1, that would be worth checking out. He tries to explain why the tactics and strategies were not necessarily as dumb as people, in hindsight, often believe. It really helped me view things in a different, less judgmental, perspective. One of his videos is this: ua-cam.com/video/vxgSwqXGzbQ/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Great video again! Check this out: Taistelukenttä 2020 | Slagfält 2020 | Battlefield 2020. Nice subtitled video about how a war could start in Finland, and how Finland is prepared for the situation.
Good take on the geopolitical reality of Britain's motivation for going to war.
Not keen on the take re Generals' sending men over the top and so on. Everything was new to these people, comms were limited, military theory was obsolete, technology constantly changing. Kitchener's contribution in the early war was immensely helpful later when the organisational foundations he laid bore fruit.
"More artillery" was never a plan that had played out "over and over and over". This was it, this was round one. There was no prior failed example of this kind of artillery prelude.
Case in point, your American army annihilated the Iraqi army in the gulf war through artillery and air power, not combined arms and manoeuvre warfare.
When in the war do you draw the line? This is really where my argument sits. I understand the newness of almost everything in this war. The uniforms armies are marching into this war with tell that story clearly. They have no idea what they’re about to get into. But at some point after years of warfare, there seems to be a “digging of heels” in by some military leaders. So at some point of the conflict, and I’m not even sure where exactly, I start to feel more like callousness is being shown with soldiers lives by continuous offensives when there has been a pretty clear pattern of defense=good and offense=bad in this new warfare.
But I’m not one sided on this. I get that there has to be some trial and error to be able to figure anything out. There is just some point of the conflict where it starts to seem redundant and reductive to me.
Another Brandon Fisichella video on WW1 you might find interesting, delving into the interplay of infantry and artillery tactics: ua-cam.com/video/TfbPOU8S5dE/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
The reason Britain went to war was because Germany broke Belgian neutrality. The British govt sent an ultimatum to Germany, which was promptly refused, leading to the British empire honoring their alliances with belgium, and also technically France and Russia. Britain was apart of the alliance with France and Russia tentatively prior to this event. France at this point we’re probably too confident in their armed forces and alliance to even think about going through Belgium. You have to realize, they had Germany in a two front war, something that they really weren’t able to deal with at the time, even with Austrian “help”
That’s definitely the most stated reason in most sources. Rarely is that not the most mentioned reason for the war. But there is just something about the situation as a whole that makes me question it’s validity. The fact that Germany has burst onto the global scene and is becoming a major power, threatening Britain’s place in Europe and certainly threatening their place amongst the mainland European powers. The fact that Germany is rapidly building a navy to attempt to rival Britain’s sea dominance. I wonder a lot about whether Britain would have made this move if literally anybody else would have broken Belgium’s neutrality. Because if they wouldn’t then it’s something specific to Germany.
@@rayceofhistory I think a lot of people agree that Belgium was the excuse that Britain needed to enter the war. The cabinet was quite divided on this, but once Belgium neutrality had bee violated, the pro war elements had their casus belli
I am not sure why you are not convinced of the reason the UK joined the war was to protect Belgium as the UK has guaranteed Belgian independence since the treaty of London was signed in 1839.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
Because I don’t think they do it if France needs to march through Belgium to get to the Netherlands or anywhere they would invade where they would need to just march through Belgium. I have almost zero faith in the idea that if France had violated Belgium’s neutrality first that Britain would in turn start attacking France. I think Britain’s reaction is specific to Germany.
@@rayceofhistory I think you are correct, Germany was causing quite a few strategic problems for the British well before the war. France and the UK both had very deeply rooted reasons to wanna fight it out with the Germans (keeping naval supremacy for UK and revenge for 1870 for France) on top of other issues from economic hegemonies and colonial conflicts and all that.
They had much less reasons to fight each other as their respective spheres of influence were pretty well established between them by the 20th century.