Verdun: The Bleeding of Nations - Richard S. Faulkner
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- Dr. Richard S. Faulkner joins The National World War I Museum and Memorial to discuss the Battle of Verdun
For more information regarding Then National World War I Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
What a talented and enthusiastic presenter in total control of his subject
Excellent talk - although it was touch and go whether the French language would survive it
really excellent talk and an engaging speaker!
Prof. Faulkner - I always enjoy your lectures.
Its great to see a presentation where we can see the screen as well as the lectern.
Its very good!
Yes, the screen has good detail and is not obstructed by bad lighting or shadows.
Been watching this entire series and have learned a ton. Didn’t know there was a WW1 memorial in KC. Definitely worth visiting and thanks for posting these videos. Never realized the lost of life inflicted during this war and how little land was really fought over. Pure attrition. So much death and caused after effects all over the world.
Thank you
My middle name is Verdun, which I inherited from my father. In some way it got me to be intrigued by all history.
Very thoroughly explained. I appreciate that. Not boring. It’s a must listen!
I lived in KC for 40 years and visited the WWI museum several times. It is a very cool place and definitely worth stopping at if you have the opportunity.
I have heard, and read, countless hours of WW1 history and F is by far the most interesting
Great lecture; in-depth knowledge and crystal-clear delivery from Dr Faulkner. I was impressed by the description of the “four systems”: in French present memory, the success of aviation in obtaining supremacy over the battlefield is not emphasized enough (the exploits of aviator aces are, but not the collective success which de Rose had engineered).
Just two small errors to be corrected:
•-the “Voie sacrée” traffic was not one truck every 25 mn but actually every 2 mn (24 hrs / 700); might even be 1 mn if there were 700 trucks for moving the troops and 700 trucks for moving the supplies (as the lecturer suggests). Photos of the times show the trucks bumper to bumper: according to some reports, it was 6’000 trucks that were moving day & night along the “Voie sacrée”: that would mean the passage of a truck every 15 seconds.
•-the Spanish-Arab word “noria” literally designates a wheel with buckets attached which brings water from a well; It aptly depicts the traffic on the “Voie sacrée” but also the succession of troops on the frontline: 70 of the 107 Divisions (which the French army was made of at the end of 1916) have participated in the battle of Verdun. __ .
Very enlightening. Great lecture!
The map of Verdun near the start looks like it's from Alistair Horne's book 'The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916'. A very well written account of this awful battle and the leaders of the opposing forces.
Fun Fact: If your name is Alistar, you have to be a historian and famous
Great lecture and overall vision especially extending towards 1940.👍🏻
If you close your eyes it could be John Goodman giving the talk.
She kidnapped herself dude.
Great lesson in public speaking. A+
I think the bloodletting theory to explain Verdun has problems, not the least of which is that it cost the Germans almost as many lives as it did the French. There's also the awkward fact that there is no contemporary corroborating evidence, all of it comes from Von Falkenhayn after the fact and reeking of post-hoc justification.
"I think the bloodletting theory to explain Verdun has problems, not the least of which is that it cost the Germans almost as many lives as it did the French."
That may point just as well to a failure of planning and execution as it does to the intention of the operation. But yes, the objectives do seem to be open to debate. The results, however, stand as a testimony to the failure of the operation, regardless of it's original intent.
Both sides thought they were inflicting higher casualties at verdun. Both german and french estimates had them inflicting twice or thrice the casualties they actually were inflicting. In large part due to poor estimation practices that sometimes were little better than guessess.
Since the battle caused as many or nearly as many German casualties as French, I don't think anyone would claim that the intention was to bleed the French but not the Germans. That is hardly a justification, post hoc or otherwise.
Fog of war means neither side knew exactly how many casualties they were inflicting, and both in fact overestimated the enemy's casualties. In addition, the battle lasted many months, including a phase where the Germans were attacking, as well as another phase where the French were counter-attacking
@@michaelsommers2356 Results do not determine intention. That is the incorrect way of looking at something.
Petain, yes a tragic figure indeed. In fact it was 100 years ago just about this time he was brought in to save the French army again after Nivelle decimated it. As for his life from 1940 on, he's already been judged for it.
Great to hear a speaker who does not use the words umm and ahh
Interesting
Was the BEF, really the spearhead of the 100 days offensive ?
On the Western Front, the 1 November 1918 :
French Army :
- 102 infantry divisions, 6 cavalry divisions
- 2,659,084 men and 630,440 horses
- 5,578 heavy guns and 1,626 trench guns
- 50,700 chauchats and 30,664 heavy MG's
- 1,272 tanks
- 3,609 planes
British Army :
- 60 infantry divisions and 3 cavalry divisions
- 1,721,890 men and 388,00 horses
- 2,197 heavy guns and 2,570 trench guns
- 20,000 lewis and 4,632 heavy MG's
- 611 tanks
- 1,678 planes (!!!)
American Army :
- 31 infantry divisions and no cavalry division
- 1,821,449 men and 151,250 horses
- 746 trench guns and 406 heavy guns
- 18,465 light MG's (most of them being chauchat CSRG 1918 and the rest being BAR's) and 6,239 heavy MG's
- 91 tanks (lol)
- 2,032 planes
It was really the Canadian Corp and Australian Corp that spear headed everything ! These guys were the only Armies that could get shit done , FACT.
@@arrow-lo7jf 9 Divisions worthed more than 108 French Divisions?
I don't believe the Americans deployed the BAR. They were too afraid of them falling into German hands and being copied.
@@arrow-lo7jfthis is true and often overlooked. They made the Germans reconsider there attack plans and respected them for there bravery and crazy actions when it came to trench fighting.
A similar mistake was made in the implementation of the Schlieffen plan, only the right is strong. One of the princes was assigned to the left flank and did not want to be second fiddle. Instead of repulsing the French attacks, the Germans should have feigned weakness to draw the French and focus their attention for hope of opportunity. In many of Alexander and Hannibal's battle, the weak point only barely held out to allow the surprise to be sprung
The LTC is Driand, not Durant.
Émile Driant?
John Goodman -- this is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps.
And Ludendorff did NOT have a noble predicate of “von”.
It's not a predicate, it's a prefix.
Seems he gets his left and right mixed up during the brief,
Emile Driant.
yes, he deserves to have his name correctly stated
Oui, j’allais dire. Still a good presentation 🧐🥃
Unbelievable man
Ludendoff was not a Von, he was a commoner.
When people write a script they are expecting you to know little to nothing about military history
Good to know. Thank you for that bit of information.
Faulkner knows that; it was just a slip of the tongue.
US troops... required british and French equipment and were still hanging back in 1918...
Even when they did join in.. they used 1914 tactics.. ie.. walk slowly towards the enemy and get mown down...
They were using tactics from 1912 derived from French pre-war tactics.
And in the second war, the British, French, and Russians required American equipment.
US troops had more of psychological affect instead of a physical affect in WWI
Poilu translates as "grunt". Artillery was the cause of most casualties in WW1.
Great presentation. Unfortunately, there are more than a few names butchered. The problem child is Emile Drian, not Durant. A great writer, nicknamed the Jules Vernes of war in his time, and a tough infantryman, commanding 2 Chasseurs Ardennais bataillions. Killed in February 1916 ( 3 rd day of the battle). Still remembered to this day.
at about 22 minutes, verdun started on the 21st of Feb, not the 24th
A good talk well delivered. I am mindful of the contrast between Verdun and Dien Bien Phu as regards French logistical responses. Maybe it comes down to resolute leaders... and the one who makes the least mistakes.
Why is John Goodman giving a lecture on WW I? 😉
It is Falkenhayn NOT Falkenheim.
Dude he's American chill down killa
the mutineries were not mutuneries, it was a strike , an attack strike.
none of the "mutins" left the place, they stayed , defend but refuse to attack.
"On the downside, the Italians entered the war in May". Downside for whom?
Probably for the Allies!! hahaha I guess in the end for Austria because they ended up losing South Tyrol at the Treaty of Versailles. To this day the people are legally Italian but culturally and linguistically Austrian/ German.
Mostly, for their own troops
@@Skanzool I mean, even after Caporetto Italians were able to successfully defend Piave river and then destroyed Austrian army at Vittorio Venetto in October of 1918. That was one of the most decisive victories of the war.
Themselves, 100 battles of the insonzo
For nothin
In the end France and Britain had to send help
The Fatherland, of course. Ya?
Young men today are not so easily fooled.
Really?
12:28 Thanks for the great presentation, but please learn how to say Carl von Clausewitz's name! . . . >>> The name "Clausewitz" consists of THREE syllables: "Clau-Sey-Witz" !
Я подозреваю, что этот профессор наш русский агент, поэтому ему очень сложно произносить некоторые английские звуки.
He makes a joke about a Prince not being able to do a General's job... then what about the Crown Prince of Bavaria, Rupprecht?
Rupprecht was the exception. He was good at it because he took it seriously.
Petain is probably the greatest general of the 20th century. He innovated and won the greatest battle of the 20th century, despite taking over command at near disaster point. Its too bad the US Army didn't have a commanding general as good as Petain during the 1918 muese argonne offensive, instead of Pershing
Very different situations. Petain proved to be a great defensive organizer, just as needed for Verdun, but he was a bit too cautious at attacking. Pershing was obliged only to attack, with troops far more novice facing battle hardened defenders.
He also sold his country to Herr hitler
@@scipioafricanus2285 It's the defeat that sold the country to Hitler, not Petain.
@@davidchardon1303
He gave Hitler and his Nazis a very good hand ! They understood how useful he was willing to be ...
Pétain and Vichy condemned De Gaulle to death !!
Petain wasn't even the best French general of the war, much less the best general of any country in the 20th century.
Lt col...this was excellent. But I think you are much funnier working with Roseanne
What an asinine thing to say.
Von Luddendorf???? Still? U lost me
there! Its like Von Paulus, they were not “von” anything.... No nobles....
How did Falkenhayn not consider that he could manage to bleed the French army but with a high risk of bleeding the German army at the same time? However, he was far from being an idiot. Okay, it's easy to write it more than a hundred years after the battle...
I would love to see this gentleman do some Britney karaoke
Verdun was a symbol for the French, a precious place if you will, the Germans knew that the French would be irrational about it and pour much more into it than they should and hoped to bleed the French dry. A good idea, implementation? Not as good but the destruction of the beautiful medieval town... unforgiveable.
La Mose riviere sounds much better
Lol someone really like the french
Very few battle plans survive first contact. You said "never send a prince to do a general's job"
That is so true. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. (He had zero naval experience)
He sent a fleet through the Dardanelles. Possibly the most mined seaway on the planet. We lost 6 battleships and at least, 700 sailors. My grandfather fought at Suvla Bay, That's another story.
Churchill was not royalty, but he was hugely overprivileged.(He chose to serve in trenches with the Royal Scots Fusiliers .And" chose" to leave the trenches after a few weeks Good god How many young men who fought and died in that horrific conflict would have given their eye teeth for that option) With his crony, Mountbatten, who was royalty, They re-wrote the meaning of incompetence. research the raid on Dieppe. Do not believe the cr*p about this raid helping us learn lessons that enabled D day .Churchills only saving grace was his sheer intransigence when we needed it in 1941.
firepower beats courage? Not in Vietnam it didn't!
The USA did not surrender or get embarrassed like the Soviets in afganistan where they had not been able to defeat afghans at all, they had to ask for safe passage because they was leaving, 9 offensives into the mountains, not once were they able to defeat the afghans, and the afghans didn't have any airforce like NVA did or unified command structure, and not hand strung and yet they lost flat out, like france was defeated at dien bien phu (vietnam) that was a defeat signed a surrender ask the vietnamese who lost I forgot,exact number but around a million the as said before the USA was not defeated it organized and equipped the south vietnamese government and its army, the usa was not,there to colonize them like the ungrateful European countries (besides aussie) anyway so the americans couldnt be there for ever, put it this way my last point you wanna know what a defeat is? The British losing 60,000 men in one day.... Not casualities... Dead young men. Imagine entire British towns depopulated, imagine hundreds of thousands young men pouring back into the British mainland. A whole generation wiped out.... In one day the rest mutilated and maimed... One day... More died in that day then the entire vietnam war by like 6000 the French lost over 100k in their 'vietnam war' except they was losing even with American aid, and got surrounded at dien bien phu because the commander under estimated the firepower couple days after the artillery that was pointed down at the base that he thought the vietnamese couldn't get into the field guns on the mountains, he shot him self... the French fought hard with courage but lacked the firepower to fight un like the americans did at the siege of khe sanh where the vietnamese got crushed by firepower.
Bring it on
@@abk4202020 60.000 casualties 21.000 dead
@Stuart Donnelly Nope, the British and the French combined lost more than the Germans.
@@abk4202020 You understand NOTHING of the Soviet-Afghan war. Go back to school.
poilu = facial stubble, bearded,
hairy = virility courage not a beard
sub warfare beat them both by 1916, land battles were moot.
Terrible