WW1 Day by Day (Video)

[joak]

[video=youtube;-wGQGEOTf4E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-wGQGEOTf4E[/video]

This may be posted elsewhere already, but I didn't see it.

I didn't realize how little actual territory was lost by the Germans in the west prior to the armistice. More generally, it was amazing how quickly things unfolded in the last quarter of the war after a lot of stalemate.

 

[Enravota]

I didn't realize how little actual territory was lost by the Germans in the west prior to the armistice.

That was largely matter of time though. Reopening an eastern front would have been very tricky for Germany.

More generally, it was amazing how quickly things unfolded in the last quarter of the war after a lot of stalemate.

Well they do call it trench warfare for a reason. Since most of the available resources were concentrated at the defensive choke points, advance was more or less unopposed once those got run over.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

That was largely matter of time though. Reopening an eastern front would have been very tricky for Germany.

This, Central powers ran out of steam. Germany was on the verge of collapse or one might say already collapsing.Good thing they been throwing the towel when they did.

 

[Arilou]

This, Central powers ran out of steam. Germany was on the verge of collapse or one might say already collapsing.Good thing they been throwing the towel when they did.

Not sure what would have been better long-term, actually.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Not sure what would have been better long-term, actually.

Very true, a more obvious defeat might have prevented ww2. It wasnt obvious tho and throwing the towel at this point was one of the saner decisions of Imperial Germany.

 

[joak]

Well they do call it trench warfare for a reason. Since most of the available resources were concentrated at the defensive choke points, advance was more or less unopposed once those got run over.

Interesting to me is that this is that the map shows the political situation as being more relevant though. The Brusilov offensive and the Lundendorff offensive both overran initial defenses and were halted. The decisive wins in both east and west didn't have bigger territorial gains, instead the other side just gave up,

How close were the French to actual collapse in 1917 with the mutinies? If the Germans were on the offensive at that time would they have crumbled?

Very true, a more obvious defeat might have prevented ww2. It wasnt obvious tho and throwing the towel at this point was one of the saner decisions of Imperial Germany.

I can't come up with a good way to say this, but watching the map it kind of makes sense how a civilian in Germany, far from the front lines, might say "Why didn't you keep fighting? We haven't even been pushed completely out of occupied territory, and you surrendered?"

 

[Lord Finnish]

I can't come up with a good way to say this, but watching the map it kind of makes sense how a civilian in Germany, far from the front lines, might say "Why didn't you keep fighting? We haven't even been pushed completely out of occupied territory, and you surrendered?"

I was thinking the same thing. Watching this video it's very understandable how people came to believe the backstab legend.

 

[StephenT]

How close were the French to actual collapse in 1917 with the mutinies? If the Germans were on the offensive at that time would they have crumbled?

Very far away, and no. The French units refused to continue with what they saw as a senseless offensive that was getting them all killed for no gains, so they resorted to a fine French tradition: they went on strike.

I can't come up with a good way to say this, but watching the map it kind of makes sense how a civilian in Germany, far from the front lines, might say "Why didn't you keep fighting? We haven't even been pushed completely out of occupied territory, and you surrendered?"

Very much so. Remember also, that while the German public was starving, they assumed the Allied public was starving too - but they weren't.

 

[Arilou]

Interesting to me is that this is that the map shows the political situation as being more relevant though. The Brusilov offensive and the Lundendorff offensive both overran initial defenses and were halted. The decisive wins in both east and west didn't have bigger territorial gains, instead the other side just gave up,

How close were the French to actual collapse in 1917 with the mutinies? If the Germans were on the offensive at that time would they have crumbled?



I can't come up with a good way to say this, but watching the map it kind of makes sense how a civilian in Germany, far from the front lines, might say "Why didn't you keep fighting? We haven't even been pushed completely out of occupied territory, and you surrendered?"

The obvious answer would be "Because we don't have an army any more."

 

[Eusebio]

I can't come up with a good way to say this, but watching the map it kind of makes sense how a civilian in Germany, far from the front lines, might say "Why didn't you keep fighting? We haven't even been pushed completely out of occupied territory, and you surrendered?"

That was the right-wing narrative. I don't know if the average German believed in it.

 

[DoomBunny]

That was the right-wing narrative. I don't know if the average German believed in it.

Given that the general public tends to believe in casualty ratios and land gained as the greatest measures of a war's course, I wouldn't say it's too far fetched.

 

[Eusebio]

Given that the general public tends to believe in casualty ratios and land gained as the greatest measures of a war's course, I wouldn't say it's too far fetched.

Do they?

I think they would be more concerned with mass starvation and mutiny in the navy.

The "stab in the back" was the army being "stabbed in the back" by the elected Reichstag and the SPD, the most popular political party in Germany. So I rather doubt it was a universally held belief.

 

[DoomBunny]

My point was that the general public often has little idea of how wars are actually fought or won. Therefore, it's not too far a stretch to imagine why they'd be angry at the government for "quitting" when they were still on enemy territory in nearly all places, when the enemy had suffered a number of costly "defeats", and when the memory of how badly buggered they were has subsided under 10 years of governance by the "quitters".

 

[Eusebio]

My point was that the general public often has little idea of how wars are actually fought or won. Therefore, it's not too far a stretch to imagine why they'd be angry at the government for "quitting" when they were still on enemy territory in nearly all places, when the enemy had suffered a number of costly "defeats", and when the memory of how badly buggered they were has subsided under 10 years of governance by the "quitters".

Errr, it wasn't the public that was angry that the government 'quit'. It was the leadership of the army. The people who are supposed to know 'how wars are actually fought and won'. :wacko:

 

[Umega]

Check out his WW2 video, it's pretty good to.
[video=youtube;WOVEy1tC7nk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVEy1tC7nk[/video]