Germany's plans to win WWI

[@evilnet1]

Germany was like the one competent team member randomly assigned to noobs.

[@evilnet1]

@Francesco Salvatore But it was 3 pros (US, UK, France) vs 1 pro.

[@vegitoblue8249]

eliss suzaku usa sucked in ww1 Austria Hungarian empire was using 80% of their troops on Italian front and Russia was the main reason Germany couldn’t beat France

[@evilnet1]

@@vegitoblue8249 Still, the fact that the austro-Hungarians were getting their asses handed to them by Italy and Russia, two countries that were not very industrialized, proved how much of a noob it was. Germany ended up having to save their asses while fighting two fronts. US may have sucked due to relative inexperience yet would've prevailed due to numbers and sheer industry in a war of attrition.

[@splashlol1638]

@@evilnet1 Italy wasn't so noob They defeated the Austrian empire so many times and lost only 1 battle

[@jxg1652]

@@splashlol1638 Sometimes noobs frag noobs, it happens.

[@ravenkk4816]

“German will just wait for the enemy to expend the troop on the attack” Hoi 4 in a nutshell

[@PuellaMagiHomuraAkemi]

Well the AI isn't that terrible anymore that they suicide nonstop on your maxed out fortress (Czechslovakia could kill Russia like that if the border was small) since a long time now, however if they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>think

[@erfanshokri243]

@@PuellaMagiHomuraAkemi actually they will attack if their division template is havier then yours

[@MortyrSC2]

AI is still terrible, but that's not the real problem with this game. Combat system is broken. There is literally only one viable division template to use (40 width INF/ART/TD) plus single CAVs for suppression. And zero planes because they are useless. Try to play anything else in multi and you will get steamrolled. Also economy is too simplified: there is a single optimal solution for every country for initial build up and it makes every start identical (or you just shoot yourself in the foot by doing something else).

[@JakeTheOnion]

Planes are extremely powerful in hoi4. Are you playing the same game?

[@PuellaMagiHomuraAkemi]

HOI 4 is entirely broken dude, nothing about it makes sense or is any good. I mean the supply system is such a mess already and a huge downgrade, in HOI 3 you could decide what lines go where while in HOI 4 the AI decides for you and if you attack the Caucasus or Italy as Germany the AI will pick the sea route instead of the land route despite that it makes 0 sense and will send all your convoys to die so you're stuck with 2 supply for entire Italy/Caucasus and no way to change that unless ignoring the harbors or having luck cause sometimes the AI doesn't do that shit but its random sadly. Though, I guess its a fitting game for a just as dumb community cause I did a steam thread about this with a detailed description and pictures and the answers I got were abyssmal. Fanboys trying to find whatever excuse, alot not even understanding what I was talking about or giving straight up pointless answers that made no sense.

[@valiatus6719]

Germany: Austria... WHY AM I CARRYING THE ENTIRE WAR!?

[@genericyoutubeaccount579]

Austria: I haf to fight Serbia and Russia. 2 v 1. No fair. Germany: Bitch what?

[@TheFoxonTheRadio]

Generic KZbin Account Bulgaria: Aight you Serbian bitch I got you

[@doktord.8403]

Austria: I was AFK

[@thebravegallade731]

Generic KZbin Account meanwhile germany fighting basically a 4vs1TWICE And fucking holding its own.

[@JustScrapHD]

@Giovanni Bellisario an also:Japan... WHY DID YOU SUDDENLY ATTACK THE USA

[@shaheerrashid4876]

Video: * Mentions Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. * Ottoman Empire: *Understandable......Have a great day*

[@jimmyanderson9224]

ottomans were shit, sick man of europe

[@leaveme3559]

Irrelevant

[@Ahmed-zr7sw]

@@jimmyanderson9224 ottoman extended war 2 year. Ottoman war on 10 front. And ottoman didnt want war, prussia take ottoman in war with goeben and breslau

[@ayushbajaj4708]

@@Ahmed-zr7sw face it turk, ottoman empire was weak in its final days. Only from 1450s to 1700s was it powerful

[@Ahmed-zr7sw]

@@ayushbajaj4708 ottoman defeat cristians armys on 1350 Sırpsındığı, Çirmen Varna... And in 1860 1870 you say sick man to ottoman but ottoman have the most powerfull army on world.

[@jozefmasny8349]

Bismarck said to Germans: The biggest wisdom in the war is to know when to stop when you are succesful. Bismarck was a smart man. He resign because nobody listened to him when he said that they cannot win against everyone.

[@jozefmasny8349]

@subscribe to my empty channel or Not really. They were strong. But their allies were not. Besides, they should have been happy for achieving re-unification instead of getting arrogant. That was the cause of their downfall.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

If Germany had followed his principle of fighting only defensive wars to politically isolate ones' enemies Germany would have owned Europe half a century ago.

[@enderreaper1482]

@@j.f.fisher5318 Germany kinda owns Europe now sooooo.......

[@zero-0159]

WWI was actually in a Stalemate, germany was tired, French too and morale (they were willing to defend but not to attack) and Britain same as Germany, until british and americans resorted on a controversial scheme so USA will have excuse to enter in the war

[@chakraborty1989]

Wonder, instead of attacking western front In spring 1918, why not Germany tried to make peace UK or France right after Brest litovsk (hopefully spelling is correct) treaty? They could easily have better terms with threat that they will be pushing freedup army of eastern front If France and UK doesn't stop, like that...

[@screamer5029]

Truth is, the game was rigged from the start.

[@joshualittlewolfe8550]

‘Murica

[@panachevitz]

Did not expect a New Vegas reference in the comments when I started watching. ;)

[@yoavmor9002]

*IWO JIMA*

[@CallingSkoot]

@@yoavmor9002 Nice to see a fellow Bokoen1 fan here

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

What in the god damn!

[@lillyie]

Welcome to the Eastory comment section where everyone thinks they are an expert military strategist after 100+ hours of HOI4 experience

[@wantab3648]

I don’t see any

[@perpetual_suffering1458]

@@wantab3648 then you're scrolling while asleep broski

[@szron6890]

I have 750 hours in hoi4 And I still think they took the best ways they could

[@Denver_Thugits]

Lowkey after playing HOI4 and watching this guy makes me think I’m as good as napoleon

[@szron6890]

@@Denver_Thugits How many hours you have bro?

[@supremeleaderkimjongun5332]

America is the type of dude who shows up late to the project and take credit for everything.

[@wizzedcam]

Das rite >:]

[@t0xicator]

hi papa kim

[@coderr_]

They still did stuff in both wars

[@riowarner0617]

@@coderr_ ww1 not so much britain did more in ww1 and so did france and uk and us did the same in ww2

[@coderr_]

@@riowarner0617 no im saying they did alot of stuff in ww1 but britan and france did alot more

[@mman.235]

Blame Austria Hungary for both world wars, 2 reasons Declaring War on Serbia and Not Letting Hitler into the Vienna Painting Academy.

[@arche8229]

true

[@dbkarman]

but i mean there was already a power gap in germany and the german people werent happy with democracy, especially with a 1/2 trillion dollar dept to pay adjusted for inflation, it was going to get exploited it was just a matter of when

[@dbkarman]

who knows, Hitler 2.0 may have gotten power or someone who actually cares about his people, but in that case if you cared about ur people over throwing you would be easy, so at some point some other hitler would have taken power (probably much worse )

[@tommythewiseandsmartlucari1612]

I agree

[@juicynoob6966]

Very nice

[@GamingWithJumbo]

**War** with France: **1914** **Battle** of France: **1940**

[@cornertakenquicklyorigi4290]

It was so short that it was called a battle lol

[@silverpleb2128]

@@cornertakenquicklyorigi4290 It was called a battle because france only made an armistice, which is not a capitulation ( like netherland did. )

[@yakro3449]

France kept fighting with Charles de Gaulle btw they just gave free power to the wrong person (Petain) De Gaulle organized the Resistance in London , with the Resistance in France, and the troops in Africa.

[@panakap2186]

But still France has lower war contribution than Poland

[@silverpleb2128]

@@panakap2186 nope. France contributed directly to the D-day, and Provence landing, France contributed to the defeat of the axis in North Africa by stopping the German and Italian attack at bir hakeim where the French troops were protecting the South of the commonwealth troop. France laid the attack at Monte cassino by using their own troops to flank the Germans to let the British and polish attacking without too many risks, France also participated in the battle of England, and also sent a fighter squadron to help ussr. France participated in the war effort with its resistance which was the biggest resistance group. Of all European nations occupied by the axis, you can say that the polish were the biggest but numbers and acts talk by them self. In the battle of France, France destroyed a total of 1000 planes which had a significativly importance for the battle of England. France also protected the British retreat at Dunkerque et saved the BEF from being captured.

[@verynonexistent]

Switzerland: Eating their chocolate since 1815

[@jhonegamingco]

@/dev/RerunCipher XD

[@kewintaylor7056]

Nothing wrong with that!...not their war!.... I also want the world stop messing up with Thailand with their war!...😝

[@timamberg7061]

So true (From a swiss guy)

[@Vigilante-3-1]

There was hunger during the war even in Switzerland

[@RIO...BOMBUSCARO]

Fuck Switzerland!

[@TalonAshlar]

Kaiser Wilhelm's obsession with building a modern navy cost him dearly. The Kriegsmarine was an outstanding service but it diverted resources away from the army while never being able to break the blockade.

[@leonpaelinck]

It also caused tension between Great Britain in the first place.

[@simonvonkyrene989]

They didn't break the blockade because they didn't try

[@RealCeress]

@@simonvonkyrene989 they did but naval combat was deemed way too costly, they gave orders to break the blockade again in 1918 but the navy revolted against the government

[@ct-5486metal]

It was called the Kaiserliche Marine and not Kriegsmarine. Kriegsmarine was the navy of Nazi Germany during WW2.

[@xavierthepaladin5966]

@puiterken it was chaimberlan’s dad’s bad negotiation, and misunderstanding that caused the tension, britain WANTED an alliance with Germany, but chose france bc germany didn’t agree

[@aa898246]

i like how their plan for ww1 was the same plan for ww2

[@mixer1307]

World War 1 Version 2: Blitzkrieg Boogaloo

[@taurentsiuz9206]

Yeah there even was a guy that said that war was not over and that treaty of versaile is only a truce

[@chaywen9240]

Kaiser Wilhelm: Ok let's run really fast to Paris and then we win the war. Hitler: Alright instead of running, let's bomb the shit out of a straight line, send a ton of civilians running towards their army, and then roll up with all our best tanks.

[@aa898246]

@@chaywen9240 lol

[@lukeelliot2349]

Nah it was fairly different - it's main attack through southern Belgium straight to Verdun rather then attempting a general westward occupation of Belgium then dipping into France. The French in WW2 expected the plan to be the same (and originally it was extremely similar) and so prepared for that rather then what actually happened.

[@serubyne57]

Austria-Hungary: "Yo, Germany, pass the declaration of war" Germany: "You better not get us into a two front war" Austria-Hungary: *declares war on Serbia* Germany: "scheiße"

[@squidwardart]

well actually germany wanted war,austria wouldnt go so far if germans didnt ask

[@TheStalenin]

All countries wanted war, especially France!

[@squidwardart]

+Kaiser Andrenius,especially luxembourg

[@serubyne57]

@@squidwardart Maybe even Switzerland.

[@rateeightx]

@bubartem I Thought The Austrians Got The Impression That The Germans Wanted War, When They Actually Didn't... Or At Least That's What Extra History Told Me.

[@RyomaG]

Game factions selection USA: easy Great Britain: normal French Republic: hard German Empire: very hard

[@danielwoods3896]

Romania: veteran difficulty

[@rosoven3471]

Nazi Germany: insane

[@josemiguelcaballerorestrep2101]

Luxembourg: meme difficulty

[@gurkensoldat9064]

@Institoris we don't eat popcorn we eat chocolate.

[@gurkensoldat9064]

Ja das ist der Schweizerersatz für popcorn ,Chips , Vodka und Hamburger.

[@javierjp8549]

girls with a time machine: "omg I'm your future daughter" boys with a time machine: "Kaiser, do not attack Belgium"

[@Iwanwahid1969]

@Ugandan Knuckles Tsar, dont let that hobo into the castle!

[@Fuckface-g7i]

"hitler dont attack russia that early"

[@javierjp8549]

@@Fuckface-g7i fuck hitler all my homies are allies of the German empire

[@williamdeutsch1446]

France don’t place such harsh repetitions on the Germans causing financial crisis and a dude with a cool mustache gain large support among the peoples and implement an authoritarian takeover.

[@Iwanwahid1969]

@@williamdeutsch1446 i dont want to ruin the moment but France dont actually enforce such harsh policies to the German for not paying the reparation. If anything, it was the Great Depression that caused the greatest suffering to the german people since they were borrowing money with the US. And suddenly found the money they borrowed become useless, and now have to pay two country...biggest oof in history.

[@Jetman123]

>"Eastory - posted 37 minutes ago" >throw bowl of cereal against the wall, hurl carton of milk into garbage, brush all the important paperwork off desk >go offline on everything >fullscreen and watch

[@Fakeslimshady]

closes porn

[@PuellaMagiHomuraAkemi]

stops porn dl

[@TheSeanoops]

*stops mid piss*

[@fulcrum2951]

Stops mid shit

[@TheSeanoops]

fulcrum 29 impossible.

[@DennisCambly]

I heard that it started when dude named Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry - Blackadder

[@wardhamuneeb4393]

😂😂

[@comradejeb2009]

Kinda weird how Germany gets blamed for world war 2 and hitler *laughs in Austrian*

[@metalfire86able]

World need someone to be blame so, If axis won, Churchill + Stalin will be curse for their shit

[@jeffsanders1609]

Legally Hitler, as an Austrian, was not allowed to join the Bavarian Army during WWI. What should have happened is he should have been denied and told to go join the Austrian army but somehow he got in. No one knows exactly how. Hitler claimed in "Mein Kampf" that the Bavarian King, Ludwig III, decided to make an exception but Ludwig denied this claim. What probably happened was a Bavarian recruiter decided the Bavarians needed all the men they could get and made an exception for Hitler But imagine a world where Hitler went to the Eastern Front to fight for the Austrians! Crazy to think about

[@crystxlzx6442]

@@metalfire86able And Truman as well

[@Apodeipnon]

I don't think that's weird at all. It's weird how some people still act like Germany was responsible and evil in WW1, but that's just ignorance I guess. Hitler fought in the German infantry iirc in WW1 and he was a German nationalist, and he was elected by the German people. He was born very close to the German border. It doesn't matter that much that he was born in Austria.

[@Kurvaux]

Synerrox “He was elected by the German people” No he wasn’t. He was appointed to the position of chancellor by president Paul von Hindenburg. The NSDAP has less than 30% of the votes at the time of his appointment as chancellor. I agree with you about the fact that Germany gets unfairly blamed for WW1

[@gatta1242]

Switzerland in ww1: neutral Switzerland in ww2: neutral Kit-kat is the best choclate ever Switzerland: war!!

[@Max-xf8bl]

Hahaha. Chocolat the is the only reason for a war. ^^

[@LeiteArts10]

isn't Nestlé swiss?

[@fsulitskiy]

@ and also Switzerland is really awkward to attack cuz it's all mountainous so it's not beneficial to fight them, especially when they don't want to fight you

[@dovahkiin_brasil]

@ yeah, also chocolate land idea of neutrality means: "step on that mountain and you are dead". Going for Switzerland was getting the other side an ally who had powerfull defense and good strategic position

[@kokoloko607]

no, dont touch my chibburecci

[@InspectHistory]

Yes! German episode! Thanks Eastory! We're your fans from Indonesia 😇

[@amarastarte07]

Well its good to know im not the only Indonesian who watch this stuff

[@adiabd1]

@Primarch Ferrus Manus blocked websites do exist here, but mostly just because it contains porn or politically sensitive issues (that's what the government said though) And about sharia law, I think it's only in Aceh that's very strict on it, the rest 32 provinces just follows national rules, and Islamic rules just being followed by Muslim locals. Foreign tourists are left alone on that, except if the violation is very obvious, and it involves many locals, and also the locals are strict followers, then the tourists will get some trouble. But again, it's rarely happened here (especially to tourists). We mostly being friendly to them. No worry on that. And about food, as you said, don't just visit tourist pockets when visiting, especially that crowded with foreign travelers. If you want to experience the true indonesian cuisine, then go look at lots of local restaurants in the outskirts of the city

[@King_loscar343]

P

[@King_loscar343]

L

[@alwinstock8795]

Thx from germany ^^

[@Leivve]

Germany would have won if they fallowed Bismark advice. There are 5 great powers in Europe, always be on the side with 3, and always side with Russia.

[@Raisonnance.]

France, UK, Germany, Russia Who is the last ? Italy ? Poland ?

[@DrSmollest]

@@Raisonnance. Austria-Hungary

[@DrSmollest]

@Adam Khurshid Not really, it was going to die at this point and was a secondary power.

[@sandman8115]

@@DrSmollest Even secondary power is probably generous given that Austria-Hungarian Empire couldn't even defeat Serbia on their own.

[@DrSmollest]

@@sandman8115 That's because they had many troops on the Russian Front

[@edvard8449]

I think the answer is Italy. If the Germans pressed Austria Hungary into giving up the remaining italian territories, Italy would have entered the war on their side, this would: 1. Make France fight a War on two fronts. 2. Unleash the Italian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman navies in the Mediterranean, dividing the British Navy in two. 3. Let all Italian and Austro Hungarian armies join the rest of the Central Powers's offensives in Russia, in the Balkans, and in the Western Front. The only downsight is food shortages. Italy would not solve the supply problem of the Central Powers, and the Entente would still have the upper hand in terms of supplies. Thing is, the Central Powers could have already beaten France without having to enter in a war of attrition. France and the BEF just barely resisted the German offensive of 1914, and if the French had to defend the Italian border too, they would have had a lot less troops to fight the Germans, so the Germans would take Paris and push France into surrendering.

[@serdarcs3373]

I mean if italy was on their side why invade through belgium and get the british involved? Just go through italy.

[@edvard8449]

@@serdarcs3373 cause crossing the Alps with 2 million men sucks?

[@edvard8449]

@CommandoDude I think you're mistaking the claimed land in 1914 with the territories that were promised by the Entente at London.

[@jadenk1409]

@@edvard8449 I think the best way to convince italy not to betray triple pact is just make austria give south tirol and istria and promise if they join war on central power and win, they'll get corsica and savoy province of france which is ethnically italian. so let italy unite every ethnic italians. *also give rommania&serbia to austria as vassal/economical junior partner. not to make austrian pissed about cede their territory to italy

[@edvard8449]

@@jadenk1409 well, I don't know if the Romania thing makes sense, but sure it would make the Austrians pissed, so granting them an annexation of Serbia would do the trick. And yes, if they promised Corsica, Nice, and Savoy to Italy they would have honored the alliance.

[@zaidatimash]

Both World wars started because of two Austrian guys. And Germany got the blame for both

[@pavansavana7425]

Austria is also German

[@fristnamelastname5549]

Germany started the Second World War. But the first falls on both Serbia, and Austria both. Serbia because, a Serbian assassinated an Arch Duke, and Austria of over reacting to the whole thing. Or, at lest that's how I veiw it.

@@fristnamelastname5549 hitler = austrian

[@walterheisenbergwhite6034]

First world war was started because a serb assasinated 1 guy and austria hungarian empire over reacted. And then they all decided to go to war with each other. The second started because An austrian guy decided to attack poland. And then everybody else attacked that guy. Also austria is a german nation.

[@f.s.1429]

Poland started WW2 and got fucked from both sides within 2 months. Took it like a real polish boi.

[@issacishy]

Finally, some high quality video on youtube. You deserve more subs.

[@Clausewitz-jl8cl]

4:17 so basically Kaiser willhem played too much hoi4

[@serubyne57]

Did he adopt an artillery only strategy though?

[@Clausewitz-jl8cl]

@@serubyne57 I don't know man but that sure would have been a helping ARM

[@BelleDividends]

Aller nations played the artillery game after the initial months of 1914. Very heavily.

[@nyarlathotep7204]

@@serubyne57 Yes. Infantry was there only to add some organization All praise the mighty Artillarus

[@justarandomguy9234]

also invested all his civilian factories into bunkers. Not a solid plan, not enough military factories.

[@rhinoujakey8887]

The plan wasn't doomed from the start, but Germany could have had a better position.

[@Phantoharibo]

@I Hate Onions For WWI, it's a miracle that France, Russia and UK allied together. Congrats to kaiser Wilhelm 2, one of the biggest buffoon of history that managed to ruin everything Bismarck did.

[@mikebather6688]

Germany was hella stupid in both wars

[@nerevarchthn6860]

QuaDead germany was Hella Smart at both world wars they achieved more than an other country could and without the wars germany wouldn’t exist today

[@iansneddon2956]

@@Phantoharibo Did you mean to say it would have been a miracle if France, Russia and UK hadn't allied together? France and Russia formed a deliberate military alliance against Germany years before the war. It might have been possible to keep the UK out but Kaiser Wilhelm II's foreign policy of antagonizing most every other power was certainly not helpful.

[@Keckegenkai]

@@Phantoharibo You're completely overlooking french revanchism and Bitains doctrine for mainland Europe. After Bismarck took A&L, it was clear that the next war was fought gainst Germany, in the view of France. Germany ecconomy was outperforming Britain at that time and that was enough for them to further isolate Germany.

[@roybatty-]

Nobody: Germany: I'ma finna fight the world. Twice.

[@6876I]

*dragged into the war twice.

[@6876I]

@spudnic88 WW1: Germany was the last power to mobilize or be overrun by Russia and France. Never before in history has the very last power to mobilize been blamed for starting a war. WW2: Hitler made numerous peace offers between 1933 and 1940. Germany and USSR occupied Poland together yet Great Britain declared war to Germany only. Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/ russia-insider.com/en/history/germans-cut-through-red-army-1941-because-soviets-were-only-prepared-attack/ri27845

[@jakubstanicek6726]

@@6876I Germany declared war on France in ww1. Operation Barbarossa was not a preemptive strike. I got it, you like Germany, but stop telling lies pls. I can share some resources if you wish

[@6876I]

@@jakubstanicek6726 I don't like Germany, I like the historical truth. Germany declared war to France in WW1 because France was Russia's ally and it was their only chance to avoid annihilation fighting on two fronts. But that is not how it started... And operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. It's explained in the links I provided. The soviets broke the Ribentrop-Molotov pact.

[@lazarjovanovic4388]

@@6876I what are u smoking? SoViEtS BrOkE MoLOtoV-RiBeNtRoP PaCt... so u brother are saying ussr attacked germany and was the agressor? also germany convinced ussr into invading poland and uk didnt declare war for a reason lol

[@jiriseidl4376]

Turn the Schliefen plan upside down. Defend on the short french border with Hills and forests, where you can fall back to the Rhine to defend. Without the need to invade Beligium, Britain may not enter the war at all, or would enter later, and the French couldn´t effectively blockade German marine trade. This opens up a lot of divisions to defeat Serbia and Russia and detter Italy and Romania from joining the French at all. At this point, Germany controls all of the Balkans and Greece is still pro-German, with Russia knocked out. The question in this scenario is the position of GB. If GB stays out of the war completely, then Germany could still potentialy attack through Belgium, though that is unlikely. GB would at least make it clear at this point that Benelux is a no go. Without a suicidal push into France, Germany could add pressure in Africa, threatening French dominion. Though at this point, Britain would certainly threaten to declare war and blockade Germany and would force it to negotiate a peace settlement. Either way, to defeat France, you would still need round 2 with WW2 technologies that made offense viable again.

[@fkjl4717]

GB wont stay out of war and just watch fall of Russia, Germans are rival to them and they are not so stupid. GB would join immediately as they know of defeat of russian army , and trade blockade would be started.

[@hmscentre2907]

UK would join anyway. It was pretty much a war for colonies and influence

[@sethheristal9561]

UK was the real enemy of germany in WW1, just like URSS was the real enemy in WW2. The war was in both cases between those 2 sides for the dominion on the emisphere. All the other nations are just coprotagonists.

[@jiriseidl4376]

Seth Heristal Sorry but no. While the UK did a lot with its trade blockade, the one putting their weight in and bearing the brunt was France.

[@sebastianruhland5198]

This sounds good. But what if France would not attack and just wait for Russia being ready for war and attack simultainlsy.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

8:22 technically the Bolsheviks did try to make peace with Germany with their pamphlet on 'peace with no annexations' but Germany refused and because of the bad terms of a potential German-Soviet peace treaty the Soviets decided to continue fighting. As your video stated it was then when the Germans launched an offensive that took over a lot of Russian land, and that was the point the Bolsheviks sued for peace. At that time the Bolshevik government was actually a coalition government between left wing socialist revolutionaries and Bolsheviks. The socialist revolutionaries all resigned because of the Brest-Litovsk treaty paving the way to one party rule.

[@Eastory]

You have a good point. In hindsight the words in the narration should have been more accurate a la "the Bolsheviks did not agree to the Germany's terms"

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

yea that would have made more sense but as always. I am the pedantic viewer. ;)

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Thank you for the compliment :)

[@zionistcat1807]

Bolsheviks also didnt recieve any funding from Germany/

[@SasukeUchiha-pv4xn]

Actually Germany was also in favor of peace but with little annexation for eg Poland but the Bolsheviks under Trotsky tried to stall the peace talks which tied German manpower in the east So no the Russians were not so sincere on the idea of making peace

[@theiceana7237]

6:38 Kaiser Willhelm: Theres no way this could go wrong. **~30 years later...** *s o v i e t a n t h e m p l a y s o v e r b e r l i n*

[@fristnamelastname5549]

Hitler: What can possibly go wrong? *Soviet Anthem plays in Berlin*

[@attilamolnar2649]

Russia would has been more powerful in 1941, if they had capitalist economy between 1917-1941, so the bolshevik trick was useful.

[@aneesh2115]

@@attilamolnar2649 not really. Russia needs a metric stalin to industrialise so quickly . And the czar was no stalin. He was too weak to industrialise

[@sovietmilk2674]

Biggest karma i've ever seen

[@mehmeh1999]

@@attilamolnar2649 So a weak Tsar was to reorganize a country that he mismanaged in the first place?

[@aughhhhhhhhhhhh]

Such a fools saying that the germans got in austrian war... the tentions between the great powers were becoming higher and higher, the german ambition to own colonies in africa, the expanding military power of Germany. The war was just a matter of time!

[@patrikkalus5567]

Also Russia at that time wasnt as industrialy developed as rest of European powers, but they were quickly catching up. So in 1910s leaders of centrals powers had mentality, better war with Russia now while we can still defeat them rather than wait another 10-20 years.

[@aughhhhhhhhhhhh]

@@patrikkalus5567 ofc russia wasnt developed .. what about the infrastructure total trash that the communists fixed

[@blueoceancorporations1019]

@@aughhhhhhhhhhhh Russia was already beginning to fixing its problems even before the communists took over. Russia would have industrialized either way, though without Stalin less people would have starved.

[@aughhhhhhhhhhhh]

@@blueoceancorporations1019 lololo what about economy? Or army? Or industry or all kinda productions

[@aughhhhhhhhhhhh]

@@blueoceancorporations1019 ok...😂😂😂

[@FlymanMS]

Man, such a pointless and wasteful war.

[@davidlamb117]

Thats because both sides lost. The world. Lost.

[@killer-ox4rp]

@Bitcoin Broker Russia and Serbia were allies Slavic and same religion France and Russia were allies they hate Germany UK have treaty to protect Belgium they made Belgium Italy for land and money

[@edstar83]

@Viktor Magnusson kzbin.info/www/bejne/joLCooWwlNGmeZY

[@zied6456]

Alsace-Lorraine?

[@Joe-lr9ou]

Pointless wars don't dictate the fate of nations for decades to come

[@alvarlindstrom2188]

If I was the kaiser I had kept Otto von Bismarck as chancellor and let him solve my problems.

[@maarten9272]

@Institoris You guys do realise that Bismarck was already long dead at this point?

[@maarten9272]

@Institoris He died 16 years before the war even started.

[@maarten9272]

@Institoris Bismarck wasn't afraid of war, but he knew very well to avoid it when there was no point in waging it.

[@axelmuller7946]

@@maarten9272 he also knew that the balkans would be the reason for a war. He did not want a war and would never have let it happen.

[@FatguyInthedeli]

Axel Müller he might have. It would of mattered on how likely he thought the war would end in a favourable outcome

[@captinobvious4705]

With hindsight: don't attack Belgium. W/O hindsight: Nock Russia first, before attempting to nock France, and don't involve the USA.

[@MrNicoJac]

There's no knocking Russia out without loads and loads and loads of trucks and good roads. Would've been absolutely impossible in WW1. Even here, it only happened because the (Red) Soviets were stupid enough to lose/disband their armies before negotiations were concluded...

[@1jomojo]

Nope, taking Russia is imposible, in WW1 even more then in WW2 The Germans just had mad luck the Soviets disarmed the army

[@PuellaMagiHomuraAkemi]

But they could have taken over Russia after the bolsheviks dissolved the army, couldn't they? like exploitiong the land and its ressources to be kept in the game

[@joelmonsion1639]

They did the complete opposite of all of that

[@Septimus_ii]

Holding Russia would have been more difficult than it was worth - better to sign a favourable peace deal and free up troops for the West

[@amisicro955]

And with this you learn more of ww1 than 5 years of history class

[@napoleonbonaparte6705]

IKR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS BULLSHIT

[@drunkenpeanut6582]

@@napoleonbonaparte6705 we were learning ww1 in year 8, specifically the battle of the somme, and I learnt way more just watching history videos than I ever did learning ww1 for a year

[@napoleonbonaparte6705]

@@drunkenpeanut6582 you are 100 percent correct my good sir.

[@alejoalfonso1459]

Russian Civil War next?

[@Admiral2Kolchak]

Alejo Alfonso good idea!

[@alejoalfonso1459]

Joseph Stalin I'm a proud trotskyist :O

[@DreamWalkerVl]

@@alejoalfonso1459 Still right to Gulag. Right away.

[@no8592]

Apparently Finland didnt get indepence in this video

[@Rainaman-]

What is this "Finland" you talk about?

[@bored99able]

do you mean Sweden number 2

[@no8592]

@@bored99able eastern sweden

[@bored99able]

@@no8592 yeah, sorry. My mistake

[@murobaugetti9028]

Haahaa tosi hauskaa (ei oikeesti)

[@yanxishan6575]

I love how the entry of Bulgaria into the war is considered equivalent to Italy’s entry. I know the “Italy is a terrible ally” joke is overused, but here it actually makes sense: Bulgaria won more battles and captured more territory than Italy.

[@GalileoScientist]

Please look up the Battle of Vittorio Veneto where Italy knocked Austria-Hungary out of WW1.

[@Fabioonn]

@@GalileoScientist Austria was already colapsing

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

​@@GalileoScientistbut thats not really because of the battle. Austria Hungary was already de facto dissolved at the start of the battle

[@liwo8998]

WW1: Germany loses. Germany: Replay!

[@Hdusiekwbshsjs]

Germany should’ve been dissolved after ww1

[@vvfgvg9715]

German is replaying WW1 they had lost again.

[@chip1646]

@@Hdusiekwbshsjs Where are you from?

[@joemamaobama6863]

@@Hdusiekwbshsjs do u need help

[@GTAandApplechannel]

@@chip1646 Cambodia judge by his name

[@bentleywinterbottom300]

They should have used artillery only

[@gravynavy516]

They lost cause they didnt didnt use 40 width

[@MainesOwn]

so, what's happening? Are you going to continue? The content and presentation is amazing, it's also perfect to teach history classes. I understand that this must be terribly time-consuming and hope you are going to continue at some point. What is the other channel? I can't find a link anywhere. Thanks and greetings!

[@icarius1461]

*Britain has joined the server*

[@dr.nosborn6330]

Italy:ok guys, I have a plan to win the war *Italy has switched sides*

[@axelmaldonado2642]

@@dr.nosborn6330 *USA has joined the server* USA: I know I'm late but I brought snacks.

[@dr.nosborn6330]

@@axelmaldonado2642 Sorry, no burgers This is a central powers server.

[@sillypuppy5940]

Where's my beer? Service is terrible here.

[@thedelta01100]

j'ai ramené des croissants

[@eisenkoenig8324]

Imagine using a time travel device to show the German emperor all these videos Knowledge is power

[@jerski14344]

but Reichsführer John Smith died and his North American Reich with him.

[@gerovon2558]

@@jerski14344 god damit im watching man in high castle and u just spoiled it

[@fuzyquzy9877]

nope a little more manpower and resources can help germany to win the war power is power

[@alinastanescu4430]

Europe in the 21st century Großes deutsches Reich

[@superdouble8834]

Oh no no no it’s cannon event 😂😂😂 I mean it’s true, u will not exist if German empire succeeds

[@matteomerlini604]

Hmmm, well, well, well. The Central Powers were always at a huge disadvantage, from the onset of the war; Britain and France could call on the support (manpower AND resources) of their long-established colonial empires; German colonies were almost irrelevant, as they were earned late in the race for colonies and were mostly poor in resources - and also, they were knocked out of the war early on, with the sole exception of the portion of East Africa were Paul von Lettow managed to hold off the British. To this, add the geographical position of Germany and Austria-Hungary, which, in this context, isolated both of them from most commercial routes (I am unsure whether German-Swedish routes were blockaded or not); the only way to break free of the blockade would have been a significant defeat of the Royal Navy, but the German High Seas Fleet could not deliver that (note that the German Empire had fallen behind the UK in the race to naval arms in the previous fifteen years or so). The entrance of the Ottoman Empire into the war made the situation easier to bear, with Iraqi oil fields becoming available, but it brought little relief from military pressure in Europe. That means that the German assumption that the war would've had to be won quickly was correct, as the lack of resources would've brought both Austria-Hungary and Germany to their knees. The Schlieffen Plan was an attempt to do precisely that, but it had fatal flaws (such as requiring the German troops to cover an enormous amount of territory in a very limited amount of time AND be ready for battle at the end of such an extenuating march); it could be argued that later revisions of the plan before its enactment only worsened the situation by making the right flank of the advancing German army weaker than what expected by the original plan. Once the war devolved into a war of attrition, the Central Empires got into a very bad position. IF the Eastern front could've been closed earlier, thus securing Rumenia's oil fields and Ukraine's grain and letting the Empires move their forces en masse to the Western front, it would've been a different story. They were not doomed from the start, no; but it is plain for everybody to see that their strategic disadvantages were to be expected to have (and had) a huge impact. Add to this that, where on the Entente side there were two modern industrialized countries (Britan and France), Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were behind on technology and organisation (though possibly not as much as Russia, but I would have to double check this to make sure)

[@farenhite4329]

This was also why the Germans took the gamble of going unrestricted submarine warfare again, and as a result, then expected the Americans to join the war which they sent the Zimmerman Telegram to distract the United States which we all know what happened next.

[@alejandromaldonado6159]

I believe the Russians were ahead of the Ottomans.

[@travisoliver6741]

@@alejandromaldonado6159 Yeah they were. Contrary to popular belief, Russia was not a backwards shithole. It actually had the world's fourth largest economy (Behind the United States, Britain, and Germany if I remember). Furthermore, German War Generals believed that, if unobstructed, Russia would be nearly impossible to defeat by 1917.

[@bobsemple9281]

Russia is a country that must be defeated quickly as if you let let it grow and build up it becomes an impossible to kill beast. '44/'45 Soviets come to mind

[@Truth4thetrue]

the original plan wasn't just revised, it was totally ignored by the high command, forces were pulled to stop the russians in eastern prussia and the southern commander refused to retreat into germany which meant the french weren't occupied in a useless offensive and could easily divert troops to stop the germans coming through belgium in the original plan, huge forces would attack through belgium whole the southern flank would retreat beforehand, this would trick the french into advancing into what they though was their rightful lands and allow the germans to advance through the north practically unopposed, if the french attempted to divert too much troops to the north this would leave their southern flanks exposed to german counterattack, instead what happened is that the french stood their ground ( which is a fortified border) as the germans didn't retreat so they were able to divert troops quickly and without the fear of german counterattack, also the BEF came in which made it worse for them, despite all this they managed to penetrate deep into french territory, this can only tell of what would've been if the original or revised plan were executed correctly, and that is a total victory of germany

[@HolyShitNew]

italy to our side worked next war wait what

[@asianlifter]

Our World: The German Plan was doomed from the start. Alternate Word: The Entente Plan was doomed from the start.

[@fristnamelastname5549]

(In Spain's world: My plans of World Conquest, wasn't doomed from the start.) - Spain: 😴

[@AFT_05G]

Nah,it wasn’t doomed.That’s myth of Allied fanboys,Germany was quite strong in 1914 and well prepared for War unlike in 1939.They were capable of defeating everyone on the land in 1v1.They had a strong navy too which was smaller than just Royal Navy.İf they were good at foreign diplomacy,they could easily win.

[@asianlifter]

MemeLover referring to the fact a frickton of people say the central power plan was doomed from the start. Even with ww2

[@mattyguitar9951]

If only

[@Askhat08]

Entente is controlling half of the world, how could they lose?

[@sykles8589]

I like how decisive move was shown like H4, that is rated as the worst starting move in chess.

[@11mousa]

Well, even with the applied tactic, there was 1 point where the war could have been "over by christmas" as was promised. At the marne (right in the beginning, when Germany was advancing fast), a gap in the German line opened and Moltke decided to retreat a bit to close the gap. At the moment it was the save and right choice. But in hindsight, there was a distinct chance, that the French wouldn't recognize the gap early enough or that they didn't even have the strength to exploit it at that time. As I said: During that moment, Moltke took the right decision, but knowing what followed the next four years, the risky approach (similar to Rommel in WW2) could have resulted in a full encirclement of the allied troops and inevitable victory. On the other hand, if the gambit failed, it would have resulted in a quick victory of the Allies.

[@leonpaelinck]

Or, when the russians attacked, Moltke sent needed troops to the east. This turned out to be unessecary as the victory at Tannenberg happened before those arrived.

[@superpowerdragon]

make a video about japans invasion of china please

[@randomobserver8168]

Loved watching auto-caption for "Entente". I've seen "untaught", "untanned", and "ant ant" at least.

[@Feuerlaufer]

"The myth of the great war" is a fantastic book outlining how the germans consistently murdered the shit out of their opponents tactically

[@sampowell1649]

Рон Браун well that’s not strictly true.

[@theorange1729]

This just shows that tactics is only a small part of war. In reality war mostly depends on resources, manpower, land and industrial capability. The American civil war and the Napoleonic wars are other examples of good tactics losing to sheer power.

[@brydonthunder]

Sam Powell and orange are the same person lol

[@audunms4780]

Their tactical superiority blinded them.

[@Hdusiekwbshsjs]

Found the kaisarboo

[@themole4369]

I wish we'd been taught more about movements/battles in WW1 at school. Spent a term on WW1 and it started off with the German advance through Belgium and then pretty much the rest was just the nature of trench warfare.

[@fehervari98]

When we look at WW1, many fail to realise, that the key to Central Powers victory is in fact, not Germany, but Austria-Hungary! In the decade predating the war, the Austro-Hungarian military budget(unlike other Great Powers') did not rise significantly, on the contrary, at some point, it even decreased. This was mostly due to internal political reasons, which can be traced back to 1902. In 1902, during the renegotiation of the economical part of the Ausgleich, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Széll Kálmán was indulgent towards the Austrian demands. He hoped, such favour would be returned by the Austrian side as well, especially regarding the establishment of a separate Hungarian national bank, but he had to be dissapointed. However, the acts of Széll were viewed as a sign of weakness by the Hungarian opposition, and they began obstructing. This led to the budget of 1903 to not pass in time, which resulted in Széll resigning and marked the beginning of the political turmoil in Hungary. To avoid all of this, we need the Austrians to accept the establishment of a Hungarian national bank. Such matter would cement the position of the Széll Cabinet and the budget of 1903, with an increased military budget can be accepted in time. Széll is likely to win a second term as well. With the highened Hungarian contribution to the military, and with the strong position of Széll, the Hungarians might be able to influence the choice for the new Chief of Staff, when Friedrich von Beck-Rzikowsky retires in 1906. The Hungarians would support Beck's former right-hand-man, Oskar Potiorek against Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, the candidate of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Not making Hötzendorf Chief of Staff would have very significant effects, since when he actually got into this position, he cemented his position by filling the general staff with his supporters, which turned everything upside down there. The Railway Büro was also hit hard. Potiorek's appointment serves as a mean of continuity here, therefore. With a stable political situation, more compact General Staff and higher military spending, the position of Austria-Hungary is stronger without question, and I didn't even mention what a huge stimulus would the Austro-Hungarian military industry get from this. Expect much more, much better artillery pieces, more planes, better infrastructure for mobilisation and deployment, better small arms, etc. Maybe even the navy is better compared to our timeline, with Radetzky-class being built like the Tegethoff-class was IOTL(in our timeline), and the Tegethoff-class being built like the Ersatz Monarch-class would have been, and also the Novara-class being finished earlier with Admiral Spaun also being built like the Novara-class. If we assume, that WW1 still begins like it did, with Franz Ferdinand being assassinated in Sarajevo on the 28th of June 1914, then the military events of the year would look something like this:

[@fehervari98]

1914: While the German actions do not change much, there are significant changes in Austria-Hungary. First of all, without Conrad's OTL meddling, the mobilisation begins properly against both Serbia and Russia, which together with the slightly better infrastructure allows the Austro-Hungarians to finish the deployment of their troops earlier. Also, thanks to the significantly higher spending on military, Austria-Hungary is fielding a much larger armed force, around 80 divisions in 22 corps( in 8 armies), instead of OTL's 60 divisions in 16 corps( in 6 armies). This also solves OTL's problem of "who should we concentrate on first?", since there are plenty of forces to use against both Serbia and Russia. The earlier deployment and the higher number of scouting planes put Austria-Hungary into a great advantage against the relatively quickly, yet still slowly deploying Russians. This could be utilised in an early campaign with inflicting some casualties on the half-prepared Russians until they are fully deployed, when a fighting retreat towards more defensible positions could be done. This not only makes Austro-Hungarian supply lines shorter, but also the Russian ones longer. Meanwhile, the Russians still get defeated at Tannenberg and at Masurian Lakes. Failing to advance either in Galicia or Prussia put Congress Poland in a very vulnerable position, which the Central Powers can utilise. Between Vistula and Bug, the Austro-Hungarians could launch an offensive towards Lublin, with the new German 9th Army securing their left flank, while the German 8th Army puts pressure on the Russian 10th Army from the North. The Russians would then have to evacuate most of Congress Poland, only holding onto Masovia with Warsaw. Meanwhile, the Serbians couldn't possibly resist the might of three properly equipped Austro-Hungarian armies. They would have to abandon Belgrade and entire Northern Serbia and remain on defensive.

[@fehervari98]

1915: In the last year the half of the Russian 2nd Army was destroyed, and 1st and 5th Armies also suffered sensible casualties, while Russian 8th Army was exhausted in the long retreat from Congress Poland. With such circumstances, Russia is unable to launch any meaningful actions in the first few months of the year. While the Russians reorganise themselves, the Austro-Hungarians turn their attention South and finish off Serbia and Montenegro and take control of Northern Albania in the process. Unlike OTL, there's no Italian Navy to evacuate the Serb forces and the British and French are also more cautious, because of the stronger Austro-Hungarian Navy. Last year, the Ottoman Empire also joined the war on the Central Powers' side, and cut the connection between Russia and the other Entente Powers through the Mediterranean Sea. This, together with closure of the Balkan Front put Russia at a disadvantage. At this point, almost the entirety of the Austro-Hungarian Army was being deployed against them, while the Germans also began to shift their attention Eastwards after the Western Front proved to be too hard to breakthrough. The Russian situation was dire, despite the British and French relieving attempts on the Western Front. The Austro-German offensive beginning in late August pushed the Russians completely out of Poland, Lithuania and Courland and only stopped right at the gates of Riga and Minsk. In the South, the Austro-Hungarians took Zhitomir and Vinnytsia, and after the Romanian entry to the war on the side of the Central Powers, the frontline stabilised just short of Odessa. At the end of the year talks for a separate peace began with Russia.

[@fehervari98]

1916: After the initial talks with Russia failed, the Russians began to prepare for a large scale offensive against the Central Powers, forwhich it requested Anglo-French distractive operations on the Western Front. Despite the initial successes the Russian offensive ultimately failed to push back the Central Powers. The offensive further weakened the Russian fighting capabilities. This weakness showed itself during the Central Powers counteroffensive, which despite the relocation of many German units to the Western Front managed to push the Russians out of Livonia, back to the gates of Kiev. Odessa fell as well. Peacetalks with Russia resumed and an armistice was signed at the end of the year.

[@fehervari98]

1917: The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is signed by Russia and the Central Powers. Russia loses Livonia(including Courland, Semigalia, Inflanty and Estonia) which becomes a German puppet. Lithuania likewise. Poland is granted "independence" with a Habsburg on its throne. Bessarabia and Kars Oblast are ceded to Romania and to the Ottoman Empire respectively. Finland also declares independence, which the Russians are forced to accept. Furthermore, Russia is forced to agree to the occupation of it territories West of the Dniepr for a duration of 5 years. By this time, almost all of the German army was transferred to the Western Front. For the first time in the duration of war, Austria-Hungary also sent a sizeable portion of its army to the Western Front, 28 divisions organised into 3 armies to be exact. The Central Powers' Summer Offensive of 1917, then successfully pushes back the Entente. After the fall of Paris and the Italian entry to the war, France asks for armistice and peace talks begin.

[@Hanes2307]

Damn, this could be an essay or a documentary, nice job I wished comments could be starred and stored somewhere for me to read later. Now I see that Austria-Hungary could have been a force to be reckoned with were the budget for the army much better. You could make your own video about this too in fact please do and notify me here for me to see.

[@montimuros2837]

This is how I would try to win as Germany: 1) Do not go for unrestricted submarine warfare, and do not send the Zimmerman Telegram (as to prevent the US from entering the war). 2) Once the Eastern Front has fallen thanks to the russian defeat, use the extra toops to launch an offensive on Italy, not France. It seems like an easier target for me, and if Italy gets knocked out of the war, this would both free Austrian troops for an offensive against France and potentially create a new front against France in the Italo-French border.

[@andrewshaw1571]

3 potential issues. 1, northern italy isnt that easy to push through, the terrain is tricky, which is part of the reason why it moved so little earlier in the war. The americans would have arrived in force by the time the attack in france would start, in fact they probably would have arrived in time to sure up the italian front. 2. the austrohungarian army really was spent. The brusilov offensive in 1916 did a lot of damage to the austrian army, their ability to support would have been limited. 3. Big offensives take a lot of time to organise. The somme offensive was heavily cut down due to the attack on verdun and had to go ahead without a great number of the divisions it was originally planned with and had to be adapted. They were busy building up material for it since before verdun started in february and were launched in late june early july. A large scale attack on italy followed by redeployment and attack in france would have taken a lot of time, probably wouldnt be able to start the france attack until after the date that the entente counter attack began in real life. Thats a lot of time for your supplies to run dry, gives you very little time to win a decisive battle against a very large force in prepared defences, who have now seen your stormtrooper tactics, before the mutinys start. Its not just that the germans were physically forced back, their morale broke, the navy skuttled their own ships, large numbers of the army gave in. I would be willing to bet that given the absolute state of the german army by the time of the ludendorf offensive, already operating at half rations etc, the order to carry out a large scale attack after that long of poor supply would probably break the german army's morale before t would break through the entente defences.

[@Gloopular]

I concur - look at Caporetto in 1917. But i would expand it further by ejecting all allied troops from the Balkans simultaneously - thereby saving their gallant ally the Bulgarians. Then send a modest sized army to save the Ottomans and seize the Suez. All objectives are possible with the great number of troops released from the Russian front.

[@gabberhenk497]

You actually believe Germany send that Zimmerman telegram that's naive. It was just an excuse for the US president to being able to join the war. Germany used a certain secret code and the Zimmerman telegram was the only one that's different and the only one that was cracked. So yeah def didn't come from the germans

[@andrewshaw1571]

@maciejl20 Counter problem. Nothing in the original comment has changed the supply situation from the real ww1, in said real ww1, germany suffered critical supply problems at this stage of the war in spite of occupying ukraine. In fact, the necessary occupation of ukraine to try to sort the supply problem was regarded post war as a blunder as it tied down a large number of german troops that could have been used in the offensive, while not sorting the supply issue.

[@andrewshaw1571]

@maciejl20 Sorry, was that why did it not sort the supply issue? If so, multiple reasons. The ukrainian locals reacted badly to the occupation. It wasnt just the german army that was starving and it wasnt just food the british blockade was stopping. The country was starving and noone had a good infrastructure for rationing in place. germany's was worse than britains and britains rationing attempts were a failure. To give you an idea, before the war, germany was capable of producing around 80% of its food requirements domestically and could import more than the rest overland. Yet the blockade caused the country to hit malnutrition levels by 1916. The germans conscripted farm labourers, they switched fertilizer production into explosive making. All in all, their ability to generate and distribute food collapsed, another source to fail to handle didnt sort out the logistical issues already present, assuming they could easily extract food from the angry locals.

[@stacyfancher800]

I love your channel and your voice keeps me warm at night. Nice content

[@justynagaecka9275]

1st step: Focus on Russia. Britain was not sure if to join or not. Most likely they wouldn't. Only France would join. So Germany could take defensive positions on the western front and attack the eastern. 2nd step: Convince Bulgaria earlier 3rd step: Deafet Russia and Serbia 4th step: Give Italy what they want so they won't join the war on entente's side. 5th step: Attack France through Belgium and take Paris so only Britain would be left 6th step: Negotiate terms with British in a way that they will not lose anything 7th step: Enjoy new Euro.....eh...Germany!

[@deadset15-hrvavik17]

Justyna Gałecka i dont think Britain would surender

[@BelleDividends]

Actually their original war plans were more defense in a combined Franco-Russian war. Schlieffen made multiple plan depending on the scenario. The one the Germans executed was the plan in case of a war with Franse only. If Russia was involved, Schlieffen's plan was to withdraw on the Western front and make a encircling movement within Germany territory.

[@dinospapa7413]

It's one thing to say defeat Russia, and another thing doing it... Scorched earth is a bitch, especially with vast distances, poor infrastructure, and the doom of the upcoming winter...

[@VineFynn]

You could save many steps by only having one: Defeat the Entente

[@explodethebomb]

@dinos papa Germany did defeat Russia in the actual ww1, and it would be even easier without Italy or Britain in the war

[@kaliyuga1476]

I like how the Central powers lost the war despite never fighting in their homelans

[@shanesocial7339]

ottomen empire got there mainland invaded

[@Rynewulf]

Austria Hungary spent a good chunk of its war trying to get Russians out of their eastern borders and the end of the war trying to slow the Italians getting through the west

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

I'm pretty sure towards the end Bulgaria and Austria Hungary pretty much collapsed, like Bulgaria got defeated while the Austro Hungarian army collapsed together with the entire country

[@eca3101]

Awesome video. Keep it up

[@Cherigal]

“Doomed, from the very start… And I don’t, regret, a SECOND of it!”

[@drscopeify]

Until hyperinflation lol

[@fanolade]

So you need more than 3 superpowers to defeat germany or they will destroy you within weeks! Dont start a war against germany without other 4 allied superpowers.

[@hottestcheese7973]

T130AT it would have been quicker but trench warfare

[@grieftex803]

T130AT superpowers did not exist until the cold war

[@voidcommando7574]

@@grieftex803 wrong britain and france where called world power at the time having very large Empires but germany was one as well the us wasn't because they hadn't the militäry at this point and Russia wasn't because no industrie A-H is another question

[@grieftex803]

Voidcommando so france britain and germany were called world powers but they weren't superpowers because they weren't even close to the military or economic capabilities of the us or soviet union in the cold war.

[@mikedegroot9589]

@@grieftex803 not true look at english they had the biggest navy by far. Just as US now.

[@drnolegs797]

Love this.

[@jrwhitnah]

The dynamic graphics with your narration really make this much easier to understand. Have you thought about doing/already done same for Tsingtao and pacific events affecting the Germans in WW1? And thank you!

[@rebelboi88]

I love the comparison of KZbin ad drought to the blockades. Earned a like for that alone.

[@darktea3744]

Great video! I loved it

[@darktea3744]

@ I am a patron :)

[@fifnewstv7363]

Oversimplified wants to know your Location...

[@koekelakouwnt7949]

Best video about the course of the war I have seen yet. Thank you!

[@jackparker8602]

If one thing is for certain, it would have been much easier for Germany to win in ww1 then ww2

[@nicologiani3426]

Well, no. Germany was winning in '40

[@11Survivor]

@MALEK001 001 so what you're saying is... If Germany was not, in fact, Germany, then it would have won?...

[@perpetual_suffering1458]

@MALEK001 001 naw sorry I dont buy this. Sealion was an absolute impossibility without naval and aircraft supremacy. There was no way they were competing with Britain's navy and they knew this war with Britain was going to be a long game of achieving both of these and would take a lot of time, which Germany couldnt expend with depleting oil. Invading the soviet union was probably the best of the bad options that germany had and as far as people of the time were concerned, this was the best idea and it seemed impossible for Germany to lose. Everyone just misunderstand the capacity of reinforcing divisions that the soviet union was capable of pumping out

[@lestranger7440]

@@perpetual_suffering1458 one thing i still dont get-how were they lacking oil with Denmark,Belgium,Norway,Netherlands,France and Poland conquered and Slovakia,Romania,Italy and Hungary as allies? Was everything THAT bad?

[@GeographyCzar]

Clearly, if Germany had followed a strategy that would keep Great Britain neutral (not invading Belgium), things would have gone very differently. On the ground, they couldn't be beaten until the arrival of British tanks in mass, and 2,000,000 US troops in France, both happening in 1918. Russia was not the modern powerhouse under the Czars that it became under Stalin. One major criticism: I studied this war as an undergrad, and the sources I found showed significant caloric increases for the German population from summer 1917 onward as grain producing regions were captured in the Balkans and Ukraine. By the fall of 1918, conditions were no longer critical for the average German. Germany was not starved into surrender. Wilson's 14 points, air-dropped in German cities, coupled with the militarily hopeless situation on the Western Front, led the German population to rise up and overthrow the Kaiser. Versailles was a complete shock.

[@salviniusaugustus6567]

Britain would have join the war. Belgium was only the good excuse for the public opinion.

[@JohnDoe-nf6yk]

More American taught propaganda

[@plumebrise4801]

Actually ,the only thing the US did was speed up the capitulation of Germany ,but even without the US ,Germany would have capitulated (But later than 11 November 1918) . Also the French had to equip the American too "American soldiers are not equipped for this war. They have a uniform, including the famous campaign-hat, the campaign hat with which the soldiers look like boy scouts, individual equipment and armament but few collective weapons (machine guns and automatic rifles), few guns and trucks, almost no planes and no tanks. It is the French who provide them with it, for better (tanks for example) or for worse (the very bad Chauchat machine gun for example)." "They must also be instructed in combat and the use of weapons, which takes time! Once in France, these soldiers first review the training acquired in American camps, then the battalions are integrated into French regiments and sent to quiet sectors of the front to learn in the field. Finally, the regiments complete their training by learning combined arms combat (operation common to the various Army corps) with the perspective of engaging them in fire. It is this situation that explains why they are not immediately engaged on the battlefield. It will be necessary to wait until Autumn 1917 to see them participate in their first operations." "Finally, during this period, the Army (US) built traditions, often inherited from the French army, which are still alive today in the American armed forces. For example, the insignia of the 93rd infantry division, the "blue helmets" division, is a legacy of this era. This division, made up of black soldiers, educated, equipped and engaged with the French, adopted a stylized Adrian helmet as its insignia. Today, the Marines still commemorate the Battle of Bois Belleau which took place in June 1918. The American army of the 20th century was thus truly shaped in the training camps of France and the mud of the trenches of the Western front."

[@lazarstankovic9256]

You forgot crucial part when serbian and french forces breakthrough southern front and kicked Austria completely from Balkan and war

[@Nilsy1975]

Didn't the Ottoman empire side with the Central Powers?

[@yymoomoo1509]

Yes

[@fristnamelastname5549]

Yes. But actually, No.

[@ignarskjolvjentski7809]

Kind of, but they were a joke

[@BOOGGaming27]

Yes but they weren't in europe

[@wouterkessel4852]

Yes but outside of the succes of gallipoli the only thing they did was fail at any attempted assault, cause rebellions against them by their own civilians after blaming them for the defeats, take up German resources and give the Entente victories to put in the press.

[@francismigs2224]

Germany is like the one is carrying the war on both world war without even complaining

[@homelessswede9675]

The country balls Are so cute

[@_aragornyesyes_7171]

Alfie 1344 they are but there not supposed to have legs ._.

[@florin.simonescu]

My balls are also cute

[@sirwannabeguy4886]

The Rare Bird Rare excuse me what the fuck

[@sirwannabeguy4886]

He'rr Maus im scared to click on that link

[@analanus3131]

I LOVE U CHIKEN MAN

[@graemesydney38]

As the vid said, in 1914 the military situation was evenly balanced which made any win based primarily on military action highly unlikely. Germany's best chance lay in diplomacy. Germany's strength was her military, her weakness was diplomacy. With hubris and stupidity Germany played to her strength and ignored her weakness. Just to show how stupid her leadership was Germany used the same strategy 20 year later for an even worst outcome. An excellent concise and precise vid BTW.

[@ignacioandresadasme8553]

But they managed to control France in ww2, the strategy itself worked perfectly

[@a.f.w.froschkonig2978]

As if Germany did not do the utmost to negociate with all her counterparts who unfortunately were unwilling to avoid a worldwar that still has not stopped.

[@romanlinnik7441]

@@elliott7706 wtf. It was not an alliance, just a non-agression pact.

[@elliott7706]

@@romanlinnik7441 they basically split Poland. After that Germany went its own way after hearing how Soviets handled Finland.

[@Freiburg1919]

Germany used a differrent Strategy in WWII NS Germany atackted most over Belgium and cut of the frensch army of suply and reinforcement. The Britsh army was extrem weak with only 100.000 solders in Fance. The Sovetunion was not in war so ther was no second front to fight for te Axes.

[@kimxx864]

Haha I really like your human drawing 😂😂😂 thank you for the content

[@timmarton4402]

Oversimplified: I explain my vids so good! estory: hey I make my vids by map dvisons

[@drunkenpeanut6582]

can't lie oversimplified is better, but estory is a bit more informational, but the best of both worlds would be the armchair historian, he has amazing animations and very informational

[@bread7501]

@@drunkenpeanut6582 yeah but the armchair historian is kinda boring ngl

[@drunkenpeanut6582]

@@bread7501 i really enjoy him but i see why you think that

[@SK-lt1so]

The "failure" was pre-war diplomacy that created a two-front threat to Germany, a weak "alliance", and damaged the English-German relaitonship. The result was a desperate war plan that risked everything on long-odds.

[@tonyz7216]

One of my great grand father was a French poilu who served in the cavalry. He had two younger brothers, Paul and Pierre who were also sent to the front and a third one who wasn't because he had mental deficiencies. Both Paul and Pierre distinguished themselves with bravery and won the Croix de Guerre. Paul, an handsome and elegant taylor was killed in 1918 just a few weeks before the end of the war, leaving an orphan child behind. Pierre, a brave and sturdy countryman was gassed by the Germans and later died of his lung injuries in the 1930s. I love them. Lest we forget.

[@ignarskjolvjentski7809]

If Germany would have had one effective ally it would likely have been a different story.

[@lennykoh3102]

Yeah and no anime for me in the process

[@ToniGromann]

Lenin helped a lot

[@fristnamelastname5549]

Maybe the U.S.?

[@ragingsage3973]

Bulgaria was effective but small

[@andersonklein3587]

From your own narrative, it really sounds like without unrestricted submarine warfare they could have won the war. They could also have focused on Italy instead of the western front, then have settled on a white-peace or incited revolution in Italy after a successful Capareto 2.0 and then they could invade France from the south. Else, it's debatable, but not having the Americans hold a significant amount of the front with fresh troops during 1918 could have led to the fall of Amiens, and that would have changed the whole outlook of the operation. If they could have caused just a bit more chaos, just a bit larger of a breakthrough, specially without the Americans, there is a good chance the British would have prepared a 1918s version of Dynamo. And the French would also quickly be in a really bad position if Italy left the war and Germany had another front to attack from... Overall though, the odds were stacked against Germany from the start. Their alliance had less industry, less resources, less manpower, less land, less navy... It was impressive they got as far as they did, really.

[@degenerate3288]

is that a Rail map of europe?

[@Eastory]

It is my WW2 base map (compiled from the staff maps of the time) with WW1 rail network added onto it.

[@degenerate3288]

@@Eastory Oh got it

[@codysodyssey3818]

Eastory that is a pretty sexy map. I’d love to have that on my wall

[@vincentvr16]

Austria Hungary: Dad..! Germany: Yea? Austria Hungary: Serbia being annoying can you come invade stuff for m.. I mean.. Help me invade stuff? Germany: hmm ok Germany: .

[@gonk534]

But Austria-Hungary was older than Germany. Germany only formed in 1871.

[@aaronleallopez8253]

austria should be dad

[@gabriellesniewski452]

@@aaronleallopez8253 hre or roman empire of German nation is First Reich So Germany is father of Austria

[@gabriellesniewski452]

@@aaronleallopez8253 German Kingdom included Austria

[@ильямельников-з3ф]

Russia: okey guys were in game. few moments later: conection lost...

[@ArnoLamme]

A strategy that could have worked for Germany is to reverse their initial plan: Russia first, France second; no war with Belgium. No Belgian invasion would mean that the western front would only be about a third of its size, which would be much easier to maintain, as well as the possibility of no British entering the war. Going on an all-out offensive against the Russians would still mean a long war, but with much better odds IMO. Of course, this is with hindsight information as none of the warring powers knew what tactics this new kind of 'modern war' would entail.

[@undergroundman5153]

The Problem would be the British would’ve come to the aid of the rest of the Entente sooner or later. Since Germany was seen as the threat to their Naval and Global Hegemony. Moving thru Belgium resulted in the fight taking place away from Germany. The French didn’t anticipate a move thru Belgium. They just expected a repeat of the Franco Prussian War or just a stalemate among the border. Also an all out offensive against a combative Russia hasn’t exactly proved to be an effective strategy throughout history.

[@jeangenie9597]

Impossible due to the fact that Schlieffen-Molkte was the only mobilization plan and there wasn’t enough railway infrastructures in eastern prussia to alloy a massive deployment. Kaiser Whilhem asked his generals to do this during the july crisis but was answered that it was too late to stop the mobilization and and that in any case there was nothing planned for a mobilization in the east.

[@Simon_kristensen]

as a hoi4 player i think Germany could've either given Alsace-Lorraine to Switzerland or just build trenches on the franco border and concentrate all of it's forces to the east

[@counterfeit1148]

I think Switzerland wouldn't have accepted it or given it to France

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

Yeah, Germany should've focused on going east, there's more territory and less developed nations, they might've been able to get away with it.

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

​@@pedrofelipefreitas2666I think the problem would have been that the pure size of Russia would be enough to force them to need so many troops that it would leave the western front very vulnerable, and I think there also was still the fear that they didn't know how far they would have to push the Russians to get them on the negotiating table, like they didn't really know if pushing till Moscow would be enough or if they would have to cross into Siberia, which would make it a risky gamble

[@DerSingh0329]

As expected, according to me before watching the video... In order to win any war We should keep our supplies secure and clear first, then money and finally build a Good army and make these factors your strength, and Weakness of your enemy After watching... Same as above

[@coolawesomeepicman4513]

Honestly a great strategy to win WW1 would include giving Alsace back to France, France would have little or even any reason to declare war on Germany, that would allow no invasion of Belgium, meaning no UK, and a simple and quick war with Russia which they could score massive territories, idk how much the entire war would be effected by a lack of France, but it would mean less of a WW1 and more of a "Russo-German'' war

[@leonpaelinck]

But Germany assumed that France was obligated to help Russia. Also everybody was keen on fighting, even if Germany somehow does this, France wouldnt accept it

[@mrcheesecracker2258]

Maybe, but want about how Russia was in the Entente. I know your point about Alsace, but I think maybe France would help their friends?

[@coolawesomeepicman4513]

@@mrcheesecracker2258 The Entente was an alliance based off friends with common enemies. It was also mutual as in someone had to instigate a war for it to go into effect, The central powers was the same, look at Italy who had managed to avoid being called in because the war was offensive. Mind you I don't think there would even be an Entente. Russia also would have both germany, and probably Britian as major enemies, which in turn could've created the most powerful alliance on planet earth. An Entente without france is impossible, unless france is called into the war by outside forces

[@mrcheesecracker2258]

@@coolawesomeepicman4513 okay thanks

[@TheTanveerGaming]

france and russia were allied

[@pizzadepasta802]

Germany using the same plan in WW2 Germany: *sometimes my genius scares me*

[@SCP-vd4yq]

Germany: Hey America I’d like to make a proposition. If you join us in the war effort we’ll give you some oil if you help us defeat Britain and France. America: Did I just hear OIL? OwO Count me in!

[@ericpeterson6568]

The real reason Wilson brought the USA into the war was the liklihood that Britain and France would loose. They owed the USA Billions and Wilson was afraid that if they lost they would not pay the USA back.

[@theprussian8102]

@@ericpeterson6568 Britain wasnt going to lose this war anyway. They had much more Men, tanks, resources and ships than Germany.

[@ericpeterson6568]

XGames EditionzX and they had incompetent Generals and Admirals to waste those resources. The Germans had an empire too. Just look how they befuddled Britain in Africa. And they were nearly starved to death by U-boats.

[@SCP-vd4yq]

XGames EditionzX the reason why Britain was still on its feet was because Britain kept getting goods from America.

[@kady5991]

Grabgrub73 Do you have a source is that just anti-Semitic drivel coming out of your mouth? Do you not realize that American bankers weren’t Jewish...? Chase, Morgan, etc. weren’t Jewish. In part, the US was inclined to enter the war on the side of the Entente because we lent the most money to them and you can’t pay back loans if you’re on the losing side of a war.

[@parryplaguedoc]

I have a strategy, 1. Build up a line of defense on the French border like what France did (Purposely barely place defense on the Belgium border) 2. Attack Russia slightly. 3. Once France starts moving, they choose between going through Belgium or going directly through Germany 4. If through Belgium, then the British will join the central powers. If through Germany, get the help of Italians and Austrians. 5. Protect eastern German border from Russia until France is heavily weakened or quits the war. 6.Recruit troops from the western front to the east and defend (Taking some land) I think this plan could work as being on the defensive side is a lot easier than being in the offensive side.

[@javierlira7333]

CleanerUpper yes but this doesn’t follow the balance of power Britain joined with France cause of Belgium and cause Germany was getting too powerful and would take over all of Europe

[@therevanchist9986]

@@javierlira7333 And thats what hes saying. The new fort line wouldve made England join Germany cause France wouldve most likely had to go through Belgium.

[@therevanchist9986]

Then again. Germans didnt want to be defenders.

[@benu2782]

The problem is, that Germany didnt really expect war and as soon as the war has started, they had to act fast, they would have had no time to follow that strategy, but if you consider Germany planning to start the war from begin on, I might agree

[@jamestang1227]

There is no real reason for France to attack Germany at this point considering France has less divisions in the West.

[@pbryan1967]

Germany’s mistake was in going “all in” on the Von Schlieffen plan to defeat France quickly in 1914. They should have realized that violating Belgian Neutrality would bring the weight of the British Empire against them. A better strategy would have been to fight a defensive war with France on a short Alsace Lorraine frontier where the mountains and valleys are to the defenders advantage. Then with plenty of German divisions available they could have quickly defeated Russia in the east and WW1 would be over in 1915.

[@eduardoalves5060]

France would never attack there, foi can see this in ww2 when germany was invanding poland and the western front was quiet

[@pbryan1967]

Kakashi completely different strategic circumstances. In 1914 France had a firm alliance with Tsarist Russia and Frances entire strategy rested on being able to draw Germany into a “two front” war. So if Germany didn’t attack France, the French generals would have insisted on opening an offensive against Germany. In fact it’s a matter of historical record that such plans existed and the German High Command even knew about them. Further, it was a matter of immense national pride for the French to reclaim the Alsace Lorraine province that was taken from them in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. By contrast, in 1939 France had NO alliance with Stalins USSR. In fact by 1940, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were “quasi-allies” and dividing up territory between them in the east. By that time the French strategy was one of complete defense behind the Maginot line. In the famous books “Guns of August” the author describes how the notion of “defensive strategy” was completely alien to the old guard Prussian officer class. The Prussian military had always won by aggressive manouver and offensive campaigns. It’s THAT kind of dangerous group think that made them blind to the obvious risk of the Von Schlieffen plan and overlook the smarter strategy of defense in depth on their easily defended western border.

[@Bimskuuy]

They are ran out of logistics. It was like do or die time

[@pbryan1967]

Bima Santoso what are you talking about? We are discussing German strategy at the BEGINNING of the war. And FYI Imperial Germany didn’t lose the war because they “ran out of logistics”. The two resources that WWI armies needed for logistics were coal (of which Germany had plenty) and horses (again, no problem). The resource constraint which DID doom the German war effort was food, but that was much later.

[@pbryan1967]

"This would threaten British naval supremacy which was unacceptable" That's the armchair historian view of British involvement in WW1 and has no basis either in historical record or in logic. First, Cabinet memos from 1914 clearly document that the Asquith government didn't believe there was sufficient support among the voters, among the House of Commons or even among the Cabinet for joining France in an offensive war against the Central Powers. The only circumstances that would tip the decision in favor of joining the war would be if France and/or Belgium and by extension the channel ports were under direct threat. British foreign policy since Napoleon had been one of "splendid isolation". The UK sought to maintain a balance of Great Power interests on the continent through diplomacy. To the extent that Britain ever decided on a military action it was always on the PERIPHERY of Europe (like in Crimea) or in far-flung parts of the Empire where the power and global reach of the Royal Navy could be decisive. Britain's standing army was PUNY by comparison to all the main continental armies. There was NEVER any serious suggestion of changing British "modus operandi" in world politics. The biggest agenda item for the British cabinet in July 1914 was NOT Germany but in fact IRELAND. The sectarian situation in Ireland was coming to a boil and Prime Minister Asquith was concerned first and foremost with suppressing a potential civil war on the island. So to suggest that the British PM would simultaneously be interested in an unnecessary commitment of TOTAL WAR against the massive military capability of the Central Powers is ludicrous. There is also the question of public opinion in the USA which was very much divided in 1914 about involvement in European conflict or even which side to support. If Britain was to become an "aggressor" nation, they would have to kiss goodbye to any promise of American diplomatic, economic or military support in the venture. Finally, it's obvious that the expansion of Germany's so called "High Seas Fleet" was a source of annoyance for British leaders, but so what? After all, in the event of Britain declaring war there is no guarantee that Germany would commit her fleet to a decisive naval battle where the German ships could be eliminated at sea. In reality, that's exactly what DID happen in WW1. Apart from the single inconclusive Battle of Jutland, the German Fleet stayed safely in harbor for the duration of the conflict. So if "removing Germany's naval potential" is the goal, the ONLY way of achieving that is to commit potentially limitless men, money and materials to force the ENTIRE Central Powers (potentially including Italy!) into something close to unconditional surrender. No British PM in his right mind would take that bet. If Germany had stayed on a defensive posture on their western borders, France would have fought the Imperial Reich ALONE in 1914 on a small western front and would have failed very badly. The Germans/AH Empire would have won a relatively easy victory in the East against the Tsar and probably absorbed Serbia into their sphere. WW1 would have been finished in 1915.

[@LT_Cobra270]

I love this video chances are that I have watched it at least 10 times

[@polilla318]

I think had germany attacked Russia before france, they would’ve had the short war they planned for... The russians lacked the ability to defend their land early on and the french lacked the ability break the german defenses on the border, this would also likely prevent britain from joining the war (at least at first) thus limiting the offensive potential of the entente and opening up the possibility for germany to use their navy more effectively. I think it’s likely they defeat russia as early as 1914, then they can undertake a schleiffen plan like op where they go through belgium but with all of their forces, including Austria’s, this way overwhealming french forces.

[@leonpaelinck]

It would still be a long war. But at least no trenches on the western front

[@Rob774]

Well... surely they learned that lesson in WWI, and won't make that same mistake again. Oh...that's right.

[@hanselaureliustirto5869]

Not true Russia managed to mobilized faster

[@liammoy5911]

The original schlieffen plan was altered I believe, it originally had double the amount of divisions to invade through Belgium but was later altered and half of them divisions went to the eastern front. If the schlieffen plan never changed the Germans may have been able to occupy Paris before the French and BEF dug in. Also Britain only got involved due to Germany attacking Belgium due to a treaty between Belgium and Britain, possibly not invading Belgium would've kept Britain out of the war as well. Just my thoughts im loving your videos :)

[@Exodon2020]

But then the Bulk of the German Forces had to overcome French Defensive Lines along the Franco-German Border. Something the Germans had to avoid in order to secure a swift victory and being able to shift their attention to the East.

[@michealflaithbheartaigh4139]

Britain would have just unfortunately found another excuse somewhere along the lone to get involved.

[@liammoy5911]

@@michealflaithbheartaigh4139 I agree

[@Quickshot0]

At the time it's unlikely France would have surrendered if Paris falls, so just taking Paris would not have been enough to knock the French out. Just like in WW2, they'd have to be pushed back substantially more yet. That's probably more time then you can afford to leave the Eastern Front unmanned, especially as it turned out the Russians mobilized far far faster then expected.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

Not invading Belgium would mean Germany has to attack the strong line of French forts along the German-French border, meaning Germany would suffer catastrophic casualties and France might win an attritional war.

[@bthanbeethan5590]

Thanks so much for this episode, this might sound crazy but could the German Navy launch an all out attack with battleships and submarines on the British blockade since they were in an in winnable situation due to supplies so wouldn’t that be their only hope

[@BelleDividends]

The German navy had perhaps 30-40% chance of succes against the British Navy, but still high enough to actually attempt it. They had a few goes but rapidly backed down out of fear of losing their entire navy. Quite funny if you know the German November Revolution of 1918 started with sailors mutineering because the Navy suddenly wanted to sally out. When the war was already lost.

[@bthanbeethan5590]

FallenByTheHand I also found that weird why they didn’t take the risk

[@Jan-rq8mo]

Why? Cause battleships back then were really fucking expensive. So yeah noone wanted to risk anything. Even the british only used their best ships once

[@bthanbeethan5590]

Jan yeah good point the Germans must have realised that they can loss the war but not the their battleships, that was really smart of them and now that I think of it the costs of battleships must have been the reason for them to scuttle their entire fleet

[@Hanes2307]

Yeah but just like Chess sometimes it's better to kill the opponent's queen and have your queen die than let your opponent intimidate you and both of you keeping your queen, and it also surprises your opponent so maybe it could have been a good idea as well.

[@conquer6347]

We need more of these videos

[@RyanBennison]

I already knew everything you said in this video but I still watched it

[@robberbarron7602]

We might of lost this war but we’ll get them next time!

[@jolez_4869]

Third time's the charm then....

[@Rainaman-]

EU!

[@urmo345]

Youp, reinis, what artillery does not do, banks, open borders and trade agreements will do. "Refugees" will deliver coup de grace

[@anythinggbutthat]

Oy vey

[@mightymagnus]

I see two things they could do differently: 1. Germany (and the Kaiser) could have told Austria-Hungary that they would be on its own if they declared war (causing a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia with Russia). 2. Germany could have put up defensive positions on the German border to France to avoid UK and USA to join the war. After years of stalemate they would maybe defeated Russia and made peace with France without any loss in the west but gains in the east.

[@leonpaelinck]

Or just Force AH to do everything necessary to keep Italy as an ally

[@abdulrazaqibrahim950]

In WW1 Germany and its allies in Europe were victorious militarily, but lost politically