Pershing Lecture Series: The Ludendorff Offensives - Scott Stephenson

[@thechatteringmagpie]

Outstanding. The way the presenter delivered this lecture from 'inside the mind' of the army commander, was genius.

[@johnmacdonald1878]

Very interesting, Particularly how he describes the German view. My Grandfather, His Brother and His cousin were on the front line on 21 March 1918.all reported as KIA when their company was overrun and wiped out, His brother, dies of wounds on the 26 in a lies Corner of a German War cemetery, in Le Cateau beside other British casualties of the first British and German encounters in 1914. A strange coincidence. My Grandfather was left for dead, by the German guards on a POW train, he was found still alive by a Belgian doctor out walking his dog after the train moved on. The Doctor and his family tended his wounds and hid him until the armistice. He was one of the very few MIA or KIA to return from the dead.

[@Aubury]

Behind all this, there is the slow strangulation of the blockage. A good lecture methought..

[@stacyhamilton2619]

Methought. Real cool, Fonzie.

[@amerigo88]

I see many parallels between the Ludendorff Offensives of Spring 1918 and the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-45. Move troops from Eastern Front, element of surprise, attempt to split key Western Allies, followed by German exhaustion, the Hundred Days, and the war's end. I also see parallels between the conduct of the American Army in 1917-18 with the Free French Army in 1944-45. Pershing and DeGaulle were determined to retain control over their nation's forces and seek its political goals in the end. Both generals were a thorn in the side of the two larger powers on each Western Front, UK-FR in WW1 and US-UK in WW2. Here is a What If? Germany decides victory in Eastern Europe and Russia is good enough. They withdraw all armies from the Western Front to Germany, retaining perhaps Alsace-Lorraine. How much stomach would President Wilson have had for getting American boys killed to try and redraw Europe's boundaries following this German fait accompli?

[@nebojsag.5871]

Ludendorff was the operational equivalent of Rommels tactical genius. Both were completely strategically illiterate and needed to be controlled by more broadly well-informed officers. He was a fearsome and genius attack dog, but he needed to be kept on a tight leash.

[@johnnydavis5896]

Ludendorff was operationally incoherent. And no, Rommel was not strategically illiterate - he was hindered by a German high command that needed to be more strategically literate.

[@rhysnichols8608]

Calling either of these men ‘strategically illiterate’ is a ridiculous, arrogant and simply wrong statement. They were certainly not brilliant on the strategic scale but come on,

[@randyschaff8939]

The Germans did one smart thing. They bypassed the Canadian Corp.

[@1969cmp]

....only to come face to face with Monash's Australian Corps 🤔

[@jthunders]

They knew they would be called hosers by the great white north

[@bruceismay5440]

Just finished watching a bunch of shawns lectures so it caught me of guard seeing him stand up

[@Key_highway]

Why is that?

[@anthonybicos602]

Wonderful, interesting approach & delivery…

[@Mikel-rs3ji]

Q & A: loved the what if questions answered. Visual Aids: the bulk defensive, equal parts cannon fodder and killer.

[@thomasjamison2050]

Truth be told, the war was won on the german home front, where the British blockade was starting to cause mass starvation. After the Armistice, the British maintained the blockade during the Versailles conventions, and a half million Germans starved to death. Germany could not maintain the war under those circumstances any longer, provided that the French and the British could still hang in on the Western Front, American Army in France or not,

[@augnkn93043]

it was the symultaneous collapse of the German army, German navy and the German home front.

[@rosesprog1722]

That blockade was illegal, a crime against humanity therefore... kzbin.info/www/bejne/paGUlIukeN-hg9E&ab_channel=HistoryTold

[@edsteadham4085]

And the invasion of Belgium?

[@gregnew1]

Agreed, the battle of Jutland was so decisive in the outcome of the war. The continuation of the blockade was key to victory. It took a long time though!

[@gregnew1]

@@rosesprog1722 Illegal and a crime against humanity? Go on, I'll bite. How do you work that out?

[@andzzz2]

He also had untreated Graves' disease during 1918. The symptoms, including anxiety, irritability, lack of sleep and fatigue, would have been especially bad in the summer.

[@its_jawsh6145]

Lecture starts at 6:00

[@brownmold]

The Central Powers were collapsing, even before their armies were defeated in the field. Starvation at home was not pleasant. The arrival of the Americans just made it painfully obvious, which way the war was going, to even the most obtuse.

[@martinjohnson5498]

The story doesn’t end in 1919. He became the leader of the stab in the back thesis, a vicious anti-Semite, and marched next to Hitler at the Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923.

[@filipeamaral216]

Ludendorff said in his memoirs "The Entente victory of 1918 is the triumph of French trucks over the German railway." The French also had the Renault FT tanks and more combined arms units than the Germans. It is no surprise they managed to plug the gaps. Great presentation but I do not recall the Portuguese Expeditionary Force being mentioned and I have difficulty hearing Lt. Colonel Faukner speaking (can we get subtitles?). We also need the list of sources used in the research. Thanks!

[@kentamitchell]

The PEF is mentioned at 25:00

[@Dilley_G45]

14:50...."Feuerwalze" means not Waltz as in the dance...."Walze" is the name for a roller, in this case referring to a roller used in roadworks. Feuerwalze means being rolled over by fire....a combination of hurricane bombardment and rolling barrage so to speak. Massive saturation bombardment within a short time....til your guns burst

[@tommaraist8052]

Her intro is textbook….perfect

[@grahamking2239]

I wish it was still called the GREAT WAR

[@ericcook7622]

Unfortunately, an even greater war followed just 20 years later.

[@liquidvisual]

blather ends and lecture starts at 4"48

[@clockmonkey]

I struggle with Jazz particularly when in a sour mood.

[@henrytheinnocentviii7871]

It is made for sour moods.

[@mikewatkinson1996]

I hear that

[@johnnydavis5896]

You have to operational goals. The goal should have been to seize Amiens then use the Somme to shield the left flank but keep the offensive focused above and race for the channel and then roll up the British. The Germans got into the looting because they had no set goals and timelines to keep the Army focused.

[@johnnydavis5896]

Ludendorff had absolutely no sense of the center of gravity - in fact, he had a total blindness to it.

[@Normie...]

starts 0:50

[@LiamE69]

More like 5:10

[@andrewescocia2707]

thank you

[@Cotswolds1913]

Weren't the British also holding like 600,000 men in England to dissuade Haig from launching more offensives? At least I know this was the case at the beginning of 1918.

[@alganhar1]

Lloyd George did indeed do that, I hear quotes of anything between half a million and a million men. It was done primarily because Lloyd George loathed Haig, and he was a vindictive little man at the best of times. Did not help that he was a major proponant of the Other Theatre view, in which they were desperately seeking to find a 'new' decisive Front to open up in order to return to mobile warfare, never once realising that should a new front be opened up it would just bog down into the same kind of entrenched stalemate. As a result they weakened Haig and the Western Front as much as they dared while seeking their mythical new decisive Front.

[@acosorimaxconto5610]

The brits held troops in the uk in case of "trouble" in Ireland, which -- not Germany -- was their main concern pre-WW1.

[@alganhar1]

@@acosorimaxconto5610 You do not, and did not require half a million men (at minimum) to deal with Ireland. During the Irish Uprising in 1916 Britain only deployed 16,000 troops... 16,000. More to the point, in 1914 the Home Rule Act was voted into law, this was to give Ireland full Home Rule. The problem is that three weeks later the War started, so actually enacting Home Rule was delayed due to the onset of war. This obviously caused problems, in fairness to the British Government they did not expect the war to go on for so long in 1914, but had they enacted Home Rule in 1914 or 1915 the Easter Uprising probably would never have taken place. Even so, the actual number of troops that were committed to Ireland does not match your statement, neither does the fact that Britain was locked into a Naval Arms race with Germany pre WWI. Had WWI begun a year later, Ireland would not longer have been an issue, and while Ireland *was* an issue pre war, germany was conceived as the far greater threat even before the turn of the Century.....

[@Cotswolds1913]

I found recently the British transferred most of these troops during the Spring and summer months, to stop the German offensives. Something like 150,000 remained in England by July/August.

[@wuffothewonderdog]

@@alganhar1 Lloyd George was part of the 1914 government that instructed the BEF commander to 'co-operate with' (i.e. obey) the French C-in-C, and he was the Prime Minister who insisted that Haig fall in with Nivelle's 1917 disastrous plan, leading to the Battle of Arras, which had the highest British death toll. per day of the entire war.

[@randyschaff8939]

Conscripting training equipping supplying planning the attack maintaining control over the troops. FEEDING EVERYBODY! What to do with pows.

[@johnnydavis5896]

August von Mackensen should have lead the offensive!

[@brandonlewis2599]

"Steady! Steady..."

[@lupolucio4378]

@chinacat Buongiorno, scusi se le scrivo via commento (sono stati dismessi i messaggi in chat) ma volevo chiederle dei consigli e delle informazioni sulla storia militare. È che non so come contattarla altrimenti

[@raymondhorvath2406]

They didn't buy pass the Australians and with general sir john Monash and regret it. Monash devised the first plan to use tanks,planes, troops and artillery in a combination at Ameins were the Germans were routed.

[@rosesprog1722]

That's true but Haig would not give him his chance till the very end. Later, what Monash created came to be known as 'Blitzkrieg'.

[@PxThucydides]

The vid implies that Ludendorff's last act in history was his association with Hitler. That's not quite true. He did participate in Hitler's "Beer Hall Putsch", in 1923; but there was a letter he wrote to Hindenberg in 1933 that should be regarded as his last word. Hindenberg was on the point of naming Hitler Chancellor of Germany, and Lundendorff wrote a blistering, paint-peeling message to Hindenberg begging him to call it off. He said, "history will not forgive you if you make this man Chancellor." So in the end, Ludendorff forsaw what was about to happen, and based on his experience with Hitler, predicted disaster. And of course, his pleas went for nothing, and the disaster he forsaw came to pass.

[@1969cmp]

23:50 stinging comment.

[@rosesprog1722]

But then a hidden killer finished us off... kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2icfJpvqtKlf9k

[@brian47k]

By 1917 the French army was no longer capable of major offensives against the Germans , 2. by 1918 the British army was worn out after 2 years of failed offensives to break the Germans, 3. without American involvement in the War , the British and French would have to have made peace with Germany !

[@tbeller80]

Not necessarily. There were mutinies across the French Army in late 1917; however, the German nation was on the brink of starvation. Even cancelling the German offensives and reinforcing defenses instead would have eventually led to some flavor of defeat with the Americans showing up fresh and in massive numbers. The allied offensives would have been far bloodier, but there would have still been mutiny and revolution in the German rear.

[@MrShaneVicious]

Not really. The US wasn't really wasn't all that effective in the field. I think the value of the US had more to do with moral

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Complete rubbish. The British had about 500,000 troops held back in Britain at that point alone. Never mind forces from around the empire.

[@tonyromano6220]

brian47k maybe, but not likely.

[@owenjones7517]

I like how you're listing those off as if they're solid fact, when they're all demonstrably false