Ignorant American reacts to WW1 - Oversimplified (Part 2)

[@AnickaSR]

Yes, quite a lot of Americans like to claim they won the world war (both WWI and WWII) while ignoring the fact that they spent 3 years watching how Europeans are slaughtering each other, benefiting from the fact that there hasn't been a war on their continent for many decades - so obviously the economy was stronger - and joined both wars only when someone pissed them off - Lusitania or Pearl Harbor. Not mentioning that, of course, it was allied victory, not a victory of just one country who came into the game way too late.

[@vanyadolly]

Even after Lusitania they didn't join in for ages, and once they were officially in the war, it took even longer to send any significant amount of troops over. I'm sure the reason WWI is so overlooked in popular culture is exactly because the US was barely in it. It's harder to sell to an American audience.

[@Lafly84]

So you're pissed off because we didn't join in your imperial chest beating for three years and then were welcomed only because of the manpower we brought...? Was Franz Ferdinand and all of the political posturing afterward worth the end result?

[@marycarver1542]

Is this why America only entered WW2, leaving the U K and its allies to fight alone for 5 years ! Even then it was only because they were attacked at Pearl Harbour by the Japanese themselves !

[@Sharon-bo2se]

The Lusitania was 1915, the US sat on its thumbs until 1917.

[@scipioafricanus5871]

@@vanyadolly Spending four years in trenches that barely moves isn't helping either selling WWI.

[@V0r4xiz]

10:20 "I wonder how we got into the position of selling everyone arms. Do we just make good weapons?" Sure Ryan. That and the fact that you were (are) literally on your own damn continent, virtually inconquerable and uninvadable, bordered between two allies and sit on a gigantic mass of fertile land and resource rich mountains that allowed you to mass produce food and weapons that could feed and arm the planet twice over. Meanwhile the other participants of WWI (and II) sat literally within spitting distance of 12 political rivals and potential enemies.

[@insu_na]

To be fair, republican presidential candidates in the US are literally advocating for invading Mexico right now, so I wouldn't really call the US a good ally to Mexico

[@SatieSatie]

I mean, the Europeans _did_ manage to invade the shit out of the continent, now known as "the US". 😂 But the times were different then.

[@justeunfan3364]

And their weapons are so good they managed to loose against farmers and tribe guys in every single war fought since... American weapons at the time were average, and bellow average in a lot of fields. Now they are overprices gadets unusable in a real war.

[@GGysar]

@@justeunfan3364 Now we Germans sell our weapons to the Americans, who in turn wreak havoc all across the world. How the turn tables.

[@V0r4xiz]

@@SatieSatie obviously talking about post-independence times.

[@grapeman63]

It could be argued that the US's greatest contribution to WW1 was the Spanish flu. There had been a small outbreak in the Eastern US and this was brought to Europe by the American troops. The virus found the dirty, cramped, insanitary conditions of the trenches much to its liking. It quickly mutated and spread like wildfire through both the Allied and Axis trench systems.

[@terryhunt2659]

And the reason it became called "Spanish Flu" is that Spain was neutral and openly reported the epidemic in their country, while the combatant nations tried to keep it secret so as not to demoralise their own troops and civilians, and encourage their enemies, so it _appeared_ that the epidemic started in Spain.

[@grapeman63]

@@terryhunt2659 Ironically, the Spanish press called the epidemic "French flu". Correctly, pinpointing the source of the epidemic in Spain as their northern neighbour, but not digging deep enough to uncover the real source of the virus - the USA.

[@theinvisibleneonrainbowzeb2567]

@@terryhunt2659 I had previously read that the Spanish Flu wasn't actually believed to have started in Spain, only as you said, they openly reported it etc. I didn't know about the outbreak in the US though, I thought it was thought to have originated in the Netherlands but I've no idea where or when I got that particular notion tbh!

[@joelhawcroft-standell6738]

They aren't called the axis in ww1 its called Central powers

[@grapeman63]

@@joelhawcroft-standell6738 Oops. You're, of course, right. My bad.

[@speleokeir]

THINGS TO BE AWARE OF: 1) Germany only came into being in 1871. Previously it had been a bunch of tiny states that were 'unified' by the Bismark, the leader of Prussia (a state in Eastern Germany). This meant Germany was playing catch up with the other European powers and were eager to get a seat at the table. e.g. gaining colonies and therefore resources, building up a modern army and navy, etc. 2) Royalty could usually only marry other Royals, so many European leaders were related. The Kings of England, Germany and the Russian Tsar were all cousins. When they met up at family gatherings the other kings could boast about their empires and the size of the armies and navies. The Kaiser wanted some of that too. 3) The German Navy: For a long time Britain ruled the waves. They then invented the Dreadnought. A modern battleship that blew anything else afloat out of the water (literally). Whilst initially this gave Britain even more of an advantage, Germany realised that if they started building dreadnoughts too then they could quickly catch up with the other powers and perhaps even Britain. Suddenly from having one of the weakest navies they had a modern one second only to Britain's. However this also made them a major threat to the other powers. RULES OF WARFARE: The idea is that if you commit atrocities then the other side will do the same to you, So everybody loses. If lots of nations agree to a set of rules and one nation later breaks them, they're liable to find everyone else turns against them. So it makes sense to stick to the rules. At least that's the theory. For the most part this works up to a point. However there are always those people who will push the boundaries and see what they can get away with. And if you're losing a war and feel you have nothing to lose... Rules of warfare also depend on everyone being fairly rational and being able to see the disadvantages of breaking outweigh any positives. If however a nation is ruled by an unstable madman then you have to hope his advisors can reign him in.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

England doesn't have a King, Britain does. There hasn't been a King of England since before the 'Act of the Union' 1707 and even then the last one was Queen Elizabeth 1st.

[@Notmyname1593]

Technically the dreadnaught was invented by an italian. But Italy didn`t have the money so Britain was the first to build them.

[@wessexdruid7598]

Hmm. Like Putin, you mean?

[@Notmyname1593]

No. Unlike Bismark, who was something like a visionary, Putin is more like a sour romaboo who doesn`t want to accept, that his favourite empire has expired.@@wessexdruid7598

[@Oxley016]

technically Britain is just an island and not a country or kingdom. The UK has a King.@@Thurgosh_OG

[@nolasyeila6261]

Australians and New Zealanders (ANZAC) fought with the Allies in Europe and Africa and Middle East in WWI. 6,800 deaths in the battle of the Somme alone. Over 8,000 deaths at Gallipoli (Turkey). They seem to be missing our flags here!

[@utha2665]

They had the flags in Gallipoli, just not in France. I think maybe because they were under British command in France up until 1918? Not sure why, could have just been an oversight as well.

[@iancremmins4727]

@@utha2665 Canon fodder dont get a flag

[@utha2665]

@@iancremmins4727 Well, it wouldn't surprise me, the British Generals treated all their troops as cannon fodder.

[@Albanach-je1nk]

What are you taught in the USA? Anything at outside the USA? To blunt the more I find out about the USA the less I understand.

[@stefanomartello3786]

The italian front is also usually immensely undervalued. We lost men in numbers that can be compared to Britain, even if we joined a year later, and our contribute is considered by many historians the one that really tipped the balance in favour of the Entente and could have meant also the decisive victory of the Central Powers if Italy joined them. In this video there was only one single line about us and we were given the same importance as Japan. Really? And not even a single line on ANZAC troops who died in thousands in France and Turkey? I'm extremely disappointed...

[@pipercharms7374]

I feel like you can see why we tend to get very annoyed when some Americans like to say you wouldn’t have won without us, that I think is true or could be true in WW2 but definitely not in WW1

[@ertzler]

They definitely shortened the war, what means less dead soldiers

[@elemar5]

*fewer. :)@@ertzler

[@fusssel7178]

even in WW2 the allies would have won against germany without direct involvment of the US. Completely without US support in goods, it would be another thing. But without US troops germany was already collapsing on the east.

[@albinjohnsson2511]

Yeah, I think it's the main character syndrome that's so irritating. Many Americans seem to think that the WORLD wars were all about them, which is so far from the truth.

[@Azachiel]

Eh, in WWII the US was again Johnny-Come-Lately. 80% of all German losses were suffered on the Eastern front. So really, it was the Russians that did the heavy lifting, and the US basically dealt with what forces were left. Not that the US wasn't helpful, but ultimately the Russians would have overrolled Germany anyways, it would have just taken longer. And if Hitler hadn't been such an anglophile, the US would have had an even harder time, as Britain would have been conquered and thus deprived of any forward base to gather their troops. Deploying soldiers from the US if all you have between your home-country and enemy ground is the Atlantic and your own ships? Much more difficult than gathering them in the UK, organizing everything, and then deploying to the European mainland from there.

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

In talking about 'Britain' in WW1 and WW2, that includes the Empire. Of course, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and all the members of the British Empire were heavily involved in both wars!!! Their part in those wars was huge, and awesome, and we should never forget their bravery.

[@Evasion381]

One thing I learnt recently was that after the first few weeks of heavy fighting the British line only held because of the fresh Indian troops coming in, you hear a lot about Canadian, new Zealand and Australian brave volunteers but less so about the rest of the empire

[@micheleedwin4004]

Don’t forget the Gurkhas, the most fearsome troops in the world. I am glad they are on our side.

[@Abyss_Watcher1]

Canada did more in ww1 than the U.S. yet we hardly ever hear about them (in general history there).

[@HenriHattar]

The MOST aamzing stat about ww2 is probably that India had the largest volunteer army in the world of about 2.5 million ALL volunteers...amazing.

[@AIHumanEquality]

It wasn't an Empire at this point, it was the Commonwealth. They still held some colonies in Africa but Canada and Australia were independent nations.

[@evanortmann3306]

Are you also doing WW2? Thats similiar interisting the way oversimplified explains it ;)

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Yep! Over simplified, is certainly the most benevolent description that an extremely gracious God, in a particularly good mood on a late spring day with bright sunshine and 24 degrees Celsius, with a delicious drink in hand in the hammock, would come up with...

[@RustyDust101]

Like it said in the title of the original videos: it is extremely oversimplified. For example, Germany shuttled out Lenin, a staunch Marxist, from Switzerland through Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland to Russia in a sealed train. He was supposed to support the revolution in Tsarist Russia. That was thought to lead to the collapse of all controls as well as the economy in Russia, taking it out of the war for good. It kinda did... until it didn't. That's just one thing that got glossed over. One of the consequences of Germany (and the rest of the central powers) surrendering when they did was that not one allied soldier had set foot on core German territory yet. It was only Alsace-Lorraine that was occupied by the allies. While I do agree that Germany was the greatest enabler of the war, it was NOT the originator of the war. In fact, it was only the third, or even fourth participant of the war by the time line. First Austria-Hungary declared on Serbia. Serbia calls on Russia. Rusdia declares war on Austria-Hungary. This triggers the allied Germany into declaring war on Russia for declaring war on Austria-Hungary for declaring war on Serbia. A whole lot of dominos had been set up, and tumbled down in succession. Why reiterate that? Because at the time the German public saw themselves as the maligned victims. Being treated unfairly is difficult to differentiate from only feeling being treated unfairly when you don't have historical hindsight. Being rightfully accused of enabling the whole dominos to fall is even harder to swallow when you've just lost a war with no enemy soldier on your territory. So theories (conspiracy and otherwise) came up in Germany that its war efforts must have been sabotaged by internal forces, and that the surrender conditions as well as the reparations in them must have been artificially inflated beyond all measure to make someone/ some group very rich. In addition to that all colonial territories were casually given to any of the victors, or liberated. On top of that Germany lost loads of its core territories in Europe as well. These were given to create a new Poland that was actually located further west than traditional Polish territories AT THAT TIME (!). Just so Russia/the new Soviet Union didn't have to relinquish too much of it's recently conquered territories. That split Danzig and Prussia from the rest of Germany to allow Poland a wide corridor to the Baltic Sea so it could trade with the rest of the world. On top of that Germany was forced to rescind monarchy and become a democracy. A country that had barely been able to pull and hold itsself together a mere 50 years ago from over 250 bickering kingdoms, baronies, duchies, and other fiefdoms. Aristocracy was practically banished of their powers over night. This resulted in extremely strong resentment among the disposed aristocrats, the supporting monarchists, the dissenting nationalists who fueled the Dagger in the Back conspiracy, and the strengthened socialists and communists. Throw in a bit of hyperinflation where everybody was a quadrillionaire at least once every day, until they had bought an egg with it, a stock market crash that shook the world economy, an occupation of one of your strongest coal and steel production centers, abd voila, you get the situation in which Nazis arise and get democratically elected into power.

[@RainStartsFalling]

I point at this post! So true and so overlooked. And one of the reasons, allied forces tried their hardest after ww2 not to repeat the mistakes made with the pact of versailles.

[@noadlor]

More than 650,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders served in WWl. More than 66,000 of our service members gave their lives and more than 172,000 were wounded. Their contributions and sacrifices earned Canada a separate signature on the Treaty of Versailles. These wartime efforts helped Canada gain new respect on the international stage as an independent country.

[@stefanomartello3786]

Don't worry mate, Italy lost more men in WWI then the number of all the canadians that fought in it put together at the points that even with a year of war less we had casualties in number comparable to what the British army suffered and we still just got a brief mention alongside Japan in this video... Not always this kind of educational material that pretends to have "historical" value give justice to what actually happened back then.

[@HenriHattar]

8.4% of the Canadian population were service personell in ww1, Australia was 10% The Australian s contributed 10% to the forces fighting in Europe but inflicted 25% of all casualties on the Germans while also accounting for 25% of all the territory won.

[@ajaxtorbin]

One thing about the Lusitania , they found out it WAS carrying munitions and so, was a legit target.

[@loicrose9916]

WW1 is one of the reason we French don't take surrender jokes that well. Around 16% of the French population was killed or severely injured. Out of the 35000 cities, town or villages that exist in France, only twelve cities didn't lost an inhabitant during WW1...

[@Rachel_M_]

I'm British. You know we love you really, otherwise we wouldn't take the piss 😉. I actually have alot of respect for DeGaulle and the Free French who sought refuge here, along with Polish, Hungarians etc. Thanks for pitching in with that little air skirmish we had with Germany in WW2. It is appreciated 👍 ♥

[@semiramisubw4864]

and yet france is literally still an empire, stealing stuff in africa and has colonies even in south america

[@Rachel_M_]

And the French Resistance! What a network that proved to be! Their Contribution is overlooked and grossly undervalued

[@MrOgMonster]

@@Rachel_M_ Speaking the truth, if the British don't like you, there is no joking around. The meaner the jokes, the more we like you. We're an odd bunch.

[@josephguillerey4391]

one of the many reasons, you could also add the hundred year war, the revolutionary wars, or even the napoleonic wars. It takes more than a few defeats to make us surrender. ;)

[@davidfradgley751]

I'm surprised that you're surprised by how "little" America did in the war. The USA didn't enter the war until 1917, the war had already been raging for 3 years,of course the US contribution on the battle field is less. The same is true for ww2, the US didn't enter the war for 3 years. US casualties were 290k Roughly while UK casualties were 385k (soldiers) Soviets lost 9million military.

[@justeunfan3364]

Americans are not good at war, but they are expert in propaganda and soft power. Its amazing how americans can be brainwashed about how their country is the best in every field, saved all other and only bring peace and enlightment to the world. Meanwhile they are exploited by a handfull of guys and loosed every wars since ww2...

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Ähm... The Americans lost 360.000 men. Alone 90.000 airmen where killed in the skies over Europe. Just sayin'... But if you only talk about the casualities in Europe, you right...

[@guszverev7408]

US entered WWII in 1941. You need to learn some history.

[@aestheticdemon3802]

@@guszverev7408 The second World War started in 1939 ( the Germans "Dress Rehearsal" was in 1938 in the Spanish Civil War ), and America didn't join till December 1941, over THREE YEARS LATE, and in fact, American forces didn't arrive in Europe until early 1942., ALMOST FOUR YEAR after the War started.. This wasn't new, America joined WWI in 1917, but didn't actually show up until early 1918, four years late. Should be America's National Motto: "World Wars? We'll be FOUR YEARS LATE!"

[@guszverev7408]

@@aestheticdemon3802news flash WWII also occurred OUTSIDE of Europe. The US was fighting in the pacific theater in 1941 which is part of WWII…

[@michaelpfeiffer2073]

"What did we do?" - Mainly nothing. That saves a lot of personal costs and opens up markets to sell weapons to. And wenn everyone is on the floor like after a barbrawl, it's way easier to then ride in "yay, we did it!" ^^

[@Chiggins_]

I'm not gonna tell you how to pronounce Hague specifically, I'm gonna be va goo about it

[@Dr_KAP]

😂😂😂

[@PizzaMineKing]

How you get in that arms dealer position? By having pretty much your own continent far away from where the battles are going on with a nice big ocean in between.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

And selling lots of reasonable weapons to your customers (allies) for a decent profit.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

And with a nice big Navy...

[@PizzaMineKing]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 In summary: too far away to get their territorry involved in the war.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@PizzaMineKing Yep! Exactly...

[@fedodosto3162]

What do you mean ''having their own continent''? There's Canada way bigger than the US and also Mexico.

[@nataliecarrington2550]

You've heard of ANZAC day, right? This is its origin story! I think we Aussies did more in WW1 than you guys did.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

Brits here and I agree with you.

[@month32]

A sausage factory in Tanganica did more than the US did during WW1!

[@martinbynion1589]

Guess what the "NZ" in ANZAC means? Not "we Aussies"!

[@nataliecarrington2550]

@@martinbynion1589 I know hun, I just didn't want to speak for our brave cuzzies across the Tasman :)

[@alexanderamon1591]

@@month32 so they got the Number 1 economic super power by selling sausages to the brits and french ?

[@albinjohnsson2511]

Bro, "Ha-gu" is literally the Hague, the political capital of the Netherlands, where the International Criminal Court is located.

[@semiramisubw4864]

the court which the strongest nation will never show up bcs they decline it and the US even has a law that states that they will safe any american which goes there with military force lmao

[@lanamack1558]

​@@semiramisubw4864indeed, that's why US soldiers were not/are not prosecuted for atrocities committed in war zones and occupation territories.

[@embreis2257]

4:53 so early in the clip Ryan already had me gasping several times in disbelief of his ignorance (German colonies in Africa or Asia or the involvement of Australia in the war) but his inability to properly pronounce _Hague_ or never even to have heard the name 'the Hague' for the Dutch political capital, took the crown.

[@tovarishchfeixiao]

@@semiramisubw4864 Strongest? I hope you're just joking. And it's very funny that murica is part of NATO while they have a law for only murican can command for murican solders. Which means that they can lead any country's military to anywhere as they just wish but no one in the world will be able to do this whith there crappy military.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@tovarishchfeixiao Nope...

[@matthewwalker5430]

America wasn't sending arms to the allies, maybe a few, but most of the aid packages being sent were things like food and resources

[@E85stattElektro]

Yes, I’ve heard once in a documentary about oil that the main advantage that the allies had in WW2 was that they had pretty much unlimited oil supply from the US, while the axis powers were struggling with obtaining enough fuel to keep the army going.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Which school did you attended? The Yanks supplied all Allies, with high octane avitation fuel. Even the Bolshevics,with endless crude oil, get nearly 60% of avitation fuel. Such things, are the war winners...

[@ianbrook7793]

not sure but until they got in to the wars both of them didn't they help both sides.

[@Jeni10]

Ryan, WWI was full of now famous battles, each of which has their own story. Movies like Lawrence of Arabia, The Battle of the Somme, Gallipoli and the Aussie TV Series “1915”, as well as “The Miracle of Fatima”, are just a few examples, plus many, many documentaries!

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Yep! And most of this, is only rubbish. If you wanna see a film that shows the real horror, then you have to look "All quite on the western front". And of course in the US- Version from 1930. It's the best description ever. Of course, it would be better to read the book (which I did at school)...

[@ordisraru]

And two full albums from Sabaton!

[@aoilpe]

The biggest American contribution to end the war was perhaps the “Spanish Flu “…

[@Thog25]

One little fun fact that I love is that the king and queen of Belgium were so badass that they fought with their men in the trenches during WW1

[@Aloh-od3ef]

The reason why Australia and parts of Africa was involved was because of their ties to the British empire! 😉

[@FxreverNxthing]

And by ties you mean they were colonies.

[@carokat1111]

@@FxreverNxthing Australia was not a colony in WW1. Got its independence in 1901. So 'ties' is correct. Australian people were very patriotic still towards the UK and saw it as the motherland and were keen to fight for and with them. By the end of the war, things had changed a bit a sense of 'Australianness' began to emerge.

[@FxreverNxthing]

@@carokat1111 Yes Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and others may be “independent”, but even today they are still under the Crown. While not the same as it was back then. The Crown still has power over them, like in Australia, when the Crown removed the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975.

[@tommysellering4224]

In WW2 the US role was almost exactly the same, even if you also had to fight Japan in the pacific, but it was only in the last few Months they actually took part in the fight in Europe.

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

Are you aware that the US was participating in Operation Torch landing in North Africa in 1942. And from then on their contribution grew more and more.

[@mehdimehdi3631]

@@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl well yeah it did but the point is the entry of usa in the world dindt mean that germany lost cause even if the us dindt join the germans were losing to the soviet and then they started liberating lands which made them stonger and stronger no the thing that the entry of the usa changed is the new world ordered as without the usa d day wouldnt be possible which means most europe will come under the banner of communisim

[@tovarishchfeixiao]

​@@mehdimehdi3631 To be fair, that would were be a good thing for the current times if western europe were experience Communism in the past when the CCCP still was a thing.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@mehdimehdi3631 German here. I have never read cruder nonsense! The Bolsheviks would have lost their war in 1942 without the help of the Americans. I don't understand why this Stalinist nonsense is still doing the rounds. Look at what the Americans gave the Russians. And spoiler alert... That's not even counting the stuff that the British and Canadians (the Canadians had the 4th largest armed army in the world at the end of the war) supplied... Weapons: 14,795 aircraft 7,056 tanks 8,218 anti-aircraft guns 131,633 machine guns 105 submarine hunters 197 torpedo boats There are also well over 15 million pairs of military boots. But that is only a small part of the story. They also delivered: 77,900 off-road vehicles (“Jeep”) 151,000 light transport vehicles 200,000 Studebaker trucks (Katyusha) 1.5 million kilometers of telephone cable 35,000 radio stations 380,000 field telephones 30% of all tires 56% of all rails 1/3 of all explosives 1900 locomotives Additionally, goods for further production: 4.062 million tons of food 2.54 million tons of steel 728,000 tons of non-ferrous metals 764,000 tons of chemicals 2.42 million tons of petrochemicals They also provided fuel to 58% of all aircraft Now stand there again and talk some Stalinist bullshit...

[@Sgt.Anthony]

bruh the us came into the europeian theater when ALL of europe except britan and finland were taken by the germans and with operation overlord operation axis and operation torch american troops led there allies through north africa than southern italy and finally france the american mechinized units in france were spearheading all the combined armys the 2nd mechinized unit was given the nickname "the spearheads" destroying all germans in german held france and belgium in a matter of months

[@grahamroberts2893]

Don't forget the Canadians were there more or less from day one.

[@Sticks31]

Australia played a much bigger part in WW1 than America. Two of my great-uncles fought at Gallipoli, then the Middle East and finally, both got killed at the Battle of the Somme. I think American troops handed out some bandages (or something like that).

[@Firemalleoandjelly]

7:55 That was the first tank design, Mark 1. Unreliable and often failing at crucial moments but they did start the process of tank warfare.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

And introduced a new terror for the Germans in the Trenches.

[@month32]

The proper term for those things was "Landships". Or moving cover for infantry, because, for some weird reason, nobody wanted to be shot by machine guns!

[@Firemalleoandjelly]

@@month32 Isn't that one of main purposes of tanks, to provide cover for infantry. Tanks should always be paired with infantry. The Landships are heavily armoured vehicles with a lot of firepower. That is what a tank is, it does at least part of what a tank does. Maybe they didn't use the term for it but it does fit in the group of tanks.

[@month32]

@@Firemalleoandjelly That was the purpose then. Tanks have evolved a lot. The purpose of covering infantry is now covered by APCs and similar vehicles, while tanks are for battle, ergo their title "Main battle tanks". The term "tank" was used by the British inteligence when they were designing said vehicles, to make sure that the German intelignece wouldn't steal the plans and where designated as "water tanks" that would carry liquids so that they wouldn't be bombed to death, or so I have read somewhere.

[@Firemalleoandjelly]

@@month32 True although I will say tanks are sitting ducks without infantry or air support. In crowded areas, molotovs are easily capable of being dropped on the top of the tank cooking the crew. In wide open areas, fighter jets can easily destroy tanks that have no air support.

[@Mabinogion]

"it's a weird looking tank" The Germans also said "what the hell's that" and the Brits said "it's a water tank" the name stuck - it's been called a tank ever since!

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Not in Germany! We called it, was it really was. Amor or in German a Panzer...

[@petrichor3947]

An Australian and Canadian generals working together created the form of modern warfare that played a major part in the final battles of the WW 1 go Monash and Currie.🎉

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Interresting! What you belive, was a major battle, never found it's way in a German history book. Perception distortion in the colonies?

[@petrichor3947]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 lookup combined arms warfare, I agree the battle had a minor part to play in WW1 but a major part to play in the way war would be conducted in the future. I believe that even the German defence forces have practiced/used this approach. They should also be proud of a the son of a family that immigrated to australia who in peace time did great work in his home country on many fronts.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@petrichor3947 The battle tactics developed by the Germans to overcome trench warfare found their not unsuccessful climax in the spring offensive of 1918, where the British front was penetrated in the first attack. And if the idiot von Ludendorff, due to the astonishingly great success, had not started to take the big hit and stuck to the initial plan, then the goal of destroying and driving the Empire forces from the continent would have been achieved. I recommend reading an explanation of the Hutier tactics. This tactic was responsible for the rapid success on the Somme in the spring of 1918... Combined arms warfare, was developed later, after the great war.

[@petrichor3947]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844yes the stormtrooper tactics display a good utilisation of available equipment and personnel. But Monash’s idea at the the battle of Hamel are well covered and often seen as the first demonstration of combined arms warfare. Both are significant changes in modern warfare as you would expect to happen during a major conflict. Neither detracts from other but really complement each other. Your correct Ludendorff’s failed to identify a goal for his troops. Many allied officers made note of Monash’s planing and control and went on to use these. General Montgomery believed Monash was the best allied leader on the front and the King knighted him at the front the last person to receive the honour at front line.

[@carokat1111]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Perhaps you are the one with perception distortion?! Don't assume your German text books have all the information.

[@danielmarkiewicz8489]

BTW you are much louder then material you are watching

[@elemar5]

*than

[@NineBerry]

One interesting aspect of the first world war was that there monarchies in countries on both sides. And the monarchs in the UK, Germany, Austria and Russia were closely related to each other via marriage. So you had countries fighting each other intensely with the heads of state of these countries being one family.

[@yannicklucas1836]

Could be said for a lot of war in Europe in History. But still, thanks for highlighting this fact. 👍

[@SWLinPHX]

And Prince Philip (QE2's husband) was from German and Greek royalty too.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

That's easy... France, which was a republic, was the biggest war monger, in a steath mode. And there were no royality. So the French give a fuck on European dynasties and prepared the war, for 40 years...

[@aestheticdemon3802]

Why do you think the British Royal Family changed their name from Gotha-Saxe-Coburg to "Windsor", a small town in middle England... "Hey chaps! Let's go kill some stinking Square-heads in the name of ... The House of Gotha-Saxe-Coburg!" Doesn't play that well huh?

[@sharonmartin4036]

The Hague conference (pronounced HAIG) . . Where the world court is . . .the Hague . . .Netherlands . . Wow! American education is not just lacking, it appears to be non-existent!! And yes, Africa, Australia and New Zealand were heavily involved in both world wars. But in both wars the USA was a late starter. They only really were physically pushed into WWII by Japan.

[@ArthAlexLp]

They don’t know about it because they still don’t respect The Hague court today, they can do all the war crimes they desire

[@derGlasdrache]

I love how we never had such an awful war again - for about twenty years 😄

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

This would have been never happend, with a fair peace. Everybody knew it, after the document was signed. The British PM at that time, Sir David Lloyd George, saw this very well and talked about it in a speech in Versailles 1919: " Germany may be deprived of its colonies, its army reduced to a mere police force, and its fleet reduced to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Nevertheless, in the end, if Germany feels that it has been treated unfairly in the peace of 1919, it will find means to force its overcomers to make restitution. In order to achieve remuneration, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so fair that the country on which we impose them feels in its heart that it has no right to complain . But injustice and presumption, displayed in the hour of triumph, will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, who have certainly proven themselves to be one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which have never before been one were able to set up a stable government for themselves, but each of them contained large numbers of Germans who longed for reunification with their homeland." But exactly that happend...

[@aglaiacassata8675]

Check out Anzac day in Gallipolli, Turkey: young people sleeping on the beach in order to be there at sunrise on every April 25th for the Anzac day ceremony (Anzac: Australian and New Zealand Army Corps).

[@lloydcollins6337]

7:01 the naval battle referenced here is the Battle of Jutland, which really needs it's own reaction video to even scratch the surface of, but the outcome was that the Royal Navy lost some ships through incompetent leadership and bad ammunition handling practices, whilst the Germans lost strategically because the blockade wasn't broken, yet they won the PR war by announcing their victory (they had lost fewer ships and men) before the Royal Navy did, so it looked bad for the RN.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

It was like the CO of the Grand Fleet, Sir John Jellicoe wrote before the great battle: "Contrary to public opinion, I am aware of the danger of believing that our ships are even equal or even better instruments of combat..." That was the bitter truth. And you can't really be surprised about the British defeat. Furthermore, it was never intended to destroy the British fleet. That wasn't possible! But to weaken it in order to make the blockade a little more permeable. And that worked... (source "Epic Sea Battles" Octupus Books Ltd. London 1975)

[@thorstenhaul6866]

Watchin your Videos for several time and every time its fun. Great Job! 👍Thorsten

[@anneedwards664]

My grandad fought in the Middle East - Palestine and Egypt. He had already lost an older brother killed in France. Of the seven brothers, six took part in the first world war and all those survived. My grandad never spoke about his part in the war. Remember, the USA was late to take part in both world wars. They just helped finish off WW2.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Only German prisoners, may have seen Palastine. Rommel never made it to Alexandria...

[@anneedwards664]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 my grandad was a British soldier, where does German prisoners come in, in my comment?

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@anneedwards664 Well Swety... There was no fighting in Palastine. That's why I wrote this...

[@anneedwards664]

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 In my grandfather's war records from 1915-1919 it clearly states he served in Palestine against the Turks, and also in Egypt. He was a late teenager at the time. He contracted malaria, from which he suffered periodically all his life afterwards.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@anneedwards664 How old are you? I was very lucky to know 6 grandparents. My great-grandfather (born 1883) also fought in the Great War. My two grandfathers both returned alive from the Second War. He died, age 87 and I remember him well. Later I met an old lady from Riga (born 1896) who had been through all the crap in the East. 3 wars... That's why I know a lot first hand. As far as the Nazi war is concerned, I got to know many more interesting personalities. I didn't expect to meet someone here whose grandfather fought on the Suez Canal. Btw. I'm German...

[@daveofyorkshire301]

_The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the oldest alliance that is still in force by political bilateral agreement. It was established by the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Portugal, though the countries were previously allied via the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373_

[@mauk2861]

Portugal are Britain's oldest allies! Also I lost a few great uncles in WW1 in the Somme , probably mainly due to chlorine gas.... its effect is not comparable to having chlorine in a pool by any stretch of the imagination.

[@justeunfan3364]

For anyone wondering, chlorine gaz turns into hydrochloric acid when in contact whith water. So its starts melting your skin but thats just the light part. If you breath it it turn into acid inside your lungs, making you drown with your own organs turning liquid. The less you breath, the longer it will take for you to die. A truely horrible way to go. I'm sorry for your uncles, I hope they perished in a quicker/more "human" way. RIP for all thoose who died in these wars.

[@lloydcollins6337]

2:01 Because Germany was only formed in 1870 (before that it was a loose confederation of principalities and fiefdoms) it was quite late to the empire game. Britain was trying to conquer Africa north-south so they could move supplies by rail from the Suez Canal to South Africa to resupply & defend their naval bases in South Africa (trade with India was the most important thing to Britain so a lot of empire building was to defend trade routes) which then allowed them to keep sea passage open with India in the event that the Suez Canal was captured or blockaded by an enemy force. France was trying to conquer Africa east-west in order to gain resources and to protect/buffer it's holdings in North Africa along the Mediterranean coast. This left Germany with very few opportunities for empire, so it grabbed what it could (Italy and Belgium were also scrabbling around around this time too). Germany managed to get a few African colonies plus some islands in the pacific which as the video says were either captured during the war by Australia or Japan because their capture prevented German commerce raiding ships from resupplying there, as well as taking out of commission the German radio network in those parts of the world, meaning the ships on the seas lost contact with home/couldn't get orders so could be more easily intercepted by the Royal Navy.

[@educatednumpty71]

Don't overestimate the US role in WW2. It was mainly used as relief and backup troops alongside Allied forces. The US first fight was in North Africa in 1942 and was such a disaster US troops had to be retrained by British soldiers and didn't see a battle until 9 months later in 1943 in Italy. So in a war that lasted five years the US only fought for two years in Europe.

[@marycarver1542]

Try telling the Americans that !!!!

[@josiahargo4436]

Dont underestimate the US role in WW2 either. Combat in Europe, was helpful, but as you pointed out it was mostly done by UK and USSR. However there are a few things to note here: 1) US did the heavy lifting in the Pacific theater. I'm not saying they did it single handedly, but it was close to single handedly with contributions from other powers. So much so that it's fair to say the Pacific war could not have been won without the US, or at least it would have greatly extended the war, by a significant amount of time. So if you look at WW2 as a world war and not just a European war, then the US was in fact crucial on the combat front, just as much so as any other allied power. 2) Its not just about combat though, as Supplies are crucial; and US supplies were crucial in WW2, even before the US officially joined WW2. UK was able to hold out against Germany, but was almost completely dependent on US supplies at some points (I think it was like 80% of their food was imported at the most crucial parts of the battle of Britain). They would have collapsed without US supply aid. As for the USSR, it was a similar story in that at some points they were almost, if not completely dependent on US munitions and equipment. Germany took USSR's industrial base fairly early in the invasion and had to move it east. That took time to set up and they only just barely prevented Germany from reaching Moscow due to holding the line at Stalingrad, and even then almost broke. At that time were completely dependent on US supplies. My point being that, while it is true to say the US did not singlehandedly win WW2, especially when looking at the European front and from a combat perspective, they were crucial to such point that it is fair to say the allies would likely have not won without the US. To be fair though, you could also make the same argument about both the UK and USSR. UK held on "alone" at some points which prevented Germany from going all in on USSR, forcing them into a two front war. And USSR did the heavy lifting in terms of combat and inflicting casualties to Germany. So you could reasonably make the arguement that UK, US, and USSR were all crucial allies that if any one had not been there, the war effort would have been lost.

[@justeunfan3364]

@@josiahargo4436 While the US were useful for providing ressources, even in the pacific they sucked. Just look at the amount of troops they loosed against an ennemy 4 times less numerous. And the only thing they could do to win was nuking thousands of civilians...

[@markhamstra1083]

Really? Please tell me all about how the British, who lost all of their tanks at Kasserine Pass, taught Patton how to fight, and how there were no other battles in the Tunisian Campaign. British just-so stories are very amusing.

[@gbulmer]

​@@justeunfan3364 You wrote US ... _"the only thing they could do to win was nuking thousands of civilians..."_ A Japanese historian looked at the documents of the Japanese "war cabinet" meetings for the period around Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US weren't aware of it at the time, but from those docs. the "nuking thousands of civilians" seems *_NOT_* to be the cause of Japan's surrender. Apparently, the Japanese war cabinet didn't even bother to have a meeting after Hiroshima, with one cabinet member writing it wasn't important enough. Remember, the US firebombed Tokyo 9-10 March 1945, killing 100,000 civilians, leaving 1 million homeless, and destroying 16 square miles of the city. That's comparable in scale (maybe slightly larger) than the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time (it took months for many of the victims of the nuclear weapons to become fatally ill and die). According to the historian's interpretation of the documents, Japan had been planning to surrender, but with many conditions. They were hoping Russia would help them negotiate their conditions. Japan had conquered Manchuria about 1931. Russian and Mongolia invaded Manchuria starting 9th August 1945. The historian says, Japan's surrender was triggered by that invasion. It was clear to Japan's rulers that Russia wouldn't help them negotiate. Japan announced it's surrender August 15th. Further, it was claimed the "nuking" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided Japan's army a way to save face. They could claim they were not defeated by an enemy army, but by new technology killing civilians. Summery: AFAICT, No, the US nuking civilians didn't "win" (though the US did not know that at the time). Best Wishes. ☮

[@ann-sophie.appelt]

3:57 I'm German and that's something we NEVER learned at school.. so seams like someone's ashamed of this circumstance and doesn’t want younger generations to know about that.. 👀

[@GeirGunnarss]

If you want to look into why Germany was in a state that Hitler and his party could take over, check out the effect the Treaty of Versailles had on the country.

[@sly6627]

'What does it take to earn the Victoria' cross by Jeremy Clarkson is an amazing watch if you haven't seen it yet.

[@carokat1111]

Ryan, you should react to some videos about Australia's role in WW1. We were very important players in helping the French keep the Germans out of Paris as well of course our role in theatres of war like Gallipoli. WW1 played a massive role in shaping the identity of Australians. We'd only been a federated country since 1901.

[@WSSHW__1854]

excellent idea!

[@tillposer]

12:16 Yes, that was about it. The US came late, weren't trained up at first and didn't even have uptodate equipment. Modern material was mostly supplied by France and Britain, especially French artillery pieces like the canon de 75 modéle 1897. The greatest impact of US troops in 1917, remember, the US declared war in April that year, was providing enormous amounts of warm bodies for rear echelon work, logistics, road building, transport, harbour staffing etc. to free real French and British troops for Frontline duty. They symbolically were employed in October 1917, but only on a very small scale. The first real actions of US units in WWI were end of May, beginning of June 1918, in the trailing edge of the German spring offensives in a defensive role, the first offensive actions were in July, first under Australian command and later as an independent Army in the second batlle of the Marne. Actually, that is not quite true, the regiments of the US 93rd Division, a Coloured unit, were put under French command and were employed a bit earlier as that, earning themselves Harlem Hellfighters or Black Devils in the process. And the USA contributed what was later called the Spanish Flu or the Great Influenza to the war.

[@justeunfan3364]

Fun story, the French gave the americans the entire plans of the Renault FT tank for free, hopping they would build some. Except they were using the metric system. By the time the americans finished converting them the war was over, the first "6 ton tank" left the factory in 1918...

[@martinbynion1589]

"I didn't know that Australia had anything to do in it". New Zealanders and Australians had tens of thousands of troops fighting in Turkey, France and Belgium (and many thousands killed) while the Yanks were sitting on the sidelines refusing to support the Allies. Also in the Pacific, NZ troops kicked the Germans out of their colony in Samoa. And it's "Haig" not Hay-gue. It's the capital of the Netherlands. Have Americans never heard of the Hague Convention setting out the normally agreed Rules of War?

[@corringhamdepot4434]

I am of the generation of kids that were interested in stamp collecting. Back then you would buy a pre-printed stamp album with pages for each country that issued stamps. So we had at least heard of many of these countries that you don't know about.

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

My father and my grandmother were collecting stamps and I did for some time too while going to school in the 1970ies. It seems to be a peculiar hobby but it's certainly educating.

[@corringhamdepot4434]

My father used to collect cards from Brooke Bond tea packets, Also very educational, similar to cigarette cards. I made up a collection years ago, from cheap loose mixed lots found at boot sales etc.@@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl

[@noadlor]

My father was a huge stamp collector and got me involved. He would tell me about the countries that don't exist anymore. As a kid, it was so intriguing. My father recently passed away, and his stamp collection got passed to me. My daughter thought "how boring" until she saw it and got hooked real fast. Now she wants to get my grandson involved when he gets old enough. It's a great way to teach kids about the world.

[@Sharon-bo2se]

Still have both mine and my Dad's. Learned a lot from those stamps and majored in Geography as an undergrad.

[@SirZanZa]

The US were just a minor participant during the last few months of the war. still a great help of course but this war was Mostly the UK, France Germany Austria Russia and the Ottomans. The war would have been lost without France's stubborn fight for their homeland the Russian effort in the east diverting half the Central powers manpower and the British blockade and fight in north Africa and the middle east which starved Germany of Food and Oil respectively. the British Blockade put a time limit on Germanies survival and forced them into wreckless assaults.

[@Imman1s]

Err.. not just the UK but the commonwealth as a whole. The UK started the war with a laughable small army and their backsides were saved by the millions of volunteers (and conscripts) from the rest of the commonwealth countries. India, Canada and Australia added almost 3 million men, and NZ, Africa and the Caribbean added another half million or so. And is not just the manpower contribution, they did have key roles in the Asian and African theatres, and even in the European theater the Canadians fought in all major battles, where rightfully feared in the battlefield and outright shamed the British and French by taking over some of the most contested hotspots during the war (look at the battle of Vimy ridge for a good example).

[@Thurgosh_OG]

@@Imman1s Back then it was the British Empire, so any nation under the Empire was technically also Britain. Though I get your point.

[@SirZanZa]

@@Imman1s i'm not discounting the British empire or it's commonwealth i'm talking about Primarily British as a stand alone entity. no commonwealth nation was involved in the Royal Navy blockade of Germany in any meaningful way, im simply talking about British commanded operations and missions. Britain having a small standing army is nothing new and is and has always been the case throughout history, it simply wasn't and isnt needed. conscription was still the policy of the day in 1914. surrounded by water a large continental style army was never going to be needed the Navy made the British isles impregnable.

[@Imman1s]

​@@SirZanZa WW1 was mostly trench warfare, so there wasn't a specific need to have large amounts of naval or air forces across the ocean under their own national flags. There were, however, a lot of commonwealth volunteers that fought under the RN and RFC under the British flag. Whether the numbers were significant... I honestly don't know.

[@bernadettelanders7306]

Aussie here, My father’s uncle was killed in WW1 in Belgium aged 28 on 4th Oct 1918. He’s buried over there. He died when a shrapnel shell burst above him and killed him instantly. My family have copies of most of his official war information and official reports from eye witnesses. My father fought in WW2, thankfully he came home safely. He married mum in his army uniform. I’m only guessing, maybe Americans were never taught about other countries involvement in wars.

[@julesmarwell8023]

fact the American troops in Europe in ww1. were commanded by an Australian commander.. General Monash.

[@peterlinsley4287]

America's first Battle in WW1 was only 6 months before the end of the war. Australia was not only involved in New Guinea, taking it from the Germans it was in heavily involved against the Ottoman in Turkey and the Middle East and in France.

[@Maedhros0Bajar]

Ryan: Australia was still fully part of the British Empire (during WW2, they and the other Dominions (like Canada) had independence concerning foreign affairs and defence, so they could decide for themselves to declare war), during WW1, Canada and Australia joined because the Empire as a whole did.

[@carokat1111]

Not completely true. Australia was an independent nation by 1901. There was no compulsion to join, but there was strong support to join. Australia was never even subjected to conscription in WW1, it was all voluntary.

[@Maedhros0Bajar]

@@carokat1111 It became a Dominion then, which had home rule, but full independence was a gradual process. I believe actual independent Foreign Affairs and Defence came in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster (same with Canada). But I could be wrong, I suppose

[@carokat1111]

@@Maedhros0Bajar You are correct. Full independence was a gradual process, achieved in 1942 I believe.

[@robynmurray7421]

Australian Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, turned up at the conference of Versailles. The US president, Woodrow Wilson, objected to him being there. Hughes said "I represent 60,000 dead Australians." He got to stay. USA continues to overlook the Australian involvement, even though the first US troops to see action in WWI did so under the command of an Australian general, John Monash.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

After this video you must watch Extra credits /extra history . On WW1 As it shows how the war started and ended , And how tragic it started as no one wanted this war to actually start,

[@fraterleonatus5864]

1:56 : the explanation is that most of Africa was colonised by europeans countries. Australians was already independant, but many australians had still a strong felling of belongig to the british empire, so even if they didn't full committ they sent tens of thousands of volontary soldiers.

[@ganjiblobflankis6581]

Imagine having to pay the bill for a WORLD WAR that you did not start simply because you were the most effective in your bloc and thus the last one standing.

[@lloydcollins6337]

3:20 the Gallipoli campaign was mostly fought by ANZAC troops - the Australia New Zealand Army Corps (because the two nations were still notionally part of the British Empire they didn't get a choice about going to war and they supplied troops which were merged into one Corps) fought alongside British and French troops to try and take the Gallipoli peninsula away from the Ottomans (present day Turks). They didn't get much further than the beaches though and it was the "proving ground" for Australia and New Zealand as independent nations and forms a core part of their military identity to this day. The architect of the Gallipoli campaign was one Winston S Churchill, who was at the time the First Lord of the Admiralty (the civilian head of the Royal Navy) and who wanted to get away from troops "chewing barbed wire in Flanders" (Belgium) - his plan was to sail a fleet of allied battleships up the Dardanelles strait from where they could bring Constantinople (now Istanbul) under their guns. As this was the capital of the Ottoman Empire it was hoped to provoke their surrender. The Ottomans however, not being stupid, had mined the strait and had placed artillery along the coastlines which could easily shell any minesweepers which were sent in ahead of the battleship to clear the way. One French battleship was sunk by a mine in the initial attempt. The fleet left defeated. What happened next was that several months passed whilst a landing was organised - now at this point it's important to say that no one currently has found evidence to say if this delay or the change in plans had anything to do with Churchill or not - the landing went ahead but because of the delay the Ottomans had time to bring in tens of thousands of troops onto the Gallipoli peninsula who dug in and prepared to repel the landing. When allied troops landed they faced months of bloody fighting for no gains as the Ottomans resisted them very tenaciously. Eventually the whole scheme had to be abandoned but only after the shedding of much blood. Winston Churchill was forced to quit as First Lord of the Admiralty and he actually took up a Colonelcy and went to command a unit in the trenches for a time before becoming Minister of Munitions and later Chancellor of the Exchequer after the war (he was good as Minister of Munitions but an awful Chancellor and he had to resign again).

[@matthewwalker5430]

9:00 my great grandfather was besieged in Kut, it was cool to see it mentioned here as it is often forgotten and it was 1 of the most horrific scenes of the war. They were there for months, they had to live off eating their own horses and the few pictures from toward the end of the siege show men looking like skin and bone. It was a disaster. He was captured when we eventually were forced to surrender to the Turks and they marched him along with thousands of other British and Indian soldiers from Kut in South Iraq all the way, on foot (a small part on a boat I think), to Ankara in the North of Turkey. MANY P.O.Ws passed away on the death march through Iraq (remember that SAS group from the 1st Iraq War who had to escape on foot through the Iraqi desert and the conditions they faced? It was pretty much the same route taken by this march and whilst I don't think it was winter, the conditions were still woeful, they were starved and they had no equipment whatsoever). He was then marched through the mountains a further few hundred miles, on foot, to a small POW town named Yozgad (it still exists, although it is just a normal place now). There he spent most of the war, he sent coded messages back to the British which documented their poor treatment at the hands of the Turks and he instigated a crazy escape plot. He and an Australian pilot friend also imprisoned at the camp pretended they were psychics and used Ouija boards to convince the Turks that there was treasure buried in the hills. When their plan to manipulate the Turk's, win their trust so that they would be sent beyond the POW camp on Psychic missions, ultimately failed (amazingly it had been working, but just not quickly enough) they decided to simply act insane in the hope they would be sent to the asylum in Constantinople. That was successful and, once in Constantinople, the Turks negotiated the return of the 2 crazy allied soldiers to their homeland so that the British/Aussies could be left to deal with their nonsense. Strangely enough, as soon as they were back onboard a British ship they miraculously recovered their sanity and went home, lol.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

Nice story. Now that would make for an interesting film.

[@matthewwalker5430]

@@Thurgosh_OG It is a book, "The Road to Endor". It's a little dated now (it was written in 1919 an was pretty successful back in it's day!) but my Dad managed to get it republished about 10 years ago with Neil Gaiman writing the forward (there are a couple versions but the one entitled "Road to Endor: A True Story of Cunning Wartime Escape" is the version the family re-released with Gaiman's Forward, if anyone is interested in reading it). Funnily enough, we were trying to make it a film for many years, we even have a movie producer in the family, but it is quite a difficult story to translate into a movie and they've struggled with the script for many years (and that is even with good people like Gaiman on board at various points). Also, some American journalist has since written her own book on the story and was trying to turn it into a film herself, despite the family owning the rights, and so it was a bit of a legal quagmire for a while and I don't know if that ever got sorted out.

[@CIABACKWARDYAKUZA]

@@matthewwalker5430 AND ATATÜRK CREATED NEW REPUBLİC TURKİYE AGAİNST AUSTRALİAN NEWZEALANDERS İN GALLİPOLİ AND THE BRİTİSH İTALİANS RUSSİAN ARMENİAN GREEK FRENCH TROOPS YEAH HORRİBLE TİME ERA BUT BRAVE FİGHT TO THESE ENEMİES BUT STİLL GERMANS LOSE BECAUSE ALCHOL HAPPENİNG.

[@Jonny_No.5]

'Ignorant American' 🤣 I love Ryan´s sense of humor

[@V0r4xiz]

6:40 "In hindsight, Germany should've just chilled out." And with that line, Ryan proved more dimplomatic, political and tactical finesse than the German emperor and every German chancellor from 1890-1945.

[@diesesphil]

Any German Monarch that isn't Wilhelm II. Would have done better

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

After 1918 there have been a couple of German governments trying hard to improve relations with other nations. Chancellors like Ebert, Scheidemann and Stresemann became very prominent for that. Although France was possibly the most difficult country to get agreements with, even they have managed to improve relations with Germany for while. As a result Aristide Briand and Gustav Stresemann were awarded the Nobel peace price in 1926. Based on my knowledge I'd recommend taking the label "oversimplyfied" serious. That's not meant as a rant against that YT channel. Taking that video as an example it's providing an interesting and short guideline through that period of history. To achieve brevity a lot of details and context need to be omitted inevitably.

[@thomasfranz6467]

Not really, Wilhelm II was not a great monarch, true, but he wasn't responsible for the war, in fact he felt very uncomfortable with it and with all the people dying. And about the other emperors, maybe look up Frederick III. And well, the chancellor stuff is just wrong...

[@Lewtable]

To be fair towards Germany, their situation was extremely dire and the country may very well have collapsed during the Great Depression. Chilling out may potentially have worked out for them but the situation was so desperate that it isn't a fair expectation to make of them.

[@GGysar]

Yeah, totally, it's not like John Maynard Keynes literally told everyone at the time, that with the Treaty of Versailles being as it was proposed and ratified, Germany would be FORCED into another war... Oh wait, that did happen.

[@Thraim.]

1:20 Many people don't realize this. Have you ever heard someone ask "Why is it called a World War when it was only Europe (and later the USA) fighting?". The answer is not "Because history is Eurocentric". There was fighting on every continent (except Antarctica) due to the colonies.

[@antheabrouwer3258]

Okay Ryan; time to react to some videos about Australia's contribution to the two World wars and the Japanese bombing of Darwin and even in Queensland. We were supporting the allies way before America joined in.

[@andypandy9013]

The USA did not "Win World War I" (The Great War), but it did help tip the balance. Most Historians are agreed that Germany and its Allies would have fallen in 1919 in any case.

[@SWLinPHX]

I was disappointed Ryan glossed over or completely missed the mention of famous historical figures like Lawrence of Arabia and Rasputin.

[@wensdyy6466]

I remember how my grandfather told me about my great grandfather and about his death after his heart gave out because he was the solider who was carrying hat large drum when his unit crossing the Alps (he was part of the Austria-Hungary army)

[@mikkysteaders]

AT 4:50 you cracked me up with "Ha-GOO' haha... just a heads up it's pronounced "HAYG" :)

[@philipmccarthy6175]

The Americans only got involved in both wars when it suited their interests . They were supposed to be Britains allies but Britain only finished paying off their financial war debt to America in the last decade. Some ally !

[@SWLinPHX]

I'm so glad you're branching out into more than just videos about UK or Germany, etc. Your reactions are enjoyable to cover more general and fun topics like this.

[@beageler]

...Fun?

[@pandanemi-0239]

Epic History TV has a short series on WW1 where they look at each year and the Battle of the Somme, it doesn't go in depth into everything but it does condense it down to reaction friendly videos

[@corringhamdepot4434]

After America entered the war, it was going to take around a year for them to train and transport a significant number of troops to Europe. So Germany launched their massive Spring Offensive in 1918 while they still had a numerical advantage. They did make significant territorial gains, but did not achieve a German victory. So by the time the Americans actually arrived, the German Army was already severely depleted, low on resources and in much worse defensive positions. The Americans did significantly shorten the war, but the French and British had well developed plans for an Allied offensive in 1919. Using "Combined operations" tactics. Included the production of a huge number of new improved "Liberty Tanks".

[@mareky1234]

You should know that it was an Aussie General. Sir John Monash who sorted all of that out. In fact King George actually came over and Knighted him in field of battle for this. The first time that had happened in 200 years. To much of what Anzacs did, was attributed to the British as a whole.

[@michellepeoplelikeyoumurde8373]

Most of the aussies were British or their sons

[@catonkybord7950]

I wish there was a bit more on the alpine front, which was just as insane and taxing as the trenches, but gets ignored a lot. I mean those guys were hiding out in holes in over 2000 m altitude, blasting away mountain peaks, and weaponizing avalanches. Imo that deserves to, at least, get mentioned.

[@laurentpaumier3103]

Sound of ww1 video is a bit to low.

[@julianbarber4708]

Australians and New Zealanders were (and still are) members of the British Commonwealth, as was India, Canada and numerous other nations.

[@SatieSatie]

Btw, you misheard. 1½ million, not ½ million, were murdered in the Armenian genocide.

[@cheryla7480]

It’s a no brainer…..WWI and WWII if the UK is involved it’s Commonwealth is also involved, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, African Commonwealth countries, India at the time. If the UK is in at the beginning to the end….so is it’s Commonwealth.

[@albinjohnsson2511]

What did America do to get in that position? Well, they literally got into THAT position. The US has an enormous land area with tons of natural resources and is bordered by two friendly neighbors and two giant oceans. It's literally the most OP geography. Rich af and completely un-invadable. In terms of geography, it's playing country on easy mode.

[@SatieSatie]

Easy mode. 😂 True.

[@Rachel_M_]

That's generous. I thought they were still struggling with the tutorial 🤔....

[@tenofprime]

That is basically it, the US has the industrial power without being at risk of being bombed out of existence.

[@JoannDavi]

It was a *European* war. We broke the stalemate that soon brought the war to a conclusion. In WWII, once we were attacked in '41, we fought *everywhere* (and sent tons supplies to the allies, esp. to the UK & USSR -- even before we were attacked).

[@glastonbury4304]

@@JoannDavi ...do you even know where Europe is? 🤷🏻🤦

[@Itsme-xf7sx]

That's true, the peace contract was the reason for WW2 and of course a crazy angry man from Austria.

[@Suirioujin]

We all forget too easily how strong the german armies were during its whole history And how the USA became first in the world is easy When all you have to do is sell weapons not never fight great power, you DON'T lose money, while the whole GDP of the other countries were focused on buying weapons for the war and after the war, the USA had zn easy life, while France, Germany, small part of the UK, znd every other belligerents had to rebuild whole cities

[@mel__live]

I learned in school that the US did not sold weapons, since they came on the battlefield with the same weapons as during the secession war (civil war) of late 1800s, while in Europe we had automatic weapons, so they were pretty weak on that side. They sold ressources, like food, basic materials and stuff, but i doubt they sold weapons to the UK, being the #1 power in that time

[@semiramisubw4864]

also the US stole tons of patents and technology. Without that they wouldnt be in space that early

[@JoannDavi]

It was a *European* war. We broke the stalemate that soon brought the war to a conclusion. In WWII, once we were attacked in '41, we fought *everywhere* (and sent tons supplies to the allies, esp. to the UK & USSR -- even before we were attacked).

[@mel__live]

It was european, false, as we saw in the video, it was already a global war (through colonies and alliances). The war was already on the ending side when americans came, and yeah, they helped, but their help was not necessary. I never talked about WW2 ?

[@lisahood1389]

Yup. And Canada had been in that war since 1914. 🇨🇦. 66,000 Canadians died and over 172,000 were wounded. Canadians were well known for being brutal and were feared. The Germans named us “Sturmtruppen” or Stormtroopers, for their speed and bravery. We also excelled in aerial combat. Our sacrifices earned a separate signature from England and the other commonwealth allies, on the treaty of Versailles.

[@CodeNascher_]

hagoo, really?

[@noahsarkhive4482]

Fun fact: the people in Tyrol (the north of now italy, and back then south germany) still speak mostly german and consider themselves to be german and not italian. even after all these years :”) been there a few times and it’s a lovely area!

[@johnsmith-ck4qt]

9:40 Looks like you are ignorant not only about past wars, but about the current ones also..

[@brucewilliams4152]

Really good source is the bbc series, the great war, made in the 1960s. It's on youtube in 26parts.

[@antiqueinsider]

After WW2, which was partly caused by the heavy handed and severe punishment of Germany by the WW1 victors, there was a very different 'resolution' including Nuremberg and Marshall Aid. Therefore German experience after WW1 and WW2 were very different!

[@solreaver83]

In both wars america stayed out of the war for years while selling industrial output to the allies and for some times the germans too. Ameria wasnt a real military power untill after ww1

[@DavidPola1961]

WW 1 Started in 1914 the US came in in 1917 Cease fire 11/11/1918 , WW2 Started 1939 US came in 1941 Dec7 Australia sent troops in 1914 and again in 1939

[@margaretreid2153]

And New Zealand 🇳🇿 sent troops in both WW 1 and WW 2,I lost my Uncle in the Western Desert, he was only 24.

[@DavidPola1961]

They certainly did ,the heroes The ANZACS

[@Faranthiir]

I can also recommend "The Seminal Tragedy" from Extra History, that sheds some more light on the circumstances that led to WW1.

[@WSSHW__1854]

good tip cheers!

[@SunWuKongStaf1968]

Ok, you're doing this on purpose, aren't you ? 😂 or do you only know ' you guys came to save us'. ' East Germany' in Afrika is Ethiopië. Your ' Interesting concept on 'Rules' in War is called the Geneva convention. You're doing this on purpose aren't you? Best stand up ive seen since a while Between 1914 and 1918more than 100 countries from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australië, and Europe were part of the conflict. Thats why they called it A World war.

[@Smartness_itself]

There is one mistake in the video: The First Balkan War has nothing to do with Russia. It was Bulgaria (the carrier), Greece, Serbia and Montenegro vs the Ottoman Empire.

[@glastonbury4304]

Africa and Australia had a lot to do with winning WW1, America did little but help mop up

[@JoannDavi]

It was a *European* war. We broke the stalemate that soon brought the war to a conclusion. In WWII, once we were attacked in '41, we fought *everywhere* (and sent tons supplies to the allies, esp. to the UK & USSR -- even before we were attacked).

[@glastonbury4304]

@user-kq5ke5yb6k . Africa and Asia were not in Europe and we've only just finished paying off the equipment you sent us, it wasn't free!!

[@alicetwain]

Look up something about the Italian battles in WWI. They were pretty much all named after two Rivers: Isonzo and Piave. If Mexico had attacked the US, or just told the Germans to sod off and literally didn't do a thing, the war would have lasted a few extra months. By then Germany and Austria were ruined and devastated by famines.

[@phoenixfeathers4128]

“The Germans decided to be jerks” Me, a German: no, they just continued to be Germans

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

Äh, ja... Dein Geschichtsunterricht war nicht nur umsonst, sondern auch noch vergeblich...

[@johnwilletts3984]

Those early Tanks were designed that way to cross trenches. Guns on the side to fire down the length of a trench. The official name of the vehicles was ‘Land Ships’. A company called Foster’s in Lincoln England won the contract, but were told to keep them secret. However they were seen by a visitor to the factory who asked “What are those big things that look like Water Tanks”. Thinking fast, an engineer explained that they were to take water into the front lines. When the government was informed they liked the cover story and began to refer to them as ‘Water Tanks’. Everyone including soldiers in the trenches believed it and began to dream of hot baths and limitless tea! Only to be disappointed to see the water tanks going over to the German lines. But the name Water Tank stuck and was soon shortened to TANK.

[@Microtubui]

WWII americans came last too^^

[@SatieSatie]

Yup 😂

[@JoannDavi]

@@SatieSatie - WWI was a *European* war. We broke the stalemate that soon brought the war to a conclusion. In WWII, once we were attacked in '41, we fought *everywhere* (and sent tons supplies to the allies, esp. to the UK & USSR -- even before we were attacked).

[@SatieSatie]

@@JoannDavi I mean, you're not completely wrong. It's still amusing to me that the US had no actual reasons for its participation in WW1, but joined in very late anyway, when the war was almost over and all the other countries had already been sucked dry, for economic expansion and geopolitical & ideological influence over the world. (Tbf, that's what war always is about, lol.) Knowing that Europe was weakened to its core, the US realised it was finally their time to shine, and they took the chance. The American's "lazy" (for the lack of a better expression) contributions in WW1 ultimately brought them where they are now; but without the massive geographic privilege the US has, I highly doubt that any of this could have been possible in the first place.

[@sebanstian]

Movie recommendation: "All quiet on the western front" if you havent already seen it.

[@petrophaga8523]

sry, but no, USA doesn't produce the best weapons but it is protected by two big oceans und has lot of ressources. US industry was able to produce whereas the industries in Europe suffer from blockages

[@JoannDavi]

Really? Who has stealth bombers? Who has stealth fighters -- of TWO types? Who had nuclear powered carriers and subs long before anybody else? So: STFU

[@SunWuKongStaf1968]

I used AFN in the Army. Belgian Quality with an out standing reputation..

[@Teuwufel]

@@JoannDavi most of these exist because USA took german/austrian engineers and scientists after WWII under their wing. These were made with help of german intelligence. Maybe you stfu, since you spew ignorant nonsense under lots of comments?

[@Sodoato]

@10:32 so basically, the US at the time (and starting from the end of the civil war) had very few enemies on their borders : the last war with canada was fought in 1812, I don't think there was conflict either with mexico since the end of the war in 1848 and every conflict in which the US participated wasn't fought on home soil (barring the civil war and the war on the Natives) As such, they had a lot of time to prop up their economy which could make up for the loss the european countries were facing during WW1 with the economy being fully turned into fueling the war machine

[@jakubport7361]

Damn man, can't wait for you to do WW2

[@claregale9011]

Recommend you watch our remembrance service at the cenotaph in London, on the 21th of November the whole nation commemorates lays reefs and has a 2minuite silence , also the march past our national memorial is very moving and sombre . Has me tearing up every year .

[@claregale9011]

11th November..sorry

[@billythedog-309]

@@claregale9011 Wreaths..sorry. Minute..also sorry.

[@claregale9011]

@@billythedog-309 oh yeh lol 😆 not my strong point spelling

[@utha2665]

@@claregale9011 You can just edit your comment, if you didn't know. I was about to jump in and correct you on the 21st as well, lucky I read the replies first.

[@claregale9011]

@@utha2665 thanks no did not realise I'm not too savvy with this stuff , I'm in my latter years now and not really used to I.