Why Germany collapsed in WW1

[@markpayne2057]

Something that I believe is often overlooked is that the initial success of the German spring offensive, saw large numbers of German troops break into allied supply dumps. And when they saw what to them was the riches contained within, large quantities of tinned meat and fats, abundant supplies of good quality tobacco and alcohol, plus simple things like bandages made from cloth, cotton or linen and not paper or nettles. They when they attack failed and they were forced back onto the defensive and subsisting on what their own side could provide, decided that they had been constantly lied to and it just wasn’t worth continuing.

[@browngreen933]

Yes, stuff largely supplied by the USA.

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@browngreen933 usa was not the arsenal of democracy in ww1, USA troops were equipped and fed by France. The rations the British and French troops had in 1918 weren't American.

[@Katsumoto0456]

@@browngreen933 America is the centre of the universe.

[@iatsd]

@@browngreen933 Very little was supplied by the US. The summary often used by historians is that the French guaranteed the Allies didn't lose the war, the British guaranteed the Allies won the war, and the Americans simply ended it six months early. You get a similar sense from German war diaries where, for example, German machine gunners knew the wr was lost when the Americans showed up in 1918 *using 1914 tactics*. It was clear that although the Americans were throwing lives away needlessly, they just didn't care, and *that* was what convinced many Germans that the war was over. Realistically, the Americans had close to zero effect in the field, but strategically it was clear that their arrival confirmed the end for the Germans.

[@Mooocheropordis]

Stuff PAID for by U.K​@browngreen933

[@jamesivie5717]

They were fighting three national armies, there was a blockade that cut off their food supply and the newspapers in Germany were not supporting them. It's amazing they hung on in 1918.

[@CATZgamingnofatchicks]

@@jamesivie5717 what’s more amazing is that they thought they could do it again 20 years later.

[@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13]

@@CATZgamingnofatchicks Exactly.

[@KakaNarr]

20 years + 1918

[@mikemcmike6427]

@@CATZgamingnofatchicksto be fair they could have had afew factors and events went their way. And not even like miraculous ones or lucky just some key ones/

[@michaldvorak2501]

Sounds like a skill issue to me. Get better allies and foreign policy

[@davidwhitney1171]

Cigarette smoking was also widespread in the trenches because it helped block the smell of rotting corpses..

[@QueenslandTrainVideos]

Right it had nothing to do with nicotine addiction

[@fionnconnelly6004]

@@QueenslandTrainVideos could it not be both?

[@123blakes]

If I have learned anything from history. If your commanders claim it will be over before Christmas. Prepare to be disappointed

[@skepticalsmurf]

sorta like Operation Market Garden in WW2 🤔

[@nickchambers3935]

0:16 That graph is absolutely baffling. I have no idea what the Y axis is meant to represent. Quantity of morale? How do you measure that? What does it mean that they went from 100 to 0?

[@BaconBeast11]

This is from the source that is listed in the chart. GG Bruntz 1938. Agents of the Intelligence Division (US Army) prepared daily reports which contained all news in any way relating to the morale of the Germans in their particular sections. After studying these daily reports carefully, the officers in charge prepared weekly reports which gave a general interpretation of the drift of the enemy morale.5 Using as a basis for its estimates material contained in these weekly reports, supplemented by information obtained from other sources open to the Military Intelligence, the Psychological Subsection worked out its famous “Chart of German Civilian Morale,” which recorded the upward and downward trend of enemy morale To get information for their daily reports the agents of the subsection interviewed prisoners in the Allied prison camps. They held long conversations with prisoners in camps near Toul and Souilly, where men of all ranks and from all parts of the German Empire were kept, and from these interviews they got valuable information concerning the feeling among the German troops and the people beyond the Rhine. The main line arbitrarily was stated to start at 100% at the beginning of the war and 0% is when the majority of the German population would not support the war. The other lines on the original chart also has the food situation in North Germany, the political unity of the Empire, the submarine sinkings, and the variations in Germany's military position from the beginning of the war to November 1918. On the actual chart this was stated about how the line was made: The degree of movement of this line is determined mainly by a consideration of the deflections of the secondary lines which represent the forces exerting the greatest influence on the German state of mind The author described how difficult it was to actually procure the chart since it was in someone's office I believe. Suffice to say its not peer reviewed or anything. But it is a neat attempt by the US Army to visualize the German civilian morale.

[@logangustavson]

Collective Civilian Morale, ostensibly. How they measure such a thing, I have no clue.

[@JamesFodor]

It would be an index computed from whatever raw measures are collected. You could always look up the citation

[@NamilaSayatani]

@@nickchambers3935 It's fairly obvious, dude.

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

*"Do we have enough resources for a major offensive? Sadly I cannot see the military situation in a rosy light: reserves of manpower are running short and we're losing many horses to malnutrition. Raw materials of all kind are in short supply...It is now impossible for us to end the war victoriously"* -Crown Prince Rupprecht, on the eve of the 1918 Spring Offensive. The German public may have been ginned up to think victory was plausible in 1918. Figures at _OHL_ knew the Germans had been losing since mid-1916

[@billyosullivan3192]

Ludendorff admitted privately to Generalleutnant (Lieutenant-General) Hermann von Kuhl, the Chief of Staff of Heeresgruppe Kronprinz Rupprecht von Bayern (Army Group Rupprecht of Bavaria) who wrote in his diary that I spoke...with Ludendorff alone (about the overall situation). We were in agreement that a large-scale, positive outcome is now no longer possible. We can only hold on and take the best opportunity for peace. We made too many serious errors this year. - 8 September 1916 Moltke ofc knew they lost the war at the marne

[@garykeith1048]

@@billyosullivan3192 They lost the war at the Battle of Jutland. Couldn't break the British naval blockade. Millions of dollars spent on Dread-naughts for nothing. Kaiser Wilhelm was an idiot.

[@ShadowReaper-pu2hx]

Reminds me of the 2023 Ukraine spring counteroffensive that didn’t start until summer.

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@ShadowReaper-pu2hx honestly bizarre they eve attempted large scale operations against prepared positions without air superiority. The southern Zaporozhye region is the obvious decisive front of the war but Russia and Ukraine both seem to ignore it for easier pickings in Donbass and Kursk

[@waltdoesntexist5368]

Yes man the krauts were losing so badly that they kicked Russia out of the war+Romania

[@Floods-uy6tl]

Really interesting exhibition and a topic that doesn’t get enough attention - thank you!

[@utkphilobio]

I miss living in London and being able to go to such amazing museums! You're teasing me with that new display!

[@snapdragon6601]

Failure of the Kaiserschlacht 1918. They gave it all they had but still came up short.

[@Tiglath-PileserXIX]

If the Germans have been just a little patient and waited a hundred years, they would have dominated Europe, without bloodshed, ie. the Eurozone.

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

I strongly recommend Erik Sand's "Desperate Measures: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Warring Powers" for a comprehensive look at how British blockades were critical to the outcome of both world wars, in each case by forcing Germany to adopt risky strategies to win the war quickly before they starved (in WWI, thru unrestricted submarine warfare; in WWII, by invading the Soviet Union)

[@johnlovett8341]

The "Stab in the Back" legend put out by Ludendorf, Hitler, and other righty's had a lot of historical staying power. The fascists basically argued that Germany's boys at the front didn't lose. Instead, the bourgeois and Jews in charge sold Germany out & surrendered. There's still a lot of folks today who think the German's were not utterly defeated in the fall of 1918. Their ass was toast by the 2nd half of 2918.

[@Melkorleo103]

*National Socialists.

[@Melkorleo103]

*National Socialists

[@gabespiro8902]

Ludendorff’s indecision was largely to blame for the failure of the 1918 offensive so really the man precipitated another world war and countless deaths all because he couldn’t admit he buggered it up

[@MitchRichards44]

@@gabespiro8902 Agreed, that and his disastrous "Hindenburg Plan" for the economy that ensured defeat....

[@billyosullivan3192]

​@@gabespiro8902he also sent Lenin to Russia and his work Der total kreig influenced Japanese militarists

[@seanwalker6460]

At one point during the German attack in 1918, the Germans entered the Allies' rear area and couldn't believe the rations they found. They stopped for a day to eat! And this was part of the highwater mark of the attack

[@iandougall7169]

@@seanwalker6460 Indeed. The allied rear area depots were nicknamed by German troops "the land of milk and honey"

[@dx-ek4vr]

That's pretty similar to the story during the Battle of the Bulge in the Second World War, where advancing Germans supposedly found a Chocolate cake in a captured American position, and realized just how great Allied logistics were

[@NamilaSayatani]

Also, at the beginning of the war, they could have secured further advancement. But, at Albert, they found a lot of wine and food. And, decided to get hammered. Giving the allies time to regroup.

[@Arms872]

Great video. Thanks!

[@mingyuhuang8944]

Remember, there are no good sides in WW1. It was literally just a huge dog on dog fight with imperial powers seeking greed and expansion. So all those young souls that died just so another worse war could happen 20 years later. There's nothing heroic about all that sacrifice.

[@georgeprchal3924]

All because some anarchist jerk decided to shoot an archduke and his wife.

[@karlvonbahnhof6594]

It was a mess, soldiers from my country, Czech Republic, fought on both sides, in that time, we were part of Austria-Hungary and many men joined Russian army to fight Austria-Hungary for independence, in some cases, our soldiers were fighting each other on the same battlefield... The situation made itself even more complicated after revolution, when Russia pulled off the war and Czechoslovak legion became enemy of Bolsheviks, the legion was declared a part of French army and was ordered to join fight against Germany, and because it was impossible to get to France from the East, the legion occupied Russian Trans Siberian magistrale in order to get to Vladivostok, and through USA and whole globe to France, crazy story but ended up well for us, we gained independence 😊

[@christh7434]

@@mingyuhuang8944 This is so very wrong. War was inevitable because Germany deemed itself to be the rightful hegemon of Europe. As such they planned to get their fair share of colonies and planned war on France and the UK. The UK knew that German fleet building effort was a way to contest their supremacy. France knew that a future conflict with an imperialist Germany was inevitable. Germany gave Austria its support for the declaration on war on Serbia because it was afraid that Russia was progressing too fast and that the sooner they fight them the better. Germany’s imperialism was the main reason. Stop spreading this nonsense.

[@Impossibleshadow]

@@georgeprchal3924 That’s just propoganda, a war does not happen over such an event. The figurative gun was loaded long before that. It was just a convenient excuse to go out and settle matter’s militarily

[@anthonyeaton5153]

@@christh7434Well said Sir.

[@masterchinese28]

I remember talking to my great-grandmother (born in 1907) what she remembered about WWI. She said that she was young, and heard things that the adults were talking about from the news. Then she said that there was something that was a real big deal: the Spanish Flu. She talked about how people were isolating and wary of other people. It was two tough years. I didn't think much about it at the time, but when COVID came, I suddenly had new-found appreciation.

[@rusoviettovarich9221]

Yeah and once again brought to you by the demoncrat party

[@MagicNash89]

The topic of WW1 is just so forgotten these days. Great video!

[@cattysplat]

Mostly because there is just not much documentation and was truly horrifying unrestricted death by any means, where little changed territorially year to year. Censorship was so overwhelming, communication and recording technology so limited, the desire to forget about the war once over so culturally strong. All we have to work with are official war office recordings and whatever propaganda still survived. It was also massively overshadowed by WW2 which was far grander a scale and much more available documentation.

[@janesda]

It would be helpful to know what were the corresponding changes over time in the 'morale level' in France, Britain, Belgium and Russia.

[@jlp2011]

French army had a near collapse in 1917

[@billyosullivan3192]

​@@jlp2011french army wasn't near collapse in 1917, they had a month of mutiny but they weren't leaving trenches, killing officers and refusing to fight against German counter attacks. By August 1917 they were back on the offensive at Verdun taking cote 304 and morte hill as well as over 10,000 German Pows

[@indiekiddrugpatrol3117]

@@janesda Britain was a historically naval focused country and uniquely didn't adopt consrpition until 1916. This had a two fold effect, on the one hand those earlier soldiers had volunteered of their own accord out of love for king and country. On the other hand there were the post 1916 conscripts many of whom wanted nothing more than to return to their loved ones, conscription was seen as un British and the act of throwing millions of men into the 'meat grinder' caused much resentment from the working classes to the government there were those that believed Britain shouldn't have staged a large army in Europe and instead should have focused on its naval strength and 'combined operations'. Following WW1 the government finally allowed all men regardless of class or income the right to vote because without this they genuinely feared some sort of revolution such was the feeling of discontent in the country following the armistice.

[@JosePerez-vz1qq]

Can we find a less biased source for the "morale chart" besides the subject's enemy? How does one even quantify morale?

[@54mgtf22]

Love your work IWM

[@Ihavpickle]

Should've mentioned the utter breakdown of German morale at Amiens.

[@dionysise5008]

One of my favorite topics

[@mpsbell]

This is excellent; thoughtfully curated, well narrated, and compelling use of expert testimony. Well done.

[@emmgeevideo]

The war came to a "premature end"? You're going to have to explain that one to me. To millions of people it was a long overdue, highly welcomed end.

[@Trebor74]

If the war had continued and the German army driven back to Germany then it would have been quite obvious they had lost the war. The idea of being stabbed in the back wouldn't have taken hold and wwii may not have occurred.

[@tragictragedy6212]

@@emmgeevideo premature in the sense that it ended before the army was defeated, and thus earlier than expected. Doesn't mean that the war ending wasn't welcomed, but that it was sudden and unexpected.

[@indiekiddrugpatrol3117]

No allied army ever set foot on German soil prior to armistice which helped to foster the 'stabbed in the back' theory which was a key component of Germany Nationalism in the interwar period.

[@scottjackson1420]

I've always just assumed it was the effects of the naval blockade, more or less starving the nation. Now I'll watch the video.

[@pincermovement72]

It was , when they overrun the British lines they couldn’t believe what we were eating as they were told we were starving more than them. The British soldier was fed better than a civilian as it should be though being a trapped land power the Germans were finished.

[@OTDMilitaryHistory]

@@scottjackson1420 They were crushed on the battlefield too.

[@bettyschnauber8238]

@@scottjackson1420 that was a great way to make a comment. I might have to borrow that

[@lordscrewtape2897]

Admiral John Jericho planned the blockade and I'd say he was ahead of his time...

[@ZakariásGold-Sylver-stein-burg]

@@OTDMilitaryHistory The British and french had no money to war after 1916, they relied on brutal US loans. Learn a good video about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZzXo5KVj7iohMU

[@richardsimms251]

Excellent video.

[@robertbruce1887]

Excellent, well narrated video as one usually gets from the Imperial War Museum.

[@Cukito4]

Since when can you measure morale? What units?

[@daniels2761]

In a World War loss, maybe?

[@notmenotme614]

I thought the exact same. How do you quantify the graph? What are the metric units used to measure war success and morale?

[@Anaguma79]

@@notmenotme614 I'm pretty sure they'd use Imperial units in WWI. Also, same.

[@anthavio]

Numbers of surrenders and desertions amongst soldiers, strikes and looting amongst civilians, both mentioned multiple times in video.

[@Cukito4]

@@anthavio Where are the units in the Y axis? What are the units of measurement?

[@marcmonnerat4850]

Well, if I'm correct, the German _Reichsheer_ lost 350'000 men (=dead) during the final 11 months of the conflict which is 20% of the total. By comparison, during the final 130 days of WW2 (i.e. 1945), the _Wehrmacht_ lost 1.1 million men (and women), which is 30% of all men who died during the conflict! They really fought to the bitter end.

[@jorgebarriosmur]

I would have probably, too, knowing very well that if I didn`t, the nice folks of the GESTAPO would "take care", not only of me, but also of any adult closely related to me, while the children would be taken over by the state, and educated in specialied facilities, where they would in become "good germans" (cannon fooder, and human breeding stock). Also, a lot of them were well aware of the treatment they had given to the soviet population in their invasion, and knew that the average soviet soldier was more then eager to pay them back, with interest.........

[@sthrich635]

Because it was the Second World War the German fought, and they knew given all the destruction a second chance ain't likely at best, especially with Soviet Union on the table. They gave it all in their last struggle as a German nation as they knew afterward Germany won't be ran by a German anymore, it will be occupied and subjugated country many of the German troops who had given and lost everything had little desire to live in.

[@andrewhall7930]

It is simply not possible to go long periods of time without food while maintaining high morale.

[@ryderthursday8397]

Putting morale on a graph is possibly the cause or struggle of the war

[@stevedavenport1202]

Yeah, actually, it's called "will to fight" by the US military. There is an equation that goes like "will to fight x means to fight = combat effectiveness." If either the will to fight or means to fight goes to zero, then the war is over since zero x any quality always equals zero. Let's use Vietnam as an example. The NVA, led by Ho Chi Min, had a sky high will to fight. Their means to fight were never severely degraded since they had the backing of the Soviet Union and China. They also had great demographics as North Vietnam had more than enough young men available to replace fallen soldiers. Also, the US military refused to invade North Vietnam or blockade and destroy its ports. The only reap variable in play was US morale. After nearly a decade of futile war and 50K US service members shipped home in body bags, the US lost its will to fight.

[@SteveMikre44]

Outstanding episode...

[@Tadicuslegion78]

"You invested all this money into building a world class navy above and below the water and DON'T use it to break the blockade strangling your nation?" "I didn't want to damage the paint."

[@KokkiePiet]

There was an important factor. Food and the Netherlands. During WW1 the Netherlands were neutral. This lead to an giant growth in Dutch trade. Germany could not do overseas trade but the Dutch could. So wheat, beans, beef etc etc from South America, metals, tobacco etc all were shipped by Dutch merchant fleet. This made Rotterdam port grow enormously. Then in 1917 the US joined the war and they said, neutral? No way Jan-Kees, and chained up the Dutch merchant fleet. This lead to food shortages in Germany and the Netherlands. Napoleon said, an army marches on it’s belly This then was a major factor in crippling the German war machine. Another factor was the Enormous US industrial capacity like in WW2

[@XandateOfHeaven]

Logistics is often treated as a minor side show, but it's really almost the entire substance of strategy.

[@KokkiePiet]

@@XandateOfHeaven true, this is the big strength of the US Army btw

[@MitchRichards44]

@@KokkiePiet Starting in 1914 the British blockade had a contraband list that later included food bound for the Central Powers via any neutral vessel. It was illegal, but they did it anyway. The contraband list grew as the war went on. This is a major reason for Germany's "turnip winter" in 1916 and the first signs of starvation showing up.

[@codymacdermid8225]

0:17 Does that chart come from the same guys who get the surveys for Family Feud?

[@thedahkterizzin8831]

When you're losing any war or competition, morale ain't gonna be high.

[@DerKalashnyhorst]

Great Compilation of pictures and Videos! Also the Woman speaking is very good

[@jlp2011]

Ludendorff has a breakdown on Sept 28 apparently. Germany then contacts the USA to try to arrange a cease fire. Once that cat is out of the bag…

[@VictorKB96]

Another factor that contrubuted to the low German morale was the lack of days off that German soldiers were giben, in contrast with the French for instance

[@sleepthoughamostqruelandde1116]

Now thc helps are nerves thank gawd!!!😊

[@wilsonli5642]

It's worth asking why the Allies' morale didn't collapse. In 1917, there were widespread mutinies in the French army; it doesn't seem inconceivable that the German advances during the Kaiserschlacht might have unnerved some troops again. That said, it must help to have a steady supply of food and cigarettes.

[@davidbowen5621]

@@wilsonli5642 Theres a fair argument that a significant reason for Allied morale holding on during the Kaiserschlacht was the promise of future American involvement. If Germany had managed to avoid America entering the war and the Kaiserschlacht played out the same way, things could have been different.

[@dinoshankhar7712]

This video is missing a very important point. On november 4 Austria surrendered to italian army. So for italian army could have been very easy and quick cross Austria territory and invade Germany from south Germany had no reserves to send there so they did decide to surrender Indeed all western allies were convinced war would continue as long as spring 1919 but italian victory against Austria changed everything

[@arctic_haze]

This is a beautiful joke.

[@paologambacorta192]

@@arctic_haze No, it’s a fact, but completely ignored by many people in the West, influenced by British bad faith post war propaganda. Caporetto is Italian defeat, but Vittorio Veneto should be an Allies victory (but foreign troops were very few on the Piave front, whilst in France were 120.000 Italian soldiers, among them an entire Army Corps, who reached German Western border, pls see Bligny Italian cemetery). Germany surrended also because it remained alone in fighting, with its Southern border menaced. (Germans shelled Italians marching to the borders near Brennero Pass: why?)

[@JesterEric]

@@dinoshankhar7712 Britain and France had to send eleven divisions to Italy in 1917

[@dinoshankhar7712]

@@arctic_haze no,it is history

[@dinoshankhar7712]

@@JesterEric it is true,but it doesn't change what I wrote 'fore

[@pjmakkon]

What is a unit of morale? 0:24

[@michaelchristianrusso]

The German war effort suddenly collapsed in on itself, but to be fair, if the Entente was coming to the table for an armistice instead of marching their way to Berlin through (presumably) minimal and unreliable resistance, it's also only because their own morale was nearing collapse, and prolonging the war into 1919 might have meant Bolshevism sweeping Europe to the Atlantic Ocean. Don't forget that in 1917 a massive proportion of the French army was in open mutiny, the extent of which remains uncertain and surpressed to this day.

[@laurencejenner1127]

Interesting graph. Arguably the German “war position” was almost zero after 1914, rather than remaining high as shown here. Germany was never going to win a long war, especially being shackled to Austria and once the British blockade kicked in. Russia’s earlier collapse possibly masked the real German position from 1917/18.

[@cattysplat]

The Russian collapse on the eastern front allowed most of the Axis soldiers to be repositioned on the western front, a huge boon to the forces there and enabling attacks to be more effective.

[@Grow5ft]

At 1:15, does he say 1940 instead of 1914?

[@javo5270]

nah he said 1914

[@CluntWestrock]

He didn't, you just can't hear well

[@Alsatiagent-zu1rx]

@1:56 The faces of these Germans are not feverish but disturbed and concerned.

[@derkaiser420]

Even in the modern military there is a strong disconnect between enlisted and the officers. I was in the Navy and the officers get treated much better than the enlisted do so much that the US Navy right now is having trouble recruiting because most enlisted just do their four years and go home. The officers love it, that stay in for 20-30 years. The enlisted... not so much.

[@goweresque]

11:05 'Probably the most critical psychological driver underpinning all conflict is that both sides believe that they can win. When that purpose, that motivation goes then it is simply not possibly to wage war.' The experience of Germany from mid 1944 to May 1945 suggests the above is not always the case. After the failure to throw the Western Allies back into the sea at Normandy, and the subsequent loss at Falaise, and Russia's stunning success in Operation Bagration, both completed by late summer '44, it was obvious that Germany could no longer win the war, particularly to those at the sharp end, in the armed forces. Yet they fought on for another 8 months, as did the civilian population, with armament production not peaking until late '44, and continuing right up to the point of the loss of major industrial areas such as Silesia (lost March '45) and the Ruhr (lost April '45). Fear of what the enemy will do to you and the civilian population should they win will keep soldiers fighting long after any hope of winning is gone. The German soldiers of 1918 did not think that the Allies would take over Germany and slaughter/enslave everyone, so giving up once the hope of victory was gone made sense. The German soldiers of 1944/5 had every reason to think the Russians would do precisely that (because of what they themselves had done in the East from 1941 onwards) so could see only one option - keep fighting.

[@strategystuff5080]

even before the war Russia had forced labour camps, genocide, and random political killings. It was mega screwed when Stalin took over. One of reasons why Barbarossa had to happen, from a German perspective. the USSR could not be trusted at all.

[@trebleking1641]

It's not the fact that Germany lost the Great War, it was more that they *very nearly won despite facing three armies, then a fourth virtually on their own*

[@jonesyjones7626]

@@trebleking1641 Germany was not in its own. Germany was allied with Austro Hungarian Empire and Bulgaria.

[@cattysplat]

@@jonesyjones7626 Ottoman Empire too.

[@lolmeme69_]

@@jonesyjones7626 Virtually on their own, not actually on their own.

[@michaelwu9450]

Am I supposed to be impressed by failure?

[@lolmeme69_]

@@michaelwu9450 It's because they fought against harsh odds and still got close to coming out on top.

[@TehIdiotOne]

I find the graph at the beginning of the graph a bit dubious. How do you quantify morale on a chart like that? Granted i don't doubt that it was far of from the truth, i just don't see how you could make such a concrete graph about it.

[@benfrank9622]

Because they ran out of beer

[@ivanconnolly7332]

They also ran out of bandages , substituting crepe paper.

[@seanlander9321]

@@benfrank9622 Actually, beer for the Germans was in very plentiful supply on the front at three times the quantity for the British.

[@jorgebarriosmur]

No beer, no war!

[@657449]

Pre 1900, a war could be won just by one battle. The generals always believed that the next battle would end the war. It didn’t. The Great War led to The Even Greater War.

[@tarjei99]

The Second Battle of Marne was Foch destroying the German Army. All German strategic reserves were killed during the attack and the following counter attack.

[@billyosullivan3192]

It was possible because of German weakness, full credit to Foch he recognised Germany would be exposed due to the length of the front and Mangin recognised due to the rudimentary nature of the German forward trenches a lengthy pre bombardment wasn't needed, just a creeping barrage.

[@tarjeijensen9369]

@@billyosullivan3192 Foch disrupted the Germans with an artillery attack before the German barrage. Then the Germans were caught in the open while advancing. The French evacuated the front trenches as soon as the Germans were temporarily stopped.

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@tarjeijensen9369 that's the battle of Reims not Soissons, the counter attack

[@nvelsen1975]

5:44 That line is outright false. British agression also turned against all neutral countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, who were subjected to British piracy and robbery with '...But you might sell to Germany' (which was their sovereign right) as the only justification for the way the British stole, robbed, murdered and confiscated their way through fleets. Hundreds were murdered by the Royal Navy during WW1 either through piracy or random mine-laying. Ironically, when Germany eventually responded in kind and declared unrestricted submarine warfare in British-declared warzones, it was painted by Britain as a crime of some kind.

[@billyosullivan3192]

War zones were legal, sinking without warning wasn't. Britain boarded ships and gave compensation, Germany sank ships and gave non.

[@MitchRichards44]

@@billyosullivan3192 The British conducted legal warfare like an attorney would and ultimately used it to assign Article 231 in the treaty that was forced on a starving nation. Conducting a blockade and then claiming some sort of legal loophole why your enemy's blockade is not legal is information warfare, nothing more. The British have always been top notch in that arena, along with the Russians. The Germans, not so much, very awkward at it.

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@MitchRichards44 article 231 was written by American lawyers and Germany/ottoman empire engaged a total blockade of russian ports without exception before the UK did to German ports

[@Alan-zf2tt]

I heard from someone who lived thru that period that German morale had sunk because of naval blockade prevented goods into/out of Germany and Austro-Hungarian empire

[@mefinlay1780]

Hunger ...without food you are nothing

[@SvenPiper]

"Fun Fact": The British naval blockade was lifted in July 1919, 9 months after the armistice that ended World War I. The continued blockade contributed to severe food shortages in Germany, leading to widespread starvation and the deaths of many civilians, including children. It's surprising how rarely this is discussed.

[@waveygravey9347]

"Fun Fact": The war didn't end until 28 June 1919. The blockade was lifted almost straight away.

[@bernardinglis4232]

​@@waveygravey9347the fighting finished in 1918 and the blockade wasn't lifted immediately, This isn't a new thing with britain weaponisation of food they use food alot or lack of it ,

[@heycidskyja4668]

It's rarely discussed because it is not true. The blockade continued until Germany signed a formal peace agreement which ended the war. The armistice was just a cessation of hostilities on land. All restrictions were lifted after the Treaty of Versailles was signed.

[@bernardinglis4232]

​@@waveygravey9347 July 1919 it was finally lifted

[@waveygravey9347]

@@bernardinglis4232 Maybe you should look up the definition of an armistice

[@dendradwar9464]

What really happened? The Bulgarian army mutinied and went home This left 250k allied soldiers (Serbs, French & British) 2 weeks march from Vienna with nothing to stop them When that happened the German high command gave up

[@mlfman]

This is not a scientific survey

[@sijeremy7558]

It most certainly was not lack of manpower. Germany theoretically had around 13.2 million men at that time that it could enlist into the armed forces and they hadn’t even had half of them lost as casualties when the war ended. France lost a higher proportion of her manpower and she was still launching large scale offensive operations at the end of the war. What is noted is how much draft dodging and desertion had become the norm for Germany by the end and people even took pride in flaunting the authorities- whether it be dodging service, deserting, or even illegally acquiring food. German society as they knew it before the war had simply collapsed.

[@notmenotme614]

09:25 The leaflet is dated a January 15th 1945

[@jadger1871]

That's not the only thing they threw in from WWII to fill the run time in this video.

[@Ronald-dh1cd]

A very good video, thank you. However, it is a shame that the IWM used such an inaccurate map from the US as the background for your graphics. The map called the country "England", however in 1914 it was "The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland". Yes a bit of a mouthful, so "United Kingdom" would do.

[@spinnastella420]

Verdun. .

[@aetius7139]

The allied blockade really starved out germany. The allies had way mpre resources from the start. They import food from america and far flung colonies. Germany doesnt have that. Thats why they wanted a quick war. Ironically they thought russia is a bigger threat and thought war with france will be over in three months at the start.😂😂😂

[@mikeseigle5560]

The war was collapsing on other fronts as well. Turks and Austrians were in full retreat. It was only a matter of time before Allied troops freed from those fronts could overwhelm the western front.

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

During peace negotiations between Germany and Russia at Brest Litovsk, Lenin dragged out the proceedings because he was convinced that Germany was on the verge of its own Communist revolution which surely would have benefited the Soviet position. However the revolution in Germany didn't occur, and Germany simply lost patience and forced the issue by restarting hostilities with a push towards Petrograd (St. Petersburg) starting on February 18th 1918. While Lenin was too optimistic with his assessment, he was obviously aware of the state of German public morale at the time.

[@chrisvickers7928]

The German sailors were well advised. The Grand Fleet had been re-enforced with 4 American battleships: New York, Texas, Arkansas, and Wyoming. It would have been suicide for the Kaiserlichemarine to sally.

[@Wombat-gm4ne]

In sync with the big decline in German moral there was a big increase in allied moral, with a huge net difference.

[@yurivii]

How do they measure morale? Its such a subjective thing.

[@danofthesouth]

Because Sir Douglas Haig wore them down

[@NamilaSayatani]

There's is some truth to that 'legend'

[@detectiverogers5766]

I feel this is lacking any thorough explination of that graph. Like what is morale? What is being measured and recorded there? Is it just the frequency of german people speaking positively about the war? Is it based on some form of opinion servey? What even is 100 morale? What is a 100 food? Is it 100% food? If so, is that 100% of the neccessary food for the country, or just the army? Or is it the max capacity that a country can sustain? What is 100 war position? It's very vague and brushed over so I'm not even confident if you have a full understanding of it.

[@roc7880]

had Germany ask for an armistice in March or April 18 after they made peace with Soviet Union and came close to occupy Paris, the communist revolution would have happened in London not Berlin. After losing 1 million soldiers in each month of the summer, they could not replenish their units to sustain the effort.

[@MediocreAverage]

That first graph needs much clearer labelling. Ie., the "food situation" rated on a 0-100 scale, and the same for morale - what does that mean? MASSIVE EDIT: There seems to be a misunderstanding about what I mean, so here's a copy-paste from one of my other comments... The video is explaining what contributes to a drop in morale during WW1. That's all fine, but it's not what I'm talking about. My only issue is with the chart, which has converted these events in to a quantitative value. So, here's the problems with that: 1) the chart doesn't label what the numerical values are. Are they percentages or something else entirely? 2) there is no explanation in the video or on the chart about how the events in ww1 were assigned a numerical value that saw the chart go up or down. 3) there isn't an explanation as to how morale is measured. How do they know how much morale wemt up or down? For example, your bog standard research paper in any field, when it is researching a current event, would send out questionnaires. Then it would measure any changes. I hope those examples help to clear things up a bit.

[@bastisonnenkind]

Also it seems to indicate that the morale plummeted with the war situation.

[@NotParticularlyWitty]

@@bastisonnenkind Need to go and look again, clearly. You can see the collapse in morale happened before the collapse in their fighting capability.

[@sjoep92]

I wonder how you measure something like "civillian morale". Seems quite subjective.

[@NotParticularlyWitty]

@@sjoep92 Given they start the war at 100 and end it at 0, seems to clearly be a representation of where the populace appeared to be relative to those two positions.

[@MediocreAverage]

@@NotParticularlyWitty it's not clear though. No labelling on the Y axis to say what the values mean. No explanation of how it was measured or where the value comes from.

[@Iain1957]

Premature end what an unfortunate phrase.

[@dennis2376]

The question becomes the power of hype over logistics. How do you supply an army with food if citizens do not have any. Second if you are not looking after your citizens then you are going to run into supply problems, aka the strike.

[@macrotransaction2383]

In this case you should first understand and explain how morale was measured/ calculated. That chart your study is based on looks funny at best.

[@_Wombat]

they tell you how it was measured in the video. If you're interested further then it's only a Google away.

[@boozecruiser]

This was typed by someone who doesn't have a degree in anything. Not all evidence is quantitative lmao. Stick to passively watching, comment after you've read a book or something

[@Cheka__]

I heard some guy say that the German soldiers were stabbed in the back by some in their own country.

[@Kannot2023]

Why they fought in first place?

[@boozecruiser]

Nationalist blood lust and greed

[@philstaples8122]

Although German moral may have paid a part I'd say a far larger influence was that the Allies had by 1918 perfected combined arms warfare and the Germans had no answer for it especially after their final spring offensive had failed, Germany were defeated in the field, no "stab in the back". They lost to superior forces using superior tactics.

[@billyosullivan3192]

The opposite is the case. Cambrai/La Malmaison of 1917 were basically operationally and tatically identical to amines in 1918. The difference between 1917/1918 was Germany suffered enormous casualties in its best men, hadn't had time to consolidate newly acquired ground and was defending on a longer front.

[@seanlander9321]

@@philstaples8122 Combined Arms was the tactic developed by the Australians and first used successfully at the battle of Hamel, which Haig and Pershing were unjustly awarded the battle honours by Foch. After Hamel, it was Rawlinson and the King who ensured that the Australian command planned the 100 day offensive which resulted in the Germans begging for an armistice.

[@Jakob_DK]

⁠@@billyosullivan3192I don’t see the real difference in your argument. You say the german army had huge losses of their best, and the other say the army was defeated, what is the difference?

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@Jakob_DK I believe German defeat in 1918 was more down to Germany being unable to put up as strong a defence as it had in prior years as opposed to the allies being more capable on the offensive to prior years Tldr, Germany was far weaker in 1918 than 1917, the allies weren't much more effective in 1918 than 1917.

[@MitchRichards44]

@@seanlander9321 The 100 day offensive was against a burned out and spent force. The tactics used were sound and very well executed, but its hard to tell how effective they would have been against an enemy that was well supplied, manned, and prepared, like the Germans were only 6 months prior.

[@marcosrafael6858]

A few others have mentioned it, but it bears repeating. The video needs to provide more explanation for that useless graph at the start of the video with an unlabeled Y-axis.

[@1969cmp]

Food shortages and the total collapse of the German Army facing the onslaight of the Australians commanded by John Monash and the Canadians commanded by Currie on the 8 of August 1918. 'The blackest day in German Army history' Eric von Luttendorf.

[@billyosullivan3192]

German moral can be pretty easily measured by the amount of POWs being taken

[@Suchtel10]

The failure was to go on offensive in the west. Many ressources and manpower was wasted for an advance which exposed the army to enemys offensives because they left the good defendable positions they had. Would have been better to wait for the ressources from the east to come and defend until englands and frances manpower reserves were drained. Maybe kick out Italy of the war if possible.

[@rommelsantiago2899]

This is the reason why US warplanning is centered on airpower and firepower based. The US public is casualty averse. As can be seen in the guadacanal and marianas campaign in ww2. Vietnam certainly highlighted this.

[@jorgebarriosmur]

I sometimes wonder if this is an efect of the high casualties of their own civil war (that was basically, a slaughter).......Would not be the first time a traumatic event shapes the collective character and mindset of a nation (like the mongol invasion of what is now Russia)

[@XandateOfHeaven]

That's partly because the US does not normally maintain a large conscript army, and same with Britain. Therefore casualties among men who were civilians until recently was less acceptable.

[@georgeprchal3924]

There's a reason they haven't lost a battle since 1943.

[@wolfshanze5980]

I think Gen-Z would be well-suited to Trench Warfare... they would just be happy to sit in their trenches with their eyes glued to their cell-phones.

[@major_kukri2430]

Ok, gramps. Back to the old people's home

[@moodogco]

I can't remember if it's the ww1 or ww2 that the German population still hasn't reached or preceded pre-war numbers!!!

[@sahilhossain8204]

Lore of Why Germany collapsed in WW1 momentum 100

[@hipster-somme977]

Germany always thought they had the numerical advantage as they had a standing reserve army of 5 million men. As it was a war of attrition and they had fantastic defensive positions, the allies were always going to lose far more men than they were to take those positions. When American joined the war any advantage was wiped out so the Germans knew it would only be a matter of time. Although at the likes of the battle of Amien the Americans had a good go of reducing that advantage.

[@whbrown1862]

Great video. I appreciate how you was able to put the downfall of the German morale into context with the rest of the war. Interesting introduction to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party. Thank you!

[@angloedu5499]

They gave up because the US was showing up with the New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, and other British Commonwealth soldiers including Natives of the Pacific Isles. They were fresh and unstigmatized by what they had gone through in “Trench Warfare and the Mustard Gas”. Please make a follow up with insight of what living in garbage for months does to a humans mind. Women likewise helping in the hospitals of both sides witnessed men with body and facial deformities witnessed. The smell of burned flesh likewise makes people become ackward. Going from smelling perfume to burned flesh makes one vomit. Hell on earth.

[@hermes667]

Mutinies had been on all sides during the first world war. This kind of warfare stretched everyones moral to the limits. But the poor supply on the german side was the last drop which let the barrel overflow. It is estimated that around 750.000 german civilians died because of malnutrition or illness that had been caused by malnatrition. Ludendorf himself wrote to the Kaiser that the war is lost, but later he accused the democrats and the left that they had stabbed into the back of the winning german army. The german right build their way back to power on lies.

[@PaintandPixelHistory]

As always, its both interesting and confusing to take a look at biographies and personal accounts of the final period of the war in 1918. Yes, the big picture shows an overall decline of moral, but I suppose that this is an highly individual question, regarding to experience, supply, rest e.g. but also to the social status. The Memories of many high ranking officers (both upper- and middleclass born) showing a mix of desperation in face of the lost spring offensive and the power of the allied counterattacks. But there's also the habit, that Germany can and will handle difficult situations, like it did in 1916 and 1917. It's the rapidly changing situation at the home front, the uprising of the socialists and the fall of the Kaiser, which knocks the military Elite (and I think the most of the common military) out. They haven't an overview about the situation on the front AND the homefront and can not calculate, how to respond in military AND in civil dimensions. They (and I think that we can take that for the Elite and the common Soldier) are simply overwhelmed.

[@sloths-df3gf]

Is the pic at 6:07 deffo WW1? It feels more like a WW2 'Winterhilfswerk' pic.

[@jadger1871]

indeed, you can see in the background of that image a person wearing a M40 Feldmuetze (side cap), and another guy wearing what's clearly an M35 helmet with a shorter brim. The side cap style of headdress wasn't adopted until the 1930s. That, and the jackets aren't the correct style for WWI either. Also, the "gulaschkanone" field kitchen is of a too new type, the wheels are wrong for a WWI field kitchen.

[@nikolar91]

I'm ammazed how authors of the video completely erased the importance or communist and socialist tendencies that were actively advocating against the war on Geman and Russian sides. End of WW1 in Germany started a socialist revolution, also not mentioned. Mentioning cigarettes and somehow disregarding anti war politics is crazy.

[@ed11689]

It's the imperial warm museum. The largest cause of a collapse in German morale was the Russian revolution which demonstrated an alternative to the madness was possible

[@arthurkjr]

They finally realized how stupid war is?

[@muhammadurrehman4221]

Belfour declaration brought in US helping german's last chance of winning the war with troops from east got washed away by fresh US troops.

[@dougtheviking6503]

One country holding off many . Then got things stuck in rear for the armastice

[@paulbarthol8372]

The war came to a premature end? Sounds like something a general or industrialist or banker would say.

[@Trebor74]

If the war had continued and the German army driven back to Germany then it would have been quite obvious they had lost the war. The idea of being stabbed in the back wouldn't have taken hold and wwii may not have occurred.

[@numbers4851]

@@paulbarthol8372 If the Entente pushed into Germany herself, showing that the German Army was thoroughly beaten, the “Stab in the back” myth wouldn’t have spread nearly as much as it did

[@OlivierGaffuri-wc2dl]

If Germany had been invaded in 1918 there would have been no WW2

[@Yawf1862]

Not sure her conclusion that once you know you can’t win it’s impossible to wage war to be correct, Japan, Germany in ww2 prove this to be false.

[@rosaria8384]

Not only the lack of logistics, tactics were evolving among the Entente powers, i.e. the predecessor to modern warfare, alongside the loss of their Triple Alliance at this point...

[@billyosullivan3192]

German combat effectiveness in the defence in 1918 was far lower than in any year before. Even the July 1 1916 attack at the somme could have broken through a German line in August 1918 on recently captured over extended ground with no bunkers and fortifications etc