The Death of the Russian Army 1917 (WW1 Documentary) 

Kept you waiting, huh? We will have monthly TGW uploads again after our summer break.

Moscow ulus was (is) badly outdated

Small correction: the map around 20:00 shows artificial lakes on the Dnieper which were created by Soviet-era dams.

​@@TheGreatWar😊😊

Can't watch this show no longer. Just to to much RU-vid ads. A real crime and horror to watch and fallow.

You again?!

Hötzi is still in full attires when I clicked this video

Best general of ww1 😂

But Luigi Cadorna's in command, no need to relieve a genius of command

That might be a while

Not five. They covered Greco-Turkish War, Russian Civil War and Irish Independence War as direct continuations of WWI. We're technically still in final phases of timeline of original series.

i feel the same, they are amazing

Excellent

It's just a shame what they did to the man who created the channel, created its tone and signature style (Indy Nidell). He made this channel... and he doesn't get anything from it.

@@carlpolen7437 I remember him leaving and doing new stuff and basically handing it off I thought? Are they snubbing him or something? He gets nothing? I can still hear him say, "I'm indy nidell, welcome to the great war" in my head lol. I hope you're wrong but knowing how the world is I'm not assuming you are

Same. I sub to both channels and both are some of the best history on RU-vid (on anywhere, really). Bravo bois

The Russian Army collapsed for the same reason it is collapsing now in 2023.

@@handsomeman-pm9vy This is already funny. And what happened to the Russian army in 2023?

​@@handsomeman-pm9vyI don't see any signs of a Russian Army collapse coming very soon

​@@handsomeman-pm9vyUkranian collapse is more likely if you follow the actual truth not propaganda

Or in modern terms, oversimplified makes a meme out of it

They did?

If the Russian Civil War is interesting to you I suggest you learn about the series of Chinese Civil Wars(1911-1949). I find the general situation to be somewhat similar with an abundance of local warlords and an eventual Communist takeover. The individual soldiers typically didn't know what was happening and were fighting for the age old cause of getting something to eat.

@@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 I'm actually very interested in that, as well, but my knowledge on the topic is very superficial. If you have a book or video series on that to recommend, I'd be grateful.

That's actually normal. Both historians and military trainers will tell you that winners often think they are failing until it's over, because they are just marginally competent, but keep it together and stay less incompetent than their enemy in a chaotic situation. Usually they are surprised they eon. Look up the "Dunning-Krueger" effect. It is about students, but it applies very much to military units.

What the video misses is that the provisional government not just promised to continue the war, but specifically until the capture of the Dardanelles Islands. Which killed all illusions about the war goals and truth character of new government. Long story short, the soldiers were not against fighting, but for the right cause.

@@Dragoot That isn't any "long story short." And I doubt that very many private soldiers knew the difference between a Dardanelle and a Constantine or a Constitution. Some of them probably thought it was a machine that made bread. As Chris pointed out in his question, half or perhaps more of the people fighting after the collapse of the Tsarist government in Moscow were fighting for the Whites, or for a variety of local warlords. I don't think you are likely to think of as any of them "the right cause." Again, maybe they thought a Kolchak was a machine for making loaves of bread.

@@TheDavidlloydjones It was explained to them by the Bolsheviks. And all the warlords had proud pro-tsarist or pro-democratic slogans

@@Dragoot You are simplifying an extraordinarily complex situation. As the Imperial institution and army disintegrated, it left a vacuum where every person made a personal decision on what to do and whom to support. Even when they were press-ganged by the various factions, they could and did desert or sandbag. The provisional government and army leaderships greatest failure was in not getting ahead of the revolutionaries and in not having leaders with the charisma and right mindset to motivate the rank and file. For too long they clung to the old way aristocratic assumptions that troops would just do what they were told.

Real Time History and The Great War have many videos that go into depth about this period and the civil war.

more ww1 videos incoming

@@TheGreatWar Can't wait!!!😄😄😄

@@TheGreatWarno sooner do I think, what can the possibly tell me that I have not heard? You simply rise to the challenge and surpass my expectations. 👏!

I think it has more to do with terrible policy by the provisional government. France also has massive mutinies who refused to do offensives but France executed hundreds of mutiniers and promised to not do any major offensives in 1917. Only doing a small one in Verdun in August and another in October

true@@billyosullivan3192

Coming again soon

1915 had been the worst year for the Russians - Russian Poland was given up after the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive by the Germans and A-H, one of the most obscure events of WW1 for Westerners but far-reaching. 1914 had seen defeats by Germany but victories over A-H, and in 1916 Brusilov nearly knocked A-H out of the war altogether. But victories as well as defeats took a toll.

​@@billyosullivan3192france was under attack in their core territory and memories were still fresh when germans marched to Paris taking Alsace-Lorraine with them. Same way the broken italian army regrouped and held after being pushed from the advanced line back to the Piave river. Patriotic slogans were true (to some extent). Russians were fighting a war in Lithuania, Ukraine and Romania, hundreds of kilometres from their home

The Russian General Staff felt they'd be ready by 1916...

Nicolas did try to avoid war, German declared war on Russia on August 1st, Austria declared war on Russia on August 6th. Russia only sent a declaration of war to the ottomans after they attacked the black sea bases

@@billyosullivan3192 Germany declared war on Russija after it began to mobilize for war, had Russija not mobilized but merely tried to save Serbija diplomatically, nobody would declare war on them cos who wants to fight Russija when they dont have to.

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Russia tried diplomacy but on July 26th Germany and Austria said they wouldn't accept any mediation. Russia also pressured Serbia to accept the ultimatum

@@billyosullivan3192 So keep trying diplomacy. Its not Russija thats getting invaded.

Latvian Riflemen units, formed in 1915, were armed with Winchesters since day one.

That’s a sad commentary in it of itself, the fact that the giant Russian empire couldn’t even produce enough homegrown weapons for their soldiers and instead had to rely on other countries is sad. The US had the biggest domestic arms industry in the world and it wasn’t even 150 years old.

@@gloverfox9135 It's not just a case of lacking manufacturing capacity, but also of abysmal planning and lack of foresight. Once the production of Mosin-Nagant rifles was up and running in Russia, they were making a huge amount of rifles to equip their standing army and stockpile the mobilization reserve, as every country did, and when this was accomplished, production was significantly slowed down. The amount they stockpiled was quickly verified as painflully small, when at the end of 1914 they had an army of 6.5 million men and only 4.5 million rifles. In summer of that year, the General Staff estimated that they needed about 100 000 new rifles delivered per month just to keep up with the losses (so not taking into account the needs of newly formed units), and their industry could deliver some 42 000 in their best months. They calculated that if the war were to last three years, they'd need some 11-12 million rifles, almost thrice as many as they managed to make between 1891 and 1914. When in 1915 the British suffered a shell crisis, the Russians were suffering a general munitions crisis, where they lacked not only artillery shells, but plain rifle ammunition too.

I've handled a deactivated Remington-made Mosin-Nagant in a play about the Finnish Civil War. It was clearly a quality gun.

They were not the only ones. The British also had a shortage of rifles for their rapidly growing army, and Japanese Arisakas were also sent to Britain, though as far as I know they were only used in training or behind the lines. A British soldier recorded in his memoirs using one in training. He said it was necessary to spread a blanket under the rifle because if you turned a metal rose on the side of it the whole rifle would come apart and there was a danger of a vital piece going missing.

Luigi Cadorna locked them out while planning another Isonzo River offensive

Good things come to those who wait...

Ohh,. it's revisionist history so it isn't going ANYWHERE,.lol~

Thanks!

Ah yes, Baron von Ungern Sternberg. They did a Who did what in WW1 episode about him a few years ago

he's a wonderful character@@indianajones4321

Crackup can have more than one fracture line. The stresses of war, for example, the death toll and food privation, eventually radically democratized formerly authoritarian Germany because the German people had paid such a massive price. France, by contrast, was defending itself, so motivation ordinarily was not a question. A German people rock-solidly behind the war in 1914, with no questions or doubts, wanted answers by 1918. They demanded accountability from their warlords. Moms who lad lost husbands and sons, wanted to know when their young kids would eat enough. Where was the victory dividend from the East, the Polish and Ukrainian and Romanian food? (Answer: amid the wreckage of war, the mobilization of the eastern enemies' farming populations, and the late revolutionary chaos in the region, there was no short term dividend). And why had that dividend, whatever its value, been negated when you fools made a lunatic offer to the unstable regime in Mexico? The number of American troops didn't really matter, and the German people had confidence in their army, but what was the plan for making the United States quit? Now our U-boats are fighting all of the world's strongest navies combined? Their President of all their immigrants is going to promise independence to - How is the war to be won? It can't be won anymore, can it? (True) And so our millions will have died for nothing?! (True) The angry, unanswerable questions were inescapable.

Belgium had a significant army in the field from 1914 to 1918

@@Ukraineaissance2014 True. Also, Belgians fought in Ukraine! Did you know? Look up the Belgian Expeditionary Corps of Armoured Cars in Russia (Corps Expeditionnaire des Autos-Canons-Mitrailleuses Belges en Russie).

The question of crackup is linked to the impact of American entry. (FD: I am American) I lived and worked in Britain for years, and speak French fluently and have lived in and visited France and some of its former colonies. British people largely seem to be of the opinion that America played no meaningful role in WW1. ...I understand why they think this, and part of the reason they think this is that the war's stress level, though very painful for Britain, was probably lowest for Britain of all the EUROPEAN belligerents. However, though Britannia ruled the waves in WW1, America had a large navy and being able to deploy it fully helped Britain (and France and Italy) be more food secure, or help moot the U-Boat war. The stress level for France was much higher for obvious reasons and French people believe American entry was important. First, it was important mentally, because it enabled French people to see a light at the end of this very dark tunnel. Second, eventually, from 2Q to 4Q 1918, American might mattered militarily. There by then really were enough trained American troops at the front to give the Entente a durable advantage. The American troops also were fresh and completely lacked war weariness, and their numbers were only going up. American entry's impact on crackup was pivotal because American entry repurposed the war. As long as the war was just a big clash of empires, Austria-Hungary for example was quite safe. Once America enters, Austria-Hungary's days are numbered, also for an obvious reason. There is no need for many American troops to fight in Italy for the stress level on the Habsburg war effort to severely ramp simply because of what President Wilson started publicly promising. The Poles, Czechs, South Slavs, and others except Germans and Magyars, immediately will start asking themselves some questions about what their motivations really are. And they will ask these questions to each other, quietly, in their own languages. Given some time and development, what happens next is what actually happened next, and anyone could predict that. As for Germany, the stress level also ramped. The U-boat war now was lost, the Entente suddenly had abundant food, and there was no credible answer to American entry. There was no way anyone could think of, for Germany to defeat America, strategically. Sure, tactically, German forces could win battles against American forces. But strategically, forcing America to quit was about as realistic as forcing Mars to quit if Martians sided with France. And anyone can do the math that the quantity of American troops in France was only going to rise. The answer the German leaders had for the people was that clearly the war had to be won fast in a decisive hammer blow (Operation Michael, etc.), which, impressive though German Western Front gains in Spring 1918 were, just isn't a very inspiring answer under the grueling circumstances. Once the German people (much less the war lords) can't figure out how the war can be won, the full weight of the colossal but pointless, and indeed counterproductive (!), human and material sacrifice starts to sink in, and pretty soon... The irony here, is that when Italy entered in May 1915, German officials bitterly castigated Habsburg officials for their "idiocy" in "allowing that to happen." History does not well record how Habsburg officials responded when they learned that Germany's foreign minister officially had promised to give three American states to Carranza or Zapata or Pancho Villa or Huerta or who cares. It turned out that the crucial military decision came in September 1918 in the Balkans where no American forces were fighting, but, none of that invalidates the impact.

@@Brian----- Germany was decisively defeated in the field. Only after the army asked for an armestice in October did ten home front fall apart. Blockades did far more to harm Russia than Germany. Stab in the back myth permeates so much of ww1 discussions you don't realise untill you take a step back

It was only a dirty Imperialist war to the Russian, German, and British soldiers. For the Belgians, the war was entire justified. Their country had been invaded because it was merely in the way. The Belgian memory of WW1 is much more positive and patriotic than many of the other nations who don't know exact why they are fighting. It is all about perspective.

Especially when they promised to pull out of the war at the beginning and when they didn't they lost the people trust literally right away

What he didn't mention was that some parts of the Provisional Government were SR's who wanted to keep fighting the war believing they could spread the revolution and/or its ideals to Europe who would then rise up with them and do the same, thus leading to a European wide Socialist Revolution. It didn't work at all, even after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920, and a lot of the people who initially supported it falling into group think had it later used against them by Stalin as "continued support for Imperialist ambitions"

@@genericyoutubeaccount579 If we're talking imperialistic warmongering, nobody comes even close to France, that started WW1 out of a sheer hunger for territory and bloodshed, since they were so upset at being defeated in their 1870 invasion of the German States.

The centerleft of the entire European continent was exceptionally thick regarding ww1. It opened the way for extremists

:)

Alexey Navalny bingeing in prison...

Evgeny Prigozhin six feet under

​too late @@Gorboduc

That's before they were brainwashed by the Soviets

Two Russian brigades in France and one brigade on Balcan front In France fight Rodion Malinovsky future Marshal of Soviet Union

I for one think it was too late. There was no order in Russija anymore.

I think that attack was seen as needed because they wanted to prove to the Allies that they were still alive and well and if they didn’t attack the army was gonna disband itself since there was no reason to keep them armed and not attacked at least in men’s minds ( also they wanted a great military victory to unite them and give them hope and courage that they could still win) but I agree Russian could gone another way had they stopped the earn brought the men back under hood order cause before the attack the men WERE willing to defend the government but after the attack many lost heart and also the war could also gone another way had the tzar done so many things I’m more of the opinion that had the tsar stayed in power Russian could become a wonderful ally and things in the region would never of gotten so screwed up

Lack of detail ,.Completely and utterlly,. Do your OWN reserch and then Re-watch the video~

My grandfather (mothers father) was poisoned by gases At night coughed violently Meanwhile worked in the mine in Donbass Died in 1968 From what country You are?

This is the Guards Finnish Reserve Regiment of the Russian Army. It was a regular russian unit that had just the name "Finnish" because legacy reasons.

Yea, I had to google this because I was pretty sure only Finnish officers were serving in WW1 in the imperial army. But this kind of discredits this youtube historia. If he is referring that there are finns on the frontline, what other things is he presenting as fact? Problem with badly qualified historians is that they often miss things like this when they read documents literally.

Why would they not draft Finnish people? Also didn’t Chechens fight for the Red army?

I mean, that's exactly what it was, though. You can argue whether the soldiers were justified in doing so, but them being rebels causing rebellions is an entirely accurate view of what happened.

That was not the problem. The problem was them not doing what would have to be done to make them go back to being seen as heroes of the empire.

Paranoia is one of THE most toxic emotions that can poison an army.

@@paulsillanpaa8268 Completely breaks down regimental spirit and interunit cooperation.

It was more than that. Life is not black and white. Be less primitive

Thanks!

​@@jessealexander2695please cover the African campaigns of WWI

Thanks!

I’d imagine they would of got people from Poland and Finland to fight in the red army? Also what about Chechens? They are technically not Russian.

We need more content about Belarus!

More of a political coup at the top, amidst a parallel and partly (but not fully) related continued military mutiny in the ranks, if you will.

​@@jessealexander2695True. The bolshevic rule was never popular nor spontaneously emerging from the people, contrary to the communist pretense. According to their own ideological doctrine, the communist revolution should not even have happened in Russia, but rather in industrialized countries such as the UK.

The Bolsheviks had some support amongst factory workers, but not amongst the majority of the rest. Although many peasants for a brief period (1918-1920) tolerated them as a better alternative to the land owners. @@herptek

@@jessealexander2695 Communism was an ideology of serfs and factory workers in the early twentieth century. Free peasantry was the great enemy to them.

@@jessealexander2695 The bolsheviks had the majority in all the Soviets by October. The Slogan All Power to the Soviets began in Petrograd and the Red Guards arrested the traitorous Kerensky who was communicating with the counter revolution Army General Kornilov who would have drowned the revolution in blood. The mensheviks walked out after the vote after which Trotsky told them to go walk into the dustbin of history.

He never was really popular (justly or not).

Guard units and Cossacks, traditionally mainstays of Tsarism, did suffer especially heavy casualties.

That would be Grand Duke Nikolai, cousin of Czar Nikky. He was 6'6".

They should have kept him.

Thanks!

Lenin gave huge territory and super terms to Germany when he surrendered Had Germany not lost Lenin gambit would have badly backfired for him

​@@KonradvonHotzendorfdevil takes care of his own

"Germany" didn't send Lenin, "German Zionists" did, from Switzerland. "ZIONISM" ? ! ? ! How does that have anything to do with Russia ??? Dunno. That's what Marx was. Lenin was. All but TWO members of the 1917 politburo were. ALL the leaders of the Cheka and then the NKVD were. Don't see Zion anywhere . .

Short-term indeed. Although no one could have predicted that less than three decades later the mans' portrait would be in office buildings and his statues in all the cities it what must have been half the pre-WW I country. He didn't do it himself, but he did enable people like Stalin to take power.

Indeed.

You still don't~

Much like the modern Russian army

With the exception of ww2

They were one of the strongest armies of the world you fools.

@@bertrecht913 and know they can't even take a punch of potato farmers

@@potato88872 Stalinist USSR isn't imperial Russia

Lets hope so!

Bien dit!

Gardons espoir et entretemps, faut soutenir les ukrainiens.

Thanks

An interesting request, and that would be something I'd watch.

just look on our channel and sort the videos by oldest and start watching. that's our old ww1 documentary series

Yes, it was a grave mistake. Just keeping the frontline could give them overall victory, USA already joined the war... With German troops busy in the East there won't be German spring offensive, and probably with faster defeat there won't be Stab- In- The- Back myth.

And now imagine Germany had actually won in the west.

@@alexzero3736 USA joining the war didnt do much. It was still the battlehardened british and french that pushed in to Germany.

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 also Canadians and Anzacs, but reinforcements from USA gave them operational freedom.

@@alexzero3736 "also Canadians and Anzacs" So british... "but reinforcements from USA gave them operational freedom." I think they boosted morale more than anything.

Ohh he wouldn't have had to give up near as much,.The Bolsheviks wanted the war to end tso they could consolidate power,.It still was a nasty 7-4 vote with the 4 AGAINST signing it at odds pretty much with the rest of the Revolutionaries afterwards,.Of course there was tons of backstabbing, assassinations, and changing of allegiances in the years to come,.But they knew they couldn't fight the Germans and the White Army adversaries at the same time to take control and make Russia a Communist Regime,. This video goes into NONE of that stuff,.It's pretty pathetic and a 4th grade version of the real events which took place~ It's Deliberate~

Indeed, by 1916 (Austro-) German armies, only militarily occupied adjacent (Lithuania &) Napoleon's LANDLOCKED Warsaw-centric Congress Poland Brest-Litovsk declared Eastern Europe's Cordon Sanitaire largely defining Proto-Soviet Russia's WESTERN borders for another century Lest we forget the THREE of Continental Europe's largest (linguistically defined) territorial states FORMALLY recognised by (Imperial) Russia's WWI Allies at Versailles are NATO's "useful troublemaker"s

Yes they do. Often Happened.

Kerensky issued the offensive because he wanted it to Fail,. They couldn't overthrow the government if the army kept having success~

@@matthewmatt5285 That sounds very doubtful. Why would any leader want an offensive to fail on their watch? Why would the Russian generals agree to such an operation? Why would Kerensky want his own government to be overthrown?

​@@roberthanks1636 It wouldn't over throw the government,. It would aid in ending the war,..Why else would you issue it? lol There was still tons of fighting done to consolidate political power at home. > Kerensky's father was the teacher of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) and had even secured him acceptance into the University of Kazan~ Kerensky was Bank-Rolled by outside Zionists like Jacob Schiff,.. This is Encyclopedia Brittanica : --->>>>on March 15, 1917, Milyukov wanted to preserve the monarchy as a stabilizing force to coniue the war but found little support. The revolutionary tide was now running strongly against him. In the liberal provisional government under Prince Georgy Lvov, which Milyukov helped to constitute, he towered intellectually over his colleagues but was soon Outmaneuvered by the Socialist leader Aleksandr Kerensky, >>>>>> who Favoured a policy of Concessions to popular demands, -->>> NOTABLY on the question of taking Immediate Steps toward a negotiated PEACE. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The military heavily criticised Kerensky for his liberal policies, which included stripping officers of their mandates and handing over control to revolutionary-inclined "soldier committees" (Russian: romanized: soldatskie komitety) instead; abolition of the death penalty; and allowing revolutionary agitators to be Present at the Front. Many officers jokingly referred to commander-in-chief Kerensky as the "persuader-in-chief".

She is great!

It didn't explain WHY it was issued though,. Which is HUGE in understanding what happened afterwards~

@@matthewmatt5285 Well, Why it was issued would be a very interesting topic.

@@williewonka6694 If you look up my comments which are NEW it will Begin to TELL YOU,.. This guy is a schill and you know what his tribe is hiding~

Revisionist history is his game~

Soo many comments here saying what a guud video this is,. Do your OWN research bro~