Conrad von Hötzendorf

THIS WAS TRULY. . . MODERN WAR.

Do you guys think he's fully aware of how much he repeats himself?

To be fair their isn't to many ways to say "lots of people died again"

>And hundreds of thousands of young men WILL die

What the fuck does he mean by this and why does he keep speaking of it like it's a tragedy and the generals are morally culpable for mass murder? If the general was smarter it would just mean hundreds of thousands of the OTHER guy's men would die instead. And why does he say shit like "tens of thousands of men on both sides died for nothing, what a waste" when battles don't result in large-scale advances or capture of strategic advances? Killing enemy forces at a favorable ratio is how you win the war.

Nationalism is a social construct not worth dying for but nation leaders use it to brainwash young men into fighting for it anyway.

>"although in the end, the result would be the same:..hundreds of thousands would die."

But the French and Serbians for example were pretty clearly defending themselves from invaders. They're fighting for their homes, not just nationalism.

Is this the only Youtube program that Veeky Forums approves of unironically?

If they got taken over they wouldnt have been all killed. Theyd just be incredibly butthurt because theyd be forced to speak another language.

Yes. Although Primitive Technology is pretty cool.

Historia Civilis too

Narratively solid and engrossing, but ultimately shallow in its coverage of the way.

War isn't about body count so much as it is about will. Erich von Manstein was able to break the french will to fight in the Second World War by breaking through their lines and capturing Paris, not necessarily by killing as many frenchmen as he could. Often times with generals like Hötzendorf, offensives would suffer heavy losses but gain no strategic objective and would leave the enemy's will to continue fighting unchanged. Haven't you at least heard of The Art of War?

It's good to take a step back, stop thinking about it as a war title with some numbers attached to it, and remember that it is like friend or family member dying horribly times 38 million.

This was modern war

This. Fuck he can tell a story. I almost started crying in public transport because of his reading of a letter of a British soldier to his wife.

I'm waiting for their coverage of the Russian Revolution to decide what I think of them.

Why? Politically he just states facts. The only thing he takes sides on is that war sucks.

ah, we live in such cushy times don't we
hopefully you'll never be made to understand

Will they mention all the facts is what I'm worried about. Their first video on the topic seemed very pro-revolutionaries. Hopefully this pro-revolution slant will not continue and descent into pro-Redness.

But I admit that this a topic I'm a bit paranoid about: they did a good job of staying fair so far, but the Russian revolution is so politicized that I've rarely seen a balanced overview of it.

I can see it going either way. He is generally expresses a distaste for the leadership of every nation responsible for starting and continuing the war. Anti-authoritarians therefore don't get much hate, unless he's talking about the Black Hand.

I mean I agree the Bolcheviks did terrible things, but in the context of WW1 I can't see how they can be considered bad?
They put down an incredibly incompetent Tsar and fought for equality and ideals.
Without knowing what Lenin and Stalin were going to do (or at least pretending to in the week by week coverage) being pro-red seems logical.

>They put down an incredibly incompetent Tsar
They didn't it was the february revolution during which Lenin wasn't in Russia
>fought for equality and ideals
More like they fought for absolute power
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks