What do you think, Veeky Forums?

>implying they wont start it in september '19

I'm a brit and I fucking abhor Lindybeige. He's so fucking full of himself and can't stand any criticism to the Brits, even if it's valid

the whole thing about The Great War was that it was following the events week by week 100 years in the future. I don't think they'd do that

DID YOU KNOW THAT WAR IS BAAAAAAAD??????

They're great, I'd like for them to do retrospective videos on long term, important events once they're over in the narrative. Maybe expending on what others nations thought of it, logistics of it, that kind of thing.

Excellent to listen to at work, and the format is interesting. That said, the fact that every episode ends with "This... Is modern war" gets obnoxious. Yes, I know the war is terrible, that's why I'm fucking interested in it

When they first started it was kind of clear that they didn't have many sources and seemed like he was reading wikipedia, I remember everytime he mentioned a book it was the same.
As the show went on though it got much, much better though and it's good now.

Watched up to mid-1915 and got sick of it. It was fairly entertaining but the increasingly frequent use of "This... is modern war" became like an annoying, obnoxious meme, and when he started going on long tangents about how shit the war was I got a bit fed up with it. Like yeah the war was bad, you don't need to remind me every four minutes.

In an effort to end repetition, the summary is basically this:
>Yes he's good
>Pretty much everyone here likes him
>Only problem is how repetitive Indy saying "Over 10 million people died in this war" gets

I also have my own general WW1 narrative pet peeves: Claiming Germany was the only nation willing to invade Belgium, claiming Britain or USA siding against Germany was anything besides an inevitability (or that either nation cared about other people), and claiming Verdun's "bleed France white" gaffe was completely true.

>it’s a kaiserboo having a fit episode

Next you’ll tell me there were no good guys, right?

>claiming Verdun's "bleed France white" gaffe was completely true
They actually had a special episode on that discussing how that was very likely just an excuse Falkenhayn came up with after his original goal for the offensive failed.

It has way too much allied propaganda in it

How so?

I know that, but that's still only part of the truth:

>The first and most important element was avoiding German losses. The second was to inflict as many losses upon the French as possible at the lowest possible cost in German lives. The area he chose was the Verdun Salient, a small ring of French forts centered on the town of Verdun jutting into German territory, supplied only by one road and a light single-tracked railway while the German side facing it had three double-tracked railway lines and even more roads. The idea was to make some small, short-range attacks of a couple of kilometres (i.e. well within friendly light- and medium- artillery range) and take the strategic ridges in the area from which to command a superior artillery position. The French would then almost certainly try to counter-attack and take it back, whereupon the Germans could use their massive superiority in artillery to massacre their forces. Once the French had completely destroyed themselves trying to attack, the Germans might move their artillery up and advance a little further - tempting the French into counterattacking again.
>Von Falkenhayn's strategy and operational methodology were brilliant. German forces had all the logistical support and battlefield efficiency they needed to see this thing through. However, the overall commander of the German forces deployed to Verdun - Crown Prince Wilhelm - decided that he would use that massive artillery park to break straight through the French lines and seize the fortress-city of Verdun. Instead of a slow, boring series of battles which von Falkenhayn would get all the credit for Wilhelm thought that he could make a name for himself by striking a major or even war-winning blow against the French by acting on his own.

(1/2)

>The result was predictable. Wilhelm's forces outran their artillery and were utterly mulched by the French artillery. Because Wilhelm took too much territory, he then had to move his artillery several kilometres into the captured territory. This meant that instead of supplying his artillery and his men directly from the railways, he had to bridge the gap with trucks and horses. Of course, Wilhelm had not actually been given enough trucks and horses to do this. Wilhelm's attempts to keep attacking floundered given his insufficient supply of ammunition and his men's horrible losses and exhaustion. Verdun was a meatgrinder - for the Germans as well.
>The reverses at the Somme and Verdun led to von Falkenhayn being sacked. Wilhelm's political clout, however, prevented them from doing likewise to him. It served as another prominent example of how politics continually interfered with the war. Prussian Militarism ensured that the Army and General's Staff was not a meritocracy where members were recruited for their battlefield prowess, but instead positions were awarded based on your standing in the aristocracy. This was not endemic to Prussian Militarism though; almost every European army has this system to a varying degree. The Germans, Austrians, Russians, and British were the most egregious about it though, most notably Winston Churchill getting his start in this war as both a politician and a military commander.
(2/2)