Comments by "Black Cat Dungeon Master\x27s Familiar" (@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

@wavebuilder14udc75 That's an implausible take, the Somme sucked in hundreds of thousands of German reserves who would otherwise been available for the Verdun battle - which was in the balance. "little to no effect on German troop movements" is just plain wrong.
7
@Tea_And_History Falkenhayn himself cited the Somme as part of the reason for calling off Verdun. The claim that it didn't make any difference makes no sense. It sucked in the German reserves and cost almost half a million casualties. How could it possibly not have effected the German ability to maintain pressure on Verdun? if you want another source, try Chris Duffy's book on the Somme Through German Eyes, page 327
5
@sergeykorostelev7510 The Soviet Union would have starved without Lend Lease, they were close to starvation as it was. What counted wasn't so much the military supplies as all the trucks and food.
3
@acosorimaxconto5610 Of course they had snipers in 1916, I literally have a book called Sniping in France by Major Hesketh-Pritchard who helped set it up in 1915
2
@kevinodriscoll3904 It's very hard to compare British and German casualties because the British recorded all casualties whereas the Germans didn't record injured who were successfully treated by their own regimental aid posts. This means in most older historiography, German casualties tend to be heavily understated. On the Somme specifically, German casualties in their fighting against the British (I don't know too much about the French held front) were lower than British casualties but the difference probably isn't that much. In some specific battles within the general Somme umbrella, German casualties were definitely higher.
2
@Maperator Even worse than that, the Soviet Union was about to invade Germany. It had a huge build up of forces on the border, there is hard evidence that was offensively deployed. e.g. supply dumps but not fortifications. Rail track using European gauge.
2
Sorry to be pedantic but it would be a battalion rather than a regiment. There are lots of stories like this unit falling to 1%. It's important to be aware that usually after a battle like this, many of these men would not be casualties, they were either in reserve, doing jobs which didn't require them to attack (e.g. at least 50 men for a battalion including wagon drivers, signallers, medical aid post staff etc) or simply lost and a lot of men often found ways to avoid making the attack at all. Units get disorganised and mixed up. When someone tries to do a roll call after an attack, the roll call is only going to be of the men who can be immediately found. For example a Seaforths battalion did an attack, only two men could be found afterwards. Casualties were very high but a lot of men appeared days later after other battalions came up to occupy the captured ground. Some of them were pinned down in a German trench which now found itself in no man's land. Some had been temporarily commandeered by an officer from a neighbouring battalion in an occupied German trench. Some had probably just gone to ground and hidden in a shell crater somewhere. It's already been mentioned this regiment is wrong; usually when a battalion took very high casualties and had to be amalgamated, battalions were amalgamated within the same regiment rather than being transferred to another regiment. This could well have happened in 1918 I don't think it's likely in 1916 when the pre-war regimental system was still pretty strong. This was pretty rare in 1916, there were still enough new men coming through to rebuild shattered battalions. It became more common in 1917 when, due to casualties, infantry manpower was shrinking.
1
This is hugely one sided, it leaves out important information which demolishes its central thesis for example that Germany cut its armaments production massively after the fall of the France, the Soviet Union's outrageous demands before the German invasion and the huge Soviet build up of forces on the border. Basically it's either a deliberate lie or written by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. For a short summary of the opposing evidence, see Zoomer Historian's video on Lebensraum.
1
Myth. German forces in the Southern Balkans were quite small. Forces for Crete specifically were irrelevant. One parachute division and one mountain division.
1
What was the alternative? Sit back and allow the Germans to keep the initiative? If the British had refused to attack, the Germans probably would have broken the French at Verdun, what then? Quite possibly a separate peace and a German victory. Haig didn't want to fight at the Somme, he had to. To relieve pressure on the French and the Russians.
1
@johnsmith4811 Even worse than that, the Soviet Union was about to invade Germany. It had a huge build up of forces on the border, there is hard evidence that was offensively deployed. e.g. supply dumps but not fortifications. Rail track using European gauge.
1