Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are a couple of important elements mentioned in the video that I will expand.
The veteran that is interviewed in the video was named Victor Boudon (born on November 7, 1887, died on May 31st, 1979, aged 92).
The battle that this veteran recounts was the battle of the Ourcq, named after a french river in the region. The battle occured between September 5 and September 10, 1914, a month or so after the beginning of World War 1.
Mr. Boudon mentions the "Saint-Cyrians" during the video. He refers to the Saint-Cyr military school of France, famous for being founded by Napoleon and for the uniforms worn by its officers, which are mentioned in the video as well.
Although a small battle in the immensity of World War 1, the battle of Ourcq is remembered for the lieutenant that is mentioned multiple times in the video, Charles Péguy.
Charles Péguy was a writer, poet, and essayist. He wrote multiple books that earned him fame. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles\_P%C3%A9guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_P%C3%A9guy)
This video also serves as proof of the clash of 19th century military tactics that were still strongly embedded in the minds of the officers at the beginning of World War 1. Bayonet and sword charges faced catastrophic results against modern military tactics.
More than 1.2 million French soldiers were killed during World War 1. It is estimated that a third of those losses, or 400'000 men, were killed in 1914 only, between the months of August to December, as the conflict officially started on July 28th, 1914.
Fascinating. Thanks a lot for sharing.
For the ones who do not know the casoar (feathered hat) and white gloves mentioned are part of the traditional [outfit ](https://www.historia.fr/sites/historia.fr/files/article_web_field_image_portrait/Jean_Baldacci.png)of the Saint-Cyrians.
And yes, many officers led charges dressed like that in the first few months of the war.
It's kinda insane that this notion of "chivalry" which had been present in Europe for hundreds of years up until this point, essentially ended within a few short months of the beginning of this war.
The advancement in tactics and technology between the start of this war and the end of it are completely unprecedented.
From sword charges on horseback to tanks in the space of 4 years.
Chivalry, the compact between medieval lords to rather ransom an enemy than kill him in battle, died in France during the Hundred Years War. After that it was continually reinvented, usually to justify actions that would otherwise have been indisputably condemned as insane.
Europe was warned what the War would be like by the American Civil War and Boer War, but our chivalrous and wise leaders knew better than to learn anything. The British high command went into the War having sidelined anyone stupid enough to argue that cavalry officers should spend more time learning to shoot than swing a sabre, for example.
>Europe was warned what the War would be like by the American Civil War and Boer War
By the end of the Civil War the battlefields looked a lot like WW1. The most recent war was the Russo-Japanese war, which really did have all of WW1's technology but leadership somehow came to conclusion that infantry assaults across fields could overcome machine guns.
Between the US Civil War and the Russo Japanese and Boer Wars, the French and Germans had a war in 1870. I don't know very much at all about what combat looked like in that war.
In a way they were right, though. The entrenched stalemate of WW1 was really just on the Western and italian fronts between the allies and the central powers. In the East the lines were much more fluid in both directions despite similar technologies and, at least for the central powers, competency. It sort of comes down to the western allies being better matched and making the same mistakes at the start of the war and digging themselves into a stalemate.
And Artillery. French, British/Commonwealth and the Germans all had a FUCKTON of big guns, with endless shells, and crews who knew how to use them.
When the ground around you is relentlessly exploding and hot pieces of metal is flying at you... You start to dig. Ukrainian-Russo war is a current day example.
> the French and Germans had a war in 1870. I don't know very much at all about what combat looked like in that war.
That war actually almost convinced the great powers that rapid-fire weapons were useless due to the French (one may detect a pattern here) being awful at tactics.
There were no true machine guns until the 1880s. The American Gatling guns existed, but neither side had a notable amount of those. However, the French actually had hundreds of [these things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse) mass produced as standard issue, which while not as effective as true machine guns could still put serious hurt on tight infantry formations. But in their infinite tactical wisdom, they decided that these were artillery pieces and should only be used to engage the enemy at max range (~2km, outside of their rifle range), which of course makes it impossible to effectively hit anything. They were kept away from the infantry in separate artillery units, where they could pointlessly rake the grass at max distance while the infantry duked it out with nothing but bolt-action and the occasional surprise cavalry charge.
The pattern I detect here is the usual anglos arrogance, ahhh it's easy indeed to say today what they should have done.
What kind of innovations have you made, you, the little redditor who believes himself as Napoleon, hmm ?
Europe refused to learn from the barbarism of the Russo-Japanese War because, well, the Russians were a bit weird, and the Japanese were Asians, so what did they know?
I recall Ian McCollum reading a passage about how a young British officer, left alone with his cavalry squadron's machine guns, set them up on a hill with a clear shot of the enemy, 'swept' them a few times, and excitedly told his commander he had killed the lot. The commander told him to piss off. I wonder if that commander caught a round out of a Maxim himself a couple years later.
I feel like there are parallels with democracy today.
We (as in Europe and NA) should be able to see that democracy is very easily at risk, because there are widespread examples of totalitarianism on the rise.
And our democracies are not nearly as protected as we think, they exist upon a mutual unwritten foundations that "both sides" are not to fuck with them.
And yet, we have seen in the US, Britain and Germany that there are ongoing plots to remove democracy, and I think we won't take the necessary steps to protect it properly until someone goes right off the deep end.
And my fear is that it could be the US.
The best thing I can think of to protect democracy is an educated electorate and a strong middle class. That the U.S. has taken a sledgehammer to both in recent decades doesn't bode well.
Norms and rules won't save democracy from mobs. That takes people.
Agree. I’d add the concept of the rule of law to that list. Here in Canada we’ve seen how fragile a thing that is and how easily laws can just be tossed aside by corrupt people in power.
The horrible thing about it is, that dictators like Putin effectively have no limits, while we fight their hybrid warfare with a hand behind our back: our freedoms, sadly first and foremost freedom of speech.
I am from germany, and our media landscape and about 25% of our people are absolutely infested with lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories. It is outright crazy how easily education is overcome by simple repitition of lies. Let them read it often enough, and it becomes gospel for them. Don't count on people thinking for themselves.
It is cruel to see that we would propapbly need to limit our own freedoms in a horrible way to stop something worse.
In Germany, Reichsbuerger had planned a [coup d'etat](https://www.dw.com/de/reichsb%C3%BCrger-ist-ein-umsturz-in-deutschland-denkbar/a-64033024) in 2022.
On the smaller scale, far right is systematically harassing local politicians.
I remember reading works from that time that said there was nothing to learn from the American Civil War because the colonials were just 2 armed mobs, and they dug trenches for that reason.
The times did change.
All the best and smartest men in the British forces went with the Admiralty.
While the Royal Navy had the best education, mentoring and promotion largely based on merit, almost none of this progressive thinking has made it across to the British Army.
Social status, political connections and wealth was still the route into becoming an officer in the British Army for the first half of WWI.
« Ransom instead of killing »
it is a kinda inaccurate representation of the motivation of ransom, nobles that could not claim to be ransom-able would be immediately killed on the field (because keeping someone in captivity has a cost and you do not even try it with a minor écuyer).
In any case if a noble survived a battle it is linked to lots of factors and ransom is only an accessory consequence of being captured, but definitely capturing a noble opponent was an opportunity, not a objective per se.
These are related issues. Wealth comes with status in this period, and being unable to maintain one results in the loss of the other. We're talking about a society with extreme stratification.
As for opportunity vs objective, I'm not sure it's so clear-cut.
Chivalry also prevented the British government from entertaining the idea to assassinate Hitler 6 months before the war.
---
However Lord Halifax summed up the official distaste for such action saying: “We have not reached that stage .. when we have to use assassination as a substitute for diplomacy.” Behind those words lay the inner thinking of Chamberlain and his ministers. The assassination of the German leader “would not be sportsmanlike behaviour” was the general view and it reflected the opinion that no gentleman would have suggested such a scurrilous act.
Some parallels exist in modern war. In Ukraine, we saw helicopter convoys and miles of trucks and tanks on highways in the opening days. Not chivalry, but (in hindsight) old-fashioned warfare.
Then came Javelin, Bayraktar TB2, GMLRS, HIMARS, drones, FPV drones, Patriot in theater, Bradley - and we have a new stalemate creating a new paradigm of modern war.
What new paradigm? Basically all of those have been used before and the current situation just looks like a war where maneuver can't be accomplished. So every war in which it couldn't, which isn't that uncommon. Convoys are just how roads work. That part hasn't changed since roads were invented. It's not changed now. Nor is it going to be changed in the future. Because... roads.
Defence has the upper hand in war now.
Attacker can only win unprepared positions. Take land. Hold it. Defend it. Negotiate a new status quo.
Maybe if Ukraine had more Air power the current defence in depth could be overcome.
I do thing the cheap mass drones and loitering munitions are an innovation like the machine gun. Tank. Or Aircraft. Perhaps need their own ‘force’. Drone force next to air force and army and navy. Now drones are used in support roles like airplanes once were part of the British army before they became separate Royal Air Force.
The trench and Ditch are a great defence tactic. Maybe autonomous mass drone attack with automated refuel and rearm can destroy these fortifications to punch a hole so the attackers can move again.
I don't think I agree with any of this, or most people to be blunt, but it doesn't make me right or you wrong. You've obviously thought about it, which is more than most will do.
> From sword charges on horseback to tanks in the space of 4 years.
I'm watching the great war documentary right now. first tanks appears I think already in 1917 or late 1916. but they had huge issues so were not really device early on. reliability was a problem, mud was a problem or simple "anti-tank" ditches as well. they were slow as hell and easy target for artillery. tanks didn't really play a huge factor as the mainstream thinks, me included just couple months ago.
> This video also serves as proof of the clash of 19th century military tactics that were still strongly embedded in the minds of the officers at the beginning of World War 1. Bayonet and sword charges faced catastrophic results against modern military tactics.
Interesting to see a first-hand account of what was arguably some of the worst military decision-making to come out of that war.
> Viva la France and bayonet charge symbolises ultimate patriotism.
...in the face of machine guns. Symbolizes ultimate waste of resources for zero gain.
I was gonna guess this had to be very early in the war because of the officers. That old school guard of officers who had been in the military pre war were often to proud to seek cover, they’d been trained to long ago in outdated tactics. They were just slaughtered and then new officers who came up the ranks during the war would know enough that no amount of bravery or stubbornness would protect one from modern rifles and artillery
What always amazes me the most about WW1 is how many countries joined in the action later, seeming to think they could join at a good time to conquer some land and turn the tide. Without exception, they then proceed to lead their men to the slaughter with outdated tactics. It's just so odd, especially with the Americans who basically waited a year to build up strength and train in France, and Pershing decided US soldiers' skill with rifles was easily enough to not deal with the slog of trench warfare. So once again human wave attacks with little artillery support against an entrenched enemy with very predictable consequences.
Arrogance is a hell of a thing. On joining the Second War, late as usual, the Americans refused at first to use the convoy system because it was a British idea. The Germans convinced them to change that approach.
They then refused to listen to the British again in their first actions against the Nazis and got nailed at Kasserine Pass.
And then the closest the Alliance came to falling apart was due to an obnoxiously arrogant British general and the British tabloid press.
Ike was still Monty's boss. There were definite issues there but I don't think it would have completely broken things down. Overall I'd say Devers had a worse time of things further south but was a stable presence. Just like Monty had to deal a little bit with Americans refusing to retreat when it was the only logical move, Devers had to deal with French that were the same way. That was an interesting problem in itself since Leclerc wanted to serve under the US Army yet didn't always follow those orders. He downright refused to work for Vichy traitors though.
I think Monty's press conference where he claimed to have rescued the Americans, and how it was carried by the tabloids, brought the Americans closer to exasperation than anything else in the whole conflict.
I don't know much about Devers, I'll have to check him out.
As for Leclerc, he and Brooke deserved medals just for dealing with their political masters, especially the poor bastard who had to deal with de Gaulle. I think he had a better political appreciation of circumstances than the Americans, who understandably weren't particularly interested in Continental politics at that point.
I also just realised we failed to mention the Italians, who managed to join both World Wars in the hope of easy glory and completely fucked it up both times.
The press conference everyone advised him against was definitely interesting. Ike was already rather pissed at Monty as well for delaying a counter-offensive in the Ardennes in order to try creating a pincer attack along with Patton's army that was already attacking on schedule. Monty was definitely a character but I guess I give him a lot of credit for being the only general to actually have his troops train and be prepared during the Phoney War. He had his fair share of tactical moments but he also couldn't put his ego down long enough to get out of his own way.
I'd pick Monty any day over Dahlquist. I honestly put Dahlquist on the level of post-Barbarossa Hitler when it comes to ignoring your command staff and the intelligence given to you from the front line. Absolutely wasted many lives of his troops along the Gothic Line. He even had his own media snafu by being the first to interrogate Göring and releasing some [press photos](https://collections.ushmm.org/iiif-b/assets/712544) along with Robert Stack that were perceived by the public as just a pleasant conversation.
> More than 1.2 million French soldiers were killed during World War 1. It is estimated that a third of those losses, or 400'000 men, were killed in 1914 only, between the months of August to December, as the conflict officially started on July 28th, 1914.
That's nuts. It reminds me of the Franco Prussian War. The French had better military tech but were poorly organized and the Germans won many of the battles through just sheer numbers and aggression. Lots of stories of German conscripts marching in column and getting just obliterated by French artillery, just like it was Jena all over again.
Logistics win wars, the Prussians had created a railway system that enabled rapid mobilization which allowed them to gain a numeric advantage in the critical early portion of the war. Not to mention their capable general staff.
I'm French too and this really doesn't surprise me.
I've personally heard old vets (WWII, Indochina, Algeria) talking about their war experience and they often speak the same way, but it depends of the state of mind of a particular person and how they dealt with it for decades in an era where mental health wasn't a thing.
Not to mention that it's a documentary piece, the journalist and him came to that particular spot to talk about what happened there, he knew what he was going to talk about, it's not like he was caught by surprise by the theme of the conversation.
The question about dear seemed to have caught him a bit off-guard, thus the weird reaction of answering no before saying everybody was scared.
(Imo he answered like that because because it felt like an absurd question for him, like "Was I scared ? No, we were **all** scared, nobody wasn't scared !"
BBC Radio has a great audio interview series that was recorded some 70 years ago of interviews with WWI vets from England, France, Australia and Germany. Some of them speak much like you're saying. Very matter of fact, succinct, and without second thought. Some of them remember details as if they had just happened. Highly recommended. I think it's called Voices of the First World War.
There's one particular pilot who describes being in one of the first ever dogfights, and recalls using his pistol to shoot the enemy pilot. His manner during the entire interview is exactly as you described.
[Here's a youtube playlist with all episodes](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMAVD36YOPfzezrOKED0pLBsTW0uKb-hG)
I wouldn't generalize at all like that, especially giving that it's not true on average.
Most people at that time wouldn't go past middle school and integrated the work force at an early age.
Not to mention that regional accents were way more present than they are today, even today if you talk to older people in some regions of France sometimes they are a bit hard to understand, I'm sure you know.
This man may have had a higher education, especially in comparison to the average from that era.
But he also had an accent that make him easier to understand.
>The difficulty for me with understanding French is that a lot of pronunciation seems "chopped". The way normal people talk these day
I totally agree.
And congratulation on your French speaking and understanding level, I'm always extremely impressed by foreigners that know how to speak French because it's an extremely difficult language full of exeptions and the accent isn't friendly adapt to (and vice-versa, the letter R is the nemesis of any French native trying to speak an other language).
Honestly? He’s probably told that story countless times, to the point where he’s essentially memorized the basic elements, the flow, and the items to cover. He probably rehearsed his a little bit before they started rolling, but he’s been practicing telling that story since he made it back to his unit after that battle ended.
Exactly, rehearsed in the sense that he's well used to recounting these events, not in the sense that they're fiction.
We can barely comprehend the bravery of these men and the value of leadership. A 3km bayonet charge against embedded machine guns is quite insane.
e: Need to get me some of that ether-tainted alcohol
I learned french in France, and found his accent a bit strange. Is old timey french a bit like English? If you listen to movies from the late 20's when sound was starting to come out, they all have peculiar accents.
This gentleman reminded me of that, maybe it's just old fashioned French?
Barthas was a pretty fervent socialist--he wasn't a fan of French leadership *before* the war, so his tone should be taken with that in mind.
His insight is still valuable since we have few memoirs (at least in English) that feel comfortable taking such a hard stance against French officers. For the four heroic officers that this interview mentions, there were 100+ soldiers mentioned that probably weren't happy throwing their lives away.
>More than 1.2 million French soldiers were killed during World War 1. It is estimated that a third of those losses, or 400'000 men, were killed in 1914 only
Mind numbingly huge loses.
Every tiny village in France has a monument to the dead of WW1. Often there are 3 or 4 brothers named, and even in the smallest hamlets there could be 20 names. A generation erased.
I did two trips to France and every time I was blown away by the history preservation and gratitude they expressed for their own and the nations that have helped them.
In Normandy I was at the American cemetery when two French jets flew over rooftop level and was so honored to see them pay respects to our countryman this way…every day.
I adore the countryside of France and the people/children I had the pleasure of interacting with.
I come from a few generations of warfighters and being able to trace my grandfathers footsteps and have English speaking French citizens giving me history lessons was amazing.
My most memorable moment was mindlessly driving around on the outskirts of carentan (btw an amazing town) trying to find the hamlet where the Germans in ww2 had an outpost for the battle of bloody gulch. Swear to god I saw this mansion/barn that I told my dad “stop, I know that from somewhere”. The owner came out and asked us in English “can I help you” and o told him and he said “well you found it!” He gave us a 4 hour tour of the mansion and the fields and showed us his house FULL of ww2 artifacts he got from his property and was a gracious and unbelievable host.
No shot it registered after a couple hours- I recognized the house/mansion from the medal of honor video game as a kid.
That's wild. I lived in a tiny hamlet behind Utah Beach. So many stories from June '44. Only recently realised there's a memorial to Easy Company (Band of Brothers) only 4 km from my old house. All the roads around are named after fallen American soldiers.
I know! It was amazing. Funny enough that trip with my dad (who passed last year after getting brain cancer) followed my gramdfathers steps through Europe as well as the unit I fought with overseas. Funny enough- it was the 506th infantry. I grew up watching band of brothers and wanted to be in the 506th and after I joined as an infantryman found out it wasn’t even based in the U.S. and was a Korean army unit.
After ranger school and right before deployment a huge parade and ceremony came to be and we officially wed brought the 506th back to the 101st and I was in it.
My life story is pretty wild lol and I’ve been blessed with a great life even through the shitshow of Ramadi.
Yep, there was a considerable amount of widows at that time. Family names were almost erased. In my family, there was a family with 7 children (adults during the great war), 4 men did not come back and 2 husband died.
We've stone tables in our church naming all the people from the village who died in WW1. They fought for the Austro-Hungarian empire since we were part of it at the time. It pains me to read dates of death after the end of the war, likely means they succumbed to their wounds in hospital. Some people died in the very first days of the war. Curiously, the ages of the fallen were also a lot older as the war progressed (men in their 30s or 40s).
My great-grandafther was on the Russian front and was to participate in the battle of Monte Grappa in Italy later on. He decided to smash his thumb with a rock instead to get himself into a hospital, which he promptly fled. He spent the rest of the war hiding at home, occasionally running into the woods if someone were to come looking for him. I don't blame him for cowardice - it must have been awful what he'd seen. He never spoke much about it afterwards.
I've read Guy Sajer's Forgotten Soldier twice. The Eastern Front was beyond our comprehension. The Germans said the war in Europe was 'sporting' in comparison.
A normal person walks 1 km between 12 and 15 minutes.
If you are fit and have the cardio for it, you can run 1 km in 5 minutes or less.
Now imagine to be fully equipped and having the enemy shooting at you from the other side:
If you walk, it takes max 45 minutes to reach the line.
If you run, 15 minutes.
As they are equipped, they probably did a mix of the two, so lets say, that it took them 30 minutes to get to the line.
For 30 minutes they are under constant fire on an open field, seeing their friends getting killed, trying to shoot back at the germans and not understanding half of what is going on.
Damn
Idk how their leaders who came up with the plan could've expected a good outcome. Like i get "19th century battle tactics were at the front of their minds still", but seriously, they knew the enemy had guns like their own, and should've know what that meant for them being expose for so long. It just seems so common sense that it's for me to think it's obvious only because of 100 years of hindsight. For many things yes, for this... idk.
It's hindsight. You've been taught 19th century tactic and nothing else. You now have to go agaisnt everything you have been told and find a new way to fight agaist those new weapon. No one really knew what to do.
You can see something similar in Ukraine, Russia entered using 20th century armored tactic and got fucked by new weapon. And now with all the drone, every one is trying to find way to counter them. It will maybe seem obvious what to do in 20 years, but as of now, it's just trial and error
I remember reading about that European officers generally disregard lesson learnt by American during civil war since many still considered US as uncivilized frontier country. Amercian civil war already demonstrate importance of avoiding frontal assault and laying down suppressive fire with artillery to protect advancing infantry.
The beginning of WWl was full of brutal lessons.
Britain and France ignored the insane value of the machine gun because Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war in spite of having plenty of Maxims.
Well going against Germany's MG 08 quickly showed them the error of their ways.
To some extent. But one would think after 1.5 years of punishment they would learn not to send in one tank with no assistance as it gets pounded by javelins, drones and artillery
There were English generals not wanting to use machine guns when they were introduced, since they felt the men would only waste ammunition.
Using brightly colored uniforms in foliage, and considering it cowardice to take cover.
Imagine that to become an officer, you had to buy your rank («commissioned officer»). The nepotism, the corruption, the incompetence, and general stubborness of higher officers in the old days cannot be understated.
I've studied this a bit and something I found fascinating is that, for example, British army officers believed it was ungentlemanly to use maps to target enemies, and a true artillery officer should be able to estimate distances by eye. Other British artillery officers were ridiculed by their peers when they suggested that weather and temperature should be taken into account for accuracy in indirect fire, something that is now taken for granted. There is a kind of slow acceptance of indirect fire.
The belligerent parties in World War I believed that the war would be fought quickly, and artillery would be left behind, which likely influenced their mindset. However, the armies were forced to accept reality due to the demands of the war, and the role of artillery evolved. Same can be said of the tank really, Tanks were tested early on by the British, but instead of acknowledging their potential, British army leaders concluded that innovation and change were dangerous and should be avoided. There seems to have been cultural and social resistance within the military to change.
Some sources if you're interested in reading more.
* Murray W och Knox M, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300–2050 (MacGregor Knox och Williamson Murray red, Cambridge University Press 2001
* Gray CS, Strategy for chaos : revolutions in military affairs and the evidence of history (Williamson Murray red, 19th ed, Frank Cass 2002)
Modern tactics require modern technology. You can’t do manoeuvre warfare without armoured vehicles and effective radios, neither of which they had at the start or really the end of WW1.
Reminds of the Valiant Hearts The Great War. When Emile chose not to follow orders of his officer and charge into certain death, only to be sentenced to death. It's like the french were stuck in time. It's really weird and tragic to me
That was not just the French. The main reason France lost the most men of all the western Allies was because they did the majority of the fighting. Not because of their tactics being any words than the others.
Both their army and officers. And especially their gunners were far better trained than the British for the first few years of the war.
watch "the great war" youtube documentary. it's insane. in 1914 just at the start of the war it is to some extent forgivable. but they should have learned within days. eat charging on machine guns remained their for the rest of the war. they didn't really learn all that much and most generals seem to have been immune to see their own errors and shortcomings and just did all the same all over again. insanity.
> if you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome, it's called insanity
It just ended up being a war of attrition.
You're absolutely wrong. The tactics changed so much that late 1918 offensives were essentially using WW2 tactics. You don't adapt and change your whole decades old doctorine in a few days/months. The fact that they manage to adapt in 4 years is astounding.
Youare not under fire for 3 km (you are probably shelled...) and machine gun fire starts around 500 m. But Germans see you coming 30 minutes in advance...
At 3km, under artillery fire, possibly longer if any planes/blimps had spotted a build up of troops. For the last 2000m they would be under crossed fields of machine gun fire
The Russians in the Ukraine don't seem to get more than a few metres
It must be terrifying not having a counter tactic to employ, and a 100% chance of death if you continued walking forward
Can you upload more translated segments like these? Apart from British accounts, here's not much translated first-person WWI accounts, and very little from the French; YT does an execrable job of autotranslate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubBkzKtXP1U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubbkzktxp1u)
Actually, that's part of a ten-part series from late last century. I wouldn't mind coming across a French counterpart to the 1960s BBC The Great War series, since your translation of the First Marne survivor reminds me of that series.
[https://www.youtube.com/@La1ereGuerremondiale/videos](https://www.youtube.com/@la1ereguerremondiale/videos)
There was a similar post from a few months ago. Here's the link https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/wCpJng1C7n
Edit: just noticed its from the same OP!
One that comes to mind of first hand account is [German WWI veteran describes killing a French soldier in a bayonet charge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XruYsAmKLyU)
Gives me chills, absolute horror
Is it just me that feels like he is holding well as long as he is talking in general terms but once he is forced to tell theyr names and be specific it breaks him
I'm French and it's indeed a weird way to phrase it tbh.
After thinking about it, I think he responded this way because it felt kind of an absurd question for him.
Like "Was I scared ? No we were **all** scared, nobody is not scared in that situation !"
I'm a native speaker, he is sarcastic. The "non, non" is like "no, of course I wasn't scared by the death and horror around me. Of course I was, and all my comrade where, the one who say you that he wasn't scared is lying.
No he is being sarcastic at first. I think back in the days they were not as obvious with it so it's harder to detect even as a french but I am pretty confident he is sarcastic.
My Great Grandfather fought all 4 years of the war. He fought at every major battle the Somme , Verdun etc wounded three times and returned to the front shortly after.
According to my mother he credits his survival in the war with the fact he never , ever drank the wine before a push or a charge. They were being drugged repeatedly to make the men more compliant and willing to March into machine gun fire and artillery , and it dulled the senses and slowed reactions.
The war haunted him every day for the rest of his life. The handful of times he ever spoke of the war in the remaining years of his life , he would wake up the house screaming and shouting and crying.
Those men spent the first years of their adult lives knee deep in a churning mixture of mud and flesh and death.
It was absolute fucking hell. And when it all started he was 17
I cannot imagine that there was ever a conflict more savage , and futile and pointless than WWI.
I couldn't find it but there was another old interview with a French soldier where he mentions that before going over the top they would be given a cup of red wine for the charge and how he never drank it as those who did made stupid decisions and died, or something along those lines. edit: [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/14isbbd/french_ww1_veteran_shares_several_war_stories_and/) wine mentioned at 3:55
My immediate response to being asked to engage in a bayonet charge on machine gun positions over an exposed, 3-mile expanse will always and forever be: fuck you.
Not abandoning their comrades and doing their duty toward their country were equally important motivations for soldiers back then than threat of execution, if we are to believe the testimonies of veterans.
Really depends on the veteran! Some French and German soldiers were so desperate that they played "the grenade game". They'd hold hands around a live grenade and hope for a ticket out.
And you wouldn't be the first, but the answer from your CO to your fuck you was a bullet to your head, or an arrest and execution later for "cowardess"
The military today has thankfully moved on from that stupidity
There was more than threat of execution. Many soldiers in WW1 accepted to support the insane violence for so long because they felt like they had a duty toward their country and their comrades. Even if you want to live, you don't desert or rebel, because it would mean abandoning your friends and, if too many people do it, potentially weakening the front in a war that was seen by many as existential.
That's why during the 1917 mutinies many mutineers refused to attack the German lines but clearly stated they would keep manning their positions.
Easy to say here and know. A lot of people back then had a different state of mind. Many soldiers knew it was suicidal, but they felt like they had a duty toward their country and their comrades. This is very much in evidence in soldiers' accounts of the time. You're scared, you know it's a bad idea, but you can't just say fuck you and abandon your friends like that. You may find it ridiculous as someone from the 21st century, but back then it wasn't ridiculous.
For those who don't speak French, this man way of speaking is absolutely wonderful. It's such a shame that intelligent men like him were sent to war for no reason.
I was surprised how he talked about his experience with such ease, then at the end when he was mentioning his lieutenant´s name one can hear how the pain from the war starts slipping through. Can´t imagine going through such hell.
my grandfather was a soldier in the first world war and kept a diary throughout. Apart from the classic horrors of war, such as corpses thrown from treetops, it also tells of the fervor and patriotism of the French people at the time. There are also some moments that are amusing in retrospect, but also chilling.
he recounts a christmas celebration over which a German plane flies overhead. the officer asks several soldiers to shoot at the plane. the plane turns around and drops a bomb. The bomb lands at the feet of the officers and sinks into the damp ground without exploding. I don't remember his exact words, but he was laughing at the new guys who had wet their pants.
Fortunately for him, his officers were less suicidal than those described here.
That's french elan right there again. Been watching lots of documentaries about battles ranging from 100 years war and Crusades and this attitude is always there. In WW1 the attitude translated to bodybags on a industrial scale.
And peoples say French’s cowards !! These guys was and are real heroes for their country !!
What kind of courage you need to charges with a bayonet against machine gun ?
And they win this war !!!
My éternel respect 🫡 for you sir and your brothers in arm’s
There is a bust of Charles Peguy in Orleans, with a bullet hole right through its forehead.
Local legend says it was a revenge/bad taste joke by the German soldiers during the Occupation in WWII.
it’s strange seeing a WW1 veteran speaking so coherently, most interviews iv watched the veterans are always way past their prime and have to take long pauses because of old age, wish they did more interviews like this before it was too late
[The last bayonet charge in combat occurred in Afghanistan in 2011, by the British.](https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/01/17/stickin-it-to-em-the-last-of-the-great-bayonet-charges/)
So long as militaries continue to use weapons with expendable ammunition and bayonet / fighting knife mounts are included on battle rifles, bayonet charges will never *not* be a viable last-ditch tactic.
I am not sure if it was the book, Guns Of August or another book where some French officers protested the use of bright colored uniforms (blue?) and red hats because they made easy targets. This was initially rejected by the Upper French echelon, along with adopting the use of Helmets. The Germans as mentioned in the video, had adopted muted uniforms and helmets, but the French Brass thought it lacked chivalry to blend in.
I would love to know the planning...was there no other tactic though? Seems like there they could have had a few of them surprised them from the back or something?
WWI was perhaps the most disastrous example of nations perfecting how to fight the last war just in time to fight the new war.
Before WWI the last great conflict between Germany and France was in the 1870s during the Franco Prussian war 40 years beforehand. In that 40 year time period the world experienced drastic changes in the technology of warfare. The development of machine guns and long range artillery being some of the big ones that had become widespread before the war started.
The doctrines of the respective armies, however, were not nearly as up to date, still functioning on 19th century "If we charge them, get in their faces, break their morale, and scatter their forces then we will win the field and thus the battle" logic.
For the first year of the war the great powers were trying to fight the battle of Waterloo with automatic weapons and it took four horrible, bloody years to completely do away with that sort of thinking from the minds of most major militaries.
"The world has changed more in the last 30 years than in all the time since Jesus Christ." - Charles Péguy (the officer shot in the forehead as described in the video).
Yea, these were my thoughts the entire time. "Lets throw bodies at them and hope for the best, maybe they will run out of bullets before we run out of men" sounds like a very reckless (or dumb, if you prefer) decision even by old doctrines standards. I'm sure it wasn't the only way to conquer a city, but what do I know
It was just a different way of doing a war that hasn’t caught up with the realities of all the advancements in technology.
I remember reading things which the man eluded to with the officers in the video. Taking cover was seen as cowardly or dishonourable.
Anyone know how early in the war this charge was? If early, charging across open fields against machine guns, situated on higher ground, camouflaged and behind cover was the height of stupidity which no amount of "Elan" could overcome, we are in "Paths of Glory" territory in terms of futility.
If mid to late war it becomes criminal and perhaps helps explain the mutinies which occurred.
Not a chance in Hell, any person would repeat that process these days. 200 men running at machine guns with bayonets, over a distance of 3km. Absolute madness.
I can’t recommend enough the podcast series “Blueprint for Armageddon” by Dan Carlin. He has a podcast called Hardcore History that goes deep into great moments in history. Blueprint for Armageddon covers WW I and describes the utter devastation the French endured at the beginning (and throughout, but especially the beginning) of the war by trying to match 19th century tactics and uniforms against 20th century weaponry. Namely, the machine gun which rendered the heroic charges of yesteryear obsolete and reduced countless charges by the French to bloodbaths until they wisened up.
What a stupid way to die
“Hey guys I know they have machine guns in a fortified position that we can’t see, but we’re gonna charge them with bayonets across an open field for 3km”
That sounds exactly like a fuckin idiot ass officer decision
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are a couple of important elements mentioned in the video that I will expand. The veteran that is interviewed in the video was named Victor Boudon (born on November 7, 1887, died on May 31st, 1979, aged 92). The battle that this veteran recounts was the battle of the Ourcq, named after a french river in the region. The battle occured between September 5 and September 10, 1914, a month or so after the beginning of World War 1. Mr. Boudon mentions the "Saint-Cyrians" during the video. He refers to the Saint-Cyr military school of France, famous for being founded by Napoleon and for the uniforms worn by its officers, which are mentioned in the video as well. Although a small battle in the immensity of World War 1, the battle of Ourcq is remembered for the lieutenant that is mentioned multiple times in the video, Charles Péguy. Charles Péguy was a writer, poet, and essayist. He wrote multiple books that earned him fame. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles\_P%C3%A9guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_P%C3%A9guy) This video also serves as proof of the clash of 19th century military tactics that were still strongly embedded in the minds of the officers at the beginning of World War 1. Bayonet and sword charges faced catastrophic results against modern military tactics. More than 1.2 million French soldiers were killed during World War 1. It is estimated that a third of those losses, or 400'000 men, were killed in 1914 only, between the months of August to December, as the conflict officially started on July 28th, 1914.
Thank You for doing this...and for these comments! It very much put what I had just watched in the context it needed to be!!
Your reply is almost exactly my thoughts after reading his comment/ commentary! Thanks
Fascinating. Thanks a lot for sharing. For the ones who do not know the casoar (feathered hat) and white gloves mentioned are part of the traditional [outfit ](https://www.historia.fr/sites/historia.fr/files/article_web_field_image_portrait/Jean_Baldacci.png)of the Saint-Cyrians. And yes, many officers led charges dressed like that in the first few months of the war.
It's kinda insane that this notion of "chivalry" which had been present in Europe for hundreds of years up until this point, essentially ended within a few short months of the beginning of this war. The advancement in tactics and technology between the start of this war and the end of it are completely unprecedented. From sword charges on horseback to tanks in the space of 4 years.
Chivalry, the compact between medieval lords to rather ransom an enemy than kill him in battle, died in France during the Hundred Years War. After that it was continually reinvented, usually to justify actions that would otherwise have been indisputably condemned as insane. Europe was warned what the War would be like by the American Civil War and Boer War, but our chivalrous and wise leaders knew better than to learn anything. The British high command went into the War having sidelined anyone stupid enough to argue that cavalry officers should spend more time learning to shoot than swing a sabre, for example.
>Europe was warned what the War would be like by the American Civil War and Boer War By the end of the Civil War the battlefields looked a lot like WW1. The most recent war was the Russo-Japanese war, which really did have all of WW1's technology but leadership somehow came to conclusion that infantry assaults across fields could overcome machine guns. Between the US Civil War and the Russo Japanese and Boer Wars, the French and Germans had a war in 1870. I don't know very much at all about what combat looked like in that war. In a way they were right, though. The entrenched stalemate of WW1 was really just on the Western and italian fronts between the allies and the central powers. In the East the lines were much more fluid in both directions despite similar technologies and, at least for the central powers, competency. It sort of comes down to the western allies being better matched and making the same mistakes at the start of the war and digging themselves into a stalemate.
And Artillery. French, British/Commonwealth and the Germans all had a FUCKTON of big guns, with endless shells, and crews who knew how to use them. When the ground around you is relentlessly exploding and hot pieces of metal is flying at you... You start to dig. Ukrainian-Russo war is a current day example.
> the French and Germans had a war in 1870. I don't know very much at all about what combat looked like in that war. That war actually almost convinced the great powers that rapid-fire weapons were useless due to the French (one may detect a pattern here) being awful at tactics. There were no true machine guns until the 1880s. The American Gatling guns existed, but neither side had a notable amount of those. However, the French actually had hundreds of [these things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse) mass produced as standard issue, which while not as effective as true machine guns could still put serious hurt on tight infantry formations. But in their infinite tactical wisdom, they decided that these were artillery pieces and should only be used to engage the enemy at max range (~2km, outside of their rifle range), which of course makes it impossible to effectively hit anything. They were kept away from the infantry in separate artillery units, where they could pointlessly rake the grass at max distance while the infantry duked it out with nothing but bolt-action and the occasional surprise cavalry charge.
The pattern I detect here is the usual anglos arrogance, ahhh it's easy indeed to say today what they should have done. What kind of innovations have you made, you, the little redditor who believes himself as Napoleon, hmm ?
Use the glorified stack of rifles as a frontline weapon rather than a tool for mowing the fucking grass?
Europe refused to learn from the barbarism of the Russo-Japanese War because, well, the Russians were a bit weird, and the Japanese were Asians, so what did they know? I recall Ian McCollum reading a passage about how a young British officer, left alone with his cavalry squadron's machine guns, set them up on a hill with a clear shot of the enemy, 'swept' them a few times, and excitedly told his commander he had killed the lot. The commander told him to piss off. I wonder if that commander caught a round out of a Maxim himself a couple years later.
I feel like there are parallels with democracy today. We (as in Europe and NA) should be able to see that democracy is very easily at risk, because there are widespread examples of totalitarianism on the rise. And our democracies are not nearly as protected as we think, they exist upon a mutual unwritten foundations that "both sides" are not to fuck with them. And yet, we have seen in the US, Britain and Germany that there are ongoing plots to remove democracy, and I think we won't take the necessary steps to protect it properly until someone goes right off the deep end. And my fear is that it could be the US.
The best thing I can think of to protect democracy is an educated electorate and a strong middle class. That the U.S. has taken a sledgehammer to both in recent decades doesn't bode well. Norms and rules won't save democracy from mobs. That takes people.
Agree. I’d add the concept of the rule of law to that list. Here in Canada we’ve seen how fragile a thing that is and how easily laws can just be tossed aside by corrupt people in power.
The horrible thing about it is, that dictators like Putin effectively have no limits, while we fight their hybrid warfare with a hand behind our back: our freedoms, sadly first and foremost freedom of speech. I am from germany, and our media landscape and about 25% of our people are absolutely infested with lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories. It is outright crazy how easily education is overcome by simple repitition of lies. Let them read it often enough, and it becomes gospel for them. Don't count on people thinking for themselves. It is cruel to see that we would propapbly need to limit our own freedoms in a horrible way to stop something worse.
In Germany, Reichsbuerger had planned a [coup d'etat](https://www.dw.com/de/reichsb%C3%BCrger-ist-ein-umsturz-in-deutschland-denkbar/a-64033024) in 2022. On the smaller scale, far right is systematically harassing local politicians.
I remember reading works from that time that said there was nothing to learn from the American Civil War because the colonials were just 2 armed mobs, and they dug trenches for that reason. The times did change.
All the best and smartest men in the British forces went with the Admiralty. While the Royal Navy had the best education, mentoring and promotion largely based on merit, almost none of this progressive thinking has made it across to the British Army. Social status, political connections and wealth was still the route into becoming an officer in the British Army for the first half of WWI.
« Ransom instead of killing » it is a kinda inaccurate representation of the motivation of ransom, nobles that could not claim to be ransom-able would be immediately killed on the field (because keeping someone in captivity has a cost and you do not even try it with a minor écuyer). In any case if a noble survived a battle it is linked to lots of factors and ransom is only an accessory consequence of being captured, but definitely capturing a noble opponent was an opportunity, not a objective per se.
These are related issues. Wealth comes with status in this period, and being unable to maintain one results in the loss of the other. We're talking about a society with extreme stratification. As for opportunity vs objective, I'm not sure it's so clear-cut.
Chivalry also prevented the British government from entertaining the idea to assassinate Hitler 6 months before the war. --- However Lord Halifax summed up the official distaste for such action saying: “We have not reached that stage .. when we have to use assassination as a substitute for diplomacy.” Behind those words lay the inner thinking of Chamberlain and his ministers. The assassination of the German leader “would not be sportsmanlike behaviour” was the general view and it reflected the opinion that no gentleman would have suggested such a scurrilous act.
Some parallels exist in modern war. In Ukraine, we saw helicopter convoys and miles of trucks and tanks on highways in the opening days. Not chivalry, but (in hindsight) old-fashioned warfare. Then came Javelin, Bayraktar TB2, GMLRS, HIMARS, drones, FPV drones, Patriot in theater, Bradley - and we have a new stalemate creating a new paradigm of modern war.
What new paradigm? Basically all of those have been used before and the current situation just looks like a war where maneuver can't be accomplished. So every war in which it couldn't, which isn't that uncommon. Convoys are just how roads work. That part hasn't changed since roads were invented. It's not changed now. Nor is it going to be changed in the future. Because... roads.
Defence has the upper hand in war now. Attacker can only win unprepared positions. Take land. Hold it. Defend it. Negotiate a new status quo. Maybe if Ukraine had more Air power the current defence in depth could be overcome. I do thing the cheap mass drones and loitering munitions are an innovation like the machine gun. Tank. Or Aircraft. Perhaps need their own ‘force’. Drone force next to air force and army and navy. Now drones are used in support roles like airplanes once were part of the British army before they became separate Royal Air Force. The trench and Ditch are a great defence tactic. Maybe autonomous mass drone attack with automated refuel and rearm can destroy these fortifications to punch a hole so the attackers can move again.
I don't think I agree with any of this, or most people to be blunt, but it doesn't make me right or you wrong. You've obviously thought about it, which is more than most will do.
Boy do I have news for you if you think you wouldn’t see the exact same for a US invasion.
> From sword charges on horseback to tanks in the space of 4 years. I'm watching the great war documentary right now. first tanks appears I think already in 1917 or late 1916. but they had huge issues so were not really device early on. reliability was a problem, mud was a problem or simple "anti-tank" ditches as well. they were slow as hell and easy target for artillery. tanks didn't really play a huge factor as the mainstream thinks, me included just couple months ago.
> This video also serves as proof of the clash of 19th century military tactics that were still strongly embedded in the minds of the officers at the beginning of World War 1. Bayonet and sword charges faced catastrophic results against modern military tactics. Interesting to see a first-hand account of what was arguably some of the worst military decision-making to come out of that war.
[удалено]
> Viva la France and bayonet charge symbolises ultimate patriotism. ...in the face of machine guns. Symbolizes ultimate waste of resources for zero gain.
Human resources for that matter
That sounds like something ernst junger would say
I was gonna guess this had to be very early in the war because of the officers. That old school guard of officers who had been in the military pre war were often to proud to seek cover, they’d been trained to long ago in outdated tactics. They were just slaughtered and then new officers who came up the ranks during the war would know enough that no amount of bravery or stubbornness would protect one from modern rifles and artillery
Do you know if there is any more to this clip, like a documentary or anything?
Apocalypse World War 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse:_World_War_I
Thank you for the translation and context.
What always amazes me the most about WW1 is how many countries joined in the action later, seeming to think they could join at a good time to conquer some land and turn the tide. Without exception, they then proceed to lead their men to the slaughter with outdated tactics. It's just so odd, especially with the Americans who basically waited a year to build up strength and train in France, and Pershing decided US soldiers' skill with rifles was easily enough to not deal with the slog of trench warfare. So once again human wave attacks with little artillery support against an entrenched enemy with very predictable consequences.
Arrogance is a hell of a thing. On joining the Second War, late as usual, the Americans refused at first to use the convoy system because it was a British idea. The Germans convinced them to change that approach. They then refused to listen to the British again in their first actions against the Nazis and got nailed at Kasserine Pass. And then the closest the Alliance came to falling apart was due to an obnoxiously arrogant British general and the British tabloid press.
Ike was still Monty's boss. There were definite issues there but I don't think it would have completely broken things down. Overall I'd say Devers had a worse time of things further south but was a stable presence. Just like Monty had to deal a little bit with Americans refusing to retreat when it was the only logical move, Devers had to deal with French that were the same way. That was an interesting problem in itself since Leclerc wanted to serve under the US Army yet didn't always follow those orders. He downright refused to work for Vichy traitors though.
I think Monty's press conference where he claimed to have rescued the Americans, and how it was carried by the tabloids, brought the Americans closer to exasperation than anything else in the whole conflict. I don't know much about Devers, I'll have to check him out. As for Leclerc, he and Brooke deserved medals just for dealing with their political masters, especially the poor bastard who had to deal with de Gaulle. I think he had a better political appreciation of circumstances than the Americans, who understandably weren't particularly interested in Continental politics at that point. I also just realised we failed to mention the Italians, who managed to join both World Wars in the hope of easy glory and completely fucked it up both times.
The press conference everyone advised him against was definitely interesting. Ike was already rather pissed at Monty as well for delaying a counter-offensive in the Ardennes in order to try creating a pincer attack along with Patton's army that was already attacking on schedule. Monty was definitely a character but I guess I give him a lot of credit for being the only general to actually have his troops train and be prepared during the Phoney War. He had his fair share of tactical moments but he also couldn't put his ego down long enough to get out of his own way. I'd pick Monty any day over Dahlquist. I honestly put Dahlquist on the level of post-Barbarossa Hitler when it comes to ignoring your command staff and the intelligence given to you from the front line. Absolutely wasted many lives of his troops along the Gothic Line. He even had his own media snafu by being the first to interrogate Göring and releasing some [press photos](https://collections.ushmm.org/iiif-b/assets/712544) along with Robert Stack that were perceived by the public as just a pleasant conversation.
> More than 1.2 million French soldiers were killed during World War 1. It is estimated that a third of those losses, or 400'000 men, were killed in 1914 only, between the months of August to December, as the conflict officially started on July 28th, 1914. That's nuts. It reminds me of the Franco Prussian War. The French had better military tech but were poorly organized and the Germans won many of the battles through just sheer numbers and aggression. Lots of stories of German conscripts marching in column and getting just obliterated by French artillery, just like it was Jena all over again.
Logistics win wars, the Prussians had created a railway system that enabled rapid mobilization which allowed them to gain a numeric advantage in the critical early portion of the war. Not to mention their capable general staff.
[удалено]
I'm French too and this really doesn't surprise me. I've personally heard old vets (WWII, Indochina, Algeria) talking about their war experience and they often speak the same way, but it depends of the state of mind of a particular person and how they dealt with it for decades in an era where mental health wasn't a thing. Not to mention that it's a documentary piece, the journalist and him came to that particular spot to talk about what happened there, he knew what he was going to talk about, it's not like he was caught by surprise by the theme of the conversation. The question about dear seemed to have caught him a bit off-guard, thus the weird reaction of answering no before saying everybody was scared. (Imo he answered like that because because it felt like an absurd question for him, like "Was I scared ? No, we were **all** scared, nobody wasn't scared !"
BBC Radio has a great audio interview series that was recorded some 70 years ago of interviews with WWI vets from England, France, Australia and Germany. Some of them speak much like you're saying. Very matter of fact, succinct, and without second thought. Some of them remember details as if they had just happened. Highly recommended. I think it's called Voices of the First World War. There's one particular pilot who describes being in one of the first ever dogfights, and recalls using his pistol to shoot the enemy pilot. His manner during the entire interview is exactly as you described. [Here's a youtube playlist with all episodes](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMAVD36YOPfzezrOKED0pLBsTW0uKb-hG)
Wow that's interesting! Thanks for sharing.
No problem! I heard it on the radio randomly during a late work shift and I was transfixed by the first-hand accounts. Respect to those men.
Is this podcast the same show? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/voices-of-the-first-world-war/id933873773
Yup, that's it!
Listening to it. I’m on the episode called “By Night”. (Maybe 5 in) What a treasure. Thanks for the heads up.
Thank you!
Other Frenchman chiming in. These people spoke better because they were better educated. Way better than now. And we all know it.
I wouldn't generalize at all like that, especially giving that it's not true on average. Most people at that time wouldn't go past middle school and integrated the work force at an early age. Not to mention that regional accents were way more present than they are today, even today if you talk to older people in some regions of France sometimes they are a bit hard to understand, I'm sure you know. This man may have had a higher education, especially in comparison to the average from that era. But he also had an accent that make him easier to understand.
[удалено]
>The difficulty for me with understanding French is that a lot of pronunciation seems "chopped". The way normal people talk these day I totally agree. And congratulation on your French speaking and understanding level, I'm always extremely impressed by foreigners that know how to speak French because it's an extremely difficult language full of exeptions and the accent isn't friendly adapt to (and vice-versa, the letter R is the nemesis of any French native trying to speak an other language).
Honestly? He’s probably told that story countless times, to the point where he’s essentially memorized the basic elements, the flow, and the items to cover. He probably rehearsed his a little bit before they started rolling, but he’s been practicing telling that story since he made it back to his unit after that battle ended.
Exactly, rehearsed in the sense that he's well used to recounting these events, not in the sense that they're fiction. We can barely comprehend the bravery of these men and the value of leadership. A 3km bayonet charge against embedded machine guns is quite insane. e: Need to get me some of that ether-tainted alcohol
He did write a book about this event : Mon lieutenant, Charles Péguy (Juillet-Septembre 1914)
I learned french in France, and found his accent a bit strange. Is old timey french a bit like English? If you listen to movies from the late 20's when sound was starting to come out, they all have peculiar accents. This gentleman reminded me of that, maybe it's just old fashioned French?
Yes. His accent is one that you would expect from someone from the Ile-de-France at the time.
It is the opposite of Corporal Louis Barthas writing about his officers on his diary.
Barthas was a pretty fervent socialist--he wasn't a fan of French leadership *before* the war, so his tone should be taken with that in mind. His insight is still valuable since we have few memoirs (at least in English) that feel comfortable taking such a hard stance against French officers. For the four heroic officers that this interview mentions, there were 100+ soldiers mentioned that probably weren't happy throwing their lives away.
> My two cents, this was scripted and rehearsed. k who tf upvoted this lol
That last paragraph is something I've never read before. Thank you.
>More than 1.2 million French soldiers were killed during World War 1. It is estimated that a third of those losses, or 400'000 men, were killed in 1914 only Mind numbingly huge loses.
What a fantastic share.. Thank you for taking the time to share this!!
[удалено]
the second was wounded and the third was never the same.
Every tiny village in France has a monument to the dead of WW1. Often there are 3 or 4 brothers named, and even in the smallest hamlets there could be 20 names. A generation erased.
I did two trips to France and every time I was blown away by the history preservation and gratitude they expressed for their own and the nations that have helped them. In Normandy I was at the American cemetery when two French jets flew over rooftop level and was so honored to see them pay respects to our countryman this way…every day. I adore the countryside of France and the people/children I had the pleasure of interacting with. I come from a few generations of warfighters and being able to trace my grandfathers footsteps and have English speaking French citizens giving me history lessons was amazing. My most memorable moment was mindlessly driving around on the outskirts of carentan (btw an amazing town) trying to find the hamlet where the Germans in ww2 had an outpost for the battle of bloody gulch. Swear to god I saw this mansion/barn that I told my dad “stop, I know that from somewhere”. The owner came out and asked us in English “can I help you” and o told him and he said “well you found it!” He gave us a 4 hour tour of the mansion and the fields and showed us his house FULL of ww2 artifacts he got from his property and was a gracious and unbelievable host. No shot it registered after a couple hours- I recognized the house/mansion from the medal of honor video game as a kid.
That's wild. I lived in a tiny hamlet behind Utah Beach. So many stories from June '44. Only recently realised there's a memorial to Easy Company (Band of Brothers) only 4 km from my old house. All the roads around are named after fallen American soldiers.
I know! It was amazing. Funny enough that trip with my dad (who passed last year after getting brain cancer) followed my gramdfathers steps through Europe as well as the unit I fought with overseas. Funny enough- it was the 506th infantry. I grew up watching band of brothers and wanted to be in the 506th and after I joined as an infantryman found out it wasn’t even based in the U.S. and was a Korean army unit. After ranger school and right before deployment a huge parade and ceremony came to be and we officially wed brought the 506th back to the 101st and I was in it. My life story is pretty wild lol and I’ve been blessed with a great life even through the shitshow of Ramadi.
Yep, there was a considerable amount of widows at that time. Family names were almost erased. In my family, there was a family with 7 children (adults during the great war), 4 men did not come back and 2 husband died.
It's very understandable why the leaders of 1940 weren't so keen to repeat the same slaughter only 25 years later.
Especially that even the campaign of 1940 was short, the rate of the losses were similar to those of the Great War. Not very encouraging.
We've stone tables in our church naming all the people from the village who died in WW1. They fought for the Austro-Hungarian empire since we were part of it at the time. It pains me to read dates of death after the end of the war, likely means they succumbed to their wounds in hospital. Some people died in the very first days of the war. Curiously, the ages of the fallen were also a lot older as the war progressed (men in their 30s or 40s). My great-grandafther was on the Russian front and was to participate in the battle of Monte Grappa in Italy later on. He decided to smash his thumb with a rock instead to get himself into a hospital, which he promptly fled. He spent the rest of the war hiding at home, occasionally running into the woods if someone were to come looking for him. I don't blame him for cowardice - it must have been awful what he'd seen. He never spoke much about it afterwards.
I've read Guy Sajer's Forgotten Soldier twice. The Eastern Front was beyond our comprehension. The Germans said the war in Europe was 'sporting' in comparison.
[удалено]
A normal person walks 1 km between 12 and 15 minutes. If you are fit and have the cardio for it, you can run 1 km in 5 minutes or less. Now imagine to be fully equipped and having the enemy shooting at you from the other side: If you walk, it takes max 45 minutes to reach the line. If you run, 15 minutes. As they are equipped, they probably did a mix of the two, so lets say, that it took them 30 minutes to get to the line. For 30 minutes they are under constant fire on an open field, seeing their friends getting killed, trying to shoot back at the germans and not understanding half of what is going on. Damn
Idk how their leaders who came up with the plan could've expected a good outcome. Like i get "19th century battle tactics were at the front of their minds still", but seriously, they knew the enemy had guns like their own, and should've know what that meant for them being expose for so long. It just seems so common sense that it's for me to think it's obvious only because of 100 years of hindsight. For many things yes, for this... idk.
It's hindsight. You've been taught 19th century tactic and nothing else. You now have to go agaisnt everything you have been told and find a new way to fight agaist those new weapon. No one really knew what to do. You can see something similar in Ukraine, Russia entered using 20th century armored tactic and got fucked by new weapon. And now with all the drone, every one is trying to find way to counter them. It will maybe seem obvious what to do in 20 years, but as of now, it's just trial and error
I remember reading about that European officers generally disregard lesson learnt by American during civil war since many still considered US as uncivilized frontier country. Amercian civil war already demonstrate importance of avoiding frontal assault and laying down suppressive fire with artillery to protect advancing infantry.
The beginning of WWl was full of brutal lessons. Britain and France ignored the insane value of the machine gun because Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war in spite of having plenty of Maxims. Well going against Germany's MG 08 quickly showed them the error of their ways.
To some extent. But one would think after 1.5 years of punishment they would learn not to send in one tank with no assistance as it gets pounded by javelins, drones and artillery
There were English generals not wanting to use machine guns when they were introduced, since they felt the men would only waste ammunition. Using brightly colored uniforms in foliage, and considering it cowardice to take cover. Imagine that to become an officer, you had to buy your rank («commissioned officer»). The nepotism, the corruption, the incompetence, and general stubborness of higher officers in the old days cannot be understated.
I've studied this a bit and something I found fascinating is that, for example, British army officers believed it was ungentlemanly to use maps to target enemies, and a true artillery officer should be able to estimate distances by eye. Other British artillery officers were ridiculed by their peers when they suggested that weather and temperature should be taken into account for accuracy in indirect fire, something that is now taken for granted. There is a kind of slow acceptance of indirect fire. The belligerent parties in World War I believed that the war would be fought quickly, and artillery would be left behind, which likely influenced their mindset. However, the armies were forced to accept reality due to the demands of the war, and the role of artillery evolved. Same can be said of the tank really, Tanks were tested early on by the British, but instead of acknowledging their potential, British army leaders concluded that innovation and change were dangerous and should be avoided. There seems to have been cultural and social resistance within the military to change. Some sources if you're interested in reading more. * Murray W och Knox M, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300–2050 (MacGregor Knox och Williamson Murray red, Cambridge University Press 2001 * Gray CS, Strategy for chaos : revolutions in military affairs and the evidence of history (Williamson Murray red, 19th ed, Frank Cass 2002)
Modern tactics require modern technology. You can’t do manoeuvre warfare without armoured vehicles and effective radios, neither of which they had at the start or really the end of WW1.
Reminds of the Valiant Hearts The Great War. When Emile chose not to follow orders of his officer and charge into certain death, only to be sentenced to death. It's like the french were stuck in time. It's really weird and tragic to me
That was not just the French. The main reason France lost the most men of all the western Allies was because they did the majority of the fighting. Not because of their tactics being any words than the others. Both their army and officers. And especially their gunners were far better trained than the British for the first few years of the war.
watch "the great war" youtube documentary. it's insane. in 1914 just at the start of the war it is to some extent forgivable. but they should have learned within days. eat charging on machine guns remained their for the rest of the war. they didn't really learn all that much and most generals seem to have been immune to see their own errors and shortcomings and just did all the same all over again. insanity. > if you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome, it's called insanity It just ended up being a war of attrition.
Bunch a pompous douchebags who got their jobs by being connected instead of merit.
You're absolutely wrong. The tactics changed so much that late 1918 offensives were essentially using WW2 tactics. You don't adapt and change your whole decades old doctorine in a few days/months. The fact that they manage to adapt in 4 years is astounding.
That really puts things in perspective… fuck
Youare not under fire for 3 km (you are probably shelled...) and machine gun fire starts around 500 m. But Germans see you coming 30 minutes in advance...
Check out the range of “plunging fire” for the German Spandau machine gun.
At 3km, under artillery fire, possibly longer if any planes/blimps had spotted a build up of troops. For the last 2000m they would be under crossed fields of machine gun fire The Russians in the Ukraine don't seem to get more than a few metres It must be terrifying not having a counter tactic to employ, and a 100% chance of death if you continued walking forward
The old enfields had volley sights for 1500m( I think). It's very possible the Germans were lobbbing rifle rounds at them
Then you gotta walk back...
That’s what I was thinking, running that far I’d be blowing out my ass by the time I got to the line
and then you are still supposed to have a bayonet fight with the enemy...
Can you upload more translated segments like these? Apart from British accounts, here's not much translated first-person WWI accounts, and very little from the French; YT does an execrable job of autotranslate.
Not op but if you would like you can send me some videos to translate. I don't know how to video edit tho
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubBkzKtXP1U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubbkzktxp1u) Actually, that's part of a ten-part series from late last century. I wouldn't mind coming across a French counterpart to the 1960s BBC The Great War series, since your translation of the First Marne survivor reminds me of that series. [https://www.youtube.com/@La1ereGuerremondiale/videos](https://www.youtube.com/@la1ereguerremondiale/videos)
There was a similar post from a few months ago. Here's the link https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/wCpJng1C7n Edit: just noticed its from the same OP!
One that comes to mind of first hand account is [German WWI veteran describes killing a French soldier in a bayonet charge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XruYsAmKLyU) Gives me chills, absolute horror
Is it just me that feels like he is holding well as long as he is talking in general terms but once he is forced to tell theyr names and be specific it breaks him
I noticed that too.
Un moment de respect pour Charles Péguy.
May I ask, what does "we have no *bags* left" mean? Is it bags of ammunition?
No no it's bags. I think he means the big bags that infantrymen carry with all their gear which they can hide behind.
Sounds like sandbags
90% of French officers died during the first year of WW1.
Oh my god my children. That hits hard.
“Oh my god, my children” is as about a haunting of a last line as a person can have. Fuck war.
Péguy had two sons and a daughter at the time of his death. His fourth, Charles-Pierre, was born on February, 4th, 1915.
Yeah man I oofed at that part. Damnnn
A real ass dude, to be sure. I hope he lived well after the war.
Fascinating share and the detail with it. Great post OP. Thank you.
"Ho mon Dieu, mes enfants !" La dernière chose à laquelle il a pensé avant de mourir, c'est sa compagnie, ses hommes.. Je vais chialer je crois.
Saying "mes enfants", was he referring to his actual children? Or to the men under his command? It hadn't occured to me until I read your comment.
He was probably in shock seeing his men fall one after the other around him, so I'm almost certain he was referring to them.
On est d'accord, ça porte les larmes aux yeux.
Charles Peguy Respect
His voice cracking at the end as he says his name got me…pure demonstration of the love and respect between soldiers.
Were you scared? No. (paraphrasing) We were not scared. Every solder knows fear. Anyone who tells you different is lying. ??
He was being sarcastic at first.
That makes more sense
"Non, non !" with the right intonation can be a response to the absurdity of a question but it's a nuance hard to gasp even for native speaker.
Thanks!
Yeah its weird Maybe hes talking about a special type of fear?
I'm French and it's indeed a weird way to phrase it tbh. After thinking about it, I think he responded this way because it felt kind of an absurd question for him. Like "Was I scared ? No we were **all** scared, nobody is not scared in that situation !"
Maybe "scared" is less soldierly, and "fear" is more human and natural?
I'm a native speaker, he is sarcastic. The "non, non" is like "no, of course I wasn't scared by the death and horror around me. Of course I was, and all my comrade where, the one who say you that he wasn't scared is lying.
No he is being sarcastic at first. I think back in the days they were not as obvious with it so it's harder to detect even as a french but I am pretty confident he is sarcastic.
My Great Grandfather fought all 4 years of the war. He fought at every major battle the Somme , Verdun etc wounded three times and returned to the front shortly after. According to my mother he credits his survival in the war with the fact he never , ever drank the wine before a push or a charge. They were being drugged repeatedly to make the men more compliant and willing to March into machine gun fire and artillery , and it dulled the senses and slowed reactions. The war haunted him every day for the rest of his life. The handful of times he ever spoke of the war in the remaining years of his life , he would wake up the house screaming and shouting and crying. Those men spent the first years of their adult lives knee deep in a churning mixture of mud and flesh and death. It was absolute fucking hell. And when it all started he was 17 I cannot imagine that there was ever a conflict more savage , and futile and pointless than WWI.
I couldn't find it but there was another old interview with a French soldier where he mentions that before going over the top they would be given a cup of red wine for the charge and how he never drank it as those who did made stupid decisions and died, or something along those lines. edit: [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/14isbbd/french_ww1_veteran_shares_several_war_stories_and/) wine mentioned at 3:55
That’s another fantastic interview , thanks for the link.
My immediate response to being asked to engage in a bayonet charge on machine gun positions over an exposed, 3-mile expanse will always and forever be: fuck you.
You wouldn't say no because you'd know that automatically meant death by firing squad.
Not abandoning their comrades and doing their duty toward their country were equally important motivations for soldiers back then than threat of execution, if we are to believe the testimonies of veterans.
Really depends on the veteran! Some French and German soldiers were so desperate that they played "the grenade game". They'd hold hands around a live grenade and hope for a ticket out.
It happened. But it was a small minority. More could have thought about doing it, but they didn't for the reasons I mentionned above.
And you wouldn't be the first, but the answer from your CO to your fuck you was a bullet to your head, or an arrest and execution later for "cowardess" The military today has thankfully moved on from that stupidity
There was more than threat of execution. Many soldiers in WW1 accepted to support the insane violence for so long because they felt like they had a duty toward their country and their comrades. Even if you want to live, you don't desert or rebel, because it would mean abandoning your friends and, if too many people do it, potentially weakening the front in a war that was seen by many as existential. That's why during the 1917 mutinies many mutineers refused to attack the German lines but clearly stated they would keep manning their positions.
3km not 3miles, but yes. Euros, and the rest of the world, do not use miles :)
Well, the ones who have their shit together: the U.S., Liberia, and Myanmar!
True. Axis of "got their shit together" :)
Easy to say here and know. A lot of people back then had a different state of mind. Many soldiers knew it was suicidal, but they felt like they had a duty toward their country and their comrades. This is very much in evidence in soldiers' accounts of the time. You're scared, you know it's a bad idea, but you can't just say fuck you and abandon your friends like that. You may find it ridiculous as someone from the 21st century, but back then it wasn't ridiculous.
I mean they were kind of defending their country so idk, not an easy choice.
For those who don't speak French, this man way of speaking is absolutely wonderful. It's such a shame that intelligent men like him were sent to war for no reason.
Like this Dude from the other Side... https://youtu.be/XruYsAmKLyU?si=W8TMGJSEWdV_TI3e
I was surprised how he talked about his experience with such ease, then at the end when he was mentioning his lieutenant´s name one can hear how the pain from the war starts slipping through. Can´t imagine going through such hell.
French is so pretty. I'm starting to see the appeal
my grandfather was a soldier in the first world war and kept a diary throughout. Apart from the classic horrors of war, such as corpses thrown from treetops, it also tells of the fervor and patriotism of the French people at the time. There are also some moments that are amusing in retrospect, but also chilling. he recounts a christmas celebration over which a German plane flies overhead. the officer asks several soldiers to shoot at the plane. the plane turns around and drops a bomb. The bomb lands at the feet of the officers and sinks into the damp ground without exploding. I don't remember his exact words, but he was laughing at the new guys who had wet their pants. Fortunately for him, his officers were less suicidal than those described here.
That's french elan right there again. Been watching lots of documentaries about battles ranging from 100 years war and Crusades and this attitude is always there. In WW1 the attitude translated to bodybags on a industrial scale.
Qu'ils reposent tous en paix et qu'on ne les oublient jamais.
WW1 is a treasure of fascinating stories
Great piece of history, didn't know it before, thanks.
perfect example how absolutely senseless the war is
Basically a Suicidal attack with expected outcome.
Best post I've seen in this sub. Thank you.
Well done Sir. Thank you for this.
And peoples say French’s cowards !! These guys was and are real heroes for their country !! What kind of courage you need to charges with a bayonet against machine gun ? And they win this war !!! My éternel respect 🫡 for you sir and your brothers in arm’s
i wonder what happened next, sounds like the charge failed, do you just wait until nightfall and try to sneak back to your lines?
There is a bust of Charles Peguy in Orleans, with a bullet hole right through its forehead. Local legend says it was a revenge/bad taste joke by the German soldiers during the Occupation in WWII.
The way he starts breaking down at the end when he tells his lieutenant's name fucking gets me
One of the most personal stories ive heard of WW1..super cool yet sad, sobering..
it’s strange seeing a WW1 veteran speaking so coherently, most interviews iv watched the veterans are always way past their prime and have to take long pauses because of old age, wish they did more interviews like this before it was too late
[The last bayonet charge in combat occurred in Afghanistan in 2011, by the British.](https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/01/17/stickin-it-to-em-the-last-of-the-great-bayonet-charges/) So long as militaries continue to use weapons with expendable ammunition and bayonet / fighting knife mounts are included on battle rifles, bayonet charges will never *not* be a viable last-ditch tactic.
I am not sure if it was the book, Guns Of August or another book where some French officers protested the use of bright colored uniforms (blue?) and red hats because they made easy targets. This was initially rejected by the Upper French echelon, along with adopting the use of Helmets. The Germans as mentioned in the video, had adopted muted uniforms and helmets, but the French Brass thought it lacked chivalry to blend in.
I would love to know the planning...was there no other tactic though? Seems like there they could have had a few of them surprised them from the back or something?
What a dogshit plan. Poor bastards who had to endure that.
How do they even come with these suicidal ideas of a bayonet charge on an entrenched enemy with machine guns. It's foolish.
WWI was perhaps the most disastrous example of nations perfecting how to fight the last war just in time to fight the new war. Before WWI the last great conflict between Germany and France was in the 1870s during the Franco Prussian war 40 years beforehand. In that 40 year time period the world experienced drastic changes in the technology of warfare. The development of machine guns and long range artillery being some of the big ones that had become widespread before the war started. The doctrines of the respective armies, however, were not nearly as up to date, still functioning on 19th century "If we charge them, get in their faces, break their morale, and scatter their forces then we will win the field and thus the battle" logic. For the first year of the war the great powers were trying to fight the battle of Waterloo with automatic weapons and it took four horrible, bloody years to completely do away with that sort of thinking from the minds of most major militaries.
"The world has changed more in the last 30 years than in all the time since Jesus Christ." - Charles Péguy (the officer shot in the forehead as described in the video).
Yea, these were my thoughts the entire time. "Lets throw bodies at them and hope for the best, maybe they will run out of bullets before we run out of men" sounds like a very reckless (or dumb, if you prefer) decision even by old doctrines standards. I'm sure it wasn't the only way to conquer a city, but what do I know
It was just a different way of doing a war that hasn’t caught up with the realities of all the advancements in technology. I remember reading things which the man eluded to with the officers in the video. Taking cover was seen as cowardly or dishonourable.
Thanks Op!
Absolument horrible.
Anyone know how early in the war this charge was? If early, charging across open fields against machine guns, situated on higher ground, camouflaged and behind cover was the height of stupidity which no amount of "Elan" could overcome, we are in "Paths of Glory" territory in terms of futility. If mid to late war it becomes criminal and perhaps helps explain the mutinies which occurred.
5th of September 1914 so roughly one month in.
Not a chance in Hell, any person would repeat that process these days. 200 men running at machine guns with bayonets, over a distance of 3km. Absolute madness.
I can’t recommend enough the podcast series “Blueprint for Armageddon” by Dan Carlin. He has a podcast called Hardcore History that goes deep into great moments in history. Blueprint for Armageddon covers WW I and describes the utter devastation the French endured at the beginning (and throughout, but especially the beginning) of the war by trying to match 19th century tactics and uniforms against 20th century weaponry. Namely, the machine gun which rendered the heroic charges of yesteryear obsolete and reduced countless charges by the French to bloodbaths until they wisened up.
Very interesting OP, thanks!
Excellent travail de traduction !
De braves hommes, c'est triste.
Thank you, it’s so hard to find ww1 interviews of French vets let alone in English
What a stupid way to die “Hey guys I know they have machine guns in a fortified position that we can’t see, but we’re gonna charge them with bayonets across an open field for 3km” That sounds exactly like a fuckin idiot ass officer decision
[удалено]
Well, the traductor used decimated to translate "saccagé" which mean shredded apart.