Listen to dan carlin's podcast on wwi

list of nations by importance to the allied war effort.

France
Russia
UK
Italy
US
Serbia
Japan
Romania
Belgium

QUOTE
END QUOTE

Didn't russia surrender?
Im pretty sure they weren't at Versailles either

Frances only importance was as a muddy shooting gallery, its soldiers were sub-par,getting slaughtered 1914-17, and having a mutiny.

If the US had not turned up there was no way the allies(led by Britian) could beat the german army with the French in tow

There's so many angry Frogs and Yanks on Veeky Forums.

It makes me chuckle every time.

Unlucky, lads. I feel your pain.

oh ship, thought we were talking about ww2

Can I get any non meme answers as to why Germany was so tough in both world wars that it took multiple great powers to defeat them?

>inb4 britain and france are not great powers

They were back then

Was it superior equipment or better training for the average soldier?

Austria-Hungary and even (yes I know) the Ottoman Empire were considered great powers as well.

You start by saying France isn't important at all, and implying the US is more important. Yet finish by saying there's no way the war could have been won if France and Germany were together?

Holy double standards.

Germans are much more miserable than the French. Checked though.

>Austria
>Hungary
>great
>power

Dan Carlin.

Veeky Forums is mostly made up of non-Brits with a bizarre hatred for the UK.

If Britain had made peace with Hitler in 1940 the war would have been over and an Axis victory.

You'll have to qualify this with something other than retarded greentexting. Austro-Hungaria contributed a force 8 million strong to WW1

t. lindybeige

>bizarre hatred for the UK
Can't imagine what they could have done to deserve that

Nothing can resist the meme magic

Has Britain ever done anything particularly awful that stands out above its neighbours?

They b-b-b-b-b-bombed Germany and made Ze Fuhrer cry.

>posting bimbos
soptted the idiot right here

>Can I get any non meme answers as to why Germany was so tough in both world wars that it took multiple great powers to defeat them?
>Forgetting that both world wars were alliances of multiple nations against other alliances of multiple nation which supported each other
At least for World War 2, it was embarking on a massive, unsustainable spending spree on militarization while everyone else was trying to dig themselves out of an economic rut, and then blindsiding people using that military prior to financial Armageddon with the hope that you can knock them out of the fight before they can get their shit together. Once these other countries ramped up their war effort and reversed the momentum Germany was thoroughly fucked.
>Was it superior equipment
lol no. Nazi equipment was over-engineered shit. They invested resources in bullshit spending programs that made Adolf's penis hard but weren't all that practical. On paper the Tiger II looks impressive but in practice it was an over-sized piece of shit which broke down constantly and got easily outmaneuvered by medium tanks. Meanwhile, mules and static rail lines were still being used to ferry supplies while Americans and Russians got jeeps, bulldozers, and cargo planes.
>or better training for the average soldier?
If there's one lesson that WWII gave to soldiering doctrine, it's that fanaticism and indoctrination are no substitutes for professionalism and organization.

New Zealander here, so I'm not biased
USA won WWI, if USA didn't give fucktons of resources to Britain and Russia, and didn't put boots on the ground, Germany would have won the war
It's kind of pathetic how Britain France Russia combined couldn't defeat Germany even with USA giving fucktons of resources to Britain and France
Germany was winning until USA put boots on the ground
Then it was game over

Please defend your thesis with some evidence.

You don't even seem to be aware that Germany wasn't fighting alone.

Veeky Forums is full of /int/ cancer
history is only a vague theme or their shitposting here, it's a flagless playground

France did 80℅ of the work on the Western front, but without the UK's 20℅ they would have eventually lost to the Germans.

Ergo, although France did the majority of the work, without the UK's help they could not have held back the Germans.

"I am NOT an American I repeat I am NOT an American but I think the big sexy Americans saved the day like in my Hollywood movies, again I am NOT American :DDDD"

Funny because Britain didn't have just 20% of France's casualties.

Not sure you read that post correctly user.

Britain was crucial throughout the war for it's navy, economy, industrial production and Colonial Homies.

It's army was important on the Western Front in 1914, when the intervention of the small but superior BEF helped check the German advance. The UK was not designed for massive continental wars, it had a small professional army that kicked ass in 1914 but basically all died then, it didn't have the system of million strong conscription, national service and reserves that France and Germany had going into WW1. Given that, France carried the Western Front while the UK limbered up 1914-16.

b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but burgers are so delicious and Disney told me that Muhrica wins every war.

>small but superior BEF

LITTLE

>Germany was winning until USA put boots on the ground
but that's bullshit, by the time Americans were present in large numbers the Spring offensive was basically over. An offensive which the Germans gambled too heavily on and lost too much manpower. The British blockade was still in place, the Allies could have waited it out, and even without all the extra American manpower a counterattack after the Spring offensive would still be successful.

Britain was of course a key player in WW1, it just wasn't as important as France was.

The true key player in WW1 was Belgium, take the redpill

So WW threads are the Veeky Forums equivalent of power-level wars?

They stalled the Germans enough so France could mobilise

>You fool! this isn't even my final form!

I hate Anglo fags too but the British blockade is a real thing. German High Seas fleet wouldn't be useless without it and Germany would of been less stared if not for it.

Maybe if you ignore the blockade, I think it would be very subjective arguing import between two very important players.

underrateddd

Dan Carlin is a saint and I will not have his disrespected

You're forgetting the massive amount of colonies fighting under the British Flag in WW1. Was the UK a key player? Not really. Was the British Empire? Absolutely.

New kid on the block wanted to prove themselves. It wasn't that long before WW1 They were a bunch of different states. They were really pushing the unity thing hard. In WW2 they basically chimped out.

>Importance

Without the Brits, France would probably have lost, so yes, they were a "key player." The French couldn't have beaten the Germans alone and they knew it, hence the decades of diplomacy that preceded WWI where the French worked to ensure they didn't have a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war, fighting (a now unified) Germany.

ty based harris

The girl is Charley Atwell if anyone was wondering

Surviving a mutiny. France was tested in a way Britain/America was not, pushed to the breaking point, and still persevered. I don't know why this is counted against them by the Anglos.

Who the fuck is that. Why is this always said as some form of inside joke to discredit peoples thoughts?
Yes I mad

Because anyone who posits that the French army was any good is willfully ignorant of its failures

Lindy is a historyish YouTube man, he is from England, and tends to skew things he talks about to make the English look a bit better than they probably deserve.
His content is generally good for a YouTube person though.

So the joke is used to point of when people have historical biases or to prevent people saying something positive about the british?

They were all important in their own way.

Comparing them is silly.

They were a huge manufacturer pre WW1. Would have been nearly as scary as Germany had they been an ethnostate.

This board just hates Britain for some reason

You fucks aren't supposed to hold biases when it comes to history.

by and large this is the only correct answer.

>UK really should have sat out both world wars
>just defended its interests against continental turbulence
Pick one.