Which country had the best military in WW1?

>barely holding out on one front together with two other superpowers while Germany fights on at least three more fronts
wew

Germany.

>it-it wasnt fair! Its not our fault that we declared war on everyone, and France also totaly has the same population and industry as Germany!!

This.

didn't say nor implied this, idiot. Look at what OP asked, and then think about your post again

The french ended up comitting more men to verdun than the germans so the population question is kind of irrelevant. But france did have a larger population if we're including their colonies.
The thing about declaring war on everyone, while true, is also irrelevant as well.

that's why the germans captured par-

stop pretending to be dumb

I talk about operation Michael here
> But france did have a larger population if we're including their colonies.
Do you actualy think that you cant conscript hundreds of thousands of German-tier niggers and Arabs and let the fight in your army?
Those 1200 Siamese completely changed the course of war

>Those 1200 Siamese completely changed the course of war
>the Entente didn't outnumber and outproduce the CP by a huge margin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I
>Do you actualy think that you cant conscript hundreds of thousands of German-tier niggers and Arabs and let the fight in your army?
what? France did just that
encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/colonial_military_participation_in_europe_africa

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I
Dont be retard and dont declare war on everyone if you dont want to get attacked by everyone, also industry isnt relevant as military effectivity by your previous claims.
>Between 1914 and 1918, the French deployed approximately 450,000 indigenous troops from Africa, including West Africans (so-called Tirailleurs Sénégalais), Algerians (so-called Turcos and Spahis), Tunisians, Moroccans, Malagasies, and Somalis, most of whom saw deployment in Europe. Settlers of European origin provided another 110,000 soldiers from North Africa (Chasseurs d’Afrique and Zouaves) and some of the 5,700 men in “créole” units from the old Senegalese cities and ports were also of European extraction.
450 000 soldiers couldnt change anything, also look at UK, how many troops do you think were conscripted out of the +- 350 000 000 indians?

>Dont be retard and dont declare war on everyone if you dont want to get attacked by everyone, also industry isnt relevant as military effectivity by your previous claims.
beside the point. The question was which army was the best, and I say Germany's. The fact that they lost the war doesn't work as counter-evidence since the loss is due to economic factors.
>450 000 soldiers couldnt change anything, also look at UK, how many troops do you think were conscripted out of the +- 350 000 000 indians?
hundreds of thousands of soldiers are a significant force even for WW1 standards, and especially when the enemy is outnumbered and has to carefully divide his resources on multiple theaters.
And here for your question: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_I

>The question was which army was the best, and I say Germany's
what makes you think that?

Germany obviously
The fact that not a single bullet was shot on German land is all the proof you need to see that they had the best army at the time

i hate germaboos but overall their army was the best. serbians were very good as well

>not a single bullet was shot on German land

>what makes you think that?
fast mobilization and deployment, success against both Russia and initially France, support and essentially keeping alive both A-H and the Ottoman army for four years, regularly turning the tide for their allies (Serbian, Italian, Romanian front)
mainly the fact that they held out pretty well four years despite being hopelessly outnumbered and undersupplied

>fast mobilization and deployment
Russia did the same
>success against both Russia and initially France
Only reason why were operations against Russia successful was that Russian officer corps was full of the Hunnic fifth column
>mainly the fact that they held out pretty well four years
that someone "helf out pretty well" can be said about almost any army in history
>despite being hopelessly outnumbered and undersupplied
huns outsnumbered Whites on many occasions

wanted to reply to

fuck off to /int/ or /bant/ you disgusting retard
not even going to argue your insulting bullshit

>I have no arguments so ill say i wont argue with you anymore

xD

He had an argument. Your childish bullshit isn't worth the effort since you can't discuss with someone who obviously has no interest in a rational discussion.

i debunked his argument you mongoloid autist

Man for man UK
Whollistically Germany

> I DEBUNKED HIS ARGUMENT XD

Man for man Australia.

>huns outsnumbered Whites on many occasions
you debunked jack shit, even disproving yourself with your own shitty infograph...
yeah, the Great War channel said that the British professionals at the beginning were
the most experienced, having fought across the globe in colonial wars

>you debunked jack shit, even disproving yourself with your own shitty infograph...
Tell me about some other Russian operation that went extremely bad and Germ officer wasnt in charge

That's a shitposter face epitomized

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Retreat_(Russian)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky_Offensive
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Faustschlag

What? Half of your argument consists of /int/ buzzwords and the other half is a stupid hypothesis based on nothing but your racism. I feel sad for you if you aren't trolling or a teenager.

Bantzed the Krauts into submission.

no they collapsed and surrendered before the allies reached the rhine.

thats a more complicated question than you think.

at what point during the war? at some points the germans held the advantage, at others the allies, at wars end for example it was either the british or french, shading to the british because they had the RN as well, but at some points 1915-1916 you would probably give it to the germans.

and at the start, the largest and best organised was german, the smallest and best tactically was the british

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Retreat_(Russian)
that was a success
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky_Offensive
Karensky was a Jew, so German in denial
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Faustschlag
Are you autistic?
welcome to Veeky Forums stormnigger

you should kill yourself

ok Schlomo

>welcome to Veeky Forums stormnigger
I've been here all summer. You can't think outside of Veeky Forums memes do you?

Germany was the best initially
heck they basically go through with the war because they're afraid Russia would overtake them

If the answer isn't Germany the war would have been over a lot sooner

Came here to say this

actually there was fighting on German lands, both in southern Alsace against the French and East Prussia against the Russians.

Brazil

Not a single bullet was shot on British land either

Brazil!

Canada desu

Germany is the objectively correct answer. There was no country in 1914 in Europe which could have handled a 1 vs. 1 war against Germany.
>BUT THEN WHY THEY LOSE?????
Because although Late Imperial Germany was gifted militarily, it was rather amateurish when it came to diplomacy. If Germany hadn't made the fatal mistake of invading Belgium (thus bring Britain, and eventually the United States, into the war on the side of France), then the Central Powers would have almost assuredly won.
>B-But Britain was always going to get involved!!!!!!!!
The British government was controlled by the Liberal Party in 1914, and they were heavily against going to war. It wasn't until the issue of Belgium arose that the idea of getting involved got any traction whatsoever. Even then, it took a while to get some of the more ardently anti-war men to give their consent, and many chose to resign rather than give their consent for declaring war. The idea that somehow Britain was always going to declare war is an example of historical revisionism that far too often goes unchallenged.

is posting like an underage retard something that gets you off? there are better places for that you know

KARA BOGA

>If Germany hadn't made the fatal mistake of invading Belgium (thus bring Britain, and eventually the United States, into the war on the side of France), then the Central Powers would have almost assuredly won.
Attacking at the Franco-German border wouldn't have allowed for a fast advance and would have brought about trench warfare much earlier and much closer to Germany.
I think the Brits would still have joined because they wouldn't allowed a Europe under German hegemony.

Brazil has never lost a war in its history. Hard to argue with that.

>I think the Brits would still have joined because they wouldn't allowed a Europe under German hegemony.
There certainly was a pro-war imperialist minority in the cabinet, composed of people like Winston Churchill, who wanted to immediately enter into the war on the side of France, but they were a minority and couldn't dictate policy. The British Conservative party was also in favor of immediately going to war, but it has to be restated that the Liberals controlled the government in 1914, and so the Conservatives couldn't dictate policy. The Liberals had the power to dictate policy, and they were solidly in favor of neutrality.

It was only when the Germans entered Belgium in August 1914 that the Liberals started to seriously entertain the idea of declaring war, but even then there was a great deal of opposition. There was no unanimous consensus for declaring war. The debate bitterly divided the party, and many ended up resigning because of it.

At the beginning of the war it was Germany, by the end it was France

this

germany as a whole

>The Germans weren't mere miles from Paris when the British pushed them over the Aisne

Nice revisionism Francois

I'm not convinced that the Germans could have actually taken Paris if they had managed to reach it. They were very tired by that point, they'd be fast-marching almost an entire week non-stop with no time for sleep, and their supply lines were extremely thin.

This is the best Veeky Forums meme I've seen in years

I can't give a proper answer until you have listed some criteria.

The United States of America

>Attacking at the Franco-German border wouldn't have allowed for a fast advance and would have brought about trench warfare much earlier and much closer to Germany.
That is not the point I think.

Trench warfare was deadly when it happened en masse and on a wide front with many people.

Had the Germans just tried to defend their territory and waited until the French declare war on Germany, having made plans for a defense of Alsace-Lorraine and potential attack or fall-back maneuvers instead of keeping the Schlieffen-plan, they would have strategically defeated the French already.

It takes around 500,000 troops to efficiently defend the 250km narrow border area between Germany and France, as well as a good amount of reserve troops.
If trench warfare happened, which it would it would have oppened the Germans a chance to learn it without suffering major casualties.

The French could mobilize 2 Million soldiers, but if they ran against (in this case) well-motivated, well-supplied and probably also well-trained(due to more time beeing left for that) troops in entrenchments, they would have suffered great casualties.
Whereas the Germans would not suffer from walking into all machine guns of northern france.

They could simply have focussed on the Eastern front and encircle the Russians in Poland, then try to break through to the Baltics and reach St.Petersburg, AH would simply have to conquer Serbia, keep peace with Italy and defend Galicia from the beginning, at best they would be lead by the Germans.
The Russians would suffer from the blockade, the French would be defeated later by German troops that would have made mobile-warfare experiences in Russia, they would be outnumbered 2:1 if the Germans attacked with 4 Million troops, meaning their entire army, even 3 Million or 2,5 Milllion could be enough for a breakthrough.
Remeber, in this scenario you would see 3,5 Million Germans attacking Russia, which is more than Barbarossa involved.

you underestimated Russian army, it wasnt that simple, iam not sure what would Germans do in Prussia, but even in irl Great Retreat positions they were holding pretty good

The US, more specifically the USMC

Not him, and I agree with your point. But, as he said, German offensive would have stalled in France if they didn't invade Belgium. Moreover, after maybe a year and some German victories, the Uk would be frightened of Germany and would join the war anyway (the German navy and her colonial empire have frightened England since 1870).

no, just no, brave perhaps, but they refused to listen to advice, and insisted on fighting like it was 1914, man for man they were the least effective force during the hundred days.

and a lot of their equipement had to be procured from the allies

kek, limeys don't into war

the krauts have captured Paris at least twice, untermensch

>The idea that somehow Britain was always going to declare war is an example of historical revisionism that far too often goes unchallenged.
That's because it's unchallengeable. The bongs thirsted for war with the krauts, who had bypassed them economically.

>1. Germany
*power gap*
>2. France
>3. Britain
>4. America
>5. Russia
*power gap*
>6. A-H
>7. Italy
>8. Ottomans

>kek
>lel polandball maymay
You have to be 18 to post here

I've read books about the 1st WW some time ago, and I remember the Canadians always being talked about as good and brave troops. Also during D-Day Canadian troops apparently performed excellently.

Italy mostly because of lui guy was an absolute madman

Canadians were very good at Passchendaele

British Empire.
Highly disciplined soldiers with experienced commanders. Best weapins technology. By far largest navy. Largest human resources

and yet all that couldn't be saved by an absolute shit doctrine
this user is correct

What

>Entire BEF gets slaughtered in the first few months of the war

No

>By the end of 1914—after the battles of Mons, Le Cateau, the Aisne and Ypres—the old Regular Army had been wiped out

Austria. They were just dragged down by shitty Slavs and Magyars

>Had the Germans just tried to defend their territory and waited until the French declare war on Germany, having made plans for a defense of Alsace-Lorraine and potential attack or fall-back maneuvers instead of keeping the Schlieffen-plan, they would have strategically defeated the French already.
This. Even if the Schlieffen plan made sense in a purely military sense, it was absolute cancer diplomatically. It would have been far better for Germany to adopt a defensive posture on the western front. This would mean that France would have to actually attack Germany if the French want to honor their alliance with Russia. Forcing France to throw the first punch would put France in the role of the aggressor, which would eliminate any chance that Britain or America would be joining France in the war. The Central Powers would have a great advantage, since it would be 3 (Germany, Austria, and the Ottomans) against just 2 (France and Russia).

/thread

...

Zeppelins attacked London. German Navy regularly shelled English coastal cities. German colonial soldiers raided Kenya and Rhodesia.

The Ottomans shouldn't be ranked so low. They actually defeated Britain in battle on multiple occasions, something that Germany never managed, unless we're counting Lettow-Vorbeck's skirmishes in Africa.

>German Navy regularly shelled English coastal cities.
I'm pretty sure that happened exactly once. It was a great embarrassment for the Royal Navy, to be sure, but the Germans never managed to repeat the feat.

Yarmouth, Scarborough, Whitby. His original point was that no bullets were fired on English soil.

Meanwhile a blockaded Germany starved while a few English civilians got killed by rare coastal shelling

My only beef is with the word "regularly." It certainly wasn't a regular occurrence.

Er, whatever. I'm responding to the statement that no German bullets were fired on British soil. 12 or 15 inch shells were lobbed into those cities.

Ok . Agreed.