Why did the combined might of The British and French Empires even struggle slightly to defeat Germany? You have the population of Canada, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Australia, and Morocco, against Germany and Austro Hungary. This isn't even mentioning Russia. The Ottomans struggled to hold back the revolt too.
Why wasn't this shit over in months?
>>1173958
Because technology had rendered most strategy and tactics obsolete. They had to figure out how to fight a war no one had ever fought before on a continental scale
>>1173958
They were up against Germans thats why..
>>1173999
German war tactics are nothing against numbers like these though.
I seriously don't know how the German Empire pulled off fighting a two front war that ended in the collapse of the entire Russian nation
They were just so much more modern, I suppose
>>1173958
Indians, niggers, and sand niggers were not useful pops. In HoI3 terms, they wouldn't add to your manpower pool.
UK and French useful manpower was lower than Germany's.
South Africa joined on the condition that they don't fight anywhere but in Africa.
Canada was a tiny country. Australia was smaller.
The Germans were the only ones that wanted a war.
>>1174197
>Indians, niggers, and sand niggers were not useful pops
nice
>>1173958
Because the brits, french and their subjects had not learned how to teleport yet.
>>1174215
He's right, the only Indians that fought did it for money and for Independence. Why would a non-European want to fight in such a meaningless war to them?
>>1174211
We wanted to retake Alsace-Lorraine tho (+ maybe one or two german colonies)
>>1174454
Nowhere near the same amount of "want" as the German "want" though. France literally elected an anti-war, anti-revanchist, anti-military government. One that stifled mobilization plans, stifled military planning, one that actively avoided war. There were massive jingoists in the French staff of course, but - unlike Germany and Austria - those in power around (and above) them said "fuck you" and not "ok let's go to war haha".
>>1173958
Because industrial power was all that mattered. Having millions of Indian farmers doesn't mean shit when Germany alone had more coal, iron, and factories.
>>1173958
War is not fought with overall numbers and forces capable of being gelded by one side, but by what is present at the time in any one theater.
The Germans developed tactics which outmoded both of those whom you mentioned and built up considerable defenses before a counterattack could be made. And so, rather than saturate the enemy with numbers and risk the lives of the denizens of their empires as they had done during the Dieppe Raid (assuming these forces were not busy elsewhere, Indians in SEA, Canadians in Italy, etc.), they waited for the strategic situation to better benefit them.
Though if I'm wrong about anything please do correct me.
>>1173958
Before WW1, frontage was pretty much everything. The more people you could put in a line, the more damage you could do, the more you'd damage the opponents.
In WW1, we have mass application of some very refined machine guns; a single machine gun can pin down a shitload of men, especially in open terrain. Consequently, it was exponentially easier to defend than it was to attack as defense required fewer men. The Germans also had superior command structures with NCOs and field officers having the ability to make decisions rather than wait for HQ, and they excellent entrenchment techniques. When the entente bombarded the Germans, they just went into their bunkers and waited until it stopped. They also tended to put their forces more towards the rear and middle lines for an elastic defense whereas the Western allies preferred a more front-loaded approach.
As for the Eastern front, Russia was hideously corrupt, incredibly inept, and woefully under-equipped. For what it's worth, they did regularly beat up Austria. Often at great cost, but they did it. Unfortunately, just as they were about to raise an exhausted arm in celebration, the Germans showed up and devastated them.
What made the land war winnable, since the naval strategies were a whole other thing, were advances in technology and doctrine. While the entente used tanks to great effect at the end of the war, the German development of infiltration tactics is probably the best example. Instead of having your entire line charge at once, you would have squads that alternated between moving forward and laying down suppressive fire to leap-frog across the battlefield.
Germans were technologically superior to everyone around from the late 30s to the early 40s. They had better machine guns, tanks, jet planes, rockets, code, nationalism etc etc
>>1175344
oh, it's ww1, my bad. only read half of it. sry. disregard.
>>1173958
War is won in the factories.
Colonial soldiers had poor morale and were resistant to training. Just not worth the effort considering most countries only had 2% of their total population as soldiers in ww1. Post industrial war was about power projection and industrial capacity instead of manpower
![1407450581247[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Oyoq9px.jpg "1407450581247[1].jpg")
>>1173958
>Why did the combined might of The British and French Empires even struggle slightly to defeat Germany?
I have no academic credentials in history, let alone the history of the world wars, so this is just my amateur analysis.
Remember that whole "the war will be over before Christmas" thing from WW1? Remember the Blitzkrieg from WW2? You should, because those were literally the only ways a German victory was even possible.
Looking at only their European territories, or their immedeatly available manpower and resources, Germany dwarfed all Europeans except maybe Russia, and Russia was downright backwards. Germany could very well defeat France and Britain, but the issue was that they needed to do it fast. Fast because the longer the war lasts, the more easily the French and British can set up naval blockades and draw wealth from their resources while Germany starves (German agriculture was never as booming as France, the grainshed of Western Europe even today). This is why, after the Miracle of the Marne, Von Moltke told the emperor the war was lost. He failed to take out France rapidly, therefore France would only get stronger and stronger as Germany got weaker and weaker. In other words: you got your question backwards. The colonies are the reason why the war wasn't over in months.
>This isn't even mentioning Russia
Look at the July Crisis, and notice that German diplomats wanted the war to start sooner rather than later. That´s because Russia, while still backwards, was in the process of modernizing. Can you imagine what WW1 would´ve been like if Russia had a modern railway system? Masses of troops from the East and its entire wealth in resources would be summoned in a matter of weeks. Germany needed Russia to be unable to properly exploit its resources rapidly.
This is also why mocking France for its performance in WW2 is bullshit: losing so fast didn't prove their incompetence as it was literally the only way losing was possible.
>>1174454
Wrong. Revanchists were in the minority in France and never in government.
