.
>>1285270
>>1285270
>>1285270
>>1285270
Not the worst I've seen. I've heard someone say that the United States has been a nation for over 400 years. Fucking idiots.
>>1285270
>tfw the Anglo truly is eternal
feels good
>>1285270
how could any man say France and believe it?
>>1285399
Without French and Russians the war would be wan earlier and by the good guys instead of being won by aggressors.
>>1285270
>>1285308
A study in 2009 showed 9% of Americans believed the war of independence was against China
>>1285270
Now this hurts right in the feels.
>>1285270
Also only 35% knew what year the USA entered the war
Fucking burgers
>>1285270
Britain getting the credit despite hiding on an island for the whole war FUCK
>>1285270
this is what Americans actually believe
>>1285599
without britain, Germany would have far better chances against soviet union
>>1285599
>>1285611
JUST
It was probably Austria-Hungary actually.
>>1285611
Not sure it would have made a difference?
The "british campaign" didn't tie up a lot more than aeroplanes, and I'm sure they wouldn't have solves their problems in Russia with a few more planes.
The invasion of 44 was only made possible by America as well.
>>1285308
I mean, there is a difference between a nation and a nation-state. We started diverging from the English pretty much from the start and even saw ourselves as a fundamentally different people even when under British rule. That's part of what lead to us breaking off and forming our own state, after all.
>>1285270
That's actually sorta true without the immense war industry of the US that supplied France and Britain and the late entrance in the war was vital for an allied victory
>>1285667
Soviets would have reached Berlin regardless
>>1285673
Pretty much this. There would have been a lot more dead Soviets, but they would have still beat Germany.
>>1285673
>WORLD WAR 1
>>1285673
>>1285676
You're fucking retarded
>>1285667
The USA was certainly a scale tipper but it was more or less an even match without them. It's difficult to say who was really the most important for the victory. Without Russia, the Western front would have been fucked. Without France, Russia would have been even more fucked (and keep in mind that it's not just Russia's weakness that lead them to being fucked, but the fact that Hindenburg and Ludendorff shifted the strategy to focus on taking out Russia first). Without the British navy, Germany would not have suffered as much from the war of attrition (though of course that's not their only contribution).
But at the end of the day I think it's a huge spit in the face of the millions of French and British who died fighting to say that the late comer to the war is the country that did most to win it. Note also that the question isn't about the potential contribution or anything like that, but about what the country actually did.
>>1285687
If you read the entire conversation you will find someone shifted the focus at some point.
>>1285650
Sadly, he was talking about as a nation, not a nation-state.
>>1285691
>millions
All told, between France and GB, total casualties for all reasons is over 2 million. While 2 is indeed plural, it's embellishment to imply "millions", which would lead a reader to understand "multiples of millions". It's alot of losses and it's horrible, but it's not "millions".
>>1285730
It is literally millions
But read it as millions who died or were wounded if you like
>>1285270
>>1285667
>was vital for an allied victory
not really - germany was in extremely bad shape by 1917 already
what it was vital for was a quick allied victory
>mfw Battlefield One is going to be how an entire generation sees WW1
>>1285808
>>1285808
>tfw entire generations already see war as glorious and justified because of state-sponsored propagandist video games and films
>>1285808
Better than an entire generation thinking WWI was fought in trenches with muskets.
>>1285808
>tfw going to be touring the world as a Frenchie, teasing Americans and Brits for their help in the First World War
>"wait but you didn't even fight in that war? what kind of uncultured brat are you? erm the war was like between the UK and the US against Germany."
>"b-but..."
>"fucking french people trying to steal the glory away from my ancestors"
And people will wonder why, when I'm emperor of France, I'll wage war on the entire world to remind them who fares best in war.
France was on its last legs just like Germany and the German military and citizenry didn't want to give up. The war would have continued had America not joined.
>>1285849
>the German military and citizenry didn't want to give up
Yeah that's why the Kiel mutiny happened lmao
>>1285857
No, it's why WW2 happened.
>>1285270
Who cares? USSR fucking started it together with Germany fighting on the same side. You might as well say it was Italy.
>>1285270
its fucking true though
>>1285845
>remind them who fares best in war
certainly not France in the last 2 centuries
>>1285929
Grrrrr you vill see wo iz still ze best at zis, espèce de perfide Albion toujours à pourfendre nos idéaux.
>>1285939
France should have won. Monarchy is evil.
>>1285945
Thanks! That said, I've found it recurrent in foreigners to conflate the French Revolution as a revolution against monarchy, rather than the revolution against the nobility that it really was.
No one from that time eagerly sought out to extinguish the institutions of the monarchy. More than anything, their chief aims were to weaken the nobility, and similarly the clergy, by asserting that there should be freedom of opportunity and before the law. As all things though, the Revolution devolved into something that also hounded after the monarchy, and we lost poor Louis XVI.
So yeah, nobility and those forms of oligarchy are evil. Our brave King isn't.
Longue vie au Roy de France!
>>1285270
It's literally backwards
IT'S LITERALLY FUCKING BACKWAAAARDS
>>1285270
It is concerning how historically illiterate people are.
In a world where most people were educated then it would be 90% plus British Empire.
>>1285993
NOT SO FAST NIGEL
>>1285997
Name another one of the allies that was even involved for the whole war. Pro:tip you can't.
>>1285983
Effort wise, but America still won the war. It was a kill steal. Wait until Europe wears itself out and then rush in and claim victory.
>>1285993
Fucking hell. British propaganda tactics materializing themselves before my very eyes. This isn't a meme at all is it ._. ?
For one that was genuinely educated, France should be awarded the greatest percentage, for utterly annihilating german strategies at the Marne at the expense of thousands of our men (as it's forgotten that the first month of the war were those most wounding to France mortality-wise), and enduring the brunt of german crazed assaults for four years.
To Brits, I'd beqeath the second place for being such trusty allies, and for their contributions to have spanned the globe (invading Arabia, Papua New-Guinea, and mustering troops for Gallipolli), and moreover, for having blockaded the germans into a state of famine.
Russians should be higher on that ranking, for their sacrifice of lives, but by having desisted from the war in 1917, only third place is fitting for them.
But America doesn't even deserve to be on that list as much as I hate to say it.
>>1286010
The war would have been won without America's presence, Germany was rotting from within and they couldn't have possibly carried on long enough to come out on top. Our involvement only shortened the war by a couple months.
>>1286006
France.
The UK and France's contribution should be ranked equally desu.
>>1286051
Debatable.
>>1286088
We're talking about WWI.
>>1286094
Don't worry. I am retarded and can't read very well.
>>1285993
Go back to YouTube, Lindy.
>>1286063
Not really. Spring offensive was stopped because Germans didn't know what to do, and instead of cutting BEF from French army they just... kinda went somewhere, lost momentum and got stopped. Americans by the time were in large part still arriving and organising only to get active by the time of hundred day offensive which ended the war. Now, the offensive did end the war however it would be won with Americans or without them - one of German tactical counterattacks during that offensive was stopped by Belgians, of all people - people who had to smuggle reinforcements from their occupied country for the last 4 years.
>>1286109
Love you Britain! You can be so compassionate towards us when we aren't dicking around tormenting ourselves for whom the world belongs to :3.
And I rectify my statement then: Britain's contributions weighed as heavily as those of the french, as long as they comprise those of their empire too.
>>1286051
germany was only going bankrupt because they held more land, which was a disadvantage in the new ways war was being fought in WWI.
The war would've ended in a stallmate at most, leading to waves of political and social instability across all of europe except maybe in Britain.
Europe would look like the Middle East today if the US didn't come in and give the victory to the allies, and then prop them up. The US had to do it again in WWII.
>>1285270
>>1285276
>>1285302
>>1285304
>>1285308
>>1285389
>>1285399
>>1285418
>>1285423
>>1285424
>>1285455
>>1285593
>>1285599
>>1285602
>>1285602
>>1285611
>>1285615
>>1285620
>>1285629
>>1285638
>>1285640
>>1285808
>>1285983
>>1286010
Guys, America did bank roll the entire Entente. Without America lending the Entene the money it needed to buy war materials, their efforts would have grinded to halt.
American, the Creditor of Democracy.
>>1285939
mysore stronk
>>1286118
We do love France really, mon ami :-)
I think the things we can all agree on is the USA showed up late and did very little and at least we didn't fall apart and have a commie revolution like Russia and that at least we didn't just plain lose, like ze Germans.
>>1286129
>implying WW1 had anything to do with democracy
>>1286178
Was Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire democracies in any sense?
>>1286185
More Germans had the right to vote than Brits
France and in turn Britain became involved in the war because of Russia which was certainly not democratic
>>1285967
The rest of Europe made it about monarchy.
>>1286149
We helped put the lid on a war that had already lasted too long. American men were fresh.
Though if it lasted longer, maybe the Germans would have thought twice about doing it a second time.
>>1286178
Russia is the odd man out, but FRA, GBR, & ITA are all further on the democracy spectrum than GER, KUK, & OTT.
also
>assertion that America bankrolled the Entente and can thus claim to be mostly responsible for Entente victory was unchallenged. Silence implies agreement.
>>1286149
>that at least we didn't just plain lose, like ze Germans.
Truly, letting germans wallow in their filth and leave them a country plagued with infighting between socialists and spartakists was once of our most masterminded ploys ever, which the events from two decades attest to.
And I'd not be that condescending against the Russians. Ourselves too had a war experience punctuated by instances where our integrity was threatened (mutinies in France, pacifists storming London streets). But what seems to have sheltered us from that we ever disintegrate as countries is that we both weren't about to lend the other a pretense to shame us until the end of time for having faltered: "hurr filthy frenchman, you betrayed us when your country broke apart" or alternatively, "hurr filthy albion, [...]".
So erm, yeah. Our rivalry somehow kept us friends throughout the war. History's irony. Heart-wrenching.
As to Americans, I'm not of a nature to really bestow them criticism. One might have conjectured that they'd have never intervened, so I'm at least grateful that they did and leave it at that, and don't really inspect the specifics of "when they should've have entered the war".
>>1285929
Because Napoleon didn't happen
>>1286198
>Though if it lasted longer, maybe the Germans would have thought twice about doing it a second time.
Not a chance in hell. The reason why there was no strategic reconsideration was that Germany was tactically successful. German officers held the front line while being severely outnumbered and down on resources due to tactical ingenuity and that made them cocky, seeing how their tactics worked out. Having beaten Russia militarily while holding against France and Britain, gave them the impression that a war like this could be won through optimisation of the tactical potential. The strategic constraints were not considered at all, which is why WW2 took place under pretty much the same strategic constellation. Had they held out longer it would have only given them even more confidence.
>>1286218
Your reasonable posting makes me ashamed of my /int/ style shitposting.
A bit like when the Germans and the Brits came together you have a game of football on Christmas day.
Man, this thread turned sweet quickly.
>>1285808
"wait.. dude... France don't fight in dubya dubya one"
>>1286245
I wouldn't have expected an answer like that. Pretty enlightening though.
I always felt the US entered the war later as leverage to have say in international matters, but with as little risk involved as possible. Obviously there was public opinion, but the states is oligarchic and shows that it mostly does war when it pleases. What is your take?
>>1285808
This. I was chatting with my doorman (a 22 year old) about Battlefield and he thought World War I happened in the 1930s.
