This is the objective ranking of the significant nations in WW1 from best to worst. Feel free to debate
>Germany
>Britain
>France
>USA
>Austria-Hungary
>Italy
>Ottoman Empire
>Russia
>Italy above ottoman empire
Italians had much difficulty with an army 1/2 their size while the ottomans started to decline only when they were starting to be overwhelmed.
>Russia
>worse than Austria, Turkey and fucking ITALY
>>44679
Let's make some small changes
>Britain=Canada=USA
>Germany
>Russia
>France
>Germany on top
>Germany lost the war
>UK ahead of France
>UK was always, always a naval power whereas France relied much more on armies
>USA above Russia when the US only entered the war in 1918
I think you've got some problems, friend.
>>44750
This is about quality of soldiers, ottomans had such shitty weapons etc.
>>44679
France was more significant than Britain for the allied side
France was literally the leader of Entente Powers
There's a reason why Foch was the supreme allied commanders and the Germans surrendered to France
It is often forgotten because the Brits were better at propaganda (aka they took more photos and thus are more associated with the Allies of WW1 than the French)
The wiki page did a fine job at ranking countries of each side from the most to the leasr relevant
Pic related
>>44801
Agreed, France was the main power on WW1 on the entente side.
>Russia last
Yeah...no
>>44943
This thread is not about the contribution they made, it is about the quality of their armies. Britain had high quality troops but in low quantities at the beggining of the war. Relevance =/= quality
as a Brit I can say that you have done the French an immense disservice and you have overplayed our role compared to the French
it really is one of the more unfair and historically inaccurate ideas of modern times that the French are somehow bad in combat or bad at making war
>>44994
If it's about the quality of armies, then conglomerating the British Empire is a mistake, because there were wildly varying quality between its various nationalities in terms of the armies they contributed.
>>45031
It really is. I mean, the French are kind of insanely courageous in war if you actually look at their history, but one surrender by civilian leaders that then turned collaborator...
>>45105
The worse part is that the kind of failure France faced in WW2 are very common through history
Prussia for exemple got conquered in 19 fucking days in 1806
It didn't prevent them from rising back to glory in the late 19th century
The problem for France is that WW2 is most probably the last big war we'll have in history, so they'll never have the chance to prove themselves again
>>45194
The post-war occupation by the Americans did a lot toward creating a lot of the stereotypes you still hear about the French. It's almost hilarious just how precisely you can pin down a lot of this stuff to that period.
http://www.112gripes.com/
