American view of WW1

>Anglophone country concentrates on the Anglo part of the war

no shit

File: 2az.jpg (576KB, 2260x2177px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 2260x2177px

>>2000792
Are you really trying to find excuses for this shitshow?
Leaving the First Marne, Tannenberg, Verdun and the Somme out while including Cantigny

>>2000783
>3/4 is about the last months and some irrelevant battles where americans are present
>not even any mention of Marne, Somme, Verdun and so on
>WW1 was exclusevly fought at the western front

Damn, even if you take a very american centric POV in account, thats just bad.

File: Sqs.jpg (120KB, 674x307px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 674x307px

This website has to be a parody...

>>2000800
It's some shit tier clickbait site.

I presume if you went to a shitty French clickbait site they'd be ignoring the Hundred Days Offensive and the blockade.

>>2000783
Americans only care about things involving americans

This is not news

Well that's just pathetic, what the fuck...

It's nothing but a bunch of totally irrelevant dates that are just about America.

File: 100 days.png (23KB, 322x623px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 322x623px

>>2000813
>I presume if you went to a shitty French clickbait site they'd be ignoring the Hundred Days Offensive and the blockade

You're aware the Hundred Days offensive was a French lead action, right Britbong?
Why would the French ignore it?

>>2000813
Even assuming French people are as deluded which isn't the case, why the fuck would they ignore the Hundred Days Offensive which was under French command?

>>2000783
Why are frogs so butthurt about amerishartia not recognizing their war effort? It's not like the French did much in the war. If they were so mighty and powerful as they claim, they should have told Britain to fuck off and faced the Krauts on their own. They would totally crush Germany if it wasn't for the Bongs holding them back.

>>2001047
It would be like the spanish claiming they were responsible for the 13 colonies winning the revolution and then laughing at americans who tried to say it was actually them

>>2001047
>Why are frogs so butthurt about amerishartia not recognizing their war effort?
Didnt know /his/ had flags
Keep your assumptions for yourself, we don't know if OP is French

>It's not like the French did much in the war.
France was objectively the most important allied power in WW1

>If they were so mighty and powerful as they claim, they should have told Britain to fuck off and faced the Krauts on their own.
Britain was there to help Belgiulm though
France had no say in that

>They would totally crush Germany if it wasn't for the Bongs holding them back.
France couldnt have won without Britain, but it's not like Britain could have won alone either
It was a combined effort, which doesnt change the fact that France was the most important country on the Entente side and literally carried the Western Front alone until Brits really got involved by late 1916

As someone who's neither from America nor France, I'll never understand why Americans are so butthurt at France while literally owing them their independence
I mean, the American poster I'm replying too literally brought France on the table for no reason and got angry at it
Wtf?

>>2001128
>It would be like the spanish claiming they were responsible for the 13 colonies winning the revolution
That's bullshit, everyone knows that the [spoiler] french [/spoiler] were the ones responsible for the 13 colonies' victory. And America got even on WW1, and one-uped France on WW2. Now it's the french that have to get even again.

>>2001172
>And America got even on WW1

That would be the case if America was responsible for victory in WW1, which isnt the case
America got even in WW2

>>2000835
>>2000837

They were under French overall command but it was a plan proposed by Haig and a significant amount of the fighting was done by the British and their Imperial troops (Second Battle of the Somme, Canal du Nord, Cambrai, Amiens etc). This was really because the main thrust of the Spring Offensive had been in the British sector. It's also worth remembering that they took more prisoners than the French and Americans combined and more casualties too.

>>2000813
FUCK OFF ANGLO SHILL REEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: wz.png (8KB, 330x328px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 330x328px

>>2001254
>It's also worth remembering that they took more prisoners than the French and Americans combined and more casualties too.

According the German wiki (English one doesnt state casualties), the French had more casualties than the Brits (and probably inflicted more too)
The prisoners thing (which is only about prisoners and not all kinds of casualties inflicted) is probably because the Brits were more likely to accept surrendering Germans while butthurt French often killed them regardless ("evil huns destroyed muh land for 4 years"...etc)

>>2001172
Yeah which is why I said the spanish, since they were involved but clearly werent the main reason the yanks won

>>2000783
How is this suprising?
In OZ and NZ all anyone knows about is the Gallipoli campain, and a little about the Western front.

Because, shock horror, those were the campains the ANZACs fought in

>>2001254
And? It was still french lead, and the biggest force was the french

>>2001277

I meant in terms of the Allied counteroffensive British casualties (298,000) were, albeit only marginally, higher than the French figure of 279,000. It's understandable if you think that the main pushes to first break the German line at Amiens and then the Hindenburg line at Cambrai were British led actions. That said, I'm going by the casualty figures on wikipedia so I could be very wrong. It's a valid point about the prisoners though.

>>2001336
I don't deny the French were essential to it, but it was an Allied victory. The biggest force was French but it's where those troops were placed and where they fought that's more important. The British and Imperial troops spearheaded several important breakthroughs, using tanks in large numbers. The arrival of the Americans was also important.

File: washingtonwashington.jpg (54KB, 636x583px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 636x583px

>>2000783

>shmoop
>intended for middle and high schools
>not historically comprehensive

The point of education at that level is to teach students how to absorb, analyze, and make conclusions based on their comprehension, not to memorize the chronology of WWI. You teach the formula, not the variables. They'll likely spend a week or two max on the war, meaning trivial facts like names and dates have almost no hope of retention, before moving on to other variables.

They'll develop a basic foundation of the war, some may even have their interests piqued, but more importantly they'll be better students when they actually study it at higher levels.

>>2001291
Your argument would almost make sense if the Spanish were the main military presence in the war and a Spanish general was given supreme command over the conflict, which isn't the case.

Your argument is closer to the British arguing that they were the most important and decisive force in WW1 because they were instrumental in a few offenses.