We often get into arguments as to which country did the most

>>2209066

France, if you're talking for the Entente. I say this as a burgerclap. Germany, if you're talking overall.

>>2209066
France, Russia and Germany on their respective sides

Germany carried 3 useless allies... Imagine how easier it would be just 1 vs 1 against France.

Britain, stopped the German advance into France which would've crippled them in days, their navy blocked them from taking over seas colonies allowing Japan to attack, after the Russian revolution they repelled the extremely powerful spring offensive at Amiens after the Germans broke through the US lines. The British crippled their economy, their elite fighting units and saved Western Europe (or at least held on until the USA provided more men) can't be disputed.

Probably Germany.

They propped up 2 crumbling empires and fought on three different main fronts for the entirety of the war.

Britain and France are difficult to separate. France expended most of its manpower, fought continuously for four years and nearly fully mutinied in 1917. Britain developed a million strong army from virtually nothing, absorbed the main German attacks of early 1918 and were ultimately the the most effective force by the end of the war.

>>2209332
>Britain, stopped the German advance into France which would've crippled them in days

Stopped reading there, fuck off British retard
The German advance was stopped in the Battle of the First Marne, a battle that saw 1,01 million French troops and 60,000 (0.06 million) British troops oppose 1,4 million Germans
Had the BEF not been there, literally nothing would've been different

In fact, until late 1916, British numbers on the Western Front were so ridicously insignificant that France was effectively alone against Germany

>>2209450
Britain was too busy protecting the French flank in Belgium to create significant numbers, Britain had the worlds only professional army of 100,000 men, if you think French gardeners and farmers stopped the German shock troops you're fucking autistic

>>2209532
Foch himself said that "100 000 braves British souls saved 40 000 000 cowardly French slugs". But their sacrifice was forgotten.

We have entire military German reports talking about how professionnal British soldiers could shoot artillery shells IN THE AIR. The whole Schlieffen plan was foiled by them. The Battle of the Marne and the logistical overextension of the German Army are just French fabricated cover stories, created to make themselves more important. These 100 000 soldiers stoppped millions of Germans gardeners and farmers like it was nothing.

File: British delusion.png (66KB, 621x339px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 621x339px

>>2209532
>muh professional quality

If you think your few dozens thousands men at the First Marne were anymore decisive than the 1 million French troops, you're a fucking retard
Had the BEF not been there, France would've been just as fine
Not that quality of troops mattered much in early WW1 anyway, your professional troops were under shitty commanders and performed as badly as French and German ones, to the point they all had died within months

British self-importance truly knows no bound
Just like for WW2
Pic related, every other country recognize we did most of the job, but arrogant Brits think they did more than us
Oh and don't get me started on the USSR meme, without our lend-lease they'd have lost by 1942

>>2209551
>Foch himself said that "100 000 braves British souls saved 40 000 000 cowardly French slugs"

This quote sounds totally real indeed
Care to cite the Lindybeige video you got it from?
British military history is a meme
You got BTFO by fucking peasants and now you're the bitch of your former colony

File: 1479877885639.png (19KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 499x499px

>>2209551
>The Battle of the Marne and the logistical overextension of the German Army are just French fabricated cover stories, created to make themselves more important.

Kek
You know I unironically believed it was a genuine post until that part?
One could think I can't recognize irony, but British delusion is just so hardcore sometimes that it's hard to tell

>>2209563
My post was tongue-in-cheek. I thought the Foch quote made it clear but I didn't realize I sounded so much like a real life Brit poster.

>>2209450
Their numbers were very small compared to the continental armies, yes, but in terms of expenditure of effort the BEF gave a lot. Especially considering it was a tiny army thrown into a clash of millions. They committed to such ambitious offensives it meant that by 1915 the old regular army had practically ceased to exist. The British weren't exactly a significant force in the opening stages but that doesn't really address OP's question.

>>2209066
Honourable mention for Belgium also

>>2209558
The French borders were such a clusterfuck that Britain supplying France would've made 0 difference that's why we were in belgium where France did fuck all, if Germany broke through Belgium they'd have a clear advance into Paris and a full flank on all French fortresses. You can't say France could pull its own fucking weight when after 4 months they lost 19 miles of territory only brought back by the aussies in 1917 (which the British brought in) without Britain the ottomans would be on your ass, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India would have given fuck all help, the French economy would disintegrate due to losing all their best land and the only think keeping them alive would be germanys war on 3 fronts. After the Russian revolution and the Austrian defence against the Italians France would be absolutely fucked with the shear amount of casualties, debt they'd have amounted to the USA and the fact they'd be starving without the Britain navy, France would have lost by 1917, Belgium being invaded saved that weak shit hole and we all know it.

Massive shout out to Belgium holding back Germany the legends

>>2209578
>France would have lost by 1917

Exactly, and not in 1914
You know why? Because the BEF of 1914 was irrelevant as fuck and France basically stopped the German advance alone
I'm not saying they could have won without Britain, but they certainly wouldnt have fell by 1914
Now, even though they needed Britain to win, it's undeniable that France was the country that contributed the most on the Allied side
Not only did they fight basically alone on the Western Front until late 1916, but they still carried it even after that
At the Somme, France was making up half of the troops despite single-handedly holding the line at Verdun in the meantime.
In 1918, Foch was named supreme allied commander and France carried the bulk of the decisive 100 Days Offensive (actually, even America had more troops than Britain in that offensive)
The only moment Britain did more than France was for a few months during the 1917 mutinies
But what are five months out of 4 years of war?

Kinda unrelated but how would the eastern front have played out if the Russians didn't pull out over revolution?

>>2209603
>they needed Britain to win

Whoops

>>2209603
>They needed Britain to win

>>2209625
They did
Just like Britain needed France to win
Germany was objectively superior and neither France nor Britain (the """""superpower""""") could have beaten them alone

>>2209066
Germany for three emperors
U.K. For triple entente, because naval blockade starts famine in '17 and America in

>>2209634
Apart from England was seen as the upholder of law, so even if France was ensnared in the autist's grasp he would have had to have given it up for fear of naval blockade like Napoleon had

>>2209066
Eternal reminder that bongs, frogs, and burgers never touched German soil. Germany was never defeated on WW1, they simply agreed to surrender, and got a slap-on-the-wrist treaty because be Allies were scared of German power. The idea that Germany was ruined and was reborn from the ashes is Nazi propaganda, they never became weak.

>>2209077
>3 useless allies
I wouldn't say useless for all three. Mostly just the Ottomans, and most of that is because the fight against the Turks took place mostly in Mesopotamia/Arabia

The Austro-Hungarians did manage to defeat all their opponents save for Italy, and even they had Italy on the ropes until the last 6 months of the war.

Bulgaria slammed the deathnail on Serbia's resistance and knocked them out of the war, and Also put in the work against Romania to secure Central Powers control over the entire Balkans.

>>2209066
France.

>>2209836
>if you lose a war on an external theater, you win

>>2209836
They surrendered because they knew there was nothing left to stop the allies from marching into Germany and Austria-Hungary. This is usually how war plays out.

The concept of fighting until there is nothing but absolute ruin such as in Nazi Germany's and Japan's case is absolute insanity by most educated standards.

>>2209841
The Austrians were beyond useless, they were actually making it harder for the Germans to fight.

Their tactics were the worst in the war and you cannot show me more incompetent generals or out of touch leader .from any other country

>>2209836

So hyperinflation, multiple political assassinations and attempted revolutions never happened?

>>2210012
Italians and Cadorna were way worse

The French