re: Which country’s military do you consider to have won WWI?

quote:

---

So I guess it basically comes down to the US, UK, and French militaries. Which one do you think, had they not been in the war, the Central Powers would’ve won the war?

---

The absence of either the UK or French militaries would have guaranteed a Central Powers victory, but it's not inconceivable that the Entente could have won without American military assistance. The war could have gone either way as late as August 1918. The Entente were planning for the war to last into 1920 before they made their advances in the Autumn of 1918.

On the battlefield Germany won

quote:

---

One which we are in the process of deliberately dismantling, with grave consequences for the world, in my opinion.

---

So I'm not the only one on the board who gets it

None

Think of the talent lost on the battlefield that never bloomed later in life.

quote:

---

And how are you leaving Russia out of this equation?

---

Because Russia got their shite handed to them by Germany throughout the war.

quote:

---

Which one do you think, had they not been in the war, the Central Powers would’ve won the war?

---

Belgium first.
Then the Russians. (Lucky for the Germans they were incompetent. But they still kept the Germans from victory by tying up troops early in the war.)
Then France.
Then England.
Then Australia/New Zealand.
Then the US.
Then Italy.
Then Japan.

quote:

---

I think we all get it, at least those of us that have our eyes open to current events in America and especially Europe.

---

I wish we had a board for serious political discussion, not populated by loons, trolls, and juveniles.

quote:

---

France gets a reputation as being surrender monkeys but they gave the (better) German army all it could handle and helped drag this thing out for years

Too many dynamics to just say one country was the reason, but France was a big reason

---

You could say, they fought away their will to fight again.

I don't want to entirely disagree with you because you could definitely argue it, but Belgium was just the excuse that Great Britain used to get into the war. To say they impacted the war from a military standpoint is very much a stretch. England would have found a way into the contest otherwise.

But everything else very much yes. Especially regarding Russia. Just because they didn't know how to use their army doesn't mean they didn't impact the war in a huge way. Germany was more scared of Russia; that's why they tried to knock little France out first.

quote:

---

Had Russia not been in the war, France wouldn't have lasted long enough for England to even be in debt to the US. The fact that it was necessary for Germany to hand Russia said shite cannot be ignored.

---

I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case. First off, the Germans, with exceedingly less men on the Eastern Front continually kicked the crap out of the far superior in numbers Russians. A relatively tiny German Army managed to destroy the First and Second Russian army and Tannenberg and Masurian Lake. The Russians were so fricked that they couldn’t hardly stage an offensive for years to come.

Second, had they, the Germans, adhered to the Schlieffen Plan and not diverted troops to either the east, which they did, or the south, with they did, they would have simply overrun Lanrezac’s 5th Army. The plan called for an 85:15 ratio of men on the north in Belgium at The Head of the hammer and in the south around Alsace-Lorraine to be a holding force/act like the bait when the French inevitably attacked.

The plan only called for a single German army to stay on the Eastern Front to check any Russian assault, and they did.