Political Crossfire Forums

[Felix]

Which Allied country would you all say contributed most to victory in World War One? Please, list your reasons for your opinions.

[Jehan]

I'd say France.

[thundertaker]

I believe it was Britain, on the basis that she was in the war from more or less the begining and as well as her heavy involvement in terms of the man power provided to the Sausage machine on the western front and elsewhere, the Royal Navy's role in blockading Germany and starving her of resources denied Germany any realistic hope of winning the war of attrition.
However, If you take either France, Britain, or Russia out of the picture, Germany would probably have won the war anyway, so measuring the contribution of those countries against one another is a bit like splitting hairs.....

[sherborne]

Blatantly Britain all the way. If it wasnt for Britain then the following would/would not have happened:

Germany would have been equally, if not the biggest naval power in the world, hence no blockade of germany.

France would have lost the war in 1916, maybe even before. Dont forget that the Franco prussian war only lasted about a year and i dont think that the added threat of Russia would have proved a decisive element in prolonging the war, or even turning it in France and Russias favour. Furthermore, the German generals were confident of beating France and Russia, what they were not confident of was defeating Britiain.

The united states would not have been brought into the war: They were brought in as part of the submarine campaign exerted by the Germans against American ships that were coming to Britain, hence no Britain, no America.

The entrance of Britain made the FWW a global conflict and not a local conflict. In terms of manpower, Britain probably lost as many men (if not more) as France or Germany did, if you include all of the people who were kileld from India, Australia and the like. Its important to recognise that it was the British empire at war, not just the British nation.

I think it far more likley that it was Britain who contributed to Germanys defeat than any other nation. The only other nation that comes close is France, and even then that is a long shot.

[sherborne]

thundertaker wrote: I believe it was Britain, on the basis that she was in the war from more or less the begining and as well as her heavy involvement in terms of the man power provided to the Sausage machine on the western front and elsewhere, the Royal Navy's role in blockading Germany and starving her of resources denied Germany any realistic hope of winning the war of attrition.
However, If you take either France, Britain, or Russia out of the picture, Germany would probably have won the war anyway, so measuring the contribution of those countries against one another is a bit like splitting hairs.....

if you take france briatin and russia out of the war then whos left :-D

[sherborne]

Jehan wrote: I'd say France.

id say your wrong :twisted:

[Jehan]

sherborne wrote: Jehan wrote: I'd say France.

id say your wrong :twisted:

Well, that is something you would say.

Consider this: Britain got off with 900,000 casualties, relatively low (if any) civilian casualties, and very little (if any) damage to their home country.

France suffered 1.3 million dead, heavy civilian casualties, and found it's country in ruins. The bulk of the war took place in France, not Britain or Germany.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Its a close one between france and britian, but it has to be britian. Britian carried out the most millitary operations and allmost all of the major battles. Also it was britian under haig who finaly broke through.

Rember Britian at this time(arguably in ww2 as well) was also canada, austrila, New zealand, south africa and india.

[Snow Patrol]

Britain for a number of the reasons already given by previous posters.

[Snow Patrol]

Jehan wrote: sherborne wrote: Jehan wrote: I'd say France.

id say your wrong :twisted:

Well, that is something you would say.

Consider this: Britain got off with 900,000 casualties, relatively low (if any) civilian casualties, and very little (if any) damage to their home country.

France suffered 1.3 million dead, heavy civilian casualties, and found it's country in ruins. The bulk of the war took place in France, not Britain or Germany.
Yes, but the question is who is most responsible for victory, not who suffered the most. The Russians suffered even more both in terms of men and land anyway.

[Canadian-kid]

well it's difficult to say, Britian did a strong job defending agaisnt the german navy and many nations pilots including a large amount of Canadians held back the Lufawafa (sp?) the United States contributed a great amount in D-day as did many nations. I gave my vote to the soviets for how much man power they put into holding back the germans and ocupying so muhc of their attention as to make D-day not only possible but a huge success.

[thundertaker]

Jehan wrote: sherborne wrote: Jehan wrote: I'd say France.

id say your wrong :twisted:

Well, that is something you would say.

Consider this: Britain got off with 900,000 casualties, relatively low (if any) civilian casualties, and very little (if any) damage to their home country.

France suffered 1.3 million dead, heavy civilian casualties, and found it's country in ruins. The bulk of the war took place in France, not Britain or Germany.

This is about who contributed more to final victory though, not who suffered the most. France undoubtebly suffered more, but Britain's contribution, particularly the RN was more important.....

[BobbyO]

The United States.

In the spring of 1918 was not analogous with the spring of 1945. Germany could have still have won the war had their 1918 offensive succeeded. Both sides were exhausted and it was fresh American troops who bucked up the allies and and pushed the Germans out of gas.

[John Galt]

It was Russian blood and the American powerhouse that contributed the most.If either stopped helping the war would have been nearly certianly lost, although I believe without American help the Nazis would have won and we'd be in a Cold War with the Third Reich (and Britian, while in shambles, would still be free. They're pretty stubborn over there). So I think theAmerican factorwas the most vital one of the war.

[anselfir]

hey, if the british didn't get the tanks, they'd still be fighitng.

[Felix]

John Galt wrote: It was Russian blood and the American powerhouse that contributed the most.If either stopped helping the war would have been nearly certianly lost, although I believe without American help the Nazis would have won and we'd be in a Cold War with the Third Reich (and Britian, while in shambles, would still be free. They're pretty stubborn over there). So I think theAmerican factorwas the most vital one of the war.

I think you have your World Wars mixed up.

Jehan wrote: I'd say France.

I'd agree. Britian would be second though. Basically, without France, Britian, the Dominions, and America would have no place to land their troops. Also, France went toe to toe with Germany in some of the absolute worst, most brutal fighting of the war. The Marne, Verdun, Aisne et cetera. Germany's blood letting was highest when fighting the French, so in my opinion, France gets the prize.

[John Galt]

Felix wrote: John Galt wrote: It was Russian blood and the American powerhouse that contributed the most.If either stopped helping the war would have been nearly certianly lost, although I believe without American help the Nazis would have won and we'd be in a Cold War with the Third Reich (and Britian, while in shambles, would still be free. They're pretty stubborn over there). So I think theAmerican factorwas the most vital one of the war.

I think you have your World Wars mixed up.


Lol yup, read it wrong. Whoops.

France then Britian. Although the doughboys were welcome, they weren't needed to thepoint that without them theallies would have lost.

[Hobbie]

I believe Britain was most instrumental in beating Germany in World War I. After all, it was Britain who provided the bulk of the resources, manpower, and war material (along with operations) necessary to beat the Germans.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

- France because they took the brunt of it.
- The U.S. because they came in when the allies were bled dry, and the German troops were arriving from the Eastern front to win the war.
- Great Britain because it was a sort of cross between the two... :lol:

[Blogotron]

Anyone recall the book ( perhaps 5 years old now) that proposes that it was the US that was the deciding factor in WWI and without the Americans the Axis powers would have surely won?