You should react 2 more Spectrum

I agree completely with the List but one: Put Belgium one up. They had no Chance whatsoever but fought VERY brave, surprising the Germand and screwing up their Time Table. The Versailles Thematic is very complicated, but i am on the "Way too Harsh" Side. Maybe i am biased as a German, but without the unfair Versailles Threaty Hitler had way less Propaganda Material.

My tier list would look like this, only judging performance during the war, not judging the events leading up to it. There is another list for that: S: Germany A: France, UK, Bulgaria, Serbia B: Belgium, US C: Hejaz, Greece, Japan D: AH, Russia F: Ottoman Empire, Italy, Romania Participation tier: everybody else The responsibility tier list for WW1 would look like this: S: AH and Serbia: the main culprits A: Germany and Russia: the enablers B: France, UK and the Ottomans: the associates C: Belgium: the unwilling associate D: everybody else: the hanger-ons AH is D overall, but I would split it up 1914 the lowest of F-tier, 1915 B+, 1916 D on the Russian front B everywhere else overall C, 1917 B+ or A-, 1918 D. I can expand my reasoning for everything above but this comment is long enough as it is.

@@Jargolf86I agree with you on the Treaty of Versailles, but the Treaties of St. Germain for Austria, Locarno for Hungary and Sèvres for the Ottoman Empire were even worse. Bulgaria arguably had the least bad deal with the Treaty of Neuilly. The treaty of Sèvres was so bad in fact that the new Turkish Republic actually started fighting again and won the Greco-Turkish war. PS. Belgium is fine at B tier, if they didn't fight as well they did, they would be down in C or D tier because they had French and British aid buffing them up as well. Their arguably most important contribution to WW1 was drawing the UK into it.

😊😊​@@Winderverse

Just watched its piece on 'French Revolution: 3 Estates' I think it's excellent and very informative, really helps in understanding social forces for and against revolution. A great piece for Mr Terry to review.

His video was more of ameme anyway

I think Spectrum has nice mix of fun memes and lists, and more serious pieces.

Thanks, this comment literally sold me on subbing.

Gotta love compromise! Making everyone unhappy since the beginning of disagreement.

People sometimes struggle to understand why the French wanted terms against Germany to be so much harsher, but I say, look at it this way: Germany came out of WWI with a higher population than France, a higher industrial output than France, and a more rapidly growing economy than France. Yes, you heard that right, their economy was growing more rapidly. France's countryside was ravaged by the war, it's farms and factories, and cities destroyed, and yet when it was revealed that reparations, to France, would cause an economic crisis for Germany, new terms were negotiated to slow down the payments, and Germany was lent money by the U.S. to give to France. In every sense except militarily, It's not unreasonable to say that Germany came out of the war in a better position than France, and the French knew it, too. That's why they wanted harsher terms for Germany, that's why they invaded the Ruhr, that's why they built a massive fuck off wall on their German border, and that's why they decided they could do nothing when Germany waltzed into the Rhineland.

To be fair, of all the major powers to loose WW1 Germany got by far the most lenient treaty.

@@aquila4460True

japan and italy were pissed off too

Fr immagine dying for your country and seeing all your friends fighting and dying before your very eyes and a random guy online after a century just says "f-tier" referring to all that without even explaining... A bit fucked up imho

@@stefanomartello3786 That is something I hate about people current view of history, it's the same regarding death, a lot of videos / shorts compare statistics like it's a competition they bring up "hey ww1 is cool but have you seen the deaths in this china incident ?? 10 million more died !! so cool !!" People just forget humans died, and a lot of times without even knowing the real reason behind their fight. It's awful, it shouldn't be glorified, numbers or performance, it all comes down to bloodshed of mostly innocent people. (and sorry for the reply month later, somehow I got this video recommended again today)

Were they not repaid ? in any case, since Germany wasn't repaying what it owed, and France was constantly asked to lower reparation payments...

They also navaly blockaded Germany causing Germans to go hungry.

That was the UK not the USA@@-._A2._-

@@philippplayz yeah I know....... No where had anyone mentioned America but you........ The comment I replied to was literally talking about the UK.

@@-._A2._- oh oops I misread the original comment

That sounds like ineptitude lol

Agreed and arguably Arthur Currie was perhaps at least one of the best general of the war.

I remember reading that when the Canadians landed at Juno Beach, a old German officer surrendered him and his group. When asked why, he said that he fought the Canadians during ww1, and didn't want his men to have to go through that.

As if the British aren't A tier on their own 😂Don't overrate the Canadians

@MW_Asura They aren't. In Europe they were second to the French. The Canadians almost acted as a special forces for the British from the view of the Germans. The Canadians scared them. The British did not. That alone shows how effective the Canadians were. If the Germans were fighting them, they KNEW it was the Canadians from how they were fighting. Far more aggressive, far less nice, far more effective because of it. The Canadians under Byng and Currie developed tactics the Germans never managed to counter. The rolling barrage alone became a regular tactic European front wide after the Canadians displayed it's effectiveness at Vimy Ridge. The British's blockade was something only they could do, but when it came to actual boots on the ground fighting, both the Canadians and the French were more effective

Canadians be like it aint a war crime if its not writtem down

It's possible, but we don't really know what you have happened otherwise. Belgium remains his top in B tier, not bad.

That alone probably puts them in A tier

Quite. I commented exactly the same.

Also killed 800.000 germans but that is ok. They are only germans, right?

nice joke oversea fronts were all irrelevant or disasters because of the brits and you didnt bankroll anyone not even yourselfs without american money your nothing

For the economy, the same could be said for America then, but it's not really what this video is about. I think the main contributions of the UK were the naval blockade and holding a decent part of the western front (all the other fronts were really secondary, even combined).

Another fun fact, Steyr, the AH small arms manufacturer, sold you 380,000 rifles before war broke out in 1914. So you were beating AH with AH guns. Also, you had arguably some of the finest Generals anybody had in WWI with Misic, Bojovic and Putnik (heck for whatever reason you simply had great Generals in general at this time), whereas Potiorek the AH commander was the only General on any side, staying in shouting distance of Enver Pasha and Luigi Cadorna in the competition for worst General of WWI.

@@MS-io6klThe AH commander was so bad that I think the Germans themselves basically sidelined him to stop his screwups. There were times when he blatantly ignored everyone’s advice and just continued to do the dumbest strategic thing possible

Definitely the wrong alliance won

​@@begemod1743The right one did win

Now, now, stop refering to Bulgaria just bulldozing through, a "stab" in the back, when the Serbians turned on Bulgaria way before that. First on Buglarias Unification, the Serbians out of fear and some prompt from the Austrians decided to invade Bulgaria, failed miserably again mere border guard, the Bulgarian army arrived and bulldozed all the way to Belgrade and then the Austrians interfered cause Serbia was about to get eradicated. Balkan War 1, Bulgaria and Serbia had an agreement for the Macedonia region, Serbia then went back on it and decided to keep almost all of it for itself, even though Bulgaria and Greece were the ones who literally carried the war. Which then resulted in the 2nd Balkan War, which of course was a hilarious disaster even I as a Bulgarian can't defend. No clue what our Tsar was thinking by starting that. Did he forget that the Ottoman Empire exists or what? No fkin clue what happened there. But that was not the will of the people. It was one stupid man that paraded it all. Which is why he got thrown out after the fact. So yeah, talk about backstabbing. Bulgaria just did the only logical thing it could in WW1, join the Central powers.

One military campaign,that cost more for the defenders, doesn't eliminate the defeats of literally every other front

​@@briish4615its a performance based list not overall lol then germany should be in F also

It was, I would be lying if I didn't fall for it

Yeah, but would have been even funnier if it was historically accurate and not just a meme hahahah

​@@stefanomartello3786non fa ridere

​@@Caesar_XV Mi ricordi chi ti ha dato l'autorità di decidere cosa alle altre persone fa ridere e cosa no? 😂

@@stefanomartello3786 forse perché abito vicino al Piave è ne conosco la storia. Pensare che delle persone parlino così dell'italiano mi fa ribrezzo

So great, we don't need a sequel.

The real ww1 was the 7 years war ;3

​@@GreenPoint_one True

​@avivirpanda pov: A austrian producer makes the sequel anyway.... And it turns out to be good too. Then the russian and American both said at the same time: "2 world war movies! Let's keep it like that forever!" But the ended up making the spin off: "the cold war"

And then the next one was not as great but still pretty alright.

that's also what i wrote before seeing your comment. if people wanna put the ottomans as F due to an armenian genocide than so be it but then the name of the list should be ww1 worst horrors by nation tier list... In actual performance for what they were the ottomans managed themselves pretty well

Nope, they don't and the reason for that has one name, Enver Pasha and as he was the minister of war and apparently thought himself to be the second coming of Suleiman the Magnificent and fucked up the whole time colossally, the Ottoman Empire is in F-Tier. Now, if Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later Atatürk) had been running the show, we would have an entirely different discussion. You have seen what even a crippled Turkey could achieve with competent leadership in the Greco-Turkish War. But most of the low Tier countries on the list were let down by poor leadership: A-H by Potiorek who fucked up the Serbian campaign, Russia by its whole general staff with a few exceptions like Brusilov, Italy by Cadorna (it got markedly better after Diaz took over, still not enough to pull them out of F-Tier) and of course the Ottomans who as I said were held back by Enver Pasha.

I mostly agree but you should look up the point about ottomans not receiving help at all. Thats just plain wrong.

That's also my main take on the treaty, the treaty itself was harsh enough but France and the UK were simply unwilling or incapable of enforcing it. Even when Germany was invading Poland in 1939, had the french and british crossed the border the whole thing would have collapsed, even german Generals said that they would have been forced to abandon the invasion if the French had moved. Then again we have the power of hindsight and I don't think anyone could have predicted the extent of another war merely 20 years after the devastation the great war was for europe.

The treaty wasn't that harsh, and it wasn't what lead to fascism in Germany. The 1929 crisis was the one that brought the nazis to power, and it was an international banking crisis, not about repayment. France was imposed arguably worse terms in 1870, and the brest Litovsk treaty imposed by Germany on Russia was very harsh too.

Its both imagine a financial world crisis shortly after 1870 France as we know it would never exist

@@Kamfrenchie the 1929 crash caused the need for radical change which encouraged the people to side with the national socialists. But Hitler very much played on the idea that Germany had been too harshly treated by Versailles. Not to mention that the 1929 crash also hit France and Britain, which in turn led them to pressure Germany to pay up their reparations which made Germany's own financial position worse. I couldn't comment on the 1870 treaty being harsh to France as I don't know enough about the Franco Prussian war. But regardless of how much more or less harsh it was, doesn't change the fact that Germany felt they were unfairly treated which led to rearmament and renewed national pride. And to some extent, Britain and France must have also felt they were too harsh because they didn't do enough to enforce the treaty

It was either too harsh or not harsh enough.

Because they weren’t independent countries. In that case, why did they not talk about the English, Scottish, and Irish soldiers who fought? Because they aren’t independent or separate countries, either

Australia and New Zealand were both independent countries by the start of ww1. They were part of the British Empire but were independent and all commonwealth countries should have been considered.

@@chrishampson6023 …….No they were not. They did NOT have independent foreign policy decision making capabilities. That is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of being independent, and they LACKED it. When the British empire and Germany were officially at war, Australia was automatically involved. What you said doesn’t make sense. Just because they were granted dominion status and had greater autonomy didn’t mean they had an independent foreign policy. Australians were happy and willing participants in WW1 but they were still a part of the British empire and they were involved in the war no matter what. Australia, Canada, New Zealand were ONLY in the war, because the United Kingdom was. Each one of those places was under the dominance of BRITISH foreign policy. Canada gained independence of foreign policy after WW1, and they WILLINGLY joined WW2 because they had an INDEPENDENT foreign policy.

@@chrishampson6023 Bro if another country can decide that you are going to war, then you are not independent. Canada was independent for the Second World War, and they joined willingly. This was not the case for the first war. Those places were in the British empire. This is basic history, and I am an AMERICAN. How is this confusing for you guys? Australia, NZ, and Canada were straight up NOT independent in ww1. Your self governing status means nothing when Great Britain can decide to send your soldiers to die in war! Wtf lmao? Cope

@@chrishampson6023 “Hey my dominions, you guys are independent in just about every way imaginable, but there’s just this one small thing. Don’t take this the wrong way, but we are in war now. I know you guys are independent… but start to train your boys to shoot and then put them on boats headed for Europe. You guys are independent but we gotta fight this war really quick” What is the definition of an independent country? “An entity that has its own government and is not ruled by any other country” How are Canada, NZ, and Australia “independent” in 1914 when Great Britain can involve them in war?! They weren’t genius

Britain's atleast A and above france, Naval blockade, the canadians, The entire funding of Russia and France should put them in A. Most of their wins come from naval.

@akmuchbetter9782 That is true in terms of naval power yeah. And it was fighting off pretty much across nearly all the continents. I think some early mismanagement in their ground troops operations does peg it down a bit for me. But you do make some good points.

I wasn’t alive back then, and I’m just a silly American. But to me(this is all my opinion), WW1 doesn’t happen without the British. If the British stay neutral, the Germans would clearly have beaten France. Even though WW1 was a kiss of death for the colonial empires, it really was where Great Britain proved that they were bigger and badder than anyone else at the time. I feel like it is not out of place to say that at 1917 and 1918, the British had the BEST army in the entire world, better than Germany and their starved troops. They simply had so many advantages, that it is my honest opinion that the British were the most important country to fight in the war. It simply does not matter who joins or who didn’t, because Germany was too strong for France and Russia to deal with, but because the British joined, the blockade was just too much. Germany invaded Belgium calling the British into the war(!!!), just to avoid marching through the fortified Franco-German border, which they ended up having to do anyways because of the events in Belgium. What happens if the Germans just leave Belgium alone and just go through the French border? The Germans probably would have won the war. I think that the war was decided when the British joined. The Germans could have won at a few moments if the other side lost heart and got tired of the casualties, but because of the blockade, Germany’s fate was sealed. There simply isn’t anything you can really do to deal with a stronger navy. Navies and waters are so important, and on top of that the British were already at the center of world banking and trade. They controlled a moon’s worth of land. I’m not saying empire is good, but the British were just better than the Germans imo, all the British needed was time to ramp up their resources and men

​@@chalupabatman1803 your so delusional its actually scary like really this lvl of anti french history has to be a mental illness putting "germans preferred to go through belgium and war with the british than attack the french border" and "the germans wouldve won without going through belgium" is the highest lvl of autism ever seen.

​@@chalupabatman1803 british being better than germans 😂😂😂 should make a comedy show 😂😂😂 the british army was a tiny featus even compared to france who had almost 10 millions less men 😂😂😂 the germans wouldve only needed to sneeze just to defeat them 😂😂😂 without france the british wouldnt even have dared to declare war 😂😂😂

Finally a sensible comment...

B at least

Italy always had a bit of bad rep more because being an annoyance to all mr H lovers, than anything else. Just not being invaded was more than enough to, at least, have C-/D+

@@Frendlu And Italy did more than just not being invaded since it did defeat AH

More resources? XDD buddy, for most of the war AH was fighting a 3 front war. Italy also always had a significant numerical advantage and yet were still gradually being pushed back by Austrians. Then, let's not talk about Caporetto, only the French army stood inbetween a complete collapse of Italy. 400k AH troops captured after the country already collapesed xdddd nice job

You are mixing up the 1929 crisis with repayment. The Versailles treaty in itself is unfairly blamed when it was based off what Germany actually could pay without breaking its economy.

France wasn't the one that declared war on Europe twice in the same century

​@@abuhajar4222actually it was, lol. Maybe you should actually read a history book. It was France that declared war in WW2 on Germany and it was France that started an alliance surrounding Germany and bombed Germany through "neutral Belgium".

​@@LawrenceofIsraelFrance and England declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on Poland So what's your point it's still Germany who started the war

@@insertname6304 Germany did not start the war with England and France. One may argue it started the war with Poland but even that was not uncalled for. I could even say Germany declared war on Poland because Poland stole a piece from CZ. Is that a justification, lol?😅

add to it the type of frontline, wich was basically vertical, with temperatures that did reach -40c

I would agree with you, but for one reason Italy was going against A-H on its own, but at the same time, over the course of the war A-H was going against Russia, Serbia, Romania and Greece. Italy was only a side show for A-H as long as Russia was in the war. The only time it was mainly A-H against Italy was during 1918 and at the end of it during "Vittorio Veneto" (24th of October to 4th of November 1918) A-H was already breaking apart. The provisional Czechoslovakian government joined the Entente on the 14th of October, the Hungarian parliament voted to dissolve the union with Austria on the 17th and the South Slavs of A-H joined Serbia in the SHS state on the 29th. So, during the main battle that Italy conclusively won against A-H, it wasn't fighting A-H proper but only the Austrian remnant in truth and even then most of the gains were made and most of the casualties were inflicted on November 4th when the Austrian troops had stopped fighting after singing the armistice on the 3rd but which only became valid on midnight between the 4th and the 5th.

In the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the German Reich and its allies were declared solely responsible for the First World War: as a result, the young Weimar Republic lost around 13 percent of the territory of the German Reich (including Alsace-Lorraine, Poznan and West Prussia, North Schleswig and parts of Upper Silesia) to its neighbors. The territorial losses resulted in a population loss of around ten percent. Loss of resources In addition to the territorial losses, the treaty also led to considerable resource losses: iron ore production fell by around half and coal production by a quarter, which was due in particular to the loss of Eastern Upper Silesia and thus the Upper Silesian industrial area and Lorraine. Agricultural production was also affected: The potato harvest fell by 17 percent and the wheat harvest by 13 percent. Population and area of the Weimar Republic The republic was proclaimed in Germany after the end of the empire as a result of the defeat in the First World War. In addition to the population losses mentioned above, there were also the war dead, so that in 1919 the Weimar Republic had just under 60 million inhabitants - more than six million fewer than the German Reich in 1912. In 1925, the area covered was around 470,000 square kilometers.

​@@arnodobler1096 skill issue

@@smal750 ??

It means that without all the german aid to the soviets the white army would have won, which was very likeley

You do realize that war in the east did not end after Tannenberg? If Russia didn’t have a revolution then Germany would lose even earlier

Had Belgium picked a side one way or the other, the war could have been over by 1915. If the let the Germans come through then they would have been in Paris by Christmas. If they had aided with the British and French and allowed them access to Belgium prior to being invaded they could have stopped Germany cold at the border. Belgium could have played kingmaker in Europe, just a pity they decided to go it alone.

trump 2024

@@georgyzhukov6409 Did you really feel the need to say this in a completely unrelated video, on a completely unrelated comment?

Tht was because another dictatorship wasn't destoryed only nazis

He ranked the commonwealth with the brits didnt he?

For dying in Gallipoli?

They judged harshly even Italy for absolutely no reason. The Western front, as always, draws all the attention and nobody gives a fuck about the fact that Italy lost as many men as the british and inflicted as many casualties in the war and Italy and AH are almost never mentioned in the basic records of wwi (especially in the english speaking countries) because they were occupied fucking destroying each other, especially after the fall of Russia, and nobody else in other countries gave a damn. Italy had to stop the Germany and AH invasion on the Piave river almost alone because the allies judged it a "secondary front" so the sent almost no men :/ If this doesn't tell volumes of how much they care... Sometimes I think Italy should just have joined the central powers after I hear such dumb statement by people... That would have changed the course of history for sure... At least many people from ex AH territories and from Germany still recognise to this day how much that second front was a burden for them and how Italy's contribution was decisive, wether the allies admit it or not... Being not as well equipped as their allies, both for AH and Italy, meant that they had both to compensate with bravery and smartness and that in my opinion is something that should be recognised, alongside the fact that they also had to fight at 2000+ meters of altitude for half of the frontline which nobody ever talks about...

based@@stefanomartello3786

And for some time in 1915 even a three front war with Russia, Serbia and Italy.

Sorry, replied to the wrong comment hahah

Why you think Italy's performance was sub-standard and what do you take as "the standard", if I may ask?

Considering the rather aimless nature of the war, I don't know what the "standard" would be. I think the tactics and leadership were bad and thoughtless. The officers were inexperienced and didn't organize their defenses. General Armando Diaz was probably the only one who was any good. I read Hemingway's "Farewell to Arms" while at school, so maybe that colored my opinion of it. I remember reading about the Battle of Caporetto and how the 2nd Italian Army collapsed in the face of the German and AUT-HUN onslaught.

@@howardmctroy3303 Well then I must tell you a few things... Farewell to arms is not the best source even tough is a well written book. The americans, in fact, sent just about a couple of thousands men to Italy (1200 of the about 1.1 million soldiers displaced before Vittorio Veneto) and they arrived basically only for the last battles. Of theese, France and the UK together sent just 4-5 divisions in total (there were almost 70 displaced) the rest were italian so people always overestimate the help given to Italy by the allies, especially since as many italians were sent on the western front (having allies near you as support boosted morale appearently so they just exchanged a few people) Diaz was in charge for more than a third of the entire duration of war so it was not as last minute as many think. Generals on the fiels in wwi in basically all the nations were way better than the one at the top giving orders from their chair somewhere at their home, so often they had to obey some orders that were mostly nonsense. Caporetto happened mainly because of a tactic that was never used before that the german Stoßtruppen brought from the Eastern front, after they were unexpectedly defeated with it in a couple of battles on the eastern front. The war was fought on the mountains for most of the frontline and owning the top meant controlling the territory so for 2 years and a half everyone fought like that attacking the mountains on both sides but then germans decided to do this surprise attack in a very different way: they bombed the phone lines and attacked with the gas during a day of fog so fo cause the most confusion rather than damage and they marched just past the three italian lines passing in the bottom of the valley covered with fog without fighting so the whole army had to retreat to defend the cities in the plains but the delay caused by the interrupted phone lines was too much. We have to give credit to the russians who come up with that and to the germans to have adapted it for that plan, which is a tactic purely meant for of war of movement rather than attrition war as the western front and both Italy and AH were used to. It was not a matter of incompetence, in fact after that italians managed, even if outnumbered, to stop the combined german-austrohungarian offensive alone on the Piave after trying and almost succeding on the Tagliamento river without the aid of the allies (First battle of Piave River) There was a lot of propaganda involved after Caporetto and people like Hemingway who lived those moments were paradoxically less objective about what happened because of that. Also, Cadorna was a decent general (compared to others in other countries in wwi) but he was too proud and instead of admitting germans's plan was great for caporetto he kept saying he did nothing wrong and for a few months propaganda kept telling that Caporetto happened because of some regiments of traitors that let the enemy pass or vecause of the cowardice of the men at the frontline or some stupid stuff like that instead of the truth (which in war times is non-existing in all countries) so when they deposed him the propaganda kept telling also how much of a douchebag he was as a person in order to boost the morale for the rise of the new guy Diaz (who was legit good), and we keep using those propaganda documents as sources even up to today and the overall vision we get is tremendously biased instead of looking at the facts... 😅😂 I had to teach history (of the 1900s in particoular) and historyography in highschool at some poiny so I had to be prepared to avoid telling the "regular bs" we find in most of the books made by people with just a superficial knowledge of history hahahah

@@stefanomartello3786You certainly gave me a lot to learn about, but I can tell you have a more intimate understanding of the WWI Italian Front than I do.

@@howardmctroy3303 No problem mate, I'm glad my explaination had been of help 👍

21:41 they did mention Australia… as part of the UK and it's empire, the map even has Canada highlighted as well…

I mean...brazil had bigger inpact,also has more ppl amd way more influential ans stronger than Australia...they are the kings of the south,i mean no one lives in the south anyways

@leondenizard3800 by what metric was Brazil a bigger impact... they were neutral until 1917 and the first troops didn't get to the western front until mid 1918... Australia declared war in 1914, has troops in combat from April 1915.. Mounted Infantry from the light horse brigades help capture Beersheba and the holy land leading to the fall of Damascus and the Ottoman empire.. On the western front Australians were used at crack troops. 416000 Austrians served (all volunteered there were no conscripted troops in the AIF) in ww1 winning many important battles such as pozier, Hamel ,Ypres ameins and Hazelbrook. The entire Brazilian army was 54000 in 1918... Australians lost 60000 In 4 years

@@davidgearon7446 you from Australia ? well dont get me wrong love Australia and Brazil,but Australia is tiny compared to Brazil,its ok they are the most powerful country in the south,but Australia did what it could and helped,even if it was only a colony,Brazil had a bigger inpact in WW2 when hey expeled the germans from italy,in WW1 they helped but it was more like support and some trops,like Australia both didnt have big impacts on the WW1 war but helped..so whatever i guess lol

@@leondenizard3800 funny, i've lived in flanders and most of the memorials are canadian and australian, i must have missed the brazilian memorials.

They had many nations helping and an huge empire and did nothing with it A is very generous

Brittain has nothing to do with victory in the Balkans, France yes, sorta, by supplying Serbs with weapons and logistics, Brittain no.

germany wouldve lost badly

@@smal750 I'm not sure they did quite well in ww1 they knocked the Russians out I'm not sure what would have happened on the western front

@@nataliamundell6266Britain was blockading Germany from the North Sea, depriving them of loads of imports that would have helped their war effort. Remove that blockade and the British army helping the French on the west, then Germany would be in a much more advantageous position. The British Empire also did the most against the Ottomans.

@@archivesoffantasy5560 so Germany would have done better, we are in agreement, thanks for breaking it down further

@@nataliamundell6266 France possibly could have made up the additional numbers that the British army gave them, but they wouldn’t be able to replicate the strength of the Royal Navy.

I'm not sure how you can blame Nazism on Versailles

@@Kamfrenchie u clearly know nothing about the rise of fascism or versallies in general, that is such a bad comment pls do research

Well, Germany didn't fall to Fascism, they fell to National-Socialism which has some similarities to Fascism, but it is still a different ideology. For example the British Labour Party and the German SDP are both Social-Democratic parties who share ideological roots with Communist parties all over the world but Social-Democratism and Communism are two different things as are National-Socialism and Fascism. By the way N-S and Stalinism, one of the most extreme forms of Communism, mainly differ in whom to murder, in Stalinism you murdered class-enemies, in N-S you murdered Volksfeinde (enemies of the German people). The political spectrum isn't a straight line from left to right, it is a circle where far left and far right become eerily similar to each other.

@@Kamfrenchie It created the situation that allowed extremists to take power, the Nazis were just the ones who succeeded, but the Communists tried as well, Bavarian Soviet Republic, Spartacus insurgence. The army was also very dissatisfied with Versailles and the resulting Weimar Republic, so a military dictatorship was also on the table, but they ultimately threw in with Hitler after he purged the socialist side of the Nazis in the "Night of the long knifes".

@@coltonbarnes7861neither do you, apparently, because Fascism was an Italian thing. Nazism is a different ideology which had very far left leaning tendencies at the beginning. Originally they had been seated on the left side of parliament in the Weimar Republic, between Communists and Socialists. They only ended up on the right side because they always started fistfights with the Communists. Of course, the left wing of the party got purged later on, but that is irrelevant to how the party started out. Nowadays, in the US, Democrats and Republicans basically have switched places and ideologies with each other completely since Abraham Lincoln. PS as there are currently at least 18 different definitions of Fascism there may be one that throws Nazism and Fascism together, but then you can arguably say that Maoism and Stalinism are fascist as well.

But the geeneral saying they never lost was just a lie to cover their own asses.