World War One Performance Tier List

[@CountArtha]

From a German newspaper: “Germany’s situation is serious, but not hopeless. Austria’s situation is hopeless, but not serious.”

[@yeetusdeletus8204]

its pretty accurate tbh

[@MenwithHill]

The Austrian-Italian front was honestly a non-stop comedy pillowfight.

[@TheManeymon]

LOL

[@ianwinter514]

@@themanbehindtheslaughter7633 also the motto for the western front

[@lelouchvibritannia7809]

@@MenwithHill the fact you aren't even joking somehow makes this even funnier

[@cantingvenus2]

Imagine fighting and dying for your country in WW1 only to see a guy ranking it in a tier list 100 years later

[@papaganush420]

Yeah its bs and people here talk like he did better he was trash etc mf why dont you try then huh

[@fatassthebig]

My great grandoa died in yemen fighting for the ottoman empire just for this guy to rank him f tier lmao

[@BananaWasTaken]

@@fatassthebig to be fair, as long as it your great grandad wasn’t the one making the military decisions, then he’s not the reason Yemen is in F tier

[@SoundAndFuryy]

how does one see it if he died?

[@cantingvenus2]

@@SoundAndFuryy ghosts. Boo

[@raulpetrascu2696]

7:50 I prefer to look at it as _Germany surrendered the day after Romania declared war_ , thank you very much

[@spectrum1140]

Based.

[@theodosiusii408]

Germany was so scared of Romania it surrendered without a fight

[@RussellAdlerCIA]

@@spectrum1140 You are cringe

[@ayanciocirlan1963]

@SuperduperobergruppenstuppentruppensturmStuka So you compliment him by saying he is a roman?

[@laurdinu3368]

@SuperduperobergruppenstuppentruppensturmStuka mongol

[@fahoodie1852]

Ottoman, Italy, and Montenegro ratings are completely bullshit, Montenegro held off Austria for over a year and even launched offensives in their territory

[@SuperShortyuussn]

Didn't the ottomans rage and start k!lling Christians because they were mad?

[@ye5170]

@@SuperShortyuussnThey killed Armenians not Christians in specific. Also the Ottomans were getting destroyed in their own territories when the Arabs revolted and wrecked havoc in Iraq and Syria. So much that the Ottomans couldn’t even genocide the Arabs the same way they did the Armenians because the Arabs had the British who would definitely not betray the Arabs after the war

[@SuperShortyuussn]

@@ye5170 oh, but still they did have a pretty bad proformance during WW2 so I don't know what this person is talking about, they did do good on the British front though.

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

They killed Assyrian and pontic greek too so yes they targeted Christian​@@ye5170

[@fahoodie1852]

@@SuperShortyuussn yeah but using that logic Nazi Germany should’ve been put at an F tier in the WW2 tier list

[@educatedfool5121]

The fact that Bulgaria is Germany's greatest ally in this war, despite being a secondary power is truly criminal and is in all honesty the reason they lost...

[@alexandermartinov3588]

Yeah, well at the time it seemed logical for us to join the central powers as our neighbours fuckes us during the second Balkan War, not to mention they were supported by the Great Powers - Mostly England, France and Russia. So us entering the war was seen as an act of revenge for the prior humiliation. "Never lost a battle, still lost the war" as we like to say :dd

[@alexandermartinov3588]

@@dreamcogs3877 Listen Bateman, you gotta factor in expectations and actual outcome - with the reaources and manpower we had we did an outstanding job. Just look at the battle of Doiran, or even listen to "The Valley of Death" by Sabaton for some context.

[@dreamcogs3877]

@@alexandermartinov3588 I mean yes, Bulgaria couldn't compare to the three empires of the Central Powers in terms of military might. Bulgaria along with Austria-Hungary did manage to destroy Serbia and Romania but Bulgaria frustrated German leadership by only fighting in the Balkan theatre. Bulgaria had limited resources and was weakened after multiple wars just like the Ottomans.

[@parsananmon]

Ottomans were greatest ally of Germany because; -They sealed fate of Russia after Gallipoli -They diverted tens of thousand Ententr troops from Western front -Many German commanders believed Ottoman's entry made war longer and more favorable for Germans

[@alexandermartinov3588]

@@lukalisinac3534 Didn't complain, just saying the reason for joining on the German side. Also gotta remember the Greco-Serbian Alliance of Thessaloniki from 1913, which was basically an official "fuck you" to Bulgaria, and thus us attacking them started the Second Balkan War which was catastrophic for us (not complaining, just pointing out facts) and after that during WW1 of course we were gonna attack them first. Also the use of deception and "neutrality" wasn't very nice to neighbours which were hated with a burning passion. So don't act like we were the only ones to do shady stuff under the table.

[@Icariaball]

This tier list goes hard

[@hohenstaufen2345]

Well well well. If it isnt the coolest Greek guy i know

[@georgios_5342]

Love your videos

[@bolaxaofc982]

Brazil was very important, it was the one who saved the war since it defeated the almighty german porpoises, that were responsible for destroying most of the Brittish fleet at the Mediterranean Sea

[@RandomZex]

@@bolaxaofc982 Chances are they will still lose, so not too helpful

[@gustavosauro1882]

@@bolaxaofc982 lol

[@ethancash8870]

It’s amazing how the Germans held for very long despite allies that weren’t as developed as them and their forces being over stretched

[@Roachh2877]

Population Industry Armed forces

[@kirby1225]

@@Roachh2877 and those hard working Germans

[@hoticeparty]

@@kirby1225 its a shame they would seek vengeance and start ww2. Millions of german lives that could have done such great things instead :(

[@unlimited8410]

@@oss8298 Harsh terms which were imposed by capitalist elites from the entente, I doubt they would have listened considering what their interests were.

[@_Yume_mp]

@@hoticeparty its only a shame that they lost, imagine getting humiliated and treated unfairly and do nothing about it. Would be the greater shame.

[@ocudagledam]

A bit harsh to Montenegro, I think. A nation that even today has merely around 600,000 people decided to aid the neighbouring Serbia and fought the central powers on Serbian territory for a few months. Then, as the Serbian army was broken and forced into retreat through Montenegro towards Albania (as mentioned in the video), in order to cover that retreat, the Montenegrin army faced the Central Powers in the Battle of Mojkovac. In that battle, the Montenegrins fielded just 6,500 men against 30,000 enemy soldiers. Despite being so heavily outnumbered (and outgunned), the Montenegrins actually defeated the Austro-Hungarians, suffering 2,500 dead and wounded while inflicting 19,000 casualties on the enemy. Unfortunately, while the line that was set up held, it was in the end bypassed, something that was hard to prevent as, after the fall of Serbia, the enemy was essentially along 2/3 of Montenegrin borders. They were thus able to pour into the country, knocking Montenegro out of the fight. All things considered, Montenegro's participation in the war was brief, yet valiant and, while it lasted, it can be said that they overperformed. Unfortunately, the numbers were simply too much in favour of the enemy and they could not keep it up for long, but still, the Montenegrins, who actually stuck their necks out and, against all odds, at least gave the enemy a bloody nose before being taken out, definitely don't deserve to be put below the 'did nothing' tier. Full disclosure: I am Serbian with some Montenegrin ancestry.

Agree, Montenrgro deserves at least C-tier, maybe even B-tier. It doesn't belong in class with Austria-Hungary.

[@JOKISLAVMAPPER]

Montenegro ❤️

[@theducknamednewepicla9507]

Yup

[@dusk6159]

It doesn't surprise that he's completely blind and incapable when it comes to situations and displays like Montenegro's. Luckily WWI Serbia's situation and fight is famous enough to not end up like Montenegro, or, for those straight up ignorant, WWII Greece, WWII Yugoslavia, WWII Norway etc (like this guy who put them, in fact, in low spots as well). The guy had the cripplers of the Central Powers, those who actually rendered the austro-hungarians the surprising underachieving train-wreck that they were (even more than the Russian Empire's contribution to that with the Eastern Front, despite losing), those who won the war first and were about to carve through Germany from the south, those who take out a german allied empire, those who were the Entente fight/opponent for A-H and those who neutralized Austria and made it not a big empire and big nation anymore, and dismembered, on the map at F with the losing ottomans and the plowed Romania. Italy which was also similar to being a country that pulled a Britain with the Ottoman Empire, with the austrian outcome. Even had the biggest defense story and comeback and rise story lol all bets are out at this point He has WWI Imperial Japan with the eastern islands fight stuff in the upper tiers, and republican China and Thailand over many other nations, over the comparable portuguese in Europe too, what...

[@AceticTWO]

Shut up bro

[@fabindopneu5419]

Brazil should be the first, we took down those dolphins like masters.

[@FeppyWeppy]

Brazil número 1!!!!!!

[@lucasouza4846]

@@FeppyWeppy samba!!! lalalala

[@thedrain9328]

CAMPAO DE MUNDO

[@lucasouza4846]

@@thedrain9328 CAMPEÃO DO MUNDO CARALHO!!!

[@JoaoFelipe-qr4yk]

BRASIL NÚMERO UM!!!

[@sch3ffel]

brazilian here and we did have a major event in ww1... a "battle" against dolphins... like literal dolphins... and somehow manage to HAVE casualties... didnt say it wasnt a ridiculous event.

[@studentaviator3756]

Tbf those pink river dolphins are creepy as hell. Making them go extinct would be a mercy

[@emmano6340]

@@studentaviator3756 hahahahahahaha yeah

[@francoiscamy5066]

Brazilian army just knows how dolphins are evil. Be proud, it's not a ridiculous event : it was the first step done to fight against a mysterious foe.

[@starman6468]

I guess Australia is not alone in their fight against ridiculous animals

[@Itz_just_VICTOR]

A parte das baixas tá errada, como que os caras iam morrer sendo que eles atiraram cegamente num bando de toninhas? Ele também poderia falar dos médicos Brasileiros na França, alguns oficiais que foram pra linha de frente, mas acho que o tier C é o lugar perfeito pro Brasil

[@b.s.1929]

We Bulgarians are kinda proud of our performance in the war. Prussia of the Balkans really showed (but also died) in WW1.

[@dreamcogs3877]

Bulgaria did well for what it had, but it did annoy the Germans by only fighting in the Balkans.

[@EndoClaw]

@@dreamcogs3877 with its limited resources I could understand it but I can also understand the Germans point of view

[@baffledwaffle6319]

Bulgaria really was the prussia of the balkans. They were insane and incredibly succesfull

[@julianwitkowicz5339]

@@dreamcogs3877 huh? Bulgaria did insanely well, defeated Serbia that Austria couldn't deal with, repelled every British and Greek attacks, took Macedonia, mobilized over 1 mln men, defeated Romania and Russia in Dobruja with outdated tech and ended war with incredible k/d ratio

[@dreamcogs3877]

@Amateur Productions Bulgaria only fought in the Balkans while the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires fought off the Entente onslaught in multiple fronts whilst achieving victories and enduring many battles.

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

Germany & Bulgaria were the only two of the 4 Central Powers that didn’t need to ask for help most of the time The Ottomans were bad but they did have incredible victories over the British The Austrians only performed well under German leadership or very competent Austrian leaders which were few

[@Manomed3]

Ottomans are the reason war became longer for 5 years. Westards like these like to paint Turks as bad people.

[@SaundersYT]

The Austrians played the long game tho, truly they only really lost in 1945 (or whichever year the big H offed himself I can’t remember)

[@ninjaa6952]

Not really considering the victories where defensive ottomans where trash they needed German officers to perform well they lost their whole empire In the end.

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

@@ninjaa6952 The Siege of Kut was a Ottoman Victory & a British Defensive Failure, the First Two Battles of Gaza were the same

[@ninjaa6952]

@@iDeathMaximuMII The siege of kut was an encirclement because the British pushed up to fast which they won at least 7 battles in a row before this the rest of the mesopotamian campaign was easy victories. Gaza where British offensives again only 2 loses compared to like 20 British victories in that campaign. The ottoman army was destroyed as a fighting force at the end of the war.

[@madisonkung8390]

I know you would have a hell of a time with comments, but I would be legitimately interested to hear about this kind of retrospective on WWII, especially since my grandfather fought for the Republic of China in that one, a country which had a kind of mixed history in WWII for various reasons.

[@midlemannn3095]

It would probably go a little like this -ProudBoy: “Yeah America carried both sides of the war.” -Sovietoid: “No the USSR carried the war.” -Wehraboo: “Germany was strong but grotesquely outnumbered.” -ImperaJap: “Germans are like wet tissue paper compared to the Japanese.” -Chinanjoyer: “We fought the longest.” -NorfJak: “We didn’t surrender.” -Canadafan: “We fought both sides too.” -Pizzatalian: “We prepared for the wrong war.” -Bonapartes: “We prepared for the wrong war.” -Norway: “We don’t like Britain.” -Viking: “We hate Britain and Russia.” -HaoHaFin: “We stuck it to the USSR.” -Austria: “Pwease~ daddy Hitl- I mean, fuck you Germany.” -Czechoslovakihottie: “We begrudgingly preferred the Reich over the USSR.” -Hungarian: (idk) -Poles: “How are any of us still alive after that hell.” -Lithuanians: *surrenders* -People-Who-Lived-Under-The-Lordship-Of-The-Lithuanians: *dies of cringe* -GreekGod: “We capsized Italy and slowed the Germans.” -Turks: “We hate the Soviet Union.” -Tunis: (idk) -Indiafolk: “As much as I hate these British colonizers I’ll kill these Japanese sickos any day.” (Except Ghandi.) -SoutheastAsia: “Fuck you Japan.” -Australioceania: “Fuck you Japan.” -Nepal: “Fuck you Japan.”

[@maxdavis7722]

@@midlemannn3095 what is norfjak?

[@midlemannn3095]

@@maxdavis7722 British

[@improveimproveimprove]

"Had a mixed history in wwII for various reasons" *battotai in the background*

[@lightworker2956]

Yeah, most English speakers 1) overlook Asia, 2) overvalue the US contribution, 3) undervalue the Soviet contribution (80% of all Nazi soldier deaths were killed by the Soviets, including all their best troops -- by the time the American troops landed, the Soviets had already won the war). I wonder if this channel will give a reasonable overview.

[@Eren-jp5dl]

Ottoman Empire is the one of the two nations that managed to capture an enemy army, one is germany in eastern prussia and other is ottomans capturing a british army in Kut al amara

[@DoofyGilmore1299]

yes in kut Ottomans had 33,596 soldier and they had lack of supplies while british had 45k soldier in the end 37k british soldier either killed or captured with 10k casulty in Ottoman side

[@onrkrkmz]

yet, 50k of their soldier had die in the eastern front thanks to attrition. great success

[@ea.fitz216]

Fun fact; the British general at Kut, Townsend, was an absolute scumbag, and probably one of the worst, most incompetent and inconsiderate generals of the war, possibly worse than Haig.

[@ea.fitz216]

@Emil Fontanot I respectfully disagree for two main reasons; The first is that he was a bad commander specifically because he was too eager to go on the offensive and 'break the stalemate'. This was exactly what the Germans wanted, and this squandered Britain's one advantage; Germany had been embargoed immediately, and the economic attrition of the war was essentially unbearable. By attacking, Haig lost Britain's key advantage which was to literally just wait, invest in defences, fight the occasional German offensive and wait for their economy to force them into peace talks. On the other hand, the way he actually attacked was terrible; he showed little regard for his men's lives, especially colonial troops like the Canadians, and his tactics were often obsolete, even by 1917. He refused to accept armoured warfare, and fought against it whenever possible, advocated grand, massive offensives over smaller, interlinked ones (the Germans used the latter in 1918 to great success) and, to top it off, he was basically a toady who only got his job by blaming Field Marshall French for a failure in 1915, only to do the same mistakes several times over.

[@deeznoots6241]

@@ea.fitz216 this is just ahistorical nonsense, for example the battle of the Somme was not some great British defeat based on stupid ideas, it was explicitly intended as attritional warfare to destroy Germans reserves and in particular prevent those reserves being used against France(at the time undergoing army revolts), Russia(having lost most of Poland and in desperate need of respite to prevent army collapse in 1916), or Italy(just generally incompetent, as can be seen when German forces from the Russian front after the Russian defeat completely routed the Italians and pushed all the way to the banks of the Po river). Simply sitting and waiting would have enabled Germany to knonk out other members of the Entente(which would have also opened up overland trade routes for the German Empire and in particular the Ukrainian grain harvests of 1916 and 1917 that would have gone a long way to minimising starvation in Germany), had Haig simply stood still the French could have been targeted and shattered during a vulnerable moment, leaving the British army exposed with a massive open flank likely forcing them to flee across the channel. Also he himself was a pioneer of new tactics, tactics that saw the British army be the most successful of any Entente forces in 1918 playing a crucial role in both stopping the initial spring offensive and then completely destroying the German armies ability to fight in the offensives afterwards(back home it had been assumed that the Germans could not be defeated by 1918 and that 1919 would be the decisive year) Oh and regarding his view on tanks there is a Churchill quote one his view of tank "quite friendly to the tanks"

[@matheuspoyo]

1:29 “Never change Brazil” We never will.

[@Gato-y5p]

Isso é uma promessa

[@katzereich1467]

It's so frustrating people not mentioned countries like Bulgaria and Serbia even though they contributed even more than actual empires

[@_Jebb_]

Serbia defeated Austria but Bulgaria defeated Serbia

[@katzereich1467]

@@_Jebb_ You mean "Serbia managed to hold the Austro-Hungarians" and "Bulgaria managed to capitulate Serbia while they were preoccupied with the Austro-Hungarians" there is difference from defeated

[@_Jebb_]

@@katzereich1467 Yes. Pretty much what I said.

[@CreeperBlow]

@@_Jebb_ Serbia was defending against a third offensive from austro-hungary, (this time germany was involved aswell) when bulgaria attacked, so no germany defeated Serbia not Bulgaria.

[@katzereich1467]

@@CreeperBlow It was coordinated. However Bulgaria had it's whole army against Serbia so no, Germany was manly support for the Austro-Hungarians while Bulgaria occupied 2/3 of the country.

[@charlierashi100]

Another thing to note about the UK’s participation is the naval blockade it held over Germany, which by 1915 cut German essential supplies by 55% of their pre-war levels, effectively starving them out in a war of attrition.

[@survivalist2607]

and yet the Germans still carried?? Somebody check their backs, immediately!

[@CatnamedMittens]

That blockade kind of turned into a crime against humanity by starving civilians after the armistice was signed.

[@quantie]

Romania did stop two German offensives after they retreated back to the province of Moldova, which is pretty impressive

[@joeysimek7707]

Considering how wide spraded the german troops were, that was very impressiv.

[@Maniaproject6]

The Romanians kicked ass in Transylvania, kicked the Austrians but and destroyed the Germans so absolute bullshit

[@joeysimek7707]

@@Maniaproject6 They marched into Transsylvania with a 10:1 ratio of troops and were emedietly kicked out, when austrian and german troops arived. They kicked nobody's ass and were pushed back to moldova, were they surendered.

[@D.A.R.89]

@Joey Simek they did surrender in Moldova, but not because they were defeated by the central powers

[@bmika]

@@Maniaproject6 salty romanian lol

[@willyr7864]

5:58 What could they do? Look up Battle of Mojkovac. The whole reason for their defense was to make sure the Serbians had enough time to retreat, not just for their own country. And they fought hard.

[@HarJBeRw]

Gonna go ahead and voice my support for how underrated Belgium was in WW1. What you need to understand is that in enacting the schlieffen plan, the germans had been estimating it would take them 3 days to beat past the belgian forces and into France. Those plans were severely foiled by the surprisingly vicious Belgian resistance. Spectrum described them getting pommeled, and well, he's right, and yet they kept coming. For a nation of 7 million back then, it fielded a decently large army and those troops participated in some decisive encounters with the germans at the very start of WW1, like the battle of Liège, slowing them down considerably. Those 3 days the germans had estimated turned into 3 WEEKS, giving the, by that point notoriously bureaucratic and slow to mobilize, french time to prepare and send troops over for the incoming trench warfare of ww1. The resistance of belgium was crucial in differentiating the way the german invasion took place in ww1 vs ww2. In ww2, belgium fell over like a wet noodle, add to that the wonders of blitzkrieg and ta-dah! Ironically, Germany in WW1 was comparatively far stronger relative to the France/England/Russia of its day than Germany in WW2 was, they just didn't do quite as well

[@joeysimek7707]

Yeah, if only those 3 days are true and weren't just some propaganda. The resistance fell realtivly easaly, shown by minimal loses on Germanys sied. The only factor that slowed them down was that they send to many soldiers on the eastern front, more than they needed. In the end, it didn't change much couse too many french troops were still south of the belgian-french border.

[@plasmakitten4261]

Well a big part of that was that the original Schlieffen Plan had called for a much more aggressive distribution of troops to the Belgian front; something like 90-10 ratio of Belgium to France border. What was actually done - largely because the German general staff didn't have the guts to do that - was more like 75-25. So, the original estimate had more troops by far in Belgium and had perhaps better chance to capitulate France. It's telling that a GERMAN diplomat said in a local paper after the race to the sea, "Germany has lost. It will take awhile but the war is over".

[@lightworker2956]

@@joeysimek7707 I don't know what is or isn't true with regards to Belgium, but I hate that nowadays people don't even agree on basic facts anymore. Makes it really hard to have a discussion.

[@joeysimek7707]

@@lightworker2956 we can set on facts, but this isn't one.

[@uwbollema]

@@joeysimek7707 this wasn't (only) propaganda the german general staff really thought it would be 3 days

[@tobiasglendenning7966]

I remember someone aske who was more important in the war, France, British empire or Russia, each played massive roles, but I'd say that the Royal Navy what makes them the most important because it meant Germany had a timelimit until they ran out of resources. But again it wouldn't have been possible without France and other entente members.

[@edwardwagner1358]

Don’t forget British funding to the entente, literally paying for Frances and russias entire war effort until 1916

[@x-a-]

@@edwardwagner1358 Did they also pay for the millions french who died defending the line ? money isn't everything in war

[@studentaviator3756]

@@x-a- It is not everything you are right, but its a really underappricated fact one I had not even realised if it is true.

[@studentaviator3756]

Haha Jutland goes boom. Such an amazing German victory that the Germans refused to leave there ports ever again. As a Brit I do find Jutland pretty disappointing, the aera the UK invested its best minds into not going somewhere on the lines of trafalgar is pretty tragic. But then again you can have the best equipped navy in the world and one poor leader go up against a near peer with excellent leadership and such a result could be expected.

[@Mattie11]

@@x-a- The guy was literally just stating a fact why come in so hostile??

[@0326Vet]

Germany and Bulgaria are the only two countries that deserve an S tier, they took on the rest of the world pretty much on their own while having to bail out two crumbling empires as well and still made the fight closer than it should have been

[@crazysoul1234]

Hello, proud bulgarian here. Thank you for actually acknowledging the participation of my country into the war, thats all i wanted to say. Have a nice day i guess :D

[@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii]

In the words of the late Norm Macdonald: “but no, it was actually close”

[@spumeman]

germany did good in the war, obviously i respect the soldiers who fought in the war but i wish their leaders didn't get themselves into a war where they're being attacked from all over, if all of this didn't happen kaiserboos all over the world would rejoice in a german empire lasting a bit longer (how long? idk)

[@albert_obey3151]

Imagine if all germanys Ally’s were like Bulgaria

[@aleksandaraleksandrov3379]

Germany told bulgaria to become ally or they get invaded

[@timokohler6631]

Imagine having the austro-hungarian and the ottoman empires as allies, but the only one who actually helped you is Bulgaria...

[@zxylo786]

Bulgaria got shit done. Incredible how fucking Bulgaria can top Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans

[@ennui9745]

@Meme-Potential Search Almost.

[@darklord1901]

Turkey was the Germany's greatest ally in WW1. Gallipoli alone extented the war 2 years thanks to heroism and patriotism of the Turkish soldiers. Besides that they diverted many soldiers from western front to relief Germany and they've even send some support troops to Austria. Have some respect please!

[@ennui9745]

@@darklord1901 Let me guess, you're Turkish.

[@acoknitteruntemha]

​@@darklord1901as a Turk myself, you can't deny the incompetent state of the empire. Except for the Gallipoli front, every front was a disaster and didn't even required much of the attention of Entente. But one can argue that winning on Gallipoli front actually cut of the supplies of the Entente to the Russian Empire, I think that's the only notable contribution from the Ottomans.

[@roach590]

Ottomans need to be D imo, gallipoli wasn't the only ottoman victory and the ottoman soldiers actually did a pretty good job considering the lack of supplies equipment and everything else

[@user-fy6kr7yr9c]

I think he ranked it incredibly low largely due to the Armenian Genocide. Which I think is understandable. It is one of the worst crimes of the early 20th century and the fact that the Turkish government still denies it to this day is nothing short of disgusting.

[@lelouchvibritannia7809]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gallipoli was only a success due to Kamal Attaturk, who would score more victories for the Ottomans, but ultimately had to abandon much of the Empire and focus on Turkey due to the extremely poor management of the war up until the point he was promoted

[@jackholler3572]

@@user-fy6kr7yr9c It was a massacre not genocide and Turks killed more than armenians.

[@DoofyGilmore1299]

@@lelouchvibritannia7809 you are wrong Ottomans had manage to destroy raj army sent to Iraq even tho they had supply issue you should check siege of kut

[@user-fy6kr7yr9c]

@Kararlılık İstikrar is this a troll?

[@baffledwaffle6319]

Romania did horibble but... -the allies forced romania to either join now or never so they werent prepared -they were inbetwen both the Chad bulgarians and the austrians -they werent given the promised weapons from the allies -the only Ally near romania war Russia which just went into a civil war -and lots of german soldiers showed up to fight for austria-hungary. Romania should have been either a C or D tier nation since it permformed just a Little worse than Belgium and was even gaining land in Transylvania before the Russian civil war and german aid to austria

[@julianwitkowicz5339]

Just a bit worse than Belgium? Not to undermine Romanians but Belgian defense quite literally saved France in 1914

[@baffledwaffle6319]

@@julianwitkowicz5339 yea

[@alexandrub8786]

Don't forget the long fronlines for a small population.

[@etherospike3936]

Romania saved an entire province of Moldova , even keeps some central power territory around Vatra Dornei(which at the time was Austria Hungary). Belgium except a small territory around Ypres, was totally obliterated!

[@julianwitkowicz5339]

@@etherospike3936 difference was that almost entire German force was thrown on small Belgium at the time, while Romanians only faced pieces of Austro-Hungarian army

[@hannibal-rb3go]

As an American, the actual fighting overall isn't our strong suit here. Basically supplying the allied powers, and putting men on the line to help hold the last offensives was our military contribution. Diplomatically us joining in hastens things a bit and the terms put on Germany could reasonably be a bit harsher. The reason they weren't harsher was Germany wasn't really beaten like in ww2, and Wilson (horrendous president) decided to play nice when everyone was calling for harsher terms.

[@jet-blackjo2455]

You know that the Nazis came to power because it was such harsh term for them right? All they promised was food and work and they got elected.

[@MichaelJohnson-fr8yr]

My thoughts exactly

[@Anomaly188]

Another point to make is we initially wanted no part of WW1 because we saw it as a big Euro-Continental slap fight that the Europeans started and so should end it themselves. We truly didn't give a shit. Germany sinking the Lusitania got our ire because on paper we weren't part of the war even though our government was sending supplies to the Entente under the table. The Zimmerman Note was another one because Germany offered to ally with Mexico if they declared war on the US when we were having issues with Mexico due to the Pancho Villa situation. The final straw was Germany restarting their unrestricted naval warfare tactics which was causing food shortages on our East Coast and crippling our trade economy. The other issue was when we did join we were ill equipped and prepared for the new style of trench based machine gun warfare. It was a lesson every other participant learned 3 years earlier so we were really behind the 8-ball when it came to tactics. And as for Versailles, yeah Wilson really was a pussy and completely up his own ass thinking he was smarter than everyone else in handling terms.

[@michael-gb3rn]

@@Anomaly188 the problem with the Lusitania was it was carrying weapon so in some sense it was a legit target for the German U-boat. USA was quite shady when it came to weapon delivery since there use a lot of non combat ship with civilian onboard the question is tho, did the German know there had weapon on it or not is the real million dollar question.

[@pax6833]

I still contend if it were not for America joining the war, it would've ended in 1918 with some kind of negotiated settlement between the central powers and entente. Both sides were just way too exhausted to force a victory without fresh troops.

[@brandonk.4864]

Agree with Germany in S tier but Russia, Italy, and Ottomans should have been at least a little higher

[@ryangosling239]

agreed, Serbia too

[@wertyuiopasd6281]

Even France should be in S tier in that war. Germany and France in WW1 are S tier, they ripped each other apart.

[@ryangosling239]

@@wertyuiopasd6281 idk, at first Russia really helped France out, e.g. Brusilov offence, so imagine Germany not only holding the front with France, but also with Russia, which had quite big army, so Germany performed way better than all others in WW1

[@wertyuiopasd6281]

@@ryangosling239 I don't agree. Remember that Germany has almost twice the population of France. Germany is stuck between the two historical continental powers of Europe: France mainly and Russia. Russia did capitulate, got out of the war in 1917. So France held and won against a Germany fully fixed on the western side. By the end of the war, France has the best army in the world. Anglo-saxons with films, propaganda wrote a fake history of both WW1 and WW2 because their aim was to isolate politically both France and Russia, they were against Germany but helped them politically in case they'd lose. Prime example of that is the Treaty of Versailles which wasn't nearly as harsh as it should have been. The anglo-saxons used a myth used by nazis about the Treaty being unfair (my thesis in Cambridge was based on the Treaty of Versailles, most people think it was too harsh, it wasn't) The History of anglo-saxons foreign policies are based on making continental european countries fight each other, and bleed each other to death so they keep their hegemony, they prevented every single unification of the continent which should have happened long ago: (France Louis XIV, Napoleon, Germany WW2, European Union with Brexit, etc). The same is true for WW2: they made a myth telling the USA and anglo-saxons won the war against Nazis. It's a lie, germans lost because of the soviets. Almost 30 million deaths on the russian side. The allies deployed in France to stop soviet expansion and to protect germany once again just like in 1919. When you look at casualties, both english and american casuallties in Europe combined are lower than the French alone. The French had 500 000 deaths, 100 000 deaths in a few weeks just like in WW1. Hollywood, and the world being americanized and dominated by them is a proof of that. Just look at the preambule of the european constitution, Germany is submitted to the USA, and Germany tends to dominate the EU since the amount of countries in it increased.

[@leomierisch921]

Italien are traitors

[@Pigraider268]

Bulgaria is really underrated WWI Central Powers' member

[@emerald_wrath1873]

Based comment

[@dance1415]

Lol, they are just backstabbers. They couldn't move an inch without Axis support. Absoloute rat country.

[@praetorrykard2242]

according to this video, the ottoman empire is underestimated. with the battle of gallipoli the war extended for 2 years. because the allied countries could not send support to russia and the bolsheviks won.

[@3381-c5v]

@@praetorrykard2242 finally somebody that sees how the ottoman empire were important for distracting

[@wankawanka3053]

​@@3381-c5v they still only succeeded in one front where they had to defend mostly themselves not the central powers as a whole

[@AntonioYT00]

I know Tier lists "are for what they are" but: Brazil C for ...? Greece B for...? Turkey honestly had Gallipoli and many enemies around... F tier nonsense Italy F tier nonsense has i briefly explained in my other comment, and in that regard... Portugal D for...???? For that logic Brits and France and respective colinies and dominions joined still have hard time fithing germans in one western front..... I'm a bit oversimplistict? probably yes, but as many are for other WWI fronts that are not the western front like the eastern operations, Italy-Austria-Hungary (and Germany) fighting in the Alps (!), etc

[@yigitbighuncho]

I agree

[@avert_bs]

When you max out your knowledge skill, but you forget to upgrade your grammar skill.

[@fahoodie1852]

@@avert_bs almost like not everyone in this world speaks English as the first language

[@dersu7417]

Another youtube historian with biased views. What did you expect?

[@anonymussicarius8899]

Ofc Italy deserves the F Tier! They had one single front, against an enemy who was worn out by several years of mostly suboptimal developing military campaigns, while Italy was fresh and could focus all of it´s unused energies on this enemy, and they still didn´t achieve anything beside beeing another costly frontline. As Austria-Hungary with all it´s failures (but also successes) is the criterium for D-Tier, Italy falls way behind them if taken purley the military performance into consideration.

[@mrscoldarrow]

It’d be interesting to see this kind of format for other wars as well like the Napoleonic Wars, 7 Years War, etc.

[@sephikong8323]

For the Napoleonic wars, I think it's best to say that France would stand lonely in S tier, I'd say Russia was number 2, but I don't think anyone would disagree that no other country at the time was anywhere near their level, it took the entirety of Europe combined FIFTEEN YEARS to defeat France, and then again, it only happened because of a weather irregularity that trapped their forces. Russia was the biggest victor of the wars overall. Austria would be F tier, they were quite embarrassing

[@libertarianconstantinei186]

Nice pfp 🙏

[@luxhistoriae1172]

@@sephikong8323 every one is totally unfair with Austria , as a French I would put them as B tier as they have been the crash test who Serb the final win, they have been way more productive at defeating Napoleon than the Brit’s

[@sephikong8323]

@@luxhistoriae1172 The thing is, their participation in every coalition has been : *declares war *gets instantly crushed *Surrenders two months after entering the war *Become a puppet of France again *repeat step one The only thing they actually accomplished was cause some French casualties, but for each french soldier killed, there were several Austrians killed as well, and those didn't even really matter in the end. Austria was at best a distraction during the wars. At least the British were arms dealers and naval blockaders even if their track record in land battle was abysmal (they almost fucking lost Waterloo despite a clear positioning advantage, they are lucky the Prussians came last minute to save them). The only country that I could say performed worse would probably be the Ottomans as their biggest claim to fame in the era was getting dunked on by a bunch of Serbs (but at the same time they had also less conflicts to fight in this era so it's less fair, with Austria we have quite a big sample to deduce that they indeed ....... sucked)

[@youssefebrahim368]

@@sephikong8323 I don’t think where do you get your information from but I think the British also deserve the S spot because they were funding the coalition and also managed to do a naval blockade on France plus the British were also fighting the Spanish and the French at the same time, they also won the battle of Trafalgar which is the most important naval battle during the Napoleonic wars, they also drove the French from Egypt with the help of the Ottomans, the British also captured a lot of Dutch,Spanish and French colonies. The British were also partially responsible for driving the French out of the Iberian peninsula and they were also fighting a separate war with the USA and lastly the British actually had the situation under control during the Battle of Waterloo.

[@waltuh11121]

Bulgarians were gigachads in this war, small country, destroyed by a previous war, yet fought extremely good. Very good Bulgaria, mad respect from Spain Same for the greeks, even if joined late, very good warriors And of course, serbian balls were too big too. You know what? Respect for all the fallen

[@Smartness_itself]

🇧🇬💙🇪🇸

[@PessiAndPenaldoggyAreFinished]

What about us Turks?

[@waltuh11121]

@@PessiAndPenaldoggyAreFinished I said respect for everyone bro, same for your guys, even considering the *thing that didn't happened with the armenians*

[@Chadius_Thundercock]

@@PessiAndPenaldoggyAreFinishedstfu Muslim POS you ended the GOAT empire by riding the work of the sultanate of rum and just beat on a dead body and still took 100 years to beat them

[@aleksk4151]

lol Turks are funny.

[@emirturkkan6180]

I think you’re being too hard on the ottomans by placing them in the F tier, don’t get me wrong they didn’t perform well but it’s not like they were completely useless and failed at every major engagement. You mentioned Gallipoli as “the major exception”, but there were others such as the siege of Kut which Jan Morris, a British historian, called "the most abject capitulation in Britain's military history." Plus they also diverted the Entente’s manpower away from the western front and their blocking of the Bosphorus strait cut British supplies from entering Russia via the Mediterranean, hastening their capitulation. Not that they didn’t also suffer some humiliating defeats (the battle of Sarakamis comes to mind). But all in all, I think that putting them in D tier is the fairest option.

[@cazwalt9013]

They were so useless that they ceased to exist and started genociding

[@fahoodie1852]

Yeah and that it was already dying at this point, the fact they lasted this long when the Ottoman Empire was already on its deathbed really isn’t taken into account

[@BatuhanDere]

If you count what happend after the ww1 where they fought 4 countries at once, B tier at least

[@PeterPranker1]

laf anlatmanın mânâsı yok

[@MH-jg6vk]

The empire was dead from 1908+ ever since the young Turks took over , they steered the empire to doom. They lost all African and European territory within 2 years 1911-1913 and agitated minority’s whether it’s Albanians,Arabs, Kurds , Armenians, Greeks and fellow Turks. What where the young Turks thinking by joining a world war when they couldn’t even defeat Italy or Balkan states?? This summarised Turkey under ittihat ve terraki : “Drang nach Osten'in nihai başarısızlığının nedenlerini ararken, Temmuz 1908'deki Jön Türk devriminin stratejik çöküşünü gözden kaçırmamalıyız. Ortaya çıkan siyasi kargaşa ve Sultan Abdülhamid'in otoritesinin zayıflaması Almanlara iki yıla mal oldu. Bağdat demiryolu - ve İtalyan ve Balkan savaşlarını devrimden doğan Osmanlı zayıflığının meyvesi olarak görürsek, muhtemelen beş. Daha da zarar verici olanı, Jön Türklerin Abdülhamid'in Nisan 1909'da zorla tahttan indirilmesiyle açılan ve Arap isyanında Şerif Hüseyin tarafından bu kadar vahim bir şekilde ifşa edilen İslam dünyasındaki uçurumdu - Hicaz demiryolunun Mekke'ye kadar uzatılması düşünülemezdi. Padişahın tahttan indirilmesi olmasaydı kesinlikle olurdu. İyi ya da kötü, Abdülhamid'in düşüşü Türkiye'yi, Bağdat demiryolunu ve Sünni Müslüman dayanışmasını Kaiser-Oppenheim kutsal savaşının ayaklarını kesmeye yetecek kadar zayıflattı." Alıntı Berlin-Bağdat Ekspresi: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Almanya'nın Dünya Gücü Hedefi Sean McMeekin

[@karlfrisker3601]

In defense of the Romanians, before getting plastered they advanced quite far into Transylvania, they then had to fight three empires on two separate fronts against Mackensen no less, one of the best generals of his time (if not of the entire century). They diverted A LOT of German attention from Verdun, which no doubt aided the Entente. The Battles of Oituz, Marasti and Marasesti often go overlooked, but they in fact stopped the Central Powers from achieving their goals in the East: a swift victory which would allow them to send the troops back West. For the remainder of the war, Germany and Bulgaria were forced to keep a quite large occupying force in Romania which again, hindered the war in the West. At the end of it all, Romania also fought an entirely separate war with the Hungarian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919 and a border war with the Soviet Union. You might get where I'm going with this, but Romania definitely performed a lot better than Russia did, which not only capitulated but also descended into a brutal civil war that would spawn the most hideous entity to ever grace the face of the planet, The Soviet Union. Romania as a small country fought three empires, held them for a while, fought another war which they won and then proceeded to double their landmass. The entire reason why the Entente wanted Romania on their side was so that they could be an absolute pain in the ass for the Central powers, which they managed to be and then some. If Greece was put in B tier, then there is little reason for Romania to be so low. In general I would say some of the placements seem random, but yea.

[@porphyry17]

oh God thanks. a German being fair to Romanians for once. why does a Portuguese youtuber pock fun at Italians and Romanians despite their efforts, in comparison, is a bit... reminds me of Spain making fun of the current Douma/Rroma and Romanian situation but if you remind them of how well they could have faired if they accepted Bonapartist rule and not screech "satanic atheists" every 10 seconds, they start crying.

[@kalaniender7219]

Yes they where surrounded with Erich von Falkenhayn (germans) and Straussenburg (austrians) coming from the carpathians and Mackensen with the bulgarians coming from dobrudscha. It did lenghten the russian frontline and the occupation allowed them to gain the ressources of romania. The Central Powers on the other hand at the time did have nearly no reserves left because of romania its more of the ententes fault that they could not take pressure of them like in the monastir offensive or battle of gorizia. Also he did not mention that the germans in east africa actually retreated through portugese mozambique which should get them F Tier lol

[@porphyry17]

@Minas Mzk we lost a lot of men to Cholera, how was that our fault? and remember how we took Ottoman fortresses in 1877-1878 where the Russian armies failed? Romania has a habit of neglecting its armies for the first half of the war but in time we avenge ourselves with... relatively good-to-great performances.

[@SlekensuOfficial]

@Minas Mzk you are wrong

[@claudiu-mihaipuiu1221]

@Minas Mzk Dude, you don't see it posted everywhere, but most armies until ww1 and even during ww1 had very big losses of men to diseases, Romania losing some people to them isn't any special show of terrible logistics. By that logic, every side in ww1 did terribly by having so many people die to so many diseases. It was just a fact of life that during those times, when you gathered to many people in close quarters, you're bound to get A LOT of disease outbreaks. As for Romania, I think I'm in the middle, Romania tried and did its best with what it could, we couldn't hold on to a a front against three empires with just the support of the Russians whose morale was faltering badly. Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz were good victories and did hold back the Central Powers forces for decent time, but when the Russians surrendered and retreated, there was nothing else to be done. In the end, it did achieve the goal the Entente had for it and did it decently well, but it stood no chance of victory against so many foes without Russian support.

[@user-fy6kr7yr9c]

I think the Ottomans did well for what they had at least. They had experienced the disastrous first balkan and italio-turkish wars just a few years before the war. During the war they not only had to deal with both external enemies but internal ones as well (the arab revolt). They did fucking terribly against the russians, but they did experience quite a bit of early successes in not only gallipoli but the mesopotamian front against the british as well (which were not easy fronts by any means). So overall, they're performance in the war wasnt stellar but it was not at all shameful (definitely not a F), they did well with what they had. Nothing excuses the fucking genocide though, thats for sure.

[@MericErdemBal]

(Obligatory Turkish response): Dafuq did ya say you greek shi... Yeah i agree. They did decent considering that they've been declining for literal centuries both externally and internally. Their economy was garbage, they had to establish a government institution for debts they owed to other countries, that's how bad things got, Constant revolts across the empire one after another, They lost war after war for 2 centuries without a moment of respite. They were so weak that the governor of Egypt marched halfway across Anatolia to force the Sultan to grant them autonomy. Imagine being so weak that you can't deal with your own governor, of whom you share a land border with AND then they had to concede Egypt and Cyprus to Great Britain due to their debts and their inability to reign in Egypt (which was vital for Europe coz Suez is a thing). Almost non-existent economy, low manpower, low literacy, no industry and even against those odds they did somewhat decent. (I'm not gonna touch that genocide issue. Waaay above my pay grade).

[@patixa6984]

Ωραίο όνομα

[@yugonostalgia8961]

@John Jennen lmao pasha was just a coward who decided killing unarmed Armenians was easier than actually fighting the russians

[@user-fy6kr7yr9c]

@@doganzorlu76 Do Turkish people actually believe this? How many turks do you even believe were killed?

[@yugonostalgia8961]

@@doganzorlu76 that's just... Bullshit honestly. It's kind of ironic - the only people to actually rebel from the ottomans were the orthodox fanatics of the Hejaz and Saudi Arabia (can't remember what the state was called then). The christian & Muslim Armenians might not have supported the ottoman campaign but we're certainly not organized enough to rebel. It was just an easy scapegoat for that coward enver pasha to blame for getting humiliated in the caucuses the Russian army who had actual supply lines

[@Fulmicoton3]

I think putting Italy in f tier is quite wrong, mainly because it was not a great power (it was a country based on agriculture with a really underdeveloped industry, for example for every ton of iron produced by Italy, Germany produced 19, which can help you understand how big was the difference between Italy and other nations) and then because the Italian front was really really harsh 'cause you know, they fought on mountains, and you know what's worst than a trench? A fucking trench on a mountain; So considering how underdeveloped the country was and how hard was their front, memes aside I would put Italy at least on c. Those were my 2 cents

[@eric11]

@@pierreemerickalprazolam explain the part were italy failed. With the italian troops marching on vienna when the austrian signed the unconditional surrender after the battle at vittorio veneto were the italian managed to crush the austrians

[@markusz4447]

@@eric11 By that point a breeze of wind would have crushed the remnants of the Austrian army.

[@Daddo1861]

@@pierreemerickalprazolam The Germans, who Italy never faced, did most of the Work at Caporetto, plus Cadorna, the same guy who basically kept sending soldiers over the top while the Austrians mowed them down from high ground positions for all the War, decided to give general retrat order all over the Isonzo Front, as the Austro-Germans press on the retreating Italians. He then was replaced by Armando Diaz who reorganized the Front on the Piave river and then counterattacked retaking all lost territory and advancing all the way to Trento and Trieste. To me, even though being Italian, it is objective that Italy performed pretty decently in WW1, considering that we came from a War in 1912 with the Ottoman Empire that was very proving for us both economically and in manpower. We were at war with one of Europe's largest and powerful Empires and still, thanks to Russians too obviously, managed to win, despite all the odds. Viva l'Italia and may all the Fallen from both sides rest in Peace 🇮🇹🤝🇦🇹

[@NoName-hg6cc]

@@pierreemerickalprazolam Italy fought both on the Alps, alone and on the Balkans and won. Entente didn't win, Germany surrendered with the army still there

[@selinane2Seli-zw3pz]

@@eric11 The Italians weren't alone for provoking AH capitulation. Rather, French+Serbs+Greeks owned Bulgaria and AH in the Balkans, led by Franchet d'Esperey, and threathened Budapest.

[@toni2296]

Absolutely unbiased ranking Italy in the last tier, lmao. She wasn't great for sure, but neither was that shit, bruh.

[@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU]

Are you kidding me? Italy 100% deserves F tier. They only had like one front to fight and still managed to fuck it up against Austria of all nations. AUSTRIA. Who is already almost F tier in their own right and had to fight on THREE fronts. And not only that, but they still managed to have to fall back and lost land in northern Italy towards the end of the war.

[@toni2296]

@@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU Italy was doing well, the shameful defeat of Caporetto and all the territories lost, wasn't thanks for Austria itself but for the Germany intervention. So yes, I'm serious. People believe too much in the meme of "Italy bad" when the things were pretty different.

[@praisethesun.praisedeussol6051]

@@toni2296still f tier

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

Italy also fought on the western front

[@lukethebuilder97]

@@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU and then they won the war and routed the austrian army. Your point?

[@meaburror7653]

Spain: S tier didnt join the war and sold weapons to both factions 😎😎✌✌ creating an economic bubble that popped so hard once the war ended that a Dictatorship was needed to stop the social strife truly amazing

[@SandeaterIV]

Chad Spain

[@widodoakrom3938]

Lol

[@AFT_05G]

Spectrum: Puts Ottoman Empire to F tier Turkish people: *So you have chosen death!*

[@diren_was_here]

uhhh no? we know our performance in ww1 was so bad that we almost died? as a nation? if it weren't Atatürk?

[@ayaankhan-eh1xy-g3e]

S: Germany , UK A: France B: Russia , USA , Serbia , Bulgaria C: Austria Hungary , Italy , Ottoman Empire , Greece D: Belgium , Romania , Japan , Montenegro , Portugal E: Hejaz , Arabia , Brazil , China , Siam

[@NoName-hg6cc]

Good list. Only one thing, I would have put Russia on C because despite its size and resources it fell out of the war but overall it's a good list and Russia can be in B as well exactly because of what I mentioned above

[@herzog1857]

5:46 Wow wow wow brother. The Serbs did not retreat through Montenegro to reach Italy. The Serbs retreated partly through Montenegro and mostly through Albania to be transferred from Albania by allied ships mainly to Greek Corfu and Thessaloniki, but also to a lesser extent to Tunisia and the south of France. There they recovered, reorganized their units and returned to fight on the Thessaloniki front.

[@alexdenton5228]

dude... italy in the same tier list of a dying empire who got literally dismembered? giant bro moment here.

[@dusk6159]

Didn't even put A-H in the same spot as Italy at the very least but even over it instead LOL

[@theGDmenace13]

I mean yeah Italy wasn't world war II bad during world war I I mean sure they had troubles beating back Austria f****** Hungary but all in all they did their part should have gotten a c participation trophy in my opinion

[@morz4867]

The Arabs were deceived by the British, The Brits told them that the Ottoman Empire would never give them independence and that the British would after beating the Ottomans. But as we all know they didn't and they occupied their lands. This goes for more than half of the countries in the middle east.

[@godlovesyou1995]

Austria Hungary's role is underrated just because they look big on the map. They fought against Serbia, Italy and Romania almost singlehandedly. For the beginning of the war, they were the main enemy of Russia as well, as Germany focused on the West, and didn't attack the East.

[@CatnamedMittens]

August Von Mackensen shit stomped Romania.

[@pippostenex2534]

Italy: E tier Also Italy: wins the war a week before the rest of the world

[@TeeloSeyna]

As a French : thank you for Vittorio Venetto, we were by your side when it came to win the war once and for all, if not for alpinieris and the brave italian troops we might till be stuck in that war more than a hundred years latter.

[@pippostenex2534]

@@TeeloSeyna as an italian, thanks for sending some of your divisioni in defense of Italy after 24oct 1917 😉 And thanks also to the Czechoslovakian legion who mostly fought bravely in our land 💪🏻

[@shadyyy7490]

People seem convinced that the war in Italy ended with the 12 battles of the Isonzo and Caporetto and completely forget about 1918 when the Italians actually crushed Austrians defences and forced them to surrender.

[@VergilDarkslayer]

@@shadyyy7490 and they gained Corpses

[@fedbat2199]

@@VergilDarkslayer Yes because of our "allies" and mister Wilson, who didn't even last long in America. We had claims but we have been betrayed, that's why we basically ended up as the countries which lost: with a dictatorship.

[@sherk3286]

I'd argue Bulgaria was primed for a good start as their soldiers had recent combat experience in a war of this nature

[@dusk6159]

The famous piece on the bombing and siege of Adrianople by the italian literature is a testimony to that

[@ionutunroman7525]

Romania actually won it's last 3 battles before agreeing to an armistice and this mostly because Rusia was out due to it's revolution. Our King didn't recognized this armistice and we were able to re-enter the war one day before it ended. Romania fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and The Ottoman Empire on two fronts, all of them at the same time, while Portugal was enjoying the calm ocean sounds.

[@kinginexile7139]

As a Bulgarian, thank you for mentioning my country's participation in the war! Despite the final result, we are proud of the performance of our army. Bulgarians (today and) at the time didn't see this war as an imperial conflict, rather as a war for national unity of all Bulgarians living in the Balkans and that may explain the high morale of the Bulgarian troops.

[@Cpt-AM]

*Places Italy in F tier* *Doesn't explain why*

[@markusz4447]

12x Isonzo, no industrial power, no progress in the Alps, massive casualties for nothing. Country so rundown that it opened the doors for fascism just shortly after the war.

[@matthings4133]

@@markusz4447 Yeah but it's really their commander in chief Luigi Cadorna that was a complete idiot... which is why i would put Him in the tier lower than F

[@markusz4447]

@@matthings4133 yes cadorna himself gets in the lowest tier possible

[@Tortellobello45]

@@markusz4447 well, they industrialized with the war, they did progress in the Alps until Caporetto and they managed to get Trento e Trieste and destroy badly Austrians at Vittorio Veneto, but the Entente only gave them what they conquered disobeying to the London Pact.

[@Daddo1861]

@@markusz4447 Well you know, fighting on your own on the Alps ATTACKING austrian positions on top of the mountains, while taking orders from an incompetent general who sent you straight into machinegun fire for 12 battles in a row and still winning, feels pretty great to me. Plus Fascism rose to power because of the Entente itself. We didn't get what we were promised, and it was as if we fought for nothing. Hence why SOME people initially approved Fascism. Don't talk shit.

[@NY_Mapper]

Imagine if Germany had allies that could actually manage a functional army and government. If A-H had even half of the competence of the German army it would have been over for the allies by 1915.

[@inhocsignovinces1327]

Not sure about that, in 1914 september, France stopped alone (with the 90k of BEF) the Germans armies at Marne, even with less artillery and less machine guns. And more the month passed, more French and British came on front. So Germany would probably never passed through West front. I think Germany lost in 1914 on West.

[@ivkobear5291]

@@inhocsignovinces1327 By that point germany had to redeploy their forces on the Eastern forces, cause russians were advancing in the East Prussia and Galicia. However, France did do ok against the germans, although i believe to this day, that if there's no Russia or no Uk in the war, France might loose in mid 1915.

[@inhocsignovinces1327]

@@ivkobear5291 Well in fact it was pretty balanced, Germany was 25 millions more people than France, so it would be logic that France needed help..

[@justchris3348]

@@inhocsignovinces1327 the western front was winnable, if austria didn’t get their ass handed to them by the Russians.

[@ivkobear5291]

@@inhocsignovinces1327 Yea, but Germany in fact had no real allies (2 weakened empires/sick man of Europe and Bulgaria). While France had 2 strongest empires in the world, didn't experienced any naval blickade and Western front was 2v1. Also many people like to downplay Russia's role and Eastern front, while it was so damn important. When Verdun happend the french begged Russia to do atleast something and Italy aswell, so Brusilov offensive happened(which absolutely destroyed Austro-Hungarian army and forced Germany to move their troops from other front to that direction).

[@giacomourettini2617]

i understand its your opinion but italy cant be f tier you are just considering the battle of the isonzo but we also had many victories over the austrians like monte grappa and especially the battle of vittorio veneto where we took 400k austrian prisoners this led to the austrian empire collapse because they had no more troops in the italian front

[@Randomdude112]

Especially after caporetto we managed to hold of the Austrian and German along with still holding a strong defensive line.

[@anthob2129]

And its harder to attack through mountains

[@Sir_J4ck]

It0s not his opinion, it's an ensamble of sterotypes and prejudice against italy.

[@tetrapack.mantovano]

@@Sir_J4ck there's virtually no-one that talks about Italy in ww1 and ww2 without any prejudice

[@Tortellobello45]

@@tetrapack.mantovano except us Italians and few history guys who know history, definitely not this guy

[@nopecopter]

I’ve gotta say, props for including EVERY participant in WW1, even the obscure ones. I had no clue what the hell an Asir was, but the fact that they got ranked despite how unknown they are is cool as hell (and more love for obscure countries is something I’m always a fan of).

[@MichalKolacek-jz6sn]

they could have included czechoslovakia which fought in the russian civil war in 1917 and 1918

[@machovalkarie7896]

What about haiti

[@shrednas6567]

As an American I think our placement is fair enough. We had no experience with this kind of war and we joined late (I will still claim back to back world war champs so suck it world) But an interesting thing was in the beginning of WW2 I remember something being said about America missed the WW1 experience and many wanted to know it, and they got the full WW1 experience in the Italian campaign, to which most of the soldiers regretted wishing for the experience. In addition while we were not the best, we definitely brought the big dick energy when Germany asked us to stop using Trench guns, to which we then doubled production and used them even more just to piss off Germany.

[@x-a-]

ww2 wouldn't have happenned if you didn't got jealous about France becoming a continental power in europe after ww1 (harsher treaty of versaille that would mean no united germany)

[@yugonostalgia8961]

@@x-a-lmao whatever you say

[@x-a-]

@@yugonostalgia8961 your comment was useless to the discussion, atleast argument if you have something interessing to say or you got MKULTRA'd by your gouv so you can't have a civilized discussion ?

[@joeysimek7707]

@Shrednas So do you think about the trench gun the same as mustard gas and flamethrowers? And the big dick energy was undermined by the fact that photos of soldiers with a trench gun were prohibited by the us army.

[@joeysimek7707]

@@x-a- Ww2 wouldn't have happend if there was no treaty of versailles at all. France wasn't in power to enforce a devided Germany and weren't for that jealous french, there wouldn't be so many chances for Hitler to even rise in power.

[@mrsupremegascon]

While tactically Germany is great. Strategically, for both WW1 and WW2, they were bad, maybe the worst. And the reason why they lost both time, despite kicking ass on the field. I will not go too much into details but for example at the start of WW1. French army made a careful logistically backed plan for the war. While letting enough room for adaption (with reserve) While the Germans were like : "Lets send 1.5 millions men in a heavily defended 100km corridor, with little logistical planning. Oh and we have 2 weeks to do it, plus if we fail, we have no reserve" Impressively they almost succeeded. Which show how good they were on the field. But in the end France thanks to logistic and adaptation margin, out guned them and adapted, forcing the German to retreat after the Marne Battle. Locking them for the rest of the war. And this plan (Von Moltke plan) totally forgot the diplomatic aspect of the war. While the French were careful of not showing too much aggressivity to get allies. Germans didn't cared, went all in, and agros both Italy and UK. So I would say more an A tier for Germany. British also deserve S tier. Their diplomacy and military contribution were perfect (unlike in WW2).

[@kalaniender7219]

Yes because of pressure of the two front war, according to the Schlieffen Plan germany would always need to mobilize and attack france first. It was completely delusional for france to surrender in this short time, since the franco-prussian war also did take more than half a year to end (in this war they actually defeated the french on the battlefield). In this war, they did push them back first (battle of the frontiers) but these were heavy batttles with great casualties for both. I think even if they took paris, the strong french armies wouldnt just surrender. Chief of Staff Moltke resigned and Falkenhayn actually told everyone that the war could not be won because of the superiority of entente ressources. Which he tried to drain (also without sucess)

[@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU]

I do agree with most of this. The Germans were extremely good tacticians, but subpar strategists. The big entente powers were the opposite for the most part.

[@lockretvids]

The problem with the Schliffen-plan was that the Germans didn't think the British would *actually* defend Belgium. There was reason to believe this though: The brits sent them a telegram saying that if Germany didn't attack France first, Britain would stay neutral. Obviously, they miscalculatetd. The other problem, as you've also mentioned, was the lack of reserves. That can be traced back to the German military doctrine though: strike hard, strike fast and advance as fast as possible. End the war as soon as possible. All of their tactics and strategies revolved around this idea: End the war as soon as possible. When France held in WWi and the Soviets held in WWII everything just fell apart. The German army knew how to attack and they knew it very well, but they had no defensive plans because their doctrines didn't count on their actually having to be on the defensive.

[@ZeroEagle667]

I agree, but you gotta give it to Germany for managing to fight the British, French,, Russians, Americans, Belgians, Australians, Indians, Canadians, Japanese and Portuguese all at once while also sending reinforcements to help out in Italy, Serbia and Romania. And even with all of this against them they still managed to defeat Russia.

[@joeysimek7707]

@@kalaniender7219 France without Paris wouldn't have worked. The "strong" french armies surely wouldn't have surendered, unlike the two other times.

[@ezane7828]

Italy doesn’t belong to a lower tier then Austria. Also I don’t think China Japan and Thailand should be much different they just attacked German colonies and then did nothing.

[@mattguellec]

Japan chased down german raiders in the Indian and Pacific Ocean and did send a fleet in the Mediterranean to help with convoy escort with pretty good success. They also sent doctors and nurses to the western front by their branch of the red cross.

[@samozelic1720]

Italy just had to defend a short front, that was also easly defendable, while Austria was fighting on motible larger fronts, and Italy still got pushed back.

[@eric11]

@@samozelic1720 they could have won if it wasn't for the incompetent cadorna

[@samozelic1720]

@@eric11 Fair, but you could make the same argument about Austro-Hungarian generals.

[@restitvtororbis]

@@samozelic1720 they were pushed back because in the battle of Caporetto were the Germans who attacked, not the AustroHungarians. The Germans used the same tactics of shock troops used also on Western Front

[@atmoosed7318]

Us Thais have forgotten that we were even in this war. We did capture some ships and sent an expeditionary force (that never reached the frontlines). We got some cool deals out of it and marched with the other nations as well

[@kyleman0122]

yeah fr. I was legit confused for a second seeing the thai flag in the tierlist and then went ohhhhhhh yeahhhh we were in wwi too.

[@bradw2020]

"Russian supply problems proved to be seriously crippling" History does repeat itself.

[@GoldMoonGuy]

This is second time it repeat itself.

[@Randomdude112]

@@GoldMoonGuy third actually, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[@dinksyboi1680]

Fr Russia could generally be a unstoppable menace with the ground forces they got but their logistics is awful

[@lightworker2956]

In Afghanistan maybe, but if you're referring to Russia's current intervention in Ukraine's genocide in the donbass: you've been watching too much propaganda. The Russian side is doing fine, it's the Ukranian neo-nazis that are struggling.

[@tersecleric2]

@@lightworker2956 Intervening in the Donbas required annexing the Crimea and attacking Kiev?

[@PixelCC1]

How Belgium isn't S tier I don't understand. Albert I flooded his own country to stop the German advance while the capital city was occupied and fought on for 4 years. The Americans even called it "Brave little Belgium", and the international solidarity for Belgium was huge.

[@Ultracheese0]

Italy and Ottomans definitely deserves more credit

[@oicmapper]

Both attacked mountains which made losses but italy did well in the balkans

[@andreavoigtlander1087]

wrong

[@Boretheory]

@@oicmapper well? We almost capitulated Austria before Russia left the lobby and Germany joined the “ italian front” game to smack us with 1M+ reinforcements

[@oicmapper]

@@Boretheory italy lost i think 12 battles against austria easily

[@NoName-hg6cc]

@@oicmapper Italy won the majority of those battles, entemte lost the majority of confrontations against Germany 2 vs1

[@Tortellobello45]

Putting Italy last is like putting Germany on D tier. Makes no sense at all

[@turiipip2345]

Bro sono italiano pure io ma siamo onesti con noi stessi...

[@Tortellobello45]

@@turiipip2345 Abbiamo sconfitto Tedeschi e Austriaci da soli. Basta col disfattismo

[@tetrapack.mantovano]

​@@turiipip2345 ricordo che abbiamo combattuto anche in Albania, macedonia, Francia e africa (contro i senussi). Tutto ciò mentre gli austriaci dopo la caduta della Russia hanno mandato valanghe di soldati (pure i tedeschi già che c'erano) verso il fronte italiano. La resistenza sul Piave è stata eroica e con la battaglia del solstizio e, poi, a vittorio veneto abbiamo riscattato il nostro onore

[@InfoRome]

@turiipip, WTF are u talking about. He just made a meme, no explanation. Italy is a solid A or B.

[@checkcommentsfirst3335]

@@tetrapack.mantovanoWer gegen Österreich-Ungarn keinen territorialen Fortschritt verzeichnen kann hat sicherlich keine besseres Ranking verdient. Natürlich sind die Alpen nicht wirklich förderlich in einer solchen Situation, aber es ist und bleibt Österreich-Ungarn.

[@shadyyy7490]

aHaHaH tHe ItAlIaNs LaUnChEd 12 OfFeNsIvEs On ThE iSoNzO as if Germany, the UK and France weren't doing the same for all of the war Like the whole front was 3000m mountains the Isonzo was one of the only few places to launch an attack from (not to mention most of those battles were Italian victories). Why people always ignore the fact that Italy (who at the time was still weak and young as a country) still managed to completely annihilate the Austrians in 1918... When the war ended Germany still had soldiers on French soil while the Italians were the only Entente country to actually invade a Central Power, threatening Germany with another front on the south, speeding the surrender process. Italy prevented millions of CP soldiers from joining the war on the other fronts and blocked the Austrian fleet in the Adriatic and was definitely instrumental to the Entente's win

[@Daddo1861]

Amen

[@checkcommentsfirst3335]

Are you italian?

[@CatotheE]

A controversial opinion that shouldn’t really be controversial, but without Italy... the Entente loses World War 1. With Italy on Germany’s side, the Entente loses hard. The low estimate for CP losses on the Italian front was over 2.3 million men killed, wounded or captured in under 4 years of fighting. To put that in perspective, the Ottoman Empire mobilized about 2.7 million men in almost 5 years of fighting. The Austrian Fleet was also bottled up in the Adriatic for most of the war by the Italian Navy. One of the reasons the Brusilov Offensive was so successful, was that the Austrians were launching a major offensive on the Asiago Plateau at the time and had moved troops to the Alps. The Schlieffen Plan was initially supposed to have Italian divisions fighting on the Western Front while the Germans swung around to encircle the French. Not only did Italian neutrality leave Germany with less soldiers than they were supposed to have, it meant the French could move concentrate more readily on Germany without Bismarck’s hoped for Italian distraction. An Italy that enters the war on Germany’s side in 1914, means that Russia collapses earlier, France is harder pressed and the joint Italian and Austria-Hungarian Navies control the central Mediterranean. Even if they only exist as Fleets in being, they complicate things significantly for a Britain and France, close off shipping to Allied supplies in the Med and tie up significant naval resources that could be put to better use on other fronts. I might have to make a video about the Italian role in World War 1, because I’d honestly say it was essential. Not at all comparable to their role in WW2. When you’re analyzing the contribution of a country to a war, you can’t just look at the battles. I did enjoy the video though.:)

[@idcgaming518]

Brit here. I will admit, had it just been us and the French on our own against the Germans, it would have been a much, much harder fight. Hell, even with Russia thrown in, we'd likely still struggle to come out victorious. But you see, even in that case, the longer the war dragged on, the better our outlook compared to the Germans. This was as us Brits could easily blockade a large amount of the supplies heading to Germany, and the combination of Britain and France meant that the Entente had more manpower, more industry and more land than the Germans could ever hope to muster. Basically, a quick victory was, unfortunately, the only way the Germans (just like in ww2) were ever gonna succeed long-term. After long enough, the German civilians and soldiers would have been left without morale-boosting items and possibly without many war materials. Hell, most of the economic and industrial damage done to the Germans during the time in which it was just the UK, France and Russia (plus Belgium, Serbia and Montenegro) fighting it out, was done by blockades and the loss of overseas territories, rather than bombing campaigns. Even still, the Germans fought hard, and if not for a single order, they could have gained the quick victory they sought and needed. It was damn close. If the Germans had made it even a couple more miles before the order to stop retreating was given, they would have been in sight of Paris - that is how close the German empire came to capitulating France (without whom the British forces would have faced the same dilemma as the Americans would have in ww2 without the UK - that being, no dropping off point for troops). It was only thanks to that order, and the consequential German retreat due to the resulting battle opening a gap in their lines, that Paris was not conquered. Our German cousins have always had a knack for war. Then again, so have we, and the French. So it really isn't a surprise that such powerhouses were so evenly matched. I'm glad we're friends with our German cousins again though.

[@ravanpee1325]

You would lose without US supply as always

[@cseijifja]

the british had india to bankroll them in men and resources, lets not talk about canada and australia, but aminly india, the germans were set for failure in a atrittion war.

[@jazzy4830]

@@ravanpee1325 Nah, Germany had lost the moment hey failed to secure their sea trade routes. The Royal Navy had been the greatest naval power in the world for a long time and its blockade started the process of starving the Germans into submission. Once it became clear that the Germans could not succeed in breaking through the western front and securing a warm-water port and supply line they knew they were done for it was just a matter of time. The US did fuck all to change that, but their late involvement represented a blow to German morale which expedited their surrender. The US were much more important to the actual outcome of the Second World War, between their (still late) earlier involvement and commitment to multiple fronts. It is said that the allies victory in the second world war was paid for by 3 countries, Russia with Blood, Britain with Time and the US with money.

[@tersecleric2]

@@ravanpee1325 Just like the british revolutionaries in the original 13 states without the help of the french and dutch

[@ravanpee1325]

@@tersecleric2 Yeah, the arrogant fools celebrate themselves without recognizing the French and the Spanish contribution

[@shannonmikko9865]

I agree with the United States' placement but damn I wonder what kind of effect the US joining had on the average German soldiers' morale. You have been fighting for 3 years, millions of men dead- hoping that the Entente breaks before your side does, and suddenly your enemy receives two million fresh new troops :(

[@Psyclone500TV]

Not to mention that there were even millions more well on the way. Germany knew they were fucked which is why they made their second advance deep into France because they needed to end the war NOW, but of course the Americans have arrived and the rest is history.

[@shannonmikko9865]

@@Psyclone500TV Honestly it’s impressive the Germans lasted as long as they did.

[@Burt1038]

plus they had food and the Germans didn't.

[@urospaunovic399]

Montenegro deserves way better than D tier. The held A-H long enough for Serbian troops to retreat through Albanian mountains. If it weren't for them there never would have been a Macedonian front, never mind a breakthrough

[@Фниксъ]

Aggree. Montenegrins were a honorable opponent.

[@Randomdude112]

When the battle of Mojkovac:

[@mn-by5fk]

That is true. Without Montenegrin involvement in the war, Serbia would be destroyed and there would be no Macedonian front, thus Greece would be overan by Bulgarians. Also there is the fact that Montenegro had advanced in litoral region and even went far to Sarajevo in it's campaign with as much manpower and recourses we had. deserves at least B tier.

[@jesuschrist9513]

Proportionately speaking Bulgaria probably did the best in the war

[@guywithacreativename5134]

I am a Turk myself and I can say the Ottomans had low performance, sure, but while comparing them to the British they actually did a pretty good job before we had the audacity to do absolute shit against Russia. ..And we are not talking about what happened in 1915.

[@bogdanmihai7795]

With all respect, I must say that you totally underestimate Romania. First: we had some victories. At first, we got almost all of Transilvania, then we got pushed back but we resisted heroically in Moldova, with great victories at Mărășt, Mărășești and Oituz Secondly: our men fought bravely. We have a ton of national heroes from the war. I think we deserved C tier

[@FrancescoB-mt8pl]

Incredible, 25 seconds of explanation of the Italian front based on a single stupid argument about a history meme to unfairly put the efforts of our army at F tier. (Completely ignoring our successes in the Adriatic sea, the fact that fighting in the mountains was way more difficult, and our great successes after the Battle of Caporetto). Our performance in WW1 wasn't surely great, and mostly because of inept commanders(Luigi Cadorna) at the beginning of the war, but after General Diaz's arrival everything changed and we won some important battles still celebrated today, like the Battle of the Piave River or the Battle of Vittorio Veneto. Consider also that we were basically on our own, there were insignificant allied forces on the Alpine front, while Austria won at Caporetto mostly because of the German helping and the forces redirected from the Eastern front to the Italian front.

[@Alphastarilium]

unfortunately redditors only see history through basicass memes and don't acknowledge anything else

[@Tortellobello45]

@@Alphastarilium true, 90% people know little or nothing about history still they comment while they should not

[@Stego1819]

What does this have to do with redditors? You faced an already incompetent army in austria hungary that couldnt even defeat serbia on its own yet you were getting beat up by them.(and having good generals is part of having a good army) All of this despite the fact that Austria Hungary had other fronts that they had to concentrate on while you only had one.

[@sliceabletoast]

Italy OMEGALUL

[@lorisperfetto6021]

@@Stego1819 Austria was massively helped by Germany, and the numbers were on their side.

[@CapitanScimitar555]

Italy stand alone against Austria-Hungary, and despite the inferior arms and machine they still managed to hold up; force tge germans to send units in the front to keep it toghether; and eventually win. For my point of view italy did not an amazing job, but a decent one at least yes.

[@JiafeiProducts6969]

Agree, I think he got confused with ww2 Italy or something.

[@iljoker4697]

to literally put Brazil, Japan, Portugal, Belgium who have done practically nothing even if Italy entered the war alone to end up against the Germans, Austrians

[@yeslol9303]

Luigi cadorna prevents them for getting anything higher than a c

[@CapitanScimitar555]

@@yeslol9303 if greece and belgium are b i think italy deserved it to.

[@lory3767]

Italy actually had quite interesting gun not entirely garbage for example "villar perosa" I think it was cool

[@Vintage_Wcue]

As a Bulgarian, Thanks man for putting Bulgaria in A-tier!

[@justalex2.0]

As a bulgarian all i can say is we did well just helping the homies out

[@danielwoods3896]

I feel this list was a tad bit unfair to Italy and Montenegro especially. Yes, Italy's Isonzo front is a meme, but beyond that you gave them zero explanation, so I do have to mention that around the end they got rid of their one problem and completely routed the Austrian army. Also, their army performed fine considering the front they were fighting on. Montenegro was, like you said, overwhelmed, but they did fight with unbelievable heroism, and even defeated austria in open battle before their government surrendered. See the battle of Mojkovac. Finally, only other gripe is that you didn't put Austria in F tier. They failed to invade Serbia, they lost to Italy despite having advantageous defensive terrain, they almost lost to Romania, they relied on Germany to survive Russia, and of course they lost a full scale battle to Montenegro. At least Turkey was able to make the Brits struggle and Italy was able to not only survive a complete route but then make a full comeback.

[@paul_5848]

They got rolled by the Central powers in 17 and were nearly knocked out the war. Their enterence into the war as a major power should have atleast carried some momentum before being contained which didnt happen. You had them able to commit 100% to the 3rd priority front of what most would call the most incompetent Central power nation.

[@javieraravena5345]

The F was not for Italy, but for Cardona. Fuck Cardona, all my homies hate fucking Cardona

[@OnlyRodion]

Yeah I was confused about Italy in F, there were so many battles of the Isonzo River becuase it was the only area that really made sense to attack considering how high the alps are and how tight the front was. Hard to advance when there are giant mountains in your way especially in a time where just marching one army isn't a valid strategy anymore.

[@Vugir]

Agreed.

[@danielwoods3896]

@@OnlyRodion Exactly. And considering the terrain they were attacking the fact that they were actually on the way to winning before Germany sent reinforcements is pretty insane.

[@AntonioYT00]

Sad to see that Spectrum (nothing personally, I'll continue to see your contents) didn't know nothing about WWI between Italy and Austria-Hungary (as many honestly outside), I live where they fought, so I reccoment to SEE first the topografy of isonzo and carso and tell me after that about battle performances (for your information, it's not a flat land...). And the many unconclusive battles beetween France and Germany? France had in ther side UK and even so it was essentialy notheless a stalemate for many years. I know this is tier least and so it is what.... it is, but it's unfair and I see the classic stereotypes and even a bit offensive. I will give F to this Tier list.

[@Cpt-AM]

I completely agree with you!

[@lumacher_1459]

Bravo

[@Andre-uu5xv]

Can’t wait for the WW2 version!

[@ANDREA57ITA]

No

[@punksoab]

As a Brazilian, I audibly cackled in the clinic before my appointment. Well done mate. Very well done

[@DeutscheDemokratischeRepublik]

Chad germany was killed and replaced by virgin germany, which was replaced by crazy gone mad germany, which was then broken into virgin germany and based gopnik germany

[@inferno38]

Romania : Sucks in ww1 Gained a lot of territory Refuse to elaborate further Leaves

[@zombieoverlord5173]

Literally signed an armistice with the central powers, then reentered the war a day before it ended to gain territory. Really good play tbh

[@Battlemage15]

WWII Tier List is going to be wild. Germany, Soviet Union and USA can all claim Top of A-Tier or even S-Tier

[@kudopengi6334]

Lol Soviet Union in A tier? Maybe the second half of the war

[@GlizzyGoblin757]

UK should get top tier too.

[@monsieur1936]

Soviets S tier and US, Japan and Germany A tier. Soviets almost single-handedly won the European front.

[@bobthebuilder4345]

@@monsieur1936 the soviets almost lost to germany in the first few months of Barbarossa, the Germans were right outside Moscow before Stalin got his stuff together and the soviets started winning battles. s tier 2nd half of the war though. UK A tier as well since they were stuck as the only european power against germany for years and somehow kept in the war.

[@darkdestroyerza2381]

@@bobthebuilder4345 nah the uks performance wasn't all that impressive when you think about it. We didn't "somehow manage to stay in the war" the germans never even had a chance of invading the British main land. Our only real contribution was winning in Egypt and Libya, besides thats its mainly losses. And our code breaking was incredibly valuable too

[@Cevorter]

Germany attempted to underplay Austria by blaming their losses on the eastern front to their incompetence rather than the German inability to provide help to Austria in the east, so it could justify their dumb invasion of France. Germany fought 2 fronts. Austria fought 3 and was winning all 3, with initial setbacks at first, but Germany also had such setbacks. Austria forced the Italians out of the province of Veneto, they capitulated Serbia after of course underestimating them and they collapsed the Russians once the Germans finally decided to assist them. Austria-Hungary was not incompetent, Germany was just coping.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

No, German troops forced Italy on defense in Veneto, AH, altough not incompetent, was losing

[@georgeprchal3924]

France does get clowned a lot despite winning more battles than any other nation in history.

[@awesomeinabox1234]

France has a epic history or great militaries and military leaders; Charlemagne, William the Conquerer (he was Norman but from France), Napoleon, Clovis, Charles Martel among many others, it's quite respectable. They just lost their spot at the top as happens with all great military dynasties.

[@jazzy4830]

@@awesomeinabox1234 The French have an impressive military history but William the Conqueror and the Normans at that point were just Germanic Vikings cosplaying as French.

[@bigenglishmonkey]

@@jazzy4830 funnily back then they hated and mocked him because of his lowborn mother William is the country version of that one member of the family nobody wants anything to do with till they win the lottery

[@bigenglishmonkey]

just wondering do you know how many battles France has actually won? because every time i look i get the answer Out of 169 battles they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10 and everyone I've seen references those numbers but while researching England has been directly involved in beating France in 90 battles just through 1743-1815 and the hundred years war i haven't even looked at the 290 years between or the years before yet.

[@jazzy4830]

@@bigenglishmonkey The Norman conquest was full of lads like that, between the adoption of the French concept of primogeniture (oldest legitimate son inherits everything) and their population increasing while being locked into a small region of France, there were large numbers of skirmishes and conflict along the French border as landless second sons etc tried to claim property for themselves. These were the people driven to join William on his conquest of England by pressures externally from the French and internally from other Normans, in hope of starting a new legacy.

[@justarandomdortmundfan1097]

People complain that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on the Germans, but at least the Germans did not have 72% of their territory taken and their population reduced to 36% of the pre war population. Yeah I am talking about the Treaty of Trianon, which was far harsher on the loser than Versailles.

[@elseggs6504]

On top of that, the Little Entente was established to stop Hungary from doing the very thing Germany would later do in WW2: Go to war with all its neughbours, take old territory and then some

[@RCorvinus]

Trianon really just put an exclamation point on the reality of the Dual Monarchy’s collapse. No one wanted to be in that shit show any more, never mind the irredentist claims against them.

[@elseggs6504]

@@RCorvinus To be fair though, Transilvania, Vojvodina and Southern Slovakia still had a fair share of Hungarians inside. Even to this day they are a sizeable minority. The same cannot be said for Poland and the Germans it got as a result from both World Wars.

[@mcbeaty3971]

That’s what happens when you make an enemy out of everyone and even you supposed countryman despise you

[@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU]

The treaty of Brest Litovsk that the Germans enforced on the Russians was pretty bad too tho.

[@mineiromaneiro8686]

Attention In the battle of "La Lys", the germans recieved information about the portuguese, thats why they attacked with massive force, they knew we didn´t had the best equipment and we were not prepared. What the germans didn´t know was that we had "soldado milhões" to clean the ground with their face. Today germans cry because they, don´t know how to play with tiger I in War Thunder.

[@taipeijoey101]

You can't say Germany was the only S Tier when they lost the war

[@dbull1]

tbh i think this guy is just a kaiserboo

[@BatuhanDere]

@@dbull1 Its a trap. Send no reply

[@sirsteam6455]

Losing the war isn't equivalent to how much work someone did, technically Brazil won the war but they did fuck all so are they better than Germany in this matter, no they aren't

[@CommunistCreeper]

Waiting for ranking all the popes

[@robdenini6972]

One legend says that Brazil bombed the f* out of some dolphins, so there's that.

[@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU]

The dolphins were central powers supporters.

[@desertedislander]

subscribed. nice video my dude! Very interesting. Thank you.

[@Sabmerk]

Ottoman Empire deserve more than F. They seriously stunted British advances during the first half of the war and considering their weak position performed surprisingly well

[@SupremeDuckLord]

Seethe and cope

[@danielchristoph4576]

As a german, Im proud to tell you guys: It was worth it all for getting S Tier.

[@ManchesterIsRed]

Finally someone saying something positive about Bulgarian

[@emperornemesis-4179]

This was actually pretty good bro, just clicked a random video and got hooked

[@o.w.n.1327]

I will say this treaty of versai was not perfect but it wasn't bad for a war that span the whole world What was bad is the fact that no one tried to keep peace in Europe and just waited the next guy who took over their position fixed it and just wanted to do nothing at all

[@blackskullknight9062]

Pre-WW2 rea was a series of Ideology, Appeasement for more time and people knowing war is coming and instability post 4 empires dying

[@pablo2448]

I think the biggest problem is that they treated Germany like a "conquered nation" (germans were like "WE WERENT INVADED, YOU DIDNT CONQUER THIS, WHY THE FRICK ARE YOU GIVING OUR LAND TO OTHER NATIONS??") and that made the german people pissed, which lead up to the rise of the nazi party.

[@paul_5848]

Its an interesting topic of severity of the treaty against Germany. Immediately post war it was considered not though enough espeically after the financial realitites of the victors set in. In the coldwar the idea that it was too harsh became shorthand jusification for WW2 thereby condeming the treaty but recently there has a been a growing opinion that has a treaty under the circumstances it was as near optimal as could have been managed obviously more so after cetain alterations to thinga like war reparations or issues like the Silesian uprisings were sorted etc.

[@o.w.n.1327]

@@paul_5848 like i said it wasnt perfect but knowing what happened to other nations like hungary or soviet union germans did not loose a lot of land yes their economic area was put under control of America UK and France but overall it wasnt too bad Ofc this comes from someone whos country still denys Genocides and got out of WW1 probably better then we started with

[@garrettjohnson343]

The lost of Russia as a benefactor nation seeking to control events in Europe to keep things stable was probably the biggest impact on the interwar period.

[@7000_Skeletons]

And then Russia took a big ol' look at their logistical failures during WW1, realised that it was a major cause for their defeats and actually could wage war pretty well if adequately supplied, and never had logistical issues again...

[@thiccchungo1041]

Russia today has learned from Russia in ww1, by doing everything in their power to lose as painfully as possible

[@jamesmacdonald1116]

Bulgaria has a history of always being on the losing side but honestly they deserve to be remembered as the great non great power

[@sasamihajlov2862]

No they don’t. In 1912 they failed their attack on Thrace hard against the Ottomans to the point where Serbia had to send them reinforcements. Than in 1913 they declared war on their former allies, lost a few battles to them and had all of their neighbors enter a war against them solely because of their own territorial greed. Than in 1915 they waited for both Germany and Austria to commit a huge amount of forces against Serbia and stabbed the country in the back AGAIN. And than in 1918 they lost to a Franco-Serbian offensive even after committing their entire army to that one front while France only sent a fraction of their forces and Serbia only had remnants of their army after their retreat in 1915.

[@vasil.kamdzhalov]

@@sasamihajlov2862 Cry in Serbian, your excuses and point are nothing. There is a reason we had the nickname "Prussia of the Balkans"

[@urosstankovic5795]

@@vasil.kamdzhalov So you say his points are nothing but you don't contribute anything at all. Prussia of the Balkans attacked Serbia only after Germans joined Austrians and yet you surrendered first. With long and rich history Bulgaria has, WW1 is nothing to be proud of my friend.

[@vasil.kamdzhalov]

@@urosstankovic5795 The is a whole series that shows how much battles were there and even of that, french and english troops were already marching to connect with in through Greece. It was a race of time and you had a chance to win but we did what was expected and shut it for the backstabbing. This is the most ironic thing to think of form you. If we think of backstsabbing you were really good at it already in 1885, we still gave you faight for a Balkan league and you shat on our deal which most of you even aren't aware what it was , second backstabbing. "But Austria didn't let us take Albania" again look what you got etc. and you sohuld have looked for Montenegro union of smth and then WW1 you say backstabbing?

[@urosstankovic5795]

@@vasil.kamdzhalov I maybe missed something, where in my comment did I mention "backstabbing"? I also never mentioned Albania, you didn't even answer me, just changed the topic. All I'm saying is that country nicknames don't mean shit and Bulgarians should not think that WW1 was anything good for them or that they fought "against the odds".

[@masrod94]

Your ranking of the Ottomans seem a bit unfair to rank them with Italy at F. They were a failing empire in rapid decline since the Russo-Turkish War of 1876-78 and they were not as inept as you claim them to be. While they were definitely more of a liability for the Central Powers, the fact that they managed to last this long is quite impressive. They were on the periphery of the European theater, meaning that more or less they were on their own. (With the exception of German officers and materiel) Not to mention that internal strife and rebellion plagued the empire. The only front that was more or less a rout was the Caucasus Front, where the Russians advanced until the revolution forced them to retreat. The Gallipoli Front was an Ottoman victory that embarrassed the Allies, the Sinai and Palestine campaign was a stalemate for over half a year (despite the Arab revolt) and the Allied advance was slow until the decisive Battle of Megiddo in 1918. The Mesopotamia Front once again demonstrated that the Ottomans should not be underestimated with the embarrassing British surrender at Kut. Following Kut, it took the Allies almost two years to capture the city. My point is the Ottomans were a crumbling state, overstretched (fighting on 4 simultaneous fronts far away from each other) and under-supplied but still managed to last that long in the war. I would rank them at C.

[@chad2522]

Maybe D, they still would collapse either way if they won or lost.

[@SupremeDuckLord]

Cope more

[@masrod94]

@@SupremeDuckLord could you tell me what I am coping to?

[@architech02]

Plus the Italian invasion of Libya and the Balkan war put them in very dire straits

[@gavinwang7886]

Chinese did not participate in the combat, but they definitely did something: sending tens of thousands of workers to dig trenches for the entente force,

[@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU]

Ah yes, low wage Chinese labor, classic.

[@x-a-]

Ah yes, underpaid child workers

[@n1c_ola]

I'm so proud of my home country: Italy. At least we don't disappoint anyone.

[@Macharius89]

at best or worst, trully you italians never disappoint

[@mroof523]

I suggest the Armchair Historians video on ww1 from the Austro-Hungarian perspective as it gives a lot of insight into their situation and why I personally think Austria-Hungary deserves C tier.

[@theprooblem]

The only major defeat for Italy was at the Battle of Caporetto, that the Germans won thanks to those brand spanking new toys then almost unseen but now known as chemical weapons. Yes, those "S" tiers Germans bombarded the enemy with like phosgene, chlorine, and mustard gas, killing men like they were bugs. Truly innovators. They soon came to perfect their art of specialty, crimes against humanity.

[@mihaistan3514]

As a Romanian, I never expected you to place my country in S tier. But buttom of F...oh, no. We weren't great by any means (in fact, we lost a huge amount of men), but we were also basically surrounded by enemies. However, the fact that Bulgaria humiliated us at Turtucaia probably proves that we deserve the spot you reserved for us...

[@dimitarvasilev5787]

Still, F tier is too harsh.

[@dimitarvasilev5787]

I read a book from a guy who fought on that front and he describes it as hell, so yeah, it's easy critiquing those brave men 100 years later.

[@AdrianRO1918]

@@dimitarvasilev5787 true

[@x-a-]

Well good to see a portuguese not having a biased view against France for no reason also infomational video. Maybe you just forgot France also had a colonial Empire at the time similar to Britain even if a bit smaller