I agree completely with the List but one: Put Belgium one up. They had no Chance whatsoever but fought VERY brave, surprising the Germand and screwing up their Time Table. The Versailles Thematic is very complicated, but i am on the "Way too Harsh" Side. Maybe i am biased as a German, but without the unfair Versailles Threaty Hitler had way less Propaganda Material.
My tier list would look like this, only judging performance during the war, not judging the events leading up to it. There is another list for that: S: Germany A: France, UK, Bulgaria, Serbia B: Belgium, US C: Hejaz, Greece, Japan D: AH, Russia F: Ottoman Empire, Italy, Romania Participation tier: everybody else The responsibility tier list for WW1 would look like this: S: AH and Serbia: the main culprits A: Germany and Russia: the enablers B: France, UK and the Ottomans: the associates C: Belgium: the unwilling associate D: everybody else: the hanger-ons AH is D overall, but I would split it up 1914 the lowest of F-tier, 1915 B+, 1916 D on the Russian front B everywhere else overall C, 1917 B+ or A-, 1918 D. I can expand my reasoning for everything above but this comment is long enough as it is.
@@Jargolf86I agree with you on the Treaty of Versailles, but the Treaties of St. Germain for Austria, Locarno for Hungary and Sèvres for the Ottoman Empire were even worse. Bulgaria arguably had the least bad deal with the Treaty of Neuilly. The treaty of Sèvres was so bad in fact that the new Turkish Republic actually started fighting again and won the Greco-Turkish war. PS. Belgium is fine at B tier, if they didn't fight as well they did, they would be down in C or D tier because they had French and British aid buffing them up as well. Their arguably most important contribution to WW1 was drawing the UK into it.
Just watched its piece on 'French Revolution: 3 Estates' I think it's excellent and very informative, really helps in understanding social forces for and against revolution. A great piece for Mr Terry to review.
Versailles was a middleground that nobody liked. The americans and british disliked it because of how harsh it was to germany, the french disliked it because it "let the germans off the hook" (mind you they were completely fine with dismantling germany into at least three separate states)
People sometimes struggle to understand why the French wanted terms against Germany to be so much harsher, but I say, look at it this way: Germany came out of WWI with a higher population than France, a higher industrial output than France, and a more rapidly growing economy than France. Yes, you heard that right, their economy was growing more rapidly. France's countryside was ravaged by the war, it's farms and factories, and cities destroyed, and yet when it was revealed that reparations, to France, would cause an economic crisis for Germany, new terms were negotiated to slow down the payments, and Germany was lent money by the U.S. to give to France. In every sense except militarily, It's not unreasonable to say that Germany came out of the war in a better position than France, and the French knew it, too. That's why they wanted harsher terms for Germany, that's why they invaded the Ruhr, that's why they built a massive fuck off wall on their German border, and that's why they decided they could do nothing when Germany waltzed into the Rhineland.
Fr immagine dying for your country and seeing all your friends fighting and dying before your very eyes and a random guy online after a century just says "f-tier" referring to all that without even explaining... A bit fucked up imho
@@stefanomartello3786 That is something I hate about people current view of history, it's the same regarding death, a lot of videos / shorts compare statistics like it's a competition they bring up "hey ww1 is cool but have you seen the deaths in this china incident ?? 10 million more died !! so cool !!" People just forget humans died, and a lot of times without even knowing the real reason behind their fight. It's awful, it shouldn't be glorified, numbers or performance, it all comes down to bloodshed of mostly innocent people. (and sorry for the reply month later, somehow I got this video recommended again today)
I don't remember who or where I heard this from, but I think it sums up the harshness of Versailles very well. It went something along the lines of "Versailles was harsh enough that the German people felt resentment, but was not harsh enough to prevent them from doing anything about it."
The British also bankrolled the entire French and Russian war effort, with the loans never being repaid. I think that alone puts them into A tier, if not S tier.
Considering the Canadians are being lumped in with the British, that alone pushes the British to A tier at least. The Canadian tactics developed in the last few years of the war, especially the use of rolling artillery fire to allow advances, these tactics became next to uncounterable for the Germans. Also had a reputation that terrified the Germans. The original storm troopers. One of the best examples of this was during a battle the French main line got gassed and began to retreat. The Canadians having people among them with knowledge of chemistry, did the whole piss on cloth and use it to breath, and rushed in to hold the gap against the Germans. Vimy Ridge, the Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele, Ypres. Just a bunch of major battles that the Canadians managed to win. Ypres saw the first ever use of chlorine gas which killed 1/3rd of the force which was already outnumbered and they still held the line. Passchendaele saw them fight through some of the worst weather of the war. Potentially the biggest downside keeping the Canadians specifically out of S may have been the fact the Geneva Convention was basically just a list of things the Canadians did. But considering the Germans did as well
I remember reading that when the Canadians landed at Juno Beach, a old German officer surrendered him and his group. When asked why, he said that he fought the Canadians during ww1, and didn't want his men to have to go through that.
@MW_Asura They aren't. In Europe they were second to the French. The Canadians almost acted as a special forces for the British from the view of the Germans. The Canadians scared them. The British did not. That alone shows how effective the Canadians were. If the Germans were fighting them, they KNEW it was the Canadians from how they were fighting. Far more aggressive, far less nice, far more effective because of it. The Canadians under Byng and Currie developed tactics the Germans never managed to counter. The rolling barrage alone became a regular tactic European front wide after the Canadians displayed it's effectiveness at Vimy Ridge. The British's blockade was something only they could do, but when it came to actual boots on the ground fighting, both the Canadians and the French were more effective
The main contribution of the British was the naval blockade of Germany. It essentially brought the German home front and economy to its knees and meant that Germany could no longer effectively wage war by November 1918. Along with doing most of the Allied action in the Middle East, Africa and Oceania and keeping the French and Russian economies afloat for the duration of the war in a similar manner to the Napoleonic Wars.
nice joke oversea fronts were all irrelevant or disasters because of the brits and you didnt bankroll anyone not even yourselfs without american money your nothing
For the economy, the same could be said for America then, but it's not really what this video is about. I think the main contributions of the UK were the naval blockade and holding a decent part of the western front (all the other fronts were really secondary, even combined).
All the major European powers wanted war just as much and just as little. Russia's influence in the Balkans. The British feared the German navy as competition. The French wanted revenge and Alsace Lorraine. I recommend the book "The Sleepwalkers" by Christoper Clarke, an Australian historian and Cambridge professor.
It's not much but the Ottomans also scored a major victory at the Siege of Kut (1915-1916) where the British were humiliated. A much larger force being unable to save their comrades from the horrors of a siege. They also managed to temporarily hold the line at Gaza in 1917 until the 3rd battle for that region. From March - November 1917, the Ottoman defenses held until they were finally pushed back. In 1918 they managed to beat the British to the Baku Oil Fields & hold it against British attacks. However by the time that happened, the Palestine front broke & it was over So they had a few impressive victories, only 3 major ones. But they definitely deserve the ranking they got. Their overall performance makes Austria-Hungary look *somewhat* competent
man... "belgian fell quickly" the germans expected to march through it in less than a week, took two months and then still got stuck before getting any french coast line... this is sounding a lot like french rethoric at versailles, blaming Belgium (a country a 10th their size in population and a 18th in surface area as themselves) for the quick advance in 1914 XD Belgium hit way above it's weight in WWI and should be A tier just like Bulgaria.
Fun fact: August Von Mackensen, a German field marshal, had to join AH troops and lead the offensive against Serbia because we were beating AH (including Croatian and Slovenian troops) so badly. It took a combined force of AH, Germany and a stab in the back from Bulgaria to finally make a breakthrough into Serbia. You may have heard of the famous defense of Belgrade and a legendary speech given to our troops by major Dragutin Gavrilović (Sabaton made a song about it called Last Dying Breath). After Belgrade fell on Von Mackensen's order in Košutnjak forest inside the city, a monument was erected in honor of Serbian soldiers that gave their lives that day and bought invaluable time for the royal army and our people to retreat over Albanian mountains and recover at the Greek island of Corfu. The inscription on the monument read in German and in Serbian "Here Rest Serbian Heroes" After Serbian army recovered at Corfu they joined the Thessaloniki front in northern Greece and continued fighting eventually taking back their homeland as well as freeing other territories in the Balkans where Serbian people lived including what's today's Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia.
Another fun fact, Steyr, the AH small arms manufacturer, sold you 380,000 rifles before war broke out in 1914. So you were beating AH with AH guns. Also, you had arguably some of the finest Generals anybody had in WWI with Misic, Bojovic and Putnik (heck for whatever reason you simply had great Generals in general at this time), whereas Potiorek the AH commander was the only General on any side, staying in shouting distance of Enver Pasha and Luigi Cadorna in the competition for worst General of WWI.
@@MS-io6klThe AH commander was so bad that I think the Germans themselves basically sidelined him to stop his screwups. There were times when he blatantly ignored everyone’s advice and just continued to do the dumbest strategic thing possible
Now, now, stop refering to Bulgaria just bulldozing through, a "stab" in the back, when the Serbians turned on Bulgaria way before that. First on Buglarias Unification, the Serbians out of fear and some prompt from the Austrians decided to invade Bulgaria, failed miserably again mere border guard, the Bulgarian army arrived and bulldozed all the way to Belgrade and then the Austrians interfered cause Serbia was about to get eradicated. Balkan War 1, Bulgaria and Serbia had an agreement for the Macedonia region, Serbia then went back on it and decided to keep almost all of it for itself, even though Bulgaria and Greece were the ones who literally carried the war. Which then resulted in the 2nd Balkan War, which of course was a hilarious disaster even I as a Bulgarian can't defend. No clue what our Tsar was thinking by starting that. Did he forget that the Ottoman Empire exists or what? No fkin clue what happened there. But that was not the will of the people. It was one stupid man that paraded it all. Which is why he got thrown out after the fact. So yeah, talk about backstabbing. Bulgaria just did the only logical thing it could in WW1, join the Central powers.
@@briish4615 The Ottomans performed as well as they did and lasted as long as they did was already far better than everyone had expected, especially if you consider the situation they were in. And Gallipoli wasn't the only victory, there were more
The Ottomans deserve to be way, way higher. You talked so much about how the Ottomans were weak at this time, which is true, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that is being discussed. This is not a ranking of overall strength, but of performance and for how weak they were, the Ottomans put up one hell of a performance. They had every disadvantage you could possible have, you name it, they had it (Technologically inferior, severly outnumbered everywhere, fighting their enemies on their home turf everywhere but in Galipoli, being entirely surrounded, extreme political instability, fighting a civil war in the middle of it all, etc...). They had the most active fronts out of all of the Central Powers, having to fight basically the entire Entente plus the Arab revolt while receiving no help at all from their allies (In fact, the Ottomans even helped out the other Central Powers, specifically Austria in the Galician front). With all of that, they still managed to thoroughly humiliate the British on two occasions, giving them some of the worst defeats that they suffered in their entire history. Sure, the Armenian genocide was horrible, but again, it is not related to what is being discussed.
that's also what i wrote before seeing your comment. if people wanna put the ottomans as F due to an armenian genocide than so be it but then the name of the list should be ww1 worst horrors by nation tier list... In actual performance for what they were the ottomans managed themselves pretty well
Nope, they don't and the reason for that has one name, Enver Pasha and as he was the minister of war and apparently thought himself to be the second coming of Suleiman the Magnificent and fucked up the whole time colossally, the Ottoman Empire is in F-Tier. Now, if Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later Atatürk) had been running the show, we would have an entirely different discussion. You have seen what even a crippled Turkey could achieve with competent leadership in the Greco-Turkish War. But most of the low Tier countries on the list were let down by poor leadership: A-H by Potiorek who fucked up the Serbian campaign, Russia by its whole general staff with a few exceptions like Brusilov, Italy by Cadorna (it got markedly better after Diaz took over, still not enough to pull them out of F-Tier) and of course the Ottomans who as I said were held back by Enver Pasha.
Luigi Cadorna, the top Italian commander in WW1, is a contender for worst military commander of all-time. He couldn't have done his job any worse even if he tried. If anyone else was in charge except for him, Italy would've been in a higher tier. He had zero regard for the lives of his soldiers, and threw them away without a second thought. Never gave a second thought when it came to changing approach, tactics or strategy, and when confronted with the consequences of failure, he pinned it on his soldiers, ridiculously citing their "cowardice" and things like that.
YES! my boy Spectrum good portuguese represent is finally getting an episode! Superb funny and informative vid as always, please do more reviews of this channel in the future Mr. Terry.
@avivirpanda pov: A austrian producer makes the sequel anyway.... And it turns out to be good too. Then the russian and American both said at the same time: "2 world war movies! Let's keep it like that forever!" But the ended up making the spin off: "the cold war"
Imagine managing to actually fight Russia in black sea with a near non-existent fleet, capture the Caucasus, fight in 8 fronts, collapse the Russian economy by closing the straights, almost capturing the Suez Canal and wasting the allied fleets and armies 2 times at Gallipoli while barely being industrilised and 100 years later some shmuck puts you at F tier.
So it seems you and the OP haven't heard of the battle of the propoises during ww1, in which the Brazilian navy bombed 10 porpoises because they thought they were a German submarine?
Because they weren’t independent countries. In that case, why did they not talk about the English, Scottish, and Irish soldiers who fought? Because they aren’t independent or separate countries, either
Australia and New Zealand were both independent countries by the start of ww1. They were part of the British Empire but were independent and all commonwealth countries should have been considered.
@@chrishampson6023 …….No they were not. They did NOT have independent foreign policy decision making capabilities. That is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of being independent, and they LACKED it. When the British empire and Germany were officially at war, Australia was automatically involved. What you said doesn’t make sense. Just because they were granted dominion status and had greater autonomy didn’t mean they had an independent foreign policy. Australians were happy and willing participants in WW1 but they were still a part of the British empire and they were involved in the war no matter what. Australia, Canada, New Zealand were ONLY in the war, because the United Kingdom was. Each one of those places was under the dominance of BRITISH foreign policy. Canada gained independence of foreign policy after WW1, and they WILLINGLY joined WW2 because they had an INDEPENDENT foreign policy.
@@chrishampson6023 Bro if another country can decide that you are going to war, then you are not independent. Canada was independent for the Second World War, and they joined willingly. This was not the case for the first war. Those places were in the British empire. This is basic history, and I am an AMERICAN. How is this confusing for you guys? Australia, NZ, and Canada were straight up NOT independent in ww1. Your self governing status means nothing when Great Britain can decide to send your soldiers to die in war! Wtf lmao? Cope
@@chrishampson6023 “Hey my dominions, you guys are independent in just about every way imaginable, but there’s just this one small thing. Don’t take this the wrong way, but we are in war now. I know you guys are independent… but start to train your boys to shoot and then put them on boats headed for Europe. You guys are independent but we gotta fight this war really quick” What is the definition of an independent country? “An entity that has its own government and is not ruled by any other country” How are Canada, NZ, and Australia “independent” in 1914 when Great Britain can involve them in war?! They weren’t genius
The Ottoman evaluation is absolute nonsense. 1. Gallipoli is one of the most significant battles in the history of WW1. Not only is it an absolute strategic win, which could have dramatically changed for the worse for the Entente, it ignited a national awakening in New Zealand and Austrialia. The effects of this one battles were forever lasting. 2. The initial invasion of the british into Iraq got obliterated. The victory against them is still celebrated in this day and age. Even in countries like Iraq. 3. Medina was hold by the lion of the desert. Fakhri Pasha defended Medina to the bitter end. Even when the Ottomans surrendered, he was still holding and defending his position deep into enemy territory. 4. The entire Levantian frontier was one of the last battles where commanders play a dramatic roles similar to the napleonic wars. Despite severally lacking supplies, the Ottomans hold the british. The retreat by Atatürk was also one of the hardest movements that could be conducted under enemy persude. The reason why something like an Ottoman army was left, is thanks to these marvelous retreats. The Ottomans most definetly didnt perform as good as the other great empires for the simple reason that they lacked much much much much more and because they had a fairly small population (about 20 mil compared to the 40-80 mil of the great powers). They just lost their industrial heart a couple of decades ago and were not only facing severe supply shortages, but also interreligious fighting among the populous. To say that they performed worse is utter nonsense.
The entire Ottoman part is not only clearly not well researched enough, but also very half-assed, as the video creator doesn't even mention specific battles or gives reasons like in some other parts of the video.
Yeah I'm a pretty patriotic American but I also am a Historical Accuracy fanatic. America's contribution to WW1 was not out performance. This wasn't a WW2 situation where America basically came over and nearly instantly starting turning a defeat into a victory. Our main contribution was the fact that Russia had just fallen, and now here comes 2 Million Germans, 500,000 Austrians, and like 100,000 Ottomans to the Western and Southern fronts, that would be horrible for the Entente, as they couldn't really muster more manpower. But America managed to compensate for the loss of Russia, and that was really our contribution was simply making up for losses already incurred. Our industry wasn't in full swing yet like it was during WW2, and we had honestly a very small army, even Bulgaria had a bigger Army than we did at first. It was our efficiency in getting those troops to Europe and ready for War, rather than what we actually did in the war that mattered. Because in all honesty, yeah our WW1 performance wasn't that great, was pretty average.
Britain's atleast A and above france, Naval blockade, the canadians, The entire funding of Russia and France should put them in A. Most of their wins come from naval.
@akmuchbetter9782 That is true in terms of naval power yeah. And it was fighting off pretty much across nearly all the continents. I think some early mismanagement in their ground troops operations does peg it down a bit for me. But you do make some good points.
I wasn’t alive back then, and I’m just a silly American. But to me(this is all my opinion), WW1 doesn’t happen without the British. If the British stay neutral, the Germans would clearly have beaten France. Even though WW1 was a kiss of death for the colonial empires, it really was where Great Britain proved that they were bigger and badder than anyone else at the time. I feel like it is not out of place to say that at 1917 and 1918, the British had the BEST army in the entire world, better than Germany and their starved troops. They simply had so many advantages, that it is my honest opinion that the British were the most important country to fight in the war. It simply does not matter who joins or who didn’t, because Germany was too strong for France and Russia to deal with, but because the British joined, the blockade was just too much. Germany invaded Belgium calling the British into the war(!!!), just to avoid marching through the fortified Franco-German border, which they ended up having to do anyways because of the events in Belgium. What happens if the Germans just leave Belgium alone and just go through the French border? The Germans probably would have won the war. I think that the war was decided when the British joined. The Germans could have won at a few moments if the other side lost heart and got tired of the casualties, but because of the blockade, Germany’s fate was sealed. There simply isn’t anything you can really do to deal with a stronger navy. Navies and waters are so important, and on top of that the British were already at the center of world banking and trade. They controlled a moon’s worth of land. I’m not saying empire is good, but the British were just better than the Germans imo, all the British needed was time to ramp up their resources and men
@@chalupabatman1803 your so delusional its actually scary like really this lvl of anti french history has to be a mental illness putting "germans preferred to go through belgium and war with the british than attack the french border" and "the germans wouldve won without going through belgium" is the highest lvl of autism ever seen.
@@chalupabatman1803 british being better than germans 😂😂😂 should make a comedy show 😂😂😂 the british army was a tiny featus even compared to france who had almost 10 millions less men 😂😂😂 the germans wouldve only needed to sneeze just to defeat them 😂😂😂 without france the british wouldnt even have dared to declare war 😂😂😂
@25:10. News to me that American merchant ships were being sunk be British U Boats... Nb. Not mentioned on the video or the commentary was just how important the British Royal Navy blockade of merchant shipping into L Germany was. It was absolutely pivotal in the wrecking of the German war economy.
Think you're underestimating the British contribution tbh considering all the fronts they had to juggle. I know we're going on performance not country but to possibly put Britain around the same level as Belgium performance wise is just off. No disrespect to Belgium they held incredibly well but if you take the British out of that war, the entire entente effort collapses well before 1916 in my opinion.
Well, I'd have made an extra participation tier, honestly, which would have allowed the placement of Greece, Japan and Hejaz in C tier and maybe the US as well. Also Mr. Terry if you're giving AH crap for starting the war you also have to give Serbia crap for instigating the assassination, not the Serbian government but the people who were responsible for this government to be there in the first place. Apis and his Black Hand who had murdered the former pro AH king, replaced him with a pro Russian king and who planned the Assassinations of Sarajevo. The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark is a very good book on the topic it shows that basically everybody shares a bit of the guilt for the start of WWI. If I made a tier list for responsibility for starting WWI it would be: S: AH and Serbia: the main culprits A: Germany and Russia: the enablers B: France, UK and the Ottomans: the associates C: Belgium: the unwilling associate D: everybody else: the hanger-ons AH and Serbia are the most responsible ones, but they only acted the way they did because they had the backing of Berlin and Moscow respectively. Berlin and Moscow were heavily influenced in their decision-making by the way France, the UK and to a lesser degree the Ottomans acted. Belgian refusal to let German troops march through their land to attack France on a wider front and the consecutive entering of the UK into the war turned this war from a European to a world war. Everybody else got drawn in after that.
Romania entering the war on the side of the Allies was actually pretty beneficial for the central powers. After they conquered most of the country they also got a lot of resources like oil
Funny fact, Austria loaned Serbia the money to buy German mauser riffles thinking they are gonna make a killing on interest, just so Serbs can slaughter them with and end (contribute) their empire, one of the funniest miscalculation out there
France and Germany had a past history of being poor winners. The Treaty of Versailles came out of that. And yes, agree, it did give rise to fascism. Back when I was a kid, we were told of the devaluation of the German currency so that bread cost a wheelbarrow full of money. We did not really spend too much time on WWI other than it led to WWII and that Treaty came up as a cause. There was something about paying a war debt to help the winners rebuild while not being able to trade with said countries to make money. One teacher said something about the German king being in a bad mood because the cook burnt his eggs. Oh, and on the show MASH, they said that during WWI they fought on horseback. Any truth to the former? When we talk of Canada and WWI - it is Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele - the latter was made into a Paul Gross movie. The former you see come up in Heritage Minutes. Winnie The Bear - the bear in the London Zoo who inspired the Winnie the Pooh books was a WWI story. There was a made for TV movie about it called A Bear Named Winnie. She was a WWI mascot who helped her owner, Lt. Harry Colebourn, deal with his shell shock.
You are mixing up the 1929 crisis with repayment. The Versailles treaty in itself is unfairly blamed when it was based off what Germany actually could pay without breaking its economy.
@@abuhajar4222actually it was, lol. Maybe you should actually read a history book. It was France that declared war in WW2 on Germany and it was France that started an alliance surrounding Germany and bombed Germany through "neutral Belgium".
@@LawrenceofIsraelFrance and England declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on Poland So what's your point it's still Germany who started the war
@@insertname6304 Germany did not start the war with England and France. One may argue it started the war with Poland but even that was not uncalled for. I could even say Germany declared war on Poland because Poland stole a piece from CZ. Is that a justification, lol?😅
Only real disagreement is the fact Italy is ranked below AH when they were evenly matched throughout the whole war. And that’s also considering AH had way more resources than Italy. Quite frankly, they got stomped in 1917-1918 to the point where almost 400k soldiers were captured by the Italians. I give Italy a C- and AH an D. The war changes drastically if Italy joined the central powers which doesn’t get talked about nearly as much.
Italy always had a bit of bad rep more because being an annoyance to all mr H lovers, than anything else. Just not being invaded was more than enough to, at least, have C-/D+
@Tovalokodonc Dude, by 1916 there was only the Italian front and the Austrians were losing badly despite better positioning, armament and more men. Italians were fighting alone and winning After Gorizia they needed the Germans or they would have fallen, and only the Germans caused Caporetto but then got beaten on Piave, Italy recovered and destroyed the cuck army at Vittorio Veneto, destroying the empire, always fighting ALONE 😆🤣🤣
With regards to the treaty of Versailles, it was basically a half measure. It didn’t completely destroy a Germany like in ww2 or bring them to the table like France after Napoleonic war.
In the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the German Reich and its allies were declared solely responsible for the First World War: as a result, the young Weimar Republic lost around 13 percent of the territory of the German Reich (including Alsace-Lorraine, Poznan and West Prussia, North Schleswig and parts of Upper Silesia) to its neighbors. The territorial losses resulted in a population loss of around ten percent. Loss of resources In addition to the territorial losses, the treaty also led to considerable resource losses: iron ore production fell by around half and coal production by a quarter, which was due in particular to the loss of Eastern Upper Silesia and thus the Upper Silesian industrial area and Lorraine. Agricultural production was also affected: The potato harvest fell by 17 percent and the wheat harvest by 13 percent. Population and area of the Weimar Republic The republic was proclaimed in Germany after the end of the empire as a result of the defeat in the First World War. In addition to the population losses mentioned above, there were also the war dead, so that in 1919 the Weimar Republic had just under 60 million inhabitants - more than six million fewer than the German Reich in 1912. In 1925, the area covered was around 470,000 square kilometers.
Nice little debate right off the gate. Were they harsh enough with Versailles? Well, i'd argue both sides because whilst you are correct in saying you couldn't be any harsher and yes, the fact it was so harsh did lead to the rise of fascism in Germany, on the flip side, I'd say they should have been harsher in enforcing the treaty. Had Britain and France stamped out the growing rebuilding off the army and the annexations of the Rhineland and Austria, then maybe WWII could have been avoided and extremism stopped from going too far
That's also my main take on the treaty, the treaty itself was harsh enough but France and the UK were simply unwilling or incapable of enforcing it. Even when Germany was invading Poland in 1939, had the french and british crossed the border the whole thing would have collapsed, even german Generals said that they would have been forced to abandon the invasion if the French had moved. Then again we have the power of hindsight and I don't think anyone could have predicted the extent of another war merely 20 years after the devastation the great war was for europe.
The treaty wasn't that harsh, and it wasn't what lead to fascism in Germany. The 1929 crisis was the one that brought the nazis to power, and it was an international banking crisis, not about repayment. France was imposed arguably worse terms in 1870, and the brest Litovsk treaty imposed by Germany on Russia was very harsh too.
@@Kamfrenchie the 1929 crash caused the need for radical change which encouraged the people to side with the national socialists. But Hitler very much played on the idea that Germany had been too harshly treated by Versailles. Not to mention that the 1929 crash also hit France and Britain, which in turn led them to pressure Germany to pay up their reparations which made Germany's own financial position worse. I couldn't comment on the 1870 treaty being harsh to France as I don't know enough about the Franco Prussian war. But regardless of how much more or less harsh it was, doesn't change the fact that Germany felt they were unfairly treated which led to rearmament and renewed national pride. And to some extent, Britain and France must have also felt they were too harsh because they didn't do enough to enforce the treaty
They judged harshly even Italy for absolutely no reason. The Western front, as always, draws all the attention and nobody gives a fuck about the fact that Italy lost as many men as the british and inflicted as many casualties in the war and Italy and AH are almost never mentioned in the basic records of wwi (especially in the english speaking countries) because they were occupied fucking destroying each other, especially after the fall of Russia, and nobody else in other countries gave a damn. Italy had to stop the Germany and AH invasion on the Piave river almost alone because the allies judged it a "secondary front" so the sent almost no men :/ If this doesn't tell volumes of how much they care... Sometimes I think Italy should just have joined the central powers after I hear such dumb statement by people... That would have changed the course of history for sure... At least many people from ex AH territories and from Germany still recognise to this day how much that second front was a burden for them and how Italy's contribution was decisive, wether the allies admit it or not... Being not as well equipped as their allies, both for AH and Italy, meant that they had both to compensate with bravery and smartness and that in my opinion is something that should be recognised, alongside the fact that they also had to fight at 2000+ meters of altitude for half of the frontline which nobody ever talks about...
One thing that speaks against a high ranking for the US is that the population was against helping the Entent and against Joining the War but the government did it anyways, even going so far as to smuggle weapons and ammunition to the UK on civilian ships blaming the Germans for killing US citizens when in reality because of that hidden cargo those ships were participants in a war. And fun fact, the reason why Germany sunk all ships it came across was because at the start of the war the submarines radioed the ships they were planning on attacking and asked if they are military ships or civilian ships, the British navy then delayed responding and used this to locate and attack the submarines, this led to German high command to enact unrestricted submarine warfare allowing their submarines to attack any ship in the waters and declared the sea around England as a warzone. Just imagine the US sent Civillians to the trenches in the Somme and let them walk around no mans land where they end up getting killed and then cry out how Germans are killing innocent people.
Bit piss poor that Australia and New Zealand aren’t repped here. Had zero reason to be involved but gave more lives per capita than any other country involved.
🤔🤔 I dunno about just folding Canada completely under the uk umbrella.... considering that we fought as our own army, not just another branch of the brits. Hell, thanks to our contributions to many of the allied victories, Canada was a signatorie independently (as our own nation) of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) that formally ended the war, and assumed a cautious, non-committal role in the newly established League of Nations. 🤨
Ohhh - contentious use of the more modern Thai flag. Siam used the red flag with white elephant until 1916, then moved to a 5-stripe design, but this had a horizontal red-white-red-white-red banding. The current flag (as used in the video) didn't become adopted until September 1918.
Lots of people don't realize Italy was THE LEAST industrialized of the western powers. In both population and military might they were punching above their weight. by going to war even against the sole AustriaHungary, The Kingdom of Italy was poor, the unification wars lead to a weak treasury, the population was pretty hostile due to failed unification policies, internal unrest, mass emigration and the recent Italo-Ottoman war (that earned italy Lybia and Rhodes). Plus you add that the italian officer core was one of THE WORST in THE WORLD, (situation that would not improve in WW2) entitled, arrogant, corrupt, imbecille and inexperienced. They were capable of snatching defeat from the mouth of the greatest victory. the initial italian unification was entirely possibile only for the combination of a savyy politician, Camillo Benso count of Cavour, and a brilliant general and "influencer" Giuseppe Garibaldi.
I would agree with you, but for one reason Italy was going against A-H on its own, but at the same time, over the course of the war A-H was going against Russia, Serbia, Romania and Greece. Italy was only a side show for A-H as long as Russia was in the war. The only time it was mainly A-H against Italy was during 1918 and at the end of it during "Vittorio Veneto" (24th of October to 4th of November 1918) A-H was already breaking apart. The provisional Czechoslovakian government joined the Entente on the 14th of October, the Hungarian parliament voted to dissolve the union with Austria on the 17th and the South Slavs of A-H joined Serbia in the SHS state on the 29th. So, during the main battle that Italy conclusively won against A-H, it wasn't fighting A-H proper but only the Austrian remnant in truth and even then most of the gains were made and most of the casualties were inflicted on November 4th when the Austrian troops had stopped fighting after singing the armistice on the 3rd but which only became valid on midnight between the 4th and the 5th.
You should react to his WW2 tier list. Both are very great! This guy is great!! Also can you react to Bulgarian countryball's Ottoman Empire video?? Not the Turkey one, the Ottoman one. Or his one on Vietnam! Just look up Modern History of Vietnam Countryballs.
"The treaty wasn't harsh enough" (or either "it was to harsh"); my 2 cents: Both viewpoints can be either completely false or very correct. It depends what you want to accomplish with the treaty or - in this discussion - what is in your opinion the "solution". Do you want to completely dismantle Germany and revert it back to a accumulation of small(er) entities (tho maybe not Voltaire's Nightmare degree)? Then the treaty was not harsh enough. One major drawback would f.e. be a very unreliable ally in a military as well as in an economic sense, hence why after WW2 West Germany was "relatively quickly boosted up" and merged from the 3 occupation zones. Or do you want a relatively strong and stable Germany to have this potentially reliable ally and you don't need as much admininistration (like with the occupation zones post WW2) or pressure. Then the treaty was way to harsh. Drawback is the influence and power such an entity has. It could also be a strong military enemy, an unpleasant economic opponent or a technological and ideological rival. Both concepts were more or less present in form of the French demands versus the ideas of the British and US. Also they are basically polar opposites and it's therefore hard to compromise. And "simply choosing" one of the possibilites is also not really an option, since either the French get a looming threat in close proximity or the British and US get a severely weakend market and a power vaccuum in central Europe with immense instability - leading to outcomes which can be observed in other parts of the world (obviously not necessarily comparable). Tl;dr: "It's a matter of perspective really" and probably all outcomes lead to longterm issues. The only question is who gets the tough luck.
Hey Mr. Terry! I know this is a little outside of your wheelhouse, being a current event of some notable charge, but do you think you could do a reaction to the first half of the Tucker/Putin interview? The majority of it was basically a history lesson and I feel like getting a breakdown from someone for whom that is an area of focus could be very beneficial.
Enough as an American I can deal with b teir for ww1. But 20 years now we really going to show him how we kick ass and chew bubblegum at the same time. 😂😂🇺🇸🦅
Oh...the irony of using the image of Roddy Piper in a reference to the u.s. "kicking ass" attitude, considering Rowdy Roddy was(is) a Canadian (he ad libbed that line btw😄) But, then again, fun fact, the original "Americas Sweetheart", *Mary Pickford,* was also Canadian. 😎😆
major correction, apart from Paris the french coast was a major objective for the germans, it would have meant their fleet could roam freely over the atlantic, without being bottlenecked by the british royal navy... had the the belgian final stance at the Yzer river and the flooding of that river failed the germans would certainly have pushed forward, you are suggesting the germans did not care about that small sliver of belgium, they certainly did! mostly because of what was behind it. also overall Belgium slowed down the germans way more than they expected, should have been A tier... the only thing that could be brought against Belgium is that as the 5th economy in the world it could have spent more on their army pre-war, but still.
11:10 if i was Germany at that time, I also throw the war declaration like throw money to club lol. At that stage of the world, rarely we see any war between major power due to factions. Germany is super hungry for war right now, it is having adrenaline on it own, even with 2 front war, it did very well on Eastern Front In the end even General said that they was betrayed by the Goverment, they never lose.
I agree with the assesment of Russia being in D tier they at least had some good offenisves other than Italy who not only kinda betrayed the central powers as they were allied to Germany and Austria-Hungary they also had no real succesful offensives
Think the main reason that Versailles caused WWII was the extreme economic chains it added to the German economy. Marshall Plan ensured that extremist movements couldn’t take advantage of economic crisis
In high school I used my Balkan grandparents as a dating tool. I truthfully told dates I was "half Dalmatian". They'd all loved the movie just a few years before.
I would put Both Germany and France in S-Tier. Yes Germany had to Fight both France and Russia, but let's be honest about Russia, they were just numbers not quantity. France had been beaten pretty badly not to long prior to WW1 in the Franco-Prussian war so not only did France have to update equipment and tactics, they had to do this all while that hung over their head. They stalled the German offensive through Belgium giving the UK Precious time to get boots on the ground. As a Nation for 4 years fighting was on their land real close to their heartland and industrial centers but they never gave up. They were able to match toe-to-toe with Germany and kept themselves together against a superior foe at the time. Of course Germany in S-Tiers for fighting 2 fronts, helping all their allies and just honestly being The Central Power.
Belgium B trier what?? they fought one of the most important battles of ww1 slowing down the germans so there allies could move there troops B tier is just to low of you look at the nation what he put onder Belgium...
Had Belgium picked a side one way or the other, the war could have been over by 1915. If the let the Germans come through then they would have been in Paris by Christmas. If they had aided with the British and French and allowed them access to Belgium prior to being invaded they could have stopped Germany cold at the border. Belgium could have played kingmaker in Europe, just a pity they decided to go it alone.
If we take the spring offensive/ last hundred days into account here we will find the answer to the only S tier country that sent troops into battle. Germany hit hard with storm troops who they got the idea from the subject in a minute. Germany took ground everywhere, but one line they did not attack period wasn't the American line they attacked there wasn't the Belgium line they attacked there wasn't British line they probably got the farthest attacking them, wasn't the French line they also attacked there. So where was it they out right refused to attack? The Canadian corps line. After the spring offensive failed Canada went out the attack and overwhelmed the Germans everywhere they attacked. Canada in my opinion earned the right to be classed as the only S tier rank in WW1.
I am of the opinion that versailles was too lenient. perhaps just enforcing it would have been adequate. the allies allowed german remilitarization and stood by while germany spat in their face, first by remilitarizing the rhineland, then by appeasement in regards to czechoslovakia
I wonder what ww1 would have been like if Britain didn't fight in it, the only reason that the brits got involved was because Germany attacked neutral Belgium to get to france
@@nataliamundell6266Britain was blockading Germany from the North Sea, depriving them of loads of imports that would have helped their war effort. Remove that blockade and the British army helping the French on the west, then Germany would be in a much more advantageous position. The British Empire also did the most against the Ottomans.
@@nataliamundell6266 France possibly could have made up the additional numbers that the British army gave them, but they wouldn’t be able to replicate the strength of the Royal Navy.
1:53 Sure but Italy was barely competent as military power. If they wanted to prevent Germany from doing that, they should have split Germany between all of them like they did post WW2.
came on : they were incompetents because they lost a direct confrontation with German soldiers having similar numbers ? Basically it's what happens to anyone fighting Germans until the end of ww2 (basically for 30 years ) . Germans were simply better than anyone at doing wars . What many fail to understand is that on the western front (of ww1 ) France and UK (and later US ) arrived to own 4 times the number of soldiers Germany had and never less France (which had more soldiers in the line of contact against Germany ) had a % of casualties similar to Germany , even when on defense .
@@Firemalleoandjelly about ww2 it's another story but doing a long story -short , more than incompetence was the lack of mechanized troops and aviation (and even oil ,ammunition) . WW1 at an economic level was a disaster for Italy and even more were the colony's campaigns , the same happened aiding Franco in Spain . Basically in 20 years in which any other country invested in military technology Italy dilapidated money and presented itself in a condition in which to be honest resisted to UK , in Africa , even more than expected .
@@Firemalleoandjelly you mean time for Mussolini to rob money from Italian treasure . Even introna , when took the post at the bank of Italy , was shocked . Frankly what italy did in ww2 (counting even taking hitler side ) weren't acts moved by incompetence but by robbing intentions
How can the UK be behind US or France in your opinion. Surely you know about how in the first world war the British empire basically bankrolled the French and Russians like the US did for Britain in WW2. Brits also invented the tank and maintained total naval supremacy strangling Germany’s economy.
As a Thai people just saying WWII we literally also doing nothing much. But we does help both Allies and Axis. For WWI we participate because it just benefits us. Getting aircraft Technology and more technology from the Brits. Build our own air service and extend the railway network. Which later use by the Japanese. Thailand does make a good fight during Japanese Invasion. We surrender not because of the we can’t fight anymore. It’s because how dumb our leader was back then. Prefer the 7th king system than stupid Phibun dictator system. Atleast Rama VII he is a good king.
I think the british should be S Tier. They did fight not only on 2 fronts but on at least 4 fronts simultaneously. The logisticsrequired to pull of that alone deserves S Tier. Plus, unlike the germans, they actually did win on all 4 fronts, western Europe, Balkans, Arabia and Africa. The only major fuck up is Gallipoly, which they could also have won, if they hadn't shown the Ottomans exactly where thier fortifications were weak only a few months before they landed in Gallipoly
All major powers get an F - - - for their roles in creating the mess. The little guys who had to adjust to the mess get whatever Spectrum and Mr Terry say, because I'm that familiar with that aspect.
The tier list isn't about how WW1 got started, but about the performance DURING the war. Otherwise, I'd agree with you except for Serbia, they deserve to be in F-tier with the major powers because they and AH are the two most responsible parties for starting WW1.
Hey could you react to Project Kaisertum by @possiblehistory? It is a timeline in which WW1 is won by the Central Powers in 1916 through something out-of-character for them. Planning ahead.
I mean...brazil had bigger inpact,also has more ppl amd way more influential ans stronger than Australia...they are the kings of the south,i mean no one lives in the south anyways
@leondenizard3800 by what metric was Brazil a bigger impact... they were neutral until 1917 and the first troops didn't get to the western front until mid 1918... Australia declared war in 1914, has troops in combat from April 1915.. Mounted Infantry from the light horse brigades help capture Beersheba and the holy land leading to the fall of Damascus and the Ottoman empire.. On the western front Australians were used at crack troops. 416000 Austrians served (all volunteered there were no conscripted troops in the AIF) in ww1 winning many important battles such as pozier, Hamel ,Ypres ameins and Hazelbrook. The entire Brazilian army was 54000 in 1918... Australians lost 60000 In 4 years
@@davidgearon7446 you from Australia ? well dont get me wrong love Australia and Brazil,but Australia is tiny compared to Brazil,its ok they are the most powerful country in the south,but Australia did what it could and helped,even if it was only a colony,Brazil had a bigger inpact in WW2 when hey expeled the germans from italy,in WW1 they helped but it was more like support and some trops,like Australia both didnt have big impacts on the WW1 war but helped..so whatever i guess lol
Post your World War 1 performance tier lists!
You should react 2 more Spectrum
I agree completely with the List but one: Put Belgium one up. They had no Chance whatsoever but fought VERY brave, surprising the Germand and screwing up their Time Table.
The Versailles Thematic is very complicated, but i am on the "Way too Harsh" Side. Maybe i am biased as a German, but without the unfair Versailles Threaty Hitler had way less Propaganda Material.
My tier list would look like this, only judging performance during the war, not judging the events leading up to it. There is another list for that:
S: Germany
A: France, UK, Bulgaria, Serbia
B: Belgium, US
C: Hejaz, Greece, Japan
D: AH, Russia
F: Ottoman Empire, Italy, Romania
Participation tier: everybody else
The responsibility tier list for WW1 would look like this:
S: AH and Serbia: the main culprits
A: Germany and Russia: the enablers
B: France, UK and the Ottomans: the associates
C: Belgium: the unwilling associate
D: everybody else: the hanger-ons
AH is D overall, but I would split it up 1914 the lowest of F-tier, 1915 B+, 1916 D on the Russian front B everywhere else overall C, 1917 B+ or A-, 1918 D. I can expand my reasoning for everything above but this comment is long enough as it is.
@@Jargolf86I agree with you on the Treaty of Versailles, but the Treaties of St. Germain for Austria, Locarno for Hungary and Sèvres for the Ottoman Empire were even worse. Bulgaria arguably had the least bad deal with the Treaty of Neuilly. The treaty of Sèvres was so bad in fact that the new Turkish Republic actually started fighting again and won the Greco-Turkish war.
PS. Belgium is fine at B tier, if they didn't fight as well they did, they would be down in C or D tier because they had French and British aid buffing them up as well. Their arguably most important contribution to WW1 was drawing the UK into it.
😊😊@@Winderverse
This guy has a lot of VERY good videos on Rome and Byzantium, which is why he mentioned that WWI wasn't his specialty. I really recommend him.
Just watched its piece on 'French Revolution: 3 Estates' I think it's excellent and very informative, really helps in understanding social forces for and against revolution. A great piece for Mr Terry to review.
His video was more of ameme anyway
I think Spectrum has nice mix of fun memes and lists, and more serious pieces.
Thanks, this comment literally sold me on subbing.
Versailles was a middleground that nobody liked. The americans and british disliked it because of how harsh it was to germany, the french disliked it because it "let the germans off the hook" (mind you they were completely fine with dismantling germany into at least three separate states)
Gotta love compromise! Making everyone unhappy since the beginning of disagreement.
People sometimes struggle to understand why the French wanted terms against Germany to be so much harsher, but I say, look at it this way: Germany came out of WWI with a higher population than France, a higher industrial output than France, and a more rapidly growing economy than France. Yes, you heard that right, their economy was growing more rapidly.
France's countryside was ravaged by the war, it's farms and factories, and cities destroyed, and yet when it was revealed that reparations, to France, would cause an economic crisis for Germany, new terms were negotiated to slow down the payments, and Germany was lent money by the U.S. to give to France.
In every sense except militarily, It's not unreasonable to say that Germany came out of the war in a better position than France, and the French knew it, too. That's why they wanted harsher terms for Germany, that's why they invaded the Ruhr, that's why they built a massive fuck off wall on their German border, and that's why they decided they could do nothing when Germany waltzed into the Rhineland.
To be fair, of all the major powers to loose WW1 Germany got by far the most lenient treaty.
@@aquila4460True
japan and italy were pissed off too
Imagine serving for your country fighting every day with every ounce of energy in your body just for you to get compared in a tierlist 100 years later
Fr immagine dying for your country and seeing all your friends fighting and dying before your very eyes and a random guy online after a century just says "f-tier" referring to all that without even explaining...
A bit fucked up imho
@@stefanomartello3786 That is something I hate about people current view of history, it's the same regarding death, a lot of videos / shorts compare statistics like it's a competition they bring up "hey ww1 is cool but have you seen the deaths in this china incident ?? 10 million more died !! so cool !!"
People just forget humans died, and a lot of times without even knowing the real reason behind their fight. It's awful, it shouldn't be glorified, numbers or performance, it all comes down to bloodshed of mostly innocent people.
(and sorry for the reply month later, somehow I got this video recommended again today)
I don't remember who or where I heard this from, but I think it sums up the harshness of Versailles very well. It went something along the lines of "Versailles was harsh enough that the German people felt resentment, but was not harsh enough to prevent them from doing anything about it."
That sounds like ineptitude lol
The British also bankrolled the entire French and Russian war effort, with the loans never being repaid. I think that alone puts them into A tier, if not S tier.
Were they not repaid ? in any case, since Germany wasn't repaying what it owed, and France was constantly asked to lower reparation payments...
They also navaly blockaded Germany causing Germans to go hungry.
That was the UK not the USA@@-._A2._-
@@philippplayz yeah I know.......
No where had anyone mentioned America but you........ The comment I replied to was literally talking about the UK.
@@-._A2._- oh oops I misread the original comment
Considering the Canadians are being lumped in with the British, that alone pushes the British to A tier at least. The Canadian tactics developed in the last few years of the war, especially the use of rolling artillery fire to allow advances, these tactics became next to uncounterable for the Germans. Also had a reputation that terrified the Germans. The original storm troopers. One of the best examples of this was during a battle the French main line got gassed and began to retreat. The Canadians having people among them with knowledge of chemistry, did the whole piss on cloth and use it to breath, and rushed in to hold the gap against the Germans.
Vimy Ridge, the Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele, Ypres. Just a bunch of major battles that the Canadians managed to win. Ypres saw the first ever use of chlorine gas which killed 1/3rd of the force which was already outnumbered and they still held the line. Passchendaele saw them fight through some of the worst weather of the war. Potentially the biggest downside keeping the Canadians specifically out of S may have been the fact the Geneva Convention was basically just a list of things the Canadians did. But considering the Germans did as well
Agreed and arguably Arthur Currie was perhaps at least one of the best general of the war.
I remember reading that when the Canadians landed at Juno Beach, a old German officer surrendered him and his group. When asked why, he said that he fought the Canadians during ww1, and didn't want his men to have to go through that.
As if the British aren't A tier on their own 😂Don't overrate the Canadians
@MW_Asura They aren't. In Europe they were second to the French. The Canadians almost acted as a special forces for the British from the view of the Germans. The Canadians scared them. The British did not. That alone shows how effective the Canadians were. If the Germans were fighting them, they KNEW it was the Canadians from how they were fighting. Far more aggressive, far less nice, far more effective because of it. The Canadians under Byng and Currie developed tactics the Germans never managed to counter. The rolling barrage alone became a regular tactic European front wide after the Canadians displayed it's effectiveness at Vimy Ridge. The British's blockade was something only they could do, but when it came to actual boots on the ground fighting, both the Canadians and the French were more effective
Canadians be like it aint a war crime if its not writtem down
Severely underrated Belgium. Belgium stalling the German advance literally saved the triple entente
It's possible, but we don't really know what you have happened otherwise. Belgium remains his top in B tier, not bad.
The main contribution of the British was the naval blockade of Germany. It essentially brought the German home front and economy to its knees and meant that Germany could no longer effectively wage war by November 1918. Along with doing most of the Allied action in the Middle East, Africa and Oceania and keeping the French and Russian economies afloat for the duration of the war in a similar manner to the Napoleonic Wars.
That alone probably puts them in A tier
Quite. I commented exactly the same.
Also killed 800.000 germans but that is ok.
They are only germans, right?
nice joke oversea fronts were all irrelevant or disasters because of the brits and you didnt bankroll anyone not even yourselfs without american money your nothing
For the economy, the same could be said for America then, but it's not really what this video is about. I think the main contributions of the UK were the naval blockade and holding a decent part of the western front (all the other fronts were really secondary, even combined).
All the major European powers wanted war just as much and just as little. Russia's influence in the Balkans. The British feared the German navy as competition. The French wanted revenge and Alsace Lorraine.
I recommend the book "The Sleepwalkers" by Christoper Clarke, an Australian historian and Cambridge professor.
Please react to more Spectrum, especially his monarch rankings and his stuff about ancient Rome.
He full of shet propaganda
18:40
"And then they got blasted"
lmfao, gets me every time 😂
As a (insert nationality here), i take full credit for my country's war effort. For a war, i wasn't even alove for. :)
It's not much but the Ottomans also scored a major victory at the Siege of Kut (1915-1916) where the British were humiliated. A much larger force being unable to save their comrades from the horrors of a siege.
They also managed to temporarily hold the line at Gaza in 1917 until the 3rd battle for that region. From March - November 1917, the Ottoman defenses held until they were finally pushed back.
In 1918 they managed to beat the British to the Baku Oil Fields & hold it against British attacks. However by the time that happened, the Palestine front broke & it was over
So they had a few impressive victories, only 3 major ones. But they definitely deserve the ranking they got. Their overall performance makes Austria-Hungary look *somewhat* competent
man... "belgian fell quickly" the germans expected to march through it in less than a week, took two months and then still got stuck before getting any french coast line... this is sounding a lot like french rethoric at versailles, blaming Belgium (a country a 10th their size in population and a 18th in surface area as themselves) for the quick advance in 1914 XD Belgium hit way above it's weight in WWI and should be A tier just like Bulgaria.
I will say that despite what Wilhelm's advisors had set up (everything before the kaiser returned from his vacation) He had almost avoided war.
The Italy troll was pretty funny 😂
It was, I would be lying if I didn't fall for it
Yeah, but would have been even funnier if it was historically accurate and not just a meme hahahah
@@stefanomartello3786non fa ridere
@@Caesar_XV Mi ricordi chi ti ha dato l'autorità di decidere cosa alle altre persone fa ridere e cosa no? 😂
@@stefanomartello3786 forse perché abito vicino al Piave è ne conosco la storia. Pensare che delle persone parlino così dell'italiano mi fa ribrezzo
Fun fact: August Von Mackensen, a German field marshal, had to join AH troops and lead the offensive against Serbia because we were beating AH (including Croatian and Slovenian troops) so badly. It took a combined force of AH, Germany and a stab in the back from Bulgaria to finally make a breakthrough into Serbia. You may have heard of the famous defense of Belgrade and a legendary speech given to our troops by major Dragutin Gavrilović (Sabaton made a song about it called Last Dying Breath). After Belgrade fell on Von Mackensen's order in Košutnjak forest inside the city, a monument was erected in honor of Serbian soldiers that gave their lives that day and bought invaluable time for the royal army and our people to retreat over Albanian mountains and recover at the Greek island of Corfu. The inscription on the monument read in German and in Serbian "Here Rest Serbian Heroes"
After Serbian army recovered at Corfu they joined the Thessaloniki front in northern Greece and continued fighting eventually taking back their homeland as well as freeing other territories in the Balkans where Serbian people lived including what's today's Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia.
Another fun fact, Steyr, the AH small arms manufacturer, sold you 380,000 rifles before war broke out in 1914. So you were beating AH with AH guns. Also, you had arguably some of the finest Generals anybody had in WWI with Misic, Bojovic and Putnik (heck for whatever reason you simply had great Generals in general at this time), whereas Potiorek the AH commander was the only General on any side, staying in shouting distance of Enver Pasha and Luigi Cadorna in the competition for worst General of WWI.
@@MS-io6klThe AH commander was so bad that I think the Germans themselves basically sidelined him to stop his screwups.
There were times when he blatantly ignored everyone’s advice and just continued to do the dumbest strategic thing possible
Definitely the wrong alliance won
@@begemod1743The right one did win
Now, now, stop refering to Bulgaria just bulldozing through, a "stab" in the back, when the Serbians turned on Bulgaria way before that. First on Buglarias Unification, the Serbians out of fear and some prompt from the Austrians decided to invade Bulgaria, failed miserably again mere border guard, the Bulgarian army arrived and bulldozed all the way to Belgrade and then the Austrians interfered cause Serbia was about to get eradicated. Balkan War 1, Bulgaria and Serbia had an agreement for the Macedonia region, Serbia then went back on it and decided to keep almost all of it for itself, even though Bulgaria and Greece were the ones who literally carried the war. Which then resulted in the 2nd Balkan War, which of course was a hilarious disaster even I as a Bulgarian can't defend. No clue what our Tsar was thinking by starting that. Did he forget that the Ottoman Empire exists or what? No fkin clue what happened there. But that was not the will of the people. It was one stupid man that paraded it all. Which is why he got thrown out after the fact. So yeah, talk about backstabbing. Bulgaria just did the only logical thing it could in WW1, join the Central powers.
LET'S GOOOOO ANOTHER MR TERRY HISTORY VIDEOOOOOOO
I would actually put Ottomans in D-tier, because Gallipoli was brilliant in every way for them.
One military campaign,that cost more for the defenders, doesn't eliminate the defeats of literally every other front
@@briish4615its a performance based list not overall lol then germany should be in F also
@@briish4615 The Ottomans performed as well as they did and lasted as long as they did was already far better than everyone had expected, especially if you consider the situation they were in. And Gallipoli wasn't the only victory, there were more
The Ottomans deserve to be way, way higher. You talked so much about how the Ottomans were weak at this time, which is true, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that is being discussed. This is not a ranking of overall strength, but of performance and for how weak they were, the Ottomans put up one hell of a performance. They had every disadvantage you could possible have, you name it, they had it (Technologically inferior, severly outnumbered everywhere, fighting their enemies on their home turf everywhere but in Galipoli, being entirely surrounded, extreme political instability, fighting a civil war in the middle of it all, etc...). They had the most active fronts out of all of the Central Powers, having to fight basically the entire Entente plus the Arab revolt while receiving no help at all from their allies (In fact, the Ottomans even helped out the other Central Powers, specifically Austria in the Galician front). With all of that, they still managed to thoroughly humiliate the British on two occasions, giving them some of the worst defeats that they suffered in their entire history. Sure, the Armenian genocide was horrible, but again, it is not related to what is being discussed.
that's also what i wrote before seeing your comment. if people wanna put the ottomans as F due to an armenian genocide than so be it but then the name of the list should be ww1 worst horrors by nation tier list... In actual performance for what they were the ottomans managed themselves pretty well
Nope, they don't and the reason for that has one name, Enver Pasha and as he was the minister of war and apparently thought himself to be the second coming of Suleiman the Magnificent and fucked up the whole time colossally, the Ottoman Empire is in F-Tier. Now, if Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later Atatürk) had been running the show, we would have an entirely different discussion. You have seen what even a crippled Turkey could achieve with competent leadership in the Greco-Turkish War.
But most of the low Tier countries on the list were let down by poor leadership: A-H by Potiorek who fucked up the Serbian campaign, Russia by its whole general staff with a few exceptions like Brusilov, Italy by Cadorna (it got markedly better after Diaz took over, still not enough to pull them out of F-Tier) and of course the Ottomans who as I said were held back by Enver Pasha.
I mostly agree but you should look up the point about ottomans not receiving help at all. Thats just plain wrong.
Luigi Cadorna, the top Italian commander in WW1, is a contender for worst military commander of all-time. He couldn't have done his job any worse even if he tried. If anyone else was in charge except for him, Italy would've been in a higher tier. He had zero regard for the lives of his soldiers, and threw them away without a second thought. Never gave a second thought when it came to changing approach, tactics or strategy, and when confronted with the consequences of failure, he pinned it on his soldiers, ridiculously citing their "cowardice" and things like that.
Ngl, Mr. Terry also got some amazing shirts! But still, always love coming in for these historical reaction videos!
Never enough battles of the Isonzo
YES! my boy Spectrum good portuguese represent is finally getting an episode! Superb funny and informative vid as always, please do more reviews of this channel in the future Mr. Terry.
I personally really like this channel, I just find it funny.
WW1 was a Great War
So great, we don't need a sequel.
The real ww1 was the 7 years war ;3
@@GreenPoint_one True
@avivirpanda pov: A austrian producer makes the sequel anyway....
And it turns out to be good too.
Then the russian and American both said at the same time:
"2 world war movies! Let's keep it like that forever!"
But the ended up making the spin off: "the cold war"
And then the next one was not as great but still pretty alright.
Imagine managing to actually fight Russia in black sea with a near non-existent fleet, capture the Caucasus, fight in 8 fronts, collapse the Russian economy by closing the straights, almost capturing the Suez Canal and wasting the allied fleets and armies 2 times at Gallipoli while barely being industrilised and 100 years later some shmuck puts you at F tier.
So it seems you and the OP haven't heard of the battle of the propoises during ww1, in which the Brazilian navy bombed 10 porpoises because they thought they were a German submarine?
5:34 at least Brazil gets a participation trophy , no mention of countries like Australia , Canada , New Zealand etc who actually fought
Because they weren’t independent countries. In that case, why did they not talk about the English, Scottish, and Irish soldiers who fought? Because they aren’t independent or separate countries, either
Australia and New Zealand were both independent countries by the start of ww1. They were part of the British Empire but were independent and all commonwealth countries should have been considered.
@@chrishampson6023 …….No they were not. They did NOT have independent foreign policy decision making capabilities. That is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of being independent, and they LACKED it. When the British empire and Germany were officially at war, Australia was automatically involved.
What you said doesn’t make sense. Just because they were granted dominion status and had greater autonomy didn’t mean they had an independent foreign policy. Australians were happy and willing participants in WW1 but they were still a part of the British empire and they were involved in the war no matter what.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand were ONLY in the war, because the United Kingdom was. Each one of those places was under the dominance of BRITISH foreign policy.
Canada gained independence of foreign policy after WW1, and they WILLINGLY joined WW2 because they had an INDEPENDENT foreign policy.
@@chrishampson6023 Bro if another country can decide that you are going to war, then you are not independent. Canada was independent for the Second World War, and they joined willingly. This was not the case for the first war. Those places were in the British empire. This is basic history, and I am an AMERICAN. How is this confusing for you guys? Australia, NZ, and Canada were straight up NOT independent in ww1. Your self governing status means nothing when Great Britain can decide to send your soldiers to die in war! Wtf lmao? Cope
@@chrishampson6023 “Hey my dominions, you guys are independent in just about every way imaginable, but there’s just this one small thing. Don’t take this the wrong way, but we are in war now. I know you guys are independent… but start to train your boys to shoot and then put them on boats headed for Europe. You guys are independent but we gotta fight this war really quick”
What is the definition of an independent country? “An entity that has its own government and is not ruled by any other country”
How are Canada, NZ, and Australia “independent” in 1914 when Great Britain can involve them in war?! They weren’t genius
The Ottoman evaluation is absolute nonsense.
1. Gallipoli is one of the most significant battles in the history of WW1. Not only is it an absolute strategic win, which could have dramatically changed for the worse for the Entente, it ignited a national awakening in New Zealand and Austrialia. The effects of this one battles were forever lasting.
2. The initial invasion of the british into Iraq got obliterated. The victory against them is still celebrated in this day and age. Even in countries like Iraq.
3. Medina was hold by the lion of the desert. Fakhri Pasha defended Medina to the bitter end. Even when the Ottomans surrendered, he was still holding and defending his position deep into enemy territory.
4. The entire Levantian frontier was one of the last battles where commanders play a dramatic roles similar to the napleonic wars. Despite severally lacking supplies, the Ottomans hold the british. The retreat by Atatürk was also one of the hardest movements that could be conducted under enemy persude. The reason why something like an Ottoman army was left, is thanks to these marvelous retreats.
The Ottomans most definetly didnt perform as good as the other great empires for the simple reason that they lacked much much much much more and because they had a fairly small population (about 20 mil compared to the 40-80 mil of the great powers). They just lost their industrial heart a couple of decades ago and were not only facing severe supply shortages, but also interreligious fighting among the populous. To say that they performed worse is utter nonsense.
The entire Ottoman part is not only clearly not well researched enough, but also very half-assed, as the video creator doesn't even mention specific battles or gives reasons like in some other parts of the video.
Yeah I'm a pretty patriotic American but I also am a Historical Accuracy fanatic. America's contribution to WW1 was not out performance. This wasn't a WW2 situation where America basically came over and nearly instantly starting turning a defeat into a victory. Our main contribution was the fact that Russia had just fallen, and now here comes 2 Million Germans, 500,000 Austrians, and like 100,000 Ottomans to the Western and Southern fronts, that would be horrible for the Entente, as they couldn't really muster more manpower. But America managed to compensate for the loss of Russia, and that was really our contribution was simply making up for losses already incurred. Our industry wasn't in full swing yet like it was during WW2, and we had honestly a very small army, even Bulgaria had a bigger Army than we did at first. It was our efficiency in getting those troops to Europe and ready for War, rather than what we actually did in the war that mattered. Because in all honesty, yeah our WW1 performance wasn't that great, was pretty average.
As a Brit, I think Mr Terry's B+ grade is actually fair.
France definitely should have been above the UK in this list.
Britain's atleast A and above france, Naval blockade, the canadians, The entire funding of Russia and France should put them in A. Most of their wins come from naval.
@akmuchbetter9782 That is true in terms of naval power yeah. And it was fighting off pretty much across nearly all the continents. I think some early mismanagement in their ground troops operations does peg it down a bit for me. But you do make some good points.
I wasn’t alive back then, and I’m just a silly American. But to me(this is all my opinion), WW1 doesn’t happen without the British. If the British stay neutral, the Germans would clearly have beaten France. Even though WW1 was a kiss of death for the colonial empires, it really was where Great Britain proved that they were bigger and badder than anyone else at the time.
I feel like it is not out of place to say that at 1917 and 1918, the British had the BEST army in the entire world, better than Germany and their starved troops. They simply had so many advantages, that it is my honest opinion that the British were the most important country to fight in the war. It simply does not matter who joins or who didn’t, because Germany was too strong for France and Russia to deal with, but because the British joined, the blockade was just too much.
Germany invaded Belgium calling the British into the war(!!!), just to avoid marching through the fortified Franco-German border, which they ended up having to do anyways because of the events in Belgium. What happens if the Germans just leave Belgium alone and just go through the French border? The Germans probably would have won the war.
I think that the war was decided when the British joined. The Germans could have won at a few moments if the other side lost heart and got tired of the casualties, but because of the blockade, Germany’s fate was sealed. There simply isn’t anything you can really do to deal with a stronger navy. Navies and waters are so important, and on top of that the British were already at the center of world banking and trade. They controlled a moon’s worth of land. I’m not saying empire is good, but the British were just better than the Germans imo, all the British needed was time to ramp up their resources and men
@@chalupabatman1803
your so delusional its actually scary like really this lvl of anti french history has to be a mental illness putting "germans preferred to go through belgium and war with the british than attack the french border" and "the germans wouldve won without going through belgium" is the highest lvl of autism ever seen.
@@chalupabatman1803
british being better than germans 😂😂😂 should make a comedy show 😂😂😂 the british army was a tiny featus even compared to france who had almost 10 millions less men 😂😂😂 the germans wouldve only needed to sneeze just to defeat them 😂😂😂 without france the british wouldnt even have dared to declare war 😂😂😂
@25:10. News to me that American merchant ships were being sunk be British U Boats...
Nb. Not mentioned on the video or the commentary was just how important the British Royal Navy blockade of merchant shipping into L Germany was. It was absolutely pivotal in the wrecking of the German war economy.
Think you're underestimating the British contribution tbh considering all the fronts they had to juggle. I know we're going on performance not country but to possibly put Britain around the same level as Belgium performance wise is just off. No disrespect to Belgium they held incredibly well but if you take the British out of that war, the entire entente effort collapses well before 1916 in my opinion.
Hope Spectrum will start uploading again.
I think you should react to more of his videos, he has videos on the Habsburgs, Rome, etc.
Well, I'd have made an extra participation tier, honestly, which would have allowed the placement of Greece, Japan and Hejaz in C tier and maybe the US as well. Also Mr. Terry if you're giving AH crap for starting the war you also have to give Serbia crap for instigating the assassination, not the Serbian government but the people who were responsible for this government to be there in the first place. Apis and his Black Hand who had murdered the former pro AH king, replaced him with a pro Russian king and who planned the Assassinations of Sarajevo.
The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark is a very good book on the topic it shows that basically everybody shares a bit of the guilt for the start of WWI. If I made a tier list for responsibility for starting WWI it would be:
S: AH and Serbia: the main culprits
A: Germany and Russia: the enablers
B: France, UK and the Ottomans: the associates
C: Belgium: the unwilling associate
D: everybody else: the hanger-ons
AH and Serbia are the most responsible ones, but they only acted the way they did because they had the backing of Berlin and Moscow respectively. Berlin and Moscow were heavily influenced in their decision-making by the way France, the UK and to a lesser degree the Ottomans acted. Belgian refusal to let German troops march through their land to attack France on a wider front and the consecutive entering of the UK into the war turned this war from a European to a world war.
Everybody else got drawn in after that.
Romania entering the war on the side of the Allies was actually pretty beneficial for the central powers. After they conquered most of the country they also got a lot of resources like oil
Where are Czechoslovaks? They controlled large area in Russia and they didn't even have a state
Funny fact, Austria loaned Serbia the money to buy German mauser riffles thinking they are gonna make a killing on interest, just so Serbs can slaughter them with and end (contribute) their empire, one of the funniest miscalculation out there
France and Germany had a past history of being poor winners. The Treaty of Versailles came out of that. And yes, agree, it did give rise to fascism. Back when I was a kid, we were told of the devaluation of the German currency so that bread cost a wheelbarrow full of money. We did not really spend too much time on WWI other than it led to WWII and that Treaty came up as a cause. There was something about paying a war debt to help the winners rebuild while not being able to trade with said countries to make money.
One teacher said something about the German king being in a bad mood because the cook burnt his eggs. Oh, and on the show MASH, they said that during WWI they fought on horseback. Any truth to the former?
When we talk of Canada and WWI - it is Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele - the latter was made into a Paul Gross movie. The former you see come up in Heritage Minutes. Winnie The Bear - the bear in the London Zoo who inspired the Winnie the Pooh books was a WWI story. There was a made for TV movie about it called A Bear Named Winnie. She was a WWI mascot who helped her owner, Lt. Harry Colebourn, deal with his shell shock.
You are mixing up the 1929 crisis with repayment. The Versailles treaty in itself is unfairly blamed when it was based off what Germany actually could pay without breaking its economy.
France wasn't the one that declared war on Europe twice in the same century
@@abuhajar4222actually it was, lol.
Maybe you should actually read a history book.
It was France that declared war in WW2 on Germany and it was France that started an alliance surrounding Germany and bombed Germany through "neutral Belgium".
@@LawrenceofIsraelFrance and England declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on Poland
So what's your point it's still Germany who started the war
@@insertname6304 Germany did not start the war with England and France.
One may argue it started the war with Poland but even that was not uncalled for.
I could even say Germany declared war on Poland because Poland stole a piece from CZ.
Is that a justification, lol?😅
"After ww2 there wasnt that harsh punishments as in ww1"
Meanwhile Germany being split in two:
Tht was because another dictatorship wasn't destoryed only nazis
Imagine having a navy so powerful the opposition chooses to leave its boats at her docks 😂😂
Only real disagreement is the fact Italy is ranked below AH when they were evenly matched throughout the whole war.
And that’s also considering AH had way more resources than Italy. Quite frankly, they got stomped in 1917-1918 to the point where almost 400k soldiers were captured by the Italians.
I give Italy a C- and AH an D. The war changes drastically if Italy joined the central powers which doesn’t get talked about nearly as much.
Finally a sensible comment...
B at least
Italy always had a bit of bad rep more because being an annoyance to all mr H lovers, than anything else. Just not being invaded was more than enough to, at least, have C-/D+
@@Frendlu And Italy did more than just not being invaded since it did defeat AH
@Tovalokodonc Dude, by 1916 there was only the Italian front and the Austrians were losing badly despite better positioning, armament and more men. Italians were fighting alone and winning
After Gorizia they needed the Germans or they would have fallen, and only the Germans caused Caporetto but then got beaten on Piave, Italy recovered and destroyed the cuck army at Vittorio Veneto, destroying the empire, always fighting ALONE 😆🤣🤣
With regards to the treaty of Versailles, it was basically a half measure. It didn’t completely destroy a Germany like in ww2 or bring them to the table like France after Napoleonic war.
In the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the German Reich and its allies were declared solely responsible for the First World War: as a result, the young Weimar Republic lost around 13 percent of the territory of the German Reich (including Alsace-Lorraine, Poznan and West Prussia, North Schleswig and parts of Upper Silesia) to its neighbors. The territorial losses resulted in a population loss of around ten percent.
Loss of resources
In addition to the territorial losses, the treaty also led to considerable resource losses: iron ore production fell by around half and coal production by a quarter, which was due in particular to the loss of Eastern Upper Silesia and thus the Upper Silesian industrial area and Lorraine. Agricultural production was also affected: The potato harvest fell by 17 percent and the wheat harvest by 13 percent.
Population and area of the Weimar Republic
The republic was proclaimed in Germany after the end of the empire as a result of the defeat in the First World War. In addition to the population losses mentioned above, there were also the war dead, so that in 1919 the Weimar Republic had just under 60 million inhabitants - more than six million fewer than the German Reich in 1912. In 1925, the area covered was around 470,000 square kilometers.
@@arnodobler1096
skill issue
@@smal750 ??
would love to see one fr world war 2
Nice little debate right off the gate. Were they harsh enough with Versailles? Well, i'd argue both sides because whilst you are correct in saying you couldn't be any harsher and yes, the fact it was so harsh did lead to the rise of fascism in Germany, on the flip side, I'd say they should have been harsher in enforcing the treaty. Had Britain and France stamped out the growing rebuilding off the army and the annexations of the Rhineland and Austria, then maybe WWII could have been avoided and extremism stopped from going too far
That's also my main take on the treaty, the treaty itself was harsh enough but France and the UK were simply unwilling or incapable of enforcing it. Even when Germany was invading Poland in 1939, had the french and british crossed the border the whole thing would have collapsed, even german Generals said that they would have been forced to abandon the invasion if the French had moved.
Then again we have the power of hindsight and I don't think anyone could have predicted the extent of another war merely 20 years after the devastation the great war was for europe.
The treaty wasn't that harsh, and it wasn't what lead to fascism in Germany. The 1929 crisis was the one that brought the nazis to power, and it was an international banking crisis, not about repayment.
France was imposed arguably worse terms in 1870, and the brest Litovsk treaty imposed by Germany on Russia was very harsh too.
Its both imagine a financial world crisis shortly after 1870 France as we know it would never exist
@@Kamfrenchie the 1929 crash caused the need for radical change which encouraged the people to side with the national socialists. But Hitler very much played on the idea that Germany had been too harshly treated by Versailles. Not to mention that the 1929 crash also hit France and Britain, which in turn led them to pressure Germany to pay up their reparations which made Germany's own financial position worse.
I couldn't comment on the 1870 treaty being harsh to France as I don't know enough about the Franco Prussian war. But regardless of how much more or less harsh it was, doesn't change the fact that Germany felt they were unfairly treated which led to rearmament and renewed national pride. And to some extent, Britain and France must have also felt they were too harsh because they didn't do enough to enforce the treaty
It was either too harsh or not harsh enough.
To be fair to Austria, they also fought a 2 front war most of the time.
They judged harshly even Italy for absolutely no reason.
The Western front, as always, draws all the attention and nobody gives a fuck about the fact that Italy lost as many men as the british and inflicted as many casualties in the war and Italy and AH are almost never mentioned in the basic records of wwi (especially in the english speaking countries) because they were occupied fucking destroying each other, especially after the fall of Russia, and nobody else in other countries gave a damn.
Italy had to stop the Germany and AH invasion on the Piave river almost alone because the allies judged it a "secondary front" so the sent almost no men :/
If this doesn't tell volumes of how much they care...
Sometimes I think Italy should just have joined the central powers after I hear such dumb statement by people...
That would have changed the course of history for sure...
At least many people from ex AH territories and from Germany still recognise to this day how much that second front was a burden for them and how Italy's contribution was decisive, wether the allies admit it or not...
Being not as well equipped as their allies, both for AH and Italy, meant that they had both to compensate with bravery and smartness and that in my opinion is something that should be recognised, alongside the fact that they also had to fight at 2000+ meters of altitude for half of the frontline which nobody ever talks about...
based@@stefanomartello3786
And for some time in 1915 even a three front war with Russia, Serbia and Italy.
S tier T-shirt!
Did Mr. Terry just say "in da club dropping money"? I fell out.
8:18 Forgive me if I am mistaken but didn’t the US also not sign the Treaty of Versailles? I think they had a separate peace
One thing that speaks against a high ranking for the US is that the population was against helping the Entent and against Joining the War but the government did it anyways, even going so far as to smuggle weapons and ammunition to the UK on civilian ships blaming the Germans for killing US citizens when in reality because of that hidden cargo those ships were participants in a war. And fun fact, the reason why Germany sunk all ships it came across was because at the start of the war the submarines radioed the ships they were planning on attacking and asked if they are military ships or civilian ships, the British navy then delayed responding and used this to locate and attack the submarines, this led to German high command to enact unrestricted submarine warfare allowing their submarines to attack any ship in the waters and declared the sea around England as a warzone.
Just imagine the US sent Civillians to the trenches in the Somme and let them walk around no mans land where they end up getting killed and then cry out how Germans are killing innocent people.
“They all hate each other because it’s the Balkans”
So painfully true
Canada should have been included.
We were S Teir 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Bit piss poor that Australia and New Zealand aren’t repped here. Had zero reason to be involved but gave more lives per capita than any other country involved.
25:07 (mistakes can happen i dont mind, just really made me laugh for some reason)
American Ships sunk by [...] 😂
This guy also has a ww2 tierlist I would like to see you watch
🤔🤔
I dunno about just folding Canada completely under the uk umbrella.... considering that we fought as our own army, not just another branch of the brits.
Hell, thanks to our contributions to many of the allied victories, Canada was a signatorie independently (as our own nation) of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) that formally ended the war, and assumed a cautious, non-committal role in the newly established League of Nations. 🤨
Ohhh - contentious use of the more modern Thai flag.
Siam used the red flag with white elephant until 1916, then moved to a 5-stripe design, but this had a horizontal red-white-red-white-red banding.
The current flag (as used in the video) didn't become adopted until September 1918.
Have no idea where that shirt came from but that's magnificent
Lots of people don't realize Italy was THE LEAST industrialized of the western powers.
In both population and military might they were punching above their weight. by going to war even against the sole AustriaHungary,
The Kingdom of Italy was poor,
the unification wars lead to a weak treasury,
the population was pretty hostile due to failed unification policies,
internal unrest,
mass emigration
and the recent Italo-Ottoman war (that earned italy Lybia and Rhodes).
Plus you add that the italian officer core was one of THE WORST in THE WORLD, (situation that would not improve in WW2) entitled, arrogant, corrupt, imbecille and inexperienced.
They were capable of snatching defeat from the mouth of the greatest victory.
the initial italian unification was entirely possibile only for the combination of a savyy politician, Camillo Benso count of Cavour, and a brilliant general and "influencer" Giuseppe Garibaldi.
add to it the type of frontline, wich was basically vertical, with temperatures that did reach -40c
I would agree with you, but for one reason Italy was going against A-H on its own, but at the same time, over the course of the war A-H was going against Russia, Serbia, Romania and Greece. Italy was only a side show for A-H as long as Russia was in the war. The only time it was mainly A-H against Italy was during 1918 and at the end of it during "Vittorio Veneto" (24th of October to 4th of November 1918) A-H was already breaking apart. The provisional Czechoslovakian government joined the Entente on the 14th of October, the Hungarian parliament voted to dissolve the union with Austria on the 17th and the South Slavs of A-H joined Serbia in the SHS state on the 29th. So, during the main battle that Italy conclusively won against A-H, it wasn't fighting A-H proper but only the Austrian remnant in truth and even then most of the gains were made and most of the casualties were inflicted on November 4th when the Austrian troops had stopped fighting after singing the armistice on the 3rd but which only became valid on midnight between the 4th and the 5th.
some obscure countries added but not Australia who had a large impact on the fighting.
You should react to his WW2 tier list. Both are very great! This guy is great!! Also can you react to Bulgarian countryball's Ottoman Empire video?? Not the Turkey one, the Ottoman one. Or his one on Vietnam! Just look up Modern History of Vietnam Countryballs.
The United Kingdom empire in ww1 could be its own tier video
If you make a video mentioning Finland you'll get a bunch of viewers because we like to be mentioned :D
"The treaty wasn't harsh enough" (or either "it was to harsh"); my 2 cents:
Both viewpoints can be either completely false or very correct. It depends what you want to accomplish with the treaty or - in this discussion - what is in your opinion the "solution".
Do you want to completely dismantle Germany and revert it back to a accumulation of small(er) entities (tho maybe not Voltaire's Nightmare degree)? Then the treaty was not harsh enough. One major drawback would f.e. be a very unreliable ally in a military as well as in an economic sense, hence why after WW2 West Germany was "relatively quickly boosted up" and merged from the 3 occupation zones.
Or do you want a relatively strong and stable Germany to have this potentially reliable ally and you don't need as much admininistration (like with the occupation zones post WW2) or pressure. Then the treaty was way to harsh. Drawback is the influence and power such an entity has. It could also be a strong military enemy, an unpleasant economic opponent or a technological and ideological rival.
Both concepts were more or less present in form of the French demands versus the ideas of the British and US. Also they are basically polar opposites and it's therefore hard to compromise.
And "simply choosing" one of the possibilites is also not really an option, since either the French get a looming threat in close proximity or the British and US get a severely weakend market and a power vaccuum in central Europe with immense instability - leading to outcomes which can be observed in other parts of the world (obviously not necessarily comparable).
Tl;dr: "It's a matter of perspective really" and probably all outcomes lead to longterm issues. The only question is who gets the tough luck.
Hey Mr. Terry!
I know this is a little outside of your wheelhouse, being a current event of some notable charge, but do you think you could do a reaction to the first half of the Tucker/Putin interview? The majority of it was basically a history lesson and I feel like getting a breakdown from someone for whom that is an area of focus could be very beneficial.
My tear is in my beer cuz I'm cryin' for ya, dear!
Enough as an American I can deal with b teir for ww1. But 20 years now we really going to show him how we kick ass and chew bubblegum at the same time. 😂😂🇺🇸🦅
Oh...the irony of using the image of Roddy Piper in a reference to the u.s. "kicking ass" attitude, considering Rowdy Roddy was(is) a Canadian (he ad libbed that line btw😄)
But, then again, fun fact, the original "Americas Sweetheart", *Mary Pickford,* was also Canadian.
😎😆
Nah, Germany was treated way too leniently. Like, the British government even pressured France to stop extracting what it was owed from the Rheinland.
I don’t know why people always make those “Russia defeated Russia with Germany’s help” statements. It just isn’t true.
Battle of Tannenberg?? Hello?
It means that without all the german aid to the soviets the white army would have won, which was very likeley
You do realize that war in the east did not end after Tannenberg? If Russia didn’t have a revolution then Germany would lose even earlier
Royal Navy blockade of the North Sea means Britain is definitely worthy of A tier.
major correction, apart from Paris the french coast was a major objective for the germans, it would have meant their fleet could roam freely over the atlantic, without being bottlenecked by the british royal navy... had the the belgian final stance at the Yzer river and the flooding of that river failed the germans would certainly have pushed forward, you are suggesting the germans did not care about that small sliver of belgium, they certainly did! mostly because of what was behind it. also overall Belgium slowed down the germans way more than they expected, should have been A tier... the only thing that could be brought against Belgium is that as the 5th economy in the world it could have spent more on their army pre-war, but still.
11:10 if i was Germany at that time, I also throw the war declaration like throw money to club lol. At that stage of the world, rarely we see any war between major power due to factions.
Germany is super hungry for war right now, it is having adrenaline on it own, even with 2 front war, it did very well on Eastern Front
In the end even General said that they was betrayed by the Goverment, they never lose.
But the geeneral saying they never lost was just a lie to cover their own asses.
I agree with the assesment of Russia being in D tier they at least had some good offenisves other than Italy who not only kinda betrayed the central powers as they were allied to Germany and Austria-Hungary they also had no real succesful offensives
Think the main reason that Versailles caused WWII was the extreme economic chains it added to the German economy. Marshall Plan ensured that extremist movements couldn’t take advantage of economic crisis
Sorry, replied to the wrong comment hahah
I am actaully surprised that I haven’t asked what grade u teach. Btw what grade do u teach? Lol
In high school I used my Balkan grandparents as a dating tool. I truthfully told dates I was "half Dalmatian". They'd all loved the movie just a few years before.
trump 2024
@@georgyzhukov6409 Did you really feel the need to say this in a completely unrelated video, on a completely unrelated comment?
I am sorry but Germany is S-tier (if anyone wants to argue with me about that you better bring up your history book and be serious)
I would put Both Germany and France in S-Tier. Yes Germany had to Fight both France and Russia, but let's be honest about Russia, they were just numbers not quantity. France had been beaten pretty badly not to long prior to WW1 in the Franco-Prussian war so not only did France have to update equipment and tactics, they had to do this all while that hung over their head. They stalled the German offensive through Belgium giving the UK Precious time to get boots on the ground. As a Nation for 4 years fighting was on their land real close to their heartland and industrial centers but they never gave up. They were able to match toe-to-toe with Germany and kept themselves together against a superior foe at the time. Of course Germany in S-Tiers for fighting 2 fronts, helping all their allies and just honestly being The Central Power.
Belgium B trier what?? they fought one of the most important battles of ww1 slowing down the germans so there allies could move there troops B tier is just to low of you look at the nation what he put onder Belgium...
Had Belgium picked a side one way or the other, the war could have been over by 1915.
If the let the Germans come through then they would have been in Paris by Christmas. If they had aided with the British and French and allowed them access to Belgium prior to being invaded they could have stopped Germany cold at the border. Belgium could have played kingmaker in Europe, just a pity they decided to go it alone.
If we take the spring offensive/ last hundred days into account here we will find the answer to the only S tier country that sent troops into battle. Germany hit hard with storm troops who they got the idea from the subject in a minute. Germany took ground everywhere, but one line they did not attack period wasn't the American line they attacked there wasn't the Belgium line they attacked there wasn't British line they probably got the farthest attacking them, wasn't the French line they also attacked there. So where was it they out right refused to attack? The Canadian corps line. After the spring offensive failed Canada went out the attack and overwhelmed the Germans everywhere they attacked. Canada in my opinion earned the right to be classed as the only S tier rank in WW1.
I am of the opinion that versailles was too lenient. perhaps just enforcing it would have been adequate. the allies allowed german remilitarization and stood by while germany spat in their face, first by remilitarizing the rhineland, then by appeasement in regards to czechoslovakia
move Ottomans and Italy to D tier and Austria to C tier and I completely agree with the ranking shown
I wonder what ww1 would have been like if Britain didn't fight in it, the only reason that the brits got involved was because Germany attacked neutral Belgium to get to france
germany wouldve lost badly
@@smal750 I'm not sure they did quite well in ww1 they knocked the Russians out I'm not sure what would have happened on the western front
@@nataliamundell6266Britain was blockading Germany from the North Sea, depriving them of loads of imports that would have helped their war effort. Remove that blockade and the British army helping the French on the west, then Germany would be in a much more advantageous position. The British Empire also did the most against the Ottomans.
@@archivesoffantasy5560 so Germany would have done better, we are in agreement, thanks for breaking it down further
@@nataliamundell6266 France possibly could have made up the additional numbers that the British army gave them, but they wouldn’t be able to replicate the strength of the Royal Navy.
As an American, I'm surprised that our country got more than a participation trophy frankly.
What could you do to make treaty of Versailles harsher?
Idk Schleswig to Denmark, Bavaria independent with all catholic lands as a part of it.
Poor Germany 😢
Usa is more like waiting until everyone was exhausted and then slapping everyone instead of fighting the armys at theur full strenght
1:53 Sure but Italy was barely competent as military power. If they wanted to prevent Germany from doing that, they should have split Germany between all of them like they did post WW2.
came on : they were incompetents because they lost a direct confrontation with German soldiers having similar numbers ? Basically it's what happens to anyone fighting Germans until the end of ww2 (basically for 30 years ) . Germans were simply better than anyone at doing wars . What many fail to understand is that on the western front (of ww1 ) France and UK (and later US ) arrived to own 4 times the number of soldiers Germany had and never less France (which had more soldiers in the line of contact against Germany ) had a % of casualties similar to Germany , even when on defense .
@@locusta4662I was referring to WW2 Italy, not WW1 Italy.
@@Firemalleoandjelly about ww2 it's another story but doing a long story -short , more than incompetence was the lack of mechanized troops and aviation (and even oil ,ammunition) . WW1 at an economic level was a disaster for Italy and even more were the colony's campaigns , the same happened aiding Franco in Spain . Basically in 20 years in which any other country invested in military technology Italy dilapidated money and presented itself in a condition in which to be honest resisted to UK , in Africa , even more than expected .
@@locusta4662 Italy did have time to bolster it's forces before the real fighting started.
@@Firemalleoandjelly you mean time for Mussolini to rob money from Italian treasure . Even introna , when took the post at the bank of Italy , was shocked . Frankly what italy did in ww2 (counting even taking hitler side ) weren't acts moved by incompetence but by robbing intentions
How can the UK be behind US or France in your opinion. Surely you know about how in the first world war the British empire basically bankrolled the French and Russians like the US did for Britain in WW2. Brits also invented the tank and maintained total naval supremacy strangling Germany’s economy.
As a Thai people just saying WWII we literally also doing nothing much. But we does help both Allies and Axis. For WWI we participate because it just benefits us. Getting aircraft Technology and more technology from the Brits. Build our own air service and extend the railway network. Which later use by the Japanese. Thailand does make a good fight during Japanese Invasion. We surrender not because of the we can’t fight anymore. It’s because how dumb our leader was back then. Prefer the 7th king system than stupid Phibun dictator system. Atleast Rama VII he is a good king.
I think the british should be S Tier. They did fight not only on 2 fronts but on at least 4 fronts simultaneously. The logisticsrequired to pull of that alone deserves S Tier. Plus, unlike the germans, they actually did win on all 4 fronts, western Europe, Balkans, Arabia and Africa. The only major fuck up is Gallipoly, which they could also have won, if they hadn't shown the Ottomans exactly where thier fortifications were weak only a few months before they landed in Gallipoly
They had many nations helping and an huge empire and did nothing with it
A is very generous
Brittain has nothing to do with victory in the Balkans, France yes, sorta, by supplying Serbs with weapons and logistics, Brittain no.
All major powers get an F - - - for their roles in creating the mess. The little guys who had to adjust to the mess get whatever Spectrum and Mr Terry say, because I'm that familiar with that aspect.
The tier list isn't about how WW1 got started, but about the performance DURING the war. Otherwise, I'd agree with you except for Serbia, they deserve to be in F-tier with the major powers because they and AH are the two most responsible parties for starting WW1.
Point taken, but Mr Terry took Germany from S to A for role in starting conflict.... so he started it! :)
@@LJ-pi6npwell they did, with austria-hungary and russia being the only other power this should apply.
Hey could you react to Project Kaisertum by @possiblehistory? It is a timeline in which WW1 is won by the Central Powers in 1916 through something out-of-character for them. Planning ahead.
How is Brazil before Belgium alphabetically? I'm guessing that's how it must be in his native language?
How can you put France below Germany when they had to fight with half the troops?
If you ever looked at the numbers, you'd know that Germany was outnumbered by the French, British and Belgians on the Western Front.
How the hell are you gonna mention Brazil and not Australia...
21:41 they did mention Australia… as part of the UK and it's empire, the map even has Canada highlighted as well…
I mean...brazil had bigger inpact,also has more ppl amd way more influential ans stronger than Australia...they are the kings of the south,i mean no one lives in the south anyways
@leondenizard3800 by what metric was Brazil a bigger impact... they were neutral until 1917 and the first troops didn't get to the western front until mid 1918...
Australia declared war in 1914, has troops in combat from April 1915..
Mounted Infantry from the light horse brigades help capture Beersheba and the holy land leading to the fall of Damascus and the Ottoman empire..
On the western front Australians were used at crack troops. 416000 Austrians served (all volunteered there were no conscripted troops in the AIF) in ww1 winning many important battles such as pozier, Hamel ,Ypres ameins and Hazelbrook.
The entire Brazilian army was 54000 in 1918... Australians lost 60000 In 4 years
@@davidgearon7446 you from Australia ? well dont get me wrong love Australia and Brazil,but Australia is tiny compared to Brazil,its ok they are the most powerful country in the south,but Australia did what it could and helped,even if it was only a colony,Brazil had a bigger inpact in WW2 when hey expeled the germans from italy,in WW1 they helped but it was more like support and some trops,like Australia both didnt have big impacts on the WW1 war but helped..so whatever i guess lol
@@leondenizard3800 funny, i've lived in flanders and most of the memorials are canadian and australian, i must have missed the brazilian memorials.