In WWI, Russia played a more important role in the defeat of the Central Powers than France.

I thank Con for his response."And also because Russia got their a** kicked in that one"Yes you have said that like 10-20 times in this debate already."Well sounds like an argument for why the British played the most important role in WWI, nor Russia or France."I was simply showing how insignificant France was in the Middle East compared to other countries."Yeah, and usually the nation that stays in the war longer tends to be the one that does the most to defeat the other side, as was the case in WWII."Really? Both the USSR and the United States entered WWII two years later than Britain and France and ended up playing the two most important roles."There were more troops fighting on the western Front in the battlefields of France then there were fighting in the a** whippings in Russia, got it."Yes there were more German troops on the western front fighting France and Britain than there were on the eastern front. I do not deny this. However throughout the previous rounds, I have argued that Russia also played huge roles in defeating Austria and the Ottoman Empire and like I said earlier, France never did anything to defeat Austria."Losing badly to the Germans in the outbreak of the war at the Battle of Tannenberg doesnt count as a key victory for Russia though."Con used this argument to respond to my argument that the Brusilov Offensive was very important. Why use a battle that took place long before the Brusilov Offensive in order to make the Brusilov Offensive look unimportant. And I explained in the previous round that there were other Russian victories that took place even before the Brusilov Offensive."Russia wasnt fighting alone though, France and its allies were on the other side of the theater keeping a majority of Germany's troops at bay which prevented them from going into Russia. This allowed Russia to go toe to toe with just Austria-Hungary, and they still managed to lose a sh**load of territory..."Yes, I understand that. My point was that while France had allies fight alongside the French army and prevent Germany from defeating France, Russia had nobody. Also, I'm not sure if Con is aware of this but France received huge amounts of supplies from both Britain and the United States. Russia on the other hand was always low on supplies. The only reason that Russia lost so much territory in WWI was largely due to Germany. Austria would most likely never have been able to successfully invade Russia had it not been for Germany so clearly Russia was not going "toe to toe" with just Austria, but with Germany as well."Numbers only go so far in demonstrating who played a bigger part in a war."Countries are usually defeated in wars when they lose their armies in combat."There are strategic elements and characteristics of the war that also come into play that are just as important as stats like casualties and wins"Stats show who did more to actually defeat the Central Powers."France single handedly managed to bring a halt to the German invasion of France at the Battle of Marne in the initial outbreak of WWI"Except for the fact that if Britain have not been fighting with France, France would most likely have lost even if Germany was forced to fight on two fronts. Sure they may have been able to halt Germany at the Marne but there were plenty more German reinforcements who came to fight France later on in the war. Had it not been for Britain, France would undoubtedly have been outnumbered and sooner or later, would have been defeated by the superior German army."Russia failed spectacularly to prevent the Germans and Austrians from pouring into Russia at the Battle of Tannenberg"Clearly Con does not understand what Tannesberg was about. Tannesberg was not about Russia trying to prevent Germany from pouring into Russia. It was about Germany trying to prevent Russia pouring into Germany. Also, Austria took no part in the battle.[1] That's another mistake Con made in his thinking. "France managed to regain all of its territory before Germany signed an armistice"I don't understand how that is an argument. France managed to regain its territory. Other countries also managed to gain territory from the war. However I cannot understand what is so strategic about regaining land. Also, France would never have regained any of that territory had it not been for Russia. As a matter of fact, France would most likely have lost all its territory."Russia lost territory so quick that it caused their economy and government to fail and caused them to surrender."Con says that Russia lost territory "so quickly" but he does not show how quickly Russia lost it. He doesn't even provide sources to support this. This map bellow shows the territory that Germany took altogether. I would also like to point out that much of the Ukraine was taken by Germany when the treaty with Russia was already signed. Much of this territory was basically given to Germany for free. And unless Con doesn't notice, Germany does not come anywhere near to Moscow. That states that Con's arguments about how Germany took an overwhelming amount of territory from Russia is largely exaggerated. Russia was forced to give the Ottomans that land in the south in the treaty. The Ottomans never took any of it. "France and its allies managed to absorb the attack by Germany launched with the forces from the Eastern Front and then push them back"We know. And that was due largely to other countries."At the very least, France and Russia played equal roles in the defeat of the Central Powers."I see Con is no longer as confident in his position."It seems that strategically though, France played a much more vital role in causing there to be a two front war compared to Russia"The two front war was only possible because of Russia. Russia made up 1 front. France/OTHER COUNTRIES made up another. Therefor Russia did more strategically. Russia made up a front three the size western front.http://en.wikipedia.org...