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

Major battles in which the French took part in: First Battle of Ypres (1914) German losses: 134,000 Battle of Yser (1914) German losses: 75,000 Battle of the Frontiers (1914) German losses: 200,000 First Battle of the Marne (1914) German losses: 220,000 Second Battle of Champagne (1915) German losses: 100,000 Battle of Verdun (1916) German losses: 300,000 Battle of the Somme (1916) German losses: 450,000 Battle of Arras (1917) German losses: 125,000 Nivelle Offensive (1917) German losses: 187,000 Third Battle of Ypres (1917) German losses: 300,000 Battle of Passchendaele (1917) German losses: 300,000 Hundred Days Offensive (1918) German losses: around a million All of these major battles add up to around 3 million casualties for the Germans. And in all of these battles, France made up about half of the total forces used. The rest were British, Dutch, American, Australian, Canadian, etc. Major Russian Battles: *I don't include Tannesberg because we both already know the casualties there. Siege of Przemysl (1914-1915) Austrian losses: 250,000 Battle of Lodz (1914) German losses: 160,000 Battle of Galicia (1914) Austrian losses: 324,000 Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive (1915) German/Austrian Casualties: 90,000 Brusilov Offensive (1916) German/Austrian Casualties: 1,325,000 All of these major battles add up to some 2 million. And French forces made up only about half of the total forces on the western front. So Germany suffered 1.5 million casualties fighting the French while Germany and Austria suffered around 2 million fighting the Russians. The Middle Eastern Theate: This is a place which Russia, undoubtedly played a far greater role than France. In the Middle East, there were 2.5 million British soldiers, around a million Russian soldiers, and only a few hundred thousand French soldiers. During the Gallipoli Campaign there were 500,000 British troops and only 80,000 French troops. Gallipoli was the most important battle of the Middle Eastern Theater. http://en.wikipedia.org... All of these major battles add up to some 2 million casualties for Austria and Germany in the east. Quote: "In July [1916] there were 112 German divisions on the Western Front and 52 divisions in Russia and in November there were 121 divisions in the west and 76 divisions in the east." http://en.wikipedia.org... Although France was still fighting more German troops than Russia was, Russia was also fighting Austria. "Only later in the war did Britain field huge forces in the battlefields of Europe..." However it was still a considerable portion. Like I stated earlier, Britain provided more troops in 1916 than France did. And that does not include the American troops who helped in the war. OK clearly Pro doesn't understand: this debate is not about who was in the war for the longest period of time. Its about who did the most to defeat the Central Powers. That's why saying that Russia left early is not an argument for this debate. In WWII, Russia joined late. Britain fought throughout the war. However Russia's contribution was still greater. So clearly the time a country fought for explains nothing in this debate. "They only lost 800,000 men in Russia. The main fighting on the western front happened between the Russians and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where both sides lost upwards of 6 million people (Though Russia lost close to 8 million)" The main fighting in the east was not just between Austria and Russia, but also between Germany and Russia. Like I said earlier, Germany's plan was to hold the French and British back with trenches and send whatever they could spare to help Austria defeat Russia. "In July [1916] there were 112 German divisions on the Western Front and 52 divisions in Russia and in November there were 121 divisions in the west and 76 divisions in the east." http://en.wikipedia.org... "I am aware that the Austro-hungarians helped Germany hugely, they were the ones kicking Russia's a** later on in the war after Germany kicked Russia's a** early on in the war. " Actually they were the ones who would have been defeated had it not been for German assistance in the east. The Austrian army was no match for the Russian army. "... the battle of Marne was fought by the Germans with a whopping 1.5 MILLION men..." However at the Marne, Germany only lost some 200,000 men out of that "whopping 1.5 million". Con talks about the Brusilov Offensive: "And it only took Russia two years to finally win an important battle....." I explained in both in the previous round and in the beginning of this round how that is untrue. "In fact in the battle of Marne, both sides used 1 to 1.5 million men whereas in the Brusilov Offensive both sides had round 580,000 men, about 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of the forces involved in the Battle of Marne." In the Brusilov offensive both sides only had around 580,000 men? Then how was it that Germany/Austria lost 1.3 million men? Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that 1.3 million men is a larger number than what Con stated. "Youre battle of Galicia also used less troops then those involved in the Battle of the Marne too." That's not what matters. What matters is the number of Germans/Austrians who died. And that number was higher than the number of men who died fighting at the Marne. Conclusion: Clearly the Russians were responsible for the defeat of more enemy soldiers than France was. While Russia was fighting all alone on a front three times the length of the front France was fighting on, France had help from Britain and the United States. Russia defeated Austria while France never fought a battle against Austria. Russia was already invading both Germany and Austria while France was struggling to stop Germany front moving another mile toward Paris. Con tries to make it look as if France was fighting all alone against Germany. Well the fact is that Britain did more than France in WWI.