As I expected you did not answer my question as to which allied army in WW1 fought more sucessfully as the french. It is commonly admitted by historians that the french army was the most important of allied armies in WW1. Also I do not see the point in repeating that France would have lost without Britain or Russia, as it is obvious that the same goes for Russia and Britain had they had to fight without France.(Russia actually lost even tough it had powerfull allies). Being victorious as member of a coalition doesn't make the victory less impressive.Britain for once never won a major war without a powerfull coalition by it's side....Does that discredit Britain's whole military history....???? Also the fact that France would not have been able to take on Germany alone has nothing to do with poor leadership.Germany simply was much more powerfull(for example Germany in 1913 had a population of 66.9 million as compared to France's 39.7 million.Germany the same year produced 17.6 million tons of steel as compared to France's 4.6 million tons.) Do you think Canada would have defeated Germany without allies.(Because by your own definition that means canadians were poorly led....) They lost anyway.The fact that France lost to coalitions in the Napoleonic wars and in the 7 years war did not prevent you from mentioning these wars in your list of french defeats. [/quote] Then why did the most famous british military historian call the french the militarily most sucessfull nation. Obviously he should have asked for your opinion first.... Now please give me examples that prove your point about France always being poorly led. Unless you do so(or at least try to do so), I'll have to consider that you're not interested in historic facts but that you rather want to express your anti-french bigotry. (In which case there would be no point for me to waste my time responding to you).