This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Blockade of Germany to Blockade of Germany (1914–1919). The result of the discussion was moved. |
Wasn't the HMS Lusitania a British liner that Americans happened to be on?
It was British. It is also not HMS, but RMS. Fixed.
One thing I don't see discussed is that the British established a distance blockade, which I understand was illegal ( Hague conventions ). Also the list of items declared "contraband" by the English exceeded normal usage ( foodstuffs and other non-military items ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.181.149 ( talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the following: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika02.htm It references other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.93.2 ( talk) 17:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Since World War II dealt with the same geography as World War I, did the British ever attempt blockading Germany in what was essentially a "rematch"? Seems like this would have made sense considering how much trouble the German surface commerce raiders gave the British later on. Or did airpower and submarines make the blockading tactic unfeasible? Masterblooregard ( talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
A large portion of this article seems to be copied from this site: [1] Example:
Site:The German government made strenuous attempts to alleviate the worst effects of the blockade. The Glossary - opens new windowHindenburg programme, introduced in December 1916, was designed to raise productivity by ordering the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60. A complicated system of rationing, first introduced in January 1915, aimed to ensure that at least minimum nutritional needs were met. In larger cities, 'war kitchens' provided cheap meals en masse to impoverished local citizens.
Wiki article: the Hindenburg Programme of German economic mobilisation launched on 31 August 1916, was designed to raise productivity by the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60, and a complicated rationing system initially introduced in January 1915 aimed to ensure that a minimum nutritional need was met, with "war kitchens" providing cheap mass meals to impoverished civilians in larger cities.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just made this edit this edit. Those pages I have seen that are under the British Open Government Licence usually specifically say so. I do not see such licensing information on these pages, so I think that unless there is agreement that they are, then the attribution template should be removed and any copied material should be deleted. -- PBS ( talk) 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I always heard that a sea blockade was contrary to international law and rules of war at the time. This should be addressed in the article. -- BjKa ( talk) 10:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There have been a number of edits recently claiming that the blockade was clearly illegal, the most recent referencing a national archives article. What the national archives article says is: Despite complaints about breaches of international law, however, most neutral merchant ships agreed.... It does not say "the blockade was clearly illegal under the Hague Convention", or anything similar. If we need to add an item about illegality of blockade, we need an article which specifies the illegality of this blockade under a specific clause, not vague references to someone complaining about breach of international law. International law isn't as simply as writing traffic tickets for speeding, so you need to find a WP:RS article which specifies the illegality, who complains and who adjudged the illegality. Tarl N. ( talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Reply
1-As editors of Wikipedia we cannot decide if the British blockade was a crime. If a reliable source has that opinion we could make mention of that source. Wikipedia has a NPOV, we cover both sides of the story
2-Your statement that "More than 700.000 people died in Germany" is based on Dec. 1918 German propaganda. An academic study from 1928 put the actual death toll at 424,000. --
Woogie10w (
talk)
20:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course, that was a war criminal. In the Haague Conventions of 1899 and 107 paragraph 8, in which the rules for war at sea are regulated, it is stipulated that the international treaties on trade remain in force. According to the 1856 Declaration of Paris (still in force in 1914), blockades were permitted, but only if they were so-called "effective" blockades — meaning that blockades should only take on the form of a cordon of ships off an enemy port or coast. Blockades 'from a distance' were strictly prohibited.
The blockade also violated the 1909 London Declaration which established the rules under which items could be confiscated (Britain was not a signatory, but the international community — especially the United States — still expected Britain to honor the spirit of the Declaration; it was, after all, Britain's idea).
Thus it is clear that the blockade was illegal, an act of piracy and a war criminal. Even the British war cabinet has noted that it is a war crime, even though they have assumed it is a "victimless" war crime.
So what's the point of this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.229.42 ( talk) 14:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm deleting this note. First, it's not needed in the article, and second, The Barnes Review, according to its Wikipedia page, is one of the most virulently anti-Semitic organizations around, and is devoted to Holocaust denial. Thus, the only reason for having the note is to direct unsuspecting readers to look it up. Theonemacduff ( talk) 16:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) House Blaster talk 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Blockade of Germany → Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) – Disambiguation from Blockade of Germany (1939–1945). Blockade of the Central Powers could also be a valid option. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 06:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Looks like a snowstorm ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
– Primary topic as given in opening sentence. Prepondernace of incoming links are to Blockade of Germany. Move to disambiguated title created many disambiguation links from previously valid links and restoration avoids use of redirect. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find evidence of this person. The source is a journal from 2. 2. 1919. At this time the Deputy State Secretary of the German Food Office was Emmanuel Wurm. A Person called Braun was never in this position. I also cannot find the article in the journal which this claim is from. Any idea where this might be from? Bunchoforgans ( talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Blockade of Germany to Blockade of Germany (1914–1919). The result of the discussion was moved. |
Wasn't the HMS Lusitania a British liner that Americans happened to be on?
It was British. It is also not HMS, but RMS. Fixed.
One thing I don't see discussed is that the British established a distance blockade, which I understand was illegal ( Hague conventions ). Also the list of items declared "contraband" by the English exceeded normal usage ( foodstuffs and other non-military items ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.181.149 ( talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the following: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika02.htm It references other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.93.2 ( talk) 17:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Since World War II dealt with the same geography as World War I, did the British ever attempt blockading Germany in what was essentially a "rematch"? Seems like this would have made sense considering how much trouble the German surface commerce raiders gave the British later on. Or did airpower and submarines make the blockading tactic unfeasible? Masterblooregard ( talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
A large portion of this article seems to be copied from this site: [1] Example:
Site:The German government made strenuous attempts to alleviate the worst effects of the blockade. The Glossary - opens new windowHindenburg programme, introduced in December 1916, was designed to raise productivity by ordering the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60. A complicated system of rationing, first introduced in January 1915, aimed to ensure that at least minimum nutritional needs were met. In larger cities, 'war kitchens' provided cheap meals en masse to impoverished local citizens.
Wiki article: the Hindenburg Programme of German economic mobilisation launched on 31 August 1916, was designed to raise productivity by the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60, and a complicated rationing system initially introduced in January 1915 aimed to ensure that a minimum nutritional need was met, with "war kitchens" providing cheap mass meals to impoverished civilians in larger cities.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just made this edit this edit. Those pages I have seen that are under the British Open Government Licence usually specifically say so. I do not see such licensing information on these pages, so I think that unless there is agreement that they are, then the attribution template should be removed and any copied material should be deleted. -- PBS ( talk) 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I always heard that a sea blockade was contrary to international law and rules of war at the time. This should be addressed in the article. -- BjKa ( talk) 10:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There have been a number of edits recently claiming that the blockade was clearly illegal, the most recent referencing a national archives article. What the national archives article says is: Despite complaints about breaches of international law, however, most neutral merchant ships agreed.... It does not say "the blockade was clearly illegal under the Hague Convention", or anything similar. If we need to add an item about illegality of blockade, we need an article which specifies the illegality of this blockade under a specific clause, not vague references to someone complaining about breach of international law. International law isn't as simply as writing traffic tickets for speeding, so you need to find a WP:RS article which specifies the illegality, who complains and who adjudged the illegality. Tarl N. ( talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Reply
1-As editors of Wikipedia we cannot decide if the British blockade was a crime. If a reliable source has that opinion we could make mention of that source. Wikipedia has a NPOV, we cover both sides of the story
2-Your statement that "More than 700.000 people died in Germany" is based on Dec. 1918 German propaganda. An academic study from 1928 put the actual death toll at 424,000. --
Woogie10w (
talk)
20:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course, that was a war criminal. In the Haague Conventions of 1899 and 107 paragraph 8, in which the rules for war at sea are regulated, it is stipulated that the international treaties on trade remain in force. According to the 1856 Declaration of Paris (still in force in 1914), blockades were permitted, but only if they were so-called "effective" blockades — meaning that blockades should only take on the form of a cordon of ships off an enemy port or coast. Blockades 'from a distance' were strictly prohibited.
The blockade also violated the 1909 London Declaration which established the rules under which items could be confiscated (Britain was not a signatory, but the international community — especially the United States — still expected Britain to honor the spirit of the Declaration; it was, after all, Britain's idea).
Thus it is clear that the blockade was illegal, an act of piracy and a war criminal. Even the British war cabinet has noted that it is a war crime, even though they have assumed it is a "victimless" war crime.
So what's the point of this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.229.42 ( talk) 14:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm deleting this note. First, it's not needed in the article, and second, The Barnes Review, according to its Wikipedia page, is one of the most virulently anti-Semitic organizations around, and is devoted to Holocaust denial. Thus, the only reason for having the note is to direct unsuspecting readers to look it up. Theonemacduff ( talk) 16:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) House Blaster talk 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Blockade of Germany → Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) – Disambiguation from Blockade of Germany (1939–1945). Blockade of the Central Powers could also be a valid option. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 06:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Looks like a snowstorm ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
– Primary topic as given in opening sentence. Prepondernace of incoming links are to Blockade of Germany. Move to disambiguated title created many disambiguation links from previously valid links and restoration avoids use of redirect. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find evidence of this person. The source is a journal from 2. 2. 1919. At this time the Deputy State Secretary of the German Food Office was Emmanuel Wurm. A Person called Braun was never in this position. I also cannot find the article in the journal which this claim is from. Any idea where this might be from? Bunchoforgans ( talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)