This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
the photos that represent WWI have a photo of a Mk.IV but it is said that it is a Mk.I, it is not a Mk.I because it lacks the wooden wheel, granade roof, camo and has diffrent drivers cab and sponsons
"The 'War Guilt' of Germany" subsection talks about the WWI armistice treaty and the war debt Germany had to pay after WWI. It was under the "Causes" section. Things that happened after a war are not a cause of the war, so I moved "The 'War Guilt' of Germany" subsection from the "Causes" of WWI section to the "Aftermath" section. David_Underdown flagged my move of this content as a deletion and a vandalism and moved the post-treaty aftermath content back to one of the causes of WWI. Dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 ( talk • contribs)
I changed the box at the bottom so that it wouldn't overlap the links. just doin my job ;) - Bagel7 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
A little typo: In the "July (something) and Declarations of War" section, it says that so-and-so was "one of the only French figure . . ." It should be 'figures.'
(Sorry for sticking this here; I didn't know where else to put it.)
Let's pick one or the other to prevent confusing people (right now thay are both used). I suggest Allies, because that is more common, but it's up to you guys.
never even heard the phrase "entente" before - Jedi of Redwll
Entente is most properly the name of the alliances BEFORE the war (I believe) and Allies takes up after war is declared. - JEK -- Troublemaker 03:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
deleted
If anything, the term "Alliance" should refer to the Central Powers, since they grew out of the Triple Alliance, as opposed to the victorious powers growing out of the Triple Entente. Admittedly, that did not include the US, but the US entered the war expressly not as an ally of the T.E., but rather because of German violations of US shipping.
I think it's also a little POV. The reference seems to come from the common tendency to view WWI through the prism of WWII, after which the term 'Ally' took on a positive connotation it didn't have in the 1910s (at least in the US).
I'll give a week for comment, and then if I find the appropriate reference, I'll make some edits.
-- 69.251.252.22 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The official terms used are "Triple Entente" and "Triple Alliance" - there is no real side at that point that is named the Allies because both sides are really just allies grouped up. The term "Allies" was only used in WWII and like said, if anything "Allies" should be used to describe the Central Powers though in my opinion it should not be used to describe either if for no reason but to avoid confusion.
I have noticed that the term "Allies" is generally used to mean the countries allied with Britain, not the USA. For example, in the Napoleonic Wars, the Allies were at various times Britain, the French Royalists, Spain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, etc., while the USA was on the side of Imperial France. In WWI allies was only used in the literal sense, and in WWII, the Allies were of course the USA, UK, USSR, etc,. In other wars the term Allies is usually used for the larger side. Phil alias Harry 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have to disagree with this statement :
"The British and French insisted that the United States emphasize sending infantry to reinforce the line. Throughout the war, the American forces were short of their own artillery, aviation, and engineering units. However, General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Force commander, resisted breaking up American units and using them as reinforcements for British Empire and French units, as suggested by the Allies."
French general Joffre supported the idea that the US soldiers would come in the form of an US army/corps.
Here's one source (but there are several others) that support this version.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blgenesisaef2.htm
"To make American troops immediately effective, therefore, Joffre's first inclination was to urge the Americans to furnish the French and British "with men instead of armies." If troops were sent to France organized only into companies and battalions, they could quickly be incorporated into French regiments for training and service at the front. There would therefore, according to Joffre, be "no occasion for training general officers and staff for the larger units, only captains and majors being needed."
Joffre quickly discarded that idea, however, because he knew the Americans could never accept it. No great nation, especially the United States, the prescient old soldier knew, would "allow its citizens to be incorporated like poor relations in the ranks of some other army and fight under a foreign flag." He therefore determined that he would start from that premise as he entered discussions in America. "
If this is the case, I'm sorry. back to the subject. I hope someone had a back-up. I Posted my post and the next day when I come back, there is only mine though there were a lot of post formerly .... stupid americans
Be more careful! Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
and americans arent stupid! >:( Bagel7 22:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps on the Timeline there should be a mention of the sinking of the Lusitania, as it was an important factor in the United States' entry into hostilities. stupid americans 153.104.16.114 23:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
"public indignation over the Zimmermann telegram"? USG made it public when? And without compromising the secret? Or does it mean Congress was indignant? Trekphiler 08:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I deleted "The question of 'neutrality at sea' would push the United States into the war." This is another example of the fiction used to cover the Zimmermann telegram. It has no place in a serious work. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Link to "What role did the Arab population play in World War I" http://ozhanozturk.com/content/view/310/47/ (which claims to be written 2005-10-08) was removed because it was plagiarized from: http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004_11_07_maviboncuk_archive.html
The US was hardly neutral in the run up to WW1. It was actively supporting Britain by making loans more readily available to Britain, and looking the other way when British ships stopped US ships on the high seas. Jmorello
The map submitted with the article depicts the borders on Balkans before Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. During Balkan Wars Turkey's presence on Balkans was reduced roughly to what it is today.
This map needs to be changed !! preferrably with this picture: [ [1]]
That map is inaccurate, any Junior High kid could tell you that, there isn't even an independant Albania. Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) As pointed out by many others, the map is very wrong indeed.
What is the source for this statment and who are are the "some scholars"? -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Three decade long wars generally don't involve four years of war, 21 years of uneasy peace, and then six more years of war. I've never heard of a scholar who actually says that the period 1914-1945 was a single three-decade long war, although the idea of a "Second Thirty Years' War" has been invoked as an image, or a conceptual framework. But that's quite different. john k 21:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The usage may not mean "30yrs active combat". The 100 Yrs War wasn't, either. The causes of WW2 trace directly to WW1, & many of the experiences would be based on it. Tank warfare, for instance, is directly based on late WW1 practise. ASW failed to learn lessons of WW1 (& Dan van der Vat connects the wars as 1 in The Atlantic Campaign). Trekphiler 02:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess you could make that case, but many prominant scholars do think of the two world wars as one war. I do not know a reference for it however, I learned it in a college class.
I'd like to know when it changed from being anyones war to an Allied Victory. Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
This section needs to be fleshed out more. There were several significant and important battles in addition to those that the American Army participated in that merit a mention.
I noticed that the math didn't make sense for a couple of rows in the Casualties table (Dead plus Wounded should = Casualties), so I made the following changes:
1. The line for Russia had Casualties: 6,650,000; Dead: 1,700,000; Wounded: 5,950,000. This has a discrepancy of 1,000,000. I did a search and found that about.com ( http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm) had the same numbers for Casualties and Dead, but Wounded was 4,950,000 on that page, so I assumed that the Wounded number had the error in the Wikipedia and changed it. (The totals at the bottom appear to support this.)
2. The line for Serbia had Casualties: 1,700,000; Dead: 450,000; Wounded: 950,000. This has a discrepancy of 300,000. The about.com page had radically different numbers for "Serbia" so it wasn't helpful. By checking the totals on the Wikipedia page, it looked to me like the Wounded number for Serbia is likely the problem, so I changed it to 1,250,000.
3. The total for the Dead column was low by 18,166 (which happens to be the number for New Zealand.) I changed it from 9,381,551 to 9,399,717.
4. The total for the Wounded column was about 420,000 too high! The numbers in the table add up to 22,729,352, rather than 23,148,975, so I changed that number too.
BTW, I noticed that the total numbers in Wikipedia vary considerably from the ones on about.com. Of course there is no single fully accepted source of such casualty counts. But even without that, the horrendous impact is clear.
Rob Esau, Edmonton, Canada
Moved from main article.
El_C
12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC) What type of explosives did they use when they mined the enemy trenches?
81.179.93.121
There was a variety of different explosives used, with some experimentation during the course of the war. The mines at Messines were largely Ammonal. The similar Amatol was developed to economise on the use of TNT. I'm sure there were many others. Have a look in the explosives category to find more. We do have a rather terse list of Explosives used during WW II article as well. Lisiate 22:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi wikipedians! Due to opinions from various places (e.g. Talk:World_War_II#Lead_pic_problems), I have changed the lead pictures for the WWI & WWII page, so that they now are without the top title text ("World War I" & "World War II" (remember to hit "refresh" in your browser). I believe this is what the majority desires, but if you object, please say so here. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I question the "large-scale bombing" remark. Compared to what? German attacks on London killed fewer people than traffic crashes. And compared to WW2, the scale was trivial. An edit is in order. Trekphiler 01:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
That may be true, but with over 1000 deaths from bombing it was considered enormous at the time along with the psychological impact on the people. Many people starting sleeping in subways and such.
Bravo for including the A-H rejection of Serbia's acceptance. I stumbled on that a few years ago, & had never heard it before. Trekphiler 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Here (& as a general rule), can we include pronounciation of names? I don't know how Princip is pronounced, & I'm sure many don't. Doubtless this is true often. Also, I've seen it done on the Buick page. Trekphiler 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I added the problems of speed of advance. Schlieffen's plan failed to account for the inability to move supplies, notably fodder, from railheads rapidly enough to overcome French countermoves, & GenStaff did no better. I'd also note France made innovative & important use of motor transport, buses, to achieve victory at First Marne, while Germany didn't, & the right hook around Paris pulled in & failed. Shifting force from the Schwerpunkt to the hinge at Sedan didn't help, either... Trekphiler 03:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote this:
It overemphasises MGs, a com myth; makes N ref arty, which was more lethal than MGs; & says nothing to tactics N keep up w tech. Trekphiler 04:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I sense a Brit/Allied bias. Mention of British rotation policy, without reference to French, alone German, is inappropriate. I'd be interested to know what both these nations, as well as Russia, did. Trekphiler 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This concerns me:
It may be true, but it seems a bit strident. Trekphiler 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is deficient in a number of areas. First, it is (almost) exclusively concerned with land operations. I see no mention of the crucial influence of the U-boat campaign & how near it brought Britain to defeat. Nor do I see (as usual) any mention of the Japanese contributions to convoy escort in the Med. Nor any reference to commerce raiding, which was also important to RN defense of trade.
Second, there is no mention of non-whites or non-Europeans, such as war in Africa, or blacks in U.S. service, or (even less well known) Japanese-Canadians, such as the 50h Inf Rgt.
Third, there is no mention of the influence of the war on social conditions of blacks in the U.S.; as in WW2, it produced migration for jobs, with significant effects.
Fourth, & perhaps most obviously lacking, is the utter absence of the influence of airpower. It has been suggested air observation directly produced the trench stalemate, by making secret movement of troops impossible. Regardless, when over 150 thousand aircraft were built during the war, orders of magnitude more than tanks, aircraft certainly merit inclusion, if tanks do... See Morrow on German airpower in WW1.
While I'm in no way qualified to post on these areas, it seems to me they must be addressed. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article claims WW1 was first use of aircraft in combat. I've seen (conflicting) claims for Mexico & Libya in 1911-2... Also, it seems to say WW1 was first use of submarines in combat, too. This is flat wrong. First use of submarines in combat was in 1776, by David Bushnell's 1-man sub Turtle, operated by Sgt Ezra Lee, Continental Army. First success was by CSS H. L. Hunley against frigate USS Housatonic in USCW (at Charleston, I believe). In addition, it continues to need correction of incorrect use of "shrapnel" to mean "fragmentation" (a very common mistake amongst the uninitiated...) Trekphiler 11:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
not sure about the U-boats, but I have seen many places say that ww1 was the first war with aircraft, but I wasnt personally there - Jedi of Redwall
I added this:
Trekphiler 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I added these:
I've also seen a documentary on Gallipoli, on which I base my opinion of Hamilton, & a couple of docs on Canadians in WW1, from which I got ref to 50h Inf, MGs & Brutinel, & some other stuff. (Unfortunately, I've no idea of the titles...) Trekphiler 13:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I sense a Brit/Allied bias. Mention of British rotation policy, without reference to French, alone German, is inappropriate. I'd be interested to know what both these nations, as well as Russia, did. Trekphiler 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This concerns me:
It may be true, but it seems a bit strident. Trekphiler 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's also misleading. While General Conrad may, indeed, have continued to dislike the Italians after he was dismissed as Chief of Staff in 1917, the text at present seems to imply that he remained Chief of Staff throughout the war. Which is, of course, not the case. john k 06:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
This was mentioned on the old talk page and since it was there staring at me when I started reading I've removed it: Activity by the French and British Empire forces in the eastern part of the former Ottoman Empire would give rise to several modern conflicts, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Greco-Turkish conflict over Cyprus, the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the 1990s by Iraq. The Greco-Turkish conflict, which ended in 1924, was the last direct major conflict of the war. POV nonsense. Would be better to blame Alexander the Great... In fact the article is actually quite poor in several areas. Gallipoli? Naval warfare? The French!?! I can't understand how it was ever "featured". I am slightly overwhelmed by the scale of the task needed to address the problems here so I am going to go away and ponder. :( Wiki-Ed 10:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed: In the First World War 5% of casualties were civilian. In the Second World War that was 50%. I added this after reading it in 'In Europa' by Geert Mak, which should be a reliable source. And it's relevant. So I put it back. What was the reason for deletion? DirkvdM 11:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I have changed "British Empire" to "British Empire and Dominions" in the summary box. This is for two reasons: (i) because Canada, Australia and New Zealand contributed significant numbers of troops to the Allied cause and this should be explicitly recognised, and (ii) they weren't part of the British Empire at the time of WWI. Sliggy 21:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi wikipedians! I know this issue is a bit "tweaky", but I would like some input on it:
Should the allies (i.e. not Central Powers) be referred to as " Entente" or " Allies"?
Why I ask is because I am doing some organizing in different WW1 sub-pages, and it has started to confuse me since both names are used in various places. I don't feel any major problem with the use of both names inside texts (even though I don't prefer it), but the problem is with titles and in templates. For instance, the following pages use different names:
I myself lean towards the term "Entente Powers" or "Entente Forces", because
I would really like your opinions on the matter. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 01:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The line "By its end, the war had become the second bloodiest conflict in recorded history (behind the Taiping Rebellion)..." should be struck from this article. There is a hugh about of speculation about how many people died in the Taiping Rebellion to quite the Wiki Taiping Rebellion
200 million would have been 1/2 the population of china at the time and is a overly liberal number to assign, but with the current information the Taiping Rebellion can only be assumed to be one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. Not the bloodiest conflict in history untill WWII. 12.20.127.229 18:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
More than 9 million died on the battlefield, and nearly that many more on the home fronts.. The info-box reads 9 million military casualties, 7 million civilians. And then: In the First World War 5% of casualties were civilian.
This does not add up! Either the third number is wrong, or the first two are. Or they're both right, but use very different criteria for civilian casualties. (as World War I casualties elaborates on) In any case, this is no good because it makes the article seem to contradict itself. I think either the percentage figures should be removed, or they should be supplemented with information on what criteria were used, and the same for the other figures. Whatever critera is chosen, it's important that it's consistent. Although such information might not belong in the summary anyway. The WWI casualties page may be a better place. -- BluePlatypus 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone can explain the difference between "battlefield deaths" and "ground combat" casualties on the home front, I'm going to delete the term "ground combat" from this passage:
J.R. Hercules 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some difference between "deaths" and mere "casualties" that I'm overlooking, but I believe it says that "5% of the casualties in WWI were civilian" and then refers to WWII in comparison. This is all nice, except 5 percent of 9 million is not 7 million, as presented in the box on the right hand side of the index.
-Grasshopper
For your information, the sub-page World War I casualties will most likely undergo several updates during the next month, and this could have an impact on the values used in the World War I main article. My regards, -- Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 00:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. I made some contributions back over the summer and I see that it continues to expand in positive ways. The modern picture of "gott strafe england" is quite a relic and an interesting find. I added a few more things as well. Excellent job everyone!-- 68.45.21.204 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added a World map with the participants ( Image:WWI.png). If you want to suggest a correction just tell me and I'll do it. Thanks. - Gameiro 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you make the world map the same color as the European map? I have no problem with this myself, but here many others in class that wish maps would use the same colors, especially when one map uses the same color for one side that is used as the enemy in the other. -SAS- 23 Jan 2006 8:57 Eastern
Similarly, Canadians believe although they participated in wars before this time, it was the first time they proved they were their own country, not just subjects of the British Empire; unlike Australia, however, Canada had to deal with Quebec, and the situation would only be exacerbated as a result.
This was written in the section about other names for WWI. Not only does this statement have nothing to do with "other names", it makes little sense. I've studied quite a bit about WWI, and I haven't read anything about Quebec or soldiers from Quebec being anything but loyal soldiers. However, if I am wrong, then this sentence needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. OrangeMarlin 10:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen mentioned as a cause of the war the culture of militarism prevalent in Germany and, even moreso, in Austria-Hungary - the idea that war was actually a preferable way of settling disputes. This explanation is linked with the place of the military in Germany - respected, holding the ultimate levers of power through association with the Emperor and the centralised State - as opposed to France and Britain, where the military were in second place to the civilian establishment. Does anyone think this is worth putting in the Causes section? PiCo 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The British built the HMS Dreadnought, a 'revolutionary battleship', and this weakened their naval powers? Might help if you could explain this a bit more for the novices. 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)~~
I did my best to clarify the statement by taking into account the information provided here. TSO1D 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has the curious notion that the war ended in 1919-- it must be based on original research because other reference books have heard of 11-11-1918 Rjensen 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What does the last sentence mean? That the difference between Australia and Canada is the battles between the French part of Canada, Quebec, and the rest? And what situation exacerbated?
Unless it's very obvious to most, even if someone explains it, the sentence should be reformulated.
Best wishes, -- A Sunshade Lust 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
fixed by removal; not relevant to this article Hmains 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmains, i am curious to know why at least one reference to a WW1 battle that strongly contributed to Canadian national identity is relevent to the article; "In the British-led Battle of Arras during the 1917 campaign, the only military success was the capture of Vimy Ridge by the Canadian Corps under Sir Arthur Currie. It provided the allies with great military advantage and greatly contributed to the identity of Canada. See the Battle of Vimy Ridge for more information" (plus a picture), yet a similar reference to Gallipoli and Australian/New Zealand national identity is not relevent is interesting. Granted, the aforementioned quote above in this talk page could be a bit long and may need trimming, hardly warrents it being labelled as irrelevent and its removal. 202.72.148.102 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to many the Summary Box longer? At least 2 countries in the left column do not get displayed, including the United States. Thanks Hmains 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not one mentioning? I mean at least a link, like the way you have about th Armenian geoncide. Nothing? Chaldean 03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Rename? -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
>The reasons for the outbreak of World War I
The only significant cause of WWI was imperialism, that is to gain or keep overseas colonies and oppress and exploit its black and yellow skinned population. There was no good and bad side in WWI, both entente and axis was motivated by evil desire of colonialism and no side had any morality. UK and France did not want to share its existing colonial grasp and Germany wanted colonies by taking it from entente countires. No one asked the aboriginal coloureds who lived in those colonies under oppression.
This is fundamentally different from WWII, where one could argue for a morally good and bad division.
Kalr Marx and Ilyich Lenin perfectly explained the reasons of the Great War had its roots solely in the global system of Imperialism.
The current lotsa blahblah in the article only serves to whitewash the fact that Britain was the largest colonial power in the world that time and thus it has the greatest responsibility for the WWI. 213.178.103.162 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Ok then. not quite sure who you are there, but you can not be serious, can you? Just to offer one point that is wrong with this, the reason that this turned into a World War is because of the military and political agreements. Take these away, and you might have a wat between Serbia and Austria-Hungary by itself. I'm not saying that what I said was the only reason the war happened, or that imperialism wasn't part of what happened, but you can't focus on one thing and bash everyone. Scotishman 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why the United States isn't shown on the list at the bottom of the main template. Shouldn't the major participants be listed first? Why are Japan and Montenegro listed before the US? Kafziel 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In the title picture, the bottom left frame with the gas masked machine gun crew has been altered so that someone's ghost image was inserted. There is also a Nazi Swastika on the biplane. The original pictures clearly show none of there so they were tampered with. THe machine gun crew problem is simple photoshop work but the British Biplane showing a Nazi Swastika is hard to spot but when you click ont the image you can see it clearly. This is very inaccurate and might be the work of neo-nazi's
16th Feburary 2006
What's with the formatting under "Causes"? what's with that huge space?
"Romanticized" is not spelled "romanticised." I expect better out of a featured article that "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."
I cannot even begin to explain how horrible of a mistake this is. I've fixed it for now, but I just know that someone is going to revert it back. Please consider using a spell checker next time and consider the fact that some people actually use this site for reference. Seriously, this is completely unacceptable. I don't understand how such an oversight became featured as an ideal article for people to refer to. -- 192.203.136.254 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Bloody Yanks ! TrulyTory 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Guys! Quit Fucking insulting each other! They're both acceptable. Whatever it is now, don't change it. Cameron Nedland 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is another spelling mistake regarding the discussion in the Southern European conflict; namely: "The British Empire opened another front in the South with the Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamian campaigns. In Gallipoli, the Turks were successful in repelling the ANZAC'S (Australian New Zealand Army Core), " - whilst pronounced "Core", ANZAC clearly means Corps as in an army Corps just like every other nation. 202.72.148.102 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
whilst i recognise that the following quotation is recognised in Australia and New Zealand as The Ode that is used on ANZAC day memorials and dawn services, i think that it *may* have room in the quotations section of this page as it has a solemn tone that may (or may not) be befitting to end the article on WW1. It is the fourth verse of Laurence Binyon's "The Fallen" ;
"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them."
As to its inclusion, i would like to see it however as an australian i am biased. I do however think it is appropriate, however whether it might be more valuable to have other less well known poetry in that section (or whether poetry from the first world war is appropriate at all) is obviously a topic for discussion here. Thoughts? 202.72.148.102 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that a move proposal in early 2005 was soundly defeated, and this isn't one as I support the current article title. But my impression is that the term Great War has had a substantial increase in popularity (at least here in Britain) in recent years, to the extent that the implication in the article's first paragraph that it is a purely pre-1939 name is inaccurate. "Largely" or "especially" before 1939, maybe, but not entirely. For example, this BBC story - Great War veteran dies aged 107 - is indicative. Although "World War I" is still substantially more common, it's certainly no longer the case that the 1960s BBC series was the last time Great War was used in common parlance. Loganberry ( Talk) 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say that if someone says "the Great War," the pre-1939 usage is still familiar enough that most educated people will assume that the First World War is meant. It is still not common usage, but it's familiar enough to be easily recognizable. john k 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to The War, as WWII is commonly refered to in Britain. Phil alias Harry 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that this article has gotten progressively worse as time has progressed, especially as Wikipedia has become somewhat mainstream. When I was in school - grade school - there never was an emphasis placed on "understanding the Great War" like there is today from what I have been told. I know it is somewhat of a prejudice, but I'm relatively confident in my assertion that younglings are contributing to this article more than ever and it shows. I also believe that this page endures more vandalism than almost any other and I would advise people to look back at this article about a year ago. This article - particularly the first half - is currently littered with statements that do not make sense or are entirely too detailed. I am in favor of reverting the "Causes" section back to around October or so, when it was in its bulleted format and a brief summarization of what could be found on the
causes of World War I page. Even it its current expanded form, i think this section is seriously missing out, not to mention longwinded. Any comments?--
Hohns3
10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As per WP:LEAD the intro of this article should be 2-3 paragraphs. The actual one is slightly short. CG 20:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The WW1 page is fantastic, and helping me out tremendously with my work - many thanks to all the editors who made it. Your a great help! Cheers. 81.111.216.158 20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
From Participants in World War I I count 30 or 36 nations (depending on whether or not the British Empire is counted as 1 or as 7 nations. I've also seen the number 32 quoted. Any idea which is correct? and I'd suggest including it in the main article whatever the most-accepted number is. - Alecmconroy 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a short section regarding the actual declaration of war (Austrian ultimatum etc.) before the "Opening of Hostilities" section. - Sangil 23:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
According to this article, George Lawrence Price was the last casualty of the war, shot and killed by a sniper at 1130 on November 11th. According to his own article, he was killed at 1058. It's likely that both times are apocryphal; I doubt the first thing his comrades did was check their watches. The first is unlikely as it is such a nice, round number, and the second is unlikely as it certainly took some time for the ceasefire to take effect everywhere. For the sake of accuracy, it might be better not to include a time at all, but in any case the two articles should be sourced and fixed to match each other. Kafziel 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I can hardly belive that an event as significant as the Armenian Genocide (as well as the related genocides of Greeks and Assyrians) is neither mentioned or linked to in this article. During WWI the ruling Turks of the Ottoman Empire ethnically cleansed perhaps as much as 90% of its Christian inhabitants - nearly 3 out of 4 Armenians were killed or died directly due to Ottoman cleansing efforts! (somewhat incorrectly called by some "deportations"). This is an amazingly high number of casulaties (and perhaps the Jews would have suffered similarly if the Allies were not able to defeat Germany before the Nazis could complete their gruesome task...)These Christinas constituted a substansial percentage of the pre-war Ottoman population - particularly in the Anatolian heartland which eventually was to become the Republic of Turkey after the war - a nation that has its basis in the acts of cleansing this territory of its Christian inhabitants (primarily) during World War I - and establishing a purely Turkish identity where before it had been a multi-cultural Empire. Much as the Germans (Nazi party that had taken control of the government structure) in WWII used the cover of war to eliminate its Jewish citizens (and Jews of conquered territories) and other undesirables - The Ottoman Turkish Commitee of Union and Progress (CUP) - a very similar revolutionary party that seized control of the Ottoman government through means later copied by the Nazis in Germany - pursued a very similar policy of eliminating undesirables (in this case its Christian citizens - and most particularly those of Armenian ethnicity) - with very similar results. An estimated 1.5 million Armenians (out of just over 2 million) were killed or otherwise perished as a direct result of these deliberate pre-meditated genocidal actions - and the ancient nation/community of Armenians which had existed in Anatolia for thousands of years suddenly ceased to be. And again Greek and Assyrian Christians of the Empire were likewise deliberatly singled out and destroyed (and these commmunities also had ancient historical roots in these lands). I warrent that any article concerning World War II that failed to mention the Holocaust and that failed to discuss its signifigance would not be deemed as painting an accurate or complete picture of the time and of one of the most significant events/outcomes during/of the war. I see the fact that this article fails to mention the Armenian Genocide as a shortcomming of equal magnitiude and am shocked by this. Might we not do something to correct it? -- THOTH 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide is not the greatest and is in need of much improvement - but it would be a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide -- THOTH 03:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This article mistakingly suggests that the Treaty of Versailles is a cause of WWI--The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty between the Allied powers and Germany after WWI, and is a cause of WWII.
" - for the first time - in and out from the air." What does this mean? -- Gbleem 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since admittedly this article is too long, and there is a seperate article about the causes of the war, I do not understand why this article needs to contain the (huge) section about the causes. It's excessive, is not relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. the war itself), and it repeats information already found in the 'causes' article. - Sangil 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The article on the war needs to contain a summary of its origins. This is standard procedure. It doesn't need to be that long, but it ought to be present. That said, the current stuff is almost useless. A brief description of long-term causes (Development of alliance systems from 1890, Moroccan Crises, Balkan Crises), along with a more detailed discussion of the July Crisis (which is almost entirely absent at the moment) would be sufficient, I think. john k 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen- why did you remove the reference to this name? It was often used during the war by the soldiers themselves. - Sangil 19:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Highly doubtfull if the guilt clause caused "Great Depression" or made Hitler rose to power. This seems more like revisionism version of history. The issues are more complex, and I don't think one can blame guilt clause for WW2.
As to German goals in Europe-it was clear that they wanted to establish a Central European Germany hegemony over puppet states that would be able to achieve economic power capable of rivaling England. -- Molobo 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
? Germany already was Central Europe, aside from Austria-Hungary. The concept of Mittleuropa was to create puppet states from Russian controlled territories that would be economically exploited by German Empire. There was no ambition to annex your Poland Incorrect. Germany wanted to annex at least 30.000 square km of Polish territories and perform ethnic cleansing of Polish and Jewish population.This is already sourced on article in Kingdom of Poland. shows that the Germans were prepared to hand those areas over to their respective ethnic populations as Russia's Empire disintegrated. The treaty states clearly that the GE and AH will decided their fate.
Germany already rivaled England The conquests in CE were to create German economic colonies and settlement. -- Molobo 11:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It says in the first paragraph that Germany led the axis in ww1
I printed out the article to read it and it is 25 pages long. I suggest we create more sub-articles to get the 25 pages to below 5. Comments welcome SirIsaacBrock 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you really believe that the war was started because of one man being assasinated?? I think not. No one is THAT popular!!- "My mates been shot.. let's start a war.." -Weren't they working on a Railway line between Berlin and Baghdad? It would have been a major oil route for the Austrian-hungarian empire. Bear in mind that the British (Anglo-Persian Oil Company - or as you will all know it as BP) were upset about the prospect of loosing their oil fields to renationalisation by the Iranian government, a small battalion was sent out to try and convince them it was not in their interests to carry it through. The result was that the line was never completed. If the line had been built all the way, the A-H empire's prosperity is most likely to have improved at the expense of the British. The line only reached Constantinopal (check the spelling). This was the original Orient Express route.
The causes for WWI is OIL - Not an just an assasination!! - If you don't believe me check the dates and check out UK military history. Winston Churchill was a busy man in the Middle east in this period.....
In the World War I - Navigate Through History: section, the list of partecipants should be fixed. I guess the partecipants are listed according to their casualties (Russian Empire first etc). But there is a long sublist of the British Empire that is listed according to alphabetical order (ironically, in this way we list NewZeland before UK, USA and Italy). This is weird and misleading. Moreover, Russian Empire links to Imperial Russia, France links to French_Third_Republic, British Empire links to British Empire. That's fair. But -for instance- Italy (with the italian monarchy flag of the period) links to the Italy article, USA links to the the United States article (concerning today's Italy and USA). If italian monarchy or XX century USA (and so on) have not their own article, we should link to some history section in their history article. gala.martin ( what?) 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's important to keep the films in chronological order. That allows people to see changes over time. Rjensen 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjension...I like your motivation of being concise, but I think you have taken important parts out of both sections.-- Hohns3 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Gabriel Princip, a member of the Black Hand. Although he acted alone, the Archduke had been made aware of the widespread threat due to Serbian nationalism.
Regardless, the assassination was followed by a chain of events that developed into a full-scale war.
-- Drogo Underburrow 11:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh, odd, Princip didn't act alone - he was part of a conspiracy that had previously failed to kill Franz Ferdinand. Also, he wasn't a member of the Black Hand - he was a member of Young Bosnia. john k 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly like either Rjensen's version or the alternative. I think Gavrilo Princip is famous enough that he can be mentioned here, but I'd suggest it be made clear he was part of a group of would-be assassins. I think the connection of Young Bosnia to elements of the Serbian government ought to also be made explicit. I don't like the description about them wanting the "German Catholic Empire" to stay out of "Slavic Orthodox territory". I think it would be better to say that they hoped to secure the adhesion of Bosnia to a Greater Serbia, or something along those lines. john k 16:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The article says "This last pointless offensive ironically cost 11,000 Allied lives," and seems to suggest that 11,000 died capturing Mons betweeen 10:30 and 11:00 on the final day of the war. This would make it about the bloodiest half-hour of the war (20,000 Allied soldiers were killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme). I've never heard of this great battle, so I find it extremely implausible, especially given all the 11s. Unless someone provides a cite, I'm going to change it to "a few losses," as claimed on this reputable-looking web page. Ragout 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there any WW1 magazines available to subscribe to? SirIsaacBrock 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the article claims that the Serbs wanted to kill Franz Ferdinand to keep the Germans out of the Balkans? Everybody remembers that FF was Austrian, right? MilesVorkosigan 16:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
On June 28, 1914, the heir to the Austrian throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated by team of Bosnian Serbs who supported the idea of a Greater Serbia. The assassination in Sarajevo was followed by a chain of events that led to a full-scale war. The underlying causes of the war were many and complex; historians and political scientists have grappled with the question for nearly a century without reaching a consensus. Some of the more prominent explanations are outlined below.
Not all the assassins were Serbs. Muhamed Mehmedbašić was part of the plot, and Young Bosnia had many Muslim and Croat members. Their aim was not a Greater Serbia, but a South Slavic state. -- estavisti 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The WW1 article avoids names. The Archduke for example and his assassin are not important--the assassination itself was very important and should be stressed. This has to be a very brief summary, and the links should be the ones we recommnend for people to learn more. I added the link to [[Assassination at Sarajevo because it is quite useful. The Archduke was pretty much a zero in history and in a summary article we should only include important people and events worth reading about. Rjensen 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. There's no reason to avoid names. There's no reason to introduce extraneous names, but the name of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (or of Gavrilo Princip for that matter) is not extraneous. (I would add that the characterzation of Franz Ferdinand as "pretty much a zero in history" would, I think, be disputed by pretty much any historian of Austria-Hungary. See, for instance, Samuel Williamson's Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War, which views the Archduke as a very important figure in the way Austro-Hungarian foreign policy was conducted from at least 1908 onwards) john k 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"It had long been an ambition of the Tsars to complete their centuries of counter-offensive against the Ottomans by seizing Constantinople, thus recovering the seat of Orthodox Christianity from Islam and securing a permanent southward access to warm water; it stood high among Russia's current war aims." Keegan, The First World War, p. 234.
Russia fought two wars in the 1870s (against Turkey & Britain) over control of the straits between the Black and Aegean Seas. In early 1915, Russia, England, and France made a secret agreement to give Russia Constantinople and the surrounding area. Ragout 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
'Why on earth shouldn't European Turkey be considered to be part of the Balkans?' Which would be why I called it a misunderstanding on my part. Again, oops. To me, 'the Balkans' connotes a bunch of small countries in the mountains that were part of the Ottoman Empire but are not part of Turkey. Looks like Wikipedia (and you folks) disagree. I'm going to assume you all are correct. Still feels odd, though. MilesVorkosigan 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"In strategic terms Germany had won the Great War. Its industrial base remained intact; it lost little territory of value; it now fronted on one major power (a debilitated France) rather than three (France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia). Its industrial strength, its geographic position, and the size of its population gave it the greatest economic potential in Europe, while the small states of Eastern Europe and the Balkans were all open to German political and economic domination." - A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett c. 2000 Harvard University Press; page 3. Williamson Murray is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defense Analysis, Washington D.C.; Allan R. Millet is General Raymond E. Mason, Jr. Professor of Military History at Ohio State University. - Drogo Underburrow 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no question that the Central Powers militarily collapsed in the fall of 1918. The Allies won the war militarily. Broader speculation about the "real winner" is probably inappropriate except in a more detailed analysis of the results of the war. john k 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the war guilt clause and heavy reparations contributed to the Nazi rise to power, and Germany's economic troubles after WWI. But I don't see how this is relevant to a section on the causes of WWI. This point would be better placed in the "Aftermath" section. Ragout 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The way this article is worded, it seemed like a good idea to combine the two and keep the descriptions short. Otherwise, perhaps we will want to go into detail about the First and Second Morroccan Crisis, etc. -- Hohns3 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Even though these are the two main parties that were fighting, some of the participants reach way back. The Balkans played a huge role in sparking the war but it was really the Congress of Vienna that made the war so terrible. By making the European Powers equal, the countries, if it did come to war, one would not be able to wipe out the other ending in a terrible stale mate." I removed this from that paragraph because if it is worth mentioning it should be in the causes. I understand the point but all the Congress of Vienna did was reshape Europe. Granted it made France weaker, and strengthened Piedomont helping it on its way to unify Italy, but by 1900 the five powers weren't equal. Great Britain, and Germany were the strongest with France in the middle and Austria, Russia, and Italy in the far rear. So I don't believe its and accurate statement on two points, but thats my opinion which is why I brought it to talk. 12.220.94.199 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
At the very last moment, the Kaiser Wilhelm II asked Moltke, the German Chief of General Staff, to cancel the invasion of France in the hope this would keep Britain out of the war. Moltke, horrified by the prospect of the utter ruin of the Schlieffen Plan, refused on the grounds that it would be impossible to change the rail schedule—"once settled, it cannot be altered".
A long time ago when I was in college, taking history classes, I recall reading that the idea that mobilization plans could not be stopped or changed once started was a myth. In fact, there was nothing to stop German mobilization from being delayed or changed, which seems reasonable, you simply stop movements and re-schedule. Moltke simply didn't want to change plans, and told the Kaiser they "couldn't" do it, when in fact of course he could have. Anyone read any current literature which has also said this? Drogo Underburrow 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Taking all these things into careful consideration....the logical conclusion is that Moltke lied to the Kaiser, who was too weak-willed to put his foot down and look at Molke and say, "Who is the leader here? Now get off your fat duff and go make what I want happen, or resign; I'm sure I can find someone else to take your place." - Drogo Underburrow 03:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Kaiser wanted to "do such a thing"; and he was supposedly the boss. Moltke told him no, and the wimp just accepted it. Drogo Underburrow 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Drogo is right, the reason for interest in the subject is that the Kaiser specifically wanted to pursue such a course at the time. I don't think it would be right to say that Moltke lied. I think that Moltke felt that a deviation from the modified Schlieffen Plan would be disastrous to Germany, and that Germany would end up at war with both countries (Moltke apparently didn't care about the British) anyway, and without any way of securing a quick victory on either front. As such, it was his duty, as he saw it, to make sure that the Schlieffen Plan was implemented, whether or not the railroads could actually be changed. Another point - as I understand it, it is not actually true that Moltke forced the Kaiser to back down. My understanding is that, after this conversation, Moltke retreated to his quarters, defeated, and started contemplating suicide, and that the Schlieffen Plan came back on track only when it became clear to the Kaiser that Britain would not, in fact, remain neutral if the Schlieffen Plan was cancelled (the Kaiser had been misled about the likeliness of British neutrality by, among others, his brother Prince Henry, who'd had a misinterpreted conversation with their cousin George V.) The idea that Moltke forced the Kaiser to back down is actually a myth. john k 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The image WWI.png is not right. During the War Tibet was illegaly independent, but it has always been part of China, according to the constitution of Republic of China (ROC) in 1912 and earlier was ruled by Qing Dynasty. It was not communists that subjucated Tibet but the Qing Dynasty. The deputy of imperial central government actually ruled Tibet, not as some people believed that that Tibet was only a subjucated kingdom as Korea. The westerners' belief on the independence Tibet is part of the result of a British attempt to swallow Tibet into colonial India. Please go read the documents of Chinese governments from Qing Dynasty to Republic of China.
I noticed that this article was recently put up on FARC in January, and the ending decision was to keep. While I hate to see this article de-featured, there are several major issues with this article that should definitely be addressed:
Regards, AndyZ t 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Verdict of Versailles" section needs to be moved to the end of war section, because the "Guilt War" clause was a result of the war not a cause of the war, just think about the article logically, how could the Verdict of Versailles, which has to to with the Treaty of Versailles, come before the Treaty of Versailles, which was the treaty that ended the war?
Reguardless of what the first comment said, the "Verdict of Versailles" should not be mentioned in the beginning. Although I understand that "officially" Germany was responsible for the war, mentioning the treaty of Versailles and the "Guilt War" clause makes the Causes Section difficult to understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow7789 ( talk • contribs) .
'The "official" explanation appeared in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, often referred to as the War Guilt Clause. The argument was based on the fact that it was Austria, backed by the Wilhelmstraße, that attacked Serbia on July 29 and Germany that invaded Belgium on August 3.' It might just be me, but this makes it sound as if the Germans invaded Serbia. I'm going to change that. The rest of the article doesn't state anything like 'Troops from No. 10 Downing Street' supported the attack, so I'm going to switch out Wilhelmstrasse for 'Germany'. MilesVorkosigan 22:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, could you please try reading what I put in before you revert it? At least one of those reverts you said that you were removing the link but you were actually putting it back in. The 'of course' that you said you were removing from the article was in an EDIT SUMMARY, not in the article itself. You also appear to be claiming that the Nazi party should be mentioned in a section on the causes of World War I. MilesVorkosigan 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, perhaps it would help if you actually read what you are reverting.
I'm trying to understand the basis of your argument but I can't understand what exactly you are objecting to. MilesVorkosigan 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
the photos that represent WWI have a photo of a Mk.IV but it is said that it is a Mk.I, it is not a Mk.I because it lacks the wooden wheel, granade roof, camo and has diffrent drivers cab and sponsons
"The 'War Guilt' of Germany" subsection talks about the WWI armistice treaty and the war debt Germany had to pay after WWI. It was under the "Causes" section. Things that happened after a war are not a cause of the war, so I moved "The 'War Guilt' of Germany" subsection from the "Causes" of WWI section to the "Aftermath" section. David_Underdown flagged my move of this content as a deletion and a vandalism and moved the post-treaty aftermath content back to one of the causes of WWI. Dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 ( talk • contribs)
I changed the box at the bottom so that it wouldn't overlap the links. just doin my job ;) - Bagel7 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
A little typo: In the "July (something) and Declarations of War" section, it says that so-and-so was "one of the only French figure . . ." It should be 'figures.'
(Sorry for sticking this here; I didn't know where else to put it.)
Let's pick one or the other to prevent confusing people (right now thay are both used). I suggest Allies, because that is more common, but it's up to you guys.
never even heard the phrase "entente" before - Jedi of Redwll
Entente is most properly the name of the alliances BEFORE the war (I believe) and Allies takes up after war is declared. - JEK -- Troublemaker 03:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
deleted
If anything, the term "Alliance" should refer to the Central Powers, since they grew out of the Triple Alliance, as opposed to the victorious powers growing out of the Triple Entente. Admittedly, that did not include the US, but the US entered the war expressly not as an ally of the T.E., but rather because of German violations of US shipping.
I think it's also a little POV. The reference seems to come from the common tendency to view WWI through the prism of WWII, after which the term 'Ally' took on a positive connotation it didn't have in the 1910s (at least in the US).
I'll give a week for comment, and then if I find the appropriate reference, I'll make some edits.
-- 69.251.252.22 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The official terms used are "Triple Entente" and "Triple Alliance" - there is no real side at that point that is named the Allies because both sides are really just allies grouped up. The term "Allies" was only used in WWII and like said, if anything "Allies" should be used to describe the Central Powers though in my opinion it should not be used to describe either if for no reason but to avoid confusion.
I have noticed that the term "Allies" is generally used to mean the countries allied with Britain, not the USA. For example, in the Napoleonic Wars, the Allies were at various times Britain, the French Royalists, Spain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, etc., while the USA was on the side of Imperial France. In WWI allies was only used in the literal sense, and in WWII, the Allies were of course the USA, UK, USSR, etc,. In other wars the term Allies is usually used for the larger side. Phil alias Harry 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have to disagree with this statement :
"The British and French insisted that the United States emphasize sending infantry to reinforce the line. Throughout the war, the American forces were short of their own artillery, aviation, and engineering units. However, General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Force commander, resisted breaking up American units and using them as reinforcements for British Empire and French units, as suggested by the Allies."
French general Joffre supported the idea that the US soldiers would come in the form of an US army/corps.
Here's one source (but there are several others) that support this version.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blgenesisaef2.htm
"To make American troops immediately effective, therefore, Joffre's first inclination was to urge the Americans to furnish the French and British "with men instead of armies." If troops were sent to France organized only into companies and battalions, they could quickly be incorporated into French regiments for training and service at the front. There would therefore, according to Joffre, be "no occasion for training general officers and staff for the larger units, only captains and majors being needed."
Joffre quickly discarded that idea, however, because he knew the Americans could never accept it. No great nation, especially the United States, the prescient old soldier knew, would "allow its citizens to be incorporated like poor relations in the ranks of some other army and fight under a foreign flag." He therefore determined that he would start from that premise as he entered discussions in America. "
If this is the case, I'm sorry. back to the subject. I hope someone had a back-up. I Posted my post and the next day when I come back, there is only mine though there were a lot of post formerly .... stupid americans
Be more careful! Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
and americans arent stupid! >:( Bagel7 22:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps on the Timeline there should be a mention of the sinking of the Lusitania, as it was an important factor in the United States' entry into hostilities. stupid americans 153.104.16.114 23:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
"public indignation over the Zimmermann telegram"? USG made it public when? And without compromising the secret? Or does it mean Congress was indignant? Trekphiler 08:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I deleted "The question of 'neutrality at sea' would push the United States into the war." This is another example of the fiction used to cover the Zimmermann telegram. It has no place in a serious work. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Link to "What role did the Arab population play in World War I" http://ozhanozturk.com/content/view/310/47/ (which claims to be written 2005-10-08) was removed because it was plagiarized from: http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004_11_07_maviboncuk_archive.html
The US was hardly neutral in the run up to WW1. It was actively supporting Britain by making loans more readily available to Britain, and looking the other way when British ships stopped US ships on the high seas. Jmorello
The map submitted with the article depicts the borders on Balkans before Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. During Balkan Wars Turkey's presence on Balkans was reduced roughly to what it is today.
This map needs to be changed !! preferrably with this picture: [ [1]]
That map is inaccurate, any Junior High kid could tell you that, there isn't even an independant Albania. Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) As pointed out by many others, the map is very wrong indeed.
What is the source for this statment and who are are the "some scholars"? -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Three decade long wars generally don't involve four years of war, 21 years of uneasy peace, and then six more years of war. I've never heard of a scholar who actually says that the period 1914-1945 was a single three-decade long war, although the idea of a "Second Thirty Years' War" has been invoked as an image, or a conceptual framework. But that's quite different. john k 21:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The usage may not mean "30yrs active combat". The 100 Yrs War wasn't, either. The causes of WW2 trace directly to WW1, & many of the experiences would be based on it. Tank warfare, for instance, is directly based on late WW1 practise. ASW failed to learn lessons of WW1 (& Dan van der Vat connects the wars as 1 in The Atlantic Campaign). Trekphiler 02:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess you could make that case, but many prominant scholars do think of the two world wars as one war. I do not know a reference for it however, I learned it in a college class.
I'd like to know when it changed from being anyones war to an Allied Victory. Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
This section needs to be fleshed out more. There were several significant and important battles in addition to those that the American Army participated in that merit a mention.
I noticed that the math didn't make sense for a couple of rows in the Casualties table (Dead plus Wounded should = Casualties), so I made the following changes:
1. The line for Russia had Casualties: 6,650,000; Dead: 1,700,000; Wounded: 5,950,000. This has a discrepancy of 1,000,000. I did a search and found that about.com ( http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm) had the same numbers for Casualties and Dead, but Wounded was 4,950,000 on that page, so I assumed that the Wounded number had the error in the Wikipedia and changed it. (The totals at the bottom appear to support this.)
2. The line for Serbia had Casualties: 1,700,000; Dead: 450,000; Wounded: 950,000. This has a discrepancy of 300,000. The about.com page had radically different numbers for "Serbia" so it wasn't helpful. By checking the totals on the Wikipedia page, it looked to me like the Wounded number for Serbia is likely the problem, so I changed it to 1,250,000.
3. The total for the Dead column was low by 18,166 (which happens to be the number for New Zealand.) I changed it from 9,381,551 to 9,399,717.
4. The total for the Wounded column was about 420,000 too high! The numbers in the table add up to 22,729,352, rather than 23,148,975, so I changed that number too.
BTW, I noticed that the total numbers in Wikipedia vary considerably from the ones on about.com. Of course there is no single fully accepted source of such casualty counts. But even without that, the horrendous impact is clear.
Rob Esau, Edmonton, Canada
Moved from main article.
El_C
12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC) What type of explosives did they use when they mined the enemy trenches?
81.179.93.121
There was a variety of different explosives used, with some experimentation during the course of the war. The mines at Messines were largely Ammonal. The similar Amatol was developed to economise on the use of TNT. I'm sure there were many others. Have a look in the explosives category to find more. We do have a rather terse list of Explosives used during WW II article as well. Lisiate 22:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi wikipedians! Due to opinions from various places (e.g. Talk:World_War_II#Lead_pic_problems), I have changed the lead pictures for the WWI & WWII page, so that they now are without the top title text ("World War I" & "World War II" (remember to hit "refresh" in your browser). I believe this is what the majority desires, but if you object, please say so here. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I question the "large-scale bombing" remark. Compared to what? German attacks on London killed fewer people than traffic crashes. And compared to WW2, the scale was trivial. An edit is in order. Trekphiler 01:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
That may be true, but with over 1000 deaths from bombing it was considered enormous at the time along with the psychological impact on the people. Many people starting sleeping in subways and such.
Bravo for including the A-H rejection of Serbia's acceptance. I stumbled on that a few years ago, & had never heard it before. Trekphiler 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Here (& as a general rule), can we include pronounciation of names? I don't know how Princip is pronounced, & I'm sure many don't. Doubtless this is true often. Also, I've seen it done on the Buick page. Trekphiler 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I added the problems of speed of advance. Schlieffen's plan failed to account for the inability to move supplies, notably fodder, from railheads rapidly enough to overcome French countermoves, & GenStaff did no better. I'd also note France made innovative & important use of motor transport, buses, to achieve victory at First Marne, while Germany didn't, & the right hook around Paris pulled in & failed. Shifting force from the Schwerpunkt to the hinge at Sedan didn't help, either... Trekphiler 03:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote this:
It overemphasises MGs, a com myth; makes N ref arty, which was more lethal than MGs; & says nothing to tactics N keep up w tech. Trekphiler 04:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I sense a Brit/Allied bias. Mention of British rotation policy, without reference to French, alone German, is inappropriate. I'd be interested to know what both these nations, as well as Russia, did. Trekphiler 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This concerns me:
It may be true, but it seems a bit strident. Trekphiler 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is deficient in a number of areas. First, it is (almost) exclusively concerned with land operations. I see no mention of the crucial influence of the U-boat campaign & how near it brought Britain to defeat. Nor do I see (as usual) any mention of the Japanese contributions to convoy escort in the Med. Nor any reference to commerce raiding, which was also important to RN defense of trade.
Second, there is no mention of non-whites or non-Europeans, such as war in Africa, or blacks in U.S. service, or (even less well known) Japanese-Canadians, such as the 50h Inf Rgt.
Third, there is no mention of the influence of the war on social conditions of blacks in the U.S.; as in WW2, it produced migration for jobs, with significant effects.
Fourth, & perhaps most obviously lacking, is the utter absence of the influence of airpower. It has been suggested air observation directly produced the trench stalemate, by making secret movement of troops impossible. Regardless, when over 150 thousand aircraft were built during the war, orders of magnitude more than tanks, aircraft certainly merit inclusion, if tanks do... See Morrow on German airpower in WW1.
While I'm in no way qualified to post on these areas, it seems to me they must be addressed. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article claims WW1 was first use of aircraft in combat. I've seen (conflicting) claims for Mexico & Libya in 1911-2... Also, it seems to say WW1 was first use of submarines in combat, too. This is flat wrong. First use of submarines in combat was in 1776, by David Bushnell's 1-man sub Turtle, operated by Sgt Ezra Lee, Continental Army. First success was by CSS H. L. Hunley against frigate USS Housatonic in USCW (at Charleston, I believe). In addition, it continues to need correction of incorrect use of "shrapnel" to mean "fragmentation" (a very common mistake amongst the uninitiated...) Trekphiler 11:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
not sure about the U-boats, but I have seen many places say that ww1 was the first war with aircraft, but I wasnt personally there - Jedi of Redwall
I added this:
Trekphiler 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I added these:
I've also seen a documentary on Gallipoli, on which I base my opinion of Hamilton, & a couple of docs on Canadians in WW1, from which I got ref to 50h Inf, MGs & Brutinel, & some other stuff. (Unfortunately, I've no idea of the titles...) Trekphiler 13:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I sense a Brit/Allied bias. Mention of British rotation policy, without reference to French, alone German, is inappropriate. I'd be interested to know what both these nations, as well as Russia, did. Trekphiler 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This concerns me:
It may be true, but it seems a bit strident. Trekphiler 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's also misleading. While General Conrad may, indeed, have continued to dislike the Italians after he was dismissed as Chief of Staff in 1917, the text at present seems to imply that he remained Chief of Staff throughout the war. Which is, of course, not the case. john k 06:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
This was mentioned on the old talk page and since it was there staring at me when I started reading I've removed it: Activity by the French and British Empire forces in the eastern part of the former Ottoman Empire would give rise to several modern conflicts, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Greco-Turkish conflict over Cyprus, the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the 1990s by Iraq. The Greco-Turkish conflict, which ended in 1924, was the last direct major conflict of the war. POV nonsense. Would be better to blame Alexander the Great... In fact the article is actually quite poor in several areas. Gallipoli? Naval warfare? The French!?! I can't understand how it was ever "featured". I am slightly overwhelmed by the scale of the task needed to address the problems here so I am going to go away and ponder. :( Wiki-Ed 10:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed: In the First World War 5% of casualties were civilian. In the Second World War that was 50%. I added this after reading it in 'In Europa' by Geert Mak, which should be a reliable source. And it's relevant. So I put it back. What was the reason for deletion? DirkvdM 11:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I have changed "British Empire" to "British Empire and Dominions" in the summary box. This is for two reasons: (i) because Canada, Australia and New Zealand contributed significant numbers of troops to the Allied cause and this should be explicitly recognised, and (ii) they weren't part of the British Empire at the time of WWI. Sliggy 21:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi wikipedians! I know this issue is a bit "tweaky", but I would like some input on it:
Should the allies (i.e. not Central Powers) be referred to as " Entente" or " Allies"?
Why I ask is because I am doing some organizing in different WW1 sub-pages, and it has started to confuse me since both names are used in various places. I don't feel any major problem with the use of both names inside texts (even though I don't prefer it), but the problem is with titles and in templates. For instance, the following pages use different names:
I myself lean towards the term "Entente Powers" or "Entente Forces", because
I would really like your opinions on the matter. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 01:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The line "By its end, the war had become the second bloodiest conflict in recorded history (behind the Taiping Rebellion)..." should be struck from this article. There is a hugh about of speculation about how many people died in the Taiping Rebellion to quite the Wiki Taiping Rebellion
200 million would have been 1/2 the population of china at the time and is a overly liberal number to assign, but with the current information the Taiping Rebellion can only be assumed to be one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. Not the bloodiest conflict in history untill WWII. 12.20.127.229 18:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
More than 9 million died on the battlefield, and nearly that many more on the home fronts.. The info-box reads 9 million military casualties, 7 million civilians. And then: In the First World War 5% of casualties were civilian.
This does not add up! Either the third number is wrong, or the first two are. Or they're both right, but use very different criteria for civilian casualties. (as World War I casualties elaborates on) In any case, this is no good because it makes the article seem to contradict itself. I think either the percentage figures should be removed, or they should be supplemented with information on what criteria were used, and the same for the other figures. Whatever critera is chosen, it's important that it's consistent. Although such information might not belong in the summary anyway. The WWI casualties page may be a better place. -- BluePlatypus 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone can explain the difference between "battlefield deaths" and "ground combat" casualties on the home front, I'm going to delete the term "ground combat" from this passage:
J.R. Hercules 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some difference between "deaths" and mere "casualties" that I'm overlooking, but I believe it says that "5% of the casualties in WWI were civilian" and then refers to WWII in comparison. This is all nice, except 5 percent of 9 million is not 7 million, as presented in the box on the right hand side of the index.
-Grasshopper
For your information, the sub-page World War I casualties will most likely undergo several updates during the next month, and this could have an impact on the values used in the World War I main article. My regards, -- Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 00:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. I made some contributions back over the summer and I see that it continues to expand in positive ways. The modern picture of "gott strafe england" is quite a relic and an interesting find. I added a few more things as well. Excellent job everyone!-- 68.45.21.204 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added a World map with the participants ( Image:WWI.png). If you want to suggest a correction just tell me and I'll do it. Thanks. - Gameiro 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you make the world map the same color as the European map? I have no problem with this myself, but here many others in class that wish maps would use the same colors, especially when one map uses the same color for one side that is used as the enemy in the other. -SAS- 23 Jan 2006 8:57 Eastern
Similarly, Canadians believe although they participated in wars before this time, it was the first time they proved they were their own country, not just subjects of the British Empire; unlike Australia, however, Canada had to deal with Quebec, and the situation would only be exacerbated as a result.
This was written in the section about other names for WWI. Not only does this statement have nothing to do with "other names", it makes little sense. I've studied quite a bit about WWI, and I haven't read anything about Quebec or soldiers from Quebec being anything but loyal soldiers. However, if I am wrong, then this sentence needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. OrangeMarlin 10:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen mentioned as a cause of the war the culture of militarism prevalent in Germany and, even moreso, in Austria-Hungary - the idea that war was actually a preferable way of settling disputes. This explanation is linked with the place of the military in Germany - respected, holding the ultimate levers of power through association with the Emperor and the centralised State - as opposed to France and Britain, where the military were in second place to the civilian establishment. Does anyone think this is worth putting in the Causes section? PiCo 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The British built the HMS Dreadnought, a 'revolutionary battleship', and this weakened their naval powers? Might help if you could explain this a bit more for the novices. 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)~~
I did my best to clarify the statement by taking into account the information provided here. TSO1D 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has the curious notion that the war ended in 1919-- it must be based on original research because other reference books have heard of 11-11-1918 Rjensen 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What does the last sentence mean? That the difference between Australia and Canada is the battles between the French part of Canada, Quebec, and the rest? And what situation exacerbated?
Unless it's very obvious to most, even if someone explains it, the sentence should be reformulated.
Best wishes, -- A Sunshade Lust 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
fixed by removal; not relevant to this article Hmains 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmains, i am curious to know why at least one reference to a WW1 battle that strongly contributed to Canadian national identity is relevent to the article; "In the British-led Battle of Arras during the 1917 campaign, the only military success was the capture of Vimy Ridge by the Canadian Corps under Sir Arthur Currie. It provided the allies with great military advantage and greatly contributed to the identity of Canada. See the Battle of Vimy Ridge for more information" (plus a picture), yet a similar reference to Gallipoli and Australian/New Zealand national identity is not relevent is interesting. Granted, the aforementioned quote above in this talk page could be a bit long and may need trimming, hardly warrents it being labelled as irrelevent and its removal. 202.72.148.102 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to many the Summary Box longer? At least 2 countries in the left column do not get displayed, including the United States. Thanks Hmains 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not one mentioning? I mean at least a link, like the way you have about th Armenian geoncide. Nothing? Chaldean 03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Rename? -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
>The reasons for the outbreak of World War I
The only significant cause of WWI was imperialism, that is to gain or keep overseas colonies and oppress and exploit its black and yellow skinned population. There was no good and bad side in WWI, both entente and axis was motivated by evil desire of colonialism and no side had any morality. UK and France did not want to share its existing colonial grasp and Germany wanted colonies by taking it from entente countires. No one asked the aboriginal coloureds who lived in those colonies under oppression.
This is fundamentally different from WWII, where one could argue for a morally good and bad division.
Kalr Marx and Ilyich Lenin perfectly explained the reasons of the Great War had its roots solely in the global system of Imperialism.
The current lotsa blahblah in the article only serves to whitewash the fact that Britain was the largest colonial power in the world that time and thus it has the greatest responsibility for the WWI. 213.178.103.162 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Ok then. not quite sure who you are there, but you can not be serious, can you? Just to offer one point that is wrong with this, the reason that this turned into a World War is because of the military and political agreements. Take these away, and you might have a wat between Serbia and Austria-Hungary by itself. I'm not saying that what I said was the only reason the war happened, or that imperialism wasn't part of what happened, but you can't focus on one thing and bash everyone. Scotishman 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why the United States isn't shown on the list at the bottom of the main template. Shouldn't the major participants be listed first? Why are Japan and Montenegro listed before the US? Kafziel 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In the title picture, the bottom left frame with the gas masked machine gun crew has been altered so that someone's ghost image was inserted. There is also a Nazi Swastika on the biplane. The original pictures clearly show none of there so they were tampered with. THe machine gun crew problem is simple photoshop work but the British Biplane showing a Nazi Swastika is hard to spot but when you click ont the image you can see it clearly. This is very inaccurate and might be the work of neo-nazi's
16th Feburary 2006
What's with the formatting under "Causes"? what's with that huge space?
"Romanticized" is not spelled "romanticised." I expect better out of a featured article that "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."
I cannot even begin to explain how horrible of a mistake this is. I've fixed it for now, but I just know that someone is going to revert it back. Please consider using a spell checker next time and consider the fact that some people actually use this site for reference. Seriously, this is completely unacceptable. I don't understand how such an oversight became featured as an ideal article for people to refer to. -- 192.203.136.254 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Bloody Yanks ! TrulyTory 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Guys! Quit Fucking insulting each other! They're both acceptable. Whatever it is now, don't change it. Cameron Nedland 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is another spelling mistake regarding the discussion in the Southern European conflict; namely: "The British Empire opened another front in the South with the Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamian campaigns. In Gallipoli, the Turks were successful in repelling the ANZAC'S (Australian New Zealand Army Core), " - whilst pronounced "Core", ANZAC clearly means Corps as in an army Corps just like every other nation. 202.72.148.102 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
whilst i recognise that the following quotation is recognised in Australia and New Zealand as The Ode that is used on ANZAC day memorials and dawn services, i think that it *may* have room in the quotations section of this page as it has a solemn tone that may (or may not) be befitting to end the article on WW1. It is the fourth verse of Laurence Binyon's "The Fallen" ;
"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them."
As to its inclusion, i would like to see it however as an australian i am biased. I do however think it is appropriate, however whether it might be more valuable to have other less well known poetry in that section (or whether poetry from the first world war is appropriate at all) is obviously a topic for discussion here. Thoughts? 202.72.148.102 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that a move proposal in early 2005 was soundly defeated, and this isn't one as I support the current article title. But my impression is that the term Great War has had a substantial increase in popularity (at least here in Britain) in recent years, to the extent that the implication in the article's first paragraph that it is a purely pre-1939 name is inaccurate. "Largely" or "especially" before 1939, maybe, but not entirely. For example, this BBC story - Great War veteran dies aged 107 - is indicative. Although "World War I" is still substantially more common, it's certainly no longer the case that the 1960s BBC series was the last time Great War was used in common parlance. Loganberry ( Talk) 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say that if someone says "the Great War," the pre-1939 usage is still familiar enough that most educated people will assume that the First World War is meant. It is still not common usage, but it's familiar enough to be easily recognizable. john k 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to The War, as WWII is commonly refered to in Britain. Phil alias Harry 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that this article has gotten progressively worse as time has progressed, especially as Wikipedia has become somewhat mainstream. When I was in school - grade school - there never was an emphasis placed on "understanding the Great War" like there is today from what I have been told. I know it is somewhat of a prejudice, but I'm relatively confident in my assertion that younglings are contributing to this article more than ever and it shows. I also believe that this page endures more vandalism than almost any other and I would advise people to look back at this article about a year ago. This article - particularly the first half - is currently littered with statements that do not make sense or are entirely too detailed. I am in favor of reverting the "Causes" section back to around October or so, when it was in its bulleted format and a brief summarization of what could be found on the
causes of World War I page. Even it its current expanded form, i think this section is seriously missing out, not to mention longwinded. Any comments?--
Hohns3
10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As per WP:LEAD the intro of this article should be 2-3 paragraphs. The actual one is slightly short. CG 20:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The WW1 page is fantastic, and helping me out tremendously with my work - many thanks to all the editors who made it. Your a great help! Cheers. 81.111.216.158 20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
From Participants in World War I I count 30 or 36 nations (depending on whether or not the British Empire is counted as 1 or as 7 nations. I've also seen the number 32 quoted. Any idea which is correct? and I'd suggest including it in the main article whatever the most-accepted number is. - Alecmconroy 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a short section regarding the actual declaration of war (Austrian ultimatum etc.) before the "Opening of Hostilities" section. - Sangil 23:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
According to this article, George Lawrence Price was the last casualty of the war, shot and killed by a sniper at 1130 on November 11th. According to his own article, he was killed at 1058. It's likely that both times are apocryphal; I doubt the first thing his comrades did was check their watches. The first is unlikely as it is such a nice, round number, and the second is unlikely as it certainly took some time for the ceasefire to take effect everywhere. For the sake of accuracy, it might be better not to include a time at all, but in any case the two articles should be sourced and fixed to match each other. Kafziel 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I can hardly belive that an event as significant as the Armenian Genocide (as well as the related genocides of Greeks and Assyrians) is neither mentioned or linked to in this article. During WWI the ruling Turks of the Ottoman Empire ethnically cleansed perhaps as much as 90% of its Christian inhabitants - nearly 3 out of 4 Armenians were killed or died directly due to Ottoman cleansing efforts! (somewhat incorrectly called by some "deportations"). This is an amazingly high number of casulaties (and perhaps the Jews would have suffered similarly if the Allies were not able to defeat Germany before the Nazis could complete their gruesome task...)These Christinas constituted a substansial percentage of the pre-war Ottoman population - particularly in the Anatolian heartland which eventually was to become the Republic of Turkey after the war - a nation that has its basis in the acts of cleansing this territory of its Christian inhabitants (primarily) during World War I - and establishing a purely Turkish identity where before it had been a multi-cultural Empire. Much as the Germans (Nazi party that had taken control of the government structure) in WWII used the cover of war to eliminate its Jewish citizens (and Jews of conquered territories) and other undesirables - The Ottoman Turkish Commitee of Union and Progress (CUP) - a very similar revolutionary party that seized control of the Ottoman government through means later copied by the Nazis in Germany - pursued a very similar policy of eliminating undesirables (in this case its Christian citizens - and most particularly those of Armenian ethnicity) - with very similar results. An estimated 1.5 million Armenians (out of just over 2 million) were killed or otherwise perished as a direct result of these deliberate pre-meditated genocidal actions - and the ancient nation/community of Armenians which had existed in Anatolia for thousands of years suddenly ceased to be. And again Greek and Assyrian Christians of the Empire were likewise deliberatly singled out and destroyed (and these commmunities also had ancient historical roots in these lands). I warrent that any article concerning World War II that failed to mention the Holocaust and that failed to discuss its signifigance would not be deemed as painting an accurate or complete picture of the time and of one of the most significant events/outcomes during/of the war. I see the fact that this article fails to mention the Armenian Genocide as a shortcomming of equal magnitiude and am shocked by this. Might we not do something to correct it? -- THOTH 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide is not the greatest and is in need of much improvement - but it would be a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide -- THOTH 03:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This article mistakingly suggests that the Treaty of Versailles is a cause of WWI--The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty between the Allied powers and Germany after WWI, and is a cause of WWII.
" - for the first time - in and out from the air." What does this mean? -- Gbleem 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since admittedly this article is too long, and there is a seperate article about the causes of the war, I do not understand why this article needs to contain the (huge) section about the causes. It's excessive, is not relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. the war itself), and it repeats information already found in the 'causes' article. - Sangil 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The article on the war needs to contain a summary of its origins. This is standard procedure. It doesn't need to be that long, but it ought to be present. That said, the current stuff is almost useless. A brief description of long-term causes (Development of alliance systems from 1890, Moroccan Crises, Balkan Crises), along with a more detailed discussion of the July Crisis (which is almost entirely absent at the moment) would be sufficient, I think. john k 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen- why did you remove the reference to this name? It was often used during the war by the soldiers themselves. - Sangil 19:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Highly doubtfull if the guilt clause caused "Great Depression" or made Hitler rose to power. This seems more like revisionism version of history. The issues are more complex, and I don't think one can blame guilt clause for WW2.
As to German goals in Europe-it was clear that they wanted to establish a Central European Germany hegemony over puppet states that would be able to achieve economic power capable of rivaling England. -- Molobo 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
? Germany already was Central Europe, aside from Austria-Hungary. The concept of Mittleuropa was to create puppet states from Russian controlled territories that would be economically exploited by German Empire. There was no ambition to annex your Poland Incorrect. Germany wanted to annex at least 30.000 square km of Polish territories and perform ethnic cleansing of Polish and Jewish population.This is already sourced on article in Kingdom of Poland. shows that the Germans were prepared to hand those areas over to their respective ethnic populations as Russia's Empire disintegrated. The treaty states clearly that the GE and AH will decided their fate.
Germany already rivaled England The conquests in CE were to create German economic colonies and settlement. -- Molobo 11:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It says in the first paragraph that Germany led the axis in ww1
I printed out the article to read it and it is 25 pages long. I suggest we create more sub-articles to get the 25 pages to below 5. Comments welcome SirIsaacBrock 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you really believe that the war was started because of one man being assasinated?? I think not. No one is THAT popular!!- "My mates been shot.. let's start a war.." -Weren't they working on a Railway line between Berlin and Baghdad? It would have been a major oil route for the Austrian-hungarian empire. Bear in mind that the British (Anglo-Persian Oil Company - or as you will all know it as BP) were upset about the prospect of loosing their oil fields to renationalisation by the Iranian government, a small battalion was sent out to try and convince them it was not in their interests to carry it through. The result was that the line was never completed. If the line had been built all the way, the A-H empire's prosperity is most likely to have improved at the expense of the British. The line only reached Constantinopal (check the spelling). This was the original Orient Express route.
The causes for WWI is OIL - Not an just an assasination!! - If you don't believe me check the dates and check out UK military history. Winston Churchill was a busy man in the Middle east in this period.....
In the World War I - Navigate Through History: section, the list of partecipants should be fixed. I guess the partecipants are listed according to their casualties (Russian Empire first etc). But there is a long sublist of the British Empire that is listed according to alphabetical order (ironically, in this way we list NewZeland before UK, USA and Italy). This is weird and misleading. Moreover, Russian Empire links to Imperial Russia, France links to French_Third_Republic, British Empire links to British Empire. That's fair. But -for instance- Italy (with the italian monarchy flag of the period) links to the Italy article, USA links to the the United States article (concerning today's Italy and USA). If italian monarchy or XX century USA (and so on) have not their own article, we should link to some history section in their history article. gala.martin ( what?) 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's important to keep the films in chronological order. That allows people to see changes over time. Rjensen 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjension...I like your motivation of being concise, but I think you have taken important parts out of both sections.-- Hohns3 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Gabriel Princip, a member of the Black Hand. Although he acted alone, the Archduke had been made aware of the widespread threat due to Serbian nationalism.
Regardless, the assassination was followed by a chain of events that developed into a full-scale war.
-- Drogo Underburrow 11:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh, odd, Princip didn't act alone - he was part of a conspiracy that had previously failed to kill Franz Ferdinand. Also, he wasn't a member of the Black Hand - he was a member of Young Bosnia. john k 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly like either Rjensen's version or the alternative. I think Gavrilo Princip is famous enough that he can be mentioned here, but I'd suggest it be made clear he was part of a group of would-be assassins. I think the connection of Young Bosnia to elements of the Serbian government ought to also be made explicit. I don't like the description about them wanting the "German Catholic Empire" to stay out of "Slavic Orthodox territory". I think it would be better to say that they hoped to secure the adhesion of Bosnia to a Greater Serbia, or something along those lines. john k 16:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The article says "This last pointless offensive ironically cost 11,000 Allied lives," and seems to suggest that 11,000 died capturing Mons betweeen 10:30 and 11:00 on the final day of the war. This would make it about the bloodiest half-hour of the war (20,000 Allied soldiers were killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme). I've never heard of this great battle, so I find it extremely implausible, especially given all the 11s. Unless someone provides a cite, I'm going to change it to "a few losses," as claimed on this reputable-looking web page. Ragout 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there any WW1 magazines available to subscribe to? SirIsaacBrock 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the article claims that the Serbs wanted to kill Franz Ferdinand to keep the Germans out of the Balkans? Everybody remembers that FF was Austrian, right? MilesVorkosigan 16:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
On June 28, 1914, the heir to the Austrian throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated by team of Bosnian Serbs who supported the idea of a Greater Serbia. The assassination in Sarajevo was followed by a chain of events that led to a full-scale war. The underlying causes of the war were many and complex; historians and political scientists have grappled with the question for nearly a century without reaching a consensus. Some of the more prominent explanations are outlined below.
Not all the assassins were Serbs. Muhamed Mehmedbašić was part of the plot, and Young Bosnia had many Muslim and Croat members. Their aim was not a Greater Serbia, but a South Slavic state. -- estavisti 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The WW1 article avoids names. The Archduke for example and his assassin are not important--the assassination itself was very important and should be stressed. This has to be a very brief summary, and the links should be the ones we recommnend for people to learn more. I added the link to [[Assassination at Sarajevo because it is quite useful. The Archduke was pretty much a zero in history and in a summary article we should only include important people and events worth reading about. Rjensen 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. There's no reason to avoid names. There's no reason to introduce extraneous names, but the name of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (or of Gavrilo Princip for that matter) is not extraneous. (I would add that the characterzation of Franz Ferdinand as "pretty much a zero in history" would, I think, be disputed by pretty much any historian of Austria-Hungary. See, for instance, Samuel Williamson's Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War, which views the Archduke as a very important figure in the way Austro-Hungarian foreign policy was conducted from at least 1908 onwards) john k 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"It had long been an ambition of the Tsars to complete their centuries of counter-offensive against the Ottomans by seizing Constantinople, thus recovering the seat of Orthodox Christianity from Islam and securing a permanent southward access to warm water; it stood high among Russia's current war aims." Keegan, The First World War, p. 234.
Russia fought two wars in the 1870s (against Turkey & Britain) over control of the straits between the Black and Aegean Seas. In early 1915, Russia, England, and France made a secret agreement to give Russia Constantinople and the surrounding area. Ragout 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
'Why on earth shouldn't European Turkey be considered to be part of the Balkans?' Which would be why I called it a misunderstanding on my part. Again, oops. To me, 'the Balkans' connotes a bunch of small countries in the mountains that were part of the Ottoman Empire but are not part of Turkey. Looks like Wikipedia (and you folks) disagree. I'm going to assume you all are correct. Still feels odd, though. MilesVorkosigan 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"In strategic terms Germany had won the Great War. Its industrial base remained intact; it lost little territory of value; it now fronted on one major power (a debilitated France) rather than three (France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia). Its industrial strength, its geographic position, and the size of its population gave it the greatest economic potential in Europe, while the small states of Eastern Europe and the Balkans were all open to German political and economic domination." - A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett c. 2000 Harvard University Press; page 3. Williamson Murray is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defense Analysis, Washington D.C.; Allan R. Millet is General Raymond E. Mason, Jr. Professor of Military History at Ohio State University. - Drogo Underburrow 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no question that the Central Powers militarily collapsed in the fall of 1918. The Allies won the war militarily. Broader speculation about the "real winner" is probably inappropriate except in a more detailed analysis of the results of the war. john k 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the war guilt clause and heavy reparations contributed to the Nazi rise to power, and Germany's economic troubles after WWI. But I don't see how this is relevant to a section on the causes of WWI. This point would be better placed in the "Aftermath" section. Ragout 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The way this article is worded, it seemed like a good idea to combine the two and keep the descriptions short. Otherwise, perhaps we will want to go into detail about the First and Second Morroccan Crisis, etc. -- Hohns3 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Even though these are the two main parties that were fighting, some of the participants reach way back. The Balkans played a huge role in sparking the war but it was really the Congress of Vienna that made the war so terrible. By making the European Powers equal, the countries, if it did come to war, one would not be able to wipe out the other ending in a terrible stale mate." I removed this from that paragraph because if it is worth mentioning it should be in the causes. I understand the point but all the Congress of Vienna did was reshape Europe. Granted it made France weaker, and strengthened Piedomont helping it on its way to unify Italy, but by 1900 the five powers weren't equal. Great Britain, and Germany were the strongest with France in the middle and Austria, Russia, and Italy in the far rear. So I don't believe its and accurate statement on two points, but thats my opinion which is why I brought it to talk. 12.220.94.199 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
At the very last moment, the Kaiser Wilhelm II asked Moltke, the German Chief of General Staff, to cancel the invasion of France in the hope this would keep Britain out of the war. Moltke, horrified by the prospect of the utter ruin of the Schlieffen Plan, refused on the grounds that it would be impossible to change the rail schedule—"once settled, it cannot be altered".
A long time ago when I was in college, taking history classes, I recall reading that the idea that mobilization plans could not be stopped or changed once started was a myth. In fact, there was nothing to stop German mobilization from being delayed or changed, which seems reasonable, you simply stop movements and re-schedule. Moltke simply didn't want to change plans, and told the Kaiser they "couldn't" do it, when in fact of course he could have. Anyone read any current literature which has also said this? Drogo Underburrow 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Taking all these things into careful consideration....the logical conclusion is that Moltke lied to the Kaiser, who was too weak-willed to put his foot down and look at Molke and say, "Who is the leader here? Now get off your fat duff and go make what I want happen, or resign; I'm sure I can find someone else to take your place." - Drogo Underburrow 03:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Kaiser wanted to "do such a thing"; and he was supposedly the boss. Moltke told him no, and the wimp just accepted it. Drogo Underburrow 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Drogo is right, the reason for interest in the subject is that the Kaiser specifically wanted to pursue such a course at the time. I don't think it would be right to say that Moltke lied. I think that Moltke felt that a deviation from the modified Schlieffen Plan would be disastrous to Germany, and that Germany would end up at war with both countries (Moltke apparently didn't care about the British) anyway, and without any way of securing a quick victory on either front. As such, it was his duty, as he saw it, to make sure that the Schlieffen Plan was implemented, whether or not the railroads could actually be changed. Another point - as I understand it, it is not actually true that Moltke forced the Kaiser to back down. My understanding is that, after this conversation, Moltke retreated to his quarters, defeated, and started contemplating suicide, and that the Schlieffen Plan came back on track only when it became clear to the Kaiser that Britain would not, in fact, remain neutral if the Schlieffen Plan was cancelled (the Kaiser had been misled about the likeliness of British neutrality by, among others, his brother Prince Henry, who'd had a misinterpreted conversation with their cousin George V.) The idea that Moltke forced the Kaiser to back down is actually a myth. john k 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The image WWI.png is not right. During the War Tibet was illegaly independent, but it has always been part of China, according to the constitution of Republic of China (ROC) in 1912 and earlier was ruled by Qing Dynasty. It was not communists that subjucated Tibet but the Qing Dynasty. The deputy of imperial central government actually ruled Tibet, not as some people believed that that Tibet was only a subjucated kingdom as Korea. The westerners' belief on the independence Tibet is part of the result of a British attempt to swallow Tibet into colonial India. Please go read the documents of Chinese governments from Qing Dynasty to Republic of China.
I noticed that this article was recently put up on FARC in January, and the ending decision was to keep. While I hate to see this article de-featured, there are several major issues with this article that should definitely be addressed:
Regards, AndyZ t 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Verdict of Versailles" section needs to be moved to the end of war section, because the "Guilt War" clause was a result of the war not a cause of the war, just think about the article logically, how could the Verdict of Versailles, which has to to with the Treaty of Versailles, come before the Treaty of Versailles, which was the treaty that ended the war?
Reguardless of what the first comment said, the "Verdict of Versailles" should not be mentioned in the beginning. Although I understand that "officially" Germany was responsible for the war, mentioning the treaty of Versailles and the "Guilt War" clause makes the Causes Section difficult to understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow7789 ( talk • contribs) .
'The "official" explanation appeared in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, often referred to as the War Guilt Clause. The argument was based on the fact that it was Austria, backed by the Wilhelmstraße, that attacked Serbia on July 29 and Germany that invaded Belgium on August 3.' It might just be me, but this makes it sound as if the Germans invaded Serbia. I'm going to change that. The rest of the article doesn't state anything like 'Troops from No. 10 Downing Street' supported the attack, so I'm going to switch out Wilhelmstrasse for 'Germany'. MilesVorkosigan 22:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, could you please try reading what I put in before you revert it? At least one of those reverts you said that you were removing the link but you were actually putting it back in. The 'of course' that you said you were removing from the article was in an EDIT SUMMARY, not in the article itself. You also appear to be claiming that the Nazi party should be mentioned in a section on the causes of World War I. MilesVorkosigan 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, perhaps it would help if you actually read what you are reverting.
I'm trying to understand the basis of your argument but I can't understand what exactly you are objecting to. MilesVorkosigan 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)