Talk:World War I/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Opposition to the war

Under "Opposition to the war" the mention the Conscientious Objectors can be linked to the Wikipedia article of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector. Also there is a statement:

"In BRitain 16 000 people asked for conscientious objector status, and many suffered years of prison, including solitary confinement and bread and water diets, to oppose the war."

This contains a few typos and is poorly worded. I suggest it be dropped in favor of the Conscientious Objector article.

The first battle of Marne was mainly a French victory that saved the war for the Allied

Shouldn't it be stated somewhere in the text? Withour the French at Marne, Germany would have taken Paris and would have won the western front campaign. This would most probably have decided the outcome of the war in their favour.

Introduction needs to be "Short and Sweet"

I would like to make the suggestion that everyone respect the layout of the article by keeping the introduction/overview short and to the point. I have recently edited out a whole paragraph that was (unnecessarily) added it which blabbed on about the warfare of WWI. That is not what an introduction is for. An introduction short give a breif overview on who the allies were, who the central powers were, and what were the results of the conflict. Talking about trench warfare, the submarine warfare, the civilian losses, and all specific information should not be placed in the introduction, period. First it starts off with "World War I saw the introduction of unrestricted submarine warfare". Nice and short isn't it? But then it becomes "submarine warfare is blah blah blah". Then another person adds "submarine warfare resulted in the loss of support for the Central powers". People keep adding and adding until its not an introduction, its an essay!. I suggest that the introduction take no more than 30 seconds for the average reader to read it. Think about it, what is an introduction to any essay, book, or novel for? Its for capturing the interest of your audiance. So, please be considerate and don't add more paragraphs to the intro. Thank you - Brendon.

I'm sorry I disagree, the para you removed is important showing more about the scale of the war and the major theatres and types of conflict involved. David Underdown 09:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that the intro should be short and to the point. I'm doing a history essay and all I want is a brief overview of what happened and in what order. 19:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Poison gas was first used against the Russians

The Germans released the gas to flow into a forst where the Russians were camped. Hundreds if not thousands dropped dead or were dying. The Russians, not knowing what happened never reported it. Someone please revise the article so it is made proper. -G

Someone please provide sources so it is made proper. Rklawton 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The Russians never reported it. But it must have been reported by someone ? Ericd 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi. I see a lot of work has gone into this page, and I dont want to be overly critical, but there are some major problems here.

Sadly time isnt on my side right now, but things to consider: i'm gonna change causes of the war to origins - no major scholasic work will refer to causes, it implies somthing direct and explosive, origins of the war is the accepted terminology I think (others may disagree, lets discuss.)

Second, the origins needs alot of work, in no way does it reflect current thinking, it has some summary of the fischer thesis etc, but no attempt to discuss the evolving impact that t has had on the historiography of the origins of the war. There are nods to some theories - war by timetable etc. but these are so outdated (as are references to 'german militarism') as to be of little use. I see that 'The Pity of War' and Hew Strachan's excellant book are footnoted, but nowhere in the origins sections are their arguments well considered. Current thought = the war is no accident nor is it alliances, but reflected each nation's national interest at the time. The fear of German expansion upsetting the balance of power meant that each had decided that war was preferable to allowing that to happen.

I will try and write this up at somepoint if noone else will. I think perhaps a summary of current and past thoughts rather than just 'and someone else thoug ht alliances were the cause...etc.' approach would be better - see The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus Annika Mombauer for a really good summary.

Secondly the social issue of women. Please remove this before replacing it with some facts. The current paragraph reflects old fashioned thinking at best and downright myth at worst. After me 1 ..2..3... "Women's war work had no impact on them gaining the vote in britain, Germany or France (where it didnt happen until 1944!)

Secondly, the image of hordes of previously non working women going into factories to fill husbands places is simply untrue,.

Again i can write up the true social impact of the war on women (it retarded their progress if anything!) but not yet - its better to have nothing than to perpetuate lies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.135.247 (talk • contribs)

  • Ehim, well, let us see all those changes you want to make first, and then talk about them. Also, please note that deleting or adding paragraphs must be justified by notable references. However, your list of contributions shows that you've been vandalising recently (such as here, and here). So please, stop deleting the paragraph on WWI without providing proves to your arguments, because this, too, is considered vandalism. Maysara 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • i dont think you'll find that i have been vandalising recently - since neither of those edits were mine (im in a uni computer room, perhaps someone else?) and they arn't infact on my list as far as i can see. Anyhow, more to the point, references would include anything by
James MacMillan (France
Suzan Greyzal (Europe)
Gail Braybon (Britain)
Ute Daniel (Germany)
Deborah Thom (Britain)
J.G. Searle (Women's emancipation)
If you need a reason for removing the line about women's emancipation, i give you merely that it wasnt granted in france until 1944. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.135.247 (talk • contribs)
  • Please accept my apologies for the vandalism accusation, it was truly so confusing (as others were also confused about your IP address). As for the paragraph on what you call "Women's emancipation", please refer to WP's articles on Suffragette and Women's suffrage. France along with Japan seem to have been only "exceptions". However, the contributor who added this information here wrote: "This aided the struggle for voting rights for women." (bolding is mine), He or She did not claim that WWI "granted" such "Women's emancipation" in any sense, neither in France, nor elsewhere. I'm afraid the paragraph you want to delete is quite convenient and accurate, and it is only unjust to delete it, since it was once conveniently and accurately added by a contributor who expended good effort in writing it. So, it seems that it will stay - and I'll be more than happy if you one day convince me that I was wrong, and totally wrong, but just please do that, and I should delete it myself. Again, I am so sorry for the vandalism accusation, I must be a lot more careful later on. Thank you, Maysara 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment that WWI even aided in the suffrage of women and there are many sources to back that up. One of the best resources probably is Women and the First World War by Susan Grayzel which is a synopsis of the current literature on Women and the First World War. France and Japan are clearly valid examples of women not even appearing to get the vote from the war, howvever you must not be so superficial. It is well documented that any vote which was granted was almost completely if not completely the result prewar activism. In addition, it is the current view of historians that the war did actually encourage prewar stereotypes allowing women a few years of liberation only to push them even more forcefully back into their traditional gender roles. If you would like an example, consider that women in Australia already had the vote, thus showing that significant work in the field of women's rights had already been done. I suggest that you research more (at least read one book, the Grayzel book is not long) before you claim to be able to determine whether or not the statement is true or false. <Unsigned Comment>

The opposite was true in Canada - suffrage was extended to women specifically, it is suggested, to pass conscription legislation. Or something. Corrigan seems to think it was important in Britain also, see Mud, Blood and Poppycock. If Australia is different, well, they weren't the only nation in the world.Michael Dorosh 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

new comment: Just a quick comment on consistency. The Wikipedia article WWI casualties says there were 15 million deaths total (9 million military, 6.6 million civilian) while this article says it left 10 million dead (not specifying military or civilian). Could this be better specified in this article and made consistent with the other article? I know it's debated, but it seems better to remain consistent within wikipedia, while discussing the debate in a page... Jon

I got that number (ten million) from John Keegan The First World War, but he seems to be pretty conservative when it comes to body counts. If you want to make it fifteen I don't care as long as you back it up with a good reference on this page and not just a link to some other page.Haber 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
grrrr. "With 6 million German casualties, Germany moved toward peace." The Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties states germany had 2.5 million casualties total. Do they have to be somewhat consistent?

Map

The 1915 map of Europe is inaccurate - Finland is shown as an independent state, which it wasn't. It was part of a Russian Empire.

Causes

Why is there is no mention of the Berlin to Baghdad railway line and the importance it played geo-politically in terms of the access to oil that the Germans would have had, had the railway line been finished?

The 'Baghdad Railway' Wikipedia entry makes mention of its relevance to WW1 yet there is nothing that I can find of the importance of it in this actual section. What are people's opinions on this? There are some good arguments and observations to be made about the geo-political relevance of oil in WWI.--Barking_Mad


I was under the impression that we had finally reached a compromise regarding the use of Gabriel Princip, the Black Hand and Young Bosnia. This version, which seemed to satisfy all parties and end the revert war, was just changed once again. I am changing it back in order to mention Princip.--Hohns3 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, since further commentary was added to discredit the "arms race theory", I felt it was necessary to also do the same in the "sole responsibility" section, since other than the four of five German scholars mentioned (and a handful of other scholars across the globe), few are willing to give this theory as much attention as it appears to generate by the way the section is written.--Hohns3 04:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It has to be stressed that the Archduke was killed by a team not by some loner. As for arms race theory it sjould be discussed under its own section. Rjensen 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
due to a typo I do not think that my point was not clear so I edited my previous comment. In regards to the Archduke, he was killed by Princip after the planned attempt failed. If any student needs to know the details, we should supply them (I mean by mentioning Princip's name, at least). Otherwise, Wikipedia is useless for finding the facts that people actually need. I know what you are getting at, about the "broad perspective", but mentioning all three was a fair compromise, I believe.--Hohns3 04:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The plan was for a team of assassins to attempt to kill the Archduke. They made several attempts in a matter of minutes and finally Princip succeeded. That has to be called a 100% successful mission, NOT a "failure". Rjensen 04:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Your exact phrase, he was assasinated by a team, is not accurate. Princip succeeded after the procession and the attempt failed. The car the Archduke was in took a wrong turn and Princip happened to be there when he was. I'm not sure what purpose avoiding Princip's name serves. There was a lengthy edit war you may have missed where someone tried to prove a similar point by omitting the Archduke's name in the article. --Hohns3 04:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened is that a team was assigned a mission and succeeded. Did some team members fail to hit the target--well yes, that is why the sent several! only one hit was needed. The point is that readers will think Princep is more important than almost everyone else (only a few generals get mentioned for example). And some will think of him as a lone assassin. Rjensen 05:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That is why we should include all three. Perhaps it has been a while since you have been in school setting, collegiate or otherwise, but this is a name I needed to know and I doubt things have changed. I get your point, but that is why there is additional discussion regarding the South Slavs, etc. I do not think the idea is lost by mentioning the man who shot the Archduke. --Hohns3 06:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with having the name in, but why as Gabriel? In school (in England) I was taught the name as Gavrilo, and Gabriel Princip is a re-direct to Gavrilo Pricip anyway. 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard my professor talk about some reasonably famous I think 60's academic talk about it being Germany's fault because German planners realized the scale the war could take but went ahead anyways. Jztinfinity 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

we aint got nothing on the causes sorry

"garrets gay" vandalism, just after the arms races table.

Pictures

There are much more pictures of allied soldiers than central, The picture right next to the German Spring offensive I beleive would be better suited to be a picture some what related rather than a generic "trenches" picture which could fit any where else. Also no mention of flame throwers in the technology section, I'll edit that.Randomdude888 05:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There should also be mention that the main reason Austria-Hungary did not invade Serbia in July was the Franco-Russo Conference going on at the same time. The Austrians did not want to risk two of the Big Five being together when they invaded which could result in both declaring war on Austria. The harvests might have had a part but the majority was due to the peace conference.

WP:FARC?

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: (from WP:WIAFA)

Regards, AndyZ t 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Hello? While I don't wish to de-feature this article, the above issues should be taken care of, in accordance with WP:WIAFA. Nearly a week has gone by before I left the above... I'll leave them here for another week. AndyZ t 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

?

It has been argued that Germany was the European power most prone to start a general European war, by virtue of geography. Each of the other great powers of Europe had a convenient outlet for imperial expansion: France could seek colonies across the Mediterranean in North Africa, Austria could expand in the Balkans towards the Aegean Sea, Russia could develop its recently-acquired holdings in Central Asia and the Far East, perhaps later adding Manchuria, while Britain could seek colonies in almost any part of the world, owing to its domination of the high seas. By contrast, Germany was hemmed in between the great powers of France, Austria and Russia, and could only base a navy in the North Sea, which would be seen by Britain as a direct menace to the British Isles. Gordon Corrigan makes this case in his book Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the First World War.

This really sounds like nonsense to me, and to include it as "evidence" of a point of view, especially without a rebuttal of such disconnected logic, seems unfair - especially when such a fuss was made about a minor comment on how the Russians were interested in obtaining a baltic or med. sea port and interested in - gasp - westward expansion.

It took me about four seconds to think of a rebuttal, because Germany didn't need the colonies that France and Britain would have to live and die by...Likewise, Germany didn't need a navy (for reasons other than pride and employment) and although no more landlocked than Austria, it was competing with Britain, literally for little more than a title of its own, in a shipbuilding race that Britain had to win in order to maintain the means to survival. What I find most astonishing is that Germany could have desired to overrun the continent with a war, but had few reasons beyond that to instigate it, while the french had baggage, the Rus (and I mean that literally) have always been expanding for the good reason of geography and Britain found its 300 plus years of superiority at stake economically. It was pretty clear who was on their way up and the one thing Germany would have lost out on geographically, that no European country really could call their own, was oil.--Hohns3 06:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Austria could expand in the Balkans It could? --Hohns3 06:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is hilarious that the addition below was deleted as POV by Rjensen when the monstrosity that I mentioned above, with holes like swiss cheese, has yet to be flagged:

In addition, Fischer's controversial views regarding the origins of World War I have been attacked by a number of historians, such as David Kaiser and John Moses, and branded leftover "Wilsonianism" by the likes of Paul Gottfried.

In any case, I restored it.--Hohns3 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The German equivalent of colonies was seen in the East. German war goals included demands for ethnic cleansing of Polish territories and annexation of territory of Congres Poland. --Molobo 12:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The three guns that shelled Paris were neither "super heavy" (in shell weigth) nor were they "railway guns". they were stationary pieces that operated from concrete embeddings (Franz Kosar, "Schwere Geschütze der Welt") --dead-cat 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Causes of War-German pursuit of Lebensraum already in WWI

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_lebensraum_02.shtml Moreover, during the years immediately preceding World War One, the focus of this colonialism shifted from the settlement of overseas colonies to the idea of conquering territory in eastern Europe, and of settling it with German peasants. The leading advocate of this notion was the influential chauvinist pressure group, the Pan-German League, and its associated propagandists. Of these perhaps the most notable was the retired general and radical-conservative publicist, Briedrich von Bernhardi. In his notorious book Germany and the Next War, published in 1912, Bernhardi used many of Ratzel's ideas to advocate using a victorious war to gain space in eastern Europe for the settlement of peasant farmers --Molobo 12:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Plans to incorporate Courland into Germany and designs of German colonisation were criticised by Weber: [1] --Molobo 12:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

German war goals included demands for ethnic cleansing of Polish territories and annexation of territory of Congres Poland If that isn't the overstatment of the century for Germany provoking a war...you really think that held sway in influential political circles prior to the war, do you? One thing I could never understand was the fact that if Germany wanted a war so bad, why didn't it prepare for it? Prior to the war, everyone had a larger standing army than Germany, which through the Schlieffen Plan would have to call up aged reserves who had been drilled, but were aging quickly. If Germany planned to start the war, why did Germany have to call on an infantry in August 1914 that was well passed its ripeness of age? The answer is that the army did not have the funding to even supply training for new troops, or to increase recruitment. The Schlieffen Plan put a tremendous amount of pressure on Ludendorff, as it obviously called for the German army to maintain "preparedness". Ludendorff quickly discovered that it was in need of funding that the War Ministry, parliament and the Kaiser were not willing to allow. He BEGGED for the army to get the attention it needed, and unfortunately I forget the exact details of what was finally granted, but he found it insulting of his lobbying efforts; in fact, the notice of alloted funds came after he had been relieved of his position for being too adament. Germany's attention was almost completely focused on shipbuilding.
You have this peculiar tendency to find a minority voice of an era and conclude that it somehow held sway in influential political circles. If you're looking for radicalist influence in politics prior to World War I, look no further than France.

--Hohns3 07:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC) If that isn't the overstatment of the century for Germany provoking a war. Sources please confirming that the statements of quoted British historian aren't true. I see that you have stopped denying that indeed German Empire had those plans. Thank you. Ludendorff quickly discovered It was Ludendorff that pressured German government the most in demanding that territories taken from Russia be annexed to German Empire. You have this peculiar tendency to find a minority voice of an era This was the voice of influential Pan-German league, Hakata movement (which at one time was given a considerable portion of the Prussian budget), and the chancellor Bernhard von Bülow, who already in 1887 expressed hope that a future armed conflict will allow Germans to perform ethnic cleansing in regards to Polish minority that was forced to live under German rule.My source is Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism 1870-1933/39 : Germany-Great Britain-France.Walter de Gruyter --Molobo 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Mentioning Spanish Flu in article

Actually, Michael, I would mention the Spanish Flu in the article since it may to be connected to it, and it came so soon after. But to include it in the casualty count in the infobox seems wrong. Piet 13:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree; I've made mention of it later on. It will need a citation though.Michael Dorosh 14:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. All right then except citation. I've linked to the Spanish flu article, which in the lead section uses a web site for citation. Not ideal but better than nothing. Shall we use that one here? Piet 15:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm sorry, we need a source on the relation with the war not the number of dead. Piet 15:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Names

I don't think the whole "WW I and WW II are the same war" stuff belongs in the intro, especially as it is unsourced. "Some scholars" is very ambiguous and does not imply general acceptance. As such, it merits mention later on, but not in the intro, in my opinion. It also makes the intro very wordy in any event. I am not aware of any serious history of the war that doesn't refer to it was either World War I, the First World War, or the Great War.Michael Dorosh 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael - my reason for moving it to the intro was prompted by some concerns brought up at this article's FARC page. The complaint was that the table of contents was too long, there were too many sections, and the lead was too short. Normally, the name of the article and any alternative names are placed in the lead, but I see what you mean about it being weasely. Personally, I wouldn't mind cutting it right out of the article, or, if enough information about this different name exists, spinning it off to its own article. Cheers! The Disco King 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, regarding the FARC - the lead section needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD, and while I'd do it myself, I don't feel like I'm knowledgeable enough about WWI to summarize it accurately. The lead should essentially be a 3-4 paragraph overview of the entire article. If nobody else wants to do it, though, I'll give it a shot. Cheers! The Disco King 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think merging "Overview" into the lead would fix it- shortening the ToC and expanding the lead (this was done to World War II). By the way, great job with fixing the FARC problems I brought up, I'll probably end up withdrawing my FARC nomination - I plan to work on this article also. Andy t 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Relative naval strength

I don't have any of my books on hand right now, but the cite for the development of dreadnoughts rendering Britain's existing fleet of battleships obsolete would be 'every book ever written about WWI'. You could start with 'Dreadnought' by Massie, it's excellent. The way it works is that if you want to change the existing consensus to say that forcing all of the powers to start over from scratch was actually worse for Germany somehow, you need to find a source to agree with that opinion. MilesVorkosigan 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting articles: What terms did Serbia agree to?

World War I article states: "Emboldened by the promise of Russian support, the Serbian government accepted all the terms, except that of the participation of the Austrian agents in the inquiry, which it saw as a violation of its sovereignty. "

Powder Keg of Europe article states: "Serbia agreed to all components of the ultimatum with the exception that they would not accept fault for the murder of Franz Ferdinand. "

I, merely perusing, found these statements to be contradictory and very confusing. Having no knowledge of the subject, I thought i'd submit it to you, cyberspace geniuses, for review. I've seen the anonymous wikimachine operate before and I trust you'll have the kinks worked out in no time. If i'm just confused and the statements make sense then I would appreciate a small explanation. Thank you all for your efforts in maintaining this encyclopedia. We (the world) appreciate it more than you know.

Andrew yhbegjyjhdythythythyrhyht

The first statement is correct. There were around 10 demands and Serbia only refused to let Austrian agents investigate on its soil. To accept responsibility for the assassination was not one of the demands, although the July Ultimatum implied that Serbia was to blame. Serbia denied it, as it had warned Austria of the assassination plot and tried to close the border. Hope that helps. --estavisti 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusion Re: First two sentences in the "Arms Races" section

The first sentence states that the arms race between Britain and Germany was intensified by the launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906, which rendered all previous battleships obsolete, but the second sentence goes on to explain that this weakened Britain's position? Why? Edward Sandstig 10:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The situation at start was that Britain had an enormous advantage in battleships. Then Dreadnought was built, and suddenly all of these battleships were obsolete. Once other nations had even a few dreadnoughts of their own these ships became (nearly) useless. The battleship race restarted from effectively zero.
Has anybody read 'Castles of Steel' or 'Dreadnought' more recently than I? I *think* this is explained in one of those, but can't say for sure. MilesVorkosigan 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see that someone's already reworded it, to explain why it weakened the British position. :) Edward Sandstig 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to fix that... It didn't weaken the British position; Dreadnought gave Britain an enormous advantage, since she could defeat any pre-Dreadnought in existence, & all navies without Dreadnoughts had to build to catch up, where before numerical superiority might have threatened RN success. Somebody doesn't have their facts straight... Trekphiler 08:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dates?

What's with all the dates in European numerical format (e.g. November 11, 1918 written as 1918-11-11)? Shouldn't dates be spelled out (e.g. November 11, 1918)?

I didn't want to change them unless others agreed.

Thoughts? CPAScott 13:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Most of the other articles I've seen tend to spell out the dates, so may as well be consistent. Edward Sandstig 14:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am quite sure that "November 11, 1918" written as "1918-11-11" is not European format. Is it not American? Anyway, it is clearly not popular!
Dates and times written in YYYY-MM-DD format are defined in ISO 8601. It's pretty common and is gaining use in order to avoid the confusion between the American way of writing dates numerically (MM-DD-YYYY) and the European way (DD-MM-YYYY). Edward Sandstig 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not proper English - because of the ambiguity - 1918-5-6 could my May 6th or June 5th, depending on which format you use.Michael Dorosh 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1918-05-06 is May 5th, 1918 as per ISO 8601. Edward Sandstig 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree the dates in this article are confusing to read. These computer nerds need to give up on the ISO system and just write them out if they're that important. ISO is meant for expiration dates and bank transactions, not encyclopedias. This article looks choppy with all the numbers and dashes. Little kids trying to learn about WWI are going to get frustrated and run away. Haber 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There ya go. ISO dates gone. Wikilinked a number of Month Day combinations as well so date preferences work. Should be in compliance with WP:Date now. --Bobblehead 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks dude!Haber 18:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Do yourself, & readers, a favor: write them 30 Sept 2006 (or September). Simple, no? Trekphiler 08:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever we choose, we should spell it out. Wikipedia aint paper.Cameron Nedland 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

I think it is shameful that Wikipedians in an article that is supposed to cover WWI would allow the section on the Armenian Genocide to be a) buried within a bunch of obscure information about Russian operations in the Caucasus, and b) factually incorrect. That anyone should tell me that this is the "consensus" view is unconscionable.

June 2006 Wikipedia "The Russian commander from 1915 to 1916, General Yudenich, with a string of victories over the Ottoman forces, drove the Turks out of much of present-day Armenia, and tragically provided a context for the deportation and genocide against the Armenian population in eastern Armenia."

Consider:

    1. Most of the Armenians who were killed were not from "present day Armenia" but were from regions in Eastern Anatolia (and even as far as the Mediterranean coast) which had been historically Armenian for at least 2000 years. (e.g. Erzurum)
    2. Most Armenians remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire up until the end.
    3. The Ottoman Empire had a history of murdering Armenians, most notably in the 1890's.
    4. The Russian army was nowhere near many of the Armenian areas that were liquidated.
    5. The Turkish government blames these incidents on civil war, chaos, things getting out of hand, etc., but this is not the way most of the rest of the world sees it as happening.
    6. Although records from the time are spotty, there is a body of evidence, including personal testimony and photographs, that confirms that civilians were force marched into the desert and left there to die of hunger and thirst.
    7. The page on the Armenian Genocide manages to present a somewhat neutral point of view while still acknowledging the extent of the issue.


I propose that a blurb be inserted into the intro, and a new section (about a paragraph) address the issue in a fairer way and direct people to the Armenian Genocide article.

This important event should not be forgotten.

I welcome your comments and look forward to a respectful debate. Thank you. Haber 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That is why there is an entire article on it, and this isn't it. It is mentioned. Perhaps a Further information similar to the End of war section would be good. Wikibofh(talk) 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I Think what he said is perfect. The paragraph shoudldn't go into much detail, and should simply have a link to the main article. Honestly, no noe will even know this happened unless a link is added in plain sight in a frequently visted article like this.--68.192.188.142 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Led by the USA???

"The Allied Powers, led by Britain, France, Russia, and the United States" - I can't see the justification for including the United States on the list of nations who "led" the Allied Powers, given they were only involved for a few months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.160.5 (talk • contribs)

Sorry - the above comment was by me Gretnagod 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. They didn't need the U.S.. They didn't want the U.S.. The U.S. didn't actually do much. In fact, the U.S. probably made things worse. The U.S. should have never bothered. Or something like that? Rklawton 02:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

the US paid for the war, fed the Brits and French, and took control of the armistice policy in fall 1918. Not to mention it provided 10,000 new troops every DAY in summer and fall. That's leadership at the critical moment. Rjensen 06:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not the point at all. It does seem odd to say the US was leading the Allied powers when for the majority of the war the US wasn't a belligerent. Lisiate 04:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    No, I was just being thick. The quote from the article is (at the moment): The Allied Powers, led by Britain, France, Russia, and later also Italy and the United States, defeated the Central Powers, led by Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire - and that seems reasonably accurate. The U.S. did indeed provide leadership in the form of Pershing, and for the most part didn't simply provide manpower for other nations to command. Rklawton 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The current version does seem accurate. I should have checked before adding my two cents worth. Lisiate 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has a basic factual error. The Attack on the Hindenburg Line started on 18 Sep 1918 spearheded by Australian and Canadian forces (who were hindered by the green doughboys, who didn't know how to mop-up and other basic tactics). In the end Pershing just went for frontal assualts a-la Haig from 1916 and threw numbers at the Germans. The Meuse-Argonne Offensive was later starting 26 Sep. The USA did not win the war but they did win the "peace". WWWI was basically caused by miltiaristic figures manipulating teetering hereditary kingdoms, lead by fools who had inherited their power, into waging war. After the war Europe looked to the US as a response to the militatism in Europe. US was seen as a political entity where democracy and rule of law and rights of free men etc was seen as existing. The old world looked to the new as a model of government. This is how the US was born as a super-power.211.31.1.175 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Allied powers led by Britain and France is understandable but to include in the article “led…and later also by Italy and the United States,” means what? Italy never led the Allies nor did the US and niether did it provide leadership in the form of Pershing. He led the AEF like every other Commander of their own country but never led or helped in leading the Allies. Did any country only provide manpower for other nations to command? Why not say “Allies included” and list all? Brocky44 06:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Word?

In the other names section:"The term “First World War”, implying an event distinct from a “Second World War” has fallen into disfavor by [some scholars] who regard World War I as merely the first phase of a three-decade-long war spanning the period 1914–1945."

Who are these "some" scholars?

Maxflight 02:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Naval warfare

When reading this did I skip Jutland by mistake or is the North Sea and blockade glossed over?GraemeLeggett

Casualties?

The introduction says 10 million died. The casualty box says 15 million died. Which is correct? El Gringo 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The introduction says 9 million soldiers, which jives with the box. The infobox then provides for an additional 6 million civilians. The main article for casualties (World War I casualties) is a better treatment of the subject (even if I recall there are some inconsistencies between these). Wikibofh(talk) 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'It was a total war which left ten million dead and shaped the modern world.' El Gringo 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh...by introduction you mean the first paragraph.  :) I changed it to "millions" since military vs civilian, etc. Thanks for bringing it up. Wikibofh(talk) 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

-:) Sound. El Gringo 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Does the following sentence have to be in the introduction to a WWI article?

more people died of the worldwide influenza outbreak at the end of the war and shortly after than died in the hostilities.
I agree - this caught my eye as not being explicably related to the topic. I think perhaps the comment should either be removed, or explained in greater depth so the connections is clear. Currently, this phrase jumps out in a poor way. 67.171.35.62 22:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben T/C 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there likely exists a causal link between the two, and so a mention and a comparison seem appropriate. And it wasn't an outbreak; it was a pandemic. Rklawton 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused

"Unfortunately, few drastic changes in tactics could have been made even if the military leaders of the time were open to them." I would like expansion on this line, as it seems somewhat contradictory/nonsensical. Why, if leaders would be open to them, couldn't tactics be changed? In fact, weren't they changed toward the end of the war, as the article states elsewhere (eg the german offensive of the ending days of the war)?Duluoz

Many tactics were tried on large scale including timed artillery, rolling artillery, large calibre artillery, chemical weapons, the use of aircraft as spotters, fighter airplanes, bombers, armor, and the advanced use of telecommunications (radio, telephone, and telegraph). IMHO, only the machine gun was advanced enough to make a difference - and that difference was what kept the men in static trenches. Rklawton 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Artillery was so much more lethal than it had been even in 1890, infantry had no chance to advance across No Man's Land, MG or no. The proliferation of artillery tactics reflects its importance, as both sides tried to find ways to overcome the trench fortifications, and opposing guns, without success. The importance of MG is vastly exaggerated by the ignorant. Trekphiler 08:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
How about the use of tanks from 1916 on?Cameron Nedland 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

armenian genocide

would you get over it. The armenians killed innocent turks. It was turkish genocide. They did it. not turks

Wrong. While Armenian independence movements may have started the violence, the genocide was done by the Turks against the Armenians. I consider this a separate issue from WW1, however, so would only include a brief mention here with a link to the main article. StuRat 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction on Introduction?

"Much of the fighting in World War I took place along the Western Front, within a system of opposing manned trenches and fortifications (separated by a “No man's land”) running from the North Sea to the border of Switzerland. On the Eastern Front, the vast eastern plains and limited rail network prevented a trench warfare stalemate from developing, although the scale of the conflict was just as large." -- Isn't that contradictory? -- Abid Ahmed 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the point being made is that were comparable numbers of men involved on the Eastern & Western Front but the Western Front was compressed into a much smaller area of land. It is rather unclear though. Lisiate 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Movies, novels, poetry etc.

I appreciate that the "Books & Novels" section is in no way meant to represent a fully comprehensive list, and that to include all those of significance would make it ridiculously long. However, none of the books currently listed appear to be authored by women. Is there a reason for this? As far as I know, there are some that are highly regarded, e.g. Vera Brittain's "Testament of Youth", which could perhaps be included, not least in the interests of providing an additional perspective? 30 July 2006

Good point! This should be ammended quickly. There have been numerous great books about World War I by women. In fact, one of the more celebrated books about the beginning of WWI is Guns of August, a Pulitzer Prize winning narrative by Barbara Tuchman. I'll get to work on adding that. Also, recently, there have been a few WWI novels that I have picked up by women. I'll see if I can recall the titles... --Tocath 15:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pat Barker, whose excellent trilogy of novels I included yesterday, is actually a woman. But I agree that there should be more, so go ahead and add any books you think appropriate to the list. I think a problem we might eventually face is that the First World War inspired a level of literary review that in both quality and quantity was unparalleled, especially in the field of poetry. It practically became an independent literary movement. We may eventually reach the stage where so many works require inclusion that we will need to set up a separate link.--Nwe 15:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's keep in mind that there are tens of thousands of eligible books and we only want the 20-30 most important ones here. A separate much longer article is called for. Tuchman's history books have long been on our history list. Rjensen 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I just saw Tuchman's book in a different section. However, I went ahead and added the first book in Anne Perry's WWI trilogy, No Graves as Yet. Cheers! --Tocath 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article use Commonwealth English?

The First World War had a far more significant impact on British/Commonwealth history than on US history, so wouldn't it make sense to change this article to British/Commonwealth English? NJW494 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Being about a conflict primarily associated with Commonwealth and European nations it would however make sense to change to Commonwealth styles of English. NJW494 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether or not it is worth the effort is immaterial so long as someone is willing to do a good job of it. If not, then the matter is moot. Other than that, JN's logic is solid and in keeping with current practices. Keep in mind also the huge emphasis in the U.S. to this being a "foreign" war, and it seems little sense to write it in the local U.S. dialect. Rklawton 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Changing the dialect of the article would violate wikepedia's manual of style. There is nothing in the style about "having a great impact" on. Leave as is. --Samuel Webster 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps but there is a mention of having "stong ties to". This war was far more closely linked to Britain and the Commonwealth than the US. Lisiate 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"Far more closely?" Most Americans would disagree. --Samuel Webster 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But as usual with most things regarding the Great War, most of these Americans would be wrong. TrulyTory 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Most Americans would disagree with that, too, and rightly so. Anyway, World War I may involve Great Britain more than the U.S., but it involves lots of other countries as well. I recommend we drop this. --Samuel Webster 13:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Webster. Haber 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Webster is my stalker (and as a German shouldn't really be involving himself in English spelling disputes in such a rabidly pro-American way), anything he says should be taken with a pinch of salt. Other than that, the feedback seems to have been quite positive on this issue. NJW494 08:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NJW494 is a rabid anti-American and spends most of his Wikipedia time Britishizing spelling. He's a troll, and should be ignored. Let's focus on making this article better. Changing the spelling won't achieve that. It's consistent now, and accords with Wikipedia spelling policy. --Samuel Webster 09:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Come on Samuel Webster, just stick to German Wikipedia if you want to impose your will on people. The very fact that i initited a discussion on this subject shows a willingness for dialogue, doesn't it? NJW494 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, my friend, you have made a number of Britishizing changes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the greater glory of Merry Old England or the British Empire. I feel it's important not to Britishize Wikipedia. The English language Wikipedia exists for everyone, not just you, OK? (Yes, the fact that you didn't simply change the spelling of this article, as you have with other articles, means you have made some moral progress. Congratulations!) Summary, then: I'm trying to prevent you and other Brit-bullies from imposing YOUR will. Got it? Are we learning yet? :) --Samuel Webster 17:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You are seriously getting on the nerves of various Wikipedians at the moment. You should just stick to German Wikipedia, where your humourless, single minded approach may be more well received.NJW494 18:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Support British English not that I think it matters much but if we are building consensus, I'd support the use of British English. Note that the "correct" title for the conflict in official histories published in the Commonwealth is "First World War", with "World War I" also being acceptable but not the "official" title as it is in the US.Michael Dorosh 13:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Support British English so long as I don't have to do it. The British started their involvement in 1914; the Americans in 1917. And the American VFW (not to mention all of America at the time) refered to this as a "Foreign War". I'd change my vote if someone could find sufficient sources indicating Americans at the time thought this was an "American" rather than European war. Rklawton 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
WTF? We save your asses and then you won't even let us use our form of English?Cameron Nedland 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


"WTF? We save your asses and then you won't even let us use our form of English?"

This is a great idea for a new article on Wikipedia on how the USA saved the British asses in WW1. Everyone should know that Germany was forced to blow its load in its offence of 1918 before the US arrived in large numbers. Hundreds of thousands of British, Commonwealth and French gave their life or limbs in stopping this offence. Cameron, will you please start an article explaining how the USA saved British asses and won the war. Brocky44

To that reflection of 0-so common and tiresome American ignorance of anything outside the USA itself; [Cameron Nedland], please shut the f up. I'm sick of the phrase 'we saved your 'asses' in World War One/ Two". Firstly it's arses - an ass is an animal, secondly its either The Great War, or The First World War/ Second World War, and thirdly, America saved no-one. America merely speeded up the end of World War One, much like any other country getting involved would, relatively (and luckily) extremely few Americans died and many of were from the Harlem Hell Fighters - black men dying for a country who hated and persecuted them. Whilst Commonwealth soldiers from India were considered some of the finest. It was the efforts of Britain, France, The French and British Empire soldiers and a huge contribution within the Commonwealth coming from Canada, India, and the memorable and sometimes sadly overlooked ANZAC forces. In regards to the Second World War, America also played the same role of speeding up the demise of the Third Reich rather than causing it. Same as Britain, Russia single handidly deserves the praise for ending the Second World War (or The Patriotic War). So ignorant America ( i realise there are many great, intelligent and thoroughly non-ignorant American's too - but the USA is world renound for its' disturbing, arrogant behaviour and poor knowledge of ethics, other culture and morals) please disapear and Cameron Nedland your a sad and upsetting case that causes offence to the world and embarrassment to the many Great Americans that are around. Please sew your lips, read some books, take more attention in geography (87% Americans are unable to locate the UK on a map) and please don't post some immature reply.

Support British English: Per above...However i would be carful about saying that 87% of Americans can't find Britain on a map as i have this impression that the percentage of Brits who can't find Britain on a map is not much lower...--Boris Johnson VC 16:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Would this mean moving the article to 'First World War'? Hut 8.5 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose British English Time should be spent finding and sourcing information rather than nitpicking and squabbling among friends. Haber 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being an asshole above, I was really pissed about shit that happened at school that day. I have nothing against British, Canadians, French, Russians, et cætera. I don't care a whole lot which spelling we choose. If there's anything I can do to make it up to you guys, just drop me a note at my place here Cameron Nedland 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007

The Society for Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact rjensen@uic.edu Thanks Rjensen 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


To that reflection of 0-so common and tiresome American ignorance of anything outside the USA itself; [Cameron Nedland], please shut the f up. I'm sick of the phrase 'we saved your 'asses' in World War One/ Two". Firstly it's arses - an ass is an animal, secondly its either The Great War, or The First World War/ Second World War, and thirdly, America saved no-one. America merely speeded up the end of World War One, much like any other country getting involved would, relatively (and luckily) extremely few Americans died and many of were from the Harlem Hell Fighters - black men dying for a country who hated and persecuted them. Whilst Commonwealth soldiers from India were considered some of the finest. It was the efforts of Britain, France, The French and British Empire soldiers and a huge contribution within the Commonwealth coming from Canada, India, and the memorable and sometimes sadly overlooked ANZAC forces. In regards to the Second World War, America also played the same role of speeding up the demise of the Third Reich rather than causing it. Same as Britain, Russia single handidly deserves the praise for ending the Second World War (or The Patriotic War). So ignorant America ( i realise there are many great, intelligent and thoroughly non-ignorant American's too - but the USA is world renound for its' disturbing, arrogant behaviour and poor knowledge of ethics, other culture and morals) please disapear and Cameron Nedland your a sad and upsetting case that causes offence to the world and embarrassment to the many Great Americans that are around. Please sew your lips, read some books, take more attention in geography (87% Americans are unable to locate the UK on a map) and please don't post some immature reply.

Sole responsibility of Germany and Austria?

Beware to lose a war! Cause the winners can dictate everything. There is that paragraph of Sole responsibility of Germany and Austria in the Treaty of Versailles, but i think it might just be there as the victorious countries wanted it. It is nice if you can blame another country for all the death and destruction. Does sombody have info on that?

Yeah, Germany crossed the boarder and shot first. They butchered citizens from Belgium cities that resisted their invasion, and they were the first to use poison gas on the battle field. Other than that, the Germans were pretty much the victims here. Rklawton 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what using poison gas or massacring Belgians has to do with who is responsible for the war. Nevertheless, I think most historians now agree that Germany and Austria-Hungary were much more to blame than the Entente powers for the outbreak of war. john k 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Pklawton, Austria started the war. However, to improve the article, it should be mentioned in it that it wasn't like that that the Allied Powers did not wanted the war and add a linkt to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I.
Professor Fischer’s assertion that the lions share of the blame belongs to Austria and Germany is starting to be a bit of a worn argument. Do they at least share some of the blame - of course they do. However, the blame must be apportioned, to all of the five other major combatants.

1. Germany was not compelled to take military action against France. 2. Austria did not exactly bend over backward to come to terms with the Serbians over the matter of the assassination. 3. France virtually gave the same kind of assurances of support to Russia that Germany gave Austria – that is support for Russia should it become involved in a war with Germany. 4. Russia recklessly supported and even encouraged Serbia and then mobilized their armed forces. There was absolutely no excuse for such actions as Russia was NOT being directly threatened! Predictably the Germans, in particular, knowing of Russia’s military agreements with France became very alarmed at this point. They even informed the Russians that if such actions did not cease and desist they would be forced to take appropriate measure - military ones. This meant that since they were not prepared to fight a “two-front war” that they were bound to take pre-emptive military action. To wait, from their perspective, would mean a highly disadvantageous military situation for them. 5. Great Britain’s leadership did not go out of their way to avoid a war. They were very alarmed at Germany’s ever increasing power. They knew that if they were going to be removed as a threat in Europe (and to Britain’s position in the world) and as an international competitor, the time to act was then. They had entered into several military “agreements” with France and they also understood that the Franco – Russian military force might not succeed against Germany. (Kennedy, 1988) 6. Britain’s pretext for going to war because of Belgium being invaded by Germany is at best flimsy. Britain’s commitment to the sanctity of borders was not extended to poor little Luxembourg even though it was also a sovereign nation that was also being trampled by the German Army! Britain’s decision to intervene was determined as early as 1905. If Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality in 1914, Britain would have! (Ferguson, 1999) 7. The suggestion that Germany’s reckless territorial, political and economic ambitions also were a contributing factor to the out break of war in 1914 is also weak. Every single one of the five major combatants had similar ambitions – without exception! How many wars did Germany engage in between 1871 and 1914? None. Did Germany maintain the largest navy or standing army in 1914? No, that would have been the members of the Entente.

The assertion that Germany solely was this reckless, aggressive power hell bent on war does not really stand up to scrutiny. Sorry, Prof. Fischer.

Britain was bound by the 1839 Treaty of London to defend Belgium, this was not the case for Luxembourg --Metatronica 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Germany invade France?

The articles suggest this but provides no reasoning. If Germany was supporting Austrai-hungary why did they need to invade France. Someone explain this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.232.210 (talk • contribs)

The Schlieffen Plan is not linked? john k 11:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
See above.

Here's a short version: Russia was the primary threat to Germany, Russia was mobilizing against Austria in support of Serbia. Austria was mobilizing against Serbia because Serbian-supported assassins killed the heir to the Austrian throne (and his wife) and refused to meet Austria's list of demands when caught out. Russia supported Serbia in a show of Slavic brotherhood. France and Russia were allied. This put Germany in a bind. If Russia attacked Germany, France would have joined in, and Germany would have gotten its clock cleaned.

Thus Germany mobilized (in a most efficient manner) and preempted by attacking Belgium with whom it had signed a peace treaty ("just a piece of paper" said the Kaiser). It didn't hurt that Germany wanted France's colonies, and England refused to sign a peace treaty with Germany in support of a German attack on just the colonies making it far simpler to just attack France head on and get the colonies as a prize. Besides, the Germans mistakenly thought that domestic troubles would keep England out of the war and it would all be over by Christmas. Likewise, the Germans also believed, correctly in this case, that Russia's domestic troubles would squash any long-term war efforts.

Oh, and why attack Belgium? ...because the Belgians weren't expecting it and France was. That is to say, France had some pretty nifty fortifications along its border with Germany but not with Belgium. Belgium, peace treaty in hand, thought it safe to skip fortifying its border with Germany, and France had been a long-standing ally, so they had no significant fortifications there, either. Silly Belgians. Germany steamrolled through Belgium and attacked France from its relatively undefended northern border with Belgium in a rather nifty (if you weren't Belgian at the time) end-run.

Would Russia really have attacked the German Empire or Austria? We never got a chance to find out. But Germany was having its own domestic problems with socialists occupying about 30% of the Reichstag (nominally an elected congress, but more like a debating society) and folks generally getting pissy about the German nobility getting all the perks and militaristic Prussians pushing volk around. A zippy war and some new colonies would have breathed life into the crusty German nobles.

It didn't turn out that way, though. The Brits got involved from the start and loused up the German train schedules. After a few years of slugging it out in the mud and a really ugly Russian revolution, the Americans joined in and upset the stalemate. The other allies wanted to clean Germany's clock, but Wilson won them over with his 14 points (but that's a story for another day). Oh, and Churchill flubbed as a tactician, Peter O'Toole got buggered, someone vaguely promised the Jews a homeland, and Iraq lost Kuwait (the first time), but those, too, are another story. Hope this helps. Rklawton 02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for the summary but what was Germany trying to gain by attacking France? How did Germany expect to defeat France and Russia when it began the war. I understand that the Kaiser tried to pull out at the last minute of France but a general told him no or that it was too late, what was that all about?

It's in the summary, to wit:

  1. Colonies; smooth over its domenstic troubles
  2. Make an end run around France and clobber them from the north; Russia would take itself out through revolution
  3. Which last minute? It's your understanding; you tell me. Rklawton 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of any sense that Russia would "take itself out through revolution." The idea was to defeat France before Russia's slow mobilization would be completed. With France out of the war, the Germans could then focus on fighting Russia (which hopefully would, at any rate, see reason and sue for peace when it saw what happened to its ally) without having to worry about the French. As to what they hoped to gain, they hoped to take France out of the war quickly. They didn't necessarily have any particular goals, although in the wake of initial success they seem to have decided to make some border adjustments in their favor, take some colonies, and turn Belgium into a protectorate. In terms of the last minute business, the Kaiser learned that England would declare war if he invaded Belgium, and thus demanded that the Schlieffen Plan be halted and Germany turn east instead. Moltke almost threw an apoplectic fit, saying that it could not be done. It was ultimately agreed that the German troops could not be stopped before they got to their starting positions on the western frontier, but at that point they could be sent east. Moltke was very upset at this resolution and contemplated suicide. Then I think it became obvious that they couldn't guarantee British neutrality even if they did this, so the Schlieffen Plan went forward. But I can't quite recall the exact details. john k 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you read Ambassador Gerard's "My Four Years in Germany", you'll see his views on Germany's pre-war assessments regarding England and Russia. He's not the definitive source on the war, but his insights are quite remarkable. And, of course, he was there and meeting with the key German players. According to him, the Germans believed Russian workers wouldn't put up with a costly war managed by an unpopular aristocracy. Indeed Germany repatriated captured Russian soldier/socialists during the war so they could further foment unrest.

The Allies were desperate to keep Russia in the war, and the U.S. even sent the 8th Expeditionary Force over during the revolution to support the White Russians against the Red Russians (the only time U.S. soldiers directly engaged the Reds on Russian soil in combat). Of course, you are correct about taking France out quickly, but that doesn't alone explain how Germany expected to defeat Russia.

I strongly disagree with your assessment that Germany didn't "necessarily have any particular goals" in fighting this war. Perhaps you would reconsider this view. The Kaiser had quite a few goals in mind. Rklawton 17:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Germans went into the war without being at all clear on what their goals were. The goals expanded and expanded as the war went on. There's no evidence that anyone had the September Program, for instance, in mind before things got started. Once war started, a quick search for goals emerged, and of course the Germans had vague general ideas about securing their place in the sun, but I think specific goals mostly emerged in the first month of the war. john k 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Regardless, I'd be keen to hear your view on Gerard's assessement. [2] Rklawton 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking through Gerard's memoirs, which are quite entertaining (to me at least, but I'm a diplomatic historian, so I suppose that's to be expected), I have yet to find the material you mention. That being said, I wouldn't put too much stock into it - I gather that the book was published during the war. I think it's a fair position to say that we can't fully trust any memoir published by a former ambassador at a time when his country is in the midst of a war with the country he used to be ambassador to. But it's quite fun, and thanks for linking it. john k 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Having read further, it looks to me as though Gerard's comments about Russia are being made by him in retrospect in light of the March Revolution, and show no pretense that he is describing German opinion, and certainly not German opinion in 1914 (I haven't gotten past 1914, so perhaps he discusses this more later, but of course, later, Russian weakness became more and more apparent. In 1914, as I understand, the fear was that the Russian steamroller was becoming more and more powerful, and that war must come soon if Germany was not to be utterly destroyed by the gigantic Russian armies. john k 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out Chapter V: "Agitation by workmen in Russia was believed by Germany to be the beginning of a revolution." Also: "In the summer of 1914 Russia was believed to be on the edge of revolution." Since these claims made in 1917 about the state of affairs in 1914 would be readily verifiable, I doubt he's viewing this simply retrospectively. Given the public awareness raised by the Zabern affair in 1914, and it's no surprise that German leadership would look for similar signs of revolution in Ireland, England, and Russia. Rklawton 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'd give the Russian "steamroller" theory much credence. Keep in mind that both Austria and Germany had more than double the rail lines leading to their eastern frontier than Russia had leading west - and Russia was painfully aware of Germany's ability to transport more troops more quickly than they. Indeed, France had just lent Russia a sizable sum on the condition that Russia improve this situation (they didn't have time as it turns out). Rklawton 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Given Gerard's assessment at the end of the book about Germany's post-war future, I'd say he had some very significant insights into the German political scene. Rklawton 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RK, the German fear of Russian eventual superiority was real. It was certainly known that Russia's government wasn't terribly stable, but I don't think there was any real sense of imminent revolution. I think you are underestimating the importance of the fact that Gerard is writing in 1917. Immediately after the Tsardom was overthrown. From that perspective, any sign of weakness in the Tsarist regime is going to seem, in hindsight, to be a forebear of revolution. Gerard is a smart guy, but his perspective is very limited. There's been a ton of secondary work done on this subject. I don't think the memoirs of the American ambassador are really the best source to use for this subject, interesting as they may be. john k 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though the key word is eventual. I think Germany's main motivation was to maintain the monarchy. A quick war and acquisition of new colonies would have done that. Rklawton 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I would modify this to say that they wanted war to prevent democratic reform of any kind. The monarchy, per se, was not in any real danger in 1914. The Zabern Affair, if it showed anything, showed that other than the Social Democrats, no one was even prepared to demand even so much as ministerial responsibility. There was certainly a degree of fear of revolution and so forth, but Zabern, if anything, shows the strength of the system - the Progressives and Center wouldn't put their money where their mouth was and demand Bethmann's resignation. In spite of this, there was a fair amount of irrational fear on the part of the elites, but I don't think there was any fear of imminent revolution in Germany. There was a sense that the domestic political situation was getting hard to control, and that war would be a good escape from this. Again, Gerard's writings, coming in the wake of March 1917 in Russia (and also, coming from an American - Americans always, I think, tend to see European monarchies as much shakier than they actually are) is going to perceive the monarchical system in 1913-14 as being much weaker than it actually was, I think. john k 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster. The article about the causes of WWI mentions that Russia and France were allies, but here it seems almost they invaded France for no reason. The alliance between France and Russia could be mentioned somewhere in that paragraph to make it clearly. Rōnin 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the Balfur declaration

This article does not mention the Balfur declaration.

Add it. Haber 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oil and the war

It is possible that the Berlin-Baghdad railway may have been a strong reason for going to war. Britain owned, or were in league with oil producing nations to supply them with the oil. The Germans did not have these possessions and so this may have led to the drive eastwards. The Berlin-Baghdad railway was planned for this, although it only got as far as Konstantinople (check spelling) and is known as the Orient Express. If the railway had been completed, what would stopped a man arriving at Baghdad and waving a massive cheque under the oil producers noses and smashing up the cartel. Many countries protested against this, and obviously, the British took major exception to the idea.

There is a very good video on at Google at the moment by a performer called Rob Newman, called 'The History of Oil'. He mentions the most likely cause of the First World War, and how the 'war to end all wars' is not really what it seems and interlinks it with many of the ongoing wars in the Middle East.

Rob Newman's History of Oil

--80.195.170.219 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Ross, Birmingham, UK

  • The Orient Express traditkionally ran from Paris to Istanbul (=Constantinople). Oil wasn't as vital a resource in 1914 as it would become later (coal remained the main fuel for trains for example) so while it may have been a minor cause it was hardly the main reason for WWI. Lisiate 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Turkey was an important threat to Russia, & keeping Russia in the war was important to the Entente, while knocking her out was important to the Central Powers. This explains Goeben & Breslau, the suggested "gift" (bribe) to Turkey, & Gallipoli. Trekphiler 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) (Coal was more important to ships of all navies then...)

Last Man From World War 1 Died Yesterday

Please add this to the article. He was 112 and served in the German infantry.

Aircraft carriers

I dropped in a couple bits about Aircraft Carriers being used in combat for the first in WWI, with HMS Furious's raid on the Tondern zepplin hangars. The first note is in "Naval War", the other in "Technology". If anyone thinks the Technology note is redundant, feel free to rephrase or remove it.--Raguleader 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Title Picture

I think that, compared to the World War 2 picture, this one is a bit "underwhelming". While the former has some famous and dramatic photographs, the one on this article seems to be cobbled together randomly. I don't want to register, so can someone look for better pictures?


Commanders and Nations

I noticed that in several cases that heads of state are listed as commanders. I think the only two heads of state that could possibly be counted as a military commander would be Tsar Nicholas (and only because the signifigance of his assumption of the supreme command), and Kaiser Wilhem, (and personally, I think Hindenberg/Ludendorff, etc would be more appropriate.) I definitely don't think President Wilson belongs as a military commander in the war. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.186.139.67 (talk • contribs) .

  • Support per nom. Rklawton 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


In addition, I also noticed Canada was included as a combatant. While this is true, the Dominions were part of the Empire, and if one would include Canada seperate, the ANZAC and others should be part of it as well. I think the simplest solution would be to group them all under the British Empire, but thats just my opinion. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.186.139.67 (talk • contribs) .

  • Support per nom. Rklawton 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_I/Archive_3&oldid=952346824"