Talk:World War I/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Minor Concerns

There is an error on the side column at the top of the page: it has two sets of data, each with three sections labeled Military Dead, Military Wounded and Military Missing. Unfortunately the numbers don't line up. Perhaps the second set is supposed read Civilians Dead, Civilians Wounded and Civilians Missing?

Ianus Maximus 04:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


This might be trivial, but in the first paragraph it says that Russia left WWI after the revolution in 1917. Maybe it should say "the Russian Revolution". It's kinda vague.--The Gillotine (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify things fully it should read "the second Russian Revolution of November 1917"--Blue Dwarf 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; In the second sentence it says, "Over 40 million casualties resulted, including approximately 20 million military and civilian deaths." If 20 million were military/civilian deaths, where did the other 20 million come from? This could obviously just be a wording error, but...yeah. There it is. 172.137.54.16 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualties is a general term that includes deaths, injuries, and MIAs. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Further reading entries

This delete/revert cycle is unnecessary. Even if there are specific entries that you can verify are on both lists, not particularly referenced in this article, and not particularly useful for this article, so that it could go, but even then, there's no need to delete it, just comment it out in <!-- --> LeadSongDog 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, the books are already listed in a separate article. This was done to stop a long list of books from being posted in this article and save real estate. Why do you want to keep the some of the books in the main article ? Chessy999 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOTPAPER. This is basic to making WP work, especially for articles as complex and sometimes contentious as this one.LeadSongDog 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a total of 8 million deaths in world war one, not 40 million.

There was a total of 8 Million Deaths in World War One. 5 Million of these deaths, were from the military of Entente Powers, Allies. The other 3 Million were from the Central Powers Military. The world war one wikipedia articla is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlienJack (talk • contribs) 08:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

40 million casualties, not deaths. The topic is explained in more detail in the linked article World War I casualties.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Allies?

Canadian General

The Canadian general Arthur Currie played a very influential role in many of the later battles. I just was wondering why his name was not mentioned on the major generals list on the page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.127.129 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

central powers- ? and what was the other one ?

(Yugioh1126 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Term "World War 1"

When was the term World War 1 or WWI or First World War, etc first used? Was it during the Second World War? Clearly during the 1914-1919 war it was not called "the First World War". Yodar Critch (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a book published in 1920 called "The First World War" in two volumes. you can download it into PDF for free at archive.org/details/text . the book was written by someone named Reppington. So the term might actually have been in use even in 1914. It does seem kind of strange title when no second world war had yet occurred.EdwardLovette (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)lovetteEdwardLovette (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Central Power alliance was made up of only four nations, and the Entente consisted of five (one of whom, the U.S., entered only near the end), is this war even global? Is it fair to call it a "World" war? Most of the "Allied" nations were colony nations owned by either the Entente or Central Powers, and the vast majority of battles occurred in Europe. In WWII, major and decisive battles occurred in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, North America (Hawaii and Alaska), Oceania, and the Pacific Islands; involving sovereign nations from each of the continents. Also, the leaders of WWI were mostly related to each other, whereas in WWII, they were not.

Is there a way we can introduce a section in the article which talks about the possible inaccuracy of the terms "World War I" and "World War II"? Mintchocolatebear (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Battles were fought all over the world: the seizing of the German colonies in Africa and the Pacific; naval battles with those German ships that were at sea when the war started (notably the Emden); the campaigns in Mesopotamia, Arabia, Egypt and Palestine. And soldiers from the European colonial empires were brought to Europe to fight. Also, I seem to remember that at one point Britain was worried that Germany would penetrate so far into Russia that they could turn south and invade Persia and then India. Have a look at the map of participants on Allies_of_World_War_I. Yes, it was a "World" war. KarenSutherland (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

German War Aims

We know about the controversy regarding the Versailles Treaty, but what if Germany had won? There ought to be a mention of German war aims, perhaps referencing http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs34.htm . Vgy7ujm (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Much of Europe mourned ? I don't think that statement is fully correct or neutral.

"The experiences of the war led to a collective trauma for all participating countries. The optimism of the 1900s was gone and those who fought in the war became known as the Lost Generation. For the next few years, much of Europe mourned."

1-Trauma for all countries ? There was no trauma for countries that regained independence. First World War and its consequences are remembered quite warm in my country as event of regaining freedom. I would guess similar view is shared by other liberated countries 2-Much of Europe mourned. Rebirth of independence was celebrated in countries freed. The statement seems centered on West Europe but ignores celebrations and joy by nations freed from opressive Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian rule. --Molobo (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And the people who formed the Lemko-Rusyn Republic merely exchanged opressive Autro-Hungarian rule for oppressive Polish rule. They mourned, or left. Pustelnik (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm II Doesn't Just Flee Germany

In the article, it says that Wilhelm the second fled to the Netherlands. I think it should be mentioned why: my AP History teacher has a book with loads of old documents, and he taught us that Kaiser Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands in order to help Germany. He thought that since he was in charge during the whole war, if he were to leave Germany, he would take part of the blame for the war with him and cause Germany to loose less credentials in the international community. It was a noble thing to do, and I think that this should be mentioned (I think the article makes him look like a scared idiot who was afraid for his life and abandoned his country). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.121.231 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He went into exile because the German populace was demanding his abdication and the proroyalist government under Max von Baden broke down and had to make way for a SPD led prorepublican governement. He left because the political climate had changed demanding his removal (even when only considering the domestic developments in Germany itself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.102.53 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rites of Spring : The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (1989)

Please add this history book in the list! A great book by Modris Eksteins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.187.75 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pershing offensive

Let me disagree with Parsec boy's edit summary. I'm not "going out of my way"; "Nigger Jack" is what Pershing was called. Denying (or ignoring) that is effectively rewriting history. WP's not in the biz of revisionism (is it?). Trekphiler (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not in the business of revisionism, but his nickname, whatever it was, has absolutely no bearing on World War I. It has no business being here, whether it was "Nigger Jack" or "Petunia Bill". It's totally and completely irrelevant to this article; moreover, we don't need to go out of our way to include offensive names. It adds absolutely zilch to the article; just drop it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Where nicknames are used, I suggest period-correct ones, even offensive ones, are appropriate; he was called that at the time; & he was the senior U.S. commander, so not "totally and completely irrelevant". Just not enough to make a production of it. Trekphiler (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You're totally missing my point. I'm saying nicknames should not be used in this article, unless there is a direct link to the war (i.e., he got his nickname from something he did during the war). As I stated above, I could care less if it was "Nigger Jack" or anything else. It is totally irrelevant. This article is about World War I, not Pershing and whatever his nicknames from 20+ years previous might have been. It adds absolutely nothing to the article, and there is no direct, logical link; there's absolutely no reason to include it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the general question at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Personal nicknames. Please take further discussion of the policy there. Once there's a concensus on the general policy, we can make sense of a policy on this particular General. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about nicknames in general. I'm saying that nicknames should only be used if they are directly relevant; not because we feel like it. In this case, Pershing's nickname is not directly relevant to anything in this article, so it should not be included "for the hell of it". It is directly relevant to John J. Pershing and perhaps 10th Cavalry Regiment (United States). Just not here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the discussion should be in the right venue, not here.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is in the right are, because it is not about nicknames as a whole in Wikipedia, just this particular instance in this particular article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason evident that this article should have a unique policy on nicknames.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, no one is discussing policy here. It's a single instance of relevance to the greater article, as well as being intentionally offensive for the sake of being offensive. Note that I'm not saying Trekphiler is being intentionally offensive, I just think we should avoid the perception that that's what's happening here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, why should this article do something different from the rest of WP? (If it matters here, it matters elsewhere too.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So it's according to Wikipedia's naming policy to use nicknames for everyone in an article, whether it's relevant or not? Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody suggested anything of the sort. My assertion was that we should simply seek consistent style. That, in fact, is why WP:MOS exists. Simply put, I don't much care which way the decision goes, but it should not be unique to this article.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just don't think the MoS for names is really important here; it's more of a matter of notability to the subject at hand, in this case, World War I. Pershing's nickname is in no way related to the war (i.e., he didn't receive it for actions during the war), nor did it have any kind of impact on any event during the war, so it's superfluous to the article. If anything were to be debated at the MoS, it would be part of my original point, that we don't need to go out of our way to include offensive nicknames when they don't add a single thing to the article, which is more of a general point than specific to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An eminently reasonable point, which you really should make at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Personal nicknames. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I did just that a minute ago. Parsecboy (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbia in the infobox?

D1111 has readded Serbia to the infobox, arguing that based on casualties and the fact that it was the catalyst for the war merit it's inclusion in the infobox. I disagree, given that the traditional sources generally include France, the British Empire, Russia, Italy, and the US as the major powers, leaving Serbia, Romania, and others as minor powers. I believe that there was consensus at some point here to include the 5 countries I mentioned above, so that consensus should be overturned in order to include Serbia. Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a correction: Serbia was certainly not a major power, but the info box title is "Combatants" and not major powers. I think war effort should be measured to decide which country is to be mentioned as a major player. So, what should be criteria to distinguish war effort? I argue that the amount misery, especially number of deaths that one country has taken during one war should be decisive for inclusion in info box. Some country could have been a major or even super power at the time, but take symbolic action in the war (sending one company) - should it be included in info box "Combatants" then? --D1111 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me stress that it is not our decision to make. Any attempt to discern which country is a major power and which is not is a clear instance of original research. Reliable sources should be used to support either inclusion or exclusion of any country in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, we are not arguing about "major powers", but about info box "combatants". The discussion was started when you removed my inclusion of Serbia in info box. As there is no Wikipedia policy to distinguish importance of "Combatants" in one war, here is my logic:
  • "Combatants" info box should include as more important countries that have taken bigger war effort first
  • Obvious problem is how to measure "war effort": I'd say criteria should be a number of casualties, which is very logical criteria and is easy to compare as it is a plain number
Have you got a better criteria? --D1111 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case, major powers and major combatants are synonymous. You are incorrect though, it was you who disrupted the status quo, necessitating the discussion. Again, as I stated on your talk page, you need to review the core Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They all go hand in hand; to make a change (especially a controversial one, as this one is), you need to have reliable sources to verify those changes. A reliable source in this instance would be, for example a book written by a respected historian with established standing within the field in question, a peer-reviewed journal entry, and so forth. Simply stating the number of casualties and taking your own judgements from them is a clear case of original research, which, as mentioned before, is strictly prohibited. As should be obvious, there is no need for a specific policy about picking which countries are major and which are not in a given war. By following these three policies, we arrive at the correct end-point: a product that matches more or less with the consensus of historians on a broad scale. Parsecboy (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, if you don't want to accept Serbian casualties in WWI as a reason for inclusion in info box, accept then casualties inflicted by Serbian Army to enemy. As the matter of fact, only in Battle of Kolubara, Austro-Hungarian army lost more then 270.000 soldiers, which is more then 6% of total military casualties of Central Powers. Mind you, this was only one battle, and Serbia was waging the war from the very beginning to the very end. If this is not the proof that Serbia was a "major combatant" I don't know what could be the proof. --D1111 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point here. We cannot choose who goes in the infobox and who does not. We merely take reputable sources and use their definitions of the major powers during the war. If you can find some reliable sources that will support your claims, we can continue this discussion. Until you do that, however, you're more or less wasting your time, because edits without sources, based on our interpretation of specific statistics, constitute original research. This is strictly prohibited. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand your point. I am talking about inclusion in info box titled "Major combatants". From the common sense, major combatants in the war should be those that took place in majority of hostilities. Have you found some research that says that Serbia was not a major combatant (I never said "major power")? Such research, if it ever existed, would've been a completely false, as row numbers and facts (even the facts in this very article) show opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I said this already; major power = major combatant. You're asking me to prove a negative; that's a logical fallacy. I can tell you that the majority of historians would state that France, the British Empire, Italy, and Russia were the major powers/combatants for the the majority of the war, and would likely include the USA as well. Let me repeat this, for the last time. Our opinions and or interpretations of the facts are totally and completely irrelevant. Why don't you read the policy pages I've been linking to throughout this entire discussion? Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As I have proven you above, major power is not equal major combatant, as some "major power" could have send one company to fight, and that would have not qualify it as more important then some small nation that had taken a majority of war effort. Policies you have linking too do not apply to this case, and stop trying to hide behind them, because we are not arguing about some fact that can be checked, but about importance of countries in WWI. I am pretty sure that US-historians would have include USA rather the Serbia, but this is, as row numbers and actual facts show - simply unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You've proven nothing. The policies are directly relevant to this case. If you think they're not, you might not be in the right place (i.e., Wikipedia as a whole). We report what reliable sources state. We don't take base facts like casualties inflicted and sustained, and come to our own research. I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you. That is original research. Read the first bold line in WP:OR:
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.
What you're proposing is exactly that; your original research or original thought. This is totally incongruent with Wikipedia core policy. Please, read the policy pages thoroughly, understand how they apply in this specific instance, and when you are done with that, find some reliable sources, or just stop arguing, because until you provide sources, nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, will change in regards to Serbia's status in/out of the infobox. Policy is policy for a reason, and it will be upheld here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want sources, every Serbian historic books about WWI mention Serbia as major combatant, and I could mention many of them. I am very well aware that this is same with US books, and so with a good reason (of course). So, should we start arguing which sources are "more reliable" (nonsense, "importance" is not a fact but somebody's judgment), or should we just take a look into facts that all sources more-or-less agree about? And the facts are: Serbia had (much) more casualties then U.S. of A. in WWI, Serbia inflicted (much) more casualties to common enemy, it fought longer then U.S.A.. All that facts qualify this country as more important as a combatant in WWI then U.S. of A., and that's pretty much obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Serbian history books mention Serbia as a major combatant; every country produces nationalistic history. Look at the vast majority of American history books, and you won't see a shred of information about atrocities committed by American soldiers during WWII. I'm talking about sources that are widely accepted outside of the country of origin. If it's so universally accepted, you should have no problem providing information (i.e., the name, author, publisher, and ISBN) about the books. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we finally agree about something: every country produces nationalistic history. I would add - history is written by a great influence of politics, so why bother about Serbia and Serbia's casualties, when it is so small and unimportant. CONGRATULATIONS: This is exactly what I am talking about all the time!! So, let's put aside historians and look at facts presented above. If you have better logic (in measuring "importance"), present it here, and I will agree right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(Smacks forehead) The fact that many countries inflate their own histories is not a reason to discard history altogether. My point is that histories from reliable, neutral sources are perfectly fine to use. Therefore, find some, and then we'll talk. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe I had my point; I explained why I think Serbia belongs in info box, I have explained the logic I have followed to decide that, and I have presented indisputable facts to support that logic. I have also repeatedly called you to prove my logic flawed, to present better logic that proves opposite, or to deny facts I have presented. This did not happen so far, so I am still convinced that I am fully right. At the end, I don't care that much, and I am giving up on this empty discussion, and I will not edit this article any more. Just so you learn something as you are still very young, Serbia won the brightest victories of WWI, and that was acknowledged by French, British and other top commanders of WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you for being so condescending. The reason I have not been arguing based on the merits of your position is that it's totally and completely irrelevant if you're right or not. You still don't understand how Wikipedia operates, do you?. Both your and my opinions don't mean jack squat when trying to decide which countries go in any infobox. Only those of widely accepted, peer reviewed historians do. Until you accept that fundamental aspect of Wikipedia, perhaps this isn't the best place for you to be. Parsecboy (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few sources to consider:

The inclusion of Serbia on the list of combatants may be justified simply on the basis of the cause of the war, being the first (or second) belligerant, or as being Russia's reason for joining the war. Serbia was key to Russian overland access to the Mediteranean, as the North Sea was full of Germans and the Bosphorus was controlled by the Turks. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope it is due to ignorance (can't remember when BBC was fair to Serbia in last 20 years though), but BBC number of Serbian deaths (45000 !!!) is totally out of line. --D1111 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the only BBC reference to Serbia in the article: "He was assassinated in protest because many Bosnians wanted to be free from the empire to unite with neighbouring Serbia. In retaliation and urged on by Germany, Austria invaded Serbia. Serbia called for help from Russia, which was suspicious of Austria's ambitions."
And that's it! Where is the first big battle and Serbia victory of 1914, with more then 400000 dead soldiers on both sides? And the victory of 1918? Where is 8% of total allied casualties of this tiny country? Thanks for your reference, I can now see clearly what's going on in so called British "sources". 45000 deaths? As I read the article, I am now sure it was not ignorance, it was malicious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See [this comparison]. The 45000 number is not new to the BBC. Where did you find 400,000? LeadSongDog (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at World War I casualties, sources are listed at the bottom. You are right - I was totally unaware about number of 45000 in most of English source (so it is not BBC). --D1111 (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You reference "World War I: The birth of a killing culture", especially last sentence on the first page is more like what really happened. I had a look with more attention to other English sources; for example, it is suspicious that first allied victory in Battle of Kolubara and Serbian front 1914 was completely ommitted at [1] --D1111 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Poor choice of example, Battle of Kolubara is a completely unreferenced article, even in other language wikis. It's also blatantly non-neutral POV.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If one world power, as Austria-Hungary was at that time, attacks one country and so starts the world war, and if this country defeats that world power crashing its army of 300000, so that it does not return to its soil for 10 months; if that was not an important event of that war, I really don't know what should important event of the war be. I don't know why this battle has been omitted from English sources, I am really wondering why. That's probably why I have started this discussion at the first place. One hint can be found in timeline of 1914:
  • July 29 - December 9 Austria-Hungary repeatedly invades Serbia but is repeatedly repulsed
According to this source, Austria-Hungary was "repulsed" without a battle, or how does that work? --D1111 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? When something attacks something, and is "repulsed", it implies that there was a battle, and the attacker lost. Just because the source didn't mention a specific battle doesn't mean there weren't any, or that the source is "wrong" somehow. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
All of this is ignoring the fact that none of the sources provided by LeadSongDog state that Serbia was a major combatant. The argument that it was the casus belli is largely irrelevant; the majority of historians don't consider Poland to be a major combatant during WWII, even though it holds a similar distinction for the European Theater of the war. Again, casualties are irrelevant to this discussion. Any attempt to use a specific metric to judge whether a country should be included in the infobox as a major combatant is plain and clear example of original research. Originial research is strictly prohibited. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this blindingly obvious fact. Parsecboy (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, that list of sources was no argument on my part, except to demonstrate that there were sources available to consult for content. Perhaps someone can show us where it says that the entries in the list must be major combatants. Indeed, my preference would be to strike all the entries, leaving "Entente Powers" and "Central Powers" and simply link to the comprehensive lists. It's presently way out of hand for an infobox. If we must keep it, in the Commanders box we should show either head of state, head of government, or top military commander, but not some hash of all three. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that it would be best to just have Entente Powers and Central Powers, like in the WWII infobox. The list of commanders is indeed gigantic, and it continues to grow. Maybe it would be a good idea to create a separate article for leaders of the various combatants, again, like it's handled at WWII? Something like Allied leaders of World War II/Axis leaders of World War II/Commanders of World War II? Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Also offers an EZ-to-find place to link out to the bios, for anyone interested. Trekphiler (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

checkYDone.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me; the set-up for leaders on the Allies/Central Powers pages is fine as a temporary fix, but I'd like to make a sub-article out of it, like it's been done for WWII. I most likely won't have sufficient free time until Thursday, so I'll probably start it then, unless you guys want to start it yourselves. Parsecboy (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_I/Archive_9&oldid=952347149"