Wikipedia

Talk:World War I/Archive 1

< Talk:World War I
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Quadzilla99 in topic Assessment comment
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Various comments

I read a comment using the term Austrian Reich in English. This is incorrect. The Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Empire/Monarchy of WWI era should be refered to as the Kaiserreich Austria-"Hungary" (Kaiserreich Oesterreich) if you wish to combine the English term with the German, similar to the correctly used version of the German Reich or Second Reich, (Deutsches Reich). Thanks, and take note. Oh and regarding Italy and the succesful Allied attempt to lure them into war against Austria and Germany, the Italians demanded all of historic South Tirol (including the Italian AND German speaking inhabited portions, (Trento and Bozen), (for strategic reasons, i.e. Brenner Pass), Dalmatian territory in Hungarian Croatia (historically at one time Italian or Venetian but with no significant Italian population at that time), The "Kuestenland"/Isteria from Austria with the Austrian naval port of Trieste, (the Isterian pennisula contained a significant Italian population), Control over Albania and perhaps I'm not certain, a part of the German overseas imperial empire. They ended up with South Tirol, a stab in the back to Austria, which is resented by Austrians, Germans and Tirolians to this day...none the less the region is a prime example of multi-ethnic cooperation and harmony but the German speakers, Italian speakers and Ladins must likely keep to themselves in the rural regions of the Province "-Trento-Tirolo (Alto-Adige) or Trient-Suedtirol. Does anyone have any information to the sympathies and loyalties of the "Ladiner" or more correctly the Ladino of this region had during the Great War? I'm assuming they fought for Austria??? P.S. Does anyone know if the Italians of Trient Bezirk were forced into the Austrian Army???


The text accompanying the picture in section 'Allied Victory' was incorrect. It read:

'Throughout World War I, Allied forces led by the United Kingdom and the United States were stalled at trenches on the Western Front.'

We all no very well that (i) the US joined the war relatively late and then sent an expeditionary force and (ii) it would be a huge exaggeration to say Allied forces were led by the UK. If there was a country that 'led' the Allied forces on the Western front than it was France. (I'm not French personally:)) )

Therefore I cut the section 'by the United Kingdom and the United States'

I see that some information has been excised. specifically, was true that:

The German Reich and the Austrian Reich had already coined Polish money and re-installation of a Polish kingdom set up.

and that

tanks weren't used before World War I

and that

Some Britons though this a bit too much and Curzon suggested the CURZON LINE. But Poland kept other people's land "given" to them and added more in a war against Russia. Poland wound up with a huge percentage of none Polish Ukrainians, Germans and other people, now forced to live under Polish rule.

Germany and Austria indeed set up an "independent" Polish state under their own tutelage in November 1916, but imprisoned Pilsudski, head of the Polish Legions, when in July 1917 he vetoed an oath swearing brotherhood with the German and Auatrian armies. I was going to add this episode in discussing nationalist movements in the war (Irish, Arab etc.). I didn't really see what the money had to do with it.

Tanks were first used by the British Army at the Battle of Flers-Courcelette on 15 Sept. 1916. Some tracked vehicles had been developed as early as 1908, but military development only began in 1915.

The "Curzon Line" proposed by Britain in Dec. 1919 was indeed the approximate ethnographic boundary, and forms most of today's Polish eastern frontier.

That's not true. "Curzon's Line" forms today's eastern borders only because many milions Polish were forced to go away by Russians. At that time Curzon line made little sense. --Taw

Not so, Taw. Let's not argue, please check out a pre-1914 ethnographic map: the majorities haven't really changed much, they've just become more overwhelming in each area through population exchange. Most east of the line remained Ukrainians or Belorussians (plus some Lithuanians) even under Polish rule in the 1920s and 1930s.

Italy was indeed allied to Germany and Austria-Hungary through the Triple Alliance of 20 May 1882, concluded partly out of pique at France's seizure of Tunis the year before but renewed as late as 28 June 1902, Jzcool: what the Italians did was to secretly assure the French they wouldn't go to war against them (Taylor says the assurance was given on June 30, but the note was dated December 1 so it wouldn't seem they'd changed their mind two days after the renewal!). Italy declared war on Austria on 23 May 1915 in accordance with the secret Treaty of London with Britain and France of April 26: she didn't declare war against Germany until August 1916. In August 1914 Italy had proclaimed neutrality despite being allied officially with Germany and Austria: public opinion largely favoured the western powers.

Not so, Taw. Let's not argue, please check out a pre-1914 ethnographic map: the majorities haven't really changed much, they've just become more overwhelming in each area through population exchange. Most east of the line remained Ukrainians or Belorussians (plus some Lithuanians) even under Polish rule in the 1920s and 1930s.

Not so. pre 1914 censuses in Russia underestimated numbers of Poles. Behind the line of Curzon there were vast territories with Polish majority (Vilnius area, Lviv, etc). In total east from Curzon Line Poles were (number off my heade) some 40%, but they were majority in many areas.

Curzon line also wasn't really invented by Curzon. It was just more or less borders between partitioners. It doesn't really concern about ethnography.

Another objections for article: Western Powers helped Poland gain huge chunk of Ukraine. How they did? Polish corridor was given to Poland also because Poles were majority in there (again, not in all areas, there were regions where Germans were majority). Later some 7 to 9% population was German, but this was after many Germans left that area for different reasons.

ah, one more thing: impression i took from books is that in Poland everyone expected war to be long, bloody, and everyone was expecting that from that big european war will arise new independent Poland. Should that be noted in article? szopen

The Russian census (there was only one, on 9 February 1897) indeed probably underestimated Polish numbers, and there was certainly a large Polish population in the Vilnius region, Poland's grounds for seizing the territory in October 1920. But Lviv wasn't Russian, it was Austrian, and the Austrian authorities were more favourably inclined towards Galicia's Poles than their Ukrainian neighbours. That didn't stop successive Austrian censuses showing eastern Galicia (the Lviv area and most of the province) as predominantly Ukrainian.

I'm interested that you don't seem to consider the possibility that the 1921 and 1931 Polish censuses overestimated Polish numbers, which the new authorities had understandable reasons to do. In this case the Austrian returns appear to have been the most nearly neutral, with no evidence of anti-Polish bias, and I'm not aware that anyone has come up with any contrary evidence.

The Curzon line wasn't just a "border between partitioners": while the middle part of it followed the western limit of the 1795-1918 provinces of Russia (i.e. excluding "Congress Poland"), the northern stretch and the large section through Austrian-ruled Galicia were innovations designed to represent an ethnographic "best fit", though as you say, a large Polish minority was left on the wrong side, in preference I think to having tenuous corridors of Polish territory extending into Lithuania-Belorussia.

As for the west helping Poland gain western Ukraine, western (and especially French) support was aimed first and foremost at saving Poland from the Red Army in 1920: the subsequent Polish counteroffensive up to the 1921 frontier wasn't foreseen in London. The Curzon Line was the best reflection of the overall ethnographic distribution that western statesmen were able to come up with in December 1919, when the last thing they wanted was to extend Red Russian power westward. Their subsequent recognition of Polish rule in eastern Galicia (March 1923) was acceptance of a fait accompli already conceded by Ukraine's Soviet rulers.

Poles might well have expected the 1914 war to be long and bloody, as was indeed to be the case for Poland, occupying one of the principal theatres of war. But the war wasn't about Poland. Germany and Austria certainly didn't foresee a big, independent Poland: I doubt very much that the Russian government did either, though they may have feared it as a worst outcome. French and U.S. feeling was doubtless more pro-Polish: the British may well have been the most neutral on the issue: certainly in December 1919 they had no reason to penalise a friendly Poland for the benefit of a bolshevik Russia considered beyong the pale of western civilisation. -- David Parker

I know WWI wasn't about independent Poland. I have written, that _Poles_ expected (although you may consider that expectation irrational) that independent Poland will arise from new war. This expectations is at least in poems from XIX century i read (for world war we ask, our Lord), since most Polish politicians believed that only world war would destroyu solidarity between partitioners, because as long as that solidarity exists, independent Poland would be dream that would never come true. However, after second though, i think that it won't much help improve the article with mentioning all exceptions and differences of expectations of any single nation.
About Polish censuses, well, it depends. It overestimate numbers of Poles (and Jews) and underestimate number of Belarussians (and Ukrainians) in Eastern parts. there are widely known flaws of that, moreover, census from 1921 does not reflect situation from few years earlier. Flaws are usually addresses by all modern historians i read, and numbers are corrected with using few methods i never bothered to check (i usually trust professional historians when they agree between themselves and wrote that they checked their results). In western parts, censuses were checked by independent German organisation and they prove their accuracy (with some errors which could be ignored).
Lviv was in Austria, and it has Polish majority, as regions directly around it. Vilnius and very wide region around it had really big Polish majority (in referendum about joining POland, (boycotted by Lithuanians) most of participants voted for joining Poland. Curzon line was maybe best what can western allies came with, but definetely it was in the time seen by Poles as wrong, since it left two cities considered important part of Polish culture and history (something like Breslau or Danzig for Germans). Millions, millions of Poles lived east from CUrzon line. And not all territories behind Curzon line had majority of non-Polish population. Off my head, eastern Kresy had 40 to 60% (numbers from head aren't very accurate) of Polish population in 1931, which mean, i think, that in 1914 they would have at least some 1/3 of Polish population overall, with large territories of course where there were virtually no Poles, and large territories (like Grodno areas) where there were almost only Poles.
Anyway, i get lost in that discussion (i am not sure what i am actually arguing now :)))) ), so if you are interested in discuss it further, my email is adanilecki@cs.put.poznan.pl

szopen

Sorry to take a while getting back to you, Arkadiusz: I take your point about Lviv/Lwow and Vilna; the problem is where to draw the border in such cases, and I think the norm is to leave as few people as possible on the "wrong" side - I honestly don't know whether it could have been done much better, though the 1921-39 frontier clearly didn't conform to any ethnographic basis (nor was it meant to, being primarily a feat of Polish arms). Of course in an ideal world there wouldn't be a "wrong" side, and the real injustice is that any minority (or majority, for that matter) should feel threatened by persecution or discrimination - but that seems for now to be the way of our imperfect world.

Personally, I'd like to move the bulk of this Talk page to a new "Curzon Line/Talk" and see if between us we can come up with a mutually acceptable entry for that understandably emotive topic. Would you and Tomasz be interested? David Parker

I would, and i agree. Part of my family came from Grodno area, that's why this is emotional topic for me: i am just getting nervous wherever i read some article in which Poles were cruel overlords who came and, like in that joke about South Africa, every morning they get up theuy immedietely started oppressing poor Belarusian peasants. Sometimes this causes that i sense bias in perfectly neutral articles, but i hope i am able to agree to some neutral compromise.

Ah, and still i would change sentences like "it was social trauma for all participating countries" to "western countries" or "almost all". In Poland end of war was marked with wild enthusiasm and optimism, since all cruelties of the war were shadowed by almost religious event, arising of Poland from death (even 1920 war wasn't really trauma, since we also win) szopen


A note on the early origin of the name WWI: my source for this titbit is Nigel Rees' Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. See also http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/repington.htm -- Tarquin 23:54 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

"World War I and New Imperialism" who want to read last addition to verify if its NPOV ? Ericd

a sort of reversal of the actual outcome of the Great War, after which Britain occupied the vast majority of German and Ottoman colonies as "protectorates"

I removed this from the "imperial interests" part and moved it down to the geopolitical consequences, in the interests of temporal consistency. That is, I think it's confusing--and pointless--to talk about the outcome of the war in a section on its causes. DanKeshet

No, it is not. The outcome of the war was on the minds of continental statesmen before the war even began.

Britain feared the prospect of a German takeover of France’s colonies. Briefly alluding to the outcome of the Great War points out that these fears were realistic.

172

"The outcome of the war was on the minds of continental statesmen before the war even began." where you in their minds ? A lot of historian still believe that the WW 1 was mainly an accident. Ericd

First, I wonder why the image of the soldier on an English language site? Second, this is a lengthy and reasonably well done article but misleading and far from complete because the following is the only mention of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand: Less concrete changes include the growing assertiveness of Commonwealth nations. Battles such as Gallipoli for Australia and New Zealand, and Vimy Ridge for Canada led to increased national pride and a greater reluctance to remain inferior to the British.

These three nations were in the War from Day 1, taking part in some of the bloodiest battles and suffering a per capita casualty rate far higher than that of most other participants. (See Vimy Ridge for Canada.) If Wikipedia is to have credibility, then serious contributors should be more sensitive on the World Wide Web and be aware of facts that are of extreme relevance and importance to other nations than the United States whose contribution, although extremely significant, was in actual combat for less than seven months.....DW

DW, you're being silly. Of course the article on World War 1 should focus on the major powers of the war. If you or someone else wants to write more about non-major players, feel free but don't make it seem like the page is worse than it is -- I'm sure there's much more that could be said about the non-major powers, but they're not major for a reason. You constantly complain about Americocentrism, often with good reason, but this kind of excoriation will only drive away contributors who think they shouldn't write an article without mentioning every country involved in the tiniest way. I wrote the article at roots reggae, for example, focusing on Jamaica. Would you have me not write the article since I can't describe the reggae scene in Japan or Mongolia? While I agree with the basic idea of your post (that AU, NZ and CA's contributions should be described in better detail), your tone is entirely unnecessary for what is not a major lapse in NPOV -- I bet most encyclopedias give no more than a few sentences to the subject. Of course we should strive to be better, but approximating the same amount of info as professionals is a perfectly good start. Tokerboy


For the photo it's one the best public domain photo I've found it shows what were the trenches. Yes it's a French soldier, I've also searched for reprensative photos of the german and the allies, as for now I haven't found any.

"These three nations were in the War from Day 1, taking part in some of the bloodiest battles and suffering a per capita casualty rate far higher than that of most other participants." I agree but they're is not the only absent in this article colonial troops like "Tirailleurs Sénégalais" should be mentionned too.

IMHO this article is still a work in progress. Ericd

In the UK (and I'm sure many other countries) virtually every town has a War memorial, are we going t put down some critieria for what ones to include on this page?

Note, I only inserted major memorials relevant to an entire nation or all nations. Also, I removed the external link to a rapsong said to be about WW I. There are over 700 equally important songs about the war and it is improper to use Wikipedia as "advertising" for one of them. External links should be limited to a source of additional IMPORTANT encyclopedic information only....DW

Oh I agree about the song. I was going to remve it myself for the same reasons, but I wanted to hear it first and I can't get OGG files to work with Winamp for some reason. Mintguy

I've found a great picture archive : http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/photos/greatwar.htm Ericd

I've added central powers casualty figures and revised the US figure (it was previously listed as 148,000. I base this on this sites figure: http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm. Lisiate 22:56 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Somebody check the section "Geopolitical Consecuences"

Galicia was transferred to Poland and South Tyrol, Trieste and were to Italy.

There is a third territory tranferred to Italy missing, or a badly place "and".--AN 02:54 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Uh oh, an anonymous madman seems to be changing all references to "Germany" during the Second and Third Reichs (and possibly Weimar), to "German Empire". john 06:46 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Seriously, Austria-Hungary and Germany are perfectly correct English names for the Dual Monarchy and the German Empire. There's no need to go through the article and change all references. Especially when there's no link involved. john 04:38 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, looking closely at this article, it seems very centered on the western front, and particularly on British and American roles. Why is there a whole section on the Somme and Paschendaele, while none of the multitudinous unsuccessful French offensives on the western front are mentioned at all, for instance, except in passing? Anyway, I expanded the information on the eastern front a bit.

Blame the ad hoc way this page was written! Arno 11:22 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree that some of the ideas of the article do tend to centre around the Western Front.

Reorganisation

The new table of contents highlighted the fact that this article isn't brilliantly structured, so I've been playing around with the headings a bit. Section 5 still needs to be broken up a bit since it actually spans almost all of the war, not just the beginning.

Maybe there could be divisions at "German Victories in the East" (for the three Russia-related sections), "Entry of the United States" (renamed or with an intro para for 1917-18), and a new "War deaths" para to introduce the figures (I add them up to 15 million, if that's any help). I thought this would be messy - Good luck! Graculus 00:15, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

WWI resources

I'd like to suggest some links:

"World War One (World War I, WWI or The Great War) and wars involving the United States" at URL: http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~worldwarone/ which covers more than just WWI.

"World War I, WWI, or The Great War (1914- 1918)" at URL: http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~worldwarone/WWI/ is exclusively about WWI.

I have converted a 1919 book, "The Geography Of The Great War" by Frank M. McMurry, Ph.D. (40 page book with a lot of facts, figures, etc.) and posted it at URL: http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~worldwarone/WWI/TheGeographyOfTheGreatWar/

Note: You may have to reload the web pages several times to get all the images to load because of slow connection speed, servers "timing out" and assorted reasons. Or, just "right click" on them and select "Show Picture."

When I have time (after I move to Florida) I'll come back and spend more time at this web site.

Pat McClendon

1914 christmas truce

I lack a description of the 1914 christmas truce, where english and german soldiers on the forefront siezed ceased fire and spent christmas together, playing soccermatches and singing christmas carols

Besides the spelling correction i made above, check "forefront" in a dictionary; it may come from military terminology, but at the very least, it is jarring to hear it used in that context rather than metaphorically. --Jerzy 19:56, 2004 Jan 7 (UTC)
There's an extensive history in Modris Ekstein's book about the 1914 Christmas Truce: Eksteins, Modris. Rites of spring : the Great War and the birth of the modern age . (1990, c1989). New York: Anchor Books, 1990, c1989. ISBN: 0395498562

A newer book on the subject is: Weintraub, Stanley: Silent night : the story of World War I Christmas truce. (2001) New York: Free Press. ISBN: 0684872811

IMO, this deserves an entry into this article. It was a remarkable event, and one that is too often forgotten in the history of The Great War --Otto 13:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1917 U.S. Congress War Declaration

This page says: "Only one member of Congress, Jeanette Rankin of Montana, voted against the war". However, on Jeanette Rankin, it is stated that the opposers were not one but 56. Where lies the error? --Jao 00:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could she have been the only one to vote nay on declaring war, in both world wars? Or that there were two different measures for which "Nay" amounted to opposition to the war? --Jerzy 08:10, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected it. The Senate approved the war resolution 82-6, the House with 373-50. One member of Congress, Jeanette Rankin of Montana, voted against both World War I and World War II. Source of votes: "The Last Days of Innocence American at War, 1917-1918" Harries, Random House, 1997, ISBN 0-679-41863-6, page 72. --Hcheney 13:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cause of the war

I am not enlightened by this article as to the cause of the war. I read about Sarajevo asassinations, increasing tensions etc. But the cause is not clear. Contrast this with the cause of WW2 which is comparitively clear cut.

But <conspiracy theory warning> if Germany had won WW2 perhaps the cause of that war would now be fudged in our history books. What if Germany had won WW1? What would the cause of the WW1 now be said to be? Is it fudged now becuase maybe the winning side was more to blame than is usually acknowledged?</conspiracy theory warning>

Psb777 13:35, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Umm, no. This suggests to me that an article on the origins of World War I would be a good idea, with a full resume of the historiography. For a long, long time the standard argument about the causes of World War I was that pretty much everybody was to blame, having blundered into war when no one really wanted it. In the 60s, Fritz Fischer got everyone (or, at least, everyone in Germany) riled up by saying that it was entirely Germany's fault, Germany having made a "bid for world power." I'd say that something along the lines of Fischer's view, although not so extreme, is probably the standard line at this point. Certainly the evidence available (which is exhaustive) suggests that Bethmann and Jagow were constantly encouraging the Austrians to action throughout July, and that they did very little to try to prevent war until it was almost too late. And the schlieffen plan certainly didn't help matters. But certainly Russia's mobilization has come in for its fair share of blame for possibly causing the war, as has Britain's supposed ambiguity about what it would do, and France's supposed encouragement of Russia. I think the evidence pretty strongly shows, though, that the war was basically caused, with some hesitation, by the Central Powers. john 15:07, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

what the fuck are you talking about!?!? serbia killed the austrian monarch, so it should have been a small war between austria and serbia. but no, the russians and the french have to freak out and declare war on germany and austria. bulgaria was just pissed off about losing the second balkan war, and the turks wanted to regain some of the huge amount of land the allies in the past had stollen from them. Cameron Nedland

Thanks! Pending a new article on the origins cannot this info be included here? Psb777 22:51, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
People interested in working on the causes/origins of the War might find Norman Davies' treament in his | history of Europe to be a helpful starting point. He persuasively surveys convincing arguments that serious errors on the part of a few key diplomats where just as important as the larger, structural causes of the War. That story is certainly worth including. -- pde 07:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, depends what you mean by errors. Was it an "error" on the part of Bethmann-Hollweg to continually urge Austria-Hungary on throughout July, and then to ignore all the British mediation proposals for several days? Or was that a purposeful decision in pursuit of a specific policy? At any rate, discussions of the origins of the war have always focused heavily on individual decisions, so I'm not sure that's a new thing. At some point I'll have to write an article on the origins of the war. john 16:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have always read, in every standard history of World War I, that Europe was a "powder-keg" [of gunpowder, due to its system of inter-locking military alliances] "just waiting to go off", and it was the Serbian assassination of the Austrian arch-duke that became the spark. I see that this is not mentioned in the main body of the article, which also does not state whom the Allies or the Central Powers were. Sometimes, it is helpful to "state the obvious". Remember, entire generations have grown up since then, and have no idea who fought the First World War, or what it was about. (Ned-Sept.'05)
"thousands died for each square metre of land gained"

So that would work out to... billions of people per square kilometer, right? So by my calculations, to take an entrenched area the size of France would require somewhere between 500 trillion and 1 quadrillion soldiers :) Changed to "for each metre". -- Tim Starling 06:21, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

How about using the qualifier, "Sometimes", or, "on some occasions", or, "during the worst battles", or, "at the height of the War"? (Ned-Sept.'05)

"Allied failure the following spring brought the French army to the brink of collapse as mass desertions undermined the front line."

The "mutineries de 1917" were not exactly mass desertions. They were more like a strike... Who cãn write something more accurate.

Ericd 01:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article is a failure. I needed quick info on the countries participated in WW1 and their alliances. The article is a mess of tons of hard to read info. Please add tables with the countries.

See Allies and Central_Powers. See also World_War_I#End of the war

First genocide?

"The century's first genocide took place during the war." This needs:

  1. Clarification: shouldn't we at least mention/link to the genocide in question?
  2. Some qualifier: what about the genocides in the Congo (1886-1908) and German South-West Afica (1904-1907)?

Udzu 09:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely clarification and a qualifier (but do the atrocities in the Congo Free State really qualify as genocide?) john k 15:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


On a similiar point, the article claims that WW1 is the first case of total war. This surprised me as I would have guess that the American civil war was a case of total war. On following the link I discovered that the total war page lists the punic wars as a case of total war. I think the page needs to become a little more circumspect in claiming firsts. Maybe a lot of them should become 'an early example of' Steven jones 00:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would say that WWI is pretty generally understood as the first real total war, in the modern sense of the term. john k 01:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Both the Romans and General Sherman knew exactly what they were doing. Furthermore, I don't believe that the Total War page lists the Punic Wars as the first case of Total War. Only as an early example. Stargoat 13:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have seen sources that claim that WWII was the first total war. It depends on your definition of "total war," but most sources agree that WWI was the first case of total war.

Nationalism?

This is a great article, but I find the references that cite nationalism as beginning in this era to be biased and, though canonically common, often fairly ridiculous. The article on nationalism points out this point of view, but, in particular, the sentence --"The rise of ideas of Nationalism, devolution and love for one's common people and ethnicity, had begun in the Napoleonic Wars" -- makes no sense to me. This has been the cause of war in an only slightly more abstract sense for centuries, and to suggest that somehow human beings all of a sudden started identifying with nation states for the first time during Napolean's Reign seems historically myopic and time-biased at best. Of course, to make an etymological case for the "word" "nationalism" as it's presented in history texts is another matter; but the "philosophy" of nationalism, it seems, should be appropriately distinguished in this case. The only reason to point it out, is that early in the article the question is posed, "How did it happen and why?;" and in the spirit of this question, it seems important to note that *many* of the causes parallel those of all wars before it in many ways, and these reasons are, in a more subjective and pervasive sense, all driven by some form of "nationalism."

I would just note that "nationalism" as an ideology, is not the same thing as "people identifying with a nation/nation-state." As an ideology, it's pretty generally agreed that nationalism, as such, is a phenomenon of the 19th century. This is not to deny (although many have done so, certainly), that people before that time felt a sense of identification that might be called "national". Just that the sort of nationalist ideology that arose in the 19th century was essentially new. john k 02:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good Point, but doesn't it seem somewhat dangerous to allow the dilution of these terms without a bit of distinction? So, if we are talking about "19th Century Nationalism," then perhaps we should make that a bit clearer, and be wary of using "nationalism" in its more vague sense; where it takes the form of an etymon. That is, Nationalism as a "historical ideology" is different than nationalism as a "philosophical eidolon" is clearly different than nationalism as a simple word structure; and yet, the article seems to use the term vaguely to mean all and none of these in different ways, which, though perhaps true to the spirit of the historical study of the era, is perhaps misleading.

Great article, but few niggles...

Overall, the article is great, the only part that made me cringe was the bit at the end, under the "Aftermath" section.

'The Great War was a great tragedy. It was not an end, but a beginning, ushering in history's most violent century. Its dark shadow has not disappeared, even in our own time. It will forever be remembered by history as the moment when humanity and war was no longer limited to honorable armies marched to some distant battlefield, but to a world where terror and suffering are the weapons, and hate and vengeance is the soldier.'

First of all, the rhetoric here is, I'm sorry to say, a bit silly. Certainly this article calls for it, but this could sound a little better.

Secondly, the idea of it ushering the century of violence sounds a bit simplistic to me. Warfare had been pretty constant since the turn of the century... but still, just a small point.

But it's mostly the claim about the end of honourable armies which is so entirely wrong as to be offensive. Something oft forgotten about warfare in the 20th century is how much more honourable it was then the past. The notion that, upon taking a city, you shouldn't rape all the women, butcher the populace, and steal everything in sight was quite novel. Not to say it all of a sudden this came out full formed in WW I, but I'm still inclined to think, that despite the massive scale of it, WW I still pales next to the cold blooded brutality of past warfare.

Any thoughts? (Alex404)

This bit struck me "involve non-combatants in the horrors of war as never before. From this point on, all people of all classes would have to see the true color of war. War was no longer a "polite" battle where men lined up and showed their strength on some distant battlefield. World War I showed the new direction war was headed where each side would begin to use desperate and sometimes horrific strategies to gain any advantage, even at the expense of the innocent." Compare this with the Peninsula Wars, biblical wars, etc..

I think that the differences in later wars were that professional armies were less inclined to rape and pillage, although that still happened. However contempary front-line records from WWI onwards were more widely available than, say, from the very bloody crusades. Rich Farmbrough 10:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

I think mentioning the Armenian Genocide this way is PoV, since it is an allegation rather than an established fact. Note that whether the deaths qualify as a genocide is what is in dispute rather than deaths themselves. I am not opposing mentioning the Armenian uprising in Ottoman Empire and the events after that, but simply inserting genocide comment is one sided, and the list where this is inserted does not allow detailed explanation, hence I deleted it twice. Please choose a neutral wording if you want to mention this. ato 01:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your alligations of POV are unfounded. The events in question are commonly referred to as the Armenian Genocide. In fact, that is the article's name for the events in question. It's going to have to remain the Armenian genocide. It is one of the more important events of World War I, and it does belong. If you have a quibble with the facts of the genocide, please take it up on the Armenian Genocide page Stargoat 13:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know April 24 1915 is the date 2345 Armenians were arrested, after the Armenian uprising in Van in April 14. To put things into perspective, before these events, during March and early April, Russia was attacking Ottoman Empire with support of Armenians in particular the Dashnak party, and on April 24 Ottoman Empire had lost control of Van. I do not think "Armenian Genocide starts in the Ottoman Empire." summarizes the situation.
The events in question are commonly referred to as the Armenian Genocide. Yes, by the people who support Armenian PoV. There are more of them and/or they are more vocal, so this is the common way. This does not mean there is not a dispute about this issue.
In fact, that is the article's name for the events in question. That article is also written largely by people who support Armenian PoV.
It's going to have to remain the Armenian genocide. No, I will remove it until a neutral wording is chosen.
It is one of the more important events of World War I, and it does belong. Sure. Hundreds of thousands died, of course it is important, that is not what I am objecting to, but this is not the way to mention it.
If you have a quibble with the facts of the genocide, please take it up on the Armenian Genocide page. As you can imagine, I plan to make additions to that page as my time and energy permits. I have already contributed to that article. Actually looking at that article you can tell there is a controversy regarding this issue.
Again let me repeat: 1) I am not denying many Armenians died during WWI 2) Neither am I thinking or implying this is unimportant. What I object to is to put the stamp genocide on it without providing the counter point. In my opinion the nature of that list does not allow a detailed explanation.
A final point. If you look at the civilian losses of Ottoman Empire in this article you will see it is 1 000 000. In Armenian Genocide article it is claimed 1 500 000 Armenians were killed. Since this is called genocide it follows they must be civilians, and as they were living within the Ottoman Empire, they should be included in the figure I quote above. Obviously the numbers do not match. I write this only to demonstrate why we need independent sources rather than Wikipedia itself while discussing an issue. (updated) ato 06:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is an article on Wikipedia named Armenian Genocide. The events described in that article occurred during World War I, as a result of the conflict. Therefore, the link belongs. However, you have indicated you are unwilling to compromise on this issue. There have been three different wordings for a link, none of which you used. You have not offered any suggestions for a link, aside from simply reverting and complaining that the word Genocide is not NPOV. You are unwilling or unable to make adjustments on the Armenian Genocide page. We seem to have come to an impasse.
Therefore, I we should implement a poll over this matter. Stargoat 14:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==POLL ON HOW WWI SHOULD BE LINKED TO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ARTICLE==

This poll will last one week. Please note that this is not a poll on whether or not the term Armenian Genocide is NPOV. That is a dicussion for Talk:Armenian Genocide. If the name of Armenian Genocide article is changed, then the decision made here should be reviewed.

Note: This link will be in ==The spread of war==/===1915=== section.

  • Option 1: No Link To Armenian Genocide.
  • Option 3: April 24: The events commonly refered to as the Armenian Genocide begin in the Ottoman Empire.

Option3[[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 14:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Option 3 Stargoat 17:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Option 3 ato 23:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Option 3 Cutler 13:52, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Option 2 Mackerm 09:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Option 3 dcljr 22:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I think it would have helped this poll if you'd linked to the exact location in the article where you intended this to go. OBTW, it's "referred".)

Option 3 Jerzy(t) 22:54, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC) (While i don't have a better word in mind than "commonly", i'd welcome a word that reflects a little more strongly how strong the consensus is (as i understand the situation). But this is pretty good, and illustrates a principle i think should apply elsewhere:

  • The article title can't explain much, and is a compromise that should favor brevity over complete precision
  • A link can hint at the nuances
  • It is only the body of the article that can reflect things like the existence of a school of denial of widely accepted accounts.

This poll is now over.

"First Allied occupation of enemy territory?"

"The first Allied occupation of enemy territory was not in Europe but in Africa: South African forces attacked and captured the German administrative seat in what is now Namibia [South West Africa], at the time a German colony."

Can this statement be justified? e.g.

7 Aug.: Bosnia entered by the Serbians.

8 Aug.: Togoland entered by combined French and British force.

10 Aug.: Germans raid Cape Colony (from south-west Africa), but abandon Swakopmund and Luderitz Bay.

(source: firstworldwar.com)

11 Aug.: Australian forces captured Neu-Pommern (now known as New Britain).[1]

"While Botha was raising an expedition to invade German South West Africa, pro-German Boers raised a rebellion against British authority. This was not fully suppressed until early 1915 and only then could the invasion of South West Africa be fully launched."[2]

Grant65 (Talk) 17:03, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. Mintguy (T) 17:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about France !!!

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What I find amazing about this article, is the almost total lack of mention of the French army and its actions during the war. Wikipedia is supposed to be a world encyclopedia, describing events in an unbiased way, and not a narrow-minded anglo-saxon encyclopedia! Where was located the western front??? Who bore the brunt of the German assault in 1914??? Who lost the most lives among western nations??? And who invented the tanks that decided the outcome of the war??? This article needs some SERIOUS REWRITING by someone who has some knowledge about France and its history. Please respect the 1.4 million Frenchmen who died to defend their homeland. This was not simply a war between Germany and UK-USA!! Hardouin 00:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So do something about it. That's why this is Wikipedia. Anyone can quickly contibute. Stargoat 00:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When I have time I will. But days only have 24 hours, and I am but one in 6 billion human beings. My remark was more meant to say that when people make contributions, they should avoid to be so narrowly parochial. I mean honnestly, do we really need to know about the voting patterns of a Montana congressman in WW1?!! Hardouin 17:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also just so you know the French didn't invent the tank, the British Landship Comittee was established before the French started developing their tanks and the British first deployed their tanks. The French made major advancements and created the first modern tank (with rotating turret and several other advances) but they did not invent the tank.

In fact French tank development of the Schneider CA1 started just before the Landship Committee began its activities (the story that Colonel Estienne sired the French tank is just a creation myth). On the other hand Swinton's famous inspiration had taken place in October 1914 already. Then again it took a while before work on Little Willy started, so the Schneider is the first tank to be developed that would become operational. A joint (Anglo-French) parliamentary commission would decide in 1917 the French had invented the tank. Britain first fielded a tank (the Mark I) and it was superior in some essential respects to the Schneider. When it first saw action however, the French had four projects going that would result in a future operational tank, Britain none. So the common anglocentric preconception French tank design was lagging behind, is in need of a strong qualification :o).--MWAK 07:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who posted above, and at that time most of my information was based off the Tank page as well as all other reasearch I did for a school project and I everything I saw said it was first by the British. Thank you for this information. From the pages of mark I and Schneider CA1. British Army first operational test of the MarkI was on September 6, 1915. The first demonstration of the schneider chassis was on December 9, 1915. You may need to go to these pages say1988 23:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The french are worthless and have been since the fall of napolean. Cameron Nedland

We could expect better from people interested in history ... how old are you supid chimp ? I bet you know very few about France and French, as well as about our history (even after Napoleon, bastard). What's your country, genius ?

I'm sorry about what I wrote above, I was very angry when I wrote that. I'm American, but don't balme my whole country. Can I just delete it? Cameron Nedland 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Casualty figures

I am absolutely not questioning the numbers killed by nationality (I do not presume to be an authority in this matter). The totals presented, however, are obtained merely by adding together the numbers by nationality, to obtain values with unreasonable numbers of significant figures. The number of civilians killed, for instance, contains values of 3,000,000 and 1,000,000 (precise to perhaps the hundred-thousands place, but probably not); to these are added values as small as 30,000 (precise to the thousands or ten-thousands place). The total, therefore, ought to be considered to be "about six-and-a-half million". For example, if we added that 13 civilians had died in Luxembourg (I'm just making this up), it would not be reasonable to put the total civilian deaths at 6,493,013.

I realize there is more impact in presenting a total in precise numerical form, but in the absence of more precise constituent data it is just not reasonable to do so. I propose the subsection headings be: 

===Allied soldiers killed: 5.5 million===
===Central powers soldiers killed: 3.4 million===
===Civilians killed: 6.5 million===

Perhaps the word "about" or "approximately" could be inserted for each, to indicate that the totals are not to be taken to be as precise as the values by nationality. Since I suspect it might be controversial to modify casualty figures, I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge (of the numbers themselves, the history of this page, and the wiki community in general) to make any changes. --AHM 19:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's an article World War I casualties, little more than a stub, that could be expanded to contain detailed counts of all the various casualty figures. The casualty lists in the main article could be moved there and replaced by a summary using estimates. Geoff/Gsl 23:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First use of gas. Or was it?

At present, the article says : "poison gas (first used by Germany on Russian soldiers without much success in the Battle of Bolimow on January 1, 1915...". Well, there's quite a lot of wrong with that sentence!

For starters, strictly speaking, at Bolimov, the chemical agent in question wasn't "gas", but rather a liquid (arty shells). So perhaps the all of the "poison gas this, poison gas that" in this article should be reworded into proper terms, as quite a few of the agents used in WWI weren't gases per se.

Next up : actually, the first use of chemical agents during WWI was NOT by Germans, but rather by French, during the very first month of the war. Tear gas [equivalent], IIRC. Later on, during 1914 Germans returned favor using some sneezing-inducing agent (even though some sources claim that it wasn't gas attack per se, but rather that one of the German arty shells' explosives components induced sneezing as a side effect).

BTW, at Bolimov, Germans used tear gas [equivalent] as well, which, IMO, doesn't qualify as "poison gas" (unless you want to imply that pretty much all of western democracies have used - and continue to use to this day - "poison gas" to disperse student riots, that is!). So yes, Ypres probably was the first use of "POISON GAS" in combat during WWI. That is, if we were to ignore some indications that some poison agent(s) was sporadically used by French in late 1914 and/or early in 1915...

You can dig up a bunch of stuff on the subject by running a couple of searches for "xylyl bromide", "dianisidine salts", "chloroacetone", "ethyl bromoacetate", "benzyl bromide" through Google, especially if you combine the above search terms with the word "gas" or "war".

A couple of links off the top of my head (and off the first results pages in Google) :

cavemen have been smoking their enimies out of their caves since the beginning of humanity. Cameron Nedland

Pictures

Colour photos of WWI have just hit the blogosphere via http://www.kottke.org/remainder/04/10/6623.html . im not sure about copyright, but they seem to be origanly from the french archives. theses are amongst the first colour photos ever taken (using the Tournassoud method). They are really stunning photos, so i suggest someone involved in this page go have a look to see if any are appropriate for this article.

links:

Am I the only one who finds this link a bit odd for an encyclopedia? * A "Revisionist Historian's" Account of the Cause of World War I (http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm)

Agreed-Having read the article in question and reviewing the website, I find this a dubious source. Anyone can claim that they're a "historian," however, regardless of one's interpretation (and there are many!) one should qualify a historic-based article with references and this one in particular is so strongly POV. If there were appropriate references for the basis of this information, I would not have a problem with citing this web link. As it stands, however, it's not reliable for an encyclopedic entry.

Restructuring proposal

At the moment, the World War I content reads as follows:

The way In

As has been mentioned a few times before in this Talk page, some readers find that it is failing in its purpose as an overview of The First World War. I tend to agree. When I read through the page, I found lots of interesting short vignettes, yet with no overarching structure to bind them together beyond a loose and non-uniformly abided to chronology.

I propose the following structure, and would like all input. If I receive no input, I will set about making the proposed changes, which would involve rewriting some sections, but generally retaining the valuable contributions thus far made, and in some cases adding to them.

However, in some cases, I am proposing new sections that would need to be written, as well as a refounding of other sections.

My proposal is as follows:


(Introduction)

  1. Background of the War
    1. Diplomatic Origins
    2. Internal National Pressures for War
  2. The Outbreak of War
  3. Timeline (The Spread of War)
    1. 1914
    2. 1915
    3. 1916
    4. 1917
    5. 1918
    6. 1919
  4. 1914
    1. Chronology of events
    2. The First Battles
    3. Entry of the Ottoman Empire
    4. Failure of the Schlieffen Plan
  5. 1915
    1. Entry of Italy
    2. Fall of Serbia
  6. 1916
    1. Battle of the Somme
  7. 1917
    1. Passchendaele
    2. Russian withdrawal
    3. American entry
  8. 1918
    1. The Kaiserschlacht / Operation Michael
    2. The 100 days
    3. The end of the war
  9. 1919
  10. Players in WWI
    1. France
      1. The Role of the French Empire
    2. Germany
    3. Austro-Hungary
    4. Russia
    5. United Kingdom
      1. The Role of the British Empire
    6. United States
    7. Italy
    8. The Ottoman Empire
    9. Minor players
  11. Theatres of War
    1. The Western Front
    2. The Eastern Front
      1. German Victories in the East
      2. Russia unsettled
      3. The Russian Revolution
      4. Russian withdrawal
    3. Southern theatres and the rest of the world
  12. Technology
    • (overview)
    1. Gas
    2. Aircraft
    3. U-boats
    4. Tanks
    5. Communications
    6. Artillery
    7. Small-arms
  13. Causes of Allied Victory / Axis defeat
    1. Naval Blockade
    2. Failure of U-boat strategy
    3. Failure of Schlieffen Plan
    4. Attrition
    5. Threat of United States Presence
    6. Failure of the Kaiserschlacht
    7. Technological factors
  14. Casualties
    1. Table of military losses
    2. Civilian deaths
    3. Impact of influenza epidemic
  15. Aftermath
  16. Assessment of the War
  17. Special Interest Topics
    1. United States Neutrality
    2. Reasons for U.S. entry into the war
    3. U.S. combat record in WWI
    4. Influence of French Revolution
  18. Links and references
    1. Resources
    2. See also
  19. External links

In some cases (e.g. 1916) I have made no attempt to think of all sub-headings that would be appropriate, my aim at this time is not to rewrite the whole document, but to sound people out on my proposed structure as a general view.

Section 17, 'Special Interest Topics', could be used to capture some of the text that may not fit into the structure proposed otherwise.

- User:PhilipIsPDR

THats a good idea, this page does seem to need major restructuringsay1988 23:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I wanted to keep these comments separate from my proposed restructuring, so as to keep any discussion of the two separate.


  1. In the Diplomatic Origins section, is such extensive discussion of the Napoleonic era and Metternich's Concert of Europe, etc. necessary?
    • I don't dispute that the origins of the war can be traced back to the rise in national consciousness across territories governed by Napoleon, or that the Concert of Europe and Metternich's Balance of Power, or the foundation of Germany in 1871 and the like are important. This is important prerequisite information in which to understand the Diplomatic Origins of the war. However, this article is about WWI, and therefore I propose removing the more detailed background information to another article, or articles, and then linking from this page and section.
    • I absolutely appreciate that it's important to appreciate how the European system had grown, particular in understanding some key players in Britain, however in the interest of providing a clear introduction to the war, I believe this section can be reduced to a summary, with details moved elsewhere, perhaps to a 'Long-term causes of WWI' section?
  2. As was mentioned above by User:GSL, there is an excellent page on World War I casualties that we can link to. Are there more pages like this that we can use this page as a springboard to? It is the nature of Wikipedia that individual interests spring up without a coherent structure, that's part of the strength - can we seek out good work that has been done, and pull some of it in here?

PhilipIsPDR

What about a social/homefront impact section? - Peregrine981 02:52, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

You could refer to the DORA and Rationing in Britain, those were probably the two main issues.

Not a bad idea - could go under the Causes of Allied Victory / Axis Defeat section, or have a section of it's own. Why don't you write such a section on the page as is? Then, if no-one objects to my proposal, when I reorganise the page, I'll include it. PhilipIsPDR

Allied Invasion of Russia

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There isn't any mention (or at least I don't think) of the Allied invasion of Russia after Russia dropped out of the war.

To my knowledge, the Allies sent a force (most of them coming from Michigan, USA) to Archangel and a city on the Pacific coast. I forgot the name. It starts with a V.

Anywho, does anyone have all the details of this invasion? There is a memorial in my city (Troy, MI) commemorating the event.

Addition: Sorry, I recalled some stuff from history class.

After the Russians dropped out of the war, the Allies sent a force to Russia to support the Czarists and prevent the communists from obtaining some supplies (since the Allies did not want Lenin in power any longer). Initially, the Allied forces were told they were defending the supples from Germans, but they fought mostly Russians when they got there.

Addition 2: Okay, I added everything I remembered under The Russian Revolution subcategory. However, I am a wikipedia nub so I'm asking for some help in making the article better.


I believe the place that starts with a V is vladivostok, but I am not certain.

I'm pretty sure that the Anglo-French intervention int heRussian Civil War only started after World War One had finished and I imagine it's the same with the US troops in the Soviet Far East (along with large numbers of Japanese troops). I believe this should be in the Russian Civil War] article (if it isn't already) rather than this page. Lisiate 23:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I also thought it was immediately after WWI, instead of shipping the troops hom ethey pretty much just shipped them to eastern Russia, though I do believe it deserves mention here. say1988 00:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

German casualties

This sentence: - "That of himself and Hindenburg?their "silent dictatorship" which left 7,142,558 Germans wounded or killed [4,216,058:1,773,700] by the end of the Great War?"

from the Allied Victory section does not make sense. The total in brackets is around 5.9 million, while the number quoted is 7.1 million. I note that the total given in the Casualties section is consistent. Axl 17:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing from Category:Wars

I noticed that while WW2 is not present in Category:Wars, World War I is (in addition to its own category Category:World War I). Shouldn't this be consistent? Can it be removed from Category:Wars?

Nyenyec 06:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


unencyclopaedic ?

I removed this on the grounds of the policy not to say "Hitler was a bad man"

Just what stance did Ludendorff expect this government to take? That of himself and Hindenburg—their "silent dictatorship" which left 7,142,558 Germans wounded or killed [4,216,058:1,773,700] by the end of the Great War?

I took the chance to make the casualty numbers match the ones from the statistics section. I wonder if the 7M number included non-military casualties?

This article should be split into several different articles. E.g. WWI (containing only a general summary) / WWI Outbreak / WWI Western Front / WWI Eastern Front / WWI Genocides / WWI effect on civilians / WWI social aftermath.

20:30, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

Participants

I've taken some details from the World War article and placed it into Participants in World War I (to go along with Participants in World War II). I think this article currently fails in providing summarised information about which countries were involved. Could somebody active on this page please work this into the article somewhere and clean up the new page? Thanks. violet/riga (t) 22:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move discussion

{from Wikipedia:Requested moves)

World War I → Great War

  • Support --Gunter 15:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) It was always called the Great War, nobody during or after for the next 35 years called it WWI. Not until the war of 1939-1945, was this being referred to as the first world war.
  • Oppose. Usage in 1919 is not the issue; usage now is. Rd232 16:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Halibutt 16:55, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 18:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would think that most people know it as WWI + what Rd232 said. violet/riga (t) 18:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sure, it wasn't World War I until there was a World War II. So what? Elizabeth I of England was plain "Elizabeth" until 1952. Wikipedia uses modern names for historical events, not contemporary names. The crusaders didn't call their wars "the Crusades" either. Gdr 19:46, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? ADH (t&m) 19:55, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would support a change to "First World War" but I can't see that happening either. Geoff/Gsl 23:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a chance. SECProto 14:00, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - that's what i love about Wikipedia, i can listen to lots of arogant people voice their ignorant opinions and rewrite history.--Gunter 00:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please feel free to explain to us your opinion. As it stands the move won't happen, so the only chance you have is to further your side of the discussion. violet/riga (t) 00:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From the point of military history it is not the most useful name. But from the view of English literature and social history it is in many ways a more appropriate. It is the war in which caused the larges loss of life in Britain and Ireland and arguably changed Britain more fundamentaly than any other event in the 20th century. The cannon of literature particularly poetry[3] from WWI is much larger and with one or two exceptions more memorable than that from WWII. Almost every village in Britain has a monument to the "Great War" so the name is widely understood in Britain (see also Remembrance_Day, Remembrance Sunday, In Flanders Fields). Despite the population being smaller in 1914-18 than it was in 39-45, usually the number of names listed as killed and listed on a Great War monumnet is more than double the number listed in WWII, (the WWII list is usually piggy backed on to the Great War monument). I know that in other countries that fought in both wars, the list is often the other way around, but for inhabitants of Britain "World War I" is still in many ways the "Great War". Philip Baird Shearer
  • Oppose. Current usage is the key point. And in any case "World War I" and "First World War" were both in use before 1939 (one was used at least as early as 1919). Timrollpickering 09:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - of course it was called the "Great War" until a greater war happened; we apply the common current usage of English-speakers, hence it's "World War I" or "First World War". The last time I heard it described as "The Great War" was for the 1964 BBC TV documentary series. -- Arwel 15:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - yes, it may have been "The Great War" at the time, but that term can also be applied to other wars and is not how people name the 'event' current ly. --Vamp:Willow 21:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd also prefer 'First World War' but incidentally, how depressed must people have been when the Hundred Years War was announced? Redlentil 22:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Archaic usage. Cookiecaper 08:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, what everyone else said. Neutralitytalk 21:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See reasons above. --Benna 22:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No consensus for page move. -- Netoholic @ 04:51, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Template needed

This needs to use the Template:Battlebox, like seen on Polish-Soviet War for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, no it doesn't. The battlebox is for battles, not wars, and doesn't work very will for wars. john k 23:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It looks very informative to me. Could you be more specific what *exactly* wouldn't work well?
Something similar might be worthwhile but not that box - as said, it's about a battle not a war. violet/riga (t) 19:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. For instance, listing two "Commanders" in a war like World War I would be utterly absurd. Just for the top commanders, you'd have to list Moltke, Falkenhayn, Hindenburg, Conrad, Arz, Grand Duke Nicholas, Alexeev, Brusilov, Kornilov, Joffre, Nivelle, Pétain, Foch, French, Haig, Pershing, Cadorna... it would be absurd. Some sort of box for wars would be useful, but the battlebox is not designed for wars. john k 02:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a reference work, I'd like to see some appendices, perhaps not called that, with such information. Not only on the articles for wars, but battles as well--raw numbers are not the first thing readers should be presented with, they are useless alone and can even be misleading or disputed. A well-written intro and detailed, referenced appendix of strengths is more informative than this little arcade box we have. 04:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Certainly some kind of box would be worthwhile for wars. The Battlebox simply isn't adapted to the task. john k 05:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to see a specifically designed warbox. Until then, I think battlebox is more good then no box. Btw, battlebox nor warbox would be designed to replace the lead, they simply give an easy-to-read summary of the most important facts. While WWI isn't my speciality, wasn't Ferdinand Foch the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces? Unfortunately the current links from his article are rather misleading in that matter (Talk:Ferdinand Foch), but if he was 'the highest', he would be perfect for Allied single war commander (mind you, in battle we also list the high commander, not his staff or many subordinates...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Foch only became SAC on 14 April 1918, and only for the Western Front. I don't think there's any way you could do a meaningful summary of WWI commanders in a battlebox like format. It would need an article of its own, at least. Geoff/Gsl 23:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A little mistake.

Hi, this is an obvious mistake: “A major offensive in 1916 drove the Turks out of much of present-day Armenia, and tragically provided an excuse for the terrible deportation and massacre of Armenian population in eastern Anatolia.” The massacre and deportation did not start during the 1916 offensive, but rather soon during 1915, and excesses were even recorded in late 1914 by irregulars.

List of casulaties

The list that is probably taken from a book I forgot the title of, is not really accurate(I don't think)... the Ottoman Empire lost much more men, from the Ottoman in 1914, to 192X with the war of independence etc. The Arabic casulaties during their war of independence, the Kurdish casulaties during their attempt etc. And of course there is the Armenian genocide. What losses are to include or exclude?

Armenian Genocide

Folowing line should be rewriten. Armenian Genocide is not a universal fact and should not be presented with that level of certinty. Any suggestions? --Cool Cat My Talk 01:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and tragically provided an context for the deportation and massacre of the Armenian population in eastern Anatolia

Coolcat, you are in denial of accepted historical fact; reverting. — Davenbelle 03:02, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

You are in denial of disputes, your facts and mine do not agree, hence I asked someone to rewrite the sentence, see NPOV. And folow proper wikipedia way. Refrain from reverting use the 3 revert rule. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whereas I agree with Coolcat that the accuracy of Armenian genocide allegations is highly disputed, I do not think the sentence he mentioned above is POV. On the contrary, the formulation is rather neutral not favoring either side; plus, anyone interested can refer to the relevant page for additional information. This edit was introduced by User:Planders on Jan 29 ([4])

Planders also introduced a rather NPOV formulation referring to “Armenian genocide” issue in chronology section, which was later replaced by a rather POV formulation. His edit was:

April 24: Young Turk Ottoman government begins deportation and murder of Armenians accusing them of collaboration with the Allies (see the diff link above)

It was replaced with

April 24: The Ottoman Empire begins the Armenian Genocide.

This latter formulation is one-sided as opposed to the earlier one introduced by User:Planders. Therefore, I restored a more NPOV formulation.

I very much hope to avoid any further discussions and disputes on this issue (I had enough of disputes recently in WP and have no intention to get involved in a new one). So, in case someone (for whatever reasons) does not agree with my edit, please consider other option:

April 24: The events commonly refered to as the Armenian Genocide begin in the Ottoman Empire.

This formulation was adopted as a result of a poll back in July 2004. (btw, the one-sided formulation that was in place was rejected almost by all). This second one is not so accurate as the one initialy introduced by Planders, however it is more succint.--Tabib 05:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think at least at this point the "April 24: The events commonly refered to as the Armenian Genocide begin in the Ottoman Empire." is perhaps most suitable. Also the wording should also be changed in the section "Entry of the Ottoman Empire" from "...context for the deportation and massacre of the Armenian population in eastern Anatolia." to something similar like "...context for what is reffered to as the Armenian Genocide in eastern Anatolia.". At the very least these word changes would make thes article more informative.Meok 03:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restoring of a removed paragraph in "Early stages: from romanticism to the trenches"

I restored the paragraph It has been proposed that the war established with German youths a militaristic and fascist mindset that made it possible for the Nazi party to take control of Germany three decades later. In the aftermath of WWI, post-war depression and nationalist (retributionist) views were a prominent aspect of German public sentiment; an important cornerstone of what would become Nazi ideology. It was removed by 155.247.166.29. The author who made this assertion was Sebastian Haffner in his book Defying Hitler. If the paragraph should be removed that's fine I just wish a reason could be provided. JesseHogan 01:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lethality of machine guns claim

I'm a bit curious about the following claim in the technology section:

  • The combination of machine guns and barbed wire was responsible for the largest number of casualties during the First World War.

I was under the impression that artillery was the greatest cause of casualties during the war. Does anyone have a source going either way? Lisiate 05:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield, the casualty figures for British soldiers are 59% due to shellfire (artillery & mortar), 39% due to bullets (rifle & machine gun). Not sure whether grenades count as "shellfire". In general, a shellfire wound was more likely to result in death than a bullet wound; three times more likely in the case of chest wounds. Geoff/Gsl 05:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cheers for the quick response. I don't imagine that the situation would have been much different for the other nations so I'm going to change the article to reflect the above stat. Lisiate 21:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did the Republic of China declare war on Germany? Why? (August 14, 1917)

Yes, they broke diplomatic relations with Germany in March, there followed an uprising by the Kuomintang, and when power was restored they declared war on 14 August. Why? I don't know. They sent no expeditionary force to fight anywhere. Geoff/Gsl 06:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might have had something to do with the German colony at Tsingtao (but the battle there in September and October 1914 was fought by the Japanese and British). Gdr 11:40, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

A Big Thank You . . .

To the anonymous user (66.171.45.96) who added, "Some scholars write of the First World War as merely the first phase of a three decade long war spanning the period 1914–1945," I say, Thank you! I bristle whenever the Great War or World War I is referred to as The First World War. It's generally accepted, that World War II was not a continuation of World War I and not a distinct war fought for distinct aims. The grievances were the same, the Versailles Treaty's being an aggravating factor, and many of the actors and theatres were the same. That this addendum has stood the test of time - Wikipedia's acid test - is testimony to it's truth.

A Thank You, an Apology and More . . .

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a few minor edits and additions when I didn't have a Wikipedia account. Part of JesseHogan's work was deleted in the process. I apologize - there were no problems with this section. However, another part needed to be fixed. I apologize for deleting without explanation, I didn't know that there was a "discussion" session or quite how wikipedia worked at the time. My changes are still posted, but I will provide an explanation so the original author knows why I altered their work:

I think most historians would seriously question Europe's Last Summer, as such a selective view is nonsense. Let me remind you that anyone can write a book, especially one that echoes the watered down rhetoric that everyone remembers from grade school. Certainly, the aggression of Germany under Wilhelm II (going against Bismarck's late-term policies) is important, but I don't think it deserved the attention it recieved in that paragraph, which was pretty much the entire section.

Hohenstauff 00:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Newfoundland

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A recent edit struck the Nf'ld row from the casulties, saying

Newfoundland is not a country, it is a province. Casualties are included in Canada.)

This needs more attention than that (and i think i recall seeing Nfld or Labrador casulties broken out separately many years before WP started spreading various misconceptions). Someone w/ Canadian-history chops should review what is here. I'm pretty sure one or both was governed separately into the 20th cen., and not part of Canada. It may need at least a "don't fix this, it ain't broke" comment embedded into the code for the table (visible only when editing), and maybe wording like "Crown Colony of" N & L, e.g., or whatever is the proper description of its status.
--Jerzy~t 21:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It was separate, at least officially, until surprisingly recently:
Newfoundland produced its own regiment to fight in the First World War. On July 1, 1916, most of that regiment was wiped out at Beaumont Hamel on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
...
In 1934, the Dominion gave up its self-governing status. In all but name, it was a colony again. Government by commission continued until confederation with Canada in 1949.
Newfoundland and Labrador#The Dominion of Newfoundland
—wwoods 22:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


You are absolutely correct. I stand corrected and will revert my revert. I had no idea that Newfoundland stood as a dominion at the time and not as a province. Please accept my apologies. --Durin 22:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Tactics and the Spring Offensive

In the spring offensive 1918,

"British and French trenches were defeated using novel infiltration tactics. To this time, attacks had been characterized by long artillery bombardments and continuous-front mass assaults. However, in the Spring Offensive the German Army used artillery briefly and infiltrated small groups of infantry at weak points, attacking command and logistics areas and surrounding points of serious resistance. These isolated positions were then destroyed by more heavily armed infantry. German success relied greatly on this tactic."

It was my impression that these tactics had been in use for at least a year prior to 1918 by the German army. Does anyone know any reason not to change the above section? Peregrine981 13:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

De-listing as Featured Article

I'm considering listing this for removal from featured articles. It has several problems.

  1. Virtually no citation, and very scanty suggested reading/sources
  2. Inequitable coverage of the war, favouring the beginning and ending
  3. Inadequate coverage of non-military aspects such as domestic politics, labour organisation, legal changes, finance, etc...
  4. Although coverage is generally balanced, there is still missing information about secondary parties, ie. Serbia, Turkey

Any thoughts? Peregrine981 14:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Nye Report

The paragraph on the Nye Report is misleading and potentially irrelevant:

"The reasons the United States got involved in the war are numerous and much-debated. In 1934, the US government created the Nye Committee to investigate the matter."

The Nye Committee was established, according to the senate webpage on the committee[5], because "The so-called 'Senate Munitions Committee' came into being because of widespread reports that manufacturers of armaments had unduly influenced the American decision to enter the war in 1917." The official findings of the committee [6] focus on improprieties by munitions companies and do not address the reasons for the US getting involved in WWI. Since the actual findings of the committee do not discuss any improprieties directly relating to the involvement of the US in WWI, I see no reason for continuing to include this paragraph in the selection. --MrPebbles 6 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

UPDATE: Amazon has a searchable copy [7] of a book published in 1997 on the Nye Committee that may be helpful. I have not read the book, but extensive searching has revealed nothing that would tie the Nye Committee to the sweeping statements attributed to them in the paragraph. --MrPebbles 6 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)

British Empire casualties

The footnote at the end of the chart states that the British Empire casualties includes Canadian, Australian and Indian, Which doesnt make sence considering they are also in the chart, it "Brtish Empire" line includes them, those three nations, as well as other parts of the British Empire, such as Newfoundland should not be in the chart, unless in a sub-chart type thingy that chows British Empire casualties from different parts or have the larger participating parts of the British Empire seperate and a "REstof British Empire" line, or something like that. But I Also looked at it and I did a rough addition of the numbers (all rounded to thousands) and it was approxiamately the same as the total, a little high, but not a difference anywhere close to the total Canadian, Australian and Indian casualties, so I think I can safely say that either the total is wrong, in which case my previous stements come into effect, or the footnote is wronand should read, excludes the Dominions of Canada, Australia, and Newfoundland as well as India". Sorry if that is hardto read, but I dont know how to put it any better. I am not sure what to do, so please give all avaiable input.say1988 04:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

After more research it seems that the british empire casualties do include canada and australia, and also the total casualties are ~700,000, or nearly 10% off of the World War I casualties page, which is significant. It should also state that this is military casualties (I did not see anything saying that, but on the WWI casualties page, it demonstrates that it must be just military due to the numbers.)say1988 04:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Moved over from article

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I moved this sentence over from the article (because it didn't fit where it was and I didn't see a good place for it): "The term basket case comes from WWI slang meaning a quadruple amputee" Rl 12:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

somebody changed this

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Somebody changed the responsibility section, and the new makeover sounds like a grade school diagnosis. I can't say I agree with what is written there at all.

What is most important is how the "Third Balkan War" became the "Great War"...so, one needs to first look at Austria-Hungary and Serbia, the source of the conflict.

This is sort of mentioned, but the conflict didn't arise in "Sarejevo in 1914" and this section completely omits the tension building during the first and secold balkan wars, erupting in 1912 and 1913 respectfully.

This system stressed the importance of striking first and executing plans quickly. The military doctrine of all of these nations was emphatic that victory would only be gained by striking first, and that mobilization, once begun, could not be halted or slowed without risking invasion and defeat.

- Only Germany's did this

This is probably the cornerstone to the war:

Mobilization for the rest of the world was still mobilization, but mobilization for Germany meant war - there was no turning back due to the Schlieffen Plan. Sure, there is a certain degree of rigidity in all the planning systems, but this misses a key point:

Russia had used mobilization as a scare tactic earlier in the decade. Understanding the first two balkan wars sheds light on why Russia would mobilize without intending to go to war.

Germany's plan did not allow time to second guess like this however.

Furthermore, it isn't about "camps" as much as it is AH's ongoing conflict with Serbia. I think it is safe to say that a Third Balkan War was unavoidable, but World War I was. However, once Russia involved itself (as Germany percieved it to be doing) Germany was in.

France was undeniably a friend of Russia's, but to what extent nobody knew except the French. Nevertheless, they had promised to help in "the event of war", so what did that mean? Again, very vague. Send supplies? If the French had any brains at all, and considering their hatred for Germany especially after the FPW in 1870) and the question of Alsace-Lorraine they would have been fools not to attack while Germany was engaged in the East. Above all, this would have allowed France to seize the Ruhr germany's industrial heartland.

Likewise, SOMETHING should be mentioned about the short war illusion and how it contributed to the romantic view of war influenced by SOCIAL DARWINISM (why war didn't seem like a last resolt alternative, rather, a necessary development in society) Yes, nationalism is important, but it goes a little deeper than this.

I think the previous responsibility section covered this more in depth than the one that exists now. I really don't have the time to write this up, but if somebody wants to use it as an outline to construct their own revision, feel free to do so.

--24.72.227.2 08:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree.

I agree, to a certain extent. The reasons/responsibilities is a very complicated and interesting topic. However, there is a link to Causes of World War I at the start of the section. This page deals in more detail with the reasons, for instance, "Social Darwinism" which you mention (I have not written that page).

Furthermore I really think the one who named the topic "Responsibility" went a little over-the-top. It clearly indicates bias, and a better topic would be "Reasons & Responsibilities". The matter was far too complicated to put the main blame on Germany. I've just read a book called "Thirteen Days" by Clive Ponting, which deals with the extremely intricate rounds of diplomacy which led up to the outbreak. I will try to contribute to the page with some of the facts which I have learned.

Dennis 04:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) My talk page

Overall improvement

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I don't think the current layout is particularly good... I'd really like to rearrange a couple of things, but first I would like others' opinions.

My first concern is the "summary & contents" table to the right (with yellow headers). The design is pretty ok, but I think the position of it really disrupts the flow of the page - particularly the quite important topics covering the reasons & outbreak; I think it should be more like the World War II page - an introduction followed by a full-width contents table, and so on.

I'd be most happy to hear your opinions here on the discussion page. You can also contact me on my talk page.

Regards, Dennis.

Since no-one has answered, I will be bold and try a layout change.

I have heavily adjusted the summary/contents table. Please tell me what you think of it! Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 04:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have gone through and streamlined all pictures on the page. I hope it is better! Dna-Dennis 12:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I think my adjustments of the summary/contents table was a little bit badly written, I have now replaced it with a brand new template I've created, called "MultiWarbox". Regards, Dna-Dennis 02:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

A Main Picture Montage

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Since I am working on the WW2 top picture montage aswell as the World War I article, I am considering making a montage for the WWI page aswell, since I think it would be appropriate, and make both the WWI and WW2 pages more corresponding.

Therefore, I would appreciate opinions posted here.

For more information on the WW2 montage, please see WW2 discussion page "Montage".

Regards, Dna-Dennis 18:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I would say yes. It is feels less relevant to most of us simply because of the age...but anything that was described as the "War to end all wars" could do with the same sort of striking montage of images. Wikibofh 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea, and looking at the WWII montage only made me more optimisticsay1988 02:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Said and done. The WW1 page has got itself a new title picture, a montage similar to the WW2 page. I would very much appreciate opinions on it, as I am glad to make changes if I find the suggestions are relevant or there is a consensus. Dna-Dennis 01:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it looks great. I'm conflicted about the middle top picture because it's not great photograpically, but he's critical to the war, and as a result I think it would generate interest which might lead to learning. I'm not suggesting you change it, just commenting.  :) Great job again! Wikibofh 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much again, Wikibofh. It is partly due to you positiveness on the WW2 montage that led me to do this one as well. So, credits go to you also! By the way, what do you mean with "he's critical to the war"? The photo is of Gavrillo Princip (the shooter of Sarajevo and the igniting torch of the war). Just wonder if there's something I don't know...was he opposing the war? Regards, Dna-Dennis 04:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

My problem with it like the WWII one is the globe, th eway it is it seems set apart and not part of it. I see what it symbolizes, but wan wondering what if you got a mirrior immage of that, so the large black area would be on the outside instead of seperating it from the rest of the pictures?say1988 13:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am about to make a new version of the picture (remove the globe). Before I do this, I am awaiting opinions on the new WWII picture (which is without the globe) on the WWII talk page. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • New version of the title picture

Due to various opinions (see discussion above, and picture discussion on World War II discussion page), I have now made a new version of the title picture. When you are viewing the WW1 article or the full size pic in Wikimedia, remember to hit "refresh" to ensure you are not viewing your browser's cache! The changes made are the following:

  1. The globe has vanished (because most people were critical to it on the WW2 title picture)
  2. The pic of Gavrilo Princip is gone (due to layout reasons, and it could be controversial-viewed as me blaming him).
  3. The pic of ship & zeppelin changed (due to layout reasons) to HMS_Irresistible_abandoned_18_March_1915.jpg

I hope the new version of the title picture is to most persons' satisfactions. I know I can't satisfy everyone, but at least, I try. As before, I am thankful of all opinions. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 14:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Mistake

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the casualties table, in the row of Russia, the casualties are supposed to be equal to "dead"+"wounded"=1,700,000+5,950,000 which is 7,650,000 and not 6,650,000. It means that one of this datum is wrong...Can someone locate it and correct it? --81.218.238.2 15:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Campaignbox: East Africa

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have now created a campaignbox for the East African Campaigns of World War I; if anyone would like to double-check the spelling and accuracy of the battles listed, I'd appreciate it. LordAmeth 12:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Romanian and Italian treason

their isn't enogh info here about the "Triple Alliance" and the "German-Austrian-Romanian" alliances broken. Cameron Nedland

Why were certain countries nuetral

why didn't sweden try to regain finland from russia at this time? and why didn't spain try to regain control of portugal? Cameron Nedland

Spread of WW1

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Inevitably, this section will continue to grow longer, perhaps, a separate page called:

  • Timeline of WW1

OR

  • Chronology of WW1

should be created, input wanted.

Yummy123 02:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right and quite foreseeing. I do not think however the current amount of info in the section can justify a separate page, or even be called "timeline" or "chronology". My opinion is that we wait until there is more... Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Taiping Rebellion and WWI

This article previous referred to WWI as the second bloodiest conflict in recorded history alongside the Taiping Rebellion. Generally WWI's deathtoll is put at between 16 and 18 million. The Taiping Rebellion's deathtoll is generally said to have been at least 20 million (estimates go as high as 50 million). The Taiping Rebellion was almost certainly bloodier - indeed most references to the Taiping Rebellion give mention to the fact that it was bloodier than the First World War. I have rectified the article's text accordingly.

A general template for WWI

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to requests I created a template for World War II (Template:World War II). Since this has been received well, I decided to do one for WWI aswell. It is immediately based on all entries appearing under "See also" in the WWI article, important links in (Category:World War I) and the smaller template Template:WWITheatre.

The difference is that the template categorizes the articles in four columns from left to right, and I think this layout/categorization makes it more comprehensible. If we use this template as a replacement, the reader won't have to scroll down through the list of see-also articles, or even further down to the Template:WWITheatre.

Another benefit is that contributors of other articles can use this template in their articles immediately if they wish to, instead of copying links from "see also" on the WWII main page, etc. Furthermore, updating will be easy, since it will have to be made only in one place - the template.

I am feeling bold today (punk :)) so I perform the replacement as I suggested above. If you don't agree with this idea, please say so here. If you have opinions/suggestions on the template, post a message on Template talk:World War I. As always, I appreciate all kinds of opinions!

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 01:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In what way did "Activity by the English and French Empire" contribute to the Greeks and the Turks fighting over Cyprus? You know, some people will fight, if you just leave them alone. This needs to be clarified. "The Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's" (sixty years later!?); "the invasion of Kuwait, and the Gulf War of the 1990's"? You're going to blame that on British and French activity during WWI? This needs to be taken out. (Ned-Sept.'05)

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:World War I/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs inline citations per WP:Cite. Quadzilla99 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_I/Archive_1&oldid=952346752"