Talk:Willy–Nicky correspondence
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Willy–Nicky correspondence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Scope
editDoes this just cover the telegrams or the entire body of correspondence between the two men? Drutt (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
why just 1914?
editWhy is only year 1914 correspondence referred here? Is the term ‘Willy-Nicky Correspondence’ used only for this particular 1914 bunch of letters according to some historical tradition? Otherwise I feel like the article should not refer to a particular year, but just tell about the whole found correspondence that is covering a ten years period before mentioned. p.s. Calling it ‘secret’ is a bit of ridiculous: personal, not secret. --eugrus (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Rename?
editI strongly suggest renaming this article to The Willy-Nicky Telegrams in order to avoid confusion with their more general correspondence. Any objections? Wally Wiglet (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Nicholas's II suggestion to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague Conference
editDear LeadSongDog, thank you for editing of my addition to the article. As to your question ([when?]: when the German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "unimportant") - I added the following:
After the publication of this telegram by the Russian government in January 31, 1915 (in the Official Gazette “Governmental Herald”) - see p.106 in James M. Beck's book The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium, (p.106) Борис Романов (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov
LeadSongDog, your two last edits are incorrect. I mean the following paragraph in your editorial:
- The Willy-Nicky Telegrams were discussed during the war by representatives of belligerent nations. [9] [10] [11] During the Paris Peace Conference [12] [13] [14] and on into the interwar years. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] In recent years academic historians have reassessed the exchange. [20] [21] [22], they paid special attention to the telegram of Nicholas II dated July 29, 1914 (for two days before the war)
First, the academic historians in recent years [20-22] have NOT reassessed the exchange: they paid special attention to the telegram of Nicholas II (dated July 29, 1914), just a same as did the majority of researchers up to them. Virtually all authors up to them ([1-19]) also wrote primarily about this telegram.
Secondly, your adjustment of a time sequence of pubs are inaccurate: sources [17-19] were written and published in the years 1967-1998, that is not related to the «into the interwar years», but the time after World War II.
For the above reasons, I propose the following wording for this paragraph:
- The Willy-Nicky Telegrams (and, in primarily, the telegram of Nicholas II dated July 29, 1914) were discussed during the war by representatives of belligerent nations [9] [10] [11], during the Paris Peace Conference [12] [13] [14], on into the interwar years. [15] [16] and after WWII [17] [18] [19][20] [21] [22]. In recent years academic historians (Martin Gilbert, Hew Strachan, Dr. Andrei Zubov and others ) also paid special attention to the telegram of Nicholas II dated July 29, 1914 (for two days before the war)
Борис Романов (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov