Talk:World War I/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The Soldier's Blog

Is a very poor example to be referenced on a Wikipedia page. Upon inspecting the blog I found it to have very little information and was not done in 1st person. It's basically a clumsy high school assignment, and I think it needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

New National Identities and Israel

This seems to be about World War II, not World War I, and should be re-written. Pustelnik (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Historians place sometimes differing weights on which world war was the more important event in the creation of the modern national incarnation of Israel, but almost all agree that the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WW1 was pivotal. Without Ottoman control, a variety of more localized nation identities assert themselves, including of course the Jews and the Zionist movement who at the end of the war campaign more heavily for a Jewish homeland.

It may be true that without WW2 and the Holocaust the modern state of Israel may never have been born, but it is also true that the defeated Ottomans in WW1 left the gate open for the eventual establishment of Israel. The border-drawing via lines on maps by the European powers are still problematic today, (e.g. the Iraq-American war, the Arab-Israeli conflict) and the fact that this in large part was a result of WW1 should continue to be present in this article where the example is most prominent - the birth of Israel. --24.15.249.123 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)JasonCWard

"Headline" Rape of Beligium

This headline is too emotive, as this is revisionist history this phrase is too allied-centric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.40 (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be more appropriate? "Massacre"? S71elements 05:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the title suits how the Allies described it in their propaganda but as it is about the war crimes it would be good to point out that the "Rape of Belgium" was a row of individual incidents/atrocities performed in reaction to perceived partisan activity or as brutalities by individual units/commanders, not some organized policy or military tactic. The title infers that it was a singular event when it actually were various incidents above the general invasion of Belgium.

Don't suppose you could fix the template so that it actually shows the American flag instead of linking to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My god, this is wikipedia not myspace! Why don't you replace "rape" with "razing" or something more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertstryker1234 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the commonly used term for the events that took place in Belgium, just like the Rape of Nanking. For that reason, it's perfectly legitimate to use the term in this article. Parsecboy 15:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The rape of Nanking was precisely that. The rape of Belgium is meant to be emotive as Geramny violated Belguim's neutrality. The German army however used Belguim as a gateway to invade France. The geographical features of Belguim are basically flat and very easy to transport troops to the front line and to block British help on the coast. Tactical! Ok the Propaganda was very crude and less sophisicated than now. The use of words then and now have different contexts, despite their basic meaning.The 'rape' of Belguim was a term used to justify and create hatred against the "hun" the "bosche" etc.etc. Look at some anti-german posters and the headline makes sense to use this during "war". Look at the change in language by the media with the Gulf WAR and Iraq 2003 war?!! Best to keep the title, otherwise you are modifying history to be politically correct. The invasion of Belguim and reports of atrocities were half truths and liars which were created by the British newspapers.

Your argument about Belgium being a good route for the German army to take is irrelevant. We're not talking about the violation of Belgian neutrality, we're talking about war crimes committed by Germans once they invaded. Basically, unless you can provide reliable sources that prove the war crimes never took place, the header and section will remain, without mention of any kind of propaganda attempts by the Allies. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Rape of Belgium" however is the propaganda term. A neutral pov would point out the attested war crimes commited by the German army and point out that a series of those were summarized in Allied propaganda with this term to sway opinion of the public firmly against germany. Compared to the Armenian genocide the massacres of 1000-3000 civilians are out of scope. They certainly shouldn't be overlooked but kept in perspective. Mangalore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.80.111 (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the headline is kept, it should certainly be followed by an explanation that it was the propaganda headline used in the western Allies press. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation and independence

I just wanted to point out that the statements regarding the "creation of new countries in Eastern and Central Europe" as well as the ones that state "many countries have gained independence" aren't exactly accurate. Some of those countries have existed well before the end of WWI. They were not "created" they were "reestablished", they also did not "gain independence" they "regained independence". I think this should be corrected but give that this is the lead and the infobox I await any comments on this subject. JRWalko 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you start by improving the applicable section. Lead should synopsize the body. It's questionable whether the lead should get into which countries gained or lost independence.LeadSongDog 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This Image

Hi! I have just been uploading and doctoring the image to the right. Does this have a place in this article? This picture (originally a handout) was certainly very helpful for my remembering of the causes of the Great War. --Harris Morgan 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

I think that should be put somewhere around Causes of the War--The Gillotine (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that a fact?

I deleted

"The infantry was armed mostly with magazine-fed bolt-action rifles,"

as irrelevant and

"but the machine gun, with the ability to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, blunted most infantry attacks."

as incorrect. Artillery was, contrary to myth, the bigger threat. (I also wonder at the need to link rate of fire...) I question

"There was chemical warfare and small-scale strategic bombing, both of which were outlawed by the 1907 Hague Conventions. Both were of limited tactical effectiveness."

In the first place, strategic bombing isn't tactical... In the second, the 1907 Hague Convention (can't speak to the 1899) prohibited bombing undefended cities, & given AA & fighters, cities weren't strictly undefended. Also, it didn't prohibit attacks on military targets or collateral damage in attacking them... Also, I question

"Fixed-wing aircraft were first used militarily during the First World War."

I've read they were used in the Mexican Revolution of 1911, & in Ethiopia in 1912-3. Trekphiler 12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. 1911-10-23 in Libya by the Italians against Turkey.LeadSongDog 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that the infantry were armed with magazine-fed bolt action rifles irelevent? It seems like a pretty significant piece of information to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in context of the trench stalemate, in which smallarms (infantry weapons generally) were of trivial importance, & why I removed it. Trekphiler (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you know the effect of magazine-fed rifles during WWI, I'm no expert, but I think that was the first time they were widely used. I think it would be a big improvement, though not in trench warfare, but gunfighting altogether.--The Gillotine (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The first time magazine-fed rifles were widely used was the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"How exactly do you know the effect of magazine-fed rifles during WWI"? I'm relying on Dupuy & Dyer, mainly. Infantry weapons are generally far less lethal (& since the War of Southern Rebellion have made up a tiny fraction of total casualties) compared to artillery, which was the important factor in the trench war; even MGs, usually cited, were significantly less important overall, & even they were more important than smallarms. Trekphiler (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At some point it's nitpicking. You can argue the guns are far less lethal until you add binoculars and field telephones, so maybe its them that are the real weapons. Fact is they all form part of a system, they aren't used independently.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the German Navy's shelling of the east coast of Britain(Scarborough,etc) in late 1914 a violation of the either of the Hague Conventions? And was the introduction of gas by the Germans a violation of the Hague Conventions?EdwardLovette (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Triple Entente changes to Allied Powers?

Reading down through the article, the Allied Powers morph into the Central Powers and the Entente becomes the Allied Powers. When does this change in titles occur? It is confusing because Allied Powers is used to refer to both sides in the conflict. I noticed this change in titles soon after the Russian Revolution section. I propose changing the article one of two ways:

1. Remove "Allied Powers" from describing members of the Triple Entente, and states that aligned themselves with them, and keep the consistency with Entente Powers. This will keep Allied Powers correctly describing the Germany/Austria-Hungary Alliance as the Allied Powers from beginning to end.

2. Create a section detailing how, when, and why the name change occurred.

--Gregarious greg 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Gregarious Greg

It is confusing, but "Allied" to refer to the Entente and "Central" to refer to the Triple-Alliance are widely used. I think it would be better to state explicitly that the Entente Cordiale was the name of the treaty, while they were commonly referred to as the Allies, and the Triple-Alliance was commonly known as the Central Powers. Parsecboy 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly we shouldn't use "Allies" to refer to the Central Powers. I think probably it is best to use "Entente powers" and "Central powers" to avoid confusion. Certainly the Triple Alliance, so far as I am aware, is never referred to as the "Allied powers". That one of the Triple Alliance powers, Italy, actually fought on the other side might have something t o do with this, but it's also certainly true that the Entente powers are frequently called "the Allies". john k 13:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Triple Entente

It is stated that Britain entered the war regardless of alliances because they had no alliances with France or Russia. This is false because Britain was in an allaince with France and then Russia called the Triple Entente —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.209.85 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Britain had no formal alliances. The Entente cordiale with France, signed in 1904, was an agreement regulating various issues between Britain and France respecting North Africa and fishing rights in the Grand Banks. The Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 regulated British and Russian spheres of influence in Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet. Neither involved any military commitments of any kind. The British had also entered into certain naval agreements with the French which did, in fact, come close to being a military alliance, so the situation is rather complicated - Grey certainly believed that British honor was committed to the defence of France, but he had also been careful over many years to publicly claim that Britain had no formal alliance with either France or Russia (and certainly, in the case of Russia, Britain had no formal or informal military or political commitments). john k 13:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

American Bias in WW1 articles

The Second Battle of the Somme began on 21 August. The Third and Fourth British Armies and the American II Corps pushed the Second German Army back over a 55 kilometer (34 mile) front. By 2 September, the Germans were back to the Hindenburg Line, their starting point in 1914.

I see that there has been a slight improvement in the previous paragraph from saying that “130,000 US troops took part along with some British and French soldiers.” As I have said before there is no mention of US troops in this battle. During the Second battle of the Somme the American II Corps were attached to the Second British Army which was still north of the First British Army which was north of the Third and Fourth British Armies. The American II Corps didn’t join the Third British Army until September 7 well after the Allied advance at the Somme and north and south of it. If there are no objections I will add the Australian and Canadian Corps in place of the American II Corps along with the First British Army and French Armies that were employed to bring the length of front to 75 miles in which the Germans were pushed back.Brocky44 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. "isolationism"

Was U.S. trade regulaion sufficiently protectionist to characterize its position for most of the war as isolationist? It seems that neutral or non-interventionist is more accurate. (Ugh. I don't know how to link to the seciton, "Entry of the United States," where this caught my attention.)Entry of United States(Tried to add a link there. Didn't seem to work...)CsCran 23:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be giving isolationism its modern reading which is almost synonymous with protectionism whilst then it was taken to mean (and still can mean) non-interventionism. Isolationism was the term use at the time and so is correct in this context, though it might need clarification to remove any confusion. --LiamE 10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson's Professed Neutrality Was a Sham

Woodrow Wilson claimed to be neutral in thought as well as deed, but his actions cleared showed that he favored the British position from the beginning. While criticizing Germany, Wilson did nothing to protest the hunger blockade imposed by the British on the civilians of Germany.

Further, Wilson had a very odd view of neutrality. He believed that a citizen of a neutral country (e.g. the United States) had the right to travel, through a war zone, on an armed ship flying the flag of a beligerent nation, without being molested. No other nation in the world had ever asserted such an outlandish view of neutrality, let alone gone to war to defend it.

Wilson failed to identify any legitimate interest of the United States justifying its entry into the European conflict that came to be known as the First World War. His Fourteen Points are dangerously simplistic and naive, and they were largely ignored at the Versailles peace conference. For example, he advocated open peace agreements, openly arrived at. The newspapers read that and asked to be invited into the Versailles conference. When Wilson had to tell them they would not be permitted to enter, the newspapers replied that he was not only a hypocrite, but a naive one at that.

Wilson would have surrendered the sovereignty of the United States to the League of Nations, and the United States Senate wisely rejected that effort.

All in all, Woodrow Wilson was, by far, the absolutely worst U.S. President of all time.

130.13.3.95 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.3.95 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.3.95 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 

Yikes! I'd say that American "neutrality" during WWI was definitely biased. Who was it that said "The most important geopolitical fact of our time is that Americans speak English"(or something like that)? I'm pretty sure he was German. However, that entire war was pretty shady as far as reasons behind it. Wilson might not have had a legitimate reason to go to war, but nobody really did. It's hard to justify 9 million deaths because of arms races, alliances, and imperialism. As for his view of the right to trave., Americans have always held freedom closest to our hearts in values. It's what our nation was built upon. So, it's not surprising that we would take offense at what others believe is common sense. "If you go through a war zone, you're going to get shot" is right, but so is "if you don't keep your mouth shut, you're going to get tazed". --The Gillotine (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... Wilson probobly did support the neutrality. wilson did use moral diplomacy when dealing with nations and if he really didn't want to be neutral, then as soon as the luistania was sunk he would've declared war on germany because he would have had a reason. But he didn't. Also, the league of nations was a great idea. If the us had joined, then maybe ww2 would be prevented. So dont go saying it was wise to reject it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.187.85 (talk • contribs)

Basically, both World Wars served the United States greatly. Without them, the USA wouldn't emerge as the hegemon of the modern world. American "neutrality" and role in starting both wars (especially WW2) awaits a comprehensive study. WIth respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Errata

I have noticed several errata or misleading statements in the article, but do not feel qualified myself to edit and correct:
i) In the Balance of Power section it states: "Britain had no treaties with France or Russia", yet britain had certainly entered into the Entente Cordiale with France by this point, and while this may not be regarded as a treaty per se, certainly deserves a mention. re: the talk below, as it stands it makes it seem that Britain had no ties to either nation, yet this is surely false and so deserves a re-wording even if it is the case that neither alliance Britain made explicitly stated any obligation in a future Euroean war
ii) In the July Crisis section it states: "On July 23, 1914, an ultimatum was sent to Serbia with demands so extreme that it was rejected.", yet Serbia accepted 9 of the 10 demands, and didn't "reject" this outright, but this is not at all referenced in the original sentence.

Hannaphrael 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, as a side note, new talk sections go at the bottom of the page, not the top. I don't know enough about the treaties before the war to comment on this, however, in regards to the second issue you raised, I believe I read once that the demands issued by Austro-Hungary were intended to be too extreme, but were surprised that Serbia accepted almost all of them. I don't recall where I read it, or I'd alter the sentence accordingly, with a source. Perhaps someone else can help here. Parsecboy 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry, I assumed the opposite. Second, I too believe I have read the same thing, viz. the July Ultimatum, though have forgotten the source so felt it inappropriate to mention. I maintain that the two sections do not accurately convey the reality and should be "tidied". Hannaphrael 00:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem about putting it at the top, just a friendly reminder. The introduction to the July Ultimatum states as much in regards to the demands, but it is, unfortunately, not sourced. Also, the article Powder Keg of Europe says the same thing, and is, again, not sourced either. Perhaps this weekend I'll see what I can find as far as a source for it. I'll likely be too busy during the remainder of this week to get to it. Parsecboy 01:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re the Ultimatum. I've read it too, but no idea where... Trekphiler 16:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany's Compliance to stopping unrestricted sub. warfare

Entry of the United States Section. "Germany Complied" is just too vague. In America: A narrative History (seventh edition, volume 2), it states more depth. I think more should be added with the situation. As stated in the book:

"Secretary of State [William Jennings] Bryan reluctantly signed a note demanding that the Germans abandon unrestricted submarine warfare, disavow sinking, and pay preparations. The Germans responded that the ship was armed, which it was not, and secretly carried a cargo of rifles and ammunition, which it did. A second note on July 9 repeated American demands in stronger terms. Bryan... resigned his post. Robert Lansing, signed the note to the Germans. In response to the uproar over the Lusitania, the German government had secretly ordered U-Boat captains to avoid sinking large passenger vessels... When, despite the order, teo American lives were lsot in the sinking of the New York-bound British liner Arabic, the Germans paid an indemnity and offered a public assurance on September 1, 1915 [stating]: "Liners will not be sunk by our submarines without warning and without safety of the lives of non-combatants, provided the liners do not try to escape or offer resistance.""

There is more about why Bryan resigned his post and such, but that is irrelevent. Anyways, I just thought more should be added, and an edition like this meant discussing it first anyways. IronCrow 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte

"World War I marked the end of the world order which had existed after the Napoleonic Wars" (at end of intro)
...stated as if (implies that) Napoleon I of France was directly implicated in the causes of the 1st WW. There'd been Otto von Bismarck since, you know? Of course one thing led to another (and this too is easy to say), but that sentence bugs me. Yeah i'm french (although no fan of Napoleon). --Jerome Potts 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It implies nothing of the sort. The order which was created by the Congress of Vienna is generally considered to have existed in modified form up until the First World War. That is all the sentence is saying. Obviously, the unifications of Italy and Germany were major modifications to that "world order," but the concept itself is not terribly controversial, and does not at all imply that Napoleon was responsible for WWI. john k 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Christmas Truce is not mentioned

The Christmas Truce was a highlighted event in the war, it should be mentioned. This truce shows the difference in points of views of the entrenched soldiers from the officers (governments) that wanted the war to cease by defeat. The fact that the propaganda machine filled soldiers' mind with negative things about the opposing force and for them to find out they were all human with things in common like playing sports, drinking and smoking really had a lot to say about the governments' lies said throughout the war. Bvazq 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

B class checklist

I've (re-?)introduced the B class checklist above under WPMilHist (click Show). As has been recently pointed out to me, the article, while extensively referenced as a whole, does not consistently reference the statements made in each section. For a VITAL article, this is just not acceptable. This should be one of the very best articles in WP, yet it's nowhere near meeting WP:Cite. Lets get at it folks! LeadSongDog 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Many statements are false and therefore impossible to reference.Brocky44 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think a statement is false, just flag it as {{fact}}. If it can't be supported by cites, it will get removed. Some words here on the talk page explaining the issue may also help. LeadSongDog 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How come Canada is not Mentioned at all?

Canada was HUGE factor in the win for the Triple Entente, and was the deciding factor in battles like Ypres, Vimy Ridge, and Passhendaele.

At the start of the article, it lists all the countries involved in the war and Canada is not mentioned, I think this is an insult to the over 60,000 Canadian soldiers who died and over Canadian 600,000 soldiers who fought in this war.

This must be changed immeadiately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantdance (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Here we go again. Haber will be along and he will fill you in. One day he'll wish he had a dollar for everytime this question was asked. Brocky44 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Cantdance, but what are you talking about...Canada is mentioned in this article. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cantdance, Nat is right. At the start of the article it does say "the United Kingdom and its colonies and dominions," which means Canada. That line wasn't there a while ago by the way. Also check out et al in the combatant box. Brocky44 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NOT TO MUCH CANADA MENCHIONED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.163.146 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Britain and its Colonies' is Mentioned, but at the top of the article it lists all the entente members, excluding Canada, but including Russia (who left half way through) and the U.S (who joined halfway through). Canada fought for all four years as CANADA... not 'some British colony' So change it or I'll keep bitching.

Cantdance (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think Canada's war effort is somehow grander, or at least compatible to that of Russia by the simple virtue of Canada being longer in the war? Think again. Btw, we don't have neither Serbia, nor Belgium on the list, and those nations contributed at least as much as Canada did. Bitch all you want. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the introduction, Brocky, and Ko Soi for pointing out Belgium and Serbia, the previously cited excuses for throttling this insane Canadian nationalism. Still, I'm enjoying these gems that our northern friends added in between hockey games.

re:Amiens The Australian-Canadian spearhead at Amiens, a battle that was the beginning of Germany’s downfall,[49] helped pull the British Armies to the north and the French Armies to the south forward

and re:Vimy Canadians had proved themselves on the same battlefield where the British and French had previously faltered, and were respected internationally for their accomplishments

re:forcing back the entire German front On September 2nd the Canadian Corps outflanking of the Hindenburg line, with the breaching of the Wotan Position, made it possible for the Third Army to advance and sent repercussions all along the Western Front. That same day OHL had no choice but to issue orders to six armies for withdrawal back into the Hindenburg line in the south, behind the Canal Du Nord on the Canadian-First Army's front and back to a line east of the Lys in the north, giving up without a fight the salient seized in the previous April.[57] According to Ludendorff “We had to admit the necessity…to withdraw the entire front from the Scarpe to the Vesle.”[58]

And of course, my favorite, coming after finding out the effect of Gallipoli on the Australians and New Zealanders we find out that the "new national identity" effect is... This effect was even greater in Canada.

Proving that the Canadians are even more delusional than the ANZACs, which is a probably the greatest achievement any hypernationalist Wikipedian could ever hope to aspire to. Haber (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)