Talk:World War I

An event mentioned in this article is a July 28 selected anniversary

Archives
Archive 1

The Treaty of Versailles Didn't Cause WWI, it ended it.

"The 'War Guilt' of Germany" subsection talks about the WWI armistice treaty and the war debt Germany had to pay after WWI. It was under the "Causes" section. Things that happened after a war are not a cause of the war, so I moved "The 'War Guilt' of Germany" subsection from the "Causes" of WWI section to the "Aftermath" section. David_Underdown flagged my move of this content as a deletion and a vandalism and moved the post-treaty aftermath content back to one of the causes of WWI. Dumbass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk • contribs)

OK, I misread the diffs, because you made the change in 2 stages it looked as if you had removed content. So you weren't vandalising, however, I think you've misunderstood what was being said. The treaty of Versaille established the "offical" cause of the war as being German aggression, hence the war guilt section being there. Please avoid personal insults, here and on my talk page (see WP:CIVIL) and add comments at the bottom of the page and sign them (see WP:TALK). David Underdown 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Small Edits

I changed the box at the bottom so that it wouldn't overlap the links. just doin my job ;) - Bagel7 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Entente or Allied?

Let's pick one or the other to prevent confusing people (right now thay are both used). I suggest Allies, because that is more common, but it's up to you guys.

yes Allies works better.Rjensen 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

never even heard the phrase "entente" before - Jedi of Redwll

Entente is most properly the name of the alliances BEFORE the war (I believe) and Allies takes up after war is declared. - JEK --Troublemaker 03:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

deleted

Disagree

If anything, the term "Alliance" should refer to the Central Powers, since they grew out of the Triple Alliance, as opposed to the victorious powers growing out of the Triple Entente. Admittedly, that did not include the US, but the US entered the war expressly not as an ally of the T.E., but rather because of German violations of US shipping.

I think it's also a little POV. The reference seems to come from the common tendency to view WWI through the prism of WWII, after which the term 'Ally' took on a positive connotation it didn't have in the 1910s (at least in the US).

I'll give a week for comment, and then if I find the appropriate reference, I'll make some edits.

--69.251.252.22 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The official terms used are "Triple Entente" and "Triple Alliance" - there is no real side at that point that is named the Allies because both sides are really just allies grouped up. The term "Allies" was only used in WWII and like said, if anything "Allies" should be used to describe the Central Powers though in my opinion it should not be used to describe either if for no reason but to avoid confusion.

I have noticed that the term "Allies" is generally used to mean the countries allied with Britain, not the USA. For example, in the Napoleonic Wars, the Allies were at various times Britain, the French Royalists, Spain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, etc., while the USA was on the side of Imperial France. In WWI allies was only used in the literal sense, and in WWII, the Allies were of course the USA, UK, USSR, etc,. In other wars the term Allies is usually used for the larger side. Phil alias Harry 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

AEF and the allies wish.

Hi, I have to disagree with this statement :

"The British and French insisted that the United States emphasize sending infantry to reinforce the line. Throughout the war, the American forces were short of their own artillery, aviation, and engineering units. However, General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Force commander, resisted breaking up American units and using them as reinforcements for British Empire and French units, as suggested by the Allies."

French general Joffre supported the idea that the US soldiers would come in the form of an US army/corps.

Here's one source (but there are several others) that support this version.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blgenesisaef2.htm

"To make American troops immediately effective, therefore, Joffre's first inclination was to urge the Americans to furnish the French and British "with men instead of armies." If troops were sent to France organized only into companies and battalions, they could quickly be incorporated into French regiments for training and service at the front. There would therefore, according to Joffre, be "no occasion for training general officers and staff for the larger units, only captains and majors being needed."

Joffre quickly discarded that idea, however, because he knew the Americans could never accept it. No great nation, especially the United States, the prescient old soldier knew, would "allow its citizens to be incorporated like poor relations in the ranks of some other army and fight under a foreign flag." He therefore determined that he would start from that premise as he entered discussions in America. "

I think these are two different issues. You are right that American troops weren't plugged directly into French and British units, but there was a policy of shipping mostly men across the Atlantic and using French and British equipment. That's why you hear about US troops using French MGs, French artillery, etc. MilesVorkosigan 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, is it me that accidentally erased the page or what ? o_O

If this is the case, I'm sorry. back to the subject. I hope someone had a back-up. I Posted my post and the next day when I come back, there is only mine though there were a lot of post formerly .... stupid americans

Be more careful! Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

and americans arent stupid! >:( Bagel7 22:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lusitania on the Timeline

Perhaps on the Timeline there should be a mention of the sinking of the Lusitania, as it was an important factor in the United States' entry into hostilities. stupid americans 153.104.16.114 23:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting so tired of this old saw. Lusitania had d*mn all to do with the U.S. entry into WW1. She was an excuse to cover the fact the U.S. (via Room 39) had read the Zimmermann Telegram. Trekphiler 01:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"public indignation over the Zimmermann telegram"? USG made it public when? And without compromising the secret? Or does it mean Congress was indignant? Trekphiler 08:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Zimmermann Telegram story broke in US newspapers on March 1, 1917. (Tindall and Shi, America - Brief Fifth Edition, p 871.) --Squiddy 09:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd never seen that. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted "The question of 'neutrality at sea' would push the United States into the war." This is another example of the fiction used to cover the Zimmermann telegram. It has no place in a serious work. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Link to plagiarized article removed.

Link to "What role did the Arab population play in World War I" http://ozhanozturk.com/content/view/310/47/ (which claims to be written 2005-10-08) was removed because it was plagiarized from: http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004_11_07_maviboncuk_archive.html

The US was hardly neutral in the run up to WW1. It was actively supporting Britain by making loans more readily available to Britain, and looking the other way when British ships stopped US ships on the high seas. Jmorello

The Map is WRONG

The map submitted with the article depicts the borders on Balkans before Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. During Balkan Wars Turkey's presence on Balkans was reduced roughly to what it is today.

This map needs to be changed !! preferrably with this picture: [[1]]

That map is inaccurate, any Junior High kid could tell you that, there isn't even an independant Albania. Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) As pointed out by many others, the map is very wrong indeed.

three-decade long war

The term "First World War," implying an event distinct from a "Second World War" has fallen into disfavour by some scholars, who regard World War I as merely the first phase of a three-decade long war spanning the period 1914–1945.

What is the source for this statment and who are are the "some scholars"? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That's nice, and good luck to them. But until the term falls into general disuse we will be keeping the article. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The article needs to be accessible. Folks at 137 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Three decade long wars generally don't involve four years of war, 21 years of uneasy peace, and then six more years of war. I've never heard of a scholar who actually says that the period 1914-1945 was a single three-decade long war, although the idea of a "Second Thirty Years' War" has been invoked as an image, or a conceptual framework. But that's quite different. john k 21:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Four years of war, a two decades long ceasefire (which isn't unheard of, considering the Korean War ceasefire) and then more war.--Kross | Talk 07:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The usage may not mean "30yrs active combat". The 100 Yrs War wasn't, either. The causes of WW2 trace directly to WW1, & many of the experiences would be based on it. Tank warfare, for instance, is directly based on late WW1 practise. ASW failed to learn lessons of WW1 (& Dan van der Vat connects the wars as 1 in The Atlantic Campaign). Trekphiler 02:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The same could be applied to pretty much every war in history - cause and effect - each one forms at least one of the causes of the next and subsequent wars. Human history is the history of conflict. The definitions here seem to cover it. Wiki-Ed 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess you could make that case, but many prominant scholars do think of the two world wars as one war. I do not know a reference for it however, I learned it in a college class.

For what it's worth, a similar situation also loosely describe what we refer to today as the Peloponnesian War, split up for several years by the Peace of Nicias. There, you have less time (only 6 yrs) between the 'war,' but you still have a different generation of leaders the second time around. --Stancollins 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats the turning point?

I'd like to know when it changed from being anyones war to an Allied Victory. Cameron Nedland 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Entente's Victory

This section needs to be fleshed out more. There were several significant and important battles in addition to those that the American Army participated in that merit a mention.

A few math errors in the Casualties table?

I noticed that the math didn't make sense for a couple of rows in the Casualties table (Dead plus Wounded should = Casualties), so I made the following changes:

1. The line for Russia had Casualties: 6,650,000; Dead: 1,700,000; Wounded: 5,950,000. This has a discrepancy of 1,000,000. I did a search and found that about.com (http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm) had the same numbers for Casualties and Dead, but Wounded was 4,950,000 on that page, so I assumed that the Wounded number had the error in the Wikipedia and changed it. (The totals at the bottom appear to support this.)

2. The line for Serbia had Casualties: 1,700,000; Dead: 450,000; Wounded: 950,000. This has a discrepancy of 300,000. The about.com page had radically different numbers for "Serbia" so it wasn't helpful. By checking the totals on the Wikipedia page, it looked to me like the Wounded number for Serbia is likely the problem, so I changed it to 1,250,000.

3. The total for the Dead column was low by 18,166 (which happens to be the number for New Zealand.) I changed it from 9,381,551 to 9,399,717.

4. The total for the Wounded column was about 420,000 too high! The numbers in the table add up to 22,729,352, rather than 23,148,975, so I changed that number too.

BTW, I noticed that the total numbers in Wikipedia vary considerably from the ones on about.com. Of course there is no single fully accepted source of such casualty counts. But even without that, the horrendous impact is clear.

Rob Esau, Edmonton, Canada

Mine explosive type/s

Moved from main article. El_C 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC) What type of explosives did they use when they mined the enemy trenches? 81.179.93.121

There was a variety of different explosives used, with some experimentation during the course of the war. The mines at Messines were largely Ammonal. The similar Amatol was developed to economise on the use of TNT. I'm sure there were many others. Have a look in the explosives category to find more. We do have a rather terse list of Explosives used during WW II article as well. Lisiate 22:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

New lead picture(s) - without text

Hi wikipedians! Due to opinions from various places (e.g. Talk:World_War_II#Lead_pic_problems), I have changed the lead pictures for the WWI & WWII page, so that they now are without the top title text ("World War I" & "World War II" (remember to hit "refresh" in your browser). I believe this is what the majority desires, but if you object, please say so here. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bombing

I question the "large-scale bombing" remark. Compared to what? German attacks on London killed fewer people than traffic crashes. And compared to WW2, the scale was trivial. An edit is in order. Trekphiler 01:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That may be true, but with over 1000 deaths from bombing it was considered enormous at the time along with the psychological impact on the people. Many people starting sleeping in subways and such.

Diplomacy

Bravo for including the A-H rejection of Serbia's acceptance. I stumbled on that a few years ago, & had never heard it before. Trekphiler 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Here (& as a general rule), can we include pronounciation of names? I don't know how Princip is pronounced, & I'm sure many don't. Doubtless this is true often. Also, I've seen it done on the Buick page. Trekphiler 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

General Staff

I added the problems of speed of advance. Schlieffen's plan failed to account for the inability to move supplies, notably fodder, from railheads rapidly enough to overcome French countermoves, & GenStaff did no better. I'd also note France made innovative & important use of motor transport, buses, to achieve victory at First Marne, while Germany didn't, & the right hook around Paris pulled in & failed. Shifting force from the Schwerpunkt to the hinge at Sedan didn't help, either... Trekphiler 03:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Machine Gun?

I rewrote this:

"The nature of military technology at the time helped make the war particularly murderous. The best defensive weapons (barbed wire and machine guns) were, before the gradual introduction of tanks in 1916, far superior to the main offensive weapons."

It overemphasises MGs, a com myth; makes N ref arty, which was more lethal than MGs; & says nothing to tactics N keep up w tech. Trekphiler 04:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Que? I sincerely do not understand what you say. Please use normal language. Regards, Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Trekphiler is saying that artillery caused more casualties than machine guns, a point discuused in the archive under Lethality of Machine Guns claim a while ago. Unfortunately this paragraph was missed so Trekphiler quite correctly rephrased the sentence and pointed it out here (with a rather obscure explanation). Lisiate 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that on the lethality of artillery, but the chief effect of barbed wire was to delay infantry assaults so that they could be killed by artillery (and machine guns). I have rewritten the paragraph under Trench Warfare Begins to reflect this. Sliggy 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

I sense a Brit/Allied bias. Mention of British rotation policy, without reference to French, alone German, is inappropriate. I'd be interested to know what both these nations, as well as Russia, did. Trekphiler 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is a problem on other WP articles about WWI. I made a similar comment on the Passchendaele article talk page, but it is a problem in a huge amount of english-language history of WWI, both online and in print, popular and academic. Anyway, striving for NPOV should also mean striving for balance between coverage of all sides in a war. --Squiddy 08:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed (& posted on it) elsewhere, too. I suspected the Eng-lang sources were the cause. It occurs to me, with so many foreign-lang readers on the 'net, we might be able to lift posts from other Wikipedia verisons (if it's not being done now), & certainly can use their skills. Trekphiler 08:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This concerns me:

"Throughout the war Austro-Hungarian Chief of Staff, Conrad von Hötzendorf had a deep hatred for the Italians because he had always perceived them to be the greatest threat to his state. Their betrayal in 1915 enraged him even further. His hatred for Italy blinded him in many ways, and he made many foolish tactical and strategic errors during the campaigns in Italy."

It may be true, but it seems a bit strident. Trekphiler 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No coverage

This article is deficient in a number of areas. First, it is (almost) exclusively concerned with land operations. I see no mention of the crucial influence of the U-boat campaign & how near it brought Britain to defeat. Nor do I see (as usual) any mention of the Japanese contributions to convoy escort in the Med. Nor any reference to commerce raiding, which was also important to RN defense of trade.

Second, there is no mention of non-whites or non-Europeans, such as war in Africa, or blacks in U.S. service, or (even less well known) Japanese-Canadians, such as the 50h Inf Rgt.

Third, there is no mention of the influence of the war on social conditions of blacks in the U.S.; as in WW2, it produced migration for jobs, with significant effects.

Fourth, & perhaps most obviously lacking, is the utter absence of the influence of airpower. It has been suggested air observation directly produced the trench stalemate, by making secret movement of troops impossible. Regardless, when over 150 thousand aircraft were built during the war, orders of magnitude more than tanks, aircraft certainly merit inclusion, if tanks do... See Morrow on German airpower in WW1.

While I'm in no way qualified to post on these areas, it seems to me they must be addressed. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the issues you mention, but here are some notes from me:

1. WWI was to an extremely large degree a ground war. Nevertheless, the other aspects must naturally be mentioned. There are however links to other articles like Naval warfare of World War I
2. War in Africa: It is mentioned, but maybe not enough, don't know. There are links as well to it (right table, "see also" etc. to South-West Africa Campaign)
3. Blacks in US. Maybe too specific, don't know - see if it fits in World War I#Social effects
4. Airpower. See point 1. Don't forget there are links to other articles covering it, e.g. Aviation in World War I

Generally, articles like this must be detailed, but not too detailed. The problem is always; what to include and what to let other articles handle.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. You cannot divorce the naval and aerial elements of the war whilst discussing, at length (relatively), the entry of the United States or the social impact. And that assumes that the land-war account is balanced. It isn't. Gallipoli? The French? The middle of the war? There are detailed bits on obscure topics and a complete absence of information on fairly important topics. It could probably do with a similar improvement drive to that proposed (!) for WW2. Imho. Wiki-Ed 18:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think, with the basic idea that there are problems with the article. Of the things Trekphiler mentions in his post, I think submarine warfare, at least, needs to be discussed rather more. On the other hand, the campaigns in German East Africa and South-West Africa, and so forth, were extremely marginal. I see little need to go into much detail there. On the other hand, I think the discussion of the war in Europe itself is seriously unbalanced. The lack of more than a mention of Gallipoli is unfortunate. Even worse, the entire Salonica front is not even mentioned at all. The campaigns on the Western Front in 1918 are discussed in far more detail than anything else in the article. john k 06:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed; i would argue that most Australians and New-Zealanders would be hard pressed to call Gallipoli obscure, and indeed its intention to open up another front by the Entente, knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war and provide direct aid to Russia and stave off a Communist uprising is perhaps worth mentioning if nothing else a response by the Entente to try and avert revolution in Russia. Though i do think that there is room for more dicussion for naval engagements (such as teh famous Battle of Jutland that achieved nothing really except to demonstrate that Dreadnoughts, whilst the most powerful naval units up untill that time, were still too expensive to risk loosing at sea) or a brief mention of avaiation in WW1 in both reconoitering, dogfighting or bombing (whether bombing london or just handy grenade-tossing) is worth mentioning. Having said that i am in favour of keeping the focus on the land war, as whilst air and naval units contributed to the war, WW1 is clearly mostly a ground war. I would like to see more reference to the war in Africa though. 202.72.148.102 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mistake?

The article claims WW1 was first use of aircraft in combat. I've seen (conflicting) claims for Mexico & Libya in 1911-2... Also, it seems to say WW1 was first use of submarines in combat, too. This is flat wrong. First use of submarines in combat was in 1776, by David Bushnell's 1-man sub Turtle, operated by Sgt Ezra Lee, Continental Army. First success was by CSS H. L. Hunley against frigate USS Housatonic in USCW (at Charleston, I believe). In addition, it continues to need correction of incorrect use of "shrapnel" to mean "fragmentation" (a very common mistake amongst the uninitiated...) Trekphiler 11:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

not sure about the U-boats, but I have seen many places say that ww1 was the first war with aircraft, but I wasnt personally there - Jedi of Redwall

Technology

I added this:

"The slaughter of British merchantmen and the invulnerability of U-boats led to the development of several countermeasures: depth charges (1916), hydrophones (passive sonar, 1917), blimps, hunter-killer submarines (HMS R-1, 1917), ahead-throwing weapons, & dipping hydrophones (both abandoned 1918). To extend their operations, the Germans proposed supply submarines (1916). Most of these would be forgotten in the interwar period until WW2 revived the need."

Trekphiler 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I added these:

• Aces: A Story of the First Air War, written by George Pearson, historical advice by Brereton Greenhous and Philip Markham, NFB, 1993. Contains assertion aircraft created trench stalemate.
• Winter, Denis. First of the Few. London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1982. Coverage of the British air war, with extensive bibliographical notes.
• van der Vat, Dan. The Atlantic Campaign. Harper & Row, 1988. Connects submarine and antisubmarine operations between wars, and suggests a continuous war.
• Fuller, J.F.C. Tanks in the Great War. 1920. Used by Guderian as a basis for his 1937 book Achtung! Panzer.
• Morrow, John. German Air Power in World War I. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982. Contains design and production figures, as well as economic influences.
• Guderian, Heinz. Achtung! Panzer. London: Cassell Military Paperbacks, 2003. First English translation of the 1937 edition; Panzer Leader (1952) is revised on the basis of wartime experience...
• Kahn, David. The Codebreakers. Scribners, 1996. Covers the breaking of Russian codes and the victory at Tannenberg.
• Beesly, Patrick. Room 40. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1982. Covers the breaking of German codes by RN intelligence, including the Turkish bribe, Zimmermann telegram, and failure at Jutland.
• Editors of American Heritage. History of WW1. Simon & Schuster, 1964.
• Milner, Marc, Prof. Canadian Military History. Toronto: Copp Clark Putnam, 1993. Includes problems of Canadian recruiting and the 1917 draft crisis (with its problems over Quebec).
• Carver, Michael, Field Marshal Sir. War Lords. Boston: Little, Brown, 1976 Includes brief bios of Hamilton, Foch, Haig, von Falkenhayn, von Ludendorff.
• Price, Alfred. Aircraft versus the Submarine. London: William Kimber, 1973.

I've also seen a documentary on Gallipoli, on which I base my opinion of Hamilton, & a couple of docs on Canadians in WW1, from which I got ref to 50h Inf, MGs & Brutinel, & some other stuff. (Unfortunately, I've no idea of the titles...) Trekphiler 13:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

I sense a Brit/Allied bias. Mention of British rotation policy, without reference to French, alone German, is inappropriate. I'd be interested to know what both these nations, as well as Russia, did. Trekphiler 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is a problem on other WP articles about WWI. I made a similar comment on the Passchendaele article talk page, but it is a problem in a huge amount of english-language history of WWI, both online and in print, popular and academic. Anyway, striving for NPOV should also mean striving for balance between coverage of all sides in a war. --Squiddy 08:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed (& posted on it) elsewhere, too. I suspected the Eng-lang sources were the cause. It occurs to me, with so many foreign-lang readers on the 'net, we might be able to lift posts from other Wikipedia verisons (if it's not being done now), & certainly can use their skills. Trekphiler 08:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This concerns me:

"Throughout the war Austro-Hungarian Chief of Staff, Conrad von Hötzendorf had a deep hatred for the Italians because he had always perceived them to be the greatest threat to his state. Their betrayal in 1915 enraged him even further. His hatred for Italy blinded him in many ways, and he made many foolish tactical and strategic errors during the campaigns in Italy."

It may be true, but it seems a bit strident. Trekphiler 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's also misleading. While General Conrad may, indeed, have continued to dislike the Italians after he was dismissed as Chief of Staff in 1917, the text at present seems to imply that he remained Chief of Staff throughout the war. Which is, of course, not the case. john k 06:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

More bias

This was mentioned on the old talk page and since it was there staring at me when I started reading I've removed it: Activity by the French and British Empire forces in the eastern part of the former Ottoman Empire would give rise to several modern conflicts, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Greco-Turkish conflict over Cyprus, the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the 1990s by Iraq. The Greco-Turkish conflict, which ended in 1924, was the last direct major conflict of the war. POV nonsense. Would be better to blame Alexander the Great... In fact the article is actually quite poor in several areas. Gallipoli? Naval warfare? The French!?! I can't understand how it was ever "featured". I am slightly overwhelmed by the scale of the task needed to address the problems here so I am going to go away and ponder. :( Wiki-Ed 10:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

civilian casualties

The following sentence was removed: In the First World War 5% of casualties were civilian. In the Second World War that was 50%. I added this after reading it in 'In Europa' by Geert Mak, which should be a reliable source. And it's relevant. So I put it back. What was the reason for deletion? DirkvdM 11:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi DirkvdM! I was not the one who removed it, but for your information I am currently working on a major update on the article World War I casualties. I think the 5% figure should be taken with care, since the estimates for civilian casualties vary to great extents, and they are too often stated without source or detail. Furthermore, estimates may exclude/include part of the Russian Civil War and Armenian massacres, and it is debated to which degree - or if at all - these events should be included. For more info, see the WWI casualties article. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a mess. Even more important than the Russian revolution is this: Please also note that most of the civilian deaths were due to the outbreak of the Spanish flu or related to famine. Spanish flu killed 25-50 million, which is 4-7 times the stated WWI civilian death toll of 7 million. I suppose it was often badly administrated what people died of. So I wonder where Mak got his figures from. If there is a clear difference between the two wars that should be pointed out. My point was to address the issue which was the more 'modern' of the two wars and that is one aspect. Let me translate the relevant section in Geert Mak, In Europa (part 2, chapter 3 (bound edition, book 1, page 135)): WWI already had a few characteristics that made WWII so murderous: the massive scale, the techynology, the alienation, the anomimity. [...] Only 5% of casualties in WWI were civilian, in WWII that was 50%. It was not about race but it was about descent, nationality and social class. And everywhere, the higher classes were prepared to mercilessly sacrifice hundreds of thousands of farmboys, workers and white collar workers for a few vague moves on this chess board. Alas he doesn't give a source in the footnotes.

Are there any reliable sources that give the numbers excluding those deaths? That would be much better. Also, I wouldn't count the Russian civil war because that is something quite different. The Winker Prins encyclopedie only mentions a total death toll of 10 million. If there were 9 million military deaths that would leave 1 million civilian deaths, so more like 10%. The point is that this is a big difference with WWII and that is worth pointing out, but doing so without reliable figures is a bit dodgy. DirkvdM 16:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I think I understand what you want to express; I also think it would be a good idea on pointing out the difference in civilian impact between WWI and WWII. Even though I'm not an expert I think the numbers are more problematic with WW1. I can't say I have any opinion yet, and one can argue for or against inclusions in different ways:

1. Russian Civil War. (For: because WWI was one cause for it, and for instance North Russia Campaign. Against: because it was a civil war).
2. Spanish flu. (For: because WWI probably partially helped its spread. Against: because it was a disease and/or not a consequence of the war.

But similarly (and now I know I am VERY much out on a limb, but I am just making a point) - the Holocaust could be viewed as not being a part of the WW2 civilian casualties, as it could be argued that it was not a result of the war itself, but of ideology. This is naturally not my opinion, as it is far more complex.

To conclude; maybe we could find a good way to express the difference in civilian impact between WWI and WWII. Just some quick and dirty ideas: there is a significant difference...civilian deaths...directly/immediately? caused by the war.... I don't know for now. But it should definitely be mentioned in some way. My warm regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Some fine points! Especially the one about the holocaust. That was certainly not part of the war proper. But the issue here (here) is the differences between the nature of the two wars. And the holocaust was certainly a typical aspect because it is an extreme case of targeting citizens, something that had for a long time been absent in European warfare I believe (simply put, this typically happens between tribes, but not between countries, with a separation between civilians and soldiers). The flu had nothing to do with the type of warfare. That was just a coincidence. Of course, had there not been a war then maybe better cooperation might have prevented it. Also, during warfare more money is put in technology, including medicine. Actually, given the great differnce of the one war being static and the other being a Blitzkrieg (at least in part), it might have spread more rapidly had it broken out in WWII. Then again, that might also have killed it sooner (diseases work in mysterious ways). There's just no telling. Which is why it should in principle be excluded from the figures. But even better would be to split the figures up and let people draw their own conclusions (with some help by us, adding up some of the figures). This is especially important with the Russian revolution (and which one? - there's that too). Both your points are equally valid there, so I can't make a choice.

So the thing to do is find a source that specifies the numbers for the different causes. DirkvdM 08:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a different approach - the main difference in civilian casualties between WWI and WWII was due to two things. (1) As DirkvdM say, WWI was largely static, and WWII largely a war of movement. (2) While there were a few small aerial bombings of cities in WWI, these are dwarfed by the huge air raids of WWII (on the UK, and especially on Germany and Japan). Maybe explicitly contrast these different characteristics, and if we can't find reliable figures, go with a vague 'much higher' civilian casualties.

Other points - I think noting the Spanish flu in 'aftermath' would be good, but the civilian casualties occured globally, even in (eg) South America, which had nothing to do with WWI.

The problem with the Russian Civil War is that it was really a bunch of separate wars, in NW Russia, Siberia and the Ukraine. How one would rule on which casualties should be counted as part of WWI is beyond me.

Also, the Holocaust case is not that clear-cut either - over 1 milliion Jews were murdered by the Einsatzgruppe, SS military units following right behind the regular Wehrmacht into Russia, and these deaths should really count as part of WWII, and part of the Holocaust. --Squiddy 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

(British) Dominions

I have changed "British Empire" to "British Empire and Dominions" in the summary box. This is for two reasons: (i) because Canada, Australia and New Zealand contributed significant numbers of troops to the Allied cause and this should be explicitly recognised, and (ii) they weren't part of the British Empire at the time of WWI. Sliggy 21:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

... and (iii) the dominions signed the Treaty of Versailles as separate countries. Sliggy 22:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

points (i) and (iii) are good and I see them as valid reasons on their own, but (ii) is wrong, the dominions were still part of the British Empire and it controlled our foreign policy.

Naming: "Entente" or "Allies"

Hi wikipedians! I know this issue is a bit "tweaky", but I would like some input on it:

Should the allies (i.e. not Central Powers) be referred to as "Entente" or "Allies"?

Why I ask is because I am doing some organizing in different WW1 sub-pages, and it has started to confuse me since both names are used in various places. I don't feel any major problem with the use of both names inside texts (even though I don't prefer it), but the problem is with titles and in templates. For instance, the following pages use different names:

• Allies of World War I - "Allies"
• Participants in World War I - "Entente"
• World War I casualties - "Entente"

I myself lean towards the term "Entente Powers" or "Entente Forces", because

1. the Central Powers were also allies
2. it would distinguish it better from the Allies of World War II

I would really like your opinions on the matter. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 01:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

While reading this I already thought of your second argument and the first argument is one I'd already thought of relating to WWII. So I support your proposal. But if we stick to 'Entente', then at least the alternative name 'Allies' should be mentioned (in each article?). But how do you use 'Entente' as a noun? 'The Entente forces'? Or, to follow the French origin, 'les Ententées'? :) Or just 'the Entente'? And would that then be singular or plural?

Triple Entente refers to Russia, France and Britain. They can be referred to as the Triple Entente forces, who faced the Central Powers forces. (Entente is singular, by the way, roughly meaning "understanding" or "agreement"). I am not clear as to whether Italy joined the Entente in 1915, so that country might also be referred to as Entente. Troops from other nations, such as Serbia or Portugal, are Allies. The US is a special case, being an 'Associated Power' that did not declare war on the Ottoman Empire. Maybe that clarifies things? Sliggy 15:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

(having had a look at London Pact I think Italy can be deemed a Triple Entente nation; even though this is mathematically dubious...). Sliggy 14:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, for WWII, is there an alternative for 'Allies' there? DirkvdM 10:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"United Nations" is also used to refer to those nations at war with the Axis Powers, ie, Germany, Italy (until 1942, when it declared war on Germany), Japan, Bulgaria, etc. By the end of the war, the "UN" included many nations, including Brazil (with troops in Italy), Iran, etc etc. See Participants in World War II. Of course, it may be that the "Allies" refers to a select subset of nations. Folks at 137 23:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Damn it, I'm still divided; one part of me wants to rename the Allies of World War I to "Entente Powers", yet another part of me feels there's something wrong about it. In the meantime I have added the following text to the page: The Allies of World War I are sometimes also referred to as the Entente Powers or Entente Forces. In other subpages and templates I have used "Entente Powers". Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Allies is more appropriate, because the Entente only encompasses a few nations, they were perhaps some of the most important nations, but there were many others. As for the Central Powers being allies, that is true as the axis countries were in WWII, but if you say Allies, nobody, at least very few people, would need to be specified which side.

Taiping Rebellion statistic

The line "By its end, the war had become the second bloodiest conflict in recorded history (behind the Taiping Rebellion)..." should be struck from this article. There is a hugh about of speculation about how many people died in the Taiping Rebellion to quite the Wiki Taiping Rebellion

'Most accurate sources put the total deaths at about 20 million civilians and army personnel, although some claim the death toll was much higher (as many as 50 million according to at least one source.[1]). There are reports that "Some historians have estimated that the combination of natural disasters combined with the political insurrections may have cost on the order of 200 million Chinese lives between 1850–1865 '

200 million would have been 1/2 the population of china at the time and is a overly liberal number to assign, but with the current information the Taiping Rebellion can only be assumed to be one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. Not the bloodiest conflict in history untill WWII. 12.20.127.229 18:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, so the Taiping article says 20 million on the low side, and this article says 15 million. How is that still not the second bloodiest? Wikibofh 19:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion but thats what I am pointing out here, there is confusion in the statistics because of a lack of records. to say that WWI is definatly the second most bloody in those exact words would be misleading or incorrect. the refrence should be pulled or the language weakened (as in 'may'). I never like to see people make matter of fact statements when the figures are blurry. (eg. William Eckhardt: 2,000,000 Correlates of War Project at the University of Michigan [2]: 2,000,025).12.20.127.229 19:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Ok, it seems reasonable to me, but a source would be nice. Are there any sources that disagree that it was the second bloodiest? As it stands now it seems to be a reasonable to me. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Casualties

More than 9 million died on the battlefield, and nearly that many more on the home fronts.. The info-box reads 9 million military casualties, 7 million civilians. And then: In the First World War 5% of casualties were civilian.

This does not add up! Either the third number is wrong, or the first two are. Or they're both right, but use very different criteria for civilian casualties. (as World War I casualties elaborates on) In any case, this is no good because it makes the article seem to contradict itself. I think either the percentage figures should be removed, or they should be supplemented with information on what criteria were used, and the same for the other figures. Whatever critera is chosen, it's important that it's consistent. Although such information might not belong in the summary anyway. The WWI casualties page may be a better place. --BluePlatypus 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone can explain the difference between "battlefield deaths" and "ground combat" casualties on the home front, I'm going to delete the term "ground combat" from this passage:

More than 9 million died on the battlefield, and nearly that many more on the home fronts because of food shortages, genocide, and ground combat.

J.R. Hercules 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it means wounded on the battlefield, went home, and then died?

—wwoods 20:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some difference between "deaths" and mere "casualties" that I'm overlooking, but I believe it says that "5% of the casualties in WWI were civilian" and then refers to WWII in comparison. This is all nice, except 5 percent of 9 million is not 7 million, as presented in the box on the right hand side of the index.

-Grasshopper

• Typically deaths are a subset of casualties. Causualties are dead or wounded. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have changed the "5%" formulation to this : In World War I about 5% of the casualties (directly caused by the war) were civilian - in World War II, this figure was 50%.

The problem is that counting casualties of World War I is quite tricky due to different reasons: to what extent should the Russian Civil War, Spanish Flu, Armenian Genocide be included? See also previous discussion above : Talk:World_War_I#civilian_casualties.

For your information, the sub-page World War I casualties will most likely undergo several updates during the next month, and this could have an impact on the values used in the World War I main article. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

This is an excellent article. I made some contributions back over the summer and I see that it continues to expand in positive ways. The modern picture of "gott strafe england" is quite a relic and an interesting find. I added a few more things as well. Excellent job everyone!--68.45.21.204 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

World Map

I've added a World map with the participants (Image:WWI.png). If you want to suggest a correction just tell me and I'll do it. Thanks. - Gameiro 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you make the world map the same color as the European map? I have no problem with this myself, but here many others in class that wish maps would use the same colors, especially when one map uses the same color for one side that is used as the enemy in the other. -SAS- 23 Jan 2006 8:57 Eastern

Confusing statements about Canada

Similarly, Canadians believe although they participated in wars before this time, it was the first time they proved they were their own country, not just subjects of the British Empire; unlike Australia, however, Canada had to deal with Quebec, and the situation would only be exacerbated as a result.

This was written in the section about other names for WWI. Not only does this statement have nothing to do with "other names", it makes little sense. I've studied quite a bit about WWI, and I haven't read anything about Quebec or soldiers from Quebec being anything but loyal soldiers. However, if I am wrong, then this sentence needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. OrangeMarlin 10:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO the Quebec reference is probably alluding to the conscription crisis, though there were some probablems with French Canadian soldiers due to the command only using english and discrimination against French canadians (though I believe this was fairly minor)

Causes

I've seen mentioned as a cause of the war the culture of militarism prevalent in Germany and, even moreso, in Austria-Hungary - the idea that war was actually a preferable way of settling disputes. This explanation is linked with the place of the military in Germany - respected, holding the ultimate levers of power through association with the Emperor and the centralised State - as opposed to France and Britain, where the military were in second place to the civilian establishment. Does anyone think this is worth putting in the Causes section? PiCo 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dreadnought?

The British built the HMS Dreadnought, a 'revolutionary battleship', and this weakened their naval powers? Might help if you could explain this a bit more for the novices. 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It reset the naval arms race by making all previous battleships obsolete. Suddenly, the Royal Navy was 1 Dreadnought-class battleship, the Kaiserliche Marine was 0 Dreadnoughts (in fleet strength terms), and it became possible that the Germans could outbuild the British and gain a more powerful navy (this did not happen, but it became feasible). The Royal Navy's absolute power was increased, but its strength in comparison to the Kaiserliche Marine was significantly weakened. Does this make sense? (My intention is once the explanation works here I can pop it into the article) Sliggy 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)~~

I did my best to clarify the statement by taking into account the information provided here.TSO1D 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

War ended in 1918

Somebody has the curious notion that the war ended in 1919-- it must be based on original research because other reference books have heard of 11-11-1918 Rjensen 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Common confusion. The Armistice took effect on 11/11/1918 and fighting ceased. The peace treaty, Treaty of Versailles that formally ended the war was signed in 1919. BTW, many war memorials in British towns and villages refer to 1914 - 1919, although Remembrance Sunday occurs in November and Armistice Day is commonly marked. Folks at 137 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentence with unclear meaning

In Australian popular legend, the First World War is known as the nation's "baptism of fire", as it was the first major war which the newly established country fought, and is one of the first cases where Australian troops fought as Australians, not just subjects of the British Empire.Anzac Day is thus held in great reverence by many Australians. Similarly, Canadians believe that although they participated in wars before this time, it was the first time they proved they were their own country, not just subjects of the British Empire. Unlike Australia, however, Canada had to deal with French-oriented Quebec, and the situation would only be exacerbated as a result.

What does the last sentence mean? That the difference between Australia and Canada is the battles between the French part of Canada, Quebec, and the rest? And what situation exacerbated?

Unless it's very obvious to most, even if someone explains it, the sentence should be reformulated.

Best wishes, --A Sunshade Lust 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

fixed by removal; not relevant to this article Hmains 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmains, i am curious to know why at least one reference to a WW1 battle that strongly contributed to Canadian national identity is relevent to the article; "In the British-led Battle of Arras during the 1917 campaign, the only military success was the capture of Vimy Ridge by the Canadian Corps under Sir Arthur Currie. It provided the allies with great military advantage and greatly contributed to the identity of Canada. See the Battle of Vimy Ridge for more information" (plus a picture), yet a similar reference to Gallipoli and Australian/New Zealand national identity is not relevent is interesting. Granted, the aforementioned quote above in this talk page could be a bit long and may need trimming, hardly warrents it being labelled as irrelevent and its removal. 202.72.148.102 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary Box

Does anyone know how to many the Summary Box longer? At least 2 countries in the left column do not get displayed, including the United States. Thanks Hmains 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Genocide

Not one mentioning? I mean at least a link, like the way you have about th Armenian geoncide. Nothing? Chaldean 03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

Please see Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Rename? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

WWI was caused by colonial imperialism, nothing else.

>The reasons for the outbreak of World War I

The only significant cause of WWI was imperialism, that is to gain or keep overseas colonies and oppress and exploit its black and yellow skinned population. There was no good and bad side in WWI, both entente and axis was motivated by evil desire of colonialism and no side had any morality. UK and France did not want to share its existing colonial grasp and Germany wanted colonies by taking it from entente countires. No one asked the aboriginal coloureds who lived in those colonies under oppression.

This is fundamentally different from WWII, where one could argue for a morally good and bad division.

Kalr Marx and Ilyich Lenin perfectly explained the reasons of the Great War had its roots solely in the global system of Imperialism.

The current lotsa blahblah in the article only serves to whitewash the fact that Britain was the largest colonial power in the world that time and thus it has the greatest responsibility for the WWI. 213.178.103.162 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ok then. not quite sure who you are there, but you can not be serious, can you? Just to offer one point that is wrong with this, the reason that this turned into a World War is because of the military and political agreements. Take these away, and you might have a wat between Serbia and Austria-Hungary by itself. I'm not saying that what I said was the only reason the war happened, or that imperialism wasn't part of what happened, but you can't focus on one thing and bash everyone. Scotishman 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Template list of entente powers

I'm a little confused as to why the United States isn't shown on the list at the bottom of the main template. Shouldn't the major participants be listed first? Why are Japan and Montenegro listed before the US? Kafziel 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me as more of a random ordering. I can see the US being put near the bottom of that list due to the time it joined, but Italy being below the US just makes it seem random. If listing them as you say, I would definately place Italy higher than the US.say1988 03:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

terminology here. "Entente powers" refers to signers of Entente-- Russia, Britain and France and not to the others (and certainly not to the USA). Better call them Allies. (Though the US did not like that term either.) Rjensen 04:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture vandalized

In the title picture, the bottom left frame with the gas masked machine gun crew has been altered so that someone's ghost image was inserted. There is also a Nazi Swastika on the biplane. The original pictures clearly show none of there so they were tampered with. THe machine gun crew problem is simple photoshop work but the British Biplane showing a Nazi Swastika is hard to spot but when you click ont the image you can see it clearly. This is very inaccurate and might be the work of neo-nazi's

16th Feburary 2006

• Good spotting! I have fixed this issue, and it was most probably a prankster since it was Bruce Willis who was inserted into the trenches referring to the movie Twelve Monkeys. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird formatting?

What's with the formatting under "Causes"? what's with that huge space?

Unacceptable spelling mistake

"Romanticized" is not spelled "romanticised." I expect better out of a featured article that "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."

I cannot even begin to explain how horrible of a mistake this is. I've fixed it for now, but I just know that someone is going to revert it back. Please consider using a spell checker next time and consider the fact that some people actually use this site for reference. Seriously, this is completely unacceptable. I don't understand how such an oversight became featured as an ideal article for people to refer to. --192.203.136.254 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

romanticise is the British variant of ROMANTICIZE. according to Oxford English Dictionary. Both are perfectly correct. Rjensen 17:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll, Rjensen... john k 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Yanks ! TrulyTory 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys! Quit Fucking insulting each other! They're both acceptable. Whatever it is now, don't change it.Cameron Nedland 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There is another spelling mistake regarding the discussion in the Southern European conflict; namely: "The British Empire opened another front in the South with the Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamian campaigns. In Gallipoli, the Turks were successful in repelling the ANZAC'S (Australian New Zealand Army Core), " - whilst pronounced "Core", ANZAC clearly means Corps as in an army Corps just like every other nation. 202.72.148.102 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

whilst i recognise that the following quotation is recognised in Australia and New Zealand as The Ode that is used on ANZAC day memorials and dawn services, i think that it *may* have room in the quotations section of this page as it has a solemn tone that may (or may not) be befitting to end the article on WW1. It is the fourth verse of Laurence Binyon's "The Fallen" ;

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them."

As to its inclusion, i would like to see it however as an australian i am biased. I do however think it is appropriate, however whether it might be more valuable to have other less well known poetry in that section (or whether poetry from the first world war is appropriate at all) is obviously a topic for discussion here. Thoughts? 202.72.148.102 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Great War"

I know that a move proposal in early 2005 was soundly defeated, and this isn't one as I support the current article title. But my impression is that the term Great War has had a substantial increase in popularity (at least here in Britain) in recent years, to the extent that the implication in the article's first paragraph that it is a purely pre-1939 name is inaccurate. "Largely" or "especially" before 1939, maybe, but not entirely. For example, this BBC story - Great War veteran dies aged 107 - is indicative. Although "World War I" is still substantially more common, it's certainly no longer the case that the 1960s BBC series was the last time Great War was used in common parlance. Loganberry (Talk) 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if someone says "the Great War," the pre-1939 usage is still familiar enough that most educated people will assume that the First World War is meant. It is still not common usage, but it's familiar enough to be easily recognizable. john k 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Great Decline

I have noticed that this article has gotten progressively worse as time has progressed, especially as Wikipedia has become somewhat mainstream. When I was in school - grade school - there never was an emphasis placed on "understanding the Great War" like there is today from what I have been told. I know it is somewhat of a prejudice, but I'm relatively confident in my assertion that younglings are contributing to this article more than ever and it shows. I also believe that this page endures more vandalism than almost any other and I would advise people to look back at this article about a year ago. This article - particularly the first half - is currently littered with statements that do not make sense or are entirely too detailed. I am in favor of reverting the "Causes" section back to around October or so, when it was in its bulleted format and a brief summarization of what could be found on the causes of World War I page. Even it its current expanded form, i think this section is seriously missing out, not to mention longwinded. Any comments?--Hohns3 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the most glaring of grammatical errors and added what I could (maybe even a grammar mistake or two..well, hopefully not. Cheers. --Hohns3 14:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the OCT 26 2005 version of the origins. It's superficial. There is more on Sarajevo than on any of the deep causes, which at most get a sentence or two. The causes were complex and that fact is now reflected in the article. Keep ORIGINS as is and keep improving it. Rjensen 15:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I realized the same thing shortly after I went to work on the ORIGINS section (As you can see, I crossed off what I had previsouly written above to show that I had a change of heart). In any case, I tried to build off the most recent version and provide a fairly extensive overview of the major themes.--Hohns3 04:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Origins section at present is not very good. We should remember that this is an encyclopedia article, and not an essay. Giving the basic narrative of events should be the first task, and only once that is complete should we get into a vaguer discussion of historiography and deep causes. Currently, there is pretty much no discussion of the July Crisis (nor is there any good discussion of it in Causes of World War I), and the rest of the discussion is disjointed and in no logical order. Yes, the causes were complex. But it is not terribly useful to have an encyclopedia article which reads like a smart undergraduate's essay on the origins of World War I. john k 06:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but the July Crisis relates to all the factors given attention, especially the communicaton issues and necessary timetables. Of the more important things left out, perhaps, is a discussion of the German officials who took a vacation(!) believing the whole thing would pass uneventfully and a day-by-day analysis to show who did what when. Really, I can't say the chronological chart is entirely important (it was removed long ago) and the underestimation of the situation is already generalized within. --Hohns3 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead

As per WP:LEAD the intro of this article should be 2-3 paragraphs. The actual one is slightly short. CG 20:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Great Page!...

The WW1 page is fantastic, and helping me out tremendously with my work - many thanks to all the editors who made it. Your a great help! Cheers. 81.111.216.158 20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How many total nations involved

From Participants in World War I I count 30 or 36 nations (depending on whether or not the British Empire is counted as 1 or as 7 nations. I've also seen the number 32 quoted. Any idea which is correct? and I'd suggest including it in the main article whatever the most-accepted number is. -Alecmconroy 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello there - well, I think you'll have to first make a definition of the "participation" in the war. Countries had participated in so many different ways. After that, it should be relatively easy to make the calculation. And in that contribution, I think it will be important to represent the number in relation with the definition. Thank you, Maysara 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, counting the British Empire ones separately, and not counting Andorra, San Marino, Armenia, and the Czech Legions (the first two did not have militaries; the last two were not recognized states), one gets back to 32, no? john k 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

why leave out the Czechs and Armenians? The problem is that AH empire split up before the war ended, as did Russia. As for the British empire, why give it multiple counts when all decisions were made in London? It's a can of worms that tells users the historians are confused. Does Luxembourg make it, by the way?  :)

The Austro-Hungarian Empire most certainly did not split up before the war ended. That's completely false. Austria-Hungary held together until the Italian Vittorio Veneto offensive at the end of October, 1918, just before the war's end. There were certainly Czech soldiers fighting on the allied side well before this (although they were mostly fighting the Bolsheviks in Russia), but they did not represent an established state. The state of Czechoslovakia was only founded in the last days of the war. As to Armenia, I'm less sure, but if you're going to include that, why not the Central Powers created Kingdom of Poland? And so forth. I think only states which existed prior to the war should be included as belligerents. john k 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of War

I would like to add a short section regarding the actual declaration of war (Austrian ultimatum etc.) before the "Opening of Hostilities" section. -Sangil 23:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps title it the "July Crisis"? :) --HJV 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Last casualty

According to this article, George Lawrence Price was the last casualty of the war, shot and killed by a sniper at 1130 on November 11th. According to his own article, he was killed at 1058. It's likely that both times are apocryphal; I doubt the first thing his comrades did was check their watches. The first is unlikely as it is such a nice, round number, and the second is unlikely as it certainly took some time for the ceasefire to take effect everywhere. For the sake of accuracy, it might be better not to include a time at all, but in any case the two articles should be sourced and fixed to match each other. Kafziel 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, according to the 1919 Wikipedia page, these are the last casualties: June 21 — Admiral Ludwig von Reuter scuttles the German fleet in Scapa Flow, Orkney. The nine sailors killed were the last casualties of the First World War. Tocath 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No--the war ended on 11-11. In fact thousands of wounded died afterwards and are never included as "last". Rjensen 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

I can hardly belive that an event as significant as the Armenian Genocide (as well as the related genocides of Greeks and Assyrians) is neither mentioned or linked to in this article. During WWI the ruling Turks of the Ottoman Empire ethnically cleansed perhaps as much as 90% of its Christian inhabitants - nearly 3 out of 4 Armenians were killed or died directly due to Ottoman cleansing efforts! (somewhat incorrectly called by some "deportations"). This is an amazingly high number of casulaties (and perhaps the Jews would have suffered similarly if the Allies were not able to defeat Germany before the Nazis could complete their gruesome task...)These Christinas constituted a substansial percentage of the pre-war Ottoman population - particularly in the Anatolian heartland which eventually was to become the Republic of Turkey after the war - a nation that has its basis in the acts of cleansing this territory of its Christian inhabitants (primarily) during World War I - and establishing a purely Turkish identity where before it had been a multi-cultural Empire. Much as the Germans (Nazi party that had taken control of the government structure) in WWII used the cover of war to eliminate its Jewish citizens (and Jews of conquered territories) and other undesirables - The Ottoman Turkish Commitee of Union and Progress (CUP) - a very similar revolutionary party that seized control of the Ottoman government through means later copied by the Nazis in Germany - pursued a very similar policy of eliminating undesirables (in this case its Christian citizens - and most particularly those of Armenian ethnicity) - with very similar results. An estimated 1.5 million Armenians (out of just over 2 million) were killed or otherwise perished as a direct result of these deliberate pre-meditated genocidal actions - and the ancient nation/community of Armenians which had existed in Anatolia for thousands of years suddenly ceased to be. And again Greek and Assyrian Christians of the Empire were likewise deliberatly singled out and destroyed (and these commmunities also had ancient historical roots in these lands). I warrent that any article concerning World War II that failed to mention the Holocaust and that failed to discuss its signifigance would not be deemed as painting an accurate or complete picture of the time and of one of the most significant events/outcomes during/of the war. I see the fact that this article fails to mention the Armenian Genocide as a shortcomming of equal magnitiude and am shocked by this. Might we not do something to correct it? --THOTH 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide is not the greatest and is in need of much improvement - but it would be a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide --THOTH 03:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Causes of WWI

This article mistakingly suggests that the Treaty of Versailles is a cause of WWI--The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty between the Allied powers and Germany after WWI, and is a cause of WWII.

Fixed--Hohns3 05:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

in and out from the air?

" - for the first time - in and out from the air." What does this mean? --Gbleem 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should (and used to) read "in and from the air", meaning dogfighting (in the air) and bombing (from the air). Looks like someone was confused by the sentence and added "out" for some reason; there are a murderous amount of edits to this page on a daily basis, so I can't tell when or why it was changed. I've changed it back. Kafziel 04:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Causes of WWI

Since admittedly this article is too long, and there is a seperate article about the causes of the war, I do not understand why this article needs to contain the (huge) section about the causes. It's excessive, is not relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. the war itself), and it repeats information already found in the 'causes' article. -Sangil 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

most readers will want the war wrapped up in one article--this one--that includess the causes in much briefer format. Rjensen 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As long as the section is, a featured article should be comprehensive in and of itself, without relying on other articles to fill in huge gaps. Kafziel 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think removing the causes to the war would create a "huge gap", as they are not part of the war itself. Following your logic, the whole description of the Schlieffen Plan, full descriptions of all the battles, etc. would all have to be contained in the main article, since their omission also causes "huge gaps". Of course this is impossible, and for this reason the subject is split up into several article- a main one describing the war in general, and others to give more details regarding specific issues. I don't see why it should be different here. In any case I agree with Rjensen that the causes, if included in the main article, should be *much* briefer.

-Sangil 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The article on the war needs to contain a summary of its origins. This is standard procedure. It doesn't need to be that long, but it ought to be present. That said, the current stuff is almost useless. A brief description of long-term causes (Development of alliance systems from 1890, Moroccan Crises, Balkan Crises), along with a more detailed discussion of the July Crisis (which is almost entirely absent at the moment) would be sufficient, I think. john k 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying the causes be removed completely- only that the section be kept at minimum length, as it currently makes the entire article very long as well as repeats information found in other articles.

As for the "July Crisis"- I have recently added a section about that very subject- are you saying it isn't enough?

-Sangil 19:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I understand it is long, but unless we are going to completely remove Causes, it must include include the full skeletal structure - it would be subjective to decide one factor is more important than the other and historians are constantly at odds with one another over this. In addition, most professionals that I know completely breeze through the individual battles and as the war becomes more of a distant memory, three things are important: 1) its causes 2) why it turned out how it did 3) its consequences.

As for the individual combat details, you can summarize them in two words: absolute bloodbath. I do not see how the section can be minimized, unless we just list all the factors we designate as important, but then, for the novice researcher, that isn't very beneficial at all.--Hohns3 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..I think there has been some misunderstanding. When suggesting to minimize the causes section, in no way did I mean to prefer one cause over another. Any change regarding this should be "across the board".

Also-

1. "most professionals that I know completely breeze through the individual battles"- not if you are studying military history.
2. " you can summarize them in two words: absolute bloodbath." - only on the Western Front and Italy. There were many other theatres of war.
3. "I do not see how the section can be minimized"- I made no such suggestion. On the contrary- I gave the battles as an examples of how the article should look- mentioning key terms, giving the general flow of events, but not nose-diving into infinite details. That's what the supplementary articles are for.

-Sangil 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, feel free to give it your best shot, but it is quite a challenge to decide what is important and what is not in regards to details and presenting the full picture. I agree with you for the most part now. I think my greatest complaint is that the Causes of World War I article is missing many of the things mentioned in the World War I article, such as noteable supporters of each theory, an explanation relating to what is a culmination of European history and the latter has a mediocre section about the Schlieffen Plan. Visitors do not want to have to click from link to link to get a coherent picture of what a section of the original article was about, and I think we're pretty close to the "meat and potatoes" as it is. I tried to narrow it down a little just now, but to give you another olde-time reference like "meat and potatoes", I felt like a kid having to decide which Christmas gift I wanted to return. Oh well.--Hohns3 23:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, the comment topic here "DREADNOUGHT?"

War to End All Wars

Rjensen- why did you remove the reference to this name? It was often used during the war by the soldiers themselves. -Sangil 19:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

Highly doubtfull if the guilt clause caused "Great Depression" or made Hitler rose to power. This seems more like revisionism version of history. The issues are more complex, and I don't think one can blame guilt clause for WW2.

As to German goals in Europe-it was clear that they wanted to establish a Central European Germany hegemony over puppet states that would be able to achieve economic power capable of rivaling England. --Molobo 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. What puppet state? Germany already was Central Europe, aside from Austria-Hungary. There was no ambition to annex your Poland, and a more careful scrutinization of Brest Litovsk shows that the Germans were prepared to hand those areas over to their respective ethnic populations as Russia's Empire disintegrated. Germany already rivaled England and had larger industrial potential than both France and England and their combined empires without actualizing the potential of her extra-European adventures. You completely misread the passage about the Treaty of Versailles. Nobody was blaming the guilt clause for WW2 either. I'm building off of your additions and changing a few things while remaining wary that the length of this section is already a concern. For your statements in this discussion though, I'm still puzzled by where you are getting your facts. --Hohns3 17:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, while AH was defunct and ultimately not assigned the guilt for the war, it would be an injustice to not mention that AH blamed Germany just the same if this is to be included in the "Versailles" paragraph. For the sake of conserving space, I have decided to leave both out.--Hohns3 02:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Most historians argue that the guilt and reparations clause did terrible damage to the possibility of democracy in germany. "Reparations certainly contributed to the poisoning of international diplomacy and to the cluttering of international finance in the 1920s, leaving a bitter legacy for the 1930s and a readymade propaganda weapon for Hitler and the Nazis." [The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: Peace without Victory? by M. L. Dockrill 2001. P 44]

I agree with the point you make here, but first you must understand that nobody was suggesting anything that would negate this statement. As far as your addition to the article is concerned, angry, fuming people voting in Hitler is a little misleading...but that is sort of what is already alluded to in a shorter and less demonstrative manor. Hitler appealed to the people for a number of reasons, but he secured his reputation as a man of action early on and carried with him the air of German rebirth and destiny. --Hohns3 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

LED BY THE GERMAN EMPIRE???

It says in the first paragraph that Germany led the axis in ww1

yes, its a vandal. Get used to them.--Hohns3 04:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

I printed out the article to read it and it is 25 pages long. I suggest we create more sub-articles to get the 25 pages to below 5. Comments welcome SirIsaacBrock 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • this is one of the biggest and most complex events in 500 years and need space. Wiki's treatment is too brief as it is. Rjensen 14:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • that doesn't mean that it wouldn't benefit from being broken into subsections. That would probably encourage more contributions and the deeper development that I agree it deserves, because people might feel less initimidated. Chaleur 18:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Causes of World War 1???

Do you really believe that the war was started because of one man being assasinated?? I think not. No one is THAT popular!!- "My mates been shot.. let's start a war.." -Weren't they working on a Railway line between Berlin and Baghdad? It would have been a major oil route for the Austrian-hungarian empire. Bear in mind that the British (Anglo-Persian Oil Company - or as you will all know it as BP) were upset about the prospect of loosing their oil fields to renationalisation by the Iranian government, a small battalion was sent out to try and convince them it was not in their interests to carry it through. The result was that the line was never completed. If the line had been built all the way, the A-H empire's prosperity is most likely to have improved at the expense of the British. The line only reached Constantinopal (check the spelling). This was the original Orient Express route.

The causes for WWI is OIL - Not an just an assasination!! - If you don't believe me check the dates and check out UK military history. Winston Churchill was a busy man in the Middle east in this period.....

No one believes that the death of Franz-Ferdinand was the sole cause of the war. You are right, the rest of his family didn't even like him that much. But neither was it specifically about oil. For one thing, remember that the world was still relying mainly on coal at that time.

To show that the British were responsible for starting the war, you would need to explain how they got Austro-Hungarian empire to declare war on Serbia. I have never heard any evidence suggesting that the British were involved with the Black Hand, or that Conrad von Holtzendorf was a British agent. MilesVorkosigan 23:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are reasons for British involvement, but the assasination is important because it is the spark. It is anyone's guess whether events would have come to a head in another scenario, but those who dedicate their lives to finding relationships often overlook that fact. As far as the British agent theory goes, I've heard arguments suggesting that Hitler was (strange), but never anything related to the July Crisis. Besides, it is unclear just how Britain would have benefited from a Greater Serbia...--Hohns3 23:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

List of partecipants

In the World War I - Navigate Through History: section, the list of partecipants should be fixed. I guess the partecipants are listed according to their casualties (Russian Empire first etc). But there is a long sublist of the British Empire that is listed according to alphabetical order (ironically, in this way we list NewZeland before UK, USA and Italy). This is weird and misleading. Moreover, Russian Empire links to Imperial Russia, France links to French_Third_Republic, British Empire links to British Empire. That's fair. But -for instance- Italy (with the italian monarchy flag of the period) links to the Italy article, USA links to the the United States article (concerning today's Italy and USA). If italian monarchy or XX century USA (and so on) have not their own article, we should link to some history section in their history article. gala.martin (what?) 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Filmography

It's important to keep the films in chronological order. That allows people to see changes over time. Rjensen 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize that. I added a notice indicating chronological order.

Also, The section is titled Dramatisations. Is it supposed to be limited to movies or does it also include plays, novels, etc.? Ragout 04:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think novels and plays should be included (Dos Passos, Hemingway) -- but the movies are so influential. Rjensen 05:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I like this section. I notice that there appears to be an edit-skirmish going on over it, though. What do people think about moving the Filmography (also book & play) section to an article and linking from here? I'd rather not see it just keep getting cut out, this is good information. MilesVorkosigan 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's an edit war: Curps seems to be an automated bot that was unhappy with Rjensen's edits, possibly because they contained too many blank lines.

I agree that moving the Film, Book, Play section to its own article is probably a good idea. It could potentially be a huge section. Whole books have been written about Great War in literature and such. Anyway, I'm not going to move it myself, but I support the idea. Ragout 02:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not an edit war. This should be the summary article and it should just list the 15-25 most important movies/books/poems, with links to a longer article that discusses them and the others --but this mystery article has not been written so we should keep the section. It probably should be edited down to remove minor items. Rjensen 02:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that too. Really, Lit Crit is not my thing, so I'm happy to defer to anyone who thinks they have a better idea than me, because they probably do. I'm going to add a few more things to the list, but I won't complain if someone cuts them.Ragout 03:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Causes of WWI

Rjension...I like your motivation of being concise, but I think you have taken important parts out of both sections.--Hohns3 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

this is just the short summary. All the material is covered in much greater depth in other articles. Thus the name of the assassin and his cell is really quite trivial in an article that names only a couple senior generals or statesmen . I'll try putting a little back in and let me know how that world. Rjensen 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The arms-race section is better with your new edit, we don't need to provide all the details for it to be clear. I think the assasination does need at least a bit more detail, though. Maybe leave the name out, but shouldn't we at least note that it wasn't the Serbian government (at least directly)? That seems important.

Besides... That was the sentence I worked on.  :) MilesVorkosigan 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep it short and yet get the main points in. If a person only reads the summary, what will they learn? (Most people only read the first few paragraphs.) My suggested text: "team of Bosnian Serbs demanding the German Catholic empire stay out of Slavic Orthodox territory." Does not mention Serbia at all, but does emphasize the culture conflict over Bosnia (language & ethnicity & religion) that motivated both sides. It ignores the guy who fired the shots (suggesting a lone gunman like Lee Harvey Oswald) and emphasizes it was a team effort. Rjensen 23:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree, you should look at the discussion about pre-dreadnought (topic #33), which led to an expanded description. I also think it is important to mention Gabriel Princip and the Black Hand and link to their respective pages as I did here. --Hohns3 14:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

the policy on the WW1 article is to mention as few names as possible. Mentioning Princip is a bad idea and people will think he's another Lee Harvey Oswald tyle. He gets full coverage in other articles. Rjensen 17:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is Princip assasinated the Archduke on his own time, not as Serbian nationalists had planned to do during the procession.--Hohns3 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Better leave the historiographical debate to the longer articles. This has to be a VERY brief summary--there is no space for names anywhere in the article.

Maybe so, but you are giving false information, and the article is no longer of use to anyone who needs to know what exact event led to the July Crisis.--Hohns3 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Gabriel Princip, a member of the Black Hand. Although he acted alone, the Archduke had been made aware of the widespread threat due to Serbian nationalism.

So the Archduke acted alone? That's interesting. Just what did he do alone? Also, what was the widespread threat? Finally, the phrase due to Serbian nationalism is not connected to anything else in that sentence.

Regardless, the assassination was followed by a chain of events that developed into a full-scale war.

Regardless of what?

-- Drogo Underburrow 11:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh, odd, Princip didn't act alone - he was part of a conspiracy that had previously failed to kill Franz Ferdinand. Also, he wasn't a member of the Black Hand - he was a member of Young Bosnia. john k 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like either Rjensen's version or the alternative. I think Gavrilo Princip is famous enough that he can be mentioned here, but I'd suggest it be made clear he was part of a group of would-be assassins. I think the connection of Young Bosnia to elements of the Serbian government ought to also be made explicit. I don't like the description about them wanting the "German Catholic Empire" to stay out of "Slavic Orthodox territory". I think it would be better to say that they hoped to secure the adhesion of Bosnia to a Greater Serbia, or something along those lines. john k 16:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

11,000 dead on 11/11

The article says "This last pointless offensive ironically cost 11,000 Allied lives," and seems to suggest that 11,000 died capturing Mons betweeen 10:30 and 11:00 on the final day of the war. This would make it about the bloodiest half-hour of the war (20,000 Allied soldiers were killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme). I've never heard of this great battle, so I find it extremely implausible, especially given all the 11s. Unless someone provides a cite, I'm going to change it to "a few losses," as claimed on this reputable-looking web page. Ragout 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WW1 magazines ??

Are there any WW1 magazines available to subscribe to? SirIsaacBrock 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Serbians vs. German Catholics?!

Does anyone know why the article claims that the Serbs wanted to kill Franz Ferdinand to keep the Germans out of the Balkans? Everybody remembers that FF was Austrian, right? MilesVorkosigan 16:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Causes

On June 28, 1914, the heir to the Austrian throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated by team of Bosnian Serbs who supported the idea of a Greater Serbia. The assassination in Sarajevo was followed by a chain of events that led to a full-scale war. The underlying causes of the war were many and complex; historians and political scientists have grappled with the question for nearly a century without reaching a consensus. Some of the more prominent explanations are outlined below.

Not all the assassins were Serbs. Muhamed Mehmedbašić was part of the plot, and Young Bosnia had many Muslim and Croat members. Their aim was not a Greater Serbia, but a South Slavic state. --estavisti 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Limit to most important people and events

The WW1 article avoids names. The Archduke for example and his assassin are not important--the assassination itself was very important and should be stressed. This has to be a very brief summary, and the links should be the ones we recommnend for people to learn more. I added the link to [[Assassination at Sarajevo because it is quite useful. The Archduke was pretty much a zero in history and in a summary article we should only include important people and events worth reading about. Rjensen 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. There's no reason to avoid names. There's no reason to introduce extraneous names, but the name of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (or of Gavrilo Princip for that matter) is not extraneous. (I would add that the characterzation of Franz Ferdinand as "pretty much a zero in history" would, I think, be disputed by pretty much any historian of Austria-Hungary. See, for instance, Samuel Williamson's Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War, which views the Archduke as a very important figure in the way Austro-Hungarian foreign policy was conducted from at least 1908 onwards) john k 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, for the last time, there was no team that assasinated him...if you have sources that indicate otherwise, please cite them (good luck!). Your most recent observation is based solely on your own philosophical standard for what it means to be important to history, and it seems you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing. While the Archduke was a lesser-known personality prior to the assassination, the sequence of events provided the spark for what was to follow...this takes no account of his future role at the head of the Empire, despite the fact that he was hardly Vienna's Son in 1914....in any case, I refuse to further engage in this petty quibbling. The article avoids [or should avoid] names? That is news to me. I suppose dates are too much of a bother as well. --Hohns3 21:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There was certainly a group who was behind the assassination, although Princip did the deed. The idea that the "Archduke was a lesser-known personality prior to the assassination" is simply not true - he was one of the most important figures in Austria-Hungary, which was one of the 8 or so most powerful countries in the world. His assassination was widely reported well outside Austria - it was front page news in most newspapers in the United States. I agree with Hohns, though that the idea that the article should avoid names is bizarre to me. john k 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the assassination of the heir to the throne by an ethnic assassin squad was VERY important as a cause of war. People will not learn anything about the war by reading the archduke's biography however, so let's not bother with it. Likewise the names of the teenagers in the attack team are pretty trivial compared to all the soldiers in the war.Rjensen 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an odd attitude to links. Purposefully not linking to the Archduke seems odd to me. Even if it doesn't relate directly to the war itself, somebody reading the article might want to learn more about the Archduke. Why not give a link? john k 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Warm Water Port

"It had long been an ambition of the Tsars to complete their centuries of counter-offensive against the Ottomans by seizing Constantinople, thus recovering the seat of Orthodox Christianity from Islam and securing a permanent southward access to warm water; it stood high among Russia's current war aims." Keegan, The First World War, p. 234.

Russia fought two wars in the 1870s (against Turkey & Britain) over control of the straits between the Black and Aegean Seas. In early 1915, Russia, England, and France made a secret agreement to give Russia Constantinople and the surrounding area. Ragout 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Russia was constantly in conflict with the Ottomans and wanted their territory, but how does that connect to a suggestion that Russia was trying to get a warm water port over in the Balkans? Am I misunderstanding your point? I've never read anything that suggests the Russians thought they could acquire a port in the Adriatic or that they felt a need for another port on the Black Sea.

When you say Russia fought two wars for the straits against Russia and Turkey in the 1870s, do you mean the Crimean War of 1854-56 and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78? The Crimean War took place in, well, the Crimea (and along the Danube) and didn't have much to do with the straits. The Russo-Turkish War resulted in the independence of a number of Balkan states, I don't see any indication that the Russians tried to annex those states. MilesVorkosigan 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All this is really besides the point. Keegan says that conquering Constantinople was a major Russian war aim in WW1, and had been a Russian goal for a very long time. Since Constantinople is in the Balkans, that's plenty of justification for saying in the article "Russia supported the Pan-Slavic separatist movement there, motivated by ethnic loyalties and its centuries-old dream of a warm water port."

It seems like there's three true claims here, and I'm not clear which one(s) you're objecting to. (1) Russia had hoped to gain Constantinople (and European Turkey) for a long time. (2) Russia wanted Constantinople in order to gain access to the Mediterranean. (3) Constantinople is in the Balkans.

In light of the Keegan quote, debating Russia-Turkish history is irrelevant, but never let it be said that I stick to the point. Yes, I confused the dates of the Crimean war, but control over the Straits was a major issue in that war. For example, the Wikipedia article says "allied troops landed in the Crimea and besieged the city of Sevastopol, home of the Tsar's Black Sea fleet and the associated threat of future Russian penetration into the Mediterranean." Similarly, Wikipedia says, "The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 had its origins in the Russian goal of gaining access to the Mediterranean Sea."

Ragout 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Those three statements are true, except for a minor quibble that (in my mind) no part of Turkey is in 'The Balkans'. Apparently the Wikipedia article disagrees with me, though. The statement that I'm having the most trouble with is that this desire was a proximate cause of the war. Certainly it raised the overall tension in the area, but at the time that Russia entered the war the Turks weren't involved. How does defending Serbia (and pan-Slavism) against Austria significantly help? Remember that Keegan stated that taking Istanbul (wasn't it Istanbul by then?) was a 'war aim', not a cause. Once Turkey entered the war, why wouldn't it have been? The Russians certainly weren't in the war out of the goodness of their hearts. Still not a proximate cause.

In any event, now that you have cleared up my misunderstanding about Constantinople/Istanbul being technically part of the Balkans (sorry about that) I still feel that this was a very secondary cause. That section doesn't have enough detail in it about why Austria, Germany, and Britain became involved. I'd rather flesh those out before adding this kind of information. MilesVorkosigan 20:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

European Turkey is certainly in the Balkans, and was certainly considered to be so in 1914, when the borders of Turkey in Europe were quite new (only one year old), and Turkey had previously held much more territory in the Balkans. Why on earth shouldn't European Turkey be considered to be part of the Balkans? Also, the city was Constantinople until 1930. At the same time, I agree that the war clearly didn't start over Russian desire for the Straits, because the Ottoman Empire was not originally involved in the war, and in the end it was Turkey that declared war on Russia, not vice versa. john k 22:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think access to the Straits was a fundamental goal of Russia, and they knew full well that Germany & Turkey were friendly so they would surely have had this on their minds during the July Crisis. Kagan says this explicitly.

• Kagan writes that Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov "possessed in an acute form the Russian neurosis over control of the Balkans, with which went fears of a hostile power dominating the Bosphorus, Russia's Black Sea exit to the Mediterranean and the wider world... [On] 30 July he rehearsed his anxieties to the Tsar." Russia began its mobilization a few hours later (Kagan, p. 65).

Also, this whole discussion is over about half a dozen words in the article, so it's hardly taking up too much space. Ragout 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

'Why on earth shouldn't European Turkey be considered to be part of the Balkans?' Which would be why I called it a misunderstanding on my part. Again, oops. To me, 'the Balkans' connotes a bunch of small countries in the mountains that were part of the Ottoman Empire but are not part of Turkey. Looks like Wikipedia (and you folks) disagree. I'm going to assume you all are correct. Still feels odd, though. MilesVorkosigan 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't terribly important anymore, but just to note, modern Turkish borders were only set in 1913. The term "Balkans" existed long before 1913. It wouldn't have made any sense before 1913 to say "the Balkans are those parts of southeastern Europe that were part of the Ottoman Empire, but aren't anymore," because half the Balkans were still under Ottoman control before 1913. And for some years thereafter, there was no reason to believe what would become the final borders were sacrosanct - Turkey might have lost Adrianople to Bulgaria, for instance, and the whole Straits might have gone to somebody else. It would be ahistorical to say that the Balkans consist of "all of southeastern Europe except the parts in Turkey," when those Turkish borders came into existence only long after the term "Balkans" did. john k 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Who Won?

"In strategic terms Germany had won the Great War. Its industrial base remained intact; it lost little territory of value; it now fronted on one major power (a debilitated France) rather than three (France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia). Its industrial strength, its geographic position, and the size of its population gave it the greatest economic potential in Europe, while the small states of Eastern Europe and the Balkans were all open to German political and economic domination." - A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett c. 2000 Harvard University Press; page 3. Williamson Murray is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defense Analysis, Washington D.C.; Allan R. Millet is General Raymond E. Mason, Jr. Professor of Military History at Ohio State University. - Drogo Underburrow 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes its enormous power now proves it won World War II as well--those Germans are sneaky! Rjensen 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that the Central Powers militarily collapsed in the fall of 1918. The Allies won the war militarily. Broader speculation about the "real winner" is probably inappropriate except in a more detailed analysis of the results of the war. john k 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Rise to Power

I agree that the war guilt clause and heavy reparations contributed to the Nazi rise to power, and Germany's economic troubles after WWI. But I don't see how this is relevant to a section on the causes of WWI. This point would be better placed in the "Aftermath" section. Ragout 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"causes" are not just debate points among historians. They really do effect history and this is a very dramatic example. So I think the ref to Nazis should stay--it's only one sentence, but it drives home a point about assigning guilt. Rjensen 08:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Alliances and Arms Race

The way this article is worded, it seemed like a good idea to combine the two and keep the descriptions short. Otherwise, perhaps we will want to go into detail about the First and Second Morroccan Crisis, etc. --Hohns3 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

good point but they are not really related. I'll try to fic up alliances a bit. Rjensen 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Participants

"Even though these are the two main parties that were fighting, some of the participants reach way back. The Balkans played a huge role in sparking the war but it was really the Congress of Vienna that made the war so terrible. By making the European Powers equal, the countries, if it did come to war, one would not be able to wipe out the other ending in a terrible stale mate." I removed this from that paragraph because if it is worth mentioning it should be in the causes. I understand the point but all the Congress of Vienna did was reshape Europe. Granted it made France weaker, and strengthened Piedomont helping it on its way to unify Italy, but by 1900 the five powers weren't equal. Great Britain, and Germany were the strongest with France in the middle and Austria, Russia, and Italy in the far rear. So I don't believe its and accurate statement on two points, but thats my opinion which is why I brought it to talk. 12.220.94.199 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mobilization Myth?

At the very last moment, the Kaiser Wilhelm II asked Moltke, the German Chief of General Staff, to cancel the invasion of France in the hope this would keep Britain out of the war. Moltke, horrified by the prospect of the utter ruin of the Schlieffen Plan, refused on the grounds that it would be impossible to change the rail schedule—"once settled, it cannot be altered".

A long time ago when I was in college, taking history classes, I recall reading that the idea that mobilization plans could not be stopped or changed once started was a myth. In fact, there was nothing to stop German mobilization from being delayed or changed, which seems reasonable, you simply stop movements and re-schedule. Moltke simply didn't want to change plans, and told the Kaiser they "couldn't" do it, when in fact of course he could have. Anyone read any current literature which has also said this? Drogo Underburrow 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a myth. Moving a million troops, their horses, and equipment is really complicated. The railroad timetables to do this took years to develop. Austria-Hungary actually tried changing the mobilization plan, shifting 1/3 of their army from Serbia to Russia at the last minute. The military staff decided that the best way to do this was to stick to the plan, send the troops to the Serbian border, and only then put them on trains back to Russia. This delayed their arrival for weeks (a month, if I remember correctly). Ragout 16:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was more or less a myth. In fact, the old plan of Moltke (I believe it was his) (a limited war against France, major efforts vs Russia) was updated up untill 1913, and could probably have been updated in hours to fit railway schedules etc. However, the so called Cult of the Offensive also plays its part in the assesments made in 1914. I don't really have the time to dig into this and provide references etc at the moment, sorry. (and yes, I saw the dissenting view above, I disagree). --Cybbe 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure the war plans were updated over the years, but they certainly couldn't be updated in a few hours. Ragout 16:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)