Talk:World War I/Archive 2

message: "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)
thread_title:  The Treaty of Versailles Didn't Cause WWI, it ended it. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for your suggestion! Kafziel 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: interesting point. Note that the US was NOT allied with Napoleonic France in the war of 1812. Rjensen 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Entente or Allied?

message: 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)
replies: text: interesting point. Note that the US was NOT allied with Napoleonic France in the war of 1812. Rjensen 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: 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)
thread_title:  AEF and the allies wish. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oops, is it me that accidentally erased the page or what ? o_O 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. I'd never seen that. Trekphiler 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lusitania on the Timeline 

message: 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:
[]
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)
thread_title:  The Map is WRONG 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: three-decade long war

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

message: Moved from main article. El_C 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mine explosive type/s

message: 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)
thread_title:  New lead picture(s)  - without text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bombing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diplomacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  General Staff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Machine Gun? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mistake? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: 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)
thread_title: More bias

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 : 2,000,025).12.20.127.229 19:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiping Rebellion statistic 

message: 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)
thread_title: Kudos

message: 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)
thread_title:  World Map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dreadnought? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  War ended in 1918 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Sentence with unclear meaning 

message: 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)
thread_title: Summary Box

message: 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)
thread_title: Assyrian Genocide

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

message: >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)
thread_title:  WWI was caused by colonial imperialism, nothing else. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It should be sorted by date of entry into the war, or by number of military personell involved.Phil alias Harry 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template list of entente powers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture vandalized 

message: "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)
replies: text:  romanticise is the British variant of ROMANTICIZE. according to Oxford English Dictionary. Both are perfectly correct. Rjensen 17:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the troll, Rjensen... john k 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable spelling mistake 

message: 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 </br>
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn. </br>
At the going down of the sun and in the morning </br>
We will remember them."</br>
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)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Great War" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Great Decline

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great Page!... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps title it the "July Crisis"? :) --HJV 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of War 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As mentioned above, the fighting ended with the Armistice on 11/11.  The War didn't end until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.EvilOverlordX 15:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last casualty 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Armenian Genocide 

message: 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)
thread_title: Causes of WWI

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  LED BY THE GERMAN EMPIRE??? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Causes of World War 1???

message: 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  <Small>(what?)</Small> 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of partecipants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  11,000 dead on 11/11 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Austrians are ethnically German.EvilOverlordX 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbians vs. German Catholics?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Limit to most important people and events 

message: "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)
replies: text: Yes its enormous power now proves it won World War II as well--those Germans are sneaky! Rjensen 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both claims are enormous distortions of reality...even if your claim about contemporary Germany was remotely realistic, a number of factors have come into play in the 70+ years that have expired since WK2. The situation there is complex, but internationally-dependant Germany is a ghost of what the country once was, regardless of how it stacks up to the rest of Europe. As for WWI, Murray and Millet completely miss the mark. How could any analysis of the post-WWI world be limited to a German's walkable borders? America clearly emerged the victor of it all and Britain still played - and would play - an important role. London's determination not to let Germany run off with Europe remained in the long run, just as the powerful alliance between the Anglo-American did. The Soviet Union replaced an barely industrialized Tsarist Russia, had its own plans for the continent, and was much more capable of putting to use its own 130+ million population. Much had changed, but at the same time, so little. --Hohns3 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Murray and Millet have solid credentials; they are as good a source as any used on the WWI page. You may disagree with their views, but you have to admit they are reputable historians writing in their field, and are a valid published source. Drogo Underburrow 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I own this title and until you brought this up, I forgot such details were even in the book. Seeing as they are reputable, I'm just surprised they overlooked some key factors in their speculations. --Hohns3 15:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Won?

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Nazi Rise to Power 

message: 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)
replies: text: good point but they are not really related.  I'll try to fic up alliances a bit. Rjensen 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alliances and Arms Race

message: "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)
thread_title: Participants

message: The image WWI.png is not right. During the War Tibet was illegaly independent, but it has always been part of China, according to the constitution of Republic of China (ROC) in 1912 and earlier was ruled by Qing Dynasty. It was not communists that subjucated Tibet but the Qing Dynasty. The deputy of imperial central government actually ruled Tibet, not as some people believed that that Tibet was only a subjucated kingdom as Korea.
The westerners' belief on the independence Tibet is part of the result of a British attempt to swallow Tibet into colonial India. Please go read the documents of Chinese governments from Qing Dynasty to Republic of China.
Thomashuang
: The map is supposed to show who participated in WWI.  It seems to me that if Tibet was independent during WWI, illegally or not, and stayed out of the war, the map should show that.  Ragout 05:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned it on his talk page, but thought I would bring it here to.  Why not include a note linking from the picture(original) to the bottom of each article(also Central Powers, Participants in World War I, etc) stating that Tibet's independence is contested.  12.220.94.199 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The less we say about Tibet the better. It played no role in the war, and was not in fact controlled by China at the time. Let's focus the article on the MANY events that did happen. Rjensen 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If thats the case, then we need to switch it back in the other articles as well. I've done this before, and don't want to get in a rv rv situation.  is currently in three other articles. 12.220.94.199 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Tibet 

message: I noticed that this article was recently put up on FARC in January, and the ending decision was to keep. While I hate to see this article de-featured, there are several major issues with this article that should definitely be addressed:
*The article is missing inline citations; 5 WP:FOOTNOTEs in a 87 kb is certainly too little. Specifically, figures should be cited; also, I'm worried about the presence of weasel words. (see WP:AWT). Some examples:
**is considered by many historians as the founding myth of Canada.
**Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists
**Many people believed that the war heralded
*The lead does not conform to guidelines presented at WP:LEAD (it should be from 3-4 paragraphs) and fails to summarize the article.
*At 87 kb, this article will need to use Wikipedia:Summary style. There are many subpages; however content should still be cut down more.
*The ToC is too lengthy 
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates should not be linked generally, while years with full dates should be linked (full dates should also be linked).
*:Image:Sarajevo Attentat.jpg, :Image:GermanTrenchNearTheMazuricLakesOnTheEasternFront.jpg, :Image:Wilson announcing the break in the official relations with Germany.jpg, :Image:Trencheswwi2.jpg, and :Image:JohnMcCraeportrait.jpg have obsolete image copyright tags
*The   (no-break space) should be used between numbers and their units of measurements, per WP:MOSNUM
*The article needs copyediting so that the prose is well-written. The lead already has an error: after 1917), defeated  the comma is not needed here. (Also, I think lasting should be that lasted).
Regards, AndyZ t 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FARC]]?