Talk:World War I/Archive 5

message: Canada's population in 1914-18 was around 8 million, about the same as Belgium, and less than half of Romania.  I am going to strike Canada from the list.  If anyone disagrees please say so here. Haber 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada was there but was NOT allowed by Britain to have any significant leadership role whatever. Just send troops. Rjensen 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in 1914-18 (unlike WW2) the Dominions didn't have any say in whether they were at war or not. Until the Statute of Westminster (1931) their foreign policy was dictated by Britain, including declarations of war. Grant65 | Talk 11:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Canada wasn't even fully sovereign during World War I.  The box should say "British Empire," probably, though, to indicate that it wasn't just the UK. john k 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the Infobox should reflect that it was the Empire that went to war and say British Empire and not just United Kingdom? I note also that technically the political entity that went to war as the UK was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and not the one that is linked to in the infobox. GraemeLeggett 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Countries like Serbia and Romania have a lot better reasons(World War I casualties) to be included in infobox but they aren't because it would make infobox too long.--Staberinde 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada was not a country as far as war was concerned in 1914-18--it was controlled (in military and foreign affairs) by the British government and London allowed it no leadership roles. (South Africa had a bigger voice w Smuts). That certainly annoyed the Canadians and they pushed hard and successfully for a bigger role right after the war (in the Commonwealth and League of Nations).  But that's the way empires work --the center obtains a lot from its possessions but it does not allow them LEADERSHIP roles, which is the issue. (India of course provided more soldiers and had an even smaller voice.)  Rjensen 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not a reason to put canada in infobox. Even that USA got twice as many military deaths as Canada.--Staberinde 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that so? Well, in that case, I am going to take off the US and replace it with Romania. Romania was inolved in the war for longer and it had more military deaths. TheGoodSon
Canada should be on the list. Canada lost more people in proportion to its size than Britain (or the US). Furthermore (no doubt related to the above), Canada conscripted more soldiers in proportion to its size than Britain (or the US). It is true that Britain had and used the power to declare war on Canada's behalf (note: the vast majority of Canadians supported the declaration of war), but the Canadian Parliament decided the extent of participation. Tyler Durgen 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That how Canada did in porportion of its size is completely irrelevant. Greece probably also lost more men in porportion of its size then UK did but its contribution to war effort was still minimal compared to UK's contribution to war effort. Same is about Canada. Infobox is meant to be short and informative. That means that only limited amount of countries should be included. That means that only countries that contributed most to war effort and had serious political significance should be included. That means that Canada will not be included in infobox. Thegoodson, Romania wasn't major power, i will not put USA back as it can be disputed indeed if it should be there or not.--Staberinde 13:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A few problems. In general it is difficult to say that Canada's contribution was greater than that of other mid-sized powers like Serbia, Romania, or (its sister Dominion) Australia:
*First and foremost, Canada, like the other Dominions, did not have independence in foreign policy in 1914-18.
*Second, the balance would not have tipped in Germany's favour, had the Canadian contribution disappeared overnight. For example, while conscription in Canada boosted its overall contribution in personnel well above that of Australia, Canada never fielded more than four divisions in WW1. That was  two less than Australia (five infantry divs on the western front and a cavalry div in the Middle East).
*Third, even in proportional terms, Canada suffered a lower casualty rate than France, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Australia, the U.K. or New Zealand. 
*Fourth, both Serbia and Romania suffered a higher absolute number of casualties.
* Fifth, that claim about Currie seems wildly speculative, to say the least. For instance, Gen. Bernard Montgomery said he believed that Sir John Monash would have been the British Empire commander on the western front, if the war had lasted another six months. Who know? In any case, it would have been a largely symbolic position, as Marshal Ferdinand Foch had already been made Allied supreme commander, ending the practice of separate French, British Empire and American commands/areas of responsibility.
Regards, Grant | Talk 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada in leaders list 

message: I'm surprised to see Japan in the list of Allied members. There is already a seperate list for entire participants in WWI, and Japan defintely was not a major power in the war. Japan was involved in small naval actions against Germany, nothing significant, nothing big. I've deleted Japan. Oyo321 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. I see Japan has been re-added, I have removed it.--Bryson 16:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it being important to see its role here as being on the opposite, Allied, side during WWII? They even had a treaty with Britian.  Seehttp://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm The Gladius 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they were still in the war! They still fought, even if it was small naval actions. Fissionfox 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: I've noticed that many of the articles on major wars are far too long; So, I've decided to section them all off into smaller articles. This is a really big project, so it will take awhile, but sometime in the next month or two I will probably redo this article as well. Please tell me if you have any concerns about this, or have any material you want me to leave intact on this page. Thanks! Ahudson 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the entire history and branchese WWI covers, I believe that no cuts should be made. Editors have probably worked generously. I beleive the same goes with WWII and the Korean War and any other wars. Unless there is vandalism, totally unecessary articles, or repeated articles (ex. parts of the Korean War article) cuts should be refrained now. 
I believe everyone should discuss this seperately. I myself am for the addition of more necessary or enhanced information. ChockStock 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, in a lot of war articles there is a lot of random text that doesn't need to be there; see this edit for what I did with the Vietnam War introduction. (to summarize, about 20-30% was taken out because of either duplication in the infobox, or not being related to the article enough to leave it in) Ahudson 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: The BRITISH deciphered the messages between Germany and Mexico that led america to participate in the first world war, although this article says nearly nothing about it. 82.18.180.58 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deciphered code

message: I'm talking fresh, silver nitrate-sprinkled, Gorskii-quality images here, not some cheap color photo with tons of freaking lines all over the place.
I know, it might look really weird to have such lifelike color photos for an article on an event in the 1910s, but these are just too good to pass up. Look here. Comment on my talk page if you agree or disagree!  Floaterfluss  (talk) (contribs)   03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Fissionfox 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color pictures 

message: Why is the war crimes section solely concerned with the Armenian Genocide? Unpleasant though that undoubtedly was, a mention should be made about German war crimes in Belgium, in addition to the widespread propaganda that was disseminated throughout the war by both sides claiming bogus war crimes. If these aspects of the war have their own articles, then links to them must be made.--Jackyd101 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are other war crimes that need to be mentioned, particularly Belgium.  I entitled the section "war crimes" for that reason and to be consistent with the WWII article.  If you have something to add, please contribute. Haber 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a par on the Ottoman treatment of POWs, but I think a par of the German occupation of Belgium is needed. I imagine there may have been some atrocities on the eastern front as well, but I don't know much about that campaign. Grant | Talk 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Crimes 

message: In the section "America enters the war", it stated that there were no American soldiers lost to U-boat attacks, while being transported to Europe. This maybe wrong, I remember from a variety of sources, that there were American military deaths, by U-boats. I also remember a text book, called "The Americans", that stated the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshafina (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-boat attacks 

message: Haig and Pershing are included in the list which means that Petain should also be. Likewise if Wilson is included Lloyd George should also be. Brocky44 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must ask: why we are choosing to include civilian democratic leaders in this list?  There is no way Woodrow Wilson commanded troops on the ground, whereas some monarchical leaders may have (though I doubt 84-year-old Franz Joseph did either...).  Shouldn't we limit this list to military commanders, and not include civilian Commanders-in-Chief like the US President?  --Xyzzyva 07:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders list 

message: For an article of this importance, I think we can do better. several other language wikipedias have this article featured...
--69.243.8.142 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some vandal keeps removing them. :( Rjensen 07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there no references for this article?!? 

message: :OK. I am going to post my knowledge so people quit getting upset about Canada not being on the list thing. First, Canada did help a lot during WWI. They fought in battles such as "The Somme", "Ypres", "Vimy Ridge", and many more.
:Also it was a Canadian that invented the Gas Mask, and also it was Canadian Captain Roy Brown who shot down Mafred von Richthofen a.k.a the "Red Baron".
:The period from 4 August to 11 November 1918 became known as "Canada's Hundred Days." During this period Canadian Corps suffered     46 000 casualties. The Canadians fought at Amiens and Arras. They also led the attack that broke through the German front at Canal du Nord. After a bloody battle at Cambrai, they led the Allied troops into Mons, Belgium, on the day the armistice ending the war was signed. George Price was the last Canadian killed during the war. Some historians have written that a sniper killed Price in the town of Mons five minutes before the armistice was signed at 11 AM. Others claim he was killed five minutes after the armistice was signed. A total of 66 655 Canadians gave their lives. The exploits of Canadian and Newfoundland troops are remembered at 13 memorials spread across Belgium and France.
:Be proud Canadians!
: So if you think these are good reasons to put Canada on the list say so. RiseAgainst01 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of countries suffered more than Canada. I recomend an artyicle on Canada in WW1. Rjensen 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I only put that there so anyone interested can see what Canada did. I'm not gonna be one of those hardcore "PUT CANADA ON THE MOTHER F*@!$* ALLIES LIST!" people. So yeah just comment away at what you guys think. =) RiseAgainst01 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roy Brown didn't shoot down Richthofen, there is a 99.9% probability that an Australian soldier did, most likely Cedric Popkin. Grant | Talk 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your interest in this article.  You might want to check out Military history of Canada during World War I.  It sounds like you know a lot and could be of some use there.  Also, just to be clear, inclusion or non-inclusion in an infobox doesn't mean anything with regards to heroism or sacrifice or how well Canada fought.  We all appreciate what Canada did. Haber 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Red Baron WAS shot down by Canadian Roy Brown. Sorry to tell you it is true. RiseAgainst01 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RiseAgainst01, Roy Brown is the one who the RAF officially gave the kill to, but most historians suggests the Red Baron was shot down by Australian anti-aircraft gunners. The fatal shot entered von Richthofen's body about 5 inches below his right armpit and exited just above his left nipple, suggesting the shot came from below von Richthofen, not from above as Brown described his strafing run. However, that being said, there was a lot of lead being thrown at von Richthofen's airplane, the origin of the fatal shot will probably always remain a mystery. --Bobblehead 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Red Baron has his own article, this is about a vast world war. Let's keep encyclopedic perspective. Rjensen 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada During WWI 

message: : In 1914 Newfoundland was not yet a part of Canada. Some Newfoundlanders joined Canadian regiments, but most became members of the Newfoundland Regiment. Of the 2000 members of the regiment, more than 350 were killed in action during the the war, many  in an engagement at Beaumont Hamel during the 1916 Battle of The Somme. The regiment's bravery resulted in its being given the title of "Royal Newfoundland Regiment." RiseAgainst01 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a nice article here: The Royal Newfoundland Regiment.  What's your point? Haber 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Haber it's only for info for people who are to lazy to look it up...by the way, thanks for the link. RiseAgainst01 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Newfoundland Regiment 

message: : As I am hoping many of you know, the USA joined the war in 1917 because a couple of American ships(not naval) were sank by German U-Boats. As far as I'm concerned the USA is only on there due to their large military. The USA only had 116 000 military deaths, whilst Serbia suffered 275 000 military deaths. Why isn't Serbia on the main allies list? They were there longer, suffered more casualties. Even Romania suffered more military deaths than the USA. Romania's military casualties were 250 000, more than twice the American casualties. I do not think that because of it's large military presence in the last year of the war should make the USA a main Allie. RiseAgainst01 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deaths are  a measure of failure not success. The US helped win the war--1) it paid for the war; 2) it provided the food and raw materials to keep UK and France in the war; 3) it sent 10,000 new soldiers EVERY DAY starting summer  1918 making German situation totally hopeless and reinvigorating Allies;  4) it took control of diplomacy and ended the war. Rjensen 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The USA's Reason