Talk:World War I/Archive 1

message: The new table of contents highlighted the fact that this article isn't brilliantly structured, so I've been playing around with the headings a bit. Section 5 still needs to be broken up a bit since it actually spans almost all of the war, not just the beginning.
:Maybe there could be divisions at "German Victories in the East" (for the three Russia-related sections), "Entry of the United States" (renamed or with an intro para for 1917-18), and a new "War deaths" para to introduce the figures (I add them up to 15 million, if that's any help). I thought this would be messy - Good luck! Graculus 00:15, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: I lack a description of the 1914 christmas truce, where english and german soldiers on the forefront siezed ceased fire and spent christmas together, playing soccermatches and singing christmas carols
:Besides the spelling correction i made above, check "forefront" in a dictionary; it may come from military terminology, but at the very least, it is jarring to hear it used in that context rather than metaphorically. --Jerzy 19:56, 2004 Jan 7 (UTC)
::There's an extensive history in Modris Ekstein's book about the 1914 Christmas Truce: Eksteins, Modris. Rites of spring : the Great War and the birth of the modern age . (1990, c1989). New York: Anchor Books, 1990, c1989. ISBN: 0395498562
A newer book on the subject is: Weintraub, Stanley: Silent night : the story of World War I Christmas truce. (2001) New York: Free Press. ISBN: 0684872811
::IMO, this deserves an entry into this article. It was a remarkable event, and one that is too often forgotten in the history of The Great War --Otto 13:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1914 christmas truce 

message: This page says: "Only one member of Congress, Jeanette Rankin of Montana, voted against the war". However, on Jeanette Rankin, it is stated that the opposers were not one but 56. Where lies the error? --Jao 00:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1917 U.S. Congress War Declaration 

message: "The century's first genocide took place during the war." This needs:
# Clarification: shouldn't we at least mention/link to the genocide in question?
# Some qualifier: what about the genocides in the Congo (1886-1908) and German South-West Afica (1904-1907)?
Udzu 09:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Both the Romans and General Sherman knew exactly what they were doing. Furthermore, I don't believe that the Total War page lists the Punic Wars as the first case of Total War.  Only as an early example.  Stargoat 13:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First genocide? 

message: This is a great article, but I find the references that cite nationalism as beginning in this era to be biased and, though canonically common, often fairly ridiculous.  The article on nationalism points out this point of view, but, in particular, the sentence --"The rise of ideas of Nationalism, devolution and love for one's common people and ethnicity, had begun in the Napoleonic Wars" -- makes no sense to me.  This has been the cause of war in an only slightly more abstract sense for centuries, and to suggest that somehow human beings all of a sudden started identifying with nation states for the first time during Napolean's Reign seems historically myopic and time-biased at best.  Of course, to make an etymological case for the "word" "nationalism" as it's presented in history texts is another matter; but the "philosophy" of nationalism, it seems, should be appropriately distinguished in this case.  The only reason to point it out, is that early in the article the question is posed, "How did it happen and why?;" and in the spirit of this question, it seems important to note that *many* of the causes parallel those of all wars before it in many ways, and these reasons are, in a more subjective and pervasive sense, all driven by some form of "nationalism."
:I would just note that "nationalism" as an ideology, is not the same thing as "people identifying with a nation/nation-state."  As an ideology, it's pretty generally agreed that nationalism, as such, is a phenomenon of the 19th century.  This is not to deny (although many have done so, certainly), that people before that time felt a sense of identification that might be called "national".  Just that the sort of nationalist ideology that arose in the 19th century was essentially new. john k 02:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism? 

message: Overall, the article is great, the only part that made me cringe was the bit at the end, under the "Aftermath" section.
'The Great War was a great tragedy. It was not an end, but a beginning, ushering in history's most violent century. Its dark shadow has not disappeared, even in our own time. It will forever be remembered by history as the moment when humanity and war was no longer limited to honorable armies marched to some distant battlefield, but to a world where terror and suffering are the weapons, and hate and vengeance is the soldier.'
First of all, the rhetoric here is, I'm sorry to say, a bit silly. Certainly this article calls for it, but this could sound a little better.
Secondly, the idea of it ushering the century of violence sounds a bit simplistic to me. Warfare had been pretty constant since the turn of the century... but still, just a small point.
But it's mostly the claim about the end of honourable armies which is so entirely wrong as to be offensive. Something oft forgotten about warfare in the 20th century is how much more honourable it was then the past. The notion that, upon taking a city, you shouldn't rape all the women, butcher the populace, and steal everything in sight was quite novel. Not to say it all of a sudden this came out full formed in WW I, but I'm still inclined to think, that despite the massive scale of it, WW I still pales next to the cold blooded brutality of past warfare.
Any thoughts? (Alex404)
This bit struck me "involve non-combatants in the horrors of war as never before. From this point on, all people of all classes would have to see the true color of war. War was no longer a "polite" battle where men lined up and showed their strength on some distant battlefield. World War I showed the new direction war was headed where each side would begin to use desperate and sometimes horrific strategies to gain any advantage, even at the expense of the innocent."  Compare this with the Peninsula Wars, biblical wars, etc..
I think that the differences in later wars were that professional armies were less inclined to rape and pillage, although that still happened.  However contempary front-line records from WWI onwards were more widely available than, say, from the very bloody crusades. Rich Farmbrough 10:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article, but few niggles... 

message: "The first Allied occupation of enemy territory was not in Europe but in Africa: South African forces attacked and captured the German administrative seat in what is now Namibia [South West Africa], at the time a German colony."
Can this statement be justified? e.g.
7 Aug.: Bosnia entered by the Serbians.
8 Aug.: Togoland entered by combined French and British force.
10 Aug.: Germans raid Cape Colony (from south-west Africa), but abandon Swakopmund and Luderitz Bay.
(source: firstworldwar.com)
11 Aug.: Australian forces captured Neu-Pommern (now known as New Britain).
"While Botha was raising an expedition to invade German South West Africa, pro-German Boers raised a rebellion against British authority. This was not fully suppressed until early 1915 and only then could the invasion of South West Africa be fully launched."
Grant65 (Talk) 17:03, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
::You appear to be correct. Mintguy (T) 17:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Allied occupation of enemy territory?" 

message: What I find amazing about this article, is the almost total lack of mention of the French army and its actions during the war. Wikipedia is supposed to be a world encyclopedia, describing events in an unbiased way, and not a narrow-minded anglo-saxon encyclopedia! Where was located the western front??? Who bore the brunt of the German assault in 1914??? Who lost the most lives among western nations??? And who invented the tanks that decided the outcome of the war??? This article needs some SERIOUS REWRITING by someone who has some knowledge about France and its history. Please respect the 1.4 million Frenchmen who died to defend their homeland. This was not simply a war between Germany and UK-USA!! Hardouin 00:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So do something about it.  That's why this is Wikipedia.  Anyone can quickly contibute. Stargoat 00:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: In fact French tank development of the Schneider CA1 started just before the Landship Committee began its activities (the story that Colonel Estienne sired the French tank is just a creation myth). On the other hand Swinton's famous inspiration had taken place in October 1914 already. Then again it took a while before work on Little Willy started, so the Schneider is the first tank to be developed that would become operational. A joint (Anglo-French) parliamentary commission would decide in 1917 the French had invented the tank. Britain first fielded a tank (the Mark I) and it was superior in some essential respects to the Schneider. When it first saw action however, the French had four projects going that would result in a future operational tank, Britain none. So the common anglocentric preconception French tank design was lagging behind, is in need of a strong qualification :o).--MWAK 07:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about France !!! 

message: I am absolutely not questioning the numbers killed by nationality (I do not presume to be an authority in this matter).  The totals presented, however, are obtained merely by adding together the numbers by nationality, to obtain values with unreasonable numbers of significant figures.  The number of civilians killed, for instance, contains values of 3,000,000 and 1,000,000 (precise to perhaps the hundred-thousands place, but probably not); to these are added values as small as 30,000 (precise to the thousands or ten-thousands place).  The total, therefore, ought to be considered to be "about six-and-a-half million".  For example, if we added that 13 civilians had died in Luxembourg (I'm just making this up), it would not be reasonable to put the total civilian deaths at 6,493,013.
I realize there is more impact in presenting a total in precise numerical form, but in the absence of more precise constituent data it is just not reasonable to do so.  I propose the subsection headings be:
 ===Allied soldiers killed: 5.5 million===
 ===Central powers soldiers killed: 3.4 million===
 ===Civilians killed: 6.5 million===
Perhaps the word "about" or "approximately" could be inserted for each, to indicate that the totals are not to be taken to be as precise as the values by nationality.  Since I suspect it might be controversial to modify casualty figures, I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge (of the numbers themselves, the history of this page, and the wiki community in general) to make any changes.
--AHM 19:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article World War I casualties, little more than a stub, that could be expanded to contain detailed counts of all the various casualty figures.  The casualty lists in the main article could be moved there and replaced by a summary using estimates. Geoff/Gsl 23:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figures 

message: There isn't any mention (or at least I don't think) of the Allied invasion of Russia after Russia dropped out of the war.
To my knowledge, the Allies sent a force (most of them coming from Michigan, USA) to Archangel and a city on the Pacific coast. I forgot the name. It starts with a V.
Anywho, does anyone have all the details of this invasion? There is a memorial in my city (Troy, MI) commemorating the event.
Addition: Sorry, I recalled some stuff from history class.
After the Russians dropped out of the war, the Allies sent a force to Russia to support the Czarists and prevent the communists from obtaining some supplies (since the Allies did not want Lenin in power any longer). Initially, the Allied forces were told they were defending the supples from Germans, but they fought mostly Russians when they got there.
Addition 2: Okay, I added everything I remembered under The Russian Revolution subcategory. However, I am a wikipedia nub so I'm asking for some help in making the article better.
I believe the place that starts with a V is vladivostok, but I am not certain.
:I'm pretty sure that the Anglo-French intervention int heRussian Civil War only started after World War One had finished and I imagine it's the same with the US troops in the Soviet Far East (along with large numbers of Japanese troops). I believe this should be in the Russian Civil War] article (if it isn't already) rather than this page. Lisiate 23:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied Invasion of Russia 

message: This sentence: -
"That of himself and Hindenburg?their "silent dictatorship" which left 7,142,558 Germans wounded or killed [4,216,058:1,773,700] by the end of the Great War?"
from the Allied Victory section does not make sense. The total in brackets is around 5.9 million, while the number quoted is 7.1 million. I note that the total given in the Casualties section is consistent. Axl 17:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German casualties 

message: I noticed that while WW2 is not present in :Category:Wars, World War I is (in addition to its own category :Category:World War I). Shouldn't this be consistent?
Can it be removed from :Category:Wars?
Nyenyec 06:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing from Category:Wars 

message: I've taken some details from the World War article and placed it into Participants in World War I (to go along with Participants in World War II).  I think this article currently fails in providing summarised information about which countries were involved.  Could somebody active on this page please work this into the article somewhere and clean up the new page?  Thanks. violet/riga (t) 22:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: {from Wikipedia:Requested moves)
====World War I → Great War====
* Support --Gunter 15:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From the point of military history it is not the most useful name. But from the view of English literature and social history it is in many ways a more appropriate. It is the war in which caused the larges loss of life in Britain and Ireland and arguably changed Britain more fundamentaly than any other event in the 20th century. The cannon of literature particularly poetry from WWI is much larger and with one or two exceptions more memorable than that from WWII. Almost every village in Britain has a monument to the "Great War" so the name is widely understood in Britain (see also Remembrance_Day, Remembrance Sunday, In Flanders Fields). Despite the population being smaller in 1914-18 than it was in 39-45, usually the number of names listed as killed and listed on a Great War monumnet is more than double the number listed in WWII, (the WWII list is usually piggy backed on to the Great War monument). I know that in other countries that fought in both wars, the list is often the other way around, but for inhabitants of Britain "World War I" is still in many ways the "Great War". Philip Baird Shearer
*Oppose. Current usage is the key point. And in any case "World War I" and "First World War" were both in use before 1939 (one was used at least as early as 1919). Timrollpickering 09:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move discussion 

message: * Support --Gunter 15:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From the point of military history it is not the most useful name. But from the view of English literature and social history it is in many ways a more appropriate. It is the war in which caused the larges loss of life in Britain and Ireland and arguably changed Britain more fundamentaly than any other event in the 20th century. The cannon of literature particularly poetry from WWI is much larger and with one or two exceptions more memorable than that from WWII. Almost every village in Britain has a monument to the "Great War" so the name is widely understood in Britain (see also Remembrance_Day, Remembrance Sunday, In Flanders Fields). Despite the population being smaller in 1914-18 than it was in 39-45, usually the number of names listed as killed and listed on a Great War monumnet is more than double the number listed in WWII, (the WWII list is usually piggy backed on to the Great War monument). I know that in other countries that fought in both wars, the list is often the other way around, but for inhabitants of Britain "World War I" is still in many ways the "Great War". Philip Baird Shearer
*Oppose. Current usage is the key point. And in any case "World War I" and "First World War" were both in use before 1939 (one was used at least as early as 1919). Timrollpickering 09:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[World War I]] &rarr; [[Great War]]

message: I restored the paragraph
It has been proposed that the war established with German youths a militaristic and fascist mindset that made it possible for the Nazi party to take control of Germany three decades later. In the aftermath of WWI, post-war depression and nationalist (retributionist) views were a prominent aspect of German public sentiment; an important cornerstone of what would become Nazi ideology.
It was removed by 155.247.166.29. The author who made this assertion was Sebastian Haffner in his book Defying Hitler. If the paragraph should be removed that's fine I just wish a reason could be provided. JesseHogan 01:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring of a removed paragraph in "Early stages: from romanticism to the trenches"

message: I'm a bit curious about the following claim in the technology section:
*The combination of machine guns and barbed wire was responsible for the largest number of casualties during the First World War.
I was under the impression that artillery was the greatest cause of casualties during the war. Does anyone have a source going either way? Lisiate 05:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield, the casualty figures for British soldiers are 59% due to shellfire (artillery & mortar), 39% due to bullets (rifle & machine gun).  Not sure whether grenades count as "shellfire".  In general, a shellfire wound was more likely to result in death than a bullet wound; three times more likely in the case of chest wounds. Geoff/Gsl 05:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Cheers for the quick response. I don't imagine that the situation would have been much different for the other nations so I'm going to change the article to reflect the above stat. Lisiate 21:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, they broke diplomatic relations with Germany in March, there followed an uprising by the Kuomintang, and when power was restored they declared war on 14 August.  Why? I don't know.  They sent no expeditionary force to fight anywhere. Geoff/Gsl 06:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lethality of machine guns claim

message: I made a few minor edits and additions when I didn't have a Wikipedia account. Part of JesseHogan's work was deleted in the process. I apologize - there were no problems with this section. However, another part needed to be fixed. I apologize for deleting without explanation, I didn't know that there was a "discussion" session or quite how wikipedia worked at the time. My changes are still posted, but I will provide an explanation so the original author knows why I altered their work:
I think most historians would seriously question Europe's Last Summer, as such a selective view is nonsense. Let me remind you that anyone can write a book, especially one that echoes the watered down rhetoric that everyone remembers from grade school. Certainly, the aggression of Germany under Wilhelm II (going against Bismarck's late-term policies) is important, but I don't think it deserved the attention it recieved in that paragraph, which was pretty much the entire section.
Hohenstauff 00:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Thank You, an Apology and More . . . 

message: I moved this sentence over from the article (because it didn't fit where it was and I didn't see a good place for it): "The term basket case comes from WWI slang meaning a quadruple amputee" Rl 12:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved over from article

message: Somebody changed the responsibility section, and the new makeover sounds like a grade school diagnosis. I can't say I agree with what is written there at all. 
What is most important is how the "Third Balkan War" became the "Great War"...so, one needs to first look at Austria-Hungary and Serbia, the source of the conflict.
This is sort of mentioned, but the conflict didn't arise in "Sarejevo in 1914" and this section completely omits the tension building during the first and secold balkan wars, erupting in 1912 and 1913 respectfully. 
This system stressed the importance of striking first and executing plans quickly. The military doctrine of all of these nations was emphatic that victory would only be gained by striking first, and that mobilization, once begun, could not be halted or slowed without risking invasion and defeat.
- Only Germany's did this
This is probably the cornerstone to the war:
Mobilization for the rest of the world was still mobilization, but mobilization for Germany meant war - there was no turning back due to the Schlieffen Plan. Sure, there is a certain degree of rigidity in all the planning systems, but this misses a key point:
Russia had used mobilization as a scare tactic earlier in the decade. Understanding the first two balkan wars sheds light on why Russia would mobilize without intending to go to war.
Germany's plan did not allow time to second guess like this however.
Furthermore, it isn't about "camps" as much as it is AH's ongoing conflict with Serbia.
I think it is safe to say that a Third Balkan War was unavoidable, but World War I was. However, once Russia involved itself (as Germany percieved it to be doing) Germany was in.
France was undeniably a friend of Russia's, but to what extent nobody knew except the French. Nevertheless, they had promised to help in "the event of war", so what did that mean? Again, very vague. Send supplies? If the French had any brains at all, and considering their hatred for Germany especially after the FPW in 1870) and the question of Alsace-Lorraine they would have been fools not to attack while Germany was engaged in the East. Above all, this would have allowed France to seize the Ruhr germany's industrial heartland.
Likewise, SOMETHING should be mentioned about the short war illusion and how it contributed to the romantic view of war influenced by SOCIAL DARWINISM (why war didn't seem like a last resolt alternative, rather, a necessary development in society) Yes, nationalism is important, but it goes a little deeper than this.
I think the previous responsibility section covered this more in depth than the one that exists now. I really don't have the time to write this up, but if somebody wants to use it as an outline to construct their own revision, feel free to do so.
--24.72.227.2 08:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: somebody changed this

message: I agree, to a certain extent.
The reasons/responsibilities is a very complicated and interesting topic.
However, there is a link to Causes of World War I at the start of the section.
This page deals in more detail with the reasons, for instance, "Social Darwinism"
which you mention (I have not written that page). 
Furthermore I really think the one who named the topic "Responsibility" went a
little over-the-top. It clearly indicates bias, and a better topic would be
"Reasons & Responsibilities". The matter was far too complicated to put the
main blame on Germany. I've just read a book called "Thirteen Days" by Clive Ponting,
which deals with
the extremely intricate rounds of diplomacy which led up to the outbreak. 
I will try to contribute to the page with some of the facts which I have learned.
Dennis 04:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I agree.

message: I don't think the current layout is particularly good...
I'd really like to rearrange a couple of things,
but first I would like others' opinions.
My first concern is the "summary & contents" table to the right
(with yellow headers). The design is pretty ok, but I think the
position of it really disrupts the flow of the page - particularly
the quite important topics covering the reasons & outbreak;
I think it should be more like the World War II page - an introduction
followed by a full-width contents table, and so on.
I'd be most happy to hear your opinions here on the discussion
page. You can also contact me on my talk page.
Regards, Dennis.
Since no-one has answered, I will be bold and try a layout change.
I have heavily adjusted the summary/contents table. Please tell me what you think of it!
Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 04:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall improvement 

message: Since I am working on the WW2 top picture montage aswell as the World War I article, I am considering making a montage for the WWI page aswell, since I think it would be appropriate, and make both the WWI and WW2 pages more corresponding.
Therefore, I would appreciate opinions posted here.
For more information on the WW2 montage, please see WW2 discussion page "Montage".
Regards,
Dna-Dennis 18:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, and looking at the WWII montage only made me more optimisticsay1988 02:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Said and done. The WW1 page has got itself a new title picture, a montage similar to the WW2 page. I would very much appreciate opinions on it, as I am glad to make changes if I find the suggestions are relevant or there is a consensus.
Dna-Dennis 01:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: My problem with it like the WWII one is the globe, th eway it is it seems set apart and not part of it. I see what it symbolizes, but wan wondering what if you got a mirrior immage of that, so the large black area would be on the outside instead of seperating it from the rest of the pictures?say1988 13:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I am about to make a new version of the picture (remove the globe). Before I do this, I am awaiting opinions on the new WWII picture (which is without the globe) on the WWII talk page. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Main Picture Montage 

message: In the casualties table, in the row of Russia, the casualties are supposed to be equal to "dead"+"wounded"=1,700,000+5,950,000
which is 7,650,000 and not 6,650,000. It means that one of this datum is wrong...Can someone locate it and correct it? --81.218.238.2 15:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake

message: I have now created a campaignbox for the East African Campaigns of World War I; if anyone would like to double-check the spelling and accuracy of the battles listed, I'd appreciate it. LordAmeth 12:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaignbox: East Africa 

message: Inevitably, this section will continue to grow longer, perhaps, a separate page called:
*Timeline of WW1
OR
*Chronology of WW1
should be created, input wanted.
Yummy123 02:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right and quite foreseeing. I do not think however the current amount of info in the section can justify  a separate page, or even be called "timeline" or "chronology". My opinion is that we wait until there is more... Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spread of WW1

message: Substituted at 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment