Talk:German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I

Wonderful work!

Great work, Bastin! You'll get it to WP:FA status in no time, I'm certain. :) —Nightstallion (?) 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Elephant in the room?

That's a colloquialism that's rarely heard in English speaking countries. My guess is that a non-native English speaker translated a metaphor that's used in another language. I would suggest a slight rewrite of an otherwise fascinating article should be done. Frankly, I had no clue how Luxembourg was treated during World War I or WWII. OrangeMarlin 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise of the article. Most certainly, the First World War was an elephant in the room. Bastin 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that an "elephant in the room" is an English colloquialism, but the only time I ever hear it used is in reference to drug or alcohol addiction. I really hate being this compulsive, but it really isn't used very often in a historical treatise. In addition, it is my opinion that a good encyclopedic article should never use slang, colloquialisms or metaphors to make a point. So, once again, great article, but I would still refrain from using a fairly obscure colloquialism (at least when writing a historical article).OrangeMarlin 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by the position that it's very commonly used (558,000 hits on Google can't be wrong), and known well enough to justify its inclusion in most general purpose articles. I've removed it nonetheless; although it is used in the most of the dialects of English (British, American, and New Zealand, certainly), it may not be recognisable in all. Given that the article is about a non-English speaking country, it is likely to be of interest to a range of people, so it might be best to play it safe. Bastin 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I've come late to this discussion but I just can't refrain. This colloquialism is used regularly in Australian English, most notably in a political context, usually in commentary pieces in the media. It is used to describe important issues that one or more sides of politics are reluctant to acknowledge or discuss, usually because it's in the "too hard basket" (a colloquialism to describe a colloquialism), that solutions would produce unacceptable political fallout or that the protagonist has no ability to influence. Regular usage is mostly restricted to more educated, and/or politically aware individuals, although knowledge of it is far wider. It is not commonly used in the addiction/drug abuse/recovery setting (although as described on it's own page it certainly is an elephant in the room). This later usage seems to be more local to the United States, no doubt due to the association with the pink elephants used in popular American culture, most notably as a trope within animation, as a euphamism for innebriation or delerium tremens. Jaxsonjo 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

B-class?

Whoever rated this as B? It's at least A, more likely FA... —Nightstallion (?) 08:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FA, I'd say.

Bastin, once you've filled in the remaining two sections (or erased them, I doubt they'd be missed...?), this is more than ready for WP:FA status... —Nightstallion (?) 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued support; certainly, I think so, too. Nonetheless, deleting them isn't an option; although the missing period is less interesting, it forms a substantial part of the history. If it has to be done for no other reason, FAs have to be entirely comprehensive! However, that's not to say that I can't copy quite large chunks from the article on the National Union Government. Furthermore, I've now completed my little diversionary task, so I can dedicate myself to this article for a while. Bastin 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! Looking very much forward to see you continue your great work on this article. :) Be sure to prod me once you nominate it, I wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to support it... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's about ready now, ain't it? —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably about ready now. I still think that there are a few problems with the images (their paucity, their lack of tagging, their relevance, etc), which I've been begun to address today. I also plan to replace most of the red links with stubs, which will further improve the article. Bastin 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgish versus Luxembourgian

Sorry to be pernickerty, but its Luxembourgish, not Luxembourgian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.120.24 (talk • contribs) 17:00, Aug 1, 2006 (UTC).

Although the language is called 'Luxembourgish', the country's adjective is 'Luxembourgian'. See dictionary.com's definition. Bastin 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, that's debatable, and Wikipedia uses "Luxembourgish" for either -- compare Luxembourgish franc, not Luxembourgian franc. —Nightstallion (?) 18:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article

I've listed this as a good article; it's probably a decent FA candidate, in fact. One minor query that doesn't seem covered: Image:Schlieffen plan map.jpg shows the plan for the French left wing was to advance forwards through Luxembourg to meet the oncoming Germans. As this would presumably have led to a French occupation of some stripe, might it be worth mentioning in passing? Did French troops ever cross the border during the early attempts to attack? Shimgray | talk | 10:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

French soldiers never passed into Luxembourg (although Germany never hesitated to accuse opponents or dissidents of being French agents), and they claimed that they had no such plans. Mollard (the French ambassador in Luxembourg) sent a letter to Eyschen on the 3rd August 1914, just before the emergency session of the Chamber of Deputies called on that day, arguing that France would not violate Luxembourg's neutrality unless Germany did so first. Germany's position was that France could not be allowed to gain the upper hand, so Bethmann-Hollweg argued that Germany had to pre-empt the 'inevitable' French attack. Whether France had plans to make the first move is hard to say; they argued that they didn't, but I suppose that the US Military Academy (which produced the map) doesn't believe the French defence. Bastin 13:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

communism, a foreign influence?

Great article, but I wonder why you say "another foreign influence, namely communism" under rebellion. First of all, communism as an internationalist movement does not have a national origin, even if it did one could trace it to nearby Trier. So one cannot talk of foreign in that sense. Secondly local marxist groups and parties had existed for some time and had been very active during and immediatelly after WWI. But it's of course true that a foreign or external influence existed to a certain degree, that is to say the retreating german troops forming soldiers councils on their way home. But these were not involved in the two short lived republics of 1918. Unless you have names of "foreign" agitators leading the revolt I'd recommend removing the mention of foreign influence.

I'd prefer not to modify this myself for two reasons. 1) The article is to formidable for me to meddle with it. 2) I'm a communist myself and the day I first registered with Wikipedia (not this one as I only registered here today) I promised myself to stay out of political debates and articles as despite my studies (history and political sciences) I'd have a hard time staying neutral. So I hope you can reconsider that wording.

--Caranorn 13:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism has national origins, just as every political movement in history does, despite what communists espouse. Lenin and Trotsky were Russian, and their belief in internationalism can't change that.

More pertinently, the revolts in Luxembourg did indeed have foundations abroad. The revolts in November had connections to the Spartacists (who launched their revolt on the same day, and whose workers' councils used the same model) and communists within the German army (who set up soldiers' councils and raised red flags). Whilst the January revolt was more domestic in origin, the French seemed to think that the later revolt bore signs of Belgian interference. Bastin 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why substitute the two categories?

Why shouldn't we keep the two categories Category:World War I and Category:History of Luxembourg? Made sense to me. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the general trend on Wikipedia is to put an article into only one category on a particular tree. In this case, the category currently applied (Category:Luxembourg during World War I) is a child of both Category:World War I and Category:History of Luxembourg. There's no real reason to also put the article into the parent categories as well. Carom 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

French Army Casualties

Reading the article, I was struck by the extremely high number of soldiers killed in the French Army. The article claims 2800 of 3200 who served. That's nearly 90%. Assuming that some were also wounded I wonder if a single one survived the war in one piece. The source used doesn't seem especially reliable. I'm no expert but the claim seems rather extreme to me and I wonder if that is true. I'm especially concerned because the following information is a bit of synthesis created using the same fact.

Just a quick look around WP shows different numbers at World War I casualties, note #4. 2000 dead among 3700 who served. That claim seems more realistic and also comes from the National Museum of Military History (in Luxembourg) -- a more reliable source, at least in my opinon. The source quoted actually says "2000+" but the article uses only 2000. The Museum page also says that about 150 served in the US forces. Maybe that would be useful for the article as well. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with your sites interface, which for me, is so very non-intuitive. But that is not my problem at the moment, what I would like to comment on is the entry "Tom Brady is bad quarterback" found just above the contents sidebox. Tom Brady's abilities may be worthy of debate, but I can not imagine how it would relate to the German occupation of Luxenburg. As a parting thought, calling an interface page a "Talk Page" but labeling it as "Discussion" may be apt for many, but it is simply misleading to much of the users. Sorry for wandering off topic.

Luxembourgers overseas section

I have a couple concerns about the neutrality of the Luxembourgers overseas section. Particularly:

"...they had identified themselves as ethnically German, rather than as a separate community of their own."

Firstly, I'm not sure that this is equivalent to "Traditionally they have identified themselves as an ethnic Germanic group" as in the cited article. I think it would be easy to make the argument that there is historical evidence that Luxembourgers formed separate communities apart from German immigrants prior to World War I. Secondly, I have some questions the neutrality of the source. It makes some rather broad statements about a large ethnic community based a few uncited facts. E.g.

"The Luxemburger Brotherhood of America (LBA) at its 19th Annual convention in Random Lake, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin on May 2, 1915, resolves that henceforth only the English language would be used at the convention and at all meetings of its sections"

It raises some obvious questions, such as was the LBA at all representative of the opinions of Luxembourger immigrants as a whole? Couldn't it be that this change in the use of language simply indicates a desire to assimilate into the local English speaking population of the United States? Were the meetings done in German before this, or were they done in Letzeburgesch? It doesn't seem like the author of cited article was aware these are two different languages. Dpschanen (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arcent.army.mil/history/march_germany.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617024837/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/all440.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/all440.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040811152403/http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Europe/luxembgc.htm to http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Europe/luxembgc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224090317/http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Armistice_1918.pdf to http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Armistice_1918.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208223649/http://www.luxamcc.org/id33.html to http://www.luxamcc.org/id33.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

FA concerns

Hi everyone, I am concerned that this article might not meet the featured article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• I have placed citation needed templates within the article in places where they are needed.
• The lede needs more detail to be an effective summary of the article. For example, the lede says, "although many Luxembourgers, contemporary and present, have interpreted German actions otherwise." Can this be more specific on how Luxembourgers interpret this event? Also, can we add Eyschen's death date to the lede so we know when the short-lived governments took place?
• Background paragraph 1 is not chronological, first talking about the Treaty of London, then the Luxembourg crisis, then Bismark's address.
• Background paragraph 2 is not needed as it doesn't talk about Luxembourg. Readers do not need to understand the origin of WWI to understand this invasion, only that it was part of a larger WWI campaign
• "and the Luxembourg's government's fears were realised." This should be more specific. What actually happened?
• The footnotes and references sections do not contain a consistent style or format. Sometimes books are added to the reference list, sometimes they remain as footnotes. Sometimes the years have brackets, sometimes not. I suggest using templates to fix up the style.

Is anyone interested in helping to bring this article back to FA status? Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In taking another look at the citations, I see there are citations listed as "Letter from Hoover to Percy, 7 October 1916" or "Letter from Buch to Thorn (in German), 4 October 1916". Where can I find these references? That information should be included in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)