Talk:World War I/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

War crimes

Telford Taylor, who was Counsel for the Prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials, in an review of Kuper book Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century comments that:

In such an analysis, it should be noted that, as far as wartime actions against enemy nationals are concerned, the Genocide Convention added virtually nothing to what was already covered (and had been since the Hague Convention of 1899) by the internationally accepted laws of land warfare, which require an occupying power to respect "family honors and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty" of the enemy nationals. But the laws of war do not cover, in time of either war or peace, a government's actions against its own nationals (such as Nazi Germany's persecution of German Jews). And at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the tribunals rebuffed several efforts by the prosecution to bring such "domestic" atrocities within the scope of international law as "crimes against humanity."...

My emphasis. If this was true for World War II then it must also be true for World War I so what reliable sources state that the Armenian Genocide and Assyrian Genocide were war crimes? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For a minute there, I was starting to wonder if you accidentally only typed one "I" instead of two ;) You do raise a good point though; the Armenians and Assyrians were Ottoman citizens, so it's not a war crime. The problem though, is where to put the section? It wouldn't fit better anywhere else, so I think the best solution is to make a new header for it. Maybe just a generic "Genocide" header, and add a paragraph about the Assyrian genocide as well? Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First World War vs WWI

This page should be renamed 'First World War' - as although WWI is a commonly used name, FWW is the acutal British English name for it. As a European Conflict, American English shouldn't be used as the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernsehturmaufzug (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go round this loop again. There are redirects in place already. There's no 'right' name.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

... Which means you can even call it "International Civil War II"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.81 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could rename it Unternehmen Sickelschnitt... Trekphiler (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I just read that linked discussion. There's ten minutes I'll never get back.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No real info on American involvment

The United States had a small army, but it drafted four million men and by summer 1918 was sending 10,000 fresh soldiers to France every day. In 1917, the U.S. Congress imposed U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans as part of the Jones Act, when they were drafted to participate in World War I. Germany had miscalculated, believing it would be many more months before they would arrive and that the arrival could be stopped by U-boats.

This suggests that at the end, there would have been a huge army in Europe to fight the Germans. I have a quote, which would contribute to the article and it's NPOV:

"The United States finished the war without forwarding a single aircraft to the battle zone; of the 4,400 tanks put under construction for building, only fifteen reached France, and they arrived after the Armistice; by January 1918, eight months after entering the war, America had not turned out a single heavy gun, because she had neither the tools nor the workmen. But for the arsenals of her allies, the United States would have been unable to fight." - S.L.A. Marshall, "Weaponry" Dateline, Overseas Press Club of America, 1968 pp100-01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.113.189 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

72.161.242.154 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)The article, as it stands, does not address the fact that it was the American Expeditionary Force that was the catalyst for winning the war on the Western Front. How can half a million men be labeled a "small army"? Yes, when it first declared war, the United States had a really small army, but by 1918, it was no longer small. The French army was mutinying, the British were tired of war, and the German advance in the summer of 1917 almost won the war for the Central Powers. When Pershing launched his 550,000-man First Army on August 10, 1918, the Americans began an unstoppable advance that led to the armistice three months later. 72.161.242.154 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)James F. Muench, author, "Five Stars: Missouri's Most Famous Generals"

By todays standards, a half million sounds like a large army, but in the staggering scale of that conflict it was still a minor force of neophytes—largely a sign of the four million expected to come in 1919. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. It would just about have replaced Allied casualties at Verdun. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in it's own discussion, but I find it rather strange that out of the 5 pictures there is not a single one of Russian troops. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the images show only Germans and the British (mainly the British), or otherwise just the Western Front as a whole. This cannot be due to lack of images of the Russians, because there are plenty of WWI images showing the Eastern Front. The infobox image needs to be redone, it is horribly unbalanced. --168.156.89.193 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to give a visual overview of some of the most important aspects of the war. So, there are photos of some of the important technology of the war: aircraft, the machine gun along with gas masks, a dreadnought, and of course, the tank. If you can find good quality photographs of say, Russians with a machine gun, or a good image of a Russian battleship in action, I (I can't speak for others who frequent this article of course) would be open to a discussion about changing the montage. Looking through Commons, I'm mainly seeing maps, or photos that don't really show what should be shown in the montage. Again, if you can find suitably licensed images, go right ahead and upload them, and we'll discuss them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciations

The word "Entente" needs to have a pronunciation thing. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) ...

Usage tending back to "The Great War"?

Hey.

>>In many European countries, it appears the current usage is tending back to calling it The Great War / la Grande Guerre / de Grote Oorlog / der Große Krieg<< -- where does that come from? I'm in Germany and do never hear WWI referred to like that. And I spend time with French people every year, and they don't say it either. I suspect this to be a hoax. Cheers, Krankman (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Try 1, 2, 3 for a few examples in German. 1, 2, 3 for some examples in French. Here's 1, 2, 3 for some instances in Dutch. Clearly there's at least some usage of these terms in their respective languages. No hoax here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, seems it's not all wrong. I'm really surprised. Thanks for the links and for clearing this up! Krankman (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could be of help. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't use the term Großer Krieg in German often (I never heard of it). One might bring up 100 examples for it, but I could bring up 10000 against it. This is another statement which should be removed to save some space for more important things. --217.83.54.56 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why remove it? It helps to learn more. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sergio Acquaviva?

Heey, Sergio Acquaviva has to appear as a memorable soldier on the world war 1 wikipedia article, he was a Major in the world war and he freed south italy from different Mafia groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManagementF1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There must have been many Italians of that rank during the Great War. What was pivotal about his role in combatting the Mafia, where is it documented, and what part did that campaign play in the overall war? --TS 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just going off of google hits, I haven't been able to find anything about a Sergio Acquaviva outside of a video of someone by that name playing the flute, a notice of someone by that name having been killed in a car crash in 2005, and derivations thereof. Searching for the name along with "World War I" turns up 0 hits. Clearly, this is either a joke, or simply non-notable. In either case, Mr. Acquaviva has no place in this article; a broad overview of the First World War. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Color Image

There is a color image, supposedly of a French soldier in 1917, that seems very out-of-place. Yes, color photography had been in existence since 1861, but this was mostly seems to have been hand-coloring or unreliable techniques. The claim by whoever posted this is that it is an autochrome lumiere, from the first series of widely-used colored photograph equipment. In checking the source, the page was returned not-found by the site it came from. Someone should check on the authenticity of this picture (i.e. it may be from a movie or re-enactment), and then make a decision regarding whether it should be kept, discarded, or re-captioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.30.146 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First, a friendly reminder that new discussions go at the the bottom of the talk page. I don't think there's anything wrong with the image, or of it being an autochrome lumiere. The technique was patented in 1903, I believe. Here's an example of another AL image from the FWW: Image:Nieuport 17 C.1.jpg. The problem with the link seems to be that the website is experiencing technical difficulties. Either that, or the page has been moved, and the site failed to provide a forwarding address. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's further discussion on the commons (c.f.). It does seem to be authentic. Some clarification is needed on its free status.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

dividing article

It's pretty good, but it's too long - needs to be divided up Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, at 140-ish kb, this article is far too long. If you're thinking about drastically reworking the article, you may want to take a look at the World War II article, where we (and when I say "we", I mostly mean Oberiko) pared it down from 162kb to 68kb. We worked out a basic framework for the article on the talk page, and then hammered out the prose on the talk page as well. Once each section was completed, it was added to World War II/temp. We found that process to be best, because it made the work more visibile (and thus drew more input) than if it were somewhat "hidden away" on a user's sandbox or the like. Another thing to consider is that this article is only B class, so we wouldn't be messing with a featured article or anything. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of content about the entry/exit of individual nations that reasonably could move to the Allies of World War I and Central Powers articles. That would take a big chunk out. Yes/No/Alternatives? LeadSongDog (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That will work, another suggestion is to significantly trim the Fighting in India section. Most of that text should be moved to the sub-article, if it's not there already. The Ukrainian oppression section should be removed outright. It has little to do with WWI, more of the text is about the after effects of the Russian Revolution. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Was WP:Bold and moved the Ukrainian oppression stuff. More to follow.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed. Looking forward to see what else you have in mind. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

New National Identities - Palestine?

The discussion of creating Palestine seems out of place, especially since it is noted it happened in 1947. I believe this should be rewritten to allude to Muslim/Arab & Jewish difficulties in the Middle East, but not go into the creation of Palestine.

"Postwar colonization in the Ottoman Empire led to many future problems still unresolved today. Conflict between mostly Jewish colonists and the existing, mostly Muslim, population intensified, probably exacerbated by the Holocaust, which stimulated Jewish migration and encouraged the new immigrants to fight for survival, a homeland, or both. However, any new homeland for immigrants would cause hardships for the existing population, especially if the former displaced the latter. The United Nations partitioned Palestine in 1947 with Jewish but not Arab and Muslim approval. After the creation of the state of Israel, a series of wars broke out between Israel and its neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, in addition to unrest from the Palestinian population and terrorist activity by Palestinians and others reaching to Iran and beyond. Lasting peace in the region remains an elusive goal almost a century later." --71.202.112.73 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)S.Roland

S. Roland says, "The discussion of creating Palestine seems out of place, especially since it is noted it happened in 1947."

The Mandate of Palestine was created out of WW1, 25+ years before 1947, so its creation is very relevant to this article - especially since the situation with Palestine and/or the Palestinians is at the center of the greater Middle East conflict we are dealing with to this day. The effects of WW1, specifically the end of the Ottoman Empire, is an important proximate cause of the territorial disputes and the continuing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention other disputes in the region. I think the facts are presented neutrally and cited very well in this whole article, but I also think it is a natural and appropriate implication to indirectly suggest that the way the end of the war was handled almost undeniably brought the world to further conflicts, some of which are continuing to this day.

It is very important that WW1 not only be looked at as a stand alone event, but that its predecessor causes and subsequent offspring problems be presented.

--24.15.249.123 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)JasonCWard

Factual error - Social trauma

This section talks about the poem, "In Flanders Fields" "In May 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, M.D., of Guelph, Ontario, Canada wrote the memorable poem "In Flanders Fields" as a salute to those who perished in the Great War. Published in Punch on December 8, 1918, ..."

According to other sources I found online including the Wiki article on McCrae the poem was published December 8, 1915 NOT 1918 as stated in the article.

DawsonLL (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Y Fixed LeadSongDog (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article should be locked. I have already spotted two questionable entries.

Why is 3rd Ypres mentioned before The Somme in 'Trench Warfare Begins'? clearly it's out of sequence and why mention Canadian and ANZAC only? It implies their eventual success was not achieved after significant effort and sacrifice by British forces.

The phrase 'came at a high price for both the British and the French poilu (infantry) and led to widespread mutinies, especially during the Nivelle Offensive.' is highly misleading; it implies mutiny in the British and French forces whereas only the French mutinied.

Overall this article is biased and slanted, there is too much emphasis on American and colonial forces. The entry 'The Entry of the US' is actually longer than that covering 1914-1917 (or 'The Early Stages', as you have it). This implies that the first 3 years of the war were just a sideshow until the US got involved - a disgraceful attempt to re-write history.

The article as written implies that US forces alone broke the Hindenberg line - again a lie.

Whether you like it or not WW1 was primarily fought by France, Britain and the colonies against Germany on the Western front and secondly by Russia against Germany and Austo-Hungary on the Eastern Front. This article does not reflect the reality of history. It needs serious and drastic editing 80.6.147.186 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it; "History is written by the winners". It's a horrible fact, but Hollywood has more scriptwriters. We can only stand, aghast, and wonder at the futility, and dishonesty, of it all.--andreasegde (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Conjunctions

"He repeatedly warned the U.S. would not tolerate", should be, "He repeatedly warned [countries?] that the U.S. would not tolerate". If not, it seems that he warned the U.S. (his own country). These should be corrected.--andreasegde (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Way too long and scattered

If you compare this article to World War II, its way too long and the table of contents is scattered and overcomplex. We should start to think how to improve this article. There are many unsourced statements and paragraphs which could be removed or shortened. The table of content /structure should become more like the WWII article. --217.83.54.56 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it is a considerable amount of work to turn this article into something similar to the current version of the WWII article. It took quite a while to perform the alterations at WWII, and most of the heavy lifting was done by User:Oberiko, who is still working on the last few sections. I think earlier in the talk page listing, someone proposed doing a similar treatment for this article, but I don't know if we have enough people who have enough time and energy available for the project. I myself am too busy in real life to do much more than relatively minor tasks such as proofreading and the like. I would, nonetheless, offer any support I can if such a project is undertaken. Parsecboy (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the longish tag. It's not truly warranted. Using the criteria at WP:SIZE the article is only 101k characters, not the 153k shown. The difference is wiki markup and non-readable sections (seealso, references, categories...) For a Vital article on a topic of this complexity, this is not too long. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to trimming or restructuring, I just don't think the tag is sufficiently valuable in this case to justify its detraction from the impression the article gives a new reader.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Allied Powers or Entente Powers?

Isn't the "side" that Britian, France, and Russia were on called the Entente Powers? I don't know of any other site that calls then the Allied Powers, that is known as a WWII term. It seems like we're just dumbing it down for the people who don't know what the Entente is. --PlasmaTwa2 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Britain Russie and France are known as the triple Entente due to the agreement signed between France and Russia (Dual Alliance) in 1894 and the Entente Cordiale signed with britain in 1904. When Britain signed and Entente with Russia the agreements merged together to become the Triple Entente. Indded in WW2 these are known as they allied powers however in WW1 the allied powers refers to the triple alliance which is the correct term for the opposing central powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, (earlier someone put Italy as part of the Entente, it was on Britains side in WW2) all this is learned 2 weeks into a GCSE History course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.236.74 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Declaration" of war

Now wait a minute, this is not a "declaration of war" (Evil foes! Hereby we declare war on thee!!), it's a technical thing, a proclamation to the subjects that a state of war has been declared for the Reich. Is the rest of this article as reliable or what? --145.253.2.238 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Making the world safe for democracy"

I fail to see how my edit to this article violates NPOV. It simply states the facts: France and Great Britain may have called themselves "democracies," but people in Algeria, India or South Africa might have had a different opinion on the matter. It is not NPOV to prohibit the inclusion of any information that makes the Allies look less than saintly. As it stands currently, the article only serves to parrot Wilson's propganda, that we were "making the world safe for democracy" when we were really just making the world safe for Anglo-French imperialism.

Furthermore, the article makes no mention of Wilson's pre-existing Anglophilia, which made him predisposed to support the British cause in the war. It also asserts the authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegraph, which many people at the time suspected of being a forgery, created by the British to drag the U.S. into the war to replace the Russian allies whom the British had just lost less than a month before. The article also insists that Wilson was steadfast in his efforts to maintain U.S. neutrality, even though that was not the case; Germany resumed submarine warfare against the United States because they had reason to believe that Wilson was secretly supplying the British with weapons and supplies in direct violation of U.S. policy and law. Had Wilson been true to his word and honored U.S. neutrality, it's likely that he would never gotten the casus belli he needed to pull the U.S. into the war, which makes this an extremely important historical point that the article chooses to ignore.

In short, the article already suffers from serious POV problems, and I was trying to correct them. It's unfortunate that some editors have chosen to prevent me from doing so. This does not help bolster Wikipedia's reputation as a source for reliable and unbiased historical information. I respectfully request that my edit allow to stay.--Antodav2007 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As the editor choosing to "prevent" Antodav2007 from presenting his/her point of view, may I copy in my reply to his/her complaint on my talk page?

If there are POV problems they should be corrected: you are right. The specific instances you offer would certainly repay a re-assessment. However, balancing the perceived POV of the article with the bald statement "although both also maintained vast overseas colonial empires that were ruled in a decidedly autocratic fashion" (or indeed, suggesting "people in Algeria, India or South Africa might have had a different opinion on the matter") seems to me to be replacing one unsourced opinion for another. As I understand it, you would have to reference your addition with a reputable, published author who holds the view. Of course if you start adding the detail I am suggesting, you may run the risk of going beyond the scope of this general article: you may find that the material rests better (or even is covered already) in one of the subsidiary articles. Finally, perhaps I should explain that the edit was made using an automated script from the utility WP:TWINKLE which, although useful, doesn't allow for much in the way of nuance. I hope this helps, suggesting a possible way forward for you to improve the neutrality of the article.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"It also asserts the authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegraph, which many people at the time suspected of being a forgery" The Zimmerman Telegram [sic!] is authentic. Unless you're prepared to demonstrate a serious historiographer today suspects it, what people at the time thought isn't the issue. (If you're inclined to add it was suspect then, do source it.)

"Anglophilia"? There's been raised the suggestion (Strachan's book on WW1, IIRC) U.S. investment in Br/Fr banks, & risk of massive losses, played a part.

"Had Wilson been true to his word and honored U.S. neutrality"? The Germans were offering to restore Texas to Mexico! Do you honestly believe any U.S. Administration would let that lie? Be serious. Trekphiler (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"It also asserts the authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegraph, which many people at the time suspected of being a forgery". Afer Zimmerman himself confessed its authenticity? (Haufler, Codebreaker's Victory, p.12) Geez... Trekphiler (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WW1, your imagination station

I added "though they captured the public imagination", & the Zep bombing certainly did, which makes me wonder how much the gas & Zep attacks influenced WW2 actions. Did the Brits continue bombing Germany thinking they'd get the same panicky results seen in London, despite no research on it? Did the Germans refrain from using gas fearing panics & mutinies? Can this be substantiated? Is this apt to mention, here? Trekphiler (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How many dead??

In the first line, it says that 40 million casualties resulted, including 20 million military + civilian... if not military or civilian, who were the other 20 million dead? cyclosarin (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Casualties aren't just deaths, but also wounded, and MIA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

videos

The tank video is excellent, but surely there must be footage available of foot soldiers...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article needs full rewrite

Yes, thats pretty much it, its currently total mess. It should be rewritten along the lines as World War II is. Finding any useful information from current one is going to be total pain for the reader. Also it has resulted hilarious situations, like "Fighting in India" part being bigger than "Eastern Front". Some stuff, like Literature and movies part in the end, should be moved into separate articles.--Staberinde (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)