Talk:World War I/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about World War I. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

One simple correction

To whomever locked the page, there is an incomplete break tag by france on the left section in the list of participatory countries. Very simple to fix, Please do so. -edit, its the right section, sorry- Looks like it was fixed within 5 seconds of me posting, someone can delete this post when read.

Opening Hostilities/Failure at the Marne

I changed the "capacity of roads & railways". It wasn't road or rail capacity, it was the horse-drawn transport's low speed & inability to move sufficient materiel far enough, fast enough, to keep up with the front. (This is not unfamiliar in mobile warfare; the same was true in August & September 1944, when Allied armies outran their fuel supplies after the Normandy invasion.) Trekphiler 08:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire section is vague and inaccurate, quite frankly. In my opinion each of the paragraphs in the "Opening Hostilities" section could easily be its own section (I could write the one about the Western Front, but probably not the others; don't know much about the Serbian campain, for instance). As for the specific issue here, people talk about supply lines a lot, but everything I've read has indicated that the German decision to retreat had to do with strategic untenability. The German armies had become divided during the advance, and the First and Second armies were in danger of being split up and taken in the flanks. Check out Keegan's The First World War, pp. 117-122, on the decision to retreat to the Aisne. In short, your change, whatever its accuracy, doesn't really address the real problems here. 70.225.171.51 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)KD 12/30/06

As a separate issue in the same section, the image is is awfully misleading, coloring Bulgaria as a Central, and Greece, Romania, Italy, Albania, etc. as Allies, when none of those countries had joined the war yet in 1914. Can we be on the lookout for a better one or modify this one to be accurate, or at least relabel it? 70.225.171.51 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)KD 12/30/06

U-boat

I have some concerns. First, "positional serecy"? Could you be more pompous? Also, I'm less than completely convinced attacks were made with complete surprise; many U-boat skippers used guns, including the top-scoring submarine ace of the war (& ever), who stuck scrupulously to the "cruiser rules". Moreover, "destroyers made it likely that the slow submarines would be sunk by a highly effective new weapon, the depth charge"? I'm far from convinced of that, either. Without hydrophones, depth charges were useless. Also, I question the sequence of events. I'm supposed to believe Britain didn't arm merchantmen until after Lusitania was sunk? Seems to me it'd be the first defensive act. Trekphiler 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Soldiers and other omitted elements

I'm currently following a history course of Europe from 1789 to today at the UQO university in the Ottawa area and the teacher of that course mentionned that some of the countries such as the Allies, they've used people from their respective African colonies to fight the war. I've also heard that Russian soldiers were equipped with guns without ammunition and were subsenquently been decimated. Any sources that are obviously omitted by most history books that can be found on the NET so it can be mentionned in the article. There is lots of omissions in this article that is likely because history books haven't even discuss it. For exemple, it was believed that the flu epidemic was born in the WEstern Front from soldiers which later spread to Spain (that's why they called it Spanish Flu) and then spread to North America. I had limited the addition in the Aftermath as the flu been origanated from Western Europe, because it is obvious it didn't started in Spain.

The same thing can be said about Versailles Treaty wihch doesn't mention anything about the current Czech Republic/Slovaquia that was born after the war, the former Yugoslavia that was a merger from 6 counties including Serbia and Bosnia (in which their blame game after Franz Ferdinand's assassination (and which I've heard it was a conspiracy to provoke the war) led to the start of the war) and Poland which was part of Austria-Hungary. There are no mention that the canal corridor in Germany was done because of the threat of communism. ditho for the creation of Czechcoslovaquia

That would be interessting to add these elements (if sources would be available). That would just prove even further the barbary of this war in Europe.--JForget 19:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding the uboat never existed. its just a myth. like hitler

Bibliography

Someone obviously spent a lot of time on the bibliography. So I almost hesitate to say that it is much too long. An encyclopedia article does not have a long bibliography like this, because people who consult an encyclopedia are people who do NOT need to look at hundreds of books on the subject. Might as well give a link to the British library catalogue, which woudl give even more books. Nevertheless, we have lots of space, so if people think it is important why not take the bibliography or most of it off andput it in a separate article "First world war bibliography". Is there a wikipedia category for bibliographies ? Perhaps there shoudl be, unless people consider that they do'nt have their place in wikipedia, since online bibliographies are not hard to find... Johncmullen1960 06:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very short selective bibliography: we feature the BEST books, the places to start. the alternative is a library catalog listing of 20,000 books, which is not at all useful for someone looking for one book to start with. Any one subtopic (like U-boats or infantry tactics) has only a few titles. So it's a short listing with respect to any one subtopics--but of course we have MANY subtopics in one of the most complex events in history. A separate biblio article would run maybe 500 to 1000 titles, and serve an entirely different purpose. People who are not interested in books can skip the bibliog--it's at the end where it doesn't interfere. As for encyclopedias, yes they all have bibliographies--it's info users want. Rjensen 07:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

German commanders

The Times History of the World says that for most of the war Germany was basically a military dictatorship under Hindenburg and Ludendorff, so should they be in the infobox?83.71.13.197 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, by "Hindenburg and Ludendorff," what is really meant is "Ludendorff," since Hindenburg exercised less personal control than the Kaiser. I don't see why this should be mentioned. It's also worth noting that this was not "most of the war," but only the second half of it (late 1916 - late 1918). john k 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph

I am new to this article and not a WWI buff, so I'm not going to make any changes without seeking comment here. But I think the last sentence, reproduced below, should be rewritten:

In many European countries, it appears that the current usage is tending back towards calling it 'the Great War' / 'la Grande Guerre' / 'de Grote Oorlog' / 'der Grosse Krieg', due to the growing historical awareness that of the two 20th century world wars, the 1914-1918 conflict was the more momentous in causing social and political change and upheaval, as well as being prime cause of the Second World War.

That WWI was "more momentus" than WWII is hardly a given. Of course, WWI led to tremendous upheaval, but so did WWII, which resulted in the Cold War; widespread pressure for rights of women and African-Americans; decolonization; nuclear weapons and power; the loss of independence for 3 countries and the de facto loss of independence of several more; massive demographic changes due to murder and expulsions and everything that ensued from those changes. It's also simplistic to say WWI itself was the "prime cause" of WWII. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets delete it. Its not even grammatically correct, and not really true that WWI was the primary cause of WWII. It was the rise of dictatorship and imperialism and the world-wide depression that caused WWII. Oyo321 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The conditions that gave rise to WWII emerged directly from WWI. "Cause" is the wrong word, but the ending conditions of WWI determined the starting conditions of WWII--the depression, the dictatorships, etc. John Keegan and other historians have stressed the continuity between the two conflicts. But all that is really incidental to the fact that there is in fact a growing trend in historical works to refer to it as "the Great War," which is the actual subject of this sentence. This sentence should be changed, not deleted. Suggest something like the following:

In many European countries, it appears that the current usage is tending back towards calling it 'the Great War' ('la Grande Guerre' / 'de Grote Oorlog' / 'der Grosse Krieg') in acknowledgement of the massive social and political upheaval that resulted from it. --KD 12/30/06

i want to correct

why cant i correct things i have found an error, but i cant change anything

ERROR LOCATION -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

8.1 Entry of the United States

False Statement: "Germany miscalculated that it would be many more months before large numbers of American troops could be sent to Europe, and that, in any event, the U-boat offensive would prevent their arrival. In fact, not a single American infantryman lost his life due to German U-boat activity."

Correct: On January 24th, 1918 a British Troopship carring 2,179 American Soldiers left New York destination was Le Harve. The ship went to Halifax Canada to hook up with a bunch of other ships to form British Convoy HX-20. On Feb. 5, 1918, between Scotland and Ireland the convoy was attacked by a German Sub. The SS Tuscania took a direct hit, 200 American Soldiers lost their lives. They were U.S. Army; Engineers, Infantry, Artillary, and three Aero Squadrons that were aboard. This was the first transport carrying American troops to Europe to be torpedoed and sunk. This was the first time since the American Civil War that America suffered Mass Casualties on a Grand scale since the American Civil War, and it took America by shock.

American Infantry Soldiers whom lost their lives due to U-boat activity Feb. 5, 1918, can be found at: http://renton.50megs.com/Tuscania

Challenge - Wikipedia Members research the Tuscania, its was to WWI what Pearl Harbor was to WWII.

New book

I noticed the recent online book that is released in English now, do you feel it should be added to the further reading section of this article? GERMAN DESERTER'S WAR EXPERIENCE SDS123 13:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC) because you are a noob who needs to go home and cry.

Serbia and Romania

Reasons for listing Serbia: 1) It was the first allied country to be attacked. 2) It won the first allied victory. 3) Austria's attempt to absorb it caused the war (i.e. it wasn't some bit player over the Atlantic like Canada). 4) Bulgaria is listed. It's size is almost exactly the same, and it played a much less important role in the war tahn Serbia.

I realise that we can't list every country, but Serbia is much more significant than, say, Canada, as far as the First World War goes. --estavisti 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria is listed because there's only four Central Powers, I think. john k 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As john k said, Bulgaria is probably there only because there is no point to put "and others" after turkey, germany and austria-hungary then it would mean just 1 country. (Staberinde 18:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Both Serbia and Romania were highly significant Allies -- for example, take a look at World War I casualties. They both deserve more coverage in this article. Grant65 | Talk 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is serious reason why for example WW II infobox has only major countries, then you start adding minor countries you will always keep getting new ones to list. One adds Serbia, other one adds Romania, third guy puts Belgium in, someone else thinks that greece and Japan are importnant etc. (Staberinde 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

However, of all those countries, only Serbia was centrally involved in the start of the war. --estavisti 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Belgium was also involved from the start of war.--Staberinde 10:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Poland was involved in WW II from start same way as Serbia(or even more importnantly) but Poland is not listed in WW II infobox.--Staberinde 10:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Serbian and Romanian contribution was of quite a different magnitude to Bulgaria. Anyway, all of the above and similar issues at World War II, Pacific War etc shows why I think we should simple have "Allies", "Central Powers" (etc) in the info boxes of major conflicts. It solves all these issues. But, unfortunately, some editors are obsessed with including particular countries, usually their own... Grant65 | Talk 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Bulgaria is in the list only because there is no point to put "and others" then it means only one country. Infobox is meant to give short overview for the reader not detailed desription, that's why its best to include countries who were major plarticipants in conflict. Also putting simply "central powers" or "Allies" is not good solution because it doesn't give any fast information and reader needs to start searching from other article what, who and where were fighting. Btw, my country didn't officially participate in any World Wars so its impossible for me to push my country into any infobox. --Staberinde 17:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At some point in the article we list all the Allies, right? john k 22:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not john k. I don’t think you realize that there is a bias here on the WW1 article and because it is now locked means it will remain that way. I’d like to ask Grant69 why Australia should not be included. There’s talk of contributions of Serbia, Romanian and Bulgaria. What of the contributions of Australia, Canada and the US? John k is right, somewhere all countries should be listed, who’s side and where they fought like Australia and their fight on two fronts. Why, estavisti, do you call Canada a bit player? Brocky44 November3 2006

I think it is important to note that Serbia lost more people in proportion to their size than either Britain or France.

I would object to moving Romania to the "major Allies" because Romania was an active member of the Allies for only a few months and did not have a significant impact on the war. If anything, Romania's defeat only served to further demonstrate the superiority of the tactics of the Central powers.

And I also must question why, estavisti, do you call Canada a bit player? I suggest that you study the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the Third Battle of Passchendaele, and the Battle of Ypres. Furthermore, Canada conscripted and loss more people in relation to her size than Britain (or the US). Tyler Durgen 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking Liberty Memorial With WIkipedia's World War I page

I believe that the Liberty Memorial should be linked and mentioned on the World War I page under "memorials". I am not sure how to go about asking for this. Please advise, assist. Thank you

Newfoundland?

Since when did Newfoundland NOT be a part of Canada? Dukakis 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right up until 1949 - see Newfoundland Lisiate 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vinland and Skraelings not part of Canada either.Opiner 02:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!!Cameron Nedland 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW! how can you NOT now that Newfoundland only became a part of Canada in 1949...wow...that's amazing and odd. Dukakis you must be really young or not form Newfoundland to not know that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socialismo01 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

The unfair lie about Von Jagow

Article now say: 'The German Foreign Minister of the day discounted the betrayal by calling the treaty "a scrap of paper.'

Okay now read British ambassador account of meeting with Chancellor (NOT forreign minister!) to see how this phrase is used.[1]

Nothing like the article AT ALL! More saying how can you do this to us in our situation? And probably sincerely as Germany having its hands full. Certainly von Jagow himself not want this but article blame him (without knowing his name) for the comment which also distorted to sound like haughty laughing at the treaty!

Turn out von Bethmann-Hollweg had good point when he ask, But at what price will that compact have been kept? If article say anything it should quote this question then say how many men Britain lost in the war accomplishing Europe destability for next fifty year! Horrible mistake for everyone involved including England and for British Empire.Opiner 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Scrap of paper

The "Scrap of paper" line greatly weakened Germany's prestige, especially in the U.S. The Chancellor used those words to the British amabassador and in a later interview the Chancellor confirmed this account of this conversation. The statement was never denied by Berlin. Wiki's job is to give the history that has been accepted by all major historians and not pretend the quote is a fake. See The History of Twelve Days, July 24th to August 4th, 1914: Being an Account of the Negotiations Preceding the Outbreak of War Based on the Official Publications ed by J. W. Morley - London 1915. Page 388. Rjensen 04:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Didnt say it was FAKE. Goschen gave probably pretty accurate account oof conversation but didnt SAY it was direct quote. And in different context than what article say before. Youre right it becamse famous so good to mention BUT just because media treat as quote DOESNT mean it was. Not deny by Berlin mean nothing. Angela Merkel NEVER DENY being extraterrestrial agent right? Where your source say this direct von Bethmann-Hollweg quote and what about the context? Maybe you have something but I wanna see it.Opiner 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There were only two people having the conversation, and only one of them wrote a report on it immediately afterwards. furthermore, according to Rjensen, Bethmann also confirmed that he said this. What reason do we have to think that the quote is not accurate? It seems that there is every reason to think that this quote is, unlike most famous historical quotes, not apocryphal, but something Bethmann actually said. john k 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Article on the "guilt thesis" thing needed

I noticed in the article it talks of a guilt thesis. i clicked on the word as a link but nothing has yet been written about it. reckon someone who knows anything of this "guilt thesis" could please write about it? i would do so myself but im not really very good at stuff like that and struggle enough in history class. anyways just thought id ask. thanks to whoever does get around to writing an article on it. cheers.

Hej med jer, jeg hedder kaj. World war 1 var en meget tragisk hændelse.

Allied Victory

"This Second Battle of the Somme began on August 21. Some 130,000 United States troops were involved, along with soldiers from Third and Fourth British Armies. It was an overwhelming success for the Allies.The Second German Army was pushed back over a 55 kilometer (34 mi) front, and by September 2, the Germans were back to the Hindenburg Line, which was their starting point in 1914."

On August 12, in the middle of a decisive British victory, Pershing told Haig that he was going to withdraw the 5 American divisions that were training with the British. There were outspoken exchanges between the two and in the end three divisions would begin their departure and two would remain with the British Fourth Army. On August 25th the last of the departing US troops left the British front. Haig wrote, “What will history say regarding the action of the Americans leaving the British zone of operations when the decisive battle of the war is at its height, and the decision still in doubt!”

I wonder what Haig would of said if he knew that revisionist history would say that 130,000 US troops were at that battle along with soldiers from the Third and Fourth Armies. The wording of this sentence with the number of US troops involved really gives the impression that the battle was an overwhelming success with the major contribution coming from the Americans. The British attacked the Germans continuously between August 21 and September 3. On August 26th the British front was extended north to include the First Army. The New Zealand Division captured Bapaume on the 29th. By August 31 and September 1st the Australians captured Peronne and Mont St. Quentin, the bastion of the Somme sector, which was followed by another major British victory on September 2nd when the Canadians broke through the Wotan position of the Hindenburg line which caused Ludendorff to order all his forces to withdraw to their own positions of the Hindenburg Line. The two US Divisions that stayed with the British Fourth Army aren’t mentioned in these battles. Perhaps they were only kept back in reserve and never took part. At the same time three French Armies south of the British Line were also continuing their offensive. In total the Germans were pushed back along a 70 mile front. BY September 2 the Germans weren't back to the Hindenburg line but orderd back there and it wasn't their starting point in 1914.

“The Allied attempt to take the Hindenburg Line (the Meuse-Argonne Offensive) began September 26, as 260,000 American soldiers went “over the top”. All divisions were successful in capturing their initial objectives, except the U.S. 79th Infantry Division, which met stiff resistance at Montfaucon and took an extra day to capture the objective. Then the US Army stalled because of supply problems as its inexperienced headquarters had to cope with large units and the difficult landscape (hilly and forested, with few roads).”

The Meuse-Argonne offensive was the American attempt to take the Hindenburg line and not the Allied attempt. It took the US army three weeks and over 100,000 casualties to reach the objective of breaching the Kriemhilde position of the Hindenburg Line that Pershing had assigned for it on the first day. Supply problems, because of organizational failure was only one of many reasons why this offense failed. The US Army stalled because of the primitive tactics it used, it’s inexperience on how to deal with defensives in depth, increasing German resistance, guns failed to move up in support, units got lost, too many troops were packed into a small area of which many were half trained and half organized, massive traffic jams in the rear areas and because of incompetent Command which resulted in confusion and chaos. The commander of USAS, General Billy Mitchell, groaned aloud as he watched the uncoordinated attacks from above and said it was like watching a man butt his head against a brick wall. 7 divisions were disbanded to provide replacements for the casualties. Over 100,000 men went AWL but were eventually rounded up somewhere in the rear areas and orders were to shoot any man who ran away. Foch had earlier offered Pershing an easier sector west of the Argonne. Unfortunately for the troops Pershing chose to fight east of the Argonne. When Foch made plans to clear the traffic jam and supply problems, created by too large a force crowded into a small area, by withdrawing US troops and placing them in other sectors Pershing refused the advice and the blockage remained. The Allies had talked of replacing Pershing, unfortunately for all involved this did not happen.

The Allied attempt to take the Hindenburg line all at the time of the Argonne battle by many British and French Armies succeeded within days. By the time the Americans broke through their Kriemhilde part of the line the British had the Siegfried position, which was more fortified and had more defensives in depth than any other section, of the Hindenburg line far behind them. Why is this battle of the Argonne, which was a disaster and which did not contribute very largely to Allied victory, the only one to be mentioned and not the other assaults on the Hindenburg line which did succeed and which were instrumental to victory?

“At the same time, French units broke through Champagne and closed on the Belgian frontier. The most significant advance came from Commonwealth units as they entered Belgium (liberation of Ghent). The German army had to shorten its front so used the Dutch frontier as an anchor and chose to fight rear-guard actions. This probably saved the army from disintegration but was devastating for morale.”

The line “At the same time, French units broke through Champagne and closed on the Belgian frontier.” Should be expanded on to explain what in the hell this means. Some people believe that Ghent was liberated by the Belgium Army on November 10. This article is ridiculous. The British and her Dominions did the most significant fighting and made the most significant advances against the Germans and not one word of the main contribution that came from them. It was not the fighting of rear guard actions that was devastating for German moral but the starvation and conditions at home among other things.

“By the start of October, it was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defense, let alone a counterattack. Numerically on the frontline they were increasingly outnumbered, with the few new recruits too young or too old to be of much help. Rations were cut for men and horses because the food supply was critical. Ludendorff had decided, by October 1, that Germany had two ways out of the War—total annihilation or an armistice. He recommended the latter to senior German officials at a summit on that very same day. During October, the Allied pressure did not let up until the end of the war.”

By the start of October it was evident that the Germans were mounting a very successful defense at the Argonne against the Americans and would be able to do so for some time. The Germans were able to inflict 350,000 casualties on the British from August 8 to November 11 so they must not of been totally ineffective even with the few new recruits. Rations were cut for the Germans a long time before. German moral dropped drastically during their early spring offensive when British lines were captured and it was discovered how much food they had and how well supplied they were. It was on September 29 that Ludendorff told the War Council summit at Spa “The situation of the Army demands an immediate armistice in order to save a catastrophe.” Brocky44 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Brocky finding all these things needing corrections. PLease make the changes to the article!Opiner 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

That gigantic template at the bottom of the page is really an eyesore (more so on shorter pages). Would anyone object to building a WWI portal (as a sub-portal or Portal:War) instead? Carom 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is also occuring on the MILHIST talk page - feel free to leave a comment there instead. Carom 17:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration (1917 + 1926) & Zionist Industrialist Influence in the USA

Is there not a fairly major issue wherein it is purported that the US was brought into the war, more or less at the behest of Zionist industrialists. The same people who made a deal with Britain to get the US involved if Britain would acknowledge and assist them with "establishing a homeland" in Palestine - (Balfour declaration 1917 and 1926)

I have read that newspapers and reports were fairly neutral on the WW1 players, and sometimes distinctly pro-German... but that after the 1917 Balfour Declaration, (some say, overnight) there was only anti-German reporting. Has anyone seen, have access to or know of resources for these old papers?

There's also the matter of the member of the Zionist industrialist who had been part of the group that travelled to Britain to barter for a homeland. He apparently denounced his brethren and held revealing conferences and published work in order to disclose that the reason for the US getting involved was due to Zionist political influence.

I can't remember his name this second, but will search for it and see what turns up.

Anyone got any comments or info on this?

Also, does anyone know why Germany wanted to fight France?

Dealing with your last question first - see 'Germany Invade France?' above... As to your first question see the article's section on the US entry into the war, which basically gives the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram as the main reasons. German U-boats sinking American vessels and diplomatic overtures to Mexico seem more compelling reasons than some nebulous Zionist project to me. Lisiate 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be locked

Somebody deleted the page's content and wrote some crap. This is a disappointment, please react quickly and lock the page.--Ghost00 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed somebody restored the original article.--Ghost00 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The page has now been semi-protected (again). Carom 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Page vandalized as of 19:00 02/01/2007 (GMT) by unknown source. suggest page be restored then locked. roadworx

More on the Versailles Treaty and the Middle East, plus new WWI museum

Hi everyone this is the first time I am editing wikipedia so I hope I don't mess up. I have two things I think should be added.

First, I was really surprised that in the whole article there is no mention of the split and mandate of the Ottoman empire after WWI. There is a link to the Versailles Treaty page, but even that page does not discuss French mandate of Lebanon and Syria / British mandate of Iraq and Palestine. Can we just add a few sentences on that in the "Treaty of Versailles" paragraph?

Second, a new WWI museum just opened in Kansas City called the Liberty Memorial Museum. It's the only WWI museum in the nation. There is an interesting story about it on NPR.org. If you search for liberty memorial museum, you will find it.

Thank you for your time : ) Laura Sunbeam44 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Sunbeam44. The Treaty of Versailles ended the war with Germany. The equivalent Ottoman treaty was the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. We also have quite an extensive article on the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. All of this is covered quite well in the Aftermath of World War I page. You're right though, this should be at least mentioned on the main page. I don't think we need to include a mention of the Liberty Memorial on this, already very long page. A mention on the War memorial page seems sufficient. Happy editing... Lisiate 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland Flag

During World war I Newfoundland used the Union Jack. I will be changing it from the Republic flag to the Union Jack. (RiseAgainst01 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

No use bro. It cannot be edited for some reason. I tried it, but the Republic Flag could still be used to make a distinction between the rest of GB and Newfoundland. I mean it was around then but wasn't the official flag. (Socialismo01 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Major changes to introduction

Greetings! I made some major changes to the introduction, mainly merging the two original top paragraphs together. The first paragraph looked a little awkward and all (parts of the article certainly need a facelift, no offense! :). I saw that the FA status had been removed from WWI and figured I could help out even with just grammar et al. I'm new to Wikipedia and still figuring out a few things so just tell me if I overstep "being bold"! Ripberger 03:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Arunachimp had removed so mmuch infor from the introduction?

09:37, 24 December 2006 Aranherunar (Talk | contribs) m (rv intro to Alphachimp with formatting changes)

His/her formatting is less clear than the bullet-point structure that was there before, IMHO.

I personally have lived 60 years without understanding why it was sometiems called the 14-18 war and sometimes the 14-19 war. All clear references to this have now been removed - was this necessary?

Johnbibby 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The names of the wars

When were the two global wars first called World War I and World War II? It stands to reason that WW I was so called only after the beginning of WW II and that the two wars got their names at the same time. But who was the first to use these names and on what occasion?

The term first had to be used only once it was necessary to count and place in order these wars.

It is reasonable to think that during WW I people, having wishful thinking, called it The War to End All Wars. The term first contradicts this hope.

So how these names of the wars came about?

A minor question concerns the written form of the names: Were Roman numerals always the common practice to enumerate the wars in their names? Or was the number spelled out (in the language of the writing) or were an Arabic numerals used?

[I also added a To Do item to the World War II discussion page regarding this question.]

--UriGeva 01:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure naming consecutive wars were used with Roman numerals. Roman numerals are predominant when writing the names of wars. I do not know the answers to your first question, but a good one indeed. "The War to End All Wars" was coined by a bad president named Roosevelt. WWI has been referred to as "The Great War," although I believe WWII was greater. I have not seen any nicknames for WWII, but in my opinion, it was a very romantic war. Oyo321 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, Archie Bunker of "All in the Family" (or someone else on that show) used to refer to World War II as "W.W. Two the Big One." UriGeva 02:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Replacing the template

Portal:World War I has been created and is up and running. I intend to use a link to the portal to replace the template in the articles (the template will still be transcluded in the portal, so it won't disappear completely). Any comments or questions? Carom 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Oyo321 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)