Talk:Allies of World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Romania and Serbia "minor"?[edit]

Would anyone object if I moved Romania and Serbia to the "major Allies"? World War I casualties states that they suffered 335,706 and 450,000 military deaths respectively; this measure puts them in a different class to the rest of the "Other significant allies" group; it even puts them ahead of the USA (126,000 military deaths) and in the same ballpark as the UK and Italy (703,000 and 650,000 respectively). Grant65 | Talk 13:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they were treated as minor players at the time. Keep the listing as minor. Rjensen 01:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The difference has long since been removed from the article. Who is supposed to have "treated" them as minor? Grant65 | Talk 07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Britain Russia and France treated them as minor. They were not consulted on any major decisions. Rjensen 07:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Serbia lost many more people in proportion to their size than either Britain or France. Furthermore, Serbia was the first of the Allied powers to declare war. Whether the other major Allied Powers recognized the sacrifice of the Serbian people is irrelevant. Even so, I would argue that Austria-Hungary came to the recognition that Serbia was more than a "minor" as it took her two years (after Bulgarian assistance) to subdue the small Balkan country. Tyler Durgen 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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. Tyler Durgen 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbia as well as Romania were minor allies, because they were minor powers. This is a purely taxonomic classification and has nothing to do with their fighting abilities or percentage of causualties etc. Although one might argue about what exactly constitutes a major power, there was at the time (and now) a clear understanding of who was in the major power club: Russia, Austria, Germany, Italy, France, Britain, and the USA; The Ottomans by tradition and courtesy, and perhaps the Japanese. But no one else. Everyone else is a minor power or less. All the major powers had real battlefleets and large armies and the population and industry to sustain them; all the minor powers did not. The weakest of the major powers were the Ottomans, the Austrians, and the Italians. But the first two fielded large armies on two or three separate fronts, the latter only on one front but in great numbers. The Serbians did not have the military force to do anything of the sort. Herostratus 04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh?! They were "minor allies, because they were minor powers. This is a purely taxonomic classification..." Taxonomy is always based somehow on criteria, it isn't arbitrary.
Can someone explain to me how Romania and Serbia came to have 335,706 and 450,000 military deaths respectively if they were "minor"? Grant65 | Talk 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
the number of deaths does not measure importance, it just shows how strong their enemies were. Rjensen 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it means they were small countries "hitting above their weight". No country which loses soldiers equivalent to more than 30 divisions in a war is a "minor" player. Grant65 | Talk 09:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Grant65 Allow me to explain why they are minor. Serbia’s 450,000 deaths shows the size and strength of their armies. In a war of attrition, like WW1 was, that counts enormously. If you compare Serbia with other countries like the USA that had only 60,000 deaths, the time involved and the actual battlefield contribution of both countries it will show who the minor and who the major contributors to the war had been. The problem is that the ones in control of the buttons here at Wiki are not Serbian and that there has always been efforts made to over inflate contributions by certain counties and lessen the contributions by other countries in both world wars and there always will be. Brocky44 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

San Marino[edit]

This article gives a date for San Marino declaring war on Austria, but other articles say that San Marino remained neutral during the war (though Austria broke off relations with the republic because of a San Marino hospital station being sent to the Italian front). Can anyone provide a reference for the supposed declaration of war by San Marino? If not, maybe it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


Wasn't Arabia an Ally of Britain, and an enemy of the Turkish Empire? The map says they were neutral....--Fox Mccloud 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look closer, the south western and north eastern edges of the Arabian peninsular are orange, indicating that those areas were part of the Ottoman Empire. The interior was so lacking in people and (so it was believed) resources, that it was under tribal leadership. The Arabs, whom the British promised a pan-Arab state (including present day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq) rebelled against the Turks. See Arab Revolt. Grant65 | Talk 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to see someone noticed this message. :) I thought no one would reply and let this page stay that way for years to come. Now I get to the point: That would make them an ally of Britain, and so the grey part of Arabia, that is the part of Arabia not owned by the Turks, should be green because they were an allied nation, not neutral.--Fox Mccloud 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabia wasn't a country at that time. It was occupied by Arab nomads who did not participate in the war. The Arabs that fought in the war lived inside the Ottoman Empire.CHSGHSF 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) need a v-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not really fir with your argument, but the link to Romania takes you to the Kingdom of Romania. Shouldn't it lead to Romania in WWI? THe link has alot of info and that should be moved..--Pathfinder1993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Cyprus was in the hands of the British by the time of WW1. The map shows it as part of the Central Powers.

The map shows the borders of 1911, not 1914. It should be changed. Valentinian (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


I cite: While Norway was neutral, British pressure and anti-German sentiment in the population enabled the Norwegian government to favour Britain in matters concerning the large Norwegian shipping fleet and food supplies. There are several countries that supported Allies or Central Powers in various ways. But still, they were neutral. Or we cite them all, or we erase this sentence (as I think we should do). gala.martin (what?) 12:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Grant65 | Talk 06:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Since I did not receive any other comment, I am going to be bold and erase the sentence cited before. gala.martin (what?) 22:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominions of the British Empire[edit]

(Copied from User_talk:Rjensen)

A few points: 1. It is relevant to point out that the Dominions did not have independence at the time and that they did later, a major difference between WW1 and WW2. 2. You have removed the sentence: "However, Dominion governments did withdraw elements of their forces from time to time." Is there a reason for this? 3. If you mention the war cabinet there is no need to mention "British generals", who were also answerable to the war cabinet. If we mention the "British generals" we should mention that, after April 1918, all of the Allies were commanded by Ferdinand Foch. Grant65 | Talk 09:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the thoughtful comments. 1) Lots of things happened after 1918. 2) not sure what that sentence means--if it means Canada did X in 1917, then it should day that. 3. The Dominion forces were at all times under the control of British generals, who in turn were controlled by a war cabinet that had dominion representation. (not to mention Foch's role in 1918) Rjensen 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying.
1. "Lots of things" aren't a major difference between the make up of the Allies in WW1 as opposed to WW2.
2. It means that while the Dominion governments did not have operational control of the forces, they could and did remove them from front line duties. Which is logical since they also organised recruiting in their own countries.
3. Fair enough. Grant65 | Talk 07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
on #1, it's hard enough to cover ww1 in this article without trying to explain what happened in 1931 (so don't mention it--no one in 1918 knew about the 1931 decision anyway); on #2, I'm not sure what example you have in mind. I can't think of any off hand. Rjensen 07:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to keep the list of countries as a list. And we also missed creation of the Imperial War Cabinet in 1917. Dominion governments did control personnel and their deployment. For example, in spite of British resistance, the New Zealand government insisted on bringing whole units home for leave. Australia resisted British pressure to introduce conscription and use of the death penalty within its forces. No Australian serviceman was executed during WW1. Grant65 | Talk 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Late in the war, Australian and Canadian units were grouped in their own separate army corps. The Canadian Corps was established september 1915.

It also says the Dominions did not have independent foreign or defence policies during World War I. The constitution of the new Dominion of Canada, 1867, gave the federal government control over all aspects of defence.

It also says the Dominions did not have operational control of their personnel. What does this mean?

Brocky44 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That the tail wagged the dog?--Woogie10w 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It means that at all times Canadian and Australian commanders followed orders issued by senior British generals. But look at the bright side: the were the best FOLLOWERS in the whole war. Rjensen 07:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Brocky, Rjensen is right. But you make a good point about defence and I've removed the statement that Dominions did not control defence policy, which was plainly wrong. The Statute of Westminster (1931) gave the Dominions independence in foreign policy, but did not deal with defence, which was already in their ambit. We shouldn't mistake the Dominions' accession to close cooperation and operational control, prior to 1931, for British control of defence. I mean part of the payoff for Britain in granting Dominion status was savings in expenditure on the defence of colonies. Grant | Talk 07:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Grant. Sorry it took long to get back. So if Rjensen is right, then if Canadian and Australian commanders did not always follow orders issued by senior British generals would it mean that the Dominions did have operational control of their personnel? Brocky44 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on what they were "not following". Did you have a specific example/s in mind? Grant | Talk 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

“AT ALL times Canadian and Australian commanders followed orders” I would think that making a blanket statement like that should be rightly countered by just one instance of not following orders although there are probably many.

You may know the example of the battle of Hamel. American troops were then attached under the British and French for training and Monash included the Americans that were under his Australians in his battle plans. Pershing refused the Americans taking part in any action because he thought they were not yet ready and Haig informed Monash that the battle would go ahead without them. The Americans didn’t have a big part in the battle but Monash did have a role planned for them which just couldn’t be dropped at the last minute and Monash simply said “no Americans no battle” Haig informed Pershing that they would be taking part and you know the rest. Blackmail? Maybe. But Monash did not follow an order.

In June 1917 Currie received orders to proceed to the area of Lens and to draw German attention and reserves away from Flanders which was then the third Battle of Ypres. Haig ordered that “all ground taken in any raid must be held by rifle and bayonet alone if no assistance is obtainable from other arms.” Currie felt that the order would mean needless casualties to his troops and therefore ignored the order and issued instructions for immediate withdrawal after the series of destructive raids that he planned. Currie was therefore able to hit hard without being hurt bad and weakened the German positions enough that they had to pull back their lines at one point.

Around the same time First Army plans, which were more detailed than usual possibly because of Currie being new to command of the Corps, called for the Canadians to take the town of Lens. Currie disagreed again and tried to convince Horne, in command of the First Army that Hill 70 which flanked Lens was more important strategically than the town and should be the objective. Haig was called in to resolve the argument and after predicting that the German’s would never let the Canadians have the hill let alone be able to drive off the inevitable counter attacks that would follow told Currie to go ahead with his own plans provided the attack was underway by August 4. Currie postponed the assault until August 15 when he felt the weather was perfect. Hill 70 was taken and 21 German counter attacks were beaten off, many with very large forces, between the 15 and 18th. The aim of keeping German troops, 5 divisions, from Flanders was achieved and the strategic Hill 70 was taken. Brocky44 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but I'm sure that there are also examples where UK corps, divisional and more junior commanders also disobeyed or disregarded Haig and/or Foch. Grant | Talk 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You’re probably right although I wonder how many UK officers were reprimanded, court marshaled. It was a bit different for the Dominions and their Commanders because of being a national contingent from another country and out of the control of the British. They may have been British at the start of the war but by the end nationalism had evolved and from both the political and military view Canada had last say in it’s involvement of the war in total control of it’s own forces. The British could protest but that’s as far as it would go. From as early as 1915 Canadian politicians had aimed at becoming an ally and not just an obedient colony and by 1917 and certainly 1918 their goal, politically and militarily, was attained.

Currie had operational freedom in the corps spearhead of the First army after Amiens to the end. GHQ staff protested to one plan and Horne of the First army objected to another at Canal du Nord, Haig was involved and Currie’s plans prevailed. The First Army was supporting the Corps attacks rather than the other way around and Horne’s and Currie’s roles were essentially reversed. The staff at GHQ and Commanders had both objected to Currie’s plans and what could they do about it? Nothing. I don’t think that a British Commander at any level would get their way if Haig, GHQ staff or an Army Commander disagreed with them.

At Amiens Foch was pressuring Haig to continue the attack and both he and Rawlingson were trying to decide if the attack should continue and contemplated another full scale assault on the 11 and 12th. Currie was put off by the quickly increasing casualty rates and was convinced that further actions would be too costly. With intelligence reports and air photos he persuaded Rawlinson and suggested a planned attack further north from Arras or on the British Third Army front toward Bapaume launched with an attack on the French First Arm front to outflank the enemy on the Somme in front of Amiens. Rawlinson then convinced Haig who was also not happy about the increasing casualties realized that continuing was pointless and impressed with the solution forwarded Currie’s plan to Foch. General Monash later said that it was Currie’s argument more than anything else that influenced Haig to cancel the Amiens offensive. Currie’s role in recommending an alternate operation had an effect on the war on the western front. A different story than “just send troops” or “always followed orders”

There was also a time during the German’s March offensives of 1918 when Haig started to pull the Canadian divisions out one by one from Canadian control and put them under British control to bolster their lines. When the Corps headquarters were left with no Divisions to command Currie informed Haig that he did not object to the Corps being deployed anywhere to help stem the tide of the German advance but that they would be of more value if they fought together and under the command of his Corps headquarters. Haig objected, Currie went over his head and soon Haig was ordered to return the Divisions that were detached to Currie’s command. Haig was furious and complained about Currie’s attitude attributing it to a swelled head. In his diary Haig wrote “I could not help feeling that some people in Canada regard themselves rather as “allies” than fellow citizens in the Empire” Haig had remained completely oblivious to the development of Canadian nationalism in the war, The soldiers and others had not had not. Lord derby of the War Office warned Haig in 1917 about Canadian nationalism “We must look upon them in the light in which they wish to be looked upon rather than in the light in which we would wish to do so." Canadians were the worst of followers during the war and ended it as an ally not a colony. Brocky44 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what you are saying, and in terms of emerging nationalism, much the same goes for Australia, which resisted British requests for both the introduction of conscription and far severe and conventional forms of military discipline.
But the real issue is that with "allies", we are talking about political and not just military cooperation. At the bare minimum, the law required the Dominions to be at war with the Central Powers. If the Dominions' elected politicians and public opinion had been on the side of withdrawing their forces completely from Europe, then the Dominion governments could probably have done it, had they so wished. They would have come under immense pressure, through the UK High Commissions, Governors-General and so on, but there would have been little that the British government could have done, had the Dominions been determined.
It's a moot point because public opinion in the Dominions was generally in favour of obedience to British policy, and they retained significant forces in Europe until the armistice. In no small part this political support was due to the huge numbers of British-born people, and their children, residing in the Dominions. (From memory, I think one in five Australian soldiers at the time was UK-born.) After WW1, the Dominions certainly showed a greater inclination to disagree/disobey with British foreign policy. But they did not begin to formally break with it until after the Statute of Westminster legally allowed such differences. Grant | Talk 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Poland[edit]

But seriously, I wonder whether Poland fits into the list or not. Technically speaking Poland announced her independence on the very day the cease fire was signed. On the other hand however, there were no less than 10 Polish divisions fighting on both the eastern and western fronts and all were subordinate to the Polish National Committee, itself a member of the Entente (check the article on Blue Army to read up more). Any ideas? //Halibutt 21:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include Poland as a participant, you should probably paint it orange, as a Polish state was proclaimed in 1916 by the Central Powers. But IMHO Poland participated in the war on neither side as it de facto did not exist as a state. Str1977 (smile back) 08:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Belgium is counted here among the Allies, but it was Belgian neutrality violated that prompted the UK to enter the war. Hence, Belgium should be considered neutral. Str1977 (smile back) 08:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Belgium declared war when it was invaded, and operated as an Ally with its own slice of the Western Front. Rjensen 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, not all of Belgium was occupied and Belgian forces operated in France. Grant65 | Talk 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Doesn't naming convention call for this article to be named "Allies (World War I)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talkcontribs) 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The naming should really be "Triple Entente"; "Allies" in WWI historically refers to the Central Alliance, which was the other side. At some point Wikipedia should be fixed to recognize this, but I'm too lazy to do it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talkcontribs) 15:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is historically inaccurate throughout and very misleading - however, when I click 'edit' to change the terminology in the introductory section, it loads a different section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an alliance doesnt automatically become "the allies" just because it includes UK, France or USA. The "allies" of WWI were the central powers not the entente. DW75 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Allies is very commonly used for the World War I Allies. David Stevenson's Catastrophe, for instance, uses it. "Entente Powers" is generally only used for the three powers of the Triple Entente. "Allies" is a broader term. john k (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As has already been stated, the Central Alliance is "the allies" of WWI. Calling the Entente the allies is at best confusing and at worst falsifying. And it was NOT a commonly used name for the Entente before the era of internet and this kind of bad name spreading. I had never heard it used like this until less than 10 years ago. That it has become common NOW does not equal correct. Yes Entente is mostly used for the main powers, but then you can say "Entente and their allied" and similar which avoids making "allies" into a NAME, because that´s where it breaks apart.

DW75 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Serbia-The facts[edit]

Serbia had a population of 5.5 million in 1914. The total demographic population loss in 1914-18 was 700,000 including 250,000 women and 300,000 draft aged men according to L. Hersh, La mortalité causé par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.
Serbia mobolized 707,000 men in the war. Boris Urlanis estimates in Wars and Population, Moscow, 1971 total military deaths at 278,000 and 450,000 civilian deaths based on the total demographic loss in the war. --Woogie10w 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire[edit]

I think that Ottoman Empire must be in this list,am I wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

The Ottomans were on the other side, see Central Powers. Grant | Talk 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Effect of the Entente[edit]

Now I am not 100% certain of this, but from what I know, the sentance

"France, Russia and Britain entered World War I in 1914, as a result of their Triple Entente alliance"

is misleading, as neither the Entente Cordiale, nor the Anglo-Russian Entente , were military alliances and did not obligate Britain to declare war (that was left to the Treaty of London), unlike the Franco-Russian Alliance, like the statement implies.

I agree, France and Russia had the binding agreement, and as you quite rightly stated Britain, didn`t declare war until Belgium had been violated.Rockybiggs (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Portugal in WW1 but not in WW2.[edit]

Why did Portugal fight in WW1 but not in WW2. My hypothesis is that since Spain had alot of troble during WW2, Portugal may have helped Spain in her conflicts and civil war. Anyone else have something better? -Apr.26,o8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Allies?[edit]

Just a quick thought, i feel its wrong to include the Unitd States as a 'main ally' in the lead section, mainly because they came in only at the very end of the conflict, i think it should be removed, or at least moved out of the lead section as it misleads about the actual order of battle. Taifarious1 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Degree of Importance[edit]

With all respect, I disagree of you Taifarious, The USA came in the last year of conflict But play a decisive role on Western Front, contrary of Japan for example, it came soon in WWI but had a, in Militar terms, little effort just some degrees above Brazil.

About my Edition:

I'll suggest that countries it had a militar role ( no matter how modest ) in conflict SHOULD NOT stay in the same group of those it hadn't. So countries like Guatemala or Costa Rica it declare war but not participate militarly are in specific group.

Norway, the neutral ally[edit]

Norway as referred to as the neutral ally during the first world war due to the pro-British policies with regards to the large Norwegian merchant fleet and fish supplies. Does this warrant mention in this article? -- Nidator T / C 15:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


I've temporarily reverted this edit. The intent may be good, but without supporting refs, it's a rather drastic shift of meaning.LeadSongDog come howl 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Recent edits have replaced the contemporary flag icons with modern ones. Please be careful.LeadSongDog come howl 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


I'd be interested to see any evidence for the claim that Foch replaced Pétain as the commander of the French army. My understanding was always that Pétain remained the French commander-in-chief to the end of the war, but that Foch was his superior as Supreme Allied Commander in the same way that he was Haig's and Pershing's superior. You can find pictures of the four of them - if Pétain was not the French commander in chief, why is he in the pictures? I'm not sure why this error has been in this article for years, but I have done away with it. john k (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab Revolt and the Arab states involved are currently absent, they need to be included[edit]

The Arab Revolt was a major part of the Middle Eastern campaign of World War I. Various Arab states and Arab leaders allied with British and French forces to drive out Ottoman Turkish forces from Arab-populated Ottoman territories. The article needs to be redesigned to show all the participants on the Allied side. Until that is done, the present article does not represent a world view of the Allies of World War I.--R-41 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish in World War One[edit]

How can a page listing the allies of WW1 not make mention of the contribution made by the Irish (or the Scottish and Welsh as well for that matter). Although Ireland was then fully part of the UK, it would be very appropriate to sub catagorise the individual countires contribution as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

British Empire statistics[edit]

The statistics about the British Empire seem way off (they seem to reflect just the UK). Does anyone have better information about the Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nepal as separate combatant?[edit]

No cite given for the Nepalese mobilized numbers (200k) or casualties (49,823) in the table, plus given the numbers casualty ratio should be 25% not 71% claims 200k mobilized Gurkhas (which probably belong under the British empire, not Kingdom of Nepal) and 20k casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The GDP figure is way out, it has a dollar sign in front of it, the figure presented the pounds figure and it was 5 pounds to one dollar back then so should be over a trillion Dollars — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Huge issues with the title[edit]

ok so the allies during ww1 are germany, the austro hungarian empire and the ottoman empire speaking of allied for france, britanny and usa(....) is more than a mistake it's an anachronism

Can someone explain to me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Order of Allies[edit]

I'm less concerned with whether certain minor powers should be consider major, than on the fact that the U.K. is placed first in the list of major allies. This makes no sense - such a list doesn't respect any sort of order - alphabetical, chronological, of importance. Chuborno (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Britain was then the most economically and militarily powerful country on the earth in 1914. The American military was rising then, but it is not in the list because it was not directly part of the alliance, but was a co-belligerent. Russia until Soviet industrialization was a state that had been declining in power, an un-industrialized and largely agricultural country that lost the Russo-Japanese War and was set back by revolutions and insurgencies until the country was ripped apart by the revolutions in 1917. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Position of Belgium[edit]


Can someone please confirm or provide WP:RS to support the claim that Belgium was an Ally during the conflict? Obviously, Belgian troops fought on the Allied side but when, for instance, Belgian troops were sent to fight on the Russian front, they were enrolled as volunteers of the Russian army on the basis that Belgium and Russia were not allies? Brigade Piron (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Montenegro and Serbia were client states of Russia[edit]

A client state can be a legally independent state that is recognized as being under strong political influence of another state.

I used a reliable source published by the reputable Oxford University.

Here is what the source says: "Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century, Montenegro had assumed the status of a virtual Russian protectorate, with its port of Kotor serving as a base of support for the Russian Black Sea Fleet during its forays into the Mediterranean Sea. Serbia itself became a Russian client state by virtue of the two countries' anti-Turkish interests, but without in the end the political and territorial gains expected from the Russian alliance."-- (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)