Talk:World War I

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)

Start and end of WWI in historic New Tork Times pages

Can someone who has an account add the following fascinating links? They show the New York Times front pages on June 6, 1914 and November 11, 1911:

New York Times on June 6, 1914

New York Times on November 11, 1911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.27.57 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Gassing Soldiers who contracted Syphillis

What I am talking about is not pretty, has no corroborating evidence that I know of and is almost unbelievable 'News' but I feel it is important to not lose such an important historical fact if it is true.

This info comes from my mother who was told this by her step father Daniel Shaw Smith (Christchurch NZ 1964) when she was 19. He was a soldier in the WWI and fought in Gallipoli and was stationed in Egypt for a time.

He told my mother in a very matter of fact way the following which I am asking her to recount as I type this.

He said that in Egypt soldiers were lined up (at least once a week) for a 'Dangle Parade' where they had to expose their genitals for inspection to the medical officer who checked to see if they had any sores indicating that they had contracted the 'Black Pox' which was a particularly nasty strain of Syphillis not found in the western world. (He recounted how the medical officer used to say to the troops "You men put your dicks where I wouldn't put my umbrella.")

He said that the men who had Syphillis were put onto Ambulance/Hospital ships and were killed out at sea by gassing.

He said this was because the disease could not be brought back home.

The soldiers who were killed in this way were considered to have died in battle.

He didn't consider this scandalous and just recounted it quite casually.

My mother also feels he may have possibly worked on such a ship for a short time but can't fully recall.

It is worth noting that it is 'Possible' that it was just a deliberate rumor to discourage the men from having sex with Egyptian prostitutes although my mother feels that from the way he talked about it it was more likely true.

If this really happened I do not know if it was the practice of just the New Zealand Army or if other western military forces may have done much the same.

Aether22 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Without any corroborating reliable sources, this cannot be included in the article. Also, remember that new threads should go at the bottom of the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Still because I am aware of no other record of such a possibility at all I would ask that it remain in the talk page unless it is known to be untrue and only someone deeply involved with the NZ campaign could be assured of knowing (and if so could be complicit of such) or an acquaintance of Mr. Smith who may be aware of him telling tall tales. I would also add that while obvious the reason for the gassing was said by Smith to be due to this strain's virulent effects on westerners, he did not blame the army as he saw it as the only solution. I would also ask if anyone is aware of some place I could put this that may be more permanent. Aether22 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he was pulling your mother's leg. From what I can tell, black syphilis is a myth. See a couple of references: a book by retired US Colonel David Hackword [1], where he states that myths of the disease were created specifically to deter soldiers from risky sex while deployed. Here's another book where it states the black syphilis is a myth. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right but I doubt he was pulling her leg, he may have believed it. But your references are for a far more recent war in a different country, though I appreciate the references. Aether22 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is likely that he actually believed it. The reason things are classified as myths are that many people genuinely believe them to be true, despite the fact that they likely are not. I've yet to find any reliable authority stating anything about black syphilis, despite the fact that it's a fairly legendary disease. When one searches for plain old "syphilis" in Google, you get the CDC.gov website (as well as other .gov sites), references in the NYT, the Mayo Clinic, etc. As for the references above, yes, they are both for Vietnam, but it illustrates the fairly typical practices employed by military commanders who are concerned that their soldiers will lose combat effectiveness if they get VD, so they make up a story like black syphilis to scare them straight. Yes, Vietnam is the most well-known instance of this, but it apparently wasn't the first. Regardless, it's likely not notable (and still unsourced), so it won't make it into the article. As for this thread, it will always be stored here, until the page is archived at some point. Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Germany's Declaration of War

Please have a translation to English (and others) of the German Declaration of War. When I clicked the link marked "text" under the graphic of the German DoW, the page comes up only in German and there is no "translate" option obvious. I did look over the whole of the page, esp near the text.

Further, please have texts of ALL the other involved nations' DoW. The points of view would be most illuminating to the subject. The justifications of America's (and many other's) "undeclared wars" after WW2 would be put into contrast with an era where national figures DID take responsibility for their actions. (Please note that observation when these texts are posted.) Thank you. Jopower (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for such translations? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. please read WP:POINT

Hitler wasn't a German in these years

In the Article is written: "Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated."

At this time Hitler wasn't a German citizen. He was still an Austrian citizen at that time. He was just a soldier fighting for Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.114.204 (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read a lot of books on Hitler. Hitler actually avoided military conscription in the Austrian army because he did not want to 'serve beside Jews'. He was tracked down by the authorities while living in Munich in 1913 or 1914 and he wrote what the authorities considered to be a very 'eloquent' letter explaining how his 'only friend in life had been hunger'. They took pity on him and did not prosecute him.

Hitler's two big lies to the German people were A. Germany did not start the war. and B. Germany did not lose the war.75.84.227.196 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline - need help

I believe a date in the timeline article is incorrect, as it is inconsistent with the main WWI article and outside sources. I'm not sure how to fix it myself. Can somebody take a look at Talk:Timeline of World War I? CopaceticThought (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

YDone.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

peace offers

there were several peace offers by germany and austria which were all rejected by the entente; they did not even enter negotiations. one was made at 12.12.1916 (rejected at 30.12.1916) for example.

i think it is interesting to know that the war could have had an end at this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.217.202 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this information? If so, I'd be happy to add this to the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

hard to find for me in english but found some:

new york times

german+austria peace offer: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9406E2D7143AE433A25757C0A9629C946696D6CF

it think it refers to this peace proposal (warning: german text): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedensangebot_der_Mittelm%C3%A4chte (translation needed)

another article now referring to a russian proposal: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9505E7D71E3AE433A25753C3A9649D946696D6CF&oref=slogin

foreign minister of austria (count czernin): http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B07EFD9143AE433A25752C0A9629C946696D6CF

some random internetsite

http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1994-5/Smestad.htm

some communist (probably; the sitename indictates):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rothstein/1918/01/peace.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.253.217 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The first one (1) appears to be about the negotiations before the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between the Central Powers and post-revolution Russia. The other two from the NYT are in fact about offers to hold a peace conference in April 1917. The article from Loyola University should be reliable as well. The German Wiki article itself cannot be used as a source, but it does have several references that can be used instead. Do you have access to any of the works cited in that article? The article from The Call is questionably reliable, given that it's a publication from a political party. Even still, it's not really useful for this context, as it doesn't really go into any details about the proposals themselves. It just criticizes the Entente for prolonging the war for their own gain.

I'm not sure where this information should go, the article is in dire need of a rewrite, something along the lines of how the WWII article is currently set up. Perhaps the best place at this point in time would be the World_War_I#Trench_warfare_begins section. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

well i tried to find more information for the peacerequests:

the one form 12.12.1916 is mentioned here: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/timelines/timeline1916.htm (scroll right)

a part of its transaltion can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2212358 (scroll down)

an arctilce with some (not much) information about this peace offer: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=990DE6D61038EE32A25751C2A9669D946896D6CF&oref=slogin

29.12.1917 arctilce: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B07E7DA1E3BE03ABC4151DFB467838C609EDE

only for people how are interested in (1919 6.11 bad printing quality): http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F03E5D8163AE532A25755C0A9679D946896D6CF

"Stab-in-the-back"

The way the text reads now, I find it difficult to understand: who felt stabbed in the back? The Allies who wanted to parlay their superiority in the field to go on and conquer Berlin, or the Germans who wanted to go on fighting in hopes of ultimately winning the war? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stab-in-the-back legend refers to how many Germans felt after having lost the war, when their army still occupied large swaths of enemy territory and not a single Allied soldier had set foot in Germany. You do have a point, though, that the wording is ambiguous and needs to be revamped. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Section heading reworded and internal link added to mainspace page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The legend can be captured in one sentence: A conspiracy theory publicly propagated and consciously built up (though not invented) by Erich_Ludendorff, Paul_von_Hindenburg and other members of the Oberste_Heeresleitung, serving the two purposes to a) keep alive the notion of an army never beaten in the field and b) weaken civilian politicians within Germany by putting the blame on the "home front" that didn't give enough support to the troups. (77.87.224.100 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Only one small disagreement with that. AFAIK, it was less von Ludendorff & von Hindenburg than the Nazis. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. See Stab-in-the-back legend#Origins. The origins seem to predate the Nazis.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

some changes

The poem by the Canadian pot - there's no real reason to mention it here - it would be better in an article "poets of the First World War"Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia and editing

Correct policy is to discuss disagreements on the talk page. A certain MBK04 (within ten minutes of my edits) is sendin me "final warnings" of this and that ! However I don't see his discussion on the talk page. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin for one so veiled insults are not appreciated. Also, you shouldn't add unsourced information and delete information repeatedly without discussing it. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

John, your edits aren't helpful; you're changing the meaning of a sentence by removing what's there currently. If you want to add the theory that the war was caused by capitalism, please use reliable sources, and do so in a manner that does not remove information that is currently in the article. As for your removal of the mention of John McCrae and In Flanders Fields, please provide some kind of justification for doing so. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The poem "In Flanders Fields" is no more notable than a dozen others, and has no place hre - I suggest a separate article on World War One poets.

The sentence about capitalism which existed before my edit was too vague to be useful. It read something like "people felt the wolrd they had known had finished foreer. Communism and socialism became more popular than they had ever been". I changed the firts part to fit the second part! Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In Flanders Fields is one of, if not the most famous poems of the First World War. If you would like to start a sub-article for poetry, go right ahead, but until you do, it should be mentioned in this article. As for your statement about the sentence you changed, I see nothing wrong with the current wording; many people thought capitalism and imperialism had collapsed, and so turned to alternative methods, such as socialism and communism. It fits fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends where you live. In Britain, by far the most famous poem is "Ducle et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen. The point is that there is no reason to mention just one poem. What does anyone else think? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple comments on what I ran across here. I don't know any of you, so this is an outside observer comment. Firstly, I believe that "I am an admin for one so veiled insults are not appreciated" is neither an appropriate nor productive response. It isn't as if the article was vandalized by a malicious account. Everyone should have responded either here, or made an inquiry on the "offending" editor's talk page first. Instead, what I see is an immediate block note, which is not good faith. The removal of that paragraph in the article wasn't vandalism, but a legitimate edit, so the blocking warnings are not, in my view, a good faith response to a good faith edit. And honestly, using an admin status to lend credibility to it isn't appropriate.

Secondly, and quite honestly, when I read the portion concerning the poem that was removed and returned, my reaction was that it was oddly out of place in that section. A poem may reflect feelings or reactions to the war, but it doesn't correctly belong in a section discussing the immediate social and political consequences of a war. You have a section at the bottom of the page to list media and publications where this poem is already included (and shouldn't the references and notes sections belong below this?). I do not see that this particular removal was disruptive. It may be an important poem, but not in that section. The suggestion to start a sub-article on poetry is a bit argumentative and too late as well, since there already is one, which is linked in the article, and where the details of that poem should be discussed.

Conversely, I do agree that the changes to the sentence did change its entire meaning and weren't productive. As I said, this my honest opinion on what I've seen. No offense to anyone is intended, but it is important that people assume good faith when a legitimate edit has been made and productive discussion is warranted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any insults, veiled or otherwise. I do see admins presuming special entitlement to extra courtesy (which I've also encountered elsewhere). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MBK's comment was a poor choice, to put it mildly. However, Trek mentioned admins in this thread, so I can only assume he's referring to me. I'm a little puzzled as to why, though, as I haven't make any comments of the sort. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mean you (sorry if it seemed like), but I won't name names; it was a mutual misunderstanding, but assuming a given editor knows you're an admin isn't a good bet (as Parsecboy demonstrated; I had no idea. Nor, in the normal course of things, would I care...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a misunderstanding, then. Well, given that adminship isn't special, whether any of us are is irrelevant to any content-related discussion, which is what this is (although it is frequently treated in the opposite manner, which is Trek's point, I think, don't want to put words in his mouth). However, this since thread is going off on a tangent unrelated to the article, I suggest we either finish the discussion, or move it to one of our talk pages. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

intro

The intro as it stands has a paragraph beginning "the immediate cause of the war was ..." but nothing on underlying causes. It would be better with them. That is why I added the following paragraph

"The underlying causes of the war include the strong economic and increasingly military competition between Britain and Germany. Germany a an industrial country had by 1914 overtaken Britain in its industrial economy, but did not have the commercial advantages of a large empire. In the years running up to the war an increasing race to have the strongest navy arose between Britain and Germany, each country building large number of dreadnoughts."

If you can improve it please do, then we can put it in the article. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have added this paragraph in absence of objectionsJohncmullen1960 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

In the "Balance of Power" section, it is stated that Great Britain "had no treaties with France or Russia, but entered the war on their side." However, the first chart in the article (Image:WWIchartX.svg--shown on the right-hand side of the article under the heading 'Causes') appears to indicate treaties with both nations prior to the outbreak of the War. Which is accurate? -209.30.38.42 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Salonika/Macedonian front

is totally marginalized here. -- Bojan  05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

trade barriers

Mr Hull is not sufficiently notable to deserve this paragraph all to himself. We need to either add mor epeople and sources who defended this theory, or take out the paragraphJohncmullen1960 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not Hull's notability that justifies the entry. The Bretton Woods agreements do. They changed the way international finance was done, established the IMF and World Bank, tied currencies to a gold standard (and hence to each other), and lead the way to modern free trade agreements that have removed the competition for economic empires widely considered to have motivated both world wars and many others before them.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

War declaration

I don't think the German "war declaration" is properly titled or captioned in English. If you read it, you find that it is actually more a proclamation that a "condition of war" or "war status" prevails in the German Reich. It is not a declaration of war against any other country.

The German caption (not the text) is:

Erklärung des Kriegszustandes des Deutschen Kaiserreiches am 31 Juli 1914, der Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges. Unterzeichnet von Kaiser Wilhelm II. im Neuen Palais in Potsdam. Gegengezeichnet vom Reichkanzler Bethmann-Hollweg. Note the term Kriegszustand. Zustand is usually translated as "condition," as in a used car, for example, being in guter Zustand.

The English caption incorrectly calls it a "declaration of war." The German version of "declaration of war" is Kriegserklärung.

The English caption also says adds, "starting World War I." The German caption puts it slightly differently, referring to "the beginning of the war."

The origins of the First World War, and the complex, interrelated series of diplomatic and military moves that followed the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, remain a subject of study by historians, and it is at least arguable that no one country "started" WWI by itself. The proclamation at issue followed Russian mobilization against Austria and Germany, which followed Austrian mobilization against Serbia (even this is a simplification). I'm not certain, but if I remember correctly from various books (such as The Long Fuse), war was not actually "declared" until German troops (following a complex deployment timetable) crossed into Belgian, Luxembourgian and/or French territory. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

This is not to minimize Germany's heavy responsibility for Europe's tumble into a war catastrophic far beyond anyone's expectation, but that's another topic.

Sca (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't ''Erklärung des Kriegszustand... normally be rendered in English as a Declaration that the state of war...? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind this is not a declaration of war on anyone. Having said that, it would be better if a native German speaker would address the nuances involved. Sca (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Compare this discussion of the wording of the eventual US declaration.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not titled the 'War to End All Wars'. That's just silly.

It's a euphemistic description, not an actual title. There are no history teachers going "And now we are going to cover The War to End All Wars". Apotetios (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was known to many as "The War to End All Wars" while the conflict was still taking place and afterward. That alone should be enough to merit its mentioning in brackets as one of several (also known as...) titles. As for history teachers, mine certainly mentioned that it was often called The War to End All Wars due to its (then) unprecedented scale, devastation and regional effects. - Winkbonzowink (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

missing word in quote?

The article attributes the following quote to the Indianapolis Star, September 20, 1914, using The Yale Book of Quotations as its source: "There is no doubt that the course and character of the feared "European War"...will become the first world war the full sense of the word."

It seems to me that that's missing a word; probably should be "...will become the first world war in the full sense of the word." Anyone have access to either the Star or the YBoQ to check? TJRC (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

date formatting

Dear editors

I've just run a script through it to audit the dates, which were mostly international but with a sizeable minority in US format. MOSNUM provides three simple rules for choosing (although the non-English-speaking country guideline is now up for negotiation at their talk, and has been removed. I've auto-switched all to international, and can easily swith them the other way. But you need to work out which one. Please buzz me if you need assistance. Tony (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction - Clarity of Outcome

While reading the introduction to the article I noticed that the paragraph dealing with the end of the war and its aftermath does not explicitly state that the Allied powers were victorious or that the Central Powers lost. I know that the outcome is obvious to most people who know anything about WWI and that it can be inferred from the rest of the paragraph (or simply read in the side box), but nevertheless it would probably be a good idea to state it clearly. As I am a new user I can't edit the article myself, but here is my suggestion:

The first sentence of the paragraph as it is now (14:19 MT August 28, 2008):

The war was ended by several treaties, most notably the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, though the Allied powers had an armistice with Germany in place since 11 November 1918.

My small revision would be:

The war was ended in favour of the Allies by several treaties, most notably the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, though the Allied powers had an armistice with Germany in place since 11 November 1918.

If anyone agrees with me or has any comments on the issue please let me know. - Winkbonzowink (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we can say that. The Treaty was in favor of the Allies, certainly, but the end of the war was a pretty mutual benefit. Something like, "Germany agreed to an Armistice 11/11", which has the same working effect (suggesting German surrender), might be apt, tho. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the Central Powers lost territory, and many new nations were created. The German Empire lost its colonial possessions and was saddled with accepting blame for the war, as well as paying punitive reparations for it. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were completely dissolved. Austria-Hungary was carved up into several successor states including Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. The Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and much of its non-Anatolian territory was awarded as protectorates of various Allied powers, while the remaining Turkish core was reorganized as the Republic of Turkey.

I'm not convinced that the information above indicates a mutual benefit for the Central Powers at the conclusion of the war. I agree that the ending of the war benefited the Central Powers at least as far as the cessation of hostilities and the associated death tolls are concerned, but otherwise the facts strongly suggest that the Allies came out on top. Furthermore, stating "Germany agreed to an Armistice 11/11" is as equally ambiguous as the current information (the Allies agreed to it too) and would be redundant, whereas my suggestion or something as clear would be an improvement. Winkbonzowink (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't say anything on "mutual benefit" past the actual end. And I'll agree, past the end, the results were overwhelmingly in favor of the Allies. I don't see the phrasing as better, tho. What about, "An Armistice was agreed 11/11, with the final treaties, most notably the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919. The results strongly favored the Allies: 'all the Central Powers lost territory...Republic of Turkey.'"? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠}

Biased article

There is pro-Serbian biased information in this article. Please recheck sections about "liberation" of Bitolya. Macedonia was inhabited mostly by Bulgarians at that time, therefore it is strange that there could be things like "bulgarization" of the populace etc. Please compare the info in this article with more info regarding the Macedonian question. Please use independent sources like Encyclopedia Britannica and not sources originating from Balkan countries - especially such from Serbia, Macedonia and Romania. Those countries (especially the later two) have policy for changing and adopting Bulgarian history to match their own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.223.180 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause of War

Hi everyone, Saying that the main reason for war was industrial rivalry between Britain and Germany is at best erroneous. The British empire entered the war only because Belgium neutrality was not respected by the German army. A more commonly agreed cause is the Franco-German war of 1870 and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine which led to a strong desire for revenge within the French 3rd republic. Within the german public this war is primarily seen as a Franco-German war. Overall this article overwhelmingly understates the involvment of the French army on the western front, which was arguably the major allied power fighting Germany. The supreme allied commander in 1918 was a Frenchman for that very reason - similar to Eisenhower being the supreme allied commander in 1944-5, which reflected the US army being the major player on the western front. British contribution to the western front was enormous and with Britain, the French army would probably have not been able to contain German advance. I do not mean to play down the enormous sacrifices from the British army, especially during the battle of the Somme. But playing down French involvement on the Western front is completely inaccurate. Just look at the number of troops involved during the first years of the war, as well as casualties, and it is pretty obvious that the war was overwhelmingly franco-german, and became more internationalised from 1917 - especially after the losses suffered by the French army in Verdun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiarel (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so simple, I'm afraid. Violation of Belgian neutrality was only the proximate cause, not the entire one. Had Germany not begun building BBs/CCs & threatening RN superiority, it's entirely possible (likely is another issue) Britain would've stayed out. German indl growth/rivalry was another underlying reason. As to the French contribution, you're undoubtedly right, & it also influenced British strategy (late war British attacks to take the pressure off a French Army on the brink of mutiny, just for instance), but it's partly an issue of sources in English/translation... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In Britain many commentators were expecting conflict with Germany several years before the outbreak of war. The reason for this was that germany's economy was now bigger than Britain's and in string competition.If it had not been the issue of Belgium, there would have been another issue to cause serious conflict Johncmullen1960 (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it's never just one issue. It's a "straw that breaks the camel's back", or sometimes, a country that's determined to have war & just wants an excuse, which applied in WW1. Austria demanded concessions from Serbia she expected would be refused, only to have Serbia accede to most (all?) of them, & declared war anyhow. As noted, it's maybe not likely Britain would have stayed out absent violation of Belgian neutrality, & it may've been nothing beyond a suitable excuse, but it was by no means certain, & there was strong opinion in Britain to stay out. We shouldn't fall into the common trap of thinking things had to go as they did. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with that. I think the present sentence, using the verb "includes" takes this into accountJohncmullen1960 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

role of the US

It may be just me, but the following two quotes from the article seem contradictory to me:

Numerous other states joined these allies, most notably Italy in April 1915, and the United States in April 1917

The United States was never formally a member of the Allies but became a self-styled "Associated Power".

Although the first sentence only says that the US joined the allies, it led me to believe they became a member of the Allies, whereas later in the article this turned out not to be the case. Bolle Hond (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing a song that should be listed on this page

In the section where you list songs/poems that refer to WWI, I couldn't help noticing that "1916" by Motorhead is missing. That just seems odd to me, considering that you do have a song by Iron Maiden listed. Anyone who hasn't heard "1916" should do so, and I mean ANYONE. It's hardly got any drums. It's almost all cello with some organ or some such instrument in the background. It's slow, somber, graceful, and it pays homage to pretty much everyone who has ever died in any war, though it refers to what is likely the Battle of Somme (the day not half over, and then thousand slain, and now there's nobody remembers our names, and that's how it is for a soldier). To the people administering this page, please consider adding "1916" in the list of songs.216.116.87.110 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That German Declaration (again)

The document shown in the article is not a declaration of war in the ordinary, international sense. (Note that no foreign country is mentioned). Rather, it is an internal German declaration of a Kriegszustand - in effect a nationwide state of siege (except in Bavaria, which had extensive privileges and had to declare its own state of siege). The chief significance of such a declaration was that it allowed for press censorship and various other restrictions on personal liberty. It is a purely internal legal instrument, assuming wartime powers for the government. Norvo (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Principe and the Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

It should be stated that Gavrilo Principe was trained by the Black Hand: an underground terrorist group for the independence of all South Slav peoples. I believe that would be more correct than "Young Bosnia". Also, while a minute correction it would probably be best to state that Archduke Franz Ferdinand's wife was also assassinated.

Catalyst101 (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All that is in the linked articles. No real value in having it here. The Black Hand article is actually pretty good, but grossly lacking in citations. Perhaps you'd like to pitch in there?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Books

I’d added the following item to the Books – Fiction section: 1920 Dips into the Near Future (1917) by John A. Hobson. It was torpedoed, apparently by someone called LeadSongDog, who claims that it’s “spam.”

It’s not spam. It’s anti-war literature from the war by a famous (or infamous) British economist, and went through at least two editions after first being published as a serial in a well-known magazine. If you remove this item you’ll have to remove many others of less distinguished pedigree.

One suggestion: make a new category: Books - Against the War. It could include both books written during the war like the above and books critical of the war written afterwards. Onlinetexts (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Command of the Sea

I've moved the following from the article:

Paul Kennedy pointed out that both nations believed Alfred Thayer Mahan's thesis of command of the sea as vital to great nation status; experience with guerre de course would prove Mahan wrong.

...because although the links imply citation, in fact there's no such thing. This is essentially a POV piece of text: nothing proves that either nation had the stated belief, and nothing proves the opposite. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That claim (with some rewording) goes back at least to the 9 March 2006 version of the article. Back then the article had few inline citations to the references. In that version, the reference listed but not cited is Kennedy, Paul M. "The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860-1914" (1981)
Implicit reference is made to Mahan, Alfred Thayer. "The Influence of Sea-power upon History" Boston: Little Brown, (1890).

“ The maintenance of naval supremacy is our whole foundation. Upon it stands not the empire only, not merely the commercial property of our people, not merely a fine place in the world's affairs; upon our naval supremacy stands our lives and the freedom we have guarded for nearly a thousand years. - Winston S. Churchill, first lord of the Admiralty. 10 November 1911 (quoted in Lambert, Nicholas A. "Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution", p.15) ”

UK English

Taking up LeadSongDog's gauntlet, let me agree. It's a mainly European conflict, & I default to Britlish (is that a word? ;) ) for Eur matters; also, U.S. participation was small & late. (Don't howl, see it in perspective. ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Does that mean we should move the article to First World War as well, since that is the more common name in "Britlish"? Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a very strong argument for a page move. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

US Entry into the War

The article mentions Woodrow Wilson mourning the loss of the RMS Lusitania. What is not mentioned here, but is resourced in the article about the RMS Lusitania, was that it was delivering American armament shipments to Britain to fight in a war it had vowed not to enter -- and that it had done so with a civilian carrier, technically considered to a war crime, by all means. Jack Reed said it best, "Why is America entering the war? Profits." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Another Bias page

I have read a lot history of the years and this is just another example of bias entries and distorted facts. I have studied World War Two history for over 30 years and consider myself fairly knowledgeable in the historical content and events that occurred during that period. When reading this page, it seem obvious that the page is written in such a bias manner that leaves little or no room that, “Britain and its empire nations” were the only contributors. In fact when reading the three entries on the US involvement, it leaves the reader with the impression that the United States sent a few divisions in the closing months. In reading this and knowing a little about this War, I started to conduct a little research on the US involvement during WW1 and compared it to the entries that have been contributed on this subject. As most British bias pages, my findings were correct. Facts and figures have been distorted and or completely left out. In reviewing the entry on the Puerto Rico involvement, this is a false and untrue statement. The Jones act did not impose citizenship on the people of Puerto Rico. When the reader reads the entry, he comes away thinking the US imposed Citizenship so they could draft men from Puerto Rican. This is the furthest from the truth. The Jones Act was actual created well before WW1 and was actively discussed prior the conflict. Although it was not passed until 1917, it has no bearing on the subject matter, as 236,000 Puerto Rican men registered for the draft, just like every other man living in the US, citizen or not. Of which 18,000 served, mostly in the Panama Canal Zone (6000) and remaining amount in homeland defense. Of the Puerto Rican men that serve in Europe (combat) most if not all were currently living in the main land US and served with men that were not even Citizens. I suggest that this entry be rewritten or removed based on its relevance to the subject. In reviewing the American involvement and granted “late entry” into the War. You really need to look at the timing, 1917, BEF and French forces, basically a stalemate after 2 ¾ years of fighting on the western front. The British and French had already lost more men then Germans at that time, peace was made with Russia and Germany was back to a single front. The US enters April 1917 and starts sending troops and equipment. Over 4.3 million men are called and serve. This page does an injustice to the memory of the 116,000 that died there. There is no mention of the dough boys, which still remains a phase that most people can relate with. There was actually a time when the Americans were landing 10,000 troops a day in France. This is an incredible feet in 1917 (logistically)and yet there is no mention. There is also no mention of the 866,000,000 GBP that was loaned to Britain during WW1. Payments were made until 1934, but then stopped and remain unpaid to this day. Britain, on today’s exchange owes the US over 4.3 billion USD of unpaid debt, again no mention. The US provided funds, ammunition and food towards the British war effort. This, as in WW2 almost always goes unmentioned. As if it was the duty of the US to provide this support without question or repayment. In closing, this page lacks the current events and truths that can be found with a little research, as there are thousands of books and documents related to this period. I am not asking that this page debate the American involvement as a leading cause for the end of the war. I ask that you include facts and let the reader decide. By leaving out key points and statistics you move the reader to your way of ideas and beliefs. That is not what these pages are about, it is about history, the way it happended not the way you tell it. My Great Grand Father fought in the Highland Light Infantry(HLI-Flanders 1914)and was wounded, I am very proud of his service and dedication to my country. But I also I think, Americans are just as proudJacob805 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, your just bias against the British. 88.109.119.161 (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)