Talk:World War I

Result: Allied Victory?

The panel on the right hand side states:

Result: Allied Victory

However, this is inaccurate and misleading. I have changed this twice to:

Result: Allied Victory (exception: Russian defeat)

This is to highlight the fact that a key members of the Allies, Tsarist Russia, was defeated by the Central Powers in 1917-18 before the war was concluded by the rump of the allies in 1918-19. This is highly significant. A Victory for Russia would have called into question the emergence of a free Poland and the Baltic states and Tsarist Russia may even have annexed Constantinople. The Russians did not participate in the treaty of Versailles, arguably one of the greatest weaknesses of the treaty. Therefore this is an important exception which needs to be highlighted prominently. I further argue that this change can be done unobtrusively by the addition of the parenthesis. Not all the Allies of 1914 emerged victorious in this war. Views please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If as stated above, "The Russian Empire, which had withdrawn from the war in 1917 after the October Revolution, ... " is accurate it was by then no longer a belligerent, and so there is no need to qualify the result. By November 1918 Russia was no longer a combatant.

British Commonwealths in World War 1

I would like to see the individual commonwealths mentioned instead of the British Empire. We deserve as much credit as the empire we came to the aid of. I believe it is disrespectful to my great great grandfather who died from mustard gas syndrome.

ArizonaRanger21 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Each of the British Dominions has a complete and detailed article that describes their respective commitments, and sacrifices in the war. I do not object to expanding this article wherever relevant; but considering the massive amount of subject matter that it encompasses it is an ongoing struggle to decide what to include here and what can be better served by putting it in the various branching articles. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I should have specified more, what I mean is I would like the commonwealths mentioned in the belligerents under allied powers. ArizonaRanger21 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but listing all the consituent parts of the British Empire would be an exceptionally long list, and would only raise the question of why we should include these, and not the territories of France, Russia, the US, or any other country on the list. I'm sorry, but all that information is currently in the main articles, for example, British Empire or Russian Empire, and I'm afraid interested readers will probably have to go to the main articles for that level of detail. GMG^talk 15:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Some specific mentions are made in the body of the article about particular units and campaigns. Which unit, which campaign is your focus? The British Commonwealth didn’t exist until 1949, btw, so I think the British Empire in those days would naturally include such independent countries as e.g. Canada.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

None of the Empire's constituent countries awarded their own citizenship until after WW II. Before then the people from all parts of the Empire were British subjects, so 'British' refers to them too. It was their empire as much as anyone's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you people realize that you are insisting on changing and omitting history for the only end of keeping an article, that encompasses the entire war, just a wee bit shorter? The word, "Australians" is only 4 letters longer than the word "British". I'm sure Arizonaranger knows when the Commonwealth came into existence, 1931 not 1949. I think he meant what "are now called" commonwealth countries be named. Regardless, at the time they weren't known as British when they were involved in battles but as the country from which they came. Their identity wasn't buried in "British Empire" by either Germany or France and certainly not Britain. When they awarded their own citizenship has nothing to do with the fact that when Germany was attacked they knew if it was by the Australians or Canadians or British or the French. Having the independent countries named under British Empire is far different than naming irrelevant territories of France or the US...even if the US Virgin Islands do have their own president. Independent countries that were heavily involved in the war militarily, politically and economically is far different than territories that only sent men to fill out French battalions.Brocky44 (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Misleading date?

In this sentence: "When Bulgaria signed a separate armistice on 29 September, Ludendorff, having been under great stress for months, suffered something similar to a breakdown. It was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defence." it seems to imply that Ludendorff had the breakdown on 29 september. However, according to David Stevenson 1914 - 1918, The History of the First World War (2012), page 468, it says that the news of Bulgarian negotiations was received by the Germans and that Ludendorff had his breakdown and demanded armistice on 28 september. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well picked up. Yes, it does imply that. Wrongly according to a random source I have just checked. I suggest, "When news of Bulgarian negotiations for a separate armistice reached Germany, Ludendorff, having been under great stress for months, suffered something similar to a breakdown on 28 September." The Bulgarians asked for an armistice on 25 September; did it really take 3 days for news to reach Ludendorff and then cause his breakdown? It seems rather a delayed effect. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Asking for an armistice, and signing it are two different things. The way I read it, the negotiations were still ongoing when Ludendorf was informed of it; it was not yet a done deal. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Stevenson writes as follows about Ludendorff on page 468: "On the evening of the 28th he collapsed, and decided Germany must at once seek a ceasefire." Ulflarsen (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Deciding and demanding are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My point, as I start this thread with, is that Ludendorff's breakdown happened on the 28, not the 29th. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And collapsed and breakdown do not mean the same thing, one can proceed the other.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Keegan: 28 September... he lost it [his nerve] altogether, giving way to a paranoid rage 'against the Kaiser, the Reichstag, the navy and the home front'. His staff shut the door of his office to stifle the noise of his rantings until he gradually regained an exhausted composure. Doesn't sound like a breakdown or a collapse. More a fit of pique or a temper tantrum. Do we have a source which gives a more detailed description and/or uses the word "collapse" or "breakdown"? Hull would be a good source; does anyone have access to a copy? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Missing missing?

I am currently working on the equivalent article on Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål, and I have added sources for killed and wounded soldiers and civilians (civilians are lacking in the infobox in this article). There is however listed missing, for both belligerents. From what I can see the source for that is the article World War I casualties. But when I look it up it seems that dead and missing are one and the same.

I wonder if someone have mixed this up, as if we add these numbers up we get a total of over 9 million dead on allied side and over 8 million dead for the central powers. This is far from what Stevenson states in 1914-1918, page 544. Or is this something else, like deserters? Ulflarsen (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If one add (deaths and missing) it comes up at 17,6 millions (missing assumed dead). Now, Hew Strachan writes as follows in his The First World War (2013): "We know that the war was responsible for the death of over 9 million military personnel." (page xv in introduction). I assume someone has just mixed this up, basically counted the same number twice, so the part of missing should either be corrected with good sources, or removed. Ulflarsen (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As no one address this question I add a reminder: ZeroXero, Stokerm, Mediatech492, Gravuritas, Brocky44, TrueRavin, Gog the Mild, MilborneOne, MilborneOne, Rjensen. The question is as follows:

1. Are missing equal with deads? 2. If missing are equal with deads, why are then our numbers about the double of what dependable sources gives?

Using the numbers in the infoboks I find that it adds up to 17,661 (dead + missing). It is about twice as what reliable sources states for deaths in world war one for soldiers. So either I have mixed something up, or the numbers are counted twice. Ulflarsen (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ulfersen. Greetings all. Yes, looking at the two Wikipedia articles and what references I have, it seems that someone has got confused when composing the info box on this page. (Over 8mn military missing in total doesn't pass the "really?" test without very solid sourcing.) I would suggest deleting the "Military missing"; they are, as you say, already included in the KIA figure. And then adjusting the "Total" figure appropriately. For both belligerents. As you spotted it, would you care to do the honours? And well spottedTemplate:SNDa gross mistake like that on a major page is worrying.

On a related note, do we want to put total civilian deaths in? It would seem appropriate to me, and if we are removing "Missing" it would leave the infobox no more crowded. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild and thanks for kind words. I hope someone quickly remove the "Military missing", I don't want to do it myself, both because I like to have others to look it over and besides that this is not my main Wikipedia. Regarding civilian deaths, I have started on that in our article in Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål. But the numbers are very vague and should be supplied with much caution. Hew Strachan writes in his overview of the war that "More specifically, we have no idea how many civilians died as a consequence of the First World War.", introduction, page XV. So if any numbers at all is given, due warning about they being very vague, should be given. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I will wait 24 hours to give others a chance to input, and them boldly edit myself. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I like both ideas: removing the "missing" which seems to be included in "killed" and causing the overall numbers to be way off, and also adding in the number of civilian dead. ZeroXero (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Boldly edited. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete editing

Under "The Hundred Days offensive" erasing of information has been done leaving the next sentence to state "Faced with these advances..." Anyone reading the article wouldn't know what advances the article is talking about because of the erasing editing. There was a reason that OHL issued orders for 6 armies to withdraw into the Hindenburg Line, it was a specific battle that broke through the Wotan position resulting in the rest of the Hindenburg Line being outflanked. That defeat left Ludendorff with no option but to withdraw his armies.

The article now reads: "Faced with these advances, on 2 September the German Supreme Army Command issued orders to withdraw to the Hindenburg Line in the south. This ceded without a fight the salient seized the previous April.[176] According to Ludendorff "We had to admit the necessity ... to withdraw the entire front from the Scarpe to the Vesle"

Without the erased part being reinserted in the article the above 3 lines might as well be erased also... since the advances and resulting danger facing OHL is not stated in the article. 6 German armies didn't withdraw into the Hindenburg Line just because of the British advances west of that defensive Line, it was because one section of the Hindenburg line was breached.

Also, the above current 3 lines of the article say: "...withdraw to the Hindenburg Line in the south. This ceded without a fight the salient seized the previous April." This would make one think that the salient seized the previous April was in the south, it wasn't, it was in the north near Ypres. Very poor editing by whoever did this, erasing out the middle part of the statement leaves the remaining words not make any sense. The middle part being ",behind the Canal Du Nord at the Canadian-First Army front and back to a line east of the Lys in the north giving up..." All together it reads "...withdrawal back into the Hindenburg line in the south, behind the Canal Du Nord at the Canadian-First Army front and back to a line east of the Lys in the north giving up without a fight the salient seized in the previous April." Now it makes sense.

This part was erased: "On September 2nd the Canadian Corps’ outflanking of the Hindenburg line, with the breaching of the Wotan Position, made it possible for the Third Army to advance and sent repercussions all along the Western Front. That same day OHL had no choice but to issue orders to six armies for withdrawal back into the Hindenburg line in the south, behind the Canal Du Nord at the Canadian-First Army front and back to a line east of the Lys in the north giving up without a fight the salient seized in the previous April. According to Ludendorff “We had to admit the necessity…to withdraw the entire front from the Scarpe to the Vesle.”

I understand completely the mindset of some Wiki editors and their preference for changing and omitting history in favour of saving space in an article. You can read the words of individual French military and politicians of WW1 as well as the same of the Germans and also the same of the British. They all recognized who the Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders were and what they had done when they did it. They weren't all simply lumped in as British, even though they were British subjects, they were from individual countries that had names and those names were spoken by ally and enemy alike whenever actions on the battlefield by those countries were played out. History is different at Wiki than what actually took place.

Any objections to editing the partial statement back to the complete original statement?Brocky44 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

End date

I am not quite sure why the armistice date is used to indicate the end of the war?12:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Brocky44 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is when we generally celebrate the end of the war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, who is "we"? Check World_War_I#Formal_end_of_the_war, and Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918. I think you will find that it is the armistice which you celebrate.Leutha (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

[1].Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as the general public are concerned the war and the fighting finished with the armistice, the legal ending of the war made no difference to the man on the street so they/us always celebrate the 11 November as the end of the war. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, I disagree, that is a particular view point which holds sway amongst certain people. The link to 2014-2018 WW1 Centenary Events only lists events in a handful of countries. I feel that an article concerning the First World War as a Global War certainly needs to admit this amibuity rather than reflecting the popular opinion in one or two countries. Leutha (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

So c an you link to any countries that will be celebrating the end of the war in 2019?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

the rule here is to rely on the reliable secondary sources. Relying on primary sources is strongly not recommended especially if you are not a trained lawyer. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I was addressing the point made about how this is a view enjoyed by only a few countries. I think a demonstration when a given place is celebrating the end of WW1 is valid for purposes of demonstrating that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that the matter is not clear cut. It is not a matter of reinforcing the views of a handful of countries to the detriment of others. As regards, Afghanistan, for example, bearing in mind the use of the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918 as regards the Third Anglo-Afghan War, I am not sure how relevant it is to ask for evidence of them "celebrating" the end of the First World War in 2019. Please also check this. I am also not quite sure the relevance of the issue of the use of primary sources is? Leutha (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Strange!? I didn't post anything about END DATE or ask the question "I am not quite sure why the armistice date is used to indicate the end of the war" My post is the one above, Incomplete Editing. Brocky44 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

{ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salty4565 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be helpful to know what you want.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Consription

This article is bloated. It is also over focused on the Western Front and goes into arguably too much detail on the English speaking experience with little or no corresponding information regarding other nations' experiences. I consider the section on conscription to be a prime example. As much room as is given to Aviation and more than is given to the U-boat war. All of it relating to the Commonwealth; bar one sentence on the US, incongruously under 'Conscription in Britain'. I am going to drastically trim it, and point readers to the various perfectly good articles on conscription in the English speaking world.

If this is not considered appropriate, perhaps we could discuss it here? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Conscription was major issue in the UK, arguably the single most important thing. Yes it was not a British war, that does not mean that these things should be ignored as "not being universal enough". There is an argument for an article on the subject, but that is not an argument for trimming.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Conscription in the UK is now linked to the specific section on WWI, all seven lines of it. I would agree that this is worthy of more detail - but in a separate article. Currently Wikipedia seems to cover the whole question of Irish (non-)conscription in 1 line! That is worth an article in itself.

I could argue that conscription in the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire was a bigger issue than in Britain. But if I wanted to elaborate on this, which I readily could with plentiful references, I would put it in a separate article with a link to here. Similarly with the role of conscription in the Russian Revolution. We could easily generate 5,000 or more words on conscription in the various belligerents, all relevant to WWI, but this isn't the place for that. Let us clearly flag readers to this level of detail in specific articles. (Which sadly seem to be lacking.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Then go ahead and write those articles. But a this time this is the only place we have this material.Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, well put. I will agree to use this page for information on conscription then. Let us see if we can provide sections on each of the belligerents. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)