Draft talk:Participants in World War I

Military history: National / World War I Draft‑class

This redirect 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Draft

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	World War I task force

I believe that you could almost consider Ireland a Central Power because they were fighting the British from 1916 to 1921. Cameron Nedland 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. The Easter Rebellion was short-lived, and the real war didn't break out until after the end of the war in 1918.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Cameron Nedland 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microstates

If Andorra and San Marino are to be considered as on the allied side, should Liechtenstein be considered on the Central Powers side? Many members of its princely family probably fought in the Austro-Hungarian army, and they all lived in Vienna. The country itself was economically dependent on Austria-Hungary. From my senior thesis, I recall much discussion in the British foreign office as to how to deal with Liechtenstein - they weren't at war with it, but it was considered to be allied to the Central Powers in some sense. Is the supposed status of Andorra and San Marino as Entente powers more considerable than this? If not, it seems they should either be removed or Liechtenstein should be added. john k 22:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, mostly because Liechtenstein was INVADED by Germany.

Cameron Nedland 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, Luxembourg was invaded by Germany. Germany didn't even border Liechtenstein, which was between Austria-Hungary and Switzerland. john k 07:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although closely tied with Austria, Liechtenstein had disbanded her 80-man army and proclaimed her neutrality in 1868, so I think she should be listed among the neutral countries. Didacus 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Holy See? Although the status of Vatican City was uncertain in the period 1870–1929, the Holy See was still recognized as a sovereign entity by many countries, with which she kept diplomatic relations. Therefore, I think that the list of neutral countries should include her, too. Didacus 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a dumbass.Cameron Nedland 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many total nations involved?

From Participants in World War I I count 30 or 36 nations (depending on whether or not the British Empire is counted as 1 or as 7 nations. I've also seen the number 32 quoted. Any idea which is correct? and I'd suggest including it in the main article whatever the most-accepted number is. -Alecmconroy 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Map

The map presented in this article has a critical error in it. It suggests that Finland was an independent nation in 1914. This is not the case. Finland became an independent nation in 1917. Therefore the map is clearly misleading. I suggest that either the the borderline between Finland and Russia is deleted, or at the very least a "(Russia)" would be added below the name "Finland" such as in the case of Algeria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.209.216 (talk • contribs)

There is another error on the world map. Bolivia is not colored in Green with the rest of the Allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.127.254 (talk • contribs)

bolivia did not declare war, only severed relations i think. I think its better to show two maps as the allies in aug 1914 were different to those in 1918 --Astrokey44 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bad map

Seems to me both the WWII and WWI participant maps are highly inaccurate. I agree with our "unsigned" friend above. The maps are too misleading. Korea, definitely was not an ally in defeating the Axis. Whether its to swell the ranks of the allies or its just an error...this should be fixed immediately. Oyo321 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of WWI Korea was part of Japan and Japan was on the 'Allied' side. This is consistent with the map in the WWI Allies and participants articles.

At the time of WWII Korea was part of Japan and Japan was on the Axis side. This is consistent with the map in the WWII Allies and participants articles. (RJP 10:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Several issues

First, Albania wasn't an Ally - some of the unrecognized puppet-states might've been combatants (a French and an Italian for the Entente and an Austro-Hungarian one for the Central Powers), but then they have to be mentioned - not Albania.

It is true that Albania was in turmoil at this period, with various countries fighting over it but the various bits were in the hands of various allies. The fact that the country was unable to contribute much to the Allied war effort did not rule it out from being regarded as on the allied side, once it had been invaded by a Central Power. Compare Luxembourg. On the other hand The Netherlands for example, had a stated policy of neutrality and was able to follow it in practice. Diplomacy requires that as far as possible, countries should be counted on the winning side.

Second of all, what are "Neutral countries"??? --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries whose governemnts have not said that they are on either side, or more particularly have said that they are not on either of the sides in a war.

P. S. Why are some countries in the list of declarations of war painted in yellow color? --PaxEquilibrium 21:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See article footnote 2. (RJP 09:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Brazil

I cant find reference anywhere but here that Brazil ever had anything to do with the first world war. Is it an error? -- Atluxity 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to factual verification, this area cries out for some context. What did it actually mean for Uraguay to declare war on the Axis? Probably nothing, so why was it even done? Surely, there was a reason of some kind.Sylvain1972 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe several minor countries declared war near the end in hopes of receiving some of the spoils of the war. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found two articles w:pt:Brasil na Primeira Guerra Mundial in Portuguese Wikipedia (which it have many links) and w:no:Brasils deltagelse under første verdenskrig in Norwgerian Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.80.154 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia as an ally?

Wasn't Armenia annexed by Russia around this time, along with Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan or is that during WW2? -Apr.26,08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.232.209 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

i think there is confusion over italy, the map says 1914 but the description says 1915. Italy was also in the Triple Alliance before 1914, sjould be made clear in the article. Very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.202.228 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Can someone find some english references for brazil participating in the war, so far I have found on wikianswers an answer that says brazil had nothing to do with world war 1. until someone finds a reliable source in english i will remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.49.34 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table at bottom

The note saying "yellow indicates severed diplomatic ties, not war" should be at the top, not the bottom. Fixing this. ☠ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ☠ 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany occupied small parts of PRC?

The People's Republic of China wasn't established until 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Percus (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs?

Prince Faisal joined with Lawrence of Arabia to fight the Ottomans for Arab independence (later leading to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq). Shouldn't Arabs be listed with the Allies? (Not just the Palestinians.) 71.171.89.90 (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]