Talk:World War I

German occupied territories in WWI?

Can we talk about German occupied territories in WWI? See question at Talk:German-occupied_Europe#What_about_WWI.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Serbian army, fighting on two fronts and facing certain defeat, retreated into northern Albania (which they had invaded at the beginning of the war)

(which they had invaded at the beginning of the war)

This is the first time that I hear about this. Furthermore there is no reference to this in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_%28World_War_I%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_army%27s_retreat_through_Albania_%28World_War_I%29

D.milivojevic (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In Sept-Oct 1914 forces invaded Albania from both Serbia (central region) and Greece (in the south), according to Edwin E. Jacques (1995). The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present. McFarland. pp. 359–60. Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"An Ethnic History from Prehistoric" Ethnicity in prehistoric times :) It's not right to judge a book by its title but this is ridiculous. Anyway from that book: "Many Albanians, who are descended from the Illyrians and Pelasgians, trace their roots to Achilles and other heroes of the siege of Troy, and claim Alexander the Great as their own"

How ridiculous is that? Anyway the author (Edwin E. Jacques) has written 7 books, out of which 5 are about Albania (one in Albanian) other two about Mobile Medical Work ??? and Christian Missions. That source is... I mean really ??

Simple logic defies the author statements. In the time frame stated by the author Serbia was busy defending itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolubara. Attack from Greece newer happened. Greeks were busy with internal political problems. Greece joined the war in 1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I. Serb forces retreated to Greece try Albania in 1916.

The only time that the (territory of current day) Albania was invaded by Serbia and Greece was in the 1912 during the Balkan wars. Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Albania#Independence_of_Albania_.281912.29 "The territory of what is now Albania was invaded by Serbia in the north and Greece in the south, restricting the country to only a patch of land around the southern coastal city of Vlora. The uprisings of 1910-1912, and the Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania, led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. The independence was recognized by the Conference of London on 29 July 1913.[40][41]"

Until 1913 Albania wasn't even a state.

Since I don't have the necessary permissions I ask the editor to delete that sentence which is clearly a malicious lie. D.milivojevic (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

the author cited is quite detailed and specific about what happened in 1914 -- D.milivojevic should realize that Wikipedia cannot be used as a RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Since that particular passage is cited, do you also mean the cited sources are no good, either? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

no I mean that wiki article A can't cite Wiki article B as a source. But it is allowed for A to cite an item in B's footnotes. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And I'd agree. What it looks like is, the sources attached to the quote above would appear to support the contention by :D.milivojevic. (IDK, I haven't read them.) So... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Will someone please delete that sentence "(which they had invaded at the beginning of the war)".
By now it's obvious that it is false and it has no reputable sources. (D.milivojevic (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

no the citation is Edwin E. Jacques (1995). The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present. McFarland. pp. 359–60.. D.milivojevic has not cited his sources --how does he know what happened? Rjensen (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So you quote a obviously laughable source and in return I have to find a source that states that something did not happen?
What kind of logic is that?. I already referenced the wikipedia articles. So if you are right then those articles are wrong and they should be updated.
Lets update those articles then. D.milivojevic (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

the source is not "laughable" about wwI it cites specific names, dates and places for numerous events, in a calm, neutral voice. which is exactly the info historians need. Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC).

Oh man. Last attempt.
About the author:
The Reverend Edwin Everett Jacques (1909-1996) was an American writer and Christian minister.
He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, graduated from Gordon College and Divinity School,
and was awarded a Master of Arts Degree from Boston University. He also received an Honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree
from Denver Theological Seminary. As a missionary to Albania and Italy he was a teacher in Korçë, Albania, from 1932 to 1940.

Hardly a historian.

Quotes from Dr. Robert Elsie (a real expert) review of the referenced book.

"Jacques makes the fundamental mistake, as do many scholars from Albania itself, of
confusing the history of Albania as a geographical entity with the history of the Albanian people
as we know them today."

"Subsequent chapters of The Albanians are a substantial improvement. Even though they
are traditionalist in outlook and composition, they nonetheless present a wealth of valuable
material previously inaccessible to the English-speaking reader. Here again though, historical
realities are at times veiled by popular legendry and the various sacred cows of Albanian
tradition."

Anyway this is pointless. I guess nobody cares.
D.milivojevic (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely does look like a low-quality source. I'd favour its removal. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Flamethrowers and subterranean transport

Is "subterranean" a typo?Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Subterranean" is the correct spelling. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In context, it's "below the land surface". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not spelling, meaning. Roads, railways, field railways, tramways and the vehicles that ply them aren't underground. Shouldn't it read "land transport"?Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, as noted, a lot of them were below the surface. Not "underground", as in "totally buried" or "tunnelled", but "below land surface", which does fit the definition. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012

More than 9 million combatants were killed largely because of enormous increases in lethality of weapons. Due to new technology, improvements in protection or mobility were scarce. Kristenjaehnert (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done as requested. Current wording is weird, but the proposed wording is incorrect. New technology didn't make improvements in protection or mobility "scarce", there was just a disproportionate amount of offensive improvement in comparison to defensive improvement. I'll try and work out a clearer wording, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it, IDK if there's a better way to put it. It's a balance between lethality, mobility, & protection, & has been for centuries. In the 1890s, firepower & lethality spiked & the other two couldn't remotely keep up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2012

In the third sentence of the second paragraph under Background there is a grammar error. It should read system of alliances was (not were).

24.14.164.250 (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Nice catch. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

WW1 was a very bad and horrible war here are some of the causes of world war World War 1

Imperialism was high back then China was high in Trade in silver The British started selling drugs that the Chinese really wanted The Chinese started naval battle with British with many forces The Portuguese had also taken towns from Britain British wanted lots of territories so they could have the materials/resources they wanted to trade and market At the time the US was a big moneymaker and had gotten much money from raw coal First, the Europeans wanted land from Africa in order to get more territory Next they wanted it’s recourses then many sicknesses happened to men and horses then people found an answer: technologies so they used steamboats and medicines Many countries got the word on technologies from the US to Belgium it was spread quickly and so the Industrial revolution spread by guns machinery and many more At the time Britain had conquered most of the world leaving out very few countries

And also if you think that ww2 was worse you where wrong ww1 was worse because the US dident have any medican and things we had in ww2 THE END — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.211.26 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

economic results

This should be a separate subsection, not combined with health, for completeness and also for completeness it should have a table showing the amount of reparations demanded by each Allied nation. That will hammer in why Germany's economy crashed. Another completeness issue is value of damages in the Allied nations as well as Germany. 108.45.122.74 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)