Talk:World War I

[On 1 September 2009 I added the following, and it was immediately deleted by Skinny87]

The telegrams that were exchanged between the General Headquarters of the Imperial High Command, Berlin, and President Woodrow Wilson are discussed in Ferdinand Czernin's Versailles, 1919 (New York: G. P. Putnam's & Sons, 1964).

The following telegram was sent through the Swiss government and arrived in Washington, D.C., on 5 October 1918 [p. 6]:

The German Government requests the President of the United States of America to take steps for the restoration of peace, to notify all belligerents of this request, and to invite them to delegate positions for the purpose of taking up negotiations. The German Government accepts, as a basis of peace negotiations, the Program laid down by the President of the United States in his message to Congress of 8 January 1918, and his subsequent pronouncements, particularly in his address of 27 September 1918. In order to avoid further bloodshed the German Government requests to bring about the immediate conclusion of an armistice on land, on water, and in the air.

— Max, Prince of Baden, Imperial Chancellor

In the subsequent two exchanges, Wilson's allusions "failed to convey the idea that the Kaiser's abdication was an essential condition for peace. The leading statesmen of the Reich were not yet ready to contemplate such a monstrous possibility." [p.7]

The third German telegram was sent on 20 October. Wilson's reply on 23 October contained the following:

If the Government of the United States must deal with the military masters and the monarchical autocrats of Germany now, or if it is likely to have to deal with them later in regard to the international obligations of the German Empire, it must demand not peace negotiations but surrender. Nothing can be gained by leaving this essential thing unsaid.

— [Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm Hohenzollern (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1927), p. 489]

According to Czernin [p. 9]:

... Prince Hohenlohe, serving as councilor in the German Legation in Berne, Switzerland, cabled the German Foreign Office that 'a confidential informant has informed me that the conclusion of the Wilson note of 23 October refers to nothing less than the abdication of the Kaiser as the only way to a peace which is more or less tolerable.

Wilhelm's abdication was necessitated by the popular perceptions that had been created by the Entente propaganda against him, which had been picked and further refined when the U.S. declared war in April 1917.

A much bigger obstacle, which contributed to the five-week delay in the signing of the armistice and to the resulting social deterioration in Europe, was the fact that the Entente Powers had no desire to accept the Fourteen Points and Wilson's subsequent promises. As Czernin points out [p. 23]:

The Allied statesmen were faced with a problem: so far they had considered the 'fourteen commandments' as a piece of clever and effective American propaganda, designed primarily to undermine the fighting spirit of the Central Powers, and to bolster the morale of the lesser Allies. Now, suddenly, the whole peace structure was supposed to be built up on that set of 'vague principles,' most of which seemed to them thoroughly unrealistic, and some of which, if they were to be seriously applied, were simply unacceptable.

The Kaiser himself wrote:

Nevertheless, it must be noted that John Kenneth Turner, in his [. . .] book, Shall it Be Again? gives extensive proof that all Wilson’s reasons for America's entry into the war were fictitious; that it was far more a cause of acting solely in the interest of Wall Street high finance. My Memoirs: 1878–1918 by William II, London: Cassell & Co. (1922) p. 310

Subsequently, this was substantiated by the findings of the Nye Committee, which studied the causes of United States' involvement in World War I.

Initial comments from the A-class reviewers have identified a number of tasks to tackle. I've added them to the To-Do list (see top of this talkpage). In order to make headway on the list I'd suggest that editors pick a listed task that fits their interests and/or abilities and just dig in. If you'd be willing to coordinate work on a specific subtopic, just click "edit" on the To-Do box and add your username by the respective entry. Thanks for stepping up. LeadSongDog come howl 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

World War II article recently underwent a picture change, so did the Vietnam War. All these seem to have their pictures updated once in a while, so maybe we should think about giving World War I an efficient picture change. --121.72.209.221 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The World War II main picture was changed because of copyright problems with the previous collage. That said, I do agree that periodically changing the lead photos for high profile articles like this where there are lots of photos to choose from is a good idea. Do you have any suggestions for what could replace the current collage? Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made an alternative, and I hope it becomes the article. Simply because its annoying to have to click or open a tab just to see who fought eachother

User:Splinter1044/World War I --Splinter1044 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A November 2009 edit removed from the wikitext a hidden comment listing references that had no explicit inline citation. I'm not certain at this time, but cannot exclude the possibility that some of these were in fact used as references by editors who simply did not provide the inline citations, as was common once. In an abundance of caution, I'm including them below on this talk page so that we may have a reasonable opportunity to recreate those citations using wikiblame.

• Ashworth, Tony (2000) [1980], Trench warfare, 1914-18 : the live and let live system, London: Pan, ISBN 0330480685, OCLC 247360122
  • added in this edit
• Bade, Klaus J; Brown, Allison (tr.) (2003), Migration in European History, The making of Europe, Oxford: Blackwell, ISBN 0631189394, OCLC 52695573 (translated from the German)
  • used in lede to support 60 million figure
• Barrie, Alexander (1961), War Underground: The Tunnellers of the Great War, London: F. Muller, ISBN 9781862270817, OCLC 2322776
  • added in this edit
• Blumberg, Arnold, ed. (1995), Great Leaders, Great Tyrants?, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, ISBN 0313287511, OCLC 30400598
  • added in this edit
• Cecil, Lamar (1996), Wilhelm II: Emperor and Exile, 1900-1941, vol. II, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, p. 176, ISBN 0807822833, OCLC 186744003
• Coffman, Edward M (1998), The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I, Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, ISBN 0813109558, OCLC 38842092
• Cornish, Nik; Karachtchouk, Andrei (ill.) (2001), The Russian Army 1914-18, Men-at-Arms, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, p. 48, ISBN 1841763039, OCLC 248331622
• Coulthard-Clark, Christopher D (2001), The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles, Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, pp. 320pp, ISBN 1865086347, OCLC 48793439
• Cross, Wilbur (1991), Zeppelins of World War I, ISBN 1-55778-382-9
• Cruttwell, Charles Robert Mowbray Fraser (2007) [1934], A History of the Great War, 1914–1918, Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, ISBN 0897333152 general military history
• Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt (1979), Numbers, Predictions and War, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, ISBN 0672521318, OCLC 4037624
• Eksteins, Modris (1989), Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age, London: Bantam, ISBN 0593018621, OCLC 19455240 an analysis of cultural changes before, during, and after the war
• Ellis, John; Cox, Michael (2001), The World War I Databook: The Essential Facts and Figures for All the Combatants, London: Aurum, ISBN 1854107666, OCLC 46506978
• Esposito, Vincent J (1997), 1900–1918, The West Point Atlas of American Wars, vol. II, New York: Henry Holt, ISBN 0805053050, OCLC 39644150 despite the title covers entire war
• Falls, Cyril Bentham (1959), The Great War, New York: Putnam, ISBN 0399501002, OCLC 8664179 general military history
• Fischer, Fritz; Jackson, Marian (1975), War of Illusions: German Policies From 1911 to 1914, New York: Norton, OCLC 221830012 (original German title "Krieg der Illusionen die deutsche Politik von 1911 - 1914")
• Fischer, Fritz (1967), Germany's Aims in the First World War, New York: Norton, OCLC 1558559 (original German title "Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914/18")
• Fussell, Paul (1975), The Great War and Modern Memory, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195019180, OCLC 1631561 on literature
• Gray, Edwyn A (1994), The U-Boat War, 1914–1918, London: L Cooper, ISBN 0850524059, OCLC 59816503 (original title The killing time : the U-boat war, 1914-18)
• Hardach, Gerd (1977), The First World War 1914–1918, London: Allen Lane, ISBN 0713910240, OCLC 3174153 (original title Der erste Weltkrieg) economics
• Henig, Ruth Beatrice (2002), The Origins of the First World War, Lancaster Pamphlets (3rd ed.), London: Routledge, ISBN 0415262054, OCLC 59470456
• Herrmann, David G (1996), The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691033749, OCLC 32509928
• Herwig, Holger H (1996), The First World War: Germany and Austria–Hungary 1914–1918, London: Arnold, ISBN 0340573481, OCLC 60154404
• Higham, Robin DS; Showalter, Dennis E, eds. (2003), Researching World War I: A Handbook, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, ISBN 031328850X, OCLC 51922814, historiography, stressing military themes
• Howard, Michael Eliot (2002), The First World War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 175, ISBN 0192853627, OCLC 59376613, general military history
• Hubatsch, Walther; Backus, Oswald P (1963), Germany and the Central Powers in the World War, 1914–1918, Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, OCLC 250441891
• Hull, Cordell; Berding, Andrew Henry Thomas (1948), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, vol. 1, New York: Macmillan, p. 81, OCLC 228774232
• Isenberg, Michael Thomas (1981), War on Film: The American Cinema and World War I, 1914-1941, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, ISBN 0838620043, OCLC 5726236
• Joll, James (1984), The Origins of the First World War, London: Longman, ISBN 0582490162, OCLC 9852205
• Kennedy, David M (1982), Over Here: The First World War and American Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195032098, OCLC 9906841, covers politics & economics & society
• Kennett, Lee B (1992), The First Air War, 1914–1918, New York: Free Press, ISBN 0029173019, OCLC 22113898
• Lee, Dwight Erwin, ed. (1953), The Outbreak of the First World War: Who Was Responsible?, Boston: Heath, pp. 74pp, OCLC 8824589, readings from multiple points of view
• Marsden, William Edward (2001), The School Textbook: Geography, History, and Social Studies, London: Routledge, p. 177, ISBN 0713040432, OCLC 46836724
• Meyer, Gerald J (2006), A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914 to 1918, Random House, ISBN 9780553803549
• Neiberg, Michael S (2005), Fighting the Great War: A Global History, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674016963, OCLC 56592292
• Pope, Stephen; Wheal, Elizabeth-Anne, eds. (1995), The Macmillan Dictionary of the First World War, ISBN 033361822X, OCLC 60238536
• Robbins, Keith (1993), The First World War, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192891499, OCLC 26402515, short overview
• Ross, Stewart Halsey (1996), Propaganda for War: How the United States was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-1918, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, ISBN 0786401117, OCLC 185807544
• Gilpin, Robert (1989), Rotberg, Robert I; Rabb, Theodore K (eds.), The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 225, ISBN 0521379555, OCLC 123169187
• Schindler, J (2003), "Steamrollered in Galicia: The Austro-Hungarian Army and the Brusilov Offensive, 1916", War in History, 10 (1): 27–59, doi:10.1191/0968344503wh260oa *Silkin, Jon, ed. (1996), The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry (2nd ed.), New York: Penguin, ISBN 0141180099, OCLC 37105631
• Smithers, A J (1986), A New Excalibur; The Development of the Tank, 1909-1939, Leo Cooper, ISBN 9780436475207, OCLC 246675397
• Snyder, Jack L (1984), Ideology of the Offensive, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ISBN 0801416574
• Southgate, Troy, The Fischer Controversy
• Stokesbury, James (1981), A Short History of World War I, New York: Morrow, ISBN 0688001289
• van der Vat, Dan (1988), The Atlantic Campaign, London: Grafton, ISBN 0586206957 Connects submarine and antisubmarine operations between wars, and suggests a continuous war
• Venzon, Anne Cipriano; Miles, Paul L, eds. (1995), The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0824070550
• Winter, Jay M (2005), The Experience of World War I (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195207769, topical essays; well illustrated

Using http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php Wikiblame can help identify when the refs were added and the editor who did so. In most cases, the content change will be by the same editor and about the same time.LeadSongDog come howl 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suggest adding a map which shows where actual fighting was done. This would make it more easy to understand the scale of the war. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly what you're after, but the article used to include this image, still used on :de: and others:

Template:Image Green for Allies and Associated Powers, Orange for Central Powers, Grey for Neutral Nations.LeadSongDog come howl 20:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest a couple of "medium scale" maps: 1 of Europe, 1 of Mespot; maybe 1 of CAfrica (where I bet most readers coming to the page don't know there even was fighting). The trouble I see is, since the trench war was static, it's really only a map of France without really adding too much. The Mespot situation was a bit fluid AFAIK for 1 map to really do the job. And the African ops were pretty minor in the scheme of things. Then there's the Atlantic, which ends up being a map (chart?) of water. ;D (Somehow, I don't think that's useful. ;p) On the broader point of wanting to illo the scale, I agree, tho. Just one cmt on the pic'd map: that leaves a very misleading impression of the scale of fighting, IMO; while empires were involved, there was no actual fighting in India, Siberia, or Oz, for instance. My $0.035. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Clearly it doesn't reflect areas of combat, it reflects the places raising troops, funds, and materiel, the caption would have to reflect that.LeadSongDog come howl 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

As someone seems to have seriously undertaken the gargantuan task of getting this article into better shape, I repeat what I said in this talk page many months ago. I seriously believe that this article should be fundamentally restructured along the lines of World War II for better readability, so that war would be explained through specific time periods, instead of current theatre based approach that treats all fronts individually from beginning to end. Also having sections "fighting in India" and "Entry of the United States" larger than "Eastern Front" is just hilarious.--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course we need more Eastern Front content. By all means help expand (with sources of course). I've been gradually restructuring, but I'm not rushing that part of the work. It's too easy to get disoriented in an article this large.LeadSongDog come howl 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{editsemiprotected}} World War I is also known as the "Third Balkan War."

  Not done: Third Balkan War refers to the Yugoslav Wars. Intelligentsium 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{editsemiprotected}} Request for authorized user to correct

Bad:

was a military conflict which involved most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies of World War I centred around the Triple Entente and the Central Powers, centred around the Triple Alliance.[2]

Good:

was a military conflict which involved most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies were centred around the Triple Entente, and the Central Powers were centred around the Triple Alliance [2].

  Note: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. I wouldn't have chosen the current punctuation, but it seems reasonable. I like that your change removed the redundant "of World War I", but I think that "were" would also be redundant here. As a compromise, I've changed it to read:

was a military conflict which involved most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies, centred around the Triple Entente, and the Central Powers, centred around the Triple Alliance.[2]

Celestra (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm stunned there isn't one of any artillery. This was an artillery war! I suggest including one. Dapi89 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please read Long and short scales for a discussion of the subject - particularly UK usage. Please always take such matters to the talk page, and don't indulge in edit wars - no matter how correct you feel your own usage may be. First usage in the article should be linked to a definition of the base unit used - i.e 10^9. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Really not looking for an edit war. There is, however, a conflct between MOS accepting "billion" as 10⁹, & Engvar using it as 10¹².... BTW, I use billion as 10⁹; this, however, is a page where Engvar would use 10¹². TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, "billion" formerly meant 10¹² in English and French, however now means 10⁹. Therefore WP:ENGVAR isn't relevant here. Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I withdraw my correction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks folks. Kbthompson (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

whole article is covered by allied pictures. there is only one central picture, and its an EXECUTION!! lol i smell propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.1.10 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

At one point in the article, "ceasefire" is used, in another, "cease-fire". I am unable to make edits since the page is locked.

"Roumania" and "Roumanians" are used in the text. "Romania" is correct.

"Roumania" is a variant spelling and not incorrect, although it isn't common these days. Its use here may reflect the spelling used by the author of the cited source work Bessarabia, Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

A film about the British government decoyed the Americans in the war. Leading American academic historians and experts of the era about president W.Wilson and untrue British War propaganda.

Secrets of World War I (1 of 5) It contained five parts.

starting part1 here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.148 (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nothing new in it, unless you don't know the Brits produced propaganda. The better question is, did the propaganda actually lengthen the war, by making it harder for both sides to come to an agreement. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word "successfully" in paragraph 3 should be "successful."

Fixed—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{editsemiprotected}} Request for authorised user to correct

I have a suggested rewrite of the first paragraph in the section "Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918". The original has a misspelling of "material" and is not particularly concise.

My suggestion would be:

Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918 In November 1918 the Allies had ample supplies of men and materiel that could have provided for a complete invasion of Germany but at the time of the armistice no Allied soldier had set foot on German soil in anger and Berlin was still almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front. The Kaiser's armies had also retreated from the battlefield in good order which enabled Hindenburg and other senior German leaders to spread the story that their armies had not really been defeated. This resulted in the stab-in-the-back legend[115][116] which attributed Germany's losing the war not to its inability to continue fighting, (even though up to a million soldiers were suffering from the Spanish Flu and unfit to fight) but to the public's failure to respond to its "patriotic calling" and the intentional sabotaging of the war effort, particularly by Jews, Socialists and Bolsheviks.

Many thanks.

--JMBarrett (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

See materiel and material — they're two different concepts, and "materiel" is more appropriate here. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that Nyttend, I now understand why that was used - I suggest a 'materiel' hyperlink for clarification to be added to my rewrite above. --JMBarrett (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

England France wouldn't able to win the war without the help of the USA. (Due to the fact of their backward industry, France and Britain were the losers of second industrial revolution. The entering of the USA into the war caused the antisemitism in post-war Germany. The strong legend of nazi government: The German Jews "betrayed the German vicory" for the Balfour Declaration of 1917

the weapons they jused were k-p45 which was a rifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.123.77 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Poland fought on the eastern front as well, shouldn't they be listed. Look up the battle of Kaniow.