Talk:Aftermath of World War I/Archive 1

Sanitized "Aftermath"
From this article, one might suppose that the "aftermath" of World War I was a neat and tidy affair of boundary-drawing, and that the only problems were the so-called grievances of the former Central Powers. In reading this article, you will find not a single mention of: --or, indeed, have any idea that vast regions of Eastern Europe remained in a state of war for years after 11 November, 1918. How can a long article nominally dealing with the aftereffects of the war so completely miss so many central events?RandomCritic (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919
 * The Polish–Soviet War
 * The Finnish Civil War
 * The Greco-Turkish War (1919–22)

Can the German section ever be Neutral
There are great difficulties in obtaining a concensus on whether the treaty of Versailles "punished" Germany fairly or unfairly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.215.173 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The other side was that they weren't punished enough, hence WW2.


 * Would that be the other side of reality?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.147.5 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.112.27 (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Versailles Treaty was actually quite fair in most regards. The Germans complained bitterly about the war guilt clause. And I for a long time simpathized with them. Then I did research. I read old books at archive.org. Books like James Beck's 'Evidence in the Case', J'accuse, 'History of the twelve days', 'The thirteen days', 'The diplomacy of the war of 1914', 'The Vandal of Europe', and 'The Crime'.

My feeling now is that the overwhelming evidence is that Germany did in fact start WW1. As far as loss of territory I have this to say; The area of Schleswig near DEnmark had a plebiscite in 1920 and voted to be part of Denmark(this was supposed to have been done in the 19th Century but Germany and Bismarck had reniged on the promise). Alsace and Lorraine were probably mixed in their views as to loyalty to Germany or France but many of their elected representatives to the Reichstag during the second Reich were pro-French so that may give you some idea of where their loyalties were. As far as Poland goes, the Versailles treaty gave Poland the areas that were 50/50 Polish. Yes this did include Germans. But keep in mind that Germans had for a long time ruled many Slavs in Bohemia, Moravia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Hercegovina, and Poland. And the feeling was that the war had started because Austria and Germany were imperialistic and trying to dominate Slav areas of Europe.

As far as reparations goe, most of the devastation was in allied countries, not in the Central Powers. Germany only paid about 15% of the reparations that were stipulated in the Versailles Treaty, and much of this money that Germany used to pay the 15% was from American loans, which Germany never repaid. There were no reparations charged to Germany for WW2, instead Germany lost territory to Poland.

No Germans were prosecuted by the Allies for German war crimes committed during ww1. The Germans claimed it was a matter for German courts. The German courts did try some Germans, but the sentences were usually very brief.

As far as loss of the German navy and the German colonies(most of them unprofitable anyways), Britain stood to gain no territory in Europe. So the only way to compensate Britain(and the USA) was to remove the threat of the German Navy and to award the colonies as some sort of compensation for the money spent and ruined lives.

Did the Treaty of Versailles punish Germany fairly or unfairly? I say it was amazingly fair, and well done.76.94.18.217 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette76.94.18.217 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * if you want to keep something neutral, maybe you can just describe what other people have said about the situation. my question is this... who is saying that it was fair, and who is saying that it wasnt? why are they saying it, and when? what is their evidence? imho.

Attribution
Hello I just wanted to know who specifically wrote the Aftermath of WWI and if he or she is a profesor or its credibiltiy it is for a project


 * The way it's written (I've done *some* editing so those are the good parts ;-) I think it's a *rough draft* of a project, at an undergraduate level at best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.147.5 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Overthrow of monarchies
It strikes me as odd that there's a great big reference to the Russian Revolution, but absolutely no mention of the overthrow of Imperial Germany (or of the Dual monarchy in Austria-Hungary, though the breakup of that empire is covered, which is heavily linked) or the establishment of the Weimar Republic. Even the collapse of the Ottoman Empire seems a little cursory.

Unfortunately, I don't really know enough about any of these to try to write them myself. Is anyone able to try to flesh these sections out a little, as these are all pretty hefty consequences   &mdash; OwenBlacker 22:10, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Social trauma
Is it really accurate to say that the social trauma was most acute in France? France didn't have any higher casualties or hardships than Germany, Russia, or the Austro-Hungarians did they? Was there some sort of additional social problem that was created there?

Peregrine981 18:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think France suffered the most *during* the war itself (the trenches and landscape and civilian losses). Germany/Russia/A-H may have suffered more *after* the war, but I think France took the hardest hit in terms of the war itself. 128.112.147.5 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The social trauma section contradicts itself - like an argument is taking place between two people. In particular: "For the next few years, much of Europe mourned privately and publicly; mourning and memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns. In fact, it is not at all clear that any society was traumatised. Nor that the human losses were heavily mourned." Both points seem valid but it is not coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.171.226 (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I added some whiny textboxes to this section, because it provides almost no examples, and no inline citations. The only specific works mentioned are some novels. that is a good start, but you need a lot more to make this convincing to a skeptical reader, imho. for example... 'communism became popular'... where? when? how? who? why? 'nihilism became popular'... again, who with? where? when? how about some links to other articles? the bavarian soviet republic? the freikorps, their literature? the kapp pustch? beer hall putsch? the futurist art movement? bertolt brecht? knut hamsen? the thule society? the rise of anti semitism? the french reoccupation of part of germany? how about people like churchill or gandhi, or ernest hemingway? how about novels.. all quiet on the western front, the red badge of courage, in flanders fields... this section itself seems like a simple topic at first to me, but then i think about it, it is an incredibly difficult and complicated topic to reliably describe.. you are talking about peoples deepest emotions here, it is chaotic at best. in such a case, very much more detail would be appreciated by readers such as myself.... that is my feeling. but on top of all this, it is just bady written and has no citations. i still think it is a fascinating topic of discussion though.

France, Foch, armistice
There's sentence "After this statement, Foch was amazed to see himself rise in power." that gives no sense to me. Could it be reworded? Pavel Vozenilek 12:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed it a little. Is this better?: After this critical statement.... (He was amazed to rise because he had criticized the government. Peregrine981 03:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually what kind of "power" and what were effects on post-war politics? Did he changed something afterwards? Pavel Vozenilek 18:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Italy
What about Mussolini and his rise to power by preying on post-WWI fears? Shouldn't there be a section on how the results of WWI led to Facism in Italy?

Indeed, I think there should be a more deteailed view on the situation of Italy in the aftermath of the war. In the current version of the article it is described how "favourable" the situation of the Italians was after the war: On the one hand, with the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a very safe position regarding foreign policy was created. The internal problems, however, should not be inderestimated. It took the italian army eleven (!) attempts to finally win a battle against the Austrians (the one at Vittorio Veneto) and even this one was not a "real victory", because the Austrian troops were already in dissolution in disarry, the country was more than bancrupt and the population extremely demoralised. One shouldn't forget: The industrialisation of Italy started only in 1860 and only in northern Italy, all Italy southern of Rome, Sardinia and Sicily were absolutely dominated by agriculture, a situation that did not change until after WWII. The new territories did not serve as a compensation for that, at least not in the general opinion. Even though officialy Italy was on the winning side, nobody really felt this way. This was one reason to lead Italy as one of the first european countries into a new, totalitarian era. I would be willing to edit the article in this direction, but I also would like to discuss the issue prior to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.192.121 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote the part on Italy? In my opinion, it is inaccurate and the language makes it look like some sort of tale. please provide sources. --Nebu87 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of Italians felt to be on the winner side, but they were disappointed for the reward being not in line with the terms of the Pact of London of 1915, although the acquisition of city of Fiume was not mentioned in the pact. I agree on the issue that the spread of myth of "mutilated victory" and the missed target of Risorgimento (i.e. Dalmatia) made an involution of irredentism into nationalism and helped the rise of fascism. But the rise of fascism had also other relevant causes.--Deguef (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I had to specify that strong minorities were related to the borders areas with Austria and Yugoslavia and NOT to overall population in Italy. In fact, Italy, compared with other European countries, had only small minorities. --Deguef (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of Aftermath of World War I
This section should be toned down from heroic tone and provided with credible references, not with quips. Possibly the revolutions in former Russian Empire should have their own page, linked from here. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath of World War I
"Armenians of Baku - Stephan Shahumyan and 3 Armenian brigades defended Baku for Russia and Allies during the 1918 against Turkey, Germany and their vassals - Caucasian Tartars (now days Azerbaijanians). The heroic defense of Baku by Armenians was a great support for Anti-German and Anti-Turkish powers and lead to the 1918 November capitulation of Central powers. As German general von Ludendorf said: Armenians were the only fighting nation in the East (from Erzurum to Baku). 8 months of Armenian struggle against the Ottoman Turkey in 1918 left the German Army without Baku oil."

It is not obvious to me that (1) this is NPOV, (2) this is actually about the aftermath of World War I (cf the blockade of Germany, continuing past the armistice) or (3) that it actually makes much sense... suggestions please? --TheGrappler 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

why the reference to Vietnam in Aftermath...
"This was not the case, especially in French Indochina (the future Vietnam) and would lead to future conflict." makes no sense in relation to germany or WWI, even if one is looking decades down the line, as Germany had no influence there. On the other hand, one might be able to link Rwanda, for example, as that had been a former german colony. If the intent is to link the failure to implemennt Wilson's call for self determination which then meant that France surrendering to Germany which then gave Japan access to French territory which then resulted in Ho fighting the Japanese with US support and then the French and the US turning on Ho and his attempt to establish self rule, well, that is a really convoluted impact - Rwanda's massecres in the 90s are far more closely linked. I'm just rambling here trying to figure out the intent or purpose of the statement quoted. Mulp 23:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

well,I can answer that...
"the answer is that you people care too much. all the talk here is pointless. go get a girlfriend or something you NERDS!!!User:ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.132.207 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"cack attack"
i noticed the blockade portion of the article got deleted... i dont really know if i replaced it correctly as i have never edited a page on here so if anyone could check it would be appreciated

I am perplexed by the section on Versailles dealing with the treatment of the German colonies. It is atrociously worded, so much so that I cannot make sense of the point that is being made. These territories were turned into League of Nations' mandates, not left "for decades". A more serious point relates to the treatment of native peoples. We are told that the United States "pressed European nations that were accepting Germany's old colonies to have the native citizens (sic) there treated with the same respect they got when Germany was there." ??? Make of that nonsense what you will! The Germans showed the 'native citizens' such respect that they almost 'respected' the Herero people of South-West Africa (Namibia) right out of history, in one of the worst examples of colonial genocide. One of the minor participants in this exercise in 'respect' was Franz Ritter von Epp, later Nazi supremo in Bavaria. White Guard 01:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall the page needs work. Don't hesitate in being bold, and remove revisionist statements on sight! Lapaz 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've now removed the statement in question. I would have put in a few words about League of Nations Mandates, but I honestly do not think this is called for. White Guard 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
I read somewhere that the United States sunk some of their own ships after signing a treaty with someone to even up our navy with Britan's navy or something like that. Is this at all correct? If so, I think it should go somewhere here.Bacongirl 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on the Washington Naval Treaty has the information you refer to; the short answer is yes, the US was required to decommission several ships in order to comply with the limitations of the agreement. Carom 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

slight error ?
"One gruesome reminder of the sacrifices of the generation was the fact that this was ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES in warfare whereby more men had died in battles than to disease, which had been the main cause of deaths in most previous wars."

The words capitalised above dont make sense.Either it was the first time or it wasn't but surely it cant be one of the first times.

I dont feel qualified to change pages so i'll let someone else do it, assuming you people believe me to be correct on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.204.72 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Influenza
The article on the influenza pandemic seems to place the blame on the US, when I believe the bulk of evidence seems to support the idea that this strain of influenza developed in the orient and spread west. Any thoughts on this? Pygmypony (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire
I've added a POV tag to this section: as well as being badly written using clumsy English, it contains a large number of troubling errors and distortions. A few examples: it says the "Ottoman government collapsed completely" - it did not, actually the occupied Allied forces supported the Ottoman government. It claims that "the Ottoman Empire was divided amongst the victorious powers" - again false, the vast majority of the Empire's territory that was under Ottoman control at the close of the war was left under Ottoman control. The claim that the empire's defeat was the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is wild exaggeration. Meowy 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that things have gone from bad to worse in the Ottoman Empire section of the article. I guess if you want something done, you should do it yourself. For an easy start, I will remove the POV map, which rewrites both reality and the map it purports to be based upon - for example the "mandated to" and "allocated to" captions on the original French map are both changed to "territory ceded to". Meowy 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm dissapointed in this comment. I improved the prose, got rid of the grammatical errors, added more info and removed what you claimed was a wild exaggeration and added an important source. I placed the map there because I considered it more relavant than simply a map of Jordan and Palestine. The map may be factually innacurate, but you should try and find a more accurate version rather than dismiss it simply as pov (what is the pov being implied?). If the section really has gone from bad to worse perhaps you can elaborate why? --A.Garnet (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The key of a map being deliberately altered to fabricate an alternative reality is as good an example of the worst form of POV editing as you can get. Something like a map or a photograph that is known to be factually incorrect should not be left in an article - such things can't be easily improved by editing because they are self-contained objects created from material that perhaps only its creator has access to. The text is full of weasel words, slights of hand, distortions, and straight-out lies, from "the Treaty of Sèvres, a plan designed by the Allies to dismember the remaining Ottoman territories" (a lie) onwards. Meowy  21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, please be clear what exactly your disputing here. Accusing my rewrite of consisting of "weasel words, slights of hand, distortions, and straight-out lies" is not helpful, nor do I consider it civil. --A.Garnet (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

When the Aftermath of the First World War began
Here the end of the 1st World War is set as a 11th of November, 1918. That is only western point of view, as the last major peace treaty in Eastern Europe was signed 2 years later, the Peace of Riga (the last peace treaty of WW1 to be signed in Riga), between Poland and Soviet Russia, also several other peace treaties of the time were signed there. So, I'd recomend putting in a line somewhere that the First World war in Eastern Europe ended 2 years later, Versailles decided neither existance of countries, neither boarders, neither anything in east. It is close to impossible to change point of view of western historians concerning the date of "the end", but this encyclopedia can at least keep open mind and see this date as just an interpretation, not a universally accepted fact. I say this not to undermine the importance or losses of the West, but to say "they were not the only ones to bleed". I could go in deeper, and start mentioning statistics (which have somehow for some reason dissapeared from wikipedia..) that countries like Baltic states in years 1914-1920 statistically lost more of it's economies and population then France in both wars together. Even Germany in neither war lost 25% of it's population. So, it would be wise to mention that half of Europe had very much important warfare yet post-Versailles. Thus, de facto and de iure, the interwar period system was set by Versailles-Riga system, not just the Versailles treaty, which doesn't even concern itself with everything east of Berlin. Also, Locarno treaty shows this - everything starting from the eastern part of Germany is outside western sphere of influence (and thus in a way - beyond western concern). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imants (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
IP Address 71.165.170.24 vandalized the page, making changes such as calling it World War 6 and saying it ended in 2012. I wasn't sure of the correct way to undo the changes so i just hit the thing that says undo on the history of the page (in reverse order, from newest to oldest) and it seemed to work correctly. Just making a note of it here.76.95.151.212 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda Medal
Shouldn't that be in another article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.55.57 (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of Blockade a cause of WWII
I question the appropriateness/correctness of this: "Some historians have argued that the slow food shipments in early 1919 was one of the primary causes of World War II; others have advocated the Allies should have been even harder on Germany.[citation needed]" It may be seen as one of many, many minor ones, but not "primary"? Does anyone object to this being removed? StevenWT (talk)
 * Having heard no objection after 3 days, I am going to reword that section.StevenWT (talk) 12 June 2010

Creation of the old political order a contradiction in terms?
This article contains:


 * For Germany, the Soviet Union and all the new states the First World War had been the creation of the old political order

Isn't it the opposite, destruction of the old political order?

Or should it be "... creation of a new political order"?

And should "had been" be replaced with "led to", "resulted in", "was the seed to", "was the direct cause of", or similar?

--Mortense (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WWl
I need to find a map about europe after WWI. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.134.249 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * try http://www.google.com --CutOffTies (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

End of globalization
This article should discuss the impact of WWI on global trade relations, and the retreat of globalization process for the next few decades after this conflict. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Italy
The Italy section is, frankly said, utterly ridicolous. I will provide and change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.94.91 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: the page being protected: I came to this page following an edit I saw on a page I watch -- Italian irredentism -- where an IP user seemed to be well aware of how ref tags were supposed to work, but went out of their way to maliciously and knowingly use a ref tag to pursue a jingoistic/nationalistic agenda. That edit in question was |here. The editor has at least two IPs 82.53.94.91 and 82.51.88.16 - I think the edit summaries (when used) say it all. Obviously, after I undid the strong POV edit on "Italian irredentism" I click on the IP contribs and saw summaries such as "[...] learn to write. [...] do not write at all about things you do not know. [...] don't purportedly give terrible interpretations of FACTS, yes?", "Amen.", and "Ah damn." and presumed - and was borne out - that these would be non-professional edits. They were starkly jingoistic/nationalistic and not at all neutral or encyclopedic. My first move was to revert to the version before the IP first edited. He or she was right, the Italy section wasn't the greatest. But I made significant improvements - removed all peacock and weasel wording (of which there was, confusingly, both) and general over-wrought posturing and made it simpler and easier-to-read. Also, importantly, I left a note that this section still could use some more work. I did not expect that "more work" would be a simple reversion, not only to the way it was before, but the IP gave the impression that they did not even read my edits, only assumed I undid theirs and left it at that. Further edit summaries of "La la la la la." and "[...]WHICH IS THE TRUE "NON-ENCYCLOPEDIC" one. Maybe you should first go to school and learn about these things." confirmed the bias and resolve to avoid compromise of this editor. JesseRafe (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - From what I could see, neither version was great. Both you and the IP have been inappropriate in edit summaries and in manner, and both should've attempted to discuss it before entering a revert war of this scale. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that my version wasn't great - note there were three not two versions being discussed here. The first one was poor, then the IP user made it decidedly pro-Italy and had a lot of superflous language. Then my edit summary to first undo so I could start from the older version was "restoring previous version of the page, confusing unnecessary edits" - is this inappropriate? Then I made my edits with the summary "clean up in section, could use more work" - was that one inappropriate? Then the IP reverted me with the inappropriate and uncivil edit summary "La la la la la" clearly showing disregard for any kind of process or conversation about the content. How as I inappropriate there? So my next summary is "non-encyclopedic antagonistic editing reverted to prior version -- one of the pillars of WP is "be civil" that includes your posturing and attitude in the edit summaries" - This is what you mean by inappropriate? I'm at a loss. The IP clearly thought I was reverting to the original, not my edited more neutral version by saying "reverting on this old and biased version" and that I "should first go to school and learn about these things". But you're saying that I was inappropriate in edit summaries? Good to know. JesseRafe (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "non-encyclopedic antagonistic editing" is inappropriate, and even if it was a statement of fact, it was an unnecessary comment. The IP had more inappropriate edit summaries, but you weren't innocent. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? So "La la la" or "go to school" is neither non-encyclopedic or antagonistic? "non-encyclopedic antagonistic editing" is not inappropriate because it is a statement of fact, especially so when it was given as a reason to answer the IP's question for why I was reverting... JesseRafe (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether they're antagonistic or not, there is absolutely no need to act like that in edit summaries - or the "sheesh" comment you've aimed at me. Also, you appear to be unable to notice that I am saying that the IP has made inappropriate edit summaries, and more of them. The irony is that you invoked "be civil" in an edit summary where you promptly proceeded to be incivil. Now, the IP's paragraph wasn't perfect, but looking at it, I'm not seeing how it needed whole-scale reversion. It contained some references, it was better written, and although it perhaps wasn't highly neutral, I believe it is the better of the two paragraphs, as it is less vague, and from what I can remember from History lessons, reasonably accurate. It certainly wasn't as bad as the Austria-Hungary paragraph is. I suggest we sit down, neutralize some of the wording, and reference it, and then use this new version following the removal of FPP. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not see how untenable your position is? The only thing you refer to that I did in the guise of being "incivil" was to say the IP was being uncivil, so what do you do? You accuse me of being uncivil. Genius! I approached this correctly, spoke factually, and did not abuse the edit summaries. I don't mince words, if someone is being an X I call them an X. You have yet to show any documentation of where I erred in edit summaries or being uncivil to this IP who was exceptionally rude and arrogant other than by calling a spade a spade. All in all, your reasoning is bullshit. JesseRafe (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour, and cut the snarky edit summaries and comments. You're as bad as the IP. Discuss the edit, and come to a compromise; neither edit is perfect, and both have useful content that can be used. The fact this page has been fully-protected twice is due to your edit-warring. Consider yourself lucky I went to RFPP and not the edit warring noticeboard, or even ANI, because you'd have been blocked for edit warring if I had... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you clearly fail to see the issue, I was enforcing the status quo rather than the nationalist agenda of the IP (seen in their other edits on other pages) and you tacitly endorsed their version by protecting their jingoist angle. How can one have a conversation with an IP? They don't respond or they switch their address, as this one has also done. I didn't edit war or violate 3RR or do anything uncivil, until this talk page, where, yes, I was uncivil to you, because I think you're full of it. I HAD ALREADY MADE A COMPROMISE EDIT. (Original text = bad, IP's text = worse and nationalistically biased, my edit = synthesis and made neutral) Then that one was reverted with the IP clearly misunderstanding thinking it was a restoration of the original text, which as anyone who is literate could see, it was not. But maybe literacy is too much to ask for these days. People like being admins and reading rulebooks more than content and subject matter and presenting neutral, fact-based encyclopedic articles that don't sound like a 7th-grader's school report with highfalutin prose like "nevertheless Italy's discontent was immense". That is NOT encyclopedic content. Impossible to quantify. That's the nonsense that needs to be removed, but because some people think the responsible and reasonable person (who doesn't say "lalallala" and use edit summaries to tell others to go to school) is edit warring. Yes, I was snarky in the Talk Page and its edit summaries, but you objectively earned my scorn by not addressing either the issues or my direct questions to you. JesseRafe (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am well aware you were defending the status quo, but the status quo was also junk. Stating you didn't edit war is blatantly incorrect - you've made 5 reversions of the IP's edit, partial or otherwise. Did you break 3RR? No, but had I not requested full protection, you would've done. You were blanket reverting what was a net improvement, rather than rewording the bits that would've needed improvement. I did not "protect their jingoist angle"; the protecting admin did, and if it was as much of a problem as you proclaim, then they would've reverted it. I addressed the issues ages ago; from the very beginning, I said both edits were flawed (which they are) and that both of you had been addressing each other inappropriately in edit summaries (which you had). Right above that comment, I stated "discuss the edit, and come to a compromise"; I've seen no sign of you attempting to discuss (there's no guarantee the IP would discuss, but they'd react a lot better than they do to blanket reversions if you attempted this.) Have you forgotten about WP:BRD? Also, considering I've saved you from a potential block with these RFPP requests (given your over-the-top edit summaries and edit warring), I'd have thought you'd be a little more civil... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I take back what I said about you, I like you now. You're hilarious. The IP's edits were a net improvement? When they were blatantly false and biased and the initial edit summaries (how I came across this page from their contribs) were "Enjoy. Ah, and learn to write. And, most importantly, do not write at all about things you do not know. Ah, and don't purportedly give terrible interpretations of FACTS, yes?" and I undo and say "be civil" and I'm uncivil? Oh my. You're a peach, Lukeno94!
 * My "over-the-top edit summaries"! Sheesh, how embarassing! "restoring previous version of the page, confusing unnecessary edits" ("Come down from there! That's too far over the top!") or "clean up in section, could use more work" ("Now this is an editor who clearly doesn't want to compromise on anything!") or "non-encyclopedic antagonistic editing reverted to prior version -- one of the pillars of WP is "be civil" that includes your posturing and attitude in the edit summaries" ("How rude!")
 * And then you go on to say "I've seen no sign of you attempting to discuss" in response to me saying "highfalutin prose like "nevertheless Italy's discontent was immense". That is NOT encyclopedic content.", wow, how droll! It's like I'm not even discussing the problems I have with this article at all! It's almost as if I don't even mention concrete flaws with its current state. I'm complaining merely in the abstract! O, when, o when, will I get down to brass tacks and "talk about the article". Oh man, what a blowhard I am!
 * Well, Lukeno94, at least you were right about one thing. The offending IP user vandal certainly did come to this Talk Page to discuss the changes to this article and their merits, something a registered user with thousands of edits in half a dozen languages never would have done. Good day. JesseRafe (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're as unconstructive as the IP. You're just too blind to realize it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

United States
"The American economic influence allowed the Great Depression to start a domino effect, pulling Europe in as well." - This seems to be POV and is unattributed. 207.67.82.250 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Montenegro
No mention in the article made of Montenegro, which despite being part of the allies ceased to exist after world war I and was subsumed into Yugoslavia. Montenegro had been an independent country since 1878 with the treaty that ended the Russo-Turkish wars. Phil Nolte (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added Montenegro to the list, noting that it was annexed by Yugoslavia (even if I think that country didn't have that exact name yet for some years). Boot Blues (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Portugal
Portugal is mentioned in the list of countries which gained territory in the war. What territory did Portugal gain? This is news to me. Boot Blues (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Kionga Triangle from German East Africa. Tutlulu (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Newly independent states which soon lost their independence
There are a few countries which enjoyed a brief period of independence following this war. They are not in the list of countries which gained independence and I think that is pretty good, since it can be put in question whether they actually can have been said to have been independent, given that they often were not recognized as independent by other countries. Among these are Armenia, Bavaria, Belarus, Hejaz, Kurdistan and Ukraine. I have added a note about this above the list of countries which gained independence or territory. Boot Blues (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aftermath of World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219130455/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)