Talk:Causes of World War I/Archive 2

British-English spelling?
A flick through the history shows this article was in Br-Eng until Dec 2006 when someone came along and "fixed a lot of spelling errors". Comments anyone? -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not watching this article in December, but if what caught your attention was my very recent reverting of a change of one word from "behaviour" back to "behavior", I reverted the change because I thought the change was silly and inconsistent with the rest of the article. I didn't realize it had originally been written as "behaviour" (prior to December). I see back in December there were a lot of spelling errors, such as a couple instances of "mobilise" or "mobilisation", sometime in the same paragraph with one of the dozen or so instances spelled "mobilize". I think the spelling has improved and we should not rip through the article and change back to Br-Eng. Werchovsky 18:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The -ise/-ize and -isation/-ization aren't spelling errors but one of the possible differences between BrEng and AmEng. As both are okay in BrEng, it seems silly to change them. What we're really left with is favoured/favored behaviour/behavior etc. WP:MOS's third par is clear enough: this article started in BrEng and was stable enough in it for ages. It's no big deal to change it: maybe five minutes. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I said "mobilisation" was a spelling error because a) it was in the same article and paragraph with "mobilize", and b) Oxford's online pocket dictionary with UK selected does not accept "mobilisation", only "mobilize", "mobilise", and "mobilization". I see now that there are other British dictionaries that are more accepting. (I also just noticed we still have one instance of "mobilisation" in the article this time in the same sentence as "mobilize".)

With regard to the third paragraph of the style rules, I agree it was improper for the author to move from BrEng (even if poorly written) to AmEng, but now that it has been stabile/stable in AmEng for 9 months, it seems improper under the same paragraph's rules to flip it back to BrEng. Are there other Wikipedia rules that make an exception for this situation?

Werchovsky 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Basically, -ise/-isation is the "Oxford" spelling and -ize/-ization is the "Cambridge" spelling. It is based on the house styles of Oxford University Press (established informally in 1478 and, by Royal Warrant, from 1578) and Cambridge University Press (by Royal Warrant from 1534).

-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The rules are clear: it reverts to the variant it started in. It's no big deal.

Your comment on Oxford and Cambridge is odd because Cambridge does accept "mobilisation" with an "s", but Oxford does not. Did you reverse the two, or is there just no general rule?

Please point me at the rule that makes it clear reversion to the style of November 2006 is the proper action. A literal reading of the rule you first pointed at seems to be saying that action would be as improper as the change in December.

Werchovsky 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 22:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I flipped them. I wasn't paying attention.
 * 1) "When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That was in Dec December 2004 and was BrEng ("fuelled", "centre", "fervour"). First use of the following was also BrEng: "favourite", "defence", "mobilise", "mobilisation".
 * 2) In any event, "it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic": the article has 35 references to Britain and only two to the United States.

Scrap of Paper
With respects to the "scrap of paper" comment regarding Belgian neutrality, the article takes the British view of the discussion. What is the evidence that the British Ambassador's account is the correct one and not the German Chancellor's?

Werchovsky 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't recall that Bethmann ever disputed Goschen's account. john k (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg gave a press interview on January 25, 1915 on the subject. This article no longer takes the purely British view of the discussion.Werchovsky (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that an incumbent politician at a press conference several months later is as credible a source as an ambassador writing a dispatch to his government immediately after the events? This verges on OR - so far as I'm aware all major historians accept Goschen's version of this story as essentially accurate. john k (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am looking at Goschen's report. It was written in London, 4 days later.  Many historians picked up on Bethmann Hollweg's interview.  Please be careful.Werchovsky (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please revert the change you made to the article until our discussion is concluded. I believe you made the edit while under several misunderstandings.Werchovsky (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked into this a little further. On-line I find 3 reports from British Ambassador Goschen on the interview with Bethmann Hollweg.  The first is dated August 4, the date of the interview.  It is short and to the point and does not mention the "scrap of paper" comment.  It looks like a normal diplomatic cable that somehow was never sent.  Since the report never arrived by telegram, Goschen handed it to the archives on August 13 according to a kind of footnote on Gooch.  There is another dated August 6, much, much longer and including the "scrap of paper" comment.  It is marked as "Received August 19".  Another footnote on Gooch indicates it was published with alterations and omissions; frankly this document looks like a report intended for later publication.  Then there is the report dated August 8 from London which I see in an American Law Journal article on Jstor, this may be what actually was published, and is what I mentioned two paragraphs above.  All this calls into question why the "scrap of paper" comment, whether in the account by Goschen alone or considering both of the participants account, belongs in an article about the causes of World War I at all.  By the time any of these reports containing the phrase "scrap of paper" reached London, Britain was already at war.  The phrase primarily had an impact on British and American public opinion, but this article does not consider American entry, only British entry.  So, it seems the "scap of paper" comment is meant to look into the character of Bethmann Hollweg to better understand German actions during the July Crisis.  If that is the point, then surely we must take into account what Bethmann Hollweg said about this event.  It seems we can either look at the AP interview (Source Records of the Great War, Vol. I) or the Chancellor's memoirs, which Albertini briefly mentions gives an account of his interview with Goschen.  But, on balance, I feel, since the article really does not look into Bethmann's character and role in starting the war in any serious way, the "scrap of paper" phrase and the adjective "dismissively" are more prejudicial than probitive and should therefore be dropped altogether.  While we sort this out I humbly renew my request that you revert yesterday's change to the article.Werchovsky (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any experience with diplomatic documents? Your interpretation of the situation is pretty clearly OR. What we have is a cable from August 4 which was not sent.  Cables tend to be short and to deal only with the most basic and important elements of a conversation.  Two days later, Goschen got the chance to write up a detailed description of his conversation.  While he probably knew that his report might end up published, such publication would involve a great deal of editing and deletion, and any long diplomatic dispatch is going to be written, first and foremost, to the official recipients - Grey and the Foreign Office.  There is absolutely no reason for Goschen to have made up the "scrap of paper" comment, unless he wanted to deceive his own government.  Bethmann, on the other hand, had every reason to lie about it, both during the war and later, as it proved to be a major tarnish on his reputation.  Even so, you have yet to explain what, precisely, Bethmann disputed about Goschen's account.  Beyond that, every major historian that I have ever read on this subject (and I've read a pretty good amount - I taught a class on the origins of the war last summer, among other things) accepts the "scrap of paper" remark as a genuine remark, and I've never read a single secondary source casting doubt on Goschen's honesty here.  I agree that the article should have more discussion of Bethmann's character and role, and it would be great if some of this was added.  But that's no reason to cast doubt on a statement that no historian actually finds dubious. john k (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us discuss this topic in a collegial manner. My understanding is that Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg's AP interview and his comments in Betrachtungensum Weltkrieg did not dispute the fact that he uttered the phrase "scrap of paper".  It is a matter of context, nuance and explanation. In such emotion laden, private, man-to-man conversations at cross-purposes (Goschen broke down in tears and needed some time alone to compose himself before leaving according to Albertini quoting Bethmann and Bethmann admitted his own "blood was boiling"), these kinds of different perspectives in accounts can be expected without either man lying.  Since the AP interview is available on-line, I don't think I need to quote it; you can find it at trenches of the web or many other places.  I hope I helped clear up a series of misunderstandings here.  Am I wrong to ask you to revert your edit until we can bottom out on this issue?Werchovsky (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the Tuchman footnote on the "scrap of paper" interview and found a problem (Tuchman states that Goschen presented the ultimatum to the the Chancellor, not Jagow, and the page cited does not get to the scrap of paper), and so I thought I better investigate the article history. It turns out that the "scrap of paper" interview was brought in together with the entire original July Crisis section from the World War I article.  The "scrap of paper" report was delivered and published in time to affect the course of World War I, but not in time to be a cause of World War I, and therefore while it was appropriate to include in the World War I article where it originated, it is not sufficiently relevanta in the Causes of World War I article.  Let's delete it as more prejudicial than probitive, as I suggested earlier.Werchovsky (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tuchman is a bad source - we should not use her. Beyond that, what I can see is that you are not disputing that Bethmann referred to the 1839 treaty as a "scrap of paper."  This is an incredibly famous remark, and should be in this article.  The purpose of this article is a) to explain the causes of WWI; but also b) to describe the course of events which led to the first world war.  As such, Bethmann's quote is relevant and sohuld be included.  I am happy to include more context about it - it seems clear that Bethmann was very upset that Britain would be entering the war, and obviously under a lot of stress, when he made the remark.  I don't see what you're trying to achieve here, though, and your claim that it doesn't fall in the purview of this article is silly.  (BTW, i think this article should be called Origins of World War I rather than Causes of World War I.) john k (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Tuchman, I said more or less the same thing a few days ago, yet she was footnoted so I thought I ought to check the footnote. "Origins of World War I" is a better name from many perspectives.  Discussion of this belongs in its own section though so people won't miss it.  My proposal to not include the "scrap of paper" remark in this article was seriously made.  Its infamy (and we should keep in mind that many of these infamies became infamous due to the Entente propaganda machine) demands that it be placed in an article on World War I or U.S. entry into World War I, or on British public opinion in the early days of World War I, but not in this article on the causes of World War I that does not consider U.S. entry.  This is because, as I said, War was declared days before the remark was made known, so the remark could not be a direct cause or lead to events that would cause the World War.  Your argument that the "scrap of paper" comment falls within the course of events that led to the war is not sufficiently developed for me to understand it. Jagow had already rejected the ultimatum and the chancellor refused to over-rule his Secretary of State before the conversation turned to the Belgian treaty. Frankly, the important point for the course of events during August 4th is not what the Chancellor meant when he said "scrap of paper", but the fact that news of Jagow's rejection of the British ultimatum never made it back to Britain by telegram, so that from 6PM to 11PM GMT on August 4th Germany believed Britain had declared war but London was still watching the clock on its ultimatum with confusion setting in during the final hours as intercepts gave indication that a state of war existed but Britain heard nothing from its ambassador.  Britain went on to boot out the German Ambassador sending him his passports and a note saying that, contrary to fact, Germany had declared war on Britain, and then had to ask for the note back and replace it with a new note.  Well, at least for now, we have agreed on adding more context.Werchovsky (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "scrap of paper" remark is one of the most famous parts of the July Crisis. We don't have an article about the July Crisis, so this article has to fulfill that purpose.  And of course Bethmann's state of mind at the time is important to an understanding of things, I think. john k (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I do have a problem with the sentence following the ones talking about the "scrap of paper" remark. It is highly misleading to suggest that Britain went to war only, or even primarily, because of the violation of Belgium. Even before that was known, Grey was threatening to resign if the cabinet wouldn't back France, and it was England's moral obligations to France which always featured as most important in the thinking of the key British cabinet figures, especially Grey. Belgium helped keep the Liberal cabinet together, but it was not the reason Britain went to war. If the radicals in the cabinet had refused to back a war, all that means is that the Liberal government would have fallen, not that Britain would not have entered the war (which is one reason almost all of them ended up backing the war). Belgium was just a useful excuse. john k (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John K is factually right about Britain primarily going to war to support France. I am currently reading Count Bernstorff's 'My three years in America'(1920), available for free at archive.org. In this sense the British pulled off a Bismarkian coup d'etat a la Ems Telegram. They successfully made it appear(along with fact) to most of the world that the Germans were the agressors(I concur with the world). But this should not in any way mitigate the absolute stupidity of the German government for completely misreading public opinion in both Britain and the U.S. Bernstorff is highly critical of the German government's handling of diplomacy, both before AND during the war. A good case in point, he points out that the U.S. had secured arbitration/mediation agreements with all its trading partners, except for one. GERMANY. On page 7 he says "All three treaties, were however, rejected in Berlin, and consequently in America I never ceased from being questioned reproachfully as to the reason why the U.S. had been able to conclude arbitration treaties with every other state in the world but not with Germany."75.84.227.196 (talk)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Empire" Used to Refer only to Central Powers
I note the article refers to Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire as "empire"s 17 times, but does not refer to any opposing Powers or Neutral Powers as empires. This may be a subtle sign of bias and the article should be rebalanced.

Werchovsky 18:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This oversight may be due mainly to the fact that Britain, France, and America were democracies as was most of western Europe. Whereas the Central Empires And Turkey were clearly NOT democracies in any way shape or form. Even great democracies such as America, Britain or France did have empires in the sense that they held colonies. The feeling though at the time was that they were primarily democratic institutions whereas the Central Empires and Turkey had virtually NO REAL democratic institutions or checks and balances of any kind.75.84.227.196 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)