Talk:World War I/Archive 5

Canada in leaders list
Canada's population in 1914-18 was around 8 million, about the same as Belgium, and less than half of Romania. I am going to strike Canada from the list. If anyone disagrees please say so here. Haber 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Canada had an enormous role in WWI...if anything, it should be mentioned more in the article as a major player. Theonlyedge.

Canada was one of the biggest contributers to the Allied victory in World War I, particularly in the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

The population of the country doesn't matter. It was a country, and IS a country today, that contributed one of the greatest efforts to the allied cause. The Canadians suffered just as much if not MORE than the rest of the allies, and without them, possibly the allies could have lost. The Canadians died and faught bravely against the horrors of trench warfare and poison gas, and this tipical overlooking of the British Dominions of the time (Canada, Australia, New Zealand), which are now seperat countries, but just because back then they were "Dominions", people see them as sub groups of Britain and not worthy of being listed. This is false. Canada and the other dominions did great, great parts and were (and still are) their own seperate countries from Britain. They should be listed, its a horrible disgrace to overlook the sacrifice(s) and commitment of Canada in the great war. I have re- added Canada. RyanRP 01:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Canada was there but was NOT allowed by Britain to have any significant leadership role whatever. Just send troops. Rjensen 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada had last say concerning its troops. That is one of the most important reasons why the contribution by Canadian troops was so large. As it says below General Currie was being considered for taking over command of the British forces replacing Haig. In the same period the Allied leaders were considering replacing Pershing.Brocky44 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The USA was there but the British and French did not want them to have any leadership roles. Just send troops. The Allies insisted that an American Army should not be formed but that US divisions should be divided up among the British and French Armies. Not in any way can it be said that the US provided a leadership role other than for its own forces, just as the Australians and Canadians provided for their own. Brocky44 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, in 1914-18 (unlike WW2) the Dominions didn't have any say in whether they were at war or not. Until the Statute of Westminster (1931) their foreign policy was dictated by Britain, including declarations of war. Grant65 | Talk 11:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada is not going to be included in infobox. Same as in WW II. Canada just wasn't major power.--Staberinde 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Canada wasn't even fully sovereign during World War I. The box should say "British Empire," probably, though, to indicate that it wasn't just the UK. john k 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Infobox should reflect that it was the Empire that went to war and say British Empire and not just United Kingdom? I note also that technically the political entity that went to war as the UK was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and not the one that is linked to in the infobox. GraemeLeggett 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "allowed to be a major leader", major leader means anyone who played a very significant part in the war. Yes, Canada's declaration of war was controlled by Britain because at that time it was still a colony (until statue of westminster), but it was still a seperate nation, a dominion rather. For the one who said we werent a major power or contributer, um, actually if you know anything about WW1 or 2, you would know about the significant Canadian contribution to the wars. That is in this article itself, you should do a word search for Canada. Also, go to Holland, and ask who saved them in WW2. They'll tell you who. Also, "British Empire" is the correct term used in its context throughout the article, however the British Empire was not a NATION/COUNTRY as the Ottoman Empire was, for instance, but rather an EMPIRE as it says, consisting of nations who's leader was Britain. Therefore in leading nations box, it should say United Kingdom, because that is the name of the country, and should not list the name of the Empire to which it lead. RyanRP 04:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Countries like Serbia and Romania have a lot better reasons(World War I casualties) to be included in infobox but they aren't because it would make infobox too long.--Staberinde 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Why not delete the US from the infobox to make room for Serbia? Brocky44 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Canada was not a country as far as war was concerned in 1914-18--it was controlled (in military and foreign affairs) by the British government and London allowed it no leadership roles. (South Africa had a bigger voice w Smuts). That certainly annoyed the Canadians and they pushed hard and successfully for a bigger role right after the war (in the Commonwealth and League of Nations). But that's the way empires work --the center obtains a lot from its possessions but it does not allow them LEADERSHIP roles, which is the issue. (India of course provided more soldiers and had an even smaller voice.)  Rjensen 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the United States should be included in the infobox? Why? For fighting from 1917-18? Please, no American ego hoopla here. Shoot, you didn't even win WWII, the Russians did, so get off of it! TheGoodSon 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to put canada in infobox. Even that USA got twice as many military deaths as Canada.--Staberinde 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Canada had more military deaths than the US did when you only include battle related deaths. Canada had 59,000 the US had 53,000. Over half of the US number was from suicides, disease, accidents in Europe and at home and other reasons.Brocky44 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that so? Well, in that case, I am going to take off the US and replace it with Romania. Romania was inolved in the war for longer and it had more military deaths. TheGoodSon

Canada should be on the list. Canada lost more people in proportion to its size than Britain (or the US). Furthermore (no doubt related to the above), Canada conscripted more soldiers in proportion to its size than Britain (or the US). It is true that Britain had and used the power to declare war on Canada's behalf (note: the vast majority of Canadians supported the declaration of war), but the Canadian Parliament decided the extent of participation. Tyler Durgen 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That how Canada did in porportion of its size is completely irrelevant. Greece probably also lost more men in porportion of its size then UK did but its contribution to war effort was still minimal compared to UK's contribution to war effort. Same is about Canada. Infobox is meant to be short and informative. That means that only limited amount of countries should be included. That means that only countries that contributed most to war effort and had serious political significance should be included. That means that Canada will not be included in infobox. Thegoodson, Romania wasn't major power, i will not put USA back as it can be disputed indeed if it should be there or not.--Staberinde 13:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment made about Canada "not being allowed to play a major leadership role". It was officially declared that the Canadian commander, Sir Arthur Currie, was to be declared commander of all British forces on the western front, if the war was to continue into 1919. Anonymous

Staberinde said only countries that contributed most to war effort should be included, so, why is the US listed then? In the infobox under Allied Powers the USA is listed. The US was not an Allied Power and therefore does not belong. Brocky44 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A few problems. In general it is difficult to say that Canada's contribution was greater than that of other mid-sized powers like Serbia, Romania, or (its sister Dominion) Australia:


 * First and foremost, Canada, like the other Dominions, did not have independence in foreign policy in 1914-18.


 * Second, the balance would not have tipped in Germany's favour, had the Canadian contribution disappeared overnight. For example, while conscription in Canada boosted its overall contribution in personnel well above that of Australia, Canada never fielded more than four divisions in WW1. That was two less than Australia (five infantry divs on the western front and a cavalry div in the Middle East).


 * Third, even in proportional terms, Canada suffered a lower casualty rate than France, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Australia, the U.K. or New Zealand.


 * Fourth, both Serbia and Romania suffered a higher absolute number of casualties.


 * Fifth, that claim about Currie seems wildly speculative, to say the least. For instance, Gen. Bernard Montgomery said he believed that Sir John Monash would have been the British Empire commander on the western front, if the war had lasted another six months. Who know? In any case, it would have been a largely symbolic position, as Marshal Ferdinand Foch had already been made Allied supreme commander, ending the practice of separate French, British Empire and American commands/areas of responsibility.

Regards, Grant | Talk 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, makes you glad that Wikipedia never claims to be a valid source of historical information.

Quite frankly, I think that a horrible mistake was made when removing Canada from this list. Their contribution was huge, and people are too ignorant to recognize them. This is probably one of the biggest disgraces I have ever seen. In fact, they even entered the war before the Americans did. Add Canada on the list now.

It is SHOCKING to me that such a gross revisionist decision should be made to exclude Canada from this list!!! I also find it unbelievable that a decision would be based on a country's population! Look at the effort and contribution, do your research!! I agree with the writer above, ADD CANADA NOW!

Japan
I'm surprised to see Japan in the list of Allied members. There is already a seperate list for entire participants in WWI, and Japan defintely was not a major power in the war. Japan was involved in small naval actions against Germany, nothing significant, nothing big. I've deleted Japan. Oyo321 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I see Japan has been re-added, I have removed it.--Bryson 16:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about it being important to see its role here as being on the opposite, Allied, side during WWII? They even had a treaty with Britian. Seehttp://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm The Gladius 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But they were still in the war! They still fought, even if it was small naval actions. Fissionfox 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Size
I've noticed that many of the articles on major wars are far too long; So, I've decided to section them all off into smaller articles. This is a really big project, so it will take awhile, but sometime in the next month or two I will probably redo this article as well. Please tell me if you have any concerns about this, or have any material you want me to leave intact on this page. Thanks! Ahudson 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the entire history and branchese WWI covers, I believe that no cuts should be made. Editors have probably worked generously. I beleive the same goes with WWII and the Korean War and any other wars. Unless there is vandalism, totally unecessary articles, or repeated articles (ex. parts of the Korean War article) cuts should be refrained now.

I believe everyone should discuss this seperately. I myself am for the addition of more necessary or enhanced information. ChockStock 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is a significant amount of information about tactical positions in individual battles that can be moved out of this article. All of the important battles have their own articles anyways, and this information can be moved to there. These battles should be mentioned in the overall scope of the war, but not explained in detail. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs


 * Also, in a lot of war articles there is a lot of random text that doesn't need to be there; see | this edit for what I did with the Vietnam War introduction. (to summarize, about 20-30% was taken out because of either duplication in the infobox, or not being related to the article enough to leave it in) Ahudson 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ahudson (lol), I think you should add WWI poetry into this article while you're hacking out all of the other interesting details.Celsiana 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deciphered code
The BRITISH deciphered the messages between Germany and Mexico that led america to participate in the first world war, although this article says nearly nothing about it. 82.18.180.58 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) From the channel four website: In early 1917, Zimmermann was involved in the scheme which allowed Lenin and other Bolshevik to return to Russia from exile following the first revolution against the Tsar. The foreign secretary and others hoped that Lenin's return would undermine Russia's war effort and destabilise the provisional government. These hopes were realised when the Bolsheviks seized power in October. The new government and the Central Powers quickly concluded a ceasefire and treaty that eventually released half a million German soldiers for service on the Western Front.

However, Zimmermann will be best remembered for his unsuccessful attempt to foment war between Mexico and the US in 1917. The telegram from Zimmermann to his ambassador in Mexico was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence, and its contents relayed to the American authorities. Five weeks after details of the telegram were published in the US press (and Zimmermann confirmed their authenticity), the United States declared war on Germany. This greatly influenced the outcome of the entire conflict. 82.18.180.58 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Causes
I personally find the causes section to be very confusing and unnecessarily detailed about who it was that proposed each cause. For example, in school I was taught that the "powder keg" was the system of rigid military alliances and treaties that basically meant that when any conflict started, the entire continent and, as a result of imperialism, most of the world would be drawn into conflict. However, in this article, the See Also link to the article about the powder keg is in a section that doesn't even mention the network of military alliances. I am willing to do research and rewrite this part of the article, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't the only one who felt that this was a confusing section. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs

Why is it so important for Americans to place USA on the "leaders" list?
I honestly cannot understand why it is so important for Americans to put USA on the leaders list? Does it make you all feel "better" about yourselves? Does it boost your inflated egos? I don't get it. Can someone explain? Then, they make up this ridiculous "associate power" section within the leaders list, why? Why does the USA *have* to be included? I am sick of these American ego trips and nonsensical hoopla within Wikipedia. User:Thegoodson
 * Agree on "associate power" section, no need for that, but see Allies of World War I, the U.S. is in the top five of total troops contributed to the conflict. I think the U.S. should be on the leaders list.--Bryson 03:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I put USA as an "Associated Power" is that this is technically correct - USA was not an "Ally". I also put in the dates when USA entered the war (December 1917 etc - I agree it's complicated, but it's true!). USA should be listed under the "Allies" column, but not as an 'Ally'! Also, if we do not put the correct dates then it suggests USA was there all the time, which is incorrect (and of considerable political significance - I have not checked whether USA's late arrival is mentioned under WW2, but it should be!
 * Johnbibby 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Associated Power" thing has to go, USA does not have to be listed on the leaders list for this war, for the simple fact that they weren't "leaders". However, I think they must be included in the WWII list, regardless of when they entered. The USA played the biggest role in defeating Japan and was, along with Britain, a major contributor and aid to Germany's defeat at the hands of the Russians. User:Thegoodson


 * GoodSon, you clearly have some kind of chip on your shoulder about what you perceive to be American arrogance. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, and should faithfully convey information from verifiable sources.  We are not here to right past wrongs or teach anybody a lesson.


 * There are many non-American sources that devote at least an entire chapter to the United States. Examples include Oxford companion, The First World War by Prior and Wilson, The First World War by John Keegan, The First World War by Michael Howard.  Whatever you think, your opinion is irrelevant because the majority of English-speaking historians consider the U.S. participation in WWI to be a very big deal. Haber 15:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Either take out the USA flag from the top-right section, or add the italian flag there too. As it is, Italy is in the list but has no flag. A little research will find that Italy DID have a flag back then.


 * What are you talking about? The Italian flag is already there as far as I can tell.  Everyone seems to be fine with including Italy. Haber 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To TheGoodSon: Does it make you feel better to engage in mindless USA-bashing? Europeans tend to have far bigger egos than Americans. Look around Wikipedia, you'll find far more Eurocentrism than USA-ism. And I say this as a European. Please take the chip off your shoulder. It does no one any good, probably not even you. --Samuel Webster 02:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer the question: US played decisive role in 1918: 1) US paid for war effort by France & GB (who would collapseotherwise) 2) US troops were decisive in getting Germany to quit (100,000 new soldiers a day--the Germans could count); 3) US dominated the war in last months --and shaped the armistice. That measures leadership, not the number of dead bodies Rjensen 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To say that the US played the decisive role in WW1 is a bit of a stretch. Especially since it was the British Empire that played the decisive role, without the fighting that they did Germany would not have been defeated. You can’t say the US paid for the war effort because of US loans at the end of the war. Saying France and Great Britain paid for the war effort is true and more correct. Largely they paid for it. The number of coming US troops did convince Germany to launch their spring offensives in 1918 but to say the numbers of US troops was decisive in getting Germany to quit fighting is ridiculous and totally false. 10,000 US troops were arriving a day. Not 100,000. (Someone cannot count.)

“US dominated the war in last months --and shaped the armistice.” Please explain how the US dominated the war. If you are referring to the battlefield it certainly did not. The Germans decided to withdraw from St Mihiel, not because they were scared of US numbers but because the salient had no strategic value in it worth holding. The Argonne, where the US spent most of the last months, was a mistake and did not contribute very largely to Allied victory. Haig pointed out the disadvantages of attacking through the Argonne to Foch who then tried to convince Pershing. Unfortunately Pershing was not so concerned with Allied strategy but more with US troops fighting under him. The stalemate in the Argonne also convinced some of the Allied leaders that Pershing had to go. So when it comes to Pershing there was certainly no leadership there. The number of US troops that Germany also had to fight in 1918 did not do anything positive for German moral and though the US troops did fight as bravely as any troops from other countries they had no experienced Commanders at any level to lead their army on a modern battlefield, the support, nor the tactics or experience of the fighting troops that any of the Allies had. In reality the large number of US troops proved far more of a threat than what actually resulted from any fighting that they did.

Here are some facts to help put the US effort in perspective. During their fall offences the US with more than 1.2 million men reclaimed 200 square miles of enemy held territory, took 60,000 prisoners and fought against 40 enemy divisions in a 40 day period. Canada, in their fall offences, reclaimed 500 square miles of enemy held territory, took 35,000 prisoners and fought against 31 enemy divisions in a 40 day period. Canada did this with only 4 divisions. 100,000 men. You would never know it from any thing you can read on Wikipedia but the British and French were also fighting in the last months of the war and more so than the US. Between August 8 and their last action on October 5 1918 the Australians, 5 divisons, engaged 39 enemy divisions and liberated 116 named localities. The British in the last period of the war took about 190,000 prisoners. The French and Belgiums took about 130,000 prisoners.

“and shaped the armistice”

Anyone, Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands could have done that. The Germans had said after the Battle of Amiens that the war had to be brought to an end. They discussed peace proposals through the Netherlands and Spain and had contacted the Queen of the Netherlands. The Germans contacted Wilson because of the favorable terms they thought they would receive and the large amount of room for negotiating. The Germans misinterpreted the meaning of the 14 points and Ludendorff, who never even read those 14 points, looked at this as an opportunity to gain time to regroup and continue the war with a defensive line on German soil after realizing that his forces had not been routed but were fighting a strong rearguard action and organized retreat along the western front. The Allies did not trust Wilson and were also not prepared to take the 14 points as a basis of negotiations without further discussion on their meaning. They also were not too happy about the way Wilson took unilateral action the way he did which should show that there was also no Allied leadership in Wilson or in what he did and it was Foch who took control of the armistice in the last week of the war. It may be said that the armistice was shaped by the US but not because of a dominating role or the only one capable that could do it but more because of opportunism and luck. Nothing to do with leadership. Brocky44 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you really believe your own story? How about considering a little something called teamwork?  i.e. if American troops are ripping the best the German army has to offer, in a place the Germans can't afford to retreat from, then the Canadians to the far left of the line might make some progress in the low countries, far from Germany, where the Germans can afford to give up ground.  It doesn't mean anyone sucks, it just means two teammates helped in different ways, and one got a little more of the glory.  And your view that WWI was anything but a war of attrition, and that 10,000 soldiers a day were not important, is not accepted by any historian I know of.  Germany was cooked, and there could be no forming a line on German soil, or whatever you say.  That's just some stab-in-the-back mythology.  Even though they were retreating in good order, it was just a matter of time until the Allies overwhelmed them. Haber 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don’t worry I always consider and know well the teamwork that was done and I think that is part of the issue here, unfortunately some people here are not taking that into consideration. “US dominated the war in the last months” Does that sound like the author knows anything of the teamwork that was done? I don’t think so. People, for the most part, from one certain country have it in their minds that “we won the war” You’ll never hear that from any of the other Allies because of it being clear that everyone helped. Are you prepared to consider that the British and Dominion Armies were ripping the best the German Army had to offer and that this aided the Americans at their place in the line? Three British Armies along with the Australians and Canadians made a huge amount of progress from August 8th onward.

“then the Canadians to the far left of the line might make some progress in the low countries, far from Germany” The Canadians weren’t in Flanders at that time if that is what you’re thinking and had been making progress in the battles they fought before the US even joined the war. The Canadians broke through the Wotan position of the Hindenburg line, after a penetration of 5 miles, on September 2 1918 which caused the German High Command to order its forces to the North and South to begin withdrawing into the remaining Hindenburg positions. Thus the whole large salient that was won in spring 1918 was to be abandoned. Haig wrote: “the end cannot now be far off I think. Today’s battle has truly been a great and glorious success.” On September 4th Foch told Haig that he believed “the Germans is nearing the end.” The Americans didn’t start their offence at the Argonne until September 26. Haber, how did the stalemate at the Argonne help the Canadians to make the progress that they did up to that time? And do you think that it would be possible, if the Argonne battle never existed, that progress would have continued to be made?

You’re right that the US took a little more of the glory. On October 6 1918 Haig was visiting Foch, and found him studying the text of the German Note in a newspaper. Foch pointed to the paper, he said “Here you have the immediate result of the British piercing the Hindenburg Line. The enemy has asked for an armistice.” It was a generous acknowledgement.

I never said that WW1 was not a war of attrition and stated that it was so in the discussion of Allies of World War 1. 10,000 soldiers a day was important for Allied moral and the coming Americans forced Germany to expend itself in the 1918 offences. That meant that a large number of enemy veteran troops were gone by the time of the Allied fall offences. What I was trying to say about the large number of US troops was that the bark was worse than the bite. Foch offered Pershing a easier sector between the Argonne and Rheims after Haig pointed out some disadvantages of where the US was planning to fight. Pershing chose instead to fight east of the Argonne, a decision that was to cost his army dear. Foch made plans from experience to clear the traffic jam in the Argonne by removing US troops and employing them elsewhere. The suggestions were rejected by Pershing and the blockage remained. Too many US troops packed into a small area that favoured the defenders, problems with supplies, inexperience, along with many of the other problems that the US Army had rendered the large numbers less effective than otherwise should have been.That means the bite was less than it could have been if the terrain, conditions, leadership and tactics were better or if the US troops would have fought under the British and French like the Allies had always wanted.

Ludendorff thinking that the war could continue on more favourable grounds is not stab in the back mythology but history. Fortunately he was nearly alone in his thoughts and with the peace talks already at the point they were the war was brought to an end.

The Germans were never completely defeated on the battlefield and fighting to protect their home soil would have given them a very good reason to fight and huge advantages like shorter supply lines. The Allies would have had to increase the distances of their supply lines which were already stretched and if you know anything about the difficulties of supplying the Allies on their way to Germany in WW2 you would know the impossibility of that in WW1

Here is the view of military historians on overwhelming the German army.

To the end of his life, Pershing insisted that if the battle of the Argonne (and the other Allied offensives) had lasted another 10 days, "we would have rounded up the entire German army, captured it, humiliated it." Not a few military historians have differed strongly with Pershing's view. Both the French and British armies were close to exhaustion, and the combination of 117,000 Argonne casualties, influenza, and a total lack of replacements rendered the ability of the First and Second American armies to fight a battle of annihilation against a determined enemy a dubious proposition. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3725991.html?page=5&c=y Brocky44 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say. On the one hand the Allied victory was a team effort.  On the other, the Americans' bark was worse than their bite.  It was a war of attrition, but millions more men didn't make a difference.  Ludendorff was the only one that thought Germany could continue to fight, but you think supply problems would have crippled the Allied advance and prolonged the war indefinitely.  I'm not sure what you believe, and what you've cut and pasted from Military History Magazine (which is a nice magazine, but sometimes opinionated.)  I'm not actually sure if you want the U.S. out of the leader's list, or if you'd just like to prove a point, but I'm having trouble identifying exactly what that point is. Haber 18:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Haber, but as a military historian that has worked almost exclusively on this conflict, Brocky pretty much hit it square on the head. He also laid out his argument pretty clearly. Nice work, Brocky. PS Don't bother asking for my credentials. While historians squabble constantly, not one would make some of the baseless arguments I have seen on this page and, for this reason, would not be caught dead contributing to it. Just thought Brocky deserved a pat on the back.142.166.239.167 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks. Brocky44 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not gonna take sides here, but I must point out that "Don't bother asking for my credentials" doesn't inspire confidence in your statement that you are a military historian. You cannot expect to end an arguement just by saying that you are an expert. If we could see your credentials, then we could wrap this up. However, without them, I'm afraid the arguement will continue.69.205.165.169 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't looking to end the argument, or even become part of it. Just giving Brocky credit where it's due. I'm just driving through, people, don't mind me. Only stumbled onto this because I was busting a student for using Wikipedia as a source.153.2.246.33 02:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey I'm a professional historian too. See you at the conference in Vegas! Haber 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Afraid I didn't get the invite to that one. Sounds more entertaining than Manchester, though.153.2.246.31 04:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But there is one thing about the First World War. It was a stupid war from the beginning. The assassination was nothing big, because many people already hated the man and even his family does not like him. Also another thing was that Germany did not invade Belgium, they thought it would be easier to go through Belgium then actually crossing the border to France where there are rivers, mountains, and forests to pass through. Belgium would be the easiest way to go to France. And another thing was that Germany already knew about the Treaty that was signed to protect Belgium's neutrality but Germany did it anyway. The true part that I could agree on is the "scrap paper." But Germany knew what was going to happen once Austria-Hungry attacks Serbia, because Germany does not want to fight two wars at a time. 4 March 2007 (can't tell you)

Color pictures
I'm talking fresh, silver nitrate-sprinkled, Gorskii-quality images here, not some cheap color photo with tons of freaking lines all over the place.

I know, it might look really weird to have such lifelike color photos for an article on an event in the 1910s, but these are just too good to pass up. Look here. Comment on my talk page if you agree or disagree! Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Fissionfox 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

War Crimes
Why is the war crimes section solely concerned with the Armenian Genocide? Unpleasant though that undoubtedly was, a mention should be made about German war crimes in Belgium, in addition to the widespread propaganda that was disseminated throughout the war by both sides claiming bogus war crimes. If these aspects of the war have their own articles, then links to them must be made.--Jackyd101 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there are other war crimes that need to be mentioned, particularly Belgium. I entitled the section "war crimes" for that reason and to be consistent with the WWII article.  If you have something to add, please contribute. Haber 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now added a par on the Ottoman treatment of POWs, but I think a par of the German occupation of Belgium is needed. I imagine there may have been some atrocities on the eastern front as well, but I don't know much about that campaign. Grant | Talk 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

U-boat attacks
In the section "America enters the war", it stated that there were no American soldiers lost to U-boat attacks, while being transported to Europe. This maybe wrong, I remember from a variety of sources, that there were American military deaths, by U-boats. I also remember a text book, called "The Americans", that stated the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshafina (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC). Yes, Your absoulutly correct. As I stated in the above section [I want to correct], 200 American Soldiers were lost Feb. 5, 1918 after the Tuscania was attacked and sunk by a German U-boat.

Commanders list
Haig and Pershing are included in the list which means that Petain should also be. Likewise if Wilson is included Lloyd George should also be. Brocky44 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must ask: why we are choosing to include civilian democratic leaders in this list? There is no way Woodrow Wilson commanded troops on the ground, whereas some monarchical leaders may have (though I doubt 84-year-old Franz Joseph did either...).  Shouldn't we limit this list to military commanders, and not include civilian Commanders-in-Chief like the US President?  --Xyzzyva 07:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are there no references for this article?!?
For an article of this importance, I think we can do better. several other language wikipedias have this article featured...

--69.243.8.142 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * some vandal keeps removing them. :( Rjensen 07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada During WWI

 * OK. I am going to post my knowledge so people quit getting upset about Canada not being on the list thing. First, Canada did help a lot during WWI. They fought in battles such as "The Somme", "Ypres", "Vimy Ridge", and many more.
 * Also it was a Canadian that invented the Gas Mask, and also it was Canadian Captain Roy Brown who shot down Mafred von Richthofen a.k.a the "Red Baron".
 * The period from 4 August to 11 November 1918 became known as "Canada's Hundred Days." During this period Canadian Corps suffered    46 000 casualties. The Canadians fought at Amiens and Arras. They also led the attack that broke through the German front at Canal du Nord. After a bloody battle at Cambrai, they led the Allied troops into Mons, Belgium, on the day the armistice ending the war was signed. George Price was the last Canadian killed during the war. Some historians have written that a sniper killed Price in the town of Mons five minutes before the armistice was signed at 11 AM. Others claim he was killed five minutes after the armistice was signed. A total of 66 655 Canadians gave their lives. The exploits of Canadian and Newfoundland troops are remembered at 13 memorials spread across Belgium and France.
 * Be proud Canadians!
 * So if you think these are good reasons to put Canada on the list say so. RiseAgainst01 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of countries suffered more than Canada. I recomend an artyicle on Canada in WW1. Rjensen 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I only put that there so anyone interested can see what Canada did. I'm not gonna be one of those hardcore "PUT CANADA ON THE MOTHER F*@!$* ALLIES LIST!" people. So yeah just comment away at what you guys think. =) RiseAgainst01 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Roy Brown didn't shoot down Richthofen, there is a 99.9% probability that an Australian soldier did, most likely Cedric Popkin. Grant | Talk 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest in this article. You might want to check out Military history of Canada during World War I.  It sounds like you know a lot and could be of some use there.  Also, just to be clear, inclusion or non-inclusion in an infobox doesn't mean anything with regards to heroism or sacrifice or how well Canada fought.  We all appreciate what Canada did. Haber 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Red Baron WAS shot down by Canadian Roy Brown. Sorry to tell you it is true. RiseAgainst01 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * RiseAgainst01, Roy Brown is the one who the RAF officially gave the kill to, but most historians suggests the Red Baron was shot down by Australian anti-aircraft gunners. The fatal shot entered von Richthofen's body about 5 inches below his right armpit and exited just above his left nipple, suggesting the shot came from below von Richthofen, not from above as Brown described his strafing run. However, that being said, there was a lot of lead being thrown at von Richthofen's airplane, the origin of the fatal shot will probably always remain a mystery. --Bobblehead 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Red Baron has his own article, this is about a vast world war. Let's keep encyclopedic perspective. Rjensen 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Newfoundland Regiment

 * In 1914 Newfoundland was not yet a part of Canada. Some Newfoundlanders joined Canadian regiments, but most became members of the Newfoundland Regiment. Of the 2000 members of the regiment, more than 350 were killed in action during the the war, many in an engagement at Beaumont Hamel during the 1916 Battle of The Somme. The regiment's bravery resulted in its being given the title of "Royal Newfoundland Regiment." RiseAgainst01 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a nice article here: The Royal Newfoundland Regiment. What's your point? Haber 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Haber it's only for info for people who are to lazy to look it up...by the way, thanks for the link. RiseAgainst01 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The USA's Reason

 * As I am hoping many of you know, the USA joined the war in 1917 because a couple of American ships(not naval) were sank by German U-Boats. As far as I'm concerned the USA is only on there due to their large military. The USA only had 116 000 military deaths, whilst Serbia suffered 275 000 military deaths. Why isn't Serbia on the main allies list? They were there longer, suffered more casualties. Even Romania suffered more military deaths than the USA. Romania's military casualties were 250 000, more than twice the American casualties. I do not think that because of it's large military presence in the last year of the war should make the USA a main Allie. RiseAgainst01 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Deaths are a measure of failure not success. The US helped win the war--1) it paid for the war; 2) it provided the food and raw materials to keep UK and France in the war; 3) it sent 10,000 new soldiers EVERY DAY starting summer  1918 making German situation totally hopeless and reinvigorating Allies;  4) it took control of diplomacy and ended the war. Rjensen 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The US loaned money, it didn't pay for the war. Short of the fact that the US entry sparked the Germans to make one last big push that fell short, they had little impact. I know that Wiki isn't a historical reference of any sort, but facts still have to play some role. US diplomacy had some importance, since the Germans considered the newly-arrived Americans a better negotiating option than the nations they had been fighting since 1914. 153.2.246.32 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

megan barnwell