Talk:World War I/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Start and end of WWI in historic New Tork Times pages

Can someone who has an account add the following fascinating links? They show the New York Times front pages on June 6, 1914 and November 11, 1911:

New York Times on June 6, 1914

New York Times on November 11, 1911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.27.57 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Gassing Soldiers who contracted Syphillis

What I am talking about is not pretty, has no corroborating evidence that I know of and is almost unbelievable 'News' but I feel it is important to not lose such an important historical fact if it is true.

This info comes from my mother who was told this by her step father Daniel Shaw Smith (Christchurch NZ 1964) when she was 19. He was a soldier in the WWI and fought in Gallipoli and was stationed in Egypt for a time.

He told my mother in a very matter of fact way the following which I am asking her to recount as I type this.

He said that in Egypt soldiers were lined up (at least once a week) for a 'Dangle Parade' where they had to expose their genitals for inspection to the medical officer who checked to see if they had any sores indicating that they had contracted the 'Black Pox' which was a particularly nasty strain of Syphillis not found in the western world. (He recounted how the medical officer used to say to the troops "You men put your dicks where I wouldn't put my umbrella.")

He said that the men who had Syphillis were put onto Ambulance/Hospital ships and were killed out at sea by gassing.

He said this was because the disease could not be brought back home.

The soldiers who were killed in this way were considered to have died in battle.

He didn't consider this scandalous and just recounted it quite casually.

My mother also feels he may have possibly worked on such a ship for a short time but can't fully recall.

It is worth noting that it is 'Possible' that it was just a deliberate rumor to discourage the men from having sex with Egyptian prostitutes although my mother feels that from the way he talked about it it was more likely true.

If this really happened I do not know if it was the practice of just the New Zealand Army or if other western military forces may have done much the same.

Aether22 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Without any corroborating reliable sources, this cannot be included in the article. Also, remember that new threads should go at the bottom of the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Still because I am aware of no other record of such a possibility at all I would ask that it remain in the talk page unless it is known to be untrue and only someone deeply involved with the NZ campaign could be assured of knowing (and if so could be complicit of such) or an acquaintance of Mr. Smith who may be aware of him telling tall tales. I would also add that while obvious the reason for the gassing was said by Smith to be due to this strain's virulent effects on westerners, he did not blame the army as he saw it as the only solution. I would also ask if anyone is aware of some place I could put this that may be more permanent. Aether22 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he was pulling your mother's leg. From what I can tell, black syphilis is a myth. See a couple of references: a book by retired US Colonel David Hackword [1], where he states that myths of the disease were created specifically to deter soldiers from risky sex while deployed. Here's another book where it states the black syphilis is a myth. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right but I doubt he was pulling her leg, he may have believed it. But your references are for a far more recent war in a different country, though I appreciate the references. Aether22 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is likely that he actually believed it. The reason things are classified as myths are that many people genuinely believe them to be true, despite the fact that they likely are not. I've yet to find any reliable authority stating anything about black syphilis, despite the fact that it's a fairly legendary disease. When one searches for plain old "syphilis" in Google, you get the CDC.gov website (as well as other .gov sites), references in the NYT, the Mayo Clinic, etc. As for the references above, yes, they are both for Vietnam, but it illustrates the fairly typical practices employed by military commanders who are concerned that their soldiers will lose combat effectiveness if they get VD, so they make up a story like black syphilis to scare them straight. Yes, Vietnam is the most well-known instance of this, but it apparently wasn't the first. Regardless, it's likely not notable (and still unsourced), so it won't make it into the article. As for this thread, it will always be stored here, until the page is archived at some point. Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Germany's Declaration of War

Please have a translation to English (and others) of the German Declaration of War. When I clicked the link marked "text" under the graphic of the German DoW, the page comes up only in German and there is no "translate" option obvious. I did look over the whole of the page, esp near the text.

Further, please have texts of ALL the other involved nations' DoW. The points of view would be most illuminating to the subject. The justifications of America's (and many other's) "undeclared wars" after WW2 would be put into contrast with an era where national figures DID take responsibility for their actions. (Please note that observation when these texts are posted.) Thank you. Jopower (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for such translations? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. please read WP:POINT

Hitler wasn't a German in these years

In the Article is written: "Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated."

At this time Hitler wasn't a German citizen. He was still an Austrian citizen at that time. He was just a soldier fighting for Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.114.204 (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read a lot of books on Hitler. Hitler actually avoided military conscription in the Austrian army because he did not want to 'serve beside Jews'. He was tracked down by the authorities while living in Munich in 1913 or 1914 and he wrote what the authorities considered to be a very 'eloquent' letter explaining how his 'only friend in life had been hunger'. They took pity on him and did not prosecute him.

Hitler's two big lies to the German people were A. Germany did not start the war. and B. Germany did not lose the war.75.84.227.196 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline - need help

I believe a date in the timeline article is incorrect, as it is inconsistent with the main WWI article and outside sources. I'm not sure how to fix it myself. Can somebody take a look at Talk:Timeline of World War I? CopaceticThought (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

YDone.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

peace offers

there were several peace offers by germany and austria which were all rejected by the entente; they did not even enter negotiations. one was made at 12.12.1916 (rejected at 30.12.1916) for example.

i think it is interesting to know that the war could have had an end at this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.217.202 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this information? If so, I'd be happy to add this to the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

hard to find for me in english but found some:

new york times

german+austria peace offer: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9406E2D7143AE433A25757C0A9629C946696D6CF

it think it refers to this peace proposal (warning: german text): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedensangebot_der_Mittelm%C3%A4chte (translation needed)

another article now referring to a russian proposal: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9505E7D71E3AE433A25753C3A9649D946696D6CF&oref=slogin

foreign minister of austria (count czernin): http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B07EFD9143AE433A25752C0A9629C946696D6CF

some random internetsite

http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1994-5/Smestad.htm

some communist (probably; the sitename indictates):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rothstein/1918/01/peace.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.253.217 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The first one (1) appears to be about the negotiations before the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between the Central Powers and post-revolution Russia. The other two from the NYT are in fact about offers to hold a peace conference in April 1917. The article from Loyola University should be reliable as well. The German Wiki article itself cannot be used as a source, but it does have several references that can be used instead. Do you have access to any of the works cited in that article? The article from The Call is questionably reliable, given that it's a publication from a political party. Even still, it's not really useful for this context, as it doesn't really go into any details about the proposals themselves. It just criticizes the Entente for prolonging the war for their own gain.

I'm not sure where this information should go, the article is in dire need of a rewrite, something along the lines of how the WWII article is currently set up. Perhaps the best place at this point in time would be the World_War_I#Trench_warfare_begins section. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

well i tried to find more information for the peacerequests:

the one form 12.12.1916 is mentioned here: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/timelines/timeline1916.htm (scroll right)

a part of its transaltion can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2212358 (scroll down)

an arctilce with some (not much) information about this peace offer: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=990DE6D61038EE32A25751C2A9669D946896D6CF&oref=slogin

29.12.1917 arctilce: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B07E7DA1E3BE03ABC4151DFB467838C609EDE

only for people how are interested in (1919 6.11 bad printing quality): http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F03E5D8163AE532A25755C0A9679D946896D6CF

"Stab-in-the-back"

The way the text reads now, I find it difficult to understand: who felt stabbed in the back? The Allies who wanted to parlay their superiority in the field to go on and conquer Berlin, or the Germans who wanted to go on fighting in hopes of ultimately winning the war? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stab-in-the-back legend refers to how many Germans felt after having lost the war, when their army still occupied large swaths of enemy territory and not a single Allied soldier had set foot in Germany. You do have a point, though, that the wording is ambiguous and needs to be revamped. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Section heading reworded and internal link added to mainspace page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The legend can be captured in one sentence: A conspiracy theory publicly propagated and consciously built up (though not invented) by Erich_Ludendorff, Paul_von_Hindenburg and other members of the Oberste_Heeresleitung, serving the two purposes to a) keep alive the notion of an army never beaten in the field and b) weaken civilian politicians within Germany by putting the blame on the "home front" that didn't give enough support to the troups. (77.87.224.100 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Only one small disagreement with that. AFAIK, it was less von Ludendorff & von Hindenburg than the Nazis. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. See Stab-in-the-back legend#Origins. The origins seem to predate the Nazis.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

some changes

The poem by the Canadian pot - there's no real reason to mention it here - it would be better in an article "poets of the First World War"Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia and editing

Correct policy is to discuss disagreements on the talk page. A certain MBK04 (within ten minutes of my edits) is sendin me "final warnings" of this and that ! However I don't see his discussion on the talk page. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin for one so veiled insults are not appreciated. Also, you shouldn't add unsourced information and delete information repeatedly without discussing it. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

John, your edits aren't helpful; you're changing the meaning of a sentence by removing what's there currently. If you want to add the theory that the war was caused by capitalism, please use reliable sources, and do so in a manner that does not remove information that is currently in the article. As for your removal of the mention of John McCrae and In Flanders Fields, please provide some kind of justification for doing so. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The poem "In Flanders Fields" is no more notable than a dozen others, and has no place hre - I suggest a separate article on World War One poets.

The sentence about capitalism which existed before my edit was too vague to be useful. It read something like "people felt the wolrd they had known had finished foreer. Communism and socialism became more popular than they had ever been". I changed the firts part to fit the second part! Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In Flanders Fields is one of, if not the most famous poems of the First World War. If you would like to start a sub-article for poetry, go right ahead, but until you do, it should be mentioned in this article. As for your statement about the sentence you changed, I see nothing wrong with the current wording; many people thought capitalism and imperialism had collapsed, and so turned to alternative methods, such as socialism and communism. It fits fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends where you live. In Britain, by far the most famous poem is "Ducle et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen. The point is that there is no reason to mention just one poem. What does anyone else think? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple comments on what I ran across here. I don't know any of you, so this is an outside observer comment. Firstly, I believe that "I am an admin for one so veiled insults are not appreciated" is neither an appropriate nor productive response. It isn't as if the article was vandalized by a malicious account. Everyone should have responded either here, or made an inquiry on the "offending" editor's talk page first. Instead, what I see is an immediate block note, which is not good faith. The removal of that paragraph in the article wasn't vandalism, but a legitimate edit, so the blocking warnings are not, in my view, a good faith response to a good faith edit. And honestly, using an admin status to lend credibility to it isn't appropriate.

Secondly, and quite honestly, when I read the portion concerning the poem that was removed and returned, my reaction was that it was oddly out of place in that section. A poem may reflect feelings or reactions to the war, but it doesn't correctly belong in a section discussing the immediate social and political consequences of a war. You have a section at the bottom of the page to list media and publications where this poem is already included (and shouldn't the references and notes sections belong below this?). I do not see that this particular removal was disruptive. It may be an important poem, but not in that section. The suggestion to start a sub-article on poetry is a bit argumentative and too late as well, since there already is one, which is linked in the article, and where the details of that poem should be discussed.

Conversely, I do agree that the changes to the sentence did change its entire meaning and weren't productive. As I said, this my honest opinion on what I've seen. No offense to anyone is intended, but it is important that people assume good faith when a legitimate edit has been made and productive discussion is warranted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any insults, veiled or otherwise. I do see admins presuming special entitlement to extra courtesy (which I've also encountered elsewhere). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MBK's comment was a poor choice, to put it mildly. However, Trek mentioned admins in this thread, so I can only assume he's referring to me. I'm a little puzzled as to why, though, as I haven't make any comments of the sort. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mean you (sorry if it seemed like), but I won't name names; it was a mutual misunderstanding, but assuming a given editor knows you're an admin isn't a good bet (as Parsecboy demonstrated; I had no idea. Nor, in the normal course of things, would I care...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a misunderstanding, then. Well, given that adminship isn't special, whether any of us are is irrelevant to any content-related discussion, which is what this is (although it is frequently treated in the opposite manner, which is Trek's point, I think, don't want to put words in his mouth). However, this since thread is going off on a tangent unrelated to the article, I suggest we either finish the discussion, or move it to one of our talk pages. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

intro

The intro as it stands has a paragraph beginning "the immediate cause of the war was ..." but nothing on underlying causes. It would be better with them. That is why I added the following paragraph

"The underlying causes of the war include the strong economic and increasingly military competition between Britain and Germany. Germany a an industrial country had by 1914 overtaken Britain in its industrial economy, but did not have the commercial advantages of a large empire. In the years running up to the war an increasing race to have the strongest navy arose between Britain and Germany, each country building large number of dreadnoughts."

If you can improve it please do, then we can put it in the article. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have added this paragraph in absence of objectionsJohncmullen1960 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

In the "Balance of Power" section, it is stated that Great Britain "had no treaties with France or Russia, but entered the war on their side." However, the first chart in the article (Image:WWIchartX.svg--shown on the right-hand side of the article under the heading 'Causes') appears to indicate treaties with both nations prior to the outbreak of the War. Which is accurate? -209.30.38.42 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Salonika/Macedonian front

is totally marginalized here. -- Bojan  05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

trade barriers

Mr Hull is not sufficiently notable to deserve this paragraph all to himself. We need to either add mor epeople and sources who defended this theory, or take out the paragraphJohncmullen1960 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not Hull's notability that justifies the entry. The Bretton Woods agreements do. They changed the way international finance was done, established the IMF and World Bank, tied currencies to a gold standard (and hence to each other), and lead the way to modern free trade agreements that have removed the competition for economic empires widely considered to have motivated both world wars and many others before them.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

War declaration

I don't think the German "war declaration" is properly titled or captioned in English. If you read it, you find that it is actually more a proclamation that a "condition of war" or "war status" prevails in the German Reich. It is not a declaration of war against any other country.

The German caption (not the text) is:

Erklärung des Kriegszustandes des Deutschen Kaiserreiches am 31 Juli 1914, der Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges. Unterzeichnet von Kaiser Wilhelm II. im Neuen Palais in Potsdam. Gegengezeichnet vom Reichkanzler Bethmann-Hollweg. Note the term Kriegszustand. Zustand is usually translated as "condition," as in a used car, for example, being in guter Zustand.

The English caption incorrectly calls it a "declaration of war." The German version of "declaration of war" is Kriegserklärung.

The English caption also says adds, "starting World War I." The German caption puts it slightly differently, referring to "the beginning of the war."

The origins of the First World War, and the complex, interrelated series of diplomatic and military moves that followed the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, remain a subject of study by historians, and it is at least arguable that no one country "started" WWI by itself. The proclamation at issue followed Russian mobilization against Austria and Germany, which followed Austrian mobilization against Serbia (even this is a simplification). I'm not certain, but if I remember correctly from various books (such as The Long Fuse), war was not actually "declared" until German troops (following a complex deployment timetable) crossed into Belgian, Luxembourgian and/or French territory. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

This is not to minimize Germany's heavy responsibility for Europe's tumble into a war catastrophic far beyond anyone's expectation, but that's another topic.

Sca (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't ''Erklärung des Kriegszustand... normally be rendered in English as a Declaration that the state of war...? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind this is not a declaration of war on anyone. Having said that, it would be better if a native German speaker would address the nuances involved. Sca (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Compare this discussion of the wording of the eventual US declaration.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not titled the 'War to End All Wars'. That's just silly.

It's a euphemistic description, not an actual title. There are no history teachers going "And now we are going to cover The War to End All Wars". Apotetios (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was known to many as "The War to End All Wars" while the conflict was still taking place and afterward. That alone should be enough to merit its mentioning in brackets as one of several (also known as...) titles. As for history teachers, mine certainly mentioned that it was often called The War to End All Wars due to its (then) unprecedented scale, devastation and regional effects. - Winkbonzowink (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

missing word in quote?

The article attributes the following quote to the Indianapolis Star, September 20, 1914, using The Yale Book of Quotations as its source: "There is no doubt that the course and character of the feared "European War"...will become the first world war the full sense of the word."

It seems to me that that's missing a word; probably should be "...will become the first world war in the full sense of the word." Anyone have access to either the Star or the YBoQ to check? TJRC (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

date formatting

Dear editors

I've just run a script through it to audit the dates, which were mostly international but with a sizeable minority in US format. MOSNUM provides three simple rules for choosing (although the non-English-speaking country guideline is now up for negotiation at their talk, and has been removed. I've auto-switched all to international, and can easily swith them the other way. But you need to work out which one. Please buzz me if you need assistance. Tony (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction - Clarity of Outcome

While reading the introduction to the article I noticed that the paragraph dealing with the end of the war and its aftermath does not explicitly state that the Allied powers were victorious or that the Central Powers lost. I know that the outcome is obvious to most people who know anything about WWI and that it can be inferred from the rest of the paragraph (or simply read in the side box), but nevertheless it would probably be a good idea to state it clearly. As I am a new user I can't edit the article myself, but here is my suggestion:

The first sentence of the paragraph as it is now (14:19 MT August 28, 2008):

The war was ended by several treaties, most notably the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, though the Allied powers had an armistice with Germany in place since 11 November 1918.

My small revision would be:

The war was ended in favour of the Allies by several treaties, most notably the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, though the Allied powers had an armistice with Germany in place since 11 November 1918.

If anyone agrees with me or has any comments on the issue please let me know. - Winkbonzowink (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we can say that. The Treaty was in favor of the Allies, certainly, but the end of the war was a pretty mutual benefit. Something like, "Germany agreed to an Armistice 11/11", which has the same working effect (suggesting German surrender), might be apt, tho. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the Central Powers lost territory, and many new nations were created. The German Empire lost its colonial possessions and was saddled with accepting blame for the war, as well as paying punitive reparations for it. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were completely dissolved. Austria-Hungary was carved up into several successor states including Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. The Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and much of its non-Anatolian territory was awarded as protectorates of various Allied powers, while the remaining Turkish core was reorganized as the Republic of Turkey.

I'm not convinced that the information above indicates a mutual benefit for the Central Powers at the conclusion of the war. I agree that the ending of the war benefited the Central Powers at least as far as the cessation of hostilities and the associated death tolls are concerned, but otherwise the facts strongly suggest that the Allies came out on top. Furthermore, stating "Germany agreed to an Armistice 11/11" is as equally ambiguous as the current information (the Allies agreed to it too) and would be redundant, whereas my suggestion or something as clear would be an improvement. Winkbonzowink (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't say anything on "mutual benefit" past the actual end. And I'll agree, past the end, the results were overwhelmingly in favor of the Allies. I don't see the phrasing as better, tho. What about, "An Armistice was agreed 11/11, with the final treaties, most notably the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919. The results strongly favored the Allies: 'all the Central Powers lost territory...Republic of Turkey.'"? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠}