Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Talk:World War I

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

WWI also saw dranconian measures to deprive US citizens of civil rights. Just sayin'-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Do I look like I care? 20:58, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, just say it in teh article eh and quit prettying up the camshaft! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)


"The War remained alive through the Rock and Roll era in songs such as the Zombie's The Butcher's Tale (Western Front, 1914) and Passchendaele by Terry Vogel and Ragnar Kvaran."

The "rock and roll era"? So people were still singin' about it after WW2? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:33, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Immediate causes[edit]

This section seems written rather haphazardly and the reasons given as well. Here's the text divided into parts and my comments on each part and how I think it should be re-written:

"Things went pear-shaped after the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Franz-Ferdinand, was assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina on June 28, 1914. The assassin was associated with Serbian military figures, and Austria-Hungary seized this opportunity to gain revenge and crush Serbia[7] at the same time. They cooked up an ultimatum[8] that the Serbs rejected. Russia couldn't stand to see its interests in the Balkans walked over, and decided to back Serbia. After checking to make sure the Germans were happy to support them, the Austro-Hungarians declared war on Serbia. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary in response. "

While Austria-Hungary cooked up the ultimatum, it is my understanding (I read all this from German sources, for what it's worth) that they faced pressure from Germany of posing one that could not feasibly be met. Germany had been itching to start the war, the German generals already having made military plans due to realizing that the two-way power split in Europe meant war was inevitable and Germany should strike first to secure victory. Therefore the assassination served as a Casus Belli opportunity and Germany pressured Austria to start the war asap, thus Austria posited an impossible Ultimatum to initiate the war. (In summation that is what I learned, anyways.)

Now, I may be suffering from confirmation bias, but read this part of a wiki article to understand where I'm coming from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Ultimatum#German_attitude_to_war

What I would suggest is to include in the article Germany's considerable influence in pushing the start of the war asap due to internal military reasoning.

"Both Austria-Hungary and Germany knew that the former couldn't win a war against Serbia and Russia on its own. Germany demanded that Russia stop mobilising against its ally; Russia refused, and the Germans declared war. "

Again, Germany had been pushing the war from the start anyway. That's the real reason behind this, not just that they knew Austria-Hungary couldn't handle themselves.

"For some reason, Germany's plans for war with Russia involved attacking Belgium and France (which was considering not backing up Russia). In turn this provoked Great Britain. The German plans to knock out first France, then Russia in quick succession failed, and literally bogged down in trench warfare. As the war continued, the Central Powers brought Bulgaria and the Ottomans in against the Allies, while the Allies signed up Romania and Italy [9]. After three bloody years of fighting, the Russian Empire collapsed, and the Bolshevik government that emerged made peace with Germany. Meanwhile, the United States, which had enough of Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, and became superpissed when they found out that Germany was trying to provoke Mexico into attacking them, so they declared war on Germany in spring 1917, giving the exhausted Allies the manpower they needed to clinch a decision on points over the equally exhausted Central Powers."

"For some reason" is rather weak reasoning and the sentence after it doesn't make much sense as is. The power split in Europe between allied camps had meant a very long-running anticipation and planning of the inevitable war to come, at the very least on the German side. France was in the opposite camp due to its treaties with Russia and Great Britain along with being neighbours to Germany, hence why Germany sought to strike France out early before they were ready. (Most or all of the following I have read from a detailed WW1 chronology and discussion book in German.) Germany has had pretty long-formulated and planned-out military strategies prepared, the most prominent of which is the Schlieffen Plan. The Schlieffen Plan in its basics is just a hammer-anvil plan, but more comprehensively it basically went like this: "We cannot win a two-front war, so we should focus on eliminating one front asap. We should focus on elminiating our neighbours the French right off the bat with a hammer-anvil move. That way we can concentrate on our eastern front for the rest of the war. The anvil is the left flank that will come into France in the South rather directly. The hammer is the much stronger right flank which will need to move through the neutral Belgium so as to come into France from the North and crush down to the anvil, thus taking France out."

This was the reason they rolled through Belgium, thus violating its neutrality and giving the British their reason for joining into the war against Germany due to their policy of maintaining 'balance in Europe'. Anyways, the SChlieffen plan failed as the hammer was entangled in brutal trench and artillery warfare (a thing that came new in WW1) by French resistance and thus could not crush through to the anvil, thus Germany faced a two-front war anyways.

A very large part also in the collapse of the Russian side was the Bolshevik revolution, which could be more emphasized in that part of the text IMO.

Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare came as a result of British blockading by sea which Germany needed to break out of. As a result American ships got sunk as well and that was, I understand, the main reason the US entered the war.

Again, I suggest using stronger reasoning (than "for some reason", at any rate) in the text, as I have provided. Nullahnung (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wishful thinking and "The Royals"[edit]

Several books have been written about the "Trade Union of Kings" in this era, the changing nature of statecraft. There was much Wishful thinking that the blood-ties of various kings would make a full-scale war impossible. I'm not sure if it's worth covering, if we're going to delete the page. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Flu[edit]

One of the most immediate consequences of the war was the Spanish flu. It originated in Kansas and was spread mostly on the battlefield. Unlike other flu epidemics, its victims were mostly young males. The reason it is called "Spanish" flu is because Spain as a neutral country had less strict censorship and as such was the first country to have reports on it in the press. I though this might be important, but apparently it does not fit into the structure of the article as of now, so I'll just leave it here. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it fits, but it's not crazy to think it would. It didn't fit where it was placed, though. Plus it sounded odd enough (a subjective thing) to me that I thought it needed some sort of references to back it up. MarmotHead (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This article gives an easily readable summary. While it does not confirm the Kansas origin outright, it does mention that the first cases were from there. It also mentions the death toll that was way higher than for a normal flu and even higher than the war itself. I do think the Spanish flu was kind of a big deal, if only because of the number of people it killed and how it shows that censorship and weak government response (due to being preoccupied with the war) exacerbate disasters. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This article adds further credibility to Kansas being the origin of the pandemic of 1918 and thus its spread partially due to the war (lots of young men from America going to Europe, something that rarely happened in peacetime back than) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If you think those refs will work, go for it and add it in, but, please, add it in a way that it fits. The prior version had it in a paragraph on WWI technological advances which didn't work. MarmotHead (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Gas: I like citations, but...[edit]

I'm a bit sceptical about so bombastically stating that phosgene was only "marginally more lethal" than chlorine based on American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) data. First of all, the AEF isn't necessarily a representative population as it arrived late and was only employed in significant strength in 1918. Secondly, while the citation points to table 16, table 3 contains the total numbers of gas casualties and here, while still low in overall death rates, phosgene is almost three times as lethal as chlorine (0.97% vs. 0.38%), but also shows that the number of chlorine cases was only a third of that of phosgene. For such a definite claim as "marginally more lethal", I think either some context/qualification should be added to the footnote, or actual controlled clinical tests should be used (the standard being LD50 or LC50Wikipedia's W.svg which is typically tested on lab mice or rats, but also doesn't consider the effectiveness and ease of countermeasures. This source (p. 189) puts the LC50 (lethal concentration) of phosgene as just over half that of chlorine (3200 mg•min/m3 vs. 6000 mg•min/m3) making phosgene roughly twice as lethal as chlorine. Not to mention that "marginally more lethal" clashes with WP's phosgene article's leadWikipedia's W.svg as well as its entry on chlorine as a weapon.Wikipedia's W.svg ScepticWombat (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

...Bluh. My brain was not on. I'll sort out my mess in a little bit if you don't beat me to it. WalkerWalkerWalker 15:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Over by Christmas[edit]

As 'many previous wars' had either been short term sequences of events or part of a longer term process with intermittent battles (with those coming afterwards coming up with 'a handy title' - The Wars of the Roses) - so at the time 'it will be over by Christmas' was perfectly reasonable.

So why wasn't it? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The condensed version?
  1. Mass conscript armies.
  2. The seesaw of gains/losses (e.g. initial German success in the west offset by an early Russian invasion and dismal Austro-Hungarian performance in the east, then the German success at Tannenberg in the east was offset by the Battle of the Marne in the west and so forth).
  3. Underestimation of the staying power of modern industrial states in terms of both manpower, industry and finances (this was where guys such as Norman "The Great Illusion" Angel went wrong).
  4. Technology favoured the defensive (barbed wire, machine guns, artillery, but tanks only appeared during the war). However, it's worth noticing that this mainly pertains to the Western Front due to the extremely high concentration of troops per kilometre of front line.
That's one attempt at an extremely abbreviated version at least. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It was also a simple matter of sunk cost fallacy. By the end of 1914 when it was starting to dawn on people that it would not be a quick war, the casualties had already passed the one million mark. At that point, it became politically impossible to stop. All sides needed something to show for the losses and nothing less than a decisive victory would do. So they just kept pouring more and more in. — Unsigned, by: 24.199.117.147 / talk 00:00, 12 October 2015‎
The sunk cost fallacy definitely became a major issue from around 1915/-16 onwards. However, it doesn't address the widespread assumptions prior to August 1914 that war wouldn't even last that long in the first place, or that war had become a useless tool in the arsenal of the modern state due to its reliance on manufacturing and trade and hence war was a practical impossibility. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)