Useful Notes World War I Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

10:39:04 PM Jun 10th 2014
I request that whoever keeps labeling the Central Powers "The Allies" stops, and that anybody who sees it please help me revert them.

It's true that the Central Powers did indeed call themselves this on occasion at the time, but that doesn't justify its' use here. It was *never* as prominent as the use of "The Allies" as regarding the Entente (both by themselves and by the Central Powers0.

And even if it was, this is primarily a cultural reference site, where "Allies" primarily refers to those fighting Germany.

Thank you for your help.
04:17:39 AM Jun 11th 2014
Who, specifically, is adding "the allies" as a reference to the central powers?
12:28:03 PM Jun 11th 2014
My guess would be MAI 742 since he seems to be the main person other than myself doing major edit work on this page, but I'd have to check the history logs closer to be certain.

I don't mean to hammer him. He's a good guy on the whole and a lot of his contributions are helpful. But the "Allies/Central Powers" is something I don't believe is one.

Thanks for the help.
09:58:33 PM Jun 16th 2014
Sorry, my bad guys. -_-

How about we copy the academics, who seem 'very' keen on using the terms 'Central Powers' and 'Entente'? They seem to be doing it because that way there's no way anybody can possibly confuse them with the WWII-ones. Which seems like a jolly good idea. ^_^

Heyyyy, 'a lot'? Logistics is indispensible, guys. It's, like, 'the' most important thing (besides planning)!

Thanks for the help, folks. And sorry for the fuss. -_- ^_^
05:49:34 PM Feb 24th 2013
Deleted this:

"(and not because they wanted the German colonies in the Pacific, as many American scholars have falsely declared,)"

because it's an opinion, flame-bait, and probably wrong.
02:46:50 AM Jun 18th 2012
How is someone discussing plants to blow up many Germans with explosives a crowning moment of funny? it just seems like nightmare fuel to me.
07:48:29 PM Nov 1st 2011
I think we need a little editing to the page, because it seems to be out to make the western allies only out for themselves and acting like greedy, selfish bastards, going on and on about their specific self-interested reasons, then says how the Germans wanted to stop invading, and the Japanese selflessly took over German colonies because of their alliance with England. What gives? Iím not saying we should make it all allies worshipping and demonizing everyone else, but how about we bring it back to a basis in what happened, and even mention of why each nation did what they did? Because we know that Japan was at least partially influenced by wanting colonies, and America was just "annoyed" about Germany asking for an alliance with Mexico, they were pissed because they felt the freedom of the seas was being stomped on. Many other things I could say, but it just needs some overall improvements.
04:22:50 PM May 26th 2012
in the British section the word tommies is used a lot it shouldnt be because tommies refers to the welsh not english or scottish
09:12:45 AM Oct 14th 2010
The title should be World War I, because the title for the page for the Second World War is World War II. Or that should be changed to World War Two, but I think they should match.
06:50:25 AM Mar 6th 2011
I'm all for it.
02:10:41 PM Mar 18th 2010
Handy Harvey: This is in response to Skip from the Archived discussion. Skip, perhaps you would like to explain what effect exactly America had on World War One and why the Central Powers would have won without it? Because just saying 'they arrived at the end and won the war!' isn't exacty an argument, especially when you consider that although America officially declared war on Germany in 1917, it didn't really do much more than play a supporting role for most of World War One until late in 1918.
05:34:17 PM Mar 23rd 2010
edited by GearBoxClock
I myself have always wondered what America did in WWI. Must not have been much if the Americans don't brag about it.
07:52:03 PM Nov 1st 2011
While they werenít as decisively involved as in WW2, they sent hundreds of thousands of troops to the front, being among the top 4 or 5 in pure numbers for the allies. They had mostly French weapons, but they supplied food and fuel to many of the allies. They provided the troops needed to counter the German forces arriving from the eastern front, and had the man power to break the stalemate in the trenches. Basically, they tipped the scales and balanced out for Russia quitting.
07:08:22 AM Nov 2nd 2011
It was more a psychological effect. The prospect of American troops arriving prompted Germany to make it's final big push to break the stalemate. Germany couldn't sustain that push though and ran out of steam, its army falling apart. By the time US troops arrived in bulk the fighting was mostly over and armistice terms were already being discussed. US troops did contribute one thing of note, they were the last nation to practice standing up and walking very slowly towards machine gun nests across no-man's land. A tactic even the British had abandoned at that point.

The accusation that the only thing America ever charged in WW1 was the interest on the war-debt isn't entirely unfounded.
Collapse/Expand Topics