From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aftermath of World War I article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

	Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Aftermath of World War I:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Can the German section ever be Neutral 1.2 Attribution 1.3 Overthrow of monarchies 1.4 Social trauma 1.5 France, Foch, armistice 1.6 Italy 1.7 Cleanup of Aftermath of World War I#First Republic of Armenia 1.8 Aftermath of World War I#Strategic Baku in World War I 1.9 why the reference to Vietnam in Aftermath... 1.10 "cack attack" 1.11 Germany in Africa 1.12 Question 1.13 slight error ? 1.14 Influeza 1.15 Ottoman Empire

[edit] Comments

[edit] Can the German section ever be Neutral

There are great difficulties in obtaining a concensus on whether the treaty of Versailles "punished" Germany fairly or unfairly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.215.173 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

Hello I just wanted to know who specifically wrote the Aftermath of WWI and if he or she is a profesor or its credibiltiy it is for a project

[edit] Overthrow of monarchies

It strikes me as odd that there's a great big reference to the Russian Revolution, but absolutely no mention of the overthrow of Imperial Germany (or of the Dual monarchy in Austria-Hungary, though the breakup of that empire is covered, which is heavily linked) or the establishment of the Weimar Republic. Even the collapse of the Ottoman Empire seems a little cursory.

Unfortunately, I don't really know enough about any of these to try to write them myself. Is anyone able to try to flesh these sections out a little, as these are all pretty hefty consequences — OwenBlacker 22:10, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Question here. Was there anyone interviewed in connection to the war say... 1 or two days after the signing of the armisitce??? This might not have anything to do with this column but I need to know...

[edit] Social trauma

Is it really accurate to say that the social trauma was most acute in France? France didn't have any higher casualties or hardships than Germany, Russia, or the Austro-Hungarians did they? Was there some sort of additional social problem that was created there?

Peregrine981 18:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] France, Foch, armistice

There's sentence "After this statement, Foch was amazed to see himself rise in power." that gives no sense to me. Could it be reworded? Pavel Vozenilek 12:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed it a little. Is this better?: After this critical statement.... (He was amazed to rise because he had criticized the government. Peregrine981 03:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually what kind of "power" and what were effects on post-war politics? Did he changed something afterwards? Pavel Vozenilek 18:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italy

What about Mussolini and his rise to power by preying on post-WWI fears? Shouldn't there be a section on how the results of WWI led to Facism in Italy?

Indeed, I think there should be a more deteailed view on the situation of Italy in the aftermath of the war. In the current version of the article it is described how "favourable" the situation of the Italians was after the war: On the one hand, with the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a very safe position regarding foreign policy was created. The internal problems, however, should not be inderestimated. It took the italian army eleven (!) attempts to finally win a battle against the Austrians (the one at Vittorio Veneto) and even this one was not a "real victory", because the Austrian troops were already in dissolution in disarry, the country was more than bancrupt and the population extremely demoralised. One shouldn't forget: The industrialisation of Italy started only in 1860 and only in northern Italy, all Italy southern of Rome, Sardinia and Sicily were absolutely dominated by agriculture, a situation that did not change until after WWII. The new territories did not serve as a compensation for that, at least not in the general opinion. Even though officialy Italy was on the winning side, nobody really felt this way. This was one reason to lead Italy as one of the first european countries into a new, totalitarian era. I would be willing to edit the article in this direction, but I also would like to discuss the issue prior to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.192.121 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of Aftermath of World War I#First Republic of Armenia

This section should be toned down from heroic tone and provided with credible references, not with quips. Possibly the revolutions in former Russian Empire should have their own page, linked from here. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath of World War I#Strategic Baku in World War I

"Armenians of Baku - Stephan Shahumyan and 3 Armenian brigades defended Baku for Russia and Allies during the 1918 against Turkey, Germany and their vassals - Caucasian Tartars (now days Azerbaijanians). The heroic defense of Baku by Armenians was a great support for Anti-German and Anti-Turkish powers and lead to the 1918 November capitulation of Central powers. As German general von Ludendorf said: Armenians were the only fighting nation in the East (from Erzurum to Baku). 8 months of Armenian struggle against the Ottoman Turkey in 1918 left the German Army without Baku oil."

It is not obvious to me that (1) this is NPOV, (2) this is actually about the aftermath of World War I (cf the blockade of Germany, continuing past the armistice) or (3) that it actually makes much sense... suggestions please? --TheGrappler 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why the reference to Vietnam in Aftermath...

"This was not the case, especially in French Indochina (the future Vietnam) and would lead to future conflict." makes no sense in relation to germany or WWI, even if one is looking decades down the line, as Germany had no influence there. On the other hand, one might be able to link Rwanda, for example, as that had been a former german colony. If the intent is to link the failure to implemennt Wilson's call for self determination which then meant that France surrendering to Germany which then gave Japan access to French territory which then resulted in Ho fighting the Japanese with US support and then the French and the US turning on Ho and his attempt to establish self rule, well, that is a really convoluted impact - Rwanda's massecres in the 90s are far more closely linked. I'm just rambling here trying to figure out the intent or purpose of the statement quoted. Mulp 23:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "cack attack"

i noticed the blockade portion of the article got deleted... i dont really know if i replaced it correctly as i have never edited a page on here so if anyone could check it would be appreciated

[edit] Germany in Africa

I am perplexed by the section on Versailles dealing with the treatment of the German colonies. It is atrociously worded, so much so that I cannot make sense of the point that is being made. These territories were turned into League of Nations' mandates, not left "for decades". A more serious point relates to the treatment of native peoples. We are told that the United States "pressed European nations that were accepting Germany's old colonies to have the native citizens (sic) there treated with the same respect they got when Germany was there." ??? Make of that nonsense what you will! The Germans showed the 'native citizens' such respect that they almost 'respected' the Herero people of South-West Africa (Namibia) right out of history, in one of the worst examples of colonial genocide. One of the minor participants in this exercise in 'respect' was Franz Ritter von Epp, later Nazi supremo in Bavaria. White Guard 01:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall the page needs work. Don't hesitate in being bold, and remove revisionist statements on sight! Lapaz 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've now removed the statement in question. I would have put in a few words about League of Nations Mandates, but I honestly do not think this is called for. White Guard 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I read somewhere that the United States sunk some of their own ships after signing a treaty with someone to even up our navy with Britan's navy or something like that. Is this at all correct? If so, I think it should go somewhere here.Bacongirl 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Washington Naval Treaty has the information you refer to; the short answer is yes, the US was required to decommission several ships in order to comply with the limitations of the agreement. Carom 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slight error ?

"One gruesome reminder of the sacrifices of the generation was the fact that this was ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES in warfare whereby more men had died in battles than to disease, which had been the main cause of deaths in most previous wars."

The words capitalised above dont make sense.Either it was the first time or it wasn't but surely it cant be one of the first times.

I dont feel qualified to change pages so i'll let someone else do it, assuming you people believe me to be correct on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.204.72 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influeza

The article on the influenza pandemic seems to place the blame on the US, when I believe the bulk of evidence seems to support the idea that this strain of influenza developed in the orient and spread west. Any thoughts on this? Pygmypony (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Empire

I've added a POV tag to this section: as well as being badly written using clumsy English, it contains a large number of troubling errors and distortions. A few examples: it says the "Ottoman government collapsed completely" - it did not, actually the occupied Allied forces supported the Ottoman government. It claims that "the Ottoman Empire was divided amongst the victorious powers" - again false, the vast majority of the Empire's territory that was under Ottoman control at the close of the war was left under Ottoman control. The claim that the empire's defeat was the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is wild exaggeration. Meowy 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that things have gone from bad to worse in the Ottoman Empire section of the article. I guess if you want something done, you should do it yourself. For an easy start, I will remove the POV map, which rewrites both reality and the map it purports to be based upon - for example the "mandated to" and "allocated to" captions on the original French map are both changed to "territory ceded to". Meowy 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed in this comment. I improved the prose, got rid of the grammatical errors, added more info and removed what you claimed was a wild exaggeration and added an important source. I placed the map there because I considered it more relavant than simply a map of Jordan and Palestine. The map may be factually innacurate, but you should try and find a more accurate version rather than dismiss it simply as pov (what is the pov being implied?). If the section really has gone from bad to worse perhaps you can elaborate why? --A.Garnet (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The key of a map being deliberately altered to fabricate an alternative reality is as good an example of the worst form of POV editing as you can get. Something like a map or a photograph that is known to be factually incorrect should not be left in an article - such things can't be easily improved by editing because they are self-contained objects created from material that perhaps only its creator has access to. The text is full of weasel words, slights of hand, distortions, and straight-out lies, from "the Treaty of Sèvres, a plan designed by the Allies to dismember the remaining Ottoman territories" (a lie) onwards. Meowy 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, please be clear what exactly your disputing here. Accusing my rewrite of consisting of "weasel words, slights of hand, distortions, and straight-out lies" is not helpful, nor do I consider it civil. --A.Garnet (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)